S 2 v 
 I c- ~ > I 
 
 >vlOS-ANCEl 
 
 RARY-0/r .\\\EUNIVERy//, 
 
 :
 
 l g 
 
 t * 
 
 NV-SOl^ 
 
 > 
 
 tRARYQr ^l-UBRARYOc. ^ME-UNIVERS/A vvlOS-ANCElfjv, 
 
 . 
 I 
 

 
 / 
 
 DOES TlriT^REvIsED VERSION" 
 
 AFFECT THE DOCTKINK 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 AS EXHIBITED IN THE AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION ? 
 
 BY 
 
 E. F. 0. THURCASTON. 
 
 In the defence and confirmation of the gospc?."TniL. i. 7. 
 " Vcritas sui ipsius est index." BZXGKL. 
 
 LONDON : 
 RICHARD D. DICKINSON, 
 
 89,, FARKINGDON STREET. 
 
 1884.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 R. CLAT, SONS, AND TAYLOR. 
 
 BREAD STREET BILL, E.C.
 
 Stack 
 Annex 
 
 5 
 
 DOES THE "KEVISED VEKSION" 
 
 AFFECT THE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 AS EXHIBITED IN THE AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION? 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 DOES the Revised Version affect the doctrine of the New 
 Testament ? This is a momentous question. But, before we 
 answer it, we must ask what has the Revised Version done ? It 
 has made thirty-six tJio-usand alterations in the Authorized Trans- 
 lation. How is this ? Have we not been told that nay, we 
 will not state what has been said by those who have cherished 
 it, and loved it, and praised God for it, for nearly three centuries, 
 for this would fill a volume ; but we will state what the revisers 
 themselves say of our Authorized Translation. Speaking of the 
 character of our time-honoured translation, they say : " We have 
 had to study this great version carefully and minutely, line by 
 line, and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we 
 have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its 
 happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must 
 not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its 
 rhythm." And their first Resolution was, "to make as few 
 alterations in it as possible." (Pref.) How then did thirty-six 
 thousand alterations creep in ? We are told in answer, that it was 
 framed from very imperfect materials, and that the number of
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ancient MSS. of the New Testament which have been brought 
 to light has vastly increased since it was written. It is said, 
 indeed, that Erasmus had but sixteen MSS. while we now 
 have 1600. We are told that the Greek text which was 
 used by the translators of 1611, appears almost certainly 
 to have been the fifth edition of Beza's Greek Testament, 
 published in the year 1598 ; and that the variations from this 
 edition which are to be traced in the Authorized Translation are 
 only about a hundred and ninety in all, and that they are com- 
 paratively of but little importance ; that this fifth edition of 
 Beza was for the most part a reproduction of the third edition of 
 Stephanus, 1550; and that Stephanus closely followed the fourth 
 edition of Erasmus, published in 1527 ; his first edition having 
 been published in 1516, and Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian 
 polyglot in 1522. That the materials principally used by Erasmus 
 were : for the Gospels, an inferior MS. of the fifteenth century, 
 with occasional use of two other MSS., one of them being of 
 considerable interest, but which was " but little used or valued ; " 
 for the Acts and Epistles a MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth 
 century ; and for the Apocalypse a mutilated MS. said to be of 
 the twelfth century, in which the text is so intermixed with the 
 commentary of Andrew of Csesarea, that it would have been no 
 matter of wonder if the representation of it in his first edition 
 had been even worse than it actually was ; and that both 
 Stephanus and Beza had access to MSS. of which two or thive 
 at least were of considerable critical value, but of which neither 
 editor made any real or consistent use. 1 
 
 If then our Authorized Translation is founded upon such weak 
 and defective authority, we cannot be surprised at the innu- 
 merable and gross errors which it must contain ; we can only te 
 surprised at its excellence. However, let us not be deceived. 
 The following are some of the criticisms cast upon it by advocates 
 and supporters of the Revised Version who have written upon the 
 subject : " clumsy, and often absurd repetition," " completely 
 perverts the meaning," " almost unintelligible," " utterly im- 
 
 1 From Dr. Srri VOMIT'S fn/.i-i/n<-fi<i In tin- d-'il. His 
 
 remarks are quoted hy Dr. Koln-rts's Companion to ///< /,'< / / W /',//<//( f t/,r, 
 I-'.iiijlixli N< a- T< -i"i,i> lit ; hy T/< nxl tin- tin-i-l- Ti-.i-t <//' ///< AV/" Testa- 
 
 ment, by Two Members of the New Testament Company ; and hy other writers.
 
 INTRODUCTION. O 
 
 possible rendering," " meaning quite obscured," " melodious 
 glosses and mistaken interpretation," " familiar inaccuracy, and 
 pretty-sounding error," " confuses the entire meaning of the 
 passage," " hopelessly obscured." These are the constantly 
 recurring criticisms of the Authorized Translation ; while of the 
 Revised Version we read : " an important light is thrown upon 
 the passage," " a new meaning, and unquestionably a true 
 meaning," " for the first time suggests to an English reader the 
 true meaning," " the force of the Greek is brought out as in none 
 of the previous versions," " a marked improvement," " how much 
 the passage gains," " the gain is indisputable," " something to get 
 rid of the false interpretation," " unquestionable errors exist in the 
 Authorised Version, and it will be a practical gain to get rid of 
 them," " some were indisputable blunders, and of these the correc- 
 tion will be universally welcomed." " Here is a plain and clear 
 issue for the English public. What did they desire in the new 
 revision ? Did they want truth, accuracy, humble fidelity, and 
 the minutest care ; or did they want their ears to be pleased by 
 the retention of incorrect and familiar rhythms ? Did they 
 desire to have truth or tradition to hear the word of God, or to 
 be answered according to their idols ? Did they want a correct 
 mmpsimus, or their erroneous but pleasing mumpsimus ? " " the 
 Revised Version is pedantic, unmusical; yet nearer to the 
 original : and those who deny it are unreasonable and in- 
 temperate fanatics." These are some of the pleasing utterances 
 of the new critics. Let us not suppose, however, that they have 
 been allowed to have it all their own way. Learned writers 
 of equal ability have risen up to defend the Authorized Trans- 
 lation, and to show that the errors that are complained of are 
 on the side of the Revisers, and to prove that though there 
 are some passages in the Authorized Translation which require 
 amendment, we should be in a far worse condition if we accepted 
 the Revised Version with its 36,000 alterations. They have 
 shown that they are quite equal to take the Revisers on their 
 own ground, and to decide the contest by authority of MSS., 
 and versions, and by rules of grammar. Any one who has read 
 the critical, masterly, unanswered and unanswerable articles in 
 the Quarterly Review of October, January, and April, 18811882,
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the two letters to the Bishop of London by Canon Cook, the 
 same learned author's Revised Version of the First Three Gospels; 
 Dr. Malan's Plea for the Received Greek Text; and Seven Chapters 
 of the Revision of 1881, must be convinced of this : while the 
 gentle and dignified answer by two members of the New 
 Testament company, The Revisers and the Greek Text, is no 
 answer at all, and the ungentle and undignified invectives of 
 another writer totally miss their mark. If the Revisers de- 
 claim against the authorities of Erasmus, these protest against 
 the untrustworthiness of the two principal MSS. B and N, relied 
 upon by the Revisers, and upon which the Revised Version may 
 be said to be chiefly founded ; so much so, indeed, that their 
 work might be called, the Revised Version of the New Testa- 
 ment according to the MSS. B and N. Here we must entreat 
 the reader to peruse what Canon Cook, the eminent Editor of 
 The Speaker's Commentary, has written on the subject of these 
 two MSS. in his Revised Version of the First Three Gospels. In 
 Part iii., 4, he writes " On Value of the Oldest MSS. N and B," 
 and in the following Section, on " The Eusebian Recension." 
 What he mentions in this Section we cannot but regard as a 
 most interesting and remarkable discovery, and one which must 
 have an immense influence in determining the value, not merely 
 of these two MSS., but of what is of much more consequence, 
 affecting, as it does, our Authorized Translation, that of the 
 Revised Version. We can give only a meagre outline of the 
 statement there contained, which occupies twenty-four pages, 
 but every incident and detail there narrated is of the highest 
 interest. The Emperor Constantino finished building his great 
 city Constantinople in 330. Immediately after this event he 
 wrote to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, to get prepared for the 
 churches which he had built fifty MSS. of the Holy Scriptures, 
 on carefully prepared parchments or vellum, written in easily 
 legible characters, and to be in a portable and convenient form. 
 The MSS. were to be written by calligraphers, beautiful penmen, 
 thoroughly understanding their art. At the same time he tells 
 him that he has ordered the treasurer of the province, the highest 
 civil authority, to supply all things required for the preparation 
 of the parchments, and he impresses upon Eusebius the duty of
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 getting the MSS. completed with all possible expedition, and 
 authorizes him to employ two public vehicles for bringing to him 
 safely and speedily the beautifully written MSS. In the follow- 
 ing chapter of his life of Constantine to that in which this is 
 narrated, Eusebius records the speedy accomplishment of his 
 work, and states that the MSS. were written in " threes and 
 fours" Eusebius died in 340 : consequently these fifty MSS. 
 must have been written 330340 A.D. Now, this is the date 
 attributed to B and N. These two MSS. are written upon the 
 finest vellum, and are of the most beautiful calligraphy, and the 
 writing is arranged in vertical columns, the codex B having 
 three columns, and codex fr$ four columns, as described in 
 Constantine's letter ; particulars in which no other MSS. agree. 
 They appear, therefore, to be the only existing copies extant of 
 these fifty ordered by Constantine. Although the Sinaitic codex, 
 N, is rather larger than the Vatican, B, of rather finer vellum, 
 and more beautiful calligraphy, it must be observed that whereas 
 the Vatican MS. is written by one hand, the Sinaitic is written 
 by at least four copyists, one of them being the scribe of the 
 Vatican codex ; and it is further to be remarked that one of the 
 portions common to both MSS. which was written by the same 
 scribe, embraces the last chapter of St. Mark, of which verses 
 9 20 are wanting in each, but for which a blank space is left in 
 B, thus showing that they existed in the more ancient MS. used 
 by the copyist, but were omitted by him for some reason. Now, 
 as Eusebius is the earliest writer who impugned the authority of 
 these verses, it seems probable that he would direct the scribes 
 of the fifty MS. copies ordered by Constantine to omit them. 
 We must also bear in mind that Arius flourished about this 
 period, A.D. 323 336, so that this was the weakest time of 
 the Church, and that though Eusebius joined in condemning 
 the opinions of Arius at the Council of Nicsea, A.D. 325, he 
 subsequently exerted his influence with the Emperor to get him 
 reinstated in his church at Alexandria, in 330. 
 
 The fifty MS. copies, as we have seen, were written in the 
 greatest haste, and must therefore have contained many 
 mistakes and many omissions ; and Tischendorf expressly tells 
 us that the Vatican codex B bears evidence of carelessness
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and haste in every page; and Dr. Scrivener states that an 
 able and careful critic has calculated that this codex leaves 
 out words or clauses no fewer than 2,556 times in the whole 
 codex, which extends only to Heb. ix. 14. 
 
 Let us now turn to our Authorized Translation. We have seen 
 it stated how imperfect were the materials upon which Erasmus 
 and other learned men founded the 7V,r/Vx ]!<<; ^his of our 
 Authorized Translation. But if so imperfect, how is it that the 
 result is so admirable ? There may be, and there are, occa- 
 sional errors in construction, but in what translation do we not 
 find such ? But, above all, if the materials of the Apocalypse 
 were so especially faulty, how is it that so comparatively few 
 alterations have been made in it by the Kevisers ? and we may 
 say, how questionable are the alterations they have made ! 
 Bht however imperfect they were, they were derived from a 
 source the claims of which have been brought out by the most 
 recent opponents of the Received Text more clearly and forcibly 
 than by any of its defenders. We cannot be blamed, then, if 
 we quote from The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N. T. 
 By Two Members of the N. T. Company. " The MSS. which 
 Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and 
 insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive MSS. The 
 general character of their text is the same. By this observa- 
 tion the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond 
 the individual MSS. used by Erasmus to a great body of 
 MSS. of which the earliest are assigned to the ninth century. 
 More than this: it may be traced back on good grounds t 
 a still higher antiquity. What those grounds are we will state 
 in the words of Dr. Hort himself : 
 
 " ' A glance at any tolerably complete apparatus criticus 
 of the Acts or Pauline Epistles reveals the striking 
 fact that an overwhelming proportion of the variants 
 common to the great mass of cursive and late uncial 
 Greek MSS. are identical with the readings followed 
 by Chrysostom (ob. 407) in the composition of his 
 Homilies. The coincidence furnishes evidence as to 
 place as well as time ; for the whole of Chrysostom's 
 life, the last ten years excepted, was spent at Antioch
 
 INTRODUCTION. ( J 
 
 or its neighbourhood. Little research is needed to 
 show that this is no isolated phenomenon ; the same 
 testimony, subject to minor qualifications unimport- 
 ant for the present purpose, is borne by the scattered 
 quotations from these and other books of the New 
 Testament found in his voluminous works generally, 
 and in the fragments of his fellow-pupil Theodoras of 
 Antioch and Mopsuestia, and in those of their teacher 
 Diodorus of Antioch and Tarsus. The fundamental 
 text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is beyond 
 all question identical with the dominant Antiochian 
 or Grseco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth 
 century.' 
 
 " This remarkable statement completes the pedigree of the Re- 
 ceived Text. That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. 
 The first ancestor of the Received Text was, as Dr. Hort is 
 careful to remind us, at least contemporary with the oldest of 
 our extant MSS., if not older than any one of them." 
 
