THE REVISE R, A MONTHLY PERIODICAL, BY S.'E. SHEPARD, A.M., M.D. Neb) Yark: TIIOS. HOLMAN, PRINTER, COR. CENTRE AND WHITE STS. 18 5 5. C O N T E N.T S. PAGE. PAGM. Introduction.............................'1 Authorized Version of Mark 10: 40........ 96 Address at Nashville...................... 4 " " Heb. 9.............. 97 Translations of the Old Testament......... 19 " " ~" 7: 22.......... 98 General Rules of A. B. Union.............. 23 Facts for the People, No. 1................ 101 Spirit, not Ghost......................... 24 " " Learned and the Unlearned... 105 Revised English Scriptures, 2 Peter 1: 9.... 27 Facts for the People, No. 2................ 108 Common Version of Exodus 3: 22........ 30;'The Spirit.... 111 " " " 3:19......... 31 Luke 16:19.............................. 115 Authorized Version of Matt. 23: 24....... 32 John 1:13.... 116 Letter from the Reviser of 2 Peter 1: 9..... 33 7: 39................... 117 Remarks on the Letter.................... 34 " 5: 39........................... 121 Ancient Translations of the Old Testament.. 36 " 13: 23.............................. 122 Faithfulness in Revision................... 39 Matt. 13:19.................123 Revised English Scriptures, 2 Peter 1: 13... 41 John 7: 3............................... 124 Teacher, not Master, Matt. 8:19.......... 44 Mark 16:1............................. 125 Master................................... 46 Revised English criptures-Style of... 126 Lord....................................47 Letter from Wm. Rowzee.................. 127 Singular Entreaty, Matt. 22: 6............. 49 Luke 1: 34, 35............... 128 " Godliness?" or " Piety?".............. 50 Facts fir the Learned and Unlearned..... 129 Common Version of Gen. 1: 6.............. 52 The Holy Spirit......................... 132 Address at Philadelphia................... 54 Flesh and Spirit.......................... 134 The Titles of the Epistles.................. 65 Revision of Matt. 1: 11.................. 138'0 XoszlrTO-its proper Translation...... 68 " 1:18.................. 140,c 1 ~ 20................... 141 dov'XoS-bondman...................70 Fifth Anniversary of the Bible Union...... 141 JItixovos-not Deacon................. 74 Rev. Frank Remington on the Reviser...... 160 Phil. 3: 20-Revised.............. 76 Revision of John 2: 6..................... 161 Rev. 1:10-Revised............. 78 " 19: 34.... 162 " 20 ~ 3................. 164 Common Version of Jer. 20: 7............ 81 " "Reviser " —Notice of M. Harbiniger....... 83 Note on tacxovosg, i" Deacon I.........166 Common Version of Isa. 52.: 15............ 84 The Time of Christ's Resurrection.......... 167 Note on ";' The Seven Spirits," by the Re- Proposed Revision of 2 Tim. 3:15, 16, by viser of Revelation................... 85 Eld H. B. Blair.... 172 Remarks on this Note....................'87 Timothy, not Timolheus................... 173 Common Version of Gen 25: 29........... 88 Common Version of Phil. 2: 7............. 174 " " Matt. 1:18, 20........ 89 1 " " 2 Peter 3: 11.......... 177 Revised English Scriptures, Rev. 14: 6...... 92 Baptist Ho)me Missionary................. 178 Common Version of Rev. 14: 6............. 94 " Sacred Style," James 4: 13: 5: 1....... 181 Messenger.............................. 94 Common Version of Eph. 2: 15............ 182 iv. CONTENTS. Common Version of Col. 3: 9,10.......... 183 "Without descent," Heb. 7: 3............ 234 " The Wind Blows," Common Version of " Without father "............234 John 3: 8.....................186' Without mother "................ 23.... 235' The Saints," Common Version........... 188 " Neither a beginning of days........... 235 Visit to the " Old Dominion,"............190 " Neither an end of life ".............235 "Christian Register's " commendation of' Thou hearest the sound of it," John 3: 8. 237 the " Reviser "........................ 192 The Spirit's voice................. 238 Bad Collocation of Revised English Scrip- Collocation of 1 John 1: 5 Case 13........ 240 tures....................... 193 Discussion of the subject of Justification... 241 " Rocks in Love Feasts,>" Jude 12.......... 198 Honesty of the King's Revisers............ 242 Revised English Scriptures, 1 John 1: 1.... 200 Query on Conversion................... 245 "r " C'L 1 John 2: 24, 27 202 " Evangelist. 253 " Epistle of Judas "............. 203 Reviser commended by Dr. J. T. Walsh..... 256 " Ungodly Deeds," Jude 15............... 204 Address before the C. Missionary Society.... 257 " Praying in the Holy Spirit," v. 20........ 205 Tlhe Resurrection, a Query................ 268 " Revelation of John the Divine ".......... 205'v,, in.................... 270 "All the Saints"......2................... 206 The 271 Revision of Matt. 1:1.................... 214 Church........................ 280 " Jude 2........................ 216 Use of the Greek Articles............. 281 Gender of Nouns, Common Version........ 216 Synagogue.................... 285 Revision of Mlatt. 1: 16................... 217 Superintendent.......................... 286 Product, orfruit, not " generation ";...... 218 Spirituality.............................. 289 " Into," or el, before objects of belief....220 Letter from Dr. Lynd.................290 " The Book of the Generation," Matt. 1: 1. 221 " Elder............................ 295 Rev. 9: 13, should have been revised.....2 23 Revision in the House of Commons; England 298 New York Chronicle on the Reviser........ 224 Earthly........... 300 "Lto offend ". 22'5 Heavenly................................. 01, tofall, not " to offend ".. 2'5 he Greek Article....................... Kindness, not "Grace I.......... 225 227, 229 THE REVISER. INTRODUCTION, I HAVE long been urged by some prominent friends of the American Bible Union to publish a work of this kind. And as there is no such work —a work exclusively devoted to the subject of Translation and Revision-I have determined to comply with their wishes. I the more cheerfully engage in the enterprise because it conflicts with no other interest. There are many periodicals which advocate the great principles for which we shall contend, but this is not their exclusive object, Some of them are "denominational" and religious exclusively, others religious, secular, and "denominational." "THE REvIsER" shall be religious-not secular-religious-not denominational. It shall know no Lord but the Messiah-no law but Revelation-no church but "the church of the first-born enrolled in heaven." It shall advocate the revision of " the Common Version" of the Scriptures, and all versions in modern languages which are known to be imperfect. It shall furnish instances of imperfection in King James' revision and propose amendments. It shall pay a respectful attention to such portions of the English revision as shall have passed through the hands of the reviser to whom it has been committed, and which shall be sent abroad for criticism. All well written articles, both for and against such revisions, shall receive suitable attention. If written in a becoming spirit they shall be published-if not they shall receive such attention as they may deserve. The works of the revisers will be criticised freely and dispassion1 2 THE REVISER. ately, with the view of rendering them as perfect as possible when they shall be finally adopted by the Union, and published for general circulation. We invite Clergymen and Scholars of all Sects and Schools to our pages. Let them file their objections against revision -against the rules by which the Bible Union requires her revisers to govern themselves in the prosecution of their labors, or against the alterations which they make. We invite them as friends, and as brethren, and not as partizans. And the Searcher of hearts knows that we have no partizan feeling. When Jehovah speaks let the earth keep tremulous silence! HE commands universal audience, and the person who will not hear shall be destroyed fIom among His people. He spoke in times past to the patriarchs by the Prophets, and in later times by a Son whom he has appointed heir of all things. The great salvation first began to be spoken by the Lord and was subsequently confirmed by them who heard Him, God also bearing joint witness both with signs, and wonders, and diverse miracles, and distributions of a holy spirit according to his own pleasure. God is now heard only through his revelation. That revelation was made, originally, in languages now dead. They are, to the great mass of human beings " unknown tongues," and therefore, not to be used in the churches. The spirit of inspiration forbid even those endued with the gift of languages to speak in a foreign language except some one who had the gift of "the interpretation of tongues" or the gift of translation, were present to interpret. It is only where the word of God is correctly translated, that people, who do not understand the Originals, can be said to hear Him. Just so far as a translation is correct, it is the word of God. Where incorrect, it is only the word of man in the place of God's words. That the common vision is incorrect is evident from the concurrent testimony of learned men ever since its first emission, as shown in our address before the friends and delegates of the Bible Revision Association, assembled in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, early in April last. Just so far as it is incorrect, it is human-not divine-a per-version, and not a version of the Living Oracles. What book in all the world can be favorably compared with the Holy Writings! The very first sentence discloses the mighty operations of a mysterious Power in this remote part of the Universe, where, from all eternity, not one ray of light had fallen-a Power ope INTRODUCTION., 3 rating for untold ages in the creation and arrangement of the materials of this globe for the residence of man. This sentence is the summing up of the long labors of a God who had determined on the existence of a new race of rational beings, and who had resolved on creating a world in which to place them. The next sentence notices the chaotic and empty age of the world-the period of its embryotic existence, while the third opens with a flash of light from the eternal throne which constituted the birth day of the world. A few more sentences give us the knowledge of the order in which the heavens and the earth were furnished and embellished for man's reception; and then, as all things were in readiness for. the fulfillment of the ultimate design, and the time had fully arrived for the creation of the favorite being, God called for co-operation in the production of this last-this master-piece of all terrestrial creations. It was then, IIe said, " Let us make man." The design was executed and MAN was the result. The law under which he and a " suitable help " were placed-the primeval apostacy-the institution of a remedial systemthe increase of crime-the capital punishment of their race, except the germ of a new world-the increase of the species-the origin of national distinctions-the introduction of Idolatry-a general apostacy-the call of the most honored of our race in whose SEED all nations were to be blessed-the numerous prophecies relative to the coming of that Seed, the Messiah-the history of his life —the tragedy of his sacrificial death —his resurrection-the provisions for blessing all nations-the ascension of Messiah-the descent of the Holy Spirit-the miraculous endowment of the Apostles-the general distribution of the gift of a holy spirit to the early converts-the astonishing progress of the gospel in opposition to all the civil institutions that opposed-in opposition to all the ancient forms of the religions of the world-the wealth-the pride-the wickedness of man-the disgrace, the abuse, the persecution, the martyrdom of Christians-the destruction of the Jews-the final overthrow of Paganism-the resurrection of the dead-the return of the Lord-the destruction of the wicked-the immortality and eternal life of the righteous, are the grand themes variously stated and illustrated in this wonderful Book. It is the Book for all nations, and for all the generations of human kind. Worthy of a place in all families-in all hearts. Compared with it all other books are valueless, and it is above all price. It is the last book the dying man will consult, and, resting on its promises, 4 THE REVISER. the Christian, in the hour of his dissolution, draws around him the drapery of his couch and sinks away in heavenly visions. Let it speak, by accurate translations, to all the earth. Let the ignorance of the poor pagan be instructed and those who sit in the region and shadow of death be illuminated by it. AN ADDRESS* By DR. S. E. SHEPARD, before the Friends and Delegates af the Bible Revision Association, at the Anniversary, held at Nashville, Tennessee, on the 7th April, 1854. MIR. PRESIDENT: We have assembled on a great occasion, and for a great purpose. And if the ancient Pagans, when assembled on such occasions, were wont to seek the aid of their lifeless and powerless deities, with what propriety may a body of intelligent Christians. like that here convoked, raise their eyes to the Living and Almighty Being, whose Word, from nonentity, gave existence, and form to the vast universe, and whose wisdom and power attuned the spheres to heavenly music! And if Pagans hoped to be heard because they believed that they had convened to further the wishes of their gods, may we not look for the aid of the Eternal? when assembled for the purpose of giving publicity to the chronicles of his philanthropy, uttered, in ancient times in " sundry parts and diverse manners" " to the fathers " of the Jewish people, in sacred Hebrew, but in the days which were last in the Apostolic age, were passed to record by Evangelists and Apostles in the current Greek of Western Asia-the Macedonian dialect. As this is the great object for which we have come together, we may reasonably expect the aid of Him whose word we love, and have resolved to give to the world, in all its languages, by means of faithful translation. And owing to the present importance and rapid spread of our vernacular, we begin, principally with the English Language. We have resolved that the Revelation of God-that bow of hope, that spans all time-that ample arch of love, one foot of which stands on the past, and the other on the eternity to come-shall be fully and faithfully exhibited to all English readers. What language the Infi* Published by special request. AN ADDRESS. 5 nite employed when he commanded Nonentity to bring forth, and a World was born-when the infant World slept in the darkness of ancient Night, and naught was heard, by seraphs' ears, but the breath of the Eternal, as it passed over the slumbering mass, separated land from water, and invested both with seeds of all inferior things — what speech he used, when by the power of his almighty fiat, he caused eternal darkness itself to scintillate until blending sparks, of virgin light, produced the early twilight of the first born day —or what were the signs of thought by which he vocalized the grand purpose of man's creation to his co-operatives, we know not. But of one thing we are satisfied, namely, that God spoke to Moses and the Prophets in the Hebrew tongue. Whether this language, or some other, was that in which the Elohim spoke to the Father of our species, we cannot say, but this is the only language in which an authentic account of the creation and early history of our race is found. It is the sacred depository of all the knowledge of God, for four thousand years. It contains all the prophecies relative to the future, until a casket for a brighter gem was found in the Macedonian, Hebraic, or Helenestic Greek of the times of the Cesars. These two languages contain all the elements of acceptable worship, and all the materials of future hope. When we speak of a faithful translation of these Holy Scriptures into the English language, as a thing yet to be done, and as the object of this association, we are asked if we have not such a work already in the Common Version. To which we respond, We have not. In a late address before the Philadelphia Bible Union, at its last Anniversary, we demonstrated that the Common Version of the. English Scriptures was procured by a tyrant, a bigot, and a wicked Prince-that it was produced by one sect, the Church of England, the most bigoted sect of the age, by the instrumentality exclusively of her own members, headed by Bishop Bancroft, whose history is anything but creditable to himself and his species-that it is decidedly sectarian, and was designed to be such, as its whole history evinces. I proved it to be a sectarian version both from external and internal evidence-from its history as written by its friends and the dedica_ tion of it to King James by its authors, and from its contents. But it is alleged by its advocates that it must be a faithful version, from the universal satisfaction which it has given to the men of learning of all sects. We deny that it has given universal, or even general satisfaction. It will be remembered that the Common Version 6 THE REVISER. was first published in 1611. Between this time and 1618, Barker, or Norton and Bill printed at least ten editions of the Geneva Version, which was extensively used before the Common Version, besides four editions of the Geneva Testament separately. After the Geneva Translation ceased to be printed in England, it continued to be imported firom Holland and sold in England-till after the death of James the First. Bishop Laud, the relentless persecutor of Dissenters, was busily engaged in 1632 in trying to prevent the importation of Bibles from Holland. He prohibited the importation, printing, and sale of the Geneva Translation. He even made it a high commission crime to do either. This was 21 years after the publication of the Common Version. Does this look as if that Version gave general satisfaction? Eight years after the death of Laud, a bill was introduced into the Long Parliament, in 1653, for a new translation. This Parliament having been dissolved in about two months after the introduction of the bill, nothing was done on the subject. In the time of Cromwell, the " Grand Committee for Religion" found fault with the Common Version, but they were not allowed to interfere with it. This was the last official displeasure expressed to this " authorized translation." It was made by Royal authority-it was appointed to be read in Churches by Royal authority, and forced on the English nation by Prelatic authority, the importation, printing, or sale of its predecessor being declared a high commission crime. For twenty years after King James' death, the Geneva Translation was as extensively used in Scotland as the King's Version. Is this proof of the universal satisfaction with his revision? The Annotations of Henry Ainsworth on the five Books of Moses, the Book of Psalms, and the Song of Songs or Canticles, were published in London, in 1639, only twenty-eight years after the emission of the first edition of the Common Version. Of this Dr. Doddridge says, " it is a good book, full of valuable Jewish learning, and his translation is in many places to be preferred to our own, especially on the Psalms." Dr. Fell, Bishop of Oxford, prepared a Paraphrase and Annotations upon all Paul's Epistles, which had before passed through the hands of several eminent men at Oxford, and which was published at London, 1703. Dr. Doddridge says of this work, " Fell on the Epistles is very short; but most of his notes are worthy of remark. The collection of parallel Scriptures is judicious, and the translation in some AN ADDRESS. 7 places altered for the better." The Right R'ev. and learned Dr. Fell, Bishop of Oxford was not satisfied with the Common Version in 1703. John Ker, dissatisfied with the Common Version of Canticles, in 1727, published his Cantici Salomonis Paraphrasis, Notis Criticis et Philologicis illustrata. Of this work, Mr. Orme says, it "is a vely beautiful little work. It is dedicated, in a poetical epistle, to the Marquis Bowmont, son of the Duke of Rloxburg, the bead of the family of Ker." In 1728, Dr. John Gill, dissatisfied with the common translation of the same portion of Scripture, published a new or amended version of it, twenty years before his Commentary on the Old and New Testament were published, with the following title: An Exposition of the Book of Solomon's Song, commonly called Canticles; wherein the Divine authority of it is established; several versions compared with the original Text; and the different senses, both of Jewish and Christian interpreters considered; and the whole opened and explained. By John Gill, D. D. As another evidence of dissatisfaction with the Common Version, in 1741, appeared the work of Daniel Scott, J. U. D. with the following title: " A new Version of Saint Matthew's Gospel, with Select Notes; wherein the Version is vindicated, and the sense and purity of several words and expressions in the original Greek are settled and illustrated. In 1744, a similar dissatisfaction with the common rendering of the Psalms of David, induced Z. Mudge, of whom Dr. Johnson was a great friend, to publish a work which he entitled, " An Essay towards a new version of the Book of Psalms, from the original Hebrew." William Green, impressed with the same view, published in 1762, "A New Translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew Original, with Notes critical and explanatory. Of this work the Monthly Review says, " it contains some judicious alterations in the version, and valuable criticisms in the notes." In this same year, A. V. Desvoeux published "A Philosophic and Critical Essay on Ecclesiastes, wherein the author's design is stated; his doctrine vindicated; his method explained in an analytical Paraphrase annexed to a new version of the Text from the Hebrew; and the differences in the new translation and the received version accounted for, in Philological Observations." In 1764, Richard Winne, A. M. expressed his dissatisfaction with the Common Version, by publishing " The New Testament, carefully 8 THE REVISER. collated with the Greek,- and corrected; divided and pointed according to the various subjects treated of by the Inspired Writers, with the common division into chapters and verses in the margin; and illustrated with Notes, critical and explanatory." Thomas Percy, D. D. Bishop of Dromore, in this year, showed his dissent from the Common Version in his work entitled, " The Song of Solomon, newly translated from the original Hebrew; with a Commentary and Annotations." Mr. Horne says of this work, " The elegance of this version, and of its accompanying criticisms, has caused it to be held in the highest esteem; and all subsequent Commentators have diligently availed themselves of it. It is now exceedingly scarce and extravagantly dear." "The Hebrew Text of Parallel Prophecies of Jacob and Moses, relative to the Twelve Tribes, with a translation and notes, and the various collections of near forty MSS. &c. &c." are proof of the dissatisfaction of D. Durell, D. D., Principal of Hertford College, in 1764. Anthony Purver, a member of the Society of Friends or Quaker's in the same year, demonstrated his dissatisfaction by what he entitled "A New and Literal Translation of all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, with Notes Critical and Explanatory." As another evidence of the dissatisfaction of those times, we refer to " Notes on the Old and New Testaments, by the Rev. J. Wesley, A. M." published in Bristol, the same year. It contains several important corrections of the received version, which are frequently quoted by Mr. Granville Sharp and Dr. Hales. James Merrick published a poetical version of the Psalms in 1765, which the Monthly Review said was justly entitled to the highest consideration of any poetical translation then extant. In 1768, he published his " Annotations on the Psalms," assisted by Bishop Lowth and Archbishop Secker. John Worsley, dissenting from the Common Version, published "The New Testament or Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated from the Greek, according to the present idiom of the English tongue, with Notes and References," in 1770. James Neale, A. M., being dissatisfied with the common translation of Hosea, published, in 1771, in London, a work he entitled "The Prophecies of Hosea, translated, with a Commentary and Notes." " The Book of Job in English verse, translated from the original Hebrew, with Notes, historical, critical, and explanatory," is evidence AN ADDRESS. 9 of the dissent of T. Scott, its author, from the received version of that book. It was published in London in 1 779. The Rev. Julius Bate, in this same year, gave his testimony against the Common Version in " A New and Literal Translation, from the original Hebrew, of the Pentateuch of Moses, and of the Historical Books of the Old Testament to the second Book of Kings, with Notes, critical and explanatory." A work containing twenty-six observations, and a new translation of the Scriptures to which they refer, appeared in Oxford in 1775, from the pen of Thomas Hunt, D. D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, &c. with the following title: "Observations on the Book of Proverbs; with two Sermons." This is a proof of his dissent from the Common Version. In the same year, and as evidence of dissatisfaction with the Common Version of the Psalms, there appeared a learned work in London from the pen of Thomas Edward, A. M., entitled, " A New English translation of the Psalms, from the original Hebrew, reduced to Metre, by the late Bishop Hare; with Notes, critical and explanatory; illustrations of many passages drawn from the Classics," &c. Zachary Pearce, D. D. and Bishop of Rochester, gave us a new translation of Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, with a Paraphrase and Notes, as evidence of the estimation in which he held the received version of that epistle, in 1777. William Green, A. M. in 1781, being dissatisfied with our version of the poetical parts of the Old Testament, published his work entitled, "' The Poetical parts of the Old Testament, newly translated from the Hebrew; with Notes, critical and explanatory." Benjamin Blaney, D. D. produced, at Oxford, in 1784, a "New Translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations, on the plan of Bishop Lowth's translation of Isaiah, with Notes, critical, philological, and explanatory." This shows his view of the common translation of those portions of Scripture. William Hopkins, B. A. gave his judgment on the common version of Exodus, in a work published in London, 1784, entitled, " Exodus; a corrected Translation, with Notes, critical and explanatory," which he executed with fidelity. The judgment of Bishop Wilson on the correctness of the received version appears in a work published in London in 1785, entitled, "The Holy Bible; containing the Books of the Old and New Testaments, carefully printed from the first edition (compared with others,) 2c0 10 THE REVISER. of the present translation; with Notes, by Thomas Wilson, D. D. Bishop of Sodor and Man, and various renderings, collected from other translations, by the Rev. Clement Crutwell, editor." The satisfaction of Bishop Lowth with the common translation of Isaiah, may be learned from the fact that he published at London, in 1778, his work entitled, "Isaiah; a New Translation, with a preliminary Dissertation, and Notes, critical, philological and explanatory." William Newcome, D. D. and Bishop of Waterford, condemned the received version of the twelve minor Prophets by his work, printed in London in 1785, entitled, " An attempt towards an Improved Version, a Metrical Arrangement, and an Explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets." He did the same thing relative to the Book of Ezekiel, in 1787, by his " Attempt towards an Improved Version, a Metrical Arrangement and Explanation of the Prophet Ezekiel." In the next year, the Rev. Bern Hodgson, L. L. D. and Principal of Hertford College, gave us, " The Proverbs of Solomon, translated from the Hebrew, with Notes." In 1789, the Rev. John Willis, B. D. gave his decision against the King's version of the Acts of the Apostles, in his work entitled " Actions of the Apostles, translated from the original Greek," in which there are some valuable improvements. In the succeeding year William Cooke, Greek Professor at Cambridge, published his work on Revelations, with the following title: "The Revelations translated, and explained throughout, with keys, illustrations, notes, and comments; a copious introduction, argument, and conclusion." George Campbell, D. D. F. R. S., Edinburgh, condemned the common version of the four Gospels, and furnished us with his admirable work entitled, "The Four Gospels, translated from the Greek, with Preliminary Dissertations and Notes." Stephen Street, M. A., published in London a close, literal translation of the Psalms, in 1790, with the title, "A new Literal Version of the Book of Psalms, with a Preface, and Notes." Again, William Newcome, Bishop of Waterford, in 1792, furnished his work entitled, "A Historical View of the English Biblical Translations; the expediency of revising, by authority, our present Translation, and the means of executing such a Revision." In 1793, there was published at Bath, as an evidence of the estimation in which its author held the present translation of the Psalms, AN ADDRESS. 11 a work, the title of which is, " A New and Liberal Version of the Psalms into Modern Language, according to the Liturgy Translation, with copious Notes and Illustrations, partly original, and partly selected from the best Commentaries, calculated to render the Book of Psalms intelligible to every capacity. By the Rev. W. Wake." John Symonds, L. L. D., Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge, published in 1789, "Observations on the Expediency of revising the present English Version of the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles"; and in 1794, a similar work on the revision of the Epistles. In the succeeding year, the work of Dr. James Macknight appeared at Edinburgh, entitled, "A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary and Notes, philological, critical, explanatory, and practical. To which is added, a History of the Life of the Apostle Paul." Bishop Tomline put this work into his list of books for clergymen, and thus placed himself on the side of revision. In 1795, Gilbert Wakefield, who in 1782, had given a New Translation of Matthew, and of parts only of the New Testament, in 1789, gave " A Translation of the New Testament." In the next year appeared " a faithful translation of the Book of Jonah, from the original, with philological and explanatory Notes; to which is prefixed a preliminary discourse, proving the genuineness, the authenticity, and the integrity of the present text. By George Benjamin." It is very well that he did not find leisure to do more. Charles Gardner, D. D. gave in the above year, to the good people of London, his " Improved Version attempted of the Book of Job, with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, historical and explanatory." In 1792, Alexander Geddes, L. L. D. published at London, "The Holy Bible, or Books accounted sacred, otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from the corrected Text of the Originals, with various readings, explanatory notes and critical remarks." This work contained the historical books from Genesis to Chronicles, and the Book of Ruth. Archbishop Newcome, who gave a New Translation of Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets, and who advocated a revision of our translation in 1792, furnished his work entitled, " An attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant 12 THE REVISER. of Jesus Christ, and towards illustrating the Sense, by philological and explanatory Notes," in 1796, but which was not published till 1800. The last year of the eighteenth century gave to Glasgow " A Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptutes, after the Eastern manner, from concurrent authorities of critics, interpreters, and commentators, copies, and versions; showing that the Inspired Writings contain the seeds of the valuable sciences, being the source whence the ancient philosophers derived them; also the most ancient histories and greater antiquities, and are the most entertaining, as well as the most instructive to both the curious and serious." " Hosea: Translated from the Hebrew, with notes explanatory and critical, by Samuel Horsley, Bishop of St. Asaph," appeared in 1801, and again in 1804 with additional notes and corrections. Of it the British Critic, as quoted by Horne, said "This translation, with its notes, forms a most valuable accession to sacred learning; and evinces at once the best qualities of the scholar and the divine, supported by sagacity and a powerful judgment." The Rt. Rev. Joseph Stock, D. D. and Bishop of Killala, gave to Bath, in 1805, " The Book of Job, metrically arranged according to the Masora, and newly translated into English; with notes, critical and explanatory, accompanied, on the opposite page, by the authorized English version." In 1806, John Chappel Woodhouse, D. D. furnished in London, "The Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John, translated, with notes critical and explanatory, to which is prefixed, a dissertation on the divine origin of the book, in answer to the objections of the late Professer Michaelis, with a biographical list of writers in the early Christian church, who appear to have afforded evidence in favor of the Apocalypse." Bishop Hurd declared this the best book of the kind he had seen. The work of Thomas Wintle, B. D. appeared in London in 1807, entitled,, Daniel: An improved version attempted; with notes, critical, historical, and explanatory." This valuable translation was executed on the plan of Bishop Lowth's Isaiah and Dr. Blayney's Jeremiah. Dr. Geddes, whose translation of the historical books of the Old Testament we have already noticed, in 1807, gave a "New Translation of the Book of Psalms, from the original Hebrew, with various readings and notes." His version extended only to the 118th Psalm. The publication was posthumous, by Dr. Disney, and Charles Butler, Esq., who placed themselves among revisionists. AN ADDRESS. 13 In 1808 the following work appeared in Philadelphia. " The Old Covenant, commonly called the Old Testament, translated from the Septuagint. The New Covenant, commonly called the New Testament, translated from the Greek, by Charles Thompson, late Secretary of the Congress of the United States." This, though not perfect, is one of the most faithful versions of the New Testament ever published, so far as we know. The Old Testament is faithful to the Septuagint, the Alexandria translation, of the Hebrew Scriptures. In 1810 the Rev. T. Randolph published "The Book of Job, translated from the Hebrew, by the late Miss Elizabeth Smith, with a preface and annotations." The Dr. eulogized this excellent work extravagantly, and thus committed himself to the doctrine of revision. "The Book of Job, literally translated from the Hebrew, and restored to its natural arrangement, with notes critical and illustrative, and an introductory dissertation on its scene, scope, language, author, and object," appeared in London in 1812, from the pen of John Mason Good, M. D. and F. R. S. Rev. John Fry, A. B. published at London, in 1811, a new version of Canticles, and in 1816, Lyra Davidis, or the Psalms of David, and in 1825, a second edition; and in 1827 a new translation and exposition of Job. In 1815 " The Book of Psalms translated from the Hebrew, with notes explanatory and critical, by Samuel Horsley, L. L. D. and late Lord Bishop of St. Asaph," appeared, as an additional authority for revision. The estimation in which our version of the New Testament was held by Winm. Thompson, A. M. is evinced by the fact that his New Testament translated from the Greek, and the Four Gospels arranged in harmony, where the parts of each are introduced according to the natural order of the narrative, and the exact order of time; with some preliminary observations, and notes critical and explanatory," was offered to the public in Kilmamack in 1816. Sir James Bland Burges, Bart. convinced of the necessity of revision, or rather a new translation, offered to the public in Durham, in 1819, his " Reasons in favor of a new translation of the Holy Scriptures." In 1819, Rev. Geo. Holden, A. M. furnished " an improved translation of the Proverbs of Solomon, and in 1822 a revision of the received version of the Book of Ecclesiastes," as an expression of his views of the propriety of revision. Philalethes alias John Jones, L. 14 THE REVISER. L. D. gave to the public in 1820, his " Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, and Titus, and the General Epistle of St. James: A new version from the Greek, and chiefly from the text of Griesbach." This expresses his views on revision. London also furnishes another testimony in " The Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle, translated, with an exposition and Notes." By the Rev. Thomas Belsham, 1822. In the same city was published, in 1824, " A commentary on the version of Zachariah the Prophet, with a corrected translation, and critical notes, by John Stonard, D. D." George Hunt, of Bath, in 1825, gave a new translation of the Book of Job; and the Rev. George R. Noyes, of Cambridge, Massachusetts, amended the common version of the same book in 1827, and gave a new translation of the Book of Psalms in 1831, and of the Hebrew Prophets in 1833." Rev. George Vaughan Sampson, A. M. gave his testimony, in 1828, in " A literal translation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews from the original Greek, with copious explanatory notes." The Rev. John Jones, dissatisfied with the received version, translated Isaiah from the Hebrew text of Vander Hooght in 1830; and, in 1831 the same book, and for the same reason, was translated by the Rev. Alfred Jenour. In 1832, M. Stuart, that most extraordinary scholar, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, gave to the world his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a Translation and various Excursus, as an evidence of his esteem of the received version. He has followed this work with a translation of other epistles, the Book of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of John. James Scholefield, M. A., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, published his " Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament, in 1832." A. Peck, a Christian Jew, published, in 1833, in London, " A Literal Translation of the Hebrew of the Twelve Minor Prophets; with Notes from Jonathan's Paraphrase in the Chaldee, and Critical Remarks from R. S. Yarchi, Abenezra, D. Kimchi, and Abarbenel." The common version has been revised in all the Commentaries which have been written on it. In a commentary upon the Bible; wherein the Diverse Translations and Expositions, Literal and Mystical, of the most famous Commentators, both ancient and modern, are propounded and examined, by John Mayer, London, 1653-in AN ADDRESS. 15 Pool's Annotations on the Holy Bible, wherein the Sacred Text is inserted, and various readings annexed; together with the parallel scriptures; the more difficult terms explained; seeming contradictions reconciled; doubts resolved and the whole text opened, by the Rev. Matthew Pool, 1783-in the Old and New Testaments, with Annotations and parallel passages of Scripture, by Samuel Clarke, A. M., 1690-in the Help for the Right Understanding of the Scriptures, by Dr. Edward Wells, between 1709 and 1728-in an Exposition of the Old and New Testatment, by Dr. Gill between 1748 and 17G3in the Family Expositor, containing a new version of the New Testament, by Dr. Doddridge, 1760 and 1762-in a Commentary on the Books of the Old and New Testament, in which are inserted the Notes and collections of John Lock, Esq., Daniel Waterland, D. D., and the Right Honorable Edward, Earl of Clarendon, and other learned persons, with practical improvements, by W. Dodd, L. L. D. 1770-in the Complete Family Bible; or spiritual exposition of the Old and New Testament, by the Rev. Mr Cruden, 1770-in the Evangelical Expositor of Dr. Haweis, 1765-in Notes on all the Books of Scripture, for the use of the Pulpit and of Private Families, by Dr. Priestly, 1803-in a Help to the Unlearned in the Study of the Holy Scriptures, by Mrs. Turner, 1805-in the Scripture Expositor, by Samual Burder, 1809-in the Commentary and Critical Notes of Dr. A. Clark, 1810-26-in the Devotional Family Bible, with copious Notes and Illustrations, by Dr. John Fawcett, 1811-in the critical philological and explanatory notes of John Hewlett, B. D. in 1812in Dr. D'Oyly, and Bishop Mant's Notes explanatory and practical, 1814-and, indeed, in all Commentaries has this version been revised. Add to all this, the oral revisions of all learned Clergymen in their sabbatical services. For what clerical gentleman, of a good Theological Education, does not find it necessary, in his exegesis of the Living Oracles, frequently to amend the received version? Who will say that this version has given even general satisfaction There is not a Greek, Chaldee, nor a Hebrew scholar on this globe, who loves the Bible, that would not amend our version of it, in some cases, if he could. The universal satisfaction, of which we have heard so much, when translated clearly and faithfully, is universal dis-satisfaction. I repeat, Mr. President, that, if any proposition can receive confirmation, from the voice of history, it is proved, and that beyond all contradiction, that from the day of its publication till this hour, the common version has given general dissatisfaction to the learned 16 THE REVISER. and pious of all creeds. And why is it, that now, when a combined effort is made to introduce all improvements into a revised version, there should be such violent opposition to the consecutive desires of the wisest and best of our race ever since the birth day of the current translation. But our version is called "venerable." I hold it to be an eternal truth, that no being is to be venerated because of the length of its life, but for its goodness. If the length of life is the measure of venerability, there is a being, if we are not mistaken in his antiquity, whose reputation is decidedly bad both on earth and in heaven, who deserves more veneration than the wisest and the best man that ever lived. And if the respect of a version depends on its antiquity we must return to the year 1536, to Tyndal's translation of the Old Testament to Nehemiah, and the Book of Jonah; and to 1526 to his translation of the New Testament. Like Noah's dove in search of land, we, in search of venerability, are compelled to return from our first mission to the common version without a leaf in our hand; from our second mission we return from Tyndal with an olive leaf; but from our last excursion we return not, but find a place of perpetual repose, as to the New Testament, in the land of the venerated Wickliff, with the testimony of 244 years in favor of the superiority of the claim of his version to venerability. If the age of a version is the ground of claim to our confidence, it happens to the received version, as to the Old Covenant, when compared with the New, it has no glory by reason of the glory that excels. The venerability of a version depends not on its age, but on its excellence-its perfection. This being the true issue, the received version stands condemned by the concurrent testimony of the best scholars of every age since its publication. It has been eulogised and condemned by the same authority. Eulogized when compared with former versions, but condemned when compared with the Originals. The Originals of these Sacred Writings are the most extraordinary of all books. Their literature is the literature of all ages-their philosophy, the only true system, because it traces everything up to an adequate cause-and their science, in general, is the only true science of God, in his entire sovereignty of the Universe, and of Man, in all his relations to this God, and the Universe. Is the Bible food? It is the bread of life. Is it drink? It is a river of the water of life proceeding from the threshold of the throne of God and the Lamb. Is it a tree? It is the tree of life, its abun AN ADDRESS. 17 dance is yielded twelve times in a year, and its leaves are the sovereign antidote for the malady of all nations! It is the great moral power that moves the world. Its mighty influence is seen in the civilization which it has produced. The nations who respect its divine claims only but partially, stand on a proud eminence in the midst of surrounding degradation and gloom; while by the mighty impulse imparted by this book to the minds of these nations, they sport with storms on the ocean, and play with the lightning at home-they make the winds their ministers, and the lightning the instantaneous reporter of their onward and upward progress! The destinies of the globe they hold as agencies of Heaven, and the civilization, illumination, and evangelization of the world is committed to them as the mighty instrumentalities of God. They are the mirrors which are now, though imperfectly, reflecting the light of Heaven on the darkness of antiquated Paganism! And what, do we inquire, is the power by which so much is to be accomplished? The answer is, The Bible! The Bible, translated into all the languages of human kind. And what nations, in the mysterious providence of God, are placed in the highest career of success in this divine conquest of the world? The response, the most emphatic and veritable response, is, the nations speaking the English language. This language seems ordained of God to become, in the last age of the world, when men shall cease all attempts to build babels, the " one speech " of the entire race. It has already zoned the earth, and is rapidly spreading north and south. It is on this account that far-seeing philanthropists direct the first and most urgent attention to the revision of the English translation of the Holy Oracles. What man who loves the truth, and knows the capacity of our constantly spreading vernacular, can desire that our Bibles shall be sent wherever our language is now, and shall hereafter be spoken, in the stale phrase of the common version? Let us retain all that is valuable in it. But the seathing and soding, the howbeiting and doing-to-witting, the eth-ing of verbs in their termination, the wotting, &c., let them not once be named among us. But these things are small compared with the errors of the version. In some places it fails to convey the sense, in others it conveys it obscurely, and in some others again it conveys a wrong sense. Shall these go abroad wherever our languages shall be read in all time to come? Or shall they be corrected? The reply of every honest heart is, Correct them. We revise the translations of the Classics. Why not 3 18 THE REVISER. the translation of the Scriptures? What are the history, philosophy, ethics, and poetry, of ancient pagan writers, compared with the writings of Moses and the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles, fired with the inspiration of God, and filled with benevolence to man? They are like a taper compared with the sun-a mote with the globe. Their histories connected the nations with idolatry, their philosophy was conjecture, their ethics, with all the aid derived from a vague knowledge of the Jew's religion, were imperfect, and their poetry was inspired with thoughts of ill-will, wars, fighting and debaucheries among what they regarded as the higher powers. But the Bible speaks of a great First Cause, infinite in wisdom, in power, and goodness-makes all rational beings accountable to Him from whom they have, received life, breath, and all things, and by whom they all live, move, and have their being; and lays all under tribute of gratitude and homage to swell the amount of the revenue of his glory. It speaks not only'of the past and present, but of the mysterious, and, to us, untried future. It pronounces the sentence of death, but holds out the hope of life. It affirms man's mortality, but offers him immortality. It threatens him with corruption, but proffers him incorruption. It dooms him to the grave, but points him to the skies. It makes his highest enjoyment depend on the state of his heart toward God, and the conformity of his life to the eternal laws of right, as revealed from heaven. It kindles up in the heart of man the purest affection for the Divinity, and kindliest feelings for his fellows. It is the anchor of our hope. It should be the pride of our youth, the glory of our manhood, and solace of our old age. It has rejoiced its myriads in the hour of death, by giving them a passport to life eternal. Let us give it to the world, faithfully translated, as an evidence of our ardent desire for the highest felicity of our species. And, finally, let us imbibe the spirit of Him who, though he was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. Let us love one another with a pure heart fervently. And let us keep his commandments that we " may have a right to the tree of life, and that we may enter in through the gates into the city." And when the Lord Jesus shall descend from heaven, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trump of God-when the ashes of the saints of all ages shall be stirred by the spirit of life, and the TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 19 earth and the sea shall give up the pious dead which are in themwhen the saints survivant shall be changed from mortality to immortality, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye-when all the righteous, both small and great, shall put on the bloom of an endless life, and shall enter into the Kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, may we partake in this inheritance of the saints in light, and in all the ardor of immortalized being, contribute to the final and eternal revenue of the Glory of God and the Lamb. TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Chaldee word (b~.h) TaRGUM is the word in general use for translation. It signifies an explanation, paraphrase, or version. In usage it is restricted to the works of some learned Jews-works which are rather comments or explanations than literal versions of the Sacred Text. They were composed in the Chaldee language because that became the language of the Jews after their Captivity in Babylon, and it was much better understood by them after that event than the Hebrew. When "Moses was preached" to the Jews, "being read in the Synagogue every Sabbath day," in sacred Hebrew, a paraphrase was given in Chaldee that the people might understand it. This custom was introduced by Ezra about 540 years before the Christian age began. There are, however, no written Targums extant which were composed much before the time of our Lord's advent.. It is very probable that the Ezrane, and other Targums before that time were oral. There are now extant three Targums or the writings of Moses. 1. The Targum of Onkelos. 2. One ascribed to Jonathan. 3. The Jerusalem Targum. There is one Targum on the Prophets-the Targum of Jonathan Ben (son of) Uzziel. There is one on the (Hagiographa or) Holy Writings imputed to Rabbi Joseph, who is alleged to have been at the head of the Sora academy, in the third century. The Targum of the Megilloth-Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ruth, and Esther. The three Targums on the book of Esther. The Targum on the two books of Chronicles. It will be perceived that Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah are without Targums. Nehemiah was anciently regarded as a part of Ezra. The probable reason why no Targums were written on these 20 THE REVISER. three books is because they were written mostly in Chaldee. It is the opinion of Dr. Prideaux that such compositions did once exist, and that they have been lost. These writings, like the writings of other authors, differ according to their true dates. The Targums of Onkelos and the Pseudo-Jonathan excel the others in purity and more nearly resemble the dialect in which portions of Daniel and Ezra were written, except some discrepencies in orthography. The later Targums are characterized with less purity, and the adoption of barbarous and foreign words. The dialect of the Rabbim was derived from these latter paraphrases. THIE TARGUM OF ONKELOS. This Targum was translated into Latin by Alfonzo de Zamora, Paulus Fagius, Bernardinus Baldus, and also by Andrew de Leon of Zamora. Professor Eichhorn supposes him to have been a Babylonian. His reasons are, that he is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, and that his dialect approximates more nearly the Aramvean dialect in which Daniel and Ezra wrote. The general opinion is that he was a convert to "the Jews religion," and was a pupil of the distinguished Rabbi Hillel, who flourished a half century before Christ. This being so, Onkelos must have been contemporary with the Messiah. This work is not subject to the general remark as to the paraphrastic character of Targums, but is a literal, word for word translation, done with so much care that it could be set to the same musical signs, and read and sung in Jewish assemblies in the same tone with the Hebrew. The practice of reading the Law in the Hebrew and then in the Targum of Onkelos, in the synagogues of the Jews, continued till the time of Rabbi Elias Levita, in the early part of the sixteenth century. The scholar who would be a competent translator of the Old Testament should be familiar with this Targum. THE TARGUM OF THE PSEUDO-JONATHAN. Although many have imputed this paraphrase to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, it seems impossible that the author of the celebrated paraphrase on the Prophets should have written a Targum so different in its diction, so impure in its style, and so diverse in its paraphrastic method. This Targum is so full of silly legends, barbarisms, and foreign words, that it is of little value. The only translation of it, so far as TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 21 we know, is the Latin version by Anthony Ralph de Chevalier, in the sixteenth century. Notwithstanding its fiiends have claimed an ante-Messianic date for it, it is evident that it was not written till 200 years after Christ, for it mentions a compilation of six parts, called the Talmud (on Ex. 26: 9,) which was not made till that time-that it was written after the beginning of the fourth century, because it mentions Constantinople which was always called Byzantium till that time-that it mentions the Lombards whose eruption into Italy took place in A. D. 570, and therefore its date is subsequent to that period-(on Num. 24: 24,) and it also mentions the Turks who had but little notoriety till the middle of the sixth century. These reasons have produced, among learned men, the unanimous opinion that it dates no farther back than the seventh century. THE JERUSALEM TARGUM. This paraphrase Chevalier, and also Francis Taylor translated into Latin. The seventh century has been fixed as its probable date, from its internal evidence. Its impure style, its Greek, Latin, and Persian words indicate a compilation by several authors. It corresponds in its legendary character with the Pseudo-Jonathan. It wants connection-sometimes giving a double explanation-sometimes omitting a verse, and even an entire chapter, and sometimes inserting Hebrew terms with no interpretation. It is a paraphrase of the writings of Moses, and derives its name from the dialect in which it is written. THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL. This Targum was also translated into Latin by Alfonzo de Zamora, Andrea de Leon, and Conrad Pellican. The Jews make this author contemporary with Malachi, Zachariah, and Haggai, and assert that he received his Targum from their lips. The former Prophets fare better with him than the latter-these being more paraphrased than those. It is not distinguished with the purity of style awarded to Onkelos, and its method and language are both irregular. It treats on Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings, called the Prophets, by the Jews, and on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the duodecimo of lesser Prophets, denominated the latter Prophets. The talmundical tradition makes this author the chief of the eighty distinguished scholars of the elder Rabbi Hillel, and a fellow disciple of Simeon the Just, who held in his arms the infant Messiah and 22 THE REVISER. blessed God that he could then die in peace. According to the tradition he must have been contemporary with Onkelos. But Wolfius and Dr. Prideaux were of the opinion that he flourished just before the advent of Christ, and that his Targum is a compilation of more ancient, and of oral Targums, preserved by tradition. It is worthy of the attention of the learned student who would translate, or revise the Old Testament. THE TARGUM ON THE CETUBIN, HAGRIOGRAPHA. The Targum on "the Holy Writings" is, by some Jewish writers, ascribed to Rabbi Joseph, who is said to have had the charge of the Academy at Sora, in the third century. A Latin translation of it has been made by Arias Montanus, as also by the translators of the preceding Targum. Dr. Prideaux considers its language the most corrupt of the Jerusalem dialect. Its digressions are numerous, and its narrative legendary. It is of little advantage in sacred criticism. THE TARGUM ON MEGILLOTH. That portion of this work on the Song of Solomon is worse than ridiculous.' The portion on the book of Ruth and the Lamentations does the author the most credit, although not very creditable. The whole is thought to be a compilation by several authors. THE THREE TARGUMS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER. The book of Esther was so highly esteemed by the Jews that they translated it several times into Chaldee. Three paraphrases on it have been published, and one has been translated into Latin by Francis Taylor. These paraphrases are a good illustration of Jewish sacred literature for many years since the time of their older Targumists. The first was tolerable-the second fabulous-and the third ridiculous. It is an exhibition of diffusive stupidity. THE TARGUM ON THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. This Targum was unknown to both Jews and Christians for a long time, until discovered by Matthias Frederick Beck. It was found in the library at Erfurt, and published in 1680. It is of little value save to show the deterioration of good sense and biblical literature among Jewish dignitaries. Of all these paraphrases the Jews place the highest estimate on the GENERAL RULES FOR TRANSLATORS, &c. 23 Targums Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, and they receive implicitly their interpretations of all doubtful passages in the Sacred Writings. These Targums are all that deserve much attention firom students of the Scriptures; and they are of much importance, notwithstanding their imperfections. They furnish the meaning of words and phrases occuring but once in the Hebrew Scriptures-reflect light on Jewish laws, customs, usuages and ceremonies mentioned in the Old Testament, and establish the genuine meaning of many Messianic predictions. They should be throroughly studied by every Hebrew scholar who would be able clearly to understand the Old Testament, in Hebrew, and interpret it into any other language. In our next number we will furnish a brief sketch of the ancient Greek versions, and ultimately of the various translations of the New Testament which have influenced those who have made revisions, or translations of that volume into the English language. GENERAL RULES FOR THE DIRECTION OF TRANSLATORS AND REVISERS EMPLOYED BY THE AMERICAN BIBLE UNION. 1. The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who understood the original Scriptures at the time they were first written, must be translateH by correspondent words and phrases, so far as they can be found in the vernacular tongue of those for whom the version is designed, and with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness. 2. Wherever there is a version in common use, it shall be made the basis of revision, and all unnecessary interference with the established phraseology shall be avoided; and only such alterations shall be made as the exact meaning of the inspired text and the existing state of the language may require. 3. Translations or revisions of the New Testament from the received Greek, critically edited, with known errors corrected. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO REVISERS OF THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1. The common English Version must be the basis of revision; the Greek Text, Bagster & Sons' octavo edition, 1851. 2. Whenever an alteration from that version is made on any autho 24 THE REVISER. rity additional to that of the reviser, such authority must be cited in the manuscript, either on the same page or in an appendix. 3. Every Greek word or phrase, in the translation of which the phraseology of the common version is changed, must be carefully examined in every other place in which it occurs in the New Testament, and the views of the reviser be given as to its proper translation in each place. 4. As soon as the revision of any one book of the New Testament is finished, it shall be sent to the secretary of the Bible Union, or such other person as shall be designated by the Committee on Versions, in order that copies may be taken and furnished to the revisers of the other books, to be returned with their suggestions to the reviser or revisers of that book. After being re-revised with the aid of these suggestions, a carefully prepared copy shall be forwarded to the secretary. Who objects to these rules? And what are the objections? HIvevta-SPIRIT, NOT GHOST. The Greek word (nvevsva) pneuma is of frequent occurrence in both the Old and New Testament. It is one of the technicalities of Revelation. In this article we will only attend to its usage in the book of Matthew. See Matt. I: 18, 20, where it is rendered Ghost. Matt. 3:11, Wiclif reads, "in the holi goost and with fier"Tyndale, " wyth the Holy Gost and wyth fyre"- Cranmer, " with the holy goost and with fyre" —the Geneva, " wyth the holy Gost and wyth fire"-the Anglo-Rhemish, " in the Holy Ghost and fire "King James' revision of Tyndale, "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"-the American and Foreign Bible Society's revision of King James', "with the Holy Spirit, and with fire." In v. 16, Wiclif, " and he say the spirit of god comynge doun as a dowue" —Tyndale, " and John sawe the spirite of God decende lyke a doue"-Cranmer, " and he sawe the spirite of God decending lyke a doue"-Geneva, "and John saw the Spirit of God descneding like a doue"-Rhemish, "and he savv the Spirit of God descending as a doue" —King James', " and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a doue." The American and Foreign Bible Society follow King James. Matt. 5: 3, all read alike except Wiclif, who, instead of, " Blessed are the poor in spirit," reads, " Blessed be pore man in spirit." They all render (rrvevpa) pneuma, spirit. SPIRIT, NOT GHOST. 25 Matt. 8: 16, Wiclif, "and he casted out spirits bi word"-Tyndale "and he casts out the spirites with a word"-so Cranmer, Geneva, Rhemish, King James, " with his word." All render (rrvsevpa) pneuma, spirit, or the plural pneumata, the spirits. Matt. 10: 1, 20, all render pneuma by spirit, as also 12: 18, 28; but while Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish, translate the word in v. 31, by spirit, the Geneva, and King -James use " Ghost." The American and Foreign Bible Society's revision has "Holy Spirit;" and also in v. 32 where all the others have " gost." In v. 43 all have " unclean spirit," and in v. 45 all have " seven spirits." In Matt. 22: 43, all translate literally, "in spirit." Matt. 26: 41 all translate " spirit." But in Matt. 27: 50, they all translate, " yielded up the ghost." In the commandment to the Apostles, Matt. 28: 19 all have, "in the name of the Holy Ghost," except The American and Foreign Bible Society's revision, which has "Holy Spirit." Having examined the word, (rrvevFta) spirit, in all the places of its occurrence in the first book in the New Testament, and compared the most noted of the English versions of it, we made the following Notes, namely: 1. None of these versions are uniform. But when speaking of "the Comforter," who is called (To HIvsvpa ro dytov) the Holy Spirit, they all, except the American and Foreign Bible Society, call that glorious Being a ghost. 2. All these authors servilely follow Wiclif and Tyndale, except the above honorable Society, which could not consent, longer, that such a being should be called a " ghost" —an apparition; and therefore they revised King James' revision of Tyndale, and did themselves much credit by the act. Why should not a Bible Society correct known errors in a version? 3. To be consistent they should have always translated either by spirit, or by ghost. And if they preferred the latter word, they should have translated, " he saw the Ghost of God descending"-" then was Jesus led up of the Ghost into the wilderness"'-" blessed are the poor in ghost"-" and he cast out the Ghosts with his word"-" and he gave them power against unclean ghosts,"-" it is the ghost of your Father that speaks in you"-" I will put my Ghost upon him" —if I by the Ghost of God cast out demons"-" taketh with himself seven other ghosts"-" if David in Ghost called him Lord"-" the ghost is wiling but the flesh is weak." 4 26 THE REVISER. These translations are just as good as in any instance in which the same word (Trvevta) is translated by the English word ghost. The only reason why they shock our feelings is because our ears are not accustomed to hear the passages repeated in this way. Every reason which requires (To IIvevta Troii Tarp6o') to pneuma tou Patros, to be translated, "the Spirit of your Father," requires also that (TO IIvevtia t'o &ytov) to Pneuma to hagion should be translated, "the holy spirit," and not, "the Holy Ghost." Ghost now means an apparition, or a phantum. Of such mention is twice made in the New Testament; namely, in Matt. 14: 26, and Mark 6: 49. Both passages relate to the same circumstance. It is said that when the Disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea they were frightened because they supposed it had been (Qavraaola) phantasma. Wiclif translates the sentence in Matthew, as follows, " And thei seynge hym walkynge on the see: weren distrublid and seiden, that it is a fantum, and for drede thei criden." Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva say, " It is some spirit." King James and the American and Foreign Bible Society, " It is a spirit." The Rhemish, " It is a ghost." Phantasma is the appropriate word for ghost, phantum, or apparition. The verb (OavTardo) phantazo signifies, to appear, and the noun means a phantum, spectre, an apparition, or ghost. It is much to be regretted that The American and Foreign Bible Society, that noble institution, founded on just pinciples-an institution forced into existence in the providence of God to defend the great principle of pure translations-an institution which has done so much good, been the object of so many, and such fervent prayersan institution in whose membership some of the best men in the world have lived and died, and for which they sighed, and toiled, and prayed —an institution, too, which commenced the great work of revision; we repeat, it is much to be regretted that it did not continue in the great and good work of clearing the common version of its errors. O how sadly are God's institutions sometimes managed! But they cannot be so managed for a long time before He will abandon them. The sad history of the Jews, of their city, and of their temple-that grandest monument of human skill —the glory of its nation, and the earthly home of its nation's God for many generations, is prophetic of the doom of all pious institutions when they shall cease to promote the object for which God, in his providence, raised them up. And if the daughters of Jerusalem, in sad retrospect, mourn the dispersion of their people, destruction of their city, REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 27 and the conflagration of their house of prayer, let the admonition instruct us. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. As this work is not yet perfected, but is published for the purposes of criticism, and to give the friends of revision some idea of what is being done, we deem it timely to note some exceptions taken on a late examination of the work. The gentleman who has performed this part of the labor is a gentleman of rare talents and extensive learning in all matters relating to the work in which he is engaged. He deserves the gratitude of the christian world for the great service he has rendered, and he will have the approval, to a very great extent, of the learned of all creeds. He is a gentleman whose talents and acquirements are not alone to be respected, but his feelings are also to be regarded. He is not only a man of mind and intelligence, but he has a large share of the excellent commodity of which too many men seem to be destitute; namely, sensibility. It pains him to be censured, or to have any of his views rudely attacked. And this very sensibility renders such treatment unnecessary and unkind. Unnecessary, because he can think and feel without rude blows-unkind because it would produce pain without any good result. This attribute of his nature should therefore be his shield. And, while we doubt his accuracy in some instances, we love and esteem him, and, were it in our power, we would take great pleasure in honoring him. We except, i. To THE RENDERING OF 2 PET. 1: 9. " For he that lacketh these things is blind, being near-sighted, having forgotten the cleansing away of his old sins." I take exception to the rendering of (ltvoradov) muopadson by, "being near-sighted." Not, however, on account of the etymological force of the word only, but also, because the context, in my judgment, requires a different interpretation. Near-sightedness is owing to a defect in the organ of vision, generally, from too great convexity. Now such defect is not the crime, but the misfortune of the subject. This is my first exception. The subject is here declared to be " blind." But a " near-sighted" person is not blind. The fact that he is near-sighted proves him not 28 THE REVISER. to be blind. For a blind person is not near-sighted but no-sighted. As the passage reads, therefore, it is not only a verbal contradiction, but a contradiction in sentiment. This is our first reason for our first exception. The reason assigned for the blindness, in the revision, is the nearsightedness. Near-sightedness cannot be the cause of blindness in a general sense, but only as relates to distant objects; and there is no distinction of objects as near, or far off in this context. That (pLvora&6)ov) muopadzon is expressive of the reason of the blindness, we doubt not. But near-sightedness cannot be assigned as the cause of blindness, and therefore cannot be the meaning of the word in this context. This is our second reason. The forgetting the cleansing away of old sins is assigned as the cause of the near-sightedness. So that, according to the Revision, the subject forgot an important fact-that forgetfulness made him near-sighted, and that near-sightedness made him blind, and yet, though blind he could see things near at hand! But the Common Version is worse still, because it cannot be regarded as a translation, but as a paraphrase. It reads, " he is blind, and cannot see afar off." Its authors found, in a Greek participle, all these words, namely, andcannot-see-afar-off. Now, although a paraphrasat may be allowed such liberty, it cannot be granted to a Translator or a Reviser. But even this paraphrase admits that a blind man can see things near at hand. Wiclif reads, " he is blynde and gropith with his hand"-Tyndale, "he is blynde and gropeth for the waye with his hande"-Cranmer "is blynde and gropeth for the waye'wyth his hande" —the Geneva, X is blynde and cannot se farre of"-Rhemish, "is blynde, and groping with his hand." Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish are consistent. They do not admit that a blind man can see at all, but feels his way along. But the Geneva, which is followed by the Common Version, allows even a blind man to see close by! We take the meaning of the word (Ltvcorraov) in this context to be what its etymology imports-" shutting his eyes." When a man's eyes are shut he is blind, but his blindness is voluntary, and therefore he can be exhorted, as the Apostle does, in the very next sentence, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, be diligent to make your calling and election sure." The whole context here shows that the alleged blindness was a matter of volition. The antecedent exhortation of the Apostle to the brethren to supply in their faith the things men RE-REVISION PUBLISHED. 29 tioned in vv. 5, 6, and 7, shows clearly that he considered them capable of furnishing what he required. Hie also says, " these things being yours and increasing, render you not idle nor unfruitful." He then adds, " he that lacks these things is blind," &c. Now, if the acquisitions to which he exhorted prevented blindness, then the want of these acquisitions caused the blindness, and it was therefore voluntary. Voluntary blindness is affected by shutting the eyes, as the etymology of the original word signifies. There is more in the original words, (AeOv t afwv'rot xaOapctqvoV v,, rrd~aTaLt a uro7 dfhap-rtiv) than appears either in the Common Version or the Revision. The Common Version follows Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva. Wiclif has the present tense, forgetteth, for having forgotten. The Rhemish and the Revision read having forgotten. There appears to me to be an idea clearly stated in the original which does not appear in any of these works. It is the idea' that the forgetfulness was a wilful forgetfulness. The word (Xao3wv, nom. sing. masc. part. aor. 2, act. of Xafta3vo to take, take up, take in the hand) implies that the forgetfulness was designed. It is not easy to give these words a smooth rendering into English. But I think an idea contained in the original, and expressed there with so much force and clearness, should not, on that account, be lost in the Revision. This is my second exception. The old renderings of the original words (roV icaOaptajzoi) are, in this day, ridiculous and obscene. To speak of " purging" a person from sins, conveys the idea that cathartics are the means. It has long been a question with me, how a gentleman of refinement could quote this passage in a public assembly, without revising the translation. The Revision has improved it much by reading it, " cleansed away." Would not "purification of" have been still better. RE-REVISION PUBLISHED. Copies of a Re-revision are now published of 2d Peter, the Three Epistles, of John, the Epistle of Judas, and the Apocalpyse. These are for sale at the Bible Union Rooms, 350 Broome street, New York, at from fifty cents to one dollar, according to the manner in which they are put up. Those who desire them can be furnished by applying to MR. W. H. WYCKOFF, Corresponding Secretary of the American Bible Union, 350 Broome street, N. Y., and by forwarding the price. 30 THE REVISER. COMMON VERSION OF EX. 3: 22. " But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment," dc. Infidels have urged this passage as an insurmountable objection against the authority and veracity of Moses. They say that a just God could never give such direction to his people; and with them we agree. "Borrow," signifies to take and use, by consent of the person in right, with the understanding that the same, or an equivalent is to be returned. Now, if Moses and Aaron had both testified that the Lord told the Hebrews to borrow these articles of the Egyptians, I could not believe them. But the question is, Did Moses say that the Lord directed the people to borrow these things? We answer by a most emphatic negative, No. The original word (>r~) signifies, to ask, request, demand, require, inquire. " To borrow," is but a secondary and rare use of the word. A meaning which we have no right to impute except from the necessity indicated by the context. And, certainly, there is no such necessity in this case. The Lord did not command these people to leave stealthily. But he sent Moses directly to Pharaoh and demanded the release of his people, in the most positive manner, as the narrative abundantly shows. Repeated demands were made, and repeated signs and wonders exhibited to enforce those demands. The Lord pre-informed Moses that the King would not let the people go "except by a mighty hand." And he promised that hand. "I," said he, "will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders-and after that he will let them go." He farther adds, " And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians," and " when you go, you shall not go empty. But every woman shall require of her neighbor, and.of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver and jewels of gold." Services had been rendered by these women to Egyptian women, and their dear infant-sons had been strangled at birth by public authority, and they had a right to ask, or demand, even the necessaries of life from their opressors, but they only required decent apparel and their jewelry which they could very well spare. Surely there could be no injustice in this; and there was no necessity of " borrowing" of those who were so deeply their debtors. There could have COMMON VERSION OF EX. 3: 19. 31 been no expectation, on the part of the Egyptians, that these people would ever return to bring back these articles, or an equivalent. It is a mistake, a palpable misunderstanding. The Alexandrian Version has here, (at-?aeLt) she shall ask-the Vulgate, postulabit, she shall demand. The Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, the Coptic, and the Persian, all agree with the Hebrew. King James' Revisers copied from Becke's Bible, published in 1549. The Geneva Bible, which was in general use before the common revision was published, and Barker's Bible of 1615, both give "ask" instead of "borrow." Will the American, and the American and Foreign Bible Societies please revise? COMMON VERSION OF EX. 3: 19. " And I am sure that the King of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand." This is a most palpable contradiction to the whole history. God knew that he would, and the narrative proved that he did let them " go by a mighty hand." And, indeed, the very next sentence after this assertion that God was sure the King would not let them " go by a mighty hand," asserts the very contrary of this in the following unmistakeable terms, namely: "And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof; and after that he WILL LET THEM GO. "I amn sure he will not let them go," (v. 19,) "he will let them go," (v. 20.) What a palpable contradiction! Will not the most ultra anti-revisionist consent to a revision of the translation here, since there is no contradiction in the Hebrew original! Will not our brethren, Wayland, Welch, Dowling, and others, consent to an amendment? Will they not insist that the American and Foreign Bible Society, rather than circulate this falsehood-this libel on Moses, and the God of Moses -shall correct it in their Bibles now on hand? Will not their piety -their love of God and truth-their opposition to inflated Infidelity, growing and fattening on false renderings-urge them to insist on this revision? Or will they, can they, because they have unfortunately taken the wrong side of this great question, persist in circulating, as the word of God, this most obvious and blasphemous error. Heaven forbid that this charge shall be recorded on high against these brethren. 32 THE REVISER. The true interpretation of the passage is, " I am sure that the King of Egypt will not let you go, ()il) except by a mighty hand." In the next verse he promises to stretch out that mighty hand, and says " after that he will let you go." Opposing brethren, look well to this matter. To God you must answer in the great day. THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF MATT. 23: 24. "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." This " authorized version" is unauthorized. There is no word in the original for at. It is therefore unauthorized. The version authorized is, "strain OUT a gnat." The Greek word (dtv)i[o) means to strain, to filter, to strain out or off. To strain at a gnat is, " to gag," as some people say, when the stomach reacts at the sight of something in consequence of its irritability. But to strain out a gnat is to separate it from liquid by means of a filter or strainer. This is the translation of Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva. It is also the revision of the American and Foreign Bible Society. The Savior rebukes these blind guides for affecting to be so delicate in relation to some small matters, at the same time having no sense of propriety in vastly greater affairs. They were very particular to "tithe mint, anise and cummin," while they omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith." "These," said the Savior " ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone." It is as well to strain out a gnat; but if one must swallow either the gnat, or a camel, it is safer to try the gnat. There is no doubt but this was originally a typographical mistake, like that of the American and Foreign Bible Society's, in Matt. 3: 12, where they read, " he will thoroughly pulge his door." But should not such mistake be corrected? And if an error of a printer should be corrected, why not an error of a translator? Error is error, without regard to its author. And so far as the reader is concerned, an innocent mistake is as bad as a designed perversion. THE PURPOSE OF THE UNION. 1. The revision of the English and all other imperfect translations of the Holy Writings. Who objects? What is the ground of objection? 2. Correct tranlations of these invaluable Records into all the languages of the earth. Who objects to this? What is the objection? REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 33 REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. To THE EDITOR OF THE REVISER: Sir: —In the notice in your first number of the late work on 2 Pet. -Revelation, you say of the author: " His feelings are also to be regarded. Ile... has a large share... of sensibility. It pains him to be censured, or to have any of his views rudely attacked;" &c. Here, allow me to say, you exhibit an undue and unnecessary solicitude about my personal comfort. Having in that very volume largely and fieely criticised the views of others, it would ill become me to deprecate criticism equally free in return; nor do I myself have the slightest apprehension, that I shall be greatly damaged either in feeling or reputation by any "rude attacks." Perhaps, in your proposed examinations of what has been done in the revision of the English Testament, you might facilitate matters by simply copying the Notes bearing on the several topics discussed, and then meeting them point by point; as it strikes me that nearly everything in your strictures on 2 Pet. 1:9 had already been provided for in the Notes on that verse. Respectfully yours, A REVISER. The following is the Reviser's Note on 2 Pet. 1: 9.' Able to look only, and that with but bleared eyes, at the things which are seen (2 Cor. 4: 18). To the things which are not seen, but are far above out of his sight (Ps. 10: 5), to wit, the glory of Christ, the grand object of the saving knowledge just spoken of, he is, therefore, blind (Is. 53: 2; 2 Cor. 4: 4, 6).' This word occurs nowhere else in the N. T., and is translated by many (Steph., Bochart, Suic., Wolf., Bens., Moldenh., Mack., Newc., Thom., Clarke, Penn, Trol., Dietl., Peile) according to what they regard as its etymological force (/3ow, Co+b), shutting the eyes, the blindness being voluntary. But as {tOVAw, from which the verb immediately comes, is not one who, thus wilfully closes his eyes, but one who, in order to see an object, is compelled by a defect in the organ to wink, or contract the eyelids (Huth.;-and hence its current use, according to Pass., for short-sighted. The It. here has ammicando con gli occhi), so the tuvoTra'ovTEs are described by Aristotle, Probl. sect. 31, thus: oi ek genetes ta men eggus blepontes, ta de eks apostaseos ouch orontes enantia de paschousin oi gerontes tois muopadzousin ta gar eggus me orontes ta porrothen blepousin. And so is the word here understood by G. (cs E. V.);-Dt., Fr. G.,-M.,-S.;-Pagn. (qui eminus nihil cernat), Bez. (nihil procul cernens), Aret., Est., Grot., Hamm., Cocc. parumn 5 34 THE REVISER. prospiciens), Wells, Guyse, Dodd. and Sharpe (short-sighted), Bell. Bib., Beng., Wesl. in the note (purblind) Scott, Mey. (kurzsichtig;and so Ros., Stolz, Van Ess, De W.) Stier (blodsichtig), Barn., HIuth.; -Pas., Pass., L. and S., Rob., Schirl. T., C.;-Vulg. and its followers, Germ.;-Erasm., Calv., Vat., B. and L., translate according to the gloss ~b12afcpv, groping. Hesych. B00Oatlzutv. RE M A R K S. The ground assumed is that the Apostle here spoke of things near and things distant. This distinction is not in the context. It is therefore, mere supposition. The passage quoted firom Ps. 10: 5 in its contextural reading is, " the wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God. God is not in all his thoughts. His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight." This proves that the wicked man, of whom David wrote, was ignorant of God and his judgments because through pride " he would not seek God nor retain him in his thoughts." God and his judgments were far above the subjects of his contemplation. The cause was not that he could not see God and his judgments, but that he would not seek God. His difficulty was not a natural " defect in" his vision, but a defect in his disposition. Moreover, the man is not said to be " blind," as is the case with the Apostle's man. If a thing is so high that a man cannot see it because of the natural imperfection of his vision, he cannot be blameable therefor. But it: cannot be said in such a case that he is blind. If " blind," he could see things " far above" just as well as near by. Nor does Isaiah (53: 2) refer to Peter's man. The apostle was not speaking of the Jews who rejected Christ but of a mall whose old sins had been " cleansed away," in the Christian sense. Of one who had believed, repented, and conformed to the spirit of the command given to Saul, " Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord," but who had not gone on in the Christian life by supplying in his faith fortitude, in fortitude knowledge, in knowledge self-control, in self-control patience, in patience piety, in piety brotherly-kindness, and in brotherly-kindness love; but had taken up a forgetfulness of the purification concerning his old sins. One who had conducted as if he supposed that faith, repentance, and baptism were all that were necessary for the perfection of christian character. Such persons are very apt to forget their first love, and voluntarily put out of mind the day of their espousals, close their eyes against the light of heaven and become blind to all the beauties of Christianity. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 35 Lacking the above " graces" they are blind. " For he that lacks these things is blind." His blindness is not owing to any natural "defect in the organ," but to not having made the necessary Christian acquisitions in his faith. He had not, in the language of an Apostle, gone " on to perfection," but became forgetful even of his confession of the Saviour, and the blessing attendant on that confession. That the Apostle referred to a voluntary blindness is clear from the next verse, in which he exhorts the brethen that they should rather be diligent than to be blind and stumble. "Wherefore the rather, brethren, be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for doing these things you shall never stumble." (rTatia/r8'.) It was left to the brethren, then, to make the acquisitions to which the Apostle exhorted them and not be blind, or to refuse to do as he exhorted, be blind, and stumble. The classic usage has direct reference to the etymology of the word. Hence they called persons who, from a defect in their visual organs, were compelled to squint or partially close their eyes, (MvoTrarovre;) rnuopadzontes, not because they could not see far, but because they partially closed their eyes.'This is evident from the passage quoted from Aristotle in the foregoing note. When did a classic author ever call blind men by this name? We think the in stance cannot be produced. But the Apostle speaks of a man wh6 was blind, not because he was near-sighted, but because he had closed his eyes. No sacred, no classic author ever called a blind man " nearsighted." To say that a man is "near-sighted," is to affirm that he can see. To affirm that he is blirLd, is to affirm that he cannot see. But the Apostle affirmed that the man of whom he wrote was blind. Therefore he affirmed that he was not near-sighted. I trust there is nothing invidious in these remarks. A love of truth has elicited them; and by the truth we stand or fall. If we stand, we stand in the truth. If we fall, we fall by its power. If we stand, it is because the truth supports us-if we fall, it is because it conquers us. Whether we stand or fall, therefore, we are for the truth. h'We desire to be supported by the truth when in it, and to be subdued by it when opposed to it. The Italian (ammicando con gli occhi) quoted in the above note does not support the reviser. It does not mean short-sightedness. The Italian for short-sightedness is miopia: and a short-sighted, person is, miope. The Italian favors the etymological interpretation. 36 THE REVISER. Indeed all the instances in which the word (ILvrwoaow) is referred to diseases of the eyes, it still retains its etymological significance, as the diseases caused them to close the eyes, in consequence of their morbid sensitiveness. The only reason why it was ever applied to short-sighted persons is because they were " compelled by a defect in the organ to wink, or contract the eyelids," as the reviser himself admits. The word ([tvwnrrawv) should have been translated, shutting, or closing his eyes. The proof is positive that he was either not blind or not near-sighted. But the Apostle says he was blind, and therefore he was not near-sighted. I take this to be a rule never to be departed firom; namely, where a word is susceptible of more meanings than one, we are to select that which is most in accordance with the context in which it is found. The fact that a near-sighted man is not a blind man is positive proof that the Apostle did not mean near-sightedness by the word he used. ANCIENT TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The most ancient and the most valuable of all the translations of the Old Testament is the SEPTUAGINT OR ALEXANDRIAN. It is a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, and was highly esteemed by both Jews and Christians in the early times of the latter, and was for a long time constantly read in synagogues and churches. It retained its authority among the Jewish Rabbis for more than a hundred years after Christ, and lost it only on account of the testimony it furnished in favor of the claims of Christ founded on the prophecies it contained. They at first, though their nation had used it for many long years, questioned its correctness-then condemned it, expunged many texts, appointed the 8th day of Thebet (Dec.) as a fast day on which to express their bitter regrets that it had ever been made-and finally ceasing to mutilate it, they rejected it and adopted Aquila's version. This is the Talmundic version, with which the Septuagint Las sometimes been confounded. Salmasius, Bochart, Bauer, and some others, contrary to the opinion of Dr. Hody, contend that Josephus, in his antiquities of the Jews, adhered closely to this version throughout. It is quite certain that, although first made for Egyptian Jews, it acquired great popularity REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 37 among the Palestinian Jews, and its authority was unquestioned in the time of Josephus. It was read in the synagogues in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles, and fiom it they fiequently quoted. Its style is that of the New Testament Greek to a very great extent. Its history, before the Christi.an age, is involved in much difficulty, but it is evident that it was made by different authors, whether by seventy, seventy two, or a less number, and at different times. It dates, as to its publication, at about two hundred and eighty six years before the incarnation of the Word. This version, although not equal in authority to the Heblew Original, is still of great importance in studying both the Old and New Testaments, and it is carefully consulted by our Revisers. AQUILA'S VERSION. Professor Jahn fixes the date of this translation between the years of our Lord 90 and 130. It is very literal. He rendered the Hebrew words by their nearest correspondents in Greek without the least regard to the genius of the latter language. The Jews have extolled this version and speak of it as "the Greek variety" of the Old Testament. It is of much importance to the biblical student. TIEODOTION'S VERSION. The author of this version was a native of Ephesus, and nearly contemporary with Aquila. His version was published before the year 160 of our Lord; for it is quoted by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Typhon. This version is a revision of the Septuagint, and stands midway between the extremely literal version of Aquila, and the unwarrantably free translation of Symmacus. Aquila's translation of the book of Daniel' was regarded as preferable, by the early Christians, to the Septuagint, and was introduced into the churches early in the third century. SYMMACUS' VERSION. This translation is by Montfaucon, dated at about the year of our Lord 200. We have already adverted to the fact that this work is not so literal as the version of Aquila. It is evident that he nclderstood the laws of interpretation better than did Aquila, and has succeeded in rendering the Hebrew idioms into Greek, with much precision. His version is of importance, as a book of reference, in the interpretation of both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. 38 THE REVISER. THE ANONYMOUS VERSIONS. There are three of these, and they are named as arranged by Origin: jfith, sixth, and seventh versions. They are of later date than the three translations above noticed. They are not complete, but are of some importance in biblical translation, although not equal to the aforesaid versions. THE HEBREW. The version called (o Eopatlo-) the Hebrew has, by some scholars been supposed to be the version of Aquila, and that it was thus denominated because of its close conformity to the Hebrew. Montfaucon and Bauer, however, have given a good reason for a different opinion. The latter gentlemen is of the opinion that the title (o E/3pato;) refers to the Hebrew text itself, and is used to distinguish it from the Alexandrian version, which differs somewhat from it. THE SAMARITAN. Many doubts, as to the identity of this work, exist. Indeed it is doubted whether the Salnaritans ever had a Greek version of their Scriptures. Bishop Walton is of opinion that, if it ever existed, it was made long since the date of the Alexandrian version. It consisted of only fragments of the Samaritan Scriptures according to the views of those who have had the greatest confidence in its actual existence. Something which bears that name is found in the Greek Scholia appended to the Rhemish edition of the Alexandrian Veir sion of the Old Testament. There is another work, the authorship of which is unknown, denominated (6 EXL2vtgo;') the Hellenic. There is a translation of the Pentateuch, Ruth, Proverbs, Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of Jeremiah, and Daniel. Its authorship is unknown. It was found by Zanetti in St. Mark's Library in Venice. Its date is uncertain. Some have supposed the author to have been a Jew, and some a Christian monk, of the 14th century. "Now, men have a right, no matter what language they speak, whether Burman or English,-they have a right to the Word of God, in its purity and completeness. They have also a right to demand it of those who have the power to give it to them, anal the latter cannot rightfully withhold it. These I take to be the foundation principles of the Bible Union, and it will not do for any man or body of men directly to repudiate or assail them.-Dr. Conant. FAITHIFULNESS IN REVISION, 39 FAITHFULNESS IN REVISION. Whoever supposes that the work of our Revisers is to pass without criticism, is wholly mistaken in the men who are engaged in this great enterprize. Their work will be carefully and critically examined, both by the firiends and opponents of revision. It is right it should be so —it is indispensable. Faithfulness to God and to the world require it. To this all parties imust make up their minds. If we do not secure a correct revision, it will not be the fault of those to whom the management of this business has been committed. They have employed talent and scholarship from eight different religious denominations —they have submitted their work to the criticism of scholars not engaged as revisers-they have published all that is prepared for the press, and sent it forth for general criticism, and in every possible way are they endeavoring to secure a most faithful revision of these invaluable writings-the precious words of kindness, mercy, and benevolence, to an apostate world. Unlike the Common Version-the work of a single sect-it must not, it cannot be sectarian. That was managed, matured, and criticised by one sect-this by no sect. There was a tremenduous effort mnade to engage tile Baptists, as a denomination, in the undertaking, but to no purpose. The Lord, in his divine wisdom, and good providence, permitted the doctrine of human expediency to thwart the brethren in their effort to engage a denominational concurrence in this superlative undertaking. He delayed it until men arose among the Baptists who had more anxiety as to what the other sects would say of them, than for a pure version, obtained sufficient influence to prevent "the denomination" from undertaking the great work; and then permitted a few to call on the many truth-lovers of all creeds, to come to the rescue. The voice which was heard first in this city -a voice, which though uttered by firm men, good and true, was still tremulous with pious carefulness and anxious heart-beatings, was soon and favorably heard in the south and west; and both these lands synchronically replied in pious, cheerful, and firm tones of encouraging response. Their sentiment is, " The unadulterated milk of the word." It must now be purified from human impurity; and all the gnats strained out, not at." The pious of various denominations are continually coming over to help us, and we look forward to a final triumph-a triumph pleasing to God, profitable to man, and creditable to all contributors. 40 THE REVISER. There are so many pious people of different creeds, now engaged in the work, that if an entire denomination should take hold at this time, it could not be made sectarian. Indeed the charge of sectarianism is no longer urged against the Union. The secular papers which at first believed revision to be a sectarian measure, and consequently so represented it, have become better acquainted with the true design, and now treat it as among the efforts of the present age to promote reformation. They percieve that it is not the work of Baptists nor Pvedo-baptists, of Calvinists nor Armenians —not the work of any sect, but a mighty effort of the trnth-lovers of all parties, and of no party. Russia may succeed or fail-Turkey may be absorbed or remain a distinct power-European governments generally may stand or fall, sink or swim; but the destiny of the American Bible Union, is sealed by the great God, and the motto on the seal is, TRIUMPH. O how thankful should we be, that we live in a day when we can co-operate in a work so glorious, so divine! Shall it be told of us in time, and remembered of us in the approaching world, that we devoted our time, our talents, and our money to pure translations of the word of life eternal! Shall the consoling thought occur to us, in our last hour on earth, that we have, according to our means, done all we could, to illuminate those who shall live after us-that we have acted in some degree like Him who gave his life a ransom for many, and became the propitiation for the sins of the world! O how sweet to die with such a conviction! How consoling to look away to Him who was rich but became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich, and know that our poor hearts have beaten in sympathy with His, and that He knows the fact and approves the deed! Let us count all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord. Let us be crucified to the world, and the world to us. Let us always adhere to truth, regardless of its unpopularity, remembering that Jesus and truth were both unpopular when he labored, and suffered, and died, for the redemption of the lost. - Even now none of its adversaries dare oppose the principle on which the Union is acting. In that one thing, my brother, what an assurance we have of success, and of ultimate triumph. Few men ever learn to estimate the power of a right principle. If wisely and courageously carried out by those who hold it, its triumph is certain. -Dr. Conant. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 41 REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 2 PET. 1: 13.-But I think it right so long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by way of remembrance. The Greek word (Eyeipw) to excite, arouse, awaken, is used here in composition with (dtE) through, and hence we have (dteyEipetv) the word for, to arouse or awaken thoroughly. In the text (d-teYipetv, pres. infin. act. of tLeyeipo) the appropriate tense is used, and it would be better rendered, to thoroughly excite. The preposition (Ev) should be literally translated, in. It would then read, I think it right " to thoroughly excite you in remembrance." "To stir you up" is antiquated English, and it is difficult to determine its origin. Wiclif reads, " to reise you in monestyng"-Tyndale, (who is followed by Cranmer, Geneva, Rhemish, Common Version, and the Revision,) reads, "to stere you up." The Apostle had written an epistle to them a short time before, and he thus apologizes for writing a second so soon. He desired thoroughly to -excite their memories. The 15th verse would have been more literal if it had been rendered, in its terminal clause, "to make a remembrance of these things." To call to mind, expresses the. sense very well, but if we depart from a literal translation we may better say, that you may be able to remember, than that you may be able "to call to mind," We prefer the literal rendering of the passage. The concluding sentence of the 17th verse, remains as in the Common Version, and indeed, in all the English Hexapla versions. " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," is their uniform rendering. They all understand (6 dayar7-ro;-) the Beloved, adjectively, as expressive of a quality of the Son of God. A literal translation of the passage would require.us to understand it as in apposition. I would translate and punctuate as follows: namely, " This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom i am well pleased." We prefer the word mountain, to mount; as more commonly used in our times. (v. 18) "Being with him in the holy mountain." -The Revision, by following the exact order of the Greek, in v. 19, has a stiffness which might be avoided by a transposition which would not alter the sense. Thus, instead of " we have more sure the prophetic word," read, "we have the prophetic more sure." The style of a translation is a matter of great moment. The more easy 6 42 THE REVISER. and pleasant, the more it will be read. The first object in translation is to give the exact sense of the original-the next to give it in a style the most elegant. A desire to be exactly literal has given a stiffness to many passages which might, without any offence to literality have been avoided. For instance, the second verse is just as literally, and I think more elegantly, translated, " Grace and peace be multiplied to you." " Grace unto you and peace be multiplied" is, however, the exact order of the Greek. The use of " unto," in such instances, instead of " to" is to me objectional. I much prefer, in all such cases, the simple preposition "to," as more elegant and modern. " Ye," instead of of you is also objectional, as too antiquated; and the same is true of " hath" instead of has, as also of all terminations of this kind. I should regret exceedingly to see such words finally pass into our Revision. We will be under obligation to the Reviser for his reasons at length, for rendering the word(dpipee) arete by might in v. 3, and by fortitude in v. 5. Will he give his views of its significance in Phil. 4: 8, and 1 Pet. 2: 9, in which places it is interpreted " virtue" and "praises." That the same author should use the same word in the sense of praises, might, and fortitude is at least very doubtful. What glory and might were those who had obtained like precious faith called by? Is the preposition (&la) expressive of means or instrumentality 2 Or what is the sense of " by" in the Revision? All the English Hexapla versions attach the sense of virtue to (adpeTr) arete in Phil. 4: 8; Tyndale and the Geneva making. an adjective of it and supplying " things" after it. All these same versions give " virtues" as their interpretation of the word in 1 Pet. 2: 9, except the Common Version which gives "praises." All of them concur in "virtue," in 2 Pet 1: 3, 5. Wiclif translates (dta) the preposition, for-Ty-ndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish, by, the Geneva and Common Version unto, and, to. Wiclif and the Rhemish understand the " glory and virtue," to be his who called, the former reading " for his own glory and virtues," the latter, " by his own proper virtue and glory." The first seems to have understood the glory and virtue of God as the object of the call-the second as the means, or instrument of the call. Cranmer, who is nearer the text, renders, " by glory and virtue"-without specifying what glory and virtue are intended; but he understood the glory and virtue as the means employed in the call. The Geneva REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 43 has "unto," and the Common, "to"-making our final possession of these the object of the call. That God, in calling men, has manifested his glory and might is true. "We beheld his glory (as of the only-begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth," said an inspired Evangelist. Jesus was a prophet " mighty in deed and word," and he wrought, in the apostolic ministry, " through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God." It is also true that we are called " to [the attainment of] glory and might." The question, then, is not whether either, or both of these sentiments aretrue, but, What is the import of 2 Pet. 1:3? The calling of men to the attainment of life, both in the incipient and perfect dispensations, was attended by glorious and mighty demonstration, such as the world never saw in connexion with any thing else. What a grand ceremony, the consecration of a nation to witness the descent of Jehovah!-what an anxious multitude, during the three days of purification of apparel, and preparation for the advent of the King, Eternal, Immortal,-the only wise God! And 0 what a morning, the morning of " the third day," when the purified nation in clean garments, were brought out by Moses, the man of God, to witness the grand scene —to hear the awful thunderings which ushered in that memorable day, the constitution-day of their nation -to hear the sound of the trumpet, still more awful than the thunders, sounding louder, and still lounder as the angel-herald neared the summit of the mountain, to proclaim the approaching Divinity, until in the midst of the dense electric cloud, now dark as the very blackness of darkness itself, now blazing to the heavens, he sounded the fortissimo for the concert of the elements, till " all the people in the camp trembled." It was then that "Moses spoke, and God answered by a voice," " a voice which then shook the earth," but which is destined to "shake heaven also." It was then that the smoke of Mount Sinai ascended as the smoke of a furnace, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the mountain trembled greatly under the burden of the God-head. All this glory and might attended the organization of the (eKscZtciata) out-called from the land of Egypt. How glorious and mighty also, were the manifestations when "the sound, as a mighty rushing wind," passed over God's ancient city, reverberated in the midst of the battlements of his temple, and sinking away in gentle cadence, filled all the house where were assembled, by unanimous consent, all the members of the primary Christian Church 44 THE REVISER. -" the mother echurch"-" the holy, the Apostolic, Church." Then were the Apostles filled with a holy spirit, the spirit of inspiration, and began to speak as that spirit gave them utterance. The report of these things being spread abroad, the multitude assembled and heard voices which, though not equal in. terror to the more than thunder tones of the angelic trumpet, at the giving of the law, yet far surpassed it in the multifaiious and significant sounds by which they taught that multitude "the wonderful works of God" in calling men to the attainment of life by a greater than Moses. The glorious and powerful manifestations, in all the " diversities of gifts" by the Spirit of God, attendant on the proclamation of " glory to God in the highest, on earth peace and good will to men" surpass, in glory and grandeur, all the scenes of Sinai. To see a few illiterate fishermen standing in the presence of the highest tribunals among the Jews, and in the presence of their greatest dignitaries, and charging them with the betrayal and murder of their long expected Messiah, and that, too, in less than two months after the homicide was committed-to see them stand up like men who knew no fear, who seem to regard no evil consequences, while the extent of their mission was'typified by the separated tongues, and the object of that mission by the luminousness of those tongues-to see them, under such circumstances, alleging, proving, and triumphing in public argumentation, with all human odds against them, is more glorious and demonstrative of power than all thunders and the voice of trumpets. The latter shook the earth, but these men shook thrones, and pagan temples, and time-honored institutions to the dust. All this is true, but still we enquire:-What is, definitely, the idea of the phrase, Kalesantos hemas dia dokses kai aretes? Atdda'ar or-=TEACHER, NOT MASTER. COMMON VERSION OF MATT. 8: 19. " And a certain Scribe came, and said unto him,.Master I willfollow thee whithersoever thou goest." The Greek word (at6darxai o-) is mistranslated not only in this passage but, I think, in every place in which it occurs in the book of Matthew. It should never be translated, Master, but always Teacher. This noun is from a Greek verb (d6taauo) which signifies, to teach. It therefore signifies, a Teacher. Nicodemus said, " Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher, (&6doaa:cao') come from God." "Teacher" TEACHER, NOT MASTER. 45 always relates to the taught. The taught are called "disciples" in the Common Version of the New Testament; and a disciple (;iaOip7-~') is a scholar. Teacher and scholar, or disciple, are correlative terms-hence we often read of " disciples" in the Evangelical Writings. Indeed in the succeedent context of the above passage we read, " And another of his disciples said to him," &c. From this it seems that the above Scribe had become his scholar or disciple. As a farther proof of the correlative nature of teacher and scholar, read Matt. 6: 11. " And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with publicans and sinners?" " Master" and " servant" are correlatives-not master and disciples -not teacher and servants. The following passage notes, clearly, both relationships. Matt. 10: 24, 25. " The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his Lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher, and the servant as his Lord." When one came to him to be taught he said, " Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have life eternal." Matt. 19: 16. When the Pharisees sent their disciples with the Herodians to him to entangle him in his conversation, they approached him in his character as a teacher and said, " Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth," &c. Again, as if they would be taught by him, they said, " Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" How beautiful is the relation of disciples and teacher expressed by our Lord in the message he gave to his disciples when he said to them, " Go into the city and say to such a man} The Teacher says, iy time approaches. I will keep the passover at thy house with my scholars" or disciples. Matt. 26: 18. This relationship is entirely obscured in the Common Version of Matthew. The word is mistranslated in every instance. Since the American and Foreign Bible Society have done themselves so much credit by the emendations they have made, will they not revise these passages? And as the American Bible Society has made nearly twenty-four thousand corrections of the " authorized version" will they not " collate" these passages? No sect will be implicated by the change. Certainly those who object to a revision of the English version of the Scriptures, merely on the ground of sympathy for sectarianism, ought not to object to revision where no sect can be injured by a correct translation. And if they have more respect for " the various christian denominations, than for a pure version of the Holy Wri 46 THE REVISER. tings, this will not answer as an apology for not correcting such passages as have no bearing on "denominational" peculiarities. Why not, then, correct the translation of this word? AEairror/-= MASTER. That master and servant, or master and slave, are correlatives, as are teacher and scholar, will appear from the following passages. Luke 2: 29. "Now, (ALearora) Master, thou lettest thy servant (rv d6oViX6v aov) depart in peace according to thy word." The word despotes is the word from which we derive our "despot." And the word doulos is used for bond-man. Simeon acknowledged himself a bond-man to the Lord-conceded. God's right of property in him. So says an Apostle; " glorify God with your bodies and spirits which are his." When he called himself a servant, he called God his despot or master, as when Christ is called a teacher, his followers are called disciples or scholars. This relation is farther evident from the words of Peter and John, (Acts 4: 24.) "Master, thou art the God who made the heaven, and the land, and the sea, and all that is in them." In 2 Pet. 2: 1, where the idea of a purchase is introduced, the term (6edarorrlv) is employed thus: " destructive sects, denying even the Master who purchased them, bringing on themselves speedy destruction." This is the relation of Master and bond-man-where the right of property is justly claimed by the former, and cheerfully conceded by the faithful Christian, and denied only by the " destructive sects" who work out their own destruction. Jude, 4 v. is a similar instance. "Impious men, changing the favor of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Master, God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." The souls of those who had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held, cried with a loud voice, "How long, O Master, the holy, and the true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" These bond-men, bound to God by purchase and love, looked to him for justice, as between them and their murderers. In all these places, Master, is the appropriate interpretation of the word (dearrorq;-.) As teacher will not agree with the relation between Master and bond-man; so neither will Master agree with the relation between Teacher and disciple, or scholar. The above passages all have relation to God as a Master, and Christians as his bond-men —men bought and owned by himbought, bodies and spirits; hence the obligation to glorify Him with both. TEACHER, NOT MASTER. 47 The same relation, as it regards the bodies of men, existed under the civil regulations of society in the days of the Apostle. Hence we have the frequent mention of master and servant, or bond-man. " Let as many bond-men as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the word of God, and his doctrine be not traduced." 1 Tim. 6: 1. " Exhort bond-men to be obedient to their own masters, and to please them well in all things," &c. Titus 2:9. But bond-men are found not only in connection with (deo'aolT-) master, but also with Kvpto'-=LORD. This connection occurs nineteen times in the book of the Nativity of Jesus Christ by Matthew, nine times in the Treatise of Luke to Theophilus, once in the Testimony of John, once in the Acts of Apostles, once in Ephesians and once in Colossians. It is also found twice in connection with (oltKo0d7'oroTr') a house-master, in Matthew. In the first instance it is written, "The disciple is not above his Teacher, nor the bond-man above his Lord. It is sufficient that the disciple be as his Teacher, and the bond-man as his Lord." The relation between Teacher and disciple, and Lord and servant is clear in this passage. Lord and servants are words employed, in Acts 4: 29, in reference to God, and Peter and John. " And now, Lord, look on their threatening, and grant to thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word," But in Eph. 6: 5 the same words are used of men and their servants. "Servants be obedient to the Lords according to flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your hearts as to the Christ." "According to flesh," distinguishes human lords from the Divine Lord, and limits their power to the bodies or flesh, while the mind and conscience should be free to God. In the parable of the King who reckoned with his servants, (Matt. 18: 23,) the terms Lord and servants frequently occur in the following manner; namely, "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshiped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, 48 THE REVISER. and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that- he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldst not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my Heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses." In this paragraph these facts are to be noted as connected with servants and Lords, but not with servants and masters. 1. Between this Lord and his servants there was an account of debt and credit kept. 2. The first servartt called to settlement was found to be insolvent. 3. The Lord required that the servant, his wife, and his children, should be sold for the payment of what the servant owed him. 4. The servant prostrated himself and did his Lord homage, and entreated him to be patient with him and he would pay him all that he owed him. 5. The Lord out of compassion forgave him the debt. 6. There was an account kept between this servant and his fellowservants. 7. These servants had the power of imprisoning each other for debt. From these facts it would seem that the relation between Lords and servants, was different from that between Masters and servants; the master having the right of property in his servants, and the Lord not having this right. For if the Lord had the right of property in the servants, one servant could not take his fellow from his Lord's employ and imprison him for debt. The same principle of labor and wages between Lords and servants is recognized by Paul in his letter to the Colossians, (4: 1) in the following language. "Lords, the just and the equal give to the asrvants, knowing that vou also have a Lord in heaven." SINGULAR ENTREATY. 49 The King's revisers have rendered the Greek word for teacher, and also the Greek word for Lord, by Master, thus confounding teacher, lord, and master. Misthios is used (Luke 15: 1 7, 19,) for a hired servant, and misthotos (Mark 1: 20,) for the same, and (in John 10: 12, 13,) for a hireling. " Teacher" never refers to servants, or bond-men, but always to disciple or scholar. " Lord" and " Master" never refer to disciple, or scholar, but always to servants or bond-men. It is therefore wrong to use these words interchangeably. A master is not a teacher, nor is he a Lord. A lord is not a teacher. He is a master, and more than a master. He seems to be connected with civil rule. He was a nobleman, (Luke 19: 12, 16, 18,) who went into a far country to receive a kingdom. Masters and Teachers did not go abroad on such business. Why should not all Bible Societies always translate didaskalos teacher, despotes, master, and kurios, lord? What apology can they offer to the public, or to God, for circulating false translations of the Scriptures?-translations which their learned men know to be false? Can such men be strictly honest?-men who fear God and reverence his word? Closely connected with our subject is a passage (John 13: 13, 14,) the beauty and force of which are entirely lost in the Common Version. "You call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am," is a very deficient rendering of the words of our Saviour. " You title me, The Teacher and, The Lord, and you designate well, for I am." And farther; "If I, then, The Lord and The Teacher have washed your feet, you ought also to wash each other's feet." SINGULAR ENTREATY, " Authorized" by the King of the English, but not by the King of the Jews. Entreat, signifies to supplicate, to beseech. It is written in " the authorized version" (Matt. 22: 6,) "And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them." That is, according to the present signification of entreat, they supplicated them spitefully!-they besought them spitefully! Will the Bible Societies correct this error? It may be said that this mistake is so manifest that any child that can read is able to correct it. Well, if a child is at liberty to correct it, we should think a Bible Society is. And 7 50 THE REVISER. if a child is obliged to correct it, in order to understand it, a Bible Society should do it to save the child the trouble. But it is conceding much to say that the " authorized version" is so manifestly incorrect that a child can discover it. And if a child cannot discover the error, the Societies should certainly correct it for the sake of the child. The same error exists in Luke 18: 32. It is said the Saviour should be mocked and spitefully entreated. It should be, spitefully treated. THE REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. Our able Reviser prefers the word "godliness" as the apprropriate word for the Greek (ev3ecta) piety. This noun is derived from (ei) much, and (aieow) to revere; and etymologically signifies, much reverence. The verb (evvef3oeo) signifies, to revere much-the adjective (E~ve;of-) reverential, pious, devout, and the adverb (evaePi;') reverentially, piously. The appropriate Greek word for " godly" is (Oei~a-) theias; and Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva, translate 2 Pet. 1 3. According as "his godly power" has given unto us, &c. This is a correct rendering, because (Oeia;-) theias is from (0eo,) theos, God; and signifies, godly or godlike, divine. The fact that the New Testament was divided between several scholars for revision by King James, will account for the want of uniformity in interpreting this word, and many others also. Those who revised Acts 3: 12, rendered the word (evaelta) by "holiness," and those who revised the Epistles, uniformly by, " godliness." The former followed Tyndale, the latter Cranmer. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and the Common Version, render this word by "godliness" in all the epistles-Wiclif always, and the Rhemish generally, by "piety." All of them render the verb (eV3aeP3OEe) worship, in Acts 17: 23, " Whom therefore you ignorantly worship" &c. 1 Tim. 5: 4 where the Greek has the noun (edaeo3edv acu. sing,) Wiclif reads, let the widow learn first "to govern her house"-Tyndale, "to rule their own houses Godly," and so Cranmer also —the Geneva, "to show godliness to their houses"-the Rhemish, "to rule her own house," and the Common Version, (in this instance the best of them all,) " to show piety at home." In Acts 10: 2, Wiclif and the Rhemish interpret (evaeg3;') eusebes " religious." Cornelius was a religious man. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and Common Version, "a devout man." The word is not interpreted at all in v. 7, by Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Com TIlE REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 51 mon Version reads " a devout soldier"-the Geneva, "a soldier that feared God; " and the Rhemish, " a soldier that feared our Lord." Wiclif and the Rhemish both overlook this word in the translation of Acts 22: 12. But Tyndale and Crannmer both translate (evaesf3') " perlfect." " Ananias a perfect man." The Geneva " a Godly man,', and the Common Version " a devout man." Wiclif translates, it in 2 Pet. 2: 9, the Lord can deliver " piteuous" men out of temptation. All the others "godly." In 2 Tim. 3: 12, Wiclif translates (eva/3o'-) by "faithfully." The others "godly." In Tit. 2: 12 the word (eafEeLtav) esebeian, Wiclif interprets "wickedness"-the Rhemish, "impiety"-the others "ungodliness." Eusebos (Evaef3oc) Wiclif renders "piously" and the others " godly." Our objections to the interpretation of this word by the word "godly" are the same which we urge against the phrases "God forbid," "God speed," and "God save the King," namely; 1. There is no authority in the Scriptures for taking such liberty with the name of God. His name is " holy and reverend." It is a consecrated name, and therefore should not be used for the purpose of expressing any quality or attribute of men. 2. The word found its way into the Sacred Scriptures in a profane. age by means of improper translation, and should, therefore, be thrown out in the forth-coming Revision, and its place supplied by "'piety" or some other appropriate word. 3. It is a breach of the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." It is thought by many to be wicked to call any man " Reverend." Is it not much worse to call a man " Godly," or Godlike? The name of the Supreme is " holy and reverend," not that either of these terms is his proper name, but that holiness and reverence are ascribed to his name. But " God" is his proper name, and should not be used, either alone, or in composition with any other word for the purpose of expressing any quality of a human being. That we have become familiar with the profanity is no excuse. We might excuse any other crime or misdemeanor in the same way. The other profane renderings, "God forbid," "God speed," and "God save the King," are equally familiar, but are not therefore respectful to the Divinity. They are as direct violations of the above commandment as when first uttered. I hope that our final Revision will be purified of all such improprieties. The Common Version of 1 Tim. 2:10 is defective. Here we 52 THE REVISER. have (evae3eea) the Greek word for piety, which the authors of that revision translate godliness, in composition with God, (9eoae/3eta) and they render it also "godliness." The clause containing this word should be interpreted, women professing piety or reverence to God. Theosebes (0eoaesr/O3) is once used (in John 9: 31) and rendered a worshiper of God. "But if any man be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth." Reverence is the prominent idea in the word translated " godliness." Inferior beings may be the objects of it, and, in that case, it is not the (Eoaeoq) worship or the reverence of the Deity of which the blind man spoke. The word relates more to the sentiments, and feelings of the heart, than to any overt acts, and therefore the distinction between reverencing or worshiping God and keeping his commandmnents. If any man reverence God, and doeth his will; he hears him. It is probable that the professing communities of this age are more deficient in reverence to God than.in anything else. How few there are who feel the profound awe for the great God which is becoming in us! If we enjoy daily a kind of religious glow, we think we are pious! We revere great men, but forget the Eternal Majesty of the heavens. Let us have grace by which we may serve God "with modesty and circumspection. For even our God is a consuming fire." "Jehovah is in his holy temple! Keep silence all the earth before him." COMMON VERSION OF GEN. 1: 6. "Let there be a firmament." A man who is ambitious of the unenviable reputation of an opponent of the only rational system of religion known to men, and who has endeavored for a while past to obtain notoriety in Ohio and Philadelphia, objects to the inspiration of Moses, and to his veracity, or the truth of his account of the creation of our solar system, because he said that God said, "Let there be a firmament." This man, as we are informed, was once a methodist preacher, and if so, should have known that the Sacred Historian never wrote the words imputed to him. The word employed by Moses (>'P, rakia, from sp', raka, " to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavillion" means an expance, and not a firmament. " Firmament" is an erroneous translation of the word used by Moses. The ancient Greeks imagined a COMMON VERSION OF GENESIS 1: 6. 53 solid substance over head, in which the stirs were placed, and they called it, (arepeowtLa, from arepeoo to make solid or firm) a firmament. The Alexandrian Version, commonly called the Septuagint, which our readers know to be an ancient translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, favors the Grecian philosophy. The Vulgate translated, according to the above Greek version firmamentum, and the English translators followed it and gave us firmament. We have said this is an erroneous translation. The Hebrew word does not signify a firm substance, as is evident from its derivation. Moreover the fowls could not fly in a solid substance, and we read in v. 20 that God made the fowls that they might " fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven," or rather, in the open expance of heaven. The whole difficulty arises out of an entire misapprehension of the meaning of the Hebrew word; and the question to be settled is, shall this error remain uncorrected to the prejudice of revelation, or shall it be corrected? Are Bible Societies doing the will of God by circulating copies of his revelation which they know to be wrongly translated, and when the error renders the truth of the book questionable. Were this correction made it would show that Moses was far in advance of the ancient philosophers, and no good reason could be assigned for it, except that he was taught by the great Architect Himself. The more closely these ancient records are studied in their originals the more is the student confirmed in his confidence in their divinity, because of their perfect agreement with all true discoveries of moderns in the physical sciences. It is but a few years since it was noticed that Moses gives no date to the creation of the materials of which the globe is composed. That he did not make that any part of the six days labor was entirely overlooked. But when the young science of geology showed that the globe must have been created long before the time supposed, and infidelity endeavoured to discredit the statements of Moses thereby, it was found on turning to his writings that he had intimated the same thing several thousand years before there was any such science as geology known. Instead of any modern discoveries contradicting the statements of Moses they only illustrate his intimations, and confirm his testimony, when his words are faithfully translated. Moses' expance embraces all our atmosphere, and the entire space occupied by the whole solar system, together with all the vast fields of light, and the starry heavens which surround our system-far as 54 THE REVISER. the rays of the sun have traveled, or the light of stars has shonethe boundless field for the exercise of a]lmigihty energies, swarming with worlds and systems of wollds; each system always occupying its own plain, and each world rolling in its own ample orbit, all governed by one universal law of harmony-all teeming with varied vitalities-and all, marching to the time marked by the Eternal, perform the music of the spheres-all in grand and glorious concert, constitute the orchestra of the universe; and, in their living voices, when governed by the laws ordained for their rule, contribute to the performance of the divine oratorio composed by the Almighty Himself, for the glory and pleasure of the Godhead! The universal theme is, " O Lord, Thou art worthy to receive the glory, and the honor, and the power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created." Such is the expance of Moses, who was taught by a greater than Newton, or Herschel; and such his luminaries placed in " the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth." " Praise JEIOVAH. Praise (>5h55~) the strong God in his holy place. Praise Him in the (rakia) expance of his power-praise him for His mighty acts-praise Him for His excellent greatness-praise Him with the sound of the trumpet-praise him with (nebel) the hollow stringed instrument, and with the Harp-praise him with the timbrel, (toph, a drum,) and pipe-praise Him with (minnim) strings put in order,* and with (ugab) the mouth organs —praise him on the loud cymbals-praise him on the high sounding cymbals. Let every thing which has breath praise JEHOVAH. HALLELUJAH." The God of Revelation, is the God of the universe. ADDRESSt Of DR. SILAS E. SHEPARD, of New-York, before the Philadelphia Bible Union at its first Anniversary. MR. PRESIDENT: —I can, on this occasion, adopt the language of Festus, on a different occasion, by substituting for King Agrippa my audience, and the Common version of the Sacred Scriptures for Paul, against whom many and grievous charges were made by the Jews. " For it seemeth to me unreasonable to" condemn the revision of * With instruments well tuned. t Published by request. AN ADDRESS. 55 King James, " and not withal to signify the charges against" it. I shall, therefore, prefer specific charges and sustain them by evidence which no person can reasonably doubt. I shall be more particular to do this, for the reason that many gentlemen of influence among the community are so loud in praise of what they improperly call "King James's Translation of the Scriptures." 1. There is not, and there never was, such a work extant. King James never translated, nor procured a translation of the Scriptures. He was not qualified for the work of translation, nor were the dignitaries of his Church. No man can translate a work which he does not understand. And no man who is acquainted with the religious views of King James and his " revisers," and also with the writings of the New Testament, can believe that any of them understood that volume. They were all semi-papists, who rely more on the writings of " the fathers" than on "the living oracles." In proof of the fact that James never translated, nor procured a translation of the Scriptures, I adduce the testimony of Mr. MCCLURE, who has lately published a book, the title, or rather the label of which is, "The Translators Revived." This work is published for the express purpose of sustaining the popular version, and, although it consists of 250 pages, and is entitled "The Translators Revived," there are only 146 pages devoted to these men! The author sat out with a design to " write a book," which should do honor to " the translators," and the subject was so barren that he found it necessary to devote 73 pages to his preface, contents and introduction; and 29 pages to his "conclusion"! Moreover, it is a book of "heavy metal," for it is leaded and spaced so liberally that the words may well complain of the want of society. But the Author did well. He made a book of respectable size out of a very few materials. His apology for saying no more of his " translators" is a good one, and should be received as valid. He says that his attention was directed to the subject " more than twenty years since," that " he expected to satisfy himself without difficulty, but found himself sorely disappointed,"-that "of the translators personally, little more was told than a meagre catalogue of their names, with brief notices of such offices as a few of them held." The Author quite despaired of ever being able to identify the greater part of them, by anything more than their surnames." But, being determined on resurrecting these sages, he "devoted much of his time to searching public libraries," and "b y degrees, recovered from oblivion 56 THE REVISER. one by one of these worthies, till only two of them, Fairclough and San(lerson remain " without identity! Now, permit me, Mr. President, to ask this audience what means all this boasting of the superior learning and piety of these obliviated translators? Where is the evidence of their superior learning? What monument have they left behind them? It is only 242 years since their revision of Tyndale and Rogers was published. The art of printing was then well understood and successfully practiced. Learned works which existed for centuries in manuscript, have reached us, but nothing from these paragonic scholars and saints evincing either piety or learning. It is urged that their " translation" is the proof of their learning. But we affirm, and proceed to prove by their Reviver, that they did not translate the Scriptures. He says, (page 59,) " Thus it came to pass, that the English Bible received its present form, after a fivefold revision of the translation as it was left in 1537 by Tyndale and Rogers." He says, on the same page, that the first revision of the sacred Text, by the whole company, occupied about four years." Here the Reviver calls it a revision; and on the same page he says that " the second revision by a Committee of twelve of them, took up nine months more." It is proved, then, that they did not make this translation and therefore the translation is no proof of their learning. That 49 men should be occupied four years, and twelve of them nine months more, in making the alterations which they made in the version of Tyndale and Rogers, is a proof of anything but competency for the work in which they were engaged. The Reviver himself says that the reputation of the translation depends on the eminent qualifications of the revisers for the work. These are his words: " Unless it can be proved that they were, as a body, eminently fitted to do this work as it ought to be done, it can have no claim to be regarded as a " finality" in the matter of furnishing a translation of the Word of God for the English-speaking populations of the globe." What, then, is the true state of the case? Why, he has himself furnished the proof of the obscurity of these men. He has written their biography, on an average, in 60 lines each, and these well spaced out. With all his desire to make a respectable book, by leads and spaces, he wrote his biography of Clark in 12 lines; of Peryn and Brainthwaite, in 11 each; of Radcliff, Laifield, and King, 9 each; of R. Andrews and Ward, in 8 each; of Ravens in 7; of Hutchinson and M. Sanderson, in 5 each; of Burleigh in 4; of Spalding in 3 1-2; and of Rabbet, in 2 1-2 lines! AN ADDRESS. 57 I now affirm, Mr. President, that the evidence of the learning and piety of these men is yet to be produced-that, after the earnest twenty years' search of the Reviver, in and out of public libraries, he has utterly failed to produce any other conviction than that these men, or, at least, most of them, would have slept in eternal oblivion, had not King James caused their names to be catalogued as translators. As a body, they were not respectable scholars of their own age. Without any evidence of either the learning or piety of these men, " as a body," we are called on, in 1853, to receive their revision of Tyndale and Roger's version!-gotten up to favor the Church of England. 2. Mr. President, I affirm that the common version is decidedly sectarian. No church was represented among the revisers of King James, except the Church of England. All the translators were of that persecuting sect. Moreover, they were headed by Richard Bancroft, who is called the "chief overseer and taskmaster, under His Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound," said these revisers. The Reviver of the revisers tells us that Dr. Bancroft, Bishop of London, was appointed to see that the King's intentions in regard to the revision were carried out. Now, what were the intentions of his Majesty. The appointment of such men, all from his own sect, with Dr. Bancroft at their head, sufficiently shows. He was a bigoted sectarian, and a persecutor; a fit man for such a king, such revisers, and for the purpose for which they were chosen. The intention of his Majesty can be inferred from the character of the man whom he chose to carry out his design. Our Reviver of the " translators," in resurrecting them, brings up Dr. Bancroft, but it is to the "resurrection of damnation," or condemnation; for he tells us that in one year after he became archbishop, " such was his fury in pressing conformity, that not less than 300 ministers were suspended, deprived, excommunicated, imprisoned or forced to leave the country, He was indeed a terrible churchman of harsh and stern temper. Bishop Kennett, in his History of England, styles him'a sturdy piece'; and says "he proceeded with rigor, severity, and wrath, against the puritans. He was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, sort of British Inquisition." Now, if the King chose such a "chief overseer," what kind of revisers would he be likely to choose? And if he chose such " a taskmaster under his majesty," what was the prob8 58 THE REVISER. able task he desired to have performed? A revision to favor his sect. "Scotland" says Mr. MicClure, "owes his memory a grudge for his unwearied endeavors to force Episcopacy upon that people. He was equally strenuous for the divine rights of kings and of diocesan bishops." A fit man this, to oversee such revisers as such a king desired for such a work! He acted in acordance with his "Majesty's intentions," when he forced on the revisers sixteen changes too absurd even for their consciences. When a King selects revisers all from his own church, and puts them under the comnmand of such a champion, no man of sense and reflection can fail to know his object. Bancroft knew that there could not be a bishop without a " bishopric," and therefore he compelled the revisers to use that word in the first chapter of Acts. This is a glaring perversion of (teen episcopeen) the original, and Bancroft knew it. It should have been renderd "his oversight," or office. He also compelled them to translate (hierosulous) Acts 19: 37, "robbers of churches," when he knew that the word meant robbers of temples, or temple robbers, and that it referred to heathen temples. This gave authority for calling houses for religious convocations, churches. So, by a false translation of one passage, he laid a foundation for English prelacy, and by the same violence to the Word of God, he transferred the name of a congregation to the house in which they convened. When Dr. Miles Smith, one of the principal men engaged in that work, assigned a reason for permitting, the Archbishops's alterations, he is reported to have said, " He is so potent, there is contradicting him"! What a proof of a sectarian translation! And must it be forced on all the people, who now speak, or may hereafter speak, the English language! Forbid it, Heaven! I have proved this version a sectarian translation, to some extent, even by " The Translators Revived," and shall now introduce another document for the same purpose It is the dedication of the version to the King by the "translators" themselves. Out of their own mouths will we judge them: "To THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE JAMES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING OF GREAT RRITAIN FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &C., the Translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and peace, through JESUS CHRIST our Lord. " Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us, AN ADDRESS. 59 the people of England, when first he sent your majesty's Royal person to rule and reign over us. For, whereas, it was the expectation of many, who wished not well to OUR SION, that upon the setting of that bright occidental star, Queen Elizabeth, of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this land that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk," &c. The third paragraph contains the following: " And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe that the zeal of your Majesty toward THE HOUSE OF GOD doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, maifesting itself abroad in the fartherest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the Truth.... and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting THE HOUSE OF GOD, by hearing the word preached, by CHERISHING THE TEACHERS THEREOF; BY CARING FOR THE CHURCH, as a most tender, and loving nursing father." The fourth paragraph contains these remarkable words: " there are infinite arguments of this right Christian affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others, than the vehement and perpetual desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now, with all humility we present unto Your Majesty." The fourth paragraph begins as follows: "And now, at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labors, it being brought unto SUCH a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that THE CIIURCH OF ENGLAND shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer to Your Maje ty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author the work." &c. The phrases " our Sion," " the house of God," and " the church of England," all refer to the same thing. Now, here are a board of professed translators for all that read the English language-all belonging to one sect, with King James at its head, (and he a most irreligious prince, but a violent advocate of that sect,) all denying any " Sion" of God, any house of God, any church, but " the Church of England," and commending their work to this wicked prince, because they had " great hopes that the Church of England would reap good fruit thereby." Nay, they declare that they believed that they had brought it " unto such a conclusion," and, therefore, they felt "it their duty to offer it" His Majesty! If this state of facts does not prove that the Common Version of the English Scriptures was 60 THE REVISER. conceived, and brought forth of the rankest sectarianism, then there is an end to all proof, and logic is an abortion. Thus far, Mr. President, I have summoned no witness but " King James's Translators," and their Reviver. I have proved by the Reviver that he set out "more than twenty years since" with this inquiry: "What were the personal qualifications for their work possessed by King James's Translators of the Bible? "-that " he expected to satisfy himself without difflculty, but found himself SORELY DISAPPOINTED; " that "of the translators personally, little more was told than a meagre catalogue of their names, with brief notices of such offices as afew of them held." " As a body," they are men without any just pretensions to literary fame, even in their renewed, revived or resurrected state. Let us not be told again that they were learned men. And, if the King who selected them, and the Archbishop who directed them, and who would have things in his own way, were specimens of their piety, if they have " whereof to glory," it is " not before God," nor man. I have proved by "the Translators" themselves, that they were a Board of Sectarians-summoned by a sectarian King, to do a sectarian work; and that they hoped that they had fully accomplished their task, after a labor of four years and nine months, so that " the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby." Before I proceed to prove, from the volume itself, the character of the work, permit me to show, from the "'Translators Revived," that their work needs revision. On page 25 he says, " The changes made in these revisions, though GENERALLY for the better, were not always so. The substitution of the word charity, where Tyndale had used love, was not a happy change; neither was that of church, where he had employed congregation." The Reviver also, takes exceptions to the word " bishopric," and " churches," where heathen temples are mentioned. Thus from his specifications, we prove the necessity of revision. The American Bible Union has selected scholars from seven "Evangelical sects," and put the common version into their hands and.said: " Revise this work until it shall conform, most faithfully, to the language in which it was written, and we will pay you for your labor and furnish you with all the learned works on translations which can be procured. Thus we leave the revisers to God, their consciences, and the sacred originals." The common version has never given satisfaction. It has been the subject of criticism from the time of its publication to the present AN ADDRESS. 61 hour. Myriads of revisions have been made in every generation and in every pulpit. IIow common is it to hear the learned teachers of all denominations say to their hearers, " This should have been translated thus, and thus." All parties agree that the common version is not a faithful interpretation of the mind of God, as expressed in the languages in which He revealed His will to man. But learned authors of all sects have clearly demonstrated its unfaithfulness. For instance, Dr. George Campbell-do not be alarmed, my friends, this is not A. Campbell, but THE Campbell of Aberdeen, the Presbyterian Campbell. Well, he has given a " Translation of the four Gospels," which is infinitely better than the common version of that portion of the Scriptures. Dr. Doddridge, I think an Independent, has furnished a much better rendering of the Acts and Revelations. Dr. McNight has convicted the common translation of many inaccuracies in his translation of the Epistles of Paul. Professor Stuart of Andover, has much improved the translation, or, rather, has given a much better rendering of the Book of Daniel, the Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews, and the Revelation. Wesley, Clark, and other scholars among the Methodists, have contributed to this department of sacred literature. These are only a few out of the many who have proved the necessity of revision. Gill and Fuller, among the baptized, advocated revision in the English Scriptures. The fact is, that they had been impeached by every class of critics, and no man who regards his reputation as a scholar ought to oppose a new version of the Sacred Writings into the English language. The spread of our vernacular, which ceases not to be heard the world around, day or night, demands something better than " King James's Version." Our language has become the language of the arts and sciences, of literature and commerce; and bids fair, in the millenium, if there shall be but one language, to be dignified with that honor. Why, then, shall we continue to " howbeit," to " do you to wit," to " seeth flesh," "sod pottage," and we " wot not what," with King James's sectarians? God grant that the American Bible Union may give us a version perfect and complete, wanting nothing; and one which shall not lislp to the ths of 300 years ago, but shall bear the stamp of this age in which it is made! I come now to produce specific evidence of sectarianism in the common version itself, and will begin with the word "deacon," 62 THE REVISER. This is a translation of the Greek noun diakonos. They sometimes translate this word "servant;" sometimes, " minister," and, in two places, "deacon," Phil. I: 1, and 1 Tim. 3: 8, 10 12. We will examine a few passages, and1. We say that "deacon" in the times of King James, signified one of the inferior clergy, and for that reason is a false and sectarian translation. Our first passage is Matt. 20: 26. To show the impropriety of translating the word "deacon," we will substitute it where the original, diakonos, occurs. " But whosoever will be great among you, let him be your (diakonos) minister"-deacon. Matt. 22: 13. The King who made a marriage party, found among the guests a man who had no wedding garment on, " and he said to the deacons Bind hint hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness." Matt. 23: 11. "But he that is greatest among you shall be your deacon." Mark 11: 35. " If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and deacon of all." John 2: 5, 9. When Jesus attended a marrriage in Cana of Galilee, and the wine was exhausted, his mother told the deacons, Do whastoever he says to you. When the water was converted into wine, the ruler did not know where it was procured; but "the deacons who drew the water, knew." John 12: 26. "Where I am, there shall my deacon be." Rom. 13: 4. The civil ruler is the subject of discourse, of whom the Apostle says, " For he is the deacon of God to thee for good."-" he is the deacon of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rom. 15: 8. "Now, I say that Jesus Christ was a deacon of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers." Did Jesus Christ belong to the inferior order of the clergy? Rom. 16 1. "I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea." It would not answer the purpose of "the Church of England," to translate this deaconess, although she was a deaconess of afi apostolic church; for this reason, the Apostolic Church and " the church of England," are very differently organized, the former having a deaconess, but the latter having none. Now, if the Church of England had had such an officer would not this word have been translated deaconess. Witness the sectarianism! 1 Cor. 3: 5. "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but deacons by whom ye believe?" 2 Cor. 3: 6. " Who also has made us able deacons of the New Testament." 6 4. " But in all things proving ourselves the deacons of God." 11: 15. It is, said that as Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, it is not AN ADDRESS. 63 marvellous that " his deacons also should be transformed into deacons of righteousness. We suppose that, as Satan's church is so much larger than the " Church of England," it is quite as much entitled to an "inferior order of clergy." But perhaps, as his church is not limited to England, and not of England, the "translators" were not doing service directly to him. 11: 23. Paul says of some who opposed him, "Are they deacons of Christ? So am I." Gal. 2: 17, " but if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore, Christ the deacon of sin? Eph. 3: 7. Paul says he was made a deacon of the Gospel. 6: 21. Tychicus is called a faithful deacon in the Lord. Col. 1: 7. Epaphras is called " a faithful deacon of Christ." 1 Thess. 3: 2. "and sent Timotheus, our brother, and deacon of God." 1. Tim. 4 6. " If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good deacon of Jesus Christ." Now, if we substitute the Episcopal definition of Deacon-one of the inferior clergy —for the word itself, we shall see the reason why they trifled with the Sacred Text as they did. Their sectarian church had an inferior clergy, and they crowded the name of an officer of that rank into their translation. If we adopt their notion of a deacon, and then translate the original uniformly by that word, we shall read, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your inferior clergyman. The king said to the inferior clergy, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness. It makes of the civil ruler an inferior clergyman of God. It makes Jesus Christ an inferior clergyman of the circumcision. The truth is, these men were not qualified for faithful revisers; if they had been, James would never have employed them to do his work. They were not honest men: for they said of King James what they knew was not true, when they eulogized him as a Christian, in their dedication. Do you suppose, my friends, if the Church of England had had no inferior clergy, that the word deacon would have been found in our version. They have translated.it by " minister" and "servant" in all places except two. Why make these cases exceptions? The answer is plain. For the sake of the sect. The word episcopos they translated uniformly by bishop except in one case. Why did they not so render it in that place a? Because it would have been fatal to their notion of prelacy. The place in which they did not translate the episcopos of the Greek by the bishop 64 THE REVISER. of the English, is in the 20th chapter of the Acts, where Paul told the Elders of Ephesus that the Holy Spirit had made them bishops, or overseers of the church; which proves that elders and bishops, in apostolic times and churches, were the same. This annihilates, forever, the " superior order of the clergy," and, therefore, these despicable king-pleasing, sect sustaining, and dishonest revisers garbled the English language to obscure the truth of God. I hope, Mr. President, that we shall hear no more the charge of sectarianism urged against the American Bible Union, by those who advocate and glorify "King James's Translators," or favor their revision of Tyndale and Rogers. We are destined, through the instrumentality of this Union, to furnish all English readers with a faithful version of a Book which surpasses, infinitely, all others. We shall do it in spite of all opposition, for God is with us. We thank him most sincerely for the great encouragement we receive from all parts of the country. Yes, my friends, I thank God even for the opposition he permits to this great work. For a long time I could not see why he did permit it. But I see now, that it is designed to compel us to make thorough work, and produce a version which will pass through a fiery trial, and come out without injury-without the smell of fire on it. The revisers feel that their work is to pass through a severe ordeal. God grant us all the opposition we need, and may he spare us to see this glorious work perfected, and permit the American Bible Union to give the Word of God, faithfully translated, to all nations of the earth. The enterprise is worthy of the age and the men who are engaged in it; and I feel gratified, Mr. President, to stand here, in part, as the representative of a membership of about three hundred thousand disciples of Christ who will bring with them an influence of more than a million and a quarter of souls, to the aid of this philanthropic and christian design. 2 SAMUEL XVII: 17. " And a wench went and told them." The Hebrew has here is, shiphchah, which, I think, the King's revisers in all other places have translated either, hand maid, bond maid, maiden, woman servant, maid servant, and servant. Dr. Clarke justly observes that " The word wench occurs nowhere else in the Holy Scriptures; and, indeed, has no business here." THE TITLES OF THE EPISTLES. 65 THE TITLES OF THE EPISTLES. To those acquainted with Christian literature it is unnecessary to say that the titles of the Epistles, placed before them, are no part of the Inspired Volume. But if it be thpught necessary to affix titles to them, they should be such as are in accordance with the inscriptions of these compositions. Thus instead of the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Corinthians, we should have for the first, The Epistle of Paul, and Sosthenes to the Congregation of God in Corinth. See 1 Cor. 1 1. For the 2nd, The Epistle of Paul and Timothy to the Congregation of God in Corinth. See 2 Cor. 1: 1. The Epistle of Paul and Timothy to the Sanctified in Philippi. See Phil. 1: 1. The Epistle of Paul and Timothy to the Sanctified in Colosse. Ch. 1: 1. The first Epistle of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the Congregation of the Thessalonians. 4ph. ch. 1: 1. The second Epistle of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy to the Congregation -of the Thessalonians. The Epistle of Paul and Timothy to Philemon. The first error in the common titles consists in representing Paul alone as writing these Epistles. The second in misrepresenting the addresses. The Epistle,of Paul and Sosthenes is, in the common title, addressed " to the Corinthians," whereas it was addressed to the Congregation of God in Corinth. The same error is committed in the title of the Epistle of Paul and Timothy to the Congregation of God in Corinth. The Epistle of Paul and Timothy was not addressed to the Philippians, but to the Sanctified in Philippi. The Epistle of Paul and Timothy was not addressed to the Colossians, but to the Sanctified, and Faithful in Colosse. The Epistles of Paul, Silvanus and Timothy were neither of them addressed to the Thessalonians, but to the Congregation of the Thessalonians. It may be thought by some that these corrections ought not to be made, especially as it relates to attributing the Epistles to Paul alone. But why not? The answer is, that we have no authority for such a change-that they have always been attributed to Paul alone. This is not true, as the Epistles themselves show. Tradition concerning them cannot be quite as old as they are. And no authority can be equal to their own positive statement. If "Paul an Apostle of Jesus-to Timothy" is proof that Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy, then this kind of address with Timothy, or others, with Paul, proves his, or their participation in the Epistles where his, or their names 9 66 THE REVISER. occur. The Epistle to the Ccngregations in Galatia was written by Paul and his associates, as its introduction proves, although their names are not mentioned. There was much more concert among the Apostles and those who labored with them, than many suppose. All the primitive teachers concurred in all that the Apostles spoke and wrote. They had no doctrine but the doctrine of the Lord, and they respected his Apostles. The Apostles, too, always respected the Ministry in all its branches. Hence such Ministers as were with Paul, joined him in his letters. The office of christian teaching, in the Apostolic age, constituted what was called "the ministry." Timothy was required to make full proof of his "ministry." The teachers of that age were spiritual men, that is, they enjoyed spiritual gifts and there was no impropriety in associating them with the Apostles,.as in the introduction to these Epistles. We give below the very sensible remarks of Dr. Macknight on this subject, in his preface to the first Epistle of Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy to the Congregation of the Thessalonians. "The proofs of the Divine original of the gospel above-mentioned, being all founded on matters of fact, it is evident that their credibility does not depend on the authority, or office, or station, of the persons who have asserted them; but on their capacity and integrity, and on the number, the capacity, and the integrity of the witnesses in whose presence they are said tb have happened, and who are appealed to for the truth of them; together with the conviction which these facts wrought in the minds of the witnesses, and the alteration which the belief of them produce in their after-conduct. I call the reader's attention to this observation; because it shows the reason why Paul and his assistants, who have asserted these facts, and who have appealed to the Thessalonians as knowing the truth of them, have not, in the inscription of their letter, assumed to themselves the titles either of Apostles or Evangelists, but have designated themselves simply by their names-Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy. "Farther, though i-t was proper that Paul, who was the chief preacher and worker of miracles, should be the writer of this letter to the Thessalonians, yet, as Silvanus and Timothy had assisted him in preaching, and had themselves wrought miracles among the Thessalonians, and were teachers of the same virtuous disinterested character with himself, and were equally faithful in preaching the gospel, they joined him in it, to give the greater weight to the appeals he was about to make to the Thessalonians. For every thing said in THE TITLES OF THE EPISTLES. 67 this letter is said of them all, and it is equally true of them all; as the Thessalonians well knew. However, the arguments taken from their miracles, character, and precepts, will not have their full weight, unless we recollect, that the things affirmed of Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, are true of all the Apostles and inspired preachers of the gospel without exception. In the next place, although the first epistle to the Thessalonians was written by Paul alone, Silvanus and Timothy are fitly mentioned in the inscription, for this other reason, that being' ministers of the word, who possessed the gift of discerning spirits, when they read the first copy of this letter, they were qualified, by that gift, to know whether every thing contained in it was dictated to Paul by the Spirit of God; and therefore, by allowing their names to be inserted in the inscription when it was transcribed, they declared it to be so, and added theiIrtestimony to all the doctrines and facts contained in it. By the way, this shows the propriety of the apostle's joining Sosthenes with himself, in the inscription of his first; epistle to the Corinthians; and Timothy, in the inscription of his second epistle to the same church, and in the inscriptions of his epistles to the Philippians and Collossians. For Paul, though an apostle, willingly submitted his writings to be tried by those who possessed the gift of discerning spirits; as is plain from 1 Cor. xiv. 3'7.'If any one be really. a prophet, or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge the things I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord.' Sosthenes, therefore, being a spiritual person, very properly joined Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, because, by his gift of discerning ~spirits, he was equally qualified with Silvanus and Timothy to attest, that all the things contained in the letter to which his name is prefixed, proceeded from the inspiration of the Spirit of God." The Christian Ministry in the days of the Apostles was a glorious ministry —appointed for a glorious design —to subserve the purpose of God in the salvation of men. It consisted of all the authorized teachers, and missionaries ordained to diffuse light, and evangelize the world. They were not only able to teach, but to demonstrate the truth of their teaching. Hence we read that the word came to the people "not in word only, but in demonstration of the spirit and in power." The miracles which they wrought by the Spirit were the demonstration. Thus was " God bearing witness both with signs and wonders and diverse miracles and distributions of a holy spirit, according to his own pleasure." THE REVISER. 0O Xpta'ro —ITS PROPER TRANSLATION. This appellation is uniformly rendered by the C. V. throughout the N. T.'Christ.' Whether this is in all cases the best rendering is a question of greater delicacy than difficulty; as will appear from a careful examination. The deliverer promised to Israel was called in the Hebrew Scriptures, ('Messiah,') ot'h which signifies, anointedl, having reference to the ceremony of consecrating a prophet, priest, or king; for which see Ex. 29: 7, etc. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek that Hebrew name was rendered (' Christ';) 6 Xptaro; which likewise means anointed. Hence the expected deliverer was commonly known among the people as,' the Messiah,' or' the Christ;' sometimes one appellation being used, and sometimes the other, according as they spoke the Hebrew or the Greek language; as appears from Jno. 4: 25. "I know that Messiah cometh, who is called Christ." Now, the followers of Jesus, believing that he was the deliverer promised to Israel, called him'Christ,' so that in process of time this became his proper name, and seems to have been recognized as such by those who denied his Messiahship. Thus the term'Christ' came to be used in the Greek language with two distinct and very different meanings; sometimes signifying' the Messiah,' as described by the prophets, with no direct reference to any actual impersonation that had already taken place; and sometimes denoting Jesus of Nazareth, without implying his identity with the predicted Messiah. When used in the latter sense, as the proper name of Jesus, the Greek form should unquestionably be retained in the C. V. Where it is not so used, but refers directly to the Messiah, as one not yet fully identified with the son of Mary, it is important to consider whether, the same form should be retained, or translated by some other term. The practice of translators in respect to this, has not been uniform. A majority have transferred the Greek term. Some have translated it,'the anointed.' Others have employed the Hebrew form,'the Messiah.' The chief reason for translating it,'the anointed,' is founded on the primary import of the original word. But this of itself would not require a translation into other languages. For many proper names are equally significant from their origin; yet no one thinks of translating them. Indeed, the term'Messiah,' after it became the familiar designation of the promised deliverer, partook very much of the nature of a proper name, and, as Campbell CHIRISTOS.-ITS PROPER TRANSLATION.' 69 observes, "in the ordinary application of it, in our Lord's time, little or no attention seems to have been given to the circumstance of unction, which gave rise to the name." The reason for translating it,'the Messiah,' is, to say the least, murch stronger. The two meanings already described are thus kept distinct, being conveyed to the common mind without confusion or misunderstanding. For example, the question which Jesus put to the Pharisees, as given in the C. V. Matt. 22:42, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" Campbell justly remarks "can be understood no otherways by an unlearned reader than as intended for drawing forth their sentiments concerning himself. But let it be rendered, "What think ye of the Messiah? Whose son is he? " and the liability to such misunderstanding is obviated. The Savior's meaning is plain and unmistakeable. Again, in Acts 17: 3, according to the C. V. Paul says: "Christ must needs have suffered;" which is most likely to be understood as alleged of Jesus and his crucifixion, but which properly applies only to the Messiah as held by the Jews. They had made the ignominious sufferings of Jesus the occasion of denying his Messiahship. The apostle, therefore, affirmed that such sufferings had been foretold of their own Messiah by the prophets; arguing thence that Jesus was the Messiah. Let the passage be translated accordingly, "the Messiah must needs have suffered," and the true sense is put beyond the possibility of such mis-'understanding. The example here in Matt. 2: 4 is also in point. Jesus had not yet been called'Christ,' and Herod referred directly to'the Messiah," as predicted by the prophets and expected by the house of Israel. Let the term be so translated, and the exact meaning of the original will be given with more perspicuity and precision; the distinction so obviously made between the appellation of the Messiah as held by the Jews, and the proper name of Jesus, will be kept up, without embarrassing the truth of their identity. There are other reasons which might be assigned for this rendering, but the above will suffice. It ig authorized by the C. V. in Dan. 9: 25, 26. Jno. 1: 41. 