 These are the rival claims to descent from Apostolic authority, 
 B and N, with their two or three followers ; l and the Syrian 
 Text with its compact body-guard. The only pretence for pre- 
 cedence which B and fc$ appear to possess is in their slightly 
 earlier origin. But if the objections which we have heard 
 against B and N be true, of what value is this slightly earlier 
 antiquity ? Dr. Scrivener says " It is no less true to fact than 
 paradoxical in sound, that the \vorst corruptions to which the 
 New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a 
 hundred years after it was composed." Now, as the bulk of the 
 alterations as well as of the omissions in the Revised Version 
 are made upon the authority of these earlier MSS., we must, 
 in examining them, dismiss any prior claim to infallibility in 
 respect of these older MSS., the more so that there is very 
 
 1 In a list of 63 " passages " given by Canon Cook in his Revised Version of the 
 First Three Gospels, ' ' in which serious innovations have been introduced into the 
 text, or suggested in the margin of the Revised Version," p. 136, we find 5 are 
 based upon the sole authority of D ; and of the remaining 58, 9 are on the sole 
 authority of either B or N, or both ; while the remaining 49 are on the separate 
 or joint authority of thes'e two MSS. backed 33 times by L, 21 times by D, 11 
 times by A, 7 times by Z, 6 times by C, 5 times by T, 4 times by S, Z, and E, 
 3 times by A and X, twice by G, R, U, V, B x , and N x , and once only by E, H, M, 
 P, C*, C z , D*, and K c .
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 little difference of age between these particular MSS. and some 
 others ; and we must compare their representation in the 
 Revised Version with the representation of the Syrian Text in 
 the Authorized Translation, by their intrinsic merits, and not 
 by the external authority of greater antiquity. What \ve 
 propose to do is, first to note those alterations and omissions 
 in the Revised Version which affect doctrine, and then to 
 examine them solely by internal evidence, leaving for another 
 occasion alterations at large and omissions. It has been stated 
 over and over again that no doctrinal changes have been made 
 in the Revised Version : 
 
 " It is certain that no questions of faith or doctrine are 
 altered in the New Version." 
 
 " None of these changes in any way affect the doctrines taught 
 in the New Testament ! " 
 
 " Nothing has yet been discovered which can affect in the 
 slightest degree any single doctrine of the New Testament." 
 
 " Nothing now proposed will cause the New Testament of 
 the future to differ in its truth from that of the past. The old 
 doctrines are untouched, and the old promises are unchanged. 
 Everything abides : nothing passes." 
 
 " It is to be noted that in all the corrections made in the 
 Revised Version there is not a single one which does away with 
 any main fact which has been accepted by the Christian world 
 since the King James' translation was made. The fundamental 
 doctrines of the Christian religion are not changed in the 
 slightest degree by the New Version. Everything which 
 people of the present generation were taught as children to 
 look upon as the teachings of Christ is faithfully preserved, and 
 our children and our children's children will find in the Revised 
 New Testament the same doctrinal principles, although perhaps 
 in different and more easily comprehended phrases, (!) that their 
 fathers and grandfathers had to instruct them in the Sunday 
 schools of the past two centuries." 
 
 " The fact that an examination so searching has changed no 
 vital doctrine, and robbed the Christian of no real evidence and 
 no true consolation, will give men a happy assurance in the 
 solidity of the Word of God."
 
 INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 " As all know, nothing essential to the great truths of 
 salvation has been either lost or obscured by the New 
 Version." 
 
 " Every earnest and conscientious reader will rejoice to find 
 in the Revised Version no such changes as can affect any of 
 the essentials of belief." 
 
 " It is a matter for much thankfulness that the groundwork 
 of no truth has been taken away from us, no doctrine of faith 
 moved : the way of salvation is not changed." 
 
 " It is pleasant to know that every doctrine that belonged 
 to the faith of the Church has been really strengthened (!) by 
 means of the criticism." 
 
 " Can it be wondered at that vast multitudes of changes 
 will be found in the Revised English Version, owing to an 
 amended text ? The wonder really is that they are so few, or 
 at least that they are in general of such small importance. When 
 we trace the parentage of our English Bible, and when we see 
 on what a slender basis of authority it rests ; when we confront 
 with this the enormous wealth of materials for settling the true 
 Greek text which we possess at the present day, and the amount 
 of labour which has been expended in applying them, we might 
 well fear that the alterations requiring to be made in the Bible 
 with which we have all our days been familiar should be of the 
 most revolutionary character. But, blessed be God ! such is not 
 the case. No doctrine of the faith is in the slightest degree 
 affected. False supports of important doctrines may be removed, 
 and true defences of them may be supplied, but that is all. The 
 Bible remains, for all practical purposes, totally unaffected. That 
 is one grand result of the labours of the New Testament Revision 
 Company, for which all English Christians have good reason to 
 be thankful. They now know the utmost that Biblical science 
 demands. No suspicion need in future haunt them that the 
 Scriptural truths which they love are insecure. These have been 
 proved to rest on an immovable foundation, and they will endure 
 as long as the Divine Word that reveals them, ' which liveth and 
 endureth for ever.'" 
 
 Is this the case ? The Bishop of Lincoln is one of those who 
 has been quoted as affirming that the Revised Version has not
 
 1 '2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 changed a single article of faith. His words are " Not one 
 of these 36,000 changes affects a single tittle or iota of the 
 Christian faith." We must confess that we were rather ama/ed 
 when we read this statement. But not knowing whore to find 
 the Bishop's utterance, we could not contradict it. At last \ve 
 discovered it in Public Opinion, Nov. 5, 1881, and there found 
 that the passage is followed by these words, which entirely 
 alter the declaration : "All faithful and devout Christians will 
 rejoice to see that the Authorized Version, in all essentials, is 
 fully to be relied on, and that after a severe critical examina- 
 tion of eleven years it has come forth triumphantly from the 
 ordeal." The former statement, attributed to the Bishop, is very 
 similar to the statement quoted in the House from the works 
 of Archbishop Whateley, that the Archbishop considered that 
 the Irish Church ought to be disestablished ; but on examining 
 the passage it was found that what the Archbishop had stated 
 was that the Roman Catholics said the Irish Church ought to be 
 disestablished a very different thing ! It is one thing to know 
 that our Authorized Translation is in all essentials to be relied 
 on relative to its statement of the Christian faith ; and another 
 to ascertain whether the Revised Version in its many thousand 
 alterations may not have marred the accuracy, or at least 
 diminished the force, of doctrinal statements, as exhibited in 
 our Authorized Translation. 
 
 We will now proceed to place some of the principal JM 
 before the reader, leaving him to judge whether this is so. 
 Only to those which contain internal evidence, for or against, 
 will we add any remarks.
 
 MATT. i. 18. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise." 
 note, or generation, as in v. 1. The Greek word is 
 different. 
 
 Dr. Malan has shown the distinction between these words, 
 lyevwrja-is, the word in our received text signifying natural birth, 
 and 7eVecrt9, the word in MS. B, which signifies generation, or 
 origin. "He who is from all eternity, one with the Father, 
 'very God of very God, begotten, not made/ can have no 
 yeve&is, no origin, formation, or coming into existence ... a word 
 liable to the abuse made of it by heretics." l For, as Isaiah says : 
 " Who shall declare his generation ? " 
 
 23. " Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and 
 
 shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name 
 Emmanuel." the virgin 
 
 Why did not the Revisers give capital letters ? There 
 is nothing to prevent it. As there is no authority for 
 capital letters, so is there no authority for the definite article. 
 Certainly the prophecy as given by Isaiah vii. 14, has nothing 
 to do with a definite article ; neither would it have been under- 
 stood who " the virgin " could mean. What the prophet foretold 
 was, the coming of Emmanuel; and the means of recognising 
 Him would be His wonderful birth : but nothing was mentioned 
 as to who the virgin should be, although it was well known that 
 the Messiah would be of the seed of David. This passage then, 
 like that now celebrated one in the Lord's Prayer, " Deliver us 
 from evil," exhibits no reason in itself why the definite article 
 should be used, except that it appears in the original in accord- 
 ance with Greek idiom. It would take too long here to show 
 
 . 
 the impropriety of introducing the definite article in an English 
 
 translation, whenever it is found in a Greek idiom. Let 
 
 1 Plen for the Received Greek Text, pp. 1 31.
 
 14 MATT. I. VI. 
 
 the following instances suffice : If thou be Son of the God, Matt, 
 xxvii. 40 ; and swallow the camel, Matt, xxiii. 24 ; the Word 
 was with the God, John i. 1 ; Art thou the Master in Israel ? 
 John iii. 10 ; If the God so loved us, 1 John iv. 11 ; The God 
 whom he hath not seen, 1 John iv. 20 ; The tongue is a fire, 
 the world of iniquity, Jas. iii. 6. As the introduction of the 
 definite article, therefore, is frequently opposed to English 
 idiom, to sense, and common sense, so is it here objectionable 
 on account of doctrine. Although it is quite clear that the 
 Revisers as a body had no theological motive in inserting it, it 
 is nevertheless certain that it may have a theological meaning 
 attached to it by some readers of the Revised Version. Certainly 
 none is to be gathered from St. Paul's manner of speaking of 
 the event, " But when the fulness of the time was come, God 
 sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." 
 (Gal. iv. 4.) When the prophet announced that the Messiah 
 should be born of a virgin, it was a proof, as the angel subse- 
 quently announced, Luke i. 35, that He must be " the Son of 
 God : " but if he had been announced as the son of The Virgin, 
 it would naturally be supposed by some that He received His 
 sanctity from His mother ! 
 
 v. 44. " Bless them that curse you : do good to them 
 
 that hate you," totally omitted in Revised Version. 
 
 vi. 12. "And forgive us ... as we forgive" . . . 
 
 as we also have forgiven 
 
 We fear that this clause of the Lord's Prayer is too often 
 repeated in the same signification as the words given by the 
 Revisers more definitely indicate. But who of us is able to use 
 such a prayer ? Who of us would be content with, and pray for, 
 only that same degree of mercy to ourselves that we have shown 
 to our fellow-creatures ! Both here, and in St. Luke, the clause 
 is in the present, not the past, " as we forgive," " for we also 
 forgive." As it is not in the past, so is it neither in the future 
 as we will forgive : for promises to do something on a future 
 day which we are not willing to do in the present, are of no 
 avail ; but the clause is in the present, as if we said As we 
 undertake from this day forth to forgive our fellow creature?, 
 Thou, God helping us.
 
 "DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 15 
 
 13. "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver 
 
 us from evil." -from the evil one. 
 
 The interpretation of this clause of the Lord's Prayer, as given 
 by the Revisers, is nothing new. It was so explained at a very 
 early age, and has been supported by critics at different times. It 
 has not, however, been accepted by the Greek Church, neither 
 does it appear in the ancient liturgies. It occurs in several of 
 the Uncials, but in none of the Cursives. Let us then examine 
 the passage itself. The difference between the two interpretations 
 is that in the Revised Version the adjective " evil," Trovrjpos, has 
 the admitted article " the " in front of it, and the implied word one 
 after it, " the evil one ; " " one " being in italics. Where a word 
 does not exist in the original, it must be inserted in the trans- 
 lation only from necessity, to complete the sense. It does not 
 follow, however, that in this instance such word must be " one ; " 
 it may be some other word. Thus we read 
 
 " All these evil things come from within, and defile the 
 
 man." (Mark vii. 23.) 
 
 " And likewise Lazarus evil things." (Luke xvi. 25.) 
 " Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person" 
 referring to vv. 1 and 11, the word supplied not being 
 an arbitrary word, but referring to something before 
 stated. (1 Cor. v. 13.) 
 
 In all these instances a word is implied in the Greek, but has 
 to be expressed in English. In other instances, a word is implied 
 in both languages without being expressed, as 
 
 " He maketh his sun to arise on the evil and on the good." 
 
 (Matt. v. 45.) 
 " And shall sever the wicked from among the just." (Matt. 
 
 xiii. 49.) 
 
 " Now the just shall live by faith." (Heb. x. 38.) 
 " Ye have condemned and killed the just." (Jas. v. 6.) 
 " Vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked." 
 
 (2 Pet. ii. 7.) 
 "And knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable." 
 
 . . . (Rev. iii. 17.) 
 
 " But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." (Matt. v. 39.) 
 In this last passage, the gender being indeterminate, it may
 
 16 "DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 
 
 be either masculine or neuter. In the Authorized Translation it 
 is neuter in the abstract ; while the Revisers have with equal 
 authority translated it, Resist not him that is evil, referring to the 
 previous verse, though the words him that is should have been 
 in different type. 
 
 In others the word " one " is implied, and the sense shows it to 
 
 be the Evil One, or the Wicked One, except in 2 Thess. ii. 8, 
 
 where " the Wicked " (one) represents the " Man of Sin." See p. 62. 
 
 " The tares are the children of the wicked one" (Matt. 
 
 xiii. 38.) 
 " Wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts 
 
 of the wicked " (one). (Eph. vi. 16.) 
 
 " Ye have overcome the wicked one." (1 John ii. 13, 14.) 
 
 " Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one. " (1 John iii. 12.) 
 
 In the following, not only the sense, but the construction 
 
 shows that the word is masculine, and therefore that the Devil 
 
 is referred to 
 
 " Then cometh the wicked one." (Matt. xiii. 19.) 
 
 Called " Satan " in Mark iv. 15. 
 
 " And that wicked one touched him not." (1 John v. 18.) 
 In the instance which follows the construction shows the word 
 to be neuter, and that it signifies evil in the abstract 
 
 " Abhor that which is evil.'/ (Rom. xii. 9.) 
 While in the following we have the word "evil " occurring thru- 
 times ; the first time having the word " man " added to it, the 
 second time having another substantive, and the third time 
 being neuter 
 
 " And an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart 
 
 bringeth forth that which is evil." (Luke vi. 45.) 
 But in other examples, where the construction does not help 
 us, owing to the oblique cases, the gender is indeterminate, and 
 therefore may be either masculine or neuter 
 
 " For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." lit. of 
 
 the evil. (Matt. v. 37.) 
 " I pray. . . . that thou shouldst keep them from 
 
 the evil." (John xvii. 15.) 
 
 " The Lord shall stablish you, and keep you from evil." lit. 
 from the evil. (2 Thess. iii. 3.)
 
 " DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 17 
 
 "And the whole world lieth in wickedness." lit. in the 
 
 evil, or wicked. (1 John v. 19.) 
 
 In the first, second, and third of these the Revisers have trans- 
 lated the word, "the evil one," and in the fourth, "the evil 
 one ; " although there is no more authority in one case than the 
 others for adding the word " one." In like manner, in three 
 other passages, which have been already referred to, they have, 
 without the slightest authority, and contrary to all idiom of the 
 English language, translated 
 
 But my righteous one shall live by faith. 
 
 Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one. 
 
 And knoivest not that thou art the wretched one. 
 We thus see that where the gender is not shown, we must 
 rely solely upon the context to determine whether the word 
 " evil " is to be understood as referable to a wicked person or 
 persons, to the Wicked One, or Evil One, or to evil or wicked- 
 ness in the abstract. 
 
 Examining, then, these four doubtful passages by the context, 
 we see that in Matt. v. 37, it cannot mean that anything 
 beyond " yea " and " nay " comes from the Devil ; but that light 
 and foolish swearing in confirmation of what we say, is evil. 
 In John xvii. 15, we see that our Lord, immediately before, had 
 said, " I pray not that thou shouldesb take them out of the 
 world ; " and therefore that the words which follow must mean, 
 "but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil" of the 
 world. In 2 Thess. iii. 3, we read in the preceding verse, 
 " And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked 
 men ; for all men have not faith ; " therefore the next verse 
 must read, " But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, 
 and keep you from evil " men ; or rather, from wicked men ; for 
 the same Greek word is used as in the foregoing verse. Conse- 
 quently, 1 John v. 19, is the only passage where it is at all 
 doubtful whether the word applies to evil in the abstractor to the 
 Evil One. Either would make a good meaning. We may read 
 either " The whole world lieth in wickedness," or " The whole, 
 world lieth in subjection to the Evil One ; in which latter render- 
 ing, however, it is necessary to supply the ellipsis by adding the 
 words, subjection to. But when the simpler reading is sufficient, 
 
 B
 
 18 " DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 
 
 why should we go out of our way in giving a more difficult one ? 
 Indeed, the Revisers themselves inculcate " A shorter to be 
 preferred to a longer reading." As in the preceding passages 
 we have proved the Revisers to be wrong in applying the word 
 to the Evil One, so it is probable that they are wrong also 
 in this. 
 
 We come now to the passage before us in the Lord's Prayer. 
 We have shown, from consideration of the foregoing passages, 
 that there is no authority for introducing the word " One: " for 
 any other word or words may with equal authority be supplied, 
 as, Deliver us from the evil of sin, or the evil of the world, or 
 the evil of our own hearts, or the evil that surrounds us, or the 
 evil that may come upon us. As the addition of the word One is 
 unjustifiable, so the insertion of the article in English may be 
 contrary to the sense, as it is to the idiom of its use in Greek, 
 where from the delicacy of the language various rules have to 
 be observed. We have already seen, in treating of Matt. i. 23, 
 how grotesque and unmeaning a literal translation from the 
 Greek is in this respect, and how the retention of the article in 
 our English translation must depend upon the sense. Curiously, 
 we have an instance of this in the two verses which im- 
 mediately succeed this petition of the Lord's Prayer in the 
 Revised Version (where the doxology is omitted). We there 
 read, " For, if ye forgive the men their trespasses " . . . " But, 
 if ye forgive not the men their trespasses : " and so again in 
 v. 18, " that thou appear not unto the men to fast ; " in all which 
 cases the article is omitted not only in our Authorized Translation, 
 but by the Revisers themselves. If omitted in all these instances, 
 why should we admit it in the passage before us ? We have to 
 thank the Translators of 1611 therefore for having given us 
 
 " But deliver us from evil." 
 
 For evidently the clause relates to the preceding one. We 
 pray that we may not be led into temptation ; but, if it come 
 upon us, we pray that we may be delivered out of it. As our 
 Lord sent out his apostles " by two and two," and his seventy 
 disciples " two and two," as the names of the apostles are given 
 to us, both by St. Matthew and St. Luke, in pairs, and as we
 
 "DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 19 
 
 find our Lord constantly giving his instruction in couplets : 
 " ask, and it shall he given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, 
 and it shall be opened unto you ; " so here we have in the 
 Lord's Prayer heaven and earth connected ; the forgiveness of 
 others' trespasses and the forgiveness of our own ; and in the 
 clause before us, prayer against temptation, and deliverance 
 from it. It is evident then, we say, that the two clauses are 
 connected together, and if so, if the Evil One is alluded to, the 
 interpretation should in that case be : Let not the Evil One 
 lead us into temptation, but deliver us from his evil influence ; 
 but this cannot be ; for at our Lord's agony in the garden He 
 told His disciples who accompanied Him, " Watch and pray, 
 that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, 
 but the flesh is weak." This implies active power in ourselves 
 to avoid entering into temptation, agreeing with what St. James 
 tells us, that temptation is not from without, but from within 
 ourselves. If then we are watching and praying that we may 
 not be led into sin through our own lusts, (2 Tim. iii. 6,) God 
 will fulfil His promise of preserving us from evil which is with- 
 out. " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of 
 temptations;" (2 Peter ii. 9;) "I also will keep thee from the 
 hour of temptation ; " (Rev. iii. 10 ;) " God is faithful, who will 
 not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able ; but 
 will, with the temptation, also make a way to escape, that ye 
 may be able to bear it." (1 Cor. x. 13.) It has been well 
 observed by Dr. Leary 1 that if the Devil were here referred to, 
 he would have been designated by the word Tempter, in analogy 
 with 1 Thes. iii. 5 : " Lest the Tempter have tempted you," and 
 with the previous petition in the Prayer itself, " And forgive us 
 our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us," and 
 thus the petition would have been, " Lead us not into temptation, 
 but deliver us from the Tempter." But as there is no authority 
 for introducing the Evil One in the former petition, there is no 
 justification for doing so in the latter ; and as we have shown 
 that in the four other doubtful passages " the Evil One " has 
 
 1 " Examination of Bishop Lightfoot on the last petition of the Lord's Prayer," 
 Christ. Opin., No. 3. 
 
 B 2
 
 20 " DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 
 
 been erroneously introduced by the Revisers, so also in this we 
 see that there is no authority for so doing. 
 
 But we have a deeper and a more conclusive argument in the 
 testimony of St. Paul. In his Second Epistle to Timothy, iv. 
 14 18, where he narrates how the Lord had delivered him 
 from the accusation of Alexander the coppersmith, the mention 
 of the word " deliver " seems to have recalled to the Apostle's 
 mind the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, " deliver us from evil. 
 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for 
 ever and ever. Amen." He says : " And the Lord shall deliver 
 me from every evil work, and preserve me unto his heavenly 
 kingdom : to whom be glory, for ever and ever. Amen." In- 
 deed, the Apostle seems to have dwelt much on the Lord's 
 Prayer, and His promise to " deliver us from evil : " for if our 
 Lord teaches us to pray that God will " deliver us from evil," it 
 is a promise on His part that He will so deliver us. For we 
 find him in another place, writing to the Galatians, after 
 bestowing on them the benediction of God and of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, saying, " who gave himself for our sins, that he 
 might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the 
 will of God and our Father, to whom be glory for ever and 
 ever. Amen." (i. 4, 5.) If this be so, it is conclusive, we say, 
 as showing the Apostle's interpretation of the clause ; and con- 
 clusive also in proving the genuineness of the doxology, which 
 we are now in danger of having blotted out of God's word ; all 
 the promises of which have been given us of God ; but which 
 man is desirous of taking away from us, because some scribe 
 negligently omitted to record them in copying from an earlier 
 manuscript. 
 
 This being so ; if internal evidence, constructive evidence, and 
 apostolic evidence, all point one way ; is it not a sin to alter 
 such a blessed gift as THE LORD'S PRAYER, bestowed upon us by 
 our Saviour ; to introduce a term so foreign and repugnant to 
 the soft breathing of these precious words, in which we are 
 permitted, and encouraged, and told to address God as Our 
 Father, to have our thoughts raised to heaven, to lift up our 
 souls in praise to Him, to pray for the time when we may live 
 with Him, that this earth may be like to Heaven, to tell Him
 
 " DELIVER US FROM EVIL." 21 
 
 that we depend upon Him for all we want, that we may show 
 kindness to our fellow-creatures, as God shows kindness to us, 
 that He would keep us from all harm ; and then, when all the 
 faculties of our soul are lifted up in holy love and confidence to 
 God, when this feeling should dwell in us and abide in us that 
 God is our Father, and we are His children to have it all 
 so ruthlessly swept away by bringing us in presence of the 
 Evil One ! 
 
 It will be argued that we are frequently told in the Scriptures 
 that we are to resist the Devil, (Eph. iv. 27 ; vi. 11 13 ; Jas. iv. 
 7 ; 1 Pet. v. 9,) and therefore that we must pray to be delivered 
 from him. We must naturally watch and pray, and we are told 
 to do so by our Lord ; (Matt, xxvi. 41 ;) but the means of with- 
 standing the Devil is not by anything which we can do, by 
 watching, or even by praying, which, however important and 
 necessary, are after all a kind of work on our part, but by the 
 exercise of faith in God, and believing and trusting in His 
 promised help, and then " That Wicked One toucheth us not." 
 Thus, our Lord repelled the Devil, not by prayer, but by the 
 exercise of faith in God's word ; the children of Israel were 
 saved from the fiery serpents, not by trying to avoid them, but 
 by looking with an eye of faith on the type set before them ; 
 and Peter was enabled to walk on the water as long as he looked 
 up in faith to the Saviour, but sank immediately he looked 
 down upon the danger beneath him ; and thus in after years 
 he was able to teach us " Be vigilant, because your adversary 
 the Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he 
 may devour : whom resist stedfast in the faith," (or rather, in 
 faith.} Here, therefore, we do not pray that we may be 
 delivered from the Evil One ; but we conclude " the prayer of 
 faith "as we began it, by faith in God, and not in fear of the 
 Devil. Our Lord constantly tells us to " fear not," and St. John 
 says, " he that feareth is not made perfect in love." We must 
 pray, not so much to be delivered from the Evil One, but, like 
 Joseph, that we may not sin against God. If God is dwelling 
 in our hearts, the Devil cannot enter. 
 
 Canon Cook x has proved in the most satisfactory manner that 
 1 " Second Letter to the Lord Bishop of London," 1882.
 
 2-2 - DELIVER US FROM KYI I,. 
 
 iliis clause in the Lord's Prayer was understood ill the ancient 
 Church as a prayer, not against the Evil One, but for deliver- 
 ance from all evil, material as well as spiritual : but we cannot 
 believe that this is what our Lord taught us. Our Lord taught 
 His disciples, immediately after giving us this prayer, "Take no 
 thought for the morrow : for the morrow shall take thought for 
 the things of itself, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." 
 (v. 34". ) And this was not merely with regard to their daily food, 
 " what we shall eat, or what we shall drink, or wherewithal we 
 shall be clothed," but even when the evil involved bodily pain, 
 or persecution, or death, he bad them, " take no thought before- 
 hand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate." As re- 
 gards earthly cares and troubles, and evils of every kind, we 
 have been taught already to ask for what is necessary and good 
 for us, whether for good or evil, in the words of the Prayer, 
 '' Give us this day our daily bread ; " and having this, we are 
 content to leave ourselves in the hands of God, knowing that 
 " all things work together for good to them that love God ; " 
 and that, "if we seek first the kingdom of God and his 
 righteousness, all these things shall be added unto us." More- 
 over, if this clause related to material evils as well as spiritual, 
 the conjunction " But" with which it is introduced should have 
 been And; as it would then have been of a totally different 
 nature to the preceding clause. But it is impossible to give the 
 word a\\a this interpretation. Neither can it be so, the clause 
 is antithetical " Lead us not into . . . but deliver us from" 
 " temptation " to sin, and " evil " thoughts, and " evil " deeds. 
 
 It is true, the connection between these two clauses has been 
 adduced as an argument on the other side ; that as " tempta- 
 tion" must proceed from the Devil, so " deliverance from evil " 
 must refer likewise to the Evil One. But this cannot be : for 
 we pray to God to " lead us not into temptation." We do not 
 pray, Suffer not the Devil to lead us into temptation : but it is a 
 matter between our heavenly Father and ourselves. Now \\ e 
 know that God cannot tempt us : " but every man is tempted 
 when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed ; " that " from 
 within, out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts. . . . All 
 these things come from within, and defile the man." Let us then
 
 THE DOXOLOGY. 23 
 
 not try to throw the blame on the Devil, as our first parents did, 
 and so make ourselves innocent : but let us pray that we may 
 be kept innocent by trusting in our heavenly Father, so that by 
 loving and following Him, we may be kept within His fold. 
 When God's Spirit is within our hearts, no one else can enter 
 in, and we may be " persuaded that .... neither angels, nor 
 principalities, nor powers .... nor any other creature, shall be 
 able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord." It is a false theology therefore to say that we 
 should pray to God to deliver us from the Evil One, instead of 
 from our own evil hearts. The Devil tempts us all; but he 
 tempts us equally ; (1 Cor. x. 13 ;) and it is an idle excuse for 
 a man, when he commits murder, or steals, or falls into any 
 other crime, to say, " I was tempted of the Devil ; " for for a 
 long time previously he had cherished lust and passion in his 
 heart, instead of desiring God's spirit to dwell there. 
 