4: 25; and throughout, by Dodd. Camp., Murd., Schott., Stolz, Reich., et al. 70 THE REVISERo Ao03o? —BOND-MAN. The propriety of translating several words of different significations, by the same word, cannot easily be shown. That doulos (dovlor-) and diakonos (dtLacovol) are both rendered, by servant, is known to all those who read the Common Version in connection with the Greek Scriptures. For their sake, and for the sake of English readers generally, we propose to show some distinction which we think ought to be made, because there is a real difference in the meaning of the two words. To do this to the best advantage we will introduce the words in regimen. The first in alphabetical order is doulagogeo (dov.;aywyeo) which signifies, to lead as a slave, to make a slave of, to bring into subjection, to subdue. Paul uses this word in 1 Cor. 9: 27, to indicate the absolute control which he had obtained of his body, or the appetites and passions. He suffered his body not to be its own master, but kept it under, and required it to do his will which was governed by the law of God. Aov4ei'a, DIouleia. This word signifies, bondage, slavery. Hence it is used tropically, by the Apostle Paul, as expressive of the condition of those under the law of Moses. " These are the two covenants-the one from the mountain Sinai, gendering to bondage, which is Ager." Gal. 4 ~ 24. See also, Romans 8: 15, "the spirit of bondage." Aov0ceVo, Doeleuo. To be a slave, or, to do service as a slave, is the primitive meaning Qf this word. "No man can serve two masters." Matt. 6: 24, and Luke, 16: 13. Eph. 6:'7. 1 Tim. 6: 2. And they who have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." The Jews said, " We are Abraham's Seed, and were never doing service to any man." John, 8 33. Tropically, this verb is used of voluntary service, in the New COvenant, as, Luke 15: 29. "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither at any time transgressed I thy commandment." But it is clear, in this passage, that the elder son has reference to the primary meaning of the word, as he designs to express the condition of one entirely subject to another. BOND-MAN. 71 aov)?q, Doule. This is a feminine noun, and means, a bond-maid, or female slave. Leviticus, 25:44. "But thy bond-men, and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen, that are round about you; of them shall you purchase bond-men and bond-maids." A\oiXo-, Doulos, an adjective, signifies, bound, bound to serve, subject, Rom. 6: 19. "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as you have yielded your members bond-men to uncleanness and to iniquity, into iniquity; even so now yield your members bond-men to righteousness, into holiness." Here the Apostle is speaking in the first place of entire subjection to iniquity, and, in the second, of that same perfect surrender to holiness. Perfect subjection is the point of his remarks, Aovtog, Doulos, a noun, means, properly, one born a slave, or bond-man, and is used in contradistinction from one enslaved in war, who is called, andrapodon, (avd6parroov) by the Greeks. A family doulos was a slave, and was the property of his master, or as Aristotle called him, "a living possession." According to this author, a complete household consisted of slaves and freemen. Polit. 1, 3. The difference between doulos and diakonos, or servant and deacon, we will notice in another article. The doulos was never a hired-servant. The latter was called, misthios, (GitaOto-,) misthotos, (lto0euTro-) in the Greek language. 1. Properly, the word is used of involuntary service, and signifies, a slave, in opposition to a freeman. I Cor. 7: 21, "Art thou called, being a bond-man, care not for it; but if thou mayest be free, use it rather. For he who is called in the Lord, being a bond-man, is the Lord's freeman. Likewise, also, he who is called being free, is Christ's bond-man." Gal. 3: 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; because you are all one in Christ Jesus." Col. 3: 11. Rev. 6: 15. This word is also used in a general sense, but not without regard to its primary and proper meaning. MThen we say in a general sense, we mean that it is not in such cases, used for the express purpose of marking the distinction between bondage and freedom. 2. In a tropical sense the word is used of voluntary service where obligation exists, and when obedience and devotedness are required, 72 THE REVISER. as arising from that obligation. John, 15: 15. "Henceforth I call you not bond-men, because the bond man knows not what his lord does." Rom. 6: 16. "Know you not, thatto whom you yield yourselves bond-men to obey, his bond-man you are to whom you obey; whether of sin into death, or of obedience into life?" Gal. 4; 7. " Wherefore thou art no more a bond-man, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." It is in reference to this obligation of eftire submission, and perpetual service, that various persons are called bond-men of God, of Christ, and of the Lord. Moses is called "the bond-man of God." Rev. 15: 3. The prophets are so called. Rev. 10: 7. Moses and the Prophets had no message of their own and no business, in religious matters, of their own. They were God's "living possession." The appelation was not given to Moses and the Prophets as an official designation; because it is applied to the worshippers of God'n general. Rev. 2: 20. 7: 3. "Hurt not the land nor the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the bond-men of our God in their foreheads." Rev. 19: 5. "And a voice came out of the throne saying, Praise our God, all his bond-men, even you that fear him, both small and great." Paul, admitting Christ's right of property in him, calls himself a bond-man of Christ. Speaking of the devotion of himself and Timothy to the interests of the Ephesians he says, " We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus, the Lord, and ourselves your bond-men through Jesus." 2 Cor. 4: 5. Paul and Timothy call themselves bond-men of Jesus Christ, Phil. 1: 1, and speaking of the humility of our blessed Saviour they say that he "took on him the form of a bond-man." And Paul in his exhortation to Timothy, when recommending humility and forbearance, says that the bond-man of the Lord, or, the Lord's bond-man, must not strive. James also calls himself a bond-man of God, as does Peter, and also Jude. Peter intimates the sense in which the word was used, in christian communities, in reference to God, in this passage. "As FREE and not using liberty for a cloak of maliciousness but, as God's BOND-MEN." From a careful consideration of all the passages bearing on this subject, we are decidedly of the opinion that (dovlo;-) doulos is applied to the children of God as indicative of the doctrine, "That we are not our own, but that we are puchased with a price," and that, on this account, we should "glorify God with our bodies and our spirits BOND-MAN. 73 which are His." Bond-men were purchased in those days, as also now, with money. But our Father in the heavens spared -not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. What a price this! Under another figure, relating to mortgaged inheritances, or to captivated soldiers, he says, "We were purchased back by the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish"-not by gold and silver. O that we felt, more intensely, that we are the bond-men of God-that we are not free to- do our own will-to follow our business, for our own sakes -to seek first the things of earth, with the expectation that the kingdom of heaven shall be added. The service of God is not secondary to anything-it is primary in importance, and should be in our pursuit. AovAod, Douloa. This verb signfies, to make a slave of, to enslave. God said to Abraham, " That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should enslave them, and abuse them four hundred years." Acts. 7: 6. The verb is also used of what one does to himself. 1 Cor. 9: 19. "For though I am FREE from all, yet I have made myself u bond-man to all, that I might gain the more." Rom. 6: 22." But now being made FREE from sin, anid become e bond-man to God, you have your fruit in holiness, and the end life eternal." Holiness-the first fruit -life eternal-the harvest. The word is not only used to express the fact that a man may make himself a bond-man to another person, but also to a thing. Rom. 6: 18. " Being then freed from sin, you became the bond-men of righteousness." Titus 2: 3. That the aged women be in behavior as become holiness. "Not calumniators, not enslaved to wine, teachers of good things." When a man is under the dominion of sin, he is called the slave or bond-man of sin-when under the dominion of righteousness, he is called the bond-man of righteousness. So when persons are in habits of intoxication by wine, they were said to be enslaved to wine. People are under no obligations to sin, they should therefore be free from sin. But they are under obligations to righteousness, and these obligations are perpetual, and they should, therefore, be the bond; men of righteousness. What a glorious freedom is freedom from sin! And how sweet is the bondage of the Lord! The wages of the former are worse than valueless, but the gift of the latter is above '74 THE REVISER. all price-it " is life eternal, in Jesus Christ our Lord! " Happy the man who shall be destitute of such wages-thrice happy he who shall possess such a gift! At6Kovogl-Diakonos. This word is generally translated, minister, in the New Covenant, and we are of the opinion that such is its meaning as applied to religious men. The word, in christian usage, meant about the same that we mean by the word "minister," in its religious application. For we have a religious and a political application of the word. We have, politically, " foreign ministers," and we have religiously "ministers of the different denominations." By a minister, in the political sense, we mean a man sent into a foreign country, to attend to the affairs of our government. By a minister, in a religious sense, we mean a man who is professionally a religious teacher, and " an administrator of religious ordinances." The distinction between the civil and religious application of this word in the New Covenant is clear. 1. Its civil application. It never means a slave, or bond-man. The word is used in John 2: 5, 9. The first section of this chapter consists of an account of a marriage in Cana of Galilee at which Jesus, his mother, and his disciples were present. There was a governor (apXLTptCXtlvo') of the feast, who directed the entertainment. His assistants were called "deacons" or ministers. They were his executives. This Greek name is usually derived from two Greek words, the one (dta) signifying through, and (icoavt') dusty. Buttmeam, however, gives it a better derivation by tracing it to a word (dtilco or dtlqo) signifying to run, to hasten. The persons thus denominated were a higher class than those slaves who were the property of their masters. They were ministers, or the agents of those in authority, as in this case, the agents of the governor of the feast. The distinction between a minister, and a bond-man is alluded to by our Saviour in Matt. 26: 26. "Whoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whoever will be chief among you let him be your bond-man." This is another method of teaching the lesson that " whoever exalts himself shall be abased, and that he who humbles himself shall be exalted." The true way to be great in the kingdom of God, is to be ready to execute any good commission cheerfully, and to become a chief there, we should not scorn the lowest service. The word " deacon," or minister, has been understood to mean one DIAKONOS. 75 who serves tables. But a man may serve tables and not be a deacon or a minister: and he may be a deacon, or a minister and not serve tables. These facts show that the service of tables is not necessarily a part of the duties of a deacon, nor a part of his office. The civil ruler, Rom. 13: 1, 2, 3, 4, is called God's " deacon," or minister. But, certainly, he was not God's table servant. But he is called God's minister because he was God's executive, (v. 4.) " to execute wrath on him who does evil." This is very unlike table serving. The civil officer was God's minister to execute civil law; and certain religious officers are called His ministers because of their connection with religious law. " Who, then, is Paul, and who Apollos but ministers by whom ye believed?" Their ministry or deaconship, related to the belief, and not to the tables of the Corinthians. Paul informed the brethren of the same church that God had made him and Timothy " able ministers of the New Covenant"-not expert table servants of the New Covenant, for it was not suitable that they should leave the word of God and serve tables. Paul said he was made a minister of the gospel —not of tables. See Eph. 3: 7. Col. 1: 23. The question is asked if Christ is " the minister of sin." Gal. 2: 1 7. This certainly cannot mean the table servant of sin. He is called " the minister of a circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promise made to the fathers"-not to serve the tables of the circumcised people. The ministers of Satan, mentioned in 2 Cor. 11: 15, cannot be his table servants, but must mean those who opposed God's ministers, or the preachers of the truth. The minister of God, in the New Covenant, has reference to all those who were sent by him to preach and teach. Hence not only subordinate teachers were called ministers or deacons, but the Apostles, and even Jesus himself. Now we say to our unlearned readers that in all these instances to which we have referred, the Holy Writings have the same word which stands at the head of this article, and for which the Common Version gives us these three words; namely; servant, deacon, minister. They also translate the word in the preceding article rendered bond-man, by servant. What kind of a chance do you stand to obtain anything like a critical knowledge of the Sacred Writings by such a version? Would you not like to be brought nearer to the Greek Text. Have you not often felt much embarrassment, when discussing some topic with a learned antagonist, on being told that the passage read differently in the original! Why should you, and '376 THE REVISER. the hundreds of thousands of your fellow christians, who have never enjoyed the advantages of a thorough education, be forever subjected to this kind of embarrassment? Are you willing to stand up now and sustain those who would forever subject you to such embarrassment? Or will you withhold both your countenance and support from them, and give both to those brethren who seek to place you, as nearly as possible, on the same footing with the Greek scholar? We have written both these articles, on the bond-man, and on the " deacon" or minister, for your sakes. We have given the Greek words for the sake of those who can read them, but the articles are written for you, and, we trust, in such a manner that you can read the senfences with but little embarrassment on account of these words. The time is approaching when you will be called upon to say which of two translations of the Sacred Scriptures, you will adopt; the Common, which you see is so wanting in uniformity, or the Revision which will, we hope, be more faithful to the original. The subject will be discussed between you and your neighbors. You will desire to be able to give special reasons for prefering the Revision. We intend, if you will read carefully the Reviser, to enable you to justify yourselves by an appeal to facts. The Reviser shall be, if we can make it so, interesting to scholars, but it is principally designed for the masses. God bless you in Christ Jesus; Amen. PHILIPPIANS 3: 20. We respect the feeling which opposes " tampering with the word of God." We are not even disposed to treat with contempt the extension of that feeling to the " Common English Version," identifying its errors and inconsistencies with " the word" itself. Many of the best and most useful christians, have been accustomed to make no distinction between " the living oracles" and the translation with which they have been familiar from childhood. All their holiest sympathies are entwined around it, and they recoil from the thought of the slightest alteration in its sacred language. But there is a point beyond which a sincere lover of the truth as it is in Jesus cannot carry prejudice. Let us imagine an humble follower of the Lamb meditating in private upon that simple passage: "OUR CONVERSATION IS IN HEAVEN." We may suppose him unlearned " in classic lore," yet accustomed PHILIPPIANS 3: 20. 77 to search the Scriptures daily to learn the mind and will of his Master. The words of the Text are plain, household terms. " Conversation," and " heaven," no words are more familiar. He daily holds conversation with his neighbors, and with his own family. Heaven is the world of bliss to which he looks forward with glorious hope. What then does the Spirit mean by saying through the apostle, that our conversation is in heaven? The man ponders over the expression, and prays for light. He catches confused glimpses of ideas. "Perhaps the Apostle means that we talk of heaven. Perhaps that our conversation is recorded in heaven. Perhaps that we are in heaven spiritually, while yet in the body we are only talking of heavenly things." His mind thus undecided and dissatisfied, he consults his minister. The latter immediately explains the text and solves his doubts. The passage is incorrectly translated. It should be: " OUR CITIZENSHIP IS IN HEAVEN." "Is there any doubt of this." "None whatever. The original word, the term employed by the Holy Spirit, has no relation to conversation. It is derived from a word signifying a city, and it has no such meaning as talking. " The Apostle means that he and those of whom he wrote, were, as Barnes expresses it,'heavenly citizens, or citizens of the heavenly world, in contradistinction from a worldly community.'" " Ah! now I begin to understand it. The christian is a citizen of heaven. He is a stranger and sojourner here. He is a subject of the Great King, and his sovereign will protect him, while he is abroad in the line of his duty. Our government protects its citizens, when travelling in foreign countries. I have heard it said that there is not a state in Europe that does not respect the rights of a citizen of the United States. And christians are citizens of HEAVEN! What a glorious thought! How ought we then to live!" After a delightful conversation upon the privileges and duties of citizenship, the pastor commences the following course of enquiries: "Do you think that I have done wrong in telling you the meaning of that passage in the original?" " What a question! Certainly not, You would have done wrong to keep it from me." " Would I do wrong to tell others?" "By no means. It is your duty to do good as you have opportu #78 THE REVISER. nity. And how can you do more good than by circulating truth and correcting error regarding the mind and will of God. His "people perish for lack of knowledge." "I can tell the facts personally to only a few. But if the error were corrected in the book itself, thousands and millions would then learn the truth. If it is my duty to tell the truth, is it not my duty to aid in having the truth printed? Is it right to pass off error for the word of God, when we know it and are able to correct it?" "I dare not approve of such a course. Certainly if it is right to speak the truth it is right to print it." "You have just expressed the greatest delight in learning this single truth. You feel that your faith has been strengthened, your zeal quickened, your love rendered more fervent. Hundreds of truths, equally as animating and fully as important, are hidden under the obscurities of our present version, and for some of them error is substituted. ~ And yet I understand that you who profess to love the truth and to fear God, are opposed to the correction of that version." " What can I say? I love the book as it is, but my conscience is on the side of revision. If I am so profited by the correction of a single error, what must be the profit of multitudes from the correction of all!" REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. Rev. Ch. 1, v. 10. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day; and I heard behind nme a loud voice, as of a trumpet." " And he carried me away in the Spirit," &c. 17: 3. THE REVISER'S NOTE. "The iev 7rvevitar here, and throughout this book, (ch. 1 10; 4: 2; 21: 10,) is not equivalent to the e7c-r- roi V awov'ro' of 2 Cor. 12: 2, but denotes the spiritual, supernatural, prophetic state, produced by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit; and this in our idiom is best indicated, as above, by a reference to the cause," &c. Such is the Revision of the above Texts, and such the Note accompanying it, with neither of which are we satisfied. By printing the word "spirit" with a capital, it is presented to us as a being, or REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 79 a person. That it should be so printed sometimes, there can be no doubt in the mind of any one who believes in the existence of such a being as the Spirit of God; which is one article of our creed. But that such is the case in the passages quoted, and referred to in the above, we cannot believe for the want of a good reason. There is no authority for the reason assigned by the Reviser. That (ev rrvevmart) en pneumati, which is found here without the article, and denotes the state, or condition of John, can mean a being is impossible. The Reviser says that the phrase denotes the "state" of the Apostle. If this be true it cannot denote the Spirit of God, because, as is admitted, the Spirit of God is not a " state," but a Being. As a theologian he had the right to say that, a " spiritual, supernatural, prophetic state" was " produced by the immediate operation of the Hol6y Spirit." But as a Translator, or Reviser, he has no right to say that (ev rrveiv'art,) in spirit, should be so translated as to teach that doctrine. The Greek phrase literally, and primarily means in spirit, and nothing more. And the Reviser has recorded this sound remark in a Note on 2 Peter, in his correction of Robinson, namely; " We are not unnecessarily to substitute a secondary sense of a word for the primary." If Dr. Robinson had no right to regard " faith," in 2 Pet. 1: 1, as meaning the gospel, what right had the Reviser to regard " in spirit" in those passages in Revelation, as meaning the Holy Spirit. And if " gospel" is a secondary sense of the word "faith," is not "the Holy Spirit" a secondary, or some other sense of "in spirit"? But if "in spirit" denoted the state of John, it can have no secondary sense in this connection, because that is the primary import of the phrase. Let us examine the passages. 1. " I was in spirit on the Lord's day," or "the day pertaining to the Lord." Let the question be asked, Htow was John, in the Lord's day: The answer is, " in spirit." The meaning of the phrase "in spirit," as used by Paul, will appear from the following literal translation of his words in Rom. 8: 9. " You are not in flesh but in spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you." To be " in flesh," and to be "in spirit" are antithetical, or opposite. John was not in flesh but in spirit, in the Lord's day. The idea is clearly this, namely; he was entirely removed from fleshly influences and wholly under spiritual influences. All the appetites. and passions were quiescent, and the sanctified spirit of the Apostle had the entire control. 2. This apostle says, (Ch. 4: v. 2.) " And that first voice which I heard, as of a trumpet, talking with me, said, Come up here 80 THE REVISER. and I will show you things which must be after these. And immediately I was in spirit," &c. Here is a second entrance into this state. And it stands here, too, as the consequence of the voice which he heard-not the voice of the Holy Spirit, but the voice of him who proclaimed himself the alpha and the omega, namely; Jesus Christ. For John says this was the same voice which he heard first. See Ch. 1, v.v. 10, 11. This shows that this state was not effected "by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit," but by "the voice of the Son of God." Moreover this book is not called The Revelation of the Holy Spirit, but The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to His servants." 3. John says, (Ch. 21. v.v. 9, 10,) That one of the seven messengers who had one of the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, said to him " Come here, and I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in spirit to a large and high mountain," &c. What can be more clear than that John means to say that he was not transported in body, but in mind, or spirit?? And we remark here, also, that the Holy Spirit was not the agent by whose "immediate operation" this was done. There was one man who was "caught away" by " the Spirit of the Lord," but it was Philip, and not John. It was Philip in body, and not John in spirit. All these passages indicate the state of John's mind, or his spiritual or mental condition. Into this condition he was brought twice by Christ's "immediate" influence, and once by his mediate influence; namely, by an angel whom he sent for that purpose. Farthermore, the phrase, " the Holy Spirit," does not occur once in the whole book. Neither does the phrase "the Spirit of God" occur in the book; but the phrase "the seven spirits of God," occurs three times, and once " the seven spirits which are before his throne." We also read of " the spirit of prophecy," and that is the spirit by which these prophetic revelations were made. 4. All those passages, so far as en pneumati is concerned, should most unquestionably be literally rendered, in spirit, without a capital or an article. First because the word " spirit," in these instances, does not mean a person, or being, but a state, or spiritual condition superinduced not by the Holy Spirit, but twice by Jesus himself, and once by an angel. Second, if this state had been " produced by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit" it would have been improper to write the word " spirit" with a capital where it denotes a state, and not a person. Third, there is no article in the Greek, and our idiom COMMON VERSION OF JEREMIAH CXX, v. 7. 81 does not require it. We trust the reviser will correct the mistake in his farther revision, as the work is still to be revised. After repeated examinations, for several years, we are positive that, there is no instance in which en pneumati should be, or can consistently be translated in the spirit. Indeed the idioms of both English and Greek forbid such a rendering. The course taken by the American Bible Union is well calculated to secure a correct translation of the Scriptures. Publishing a part at a time and sending such part out to critics and revisers, gives every facility for the detection and correction of errors. Any person, writing respectable criticisms, shall find an opportunity to publish them in this periodical. COMMON VERSION JEREMIAH CXX, v. 7.. " O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." My attention has been called to this passage by a brother who appreciates the value of biblical criticism. There are many who do not, probably from the fact that they have never given any attention to the subject. There are thousands who read the Scriptures where there are only tens who search them. Every good English reader may become a critical Bible student who will avail himself of the labors of eminent scholars. Without claiming eminence in this branch of literature, we hope to contribute something to the great object of a more thorough knowledge of the two Glorious Volumes-the Old and New Covenants. It is much to be regretted that too many of the leading members of churches feel themselves thoroughly acquainted with the Scriptures when they can quote, readily, the passages by which they think to support the distinguishing sentiments of their denomination. But they mistake. There is but a very small portion of the Bible quoted to sustain all the religious parties in christendom. And if a man understood the full import of all these passages, still he would be comparitively ignorant of the general contents of that Book. How much less does the man know of it who only understands the passages on which his denomination relies for the support of its peculiar views. To some such partial students the desire of our worthy brother to understand the import of the passage at the head of this article, may 10 82 THE REVISER. seem a mere matter of curiosity, which can have no useful tendency. To such we propose the following question-If this passage be of no use why is it made a part of the Sacred Volume? The Apostle was impressed with a just sentiment, to which he gave utterance in the following language of She Common Version. "Whatsoever was written aforetime, was written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Now to the passage from Jeremiah the Prophet. The difficulty in understanding the text is found in the fact that one of God's own Prophets charges Him with deception. The Hebrew word (,rk) translated, to deceive, in this verse, signifies, to persuade, or, to allure. Thus Joab accused Abner of an attempt to allure, or draw David to him, that he might know all his movements 2 Sam. 3: 25. So also the people of Israel were cautioned to be on their guard that their hearts should not be allured to paganism. Deut. 11: 16. The word occurs in the same sense in Job 31: 9. The passage in Jeremiah to which our attention is requested reads in this way. "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Thou wast stronger than I and hast prevailed." Deception requires not strength, but cunning, or ingenuity. Persuasion or allurement, requires strength, or a persuasive force to act on the mind and influence the feelings. God had persuaded, or allured Jeremiah to become a Prophet and he had became a Prophet. God, in his persuasions, or allurements, was stronger than Jeremiah, and therefore he prevailed. Jeremiah commenced crying "violence and spoil," and the message of the Lord was made a reproach to the Prophet, and he determined not to make mention of the Lord any more, nor speak in His name. But the Lord was stronger than the Prophet, and therefore He prevailed again. The strength which he used was the strength of his word, which became too hot for Jeremiah's heart and bones, and he could not forbear. There is a passage in Ezekiel 14: 9, in which the sense of the word is not so clear. But I take the sense of the passage in its contextural reading to be this. The house of Israel Lad become apostate-they had set up idols in their hearts. The defection was general, if not nearly universal. People, Prophets, and Priests, became corrupt. But God determined that the spirit of prophecy should not fail; but that He, himself, would speak to any Israelite according to the multitude of his idols. That if a mercenary spirit or the spirit of idolatry, had seized the Prophet he should not be allured by such spirits, but COMMON VERSION OF JEREMIAH CXX, v. 7. 83'hat the Lord would cause him to speak by the spirit of prophecy, but would not fail to punish him for his disposition to prophecy to suit the taste of the idolatrous hearts of the people. The true prophetic remonstrances, and the punishment of the people for their iniquities, were designed to prevent going astray or being polluted any more with all their transgressions. The Lord may permit a prophet to be deceived, or, He may compel him to speak truth when he thinks he will speak falsely; but that He should use what we mean by deception is not supposable. A man may say that he was deceived by the wind, by currents, by heights, &c., when he misjudges in relation to forces, or courses, and distances; and he may say, only in that sense, that he has been deceived by the Lord. But a better phrase forthat would be, disappointed by. Because we generally impute design to a person by whom we say we have been deceived. Persons who would think accurately must use terms and phrases accurately, because words and phrases are as much the instruments of thought as of conversation. A want of suitable attention to the exact meaning of words leads to most of the disagreements among people in relation to the true meaning of the Blessed Volume. Confusion in the use of sounds, significant of thoughts, led to the dispersion of the architects and workmen of the tower of Babel. The incomprehensible jabbering of that time, if not prophetic of our times, serves well for the purpose of an illustration. Let us all turn our attention to a more thorough study of that Book which, alone, gives a man the best reason to hope for a life beyond the tomb; and which gives him, even now, " peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." It is to us the Book of comfortof hope-of life. THE REVISER, Is a monthly periodical, devoted to the correction of all errors in the translation of the Scriptures, conducted by Dr. S. E. Shepherd, of New York. $1 per volume. We have received the first and second numbers of this spirited Reviser, and congratulate the revisers of the Living Oracles with its appearance, because, apart from the strictures and reviews of its editor, it will be a medium of intercommunication between the revisers, and also an occasion of much criticism; and whether sound or unsound in every instance, it will furnish a stimulus to energize the co-operants in the work, as well as opportunities of eliciting the pro and the con, in all important changes, claiming to be improvements or emendations. It is conducted with spirit and perspicuity, and with all apparent impartiality, and cannot fail to be a useful auxiliary and stimulus to all engaged in this great work. —Millennial Harbinger. A. C. 384 THE REVIESER COMMON VERSION OF ISAIAH, 52: 15. So shall he sprinkle many nations. This is not a justifiable translation as is conceded by the best He-, brew authorities. Gesenius says the verb in the Hebrew means nozo, to leap for joy, to spring. In the Hiph. Conjugation, 1. to cause to leap for joy, to cause to exult, to nake rejoice. He translates the passage thus. "So shall he cause many nations to rejoice in himself." Parkhurst defines it, to leap, leap out. In the Hiph. Conjugation, To cause to leap, or exult. He translates thus. " As many were as — tonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of man;) v. 15, so shall he cause many nations to leap (" 1st, for joy and alacrity; 2ndly, for desire and inclination towards; 3dly, for admiration and holy astonishment: all which views are authorized by the use of the Arabic dialect," says, Schultens,) " and kings shall shut their mouths at him" through wonder and veneration." The Septuagint reads, " so shall many nations admire at him," and Coverdale's English Bible, which was printed in 1535- 76 years be-, fore the Common Version-reads it, "Even so shall the multitude of the Gentiles look unto him.'7 Henderson thinks that the verb is to be understood as rendered in our version, and that the sense is, "that the Messiah would extend to the nations the purifying efficacy of his blood." This verb is used in the law of Moses in the sense of dispersing, scattering or sprinkling, but always in these cases, the water is the accusative case, or to make this more intelligible to an English reader we will say, that the water was the thing said to be sprinkled, and not the thing on which the sprinkled water fell. A perfect illustration of what we mean is found in Ezekiel 36: 25. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." Here notice, the ewater is sprinkled; but not the people. The water is sprinkled on the people. Now, if we give to this verb, in Isaiah 52: 15, a secondary sense instead of the primary; that is, if we understand it to mean sprinkle or to cause to sprinkle, instead of, to cause to leap for joy; then we must take it to mean the dispersion or scattering of many nations. For as when the word is used for sprinkling, it means the dispersion of the water into drops; so, when used in this sense of nations it must mean their dispersion into families or individuals. But this sense is REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 85 not accordant with the context, and other portions of prophecy, and it being only a secondary meaning of the word, should give place to the primary signification. The sense, in this case, is this. When Jesus Christ should be presented to the nations as the being who had suffered for the world more than any of the sons of men had, suffered-when the report should be published to all nations, that he was despised and rejected of men- a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief-that he had borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows-that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities-that the chastisement of our peace was upon him-that he was oppressed and afflict-,ed-that he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter-that he wm taken from prison and judgment to be cut off out of the land of the living-that he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, to put him to grief-to make his soul an offering for sin-to lay on him the iniquities of us all-and finally, after all this suffering, that the Lord should raise him from the dead-prolong his days-divide him a portion with the great, and thus he should divide the spoil with the strong-and that he, having poured out his soul to death-been numbered with the transgressors-borne the sins of many-and made intercession for the transgressors, should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and that the pleasure of Jehovah should prosperin his hand; that when the nations, through the proclamation of the Glad Tidings, should be informed of all this, they should leap for joy at the dawn of hope, of life, of interminable bliss! Glory to God in the highest, on earth, peace and good will to men! REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. "' John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace unto you and peace from him, who is, and who was, and who cometh; and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne." Rev. 17. NOTE ON THE WORD "'SPIRIT." The Amer. Bible Soc. now prints this word, spirits (without a capital) not because it was so printed in the original edition of 1611,:but as the result of the Society's application of the following rule. -r the word Spirit. everywhere is made to begin with a capital 86 THE REVISER. when it refers to the Spirit of God as a divine agent; but not whew it denotes other spiritual beings or the spirit of man' (Report on the History and Recent Collation &c., p. 24.) My belief that the Society's interpretation of the term in the present instance is erroneous, though it agrees with Rob's (who does not even recognize any other meaning as possible than that of' the seven archangels,') and that it weakens and darkens the sublimest formula of benediction to be found in Scripture, leads me, in accordance with the same rule, to retain the orthography of previous editions. That -riv erri-a rrvevaT'-rov of this verse is a mystical designation of the Holy Spirit, has been the prevalent opinion in the Church from the beginning, except when the text has been perverted to the uses of superstition. Nor, in very many cases, is it an indication that a writer did not hold it, that he does not use the initial capital. The older verss., e. g. W., T., C., paid little or no regard to the above rule, nor is it strictly followed even by living authors. Thus, Lord has'spirits,' and his comment is:'The seven spirits are the Holy Spirit.' But in favour of the capital, or of the view which justifies it, may also be cited from the great cloud of witnesses the following: —G.;-Dt. Ann. (' By these seven Spirits must here be understood the Holy Spirit.' See the entire note.,) It., Fr. G.,-M. (It is true that the Amer. Bible Soc.'s edition of 1852, which is the one that I have used, has esprits, as the Romanist De Sacy also has. But as it appeared unlikely that M., who followed the Society's rule in the printing of the word, had held the view thus indicated, an opportunity has been sought of consulting the original Utrecht edition of 1696, and there it is Esprits, with a note appended in vindication.) Fr. S.;-Aug. ('Septenarium numerum Sancto Spiritui quodammodo dedicatum commendat Scriptura, et novit Ecclesia.,') Bede ('Unum spiritum dicit septiformen, quae est perfectio et plenitude.,') Junius, Laun., Gom., Par. (to whom De W. errs in attributing the opinion,' septem virtutes providentiae Dei;' this being a modification which Par. censures in another.,) EngI. Ann., Durch., Cocc. Owen, Charn., Bp. Burnet, Grell., Pool, Marck, Braun., Budd., Vitr., Schottg., Wolf., Beng., Stapfer, Lowm., Guyse, Dodd., Wesl., Gill, Moldenh., WoodhL Scott, Crol., Allw., Jones, Pye Smith, Dr. John Dick, Bloomf., Penn. Gerl., Ell., De W., Treg. Words., Hengst., Kell., Murd. Others, who do not here recognize the personal Spirit, yet avoid the intro — duction of inferior natures. Thus Grot. (' multiformen Dei providentium,') Eichh. ('a Jehovah, natura perfectissima,') Heinr. ('virtutes seu predicata summi numinis'), Ew. ('Vim divinam in terra se- e:xserentem.') REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 87 REMARKS. The American Bible Society, and we think justly, prints the word " spirits",without a capital. Our Reviser prefers to follow the Common Version because he thinks the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is intended. The above note is much more theological than philological. The theological opinions which he says have been entertained from the beginning, can have no weight in a philological discussion. Theological Notes ought not to be published with the Revision. If the Union admit this in English why not in Italian also? Why not in all languages in which Revisions are, or shall be, made. The capital was first used by theological, and not by philological authority. We do not believe that one good reason is assigned in the above note against the charge made by the American Bible Society. Philology is entirely on their side of this question. By what law of philology are we authorized to print a plural noun with a capital in order to make it the proper name of one being? What is there in the usage of this author to indicate that " the seven spirits" of this verse " is a mystical designation of the Holy Spirit? " Does he use the word " spirits" to express unity of being. He says, " I saw three unclean spirits like frogs." If he uses the plural to indicate a being, then it also should have been printed with a capital, and understood accordingly. But he also speaks of " the spirits of demons" and for the same reason this should have been printed in the same way, and understood of the Unholy Spirit; that is, of the arch-enemy of God and all good beings. If Bede does hold that the one spirit is spoken of as seven-fold to indicate its perfection and plenitude, it is a mere theological opinion; and, to be consistent, he should also take the seven churches-the seven candle-sticks-the seven stars-the seven lamps of fire-the seven seals —the seven horns —the seven eyes-the seven angels-the seven thunders-the seven trumpets-the seven heads-the seven crowns-the seven last plagues —the seven golden vials, and the seven kings! to indicate the perfection and plenitude of the candlestick-the perfection and plenitude of the star-the perfection and plenitude of the lamp of fire-the perfection and plenitude of the seal-the perfection and plenitude of the horn-the perfection and plenitude of the eye-the perfection and plenitude of the angel-the perfection and plenitude of the thunder-the perfection and plenitude of the trumpet-the perfection and plenitude of the head-the 88 THE REVISER. perfection and plenitude of the crown-the perfection and plenitude of the last plague-the perfection and plenitude of the vial, and the perfection and plenitude of the king; all of which appears to us to be without any exegetical authority, so far as philology is concerned. The opinions of Bede, and Robinson, as to the theology, or the theological import of the word, have nothing to do with the question of translation, or rather, revision of the passage. The simple question is, Does the usage of John, in the Revelation, justify a reviser of the Common Version in writing the noun following the word " seven" with an initial capital? Is there any rule or law, which requires it? If so, Where, and what, is it l The American Bible Society has undoubtedly, done the proper thing in this revision of that passage; and this they have done in many other instances. We object not to that Society for any correction which it has made, but for not having made more, and for not having co-operated with other great and good men, in an effort to give the word of God, faithfully translated, to the heathen. They have left, in their revised edition of the Scriptures, some errors and obscurities which were worse than many which they corrected. Of the corrections which they have made we say, These things ought they to have done and not to have left the others undone. COMMON VERSION OF GEN. 25: 29. " And Jacob sod pottage." Such was the language of our English forefathers in the days of King James of translation celebrity. In his days this was good language. It was euphonic with'-we do you to wit," "howbeit," "wot ye not," " I trow not," and much besides which is now called the " sacred style," " Scripture language," &c., but is doomed to obselessance. " Sod" is the past tense and perfect participle of the obsolete verb " to seethe." "Seether " and " sodder " are also forms of the same word. It is curious to trace the resemblances of this old word in other languages, as in the Saxon, seathen-in the Dutch, Sieden-in the German, seiden-in the Swiss, suida-in the Danish, syder. All these words are like so many sisters among whom there is a strong family resemblance, but no two look exactly alike. The COMMON VERSION OF MATT. 1: 18, 20. 89 Greek word is (co) dzo, contracted Tom ('0o) dztho. But the Hebrew (CrAU STY) yazed nazed, he boiled a boiling. Seethe is now out of use except in the current version of the Scriptures, and signifies transitively, to boil, to prepare food in a hot fluid, and in an intransient sense, to be in a state of boiling; to be hot. "Pottage," or, as Webster spells it, potage, is a species of food made of meat boiled to softness in water, usually with vegetables. We call it, in our day "Boiled food," or where the old word " victuals " is still retained, as it is in many places, " boiled victuals," always however, retaining the idea of "meat " in this state of preparation, " Jacob boiled food," is a translation, or revision, of " Jacob sod pottage." COMMON VERSION OF MATT. 1: 18, 20. The supplement of the definite article, in those verses, suggests to the English reader that the Divine Being whom we call the Holy Spirit is intended. Supplying the article and printing the words "holy," and " spirit," with an initial capital puts it beyond doubt, so far as the meaning of the Common Version is concerned. But such is not the meaning of the original. Will the reader now consult the passages in order that he may be the better prepared for the following observations? 1. If, by " holy spirit," a being is intended, that being must be the Father of Christ. 2.- The Holy Spirit is a being distinct from the Father, and the Son, as is clear from many passages. 3. If, then, Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit must be his father. 4. The Holy Spirit is no where, in the Sacred Writings, called the Father of Christ, but, 5. Is contradistinguished from the Father. We instance now only Matt. 28: 19; " immersing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," " I will pray the Father and he will send you-the Holy Spirit." John 14: 16, 17, 36.. The grace of the Lord Jesus-the love of God —the communion of the Holy Spirit." 2 Cor. 13: 14. The Son is not the Son of the Spirit, but the Son of the Father. " The only begotten of the Father," and, 90 THE REVISER. therefore, notdthe begotten of the Holy Spirit. There is not only no authority in the Scriptures for supplying the article and printing with an initial capital in these places, but it is contrary to all the Scripture teachings on this subject. That article in the " catholic church," which affirms that Jesus was " begotten of the Holy Ghost," is as false, as it is true that he is " the only begotten of the Father." It is not only destitute of truth, but it is opposed to the truth. To the English reader we say that "a holy spirit" is the phrase not only in Matthew, but also in Luke 1 35, where the same thing is referred to, in connection with the power of the Highest, in such a manner as to justify the latter as explanatory of the former, thus, "A holy spirit shall come over thee, even the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee-therefore also the holy off-spring shall be called, Son of God." The difference between a holy spirit, and the Holy Spirit is this. A holy spirit signifies miraculous power, either corporeal or intellectual. The former is indicated when the body of a person is the object on which the power is exerted, and the latter, when the mind is the object of its influence. Isaac was the product of this power exerted on Sarah, because, at her time of life, it was not natural to have children. It was supernatural. Esau, who was born in accordance with natural power, is said to have been "born according to the flesh," and Isaac, whose conception, and therefore whose birth, was supernatural, " according to the spirit." The supernatural power operating on the mind resulted in spiritual gifts, which affected the mental capabilities, such as inspiration, &c. The Holy Spirit signifies that Being whose nature is essentially spiritual and holy, and who co-operated with God and His Son, as a Divine Being, in the salvation of men. His mission commenced after the Saviour went away. He directed the Apostles into all truth and brought all things to their remembrance whatever Christ had said to them, and showed them things to come. He was the great agent of revelation. "God has revealed them to us by his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the depths of God." But the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as being of a gender indicating the capability of parentage. It is always put in the neuter gender, never in the masculine nor feminine; and, therefore, it is never called a father, nor a mother. Instead of being the Father of Christ, it was, in some sense, subordinate to him. Jesus said, I will COMMON VERSION OF MATT. 1: 18, 20. 91 send you "the Comforter-the Spirit of truth-the Holy Spirit." In many instances, if not in all, he was the agent of the supernatural power, in the apostolic age, but always distinct from it. The baptism in a holy spirit, and the pouring out of the spirit, are entirely incompatible with personality, and in harmony with the bestowment of supernatural power. A person can neither be baptized in, nor poured out. We hope these things wiil be thoroughly investigated by our Revisers, so far as philology is concerned. And we here take occasion to observe, that no man has the right to insert an article or any other word in a translation where philology does nat require it. The fact that his religious sentiments require it, cannot be taken as a good reason why he should insert. Neither should a word be printed with an initial capital for the same reason. For instance, the phrase in Greek, which corresponds with the English words " of a holy spirit," should not be printed " of the Holy Spirit" to make them signify that glorious Being, but because they obviously do mean that. He who, in the revision of our English translation of the Scriptures, inserts a word, or writes it with a capital, must have at hand, at least one good philological reason. Philology does not require the article nor the capital letter in the passages to which we have referred to as wanting both, and therefore neither should be used. I rejoice in the thought that there will be a closer regard paid to the laws of philology in the revision of the Common Version now progressing than has ever characterised any former translation of the Scriptures-that party theology will have nothing to do in the great work. Let us have the divine message as pure as it came from the mind of the Supreme Being, if possible; and then we will make our theology conform to it. Thus we will have not only a pure Word, but a pure theology also. And a pure word, and a pure theology will do much to make a pure church; and a pure church will do much for the purifying of the world. " First pure, then peaceable," was an apostolical motto-let it be ours also. 92 THFE REVISER. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES, REV. 14: 6. And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having an everlasting gospel, to declare the glad tidings unto those who dwell on the earth, and unto every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people. Our Revised English Scriptures, with all their excellencies, need, and no doubt will receive still farther revision by their able author. To the above passage we take the following exceptions; namely, 1. The word angel for angelos is exceptionable, because in the original there' is an etymological connection between it and " an everlasting gospel" which is not apparent in the translation. 2. The word gospel has a distinct'derivative connection with angel, which is lost in the translation. 3. The word "gospel," though originally expressive of the exact meaning of the Greek word, and although well understood by etymologists, is used so vaguely by the populace, at the present time, that it ha sceased to be an equivalent for the original, (evayyXtov) a good message. It is now known by the people of each religious denomination as the name of their respective differencial sentiments. Not one in a thousand ever thinks of the etymology of the word " gospel." The general understanding seems to be that whatever is true in religion is gospel. All religious truth is not gospel, neither is all gospel religious truth. Neither is all religious truth the gospel; but the gospel is religious truth, although not all the religious truth which the Scriptures contain. "The gospel" embraces all the promises of a Messiah, and salvation by him. This is the gospel in prophecy. It also embraces the fulfilment of these prophecies. This is the gospel in history, or in fact. In one case the gospel is viewed prospectively-in the other retrospectively. As a whole, then, the gospel consists of the good-news in promise-and the good-news in fulfilment. As applicable to the gospel in promise, we read in the Epistle to the Congregation in Galatia, that "The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the nations through faith, preached, before, the gospel to Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all the nations be blessed." As applicable to the gospel in fulfilment, we read in the Epistle of Paul and Sosthenes to the Congregation of God in Corinth, that " Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 93 Scriptures." This was the gospel which Paul preached-the good message in fulfilment. Now, the original word for gospel is appropriated. to this goodmessage, whether dawning in prophecy, or resplendent in history. In the former it was the acorn-in the latter, the full-grown oak. In prophecy, the good-message was but the philanthropy of God in scintillation-in history, sacred history, it is the effulgence of his benevolence; blazing to the skies in the ascension of the Crucified; astonishing the world with its demonstrations of the Spirit; and illuminating the nations through the primitive Ministry.' Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace and good will toward men," was the exordium; and "Alleluia.-Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, to the Lord our God," shall be the conclusion of its historyflowing, in extatic song, from innumerable purified hearts, from the eternities into the eternities. 4. There is an unnecessary want of uniformity in the Revision of the verse at thle head of this article. Evangelion aionion, is translated, "an everlasting gospel," and evangelisai, " to declare the glad tidings." If the verb be translated to declare glad tidings, certainly the noun should be rendered glad tidings, or the English reader will not so readily see the connection. 5. " Unto," is very exceptionable. It should be thrown entirely out of the Revision. It has no place in our language. Webster says concerning it, it is " of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writings of former times, but is entirely obsolete." 6. Kai, before pan ethnos, should be rendered even, as it is in many places. Otherwise it will belong to the category of the "world and the rest of mankind." This word is used here for the sake of explanation by amplification. The glad tidings were to be proclaimed to the dwellers on the earth-" even to every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people." 7. " Glad tidings" should be printed as a compound word, thus, glad-tidings. It is a compound in the original, and the whole, both "glad" and " tidings " in this way became the name of the message concerning Christ and salvation by him. In our first exception we stated that there was an etymological connection between angelos and evangelion, which would not readily 94 THE REVISER. be seen by the English reader. If he had revised by messenger instead of angel, and a good-message, instead of gospel, the connection between the messenger, and the message, would have been as clear to the English, as to the Greek reader. Or if he preferred the word tidings to message, the same would have been secured, because a messenger is always understood to be a bearer of tidings. COMMON VERSION OF REV. 14: 6. The Common Version is defective in the use of angel, for messenger-fly, for flying-in the midst of heaven, for in mid-heaven-unto, for to-that, for who-kindred, for tribe-and, for even —and, above all, the everlasting gospel, for an everlasting good-message, everlasting good-news, or everlasting glad-tidings, which ever phrase a modern translator might prefer. It is not the gospel of which the Apostle here speaks. Hle does not say the good-message, but a good-message. " The good-message" means the good-message concerning the Christ, which we noticed at some length in the preceding article. " A good message," is indefinite. The seventh verse shows what is intended by it. For the messenger is there represented as delivering it in these words': "Fear God and give him glory; because the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him who made the heaven and the earth, and sea, and fountains of waters." But it is not surprising that the King's Revisers did not discover the difference, for they evidently knew very little concerning the gospel, Christianity, or what constituted a Christian; otherwise, they could never have received the doctrine of their church as the gospel —their system of religion as Christianity-nor their King as a Christian. AyyEro; —MESSENGER. This Greek word is used nearly 200 times in the New Covenant, and always, except il seven or eight instances, translated by angel, and by readers generally, it is understood to be the name of superhuman, and sub-divine beings. That it is so applied in many instances, is admitted. But such is not its primary meaning. Its application to such beings arises not from the signification of the word, MESSENGER. 95 but from the frequent employment of these beings. The word is not necessarily significant of nature, but of employment. The grammatical signification of the word is, messenger; and this message is called in the Greek language, from which we have borrowed the word angel, (dayyea) angelia. Angelos, then, means a messenger, and angelia, a message. The messenger may be human or super-human, and the message either good or bad. If it is good, then it is called, in Greek, (e3ayy6yXtov) uangelion; that is, a good-message; and that is the very word which we translate gospel. The English reader could never discover any connection between angel and gospel. But an angel is a messenger; that is, one who is sent with a message. If the message be good, then the angel who announces it, is, to all intents and purposes, an evangelist. But if the message be not good, then the angel, or messenger, is not an evangelist. We have, then, angelos, for messenger-angelia, for messageuangelia, for a good message-and, uangelistes, for one who announces a good message. A being may, then, be a messenger, and not an evangelist; but he cannot be an evangelist without being a messenger. Because, whoever announces a message, is a messenger; while he only who announces a good message, is an evangelist. A super-human being may be the bearer of a message; and, in that case, he is an angel or a messenger. He may be the bearer of a good message. If he is, then, he is an evangelist. Such was the case with the messenger of the Lord who announced the birth of the Saviour. IIe said, " Fear not, because I announce to you good-tidings of great joy." He was the first historic-evangelist. All the prophets who foretold the coming of the Just One were propheticevangelists. But this angel was an evangelist only to the herdsmen to whom they proclaimed the birth of the Messiah. John, the immerser, was called an angel, or a messenger, by the spirit of prophecy. As it is written or him, "Behold I send my messenger (here the Greek, angelos, is used,) before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee." John was not called an evangelist, but a messenger, probably because of the mixed nature of his message. For he not only " preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," but also, "the wrath to come." So far as he preached the good-message, he acted as an evangelist. And his 96 THE REVISER. preaching with reference to Christ is called "The Beginning of the Good-news concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Angel should, in the revision of the Common Version, give place to messenger-gospel, to a good-message, good-news, good-tidings, or some equivalent. For our own part, we prefer to be as uniform as we can be; and if we translate angelos, messenger, which we certainly should, then let us translate ho uangelion, the good-message. It is not so easy to translate uangelistes into English, except by circumlocution. Good-messenger, if printed as a compound word, exactly expresses the meaning of the Greek word. But if the two words, good, and messenger, should be printed separately, they would express the quality of the messenger, rather than that of the message, which might mislead; because an evangelist is not only a good angel or messenger, but he is also the bearer of a good-message. If, then, we construct a new compound word out of two very simple English words, which few persons can possibly fail to understand, we shall have, in the plainest English, the exact idea contained in the Greek word, uangelistes. And then by a careful examination of all that is said of this officer, we shall learn what was the usage of this title, and so shall not fail to understand the whole subject. AUTHORISED VERSION OF MARK 10: 40. But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared." There are no words in the Greek for, "it shall be given to them." This is an interpretation which changes materially the sense of the passage. It makes Jesus disclaim the right to place any person on his right, or left hand. If the words of Jesus be read without an interpolation, the sense is full and obvious, and clearly indicates that he has the right of giving that honor to those, and those only, for whom it is prepared. Thus; " to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give, except for whom it is prepared." The sense which is sufficiently obvious would to some minds, be more fully expressed by supplying " to them"; which can be done without changing the sense of the text. COMMON VERSION OF HEB. 9th Ci. 97 COMMON VEItSION OF HEB. 9TH CH. The same word (AtaOyqcll) is translated covenant and testament in this chapter, without the least authority, or reason. The Greek word here employed by the Apostle, is that by which the authors of the Alexandrian Version uniformly translate the Hebrew word (rh-) for covenant. That the word (dtaOs0lyc) in classic Greek generally means testament, no one acquainted with that usage can, for a moment, doubt. But that it ever has that signification in sacred usage, remains yet to be shown; and I frankly confess, after searching for every passage in the Septuagint and New Covenant, and giving my undivided attention to the examination of each occurrence, I have yet to find the first instance in which the context requires that interpretation, Covenant is probably as good a general representative as it has in the English language. "The blood of a covenant " is easily understood. But the blood of a testament or a will, is hard of comprehension. The blood of a covenant is the blood which was obtained from the victim which was slain for the confirmation of the covenant. But what is the —blood of a Will? A testament signifies a will. Again we inquire, What is the blood of a Will? No blood need be shed in order to make a will, or to render it valid when made. A man can make his will, and execute it in his lifetime, or he can leave it to executors to execute after his death. But it may be said that a testament is of no force as long as the testator lives. King James' revisers have so said. But a man's death cannot be called the blood of his will, unless it can be shown that he died for the specific purposq of giving it force. Moreover, he must not die of disease, but of violence. He must die as a victim. His blood must be " shed" specifically for the ratification of his Will, or it cannot be the blood of his Will. What man ever shed his blood for the purpose of giving force to his Will? The Common Version says, " a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." In the first place, this is a strange sentence, to say nothing of its claims to be a translation. It alleges that " a testament," in the singular number, "is of force after men," in the plural number, "are dead;" thereby making the death of at least two men necessary to give "strength" to one testament. Or, in other words, it requires at least two dead men to make one testator. Moreover, the Common 11 98 THE REVISER. Version says, "Where a testament is there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." This is not true in fact, nor in translation. It is not true in translation, because the original does not so read. It is false in fact, because it affirms that there can be no will without the death of a testator. The truth is, that wherever there is a will, it must necessarily, or to use the language of this version, it must "of necessity " exist before the death of the testator. Even a a will made in extremis is made before the death of the testator. It requires a live man to make a will. In every instance, the will exists before the death of the testator occurs. A will, in the ordinary sense, does not take effect till after the death of the testator, not because it is contrary to law for a man to dispose of his estate before he dies, but because the testator has a legal right to alter his will while living, and he prefers to retain that right during life. While a man lives, he can dispose of his estate himself. If he prefer, he can retain it during life, and direct its disposition after his death. The only reason why his death is necessary in order to the execution of his testament is because he preferred to retain his estate while living. The passage is wrong in translation.' For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth," is not a fair interpretation of the Greek. The Apostle was not discussing the subject of wills or testaments, but the subject of covenants. EIEB. CHAP. 7: 22, COMMON VERSION. " By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament." Here are two grave mistakes in one sentence. The first is in the selection of the word surety, as an equivalent for the Greek word (eyy/vo') which the Greek Commentators explain by ([Leatr;'-) the word for mediator. The Apostle having said that by the introduction of a better hope " we (Eyytioftev) draw near to God," very appositely called Jesus (eyyvo-) a mediator, or one who brings parties at variance near to each other, or reconciles them. For the word (eyyvo-) which he uses is'derived from (Eyyv) the Greek word for near, and both have their proper relation to (Eyyti'o) a word which signifies, to cause to approach. Paul said to the Gentile converts COMMON VERSION OF HEB. 7: 22. 99 that they were' "made (eyyVi-) near by the blood of the Christ." On this account the Apostle declined the use of (FealTw-r), the appropriate word for mediator, and uses (eyyvo-), a word by which the effect of his sacerdotal services are forcibly referred to. But what can the Common Version mean by a " surety of a testament? " A surety means, a bondsman, or a bail. A. testament means a Will. Now, what can a bondsman, or a bail of a will be? We do not give bonds when we make wills, but when we make covenants. The passage, therefore, would have read much better if, as above suggested, the Greek word (dtaOyltcs) had been rendered covenant, instead of testament. But God neither gives nor requires bail when he makes a will. He appoints mediators to covenants. But should any person be disposed to retain the word surety, as being more classic, although less etymological, still the word testament must be given up as inapposite to the Apostle's purpose, and not in agreement with the context. For, by saying that Jesus became the surety of a better testament, we make this testament antithetical, not to a covenant, but to another testament; and thus make the law of Moses a testament. Because the New Dispensation is placed in antithesis with the Old. We may say that an angel is better than a man. But we are not permitted to say that an angel is a better man than a man; because by so saying we affirm the humanity of the angel. So, if the New Covenant is called the New Testament, it implies that there is an Old Testament, with which it is compared. If the law, which came by Moses is an Old Testament, we inquire, Whose Old Will is it? The answer must be, The Will of the God who made it. If God made a will, he is a testator. And if, as the Common Version affirms, there can be no will without the death of the testator, what follows of necessity? God must have died, or the will is of no force according to another principle affirmed by the Common Version, namely; a testament " is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Such is the predicament of this " Authorized Version!" Who " authorized" such absurdities? Not Paul, of whose language this claims to be a translation. This version gives for the original word (dta0itplj) in the same context, in the discussion of the same subject, sometimes "testament," and sometimes " covenant." Hence, we read, 100 THE REVISER. " He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."-HEB.. 8: 8, COMMON VERSION. Here, with the greatest propriety, the word is translated covenant. The first covenant was not faultless, and therefore a place was sought for a second. That second was the better-not faulty like the first. It has better promises, and a better priesthood, and a better mediator. Its promises are, "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. Besides, (6-Lt) I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more." Its priesthood does not embrace those who were made priests according to the law of a carnal commandment-a poor sinful, dying priesthood, obliged to offer sacrifices first for its own sins, and not permitted to continue by reason of death; but it is a priesthood filled by Him who is holy, harmless, undefiled and separated from sinners -one who is higher than the heavens-one who lives forever-one whose priesthood never passes from him-one who is forever able to save those who come to God through him; always living to make intercession for them. Such a High Priest became us. The Mediator of this New Covenant is greater than Moses, who mediated when the law was given, and greater than all the priests who mediated in the subsequent worship directed by that law. Of this Covenant there is but one Mediator-the man Christ Jesus-but'one Priest, who has passed into the heavens-who entered there with his own blood, now to appear in the presence of God for us; and one who has perfected forever the Sanctified. Throughout the eighth chapter this " authorized," or rather, unauthorized version, translates the same word covenant, which it translates "testament" in the seventh. It would not do to read, I will make a new testament with the houses of Israel and Judah, not according to the testament which I made with their fathers, because they continued not in my testament; but this is the testament which I will make with them-no, this is not "authorized;" and yet there is the same authority for so interpreting the word in the eighth chapter which authorized it in the seventh. FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. 101 The Common Version continues to use the word "covenant" in the ninth chapter until it arrives at the fifteenth verse, and then it substitutes " testament," and continues that to the sixteenth verse of the tenth chapter, when it changes again to the word covenant, which it employs to the end of the book. In the fifteenth verse of the ninth chapter, they call Jesus "the mediator of the new testament," and in the twenty-fourth verse of the twelfth, they call him "the mediator of the new covenant."' Nothing is clearer than that the King's revisers did not understand the Apostle's reasoning in his letter to the Hebrews, and therefore they could not translate it. The author of this admirable Epistle showed, in the first place, that the Old Covenant, given by the Lord, in the days of Moses, was ratified by blood, and then that the New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.-No. I. The Annual Report of the American and Foreign Bible Society, for the year ending May, 1854, lies before us, side by side with the last Annual Report of the American Bible Union, and that of the American Baptist Home Mission Society. In each of these reports there is much of general and varied interest, but our attention has been especially attracted to the Treasurer's Report in each case. Touching the receipts and disbursements of monies in these several societies for the past year, we find the following facts, namely: that the whole expense of collecting and expending the funds of the Home Mission Society was less than twenty-one per cent., and for the Bible Union, less than thirty per cent; while that of the American and Foreign Bible Society reached the enormous proportion of fifty-one per cent! What do our beloved friends think of that? Take the reports:and go over the figures and you will find this to be the case, with this only difference, that when you take into consideration the following facts, with reference to Mr. Woolsey's salary, you will find the A. & F. B. S. in a worse case than this even. Now, we can scarcely see how it is possible for the Home Mission Society to expend a less per centage than she does in carrying on the machinery 102 THE REVISER. of the society's operations, so that we have not a word of fault to find with them on this point. And we say the same with reference to the Bible Union. For although their outlay in necessary expenses exceeds that of the Home Mission Society, there are the best of reasons for it. In the first place the proportion of expense is always greatest in the infancy of a society, and diminishes with its age, This is easily accounted for, when we remember that there is always a heavy outlay of funds for an outfit. It costs considerable to commence house-keeping, but expenses in that direction become less and less every year. And then in commencing such an immense work as that of the Bible Union, expenses were constantly going on while the plans and machinery were being perfected and set in operation. Besides, the whole character of the work is different from that of any other society in existence, and is of the most expensive kind-slow and constant, and therefore costly. But above all else, the Bible Union had to go into a new field, and find out first who were its friends, and indeed to make friends by a slow and tedious process, battling against prejudice and ill feeling. Shut out of pulpits and associations-denounced by the press and men of influence in all positions. In fact, for a considerable time, the Union was obliged to rely for the spreading of light as to its plans and purposes, upon the tracts which it printed and circulated, in conjunction with the few agents that could be found. So that converts from error, had to be made one by one, as men could be reached. And now that the work is progressing, it is found necessary to lay out funds constantly, not only in remunerating scholars for their labors, and in all the other departments of expenditure in common with other benevolent societies, but also in purchasing the most valuable and expensive books for the use of revisers. There is now in the library some 2,000 or 2,500 volumes of rare philological and theological books, most of which have been imported from Europe at a heavy cost. This library will, when it is completed, form, as Dr. Conant says, the most valuable Biblical library on this continent. It can easily be seen, then, why the expenses of the Bible Union exceed those of the Home Mission Society. But who will tell us why the friction in the machinery of the A. & F. B. S., is more than enough to cover that of both the other societies put together? Or in other words, why'it costs that society of seventeen years standing, fifty-one per cent., to carry on its operations, while it costs the Bible FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. 103 Union a fraction less than thirty, and the H. M., a fraction less than twenty-one. Now, we find by the Treasurer's report, that all which the American and Foreign Bible Society "received" as donations "from churches, associations and individuals," for the last year, is $30,591,77, and that the amount expended in collecting and disbursing this sum, is $15,705,27, so that it cost them 51 cents out of every dollar to collect and expend every dollar collected and expended! Yet even this is not all. This does not include any part of the enormous expense of collecting funds for building the " Marble Palace;" for which an entirely separate corps of agents was employed at high salaries. And more, they have not continued to give any account at all of the disbursements connected with this "Marble Palace" fund. They give.the amounts received and now due, but not a word is said of the expenditures rendered necessary in securing these sums. And more than this, even although the salaries reported amount to the snug sum of $10,422,97, even in that amount is not included the salary of Rev. J. J. Woolsey, the Financial Secretary, which is $1200. Why the payment of Mr. Woolsey's salary is not to be found in the report of the Treasurer, we cannot tell, unless it be that it has been paid out of the "Marble Palace" fund, and this, notwithstanding he is the Financial Secretary of the society! Now, admitting this to be the case, the design of this manoeuver is very clear. If Mr. Woolsey's salary had been paid out of the general treasury, as that of other officers was, it would have swelled the sum of salaries to be paid out of $30,591,77 to $11,422,97, and the whole expenses of the society for the year would amount to $16,905,27! Business men only think of it. Men of common sense think of it, and tell us how long you could do business in that way. And if you can apply a softer term than Dr. Babcock's. favorite phrase of " absolutely sinful" to such squandering of monies collected for the most part from the honest and pious peasantry of our rural districts, or from the humble servant girls and apprentice boys of our cities; you have vastly more forbearance than we ever credited you with. We have said enough, however. Read and examine the report yourselves, and when you find that agents as efficient as Br. Lamb, in Ohio, and Br. Blood, in Indiana, could not collect enough on the field to pay their own salaries, but a part of it had to come out of the general treasury, we fancy you will feel some compassion for the 104 THE REVISER. society, as we do. 0 this Bible Unionism, this Bible Unionism, how it spreads like leaven in meal, whereunto indeed, will it grow? What the A. & F. B. S. will do next year in the way of salaries, it would require a prophet to tell; one thing is sure, inasmuch as they have raised that of Dr. Babcock to $1500, and that of Br. Ward to $1200, and Br. Woolsey's being $1200 already, besides that of a porter at from $300 to $500, they will have to pay at least $4,200 for services at the rooms alone. Surely they will need more than $30,000 in donations, or they will be in a wretched condition at the end of the year. — Christian Register. Danville, Ind., Aug. 10, 1854. DR. S. E. SHEHARD: Sir-By a notice in Eld. Campbell's Millennial Harbinger, I see that you are publishing a monthly periodical, entitled "The Reviser," devoted to the correction of all errors in the translation of the Scriptures; and which I look upon as a happy conception as a medium for the appearance, not only of your strictures and reviews, but for the communications of translators and scholars, on the points that must come into controversy. I, therefore, enclose you one dollar to pay for one volume of your Reviser, which you will please forward in numbers, as they appear, to this office, and oblige your friend and well-wisher in the work. JOHN IRONS, Danville, Hendricks Co., Ind. Franklin Mills, Portage Co., O., June 19, 1854. Dear Sir: The Christian Age of the 15th inst. is before me, and in it my attention is directed to an article, saying "that Dr. S. E. SHEPARD, of N. Y. was publishing a paper called The Reviser; and proposes to give accurate information relative to the revision of God's Holy Word, now in progress." I much approve your enterprise, and trust that by diffusing such information, you will awaken many to aid the work of all works of this age-the giving the revelation of God to man in words that convey precisely the same meaning dictated to holy men of old by God's Holy Spirit. This work, if accomplished, will hasten the time when all shall " see eye to eye," and. will destroy the " man of sin " spoken of in 2 Thess. 2d ch.; and will also banish a plurality of devils from the New Testament, by introducing demons instead, in at least all cases when Jesus or the apos FACTS FOR THE LEARNED, AND THE UNLEARNED. 105 ties cast such from man-which will destroy the mania for working sorcery now so universal. Enclosed I send for one copy, and can probably obtain a number more names in a few days. With great respect, I am, dear sir, yours, &c. &c. E. W. CRAIN, M. D. S. E. SHEPARD, M. D. This letter, by not being directed to 192 Sixth Avenue, did not reach me till this day, 28th Aug. S. E. S. FACTS FOR THE LEARNED, AND THE UNLEARNED. IIvevtta —SIRIT. The word spirit is of various import in the Holy Writings. It is not only of various, but also of momentous import. In its application, it is varied from the lowest animate being, up to that Incomprehensible Intelligence, whom no language can define-no finite mind comprehend!'At present, we propose to confine our strictures principally to its usage in the Christian Scriptures. We commenced in our early investigations of this subject with its lowest application to man, and endeavored to ascend, step by step, till the word became lost, to us, in its infinite application to Him who is known, by myriads of His creatures, but comprehended only by Himself. To make ourselves the better understood, we will classify the passages to be examined as follows: 1. Passages in which (7rvesVa) spirit occurs without an article, or an adjective, in the Greek New Covenant. " How then does David, (,v 1rveviaTrt) in spirit, call him Lord?" Matt. 22: 43. Of Jesus, when a child, it is written, "And the child grew, and (escpalratoiTro 7rverla7rt) was strengthened in spirit." Lu. 1: 80. 2: 40. A man of the company in which Jesus was, besought him to cast a spirit out of his only son, and said to Him (rrvesta apfI3ave t avrobv) a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out," &c. Lu. 9: 39. The disciples " supposed that they had seen (irvevpta) a spirit." 24: 37. "A spirit has not flesh and bones." v. 39. "Except one be born of water (icalt rvevbtaro;-) and of spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3: 5. "That which is born of the spirit is spirit." v. 6. (7rvevpta saert.) "The hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit, and in truth." 