 Dr. Roberts, one of the Revisers, has well said, speaking of 
 this last petition in the Lord's Prayer : " The first supplication, 
 prompted by a consciousness of human weakness, is ' Lead us 
 not into temptation.' Sometimes, however, as in the case of 
 Abraham, temptation or trial is necessary and beneficial, so that 
 the modifying prayer is added, ' But deliver us from evil.' The 
 meaning is, that, if it seem good to the Divine Wisdom to 
 subject us to temptation, we should, at any rate, be kept from 
 
 yielding to it The introduction of a personal reference 
 
 here, and in other passages, (John xvii. 15; and v. 19,) seems 
 to me one of the most unfortunate changes admitted into the 
 Revised Version." 1 
 
 13. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power 
 
 and the glory, for ever. Amen." Omitted by the 
 Revisers, because it is not in their favourite MSS. 
 B and fr$, in D and L, in a few Cursives, which follow 
 them, the Latin Version, and the Vulgate. 
 
 But Dr. Malan shows it to exist in versions much older than 
 these MSS., and the late Mr. Forshall, keeper of the MSS. in the 
 British Museum, has conclusively shown its authenticity. 2 But we 
 
 " Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament," in The Quiver, 
 Part 191. 2 Christ. Opin., pp. 437 and 463.
 
 24 THE DOXOLOGY. 
 
 have a more ancient, and more conclusive authority for it than 
 any MS. or any version ; for we have seen it quoted by St. Paul 
 in our remarks on the last clause of the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 The Lord's Prayer is a prayer of faith : and therefore 
 when we pray in the words of this Prayer, we confirm that 
 prayer, and obtain an answer to that prayer, only by the faith 
 which has accompanied that prayer. We confess by it that 
 God has the " power " to grant us what we ask for ; that 
 His is the " kingdom," and therefore that He will give it ; 
 and to Him therefore we ascribe the " glory ; " feeling assured 
 by faith, " that we have the petitions that we desired of him." 
 How then can we omit the Doxology due to God, at the bidding 
 of man ; and so lose the benefit of the things we ask for ? As 
 we are taught in all our .prayers to ask God to grant our 
 petitions for Christ's sake, so our Lord, in giving us this Prayer, 
 would naturally teach us, in conformity with the ancient 
 Jewish practice, to conclude the Prayer as we began it, with an 
 ascription of praise to God. An argument against the authen- 
 ticity of the Doxology is adduced in the fact that it does not 
 appear in St. Luke's account of the Lord's Prayer: but this 
 argument is worth nothing when we recollect that several of the 
 petitions of the Lord's Prayer are also omitted in St. Luke's 
 Gospel as given us by the Revisers, and that this Gospel has 
 suffered more mutilations in certain MSS. than any others. We 
 shall presently show, however, when examining St. Luke's 
 account of the Lord's Prayer, that there is abundant authority 
 for the Doxology, as originally written by that Evangelist ; but 
 which, with many other passages in the New Testament, was 
 carelessly or otherwise omitted by ancient copyists, and, with 
 all such passages, is now in danger of being authoritatively 
 (if so allowed, which God forbid ! ) cast out of God's Word by 
 modern Revisers. It is also objected that it does not appear in 
 the account of the Lord's Prayer given us by some ancient 
 writers : but it is possible that these writers may have confined 
 themselves to the petitions of the Prayer, and so left out the 
 Doxology. But we must not let the objection against the 
 Doxology, founded on its absence from St. Luke's Gospel, pass 
 over thus easily. As the passage stands only in St. Matthew's
 
 MATT. VIII. XVI. 25 
 
 Gospel, no favourite charge of " assimilation " can be brought 
 forward in this case : it must be the other favourite charge of 
 " interpolation" But if any scribe interpolated the Doxology as 
 a fitting conclusion to the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 how is it that he did not interpolate it also in the corresponding 
 place in St. Luke's Gospel ? And if the scribe thought he was 
 justified in inserting it, from the universal practice of the 
 Church, how is it that, as the Prayer is addressed to God the 
 Father by the teaching and direction of God the Son, and we 
 are taught therein to call God " Our Father " by the authority 
 of our Lord, he did not, instead of an ascription of praise, 
 conclude the Prayer with the usual formula, " through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord " ? It is no interpolation, therefore, but an 
 actual portion of the Prayer itself. 1 
 
 For remarks on St. Luke's account of the Lord's Prayer, see 
 Luke xi. 2, 3, 4, further on. 
 
 viii. 3. " I will. Be thou clean." Be thou made clean. 
 
 In the Authorized Translation it is a command from God the 
 Son : in the Revised Version it is a prayer only. See also Mark 
 v. 23. 
 
 29. " What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou 
 
 Son of God ? " to do with thee, thou Son of God ? 
 The Revised Version prints the word " Son " with a capital 
 letter, as referring to our Lord : but, from the omission of our 
 Lord's name, sceptics would naturally say that those possessed by 
 the devils, simply addressed him as a prophet, as a son of God. 
 
 xvi. 23. " Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an 
 
 offence unto me : " a stumbling-Hock 
 
 The alteration of the word seems to imply a fear of stumbling 
 on our Lord's part ! 
 
 26. " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain 
 
 the whole world, and lose his own soul ? or what shall 
 a man give in exchange for his soul ? " and forfeit his 
 life ? ... in exchange for his life ? 
 Certainly, the alteration makes sense : but what a sense ! 
 
 1 Since the publication of the Revised Version, another authority for the 
 Doxology of the Lord's Prayer is said to have appeared in the uncial MS. 5, 
 Codex Rosanensis.
 
 1C) MATT. XVI., XVII. 
 
 We all know that as far as this world is concerned, " A living 
 dog is better than a dead lion." But the reference is to the 
 future state, and therefore it relates to the soul. 
 
 The preceding verse without the Authorized rendering of this 
 verse would be a contradiction : for how could a man who once 
 lost his life find it again ? But by this verse we see that the 
 preceding verse signifies, For whosoever shall think only of 
 this life, shall lose life everlasting : but whosoever shall sacrifice 
 his life here for My sake, shall inherit everlasting life hereafter. 
 The word ^rv^rj, " soul," which the Revisers here translate life, 
 is contradistinguished from aw/za, body, in Matt. x. 28, and is 
 there translated, by the Revisers themselves, " soul" Why then 
 did they not translate it here also by the same word, when it is 
 so essential to the meaning ; unless it were as appears to be so 
 constantly the case in this " Revision " that they wished to 
 detract from the authority of the Authorized Translation by 
 changing as much as possible ? 
 
 xvii. 2. " And his raiment was white as the light." 
 
 and his garments became white. . . . 
 
 It is quite evident, from the appearance of Moses and Elijah, 
 that our Lord's transfiguration and we may remark that it has 
 been so called by the Church in all ages was something super- 
 natural. " His face did shine as the sun," and his " raiment 
 was white as the light ; " words which agree perfectly with the 
 original. In like manner is our Lord described at His resur- 
 rection. " His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment 
 white as snow." (xxviii. 3.) Similar is the description in the 
 Book of Revelation. By the Revisers' alteration we might 
 suppose that a mere accidental light fell on Him. 
 
 21. "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by 
 
 prayer and fasting." Omitted by the Revisers. 
 
 These words are given by St. Mark, ix. 29, who, on his part, 
 judging by the MSS. come down to us, omits the words given 
 by St. Matthew, v. 20, " Because of your unbelief." As several 
 MSS. give v. 21 in St. Matthew's Gospel, and we all acknow- 
 ledge that our Lord uttered these words, why should we 
 conclude that St. Matthew omitted them, rather than one of 
 his copyists ? Our Lord tells His disciples that they failed to
 
 MATT. XVII. XIX. 27 
 
 cure the youth because of their feebleness of faith, and shows 
 them how they may strengthen their faith by prayer, forgetting 
 for a time the pleasures of this life ; forgetting all else while 
 engaged in God's service ; like our Lord, who, when His disciples 
 urged Him to eat, said, " I have meat to eat that ye know 
 not of." 
 
 xviii. 6. " But whoso shall offend one of these little 
 
 ones which believe in me, it were better for him that 
 a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that 
 he were drowned in the depth of the sea." it is 
 profitable for him 
 
 How can it be profitable for a man to be cut off in the midst 
 of his sin ? We pray to be delivered from sudden death solely 
 to prevent this. But if a man is living and continuing in deadly 
 sin, we may say, " It had been good for that man if he had not 
 been born ;" or that he had died sooner than commit such a crime. 
 
 11. " For the Son of man is come to save that which 
 
 was lost." Omitted. 
 
 - xix. 16, 17. " One came and said unto him, Good 
 Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have 
 eternal life ? And he said unto him, Why callest thou 
 me good ? There is none good but one, that is God." 
 - .... said unto him, Master, what good thing 
 shall I do that I may have eternal life ? . . . . Why 
 asJcest thou me concerning that which is good? One 
 there is who is good. 
 
 By leaving out the words, " Good " and " God," the Eevisers 
 make our Lord's answer refer to " good thing." But, if so, why 
 should our Lord have added, as the Revisers put it, One there is 
 who is good ? For how could that be an answer to the question 
 addressed to our Lord by the ruler ? But it so happens that 
 both St. Mark, x. 17, 18, and St. Luke, xviii. 18, 19, give both 
 these words ; the Revisers thus rendering the passage in each 
 case, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? 
 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? None is 
 good save one, even God. Now, here it must be observed that 
 neither St. Mark nor St. Luke mention the words " good thing," 
 while they do mention the words " Good " before Master, and
 
 28 MATT. XIX. XXIV. 
 
 "God." As St. Mark and St. Luke therefore make our Lord's 
 answer refer to the ruler's having addressed him as " Good 
 Master," St. Matthew cannot have represented our Lord to have 
 made His answer refer to " good thing." It follows, then, that 
 the Revisers have erroneously omitted the words " Good " and 
 " God " in St. Matthew's Gospel. This example shows the evil 
 which would be done to the Christian world if words and 
 passages are to be erased from one Gospel because the same 
 words or passages are found in the other Gospels ; as if two 
 accounts by different Evangelists of the same event necessarily 
 prove that one must have been " interpolated " from the other 
 by some copyist; and the cry is raised of "accommodation," 
 " assimilation," " conforming," and the passage is immediately 
 struck out. The omission here is due to the MSS. B, N, and 
 D. It is extraordinary that the Revisers should pay greater 
 reverence to these MSS. than to the testimony of St. Mark and 
 St. Luke. Are the Revisers aware that they thus make St. 
 Matthew an uninspired Evangelist, by misquoting the answer 
 of our Lord ? 
 
 xx. 16. "For many be called, but few chosen." Omitted. 
 
 22. " and to be baptized with the baptism that I 
 
 am baptized with ? " Omitted. 
 23. " and to be baptized with the baptism that I 
 
 am baptized with." Omitted. 
 
 . ..." is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them 
 
 for whom it is prepared of my Father." but (it is for 
 
 them} for whom, &c. 
 
 In the Authorized Translation the words in italics, " it shall 
 be given," and in the Revised Version the words " it is" should 
 be omitted; and the word "but" changed to except. Both 
 translations, as they stand, make it appear that our Lord had 
 no voice in the matter. 
 
 xxiii. 33. " Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how 
 
 can ye escape the damnation of hell?" the judgement 
 
 of hell. See Mark iii. 29, further on. 
 xxiv. 36. The Revisers " interpolate " here from 
 
 certain MSS. They add the words neither the Son 
 
 which are justified, however, by Mark xiii. 32.
 
 MATT. XXVII. 29 
 
 xxvii. 35. "That it might be fulfilled which was 
 
 spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments 
 among them, and upon my vesture did they cast 
 lots." 
 
 By leaving out these words, the Revisers omit the declaration 
 that this was an accomplishment of prophecy. See also 
 Mark xv. 28. 
 
 54. " Now when the centurion and they that were 
 
 with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake and 
 those things that were done, they feared greatly, 
 saying, Truly, this was the Son of God." 
 
 Mark xv. 39. " Truly, this man was the Son of 
 God." 
 
 Revised Version, note in each case or, a son of 
 God. 
 
 In other words, the centurion did not say that our Saviour 
 was God, but simply a good man. This agrees, it is true, with 
 St. Luke's account, " Certainly, this was a righteous man." To 
 account for this discrepancy we must consider that according to 
 St. Matthew these remarks were made by " the centurion and 
 they that were with him." Consequently it is very probable 
 that some of those who were standing by used the words as 
 given by St. Luke, while St. Matthew and St. Mark give us the 
 words uttered by the centurion. But one circumstance must be 
 remembered. It is that all three Evangelists preface the excla 
 mation by the word " Truly." Even St. Luke, who records the 
 qualified expression, makes use of this same word : or, more 
 correctly, St. Matthew and St. Mark make use of the word, 
 'AX77#&>9, Truly ; while St. Luke uses another word, "OvTO)<s, 
 Certainly. Now, why was this word " Truly " or " Certainly " 
 used ? The centurion was evidently the officer in command of 
 the guard who attended the trial and execution of our Lord. 
 He had therefore several and repeated times heard it stated 
 that our Lord declared Himself to be the Son of God. 
 