4: 23. "God is a spirit; and they who worship him must worship 106 THE REVISER. (en pneumati) in spirit, and in truth." v. 24. "The words which I speak to you are (pneuma) spirit and life." 6: 63.:The Sadducees say that there is " neither angel nor (pneuma) spirit." Acts 23: 8. The Pharisees said, " If a spirit (pneuma) or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God." " Circumcision is of the heart, (en pneumati) in spirit-not in letter." Rom. 2: 29. "That we should serve in newness of spirit, (en kcoinoteti pneumatos,) and not in oldness of letter."'7: 6. "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after flesh, but after spirit." 8: 1, see v. v. 4, 5. " But you are not in flesh, but in spirit, (en pneumati,) if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you." v. 9. "If you live after flesh you shall die. But if by spirit (pneuma) you kill the acts of the body, you shall live." v. 13. Paul said his preaching was " in demonstration of spirit (en apodeiksei pneumatos) an&d of power." 1 Cor. 2: 4. The unmarried woman desires to be "holy both in body and spirit." 7: 34. " He who speaks in a foreign language speaks not to man, but to God; for no man understands. However, in spirit, he speaks secrets." 14: 2. "Who also has made us able Ministers of the New Covenant-not of letter, but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life." 2 Cor. 3: 6. Having these promises, " let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit."'7: 1. " Having begun in spirit, are you now perfected in flesh?" Gal. 3: 3. " But as then, he who was born according to flesh, persecuted him who was born according to spirit, even so now." 4: 29. "Because we, in spirit, wait for the hope of justification from faith." 5: 5. "I say, then, Walk by spirit, and you will not fulfil lusts of flesh." v. 16. " But if you be led by spirit, you are not under law." v. 18. "If we live by spirit, by spirit also let us walk." v. 25. " In whom you also are jointly-erected into a habitation of God in spirit." (enpneumati.) Eph. 2: 22. " Which, in other ages, was not made known to the sons of men as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and Prophets in spirit." (en pneumati.) 3: 5. " Be not intoxicated with wine, in which is excess, but be filled in spirit." 5: 18. " Praying always in all prayer and supplication in spirit." 6: 18. "If there be, therefore, any consolation in Christ -if any comfort of love-if any participation of spirit (iotvtovia 7vevsvta-rog) —if any tender affections and mercies, fulfil my joy." Phil. 2: 1. "We are the Circumcision who worship God in spirit." 3: 3. "Who also declared to us your love in spirit." Col. 1: 8. FACTS FOR THE LEARNED, AND THE UNLEARNED. 107' That you be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither because of spirit, neither because of word, neither because of letter as from us," &c. 2 Thess. 2: 2. " God has chosen you for salvation in sanctification of spirit and belief of truth." v. 13. " God was manifested in flesh-justified in spirit," &c. 1 Tim. 3: 16. "Be an example of the believers, in word, in behaviour, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." 4: 12. " Dividing asunder of soul and spirit." ieb. 4: 12. " For as the body without spirit is dead, so even the faith without the works is dead." James 2: 26. "These are they who separate-animal-having no spirit." Jude 19. "I was in spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1: 10. "' Immediately, I was in spirit." 4: 2. "He carried me away in spirit." 17: 3, see also 21: 10. The passages not quoted here, and which are without the article, and the adjective " holy," are defined by a genitive, or an adjunct of some kind. Among those quoted, there are five which are applied to an intelligent being. These are, Luke 9: 39, " a spirit takes him "24: 37, "they thought they had seen a spirit "-v. 39, " a spirit has not flesh and bones "-Acts 23: 8, " the Sadducees believe in neither angel nor spirit "-and v. 9, " but if a spirit, or an angel has spoken to him." Once the words of Christ are said to be spirit, and once that which is born of the spirit is declared to be spirit. The Sanctified are said to love in spirit-to participate in spiritto pray and supplicate in spirit-live in spirit-walk in spirit-wait in spirit-serve in newness of spirit-to worship in spirit-to be in spirit-to be filled with spirit, and David called the Messiah Lord, in spirit. All these passages refer to the spiritual condition of the persons of whom, or to whom they are spoken; and in neither of these instances is the word " spirit " used as the name of a being. Twice the word is applied to the spiritual part of the "holy child Jesus," as contradistinguished from his body, and it is affirmed to have been strengthened. Christians not only loved in spirit, worshiped in spirit, walked, prayed and supplicated in spirit, but were sanctified in spirit; and truth was revealed to Apostles and Prophets in spirit, the saints were the habitation of God in spirit, and the gospel was preached in demonstration of spirit. " Spirit" is, in many places, contrasted with flesh, and in all such instances the flesh and spirit placed in antithesis, are but different 108 THE REVISER. parts of the same being, or beings. The flesh of one being, and the spirit of another is not the philological relationship of these words, neither in sacred nor secular usage. "Spirit" is, in one place, distinguished from soul (~bvyq, from 7rvevjla) and animal men are declared to be destitute of it. See Judas 19, Greek and Revised English Scriptures. FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.-No. 2. It is reported to us, on what we regard as good authority, that Dr. Babcock recently applied to one of the oldest and wealthiest churches in New England for a collection in behalf of the American and Foreign Bible Society. In that church all such applications are referred to a committee, who grant or deny the request, as they see fit. When the letter was read before the committee, the distinguished pastor, Rev. Mr. G r rose up and said, in substance, and as near as we recollect, in these words: " What under the heavens do they want with money? What special calls have they now? They don't need any bibles for Burmah, unless they want to circulate them'by means absolutely sinful!' The other parts of the foreign field are supported; and as to the home field, they are only doing the work of the American Bible Society, and the fact is, I cant see any necessity whatever, for the society; it is nothing but a cumbrous bill of expense, and therefore I am opposed to giving them a collection at all." "Well, now, brethren;" said one of the members of the committee, " the pastor has spoken my mind exactly; there is no necessity for the society at all, and although I am not a Bible Union man, yet I declare, if the Bible Union will send along a respectable agent, I would vote them a collection with all my heart." "Amen!" said another member of the committee, and the application for a collection was denied. In a conversation which we had ourselves a few days ago with the Rev. Dr. C. (a most distinguished baptist minister and in no wise connected with the Bible Union, but a very candid and devoted man) he said, " well the very last time I saw Dr. Babcock, I told him, " Bro. Babcock, there is in my opinion no earthly use for the American and Foreign Bible Society. I cannot see any position for you. In the foreign department you are only an agent to forward funds to Boston, you have no control whatever over the FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE. 109 Foreign Scriptures, either in translating them, or in the ownership of the plates, and therefore why should not the friends of the heathen send their contributions for Foreign Scriptures directly to the Missionary Union, without you taking a heavy draft from them to pay the expenses of the Bible Society on their way a And as to the home department, you cannot publish books so cheap by twenty-five per cent, as you can purchase them of the American Bible Society. And where is the use of laying out $15,000 a year, for the double agencr of buying books of the American Bible Society, and of forwarding funds to Boston a" And then said the Dr. to us "why sir, I am informed that they have expended over $15,000 this year, in collecting $30,000 for these two objects! why sir, it is abominable! And then Dr. Babcock came to my pulpit and appealed, and plead, and cried, while he told my people what a glorious thing it would be to hang up "a golden lamp in every village in Burmah," and then I went to Philadelphia and heard those sickening disclosures there. Oh! sir, it was sickening. I was disgusted! The idea of a man coming with such a plea in his mouth, and at the same time by private letters urging missionaries in Burmah to get rid of the bibles they had on hand,'in in any way not absolutely sinful, for they blocked the wheels in America;' its too bad, sir; too bad for anything." Now, we submit could Dr. C. and Rev. Mr. G. have taken any other view of all the facts before them. As far-sighted men-as men of practical common sense, and enlarged views, they know that it is absurd to think of proping up a society so perfectly useless as the American and Foreign Bible Society. And these two distinguished brethren are but representatives of a very large class of men in our churches, who are far enough from being identified with the revision movement. In a speech delivered a year or two ago by Rev. Dr. Cone, he said: "I consider that since the A. & F. B. S. has repudiated the principles of its organization, it is as useless as the fifth wheel in a coach." We are very sure that Dr. Cone is not the only sagacious and discriminating man who has come to that conclusion. There has long been a party of the baptists, with Dr. Wayland at their head, who have entertained the same opinion, and that party is now making its weight felt as much upon that society on the one side, as the Bible Union is affecting it on the other. The wish of this class of men clearly is, that the foreign department shall be merged into the Missionary Union, and the home department into the American Bible 1110 THE REVISER. Society, and not to go on at the present rate of paying out half of the society's receipts on an immense host of agents and officers appointed merely to collect and deposit funds in the mail-bag in New York, en route for Boston, or to traverse back and forth from Nassau street to Astor place, for the purchase of books at the American rooms, and then as distributing agents to scatter them abroad over the same field occupied by the American Bible Society. While this state of things exists, the operations of the society must be more and more embarrassed every year. The party to whom reference has been made is constantly increasing in numbers and in strength, especially in New England, and Dr. B.abcock's unprofitable controversy with the Missionary Union Board and the Maulmain Convention has by no means tended to allay the agitation, while on the other hand the friends of the Bible Union are multiplying at a ratio beyond that of any previous year in its history. Dr. Babcock said a few days ago that the Union was sadly small in its numbers, about one-eighth of the baptist denomination, he reckoned, while the A. & F. B. S. held the other seven-eighths. And, indeed, it may be so, but if financial strength is any true index to the number of patrons of a benevolent society, the relative strength of the two organizations will be pretty fairly tested by the treasurer's report during the present year. If the report of Wm. Colgate does not exceed by some few dollars, " by cash received from churches, associations and individuals, $30,591,77," we shall be somewhat disappointed. There is no use in such a representation, Dr. Babcock. With the Bible Union in front, and your own American Bible Society men " keeping up a brisk fire in your rear," you must come to terms and capitulate to truth- Christian Register. THE REVISER. I have carefully examined the first three numbers of this periodical, and, although not prepared to. accord in sentiment with all the criticisms which they suggest, I heartily approve of the object and plan of the publication, and also of the manner in which it appears to be conducted. It affords a medium for free discussion on philological points not suitable for the columns of a newspaper, or magazine. The encouragement which it has already received, proves that the need of such a publication is widely felt, and that this new effort in the line of biblical criticism is justly appreciated. WM. 1I. WYCKOFF. THE SPIRIT. 111 To IIvevpa-THE SPIRIT. 1. We will now notice places where the word " spirit" has the article. "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness." Matt. 4:1. The Spirit, in this place, most probably means the Spirit of God, in a personal sense, as it had descended on him previously. I am strengthened in this view by the statement of the same fact in Mark 1: 12, "And immediately the Spirit drives him into the wilderness." Such language can hardly be understood of his own spirit. It is true, that the same phrase is used of his own spirit in Matt. 27 50; but the spirit there is represented as given up by Him, and not as driving or leading him. The Common Version of this passage is good, except ghost for spirit. 2. "Blessed are the poor in the spirit," (re)- 7rveViaT-.) The Common Version is faulty here in two particulars. The Greek (Ma;daptot) makarioi, should have been rendered, Happy, and the article should have been translated. To be poor "in spirit," properly means to be destitute of spirit, as to be poor in this world's goods means, to be destitute in relation to them. But to be poor " in the spirit," means to feel a spiritual destitution as distinguished from a worldly destitution which has more relation to the body than to the spirit. "The spirit" in this place does not designate a being in the sense of a person, but the spiritual nature of men as distinguished from their bodies. It is to be taken in a general, and not in an individual sense, because (oi 7-rwoXoC) hoiptochoi, "the poor," in the Greek, is plural, and (-r) 7rve6Vart) to pneumati, "the spirit," is singular —referring to a nature possessed in common by men. The poor in spirit are not " blessed," because " theirs is the kingdom of the heavens," but they are " happy" on this account. The passage should therefore read, " Happy, the poor in the spirit," &c. 3. " But this slanderous speaking of the Spirit is not to be forgiven." Matt. 12: 31. The whole context shows clearly that the Spirit of God, sometimes called the Holy Spirit, is here intended. This is corroborated by Mark's statement of the same discourse. "Prompt, indeed, the spirit-but the flesh, without strength." Matt. 26 41. " The spirit" is here used in contrast with the flesh, and furnishes another instance in which Jesus recognizes the two natures in men-the fleshly and the spiritual. "The spirit" does not here mean a person." Mark 14: 38. 112 THE REVISER. 4. "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up (7rO rveVta) the spirit." Here spirit means the same as in the last passage. That which died on the cross, gave up that which entered paradise with the penitent thief the same day of the crucifixion. 5. Mark 1: 10, 12 both relate to the Spirit of God in a personal sense. But the same phrase is used in ch. 9: 20, of a foul spirit. See v. 25. This spirit is mentioned in v. 1 7, as "a dumb spirit." The article is used here because of renewed mention, to refer back to the dumb spirit, v. 17. The phrase clearly indicated a personal intelligence, or convicts Christ of giving countenance to a false and absurd superstition of that age. The latter no christian can believe. 6. " And he came, in the spirit, into the temple." Luke 2: 27. He came (Ev -ri rrvevLaarlt) in the spirit. This is expressive of the spiritual condition of this pious old man; and shows that when he entered the Temple of God to witness the fulfilment of a legal precept on the person of His only begotten son, he was in the prophetic state. It is, therefore, said, " Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Some have thought, because the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the antecedent context, that en to pneumati should. be rendered, as in the Common Version, " by the Spirit." But this is a comment rather than a translation. The phrase should be literally rendered, and the English reader allowed to judge for himself of the import of the English phrase, as the Greek reader does of the Greek phrase. Then both stand " on equal footing." 7. " And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about." Luke 4: 14. The Spirit here means the same by which he was led into the wilderness, for this return is a return from the wilderness after " the devil" had departed from him. Moreover, the extension of his fame was owing to what he did by " the power of the Spirit," and he indicates that his miracles were wrought by the Spirit of God, when he says, " If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come on you." 8. "Jesus rejoiced in the spirit." Luke 10: 21. That this is expressive of the state of Christ's mind, or spirit, is so clear that no per THE SPIRIT. 113 son can misunderstand its import. " The spirit" cannot be taken for a being separate from himself. 9. "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven "-" thou shalt see the Spirit descending," &c. John 1: 32, 33. Both these passages refer to the Holy Spirit. 10. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." John 3: 6. This has long been considered a mysterious passage, designed to express a mysterious doctrine. So far as the duty of the translator is concerned, there is no difficulty. Following the authorities on the word (avwO6ev) anothen, the contextual connection should, I think, read, " I say to thee, Verily, verily, except one be born from above he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus says to him, How can a man, being an old man, be born? Can he enter into his mother's womb a second time and be born? Jesus replied, I say to thee, Verily, verily, except one be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." Here neither of the nouns, "water" nor "spirit" have the article. Whether this be accounted for on the principle of what Middleton calls " enumeration," or not, does not alter the case. Here is no evidence of personality in either case. "Water " is spoken of in an indefinite sense, and "spirit" is equally indefinitely used. Jesus adds, "' That born of the flesh, is flesh-that born of the spirit, is spirit." Here we have " spirit" with the article. But we are not thence to infer that a person is meant, and consequently print " spirit" with an initial capital. Because we also have "flesh" with the article, and, so far as philology is concerned, the same law, or reason, which justifies the initial capital in "spirit," justifies it also in "' flesh." And if we are, as translators bound, or even permitted, to so translate one portion of this compound propositibn, the same obligation or permission requires the other portion to be so rendered. Philology requires it. Any other rendering is not made on philological, but on theological grounds. Why not bring the proposition before the English reader's mind in exactly the same form in which it was placed before the mind of the teacher in Israel, by our Teacher who taught as never man taught? Let the passage be fairly translated, and if religious teachers cannot explain it, then let them be sparing of their censures of Nicodemus, and learn the way of the Lord more perfectly. We insist on having the Scriptures in English, 12 114 THE REVISER. as they are in Greek and Hebrew. We desire no glossaries, but we demand " the unadulterated milk of the word." 11. " The wind bloweth where it listeth." v. 8. By what law of interpretation the Common Version here renders (To 7rvevjta) to pneumna, the wind, we know not. If the article before pneuma in v. 7 required an initial capital, it must require it here also. And if it prove personality in v. 7, why not also in v. 8. And if it should be translated spirit in v. 7, why not also in v. 8. It is said that "the pneuma breaths where it wills." But the wind has no will. Volition cannot be predicated of it. It is evident that whatever pneuma means here, it has volition. If explained definitely, as meaning the Holy Spirit, it has a will. If explained indefinitely, as denoting the spiritual portion of human nature, will belongs to that also. A philologist finds in this portion of the Christian Scriptures, a birth " from above "-a birth " of water" —a birth " of spirit"-and a " birth of flesh." Of the first it is not said, That which is " born from above," is above, nor is it affirmed that, That which is " born of water," is water. But it is said, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh;" and also, " That which is horn of the spirit, is spirit." As it relates to flesh and spirit, an identity of nature is affirmed between the thing born, and that of which it is born. Flesh produces flesh-spirit produces spirit. These propositions are true, as regards man's earthly existence; and accordingly Jesus said to Nicodemus, "If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" The birth from above was a "heavenly" thing. " And not one (OV6XE'-) oudeis has ascended into heaven, if not he who came down (rcn) out of heaventhe son of man who was in heaven." He was " born from above "" born of water"-born of the flesh"-and "born of the spirit." He came out of heaven with the divine nature-he was born of the flesh and spirit when born of Mary-hence his fleshly and spiritual nature as a man; and he was born of water when he came up out of the Jordan. "Except one be born from above he cannot (idEiv) perceive the Kingdom of God." This word translated " see," signifies more than (Petrryo) blepo, to see; it implies the actual perception of the thing. The Kingdom was from above, and invisible to mortal eyes; but Jesus, being in heaven and possessed of heavenly vision, and having been born from above, or come down from heaven, could perceive this Kingdom. His descent from heaven was proof of his LUtE 16:'19. 115 divine nature, and he said to Nicodemus, "Itbehooves you to be born from above," i. e. to be a partaker of "the divine nature." It is remarkable also, that the above sentence follows the assertion that the thing born is of the same nature of that of which it is born, as flesh and spirit. Man being naturally born of both, is both flesh and spirit. But to be "heavenly" instead of "earthly," he must be born from above-be a partaker of the higher-the divine nature. "6 Whereby he has given to us the exceeding great and precious promises, that by these you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption which is in the world'through lust." 2 Pet. 1: 4. The glorious freedom which God has given to our spiritual nature, or that which " is born of spirit," is affirmed by the freedom with which it breathes and speaks. It " breathes where it wills," and its voice is heard; sometimes in the utterance of its own sentiments and feelings; and again, filled with a holy spirit-God's own inspiration -it utters the Oracles of the Supreme, and the vibrations of his robes testify that Felix is ill at ease in the chair of state. He " heard its voice " —he heard and " trembled," The responsibility of Nicodemus, and all who have been born of flesh and spirit, is clearly indicated by this spiritual freedom. "It behooves " them "to be born from above." Without it they " cannot discern the Kingdom of God." LUKE 16: 19. "' There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in pwuple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day." There was a certain rich man, (OvOpwrror d6S -rtg'v iroViatog-.)'But there was a certain rich man.' The different parts of this chap. ter appear to a cursory reader to be unconnected with each other; and our translators by omitting the (de) in this verse have certainly not assisted us towards discerning the connection. In the first application of the parable of the unjust steward, our Lord had given some general lessons on the right use of worldly riches, to v. 12; and in v. 13 he enforced the principle by insisting on an undivided devotion to the service of God, the great Master, and especially condemned the service of Mammon (worldly gain) as incompatible with it. This offended "the Pharisees, who were covetous "; and, being interrupt 116 THIE REVISER. ed by their derision, Christ suspended the regular course of his instruction to reply to them, from v. 15 to 18. The scope of this passage seems to be the following: You justify yourselves before men, and make a great show of righteousness by your zeal for the law, which you falsely charge me with undervaluing. This, however, I am so far from doing, that I declare that heaven and earth might more easily pass away than one tittle of the lawfail: but the dispensation of the law was only to last till the time of John; and since then the kingdom of God is preached. But now, to show further, that I am no enemy to the holiness of the law, and that your professed zeal for it is only a hypocritical pretence, I declare that you pervert it, and relax the obligations of its holiness by your traditionary glosses on the subject of marriage and divorce (compare Matth. xix. 3, and Deuteron. xxiv. 1) and I maintain, that to put away a wife on such pretexts as you allow of, is so contrary to the purity of God's law, that it is nothing better than adultery. Having thus rebuked them, he returns to his main purpose, viz. the application of the parable to the subject of riches: But (v. 19,) leaving the cavils of these covetous and selfrighteous objectors, I will illustrate what I mean by faithfulness in the unrighteous mammon (v. 11) by the affecting case of one who was unfaithful.-Scholefield. JOHN 1: 13. " Which was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." If the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustin, and other "fathers" can be relied on, the primitive reading of this verse had (6;) hos, instead of (Sl) hoi, that is, the singular instead of the plural. The verb (EyevvnO7l) egennethe, should be translated " begotten," instead of " born," as God, of whom the birth in the Common Version is affirmed, is of the masculine gender, and it is as absurd to predicate giving birth to a male, as generating to a female. In the settlement of the true reading of this passage, the following facts are to be considered: 1. The testimony above referred to is of great weight, as external evidence. 2. It is strongly corroborated by internal evidence. The internal JOHN 7:39. 117 testimony is, that the begetting was "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Now every being, except Jesus of Nazareth, who has been begotten, has been begotten of blood-has been begotten of a will of flesh-and of a will of man. Christians are no exception to this proposition. But Jesus was not so begotten, but is " the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." Moreover, the plural (6t) hoi, could not follow, as its relative, (6Oot) hosoi, as many; because the latter relates to the preceding (-ltot) idioi, own. As many of his own (-r0v ltdov) as received' him he gave " the privilege to become children of God." The immediate antecedent is (ai-rov) his, and requires (6;-) in the singular, and not (6L) the plural. Receiving him, and believing on his name, are equivalents, in v. 12. If "begotten of God," in v. 13, be referred to those who " received him," it involves the absurdity of saying that Jesus gave to all who "were begotten of God," the privilege "to become the children of God." Whereas, if begotten of God, they needed no such privilege; because, they being begotten of God, must unavoidably be his children. I hope our worthy Reviser of this book will duly consider this subject, and recommend accordingly. For the Reviser. JOHN 7: 39. 4' But this he said of the spirit, which those believing on him were about to receive;for there was not yet a holy spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Pneuma (vrvevita) is one of those difficult words that sometimes fall in the' way of the translator. It occurs with or without the art., with or without the qualifying adjective, (dytov,) hagion, holy, presenting the following variety: Pneuma, to pneuma, hagion pneuma, to hagion pneuma and to pneuma to hagion; [that is, spirit, the spirit, holy spirit, the holy spirit, and, the spirit the holy. ED.] Its various meanings are well presented in the following synopsis of Middleton's researches, on this subject. 1. Breath, or wind. This is its primitive meaning. (It signifies breath, in Rev. 13: 15; but it is not certain that it ever means wind in the N. T. 118 THE REVISER. 2. The spiritual part of man, as opposed to his carnal part. 3. An immaterial, or spiritual agent, as, an angel, a demon, or God himself. 4. The third person of the Godhead, THE Spirit, Ca —' eo0Xyv. 5. The influences, or operations of this personal Spirit. 6. The effects of these influences or operations, as, disposition, character, faith, virtue, religion. I would add, that in some cases, (as in Matth. 1: 18, 20, Luke,: 35,) (7rvevpza) pneuma, evidently designates the Divine Power,. (dvvaptg') namely, of the Father; for the personal Spirit is never properly said to have begotten the humanity of the Messiah, this action, being often predicated of the Father. Among all the interesting questions naturally arising in this connection, but two have any important bearing on the labors of the translator; namely, —1. When should the word, spirit, be printed with an initial capital?-and-2. When should it be preceded by the article?-The reply to the first question is easy, That this word should always begin with a capital, when it designates the personal Spirit, (or is used simply to designate the Divine Power, without di — rect reference to personal distinctions, as in the passages cited above,) but in no other case. —To the second question it may be replied,(1) That when this word designates the persona]l Spirit, it should always be accompanied by the art., unless in a case of enumeration, (as in ch. 3 8, explained below).-(2) That in cases of renewed men — tion, or when otherwise rendered definite, even though it may not designate the personal Spirit, the art. should precede it.-(3) That in all cases where the art. is wanting in the Orig., and it is not evident from the context, that the reference is to the personal Spirit, the art. should be omitted in the translation, unless the Eng. idiom absolutely require its insertion.-So much for the bearing of these questions upon the Eng. translation, when made. And, as to the cases of renewed mention, and the manifest requirements of the Eng. idiom, it may be presumed that but little, if any difficulty will be experienced. It will be perceived, however, that, in making the translation, we are met by this secondary question, arising out of those already discussed, -By what rules may the translator determine, whether (-rvevfta) pneuma is, or is not used to designate the personal Spirit?-Premising, that there may be some cases, in which it would be difficult to determine the exact sense of (rrvevlta) pneuma, I would lay down JOHN 7:39. 119 the following general rules for the solution of this difficult question: 1. The connection of the adjective, (acytov) hagion, with this word, is no indication whatever, that the personal Spirit is meant; since holiness is as properly predicated of the inJfuences of this Spirit, or of the effects of these influences, as of the Spirit himself. Yet King James' revisers seem to have regarded the presence of this adjective as a sure indication that the personal spirit was intended; for they have, in all cases, translated (hagion pneuma, to hagion pneuma, and to pneuma to hagion), by the Holy Ghost, except in four cases, where they have rendered by the Holy Spirit, evidently in the same sense. 2. As the third person of the God-head is, in scripture, called THE Spirit, (ca-r' esoXrv), kat' eksochen, [by way of eminence,] the phi. losophy of language in general, as well as the established usages of the Greek in particular, require that the noun be accompanied by the art., unless, by the same high authority, its omission can be clearly shown to be required, or at least authorized.-3. When (Ervevtta) pneuma, is accompanied by the article, unless it be a case of renewed mention, or of reference to some historical object, or unless there be something in the context that limits its use, it is to be understood of the personal Spirit, in all cases. It remains to apply these general rules in the elucidation of a few of those passages, in which I would vary from the E. V. in the translation of (rrvevlta) pneuma.-In the former part of the verse now under consideration, " But this he said of the spirit, &c.," the article is used in the Orig., not to indicate the personal Spirit, but because the following clause, "which those believing on him were about to receive," renders the word definite, and thus creates a necessity for the article; while, in the latter part of the verse, "for there was not yet a holy spirit, &c.," no such limiting clause is found, and, therefore, the art. is omitted. Besides this want of the art. in the latter case, there is another serious objection to the common rendering, namely, That it is not true, that the third person of the Godhead was not, or did not exist, at that time; while it is true, that that holy spirit, in which the disciples were afterward immersed, was not yet, for the plain reason that the time of this promise was not yet come, "because Jesus was not yet glorified." Of course, it is here taken for granted, that as neither given, nor any similiar word, is implied in the subst. verb, (Tv), the translator has no authority for supplying it.These remarks apply with equal force to Acts 19: 2, and several 120 THE REVISER. other parallel passages.-In John 1: 33, last clause, and in the parallel passages, (Matt. 3: 11. Mark 1: 8. Luke 3: 16. Acts 1: 5.), I understand (rvevlza) pneuma to mean, the influence of the Spirit. (See def. no. a, above.)-1. B.ecause, the article being wanting, there is nothing in the letter of the passage that points to the personal Spirit, as the subject of discourse.-2. Because the idea of an immersion of believers in the influence of a Divine Person, is more apposite than that of an immersion in, (or even an affusion with,) that Divine Person himself.-3. Because this immersion in a holy spirit, accomplished on the day of Pentecost, was not, as some imagine, the fulfillment of the promise of the Saviour, "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter.. the Spirit of truth, &c.," (ch. 14:16, 17,) wherein, without reasonable doubt, (nevEvja) pneuma designates the personal Spirit, but a quite different, and, in some sense, an independent thing. This pentecostal affusion was the fulfillment of " the promise of the Father" (Acts 1 4,) made first through John the Baptist, long before the promise in relation to the Divine Comforter was revealed. Besides, the Saviour said to the disciples, in evident reference to this affusion, (Luke 24: 49,) "But tarry YE in the city of Jerusalem, till ye be endued with power from on high:" where the use of the word, power, (dvva/ctt,) dunamis, (comp. Luke 1: 35,) strongly militates against the idea of any reference to any visitation of the personal Spirit being intended.-In John 3: 5, where the reference is most probably to the personal Spirit, I omit the article, —1. Because it is a case of enumeration, (See Midd. ch. 6. ~ 2,) in which the Engl. idiom, equally with that of the Greek, provides for the omission of the art.-2. Because the art. is wanting in the Orig.-In regard to John 20: 22, " Receive ye a holy spirit," I will simply add to what thoughts will readily suggest themselves to the mind of the attentive reader, that the Saviour's language conveys an apposite and beautiful sense, when (irvevjma) pneuma is taken to be equivalent to the injflences of the Spirit.See def. no. 5, above. As regards the change from Ghost to spirit, here and elsewhere, it is presumed that but little need be said. Ghost, (Germ. Geist,) may have been proper enough two hundred years ago; but, I think, it should now be rejected, at least as a rendering of (v7evsva) pneuma, —. Because it is a needless departure from the otherwise JOHN 5:39. 121 almost uniform rendering of this word. (The only other exceptions that I have noticed are in John 3: 8, and Rev. 13: 15.-2. Because the idea conveyed by this word, in its modern acceptation, is not only never equivalent to the meaning of (irvesvIa) pneuma, but is, besides, highly objectionable, as being allied to superstition.-Ghost is, I believe, uniformly rejected by Penn., Newc., and Dodd., and generally by Camp. It is not pretended, that, in the above remarks, this subject is by any means exhausted. On the contrary, it is hoped, that other revisers will not only vindicate the truth, in relation to the use of (rvevlva) pneuma, in their respective spheres of investigation, but also shed additional light on the ground covered by this note.-See Midd. on the Gr. Act. quoted above; T. S. Green's Gram. to the N. T., ch. 4; Trollope's Gram. to the N. T., ~~ 27-33. J. W. M. JOHN 5: 39. "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. Search the Scriptures; for —(pe-vi'e ra';- ypaava'gi 6irtl)-' Ye search the Scriptures, because.'-This reading appears to me to give a clearer sense to the passage itself, and to mark more distinctly its connection with what has gone before. Had the assigned reason been,' for in them ye have eternal life,' or' in them ye may find eternal life,' it would have furnished an obvious ground for the exhortation to search them; but if they thought and acknowledged that they had eternal life in them, this exhortation may seem to be superfluous. In the other case the tenor of the words is plain: You are in the habit of searching the Scriptures; and why? because you believe that you have eternal life in them; and these Scriptures which you so carefully search are they which testify of me as the Saviour that is to give you that life; and yet you are not willing to come to me that you may obtain it. The connection is this: Christ had said in v. 31, If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. He proceeds to obviate this objection by appealing to the testimony of his Father, vv. 32, 37; John the Baptist, 33; his own miracles, 36; and 122 THE REVISER. all these appeals are in the declaratory form: Ye sent unto John, &c. so, Ye search the Scriptures-as it is clear they did do, for their contradictions against Christ were derived from a perverse or ignorant interpretation of them. The Roman Catholics of course prefer the rendering I have recommended; but it cannot help them much in the way of discountenancing the general reading of the Scriptures, as in the place of a direct command to that effect, which was not necessary, it substitutes a practical example, quoted by our Lord with implied approbation, though accompanied with a censure of their perverse misunderstanding of what they read.-Scholefield. JOHN 13: 23. " Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." Ver. 23. lying at Jesus's bosom.] The cause of this expression is now sufficiently known; yet the learned Lipsius's description of the practice to which it refers, is too perspicuous to render its insertion obtrusive: " They lay down with the upper part of the body resting on the left elbow; the head a little raised, and the back supported by a pillow. If more than one lay on the same couch, the feet of the first were extended obliquely behind the back of the second, so that the back of the head (occiput) of the second was in a line with the stomach of the first, but with a pillow between them. He who lay at the head of the couch, was called the highest-summus; he at the foot was called the lowest-imus. But, if three guests were on the same couch, the middle one was called,'dignissimus-the most worthy,' being next to him who held the highest place of honor."-(Ant. Lect. lib. iii. 94.) He, then, who lay immediately next, or before, the chief personage, was said to lie, evico2-rr,-' in sinu,' or,'at his bosom.' This phrase, with relation to the custom of lying down at table, corresponded to that of sitting'on the right hand,' when it was the custom to sit. Both these practices appear to have been in use among the Jews; and from thence, our Lord's divine relation to the Father is expressed, both by being'at His bosom,' and by being'at His right hand.' The former practice, explains the account of'a woman coming behind him, to anoint his MATTHEW 13: I9. I2$, ieet.' So common and familiar was this phrase among the Romans, that the younger Pliny, in describing a supper party, says, "Coenabat Nerva cum paucis; Veiento proximus, atque etiam in sinu recumbebat."-(Epp. lib. iv. 22, 4.) Ignorance of this custom, has caused absurd representations by some of the most eminent painters: there is a picture of the'Last Supper' by a celebrated Italian master, in which all the personages are'sitting upright' at table, except St. John, who is thrusting his head laterally into our Saviour's bosom. [Penn. MATTHEW 13:19. " When cay one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which receiveth seed by the wayside."'This is he which received seed by the way side.' (o'-r5''a-Etv 5 rap'a -jv 6&v a7rapei;'.)' This is that which was sown by the way side.' Our Translators have introduced great confusion by a want of uniformity in their version of this parable in the three Evangelists. In St. Matthew they uniformly (vv. 19, 20, 22, 23,) render the passive participle (arapei;) by the idea of receiving seed, as if it applied to the field instead of the seed. But as (aOrapei;') properly signifies sown, not receiving seed; so our Lord in his own interpretation of the parable explains the seed sown of those who by the word are sown or planted in the church: just as in the next parable he says, v. 38,'The good seed are the children of the kingdom.' It must be confessed indeed, that there is some little confusion in the use of the metaphor; but then a translation should not make the confusion greater than it is in the original. The confusion consists in the seed being interpreted primarily of' the word of God,' and secondarily of the children, either of the kingdom of God or of the wicked one. Mark says, iv. 14,'The sower soweth the word:' Luke, viii. 11,'The seed is the word of God.' But when our Lord goes on to distribute the primary and general idea into its parts in reference to the results, this can only be done by marking the distinction in the characters produced. And these different results, again, are owing not to any difference in the seed, which is the same in all, viz.'the word of 124 THE REVISER. God;' but to the difference of the grounds in which it is sown. This is clearly expressed in the translation of Mark iv. 16, 18, 20,'These are they which are sown on stony ground,' &c. &c.-whereas in v. 15 it is expressed in the other form,'These are they by the way-side, where THE WORD is sown, but,' &c.-If any prefer to render in Matthew as in Mark,'This is HE which was sown by the way-side,' there can be no objection to it.-Scholefield. For the Reviser. JOHN 7: 3. " For not even his brothers were believing on him." Alford has shown, I think conclusively, (Note on Matt. 13: 55, which see, for a complete analysis of this controversy,) that, from the testimony of Scripture alone, those called, (ol adee~ot -,ov xvptov), [the brothers of the Lord, Ed.] were really the children of Christ's mother, Mary; younger, of course, than himself. I deem it unnecessary to transcribe even the substance of his argument. Suffice it to say, that the passage under consideration is one of the strongest evidences that these persons were not the sons of Alpheus, as has, from tradition, been generally supposed, both in ancient and modern times. (Comp. ch. 2:12, and Acts 1: 14.) Three, at least, of his disciples (Matthew, James, and Judas, see Alf., as above,) were disciples of our Lord, and believed on him. (See ch. 2:11, and 6: 69.) But here, these persons, (oi ad. avTov,) [his brothers, Ed.] without any exception being made, are said not to believe on him. It is sadly interesting to notice the efforts sometimes made by men, otherwise candid, in defending a darling tradition against the overwhelming testimony of Scripture. See, for example, Penn's attempt (Supplem. Annot. in loeo,) to explain away the phrase, (errtarEvov elt- av-ov,) [were believing on him, Ed.] one of the most vitally important of all the expressions used in the Gospel. For my own part, I have not the slightest regard for the monkish traditions, in relation to the domestic intercourse between Joseph and Mary, subsequent to the birth of our Saviour. Perhaps, all that the Scriptures teach on this subject, may be gathered from Matt. 1: 25; and this, as far as it goes, is directly opposed to these traditions. [Fathers and mothers have been among the most pious of our race. Ed.] J. W. M. MARK 16: 1. 125 MARK 16: 1. " And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him." Ver. 1. When the Sabbath was past, &c.] The incidents of the sepulchral history of Christ, are most clearly reported by the evangelists. Our Lord expired at the ninth hour, or three in the afternoon, of Friday, three hours before the Sabbath commenced. Joseph of Arimathea (apprised of his early death, probably by John who witnessed it), solicited and obtaink the body, wound it up with spices, or embalmed it; and laid it speedily in a new tomb which was at hand, because the Sabbath was fast advancing. The women, who also wished to contribute to the honors of the burial, followed the procession; and, stationing themselves in front, remarked the tomb in which he was deposited. They returned to the city, and purchased other spices, to add them to those in which our Lord had been enwrapped; but, the Sabbath being arrived, they waited over that day, which ended at six in the evening of Saturday. They further waited till a late hour of the night, that they might be free from all eye-witnesses and intruders. They then proceeded to the tomb very early in the morning, while it was yet dark, but found that our Lord had risen from it. Such is the simple order of the narrative, which Michaelis has compounded in his own mind, and from thence has charged ignorance and contradiction on the evangelists. He first gratuitously assumes, that the spices of Joseph, and the spices of the women, were supposed by the two evangelists to be for one and the same operation, viz. the first embalming the body of Jesus; and, insensible of the error of his own assumption he proceeds to comment thus: "St. John appears to have corrected, though in a very delicate manner, the accounts given by his predecessors. Ch. xix. 39, 40, where St. John relates, that Nicodemus and Joseph embalmed the body of Jesus on the Friday evening, before it was deposited in the sepulchre, does not harmonise with the account of St. Mark, ch. xvi. 1, and of St. Luke, ch. xxiii. 56, and xxiv. 1, that the women, after Christ's interment, purchased spices, in order to embalm his body on the Sunday morning. I have attempted, in my History of the Resurrection, to reconcile the contradiction; but I have not been able 126 THE REVISER. to do it in a manner satisfactory either to myself, or to any other impartial inquirer into truth. I consider it, therefore, a tacit correction of the account given by the two evangelists, who were not eye-witnesses; and that St. John intended to say, though he expressed himself in a more delicate manner, what the following words imply:' Other historians had been informed of the embalming of Jesus, but the account which they have given is not perfectly correct. The women went early on Sunday morning, not to embalm Jesus, but merely to visit the sepulcAre; for he had been already embalmed by Joseph and Nicodemus. " —(Vol iii. 314.) Non tall auxilio. If Michaelis had looked a little closer into the history (Mark, xvi. 3), he would have found, that the women went, not' merely to visit' the sepulchre, but to' open it,' for an ulterior purpose; which purpose, both Mark and Luke inform us, was to accumulate spices on the body, not to embalm it; and John neither expresses, nor implies, any contradiction of their statement. [Penn. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. To the Editor of the Reviser: SIR: In the notice in your second number on 2 Pet. it is observed that "the style of a translation is a matter of great moment" be. cause "the more easy and pleasant, the more it will be read." In the truth of this assertion every candid person will acquiesce. In regard to the late Revision by the Bible Union, I think, sir, it is equally true, that "a desire to be exactly literal has given a stiffness to many passages which might, without any offence to literality, have been avoided;" and as it is asserted in the July No. of the Christian Review, " The Revised Version is a more literal rendering of the Greek text than the other; but it loses more in perspicuity and elegance than it gains in literalness." The Revised Version, as it now stands, I think, is justly liable to this criticism. I speak the impressions which a careful perusal of the Revised Version has made on my own mind, and the impressions which such a reading will make on the common mind. For instance, in 1 John 1: 5, "and darkness in him there is none," would it not be much more elegant, and be equally as true and literal, to read thus; "and in him there is no darkness;" also in 1 John 4: 17, " because as he is are we also in this world, " is rendered obscure and REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 127 unintelligible. Judas 2, "mercy unto you, and peace and love be multiplied," which conveys the impression, that " mercy unto you " is one thing, " and peace and love, be multiplied," another thing. 1 John 3:13, why "hateth" rather than "hate" as it is in the common version. 2 Pet. 3: 8, " But of this one thing be ye, beloved, not ignorant;" I would recommend this reading, "But of this one thing be ye not ignorant, beloved." In Judas 2, I would read, " mercy and peace and love unto you be multiplied." I have cited a few passages; there are others. " It would have been easy " (says the translator) " to impart a much more modern air to the whole, by such expedients as exchanging'unto' for'to,''hath' for' has,' &c." including, I presume, such changes as we have pointed out above. The translator, without attempting an explanation of the reasons why he has refrained from doing this, merely observes, that "the matter belongs to the sphere of taste and feeling." But why not enter the sphere of taste and feeling, and give the Scriptures this " much more modern air," this perspicuity and beauty of expression, which can be done without at all detracting from the literalness of the translation; and thus greatly increase the probability of their being read by all classes of persons, and especially the young. In some instances, as in Rev. 1: 18, there is a great departure from the strict order of the Greek text; and for no better reasons than may be assigned for the changes above referred to. Literal first and elegant afterward. I remember, with pleasure," that this Revision is not final," and confidently look for an improvement in these respects; for I shall regret exceedingly if these passages shall at last be adopted as they now read. A FRIEND OF PURE VERSIONS. Vestal, September 2d, 1854. Philadelphia,.lugust 31st, 1854. DEAR BRO. SHEPARD: I have received the'third No. of The Reviser. I am delighted with it. It is just such a work as I have long desired without knowing exactly what I wanted. I have read it with much interest, and, I trust also, with profit. To that class of your readers, of which I am one, who know'nothing but the alphabet of the Greek language, it will be an invaluable aid in acquiring a correct knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. The third No. alone is worth the price of the volume. Such a work ought to be liberally patronised; and I trust that the friends of Revision, and the lovers of the truth will at once place it upon a firm and lasting foundation. Very truly yours, WM. ROWZEE. 128 THE REVISER. LUKE 1: 34, 35. " Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Ver 34. since I know not a husband.] (avdpa), is to be rendered'husband' here, as in Matt. i. 20. The Latin has'virum,' which, like (avyp) signifies both' man' and' husband.' Wiclif injudiciously, and even grossly, adopted the former sense,'Y knowe not man:' his revisers have, very unreflectingly, sanctioned his interpretation: but, a moment's consideration will convince us, that the Holy Virgin could not have spoken wlth so general and indecorous a reference. Ver. 35. the Holy thing begotten.] See Annot. to Matt. i. 21. In order to apply (yevvowtEvov) to the Blessed Virgin, and to render it with the sense of' born', numerous MSS. have added (esc aov),'of thee.' The Vulgate, as might be expected, embraces this insertion, adding, ex te.' Wiclif consequently translated,' of thee;' and, from him our common English version has retained those words. The Vat. and other most ancient MSS., however, with the exception of the Cod. Ephrem, have no such reading; and Erasmus has the following note on this passage: " illa duo verba,'ex te,' nec ini ullis Graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi, ne apud Theophylactum quidem; nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis, praeterquam in uno, in quo nescio quis in margine adjecerat. Proinde miror, unde in primam hujus operis editionem invaserint. Est autem solutior sermo si non addantur. Non enim hic agitur de persona concipientis, sed de novo modo concipiendi,- deque feetus excellentia. Apparet adjecta ab explanatore quopiam: tametsi in Aldina editione comperi addita." Wetstein Griesbach, Matthaei, Schulz, and even Scholz, reject it from their texts, nothwithstanding the numerous MSS. and versions which the last refers to in his margin as containing it; and which were unknown to the age of Erasmus. The words,'of thee,' should therefore be erased from our authorised version; where they only remain to testify our former subjection -to the Roman church, in the ages of darkness and superstition. That the words, " the Holy thing begotten, " have respect to the efficient cause, and not to the passive instrument of the generation, is proved by the conclusion, " therefore, he will be called, Son of God." [Penn. FACTS FOR THE LEARNED AND UNLEARNED. 129 FACTS FOR THE LEARNED AND UNLEARNED. IIvevma Vyttov —HoLY SPIRIT. Having considered the passages in which (rvevjva) pneuma without, and pneuma with the article occurs, in the New Covenant, I now proceed to examine the use of (rrvesita a'ytov) pneuma hagion without the article. Matt. 1: 18, 20; Luke 1: 35. These passages have been examined in a previous number of the Reviser, and, therefore, we now pass them by simply remarking that "holy spirit " here refers to the power of God, and not to "the holy Spirit." There is not the least reason for supplying the article in the translation. It is not true that Jesus "was begotten of the Holy Ghost;" for he was "the only begotten of the Father." Matt. 3: 11. Mark 1: 8. Luke 3:16. John 1: 33. Acts 1: 5; 1 1: 16. These passages all speak of a baptism (ev rvzevjma dytw)' in a holy spirit." The unauthorized insertion of the article in the translation of this phrase has led to strange views concerning "spiritual baptism." The Common Version is improper in three particulars. First, in inserting the article; second, in rendering pneuma, " ghost;" and third, in printing "holy " and "ghost" with an initial capital. By the interpolation of the article and the initial capitalizing, it has given a personal construction to the word "spirit "-a construction which is obviously erroneous. For, in whatever sense the verb (,3airrtLw) baptidso shall be interpreted, whether to sprinkle, to pour, to wash, or to immerse, it is absurd to affirm it to have been done either with, or in, the being we call, by divine authority, " the Holy Spirit." One being cannot be sprinkled "with' another being-poured "with" another being, nor washed, in the sense here intended," with " another being. And it is equally improper to speak of one being as having been immersed in another being. Some have supposed that a baptism "in the Holy Spirit" means something done by this Divine Agent. This is a misunderstanding of the passage; for John spoke of Jesus, and not the Holy Spirit, as the one who should come after him, and said that He should baptize in a holy spirit. It was nothing done with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Spirit, nor by the Holy Spirit; but something done in "a holy 13 130 THE REVISER. spirit," by Jesus who came after John. The order observed here, in regard to these baptisms, is, in relation to a baptism in water, 1. The baptiser-the baptised-and water. "I baptise you in water. " 2. The baptiser —the baptised-and spirit. He shall baptise you in a holy spirit." 3. The baptizer-the baptized-and fire. He shall baptise you in fire. Now, "water" is not a person, nor is " fire" a person; and how can " spirit," placed between the water and the fire, be understood in a personal sense, without doing great injustice to John by supposing him guilty of such a medley'of a person and things? Mark, it is not the water, the spirit, and the fire; but water, spirit, and fire. The same philological law which required the translator to render (iv s6ar't) en hudati, in water, and (Kay rrvpi) Lai puri, and fire, without the article; also demanded that (Ev rrveAvi a dytco) en pneuma hagio should be rendered indefinitely. And, as neither the water, nor the fire is taken for a person, nor an agent, so neither should the holy spirit be taken for a person nor an agent. The water, the spirit, and the fire were the media in which the baptisms were performed-John and Jesus the agents, and the Baptized the subjects. John, J( sus, and the Baptised were all persons-water, spirit, and fire, all things. The water baptised no one-the spirit baptised no one-the fire baptized no one. The people were not baptised in the influence of the water-the influence of the spiritnor in the influence of the fire;-but in the water, spirit, and fire. Those baptised in the wv ter were sensible of the influence of the water-those baptized in the spirit were sensible of the influence of the spirit-and those baptized in the fire felt the influence of the fire. But the influence was not the water, the spirit, nor the fire. Those who confessed their sins were baptized in water-those compared to wheat were baptized in spirit-and those compared to chaff and fruitless trees were baptized in fire. The first constituted the disciples of John-the second, the disciples of Jesus-and the third, the professed disciples of Moses, but, in truth the children of the Wicked One. Luke 1: 15. Of John the Baptist it is said (Ktai 7rvevFLaTro- ayov 7rrXaO'ae-rat) " he shall be filled with a holy spirit" from his birth. FACTS FOR THE LEARNED AND UNLEARNED. 131 In v. 41 it is written that Elizabeth was filled with a holy spirit when Mary saluted her. Zechariah " was filled with a holy spirit and prophesied," v. 67. "And Jesus being full of a holy spirit returned from the Jordan," ch. 4: 1. "And they were all filled with a holy spirit, and began to speak in other languages, as the spirit gave them utterance," Acts 2: 4. Then Peter, "filled with a holy spirit, said to them," 4: 8. Peter and John, being let go, went to their own company, all of whom " were filled with a holy spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness." 4: 31. The Apostles told the church at Jerusalem to choose " seven men of honest report and full of a holy spirit." 6: 3. Stephen " was a man full of faith and a holy spirit," v. 5. See 7: 55. Ananias was sent to Saul that he "might be filled with a holy spirit." 9: 17. Barnabas " was a good man and full of a holy spirit and of faith." 11: 24. Paul, "filled with a holy spirit," set his eyes on Elymas, and pronounced the judgment of God on him, 13: 9, 10, 11. In all these instances where filling with a holy spirit is mentioned -the article is omitted in the original. The phrase " filled with the Holy Spirit never occurs." The article does not occur when speaking of this filling, not even in a renewed mention. In one case when noting the effect of the filling, the article is found in renewed mention. Acts 2: 4. In all these passages " spirit " is anarthrous, or without the article, because used indefinitely, and not in a personal sense. The phrase 4'a holy spirit," implies as used in the instances above quoted, a supernatural state of the minds of those said to be filled with it; and it is the name of that divine and spiritual energy by which the mind was put into that state which we call inspiration. Hence, it is said, "they were filled with a holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance." This being filled with a holy spirit is only predicated of inspired men. "Holy men of old spoke as they were moved by a holy spirit," or the spirit of inspiration. Sometimes, although the article is not used in the instances where filling with a holy spirit is affirmed, it occurs in renewed mention, or in subsequent reference to that event, as a well understood occurrence, or a matter of great notoriety. When Jesus breathed on the apostles he said "receive a holy 132 THE REVISER spirit." John 20: 22. When he mentioned this renewedly he saids "you shall receive power, the holy spirit coming on you." Acts 1 8. When Jesus first introduced this subject, he said a holy spirit, when he referred to it again, or spoke definitely of it on a subsequent occasion, he was obliged by the laws of the Greek language to use the article. So Luke, when writing the Acts, says, on the first historical mention of the fulfilment of this promise, " they were all filled with a holy spirit." Having, in the course of his narrative, frequently mentioned this subject in an indefinite manner, he subsequently mentions it as a well defined and notorious matter, and therefore inserts the article, and speaks of it as " the gift of the holy spirit." This holy spirit bestowed, or gift of a holy spirit, is called (rilv erraTyyetav), the promise of the Father, and identified with (di~vatttv e Vi`bov;),powerfrom on high. Luke 24: 49. Consequently, when this gift of a holy spirit-this power froml on high was received, the recipients thought with inspired accuracy, and spoke with supernatural utterance. In accordance with this view, the supernatural powers of the primitive age were called in 1 Cor. 12: 1, (" -rtv rrveLarttucov") the spirituals. In the context the Apostle affirms that all these gifts proceeded from "the same spirit," or power fiom on high. The abundant bestowment of these supernatural gifts was the baptism 4"in a holy spirit "-" the promise of the Father." The reception of this power, was the reception of a holy spirit. When Cornelius and his fiiends received the holy spirit " they spoke with tongues and magnified God." So Isaac, who was born of supernatural power, is said to be "born after the spirit," while Ishmael, who was born of natural power, is affirmed to be "born after the flesh." Tb 6aytov rrveVtLa-THE HOLY SPIRIT. The word, (Ivevfa,) spirit, when used to denote the Being we call the " Holy Spirit," is never anarthrous, or used without the article, except in cases where other definite names, or terms are so used. We will now consider a few passages where (7o 6aytov 7rveima) to hagion pneuma is used, (ca7' eroXqv) by eminence, to denote the ( "Holy Spirit," the Spirit of God. 'THE HOLY SPIRIT. 133'That (7rvevija) spirit, or (Trvevia-ra) spirits, is used to denote an or. der of beings called, immaterial, for the want of a better name, must be obvious to all who are conversant with the Holy Writings. When spirit is used, not as significant of a nature, or the nature of an order of beings, nor yet of spiritual power, but as the proper name of a rational being, it takes the article without reference to renewed mention, but for the sake of pre-eminence. For an example, take the following passage. "Baptizing them into the name of (-roV IIa-rpb', ica To rTioV, sa -rai Ayiov HIveiVla-ro;-) the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matt. 28:19. Now if the phrases, "the Father," and " the Son,'+ are expressive of personal existence, then the phrase" the Holy Spirit," is also expressive of a personal existence. And the same law which required the article before Father and Son, also demanded it before Holy Spirit. In all the passages where personal acts are ascribed to this Being, the article is used. The reason is that as there is but one being of this name, it must be spoken of definitely. In proof of the invariable use of the article in connection with the imputation of personal acts, take as a specimen, the following passages. Mark 1:10. "And the Spirit like a dove descending on him." Com. Luke 3: 22. John: 32. Acts 20: 23. Paul said he did not know what would happen to him at Jeq'usalem, " save that the Holy Spirit testified " that bonds and afflictions dwelt with him. He told the Ephesian Elders that " the Holy Spirit" had made them overseers of the church." v. 28. Thus God has distinguished the spiritual power bestowed on the primitive disciples from the personal Spirit associated with Himself and his Son in the command to the Apostles to teach and baptize. We devoutly hope that the Revisers will adhere closely to the original, and give English readers the same privilege of judging of the import of these passages which Greek readers have. May the Father of Mercies, and God of all consolation, preside over this great work, and conduct it to such a termination that all who read the final Revision of the English Scriptures may be brought into the closest proximity with the holy men of all dispensations, who spoke as they were moved by a holy spirit, and that all Scrip ture given by God's inspiration may become profitable, and terminate in the perfection of every man of God in a thorough furnishing for every good work. 134 THE REVISER. lap~ tai rrvevma-FLES:I AND SPIRIT. Flesh and spirit are often placed in antithesis in the Christian Scriptures, and how this antithesis shall be represented in the revision. of the Common Version, is a question of great interest. Shall " flesh"' be printed without an initial capital, thus, flesh; and spirit with an initial capital, thus, Spirit, or shall both be printed with a capital, thus, Flesh and Spirit? Or, again, shall neither be so printed, thus, flesh and spirit? To decide these questions, it becomes necessary to enquire, for' what purpose, or purposes, do we, according to our own present literature, employ initial capitals? The answer to this question, as derived from the " Grammar of English Grammars," is, to distinguish the chief words in the titles of books-to distinguish sentences which are distinct —to begin all proper names, or words used as such; whether of the Divinity,, rational beings, or of places-to distinguish titles of office or honor-to indicate personification-to distinguish words called adjectives, which are also used as proper names-to, distinguish the letter, I, as pronominal, and the letter O, as interjective-to distinguish each separate line in poetic composition-and to distinguish words of special, from those of less importance, in thesentence. When, then, " flesh" and "'spirit," begin a sentence, or a line in poetry-or are used as the titles of books-when employed as proper names-when used as titles of office or honor-and when employed in personification, they should begin with a capital. In the same circumstances, they are subject to the same law. Where they occur in the same sentence it is requisite to print one with, and the other without a capital, as the one, or the other may happen to commence the sentence, as, " Flesh and spirit are contrasted." Or, " Spirit and flesh are contrasted." But when they are used with an intervening conjunction, or in antithetical sentences, or parts of sentences, and neither of them is the initial of the sentence, neither of them should commence with a capital, or both should so commence. Take the following examples. Mark 14: 34. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh weak." Now, if spirit be printed with a capital, flesh should also be printed with a capital. Because, philologically, they are of equal importance in the formation of the antithesis. They are here noticed as distinct portions of the same being, and FLESH AND SPIRT. 135 not as two different beings. If these things were to be predicated of Peter and John, we must write both names with capitals. Thus, Peter is willing, but John is weak. The law which requires all proper names to begin with a capital, requires this. The second example, in the order of the Christian Scriptures, is in John 3: 6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." A natural man, as the first example, with many others, shows, is composed of flesh and spirit, both of which he inherits firom his parents. The flesh from the flesh of his parents-the spirit from the spirit of his parents. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh-that which is born of the spirit, is spirit. Consequently, if a man should be born a second time of his mother, nothing would be gained. He would still be sarko-pneumatical, a compound of flesh and spirit. Hence the necessity that he should be born of water and spirit. This last birth is evidently to be understood in a figurative sense; because it is not said here, as in the literal birth, or birth fiom a mother, that which is born of the water is water, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. The third example. John 6: 63. " The spirit is what gives lifethe flesh profits nothing." There is no more authority for an initial capital here in the word spirit, than for the same in the word flesh. Accordingly the American Bible Society's edition of A. D. 1851, rejects the initial capital in both words. Jesus had been speaking to his auditors, in a continued figure, of his flesh as food, the meaning of which they did not apprehend. The real import of his figurative discourse stood, in relation to that figure, as the spirit of the body stands to the body. So that they were not to derive the life of which he spoke from his literal body, but from his instructions. " The words which I speak to you are spirit, and life," said the Great Teacher. The fourth example. Rom. 8: 1, 4. "There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit." It is evident, as this sentence contains a conclusion from what was said in the immediate antecedent sentence, that spirit is here used in the sense of mind, or the spiritual nature and not in the personal sense; and, therefore, should not have the capital. The fifth example. Ch. 8, v. 5. "Those who are after flesh, mind 136 THE: REVISER. the things of the flesh; but those who are after spirit, the things of the spirit." Those who were not true converts to chiistianity were after carnal things-the converts after spiritual things. The sixth example. v. 6. "The minding of the flesh-death; the minding of the spirit-life and peace." Such are the results of the two courses of living, because "t1he minding of the flesh is enmity against God," and " they who are in the flesh cannot please God." The seventh example. v. 9. "You are not in flesh, but in the spirit, because God's spirit dwells in you." Here God's spirit is spoken of as distinct from the spirit, or mind of men, and the reason assigned for their not being in flesh, but in spirit, is, because that God's spirit dwelt in them. Those who have the mind of God, cannot live after the flesh. " But if any one have not the spirit of Christ he does not belong to Him." " Let that mind," then, "be in" us, "' which was also in Christ Jesus." " Wherefore if you live according to the flesh, you shall die; but if by spirit you kill the deeds of the body you shall live." v. 13. The eighth example. 1 Cor. 5: 5. " Deliver such an one to Satan, in order to the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." That flesh and spirit here both refer to the organic mass, and the intellect of the same person, is so clear, " That no one, by comment, can it plainer make." The "1 filthiness of the flesh and spirit," is a like passage. The ninth example. Gal. 3: 3. "Are you so senseless, [that] having commenced in spirit, you now perfect yourselves in flesh?" The distinction made here between flesh and spirit is the same which was made by this Apostle in the eighth of Romans. Here is a " begi.nning in spirit "-there was, "walking after the spirit." The tenth example. Gal. 4: 29. "He who was born according to flesh persecuted him who was born according to spirit." This passage is not so easy of explanation. On a more close examination of it I am inclined to the belief that the Apostle intends to state the fact that the flesh, alone, was prompter in the production of the son of the bond-maid, but that the mind, which had more influence in advanced age, was full of the promise of God when Isaac was begotten. I am the more inclined to this view from the fact, that in Galatians the Apostle speaks of the two mothers; and in Heb. 11: FLESH AND SPIRIT. 137 11, he positively affirms that the state of Sarah's mind was the cause of Isaac's conception. By faith even Sarah herself received strength to concieve seed, and was delivered of a child when she was passed age, because she judged himn faithful who had promised." The influence of a believing mind on the organs of the body is great. The eleventh example. Gal. 5: 17. "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that you cannot do the things which you would." " The flesh " here, as in other places, stands for our animal man, and "the spirit" for our spiritual man. When the former, influenced alone by "the law of the members," triumphs, death is the consequence. "If you live after the flesh you shall die." But when the latter, influenced by " the law of God," has the dominion, life is the result. "But if you, through the spirit, put to death the deeds of the body, you shall live." " For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." " The works of the flesh," and " the fruit of the spirit " are as diverse as " flesh " and " spirit," an " animal man," and a " spiritual man "-a child of God, and a child of the Wicked One. To "kill the deeds of the body," and to " crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts," if not identical, are very similar acts. Our eternal life depends on the triumph of spirit over flesh. "If we live by spirit, let us walk by spirit." How important that our worship should be spiritual and not carnal! "He who sows (Eti; 7rv aaptca) into the flesh, shall (E'i r-oV aapuov) out of the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows (ei 70-o rvevma) into the spirit, shall (tic -roy 7Trvevla-ro;) out of the spirit reap life eternal." " Let us not be weary in well doing; for in proper season we shall reap, if we do not faint." The twelfth example. 1 Tim. 3: 16. "God was manifested in flesh, (iv Capuc) justified in spirit, (Ev irvevfLtarL) beheld by angels, proclaimed among nations, believed on in a world, received up in glory." This passage is preceded by this affirmation: " And, without controversy, the secret of piety is great." The intimate relation between this and the above passage requires a careful consideration. The manifestation of God "in flesh," and the justification " in spirit," were witnessed by angels. This manifestation and justification were " proclaimed among nations, and believed on in a world." They constituted the secret of all the piety 138 THE REVISER. among the ancient christians. Jews and pagans yielded to their mighty influences. The former abandoned their prejudice and superstition-the latter their ignorance and folly, through the belief that the man, Christ Jesus, was an effulgence of God's glory, and the exact representation of his substance. To those who did not apprehend these truths, the course pursued by the converts to the christian faith was wholly unaccountable. That men should adopt what unbelievers regarded as a silly superstition-the belief in a salvation by a dead man-and then piously and perseveringly adhere to their religion, in defiance of abuse, confiscation and death, was a mystery, or secret beyond comprehension. While the Messiah was a manifestation of God "in flesh," he was also a justification of God "in spirit." Here " flesh " and " spirit" are both taken as parts of the same being. The external and the internal-the fleshly and the spiritual natures. Hence, he is said to have been " put to death indeed in flesh, but quickened in the spirit." This doctrine of the independent life of the spirit is taught by Paul where he said, "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." The thirteenth example. 1 Pet. 4: 6. " For this cause was the gospel preached to them who are dead, that they might indeed be judged according to man in flesh, but live according to God in spirit." Iere the mysterious antithetical union of flesh and spirit in the same persons, is obviously that to which the Apostle refers. From an induction of all the passages in which " flesh " and " spirit" occur, it appears that they are always used of the fleshly and spiritual nature of the same being, except when used of institutions which may be called " flesh" and "spirit," because one confers privileges on fleshly, and the other on spiritual considerations. In this way the Law and'the Gospel may be so denominated. REVISION OF MATT. 1: 11. "And Josiah begat Jeconiah and his brethren in the days of the Babylonian removal." The Common Version,'about the time,' (nrt) is too indefinite. The true sense of the passage requires a more exact translation. The preposition here evidently marks a period or point of time distinct MATTHEW: II. 139 fiom that denoted by'after,' (FeT'a) in the following verse. But the latter embraces the time immediately subsequent to the' removal'; consequently the former must be restricted to the preceding time;. that is, the time of the'removal,' the time before the'removal,' or more generally, the time before the completion of the'removal.' Alford takes it in the second of these senses, and translates it,' close upon'; which must be regarded as a very close rendering. It is more Iikely, however, that the'removal' of the Jews and the birth of Josiah's children were contemplated, in this broad view of time, as contemporaneous events, and that this preposition was accordingly used, as it frequently is elsewhere, to signify,' in the days of.' (Compare Mark 2: 26. Luke 3: 2; 4: 27. Acts 11: 28, etc.) This rendering is authorized by Robinson, Kendrick, Sharpe, Schott, De Wette, Diodati, and others. The Common Version,'they were carried away,' (fe-rotKeata) is too free; and not only falls short of the exact meaning of the original, but conveys ideas which are neither expressed nor implied by the Greek. The original word signifies literally'change of residence,' without indicating whether the change was voluntary or by constraint. It is true, the historical event, to which this account refers, was the forcible transportation and captivity of the Jews, under the King of Babylon. But for some reason, (perhaps to make the account more acceptable to the Jews, who abhorred even the memory of their own captivity,) the form of expression used here, is so softenedl, that the words themselves convey no idea of a national subjugation. And whatever may be the historical facts alluded to, as gathered from other sources of information, no rendering which conveys the accessory idea of voluntariness, or compulsion, can be faithful to the original. It follows, then, that the Common Version is objectionable. And to render it'captivity,' as some versions have done, is still worse; since that would comprehend, in this case, not only the act of captivation, but also the consequent condition of seventy years' duration. Trollope has well remarked of the original word here, that "it denotes simply a removal from one place to another"; and there can be no reasonable doubt that the English word,' removal,' as used to signify a change of residence, corresponds most exactly with the Greek. It is so translated in this place by Kendrick and Whiting. Its superiority over the Common Version is 140 THE REVISER. also attested by Campbell, Kendrick and Alford, who translate,'migration'; as well as by the Vulgate, which has'transmigration.' The original, which is here rendered by the Common Version'to Babylon,' does not indicate the place to which the'removal' was made, but denotes simply the subject or the object *of that removal, without determining which; as in the expression,' the love of God,' the term' God' denotes the subject or the object of'love.' Hence Erasmus, in his note upon this place, says: "From these words nothing else can be understood than, either that Babylon herself had removed somewhere, or that Babylon had transported others to some place." (Ex his verbis nihil aliud intelligi potest quam vel Babylonem ipsam aliquo demigrasse, vel Babylonem alios aliquo traduxisse.) This sense of the original may be expressed in English, with about the same latitude of meaning, by either,'the removal of Babylon,' or' the Babylonian removal.' The former is the construction of the Greek, and agrees with the Syr., Vulg., Sw., French and Diodat. The latter is according to Beza, Erasmus,Tremel., Luther and Schott; and this has been preferred in the revised version, on account of its corresponding somewhat more exactly with the original in the ambiguity of its signification, and agreeing more perfectly with the idiom of our language, when used to express this meaning. REVISION OF MATT. 1: 18. " And the generation of Jesus Christ was thus." The Greek word, here rendered' birth,' (yevv8ltg) has the same radical form with that rendered'generation' (yeveatg) in the first verse of this chapter; though that is formed directly from the intransitive verb, (ytyvojiat, yevo) signifying' to be born,''to come into existence,' or'to be'; while this is made immediately from the transitive verb, (yevvao) which means'to generate'; that is'to beget,' or'to bring forth.' If, then, it be admitted that the received text contains here the genuine reading of the inspired original, still, it seems most likely that both these words (yevv1atf, yeveatg) have the same fundamental signification. And the sense of'generation' is certainly most agreeable to the context in the latter case. For the adverb,'on this wise,' or'thus,' (6V7Tw9) expresses the manner of whatever is signified by the term in question, and the term'thus' has respect MATTHEW 1: I 20.-ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 141 mainly to the fact and circumstances of Jesus' divine'generation' without any immediate reference to his'birth.' Moreover, the correctness of this view is greatly strengthened, if not fully established by the fact that several important manuscripts, (BCPSZA) with good collateral authority, (vers. Philoxen. et aliquot patrum.) followed by Griesbach, Knapp, Lachmann, Schott, Tischendorf, and others, in their respective editions of the Greek text, have exactly the same form (yeveats) in vers. 1 and 18, as the genuine reading of the inspired original. Luther and some other versions have in both places alike' birth'; (Geburt) but the Vulg., Wic., Nary, Rh., Kenr., Penn, and others, have' generation' in both places. REVISION OF MATT. 1: 20. TO —NOT UNTO. "An angel of the Lord appeared to him." The preposition'unto,' as found in the Common Version is not used by good speakers and writers of the present day. Noah Webster says, it is "of no use in the language;" "it is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete." In a thorough revision of the Common Version, therefore, this word, and all others that are in the same condition, must be rejected; unless the Book of God is to be kept throughout all ages, as the repository of obsolete words and antiquated forms, and made to the common mind a dead letter, instead of being allowed to speak forth the whole counsel of God, as the living oracles of eternal truth. The case in Matt. 2: 13 is ex. actly parallel, and there the Common Version has'to.' FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. We invite the attention of our readers to the proceedings of the Fifth Anniversary of the American Bible Union, of which a full report will be found in our present number. It was commenced on Thursday morning, Oct. 5th, at 9 o'clock, and continued through two days. The interest felt in these exercises, as well as the number in attendance, both from the city and abroad, was greater than upon any previous occasion. The results which are before us may well 142 THE REVISER. awaken, in the bosom of every lover of the Bible, the profoundest emotions of joy and gratitude, while they attest the wisdom and liberality of its friends, and, without presumption we may add, the favor of that Divine Being who can look down upon no more acceptable spectacle, than a union of His professed disciples, to clear away the mists of human error, which have so long dimmed the brightness of the Lord's revelation of Himself through the pages of His lively oracles. The circumstances attending the origin of this enterprise will form a most instructive chapter in the ecclesiastical history of our country; but are at once too recent, and too familiar to require to be recapitulated at this time. The following is the TREASURER'S REPORT. 