 When our Lord was taken before Caiaphas, he said to him, 
 " I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether 
 thou be the Christ, the Son of God." On leaving Caiaphas, 
 when taken before the Sanhedrin or Synedrion, " the elders
 
 30 .MATT. XXVII. MARK I. 
 
 of the people and the chief priests and the scribes " exclaimed 
 all together, " Art thou then the Son of God ? and he said 
 unto them, Ye say TJiat I am." Our Lord being then taken 
 before Pilate, for trial, the Jews asserted that by their law " he 
 ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." After 
 the crucifixion, when our Saviour was suffering on the cross, 
 these same Jews reviled him, saying, " If thou be the Son of 
 God, come down from the cross ; " while the chief priests and 
 scribes and elders mocked him, saying, " He trusted in God : let 
 him deliver him now, if he will have him : for he said I am the 
 Son of God." Recollecting all this, and much more he might 
 have learnt if he had made inquiiy ; and seeing that no sooner 
 had our Lord, in an unwonted manner, cried out with a loud 
 voice in giving up the ghost, (see observations on Mark xv. 39,) 
 that the veil of the Temple rent in twain from the top to 
 the bottom, that an unnatural darkness spread over all the land 
 from the sixth to the ninth hour, that the earth quaked, that 
 the rocks rent, that the graves opened, and bodies of the saints 
 arose no wonder he " feared greatly, saying, Truly, this was 
 the Son of God." 
 
 MARK i. 1. " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
 the Son of God." A doubt is expressed by the 
 Revisers on the words, " the Son of God." 
 It is curious that the first alteration in St. Mark's Gospel 
 which affects doctrine, should be identical with the last alteration 
 which we have noted in St. Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 2. " As it is written in the prophets " As it is 
 
 written in Isaiah the prophet 
 
 The prophecy in this verse is taken from Mai. iii. 1, and in 
 the next verse from IB. xl. 3. St. Mark, therefore, an inspired 
 Evangelist, is represented as not knowing his Bible ! 
 
 31. "And immediately the fever left her" The 
 
 Revisers leave out the word " immediately." 
 
 It is the word " immediately " that marks the miracle. 
 Without it it might be supposed that our Lord used some 
 remedial measures which were the means of restoring her. 
 
 43. In r. 40, 41, we read, " there came a leper to 
 
 him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, (note
 
 MARK I. III. 31 
 
 by the Revisers, some ancient authorities omit " and 
 kneeling down to him,") and saying unto him, If thou 
 wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved 
 with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, 
 and saith unto him, I will : be thou clean." And yet, in 
 this verse, the Revisers, in a note, make our Lord say, 
 and he sternly charged him, saying. . . . 
 
 ii. 12. " And immediately he arose, took up the bed, 
 
 and went forth before them all ; " And he arose, and 
 straightway took up the bed. . . . 
 
 As the adverb eu#e?, "immediately," comes between the 
 word " arose " and the conjunction " and," it cannot possibly relate 
 to the taking up of his bed, but means that " He arose imme- 
 diately, and took up his bed " This error, arising from an 
 
 alteration in the punctuation, by connecting the adverb with 
 what follows, instead of with what precedes, tends to lessen the 
 significancy of the effect produced by the instantaneous working 
 of the mighty power of our Lord, so wonderfully exhibited by 
 the Psalmist, when he said, 
 
 " For He spake ; and it was done : 
 
 He commanded ; and it stood fast ! " 
 This passage, therefore, is exactly similar to the last. 
 
 iii. 29. " But he that shall blaspheme against the 
 
 Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of 
 eternal damnation." lut is guilty of an eternal sin. 
 Wherever the word " damnation " appears in the Authorized 
 Translation, it has been changed by the Revisers to some other 
 word, as judgment, condemnation, or destruction ; and here it is 
 changed to eternal sin. The present is a very good opportunity 
 of weighing the correct significance and applicability of this word. 
 We fortunately have parallel statements of this passage by the 
 other synoptists, which are expressed in different words, and will 
 thus determine the significance of St. Mark's language. St. 
 Luke, xii. 10, says, " But unto him that blasphemeth against the 
 Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven." St. Matthew, xii. 32, says, 
 " It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the 
 world to come." What is the difference between " damnation " 
 as given by St. Mark, and being " never forgiven, neither in this
 
 32 MARK III. IX, 
 
 world, neither in the world to come," as stated by St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke ? Is it not a trifling with Holy Scripture to endeavour 
 to do away with " hard sayings," because we do not like them, to 
 be like those of old time who said to the prophets, " Prophecy 
 not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophecy 
 deceit " ? The author of the Companion to the Revised Version 
 of the New Testament, says of two such passages, " Damned is 
 now (mark the word) too strong an expression, and has been 
 avoided in the Revised Version." 1 In the present day we 
 have men rising up on all sides denying the existence of eternal 
 punishment, and using such incautious language, that God is 
 implied to be unjust and unmerciful if it exist, and that con- 
 sequently it cannot be : and here we are told that " damnation " 
 is too strong a term to use for modern ears ! One thing is 
 certain, that God's judgments will be in accordance with His 
 own Word, and not with our interpretation of it. 
 
 v. 23. " and lay thy hands upon her, that she may be 
 
 healed ; and she shall live." that she may be made 
 whole and live. 
 
 The former is an act of power : the latter is the act of prayer. 
 See also Matt. viii. 3. In St. Matthew ix. 18, it is in the singular, 
 " lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live ; " (without the inter- 
 mediate words, " that she may be healed ; ") and is thus more 
 emphatic. 
 
 33. " the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing 
 
 what was done in her " to her 
 This a lessening of the miracle. 
 
 vii. 35. "And straightway his ears were opened." 
 
 The Revisers omit the word " straightway." 
 - ix. 12. "how that it is written of the Son of 
 man, that he must suffer many things " should suffer 
 This merely declares the fact; that the necessity of the fact: this 
 makes the death a cruel martyrdom ; that a voluntary offering. 
 
 24. " And straightway the father of the child cried 
 
 out, and said, with tears, Lord, I believe : help thou 
 mine unbelief." The Revisers omit " Lord," and 
 " with tears." 
 
 1 p. 123.
 
 MARK IX. 33 
 
 How natural these words, and who is likely to have interpo- 
 lated them ? When our Lord said to the father, " If thou canst 
 believe, all things are possible to him that believeth," is it to be 
 supposed that He merely asked him whether he believed that 
 a miracle, or a power of healing, could take place ; and not 
 rather, whether he believed in Him as the Son of God, and 
 therefore able to do what he would ? It is not, then, a barren 
 belief in the possibility of a miracle in the father's reply : 
 but, in acknowledging the Saviour, tears spring into his eyes, 
 and he addresses Him as Lord, and prays Him to strengthen 
 his faith. Away with a cold and frigid Revision, that thus 
 cuts off the most touching narratives of Holy Writ, whenever 
 scribes have inadvertently omitted them. 
 
 29. " This kind can come forth by nothing but by 
 
 prayer and fasting." The Revisers omit " and fasting." 
 
 To omit these words, our Lord is made to say, " This kind 
 can come forth by nothing but by prayer." Miracles were, 
 however, constantly performed by the Apostles by prayer : but 
 in this case our Lord told his disciples there was something 
 especial, and that consequently special means had to be 
 employed. In St. Matthew's account of this miracle, xvii. 21, 
 we have the word " fasting," but this verse has been struck 
 out by the Revisers. The word " fasting " is also omitted by 
 the Revisers in Acts x. 30. Dr. Dwight, one of the American 
 New Testament Revision Company, says, " There are but three 
 passages in the Epistles of St. Paul, where the word fasting 
 is found. Those in 2 Cor. vi. 5, and xi. 27, probably refer to 
 involuntary fasting. If this word in 1 Cor. vii. 5, were 
 excluded from the text, we should have no allusion to fasting 
 as a Christian duty anywhere in the New Testament from Acts 
 to Revelation. The Apostle never enjoins this duty, nor is 
 there certain evidence that Jesus did so. The Revisers omit 
 Matthew xvii. 21, and the word ' fasting ' in Mark ix. 29. All 
 allusions to the matter in the Gospels and Acts, other than 
 them, may be explained by a conformity to Jewish customs. 
 The manipulation of the text, in the places to which we have 
 made especial reference, shows the tendency of a later time than 
 the Apostolic age." It is true that our Lord did away with the 
 
 c
 
 34 MARK IX. XI. 
 
 outward and formal fasting required by the Jews, Matthew vi. 
 16; ix. 14 ; Mark ii. 18; Luke v. 33 ; but He enjoined it as a 
 private exercise, Matt. vi. 16, 17 ; He practised it Himself, 
 Matt. iv. 2 ; and His Apostles did so also, Acts xiv. 23. 
 
 44, 46." Where their worm dieth not, and the fire 
 
 is not quenched." And v. 45, " into the fire that 
 never shall be quenched." All these passages are 
 omitted by the Revisers, because omitted in certain 
 .MSS. 
 
 No doubt the words were obnoxious to those who denied 
 the existence of eternal punishment. 
 
 48, 49. " Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
 
 not quenched. For every one shall be salted with 
 fire," 
 
 These verses read by themselves have been adduced as a 
 conclusive authority for the doctrine of purgatory : and by 
 omitting the latter part of v. 49, which refers to Levit. ii. 13, 
 and Ezek. xliii. 24, the connection appears still more evident. 
 But this supposed connection is illusory : for when we read the 
 latter part of v. 49, "and every sacrifice shall be salted with 
 salt," which has been omitted by the Revisers, and connect it 
 with the following verse, "Have salt in yourselves, and have 
 peace one with another," we see that the words, instead of 
 referring to purgatory, refer to this life, and are meant to teach 
 us self-denial, love to our neighbour, (see verses 41 47,) and 
 joyful submission to God's chastenings. The argument renders 
 it certain that these words are no interpolation. 
 
 x. 21. "and come, take up the cross, and follow me." 
 
 The words, " take up the cross," are omitted by the 
 Revisers. 
 
 xi. 3. " Go your way into the village .... and ye 
 
 shall find a colt tied .... loose him, and bring him. 
 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this ? say 
 ye that the Lord hath need of him : and straightway 
 he will send him hither." and straightway he fill 
 send him back hither. 
 
 By the Authorized Translation the man sent the colt 
 " because the Lord had need of him." By the Revised Version
 
 MARK XI. XV. 35 
 
 the man let him go because it was promised that it should be 
 returned to him ! St. Luke, xix. 31, says nothing of such 
 promise. If the transaction taught us nothing, is it likely that 
 the Evangelist would have encumbered his narrative with such 
 unnecessary detail ? And if it is meant to teach us something, 
 why is that something omitted ? 
 
 - 26. "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your 
 
 Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." 
 
 Omitted by the Revisers. 
 xii. 40. " Beware of the Scribes . . . which devour 
 
 widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : 
 
 these shall receive greater damnation." condemnation. 
 Why should the term be softened ? Our Lord is described as 
 " a friend of publicans and sinners," ever ready to pardon and 
 forgive them. But though opposed to all who work wicked- 
 ness, He is more so to them who " teach men so." And we find 
 St. Matthew records no fewer than three several occasions when 
 our Lord addressed the words, " O generation of vipers " to the 
 Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes. The minister of God has a 
 higher reward, or a greater punishment. 
 
 xiii. 34. " For the Son of man is as a man taking a 
 
 far journey" It is as when a man sojourning in 
 
 another country 
 
 In either case words have to be supplied : but the Revised 
 Version makes the word It refer to " For ye know not when 
 the time is : " while the Authorized Translation refers what 
 follows at once to the Son of man. The whole chapter refers to 
 the Second Coming of our Lord. At the beginning of the 
 chapter the disciples ask our Lord, " When shall these things 
 be ?" And St. Matthew adds in the corresponding place, xxiv. 3, 
 " and what shall be the sign of thy coming ? " and here in v. 26, 
 we read, " And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the 
 clouds with great power and glory." Why lessen the solemn 
 teaching of such a subject by arbitrarily changing " the Son of 
 man " to a man ? 
 
 xv. 28. "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, 
 
 And he was numbered with the transgressors." 
 Here also, as in Matt, xxvii. 35, words are omitted which 
 
 c 2
 
 3G MARK XV., XVI. 
 
 show the accomplishment of prophecy. Omitted, because they 
 are supposed to be taken from Luke xxii. 37. 
 
 39. " And when the centurion, which stood over 
 
 against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the 
 
 ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God." 
 
 The Revisers omit the words, " cried out, and " 
 
 though the Evangelist had previously twice directed attention 
 
 to our Lord's so crying out, vv. 34, 37. It was this strong cry 
 
 of our Lord, so different from the exhausted agony of those 
 
 crucified, which struck the centurion and convinced him ; and 
 
 it was this which the Evangelist had taken such pains to express ; 
 
 but which the Revisers have struck out because some favourite 
 
 MSS. have omitted it. 
 
 xvi. 16. " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 
 saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
 condemned. 
 
 As the antithesis to " believeth " is " believeth not ; " so the 
 antithesis to " saved " must be not-saved, or lost, or " damned." 
 Wu can make nothing else. 
 
 9-20. All these twelve entire verses are separated 
 
 from the text by a space, and a note is attached, " The 
 two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other autho- 
 rities, omit from v. 9 to the end. Some other authorities 
 have a different ending to the Gospel." 
 
 Of the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel it is said that it is 
 not written in the style or wording of the Evangelist, that it 
 does not appear in the two oldest MSS. B and M, and that 
 several of the Fathers assert that it was not found in the best 
 copies. On the other hand, " Irenseus quotes the passage with- 
 out the slightest misgiving, in the second century. ... It is full 
 of canonical authority." l But in addition to this there is the 
 fact, in addition to what has been already said in the Introduc- 
 tion, p. 7, that without these words the Gospel would end 
 abruptly, without recording all the proofs of our Lord's resur- 
 rection and ascension, and without giving his disciples charge 
 to preach the gospel. This we cannot suppose, and the 
 attempt to get over the difficulty by quoting instances of 
 
 1 Dr. Roberts, CVIKJ.I t/iiv/i, pp. G2, C3.
 
 MARK XVI. LUKE IV. 37 
 
 authors dying before their works were completed, 1 is opposed to 
 Christian faith, when we consider that the writer in this instance 
 was inspired by God to write this Gospel. Any doubt upon the 
 authenticity of these verses must be removed by what Dean 
 Burgon has written upon the subject. 
 
 LUKE i. 78. "whereby the day-spring from on high hath 
 visited us." The marginal note, in our Bibles, " sun- 
 rising " or " branch," is omitted. 
 
 By the omission of the word Tsemakh, the Branch, as trans- 
 lated by the LXX from Jer. xxiii. 5; xxiii. 15; Zech. iii. 8; 
 vi. 12 ; and the connection of this passage with those prophecies, 
 showing their accomplishment, is lost : while by the omission 
 of its other signification, " sun-rising," the connection with 
 Numb. xxiv. 17 and Mai. iv. 2, is lost. 
 
 ii. 10. "And the angel said unto them, Fear not, for 
 
 behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which 
 shall be to all people." to all the people. 
 By the Authorized Translation, the Gospel was to be preached 
 to all the world : by the Revised Version it appears to be limited 
 to all the people of the land, that is, the Holy Land. 
 
 14. " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
 
 peace, good will towards men." and on earth peace 
 among men in whom he is well pleased. 
 
 Here again, by the addition of a single letter, the Gospel 
 message is limited. Instead of being given to all the world, it 
 is limited to a few, and the angels' song is no angelic song to 
 those who are not yet brought unto God. 
 
 40. " And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit." 
 
 The words " in spirit " are omitted by the Revisers. 
 Thus that which refers to ,the divinity of the Son of God 
 is omitted, while that which is only material and of no signi- 
 ficance is recorded. 
 
 iv. 4. " Man shall not live by bread alone, but by 
 
 every word of God." The latter six words are omitted 
 by the Revisers. 
 
 Our Lord was quoting Deut. viii. 3. It is evident, therefore, 
 that our Lord quoted these words, so connected as they were 
 1 Companion, pp. 62, 63.
 
 38 "THE, LORD'S PRAYER" LUKE XL 
 
 with his answer to the Tempter, and if so, St. Luke is repre- 
 sented by the Revisers as having forgotten them ! 
 
 18. " To heal the broken hearted." Omitted. 
 
 Our Lord is quoting Is. Ixi. 1. By omitting these words, 
 St. Luke is again represented as having forgotten them I 
 
 vii. 39. " This man, if he were a prophet, would have 
 
 known who and what manner of woman this is that 
 toucheth him : for she is a sinner." would have perceived 
 Thus doing away with the omniscience of our Lord. 
 
 - viii. 3. " And Joanna .... and Susanna, and many 
 others which ministered unto him of their substance." 
 ministered unto them 
 
 ix. 55, 56* " and said, Ye know not what manner of 
 
 spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to 
 destroy men's lives, but to save them." Omitted by 
 the Revisers. 
 
 Are we content to lose passages like this, because some scribe 
 negligently omitted to copy them ? 
 
 xi. 2, 3, 4. " When ye pray, say, Our Father, which 
 
 art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom 
 come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 
 Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our 
 sins : for we also forgive every one that is indebted to 
 us. And lead us not into temptation ; but deliver us 
 from evil." The Revisers omit the words, " Our " 
 . . . . " which art in heaven "...." Thy will be 
 done, as in heaven, so in earth," . . . . " but deliver 
 us from evil," besides some other slight alterations. 
 And both the Authorized Translation and the Revised 
 Version omit the Doxology. 
 
 Is it for one moment to be supposed that if we all know, and 
 are able to repeat by heart the Lord's Prayer, St. Luke, who 
 was inspired by God to write his Gospel, could never have 
 learned it, or, if he had, that he had forgotten nearly half of it ? 
 If, then, the Revisers do not believe this, they must state that 
 their object in revising our Authorized Translation has been not 
 to give us the very words of our Lord and His Apostles and 
 Evangelists, but the words found in the most ancient MS. copies
 
 " THE LORD'S PRAYER " LUKE XI. 39 
 
 of the New Testament. If so, we repeat, the title of their work 
 should have been, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, according to the Neutral Text, or according to MSS. 
 B and N and some others. Speaking of these two MSS. Drs. 
 Westcott and Hort say, " The fullest comparison does but in- 
 crease the conviction that their pre-eminent relative purity is 
 approximately absolute a true approximate reproduction of 
 the autographs." l If they believe that St. Matthew has rightly 
 recorded the words of our Lord's Prayer, as they themselves 
 give it, then they must have believed that it is through some 
 accident that they are not recorded in like manner in such and 
 such MSS., which contain St. Luke's account of the Lord's 
 Prayer ; and, consequently, they should have inserted the words 
 with notes, stating, according to their method, that they are not 
 recorded in any of the principal MSS. ; or they should have 
 inserted the words wanting in those MSS. in italics, to signify 
 that they must have existed originally, though not recorded in 
 these particular MSS. But there can be no doubt upon this 
 subject. We cannot for one moment suppose that when our 
 Lord taught his disciples the Lord's Prayer, He did not intend 
 it to be handed down to His Church for ever ; but so intending 
 it, we must believe that He willed that it should be so handed 
 down. This being the case, it is an utter impossibility that in 
 inspiring His evangelist, St. Luke, to write his Gospel, He should 
 not have inspired him with all the articles or particulars of that 
 prayer which He bequeathed to His Church. The Lord's Prayer, 
 therefore, as given by St. Luke, must, in his autograph, have 
 contained all the identical clauses which we find in St. Matthew's 
 recital of it, though the words would be slightly different. And 
 we find a great confirmation of this in St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 That St. Luke travelled much with St. Paul we know ; for 
 he accompanied him from Troas to Phillipi ; seven years later 
 he travelled with him from Phillipi to Jerusalem ; and two 
 years afterwards he accompanied him in his memorable voyage 
 to Rome ; and on arriving at Rome, he remained with St. Paul 
 during his imprisonment, labouring in the Gospel. (Philem. 24.) 
 Indeed, in his last imprisonment, he writes, Demas has 
 1 Xcw Testament, p. 296.
 
 40 "THE LORD'S PRAYER" LUKI: xi. 
 
 forsaken me . . . . " only Luke is with me." 2 Tim. iv. 11. That 
 he was highly esteemed by St. Paul is evident: for he styles 
 him "the beloved physician; " and in 2 Cor. xii. 18, he speaks 
 of him as a " brother," and in viii. 18, " the brother, whose praise 
 is in the Gospel throughout all the churches." Thus we see 
 that St. Paul and St. Luke were constant companions, and 
 united to each other in brotherly affection. St. Luke appears 
 to have written his Acts of the Apostles during St. Paul's two 
 years' imprisonment at Rome, though he gives no account of St. 
 Paul's death ; and St. Paul therefore must have taken the 
 greatest interest in it in its daily progress ; while his Gospel, 
 which had been written previously, (Acts i. 1,) is supposed, with 
 very good authority, to have been written during St. Paul's two 
 years' imprisonment at Csesarea: and if so, St. Paul must 
 have felt the same interest in his Gospel as he did subsequently 
 in his Acts of the Apostles; and there can be no doubt that 
 St. Paul must have assisted the Evangelist and Historian on 
 both occasions. 
 
 We may, therefore, feel assured that St. Paul, in using, 
 quoting from, and referring to the Lord's Prayer, would do so 
 in the language of St. Luke, rather than in that of St. Matthew. 
 Consequently, in the two passages Gal. i. 4, 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 
 14-18 which he wrote when St. Luke was by his side, and the 
 latter of which he immediately followed up by saying, " Only 
 Luke is with me," and which two passages we made use of in 
 treating of St. Matthew's declaration of the Lord's Prayer, on 
 account of the disputed meaning of the petition, " Deliver us 
 from evil "- we have evidence, not merely that the petition, 
 " Deliver us from evil," existed in St. Luke's autograph of Ins 
 Gospel, but also that St. Luke had recorded the Doxol"-v. 
 These two texts prove this so clearly, that it is impossible to 
 gainsay it. See p. 20. 
 
 These texts also furnish us with another fact. In St 
 Matthew's account of the Lord's Prayer we have, "And forgive 
 us our debts," 6<f)i\i)/j.ara ; and immediately afterwards, " For 
 if we forgive men their trespasses," Trapa-mwfjiara .... but 
 in St. Luke's form of the Lord's Prayer \\o read, "And forgive 
 us our sins," d/urprlaf. While in one of these passages in which
 
 "THE LORD'S PRAYER" LUKE xi. 41 
 
 St. Paul is referring to the Lord's Prayer, lie uses St. Luke's 
 form in saying, " Who gave himself for our sins, (using the s-ame 
 Greek word,) that he might deliver us from this present evil 
 world, according to the will of God and our Father, (or our God 
 and Father, as the Revisers better translate it,) to whom be 
 glory for ever and ever. Amen." It will be said that St. Paul 
 is not quoting the Lord's Prayer. Certainly, he is not repeating 
 it, but he is evidently referring to it, as strengthening his ex- 
 hortation : and he does so in conformity with his usual practice 
 of quoting Scripture, in giving the spirit of what he quotes, 
 rather than the letter. 
 
 If all these petitions, including the doxology, have been 
 accidentally or otherwise omitted in MS. copies of St. Luke's 
 Gospel, and erroneously struck out by the Revisers from such a 
 holy document as THE LORD'S PRAYER, must we not feel the 
 much greater probability that exists of numerous omissions 
 having accidentally or otherwise taken place in certain MSS. 
 of other portions of the New Testament ? and should we not 
 look with especial suspicion on MSS. such as B and N, which 
 are remarkable for the omissions which they display ? 
 
 The petition " Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth," 
 does, however, appear in MS. N, so that the chief favourite B 
 is the only offender in this instance. 
 
 xxii. 19, 20. "And he took bread, and gave thanks, 
 
 and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my 
 body (which is given for you : this do in remembrance 
 of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, 
 This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is 
 shed for you). All the words within brackets are 
 rendered doubtful, by the Revisers stating in a note, 
 that " Some ancient authorities omit these verses." 
 
 4o, 44. " And there appeared an angel unto him 
 
 from heaven, strengthening him. And beino- in an 
 
 * o c? o 
 
 agony, he prayed more earnestly : and his sweat was 
 as it were great drops of blood falling down to the 
 ground." These verses are rendered doubtful, by the 
 Revisers stating in a note, that "Many ancient 
 authorities omit these verses."
 
 4li I.UKK XXII. XXIV. 
 
 xxiii. 34. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: 
 
 for they know not what they do." This verse is 
 rendered doubtful by the Revisers stating in u 
 note, that " Some ancient authorities omit this 
 verse." 
 
 38. " And a superscription also was written over him, 
 
 (in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,) This is 
 the King of the Jews." The words in brackets are 
 totally omitted by the Revisers. 
 
 The fact of the superscription being written in Greek and 
 Latin and Hebrew, is important as showing that the Gospel of 
 Christ was to be published to the whole world. 
 
 42. "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me 
 
 when thou comest into thy kingdom." and lie said, 
 Jesus, remember me .... 
 
 Thus doing away with the acknowledgment of our Lord's 
 divinity. 
 
 xxiv. 3. "and found not the body (of the Lord 
 
 Jesus)." The words enclosed by brackets are rendered 
 doubtful by the Revisers stating in a note, that " Some 
 ancient authorities omit these words." 
 
 6. "He is not here, but is risen." A doubt is 
 
 attached to these words by the Revisers stating in a 
 note, that " Some ancient authorities omit these 
 words." 
 
 12. " Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre ; 
 
 and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by 
 themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that 
 which was come to pass." A doubt is attached to this 
 verse by the Revisers stating in a note, that " Some 
 ancient authorities omit verse 12." 
 - 36. " Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, (and 
 saith unto them, Peace be unto you)." A doubt is 
 attached to the words in brackets, by the Revisers 
 stating that "Some ancient authorities omit these 
 words." 
 
 40. "And when he had thus spoken, he showed 
 them his hands and his feet." A doubt is attached to
 
 LUKE XXIV. JOHN III. 43 
 
 this by the Revisers stating in a note, that " Some 
 ancient authorities omit verse 40." 
 - 42. " and of an honeycomb." Omitted by the 
 
 Revisers. 
 
 46. " And said unto them, Thus it is written, and 
 thus it behoved Christ to suffer," Thus it is written 
 that the Christ should suffer, 
 
 The words " thus it behoved " Christ to suffer, are important 
 in showing the voluntary atonement of our Lord. 
 
 51. "and carried up into heaven." A doubt is 
 
 cast upon these words by the Revisers stating in 
 a note, that " Some ancient authorities omit these 
 words." 
 
 52. "And they (worshipped him, and) returned to 
 
 Jerusalem." A doubt is cast upon these words by the 
 Revisers stating in a note, that " Some ancient autho- 
 rities omit these words." 
 