1853. Cr. Oct. 5. By Balance - - $4,487 56 Oct. 4, 1854. By Interest - - - 150 00 By cash from Script sold - 750 00 By Cash from Life Members, Directors, Churches, Auxiliaries, Associations, etc. 35,150 63 Total - - - - - - - - - - $40,538 19 1854. Dr. Oct. 4. To Cash paid for Spanish Scriptures - - - - - - 931 45 " French Scriptures 281 05 " Italian Scriptures - - 665 53 " German Scriptures - - 880 68 " Rev. J. G. Oncken for German Scriptures - 5,000,00 " Rev. J. G. Oncken for Mission Chapels by request of Contributers - - 395 00 To Cash paid for Home and Foreign Missions - - - 139 50 To Cash paid for English Scriptures - - - - 19,578 43 To Cash paid for Printing and Postage on Bible Union Reporter - - - 804 00 ANNIVERSARY OF TIIE BIBLE UNION. 143 To Cash paid for Agents salaries and expenses. - 3,822 55 To Cash paid for Salaries - 2,165 47 " Rent Rooms - - - 500 00 General Expenses, including counterfeit bills, etc. - - 215 02 Balance - - - - - - - 5,159 39 $40,538 19 Oct. 4, 1854. Unpaid pledges on Life Member and Directorships - - - - $140,000 00 The adoption of the Report was moved by J. K. Wightman, and seconded by C. Farquharson, of Baltimore. Mr. Wightman said: I need hardly express my gratification-a gratification in which I am sure all here participate-in learning that the pecuniary affairs of the Union are in a prosperous and flourishing condition. We have reason, then, to hail with pleasure the return of another Anniversary of the American Bible Union. In looking to the past, or to the present, we have every reason to rejoice, and every reason for encouragement; and if we look forward to the future, it seems to me we have nothing to fear. We have only to consider that He who made all things, who sits at this moment high enthroned in heaven, who has made us, and moves us in every thing we undertake, is at the head of what I deem to be the great, the grand, the important enterprise of this age. We have nothing, under these circumstances, to fear. The momentous work in which we are engaged is, in my judgment, a kind of moral crusade against the errors of the world. With the sentiment which stands pre-eminent with this Union, and which is the common ground of our labors and our hopes, emblazoned on our banner,-with the knowledge of the fact that our great object is the procuring and circulating the most faithful versions of the sacred Scriptures, in all the languages spoken throughout the world: from what quarter of the universe, except from those heathens who know nothing of God, and nothing of His revealed will, could we expect to encounter opposition, that will be at all serious or hard to overcome? Again I say, we have nothing to fear. We have every thing to encourage us and incite us to persevere. What though the large mass of the world does not think proper to join with us? Was there ever yet, since Adam and Eve were created, 144 THE REVISER. any important undertaking accomplished, when all the world united together in the beginning to produce that grand result? No, never. God works by means, and those means which He selects are almost always weak, so that through the weakness and fallibility of man, He may show forth IIis power; and so that, when the grand and triumphant result is at length realized, all the glory shall be given to Him. That is where it belongs. But I feel, sir, that I am trespassing on the time of the meeting. We are all waiting impatiently for the address of our venerable and beloved President. It would be uncourteous in me to detain you further, and I now yield the floor, therefore, merely saying, that if during the continuance of the present session of this body, an opportunity shall present itself whereby I may be enabled to spend some few moments, in going into a little but comprehensive argument on this whole subject, I shall gladly and with readiness avail myself of it. I would beg leave to move the adoption of the Report. W. D. Murphy followed Mr. Wightman. He said: MR. PRESIDENT:-I coincide fully with the sentiments which you have just heard, and I should feel myself very much out of place, therefore, if I were to attempt any extended remarks on this subject. And yet there is one idea, sir, that I will venture to express. It is less than five years since this Society-this Union-came into separate existence. It is well known to all that are present, I presume, that its growth has been very rapid. Commencing with but $5,000 the first year, we now find that, without going into detail, the funds have increased to $40,000,-that is, $35,000 additional, has in the meantime been contributed. Without, as I say, going into details in reference to this, I would ask, sir, what is the reason of this matter? Is it attributable to the fact that the sagacity of the brethren composing the Bible Union has struck out upon some new principle, that they have invented with a special view to public sympathy and assistance? Oh, no; it is not that. It is simply because they adhered-adhered, I repeat, for they did not dissever-but adhered to a principle that has been dear to the hearts of all the saints since the days of the apostles. What is it, I ask, that men have suffered for in all the eras of persecution for the faith, and through all the ages of Christian martyrdom? It is not for saying that there is a God, and that he manifested ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 145 himself in some way to, or had some connection with mankind, but it is, and ever has been, for enforcing the word of God as he revealed it to mankind, and commanded them to obey it. Was there ever an ecclesiastical assembly, or a body that arrogated the right to force men's consciences, that did not court instead of persecute every individual that spoke doctrines opposed to theirs, provided those teachers would consent to take the word of God as they wished them to take it? Not one; and all history proves it. Even Martin Luther, the grand and triumphant opponent of them all, they desired, every single man of them, that he should return, disavow his independence, and advocate their peculiar system of interpretation, so far as it went. But he did not; he rejected their base overtures, and advocated the truth as it was, not the truth obscured. And that is the state of the American Bible Union now. Many persons, weak-minded, and with judgments easily led, express a kind of pious dread at our noble enterprise. Say they, " You are going to alter the Bible; you are going, perhaps, to pervert the meaning, and misconstrue the text, and destroy the sense." We say, "We are not; we are going to look into it, and see if any man has presumed to alter the text before us, and to discover if it contains any unintelligibility or errors in the forms in which it now exists amongst us-to see if what has been charged against the received version by every critic who has written about it in the English language, in some form or other, be true. That is what we are going to do, and what we will get encouragement to do. Now, what are we to infer from this, when we see $40,000 contributed to an infant institution, in the fourth year of its financial history? Why, sir, that there must be some principle of good in it, when men in the best state of information will adhere to and forward it. If this be the fact in our present state of infancy; if God has so poured down the strongest testimonies of his favor and approval on it, it must be so. There are only a few ways in which you can manifest your devotion to such a cause as this. One way is by the countenance of a man. He can give countenance to it by his language; he can speak approvingly of many things. All this is testimony of favor that mankind will not fail to value, but it amounts to nothing, comparatively speaking, when you see a man take out his substance, and contributing freely of his substance 14 146 THE REVISER. -denying himself in order that he may contribute —putting out with a generous hand that which he has toiled and labored hard to acquire. Some men can smile without the expenditure of a feeling; but no man can give his substance, except his heart be with the object of his charity, and he will follow it up with his prayers. I, therefore, sir, rejoice not only in the accuracy with which the report has stated every particular that was necessary or could be desired, but I rejoice in the amount of means which it exhibits. I rejoice that this people have awakened up in the space of five years to the greatness of our undertaking, and to its demands on the support of Christian men. I rejoice that they at length seem to feel with with us that the King of Heaven has given us a message, and that no man among us dare alter it. FINANCIAL GROWTH. The following tabular statement carries with it its own comment, and might satisfy the most incredulous as to the increasing confidence which is felt in this movement by the Christian public. It will be perceived that the income in each succeeding year has been about fifty per cent, over that of each preceding year, and that, should the same proportion of increase continue for the next ten years, the resources of the Bible Union would be, after a liberal deduction, one million of dollars per annum. CASH RECEIPTS. First year, - 1850 - $5,595.50 Second year, - 1851 - 10,433.98 Third year, - 1852 - 16,727.73 Fourth year, - 1853 - 23,392.67 Fifth year, - 1854 - 36,050.63 In nearly the same ratio, the amount of uncollected pledges on Life Membership has been steadily advancing. The unpaid installments, on Life Memberships and Directors, subscribed, are:First year, - 1850 - $7,706.42 Second year, - 1851 - 29,520.85 Third year, - 1852 - 61,746.00 Fourth year, - 1853 - 100,536.00 Fifth year, - 1854 - 140,C00.00 ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 147 The Annual report reasserts the principle of the Bible Union, ~' faithful versions for all lands," and sketches the progress made by the revisers, in five different languages, viz, the Spanish, the French, the Italian, the German, and the English. We give the following on THE ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. When the enterprise of revising the English Scriptures commenced, few persons realized its magnitude and importance. Many cherished the idea that a few months, or at farthest a year or two, would be sufficient for the completion of the work. Your Board never entertained such restricted views of the task for which they were to make provision; yet they have reason to acknowledge, that their conceptions of the grandeur of the undertaking have constantly enlarged with its progress. Far more is to be done than they at first imagined, and in the same proportion the benefits resulting from the enterprise will be increased. Even opponents, who assert that a revised version will never come into popular use, freely admit the immense advantages conferred upon all biblical scholars and translaters into foreign languages, by the parts which we have already issued for criticism while the friends of the work are more and more pleased the farther it progresses. From the numerous criticisms of a favorable character that have been received from scholars of undoubted reputation, we copy a few that are expressed in forms brief and explicit. At the same time it is proper to remark that no scholar, so far as known to us, has pointed out a fault, or hinted a difference of opinion upon any passage, without expressing his decided admiration of the general merits of the revision. Rev. Joseph Addison Alexander, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary, N. J., after speaking in a note to the reviser of the satisfaction which he had derived from a repeated perusal of the first part issued, consisting of the 2d Epistle of Peter, and the Epistles of John and Jude, and the reviser's remarks in the notes, says: "I am equally pleased with the justness of the emendations, and ~with the delicacy which has prevented their undue multiplication." Rev. Samuel H. Turner, D.D., of the Episcopal Theological Seminary. New York: "It is only necessary to examine your work ini part, to be satisfied that you have devoted much care and labor to it, and that the result is, in very many places, a decided improvement on the authorized version." 148 THE REVISER. Rev. Thomas Boys, a clergyman of the Church of England, and Editor of a Portuguese Version of the New Testament, noted for his scholarship and biblical researches: "It is not without hestitation that I have attached a few suggestions to a work of so much ability and research. But they are sent as a token of respect and good will to those who are engaged in this arduous undertaking. " As an ancestor of mine was one of the translators engaged on King James' Bible, I feel a warm interest in every attempt to correct and improve it. There is, doubtless, much to be done." Rev. Wm. Murch, D.D., a most eminent and learned Baptist minister in London, whose praise is in all the Churches: "I think it a very successful attempt, considered as a revision of the English version." Samuel Davison, LL.D., Professor in Lancashire Independent College, Manchester, England. Author of "An Introduction to the New Testament," &c., a biblical scholar of the highest reputation, both in Europe and- America. "There is no doubt, that the revision is very well done. Whoever the unknown writer may be, he has done his work extremely well. His scholarship is varied and sound." Rev. F, A. Cox, D.D., LL.D., London, England, " The revised version of this pamphlet I generally approve."' Rev. Thomas Thomas, President of Pontypool College, Monmouthshire, England. "' I have compared the'revised version' with the Welch version, which in many passages is a decided improvement upon the English. In some of them it agrees with the' revised version,' particularly in not avoiding'uniformity of phrasing' in certain passages in John." Rev. John- Forsyth, D.D., Professor in Newburgh Theological Seminary: (addressed to the Secretary). " I had almost forgot to thank you for the very admirable results of the biblical labors of * * * I am going through the work with care, and will return it with such observations as may occur to me." The Clerical Journal and Church and University Chronicle, published at Oxford, England, thus speaks of the last revision: " The American Bible Union has the merit of putting forth, in the book now before us, the first attempt at such a revision of the text as is required." ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UINION. 149 The conscientious minuteness with which every slight departure from the authorized text is noted, and every authority of value collated, is highly creditable to the editor or editors. The style in which the book is printed, and the price at which it is offered to the public, are highly creditable to the publishers." From a long and eulogistic critique in the periodical entitled "Waymarks in the Wilderness," we extract the introductory sentences of different paragraphs: "This is one of the most important works that has ever issued from the American press." " The chief value and primary design of this work is its excellence as a translation." "One of the great excellences of this version is its faithful adherence to the original." "This new translation also throws great light on many doctrines of Scripture." "Another excellence of this Revised Version is, the rectification of the Greek text of Revelation." The Home and Foreign Journal says: ", We are prepared to give it a thorough examination, &c. Here is the book itself, avowedly given *to the public to be criticised-let it be subjected to the severest philological tests, and, if shown to be imperfect, the Bible Union will make changes accordingly. What could be fairer than this? " The Church of England Quarterly Magazine says of this work: " If this be the conclusion [i. e. of the revision of the N. T.] then we must congratulate our American brethren both on their translation and their notes. We certainly want a work of the kind here, and if this be not a conclusion, we hope there will be sufficient encouragement to go on with so good a work." The Primitive Church Magazine has, on more than one occasion, commended the revision, as also the general objects of the Union. In the last number it says: "We again venture to call attention to the vast importance of the object contemplated by the American Bible Union. Nothing can exceed the value of faithful versions of the Sacred Scriptures." The Church and State Gazette says: A' This is a noble quarto volume, printed in triple columns, in which 150 THE REVISER. a superb Greek text occupies the middle place between' King Jamesv version' and the'Revised Version.' The notes are chiefly critical, and they exhibit much research and profound scholarship * * Of the scholarship revealed in them, there can be but one opinion." We have designedly selected these quotations and extracts from persons and periodicals not known as advocates of the Bible Unions and chiefly from those that are most distinguished among Pedobaptists for scholarship and extended reputation. It would swell the Report to an unreasonable length to give anything like a just view of the recommendations which abound both in periodicals and letters of professed friends of the cause. The part of the revision published since the last meeting of the Union, made a much larger book than was anticipated. It forms a quarto volume of more than 250 pages, which has been justly admired for the beauty of the publication as well as for the merits of the work itself. Four thousand copies were issued, and were retailed at 75 cents per copy, with the usual discount to wholesale dealers. Most of the edition has been sold, and all would have been disposed of before this time, had we not refiained from giving very extended publicity to it until we had other books to take its place. We have now in press the Gospel of John, of which about eighteen chapters are already printed. The Gospel of Matthew is likewise passing through the press, and to accomodate all our fiiends with specimens of revision, the first two, chapters have been printed separately in octavo form, the first of which is now ready for distribution. The Book of Job would also be now in press, were the printers not obliged to wait for the casting in Germany of an entirely new font of Hebrew type for this special object, which, it is believed, will greatly add to the beauty and value of the publication. No pains have been spared to press forward the revision so far as expedition is consistent with thoroughness. Every book of the New Testament has been revised by scholars, and the manuscripts are in the possession of the Board. Of a considerable portion, we have also duplicate revisions. Still the work is by no means done. Your Board have directed the Committee on Versions to examine carefully each manuscript, and to recommend none for the press, unless they are satisfied that the revision possesses such a degree of merit that its ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 151 publication will do honor to the Union. Otherwise it merely serves as aid to other revisers, who will do the work more thoroughly. Your Board are well aware that the gradual progress of the work is not adapted to gratify the ardent wishes of those who form imperfect views of its character; but they have the satisfaction to know, not only that they are pursuing the prudent course which the importance of the undertaking demands, but also that this course is universally approved by the friends of the Bible Union, so far as correspondence gives expression to their sentiments. All are anxious that the revision should be made thorough and faithful, and that merit should in no instance be sacrificed to haste. In this department we have imposed upon us the melancholy duty of recording the decease of one of our revisers, Rev. J. T. Gray, Doctor of Philosophy, and Professor of Languages in Stepney College, England. Dr. Gray was a scholar of profound attainments, and elegant taste, and his loss will be felt in the world of letters as well as by the religious public. During a short sojourn in this country last year, he made a very favorable impression upon the officers and the Committee on Versions, by the urbanity of his manners, and the extent and variety of his classical intelligence. He was engaged for nearly two years as a reviser, in the service of the Bible Union. The following Reports were received from Committees, and adopted: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. Your Committee on the English Scriplures most respectfully submit the following as their report: We regard the enterprise of giving to all men the pure and unadulterated Word of God as the most Christ-like and glorious work, by God's providence, alotted to the present age. And the faithful revision of the English Scriptures, we hold to be the first and highest duty of the American Bible Union. While we devoutly thank God for the wonderful and increasing prosperity of our noble Union, we would, as an evidence of gratitude, lay our first and richest offering, in translation and revision, upon the altar of the common people speaking the English tongue. The great heart of the Bible Union, throbs first and strongest for the masses, the rising, spreading masses of our English-speaking fellow-men. 152 THE REVISER. While we are neither indifferent to the necessity, nor thankless for the ability of giving the blessed Bible in its purity in other tongues, yet we rejoice chiefly that God has laid the means at our feet, including scholarship, resources, and inclination, to furnish in the language of Milton, Newton and Edwards a revision that shall as acurately as possible picture to the mind of every reader the precious teachings of the Holy Spirit. And your Committee believe that such a work will be cheap though it cost the Union years of toil and prayer, and tears and persecution, together with a vast outlay of treasure. We congratulate the Union on the ability and success of our college of revisers, whose work, so far as it has been made known to the world, challenges the admiration and favorable criticism of the ablest critics of all lands. And we rejoice to know that prejudice is yielding to intelligent views and sound argument all over our broad land; and we cannot withhold the gratefully cherished opinion that t(od is thus preparing a way for his Holy Oracles, undimmed and untrameled, to be given to all our English-speaking fellow-men. All of which is respectfully submitted. N. B. BALDWIN. D L. BURNET. C. J. HOPKINS. D. S. PARMLEE. JAMES M. PENDLETON. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON SIAMESE SCRIPTURES. The Committee to whom is referred the Siamese Scriptures beg leave to report: That there is great cause for gratitude, that in the providence of God, the Siamese have an excellent translation of the New Testament in their own vernacular by the late lamented Dr. Jones, a translation in every respect corresponding with the plan adopted by the Union, by which to secure the purest possible version of the Sacred Scriptures; and though differing in some of its renderings from the commonly received English version, as the present king of Siam discovered by comparing them together, yet in many respects decid ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 153 edly more in accordance with the original. Though it has been facetiously remarked that Dr. Jones, in carrying out the principle of his translation of the New Testament into Siamese, turned out all the saints and bishops; cast out all the ghosts and devils; excluded the Baptists, and, as some would say, excommunicated the Church. Yet in the opinion of your Committee the real cause of such a facetious remark only proves, that the version in its variation from King James', is by so much an aproximation to the original. Your Committee would also report that your appropriation of $1,000 has been gratefully received and acknowledged, and will be apropriated to the printing of the New Testament in part or in whole, bearing the imprint of the American Bible Union. Fromn a recent communication in a letter fiom Rev. S. J. Smith, we are informed that arrangements were being made to print an edition of 3,000 copies of the Acts of the Apostles, and some of the Epistles, and that they are anxious to issue an extensive of the New Testament, under existing circumstances-but funds will be wanting, as the generous donation which the Society made during the past year will not be sufficient to meet the expense, which must be thereby incurred. In view of these deeply interesting and important facts, your Committee would recommend the appropriation of one thousand dollars, by which to aid the Siam Mission to carry forward this work of printing and circulating the Holy Scriptures in their own language, if the funds of the Society will permit. S. REMINGTON. E. M. BAKER. W. M'CARTHY. WM. S. CLAPP. JAMES EDMUNDS. NEW YORK, October 6, 1854. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON GERMAN SCRIPTURES. The Committee on the German Scriptures, respectfully report: That this society has just cause of thankfulness to our Father in the heavens, on account of His divine providence which has so mysteriously connected it with the spiritual interests of Germany —the land of Luther, and cradle of a former Reformation. 154 THE REVISER. Your committee congratulates you on the speedy return of a glorious response to their benevolent contributions to aid the second Luther, the faithful, the honest, the pious, and, thank God, the fearless and independant Oncken, who dares to think, and dares to speak what he thinks, in effecting a still further reform in that good old land. They deposited their funds in the proper hands when they confided them to the care of the present reformer of Germany. As a consequence, they have already received information of the printing of more than 12,000 neatly printed, and substantially bound copies of Luther's translation of the Holy Writings, for circulation, several hundreds of which are owned among the German population of this country. Your committee also congratulate you, and thank God that we are permitted to revise Luther's translation, while the beloved Oncken is revising his Reformation. Luther sought to reform Popery-Oncken seeks to restore Christianity. God bless and prosper him, and the Bible Union. All of which is respectfully submitted. S. E. SHEPARD, C. B. KEYES, D. E. BROWER, - Committee. JAS. LILLYBRIDGE, JAS. B. TAYLOR, J REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON FRENCH SCRIPTURES. The condition of the work of the Union, in this department of its operations, does not seem to require an extended report. A version of the Gospels and the Acts has been prepared by an eminent scholar, a member of the Royal Academy of France; but, as sufficient time has not elapsed since its preparation, to admit of the necessary criticisms, which would be made, before it is adopted, and as most oppressive restrictions have been placed upon the circulation of the Sacred Scriptures in France, and Mr. I)evan, on whom we depended for agency in the business, has returned to this country, your committee recommend that operations in France be not pressed for the present. JOHN YOUNG, CHAS. GRAVES, JOHN Q. ADAMS, ) Committee. C. C. \TILLIAMS, J J. M. YEARNSHAW, J ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 155 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPANISH SCRIPTURES. In consequence of the very full statement of the Union's operations in this department, given in the Annual Report, little is left for your committee to do, further than to call your special attention to that interesting account. In all the work and success of the Bible Union the superintendance of Jehovah is strikingly manifest. But this first effort of any Bible Society to give a faithful version of the Word of God in this sonorous and dignified tongue, is marked with the most forcible evidence of His blessing. Among the several versions now commonly used by such of the Spanish people as are allowed to use the bible at all, there is not one but has been furnished by the priesthood of the Popish Chnrch. And it is as true also, that each of these versions are made to teach distinctively the dogmas of that corrupt communion. Our hearts are, therefore, cheered in the prospect of your procuring a thoroughly revised version of the New Testament, upon the god-like principles of the Bible Union, for that ancient and once powerful people. Their ancestors first received the gospel from the lips of the great Apostle of the Gentiles himself. How painful, then, that the people who anciently saw so great a light should be left to walk in darkness and in the shadow of death. At this moment there are about fourteen millions of our race who speak the Spanish as their vernacular, and at least two millions of these are found upon the American continent. Spain itself, is not opened at present to the distribution of the Scriptures. Yet there are many indications that before long, a great door and effectual will be re-opened there for a revival of the Gospel in its true Pauline spirit and power. We, therefore, feel that it is incumbent upon the Union earnestly to prosecute the work so successfully commenced, that on the first opportunity afforded, some modern apostle constrained by the love of Christ, shall take the uncorrupted word in his hand, and by it, reconquer that beautiful peninsular for Christ. We praise God that another state of things exists in Spanish America. There, the people wait for the law of the Lord. After many years of toil and suffering among them, our brethren find them receiving the Oracles of God with gladness of heart. This fact in 1.56 THE REVISER. duces your committee to believe that when the whole work shall be completed, there will be an extensive demand for it in South America. We humbly hope that by the time of your next Anniversary, you may be able to furnish to the Auxiliary Societies of Jamaica, Honduras, and the Bay Islands, numerous copies of the perfected New Testament, so that the seed of the Word may be spread broadcast over a soil prepared for it by years of patient toil. Your committee see cause both of humiliation and faith in that mysterious interposition of the Lord, by which the distinguished colaborers in this work have been so unexpectedly taken to their reward. For while their decease enforces the Scriptural truth that " all flesh is grass," the continuance of the work bears indisputable testimony to the same Divine annunciation, "the word of the Lord endureth forever." While the workmen die, the work triumphantly lives. We are sure that some great and holy purpose is to be secured by the Head of the Church, through this event, which will turn out for the furtherance of the work our brethren so dearly loved. This is already discoverable in several respects, so that our zeal should the rather be expanded and stirred up in this holy enterprise, than diminished in its desires or quenched in its ardor. Praying that your efforts to give to every Spaniard, whether in the Old World or in the New, a perfect transcript of the Divine mind in his own tongue, may be crowned with success, your committee respectfully submit their report. T. ARMITAGE, J. NEWTON HILL, J. L. SMITH, S. WILKINS, A. ARMSTRONG. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON OBITUARIES. How true is the saying of an Apostle, as quoted from a prophet, that "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withereth, and the flower fadeth away: but the word of the Lord endureth forever." These words may be regarded as peculiarly appropriate in the an ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION. 157 nouncement it becomes our painful duty to make of the death of several persons, during the past year, who were known to have been warm friends and patrons of the American Bible Union, some of whom, up to the time of their decease, were engaged either as revisers or as efficient agents in the employment of the Board. But it affords us special encouragement to be assured that, whilst like grass they have withered, and like the flower of the grass they have faded away and fallen, yet the Word, to which they had directed their best energies, lives, and will live forever. Men, the best of men, will die, but God's word is incorruptable, like its author, and will abide forever. The Rev. Juan Calderon, long distinguished for his piety and learning, a Spaniard by birth and education, died at Marlboro road, St. John's Wood, on Sunday, March 29, 1854, in the 64th year of his age. He was originally a priest of the Papal Church, but by a careful examination of the Scriptures of truth, he both abandoned the office and the communion to which he belonged, and devoted his life to the simple teachings of the word of the Lord, and the circulation and revision of the Spanish Scriptures. He revised and corrected the proof of two editions of the Spanish Scriptures, and was engaged on the third, under employ of our Board, at the time of his death. But he now rests from his labors, and his works shall follow him. We also announce the death of Dr. James Thompson, the co-adjutor and personal friend of Sr. Calderon, formerly agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society. He was also a friend of Revision up to the time of his decease, which occurred only twenty days after that of his fellow-laborer. Dr. Thompson was a native of Scotland, and connected with the late James A. Haldane, and a co-elder of the same congregation over which this Brother presided. For many years he was successfully engaged in the employ of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and visited the West Indies, South and Central America, the British Provinces of North America and the United States in the prosecution of his work. He was a warm friend of the American Bible Union, and by his counsel and aid gave valuable assistance to Sr. Calderon in his appointed work. Also the Rev. Aaron Angier, in the West. Two years since, on 158 THE REVISER. this stand he delivered an able discourse on behalf of the objects of the Union. He had also been an efficient agent of the Board, and,died at his post in the midst of his labors, as a preacher of the Gospel and pastor of the Baptist Church. We also announce the death of Mrs. Sallie Wallace Cone, wife of Spencer II. Cone, President of the American Bible Union, and pastor of the First Baptist Church in this city. She died at the Heath House, Schooley's Mountains, N. J., August 15, 1854, in the sixtythird year of her age. She had been for thirty-eight years a member of the Baptist Church, and a consistent Christian, and died in the hope of the resurrection of the dead with eternal life. Having gone to the mountain region of New Jersey in the hope of repairing her already wasted constitution, she suddenly was taken dangerously ill, and died lifting up her eyes to heaven, and exclaiming " O Lord Jesus!" She has gone to share in the eternal enjoyments of those women of the Old and New Testaments, who died in the faith, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. She was an ardent friend of the Bible Union, and the first life member on its list. This Union feel it to be their duty to offer their deep and unaffected condolence to its venerable President., in view of the loss he, in her death, has thus sustained. To those, also, we must add the names of Dr. Gray, Dr. Shephard, of Ohio, and the Rev. D. Thomas, of Indiana. We also record with painful interest the death of OLIVER LocKwoOD, which took place August 7, 1854, who, in addition to numerous other deeds of benevolence, contributed largely in various ways, during his life-time, to the interests of the American Bible Union: and at his decease bequeathed to this Union, out of his small means, two hundred dollars, to aid in giving the Word of God to all nations of men, faithfully translated into their own mother tongue. Thus are we admonished that death is calling away our friends and fellow-laborers, and that the time is short. Let us labor while it is called to-day, for the night cometh in which no one can work. JAMES CHALLEN, PERRY DAVIS, M. L. FULLER, SOLOMON GALE, JOHN CONANT. ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIBLE UNION 159 During the Anniversary, addresses were delivered, by brethren Cone, Eddy, Baker, Remington and Pendleton, (Baptists,) and brethren Young and Burnett, (Reformers.) Besides these, there were about forty other spirit stirring addresses, during the meetings for conferrence; and we can say with truth, that no meeting which it was our privilege to attend, equalled this for the mutual love and the oneness of heart and soul and purpose that pervaded the entire assembly. CLOSING CONFERENCE. A conference of the brethren was resumed after the regular adjournment of the Union. Bro. J. M. Pendleton occupied the chair. A hymn was sung, "How precious is the Book Divine, By inspiration given," &c. Bro. S. Baker, of Williamsburgh, led in prayer. Bro. Pendleton said he had attended the meetings of a great many Bible and Missionary Societies, but he never had attended one so lovely, so heavenly, as this, and he was not sorry that he had come a thousand miles to attend it. He said that our success depends on earnest prayer; and he was afraid we did not pray enough for the revisers, agents and officers. He believed that the President of the Bible Union occupied a position more important than that of the President of the United States. He hoped when brethren go home, they will go daily to pray for God's richest blessing to rest upon all the interests of this noblest of enterprises. His remarks were followed by singing, " Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love," &c. Rev. James Farquharson said, this Institution originated in prayer. They were led in deep and solemn prayer to organize it, and prayer like the pillar of fire and cloud had led them all along the desert of opposition till now. He spoke of the excellence of the old family Bible. He loved it, and therefore wanted to see it as perfect as God had given it to the world. Bro. C. A. Buckbee followed, in a few remarks on the necessity of praver, in view of the prosperity of the Union. 160 THE REVISER. Bro. S. Baker, of Williamsburgh, explained the circumstances that led to his connection with the Board, and his identification with this great and glorious Union. Bro. M. L. Fuller rejoiced that there was but one heart and soul in this blessed meeting. He was followed by Rev. Mr. Davis, in a few spirit stirring addresses, and by Rev. Emerson Andrews, who said he had attended meetings in England and America, revivals and missionary, and Bible gatherings, but he never attended a meeting like this. It is a real revival. Go on and the Lord bless you. Bro. Weir, of Philadelphia, closed this interesting session of friends of a pure Bible. He referred to the rapid growth of the Bible Union in this city, the opposition encountered and the glorious triumph achieved. The brethren then separated to attend a meeting of the Home Mission Society. This Anniversary has closed, leaving an impression upon the great congregation of Bible Unionists, that the God of Heaven directs the movement and leads the way. Fredericktown, Ohio, October, 1854. REV. DR. S. E. SHEPARD, Editor of " The Reviser," MY DEAR BROTHER:I have carefully read the first four Nos. of " the Reviser," and am satisfied that it is worthy of public confidence and patronage. It is just such a work as is most needed at this particular time, and its general circulation will give increased interest in the Revision Enterprise, and increased confidence to the friends of "the Bible, faithfully translated for the whole world." And I hope, from time to time, to record the achievement of mighty progress on this behalf, will be your happy privilege. "The Reviser" receives a hearty welcome from me, I assure you. May abundant success crown your efforts. Yours, in Bible bonds, FRANK REMINGTON. REVISION OF JOHN 2: 6. 161 REVISION OF JOHN 2: 6. Low there were there six water-pots of stone, standing according to the purifying of the Jews, holding two or three metretas a piece. Were it actually certain that the ltesrp?17,r (metreetees) was precisely equivalent to the Hebrew bath, it would, perhaps, be best to render it by this term, which occurs so frequently in the 0. T. But, as there is some doubt of this, and as there is no measure in use among us that is exactly equivalent to this, I would recommend that the word be left untranslated; and though, as a general rule, I prefer to transfer from the Orig. Greek, yet in this case, for the sake of euphony, I would adopt the Latin form, metreta, and form the plural, as in English, by the addition of an s. As the quantity held by each water pot is stated only approximatively, and as this word OCC'urs nowhere else in the N. T., I would suggest, that, in order to secure the attention of the reader, the clause be made to read as follows: " holding two or three metretas [16 to 24 gallons] apiece." I would also recommend that the following note appear in the margin: The metreta was equal to about eight gallons.-Vulg., Erasm. Some interpreters understand ava (ana) here to be= circiter, about, supposing that the six vessels together held about two or three metretas. I apprehend, however, that the double approximation, about two or three, is not in very good taste; and as the words admit quite as well of a different rendering, which is unobjectionable on the score of literary taste, I think this latter rendering ought to be preferred. Besides, the difficulty which this interpretation is designed to obviate is, perhaps, immaginary. Some think it incredible that so large a quantity of liquid as these six vessels must have contained, if each held 16 to 24 gallons, should be turned into wine, for the use of a nuptial party, especially through the miraculous power of one who could have had no sympathy with excessive drinking. Those who feel the weight of this objection would do well to observe: 1. That the wine made on this occasion was probably very slightly, if at all, intoxicating. That it was called good wine does not prove that it was a strong alcoholic drink, unless it can be shown that the governor of the feast was a man fond of stimulus, of which there is, I believe, no evidence. 2. That it is nowhere said, directly or indirectly, that any portion of this liquid was turned into wine, except 15 162 THE REVISER. that which was drawn out by the ministers, and borne to the governor of the feast. On the contrary, from v. 9, it is rendered even more than probable that the change from water to wine took place during the interval which elapsed from the time of drawing out to that of tasting. For it is evident, from the narrative, that what they drew out was water, and that what he tasted was wine, which had just been made out of water, or rather wine made water, (De WV. "das weingewordene Wasser.") This view was entertained by Semler, who lived in an age when no man was likely to be guilty of fanaticism, in defending the principles of total abstinence. M. PREVISION OF JOHN 19: 34. (But one of the soldiers, with a spear, had pierced his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.) I enclose verses 34 and 35 in a parenthesis, for the sake of perspicuity.-That a Roman soldier should, unbidden, and without provocation, thrust a spear into the side of the Saviour, after he knew that he had died already, would be, to say the least, just matter for surprise, and savors of improbability. But that this act should have taken place before his death, is what might reasonably be expected. Since, then, the verb, enukse, (evv4e,) is of the aorist form, which admits of great latitude of interpretation, as to time, we are strongly urged, even from the considerations above named, to look for a meaning in this verse, different from that conveyed by the Common Version. There are numerous instances, in which the aorist is to be rendered by our pluperfect, simply because, from what we know of the facts of the case, we are confident, that the action it describes was, at least, antecedent to that referred to in the immediate context. A remarkable instance of this kind occurs in ch. 18: 24, where it is evident that the circumstances related in vv. 15-23, took place after the removal of the Saviour to the tribunal of Caiaphas, though this removal is not even hinted at, till the 24th verse. Now, were we to render apesteilen, (area-retXev,) in that verse, by our imperfect, which corresponds most nearly to the Greek aorist, (as W., T., C. and R., have done,) we should do violence to the facts of the case. We are obliged, therefore, to render apesteilen, (arrearestev,) had sent. Now, REVISION OF JOHN 19: 34. 163 suppose it should appear to be the the fact, that the Saviour was pierced with a spear before his death, (which will, I think, appear presently,) we will be equally bound to render enukse, (evv5e) had pierced. And that we have a right to do so, under such circumstances, has been tacitly admitted by Erasmus, (no mean authority,) in his note in loco. (Penn.) I believe that such was the fact, for the following reasons:-1. Because the context favors this interpretation. The Evangelist evidently had a twofold design in introducing this parenthetical clause: —l. To account for the fact, that Jesus died sooner than the others, who were crucified at the same time with him. His death, occurring so soon, was a source of wonder to Pilate, and no doubt, to all who were not aware of the fact, that he had been pierced. The meaning of the Evang. is probably this: "But no wonder he had already died, for one of the soldiers with a sipear had pierced his side;" and, to show that the wound thus inflicted was a deadly one, he adds this circumstance: " and immediately there came out blood and water."-2. To connect together the fulfilment of two remarkable prophecies, vv. 36, 37, each dependent for its fulfilment upon the other; for, had they not pierced him, they would have broken his bones, and had they not come with the design of breaking his bones, they would not have looked on him whom they pierced. Another thing in the context that favors this interpretation is, the use of the perfect tense in the 35th verse: " and he who hath seen, hath testified," plainly intimating, that he was not now relating these things for the first time, and justifying, if I mistake not, our reading this verse parenthetically.-2. There is good evidence, historical as well as traditional, that this fact did transpire before his death. Two of the most ancient MSS. extant, (B C,) have this fact recorded in Matt. 27, between vv. 49 and 50. Five other Greek MSS. (L. 5, 48, 67, 115, 127,) have the same passage. According to a Scholium to Cod. 72, the same passage was found in the copies " of Diodorus, Tatian, and various other holy Fathers." Chrysostom undoubtedly used a similar copy. The same fact is preserved in the Jerusalem Syriac, the Ethiopic, and several of the ancient Latin Verss. In short, even as lately as the 14th century, it required the thunders of the Vatican, wielded by two successive Popes, (Clement V., and John XXIII.,) to expunge this piece of history from Matthew's Gospel. But, as the genuineness of that passage is not now directly before me, I would refer the reader to Penn's elaborate Annotation on 164 THE REVISER. Matt. 27 ~50, from which many of the above facts are drawn. In conclusion, I would say, that I have translated evvve, had pierced, for the same reason that King James' Revisors, with G., and so many others, have rendered apesteilen, (arre'reLsev,) had sent, in ch. 18:~ 24; namely, because I conceive that the aorist will bear a pluperfect rendering, and that the facts of history imperatively demand it in this place. The parallel between these two passages is, I think, very perfect. John had omitted to mention the circumstance of Christ's removal from the house of Annas to that of Caiaphas, in what would seem to have been the proper place for mentioning it. He, therefore, threw it in by way of parenthesis, when it occured to him in the progress of the narrative. So in this case. Between the 29th and 30th verses, was, according to the ancient copies of Matthew, the proper place to mention the circumstance of his being pierced; but, having omitted it there, he afterwards relates it by way of parenthesis, when suggested to his mind by other circumstances. I would add, that, though our idiom requires here the pluperfect form, for the sake of pepspicuity, this was not the case in Greek. This difference arises, no doubt, from our imperfect acquaintance with the practical uses of the indefinite tense. Compare ch. 21: 15, where eeristeesan, (rlpltTr1rav,) must be rendered, had dined, to convey the true idea of the,riginal in English. M. REVISION OF JOHN 20: 1. Now the first [day] of the week Mary Afagdalene comes early, (it being yet dark,) into the tomb, and sees the stone having been taken away out of the tomb. I have not the least doubt that both eis, (elt,) and ek, (-cq,) in this paragraph, have their proper and primary meanings, into, out of, though most, if not all, translators, hitherto, have taken the former in the sense of pros, (7rpoq,) or epi, (re-,) to, and the latter in the sense of apo, (a7ro,) from. The other Evangelists, in the parallel passages, use esrr, when speaking of the approach to the tomb, and airo, when speaking of the rolling away of the stone, (except Mark, who has es Tr/; &1vpaQ, out of the door of the tomb.) How, then, can we acconnt for John's saying that Mary came into the tomb REVISION OF JOHN 20: 1. 165 and saw the stone taken away out of the tomb? It does not appear that at that time, she even looked in, to see the place where her Lord was laid. How, especially, can we account for his saying. vv. 4, 5, that the other disciple came first into the tomb, * * nevertheless, he went not in? To explain these difficulties by alleging that eis, (egg,) is here=pros, (lrpof,) or epi, (elrt,) and that ek, (es,)=apo, (a7ro,) is to cut the knot, instead of untying it. Now, let it be borne in mind, that however unclassical the style of this Evangelist may be, he can not justly be charged with using words at random, or even in strange and unusual senses. Indeed, I doubt much, if there ever was a writer, who was more scrupulously exact in the choice of his terms, with the view of being clearly understood by his readers. So much so, that the acount given by John of the visits of the disciples to the tomb, and, incidentally, of the tomb itself, is, by far, the most definite and accurate that has reached us from any scource; and it was, doubtless, because the other Evangelists did not aim at definiteness of description, or rather, because they viewed the subject from a greater distance, that they have employed the more general terms, epi, (eer,) and alpo, (aro,) where John, aiming at minuteness of description, employs the definite terms, eis, (etg,) and ek, (es..) In order to understand this subject satisfactorily, it is important that we should have some correct idea of the structure of this tomb spoken of. Whether that, which has, for the last fifteen hundred years, been shown as "the Holy Sepulchre," is, or is not, the real tomb in which the body of our Lord was laid, is, I believe, a disputed point; though, perhaps a large majority of writers admit the accuracy of the tradition. The question is of little consequence; for there can be no doubt, that this "Holy Sepulchre" is, in its structure, similar to other ancient tombs; and, if it is not really the tomb of Joseph, it may be safely taken as a model of it. Of this " Holy Sepulchre" Calmet observes, (Fragments, No. CXXXVIII,) " The tomb of our Lord consisted of two chambers, (1) an outer chamber, about 12 or 14 feet wide, and as many deep; (2) an inner chamber, about 12 or 13 feet long, by 6 or 7 broad." To this account of Calmet agree, I believe, almost all writers on this subject; and, indeed, this mode of building tombs is by no means peculiar to the ancients, but is common, in its essential features, at the present day. Without doubt, then, this tomb had two chambers, and in the door of the inner one, which contained the body, according to custom, the stone with the seal was placed. 166 THE REVISER. We have now reached the explanation of this seeming difficulty. Mary came into the outer chamber, (which is'supposed to have been left open, and, at least, was not locked, or sealed,) and saw the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, that is, out of the door (Mark,) of the inner chamber. So "the other disciple," who outran Peter, came first into this outer chamber, and, stooping down, (before the low, narrow door of the inner chamber,) he saw the linens lying; nevertheless, he went not in, that is, he entered not into the inner chamber, though he had already come into the outer one. Afterward Peter came, and, (being already with John in the outer chamber,) entered into the inner chamber, and saw not only what John had seen through the open door, but also the napkin, folded up by itself, and put into a place, where, probably, it could not be seen without passing through the door. Then John also went into this inner chamber, and saw, and believed. See Calmet, as quoted above. Also, Calmet's Dict. Art. Sepulchre.-Jahn's Bibl. Arch. ~~ 206, 207. M. DIAKONOS. The following is the note of our able reviser of the book of John on the word diakonos, or deacon. Our readers will see the harmony between our criticisms on that word and this note. This noun, diakonos, (Ltacovog,) and its derivatives, diakoneein, (dtarcoveetv,) and diakonia, (dtaiovta,) are variously translated in the E. V. The prevailing translation, however, is minister, (ministry.) I would make this rendering universal, for the following reasons: 1. For the sake of uniformity.-2. Because, in this way, I make a distinction between this word and doulos, (dov0uo,) which I would always translate servant. The word servant is too general for diakonos, (taticovog,) which denotes a particular kind of servant.-3. Because the word minister is in common use, not only in a general sense, but as a term of office both in church and state. In this respect, it precisely coincides with diakonos, (dLaicovog,) though it may not always be equivalent to it.-4. Because I believe that minister does, in every case, exactly convey the meaning of diakonos, (dtaKovog.)-Latin Verss. (ministris;) Kenr. (waiters;) Van Ess (Aufwartern;) other Verss. generally, as E. V. M. THE RESURRECTION. 167 THE RESURRECTION. Some have supposed that there is considerable discrepancy between the statements of the several Evangelists, in regard to the Pesurrection of our Lord, and its attendant circumstances. Says Alf., in loco,-" I attempt no harmony of the accounts;-I believe all such attempts to be fruitless;-and I see in their failure strong corroboration of the truth of the Evangelical. Narratives." Now, while I should be extremely sorry to rob the Evangelical Narratives of any legitimate scource of "strong corroboration," yet, believing that their truth will be felt and acknowledged, even though it should be shown, that these accounts are in perfect harmony with each other, I do not hesitate to avow the firm conviction, that, between the several narratives of the four Evangelists, as far as they bear upon this question, there is not even the appearance of discrepancy. Difficulties there may be, and doubtless are, in the interpretation of certain parts of these narratives; but there are no discrepancies whatever. If, in what follows, I should be charged with having abandoned the province of the translator, and invaded that of the interpreter, I reply, that the thorough discussion of this question has a most important bearing on the translation itself, not only in the passage under consideration, but in other passages supposed to be parallel. Still, I shall not go minutely into the details of this question; but simply state, in as few words as possible, certain conclusions which I have drawn from the historical records, after a careful examination. 1. There were, at least, five different visits to the tomb, subsequent to the resurrection. We know these visits to have been different, —l First, because they are represented to have taken place at different times.-Second, because they were attended by different circumstances.-l. Mary Magdelene and the other Mary, (most probably the mother of James,) came to see the tomb, oibe aa/3armv, just at the close of the Sabbath, (which was according to the Jewish law, between sunset and dark,) rrt e7rtb(oaKCova, as it was beginning to shine, (spoken of the moon and stars, see Luke 23: 54, Grotius,) towards the first [day] of the week. (See Matt. 28: 1.) Neither of the other three Evangelists makes any mention of this visit. Some have tried'to show that odbe may mean after, and that ezrrtboa/covorj Is here spoked of the morning twilight; but the latter supposition is 168 THE REVISER. entirely gratuitous, since Luke undoubtedly uses this verb of the evening twilight, and, as to the former, the quotations fiom the classics intended to prove it are by no means satisfactorily to the point; aid even if they were, no judicious critic would assign to a word an unusual meaning, on the authority of a half a dozen rare exceptions, unless actually driven to it by the context.-2. The next morning, the first [day] of the week, Mary Magdalene made a second visit to the tonmb, ocortafg ea t ovm1g, before day-light, or while it was still dark. This time she waA alone, and came thus early, probably, in consequence of her eagerness to ascertain the truth of the resurrection, of which she had vainly tried to persuade the other disciples the evening before. Shle did not stay long this time; but ran to tell Peter and John what she had seen. (See the passage under consideration.) No other Evangelist gives any account of this second visit-3. Peter and John, (see John's narrative, as above,) immediately after the arrival of Mary Magdalene with the news of his resurrection, started for the tomb. At what hour they arrived, we are not precisely informed; nor can we say positively whether this visit was contemporaneous with any other, or not; but the strong probability is, that they did not arrive till after day-]light, since tlhey looked into the tomb, and saw what it contained, (vv. 5-7;) and they probably lingered about the place, till all "the disciples," except Mary Magdalene, were ready to go home again, (see v. 10, below.) This third visit also is recorded only by John.-4. Not long after the departure of Mary Magdalene, as mentioned above, and probably soon after the arrival of Peter and John, op9povo3a9e6o, in the dusk of the morning, (Luke 24: 1,) the " women," who had prepared spices and ointments before the previous Sabbath, (Luke 23: 56,) came to the tomb, bringing those spices, for the purpose of embalming him. Who these women were, is not particularly mentioned by Luke. The two Marys were not then with them, as appears from Mark's narrative. (See below.) Luke is the only Evangelist who mentions this visit of the " women. — 5. A little later, avareLZav7Or (avai-;eXovrog) 4wtov, after sunrise (at sunrise,) Mary lMagdalene, (who had by this time returned fr:om delivering her message to Peter and John,) made her third visit to the tomb, being accompanied by Mary the mother of James and Salome. They also brought their spices and ointments, and now probably joined the other " women," mentioned by Luke. This was the last visit, of which we THE RESURRECTION. 169 have any account, and is recorded only by Mark. Now as it regards these five visits, I think we may safely challenge any one to point out a single discrepancy in the various narratives. 2. The resurrection of our' Lord did not, as is commonly supposed, take place on the morning of the first day of the week; but in the evening of the Sabbath, probably, (for the precise moment is nowhere stated,) at the very close of the day of rest, and just before the arrival of the two Marys, who came to see the sepulchre, oibe aaaiar&ov Tr' e7rt0LacovaI et5 pEav Caa a/3Tamv, at the precise point that separated between the last and the first days of the week. Be was risen, when they arrived; and his resurrection was probably simultaneous with the great earthquake, which had taken place on their arrival. The Marys were not, as Alf. contends, "witness of the earthquake;" for syeve-ro, there was, is indefinite past, as also, a7rescv tae, while eIca1r/70 is imperfect; showing that, when the women arrived, the angel who rolled away the stone, was sitting up2on it, which implies that the earthquake had already taken place, if, as is admitted, the aeotatSo "was the sudden opening of the tomb by the descending angel." (Alf.) Mcatthew is the only one of the Evangelists who gives us any account of the circumstances IMMEDIATELY attending the resurrection. No other writer mentions the earthquake; no other brings to view the very angel who rolled away the stone, in the immediately subsequent act of sitting upon it. Mark, in reference to this point, says merely, " And, looking up, they (the women,) see that the stone (a7romerv7a-rat, perfect,) has (had) been rolled away." "He, (Jesus,) was raised, (jyrpWi9i, aorist,) he is not here." Luke says, "And they found the stone (a7roicetsvXtotuevov, perfect,) having been rolled away from the tomb." " He, (Jesus,) is not here, (yD'rept0n, aorist,) he was raised." John merely says, "And she, (Mary Magdalene,) seeth the stone (s9uemvov, perfect,) having been taken away." Now compare these statements with that of Matthew: "And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, coming down from heaven, approaching, rolled away the stone, and was sitting (imperfect,) upon it." I have already admitted that there may be difficulties in the interpretation of the various parts of these narratives. There are only two of these that I deem it necessary to notice, in this place. 1. Why, it is asked, did Mary say to the angels, on the morning of the first day of the week, (v. 13, below,) "They took away my 170 THE REVISER. Lord, and I know not where they laid him," if she had herself seen him alive, after his resurrection, the evening before, as is recorded in Matt. 28: 9? I admit that this is a difficulty; but, as was before remarked, there is here no discrepancy between Matthew and John. It would be easy, indeed, to magnify the difficulty by inquiring further, Why did Mary Magdalene say, "They took away my Lord, and I know not where they laid him," after she had been told "'he was alive?" The "two men," (Luke 24: 5-7,) had said to her, and certain other women, " Why are ye seeking the living with the dead. He is not here, but was raised. Remember how he spoke to you, being yet in Galilee, saying, It is necessary that the Son of man be betrayed into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified." Did she not know from the positive testimony of angels, that he was alive 2 If I am not mistaken, the solution of this difficulty is not so difficult as might, at first, be imagined. The key is furnished by John, (v. 9, below,) " For they did not yet know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Mary Magdalene had, indeed, seen Jesus the evening before, while returning from her first visit to the tomb; but when she told the circumstance to the other disciples, they did not believe the reality of it, and, no doubt, would have persuaded her that she had merely seen a vision. In fact, according to Matt. 28: 18, even after the eleven disciples, subsequently, had seen and worshipped him in Galilee, some still doubted. Now, while we may find it very difficult to understand why the disciples were so slow of heart to understand these things, the fact is incontestible, and, being,dmitted, accounts for the singular conduct of Mary Magdalene, and, therefore, clears up the proposed difficulty. 2. The supposition that the resurrection took place in the evening of the Sabbath, it is said, renders it impossible that the Lord should have been in the tomb even part of three days. Therefore, the Scriptures could not have been fulfilled in his resurrection at that time. I apprehend that this difficulty is only imaginary; and wil' reply to it in three particulars.-1. The most definite prophecy on iecord, in relation to the time that he was to lie in the grave, is that uttered by himself, Matt. 12: 40, " For as Jonah was in the belly of the seamonster three days and three nights, so shall the Son of minu be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." Now it is generally held to be incontestable, that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day of the week, (Friday,) and was buried in the evening of THE RESURRECTION. 171 the same day. From that time till the morning of the first day, when it is admitted by all he was risen, would be, at most, only one day, and a very small portion of another, with two nights; so that the common computation lacks one night, and nearly two days of making the time that he was in the heart of the earth equal to three days and three nights, which it would have been, according to the prediction cited above. Now, even supposing that it were the legitimate object of the interpreter, to reconcile history with prophecy, would it be worth while to force upon Matthew's narrative an unnatural construction, for the purpose of postponing the resurrection a few hours, when, after all, we should lack one night and nearly two days of effecting the, proposed reconciliation? Or, should we, by this means, succeed in satisfying the less definite predictions, such as, "After three days I will rise again;"-" and the third day rise again;" would there be any real gain, while the most definite and unequivocal of all these predictions would remain unalterably opposed to our interpretation? I take it for granted, that, if language is of any use at all, in conveying ideas, three days and three nights include the whole of three diurnal revolutions of our planet. But it is not the business of either historian or interpreter to fulfil prophecy, neither of whom has a right to misrepresent the facts of history for the sake of making them agree with any prediction whatever. I confess that, on the supposition that the burial of our Lord took place on the evening of the sixth, and his resurrection on the morning of the first day of the week, I find it as impossible to reconcile the facts with the prediction above referred to, as though it were admitted that he rose in the evening of the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week. But-2. There is no evidence that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day of the week. All of the Evangelists agree that the day that followed the crucifixion was the Sabbath; but we are nowhere informed that it was the seventh day of the week. We know, fiom the "commandment," (Lev. 23: 6, 7,) that the fifteenth day of the first month was a sabbath of rest, being the first day of unleavened bread, and we also know, that this was the fifteenth day of the first month, and, therefore, that it was the first day of unleavened bread; but what day of the week it was, we know not. That Sabbath was annual, not weekly, and happened sometimes on one, sometimes on another day of the week; and there is positively no evidence that, in that year, it was coincident with the weekly Sabbath. We have, therefore, no 1'72 THE REVISER. historical data, furnished by the Evangelists, from which we can determine, whether the resurrection was, or was not, in accordance with the predictions touching that event. Since, however, the Apostle informs us that he arose the third day, " according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15: 4,) we may conclude that his body was literally three days and three nights in the tomb. Taking this, then, as the basis of. our calculation, and applying it to Matthew's narrative, we arrive at the conclusion that the body was put into the tomb in the evening of the fourth day of the week, (Wednesday,) while the following day, (Thursday,) was the Paschal Sabbath, the first day of unleavened bread. This calculation brings us to the same hour of the evening when Luke represents the burial to have taken place; for it is evident that the disciples hastened with their labor, in order that the body might be put into the tomb before the Sabbath, which, (e7reo(aICe, imperfect,) was beginning to shine. (See 1, p. 135.) —3. As to the various traditions in relation to this whole subject, I confess, I pay no attention to them, because I consider the scriptural account sufficiently full to explain itself, without their aid. M. OYSTER BAY, L. I., October 29, Sunday, 1854. EMENDATION OF 2ND TIM., 3 CHAP. 15, 16 VER. "And that from childhood thou hast known the holy scriptures," &c. This passage as it stands in the Common Version, is entirely turned from its true import by rendering (iera grammata) holy scriptures, instead of temple scriptures, as it reads in the original-the temple scriptures, spoken of by Paul to Timothy, constituted the law of Moses, see Deut. 31 chap., 26 verse, " take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark," &c. It was this book of the law which Timothy had known from his youth, and which Paul declared potential to make a man wise to salvation by faith in Christ Jesus, and this scripture, all of it, was given by inspiration of God; he says nothing of the history, or of the Psalms, or of the Prophecies, it is the temple scriptures only, which he declares to be profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in justice, and to make the man of God, perfect; I submit the passage as amended, verse 15, and that from childhood you have known the temple writings which are able to make you wise to salvation, through the be COMMON VERSION OF PHIL. 1: 1. 173 lief in Christ Jesus, verse 16, all writings divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for reformation, for education in justice, that the mlan of God may be complete, fitted for every good work. HENRY B. BLAIR. For the Reviser. THE COMMON VERSION OF PHIL. 1: 1. Timotheus. There is no good reason why this Latin name should be retained in an English version of this, or any other portion of the Sacred Writings, since we have a word which exactly corresponds with it, namely, Timothy, and which is the exact translation of Timotheus. Whv should this name be translated into Latin in some places, and into English in other places. Wieliff translated this name from the Vulgate Latin into English in all places where it occurs in his text. Tyndale translated it from Greek into Latin till he came to 1 Tim. 1 2, after which he rendered it into English. Cranmer, in his revision, followed Tyndale, except in 1 Thes. 1: 1; 3: 2, 6, where he followed Wiclif. The Geneva and Common Version follow Tyndale throughout. Why Tyndale changed at 1 Tim. 1: 2 is not known. Probably because he became a better translator by practice. Al1 the foreign versions into languages which had not a corresponding name, adopted the Latin name. The American and Foreign Bible Society, in its revision of the Common Version, adopts the English name. The American Bible Society, in its revision, still follows Tyndale; and when he is Latin, it is Latin-when he is English, it is English also. All modern English translators, and commentators use the English name, which we have also preferred. Had we thought proper not to employ the English, we should have mvch preferred to adopt the Greek Timotheos than the Latin Timotheus, for the reason that we see no reason why in translating from Greek to English we should prefer a Latin to a Greek name, when neither has been adopted by us. 174 THE REVISER. COMMON VERSION OF PHILIP, 2: 7. The Common Version reads this: ".But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of marn." To understand this passage it is necessary to consider the antecedent context in v. v. v. 4, 5, 6.' Verse 4 recommends and enjoins, a self-denying and generous course of conduct. "View not attentively every one his own things [only,] but every one also the things of others." The fifth verse intimates the only means by which this can be accomplished; namely, " Wherefore let this mind be in you, which was even in Christ Jesus." Verse 6, 7, contain an illustration of the Apostles meaning in v. 5. "Who, being in God's folm, did not esteem the being like God a robery; yet he divested himselfhe assumed a bond-man's form -he existed in a similitude of men;" v, 8, "and being found in appearance as a man, he let himself down — was submissive till death-death, indeed, by a cross." After telling the holy people in Philippi to have the mind which was in Christ, he proceeded to explain what he meant by that mind. To do this, he reminded them that Christ pre-existed in God's form, and that, although this entitled him to be like God, yet he placed himself far below God-and, indeed, far below an honorable position among men. For he did not take the station of a master among them, but the condition of a bond-man-a slave. That, having divested himself of his Theosic form, or, God-form, he assumed an anthr oposic, or, a human appearance, even the degraded condition of a slave, and became submissive till death-even a death by crucifixion!,What philanthropy! He did not set his eves on his own thingshis God-form, and his God-likeness; but he viewed attentively, as a prize to be obtained by mighty efforts and death-struggles, the interest, the eternal interest of others. But he did not make " himself of no reputation," as the Common Version affirms; for neither make himself, nor, reputation, are in the Original Text. The word ekenoo, (EKeiVOw,) neither sifignies, to make, nor, to repute; and its aorist participle ekenose, (EvEvOCre,) cannot be shown to mean to have made a reputation, or, to have made no reputation. The verb signifies, to empty, evacuate, to make void, COMMON VERSION OF PHIL. 2: 7. 175 and in connection with heauton, (Eav-rbv,) himself, to divest, or strip one's self. In the case under consideration, it is said that Christ divested himself of the form of God, and assumed the form of a bondman. This relates not to reputation, but to condition. He never had the reputation of being a slave, although in regard to condition, he was even more destitute than foxes and birds-not having where to lay his head. But he was never indifferent to his reputation; and when it was assailed he always defended it. Much less did he conduct himself so as to destroy his reputation, or, so as to make "himself of no reputation." It is speaking derogatory to say of a man that he has no reputation, but much more so to say that he has destroyed his reputation. No being ever established a better reputation than did Jesus of Nazareth, among all the good people of his acquaintance. Only the wicked sought to make him " of no reputation "-they only destroyed his reputation. They accused him of treason against Ceasar, because he said he was a king-and of blasphemy against God, because he said he was the Son of God. The highest crime known to civil government is, treason-to divine government is blasphemy. Fasten these charges on a man, and you make him of no reputation. While Christ admitted that he was a king, he denied the charge of treason; because his kingdom being not of this world, and Ceasar's being wholly of this world, he came not in competition with Ceasar —he sought not the overthrow of his government. While he admitted that he claimed to be the Son of God, he denied the charge of blasphemy, or slander; because, said he, "- honor my Father." Thus he sought to sustain his reputation. The Vulgate, instead of he made himself of no reputation, says, scipsum, exinanivit, emptied himself of. Bloomfield, Heinricks, Sehlcusner, and Wetstein, are all opposed to the Common Version here. A BOND-MAN'S FORM. Rosenmuler, and Morus both understand doulos, (do&io~,) here to mean minister Dei, [a minister of God,] inasmuch as he undertook the business committed to him by the Father. This is a great mistake. Christ is said to diakoneo, (dtatovew,) to minister, but never to douleuo, (dov)eso,) to do the service of a bond-man to God. All the ancient, and the best modern commentators understand the sense 176 THE REVISER. to be, "he was made like unto a servant in the lowly and distressed condition which he voluntarily assumed, when he becanme man." The word form, (Fop/no,) is found but three times in the Christian Scriptures, and in every case in connection with something said concerning Christ, as in Mark 16: 12, Phil. 2: 6, 7, "another form" "form of God" "form of a bond-man." The first passage, "he appeared in another form," has reference not to his shape, but to his general appearance. So in the second instance; the form of God does not mean his personal figure, but his whole appearance as manifested. Thus also in the third instance, the form of a bond-man has not so much, if any, reference to the shape of a bond-man, as to the general appearance of a slave, as it relates to his external condition. What the " other form " was in which Jesus appeared to two of his disciples as they went into the country, is not defined. But his shape as a man, had not changed, for they took him to be a man, but knew not that he was Jesus. It was such a change, however, as destroyed his personal identity to their vision, and another Evangelist says, on the same subject, that " their eyes were holden that they should not know him." He looked, to them, like a different person, and this is called appearing "to then " in another form. The cause of this difference in appearance, seems to have been an effect produced on the retina of their eyes, and not on his person; so that "form" must mean appearance rather than shape. So also the form of God does not mean his personal figure, but his appearance, or his visible manifestation. The Apostle says he inhabits the light to which no man approaches. Thus he appeared to the patriarchs, 1 Dent. 5: 22, 24. This is called the similitude of God; Num. 12: 8-the face of God, Psal. 31: 16-the presence of God, Ex. 33: 15,-and His shape, John 5: 37. Of this Jesus was possessed before his incarnation, and of this he divested himself when he assumed the form, or external appearance of a bond-man, for the two appearances were incompatible in the same person and at the same time. Thus also in reference to the form of a servant, or bond-man. As to bodily shape they were all in the likeness of men. They, in this particular differed among themselves, and agreed with the free. But, in general, as it related to their external appearance, there was a similarity between bond-men, and a dissimilarity between them and COMMON VERSION OF 2 PET. 3: 11. 177 free men. This is emphatically true of all their external circumstances. When the Lord Jesus divested himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the foundation of the world, he divested himself of the form of God —when he let himself down, he not only assumed the similitude of men, but he descended still lower, even to the lowest condition known among men. There appeared, in one being, the infinite contrast between the form of God$-the ineffable glory and boundless wealth of the Divinity, and the form of a bondman-the degredation and poverty of a slave! All this for the sake of fallen humanity! What philanthropy! COMMON VERSION OF 2 PET. 3: 11. This verse begins wrong-continues wrong-ends wrong. There is no " seeing " in the Original-no " of persons "-no " all " in the latter part of the verse. The Greek reads, (Tov-rov ovv 7rdvrro~v XVOltvov,) since, then, all these things are being dissolved, (Tro-rarrovf,) what ought you to be in holy deportment and piety! "Manner of persons " is very bad English. "Manner " relates to doing, or performance, not to "persons." Kind, stands in the same relation to " persons " in which " manner " stands to doing. A manner, or mode of action is good English. A kind of person or thing, is also good. Kind, may also be applied to actions. But "manner of persons," and " manner of spirit," are obsolete-good taste having long since pronounced judgment against them. The word, (X2voe'gvwv,) gen. pla.neut. part. pres. of luo, (vero) signifies, being loosened, being unbound, or, being unfastened, by which the Apostle intimates that the cause which, in the end, must produce a disolution of the things to which he refers, and which he had named in v. 10, was already operative in the elements which, in coherence, constitute the present organization of the material heavens and earth. The word " conversation," which is that by which the Greek word (avaarpo'ij,) is translated, is not now used in the sense which it bears in the Common Version. Its current meaning now is something said. The Greek word means behavior, in a general senseembracing both what is said, and done-a course of life-all that refers to character in a moral sense. 16 178 THE REVISER. Hence the Apostle postjoins, (Eo4eela,) euscbeia, reverential feeling, to deportment;-" holy deportment, and piety," constitute acceptable service to God, and render a man safe in the midst of dissolving elements-" the wreck of matter and crash of worlds"' Gayse, Wesley, Campbell, and Wakefield, render the word "manners." Macknight, Newcome, Thompson, Clarke, Barnes, Murdock, Kendrick, Sharp, and Bloomfield, "conduct." The French Geneva translation, and Beausobre and L'Enfant are ambiguous. The other foreign versions are unambiguous. THE BAPTIST HOME MISSIONARY. This is the title of a large quarto, in news-paper form, of eight pages, published by the Provisional Committee appointed by some of the friends of the Baptist Home Mission Society. This Committee was appointed by that portion of the Baptists who attended the last anniversary of the Bible Union, and such others as may have assembled for that purpose, and who are friends to pure translations of the Sacred Writings. The violent, and determined opposition of that portion of the denomination who are in favor of a centralization of power, ecclesiastic and financial, in this great city, has induced them to disregard the feelings and consiencious scruples of a large and respectable portion of the Baptist brotherhood, whose enlarged views and increasing philanthropy, have produced in them a laudable christian zeal to furnish men of all nations with pure versions of the Living Oracles, by revising translations already made, where they need revision, and by making new versions where there are none. A few Baptists in this city, with their alliances, seem determined to direct the voyage of the denomination, or sink the ship. They have rallied around the American and Foreign Bible Society, and are seeking to make it a denominational institution in the estimation of Baptists who are opposed to the Bible Union. A few inen in favor of a metropolitan centralization have elected a house in Nassau street, called, because of its material and splendor, " The Marble Palace," the expense of which is said to be about one hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars. It seems that these men purpose to sell this Palace to the Ameri THE BAPTIST HOME MISSIONARY. 179 can and Foreign Bible Society, but before effecting that sale they lease to the Baptist Home Missionary Society a suit of rooms, (the yearly rent of which is valued at many hundred dollars,) for nothing. Thus, the American and Foreign Bible Society, to which thousands of dollars have been given by people not belonging to the Baptist denomination, is made to contribute hundreds of dollars, annually, in the way of rent, to the Baptist Home Mission Society-an ogranization strictly denominational. It is sometimes represented that the gentlemen are going to give this Palace to the American and Foreign.Bible Society. If so, why have they not conveyed the property? But if this Bible Society, which is not denominational, is to pay for this property, why lease rooms to a denominational society for twenty-onze years rentfiree, before that conveyance is made? Are persons who have paid for life memberships in that Bible Society, who belong to other denominations, to be obligexd to contribute to tle support of a Missionary Society strictly denominational? And is that society of which they are Life Members to contract a debt of 8135,000 on interest at 7 per cent., and then furnish to another unaffiliated society rooms rent free for the term of twenty-one years? How much money will they require to pay for this Palace at the rate of expense for collecting and disbursing last year? If they were to pay it all without interest, it would require more than $270,000 to pay the $135,000, for they expended 51 cents out of every dollar they collected last year, just in collecting and paying out! Let it be remembered that, only 49 cents out of every dollar paid into the treasury of the American and Foreign Bible Society, went to pay for the circulation of bibles. The remaining 51 cents out of the dollar went to pay officers! Against such a Bible Society do the Bible Union Baptists, who have issued the "Home Missionary," have to contend. This old Bible Society, the officers of which consume more than half what is paid in its treasury, is now, through these officers, calling to its aid, and seeking to collect around it the other denominational societies among the Baptists. The friends of the Bible Union are determined not to support any missionary organization which will connect its fortunes with such a Bible Society. They have, therefore, commenced the publication of this sheet. According to the published terms of the Missionary, it will cost 180 THE REVISER. only about one penny a number, including the postage. It will contain the history of the great denominational division now about to take place in the Baptist family-a division which, though now covered, as relates to its consequences, with the vale of secrecy, cannot fail to have an important influence on the civil and religious history of America and the world. It is, as regards the great Baptist family, a most important cricis. W~Te advise every person, who would read the religious history of his own times, to write immediately for " The Baptist Home Missionary," 152 Clinton St., N. Y. The publishers say, " We can send sixteen copies monthly to one address for one dollar,from the present issue till the month of May," The month of May is mentioned because the great question of an independant location of the Home Mission Society is then to be decided. On the decision of this question depends the decision of the question following. Shall the Baptist denomination be divided? A question of grave consequence. Let sixteen persons give a six-pence a piece and send it to the Home Missionary as above directed, and each can be supplied with a sheet which will faithfully record facts fraught with momentous interests. Write immediately. The American and Foreign Bible Society is hostile to the American Bible Union, and it seeks to make all the denominational societies hostile to its interests. The salvation of that worse than useless society depends on the alliances it can form. Its alliances with denominational societies must drive all from its support except Baptists. All the Baptists in favor of pure translations have abandoned it. Those who remain will become weary of paying 51 cents for the support of officers for collecting and paying out 49 cents to some other purpose. It will require a long time to pay for the Marble Palace, without putting a single copy of the Scriptures into the hands of the poor. THE SACRED STYLE. JAMES 4: 13. 5: 1. 181 "THE SACRED STYLE." JAMES 4: 13, 5: 1. "GO TO NOW." "Go to" Jerusalem, Bethelem, Jerico, or Jordan, is easy to be understood. But, "go to now," requires some knowledge of the history of our language before it can be explained. What " hallowed associations cluster around" this phrase? "Go to now ye that say," That the English language, in the reign of King James the first, was sacred, "where as ye know not what ye say, nor whereof ye affirm." Tell your readers and hearers what " go to now " means. Be careful, however, that you do not correct the translation for that is " revision " -the very thing which you oppose, and you may also destroy " the sacred style," and break up "hallowed associations." But to those who are fond of "sound speech that cannot be condemned," we take the liberty of saying that the above "go to now " is no translation of James' words, ag-e nun, (dye v-v.) This is a form of address found in the Christian Scriptures only in the wrlitil-ngs of this Apostle. Ag-e is used in the Alexandrian Version for the lIebrew word (M:) employed in Judges 19: 6. The authors of the King's Version render the Hebrew to be ready, by the "go to" of the Common Version of the above verses in James. And although the "go to" is found in Isa. 5: 5, it is not represented in the original by any Hebrew word. The Greek word translated "go to," (dye imperative of dzyo) is a particle of exortation, or incitement. It is used adverbally like?hcwre, (AIpe.) It signifies, come! come on! well! and corresponids with the Latin, age. Although this word is not used by any authoritative writer in the Christian Scriptures except James, yet it is as old as the time of Homer. In the Attic Greek of Aristophanes we find the very phrase of James, (da'ye vvv,) used as equivalent to the stronger forms of Homer The phrase "go to now," is a perfect obsolescence, without sense or sacredness, fit only to be remembered as a form of expression against which all English writers and speakers long since gave irrevocable judgment. " Come now!" if not the sacred, is, nevertheless, the significant translation of this phrase, around which "the hallowed associations" of the intelligent and pious can cluster. "Go to " belongs to " an un 182 THE REVISER. known tongue;" and " he is greater who prophecies, than he who speaks in an unknown tongue." COMMON VERSION EPIl. 2: 15. ONE NEWV MAN. The Apostle says that Jesus "abolished the enmity, (the law of comlmandments (Jv d6yF/1ot) in edicts" that of the two kinds of people-the Jews, and Gentiles —the Circumcision, and the Uncircumcision, he might (STrioA) organize in himself, " one new man," making peace. This, (Eva tatvov davOpo6rov,) " One New Man" was the Christian Community, or the Congregation of Christ organized, or founded on the (icatvog) New Covenant, as contradistinguished from the Jewish Community founded on the "The Law of the Commandments in Edicts." That edictal law was called "the enmity" because of its exclusive character-it having been given not to all nations, but to only one nation. It excluded all nations except the Jews. This laid the foundation of enmity between them and other nations, and therefore this law, by a metonomy, is called " the enmity." The Old Jewish Community was spoken of as a man. It took the name of a manl; namely, "Israel." Organized Paganism with its "lords many and its gods many," stood antipathically to the old man, Israel, and therefore the Apostle speaks of "the two," (rovs d6o) old men in contrast with "the one new man." The Common Version errs, in not giving that conspicuity to these two old men which the original gives them. The error consists in the omission of the article. " Of twain " is not a translation of tous duo, (roiof 1&vo.) It should be rendered, " the two. Jesus abolished "the enmity" between these two old gentlemen that he might make peace between them, and reconcile both of them to God " in one body," (ev &vt cotta-rt) because of the cross. This " one body " is the " one new man." The good news having been proclaimed to the members of the old man, Israel, and the old man, Paganism; they were permitted to have access, (ev ~vi rve8Va-r't,) in one spirit, to the Father. Those, of both Jews and Greeks, who availed themselves of this divine access, constituted the new community-the " One New Man " in Christ. Thus a'peace was COIMMON VERSION OF COL. 3: 9, 10. 183 -affected between the two kinds of people-the Jew and the Greekt'ne Circumcision, and the Uncircumcision. The bond of union for this New Man was, " One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of all, who is over (Eirt) all, and throzugh all, and (Ev) among you all." Eph. 4: 5, 6. When a man abandoned Paganism he was said to "put off the Old Man;" and when he became a member of the church of God, he "put on the New Man." Eph. 4: 22, 24. This new community is (rctrwOwv-ra) organized (icara) according to God, in righteousness, and a true (6ovto6rlrt) sacred observance of all duties to God. Of any one constituent in this community it is said, " If any one (e'L rtL) [is] in Christ, (icatv' tcriauts) he is a new creation, the old [things] are passed away. Behold all the [things] have become new." "The old things " belonging to "the old man " passed away when the old man was "put off," and "the new things' were assumed when " the new man " was " put on." This new community is organized on " a new covenant," with a new Mediator, and " a new heaven and a new earth " are to be made for it. The capital of it is to be " the New Jerusalem," in which it will sing "a new song." COMMON VERSION, COL. 3: 9, 10. THE OLD MAN AND THE YOUNG MAN. There are two words nearly related to each other, in the Greek Testament both of which are translated by our word, new. One of them is not only translated new, but young also. The other is never rendered by, young. The former is neos, (veog,) the latter kainos, (ralvo6.) Both are used in Matt. 9: 17, and other places, in connexion with "wine" and "bottles." One, however, always in connexion with wine, and never in connexion with bottles; and the other always in connection with bottles, and never with wine. When " the produce of the vine " is used for " wine," the latter word (veog,) is construed with auto, (arroT,) it, which is a pronoun used instead of "the produce of the vine." The Common Version always renders neos, (veog,) by young, when used of an animate being. This is undoubtedly correct. Thus we read, Acts 5: 6. "The young men arose," Tit. 2: 6, "young men likewise exort;" and 2:4, "Teach the youncg women to be 184 THIE REVISER. sober." Luke 2: 24, "two (veoroaoVg) young pigeons," are mentioned. In c. 13: 34, we read, "as a hen gathers her (voLatd,) brood." In Matt. 23, 3, " as a hen gathers her (voaaoLav) chickens." In Matt. 19: 20, Mark 10: 20, Luke 18: 21, we read "all these have I kept from my (ve67qr76f) youth;" in Acts 26 4, " y man ner of life from my (ve6T-7TOf) youth," and in 1 Tim. 4: 12, "Let no man despise thy youth." The comparative (ve6-8EpOg) younger, occurs eight times in the New Covenant, and is always translated by, "younger," except in John 21: 18, where it is improperly translated young, in the positive degree. The adjective (ve epic6fg) juvenile, or youthful. is found in 2 Tim. 2: 22, where the Apostle tells Timothy to "flee (ra veroTeptLaf 7etOvft~ag) the juvenile inordinate desires." NVeo2 hutos, (ve6qbirog) is used for a young convert, 1 Tim. 3: 6. The object of all these references is to enable the reader to judge whether the Apostle, in the passage referred to at the head of this article, did not vary his figure somewhat from that employed in the Epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians he has (7bv -raatLov avOpwwrov) the old man, and (7bv icaLvoY avOpon7ov) the new man. But in Col. 3: 10 he speaks of putting off the same " old man" and of putting on (riOv veov) the young. That the general sentiment of the passages is the same, is clear. But the versatility of Paul's genius, and his knowledge of the force of different words enabled him to express some of the finest shades of thought. Thus, in the first figure, he places before us, to represent Paganism,' a poor old man with a snowy head-wrinkled face —concave mouth —dim eyes-bowed frame-tremulous and minor keyed voice —in tattered garments and worn-out sandles; guilty of "fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupisence, and coveteousness, which is idolatry;" and full of " anger, wrath, malice, and blasphemy," with a flood of " filthy communication " issuing from his mouth. " Put off" says our Apostle, " this old man who is corrupt according to the deceitful inordinate desires." In contrast with him, and to represent christianity at its commencement, he introduces (7roy tIavov avOpwrrov) the new man —one just formed by the hand of the Creator —-symmetr ical —erect-strong in muscle, and in mind —clear in vision-pure in heart-enameled COMMON VERSION OF COL. 3: 9, 10. 185 in glory-" created according to God, in righteousness and true piety." In Col. 3: 9, the same " old man" is contrasted with, (v. 10) the young. Toy veov. Not a man just made, but one who had matured-one of some experience in infancy, childhood, and youth, and therefore said to " be renewed in knowledge according to the imagce of Him who created him." Htis creation is referred to the indefinite past time, (,-o iCTiuaais'of avrov) but his renewal, or invigoration, to the present. Tov avaKcatvovlevov. Ho wtas created-he is renewed. having, since his creation, passed through infancy, childhood, and youth, he had just entered on his manhood with a mind invigorated in knowledge. As such a young man was prepared to enter on the legitimate business, and into the varied conflicts of life, he might be confided in with all safety. According to this figure, cllistianlity —(whose author's life was sought in infancy, who was murdered in his manhood, but vanquished death and triumphed over the grave)-like a child innured to hardship, had passed through many and mighty conflicts and just attained a vigorous manhood, and was fully prepared for a long life and a glorious career. It stood like a strong, and brave young marn in his armor, worthy of fullest confidence. Paul said to the Colossians, " you have put on the young man." He is neither a Grecian, nor a Jew. lie is neither of the Circumcision, nor the Uncircumcie sion. HIe is neither a Barbarian, nor a Sythian-neither a slave, nor a fieeman. He represents a community wholly christian-a community in which the interests of all nations, and all classes of persons are concentrated. THe is a patriot —le loves his country. He is more than a patriot-a cosmopolitan —he loves the whole world. He regards the world as his home, and the entire race of human beings as the objects of his benevolence. His zeal for the salvation of men burns with equal intensity for "the frozen Icelander, and the sunburned Moor." Such a young man was an apposite representation of christianity in its sentiments, and original membership. Every man who imbibed the christian doctrine and sentiments, and publicly connected himself with the christian membership, by so doing, put on the new man, in the incipiency of the christian institution, and the young man in its more fully developed energy and glory. 186 THE REVISER. "THE WIND BLOWETH WHERE IT LISTETH." COMMON VERSION; JOHN, 3: 8. A few attentive readers-men who think as well as read-have called my attention again to the above passage. The Common Version gives "wind" as the meaning of pneugna, in this verse; and although the word occurs 387 times in the Christian Scriptures, this is the only instance in which they translate the word by, "wind." It occurs five times in that context; and in every other instance they render it by, spirit. It is found twenty-four times in the book of John, and, except that one instance, the King's revisers translate it 4 spirit." Now why did they translate this word, "wind," once out of the twenty-four times of its occurrence? —why once, and only once out of the 387 times of its occurrence in the Christian Scriptures. It devolves on those who would translate this word "wind," to prove it a proper rendering, and not on us to prove that it means "spirit." If asked why we do not think it means " wind " here, we reply, because the word in three hundred and eighty-six other places means spirit, the authors of the Common Version themselves being judges. The scholar who gives the word here the meaning which it is conceeded to have uniformly, in every other instance of such extensive usage, is not required to prove his rendering just. It is the man who makes this the only exception out of nearly 400 instances, who is called on for proof of his correctness. He is required to prove this instance an exception to, not the general, but the universal usage. Here, then, is the word "spirit" used, not in a figurative sense, but in an essential sense, as contradistinguished fiom "flesh." It is first used in this context indefinitely, or in a general sense; or as scholars would technically say it is anarthrous, or without the article. The same is true of " water." Thus the fifth verse reads, " Except one be born of water and of spirit;" not of the water, and of the spirit. Both nouns are anarthrous-without the article; because the object is not to define, but to submit a universal proposition. No particular man is defined —as Nicodemus; no particular water-as the water of the Jordan; no particular spirit-as the spirit of God. In the remainder of the sentence the article occurs twice, thus-" the kingdom of the God." A verbal translation of v. 5, reads, " Except one be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of the God'" COMMON VERSION OF JOHN 3: 8. 187 How different if it read, Except one be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter into a kingdom of a God. This would leave the latter part of the proposition just as indefinite as the former part. But, In the Original, the latter part of the proposition is specific-the former part, general. Let us now take the next verse, " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit." Here flesh and spirit are contrasted; and the article is used before both, as in Matt. 26: 41, and Mark. " The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Gal. 5: 17, "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary to each other, so that you cannot do the things which you would." Here, then, is a developement, of the fact that man is a compound of flesh and spirit; and in this he is distinguished from the brutes that perish. They are born of flesh only, and therefore they are only flesh. But men being born of spirit as well as flesh, can, by the revelation of God, understand spiritual things. A brute has no will but its instincts. In man's pneumno-sarkostic nature there is the strong desire of the flesh. This is purely animal-the will of the psuchekos man. But there is also in this same being the strong desire of the spirit, opposing the strong desire of the flesh. This is the will of the pneumatikos being. But for this spiritual portion of man's nature he could be no more accountable to God than are the brutes. Volition and liberty are atributes of this spiritual man. As to organization, both natures are perfect, and independent of each other. The idiot, born only of the flesh, as an organized animal is perfect; and Paul teaches that it accords with the inward man's nature to grow- stronger even when the outward man perishes. Now, a theleema, a will-according with the pneumatical nature of this anthropic being, which we call man —is predicated of him. Hence it is said, thelo, to exercise a will; and, properly, by an unimpassioned operation. In this there is no difficulty. All understand that there is propriety in saying "The spirit is, prothumon, ready in mind, but the flesh is weak." There is a difficulty in the minds of some, however, in understanding spirit, in this context, as meaning the inner man, or the slirit of man, because it is said to breath; an action which they suppose a spirit does not perform. But those who construe " spirit," in this connection, as the spirit of God, will percieve that the objection is as 188 THE REVISER. good against their view as against ours. For, if the spirit of God breathes, why may not the spirit of man breath also? Those who understand pneuma as meaning " wind," say that pnei, breaths, should be rendered blows. Then the passage reads, as in the Common Version, " the wind blows." In this way they suppose they avoid all difficulty. It is certainly proper to say that "the wind blows." But it seems never to have occured to them that there is any incongruity in saying that the wind "listeth," or pleases. But I can much easier conceive how a spirit can breath, than how the "wind" can will. A spirit may have, in its organism, something spiritual, which corresponds with its nature as our lungs do with our fleshly nature, with which it inhales a spiritual substance answering to its nature, as the atmosphere does to our nature. At any rate, we cannot regard it as unscriptural, while we believe God to be a spirit, to say that a spirit breathes; because it is expressly said that God breathed into Adam the breath of life; and it is nowhere affirmed that the " wind " ever willed. If, however, it should be said that the wind is personified here, we call for the proof. If " spirit " here means "wind,' it must be used figuratively. And who ever knew a word used figuratively, and in this figurative use to be also personified? This would be a figure of a figure. It is better not to figure too much. COMMON VERSION,'"THE SAINTS." All the saints, (Tirat -rod ayi6ot,) is not a proper rendering. The singular hagios, (ayIotg,) is seldom found in Attic authors, who use haynos, (ayv6o,) in preference. The former is used in all places in the Alexandrian Version for the Hebrew, Kodoush, ( u-np ) signifying, holy. The Greek word, in its singular and plural forms, occurs about 230 times in the Christian Scriptures. It is used adjectively, and substantively. As an adjective it qualifies the following nouns, namely, angels, apostles, brethren, body, branches, calling, child, children, city, commandment, conversation, covenant, first-fruit, faith, ground, father, Jerusalem, kiss, law, mount, mind, name, nation, one, place, priesthood, prophets, root, scriptures, spirit, temple, and women. It is used about 60 times substantively, or without a noun expressed. In all these instances it refers to people. The word "saint,"' is COMMON VERSION, "THE SAINTS." 189 one of the most objectionable terms by which the word can be rendered; because it means, in our present literature, a person eminently pious, one of the blessed in heaven, one canonized, or a sanctimonious person. Neither of the definitionsexpresses the meaning of the Greek adjective, either when used as such, or when used for a noun. 1. A person eminently pious is a saint, and more than a saint. That is, he is a hayios, and more than a hagios. All the disciples in Phillippi were called hagioi, without the distinction of ordinarily, and eminently pious. 2. The word hagios, does not mean one of the blessed in heaven, although there may be many hagioi, or holy beings there. "In heaven," is no part of the meaning of hagios. 3. The Sacred Writings say nothing concerning canonizing. This is all human, and opposed to the teaching of the Holy Writings. 4. Sanctimonious persons, are understood to be such as have the appearance of piety. This does not come up to the signification of hagios. The verb hagiadzo, (ayTt6a'o,) signifies, to make hagion. To consecrate to a religious purpose, is undoubtedly the general idea conveyed by this verb. It is used once of children born in lawful wedlock, because of the religious nature of the conjugal state in the estimation of the Apostle. The first time the corresponding Hebrew word occurs, it is in connection with the seventh day. Alters, the flesh of victims slain.for sacrifice, and nearly all things devoted to sacred use are, in the Scriptures, regarded as sanctified, or consecrated. When the verb is used of any thing, or any person, or any time, as devoted to the service of God, it may be rendered to consecrate, or, to sanctify. The Jews were a consecrated nation, as long as they were acknowledged as the people of God. The Pagans " were not a people "-they were not holy, (hagioi,) but an unclean people. Now, when Jews and Pagans made a public profession of the christian faith according to the teaching of the Apostles, they were made fellow citizens with (hayioi) the sanctified, and regarded as consecrated to the service of God; and also declared to be a consecrated nation. 1 Pet. 2: 9. The same word is applied to the name of God in order to indicate the religious veneration which he claims for his name. Moreover, the Apostle commands us to sanctify, or consecrate, the Lord God in our hearts. The christians were regarded as elect according to the 190 THE REVISER. foreknowledge of God (ev dyLtaut) 7rvevflad-ro) in consecration of spirit, (emi) in order to obedience. 1 Pet. 1: 1. The Divine Spirit which Jesus promised to send to his disciples was not to " speak of himself " but whatever he should hear that was he to speak. He was to testify of Christ, and as Jesus was consecrated to the Father-as he came not to do his own will but the will of Hilm who sent him; so the Spirit was not to speak of himself, but to be consecrated to Jesus as a Divine Witness. It is only in connexion with religion that God, His Son, and Spirit are declared to be hagios. The Father being set apart as the only living and true God -and the Son and Spirit consecrated to the great work of man's salvation. They are the Divine hagioi. All men who woiship the Father in spirit and in truth are holy brethren-the human hagioi-and all the angels who kept their first estate —are the angelic hagioi. Thus we have, in one grand and glorious harmony —the anthropic and angelic worshiping holies; and the Divine holies bestowing the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit on all the sanctified in Christ Jesus. A VISIT TO "THE OLD DOMINION." I have long desired to visit Eastern Virginia, but in what some call "the sacred stile around which cluster so many hallowed associations 1' hitherto " I was let." "Howvbeit" "that which letteth " having been taken out of the way, I "made my journey " to Richmond, a few weeks since, where I had the pleasure of seeing many brethren of whom I have long heard. The representatives of the reformed churches in Eastern Virginia were in session when I arrived, which gave me an opportunity of an acquaintance, (though much too short to satisfy me,) with most of the brethren connected with " the ministry of the word." I also met our brother Burnett of Cincinnati there. The brethren in that portion of Virginia supported three Evangelists last year, and employed them again the present year, and added our long tried and deservedly esteemed brother Coleman to their number this year. My principle business was the Bible Union enterprize. I found the Disciples all right on that subject. They feel the importance of organizations auxilary to the American Bible Union, but for the sake A VISIT TO THE OLD DOMINION. 191 of the cause, would prefer that the Baptist and other revisionists should take the incipient steps. On Saturday the brethren unanimously invited me to a seat in their convention, and in the afternoon of that day called on me to give them a short address on the subject of the Bible Union. I felt gratified with christian courtesy fiom brethren whom I so much esteemed, and especially as I regarded it a compliment to the great and good cause of revision. A cause in which I feel a paramount interest. At the close of this short address, the convention invited me to address the public on the subject of translation, and revision, on the ensuing Monday evening, at seven o'clock, at which time I met and addressed a crowded assembly, who listened with unabated attention for about two hours. We had the pleasure of meeting our brother Moore, agent of the Union, who embraced this favorable opportunity of calling attention to the subject of his mission. I cannot say how grateful I feel to brother Coleman for his high commendation of THE REVISER, each number of which he said was worth more than the price of a volume; and to all the brethren for the deep interest which they feel in the success of that work. I have no doubt it will receive a liberal support from the efforts of the ministry and brotherhood in that region. I shall long remember the hospitality and'christian courtesy of the brethren in Eastern Virginia. And that remembrance will always be sweetened by the recollection of their devotion to the interests of faithful translations of the Sacred Writings into the various languages of our race. Brother Moore, oui agent, is doing a good work there. He has obtained many life memberships in that country, mostly among the "Baptist" brethren. I hope his life may be spared long that he may labor in that good field, and that good work. If our brethren in other sections will take the same interest in the REVISER which is evinced in Virginia, it will soon cease to be a burden on my hands. I shall sustain it myself one year, and if at the close of the first year the fiiends of pure translations will not support it, I shall take that as an indication of providence that it is not needed. It has been most favorably noticed by the press. 192 THE REVISER. COMMENDATORY. We give below a favorable notice of our humble efforts to do good in the cause of faithful translations of the Holy Writings, which we cut from "The Christian Register," published in Zanesville, Ohio, Oct. 11, 1854, for which we feel obliged to the Editor. " The Reviser, is the title of a monthly periodical, devoted to the correction of errors in the translations of the Scriptures, conducted by Dr. S. E. Shepard, New-York. Each No. contains 32 pages, and the work is furnished at $1 per annum, in advance. Its criticisms are invaluable, and if the commonly received versions is to be retained, every family that has a Bible needs a copy of the Reviser monthly." We commenced " The Reviser" without any subscription, at the earnest request of several friends, and with the hope that it would soon pay its own expenses. We are very much in need of farther aid, and we are not without hope that such notices as the above will tend to increase our list of subscribers. " The Reviser " has been favorably noticed by many of its cotemporaries, and their notices have been of "material aid" to us, for which we are grateful. We are under obligations to several thorough scholars, and biblical critics, for their high commendations of the work, some of which we intend to publish at a convenient season, notwithstanding we have received them in the form of private letters. I hope the fiiends of the work will make a vigorous effort to sustain it, and we call especial attention to our premium notice on the last page of our cover. We wish a thousand persons would accept that offer, and furnish, each, eight subscribers. We intend to offer another premium, of the revision of other portions of the Scriptures as soon as we have an opportunity, which we trust will be soon afforded us. THE BONUS. I take the present opportunity to inform the friends of the Missionary organization, who were assembled in Cato last September, that the bonus I offered to them is not secured by four-fifths. I have heard from only five persons on the subject. I now extend the time to the first of February, 1855, at which time, if my proposition shall not'be complied with, I shall call on brother Selmser to remit to me the amount put into his hands. A little prompt exertion on the part of our friends in central and eastern New York, would soon secure that bonus. Shall that effort be made? REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 193 REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. COLLOCATION. Jerome speaks of "the mystery" of the "verbal arrangement" of the Original Scriptures. Our Reviser says that " one object has been to furnish as close a representation of the original," in relation to this mystery of verbal arrangement," as an application of the strict modern phiflology might suggest, and the genius of our language at all admit of. With all due defference to the very superior selhlarship of the Reviser, we think that Jerome's "mystery" has led him, in many instances, quite too far fiom the existing state of our language. We notice the following cases. CASE 1. 2 PET. C., V. 1 7. "For he received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice being born to him such as this from the excellent glory." The collocation is not in accordance with the existing state of our language. If the verb "received" is separated, in the collocation of the words, from the things received, by the Being from whom they were reeoeived, the phrase, "from God the Father," should be separated from " received," and " honor and glory," by commas, thus; " For he received, from God the Father, honor and glory." But a better collocation would be this, "For he received honor and glory from God the Father." This is the natural order in our modes of thought and expression. When the Apostle says, "He received," the first question which could arise in the mind of a hearer is, What did he receive? The answer must be, " honor and glory." The next question would be, From whom? The answer is "God the Father." " A voice being born to him such as this fiom the excellent glory." Tf this collocation is preserved, "such as this " should certainly be separated by commas. But a better arrangement is' "Such a voice as this being born to him from the excellent glory." The whole passage would then read, " For he received honor and glory from God the Father, such a voice as this being borni to him firom the excellent glory; This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased." CASE 2, C. 1, v. 18. "And this voice we, being with him on the holy mount, heard born from heaven." This arrangement is very objectionable. It is 17 194 THE REVISER. neither English nor Greek. The verb followed the nominative immediately, in the Greek, thus "We heard " —4erig ioovate8v. "Borne from heaven" follows "heard" immediately in the Greek, and the verse closes with (r6 oPpeLt r dayio) the holy mount, not with "born from heaven," as in the Revision. The translation of en (iv) by on, is exceptionable. Mountains have their boundary lines, and when they are approached so nearly that these lines are crossed, they are usually entered as a field is when its lines are thus crossed. All the instances of ascending into (Eig) mountains, and being in (iv) them have reference, not to the top but to the boundaries of districts of country thus designated on account of their elevation. Had the sacred writers intended to express the idea of ascending to the top or being on the top, they never would have termed this going into, or being in them. Accordingly we read in the Alexandrian Version that Moses, and Aaron, and Or (av,371aav 6Errt Ir-v iopv0I'v roi fOovvo5) ascended to the top of the hill. Ex. 17: 10. They ascended (E7ri) epi the top of the hill-not (eil) eis the top. Again Ex. 19: 20. "And the Lord descended (irr7 riO (po9) upon the mountain," not into (eri) the mountain. He descended (i7 ~-rr v KcopvOi v T-op apof) upon the top of the mountain. "And the Lord called Moses," not (Eig) eis, but (eirr) epi, " onto the top of the mountain. And Moses ascended." "Kai dvge3rl Mwva~9." He was then (Errt) on, not (ev) in, the mountain. If he had been called (etg) into, and then gone (elf) into, he would have been (ev) in, not on. But having been called (errt) onto, and having obeyed, he was (Er) on, not (ev) in it. The case referred to in Luke 8: 32, will not justify this rendering. For v. 27 says that "when Jesus went forth to land" a demoniac met him, and he cast out the demon. And the 32 v. says, "And there was there," in the place where Jesus landed, "a heard of swine feeding in the mountain." Not on the top of the mountain, but within its district. For the swine were feeding where Jesus landed; and it is not a supposable case that he landed on the top of a mountain, but within its limits. I hope the Reviser will correct this rendering, and collocate the words of this verse thus. "And being with him in the holy mountain, we heard this voice born fiom heaven." This is more in accordance with the laws of English composition than, "And this voice we, being with him on REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 195 the holy mount, heard born from heaven," and quite as near the Greek arrangement. CASE 3, c. 1, v. 19. "And we have more sure the prophetic word." It is no reason why we should place " more sure " after the phrase " we have," because, in Greek, (fefaC6repov,) it follows (6'XoMEV) "we have." Various languages collocate differently. Fruit give me, is good Latin, but bad English. Go the hill up, or the bridge over, is good in several languages, but in English we collocate differently. The "prophetic word" is the object of "have." What have we 8 The pro. phetic word. So they had had "the prophetic word " before they heard that voice from heaven on the holy mount. But the Apostle adds another idea. To the simple possession of " the prophetic word " he adds the idea of greater certainty of its just application to Jesus. Therefore he says, " We, have the prophetic word "-not, "we have more sure," but we have the prophetic word; how? "more sure." The verb, "have," (%Xoftev, from e'o, to hold) expresses the holding the prophecies, to which reference is here made, as applicable to Jesus of Nazareth. After that voice was heard from heaven, and the cloud of glory was seen-the Apostles being thus made eye and ear witnesses-they'held the prophetic word, as applicable to Christ, 4' more firm." CASE 4, C. 1, v. 21. "For not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time," &c., should be collocated thus. "For prophecy was not brought by man's will, at any time." CASE 5, c. 2, v. 1. " As also among you there shall be false teachers." Passing, with-,out remark, the improper use of "shall " for will, we suggest that the following arrangement of the words be adopted. " As there will also be false teachers among you." In the same verse the word " privily" (better, secretly) is out of its proper place. Instead of "who privily shall bring in destructive sects," the arrangement should be, (substituting will again for "shall,") "who will bring in, secretly, destructive sects." It is not admissible to place the adverb, in English, next the nominative case. Where auxiliaries are used, adverbs may be placed between them atid the principal verbs, thus. "Who will secretly 196 THE REVISER. bring in destructive sects." But to place adverbs before the auxili. ary and principal verbs, in immediate succedence to the nominative, is not allowable in prose composition. He bitterly shall repent, is not as good as, He shall repent bitterly. CASE 6, c. 2, v. 9. "But the unrighteous to reserve under punishment." The collocation here is better in the Common Version than in the Revision. The sentence is better English to place the infinitive (rqpElv) immediately after (de) "but," thus: "but to reserve the unrighteous under punishment to the day of judgment." I think the Greek infinitive (r-pelv) means to keep in custody. The pious are delivered -but the unrighteous kept in custody, (etc tjespav) for a day of judgment. CASE 7, C. 2, V. 11. "Whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, bring not againt them before the Lord a railing judgment." If this arrangement be retained, the phrase "before the Lord," should be separated by commas. The following disposition of the words dispenses with the commas, and relieves the sentence of its stiffness. 4" Bring not a railing judgment against them before the Lord." " Do not bring," is still more in accordance with the existing state of our language. So Macnight. "That they understand not," in v. 12, is better read, "do not understand." " Spots and blemishes " in the v. 13, should be separated by a longer pause than a comma. If the supply of the Common Version, " they are," is omitted, " spots and blemishes should be separated by longer pauses or dashes, thus. Accounting it pleasure to revel in the day time-spots and blemishes-revelling in their own deceits while feasting with you." The comma between " deceits " and " while " makes a break where there should be none. CASE 8, C. 2, v. 17. " For whom the blackness of darkness for ever hath been reserved." Here the adverb " forever," is placed before the verbal phrase, has been reserved, and immediately after the object of the verb. The adverb, forever, should follow its verb, thus. " For whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved forever." REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 197 CASE 9, c. 2, v. 22. 4" But there hath happened unto them that of the true proverb." This is not a good English sentence. The translation is too literal. But taking it as it is revised, the collocation is bad. Better thus: "But to them there has happened that of the true proverb." Or, still better, "But that of the true proverb has happened to them." Macnight gives the sense well, by translating to, (rO) the, and supplying " saying" after "the." "But the saying of the true proverb hath happened to them." CASE 10, C. 3, V. 3. "Knowing this first, that there shall come at the end of the days mockers, walking according to their own lusts." The punctuation is very defective in this verse. "Mockers " are intimately connected with days and cut off from walking by a comma. The comma should be placed before "mockers." Here, again, " shall" is improperly used for will. This portion of the sentence should read, " That mockers will come at the end of the days;" or, "at the last of the days," as Macnight renders en' eXa'drov -riv Luep6iv. CASE 11, C. 3, v. 5. "For of this they are willingly ignorant." Better thus. "For they are willingly ignorant of this." The last word, by this collocation, is the relative to the sentence which immediately follows it, and contains a proposition of which the scoffers were willingly in ignorance. It is better that the relative and the proposition be placed in close position, as they are in close relation. The literal translation contained in the note z, of v. 8, is much to be preferred to the revision. The verse then would read, "But let not this one thing escape you!" How much better than, "But of this one thing be ye, beloved, not ignorant!" The frequent references to the preservation of the Greek order in foreign versions, will not justify the same collocation in an English translation. We cannot collocate or arrange words in the English language as in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German, Syriac, Dutch, Italian, &c. In v. 14, " spotless and blameless " should be separated from " that " and " ye," or rather you. CASE 12, C. 3, V. 15. "And the long-suffering of our Lord account salvation." Better thus, as in the Common Version, omitting supplies. "And account 198 THE' REVISER. the long-suffering of our Lord salvation." The order in the Common Version is much to be preferred, although the Greek arrangement is followed by foreign versions. The frequent effort to compel the English to conform to foreign languages, in the arrangement of words, will account for the stiffness of which many complain in the Revised English Scriptures. V. 17 commences better in the Common Version, as there is nothing in the original for "do." "You, therefore, beloved, foreknowing, beware lest, carried away with the error of the lawless, you fall from your own steadfastness." The last verse of this chapter would, I think, have been better without the supply of the article before "grace," and with the indefinite before "knowledge." Thus, " Grow in grace, and in a knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ." " Unto the day of eternity " would be better if eis (egt) were literally rendered. "To Him the glory, both now, and into the day of eternity," is much preferable, as " unto" might imply that "the glory" " to himn" would end when the day of eternity was reached. Eis implies continuance in that day, and should, therefore, be translated into. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. ROCKS IN LOVE FEASTS. JUDE 12. Our Reviser has done well in translating spilades (a'rtiadeg) by "rocks" instead of "spots," as in the Common Version; and yet "rocks" is not a full rendering. The English reader could never obtain the idea from the revision, which a Greek scholar would get from the Original. One of the rules of the Bible Union is that the Reviser shall select such words, and phrases, as will convey to the reader, as far as possible, tghe same idea which " those who understood the Original Scriptures, at the time they were first written " derived from reading the Originals. The word translated here by " rocks," is not the Greek word for rocks. Petrai (rr{Erpat) is the proper word for rocks. Every merely English reader will be mislead by the revision, as also by the Common Version, although he will be brought nearer to the truth by the former than the latter. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 199 The word means marine, or, sea-rocks, whether subficial, or rising above the surface, or at the edge of the water, and on which vessels are wrecked. The exact meaning, I think, is best given thus, " These taking care of themselves-banqueting together in your love-feasts —are sea-rocks. The collocation, in the revision, is also unfortunate, because it makes the rocks "banquet together" and "tend themselves," neither of which rocks can be said to do. The participle (avvevwyoC)olevot)Q is masculine, agreeing in gender with outoi (6v-ot) " these," and not with spilades (amrtrade) sea-rocks, which is femanine. The same is also true of poimainontes (roqtlaivov-re.) These banqueted together and took care of themselves. The " rocks" did neither. But " these " persons, to whom the Apostle referred, were as dangerous in their influences in the christian love-feasts, as marine rocks to sailors. But some things which are dangerous are, at the same timne, useful. Not so with these "dreamers," defilers of the flesh, rejectors of government, and railers at dignities. They were not only dangerous as "sea-rocks," but useless as "clouds without water, whirled about by winds." They were "trees, seared, fruitless, (4di arroOavov-ra) utterly dead, (EItptCwOevra) rooted out." " These" " dreamers " were not only dangerous, and useless; but boisterous and disgraceful. They were as "wild surges of a sea, foaming over their own shames." Their destiny is terrible. They were exorbital-" wandering stars, for whom the gloom of the darkness has been stored up for the eternity." JUDE 14. "But for these also prophesied Enoch, the seventhi from Adam," saying: " Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads." The collocation here is neither Greek nor English. Admitting the correctness of the translation, the collocation should be, " But Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied for these also, saying," &c. But I do not see the propriety of giving the dative with the sense of "for;" neither do I understand the sense in which the Reviser uses " for " in this plac e I think he cannot mean that Enoch prophesied because of these, nor yet, on account of these. But if he uses "for" in the sense of, with 200 THE REVISER. respect to, or, with regard to, either of these phrases are preferable to "for." I think the dative is used with the sense of to. "But Enoch prophesied to these also." The (de icat) "but also" favors this view. Enoch nleot only prophesied to his contemporaries, " but also to these." The Apostle had, in the antecedent context, described some very wicked persons, and declared their terrible doom. He then quotes a prophesy of Enoch, and notes particularly his chronology, as being the seventh from Adam. HIe thus fixes the date of his prophesy, and shows to whom lie prophesied. But he not only prophesied to his contemporaries, (de ica TOvroL) " but also to these." It is clearly show-n that lie proplhesied to the wicked men of whom Jude spoke, by the very terms of his prophesy; for he said that the Lord would execute judgment oin all, and that he would convict all the wicked. It was a propl-hesy not only to the antedeluvians, (de Kay) "but also" to all wicked mnen, and therefore (TroV-ot) to these. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 1 ion 1: 1. "What was firom the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what -wNe have gazed upon, and our hands handled; concerninI the word of the Life," v. 3, "what we have seen and hea'd declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us." That the Common Version is not uniform in rendering ho, (6,) "that whichl," in the beginning of this verse, and also in the beginning of v. 3; and by the simple relative, " which," in two intervening instances, where it is evidently used for the very same thing, must be evident even to those persons who are most opposed to a revision. But, although our Reviser has been uniform, and is therefore consistent, I do not see that his substitution of " what " for the "that which" of the King's revisers, is an improvement. On the contrary, I much prefer " that which." I prefer it, not because the sense is better, but because it is better expressed. "What,'" as defined by all English lexicographers and grammarians, mneatns precisely " that which." It never has any other meaning except when used as an adjective, or a demonstrative pronoun, or as REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 201 an interrogative. In English usage, generally, "what," at the commencement of a sentence, is used interrogatively. And in this instance the sense is not interrogative. Notwithstanding the want of uniformity in the Common Version, it evidently expresses the sense by the simple relative, "which," in the intervening instances, especially if taken in connection with " that which," in the commencement of v. 3, after the parenthesis in v. 2. But I much prefer uniformity here, because the repetition of the ho (b) in the Greek, is unquestionably, for the sake of accumulation of emphasis, and, on that account, would read thus. "That which was from the beginning-that which we have heard-that which we have seen with our eyes —that which we have looked on, and our hands have handled, concerning the word of the life * * that which we have seen and heard, we declare to you." As to the controversy between Socinus and those who opposed his theory, in relation to (ev'dpyX) in the beginning, and (drr' dpXWS) fromnt the beginning, it is not a legitimate subject for discussion for revisers. We are not to revise for, nor against, any man's theory; but to give "the exact meaning of the original, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness." Whether ho here refers to "the Son of God," or not, is a question for the readers of the revision, after the philologist has done his duty. But it is a question with which the philologist has nothing to do. Socinus, Whitby, Benson, Schbittgen, Semler, Lange, Rosenmtiller, and Paulus on the one side; and the interpreters from Augustine to Dtiisterdieck may, (as theologians,) discuss this question concerning (dcr' dpXjgj) ap archees, and (8v dpdX) en archee, but the reviser or' tl'anslator, is still compelled, to render the former, from the beginning, and the latter, in the beginning. Nothing theological should be introduced into the revision or the notes. Our objection to the revision of this verse is, that it substitutes "what" for "that which," whe:i the substitution expresses the same sense with less clearness-with less elegance. "Declare we," is a good Greek collocation, but a bad English arrangement of words; as it is more in accordance with our modes of expression to place the nominative before its verb, thus, "we declare," and not, "declare we." Let it not be thought that such changes are unimportant; for much depends on the style of a book, as to the number of readers, and as to the interest with which it will be read. No man will read 202 THE REVISER. a book with the same pleasure and interest, in which he meets with, declare we, or think I, eats he, walk they, or any such inverted collocation. The same law which will justify this arrangement in, " declare we," will justify either of the other examples of the antecedence of the verb. "Do testify," in v. 2, is a form of expression very seldom found in recent English authors. The Greek verb (jiaprvpovitev, 1 pers. plu. pres. ind. of!apTvpwo) is in the present tense, first person plural, and therefore should be translated simply, testify. The "do" is superfluous, and encumbers the sentence. This form of expression is allowable when a previous doubt or denial occurs, and where a re-affirmation is called for; thus, Do you testify? We do testify. Or, you do not testify. We do testify. But the present state of our language does not require the use of the word "do," where there is no doubt, nor denial expressed, or implied. It is as proper to use the " do " before the next verb in the sentence as before " testify." Thus, and do declare, where the Reviser has omitted it. There is nothing either in Greek or English requiring "do." It is a mere incumbrance, and should be omitted. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 1 JOHN 2, v. v. 24, 27. " You, therefore, let that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you," v. 24. This sentence is ambiguous in the revision. It may be taken affirmatively or imperatively-as an affirmation or a command. There is no ambiguity in the original, because the form of the Greek verb shows it to be in the imperative mood. The sentence is clearly preceptive. Now, although we are not permitted by our general usage, in declarative sentences, to place the verb before its nominative, yet it is allowable, in imperative sentences, where there is a necessity in order to express the idea in a translation without a paraphrase. I therefore prefer the following: "Therefore let you that which you heard from the beginning remain in you." "Remain" is a better rendering of meno (ftLvw) when speaking of any thing except living beings. Verse 27 is made better English, and at the same time conveys REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 203 the exact sense of the original when rendered, " And you-(the anointing which you received firom him remains in you)-and you have no need that any one teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you," &c. In both of these cases, as also in v. 20, increased emphasis is given by the use of the pronoun, where there is an antethesis as in v. 20. But that emphasis is not secured in the revision. Although it is true, in Greek, that "When the subject is a personal pronoun, it is not expressed, unless it is particularly emphatic," this is not the English method of emphasizing. We express the emphasis by printing the emphatic word in other type. Thus, "And you have an annointing from the Holy One." REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. "i THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS. " I admit that the name of this Apostle, and that of the Traitor, are the same when used without any thing in apposition, and that uniformity requires the same reading in both cases. Yet I have a serious objection to the adoption of the Greek name for this Apostle because of its associations. It sounds quite too Judas-like. I had much rather adopt the Hebrew name, Judah, for both, than that this Apostle should be called Judas. The first thought which occurs to the mind of the common reader when he reads this name is, Judas -the Traitor. The want of uniformity in the Common Version is inexcusable. The word occurs about forty-five times in the Christian Scriptures, and is, by the King's revisers, substituted by, Juda, Judah, Judas, and Jude. Now, rather than have the Apostle called Judas, let the apostate apostle be called, in our revision, Jude. Jude Iscariot, reads, to most English people, much better than, "The Epistle of Judas." But if the Hebrew " Judah," be preferred, let us have Judah Iscariot, and The Epistle of Judah, but not "The Epistle of Judas." I have an unfavorable opinion of Judas, for he is the only Apostle who required a "successor." And had he not been an apostate, there would have been no " apostolic succession." But his name is disgraced. Jude and Abel have both had name-sakes. But Judas 204 THE REVISER. and Cain have none. I heard of an ignorant man who was about to have his baby " christened," and, desiring to have a Scripture name, he consulted a mirthful neighbor, who was reputed a wise man "in the Scriptures." He told him to call the little boy " Judas Iscariot." He said he did not like that name because he had heard the Minister speak against him. "Then," said the neighbor, " call him Beelzibub." He said that would do. But when he took the child to the church and " presented him for baptism," the Minister, with his fingers in the bowl of water, said, " What is the name of this child?" The father said, "Beelzibub." The Minister not willing to say " Beelzibub, I baptize thee," told the parent to take the baby home, and bring it again the next sabbath; and that in the mean time he would call and see him. That he must not call his child " Beelzibub." The man retired with his child, wondering what objection the Minister could possibly have to "a scripture name." The preacher called, as he promised, and told the man that " Beelzibub " was the name of the Devil. The man was now as much surprised as the preacher was the sabbaith before; and said that he thought it very wicked to give the Devil " a scripture name." But he said if the Devil had " a scripture name," he did not think christians ought to give their children scripture names. The Minister told him that he could find other scripture names beside "Beelzibub." "4 No," said the man, "if they have got to calling the Devil by scripture names, I will not give my child a scripture name, I'll warrant you. *His name shall be John." Say what we may concerning names, and affirm as often as we please that " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," " The Epistle of Judas " will never sound well in English ears, and there is no necessity of such a violation of good taste. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. "IdvTvtov r76)v:pyQwv dauefeia~ avriv." JUDE 15, "ALL THEIR UNGODLY DEEDS.? Two changes should be made here. The word " ungodly " is too much like what it imports. It should be exchanged for im2pious, or, wicked. "Deeds" should give place to "works," as a better word. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 205 4 PRAYING IN THE HOLY SPIRIT."7 V. 20. There are also two exceptions to be taken to this rendering. There is no philological reason why the article should be supplied before holy spirit. The Common Version supplied it in the preceding verse before "spirit," without the least reason, and our Reviser has very judiciously omitted the article in that place. Second; the phrase, "holy spirit," not having a reference to the Holy Spirit, should not be printed with initial capitals. There is nothinlg in the context to indicate that that Being is intended. The Apostle had just spoken of persons who " separated having no spilit," and then says that they must not "separate," but must build themselves up in their most holy faith-that they must not have " no spirit," but must pray; not barely in a spirit, but "in a holy spirit." This is the spirit in which all should pray-a holy spirit, or a spirit consecrated to God. But the idea of one being praying in another being, is foreign to all the teachings of Iloly Writ. It could, at most, be only praying by proxy. The brethren were to pray-to pray in spirit-in a holy spirit. To pray in any other spirit is useless. A consecrated spirit is that in which all our religious duties should be performed. We were "'chosen according to God's foreknowledge in a sanctification of spirit (ev &ytaalt.J rrvevimaTof) into (elf) obedience and a sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 1: 2. " Praying in a holy spirit " we should "keep ourselves in the love of God, receiving (rrpoaodep6JLevot) the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ (elf owav datwvtov) in order to life eternal," Jude v. 21. TIlE REVELATION OF JOHN THE DIVINE. This is the uninspired title of the book we sometimes call The Apocalypse. We say the uninspired title because it is no part of the original as it came from the hands of the Apostle. Our Reviser of this book has justly excepted to this title and recommends that the title be: REVELATION. This is much better than the common inscription. But still there is a better title even than this. Better because inspired. It is, " A REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST.," With the exception of the definite article, for which there is no authority in the Original, it is found in the first line of the first verse 206 THE REVISEIR. in the book. It is not the Revelation of John, nor the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Neither is it "Revelation." Revelation, in this general sense, includes all that God has revealed by Prophets, Apostles, or any other agent. It is not all included in this book, and therefore the title recommended is too general. I beg leave to offer the above amendment, which, I think, will be acceptable to the Reviser. ALL THE SAINTS. With a thorough conviction that "' saint" is not the English equivalent for the Greek hagios (a'ylog,) I have spent much time, and given a patient and laborious investigation into the meaning; of this word. Among the classics it is used in both a good, and a bad sense. 1. Devoted to the gods. When applied to persons it distinguished those who were devoted, or consecrated to the gods-pious, pure. Aristophanes, Av. 522. 2. When applied to things, it means things devoted, or consecrated to a god, or to the gods. Xenophon, Hell. 3, 2, 19; Herodotus, 2, 41, 44, &c. It is also used in a bad sense, as, of something accursed, or, execrable. It corresponds with the Latin, sacer, Cratin. Incert. 35.-It is not found in Tragic, and seldom used by the Attic writers who prefer hagnos, (ayv6o.) See Porson, Med. 752. They use hagisteia (dytareia,) usually in the plural number, for rites performed to the gods-temple-worship. Isocrates, 2 77 A. Plato Ax. 371 D. This word is used by Strabo p. 417, for the abstract, holiness. They use the verb friom which this is derived in the sense of, to perform sacred rites, and, to live piously, and chastely. Euripides, Bacch. 74; and passively, to be esteemed devoted, Strabo; and actively, to purify, Orac. ap. Paus. 10, 6, 7. See Classic Lexicons. Leaving the classic and coming to the sacred use of the word (aytlo,) we find it always used in the Alexandrian Version for the Hebrew words, (z:~p and =n:p) Kodush and Koudesh. The first is translated, holy one, in Job 6: 10; Isa. 10: 7; 29:33; 40: 25; 4: 15; 49: 7; Dan. 4: 13; Hosea 11: 9; Hab. 1: 12; 3: 3. In all these places we have hagios, except one, which we will notice below. Job. 6: 10 reads from the Septuagint, " Let the grave be my city, ALL THE SAINTS. 207 upon the walls of which I have leaped. I will not shrink from it; for I have not denied the holy (atyta) words of my God." The Common Version reads the last sentence in this quotation, " for I have not concealed the words of the holy one."' Isa. 10: 17 "And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and he shall sanctify (Aytdaet) him with burning fire, and it shall devour the wood and the grass." The Common Version reads the second sentence, " and his Holy One for a flame." Chap. 29: 23. But when their children shall have seen my works, they shall sanctify, (dytLaovat -ro 6v opai tov,) my name, and (ayltaovat T-ov aytov) Sanctify the Holy One of Jacob." Ch. 40: 25. "Now, then, to whom have you compared me, that I may be exalted? (Tirev 6 a'ytog) says the Holy One." Ch. 43 15. I am the Lord God, ( adytog vywuv,) your Itoly One." Ch. 49: 7. "For the Holy one of Israel is faithful, and I have chosen thee." Dan. 4: 14. "The matter is by the decree of the watcher, and the demand is a word (d-yiov) of the holy ones." (Common Version 4: 17.) Hosea 11: 9. "For I am a God and not a man; a Holy One within thee." Hab. 1: 12. Art not thou from the beginning, 0 Lord God, (o aytoq pMov,) my Holy One 2" Ch. 3: 3. "God will come from Thaiman (Icai 6 aytoo,) even the Holy One from the dark shady mount Pharan." In all cases where hagyos (dytog) is applied to God, in the translation of the aforesaid Hebrew word, it is rendered in the Common Version, and in Brenton's Version of the Septuagint by " Holy One." They never represent God as the " Saint " of Israel, and yet the same word is translated, "saint," when applied to men. In Dan. 4: 17 we have the Syriac, (Tl:"TP,) Kadeesheen, translated " holy ones." In Ps. 51: 11; Isa. 63: 10, 11, (UnTl mr') Rooakh hakoudesh, literally the Spirit-the Holy One, translated into the Greek by (ro rrve~iza To y7tov) to pneuma to hagion, and in the Common Version "thy Holy Spirit." The Septuagint is more faithful to the Original, in Dent. 38: 8, than the Common Version which renders, ('nt am,) Eish K]hoseed, 208 THE REVISER. "thy holy one," but which the former translates (re dv6dpi Tr oaip) to andri, to hosio, " to the pious man." If "saint " means a pious person, or one who does that which the supreme law of God sanctions, then hosios, ('atog,) not hagios, (dyLog,) is the proper word in Greek for the English "saint." If hagios is applied to God and man, it ought to be rendered alike in both cases. That it is so applied no one will dispute. If it means " saint " when applied to man, it must also mean " saint " when applied to God. But who would presume to say that God is the Saint of Israel? This would be to canonize the Deity. HIIa -rotg aytiOt —ALL THE CONSECRATED. There are three adjectives in the Christian Scriptures which have their distinctive meanings, a due regard to which is of great importance. They are, hagios, (a'toS,) hagnos, (ayvo6',) and katharos, (KaOapo'S,) sacred, clean, pure. From these three adjectives are derived their three corresponding verbs, hagiadzo, (&ytLa(6,) hagnidzo, (ayvi;6,) and katharidzo, (KaOaapio),) to make sacred, to make clean, to make pure. The last two imply uncleanness, and impurity; and therefore are not used with reference to God, or His Son. The first implies no impurity, nor uncleanness, and is applied to both. It means, to make sacred, or, to consecrate, throughout the Septuagint, and the Christian Scriptures; and corresponds with the Hebrew verb (V'1P) Kodash, to consecrate. The second corresponds with the Hebrew (mot) tohar, to cleanse; and the third with, (:' ) borar, to purify. The first, and most common meaning of our word, sanctify, is to cleanse, or make free from sin. It is therefore an unsuitable word by which to translate hagiadzo, (ytLa'ro,) which is, in the Septuagint, first used in relation to the seventh day. "And God blessed the seventh day (Ical'ygiaaev a'rfiv) and made it sacred," or, consecrated it. He could not free the day from sin, for the day had no sin. If the verb, to sanctify, is used here, it can only be in the sense of, to consecrate; and it is far better to use a verb in its primary sense, when that is the sense which we desire to convey, than to resort to a secondary, or some still more remote sense, of another verb for that purpose. ALL THE SAINTS. 209 "The Lord said to Moses, (''Ayiaove ) Consecrate to me every first born."' Ex. 13: 2. IelHe, also, "sanctify," in any other sense than, to consecrate, is entirely inadmnissable. Moses could not free the first born firom sin. "And the Lord said to J7ozes tl'at tI shoild, solemnly clharge the people, (Qeal cdyvltov ci'ov evg) a.nd conscu tern to-ds-y, and to-morrow, and let, thelm wal tthi:' ga.nients,.' Ex. 19: 10.'And Moses diescended out of the iounLtain to the p.^ople, (leaf tiyxtaatv aivrovg,) and consecrated them." V. 14. "The Lord required the priests who d-ew neaa' to the Lord their God, to, (adytaOslTroaav,) co nsecrate themsel - es.'" Ile also requited Moses to "set bounds to the mountain, Sinai, (tad cayiaacri acro,) and consecrate it." Chl. 19: 22, 23. Ife commanded to (dyiaetsg) consecrate the separated breast and shoulder of t;he ran. Ch. 29: 27. IIe also said to Moses. "And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the daT:-y of (-ro icaljctptajsog,) the yurijication, and thou (icfaOepte:i) stZmlit p)uriy ti-he alter, whten thou (dyltetv) consecratest on it, and thlou, hall' anoint/ it so (as (dyacua aVo6) to consecrate it." Ch. 29: 3G. "And I will then give orde:'s to the children of Israel, (ical dytoaOisotaa E'v do~1 lyov) and I will be consecrated in my glory." V. 43. "And the Lord said, (adytaio) I will consecrate the Tabernacleand'Aaron and his sons, (diytdao) I will consecrate.;'" V. 44. "The L)rd spoke, saying, (Ev rot E~yytovGt [Clt daytau/0q1ocalt) I will be consecrated in those who draw near to me." Lev. 10: 3. "And now I have chosen, (ie:i iyilatca,) and consecrated this house." 1 Clhr. 7: 16. " Then Eliasub the HIlgh I'riest, and his b:ethren, the PIriests, rose up and built the sheep-gate; (acroz i1yiaaav avrr4v,) tlhey consecrated it, and set up the doors of it; even to the tower of the hundred (jyioa v) they consecrated." Nehem. 3: 1. "And (dy7taw i-vo ocvad jv T7 Em/t'a) I will consecrate my great name, which was profanedl alnon( the nations, which you pioftned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord, when, (dytlaOrvat) I am consecrated among you before their eyes." Ex. 36: 23. I have given a bare specimen of the use of this verb in the Sep18 210 THE REVISER. tuagint, from which it appears that a day-the first born-the people of Israel-the priests-the mountain Sinai-the breast and shoulders of a ram-the alter —the Tabernacle-Aaron and his sons -the Lord-the temple-the sheep-gate-and the name of the Lord, were all sanctified, or rather consecrated, and in neither case will the verb bear any other signification than to consecrate. I now approach the christian usage of this verb. And here we first find it in connection with the Great Name which was consecrated under the Old Covenant, and must be also under the New. "Our Father who art in the heavens! (adytaOero,) Consecrated be thy name!" Matt. 6: 9. The verb here cannot be understood to mean to make pure-to free from sin. It has the same meaning which it has in the Old Covenant. The Pharisees held if a man swore by the Temple it was not binding. But if he swore by the gold of the Temple he was bound by his oath. Our Saviour asked then, " Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple which is (dyLaiwv) consecrating the gold?" The Temple, holding this gold as a sacred deposit, is said, in a figure of speech, to be consecrating it; that is holding it in a consecrated state, and thus giving sacredness to it. Matt. 23: 17. See also, v. 19, of the altar. The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because he said he was the Son of God. He said to them, " Do you say of him whom the Father (~Iyiaae) consecrated and sent into the world, thou blasphemest" &c. The Father did not free from sin, cleanse, nor purify His Son. He consecrated him to his mundane mission, and then sent him on his embassy. John 10: 36. In ch. 17: 17, Jesus, while praying for his Apostles, says: (dyiaaov avrovg Ev T r dilOea Cov,) " Consecrate them in thy truth." It is clear that this is an official consecration, and not a personal purification, as the following sentence proves; otherwise why should he say, in the very next breath, " As thou sentest me into the world, even so I also sent them into the world." V. 18. "On account of them (Eyyw dyytlda'o 4tavrov) I consecrated myself, that they also, (4yLtataEvot Ev arlOeiia,) may be consecrated in truth." The Father consecrated Jesus when about to send him into the world, and after he came, and before he left the world, he appointed Apostles ALL THE SAINTS. 211 whom he desired the Father to consecrate, and on whose account he consecrated himself in the truth for which he died. "Paul said to the Ephesian Presbyters that God's word of kindness was able to build them up and give to them an inheritance, (Ev l-ohs -yItaacEvotf -riatv,) among all the consecrated." Acts 20: 32. See also, ch. 26: 18. He said he was made a public servant of Jesus Christ for the nations, ministering the good-news of God, that there might be a most acceptable offering of the nations, ('y7taatv'vi vv,rveiJVar- dyiw,) "being consecrated in a holy spirit." Rom. 15: 16. To notice but a few more passages, let us turn to 1 Cor. 7: 14, where marriage is regarded as a consecration of the parties. "For the husband, the unbelieving, is consecrated in the wife, and the wife, the unbelieving, is consecrated in the husband, otherwise, certainly, were your children unclean, but now they are consecrated." Things unclean, were things forbidden —things consecrated, were things in a lawful state, without regard to their moral qualities. Marriage was a legal state, and in it each of the parties were so consecrated in the other, that the two became one flesh, and their children were not such as were forbidden by law, and therefore were not unclean; but were authorized by law, and therefore consecrated. Peter said, "not so Lord, for I have never eaten any thing that is common or (dacdOaprov) unclean." 1 Cor. 7: 14; Acts 10: 16. The people under the Old Covenant were commanded to consecrate the Lord their God, and the same requisition is made under the New. 1 Pet. 3: 15. "Consecrate the Lord God in your hearts." Let no one infer, because this (adytdro) does not signify a moral cleansing, that, therefore, there is no such doctrine in the Scriptures; for the immediate object of the Revelation of God, taken as a whole, is this very thing; and appropriate words, in abundance, are therein found, by which to express it in all its multiform aspects. Paul said to the Corinthian brethren, (d2A 2 aireXovaaoOe,) "but you are washed, (dXRa yLtadaOrp7e,) but you are consecrated, (aidd Stcat6Opere,) but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and (6v r ervEvELarLt) in the spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6: 11. Jesus gave himself for the congregation that he might consecrate and, (tcaOapiaag) cleanse it in (r(?ovrTp5 troV iVdaTro,) the bath of the water, by the, (Ev PI/atrt) in the word. 212 THE REVISER. The adjectives, (dy'to,) hagio, (cyv6t,) and (caOapd',) Klatharos are by no means synonomous. The first is not used in the sense of either of the others. It never means clean-never pure, either in a physical, or a moral sense. Clean, literally means, devoid of filth. This is its first meaning. Pure means, free from any extraneous admixture, whether the admixture be filtlly or unfiithy. Gold is cleansed by water, but purified by fire. lcaios, (a'/tqg,) m1eans sacred, or, consecrated. Things were made sacred, or consecrated, of which neither cleanliness, nor purity, could be predicated. Such was the seventh day, and feasts. Cons:equ-ently we never read of cleansing the seventh day, nor of purifying it. Th-ce adjectives haynzos, (dyvoq,) and Katharos, (icaOopo,) ar:e never applied in such cases. Hayios, (iytoS,) is applied where neither of these words can be used. Neither of them ever signify, to consecrite. The purity of the Divine Being is expressed by hkcanos, (dyv6o,) not by, hagtios, (dytoG;) as appears fiom 1 John 3: 3. " And every man who has this hope in Him, (dyvijet n'avwov) purifies himselfg (not JYTta'let kav7ov) even as (dyv6o er-t) lie is pure;" not even as ('ytscg -rt) Ile is sacred or consecrated. When God-I-Iis Son —His Spirit —Iis angels — His people, and time, and tlings devoted to Ilis service, are declared (dytee,) hagioi, nothing is afffirmied of cleanliness, or purity. Katharidro, (OaOptepo,) is used in the Septuagint for, to purify; and Katharos, (tcaOpnog,) for pure, and the latter corresponds with the Hebrew, (':0o) tohour. Weblster defines "holy," by whtich ()Ytog,) hauios, as an adjective, is transl:lted in the Common Veirsion; " properly, wlhole, entire, perfect, in a moral sense." That such is the meaningl of the English "holy" we have no doubt. This is Webster's first definition, and the primary meaning of the word; but such is not the meaning of haqios. I talke this to be a principle of universal language, namiely: When a verb is derived fiom an adjective, the former signifies the making, or causing to be, what the latter expresses. Now, people under both dispensations were coinmancded to do to God what is implied in this adjecitve. If, therefore, this a:djective (tyitcg) signifies "whole, entire, perfect in a moral sense," then we must reglard the Divine Being as having been imperfect in a mnoral sense. This c(an never be admitted. Again we must believe, on this hypothesis, that moral perfection ALL THE SAINTS. 213 was communicated to the seventh day-to sacrifices —to alters-to the Tabernacle-the Temple, &c. This is absurd. But we must also believe that Moses morally perfected the firstborn, and all the congregation of Israel. This is contrary to fact. They were very imperfect. Whatever this word means when applied to ground, sabbath, nation, gifts, crown, ointment, coat, place, houses, tithes, water, instruments, vessels, offerings, oracle, arm, hill, promise, mountain, solemnity, cities, flesh, chambers, portion, oblation, gods, covenant, land, and day; it must also mean when applied to God, angels, and men. When applied to all the foregoing things it clearly means, sacred, or consecrated. Sacred is probably the best word in our language as the exponent of hayios, when used as an adjective or in apposition. God consecrated himself, or made himself sacred as the object of worship, and he made his name also sacred. He made the seventh a sacred day. He had a sacred day-a sacred altar-a sacred sacrifice-sacred Priests, clothed in sacred attire-a sacred Tabernacle —a sacred Temple-a sacred people-a sacred covenant-a sacred land, and sacred festivals. He has also a sacred Son, and a sacred Spirit. As he was called the Lord God —(6 dyto) the Sacred One; so his Son is called the Sacred One, Acts 3: 14; and his Spirit is called, (rO Ilve4lza ro'Aytov,) the Spirit, the Sacred One, Luke 1: 35. If a man is a saint because he is called hagios; then the Spirit is a saint-the Son is a Saint, and the Father is a saint; for they are all called hagioi. The loyal angels are all saints. The sabbath is a saint sabbath-the nation of Israel was a saint nation-and there were saint gifts-a saint crown-saint ointment —a saint coat —saint place-saint house-saint tithes-saint water-saint instrumentssaint vessels-saint mountain —saint flesh, &c. I therefore abandon this word and substitute sacred for it, when used as an adjective or in apposition; and when it clearly refers to persons, and there is an elipsis of the noun, as here, I prefer to translate (ro7g dyiaot) tois hagiois, the consecrated persons, or if others, for the sake of greater uniformity, prefer, the sacred persons, which is an equivalent expression. All authorities agree that a hagios, or a "saint," is a person consecrated to God. 214 THE REVISER. SPECIMEN OF REVISION. MATTHEW. A Roll of lineage of Jesus Christ —son of Davidson of Abraham. The Specimen of Revision, independantly of the accompanyingnotes, shows the Author to be a competent scholar for such a work. He has shown great discrimination in his selection of English words by which to give the exact meaning of the Original, and has excelled in giving Greek idiomns in good English. His treatment of Proper Names is judicious and sustained by high philological authority, such as Penn, Murdock, Whiting, Webster, Wesley, Doddridge, Campbell, Kendrick and Newcome. While he has given the sense of the Greek, as far as possible, in the style of the Common Version, he has not paid that superstitious severance to modes of expression common among literary men on all subjects 250 years ago. The notion that the style of King James and his revisers was, or is, any more religious, or sacred than our present style, was engendered in error, and nourished by superstition. What made the English language of that age sacred? Too sacred to be changed? Was it the translation of the Holy Writings into it? If so, why was not Tyndale's style too sacred to be changed by the King's revisers? Nay, why was not Wicliff's style too sacred to be altered by Tyndale? The people in Tyndale's time had as just grounds to object to the following sentence of Wicliff as any persons now have to a change of the King's English. "Thanne ierusalem wente out to hym and al iudee, and al the cuntre about iordan; and thei werun waischen of hym in iordan, and knowlechiden her synns." What "hallowed associations cluster around" this "sacred style!" Objections equally just might have been made against Cranmer for changing the "sacred style" of Tyndale, and breaking up "the hallowed associations" of this sentence. " And se that ye ons thynke not to saye in your selues, we haue Abraham to oure father." The sacred style of Cranmer, too, was changed somewhat by the Genevans. Cranmer said that the wise men who came and found the infant Messiah, "fell downe flatt and worshypped hym," which " sacred style " the Geneva revisers changed into "falling downe, worshipped him." Then the authors of the revision which we call the Common Ver SPECIMEN OF REVISION. MATTHEW. 215 sion, "around which so many hallowed associations cluster," changed 6 the sacred style " of the Geneva revision from, " VVhen Jesus was borne at Bethlehem in Jurie," into, "Now, when Jesus was borne in Bethlehem of Judea." They changed, "John the Baptist came," into "the sacred style," "came John the Baptist." They changed' said to him " into, " said unto him," and " let it be so now " into, "suffer it to be so now." And now, last of all, our Reviser, with the same reason by which all his revision ancestry changed "the sacred. style," has also made several changes for the better. He has changed "to make her a public example," (which according to the law, "in such cases made and provided," signified to stone her to death,) into, "to put her to open shame;" "was minded, into "resolved;" "to put her away privily," into " to divorce her secretly;" " unto him," into "to him;" " thou son of David," into " son of David;" " to take unto thee," into "to take;" "a Virgin," into "the Virgin;" " being interpreted," into "is interpreted;" " being raised from sleep," into "rising up friom the sleep," before mentioned; " had bidden him," into "commanded him;" "now when Jesus was born," into "and Jesus being born;" "have seen his star," into "saw his star;" " are come to worship," into " came to worship;" " he demanded of theml," into " he enquired of them;" "where Christ should be born," into " where the Messiah should be born;" "art not least among the princes of Juda," into " art by no means least in the princes of Judah;" "out of thee shall come a Governor," into "out of thee shall come a Prince;, " enquired of them diligently," into "found out exactly;" "search diligently," into "enquire exactly;" "spoken of the prophet,"' into "spoken by the prophet;" "was exceeding wrath", into "was exceeding angry," and many other changes too numerous to mention. Now, I cannot see but the style of our Reviser is just as "sacred" as the style of King James' revisers. And I think that, notwithstanding some "Associations" oppose our revision, yet there are still as many " hallowed associations " clustering around it as around the King's revision. For I think that not one "Association" had, in the beginning, any thing to do with King James' revision. 216 THE REVISER. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. JUDE 2. "Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied." This verse needs punctuation. Thus: "Mercy to you, and peace, and love, be multiplied." Th-e punctuation of the eighth verse is also defective. "Yet in like manner these dreamers also on the one hand defile the flesh," slhouali be pu.etluated, "Yet, in like manner, these dreamers also, on tle one h'nd defile the flesh, on the other reject government ancd rail at dionities." The rnintl verse contains a parenlthesis and it should be marked, thus; " Ye-t 51ic'liel Ithe a nrchanrgel, when contending with the Devil (he disput' —d (rrept) concerning the lbody of Moses)- did not dare to bring against him a railing judgment," &c. The collocation is bad in v. 11. "Woe to them! for in the way of Cain they walked, And in the error of Balaamn for hire they rushed hleadlong, and in the g: in aying of Core they perished." Better thus;'" Woe to 4them! feoi they vwnalked in the way of Cain, and they rushedl hed1lon- g "n the -:vy of Balaam, for hire, and they perished in thle 1 a -viL; s C Le." The Hebrew name, Korah, is preferable to Coare, i-l an Enesl ich tl ni.clat on. In v. 14, for prophesied Enoch," we would substitute "Etoclh prophesied." COMMON VERSION. GENDER OF NOUNS. "Either mnake the tree good, and IIs -fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and HIs fruit corrupt." Froni this translation it would seem that'S-r. tree, and his fruit must correspond in quality. The error, in Lthl ie leri', consists in preserving the gender of an original lang.uave, wh:ih (does not follow nature, in a translation into a langu-age which does follovw nature. "Now lear2n a pr, able of the fig-tree; when ins branch is yet tender," &c. 24: 32. "Put ap nagain. thy sword into IIns place." 26: 52. "Salt is go-oI; but if the salt have lost TIis saltness, wherewith will you season it. " Mark 9: 50; Luke 14: 34. "Every tree is SPECIMEN OF REEISION, MATT. 1: 16. 217 known by iIS fruit." Luke 6: 44. " If you were of the world, the world would love HIs own." Fig tree, tree, salt, and world, are each in the neuter gender, in the E1nglish language, and their pronouns should be neuter in a translation of their originals into English. But it seems that many believe that "the sacred style" requires us still to pay our respects to Ma. tree, Mr. fig-tree, Mr. salt, and Mr. world. How potent is prejudice! How mighty against reason, rhetoric, and grammar!indeed, against every thing! Even the blessed Saviour felt its power! SPECIMEN OF REVISION, MATT. 1: 16. "And -Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus, who is called Christ, was begotten." "The husband of Mary" is here in apposition with Joseph, and " who is called Christ," is in apposition with " Jesus." Leaving out the phrases in apposition, which can only serve to explain their apposites, the sentence will read: " and Jacob begot Joseph of whom Jesus was begotten." This cannot be the sense of the passage, for Joseph was only the " supposed" father of Jesus. VWhereas if Jesus was begotten of Joseph he was his real, and not his " supposed " son. By removing the comma which is placed immediately after Mary, and changing the collocation, thus: " and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was begotten, who is called Christ," we have a different sense-a sense which makes Mary, and not Joseph, the parent of Jesus. "The husband of Mary" is not all that should be taken into the apposition. Because there is, in the passage, an identification of Mary; and that identification is a part of the apposition. Because Joseph was not the husband of any Mary except that Mary of whom Jesus was born. " Of whom Jesus was born " identifies the Mary of whom Joseph was the husband, and therefore, constitutes a part of the apposition, and should not be cut off from Mary by the comma. The desire of uniformity has induced our Reviser to render eyenneethei, (EyevvrjOrl,) was begqotten. It is a fact that the Greeks used the same word, (yevvao,) for, to generate, and to bring forth, or, to 218 THE REVISER. give birth to. With them there was not, in the use of this verb, any distinction of masculinity and femininity. Not so with us. "To beget" is masculine —" to bring forth" is feminine. The rules which our discrimination demands, is, therefore, this: When the subject of the verb is masculine, we must render the verb by, " BEGOTTEN " —when feminine, by, " BORN," or, " BROUGHT FORTH.7 I think, therefore, that the above passage should read thus: "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus, who is called Christ, was born." The Reviser has rendered the participle (yEvv0E.vTrof) by, being born, in Matt. 2: 1, and in v. 4, gennatai, (yevvdrat,) should be born, and very properly; as it must be rendered in many other places; as Matt. 19: 12; Luke 1: 13; 35: 57; John 3: 4; 9: 2,19, 20, 32; 16: 21, and other places. The Reviser has preserved the participial form of the Greek, very much to the improvement of the rendering; and he has also closely discriminated in the use of the tenses of verbs. So far as I have heard, he has given great satisfaction to those who have carefully examined the " Specimen of Revision." May the Lord preserve his life to prosecute his work to completion. "GENERATION -yvvfma. The readers of the Common Version are not aware of the fact that the same Greek word is translated, generation andfruit. Thus: " O generation of vipers!" and, " I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine." Matt. 3: 7; Mark 14: 25. A generation of men signifies a race of men, or, men of an age. But a generation of vipers cannot mean vipers of any age, nor a particular race of vipers. Genneema is not the name used, in the Christian Scriptures, for neither "generation," nor, "fruit." Its general sense is product. It is applied to the Pharisees and Sadducees, to the produce of the grape-vine, to such produce as is proper for the barn, and the produce of righteousness. 1. John said to the Pharisees, and Sadducees, (revva1ta-ra etdv)ov) " Products of vipers! who has warned you," &c. The King's revi GENERATION. 219 sers, and Craniner and Tyndale, who are followed by them, all render this plural noun by a singular, which does not correspond in sense, nor in grammar with the Original. Wicliff, who employs the same noun, gives the plural, and thereby comes nearer to the Original. John, by using the plural,' shows that he addresses them collectively, while he regards them as individuals. 2. This is farther evident fiom Matt. 26: 29, where he says of the wine, "I will not drink henceforth of this product of the vine," where he uses the genative singular. Wine is not "fruit.'" It cannot, therefore, be a " fruit of the vine;" but it is a product of the vine, made from " the fruit of the vine." 3. The word is applied to produce suitable for barns-such as are harvested from the ground. " The grounds of a certain rich man produced plentifully," and he said he would pull down his old barns and build larger, "and there," said he, " I will store all my products and my goods." Luke 12: 18. 4. It is also applied to honest industry, called righteousness in 2 Cor. 9: 10. There the Apostle speaks of "seed sown," and of the increase arising from it, as the produce of this righteous labor, as being "the produce of righteousness." The word for generations is not genneemata, but, geneai, (yeveak.) Neither is genneemata used for offspring. The Greek word for " offspring " is genos (y"vof.) The rendering of this word (yesvvwlta-a) shows how former translations influenced the King's revisers. Their work does not prove them to have been thorough scholars. True, the rules prescribed for them, gave them not that liberty which men called on to perform the solemn duty of revisers ought to have enjoyed. Still I do not see how they could have been applicable to this passage, unless these Pharisees and Sadducees were regarded as ecclesiastics. In that case the rule requiring them to " retain the old ecclesiastical words " may have made it necessary that " generation of vipers " should be retained; for many of the English Ecclesiastics corresponded well with uchs a "'generation " 220 THE REVISER. INTO, eif. A fiiend in Canton, Pa., enquires of me whether this preposition is used in the Greek language before objects of belief; or whether any persons are said to believe into Chrlist? I answer afilirmatively. Pcrsons are said to have believed (eli) into Moses, Chi-ist, (God, the Lord, and the light. It is so used:t least about forty time:s in the book of John, and in the Acts. And although this is not in conformity with. our forms of speech, yet it is. by no means unphilosophic. When we speak of faith, or confidence, in a state of repose, it is conigruolls to say, I belie{e in him-I confide in him. We also use the pleposition on, in the sense of inz when we say we believe on him. In outi idiom we have more direct reference to the state of our mind, the Greeks to the act, or action of the mind. We therefore use a preposition of rest-they of motion. But while persons are said to believe into Christ, they are nowhere said to believe themselves into him, nor to be believed into him. Tihis form of expression is found, however, in connection with ilmmersion, thus: " as many of you as were immersed into Christ, were ilmmersed into hlis death "-" as many of you as were iminmersed into Jesus, Christ have put on Christ." Rom.c. 6, Gal. c. 3; and 1 Cot. c. 10 it is said that the Israelites, " were immersed inzto (eFi) -Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." In accordance with this style itL is said of the state, or, condition of one who has been baptized, that lihe is in Christ. " You are in Christ Jesus," 1 Cor. 1: 30; "there is no condemnnation to those who are in Christ Jesus," inom. 8: 1; "if any olne be in Christ he is a new creature," 1 Cot. 5: 17. We also have this form of expression in the Common Version of Acts 20: 21; namely, "repentance toward God and fatith toward our Lo'rd Jesus Christ." The preposition eis, (Ef1,) is improperly rendered "towards." It is not even a good paraphlrase. Paul said he continued " Thoroughly testifying tile change of mind in respect to God, (Tri'v eIg r-v Oev e e7TavoTra),) and the failh in reslpect to (TriO, Lt -Tjv elf -rO' Kv'ptov i'fyuv) our Lord Jesus Cltrist." A change of mind which entered into the Deity-not as we enter a dwelling, but entering into His erly mind-his view\s and feelings. So also Paul testified thoroughly the faith into Christ-r'.lrliding him a;s he was, in himself, and not, barely as he appe_:cd to careless men. A change of mind, and a faitih whlich penetrated. jNot a mere SPECIMEN OF REVISION. 221 superficial chlange —not a more superficial faith. But a change of mind, anl a belief, which entered into their respective o1bjects. There are many who have a changa of mind "toward " God, but it never rae:cahbs Iim —a faith "toward" Christ, which falls very far short of hIi. Ch!List once came (elf) " among his own," but their faith'l didl niot c ndt,t'l (ehl T- Ovoert a7TO5)'"into his naze e;" and therefore i thoel lhe did not grant, (t'ovaiav T-lcva 6eo9 yevslOalt) " "tautloleie %', 5c oeme clilidren of God." SPECIMEN OF REVISION. M.XTT. 1 1. " The b,-ok oC the. generation of'Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of A,':aLh:L.na" This i-':tc title vh;lichlt Mattlihewr- gave to so much of his memoirs of Clhist, q rnci'ates to his pedoigleeo or descent, and no more. It was important; beffore writing his memoirOs, to show by Ihis lineage that he descen c:l fionm David and Abl. hanm, because his country-lnen all understoo:l rom the ancient Writino' held sacred by their nation, that thle Me stia would descend finom these distingruished men, Thie fKi theliyn, then, to be dolne, was to prove by authentic records that hel (l1s0(:.1n:led from them. Accordingly he first gives (Bti3cof yevsoeCU'Iqs;,,v Xc,1. Toi3) which I prefer to render by, "A Rloll of linenage Of Jo- lr:-C Christ." 1. Biblr,- wich I iender, "a roll," and our Reviser, with many distignuri-hed scllolals, "Tlhe Book," properly signifies " the inner bar/k of the p?'tyrus," used in ancient times for paper; hence it came to mnca, e, a writonc voluzcs, whicih wcas not then bound into a book as now, burt rolledl u, nld a lclnd i, he;nc,,as also cr!led a roll; and when subjects w ere tiraced at considerable lengtth, and written out, it might be called "a book," lbut not in the cojlmmon acceptation of that word; for " a book," in common pardlance, was unknown for many hundred years after the apostolic a(e. Solne, because bibles was applied to a written catalogue, translate the word a catalogue; and because accounts were kept on bibloes, they translate it, an account. B1ut although accounts were kept on bibles, still biblos does not mean an account; and although catalogues were written on bibles, a catalogue is not its meaning. 222 THE REVISER. As there is no article in the Original, and the English idiom does not require it, I think it better not to supply it, but simply write "A Roll." The translation is then just as definite as the Original, and no more so. Geneseos, (yeveae6a,) is the genetive singular of genesis, (yeveatf,) which properly signifies a birth, nativity. In a secondary sense it means, successive generation, or, successive bilrth, descent, lineage. Paul uses genealogia, 1 Tim. 1: 4; Tit. 3: 9, in this sense. But that Matthew uses goneseos in application to an ancestral registry, is clear from the fact that he places it at the head of slch a record, as its caption. So that we would now add to the above rendering, of lineage, and read, "A Roll of Lineage of Jesus Christ." Our Reviser has the authority of Middleton and other distinguished scholars for supplying the article before " son of David, son of Abraham." But I see no reason why the article should be supplied in English when our idiom does not require it. Why should we supply it, except the idiom require it? Who knows the sense to be definite, in Greek, unless it is so written? Besides, Jesus could not be called the son of David, and the son of Abraham except by eminence, unless it could be shown that David and Abraham had only one son, the reverse of which is evident. Now, in the narrative of Matthew, no eminence is given until the order of the facts which he records shows him deserving to be regarded as the son promised to David and Abraham. And, although a roll of lineage was necessary to prove him a son of David, and a son of Abraham, still, it required something more than a roll of lineage to prove him to be the son of these men. But he* must first be proved to be a son of David and of Abraham, before he can be proved to be the son of them. Matthew first proves him to be a son of David and Abraham by " a roll of lineage," and then shows that he was the son of these worthies by Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms; and also by his wisdom, miracles, and resurrection. But the roll of lineage only proves that he is a son; while the narrative which follows the roll proves him to be the son. I would, therefore, read the title of this book thus: "A ROLL OF LINEAGE OF JESUS CHRIST, A SON OF DAVIDA SON OF ABRAHAM." The above is respectfully submitted to a gentleman who, I feel REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. 223 assured, will not receive what I have written unkindly, but who will give these suggestions due consideration, and if convinced that they are correct, he will be happy to revise farther. "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" (O what a precious passage!) "the love of God," over whose sacred word we are daily in deep meditation, "and the communion of the Holy Spirit," by whose demonstration the gospel was rendered worthy of all acceptation, be with us in our solemn and pleasing efforts to make that word of truth clear and intelligible to the readers of our vernacular. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES. REVELATION, 9: 13. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden alter which is before God. Our Reviser has adopted this from the Common Version without revision, not having noticed the force and beauty of the passage in the Original. "I heard A voice fi'om the FOUR horns of the golden altar " is entirely too tame for the Apostle, or the sublimity of his subject. Ile says, I heard, (qb)ovqv jiiav e 7reaadpov icep-r(ov rov Ovataa-rpiov rSv Xpvaov,) ONE voice out of the FOUn horns of the golden altar." Here the one voice, and the four horns stand in grand, and forcible contrast; which is entirely lost in the Common Version. There will be two men in a bed, is far inferior to, "there will be two men in one bed "-and all with a voice will not compare with, "and all with one voice " cried, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." "Two shall be a flesh " is not equal to, "two shall be one flesh." There fell in a day twenty-three thousand, is not as emphatic as, "there fell in one day twenty-three thousand." The philological law is disregarded in this case, which requires mia, (Pia,) when used with referance to any other word significant of any other number, to be translated by its equivalent-" one," and not by the indefinite article. 224 THE REVISER,. From the New York Chronicle. THE REVISER. The last number of this periodical is before us, and well sustains the promise of thos3 which preceded it. It is issued monthly, in a convenient form for preservation and reference, and is devoted to the correction of eriors in the translation of the Scriptures. Its editor, Dr. Shepard, des~crves well of all interested in that important object, for the amnount of learninig and ability which he has contributed to it in the-e pagSe:. His views are often bold and independent, and 0 do not1 cnoiot.ci(, wilthl those of revisers; but they are expressed in a ce ndid -r ti tiL-lov3inj-r spir'it. tand are well worthy of consider. ation. OF C0':i.,C i- this case, as in that of all other publications not issued by tlhe B1oard, the responsibility rests with the editor, and not vwiih the Anmeic a Bible Unien. The present number contains a Revision of John 2: 6; Reisicn of John 19: 34; Revision of John 21: 1; lDi.konos; The Resurrection; Emendation of 2d Tim. 3 chap. l5 and 1G verse; Common Version, Phil. 1'1; Common Version 1lhil. 2: 7 C:ommon VerXion 2 Peter 3: 11; The Boaptist Home Ii&iIaiyry; "The Sacred Sy l e," Jas. 4: 13, 5 1; Common Version Epfi. 2: ~ 15 nnmmon Vrsion Col. 3: 9, 10; " The Wind Bloweth vihe'e it, Listeethll; Commun Vetr on, "The Saints." Friends ouht. to exert themselves to give an extensive circulation to a ptrifii.:zl sN. well adapted to pronmote the cause to which it is devoted, as wvc:1 as increase the taste for a diligent study of the sacred Sem-ilrPl-s in our churches. Dr. Shepard, at the close of this number, refera to a brief visit whlich hae nmade to ECstern Virginia, at one of thle co-Iva-ntions, in which he nmade an address upon the subject of Bible Trarinations, which was listened to with unabated attention, by a crowded auditory for two hours. He also speaks of the Rev. Mr. Moore, the esteemed agent of the Bible Union, as doing a good work there. COMMON VERSION. 225 DYcavdaXtr), COMMON VERSION. TO OFFEND. The transitive verb, to offend, from the Latin, ofendo, signifies, in common parlance, to make angry. Probably not one person out of a hundred attaches any other idea to this verb. Now we read, "If thy eye offend thee pluck it out;" that is, according to the current meaning of " offend," if your eye make you angry, force it out! Who can suppose that the Saviour intended to teach that a man might become angry with his eye and destroy it? Who would not regard it as an evidence of insanity in a man if he should do it. So, also, of the right hand. Suppose a man should kill another man this day, and on his trial it should be proved that just before he committed the homicide, he became angry at his eye and forced it out; and that just after, he took up an axe and cut off his right arm, and threw it away from him, because he was angry at his right hand. Would any jury declare that homicide a murder? The prisoner would be discharged on the ground of insanity. Again, who can suppose our Saviour intended to teach that men might, justifiably, become angry with their eyes and hands! To be angry with the eye, or hand, is to be " angry without a cause." The Greek verb at the head of this article does not,.in a single instance, mean, to offend, to make angry. It is not used in "profane writings," nor in the Alexandrian Version. Aquilla uses it for the Hebrew words (5:=, i:=Z,) which we translate to stumble, to fall, &c. If your eye shall cause you to fall, pull it out; because it is better to enter into life with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, is a philological, and a safe construction of the passage. The Greek word means more than, "to stumble," as many render it. Peter (1 Ep. ch. 2: 7, 8,) says that the (XiOov) stone, which the builders rejected had become the head of the corner, and ()W0oq irpogccoljtarog) a stone of stumbling, and (rrErpa alcavdarov) a rock of falling, to those who stumbled at the word. Here they are represented as first stumbling, and then falling. They stumbled (?iOp) at a stone-they fell (rrerpa) at a rock. They passed over the stone with a stumble-the rock was too high, and at it they fell. An abandonment, or a forsaking of God, Christ, or the truth, is 19 226 TiHE REVISER. metaphorically, a falling. Occasional offences are stumblings. There may be a temporary abandonment of the Saviour, through fear, as that of the disciples at the time of his arrest, but this is more than a mere stumble-it was a temporary fall-from which they afterward recovered. It was not a wilful abandonment-but an abandonment from fright. "All you shall fall because of me this night," said the Saviour to his, then, fearful disciples. Paul in Rom. 14: 21, says, "It is good not to eat any thing by which a brother (rrpoac607rrret) proskoptei, stumbles, or, (arcav6aZi'erat,) skandalidzetai, falls, or, (aaOeveT,) asthenei, is weakened. Here is first, a stumbling-then, a falling-then, a weakening. The stumbling is not the falling —the falling is not the weakening. The stumbling may be the cause of the falling, and falling the cause of the weakening. But the cause is not the effect, nor is the effect the cause. The verb should never be translated, as in the Common Version, to offend; nor, as in some other versions, to stumble; but, to fall, or by some word of a similar significance, which can be used both actively and passively. It never means "to offend "-it means more than, " to stumble." The seed sown on stony ground-which grew well for a while, and then withered, is explained by a hearer of the word who receives it with joy, but when persecution because of the word arises, by and by, (aiavsda2['erat,) hefalls away. A final abandonment is clearly the sense in this passage. Rather than to be induced, by any thing which we can see, or handle, to abandon Christ or his cause, we should pull out the eye, or cut off the hand. The consequence of such forcing out the eye would be-one eye to see with. The consequence of the amputation of the right hand would be-a left hand to work with. But the consequence of such abandonment is-the casting of the "whole body into hell fire." How just the reasoning which says, it is better to be deprived of an eye, or of a hand, than to be entirely consumed in "hell fire." GRACE. 227 Xaptg-GRACE. This word properly signifies that which causes joy, pleasure, gratification. First, it is used of external form and manner. The form of any thing which, when we behold it, produces pleasure, or gratification, is a graceful form. A movement which is pleasurable, or gratifying is a graceful movement. Ecclesiastes 26: 15. "A niodest, and faithful woman is a double glace." That is, her modesty and faithfulness both afford pleasure. So when words, or discourses, produce pleasure, they are said to be "gracious." Luke 4: 22. "All testified for him, and wondered over (ErT Pro' ~ X6yoLo g Tg XadpCro) the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth." " Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good for the use of edifying, that it may (Eva d6 Xadptv Trot dicovovat) administer pleasure to the hearers." Thus the Alexandrian Version, and the Hebrew (It) Ps. 45: 3, also Ecclesiastes 21: 16. See also, Homer Od. 8, 175, and Dem. 51: 9. So, a pleasurable feeling in the mind of one being towards another, which is always attended with kindly emotions, is called (Xaptg) grace. Luke 2: 40. It is said of the child Jesus (icat Xdpt' esoe qv 8er' aTr6) and God's favor was on him." The same name is given to this state of mind whether in God, or men. Acts 2: 47. Of the disciples in Jerusalem it is written, that they continued daily in the Temple, (" atvovgres -rov Oesv, sKa e"Xov-eq Xcdptv;-rpog oDov rOv a6ov,") "praising God, and having grace with all the people." Ch. 4: 33. "And, with great power, the Apostles gave testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, (Xapct i-e fteyad7 UIv 7gi TrdvraTia airoi5e) and great grace was on all of them." Acts 7: 10. God gave Joseph (Xaplv) " grace and wisdom in the sight of Pharoah, and he made him Governor of Egypt and all his family." Alex. Vers. Gen. 39: 21. So, when, for any special reason, God shows special regard to any person, it is said to be, on the part of the person so regarded, finding grace with Him. When He selected Mary to be the mother of His Son, He sent a messenger to say to her, "Fear not Mary, because thou has found (yadptv) grace with God. David found grace before God, or in his presence. Acts 7: 46. '228 THE REVISER. Thus, also, to gain favor with any one, is called (eVpiCaEtv Xaptv) to find grace. Luke I 30. See also Alex. Version. Gen. 6: 18; 18: 3. In Acts 25: 9, we read that Festus desiring (ica-ra0eOat,) literally to lay down, (but, as we generally express the same idea, to lay up,) grace for himself, in the Jews, asked Paul a question which he supposed would please them. "Will you go up to Jerusalem and be judged there concerning these matters, before me?" ](Despicable!) He desired to secure this grace, or favor, for some time of future need. He had seen the same disposition manifested by Felix, on a former occasion, when he, being desirous (Xapt-raf ta-ra0'aOOat rolf'Iovdatotg) to lay up graces for himself in the Jews, left Paul bound. (Despicable example, though a royal one.) He would make the Jews a depository of favors for himself. He desired "to be in their good graces." Things which produce pleasure in men are graces. "For this is grace, (roi7-ro yap Xaptf,) if because of conscience concerning God. one endures sorrows, being affected unjustly." And "if doing good and being affected, you remain firm, (-roViro Xaptw 7rapa Oea,) this is a grace to God;" that is, a pleasure to Him, or that which cause. pleasure to IIim. As the benevolence of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, produce great pleasure in us, when fully apprehended and appreciated, that good will is also called grace; and is joined with mercy and peace, in salutations and benedictions. Rom. 1: 7; 1 Cor. 1: 3; 2 Cor. 1: 2; Gal. I: 3; Rom. 16: 20, 24; 1 Cor. 16: 23; 2 Cor. 13: 13; Gal. 6:18. In all these occurrences of the word, (XaplW,) grace, the idea of pleasure is inseparable from it. We will, " if the Lord will," prosecute this subject farther hereafter, and in the mean time request our readers to study attentively the passages here cited. "May the kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all the sanctified in Christ Jesus." NOTES ON PHILIPPIANS. 229 NOTES ON PHILIPPIANS. Xdaptg-KINDNESS, PLEASURE, THANKS. This word is as ancient as the time of Homer, who, with the classic authors generally, often uses it in an objective sense, as of external beauty, especially of persons, more rarely of things. It is more ancient than the charita (Xaptvla) of the later poets, used as a proper name, with its plural, Charites (%aptres.) It is of the same root with chairo, (Xadtpo,) chara, (Xapd,) and charma, (xapjza,) and is related to the Latin, carus, and gratus, gratis, grates, gratia. In its objective use it applies, not only to beauty of form, but also of manner and speech. In its subjective sense, as applied to the feelings, it means kindness felt-as applied to the conduct, kindness manifested in kind actions. It is sometimes, by metonymy, applied to a gift bestowed out of kindness. Farther, when used of the receiver, it means, the sense of kindness received, or enjoyed, and is equal to the English words, thanks, or gratitude. In mythology it is used as a proper noun, usually in the plural number, as hai charites, (at XapTesg,) the graces, the goddesses of grace, loveliness, and favor; according to iesiodus, Aglaia, Euphrosyni, and Thalia. Charis, (Xadpt,) is used in the Christian Scriptures about 156 times; of which Paul uses it 111 times-once in his address to the Presbyters of Ephesus, and 110 times in his Epistles. Matthew and Mark never use it. Luke uses it in his "former Treatise" eight times, and in his latter Treatise, the Acts, fourteen times. John uses it in his Gospel four times-in his Second Epistle, once-and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, by him, twice. It does not occur in his first, nor third Epistle. Peter uses the word once in his address to the Apostles and Presbyters when discussing the subject of Circumcision-and twelve times in this Epistle. It is used twice by James, and once by Jude. In the former Treatise of Luke it is translated by the word " grace," once —by "gracious," once-by "favor," twice-by "thank," four times. In the second Treatise, the Acts, it is rendered "favor," four times — " grace," ten times —and " pleasure," twice. 230 THE REVISER. In all Paul's Epistles, and in his address to the Presbyters of the church of Ephesus, it is translated "grace," ninety-nine times" thanked," once-" thanks," four times — "thank," twice-" joy," once —"liberality," once-" benefit," once-and once, "gift." In James it is both times rendered, "grace." In Peter's Epistles it is ten times translated, "grace,"-once, "thankworthy "-and once, "acceptable." The only time it occurs in Jude it is rendered, "grace." Paul's Epistles are, to all the other Christian Oracles, about as 62 pages, to 148 pages. Out of the 156 occurrences it is used by him 111 times, and 45 times in the other 147 pages. It is worthy of notice that in all the reports we have of the discourses of Jesus, it never occurs. So far as we are informed it was not in the vocabulary of John, the Immerser. It is not reported in any of the discourses of the Apostles to the unconverted. It is predicated "of God "-of " the Lord Jesus Christ "-of " the people "-of " Pharaoh "'-of " the churches of Macedonia "-and of " the church in Corinth." A similar use obtains in the Alexandrian Version. Noah fouLnd it (Xaptv,) favor, before the Lord, Gen. 6: 8. " The King loved Esther, and she found favor beyond all the virgins." Est. 2:1 7. The plural is used by Solomon Prov. 1: 9; 4: 9, in the sense of ornament, or beauty. " For thou shalt receive for thy head a crown (XaptTwv) of graces, and a chain of gold round thy neck." "That it may give to thy head a crown (xapTwcv) of graces, and may cover thee with a crown of delight." It often happens that a word in one language is used in various kindred senses, and that no word of the same meaning, and various usage can be found in another language into which we desire to translate. This obliges us sometimes to employ one word, and sometimes another, as the sense of the original word varies in its signification. Again it may happen that a word in our language, in one of its acceptations, may very aptly express the sense of a word in the original, which, nevertheless, is not suitable for a translation of that word because of other, and frequently occurring senses of our own word. This, I think to be the case with our word, "grace." Webster defines "grace," 1. "Favor; good-will; kindness; a disposition to NOTES ON PHILIPPIANS. 231 oblige another; benificence; generosity. 2. Appropriately, the free, unmerited love and favor of God. 3. Favorable influence of God; divine influence. 4. The application of Christ's righteousness to the sinner. 5. A state of reconciliation to God. 6. Virtuous or religious affection or disposition. 7. Spiritual instruction, improvement, and edification. 8. Apostleship, or the qualifications of an apostle. 9. Eternal life; final salvation. 10. The Gospel. 11. Favor; mercy; pardon; as to sue for grace. 12. Favor conferred. 13. Privilege. 14. That in manner, deportment, or language, which renders it appropriate and agreeable; suitableness; elegance or ease, with appropriate dignity. 15. Natural or acquired excellence. 16. Beauty; embellishment; in general, whatever adorns and recommends to favor; sometimes, a single beauty. 17. Beauty displayed. 18. Virtue physical; [not used.] 19. The title of a duke or an archbishop, and formerly of the King of England, meaning your goodness or clemency. 20. A short prayer before or after meat. 21. In English universities, an act, vote, or decree of the government of the institution.Day of grace, in Theology, time of probation.-Day of grace in commerce, the days immediately following the day when a bill or note becomes due, which days are allowed to the debtor or payer to make payment in." The lax usage of this word renders it unfit for a translation of any Greek word, there being no word in that language which exactly corresponds with, or, indeed, approximates, in any tolerable degree, to any thing like the above usage of the word " grace." "Favor," which has been preferred by many good scholars, and, indeed, is preferable to the word " grace," is, nevertheless, exceptionable on the same grounds. It is thus defined by Webster. 1. "Kind regard; propitious aspect; friendly disposition. 2. A disposition to aid, befriend, support, promote, or justify; as, to be in favor of a person or measure. 3. A kind act, or office; benevolence shown by word or deed; an act of grace or good-will. 4. Mildness or mitigation of punishment. 5. Leave; good-will; a yielding or concession to another; pardon. 6. The object of kind regard; the person or thing favored. 7. Something bestowed as an evidence of good-will; a token of love; a knot of ribbons; something worn as a token of affection. 8. A feature; countenance; [not used.] 9. Advantage; 232 THE REVISER. convenience afforded for success; as, to approach under favor of the night. 10. Partiality; bias." Now, both these words embrace meanings which charis (Xhapts) never has, an'd omit meanings which it has. Either of these facts constitutes a sufficient objection. I hold it to be better, where the original word has more meanings than one, and we have no word which exactly corresponds with the original, to use one word to express one of its meanings, and a second, or third, as the case may be, to express other meanings, than to translate by one word which has meanings which the original never has. Kindness, pleasure, and gratitude, are obviously meanings of charis (Xapte.) But, although favor and grace express the general idea of kindness, neither of them expresses either pleasure or gratitude; and therefore are unsuitable representatives of charis, in all places. Out of the 156 times of the occurrence of this word in the Christian Scriptures, "kindness" expresses its force 145 times. Seven times it is expressive of thanks, or gratitude; and four times it means pleasure. This really is great uniformity for a word so frequently used, and by six different authors. The verb charidzomai, (xaptio'at,) is used 23 times, and in all instances it means to give, or to forgive, in kindness. It implies the doing of any thing not as a matter of obligation, but as a matter of kindness. This verb is never used in the Christian Scriptures where one thing is given for another. So also the noun charisma, (xaptalia,) never means a thing given for another; but a thing given in kindness. The charis is the fountain-the charidzomai, the stream-and the charisma, the ocean. We here have the kindness in feeling-the kindness operating-and the kindness in result. " The gift of God is eternal life." The seven places where charis is used for thanks are, Rom. 6: 17; I Cor. 15: 57;2 Cor. 2: 14; 8:16; 9: 15; 1 Tim. 1: 12; 2 Tim 3:1. The four places where it is used for pleasure are 2 Cor. 1: 15; Phil. 1: 7; Philem.'7; 1 Pet. 2: 19, 20. The Common Version renders the word, in 2 Cor. 1: 15, " benefit," but I think there is no necessity of giving this unusual signification to the word in this place. Paul tells the brethren at Corinth that they had, when he visited them once before, acknowledged him NOTES ON PHILIPPIANS. 233 and Timothy, and that they were then the " rejoicing " of the Corinthian converts, and that he had purposed to come to them a second time at an earlier period, that from this repeated visit they might have " a second pleasure." The Apostle says, (Philem. 7,) charin gar echomin polleen kai paracleesin, ("xaptv yap i'Xojv iroXinv ical rrapa'KiOatv,") for we have Lgreat pleasure, and comfort on account of your love. Had he intended to express "joy" instead of " pleasure," he would have used chara, (yapd,) a word which he used twenty-five times to express that sense. A word which, in the judgment of the King's revisers, he never, in any other instance, used for joy; and which, according to their own decision, out of one hundred and fifty-six occurrences, is never used for "joy " but once! This word occurs only three times in this Epistle; namely, ch. 1 2; 1: 2, 7; and clh. 4: 23. In all these places it has the sense of " kind. ness." " Kindness to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ," was the salutation of those devoted philanthropists. The word "grace " entirely obscures the sense of the last sentence in v. 7. " You are all partakers of my grace " is not the meaning of sungkoinonous mou tees charitos pantas humas ontas, (avytcoLvwvo0vo Mov TUi'g aXpt-ro9 radvi-rag vaf 6ovra.) These words mean, "you all being participants of my kindness." This is evident from what follows; namely; martus gar mou estin ho Theos hos epipotho pantas humas en splangknois leesou Christou, (iaprvTv yap ptov so-ziv 6 0O6, g TErrt7roO rirdvra~ vijua &v arrXiyicvogt IraoD Xptaroi. "For God is my witness how ardently I long for you all, in the tender affections of Jesus Christ." His benediction is similar to his salutation. "The kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with all of you." 20 234 THE REVISER. WTITHOUT DESCENT. HEBREWS, (COMMON VERSION,) 7: 3. "Without descent " is a translation of the Greek word, (ayEvea. A6yi-rofg,) agenealoyeetos, but not the happiest rendering. Without a genealogy, I take to be the true rendering. It is not only grammatically true, but it is also historically true. The world contains no genealogy of this great man, Melchisedec. Not so of the kings and chief-priests of the Jews. Each of these had a genealogy written and carefully preserved. But no record having been made of the family descent of Mielchisedec, he was without one. Not that he had descended from nobody. For, in that case, he must have been a direct creation of God. Melchisedec was a Canaanite, and not being in genealogical connection with the sacerdotal families of the Jews, there was no register of his descent. After the appointment of the first priests among the Jews, the office was hereditary. A man became a priest, all other things concurring, because his father was a priest. In consequence of this hereditary nature of the priest's office, a correct genealogy was kept, as in all other cases of hereditary office. Melchiseclec was a specially called priest without reference to his precedent or succedent relatives; and in this respect he was a type of Christ who sprang from a tribe of which Moses spoke nothing concerning a priest-hood; and therefore it was not important that a genealogy should be kept. He had not his genealogy from them; v. 6. (6 de lq yIevea'oyov ftevog e a~vr&-v.) A raT16)p-FATHERLESS. This same person is said to be fatherless, or without a father. There are two senses in which this word can be taken. 1. As spoken of a man; and 2. As spoken of an oficer. As a human being he had a father. But as an oficer he was the first priest in hlis family, and as really without an official parent as was Adam without a natural parent. Now, it was as an officer that the Apostle here spoke of him. In proof of this see c. 6, v. 20, where he says that Jesus was constituted a chief-priest into the eternity, (elf rov alva,) according to, (Icara,) not the genealogy of, but according to the order (riv 7'd6tv,) of Melchisedec. WITHOUT DESCENT. 235 Again, c. 7, v. 1 he says, " this Melchisedec " was (Paat)texv a),Jju) "King of Salem," and a " priest (iepEvq) of the most high God," and he officiated as a priest when he " blessed " that eminent patriarch — Abraham, the father of all believers, circumcised or uncircumcised. To him, as God's priest, the patriarch gave "' the tenth part of all." The Apostle next defines his official name, Melchisedec, which signifies "King of righteousness." This was not his patronymic. His paternal and maternal names, and his ancestry are lost; his official title preserved. HIistorically, then, he is not only without a father, but he is also,'AT70Lp —MOTHERLESS. He was "first, on one side, (7pirov ftEV,) King of righteousness; and (6'7reLra 6' Icai) then, on the other side, King of Salem, which is, King of peace." He was not named after a father, on the one side, nor for a mother, on the other. His name was entirely official -not parental. All we know of him is as an officer-nothing as a man, merely. To us he has, therefore, dNTZE7 apxqv y7]ep6V —-N-EITHER A BEGINNING OF DAYS; The time of his birth is nowhere recorded. But, more particularly, and contexturally, the commencement of his reign, or beginning of his days as King; and the commencement of his priest-hood, or beginning of his days as a priest, are both without a record, and consequently, to us, they can have no beginning. The days of a king, and the days of a priest,'always mean their official days; When these days become a matter of reference, and their commencement cannot be ascertained, they are, historically, without a begin, ning. So also in relation to their termination. He had J[tjTe r4&Jf T-EO7 -NEITHER AN END OF LIFE, The end of a man's life is the time of death-the end of a king's life is the conclusion of his reign —the end of a priest's life is the termination of his priest-hood. The time of Melchisedec's deaththe end of his reign —and the termination of his priest-hood, are all unknown. In his history there is no end to them. The first we hear of him is as a king and a priest-the last we hear of him is as a king and a priest. The sacred historian intro 236 THE REVISER. duces him reigning as a king, and officiating as a priest. He leaves him in the same conditions. He gives him neither father nor mother, nor a genealogy-neither a beginning of days, nor an end of life-but leaves him abiding a priest continually. So Paul found him in history, and so he presents him to us in a type-an apposite anticipatory representation of our blessed King, and our glorious Chief-priest. Being made a resemblance for the Son of God, (dt~P(ootuo6Lvog rT v.n io Oeeoi,) he remains a priest (esi To dtrvecKeg) into the uninterrupted, or continuous historywhich God has given us of him. All that Moses knew of Melchisedec was by revelation froml God; for he lived about four hundred years after this priest. The very reason why God did not give Moses the name of his father and mother-his genealogy-the beginning of his days, and the end of his life, is because he intended him for a resemblance of the Son of God, whose priest-hood was as available with respect to sins committed before, as it is in relation to sins committed since his death. This unbegun and unfinished history-this royal and sacerdotal period-without an alpha or an omega, fitly represents our Royal Priest who was as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and who now lives to make intercession for us. He was an extraordinary personage, raised up for an extraordinary purpose. He was the first king whom God ever coronated —the first priest whom He ever consecrated. His royal authority contemplated two results, and his royal title had two significations. The two results were righteousness and peace, of both of which he was king-"king of righteousness, and king of peace." To him the unborn Levi-who had historic parents, a genealogy, the beginning of priestly days and end of sacerdotal life-to him this Levi, with whom the Levitical Priest-hood commenced, offered patrimonial tythes while yet " in the loins of his father," Abraham. As Melchisedec received not his priesthood by inheritance from his father, so Jesus was not constituted a priest (Iarav) according to a law of (aaptmicig) a fleshly commandment, but according to the (dgVvatuv) ability of an endless life. This righteous and peaceful king and priest was a suitable type of our Chief-priest who is holy, harmless, undefiled, seperate from the sinners (riIv dtaprwAiv) and made higher than the heavens. THOU HEAREST THE SOUND OF IT. 237 The uncommenced and unterminated royal and sacerdotal history of Melchisedec fitly represented our ever-continuing Priest with his changeless Priesthood. His sacrifice was so perfect, and he was so pure, that he needed not to offer diurnal sacrifice. "By one offering he has perfected forever the sanctified." He entered once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption. He has not entered into Holy Places made by human hands —the mere types of the true, or real Holy Place-but into heaven itself, to appear now in the presence of God for us. There he is attired in robes of lightthe glory he had with his father before the world was-the rayment of his transfiguration —the costume which he put on at the time of his ascension, when he wrapped himself in a cloud of glory and passed beyond the regions of our atmosphere, to take his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Before him all the principalities and the powers in the heavenly regions bend in profound respect and holy adoration. He wears the mitre-he holds the sceptre. He is our Priest, and our King-our antitipical Melchisedec-our Priest of the Most High God-our King of righteousness and peace! To him every knee shall bend, whether of celestials, terrestrials, or infernals; and every tongue shall acknowledge his universal lordship in order to the glory of God the Father. So may it be. "THOU HEAREST THE SOUND OF IT." JUDE 3: 8. Those who understand pneuma, (rrve/zia,) to mean the wind, are at a loss to know how we can believe that the spirit is intented, on account of the declaration that Nicodemus heard the sound of it. Saul is said to have been "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord." Now, if Saul's breathing could be heard when he uttered his threats of slaughter, why may not the sentiments of the spirit of other men be breathed so as to be heard. I have no doubt but that the breathing of Saul was as distinctly heard as the ordinary blasts of wind, and much more extensively and severely felt. When Christ wished to say that the winds blew, he said (tca kervevaav ol dvelpot) the anemoi, not the pneumata (nrvvej[aTa) blew. Anemos is the word in the Christian Scriptures 2 3 8 THE REVISbR, for wind-not pneuma. The expositions of this passage have all been too windy, and not sufficiently spiritual. We prefer to be caught away in spirit, rather than (aveqli~otat) driven by the wind. If Jesus had meant the wind, he would have said (6 ad'velo irvEi) ho anemos pnei; not (-r rr-veipta rrvEi) to pneuma pnei. Freedom is affirmed of the spirit —not of the flesh. "The spirit breathes where it wills " —not the flesh breathes where it wills. It is this freedom, or liberty —this will, that constitutes it responsible. And this freedom is as universal as the existence of this inner man. " So " fiee "is every one who is born of the spirit;." because " that which is born of the spirit is spirit." The flesh is not free, but the spirit is. THE SPIRIT'S 6t4)Vq7g-VOICE. Phonee, here translated " sound " is rendered "voice" more than one hundred times in the Christian Scriptures, and only seven times by "sound." It is rendered sound when predicated of inanimate things, and voice when of animate, except in a few cases as of harpers, waters, and thunders, in Revelation. It was the belief that the "'wind" was intended in John 3: 8, that led the King's revisers to render it sound in that place. It was their wind that made the " sound." But the " spirit" of the passage, by its.breath, caused the " voice" to be heard. That a spirit can speak is clear. The spirit of God has often spoken. "The Spirit said to Philip,'Go join thyself to that chariot.'" Indeed, speaking seems to be altogether a spiritual function. A human being without a spirit cannot speak, and the gift of tongues or languages, is called a spiritual gift in the Scriptures. God spoke to Adam, and the Lord spoke to Moses. Jesus said he who has ears to hear, let him hear; and John adds, "what the SPIRIT says to the churches." This is seven times repeated in the Reve!ation of Jesus Christ to John; and that last book of the Revelation of God to man, in its last chapter, says that the Spirit "says come." That it is natural to spirits to speak, or that the gift of speech belonged to them, is fully proved. And when Jesus found " a medium" possessed by "a dumb spirit" he cast it out. Now, the spirit of man, in contradistinction from the flesh of man -that which is born of the spirit of the parents, and not of the flesh THOU HEAREST THE SOUND OF IT. 239 of the parents, speaks, and speaks freely. It is true, not of one case only, but of every case of a perfect human being. "So is every one who is born of the spirit." The spirit of man was constantly speaking when, and " where it pleased," and Nicodemus, the teacher in Israel, was constantly hearing its voice, and yet he was so little acquainted with the spirit that he knew not that it came from a spirit, and therefore Jesus said to him, "that which is born of the spirit, is spirit," just as " that which is born of the flesh, is flesh." " Thou canst not tell whence it comes and where it goes." He could not see the pneuma, (7rvesFa,) spirit coming and going, as he could see the sarks, (aap5,) flesh come and go. The general belief that Jesus taught Nicodemus some very misterious doctrine is contradicted by his question; "Art thou the Teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?"-plainly intimating that such a teacher ought to understand the things he had uttered. Again, "If I told you earthly things, and you believe not, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Jesus does not intimate that there was any thing so mysterious that it required any thing like special illumination to understand what he taught. On the contrary, he censured him for not knowing "these things." "These things" he called " earthly things," because they belonged to man's earthly existence. The last thing that Nicodemus said was, "how can these things bel?" Like thousands of others who, contrary to the intimation of Jesus, still insist that the whole matter is mysterious. They take the side with Nicodemus against Christ; and affirm the mysteriousness of the doctrine. Like this teacher in Israel, they believe not Jesus concerning these "earthly things;" and like him they turn away and say, "how can these things be?" Being not able to understand the " earthly things," they fail to understand the " heavenly things;" and of these they enquire, as of those, " how can these things be?" 240 THE REVISER. REVISED ENGLISH SCRIPTURES, 1 JOHN 1:5. COLLOCATION, CASE 13. "And this is the message which we have heard from him, and report unto you, that God is light, and darkness in him there is none." The greatest fault in the "Revised English Scriptures " consists in its imperfect collocation. The translation, in general, is very superior, but the collocation is not English, and in many respects is much worse than the collocation of the Common Version. " And darkness in him there is none," is not in accordance with " the existing state of" the English language. The Greek sentence (ila aco'ria Ev avr-t ovi ieL'atv ovieIsta) literally translated, is, "and in him there is no darkness-not one." The Revision fails to express the force of the double negative (otv ov6edpta) of the original, and therefore is not equal to the common rendering; while the collocation of the Common Version is far preferable. We notice a few passages which do not deserve seperate consideration. Ch. 2, v. 1; " these things I write unto you;" better "I write these things to you." V. 8; "a new commandment I write unto you " better " I write a new commandment to you." V. 19; "from us they went out," much better expressed in the Common Version, thus: "They went out from us." The former connection of these persons with the church is just as clearly, and more elegantly, expressed by this collocation than by the revision; and the Syriac and Latin are not authority in collocating English. V. 26; "these things I have written unto you;" better "I have written these things to you." Ch. 3, v. 2; " now are we children of God;" better " we are now children of God." V. 10; "in this are manifest the children of God and the children of the Devil;" better " the children of God and the children of the Devil are manifest in this." This collocation is very important in order that the word, "this," may be clearly seen to refer to the succeeding sentence, which expresses the criterion by which the parentage of every one may be decided-whether theosic, or diabolic. V. 12; "and wherefore slew he him;" the English of which is, "and for what reason did he slay him?" Or, "why did he slay him?" Ch. 4, v. 4; "because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world;" better " because he who is in you is greater THE DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION. 241 than he who is in the world." V. 5; "therefore what is of the world they speak," should be, "therefore they sPEAK what is of the world," the word, (Qa0ovat) speak is emphatic, and the emphasis is lost by the improper collocation of the revision. V. 9; "in this was manifested the love of God in us," should read, "the love of God was manifested among us in this," namely, "that God has sent His Son, &c. V. 12; "no one has at any time seen God;" better "no one has seen God at any time." Ch. 5, v. 16; "not for that do I say that he shall pray;" better " I do not say that he shall pray for that." THE DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT OF JUSTIFICATION. Xapct tza't of eitXlpa-KINDNESS AND DEBT. The discussion of the subject of Justification furnishes us with an infalible interpretation of the meaning of this word so often translated "grace." In Rom. 4: 4, 5, the Apostle says. (TG de spyabopwEvq 6 ttaOkS ov' ot6yirerat icatra %dptv 0d2[ icara To 6oei;fLya.) " Now, to him who works the reward is not computed according to kindness, but according to debt." But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the impious, his belief is computed for justification. The great question is, How are people justified by God? There can be but three answers to this question. 1. By labor done. 2. By kindness. 3. Partly by work, and partly by kindness. The Apostle uses the word justify, in this context, in the sense of " pardon;" as is evident from these words. " Happy they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Happy, the man to whom the Lord will not compute sin." The necessity of justification, or pardon, is a proof that men have not labored for God, and therefore they have no works to be computed in order to a justification. Therefore, if justified at all, they must be justified according to pure kindness. What ever is granted, must be granted, either on the principle of debt and credit, or on the principle of kindness. A man is not influenced to pay a debt through kindness, but by a sense of justice. Neither is a man induced to bestow a gift by justice, but by kindness. Here, then, the Apostle gives us the clear, and unmistakeable sense 21 242 THE REVISER. of charis. It is kindness, in contradistinction from justice. Kindness and justice are antithetical. The Apostle never says, justice and peace fiom God our Father; but, "kindness and peace." There could be no "peace" if God should deal with us on the principle of "justice." THE HONESTY OF THE KINGIS REVISERS. yV-IxN. MATT. 3: 11. "I indeed baptize you with water-he shall' baptize you with the Holy Ghost." This preposition (ev) occurs fifteen times immediately before this verse, and is translated every time by in or its equivalents, " among" and " within " before a plural noun, and a plural pronoun. Thus-born in Bethlehem-in the days of Herod-in the eastamong the Princes-in all the coasts-in Rama-in Egypt-in those days-in the wilderness —in Jordan-and think not to say within yourselves. All this was easy. But there was trouble in the 11th verse. The, (iv v6a-r), in water, was directly opposed to the notion of sprinkling; and, therefore, these revisers perverted the sense of the preposition, when baptism was the case in hand; and immediately resumed the proper rendering of the preposition; and said, whose fan is in his hand —in whom I am well pleased-in the borders of Zebulon —the people who sat in darkness-in the region and shadow of death —in a ship —teaching in their synagogues-all manner of disease among the people-in heaven-in the house-in the kingdom of God-in the way-in his heart, etc. Wicliff, Tyndale, and Cranmer, all give the preposition its fair translation-they all translate (iv Ida-rt) en hudati, in water. So reads the Rhemish also. The authors of the Geneva revision first changed in, to with, and the King's revisers followed them. A plainer instance of sectarian fraud cannot be produced in the history of translation. It was a designed fraud. No honest man could be guilty of it. It was a Jesuitical trick, too great for the Roman Catholic translators. They rendered it fairly-" in water." They were honest. HONESTY OF THE KING'S REVISERS. 243 Let us follow these " great and good men " a little farther. In the Book of Mark they translate " as it is written in the Prophetsthe voice of one crying in the wilderness-John did baptize in the wilderness-in the river of Jordan-and then they come again to this (Ev i6a-rt) en hudati, and again they wilfully pervert the passage to sustain an institution unauthorized by the gospel of Christ. As soon as they pass baptism thhe very same preposition, "in," occurs again; it came to pass in those days-in whom I am well pleasedin the wilderness-casting a net into the sea-in the ship-in their synagogue-in a desert place-in their hearts, &c. Luke c. 3, presents exactly the same case, except that the preposition is omitted, in the received text, and the simple dative is used. But several manuscripts have (Iv l3da-t) en hudati. Cant. Vat. 350; Vind. Lamb. 31. Mill and Burch. They translate in the first chapter of John, thus-in the beginning was the word-the same was in the beginning-in him was lifeand the light shineth in darkness —He was in the world —and dwelt among us-crying in the wilderness-and in v, 26 they came again to water, and then they translate (ev) with. In v. 28 they say, these things were done in Bethabara —and coming again to the water they make John say, I come baptizing with water-v. 31, sent me to baptize with water. In the very next occurrence of this preposition, having lost sight of the water, they translate-in the law-in whom there is no guile-a marriage in Cana of Galilee-in the temple-in three days-in Jerusalem, &c. In Mark 1: 4, we read that John baptized (Ev ~-,, V piu)) in tire wilderness. These artful sectarians could not say John baptized with the. wilderness, and therefore they render en, in. In v. 5, it is said that the people were baptized by John (Ev lro'aAl mr'Iopdavwq) in the Jordan river. This, though not too much for their elastic consciences, was quite too much for their ingenuity. It would not do to say that John baptized the people with the Jordan river. They were, therefore, obliged to translate the preposition fairly. Thev would have avoided it if they could. Some persons who are even less consciencious, if possible, than the revisers, propose to render the preposition, at, before "the Jordau river." Now, if they render the preposition, at, before this river, they must render it, at, also before " wilderness " and "water." The 244 THE REVISER. people must, then, have been baptized at the water, at the Jordan river, at the wilderness! And in nothing and with nothing! Every translator should feel himself bound by the following law, viz: Translate every word according to its primary signification, unless required to accept a secondary meaning by the context. In the case before us there is no such requisition. There is no philological reason that can be assigned for this departure from one of tile plainest laws of translation. The requisition was purely ecclesiastical, or sectarian. The departure from the primary sense of the preposition was "that the Church of England might reap good fruit therefrom." How any man, who is really " a Baptist," can persevere in his opposition to a thorough revision of the sectarian version now generally read where the English language is spoken, is a mystery to hundreds of thousands of honest people in this nation. It cannot be a love of truth that sustains him in his opposition. It must be accounted for on some other supposition. Let those who are engaged in the great work remember that their cause is good, and God will sustain it; and he will sustain it by the talents and liberality of his own dear children. He will make them the honored executors of his will. And when the holy ones come into the possession of the antemundane kingdom, they will rejoice to hear the " Well done, good, and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord." This is more to be desired than the applause of all the sects-more than the approval of all mankind. Truth will live where papacy, and protestantism, and sectarianisms of every kind shall all be dead. " Truth is mighty, and will prevail." If it "shall free us, we shall be free indeed.' Let us persevere" Our labor is not in vain in the Lord." A QUERY ON CONVERSION. 245 A QUERY ON CONVERSION. "Does' convert,' as it occurs in Acts 3: 19, mean the same as'baptize,' in Acts 2:38? What evidence is there that the two terms mean the same thing, and indicate the same action? " THOMAS L. BA'E." In reply we say that the words " convert " and "baptize," are not of the same meaning. The first (eirrtrpE@w) signifies to turn, or return. The second (3a7-rrtw) to immerse. Both words are applied to both persons, and things. The English word, " convert," is not the equivalent of the original for which it is presented as a translation. For the sake of those who are not able to read the Greek, we will state that the original word epistrepho occurs thirty-nine times in the Christian Scriptures. In the following passages the words printed in italics represent, and show the application of the word used in the New Testament, and translated " convert." It is first predicated of Christ, Matt. 9: 22. " But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her he said, Daughter, be of good comfort," &c. Here the word is applied to the bodily turning of the Savior. The next place, in the order of the New Testament, is c. 10, v. 13. " And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you." Here the word is applied to "peace." Matt. 12: 44. Then he says, "I will return into my house from whence I came out." Here the word is used of "the unclean spirit." Matt. 13: 15. "Lest at any time they should see with the eyes, and hear with the ears, and should understand with the heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." Here it is spoken of the unbelieving Jews. Matt. 24: 18. " Neither let him who is in the field return back to take his clothes." Here it is spoken of those who would escape the calamities which were about to come on the Jews. These are all the occurrences of the word in the Book of Matthew. It is five times used in this book, and only once translated " convert," and then in the passive form to correspond with the views of the King's revisers. In that instance it should have been rendered, "and should return, and I should heal them." Neither Jesus, peace, nor the un 246 ttij1 REVISER. clean spirit could be said, with any propriety, to be converted. gort could a person, on the house top, be cautioned not to be converted to get his clothes. Let us now see how the case stands in the Book of Mark. In c. 4: 12, the same word is translated in the same way as in Matthew, "shoutld be converted." In c. 5: 30, it is rendered as il Matthew, "turned him about." So also, c. 8: 33, when Jesus " had turned him about." In c. 13: 16, " Let him wtho is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garments." These four instances comprehend all ill Mark. We now proceed to the Book of Luke. In c. 1: 16, it is said of the best Baptist preacher that ever lived ~ "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." If the question be asked, Why did they not render the verb, in this place, "he shall convert to the Lord their God;" the answer is, They did not believe that one person could " convert" another. Their revision abounds with instances in which their theology got the better of their philology; and il which the theologian triumphed over the reviser. God grant this may not be so with the Bible Union revisers. In all their labor let their motto le. The Grammar, and the Lexicon-not the creed. In v. 17, it is said that this Baptist preacher should go " in the spirit and power of Elijah, and turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." Here the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the ttrnihg the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, are the very things which the angel of God told Zechariah that his son John should do. But perhaps the angel was not " sound in the faith " — not orthodox. But the King's revisels saved his orthodox reputation by avoiding the use of the verb, " convert," and substituting the verb, to turn. In c. 2: 20, we read, " And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God." The same word is translated came again in c. 8: 55. "And her spirit came again;" or rather returned. In c. 17: 4, the Savior instracts ts that if a brother should seven times in a day turn again, saying, I repent, we must forgive him. "Seven times in a day" would be a very frequent conversion."' V. 31, " and he who is in the field, let him likewise not turn back " —not, let him likewise not be converted. Ch. 22: 32, the Lord said, to Peter, "and when thou art converted strengthen thy A QUERY ON CONVERSION. 247 brethren." Here is another instance in which orthdoxy got the better of grammar. "Art converted" is passive. Whereas the word (e7r aTpeeapa, nom. sing. inasc. part. aor. 1, act,) used by the Lord is active; and should be rendered, when you return. This reference to Peter's return was in anticipation of his forsaking the Savior. These instances comprehend all in Luke. John 12: 40 ig referred to the parallel passages already noticed-"lest they should be converted." More properly "lest they return." Ch. 21: 20. "'Then Peter, turning about, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved, following." Now, the English reader has before him every passage, which can be found in the first four books of the Christian Scriptures, in which the word translated, "convert," occurs; and he can decide whether it means, turned and returned — or converted and baptized. I do not hesitate to say that it ought never to be rendered " convert" while that word retains its common significance among the people. That word is very generally restricted, in its application, to a change of mind. In all the passages thus far examined the original word is only once restricted to the heart, and then not by its own force, but by express limitation in the passage. When used of a person, or persons, in a religious sense, without a restricting wor;'d or phrase, it means a turning, or returning of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit. NAo person can be said to be converted to the Lord his God, who has not turned away from his sins, and openly confessed the Lord Jesus before men. He is then a person " prepared for the Lord." The open confession, in the apostolic times, was made, when sins had been repented of and confessed, by an acknowledgment of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus from the dead, in the burial and resurrection of the penitent believer in baptism. It was then, and not till then, that the person was considered a convert. Baptism was not the whole of conversion, but simply the conclusion —the finishing act. In this last act in conversion or returning to God, the believer "put on Christ." "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. 3: 27. The passage implies that no others had put him on. What was then true, is still true, and will continue to be true till God shall reveal another way of putting on 248 THE REVISER. the Lord. We will now examine the use of the word in the next book:ACTS OF APOSTLES ON CONVERSION, CH. 3: 19. "Repent, therefore, and (lrtar7baTre) return, (eg) in order to (TrO ea)setoOlvat) the obliterating of your sins," &c. This is the first passage in the Apostolic Proclamation where this word is found, and it is here in the imperative mood. Here again, in the Common Version, the Old Episcopal Theology took advantage of the Grammar. They give the active form to " repent," and the passive to " convert." They do not say: Be repented, and be converted. They omit the " be," before "repent," but use it before convert; thus intimating that the people were required to do the former, and to sufer the latter to be done for them! Now, my English readers, the verb translated " repent," and that translated " be converted," are both in the same grammatical condition: and should, therefore, both be translated by the same mood, tense, and voice, in English. If one is rendered passively, the other should also be rendered passively. If one is translated actively, the other should also be so translated. The English reader may pass the following sentence, but the Greek reader may notice it if he will. Me-ravoaa-rsT and e7tairpEbaTel are both 2 pers. plur. aor. 1, imper., and the same correspondence should be preserved in a translation. There is not one philological reason to be given for the difference which the King's Revisers have introduced into their version. The reason is entirely sectarian. They desired the passage to conform to their thieological views, and the difference was made for that, and no other purpose. Men have the same power to return to God that they have to repent, as the passage clearly shows; and an English reader should not be deprived of its full and fair import to favor any creed. O that the Bible Union Revisers may rise as far above such sectarianism as the Holy Writings are superior to the creeds of all the sects. We find the same word in c. 9: 35. "And all who dwelt in Lydda and Sharon saw him, and turned to the Lord." They saw Eneas whom Peter healed, in the name of Jesus Christ, after he had been confined to his bled eight years. This convinced them that Jesus Christ was Lord, and they turned to him. This is a correct A QUERY ON CONVERSION. 249 translation. It is a wonder, however, that the Revisers did not give it a passive turn by saying, and were turned to the Lord, or were converted. In v. 40 it is said that Peter " turning to the body said, Tabitha, arise." It would not do to say that Peter "converted," or "was converted " to the body: yet it is the same word which is so rendered in some other places. The same correct rendering is found in c. 11, v. 21. "And a great number believed and turned to the Lord." Paul said to the people of Lystra who were about to worship him and Barnabas, "We also are (lfotorTraOesi, homeopathic,) men of similar affections with you, and proclaim to you that you should turn firom these vanities to the living God," &c. Here again, the verb is well rendered, and shows that men must turn from improper, or vain things, to the living God, c. 14: 15. So again, c. 15: 19, James said, " Wherefore my sentence is that we do not trouble them, who, friom among the Gentiles, are turned to God." V. 36, " Let us go again, and visit our brethren," is better rendered let us return and visit our brethren. The reader will keep in mind that this is the same verb which is rendered " convert." "Paul turned and said to the spirit,' &c. 16: 18. But c, 26: 18, contains a remarkable passage which we request the reader to consider. Jesus told Saul, who is also called Paul, that he was about to send him to the Gentiles, " To open their eyes,to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them who are consecrated by the faith in me." All this Jesus sent Paul to do, " To open their eyes " indicates that their eyes were shut, and therefore, they were not in a condition to.see. After their eyes were opened, or they were prepared to see, then they were to be turned from darkness to light. That is they were to be thoroughly instructed Then they were to be turned firom the power, or dominion of Satan to God. This covers the entire ground of the conversion of a heathen. And all this was to be done by the ministry of Paul. He opened their eyes by the demonstrations of the spirit, or the miracles he wrought. He turned them from darkness, which is a figure for ignorance, to light, which is a figure for intelligence. This he did by fully and plainly teaching them the way of life through Christ. After thus teaching them, he turned them out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son, or the kingdom of God. He 22 250 THE REVISER. introduced them into this kingdom by a birth of water and spirit. See John, 3: 5. Thus their conversion was perfected. He " showed first to those of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and through the borders of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works worthy of repentance." V. 20. The 27th verse of chapter 28, finds its explanation in the remarks on its parallel in the Evangelists. Thus it appears that the word is found eleven times in the Acts, and translated " convert" twice. In all other cases more appropriately by other words. From this brief review of all the passages in the Four Evangelists and Acts of Apostles, nothing is more clear than that the conversion which the good news of the kingdom of God required, consisted in the abandonment of sin, and the rejection of all forms of worship except those taught and enjoined by the Apostles whom Jesus sent into all the world to proclaim the way of salvation. In it there was nothing intricate-nothing obscure. " All men everywhere," were " commanded to repent." Thus God granted repentance and remission of sins to Israel, and to all nations. But repentance was not all that was required. They must also return to God. Peter said to the convicted Israelites, "Repent and return, that your sins may be obliterated." Acts 3: 19. But this doctrine of a return to God, as well as repentance, was rot only proclaimed to the Jews, but Paul " showed first to those of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and through all the borders of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works worthy of repentance." 26: 20. Repentance is no part of conversion, or a return to God, but is a prerequisite, as faith is to baptism. Without it the return will avail nothing. " Repent, and be baptized," clearly shows repentance to be one thing, and baptism another. The same is true of " Repent and return;" and also of every case where two things or acts, are connected by a copulative. Too many suppose that repentance is sufficient without the return. It is a delusion. 2 COR. 3: 16, ON CONVERSION. The Greek word (errtarpbeo) translated "convert" is not used in the Epistle to the Saints in Rome, nor in that of Paul and Sosthenes to the congregation of God in Corinth. The Epistle of Paul A QUERY ON CONVERSION. 251 and Timothy to that congregation and all the consecrated in all Achaia, contains the word only once, c. 3: 16, where it is rendered, in the Common Version, " turn." Speaking of the "heart" of the adherents to the Old Covenant, it is there written, "Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord the veil shall be taken away." Here the heart of that people is regarded as turned to Moses and his covenant; whereas it should be turned "to the Lord" Jesus, and the New Covenant. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CONGREGATIONS IN GALATIA, ON CONVERSION, C. 4: 9. "But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage 2" The same word which is used for turning to God, is also used for turning from Him. The truth is the word is used to express simply a turning or returning, whether it is a good, or a bad turning. The context must determine which. To use the word " convert" for "turn," we may say, all men have converted themselves from God; and, in order to enjoy his favor, they must convert themselves to Him. We say so because the original word is used actively, in the imperative mood, and not passively. Happy, are those who repent and turn to God. 1 THESS. 1: 9, ON CONVERSION. Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, to the congregation of the Thessalonians say, "For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God." Here the conversion of Pagans to the Christian Religion is called a turning to God, and a turningfrom idols. They turned to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven. JAMES 5: 19, 20, ON CONVERSION. " Brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." This passage is conclusive proof of three propositions. 1. That a man may turn from the truth. 2. That another person may turn 252 THE REVISER. him from the error of his way; and, 3. That in doing so he will save a soul from death and hide many sins. 1 PETER, 2: 25, ON CONVERSION. " For you were as sheep going astray; but have now returned to the shepherd and superintendent of your souls." Here the straying and return are both clearly mentioned under the figure of sheep. In many other places the going astray is only implied, while the return is clearly mentioned. To understand the original word in the common acceptation of the English word, " convert," would entirely destroy the figure in this passage; because, although sheep may stray and return, yet they are never made converts. 2 PETER, 2: 21, 22, ON CONVERSION. "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them." V. 21. This is another instance of a bad conversion, or turning. "The dog turned to his own vomit, and, the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire." V. 22. Although the Greek word can apply equally as well to animals, as to rational beings; yet we cannot speak of the conversion of dogs and sows, without the most manifest impropriety. This shows that "turn," or "return," is a much better rendering. In Rev. 1: 12, the word occurs twice in reference to the act of turning the body. " And I turned to see the voice which spoke with me; and being turned I saw seven golden lampstands."' These are all the passages where the word occurs. The noun (8rT-arpo0b) occurs once in the Christian Scriptures, Acts 15: 3, where it is written that Paul and Barnabas declared the " conversion of the Gentiles." Better, as is evident from the use of the verb, " declaring the return of the Gentiles;" because this same thing is called their turning from idols to God. Let the English reader examine carefully all these passages, and note particularly the use of the word, and he cannot fail to understand the subject of conversion as taught in the living oracles. AN EVANGELIST. 253 AN EVANGELIST-esvayye/tarTg. If anggelos (ayye)iog) signifies a bearer of a message, evanggelistees (evayyelsXfrt)g) means a bearer of a good message. This last word is found but three times in the Christian Scriptures. Acts 21: 8; Eph. 4: 11; 2 Tim. 4: 5. The word is not to be understood of a person who occasionally bears a good message, but one whose business, or work it is to deliver good messages. Paul's company entered into the house (t0i7rr7rov'ov e&vyyEXtarovi) of Philip, the Evangelist. If John, the Baptist, means John whose business it was to baptize; then Philip the Evangelist means that Philip whose work it was to evangelize, or publish a good message. Hence Paul told Timothy to (epyov 7roi0taov evayysetarovi) " accomplish an evangelist's work." 2 Tim. 4: 5. He also informed the disciples at Ephesus that when Jesus ascended up on high, "he captivated captivity and gave gifts to men." These consisted of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds, and Teachers. Eph. 4: 11. These are distinct classes of officers. The Apostles were proclaimers. It was their business to precede all other officers in teaching "all the nations." The Prophets and Evangelists followed. The former expounded the old predictions concerning the Messianic age, and uttered new prophecies; and the latter were persons who sometimes travelled with the Apostles, and sometimes were left behind to set in order things which remained. The Christian Shepherds were a class of men who stood in a similar relation to churches in which the shepherds of flocks stood to their flocks-not barely as feeders, but as guardians, or protectors. The Teachers' duties were more specific, having as their object the religious education of the congregations; a class of men very much needed in our age. How few persons there are who are taught the Christian religion as good scholars are taught the sciences! This is one cause of so many sects. The Apostles, from the nature of their office, could not continue in the congregation. The office was confined to the first age of the Christian dispensation. No man could be an Apostle who had "not seen our Lord Jesus Christ." Hence when about to fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostacy of Iscariot, Peter, who is good authority in Rome, and throughout christendom, said that, to be eligible, the 254 THE REVISER. selected person must be one who had been with the Apostles all the time inl which " Jesus went in and out among1 " them "beginning (arro) at the baptism of John, until the same day in which he was taken up from among us." Acts 1: 22. No man could be an apostle of Christ who did not see him. Hence Paul said, after asking if he was not an apostle, " Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord!" Because of this necessity Jesus appeared to Saul when journeying to Damascus. He said to him, "For this cause I have appeared to you." The prophetic office ceased when the perfect revelation had come; hence the Apostle Paul said, "whether there be prophecies they shall fail." Prophecy was necessary while the revelation was known only "in part." But when the perfect came, the part ceased. No intimation is given that either Evangelists, Shepherds, or Teachers, were to cease, or their labors to end, while there were sinners to publish the good message to, congregations to be organized, and set in order, or inspectors or overseers to be appointed. These were the legitimate objects of the office of Evangelists. For the continuance of this office the following order was given. "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Thus Evangelists were to be perpetuated. No such charge was given relative to Prophets or Apostles. The name, " Evangelist," has become an English word, and is probably the best word in our language by which to translate the original word. I was at one time in favor of a change, but on more mature reflection I incline to this word, and would recommend a thorough study of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus on the powers and duties of the office. In the mean time I will sketch a few things relating thereto. 1. Let it be noted that Timothy is recognised by Paul as an Evangelist. 2. He was to have the charge of inexperienced and subordinate Teachers, and to see that they taught the same doctrine which the Apostles taught. "CI besought thee to abide still in Ephesus when I went into Macedonia that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine." 1 Tim. 1: 3 This was given to himl in charge. V. 18. 3. He was to direct that prayers be made for all men, for the reasons assigned, and for the object proposed; to teach where the men should pray and teach, and the rela AN EVANGELIST. 2I55 tive position of the women. C. 2, entire. 4. He was instructed whom to appoint as superintendents (Eruarcovrot), or Overseers, and (6taKovot) Ministers. C. 3: 1-15. To the end that he might discharge these duties the Apostle told him to " give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to (dadaKaicta) teaching; c. 4: 13, and to connect therewith, meditation. V. 15. He was to take heed to himself, and to the teaching-to continue in this that he might save himself and his hearers. V. 16. 5. It was his business to reprove, under proper circumstances, although but a youth. It was not the privilege of his age, but a duty of his office. 6. He was to see that the widows were properly cared for, and that the Elders were properly compensated. C. 5: 1-18. 7. He was to hear accusations against Elders under proper circumstances, and rebuke them publicly when they sinned, that " others might fear." This was to be done impartially. V. 19-21. 8. He was to teach the servants who were under the yoke how to esteem their masters. 9. He was to charge the rich to do as required in vv. 17, 18, 19. 10. He was to hold fast the form of sound words, and keep the good which had been committed to him. 11. Hle was to make other Evangelists; and not to entangle himself with the affairs of life. 2 Tim. c. 2: 2-4. 12. He was to put the brethren and all others in remembrance of the cardinal proof of the Messiahship of Jesus Christ the Son of David; namely, that he " was raised from the dead," v. 8, and that if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. 18. He was to make it the business of his life, "rightly divide the word of truth;" and show himself a workman who need not be ashamed, but approved of God. V. 15. 14. He was to shun profane and vain babblings, and to " deprecate 7Tapatrov) the dull (pFopal) and (drratdesvrovg) silly (Tlr'aest) enquiries, knowing that they beget strifes." V. 23. 15. He was to continue in the things which he had learned, and been assured of knowing who had been his great teacher. C. 3: 14. 16. He was to "announce the word," (iclpvgov -6'v AOyov)-" to be on hand, (irria-rnlOt) conveniently [and] inconveniently, (eiviaipcoq dicaipw6), ready to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, (6v irdavj paKEpoOvtea) in all patience and (deday,) instruction." And, 17. In order to sum up the whole, the Apostle says, to Timothy, " be sober (vsbe) in all respects-endure afflictions-accomplish an Evangelists work, (Ipyov 256 THE REVISER. 7rotuov er'ayyeZtUarogi) —carry outfully the ministry. (Trv dtcacovtav aov rrqrlpofopnraov.) A supply of New Testament Evangelists would do more for the conversion of the world, and the improvement of congregations than any man can calculate. ~ There is not such an order of men, fully invested, now in existence. All churches are now too aristocratic, or too democratic. So prone are we to extremes. In all human governments, where the people are sufficiently enlightened, the democratic principle should prevail. But in a Divine Government, where the laws are all made by a King, and published by his prime Ministry, they should be administered by such officers as remained after Apostles and Prophets ceased. In a system of " will-worship," it is expected that people will vote what doctrine they will believe, and what laws they will obey. In the former case they vote opinions true, or false; and in the latter they vote commandments essential or nonessential. Hence the multitude of sects. (For the Reviser.) COMMENDATORY. DR. S. E. SHEPARD: Dear Brother,-Accept of my sincere thanks for those numbers of the " Reviser," which you have so kindly sent me. It is a profound, and a profoundly interesting work. It sheds a flood of light upon the subject of Revision. Every one engaged in preaching Christ, or teaching his truth, should read your splendid "Reviser." It not only renders the dark spots of the Common Version visible; but it also annihilates sectarian glosses and infidel objections in its course. Go on, sir, with your work of biblical and philological criticism and revision, until every error shall be expunged from the word of God. Your work will live when you are dead! It will speak to future generations, when you shall have gone to your reward! I trust, sir, we shall now have a " pure Bible-a pure religion-and the union of Christians; and we may then reasonably look forward to the conversion of the world. May kind Heaven speed the consummation of these objects. Yours in the bonds of truth, JOHN T. WALSH, ED. CHRISTIAN FRIEND, &C. HOOKERTON, N. C. March 15th, 1855. AN ADDRESS. 257 AN ADDRESS By DR. S. E. SHEPARD, before the Christian Missionary Convention of Ohio.' Going into all the world, announce the good news to the whole creation." Mark 16: 15. Long before a historian had recorded a fact —a poet had sungor a prophet had announced an oracle, God resolved on the salvation of obedient believers of all nations; and his command to the Apostles was the initiatory step in this great work of benevolence. The circumstances under which these words were uttered, clothe them with peculiar solemnity and interest. Jesus had passed through his period of servitude and suffering, and had triumphed over his last enemy-death. The day of his ascension had arrived, and he was about to leave his Apostles to execute his orders on earth, while he reigned in the Heavens. Having given this commission, he lifted up his hands and blessed them, and ascended through the atmosphere, till a cloud received him out of their sight. Thus the Almighty Father threw around him the drapery of his throne, and concealed him from mortal vision. The divine authority for all missionary operations is contained in this "commandment to the Apostles," as written by one or an other of "the Evangelists." The command was given to them as officers, and not as mere individuals. By their individual efforts it was physically impossible for them to do what was required to be done. Twelve men, with only the facilities which they then had for traveling, could never have proclaimed the good news to the whole creation, by their exclusive labors. The order gave to them the authority to require the co-operation of every convert they made, according as God gave ability to every man. Not that all these converts were required to deliver public speeches. Preaching does not necessarily imply public speaking. Philip preached Jesus to an individual. All the disciples at Jerusalem were dispersed, and " went every where preaching the word." It is not at all probable that each of these disciples found, "every where," a congregation to address. But, 23 258 THE REVISER. wherever they went, they made "the word" the subject of conversation. The kingdom of the Heavens is compared to a little leaven which a woman hid in a sata, (@6-7a), bushel of meal. Here "the kingdom " is to be taken for the subjects of the king; and as the leaven imparts its quality to the contiguous particles of the meal, and they again to the other particles in contiguity, until the whole mass becomes leavened; so the primitive church-the Jerusalem levenextended its spiritual influence, not only through the Apostles, but, also, through the whole congregation to surrounding society. The evangelization of all the nations, by the exclusive labors of the Apostles, could not have been anticipated by the Savior. Orders given to generals to take an enemy's country, are given them as officers, and the right to require the services of all the army is understood. Noah was commanded to build an Ark; but the assistance of his family was implied. Moses was required to build a Tabernacle; but the co-operation of the Israelites was indispensable. The Lord told David that his son Solomon should build him a house; but it was not to be done by the exclusive labor of his hands. The nation co-operated with him. The course adopted for the accomplishment of what was enjoined on these men, proves the recognition of the co-operation principle, and all the subordinates acquiesced. The principle of wild democracy had not then been obtained. The doctrine of individual and congregational independence, in religious matters, was unknown to these early times. God was acknowledged the Supreme, and his appointments and officials were respected. That the Apostles had the authority to call for the assistance of all their converts, is clear from the fact that Jesus, after commanding them to disciple all the nations, told them to teach these disciples "to observe all the things, whatever," he had commanded the'Aposties to do. This put the converts under Apostolic control, and insubordination to the Apostles is a rejection of Christ. It is by receiving the Apostles that Christ is received. Whatever these men bound on earth was bound in Heaven. The church is compared to the human body, with all its organs co-operating, each in the exercise of its specific function, and all AN ADDRESS. 259 participating in common suffering, or common joy. 1 Cor. 12: Thus the church is represented as an organized body. Christ is its head; and its constituents " are members one of another." To this organized community, Christ gave certain gifts when he captivated captivity. These gifts were, "Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers." Eph. 4: 11. The latter term is used generically in 1 Cor. 12: 28, including in it-the two preceding. In other places Inspectors and 5Ministers (Eirta0olrot tKat dtaxavot) are mentioned, and are equivalent to Pastors and Teachers. Thus the church was organized and officered. Now it is fair to infer that all the officers found in any organized community in its origin, are to be as perpetual as that community itself, unless they expire by limitation, or from a necessity arising from the absence of some indispensable qualification. Let us examine. 1. THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES. This office, as to a personal ministry, ceased in the first age, from a necessity arising from an indispensable qualification which could not be had without a personal appearance of our Lord to all persons inducted after his ascension. NVo person could be an Apostle of Christ who had not seen him. In proof of this, read Acts 1: 21, 22, where Peter, when speaking of the appointment of a successor of Iscariot, says, "Wherefore of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, to that same day that he was taken up'from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." No man could be a successor of an Apostle but such a man. This is fatal to all succeeding claims to successorship to these Apostles. According to the Scriptures, none of the Apostles had a successor except "the son of perdition," and " that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." Neither prophecy nor sacred history knows another instance of an apostolic succession. Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ; and in order to constitute him such, Jesus appeared to him and said, "stand on thy feet, for I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear to thee." Acts 26: 16. Accord 260 THE REVISER. ingly, when vindicating his apostleship among the Corinthians, Paul said, "Am I not an Apostle! Am I not free! Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord!" 1 Cor. 9: 1. We have the Apostles, however, not in a personal sense, but as the Jews had Moses and the Prophets. We have them in their writings. In this sense, Abraham said of the brethern of the rich man, "they have Moses and the Prophets;" and Jesus said, " the Prophets were till John." 2. THE CHRISTIAN PROPHETS. There were Prophets in the Apostolic age. " In those days Prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch," and foretold "that there should be great dearth throughout all the world." Acts 11: 27. It is probable that these were the same Prophets who co-operated with the Teachers in Corinth in seperating Paul and Barnabas to the work to which the Holy Spirit had called them. 13:1. Judas and Silas were Prophets; 15: 32. The order in the primitive church was, " First, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets." 1 Cor. 12: 28. All were not Prophets, but they were a distinct class. Hence Paul says, " Are all prophets?" which is his strong method of affirming the contrary, v. 29, "Let the Prophets speak two or three." 14: 29. In all the passages where the phrase " Apostles and Prophets" occurs, the latter word refers to the Prophets of the Christian, and not to those of the Jewish age. I am fully satisfied of this from recent investigations. Compare Eph. 2: 20; 3: 5; and Rev. 18: 20. But these Prophets were temporary officers, and their offices terminated by limitation. They were needed till the revelation of God was completed, or perfected. But " the prophecies" ceased when " the perfect'" came. Paul says, " we prophesy in part, but when that which is l5erfcet is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." That there was to be no farther prophesying after the last chapter of the Revelations was closed, is clear from Rev. 22: 18: " I testify to every man who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one shall add to these things, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book." The perfect came —the prophecies ceased. AN ADDRESS. 261 3. THE EVANGELISTS. These were to be permanent officers in the Christian church. This is evident from the fact that provision was made for their multiplication. Timothy was constituted an Evangelist by Paul, who said to him, " Do the work of an Evangelist —make full proof of thy ministry,"-2 Tim. 4: 5; "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."-2 Tim. 2: 2. No such direction is given to either Apostles or Prophets. The former, as we have seen, ceased from necessity-the latter from express limitation. But neither the necessity nor the limitation is referred to the Evangelist. More on this point soon. But now we proceed to the consideration of the duties of this office. 1. The name euanggelistees, signifies one who announces good newas& Philip is so called, Acts 21: 8. This is the primary and restricted sense of the word. But there were more duties enjoined on Timothy than were included in the mere etymology of this word, when Paul said to him, " Do the work of an Evangelist-make full proof of thy ministry." But his first duty, in going into a place where converts were not made, was to "announce the word." This he was to be ready to do-to stand by this work, and make it his pressing and earnest business, and not a mere matter of convenience. 2. He must teach as well as preach, or announce. "These things command and teach." 1 Tim 4: 11; 6: 2, "Exhort in allpatience!"' 3. He must reprove. 4. He must determine penalties. 5. He must console. 6. But in the proceedings in the trial of Elders, he was required to observe this rule, " Against an Elder, receive not an accusation, except upon two or three witnesses." 1 Tim. 5: 19. When Elders, being public men, were accused upon two or three witnesses, 7. He was to rebuke them publicly, that the others, also, might fear. In reference to all these trials and convictions, the Apostle charged his Evangelist thus: " I charge in the sight of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the chosen Angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing 262 THE REVISER. by partiality." 1 Tim. 5: 19-21. Under this charge all Evangelists should act in all matters of discipline. S. As assistants in the instruction and government of churches, the Evangelists were authorised to "ordain ELDERS, OR OVERSEERS, AND MINISTERS2' That the Evangelist might make a proper selection, the Apostle informed him, in 1 Tim. 3: 1-12, what these men must be, and what they must not be. See, also, Tit. 1: 5-9. Concerning the ordination of these officers, Paul says, "I write those things hoping to come to thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mightest know how thou oughtest to conduct thyself in a house of God (which is a congregation of a living God,) a pillar and a support of the truth." 1 Tim. 8: 14, 15. Had Paul been in Ephesus he would have selected and ordained the officers himself; but being absent he wrote to an Evangelist, directing him how to proceed in such cases. This is, also, observable in Titus. "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things which are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city, as I prescribed to thee." Tit. 1: 5. It is evident, then, that, in marshaling their forces for the conquest of the nations, the Apostles were furnished with subalterns, who put the congregations in order, and furnished them with Superintendents and Ministers for the better regulation of each church respectively. Thus matters were arranged in " the kingdom of the Heavens." I say in the kingdom-for in primitive times there was no democracy of heaven. Indeed, there is no democracy in Heaven, nor of Heaven. Democracy is all human, and nought divine. A democracy is "A form of government in which the sovereign power is lodged in the body of the people." In a democracy the people elect, from among themselves, their officers, both legislative and executive. They enact, and repeal just as they please. Not so in the kingdom of Heaven. There is not a democrat among all the Heavenly messengers-there was not a democrat in "the kingdom of Heaven.' All of the innumerable company of angels-the general assembly, and congregation of the first born, are monarchists. They will not tolerate even a royal democrat; and, therefore, they hold that Jesus is a king of kings, and a governor of governors. Everything in this primitive community, which is democratic is AN ADDRESS. 263 regarded as " will worship," concerning which, our King once said to some Jewish democrats, "In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." Democracy, in religion, is treason against God. It is the sepulchre of rottenness from which have arisen all the poisonous exhalations which have contributed to the universal epidemic which now prevails through all christendom. It is this " sovereign power" in human beings which has produced every ordinance, institution, and religious ceremony not found in the Holy Writings. It has made every office not provided for in the statues of our King, and resulted in all the partyism which now prevents the triumph of the cross. In all human governments where the people are sufficiently intelligent and virtuous to govern themselves, the democratic is the best form of government. But a democratic church is an anti-Christian association; because it vests the supreme power in the body of the people, and not in Christ. The Scotch Baptists have given us a fine demonstration of a democratic religion. They have persisted in their course for many years, with all the firmness characteristic of their everlasting "highlands," without approximating the Apostolic order. But what have they done for the conversion of the world-nay, for the conversion of their own nation! They have organized themselves, and metthey have met and wrangled; and wrangled and divided; and subdivided, till they have little or no influence where they meet. They hold that a church can organize itself —ordain its own officers, and govern itself. In all the creation of God, there is not a self-organized thing. A self-constituted church is not a church of God-a self-officered church is not officered by God; and a self-governed church is not governed by the Lord. It is purely a human institution. Jesus never said, On this rock shall my church build itself. Paul never said, The church chose some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some, Evangelists; and some, Pastors, and Teachers. He never said, That God had highly exalted the church, that she should govern herself; but that he had supremely exalted Jesus, " That in his name every knee should bend, of the heavenlies, and the earthlies, and the infernals; and that every tongue should confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father." 264 THE REVISER. They talk of the independence of churches. There is not an independent thing in all God's creation. There is nothing on the earth independent of other things-there is nothing in the Heavens independent. Mutual dependence and co-operation characterize all the works of God, and constitute all "the music of the spheres." The notion of a democratic religion, and the independence of churches has led to electioneering, strifes, voting, disorganizing, and scandal to the Christian cause. Members of the same ichurch have separated into two distinct and hostile churches. Members have been expelled from one church, and received into another "of the same faith," without making any satisfaction for their offences. If the laws of Christ, relative to the discipline of Members of churches, had been regarded, such instances of folly and shame could never have occurred. According to the laws of his kingdim, the Apostles were subordinate to him —the Evangelists to the Apostles-the Elders and Ministers to the Evangelists —and the congregations to the Elders and Ministers. If the members could not agree, they could refer their matter to their Elders and Ministers —if they did them injustice, they could accuse them, on two or three witnesses, before the Evangelists —and if the accusation was sustained, the Evangelists should rebuke them before all, that others might fear.'The law requires the Evangelists, in all cases, to do nothing by partiality, by preferring one before another. Peace and harmony, and the rights of all concerned, can be better secured in this way than in any other. The good sense of our civil rulers is exemplified by a similar arrangement for the settlement of differences among our citizens. Instead of calling a whole county, or town together to vote which of two disputants is in the right, they submit the decision of controversies to proper officers, leaving reasonable opportunities for appeals. All these provisions were made for the peace and usefulness of the great missionary institution, called the Congregation of God. The Apostolic commission is the constitution of this society, and the regulations made by the Apostlqs are the rules and by-laws for its government. God designed that his manifold wisdom should be made known to the principalities and powers among the heavenlies-the angels of AN ADDRESS. 265 God, through the congregation. His wisdom is made known in the world's creation-his manifold wisdom, in a world's redemption. God has constituted this congregation the light of the world —the salt of the earth. By its shining, others are to see its good works, and glorify our Father in the Heavens. The members of this community are required to shine as luminaries in a world, holding fast the word of life. In every accession to this great missionary society there is joy in the Heavens-joy among the angels of God. These heavenlies behold in it the manifold wisdom of God. How they adore the wisdom which ordained that the embryotic kingdom-the small lump of leaven-should subjugate the world to the King of Glory — should leaven so large a mass! The philanthropy which induced the Father to send his Son into our world, constrained the Son to come on the mission; and the same principle animated the Apostles, and cheered on their converts in their career of glory. These converts, driven from their own city, could not be silenced, but went every where proclaiming the word. The cold-heartedness of these modern times was as unknown to the primitive disciples, as is their philanthropy and zeal to the professors of our day; who, if their chests should once expand with the love of God and man, as did the chests of the primitive Christians, they would imagine themselves afflicted with a congestion of the lungs; and if the great thought of converting all the nations should enter their heads, in all its magnitude, as it did the heads of primitive converts, they would fear a fit of apoplexy. So unused are we to such magnitude of thought, and to such expansive benevolence. Still the church is a missionary organizaation, and only needs the missionary spirit. Thank the Lord, this is found on the increase here. A thorough missionary organization, such as characterized the Apostolic age, is greatly needed at this time. We need competent Evangelists to travel through the country-to set in order the things which are wanting, and ordain Elders and Ministers in every church and city where persons who are qualified can be found. This is the proper business of Evangelists. The Scriptures give this authority to no other persons. The incompetency of many churches to select 24 266 THE REVISER. and ordain these officers has been exemplified in very many instances. Not one man out of a dozen who has been appointed to these offices is elegible, according to the law of God. To evade the force of the evidence which the Christian Scriptures contain in favor of the divine authority of Evangelists over churches and church officers, the objection has been raised that there are now no Evangelists in the New Testament sense. We have already shown the perpetuity of that office, but promised to notice the subject still farther. This we now attempt. The objection rests on two facts. First, that Evangelists, in the primitive church, could work miracles; and second, that no men can now do this. This, they say, proves that there are now no Evangelists. This reasoning proves entirely too much. It proves that there is no Christian church now; for, as a community, the, church possessed spiritual gifts in all its members, as well as in its officers. Nay, indeed it proves that there are no believers, or christians now; since all the disciples of that age had some spiritual gift. The Apostle teaches that spiritual gifts would cease, but not that the church should cease, nor that Evangelists, Elders, nor Ministers should cease. Since there are so many objections raised to any other than a democratic church government, it may not be amiss here to state that the wisdom of our country is clearly shown, not so much in " universal suffrage," as in placing the executive authority in officers rather than in mass-meeting. We have our inferior, and superior courts; our trials and appeals, not in town, county, or state mass-meetings, but in official tribunals. The Evangelists, with their official auxiliaries, are not legislative but executive officers-not makers, but executors of law. Jesus is King, and the Christian Scriptures contain his code. No officer in his kingdom has the authority to make, or amend a single law. The phrase "The authority of the church," of so frequent occurrence in the papisti cal vocabulary, is a phrase unauthorized by the word of the Lord. The church has no authority. "There is no authority if not from a God. But the existing authorities have been ordained by the God." Rom. 13: 1. When Jesus ascended into hight "he gave gifts to THE men." Not to men in general; but AN ADDRESS. 267 to some distinguished men. Christ, " himself, gave indeed the Apostles, and the Prophets, and the Evangelists, and the Shepherds and Teachers, for the adjusting of the Consecrated for a work of ministry-for building the body of the Anointed, until we, the whole, come into the oneness of the faith, and the thorough knowledge of the Son of God-into a full-grown man-into a measure of a statue of the full measure of the Anointed." These gifts were bestowed for the growing time of the church. WVithout these the Consecrated are not adjusted for a work of ministering, for the building of the body of the Anointed. The full measure of the church, as contempleted by the Savior, is not yet attained. We have therefore use for the Apostles, the Prophets, the Evangelists, the Shepherds and Teachers. In the Apostolic teachings and practice; and in the prophecies of the Christian Scriptures, we have the Apostles and Prophets just as the Jews had Moses and their prophets after their death. Not so of the Evangelists, the Shepherds and Teachers. Timothy, and his associate Evangelists have left no writings to fill their places. The same is true of the Shepherds and Teachers. They could leave no writings behind them to "do the work of an Evangelist "-to "ordain Elders in every city." There was need of a Joshua after Moses died, and there were Elders of the people, and Teachers after the prophetic writings of the Old Covenant were completed. There are sinners yet to hear the good news-churches yet to be set in order-and Elders yet to be ordained with assisting Ministers. Never while there are good news to be announced to sinners —churches to be regulated, or Elders to be ordained, will the evangelic office cease. Churches, Teachers, Pastors, and Evangelists must be of equal duration. Jesus never contemplated the conversion of the world by books. He did not publish twelve copies of the Christian Scriptures to accomplish this work. He knew that books could not travel-they could not make the people hear. He commissioned twelve Apostles who could travel, and could speak to the people; and he gave them Evangelists, and Pastors and Teachers, and the whole army of the faith to aid them. Possessed of the salt of the earth, and the light of the world, they sought the persuasion and salvation of our entire race. How expansive their benevolence —how divine their enterpise I 2 6 8 THIE REVISER. Here patriots were converted into cosmopolitans-partisans into philanthropists, and self-love into the love of our species. Our field is the world; and the Christian Church, organized and officered according to the Apostolic models, is to reap, and sing " the harvest home." The birth of our Savior was accompanied with the angelic overture, " Glory to God in the highest! On earth, peace and good will to men;" and the mission of the church shall close with the chorus, Alleluia-salvation, and glory, and honor, and power to the Lord our God." "Alleluia-for the Lord God omnipotent reigns. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife had made herself ready." Thus may we all be found. THE RESURRECTION-A QUERY. "How does Moses show the resurrection of the dead by saying that God said to him,' I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob?' "-DR. BENTON, The passage which you present for exegesis has puzzled many annotators, commentators, and theologians. A collection of the paralleled statements by the other sacred historians helps much in understanding this. The Sadducees, as appears from Scripture authority, neither believed in the existance of angels, spirits, nor a resurrection of the dead. Their unbelief in a resurrection of the dead, seems to have rested on a supposed impossibility. Hence Jesus said to them, " You do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Not understanding the Scriptures, they did not know that the doctrine was intimated in them. Not knowing " the power of God," they supposed a resurrection impossible. With them the question was, " How are the dead raised up?" This expresses the true state of their unbelieving minds. But instead of proposing this difficulty, they resorted to cunning in order to entrap him. They first referred to the law in relation to the subsequent marriage of the widow of an heirless brother; and then said that, in obedience to that law, seven brothers had successively married one woman; and then asked, "Whose wife shall she THE RESURRECTION —A QUERY 269 be in the resurrection?" This question is answered by telling them that " in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven." Matt. 22: 24-30; Mark 12: 19-27; Luke 20: 27-38. Here the existance of angels is affirmed, in opposition to the views of this sect of the Jews, who not only deny the resurrection of the dead, but, also, the existance of angels and spirits. Acts 23: 8. These Sadducees received all the writings of Moses as a revelation made to him, and as Moses had recorded the words quoted in Luke 20:37, Christ said that Moses called him God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to their views, men had no spirits, or spiritual nature; and, therefore, when their bodies were reduced to dust there were no more such persons, or beings.. This conclusion is, undoubtly, true. For if men have no other than a corporeal existance, it must follow that when that existance ceases-when their bodies are decomposed -they are no longer in existance; and that if the same dust should be again fashioned into a man, it would be a new creation. But if there is a conscious spirit existing while the body is dead, contrary to the admissions of the Sadducees, then, when that body shall be re-organized, and inhabited by its former conscious principle, or spirit, it will be the same being, and not a new creature. Now, Jesus, in order to strike a blow at the root of the doctrine of the Sadducees, affirms that Moses, whose authority they admitted, had recorded the fact that God said, more than four hundred years after the death of Abraham, and nearly two hundred years after the death of his grandson, Jacob, "I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." According to the notion of the Sadducees, he might have said, "I was the God of Abraham," &c., but not "I am the God of Abraham," &c.; because, if their views were correct, there was no Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob in the nniyerse; and, therefore, God could not be their God, nor raise them from the dead. Accordingly the Savior said, in direct opposition to their views, " God is not of dead persons, but of living persons. Because to him all are living." Though dead to us, they are alive to Him. We do not see things as they really are, but he does. We see, in case of death, only the dead body; but he sees the live spirit. The re-animation of the dead body, and bringing it out of 2 70 THE REVISER. the grave, is called a resurrection. The re-possession of the resurrected body by the identical conscious principle, results in personal identity, after the resurrection. The resurrection of the dust of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, without its re-union with their former conscious spirits, each with its own resurrected body, would neither produce Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, any more than Shem, Ham, and Japhet; or, Daniel, Hananial, and Michael; Shadrack, Meshach, or Abednego. Jesus, therefore, answered these persons in referance to their entire systems, when the question of a resurrection was under discussion. He affirmed the existance of a living Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while their bodies were lying in the dust, and the existance of angels, also, of whom, he said, men should be like them, in regard to matrimony, after the resurrection. Ev-IN. It is customary with us to say " at that time "'-" on that day;', but this does not prove that (ev) en in Greek means at, nor on. The Greeks conceived of a day as having limits, and when any thing occurred within these limits, they said it happened in the day. So of time indefinite. They thought of it as having limits, and spoke of events occurring within these, as happening in the time referred to. And although we usually say " at that time," and " on that day," yet this cannot justify the translation of en by " at," and " on;" because we also use that form of expression which is an exact translation of the original. For instance, we say, as in Matt. 8: 13, " in the same hour" —"in the day of judgment," 11: 24; 12: 36. "In the time of harvest," 13: 30;" in this time," Mark 10 30;" in that day," Luke 6: 23; " in time of temptation;" " in that day," 10: 12; "in that hour," 10: 21; "will come in a day," 12: 46; " in this present time," 18: 30; "in the last day," John 7: 37; 12: 47. These are instances of a literal translation of the preposition from which we should not depart, except from necessity. When the idea is not that a transaction happened within a certain period merely, but that it happened on the whole of it, or lay on, or over the specified period, (iar), epi is used, as in the following instances. The spirit of divination which followed Paul and Silas,cry THE PARTNERSHIP. 271 ing, "These men are servants of the Most High God," was so incessant that it is said, Acts 16: 18. " This she did, (8iri), epi, over many days." Paul's friends " desired him to remain (67ri) over a longer time." 18: 20. Paul " went into the synagogue and spoke boldly (E rij pMvtag' TpElf) over," that is covering the space of " three months." 19: 8. Again, v. 10, "And this continued (En Sry? dvo) on, or over" two years. That isz it continued during that whole time. Paul was speaking (iri l~rrtEWov) on long, or during a long time. 20: 9. See, also, v. 11; also, 27: 20; 28: 6; Rom. 7: 1; 1 Cor. 7: 39; Gal. 4: 1; 2 Pet. 1: 13; 2 Pet. 3: 3. The Greeks seem not to have thought of a particular point of time at which an event occurred, when they use en before a designation of time, but of a certain space of time, within which the event happened. So, also, when they employ this preposition before a name of a place, they refer to a place of limits, within which a thing is said to be. THE PARTNERSHIP. The word Zoinonia, (icotvwvia), is used twenty times in the Christian Scriptures, and has the general signification of partnership. In Acts 2: 42, the sacred historian says that the members of the first Christian congregation "continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, (cat irej iotvioviga) and in the partnership, and in the breaking of the loaf, and in the prayers." "The doctrine of the Apostles " is one thing, and " the partnership' is another; and " the prayers are still something different. The Apostles taught the necessity of a "partnership " as well as "prayers." The extent of " the partnership " is stated in v. 44. " And all the believers were at the same [place], and (etXov) held all thing (icotva) common." This led them to sell "their possessions and goods," and to distribute them "to all, as every man had need." This partnership was not carried so far in any other church in the Apostolic age, but all the churches had a partnership to a limited extent. The partnership was not " a limited partnership " as to time. It was a part of the congregational organization of primitive times, and should be of all times. There is no propriety in a steadfast continuance, and " the 272 THE REVISER. doctrine of the Apostles," and in " the prayers," with the abandonment of "the partnership," which is placed midway between the two bv the sacred historian. The joint stock arrangement mentioned in Rom. 15: 26, is a farther illustration of the partnership principle in the primitive congregations. It pleased those of Macedonia and Achaia (rroLt'aOat) "to form themselves a certain partnership for the Consecrated in Jerusalem." This was a specific partnership as to its object, and limited by the circumstance which called for its formation- the destitution of the Jerusalem brotherhood —and would necessarily expire when they were sufficiently supplied. This general idea is found in a most beautiful passage in 1 Cor. 1: 9,-" God is faithful through whom you were called (eli icotvoviav) into a partnership of his son, Jesus Christ, our Lord." There is a joint interest between Christ and his people-a community of sentiment, feeling, suffering, enterprise, and anticipation. It is through God that we are called into this glorious state-this " high calling of God in Christ Jesus." The same general significance is apparent in c. 10, v. 16, —" The cup of the praise, which we praise, is it not (Iotvwovia) a partnership of the blood of the Anointed? The loaf which we break, is it not a partnership of the body of the Anointed?" That the Apostle here speaks of the joint interest, or partnership, in " the cup of the praise," and in " the loaf," is clear from the conclusion to which he comes in the next sentence: "For we, the many, are one loaf-one body. For we' all (tere:%OfEv) partake of the one loaf." The illustration in v. 18 is clear. " Behold the Israel according to flesh. Are not they who are feasting on the sacrifice'partakers of the altar?" Those who feasted on the sacrifices were altar-partners. They had a common right, or interest, in the altar. As it regarded this interest, they were one-a partnership-although, as persons they were many. If each had had his own altar, there would have been no partnership. So if each disciple of Christ had had his own cup and loaf, separate interest would have been represented, and not a joint interest in the blood and body of the Lord. But they were partners in that blood and body, and therefore had a cup, and one loaf. In 2 Cor. 6: 14, the question is asked, "What (otyvovia) part THE PARTNERSHIP. 273 nership has light with darkness?" There is a common interest between light and darkness. In c. 7: 4 the Apostle says the churches of Macedonia besaught him and his associate with much entreaty, to accept the kindness, and the (coLtvwviav) partnership of the ministering for the Consecrated. That is, that these persons would make the ministering to the Consecrated persons a joint business.-a common interest. There is another beautiful passage in which this word occurs in c. 9: 13-in which the Apostle says that God was glorified (ETrl) over this the submissive acquiescence of the brethren in the goodnews of the Anointed, (Kai dwrr6-rr6-lt'g iqotvWoviag Esl ai'VTOV', Icai Elq rdvra~), and in the sincerity of their partnership, with respect to them, and with respect to all. These brethren had submissively acquieced in the good news — had entered into a partnership, and had proved the sincerity of that partnership by the " kindness," or " gift," to " supply the wants of the Consecrated persons," not only in one, but in "all" places within their reach. "The kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the partnership of the Holy Spirit be with you all," c. 18: 14. Here are three things mentioned; the grace or kindness of Christthe love of God —the (IcoLvWvta) partnership of the Holy Spirit. The kindness of Christ, is not Christ-the love of God, is not Godthe partnership of the Holy Spirit, is not the Holy Spirit. The kindness of Christ, is Christ's kindness-the love of God, is God's love-and the partnership of the Spirit, is the Spirit's partnership. These three genatives are, as gramarians say, all genatives of possession, or neither of them is a genative of possession. If this reasoning be correct, Christ has kindness, God has love, and the Holy Spirit has partnership; and the Apostle desired that the kindness, the love, and the partnership might all be (se-r&) with the Consecrated in Corinth. We have already noticed a passage in which it is said, that God has called us "into the partnership of his Son;" and here we have "the partnership of the Holy Spirit." Now, in 1 John 1: 3, it is written, "'We declare to you that which we have seen and heard, that you may have a partnership with us: and, moreover, this part25 274 THE REVISER. nership is with the Father, and with his son, Jesus Christ." Fellowship," the word employed in the Common Version as the representative of the Greek word, is unsuitable. It means the relation in which fellows stand to each other. God is not our fellow, Christ is not our fellow, neither is the Holy Spirit our fellow. Some prefer "communion " as the translation of the Greek word. But " communion " is the "act of communing;" and the verb "to commune" signifies "to converse;" and although our dictionaries generally define "to converse," by "to keep company;" yet the masses understand it to mean, to talk mutually. " Conversation" means, among them, mutual talk. Webster defines conversation to mean " general course of manners." He defines " communion " a " mutual intercourse between two persons or more." This cannot be the sense of the Greek (iKotvwovia) word. John said, " We declare to you that which we have seen and heard." That is, the intelligence which they had acquired through what they had seen and heard they communicated to the brethren. He says, "we declare to you what we have seen and heard, that you may have partnership with us." They made the brethren partners in the truth revealed. And he farther says, " Moreover, this partnership is with the Father, and with his son, Jesus Christ." There was important truth which the Father and his Son were jointly interested in making known to the world. They made the Apostles partners with them in its possession, and the Apostles declared it to other men that they might also become partners in the celestial wealth. Thy made them partners, that their "joy might be complete." Their partnership was in " the message which " the Apostles " heard of him, and declared to " them; namely-" God is light, and in him is no darkness -not one." If we say that we have a joint interest in him-if we declare ourselves in partnership, and at the same time walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. " Light " and " darkness " are here used for intelligence and ignorance. To " walk in darkness" signifies to live and act in ignorance of God and his Son. To " 1;alk in the light" means to live and act as his revealed truth requires. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have partnership with each other, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin." Glorious partnership! Partners of God, THE PARTNERSHIP. 275 of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit! What a firm! Partners in intelligence and purity-in the most important intelligence-in the most exalted purity! He does not acknowledge us fellows but he takes us as partners. Yes, our partnership is with the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ. There can be no failure in this firm. The Father and Son are solvent, and will be into the day of eternity. James, Cephas and John, perceiving the kindness bestowed on Paul, determined to take him and Barnabas into partnership in the proclamation of the goodnews; and they gave them their right hands in token of the joint interest. The union of hands signified the partnership, and is, therefore, called the right hand of partnership. They all then engaged in the business of the firm; Paul and Barnabas among " the nations," and James, Cephas, and John among " the circumcision." Gal. 2: 9. PARTNERSHIP, EPH. 3: 9. Paul says, "To me, who am less than the least of all (-,Cv dytiv) the consecrated, (Ed6071 a %dptf aivry,) was this very kindness granted; to publish among the nations, the incomprehensible wealth of the Anointed; and to enlighten all (as to) what is the partnership of the mystery which has been hidden away from the eternity in G-od, who created all things through Jesus Christ, that the great variety of God's wisdom might now be made known, through the congregation, to the principalities, and the authorities, among the heavenlies." The vast treasures of God's various wisdom were hidden away in himself from the by-gone eternity. He possessed it alone-without any partner. That knowlzedge related to "the incomprehensible wealth of the Anointed." Paul became, by the special kindness of God, a partner in that wisdom that he might publish it among the nationsthat he might enlighten all concerning the formerly secreted partnership in the inconceivable wealth of the Anointed, that a redeemed, consecrated, and saved congregation, composed of persons of all the nations, might be presented, before all the principalities, and all the authorities, and all the heavenly beings, as an illustration, and a demonstration of the vast variety of the wisdom of the Eternal Being, in whom this joint interest had been concealed from the old eternity. 27 V' e THE REVISER, These principalities-these authorities-these heavenlies, had all seen the wisdom of God exemplified in the terrestrial creation, and in the astronomical heavens. When the foundations of the earth were laid-when its measure was taken as with a line stretched upon it-when the stars on the first morning of their creation, commencing the " music of the spheres," sang together; these elder sons of Godwhether constituting the principalities or the authorities; or composing the celestial subordinates in the heavenly regions; whether regarded separately, as cherub, or seraph; or whether considered in classification, as cherubim or seraphim; all these sons of God gave utterance to their new-felt emotions, in a harmonious shout of joy. But, as yet, they knew nothing of the partnership of the mystery which God then concealed in himself. The unsearchable riches of the Anointed consist not in terrestrial and celestial possessions. The creation of the heavens and the earth could not reveal them. Nothing but the redemption of the general assembly and congregation of the first born, by his precious blood, could disclose this wealthcould unveil this long secreted mistery. It was ordained that salvation-not creation-should reveal this great-Yariety of God's wisdom. PHIL. 1: 5. Paul here said to the consecrated in Philippi, "I thank my God for your partnership in the goodnews from the first day till the present." These brethren had, and felt, a joint interest in the goodnews from the first day in which they believed it. They felt themselves partners in its present joys, in its universal proclamation, in all the sufferings attendant on a public profession of faith in its divine truth, in the expenses for publication to all the nations, and in its final and glorious rewards. In c. 2: 1, the Apostle says, " If there is any consolation in Christif any comfort of love —if any partnership of spirit, (eL rLtg icotvwvta vrveiVterof)," &c. The Common Version here, as in many other instances, obscures the sense by supplying the article, and printing the word "spirit," with an initial capital, without the first philological reason. The Apostle does not here refer to the Holy Spirit in the sense of disposition. This is evident from what he says in conclusion. " If there be any partnership of spirit, if any tender sympathies and mercies-fill up my joy-that you may be thinking the THE PARTNERSHIP. 277 same-having the same love-united in souls-thinking the one thing." This partnership of spirit forbid selfishness, and required them to "look not every man on his own interests separately, but every man also on the interests of others." If there was a partnership of spirit this was the way in which to manifest it. Indeed, a contrary course would amount to a practical disclaimer of the partnership. In c. 3: 10, the author says, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the partnership of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death." He was a partner with Christ in his sufferings. PHILEM. 4: 5. "I thank my God making mention of thee at all times in my prayers; hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and among all the consecrated; that the partnership of thy faith may come to be energetic in an acknowledgment of every good thing among us, in Christ Jesus." Philemon had become a partner with Paul and Timothy in the faith. The Epistle although ascribed to Paul alone, in the heading, was addressed to Philemon jointly by Paul and Timothy, his partners in the faith. HEB. 13: 16. "But of the doing good, and of a partnership be not forgetful, because God is well pleased with such sacrifices." They were not to do good barely in an isolated manner, but to observe the joint action for which the christians were so much distinguished. God is well pleased with the well doing of his children separately. But he also likes a community of feeling and action. The former is creditable to them as individuals-the latter as a community. A partnership always implies partners. Accordingly we read, MATT.,23: 30. Jesus states that the Pharasees said, " If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been," not, partakers with them, as in the Common Version, but (icotvcvoi aVriv,) " their partners in the blood of the prophets." That is, they said they would not have joined their fathers in the business of killing the prophets. 278 THE REVISER. LUKE 5: 10. "And Simon answering, said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net. And when they had thus done, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net broke. And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, depart froin me: for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the.draught of the fishes which they had taken: and so was also James and John the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon." In v. 7 it is written that " they beckoned to their (rolg lel-rxotg'), partners." This noun, in its singular number, means one who holds with another, or, one who possess in common, a joint holder. In v. 10, it is written that James and John, sons of Zebedee were also (o'? Kot.vovo T -r. Itvtl,) " the partners of this Simon." These words are used to express the same idea —partners, or common holders, in the business of fishing. Their business, therefore, was a partnership business. I COR. 10: 18. "Behold the Israel according to flesh. Are not those subsisting on the offerings partners of the altar l" Part of the offerings were consumed on the altar, and part were eaten. Those who eat of the offerings were therefore said to be partners of the altar-they having a share and the altar a share. In v. 20, the Apostle says, " that the things which the nations offer, they offer to demons and not to God." He adds, "I am not willing you should come to be partners of the demons." That is, that they should share with them the offerings presented to them. The phrase' have fellowship with devils," of the Common Version, is not a respectable paraphrase of the text. 2 COR. 1: 7. In v. 5, the Apostle says, " For, as the sufferings of the Anointed abound in us, so also our consolation abounds through the Anoint THE PARTNERSHIP. 279 ed." In v. 7, he adds, "And our hope of you is firm, knowing that as you are partners of the sufferings, so also of the consolation." Having first affirmed that the sufferings of the Anointed, and the consolation through him, both abounded in himself and Timothy, he afterwards recognized all the consecrated in all Acahia as their partners in both. Hence we read of " the partnership of his sufferings." Phil. 3: 10. Paul calls Titus.his partner and joint worker among the Corinthians. They naturally labored among them to induce them to discharge their duty relative to the accumulation of a fraud for the relief of the poor. Paul engaged in that great work, and took Titus in as a partner, he having already commenced in the good work alone, C. 8: 23 —see v. 6. PHIL. 1'7. Having spoken of the partnership of Philemon's faith, in v. 6, as before noticed, he now says, v. 17, "If, therefore, thou count me a partner, receive him as myself." The faith concerning the Anointed was a matter of joint interest among all the Apostles and all their brethren. Paul refers to the partnership in sufferings for the sake of the cause in Heb. 10, "Partly while you were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; aiid partly while you became partners of those who were so treated." 1 PET. 5: 1. The Elders among you I exhort, who am a co-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Anointed, and also a partner of a glory to be revealed." By using " partaker," instead of partner, the authors of the Common Version make Peter say that he was already a partaker in a glory not yet revealed. A man may be a partner in a glory yet to be revealed. But he cannot be a partaker of it till it is revealed. 2 PET. 1: 4. "Whereby he has given to us the exceeding great and precious promises, that through these you might come to be partners of a 280 THE REVISER. divine nature, having escaped from the corruption which is in a world of lust." These words intimate that we are not now " partakers of a divine nature," but such a nature is promised to us in future; and we are therefore constituted partners by " the great and precious promises." We have come to be partners by promises, as God gave the heavenly country to Abraham " by promise." I have now examined all the passages where the two nouns partner and partnership occur in the Christian Scriptures, and I think it is clear that the general idea is as here expressed. But I do not say that "partnership" is always the best English expression. "Joint interest" may sometimes be more euphonic. CHURCH. This word etymoligically signifies belonging to a lord. It is derived from a Greek word (Kvptalcov, from Kvprto, a lord) of that meaning, the letter being derived from a word signifing, a lord. It has a common origin with the Scotch, "kirk." The Greek word is used twice in the Christian Scriptures, 1 Cor. 11: 20; Rev. 1: 10 —" The Lord's supper " —" The Lord's day." In English literature it signifies, a congregation of professed Christians, and a house built for Christian worship. It is but once used in this last sense in the Common Version, and in that instance it is a mis-translation; Acts 19: 37. Instead of "robbers of churches," this should have read " temple-robbers." The Greek word (eicOXata) ekklesia, which is the proper word for assembly, or congregation, never means a house for worship, and, therefore, ought never to be translated " church," which is as often used for a place of worship, as to denote a Christian assembly; and, indeed, is as etymologically, and as properly used for a house devoted to the worship of God, as to the people worshiping in such a house. We should render the original word by assembly or congregation. 'rHE USE OF TIlE GREEK ARTICLE. 28I THE USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE. Middleton has rendered an important service to students of the Greek language by his able work on this subject. It contains three hundred and sixty-four duodecmo pages. Every Greek student should be familiar with its principles. It was long thought that the Attic writers used it unnecessarily, and omitted it, by elipsis, when it should have been used. Such was the opinion of Budoeus. Middleton says: "This doctrine, while it seems to command assent from the authority of those who have propounded it, is nevertheless so abhorrent from the genius of a philosophical language, like that of the ancient Greeks, that no fallable authority is of suflicient force to rescue it from the consequences of its inherent, improbability." So we think. The first instance enumerated by this celebrated author, of the use of the Greek article is, " Renewed mention;" which he thus explains. "When a person or thing recently mentioned is spoken of again, the Article, as is well known, is inserted where the mention is renewed." The second instance is where the Article is used " iar' e5oXv," (by eminence,) " where it refers to some object, of which there are many, but one of which is so familiar to the mind of the hearer, as that which is made the Predicate of the Article. I will notice a few instances in which the Article is used in " renewed mention." But, first it is necessary to remind our readers that the holy spirit is found several times in the Christian Scriptures without the Article; as in Matt. 1:18, 20, on which we can only remark, that the laws of the Greek language do not require us to understand the Holy Spirit here in a personal sense, and that the positive declarations of the Scriptures forbid this interpretation; because they affirm that God, and not the personal Holy Spirit is the father of Christ. Had the personal Spirit been intended the Article would have been used. In Luke 1: 35, we read, (" Kai dirotOe't 6 dyye)~wo aEIrEv avor, ivejvita aytov err7,eixEVerat E'rr ae, tcat dvvaltgt rvitTrov arrLctaetat aot du caZ iO - yevW'evovaT ytov 0,970Oiraa vig OEov.") And the angel replying said to her: " A sacred spirit shall come on thee-even a power of one Most High shall overshadow thee; on 26 282 THE REVISER. which account also that sacred one, being generated, shall be styled Son of God." If the Holy Spirit had generated Jesus he could not be called a Son of God, but must be called a Son of the Holy Spirit. But, as we have elsewhere shown, a holy spirit means the power of God, and therefore he was styled the Son of God. The phrase, " the Holy Spirit" always must be taken as the name of a being unless the Article is used in " renewed mention," a striking instance of which will be exemplified in a few passages. It is well known that when a baptism in spirit is mentioned the article is uniformly wanting. We must refer our readers to previous articles on pneuma for the referance to proof here. Now, this baptism " in a holy spirit " is called " power from on high," in the 24th ch. of Luke. It was that supernatural power which was conferred on the Apostles on the first Pentecost after the ascension of our Lord, and subsequently, on other persons also. This power being gratuitously conferred is called "a gift." This being a matter of great notoriety in christian history, was afterwards, in "renewed mention," called the gift of the holy spirit. For it is clear that what had been mentioned frequently without the article, is by Peter referred to with the article in " renewed mention," and it cannot prove that to be personal which had before been spoken of in such a way as entirely to exclude the idea of personality. How could one being be immersed in, poured upon, or besprinkled with another being? Or how could the being called the Holy Spirit be poured out? Things which are absurd in fact, are not rational in figure. Hence we never say that a thing is as white as a raven, nor as black as a swan-as bold as a lamb, nor as harmless as a lion. A figure, to be just, must never conflict with the nature of that with referance to which it is used. It is not in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be poured on, sprinkled on, immersed in. We often say that a man is immersed in debt-in love-in wine. In the latter a man may be literally immersed, because its nature is such as to admit of the action. But we use the phrase figurativelyto express the idea that he is entirely under its influence. We often speak of a flood of debts, and the phrase, " immersed in debt," is of kindred use. We, too, speak of " the current of true love," and it is with such associations that we say that a person is immersed in love. THE USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE. 283 Debt, love, and wine, may be personified; but when so considered it is absurd to speak of an immersion in them. It is only when we regard them as "a flood," "a current," or "a liquid," that we can say that a person is immersed in them. Those, therefore, who regard the phrase, "the Holy Spirit," when not used in "renewed mention," as a mere personification of the attributes of God as communicated in fulness, can never, consistently, speak of an immersion in the Holy Spirit. Because it is not in the nature of things to immerse a person in the attributes of a person; and what is physically impossible, is rhetorically absurd. I now come to consider a few cases where the phrase, the Holy Spirit is used kat' eksokeen, (icar''e oX0v,) according to eminence. This use occurs where there are several things, qo beings, which are alike, but one is pre-eminent. The Apostle says, Heb. 1: 7, " Moreover with respect to the angels, he indeed says, (6 7rot&iv,) who made his angels spirits;" and in v. 14, "are they not all ministering spirits." All the angels of God are, then, spirits of God. But there is one who is called " THE Spirit of God," not in " renewed mention," but as being pre-eminent. It is also called " THE Holy Spirit." "He who speaks against the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven." Matt. 12: 32. We have, in this context, the phrases, " the Son of Man," and " the Holy Spirit." The same philological law which requires us to regard " the Son of Man " as the name of a being, requires us also to so understand " the Holy Spirit." Blasphemy is spoken of with referance to both. Who ever thought of blaspheming mere attributes! In Matt. 28: 19, we read thus, " Teach all the nations, immersing them into the name of the Father-(roD IHarpog,) and of the Son(-ro viO,) and of the Holy Spirit," —(-ro.'Ayiov IlveV,[iaTro.) Does the phrase, "the Father" express personality8 Does the phrase, "the Son " express personality? Does not the phrase, " the Holy Spirit," also express personality? Or, are the first two applicable to personalities, and the last one to a personification! Were persons baptized into the name of a personification? If " the Holy Spirit" is a personification-"' the Son " is a personification-and if "the Son" is a personification-then " the Father" is also a personification-and if "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy 284 THE REVISER. Spirit," are all personifications, then " the gospel," " heaven," and "hell," are all rhetoric, and the apostolical " preaching was vain," our "faith is also vain" and we are yet in our rhetorical sins. All is rhetoric. It is written, John 1: 32, 33, " And John testified saying,' I saw (r6 livevpa) the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode on him; and I knew him not, but he who sent me to immerse in water,' the same said to me,' On whom thou shalt see (r-5 rsveota) the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the samB is he who immerses (-v rrvev3art ayict,) in holy spirit'" Here is a passage which shows clearly that " THE Spirit " is not the same with " holy spirit." The former is twice mentioned, and both times with the article, but the latteriis anarthrous, or without the article. The laws of the language required the article in the latter case, if pneuma was here used in " renewed mention." This one passage, then, furnishes us with pneuma both in a personal, and an impersonal sense. Pneuma with the article is used in an active sense, it descended-it remained. Bnt pneuma without the article is used in a passive sense-" the same is he who immerses in holy spirit." It is written in Acts I: 16 that " the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouth of David." This is not a case of " renewed mention," by Peter; for this is the first time, and the only time he mentioned it in that address. Moreover, this Spirit "spoke." "The Holy Spirit testifies," Acts 20: 23. Here, too, we have article, and also a personal act ascribed to the Spirit. And, in v. 28, Paul says that the Holy Spirit made the Presbyters of Ephesus overseers of the church of God. What can be more clearly expressive of personal existance? Again, in ch. 21: ~11. "Thus says the Holy Spirit." Ch. 28: 25. "Well spoke the Holy Spirit (d&a) through Isaiah the Prophet." " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God." Eph. 4: 36. Here the Spirit, which is sometimes called the Holy Spirit, and sometimes the Spirit of God, is called by both names in one sentence. If it is not a being how could it be grieved? Out of an innumerable company of God's angels, or spirits, there is one so far above all the others that it is, by way of eminence, SYNAGOGUE. 285 called, uTHE Spirit of God;" and as to holiness, so superior that it is in the same manner called "THE Holy Spirit." The error committed in inserting the article where it is not found in the original, and when "Holy Spirit" cannot be understood in a personal sense, has led many into unbelief in regard to the personality of the Spirit of God. It is, therefore, of great importance, in revising the Common Version, thatthis whole subject be thoroughly investigated. Whenever holy spirit is indefinite in the Original, let it be indefinite also in the Revision. Whenever the article is used in renewed mention of spirit in an impersonal sense, let spirit be printed without an initial capital. Whenever the article is used not in renewed mention, and personal acts are ascribed to the Spirit, let the Spirit be printed with the initial capital, as we print " the Father," and " the Son." and for the same reason. The effort to give a personal signification to the word spirit, by printing it with the capital when it is not so used, for fear that the existance of a personal Spirit of God may be doubted, is the very means by which to produce the dreaded result. The better way is to treat this word as we do " Father" and " Son." When it used indefinitely, translate it indefinitely. When used definitely, translate definitely. When used impersonally, translate it impersonally. And when it is used personally, translate it personally. SYNAGOGUE. The New Testament name for an ordinary place of public worship, is (avvayoyij) synagogue. The same word is applied to the people brought together. It is also a name appropriately used of Jews and Christians. Acts 17: 1," where was a synagogue of the Jews;" v. 10, "went into the synagogue of the Jews.". James says, (-av yap egi?01 elg T'-v avvayoyiqv u~iv) " For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring," &c. That James was here addressing disciples of Christ, and not his Jewish brethren, is clear from the fact that he commenced his address of which this is a part, as follows: "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, in acts of respecting persons." 286 TH E REVISIR. The verb (avvdyo) sunagqo is used of Christians as well as the Jews. Matt. 18: 20. "Where two or three are synagogued in my name " —that is gathered together. John 20: 19. "When the disciples were synagogued " — gathered together. Acts 14: 27 "And had synagogued the church, or rather, the congregation;" that is when they had assembled the congregation. The same usage is observable in other places, also. It is a question of some interest, especially among those who are opposed to the transfer of words into our language, whether the word "synagogue should be retained. If we have any word by which it can be translated, we ought, as Bible Unionists, to translate, and not transfer. The verb (avvdyw) sunago, when used intransatively, means to meet. The word " chapel" is used among Discenters in England in a sense very similar to, if not exactly the same with sunagogue. And in many parts of the United States the compound word " meeting-house " is the equivalent of the original when it relates to a place of worship. I confess, for one, I should much rather see the word translated, than transferred. The only question seems to me to lie between the word " chapel" and " meeting-house," the latter of which, I prefer, because the former is sometimes used in England for "a place of worship attached to a church or subordinate to it." The convenience of the word "chapel" may compensate for this, and the word be taken in the sense given to it by the Discenters of England. E v rtaCo7Tre —SUPERINTENDANT. This word is once applied to Christ. 1 Pet. 2: 25. "The shepherd and bishop of your souls." Common Version. The writers of the Christian Scriptures propably borrowed it from the Septuagint, where it occurs as follows: 1. It is used in that version for the Hebrew word (7TP, or j]TPN) pekid, which signifies one who has the inspection and direction of any thing. Numbers 31: 14. "And Moses was angry with the captains of the army-the heads of thousands, and the heads of SUPEERINTENDANT. 287 hundreds, who came from the battle-array." Here the Greek word (eCrtaorrot,) translated, in the Common Version, by bishops and overseers, in the New Testament, is evidently generic, and includes the officers of thousands, and of hundreds, which are specifications. As here used, it is a military term. In Jud. 9: 28, Zebul is called the (e7rtaeorrog) bishop, or superintendant of Jerobaal. The Common Version here, as above, gives the generic, "officers;" and Brenton, the late translator of the Septuagint, gives " steward" as the meaning of the word. In 2 Kings 11: 15 (Sept. 4 Kings 11: 15), it is written that "Jehoiada, the Priest, commanded the captains of the hundreds (EcaTov-rdpzyoWo To emrt icotrot") to execute a certain order. Here, as in the first case cited, the " bishops," or superintendants, are in apposition with "the captains of the hundreds." It is here, also, used as a military title. In v. 18 it is said that "the priest appointed (e7rtacK6rov Ets -rO-v oilcov ivptov) superintendants for the Lord's house." The word "house" is used here for a building, as is clear from the context. There is one instance in which a Hebrew name of God, (h), is rendered, in the Septuagint, (Er7taKo7ro9) superintendant, as we sometimes, in personification, use the word, Providence. Job 20: 29; Wisd. 1: 6. There were nine hundred and twenty-eight of the sons of Benjamin, who settled in Jerusalem, after the return from Babylon, and Joel the son of Zichri was their superintendent, or overseer-not their "bishop." Neh. 11: 9. Here the word designates a civil officer. See, also, vv. 14, and 22. Eleazer, the son of Aaron, is called, te7rtago7rog), superintendant, from having the charge of the Tabernacle, and its furniture. Num. 4 16. In a prophecy relative to the glory, and happiness of the people of God, which should be occasioned by converts from Paganism, it is written ('nP7 7'P1:: ttmS'pj7t'n no m), I will also make thy officers peace, and thy exactors righteousness; which the Septuagint reads, (Kcai 6arov ro apXov-ra' aov ev etprTjv, IcaZ errtaiorrovw aov tv dtctatoavv7,) " I will appoint thy rulers in peace, and thy superintendants in righteousness." I think these are all the occurrences of the word, (EcrtaKorrog), in 288 THIE REVISER. the Septuagint, and the books of the Apocrypha. From these it is evident that the term was of civil and military application. Robinson defines the word, "an inspector, overseer, guardian." It is used of treaties, by Homer, (Il. 22: 255. Helian. 7, 10, 6); of laws, by Plutarch, (Sol. 19); of wars, by Homer, (Od. 8: 163); of cities, by Josephus, (Antiq. 10, 4, 1); of a patron, as Minerva of Athens, (Dena. 421, 27). In Athens, those magistrates who were sent to tributary cities to organize, and to govern them, were called (eraioiroLt) superintendents, or overseers. (Schol. in Aristoph Av. 1023. Boeckh. Staatshaush. der Ath. 1. p. 168, 256. Neander Gesch. der Pflanz. u. Leit. der chr. Kirche. 1. p. 178, and Bibl. Repos. IV. p. 254.) Robinson. In the Christian Scriptures it is used of congregational officers, and is equivalent to, (,rpEa,3V'Epog), presbyter, or, elder. Acts 20: 17, 28; Tit. 1: 5, 7. Paul "called the Elders of the congregation," and told them that the Holy Spirit had made them superintendants, or "overseers" of the congregation of Lord. He told Titus, when giving him directions for the ordination of " Elders in every city," that " a bishop," or rather, a superintendant, " must be blameless," &c. The word occurs, also, in 1 Tim. 3: 2; and used of Christ, 1 Pet. 2: 25. I prefer the word, superintendant, to overseer, because the former carries with it the idea of authority, and, therefore, corresponds better with the usage of the Greek word, if not so exactly with its etymology. See, on the two English words, the Etymological and Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. SPIRITUALITY. 289 SPIRITUALITY. If any thing could shake our faith in spiritual influence, it would be the bitterness, bigotry, and vituperation of those who have the most to say in its advocacy. There are some editors who are compelled to advocate the principles of the American Bible Union or loose their subscribers. They show a want of interest in the cause, by the strange and illiberal course pursued by them against those who are vigorously co-operating in the great work. The efforts which they have made several times to produce divisions among the Bible Union men, are clearly demonstrative of their destitution of sincerity. No man, who is honestly a Bible Union man, can desire a continuance of the old broils and bickerings between the Baptists and the Disciples; and yet somle men who dare not oppose the Union, but profess to be its strong? friends, are continually notifying the public that, although they are willing to receive money from the Disciples, in aid of ihe cause of revision, still they desire it to be distinctly understood that they do not fellowship them. For our own part, we care very little for" the fellowship of such men. It is no'e6ry profitable, nor very honorable to be fellowshiped by ill-natured bigots. We would prefer, vastly prefer, to be fellowshiped by such men as the lamented Dr. Waller, and Dr Lynd. They are men whose favorable regards are worth more than gold; and I take great pleasure in calling attention to the following It o:er from the latter gentleman. It is worthy of his intellect, his learning, his age, his piety, and his devotion to the interests of religiols truth. From his inferiors we could not have expected such a letter. It is the production of a great mind, and a great heart, both of which are under the influence of the Spirit of God. I5have noticed from the early history of the controversy on the question of direct, special, and independant influence of the Spirit on the hearts of men, that those persons who contend most strenuously for such an influence, are the most petulant, quarrelsome, slanderous, and bigoted professors in the circle of my acquaintance. The small men who have had the audacity to call Dr. Lynd to an account for a maganimnity they never knew, and a spirituality they never experienced, are of this sort. An infamous attack has been made in the 27 2 9 0 THE REVISER. same quarter on the departed Waller! It would seem that some men think there ought not to be a gentlemanly, magnanimous, philan'throphic man among the Baptist clergy. There are such men among them, and their number is daily increasing. Hence the fears and alarms of their inferiors. These small men desire notoriety, and, being unable to distinguish themselves for talent, or piety, they seek distinction through orthodoxy, or zeal for a party. They seem' to think that the salvation of the Baptists depends entirely on them. How they mistake themselves. Their influence would blast the Baptists but for such men as Drs. Lynd and Waller. These, not those, give standing to the Baptist cause. They are an honor to any church, and to their species. They are luminaries to the world, and salt to the earth. Their names will live and be revered in the memories of the good, when their ashes shall rest peacefully in their graves. Such men will need no epitaph but their names on their tomb-stones. From the Tennessee Baptist LETTER FROM DR. LYND. Bro. Graves:-I feel myself called upon, in an editorial article in your issue of March 31st, to answer certain queries which you have propoundea. Your paper reached me to-day. Your inquiries are based upon the following expressions employed by me, in a short review of Jeter on Campbellism: "With his views as formerly expressed, we could not sympathise, but as expressed recently, they are in conformity with our own views." It strikes me as a little singular, that you should have quoted such a large amount of the views of Mr. Campbell, asformerly expressed, to inquire of me whether I sympathized with them, in the face of my own language, denying such sympathy. It also strikes me as still more singular, in basing your queries upon more recently expressed views of Mr. Campbell, you should have mixed together both views, those more recently expressed and those formerly expressed, as you do, in quoting almost alternately from the Christian Baptist and Christian Baptism. SPIRITUALITY. 2 9 In the remark above quoted, I have referance to his views as set forth in the following articles, published, I think, in 1846: 1. That I believe all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly accomplished for every good work. 2. I believe in one God, as manifested in the person of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who are, therefore, one in nature, power, and volition. 3. I believe that every human being participates in all the consequences of the fall of Adam, and is born into the world frail and depraved in all his moral power and capabilities, so that without faith in Christ, it is impossible for him, while in that state, to please God. 4. I believe that the Word which from the beginning was with God, and which was God, became flesh and dwelt among us, as Emnmanuel, or " God manifest in the flesh," and did make an expiation of sin, by the sacrifice of himself, which no being could have done that was not possessed of a super-human, super-angelic, and divine nature. 5. I believe in the justification of a sinner by faith, without the deeds of law; and of a Christian, not by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith. 6. I believe in the operation of the Holy Spirit, through the Word, but not without it, in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner. [Mr. Campbell has since stated, that this agency of the Spirit is a personal agency.] 7. I believe in the right and duty of exercising our own judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 8. I believe in the divine institution of the evangelical ministry, the authority and perpetuity of the institution of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Is there a Baptist Church in the State of Tennessee, or in the world, which can show a more sound confession of faith? These are the views I endorse, and so does every evangelical man in every denomination of Christians - 292 TiXE REVISER. Further, I referred in my remarks particularly to his views expressed in his debate with Dr. Rice, in the following language:. " You may have heard me say here, (and the whole country may have read it and heard it many a time,) that a seven-fold immersion in the river Jordan, or any other water, without a previous change of heart, will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order; the most exact observance of all the ordinances, without personal faith, piety, and moral righteousness, without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit any man, in referance to eternal salvation. We are represented, because of the emphasis laid upon some ordinances, as though we made a Saviour of rites and ceremonies-as believing in water regeneration, and in the saving efficacy of immersion, and as looking no farther than to these outward bodily acts-all of which is just as far from the truth, and from our views, as transubstantiation or purgatory. I have, indeedl, no faith in conversion by the Word without the Spirit, nor by the Spirit without the Word. The Spirit is ever present with the Word, in conversion and sanctification. A change of heart is essential to a change of character, and both are essential to admission into the kingdom of God.' Without holiness no man shall enjoy God.' Though as scrupulous as a Pharisee, in tithing mint, anise and cummin, and rigid to the letter in all observances, without those moral excellencies, usually called righteousness and holiness, no man can be saved eternally; for the unrighteouss shall not enter into the kingdom of God." Now, with these views I concur. Does any Baptist repudiate them? I understand that the foregoing principles are with him fundamental principles, and I suppose that all his other exhibitions of Scripture teaching must be subordinate to these. What other just rule can be applied? Apart from the influence of this rule, it would be easy to quote plain passages from the New Testament, which would go.to show that the Apostles did not, in good faith, hold the fundamental doctrines of redemption. This is certainly done by the opposers of these principles. I am no opologist for the errors of Mr. Campbell, or any other man, but I do most heartily endorse the principles stated in this confession. I feel bound, as far as possible, SPIRITUALITY. 293 to explain his views, as published since that confession was made, by his fundamental principles. If he is an honest man, he will write nothing which he does not believe to be in conformity with these principles. I think it is but an act of justice, and the laws of language demand it, that his views as published in Christian Baptism, which you quote, should be explained in the light of the fundamental principles which he has solemnly declared he holds. I believe with Mr. Campbell, thatfaith is belief upon testimony. The circumstances under which it is exercised, embracing the views of the sinner, and his state of heart, constitute the difference between belief which saves, and belief which does not save. And that is taught in all theological schools, though not always in the same words. I have no sympathy with the doctrine that immersion is to be administered to procure remission of sins, and yet I believe that the design of this ordinance is imperfectly comprehended both by Baptists and Pedobaptists. No person who believes the Bible can deny, that there is a connection between baptism and salvation, as there is between regeneration and salvation, or between faith and justification, or between persevering obedience and salvation. The question to be determined is, What is that connection? I believe that Mr. Campbell has not reached the truth in this matter, and, therefore, I do not: endorse his views. But may not Baptists generally fall short in their views of the design of baptism? Is there not a point of view to which all of us may before long be brought, by honest and Christianlike discussion? I believe that we may enjoy the love of God in our hearts the moment we believe in Christ; but that it may be shed abroad more fully by the Holy Spirit, and that the most of the spiritual blessings we enjoy may be consequent upon our baptism, must be admitted by all who hold that baptism is " the answer of a good conscience tawards God." How can a believer fully enjoy spiritual blessings while this answer of a good conscience has not been had? The inferences on which your queries are based, have certainly not been drawn with care. As you state them I do not endorse them. do not believe that no spiritual blessing is enjoyed before baptism. I do not believe that justification follows immersion. I do not be 294 THE REVISER. lieve that the bare word of God is the cause of all our religious feelings-that conversion is without the Spirit; nor do I repudiate spiritual regeneration. Now, as your inferences from my quotations entirely mistake my views, may not your inferences from the language of Mr. Campbell mistake his views.? The quotation from Christian Baptism, page 202, does not justify the assertion that " the bare word of God is the cause of our religious feeling." " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Religious feeling is a result of faith in Christ, and religious action is the result of religious feeling. This is all the language teaches in the light of Mr. Campbell's fundamental principles. The quotation from Christian Baptist, page 204, repudiates merely the doctrine of mystical, metaphysical, or spiritual influence, independently of the word of God. And who, at the present day, does not repudiate it? This I understand Mr. Campbell teaches, when I compare the language with the six fundamental articles of his creed. In the long passage which you have quoted from Christian Baptism; page 256, he states expressly that baptism is not as a procuring cause, as a meritorious or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual, in the changing of our state and spiritual relation to the Divine persons, whose names are put upon us in the very act. I do not know how much Mr. Campbell may mean by the words, "4 our state and spiritual relations," but I am very certain there is a sense, and an important sense, too, in which this is doubtless true. The questions from Christian Baptism, pages 310 and 311, does not show that Mr. Campbell denies the influence of the Holy Spirit in conversion. He is speaking of the influence which in apostolic times was denominated " the baptism of the Holy Spirit," and " the gift of the Holy Spirit." His facts in relation to this are correctly stated. His error probably lies, in believing that this peculiar gift is still conferred upon believers. We believe that it has ceased in the church. While we differ from Mr. Campbell, let us, as Christians, be magnanimous, and give to his language the fairest construction that can be put upon it. Let us examine it in the light of his published fun ELDER. 295 damental principles. It is certainly not my business, or the business of any man to impugn his motives, to hold him up to the world as a hypocrite and a liar. As my name has been called up in connection with that of Mr. Campbell, I will not silently see injustice done to him, though unintentionally, in order to justify myself. My views have been known for thirty years to the Baptist denomination, and I am persuaded that nothing I have said or written can ever be torturedinto testimony against my soundness in the faith. I hope, in conclusion, that the fear of all the friends to revision will be laid aside. If those who are not friends of revision intend to form a crusade against revision on this ground, we should like to be notified, that we may at least die with our armor on. S. W. LYND. ELDER-GREEK, HrBpEv3vTepog'; HEBREW,:Tp. The Greek noun, which we translate " elder," I think, is always significant of office. But the same word is used three times in the'Christian Scriptures as an adjective on the comparative degree, and means" older." The adjective usage is in Luke 15: 21; Acts 2: 17; 1 Tim. 5: 1, 2. Heb. 11: 2, is doubtful. The Hebrew adjective, (7t2) when it occurs in the plural with the article and without an accompanying noun, is used substantively to designate civil or ecclesiastical officers. When used in the plural with an accompanying noun, with or without the article, or when it occurs in the singular, it retains its adjective character, and means " old." This rule is'founded on a pretty thorough investigation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in relation to the usage of the word. This class of officers existed anciently among the Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Mideanites, and Gebalites. Among all these people these officers were subordinate. They were subordinate to the kings in these ancient monarchies-to Moses, among the Israelites, and subsequently to the kings of that people. They seem to have constituted inferior courts, from which appeals could be carried up to higher tribunals. The word occurs, in the case referred to, seventy 296 THE REVISER. three times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is several times rendered " ancients " where it ought to have been translated Elders. Its corresponding Greek word, at the head of this article, occurs sixty-seven times in the Greek Scriptures. Thirty-two times it is referred to officers among the Jews, sometimes called Elders, sometimes "'Elders of the people." After the organization of the Christian church, which had the same class of officers, they were, for the sake of distinction, called " Elders of Israel," Acts 4: 8; and " Elders of the Jews," Luke 7: 3; 25:15. To distinguish the Christian from the Jewish Elders still farther, the former were called the Elders of the church, or congregation. Acts 20: 1 7; James 5: 14. Of Paul and Barnabas it is said, "and they ordained them Elders in every church," Acts 14: 23; and Titus was left by Paul in Crete " to ordain Elders in every city." The Elders of the Jews were associated with " the Chief Priests," "the Scribes," and " the Rulers of the Jews;" and "the Elders of the church" with the Apostles. See Mark 14: 43; Acts 15: 2; 16: 4; and other places. By whom the Elders of the Jews were ordained, and tried in case complaints were made against them, is not so clear. But that, in primitive times, Elders were ordained, not only by the Apostles, buit also by Evangelists, is evident from instructions given to the Evangelists, and Timothy to Titus. 1 Tim. 3: 1-7; Titus 1: 5-8. Accusitions were to be preferred, if any were required, against Elders to the Evangelists, by whom they were also to be tried, and if found guilty, to be publicly rebuked. 1 Tim. 5: 17V-21. Elder, and Bishop, or Overseer, are clearly but two names for the same officer. " For this cause I left thee down in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city as I gave thee orders. If any be blameless, the hus-'-ln,