 The reader will form some idea from the total omissions of 
 some passages, and the doubt attached to many others, in these 
 three chapters of St. Luke's gospel, of the nature and effect of 
 such a Revision of the Word of God. It will be said that some of 
 these remarks are superfluous, inasmuch as the alteration is not 
 in the text but in the notes of the Revised Version, but we are 
 told in the Preface to the Revised Version that these notes are 
 " the result of a large amount of careful and elaborate discus- 
 sion," and that they " deserve consideration." 
 
 JOHN iii. 15. "That whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish, but have eternal life." That whosoever 
 believeth may in him have eternal life. 
 
 The Revisers constantly transpose the words of a sentence to 
 make it more conformable to the Greek idiom ; though in doing 
 so they frequently destroy the English. In the generality of 
 cases it does no other harm ; but in some it alters the sense, 
 while in others, as in the present case, it affects the doctrine. 
 By the Authorized Translation we are promised eternal life if 
 we believe in Christ ; whereas by the Revised Version we are 
 told that through Christ we have eternal life if we believe.
 
 I ( JOHN III. V. 
 
 We are left to fill up the sentence as we choose : " if we believe" 
 in God's mercy or forgiveness, or that Christ will give it to us 
 according to our own merits or deservings, or anything else. 
 
 17, 18. " For God sent not his Son into the world to 
 
 condemn the world; but that the world through him 
 might be saved." to judge the world : and so, in the 
 following verse, the word " condemned " is changed to 
 judged. 
 
 Now this is not true. God did send his Son into the world to 
 judge the world : for " The Father hath committed all judgment 
 unto the Son." (John v. 22.) " We must all appear before the 
 judgment seat of Christ." (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 10.) But, 
 as the Authorized Translation tells us, God sent not his Son to 
 condemn the world. And that this is true is evident from the 
 following verse, where we read, " He that believeth on him, is 
 not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already : 
 because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten 
 Son of God." Would the Revisers teach us that they who refuse 
 to believe in the Son of God are not in danger of condemnati- >n, 
 but only of judgment? As already observed in Mark xvi. 16, 
 the antithesis to "saved" must be not-saved, or condemned, 
 or damned ; that is lost. 
 
 v. 29. " they that have done good, unto the resur- 
 rection of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the 
 resurrection of damnation." judgement. The anti- 
 thesis to " life " is death, or damnation, the loss of 
 everything. 
 
 39. " Search the scriptures : for in them ye think ye 
 
 have eternal life." Ye search the Scriptures, because ye 
 tli ink that in them ye have eternal ///'< . 
 
 Canon Kennedy, one of the Revisers, seems to accuse the 
 Translators of 1611 of falsifying this text from unworthy 
 motives. His words at least imply this ; for he says, " We fear 
 the translators were dazzled by the apparent value of the im- 
 perative sense as a weapon against Romanism." (!) l And he 
 selects this as one of the instances in which the Revised Version 
 is " manifestly shown to be right," as the words, " Ye search the 
 1 Ely Lectures, p. 16.
 
 JOHN V. 45 
 
 scriptures," relate to the following words, "because ye think 
 that in them ye have eternal life : " and he then enters into 
 remarks relative to the belief of the Jews in a Future State. 
 The Canon, however, is evidently mistaken ; the Revised 
 Version is evidently wrong; and the Translators of 1611 
 evidently right. For in this fifth chaper of St. John, we have 
 an account of our Lord's healing the impotent man at the Pool 
 of Bethesda on the Sabbath day; and when the Jews mur- 
 mured at His " making himself equal with God," our Lord 
 showed His Divine nature ; first, by the authority given Him of 
 His Father ; secondly, by the witness of John the Baptist ; 
 next, by the works which He Himself had done ; and then 
 finally, He says, You at least believe the Scriptures, and you 
 think that they give unto you eternal life : but search the 
 Scriptures, and you will find that that life comes through Me, 
 and that these Scriptures " are they which testify of Me : (bear 
 witness of Me ;) but ye will not come to Me." 
 
 It is the more extraordinary that the Revisers should have 
 altered this verse, when by their system of translating the same 
 Greek word by the same English word a system very proper 
 to be observed in a passage like this and which they have 
 here carried out, they ought to have perceived the climax of 
 such argument. Thus they have in their Version : If I bear 
 witness of myself, my witness is not true ; v. 31 ; It is another 
 that beareth loitncss of me ; and I know that the witness that 
 he witnesseth of me is true : v. 32 ; Ye have sent unto John, 
 and he hath borne witness unto the truth ; v. 33 ; But the 
 witness which I receive is not from man ; v. 34 ; But the witness 
 which I have is greater than that of John : for . . . the works 
 which I do bear witness of me ; v. 36 ; And the Father which 
 sent me, he hath borne witness of me ; v. 37 ; and then comes 
 this passage, "And these are they that bear witness of me." 
 And the chapter concludes by saying, " Had ye believed Moses, 
 ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me." Nothino- 
 therefore can be clearer. 
 
 This narrowing of the Scripture, and doing away with the 
 injunction to search the Scriptures, is fraught with great danger, 
 both to the Revisers, and to ourselves.
 
 46 JOHN VI., VII. 
 
 vi. 47. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
 
 believeth on me hath everlasting life." lie thut 
 believeth hath eternal life. 
 See remarks on iii. 15, and v. 39. 
 
 69. " And we believe and are sure that thou art that 
 
 Christ, the Son of the living God." that thou art the 
 Holy One of God. 
 
 The words holy one, without capitals, might be interpreted as 
 meaning a prophet. St. Matthew, xvi. 1C, makes St. Peter 
 utter the same confession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God." 
 
 vii. 53 viii. 11. The story of the woman taken in 
 
 adultery : the last verse of which is, " And Jesus said 
 unto her, neither do I condemn thee : go, and sin no 
 more." The whole pcricope including this story is 
 separated by the Revisers from the rest of the text, 
 and enclosed in brackets. 
 
 It is probable that the story was originally omitted by some 
 scribe, not so much, or not chiefly from the nature of the story, 
 as from our Lord's saying, " neither do I condemn thee : " for 
 like the scribes and Pharisees here mentioned we are all inclined 
 to judge others harshly for those things which we do not do 
 ourselves; and the copyist, thinking himself wiser than our 
 Lord, may have thought it strange that our Lord, not only did 
 not condemn her, but actually seemed to condone her offence ! 
 And so it may appear to many a careless reader now. Indeed, 
 many people acknowledge themselves sinners, but think that 
 God is a God of mercy, and therefore that it does not matter. 
 It is evident, however, that this is a wrong interpretation, ;md 
 that the copyist's scruples might have been spared. The law 
 was " that such should be stoned." Our Lord therefore told her 
 accusers to cast stones at her ; and when they all left her, our 
 Lord asked her, " Hath no man condemned thee ? " And upon 
 her answering, No, our Lord said, " Neither do I condemn thee " 
 to be stoned. " Go ! And sin no more." 
 
 It is asserted that the passage is not found in the most 
 ancient uncial MSS. or versions, and the style is said to be 
 totally different from that of the Evangelist. On the other
 
 JOHN VII., VIII. 47 
 
 hand, although the oldest MSS. are as late as the fourth century, 
 it is certain that the narrative existed in earlier MSS. ; for " It 
 would appear from Eusebius that even Papias, who lived in the 
 early part of the second century, was familiar with the story, 
 though that of course does not prove it as existing in St. John's 
 
 Gospel It was known to Jerome in the fourth century, 
 
 who expressly testifies that it existed in his days 'in many 
 manuscripts, both Greek and Latin.' Augustine, about the same 
 time, affirms that ' some of but weak faith, or rather enemies of 
 the true faith,' had expunged it from their copies of the New 
 Testament, and adds that they did so with an ethical purpose, 
 fearing lest the passage might seem to grant impunity to sin. 
 .... Finally, the narrative itself bears the very spirit of Christ 
 and Christianity. . . . Some ethics think that its proper place 
 would be at the end of Luke xxi. where it is really placed in 
 some of the best of the cursive manuscripts." 1 
 
 There are, however, two objections to this theory. One is 
 that the portion of the chapter so separated from the rest, is 
 not confined to this story ; and that consequently if the story 
 had been purposely struck out by some copyist, he would not 
 have struck out verse 53 of ch. vii., nor the first two verses of 
 ch. viii. And the other objection is that verse 1 of ch. viii. seems 
 so intimately connected with verse 53 of ch. vii., that it must have 
 originally formed part of that verse, " And every man went 
 into his own house : (but) Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives." 
 It seems possible, therefore, that all this passage, the concluding 
 portion of the last paragraph, (vii. 53 and viii. 1,) the beginning 
 of a new paragraph, (viii. 2,) and the story which follows (vv. 3-11) 
 may have been written on a membrane which might subsequently 
 have been accidentally or purposely detached from an ancient 
 copy. 
 
 - viii. 59. " Then took they up stones to cast at him ; 
 but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, 
 (going through the midst of them, and so passed by)." 
 The Revisers omit the words in brackets. 
 
 In the Authorized Translation we admire the almighty power 
 of our Lord, able to pass through them, without touching them, 
 1 Dr. Roberts, Companion to the Revised Version, p. 64.
 
 48 JOHN VIII. XVI. 
 
 and able to defend Himself with countless legions of angels, and 
 yet voluntarily giving Himself up to be crucified, when the time 
 had come ; while in the Revised Version we are led to supper 
 that our Lord escaped only by hiding Himself! The word 
 " hid " evidently means, concealed Himself from their view. 
 
 ix. 4. " I must work the works of him that sent me 
 
 while it is day." We must work 
 
 An alteration without sense or meaning. 
 
 xiii. 10. "He that is washed needeth not save to 
 
 wash his feet," He that is lathed .... 
 
 The verb used here is a different verb to that which is used 
 where applied to the feet, and signifies to lathe, but it also 
 signifies to wash or cleanse the whole body. As the subject 
 here relates to defilement, cleansing is the proper word. The 
 Revisers, copying former annotators, explain the passage by 
 remarking that a man always has to cleanse his feet after 
 bathing ; and in order to get a spiritual meaning from this it 
 has been supposed by some writers, that although we have been 
 made clean in baptism, our feet lead us daily into trespasses and 
 sins, which have to be cleansed by God's grace. This would, 
 however, need a daily washing : but our Lord's words to Peter, 
 " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me," lead us to sup- 
 pose that what our Lord was about to do conveyed a sacra- 
 mental efficacy. Our Lord's washing the feet of His disciples 
 contained a double meaning : it was to teach them humility, 
 (v. 12,) and to show them that they were cleansed from sin, only 
 through Him. (v. 8.) He washed their feet, as the part of the 
 body constantly defiled by dirt, to show them the heinousness 
 of sin, and the necessity of its being cleansed. 
 
 xiv. 14. " If ye shall ask anything in my name, I 
 
 will do it." If ye shall ask me anything in my 
 name 
 
 What utter confusion of a great promise ! Our Lord tells us 
 that if we ask God the Father anything in His name, He will 
 do it. We pray to God the Father in His Son's name, and God 
 the Son will answer our prayers; thus showing the unity of 
 the Godhead. (See xvi. 23, below.) 
 
 xvi. 23. " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my
 
 " SON " OR " SERVANT." 49 
 
 name, he will give it you." If ye shall ask anything 
 
 of the Father, he will give it you in my name. 
 
 Here again the Revisers, by transposing, make a grievous 
 
 alteration. We have no privilege to approach God the Father 
 
 in prayer, but through the Son, and for His sake, and in His 
 
 name. In xv. 16, we have the same words, " That whatsoever 
 
 ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." 
 
 In xiv. 14, we are told that God the Son would give it to 
 
 us ; in these two verses that God the Father will give it to us ; 
 
 thus showing the unity of the Godhead. 
 
 ACTS ii. 30. " David .... being a prophet, and knowing 
 that God .... would raise up Christ to sit on his 
 throne," he would set one upon his throne, 
 
 47. " And the Lord added to the church daily such 
 
 as should (or would) be saved." those that were being 
 saved. 
 
 Much cavil has been cast at what has been called the " Cal- 
 vinistic" tendency of the Authorized Translation in this 
 passage. But in Acts xiii. 48, we read both in our Bibles and 
 in the Revised Version, "And as many as were ordained to 
 eternal life believed." Where is the difference ? The fact is 
 the Church could do what the Revisers say : but the Lord only, 
 " in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life," can add to 
 the Church such as will be saved. The context, however, sets 
 this at rest : for in v. 41 we read, " Then they that gladly 
 received his word were baptized, and there were added unto 
 them about three thousand souls." Thus we see that though 
 God's mercy is offered to all, " both bad and good," and is 
 " preached to every creature which is under heaven," (Col. i. 23,) 
 it is obtained only by those who are willing to receive it. 
 
 - iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27, 30." his Son Jesus ; " " thy holy- 
 child Jesus," his Servant Jesus, (note, or child?) thy 
 holy Servant Jesus, (note, or child) 
 
 The word Trat? signifies, as the Revisers say, either servant or 
 child. The Lexicons translate 7rai<? as boy or girl, servant, son : 
 and translate " son " as u/6?, re'icvov, Trats. But while the word 
 stands for both son and servant, the word vios is the proper word 
 
 D
 
 50 "SON" OR "SERVANT." 
 
 for son, and SoOXo? for servant. With very few exceptions, 
 where the words translated servant signify minister, or domestic 
 servant, and one exception where the original word is irais, 
 Luke xv. 26, the word standing for " servant " is invariably 
 Soi)Xo9. In some sixty instances the word refers to a sen-ant, 
 properly so called ; and in about half as many instances it is 
 applied to the servants of God, or of our Lord. Our Lord 
 Himself is represented as God's servant in Is. xlii. 1, " Behold 
 my servant, whom I uphold ; mine elect, in whom my soul 
 delighteth ; " and He Himself says, " My meat is to do the will 
 of him that sent me, and to finish his work ; " "I seek not 
 mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me ; " 
 "and this is the Father's will that hath sent me." Our Lord, 
 therefore, not merely " took upon him the form of a servant, 
 (SoOXo?,) and was made in the likeness of men ; " Phil. ii. 7 ; 
 He not only set us an example that we should follow His 
 steps in fulfilling the law of God, but He came to carry out the 
 commandments of God in His own person " Though he were 
 a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he 
 suffered ; " Heb. v. 8 ; " Lo, I corne to do thy will, O God." In 
 this respect, therefore, He may be regarded as the " Servant " of 
 God. But although the word SoOXos is applied to all the 
 servants of God, it is never so applied to our Lord. The word 
 so used is 7rat<?, and that it has a different signification from 
 SovXos, a servant, is evident from Luke xii. 45, 46, where we 
 read, " But and if that servant (SoOXo?) say in his heart, My 
 lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to beat the men- 
 servants (TratSa?) and maidens, (Trat&Wa?,) and to eat and 
 drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant (SouXou) will 
 come." . . . Here the men-servants and maid-servants are 
 called by a different name, to signify that they are good and 
 valued servants, and under the protection of their master, and 
 forming part of his family. And in the account of the 
 centurion, we read in Matt. viii. 6 13, of his coming to our 
 Lord and saying, " Lord, my servant (7rat<?) lieth at home, sick 
 of the palsy .... and Jesus said unto him, I will come and 
 heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not 
 worthy .... but speak the word only, ami my servant (7raZ<?)
 
 "SON" OR "SERVANT." 51 
 
 shall be healed : for I am a man under authority .... and I 
 say .... to my servant (Sov\(0) do this, and he doeth it. 
 .... And his servant (?rat?) was healed in the selfsame 
 hour." So also, St. Luke vii. 7, 8, "But say in a word, and 
 my servant (-Trou?) shall be healed. For I also .... say unto 
 my servant (8ov\y) do this, and he doeth it." We find, there- 
 fore, a distinction in these places, and though they were all 
 servants, different words are used, and the reason is given in 
 v. 2, where we read that the centurion's servant was one " who 
 was dear unto him." As Christ is the "beloved of the Father," 
 ought He not also to have a name above other names ? As the 
 word Trat?, therefore, has a higher signification than Sov\o<?, are 
 we right in translating it by the word servant, a word which in 
 English may lead some to doubt the reality of our Lord's 
 divinity? The Translators of 1611 felt this objection, and 
 have accordingly translated the word in ch. iii. as Son, and in 
 ch. iv. as Child. In Acts xx. 12, TTCU? means a young man, or 
 lad, not a servant ; and in John vi. 9, 7rai8dpiov, a young lad, 
 not a servant. And if there is any authority for the 
 reading of Mark xii. 6, in the Revised Version, "He had 
 yet one, a beloved son," where we are reading of the owner 
 of the vineyard whose servants were killed one after another, 
 it would signify that our Lord spake of the son of the owner of 
 the vineyard, (that is, of Himself as the Son of God,) as if he 
 were one of the servants. St. Paul also tells us that " the heir, 
 so long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though 
 he be lord of all." But though this be so, we should not call 
 the child a servant. When therefore we find the word (SoOXo?) 
 applied universally to the " servants of God," and that it is not 
 applied in any of these passages to our Lord, we must conclude 
 that something more is meant by calling our Lord 7rcu<?, than 
 when another word is applied to His saints : and if so, that the 
 employment of the same English word to man and to the Son 
 of God in the Revised Version does not agree with the delicacy 
 of the Greek language, and consequently that it is not a correct 
 translation, although the word Trats may frequently be trans- 
 lated servant. Under these circumstances, and considering the 
 evil effect which the word may have upon the minds of some 
 
 D 2
 
 Z-2 "SON" OR "SERVANT." 
 
 Christians of weak faith, and the advantage that would be likely 
 to be taken of it by the enemies of Christ, the Revisers should 
 have acknowledged the correctness and judgment of the Autho- 
 rized Translation, and retained the words, " Son " and " child." 
 
 Hitherto we have considered the word only in its rendering 
 as servant : but it also signifies son, as also a boy or child ; a 
 signification in which it is often used. Three of the Evangelists 
 tell us of one who brought his lunatic son to Jesus to be cured, 
 and two of them describe him by this term, Trait ; Matt. xvii. 
 18 ; Luke ix. 42 ; and the father speaks of him as " his son, 
 his only child," and says that he has been so afflicted from his 
 childhood ; words which seem to indicate that he was then full- 
 grown. In like manner, it seems probable that the son of the 
 nobleman of Capernaum was full-grown ; for the father speaks 
 of him first as his son, and then, by way of affection, as his 
 child, and after healing him, our Lord does not say, Go thy way, 
 thy child liveth, but "thy son liveth." Here the word has no- 
 thing to do with service. Again, we find the diminutive of 
 Trat? (ira&tov) employed by our Lord as a term of endearment 
 when addressing his disciples, "Children, have ye here any 
 meat ? " And by St. John, in like manner, " Little children, it 
 is the last time." While, therefore, there is no authority for 
 associating the word in the passages before us with the state of 
 servitude, and every reason to regard it as a term of affection, 
 there is the bare possibility that St. Luke, in the passages before 
 us, is speaking of Herod the Great, and not of Herod Antipas, 
 his son, where he says, " For of a truth against thy holy child 
 Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, 
 with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered 
 together," and if so, that he referred to Herod's seeking to 
 put Him to death when a child, rather than to the other 
 Herod, his son, combining with Pilate to put Him to death at 
 Calvary. 
 
 If this reasoning be correct, what inconsiderateness do not 
 the Revisers appear to have been actuated by in altering such 
 passages as these, connected with the name of our blessed Lord, 
 without weighing the gravity and consequence of such altera- 
 tion, and not only in altering, but in emphasizing such alteration
 
 ACTS VII. ROM. V. 53 
 
 by printing the word in initial capital letters, and thus " giving 
 occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." 
 
 With equal inconsistency, but in the very opposite direction, 
 they make St. Paul address the Bishops of Ephesus, and of 
 Crete, as, Thou, therefore, my child, 2 Tim. ii. I ; To Titus, my 
 true, child, Tit. i. 4. A different Greek word is there employed. 
 
 vii. 59. " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, 
 
 and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." calling 
 upon the Lord, 
 
 As the word is not expressed in the original, there is as much 
 authority for one rendering as the other : and that of the 
 Revisers is evidently the proper one. 
 
 viii. 36. " and the eunuch said, See, here is water, 
 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized ? (and Philip said, 
 If thou belie vest with all thine heart thou mayest. 
 And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God.") 
 
 The words in brackets are omitted by the Revisers, thus 
 striking out the confession of faith. 
 
 xvi. 7. "but the Spirit suffered them not." and 
 
 the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not. 
 
 This, if not a new procession of the Holy Ghost, is a new 
 expression of it. But, looking at John vii. 39, xiv. 16, 26, 
 xvi. 7, we cannot accept this as a right rendering. 
 
 < xx. 28. " feed the church of God, which he hath 
 
 purchased with his own blood." church of the Lord 
 is given in a note. 
 
 BOM. v. 1 3. " Therefore being justified by faith, we 
 have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ : 
 by whom also we have access by faith into this grace 
 wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of 
 God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations 
 also : " . . . . let us have peace .... through whom 
 also we- have had our access l>y faith (some ancient 
 authorities omit " by faith ").... and let its rejoice 
 , ... let us also rejoice (Gr. glory) in our tribulations. 
 We see here and in next chapter, in 2 Cor. v. 14, Eph. ii. 1 8,
 
 54 I:OM. v. vi. 
 
 and in Col. iii. 1, what interpretation the Revisers seem to give 
 to the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration " by their translation. 
 " Peace with God " and " access to God's grace," were not obtained 
 at any past time, nor for ourselves only ; but can be obtained at 
 anytime, and by every one who approaches God "by faith," 
 " through our Lord Jesus Christ," not at any past time, but 
 at all times, when we are "justified by faith," and are standing 
 and rejoicing in this faith ; and when, having this faith, we are 
 able to " glory in tribulations also." 
 
 - vi. 2. " How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any 
 
 longer therein ? " We wlw died to sin, how shall we 
 
 any longer live therein ? 
 
 One of the Revisers says, 1 " The Greek words which denote 
 the act of dying and the state of death respectively, have not 
 unfrequently been confounded in the Authorized Version, some- 
 times to the great obscuration of the sense. Thus the constantly- 
 recurring words ' are dead ' in Rom. vi. 2, &c., should be translated 
 ' died.' This emendation is especially important at 2 Cor. v. 14." 
 To justify the alteration, the Revisers should have altered v. 11 
 to " Even so reckon ye also yourselves to Jiave died unto sin," 
 and v. 22 to " But now having leen made free from sin ; " but 
 the action in each of these two verses is present, even in the 
 Revised Version ; so this verse also should have been as given 
 in the Authorized Translation. The whole of the chapter, 
 indeed, shows that, while the Apostle refers to their baptism 
 as a spiritual washing away of original sin, and a promise on 
 their part to die unto sin, he urges them now to do so. It is 
 a practical lesson ; not a reliance on a past rite, but an earnest 
 exhortation to future practice in consequence of that rite. He 
 says, " How shall we any longer live therein ? " " Let not sin 
 therefore reign in your mortal bodies ; " and so on through the 
 whole chapter. 
 
 " Holy Jesus, may I be 
 
 Dead and ouried here with Thee ; 
 And, liy love inflamed, arise 
 I'nto Thi-e a sacrifice." 
 
 Hymns Ancient and Modern. 
 
 1 Companion to the Revised Version, p. 134.
 
 ROM. VIII. XIV. 55 
 
 viii. 1. "There is therefore now no condemnation 
 
 to them which are in Christ Jesus, (who walk not after 
 the flesh, but after the Spirit.)" The words in brackets 
 are omitted. 
 
 ix. 5. " of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ 
 
 came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." 
 The Revisers have not altered this in the text; but they 
 append a note giving three other renderings by which the 
 reference to Christ is explained away, so that we not only 
 have dangers scattered broadcast throughout the text for the 
 unwary and careless reader, but other dangers lie hidden 
 among the notes for the more earnest student. No doubt the 
 Revisers have been actuated solely by a desire to search out the 
 truth, and give what they thought an exact rendering : never- 
 theless, the dangers are no less real and grave. Surely, with 
 so many other renderings in their note, they might, recollecting 
 the common Hebrew doxology, " Blessed for ever," have sug- 
 gested the following " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came, who is over all, God ! Blessed for ever. Amen." 
 
 And, indeed, the context can give us no other meaning. For 
 the words, " of whom," refer to the " Israelites," or Jews, of 
 whom, according to the flesh, the man, Jesus Christ, came. But 
 this was only according to the flesh : for this Christ, who 
 appeared to be a mere man, was really God, who is blessed for 
 ever. 
 
 x. 15. " How beautiful are the feet of them that 
 
 (preach the gospel of peace, and) bring glad tidings of 
 good things ! " The words in brackets are omitted. 
 
 xi. 6. " But if it be of works, then is it no more 
 
 grace : otherwise work is no more work." Omitted. 
 xiii. 9. " Thou shalt not bear false witness." Omitted. 
 
 Imagine an apostle forgetting one of the commandments 
 relative to his neighbour ! To such an inconsistency does the 
 Revised Version repeatedly lead us. 
 
 xiv. 10. "for we shall all stand before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ." of God. 
 
 And yet these same words appear in 2 Cor. v. 10, even in 
 the Revised Version. " For we must all appear before the
 
 56 ROM. xiv. 1 con. xr. 
 
 judgment seat of Christ." We cannot help fearing, when \v.> 
 see so many instances of the name of God as applied to our 
 Saviour, having been either altered or omitted in certain MSS., 
 that these alterations must have been intentional, and not 
 accidental when, in the instance before us, the word " Christ " 
 has been altered to God ; thus taking away the judgment from 
 Christ, and giving it to God the Father. 
 
 1 COR. vii. 5. " that ye may give yourselves to (fasting and) 
 prayer." The words in brackets are omitted. 
 
 viii. 6. "one God, the Father, of whom are all 
 
 things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
 whom are all things, and we by him." and one Lard 
 Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we 
 through him. 
 
 The Revisers appear always to translate the preposition Bia, 
 through instead of " by." In Mark xiv. 21, they make our 
 Lord to be betrayed, not " by " Judas Iscariot, but through him. 
 If, then, we are satisfied that, in spite of the alteration by the 
 Revisers, our Lord was betrayed " by " Judas, we may also be 
 assured that the worlds were made " by " Him, notwithstanding 
 any way the Revisers may interpret Col. i. 16, 17, and Heb. i. 2, 
 and ii. 10 ; for " the Word was God. . . . All things were made 
 by him, and without him was not anything made that was 
 made. . . . the world was made by him, and the world knew 
 him not." John i. 3, 10. " For of him, and through him, and 
 to him arc all things " Rom. xi. 36. 
 
 xi. 24. "And when he had given thanks, he brake 
 
 it, and said, (Take, eat:) this is my body, which is 
 (broken) for you. This do in remembrance of inc." 
 The revisers omit the words within brackets. 
 
 29. " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
 
 eateth and driuketh damnation to himself; not dis- 
 cerning the Lord's body." For he that eateth and 
 drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgement unto himself, 
 if le discern not the body. 
 
 This is a most mischievous alteration, as it cannot but help to 
 turn some astray. The alteration is threefold, the alteration
 
 1 COR. xi. 57 
 
 of the word " damnation " to judgment, the omission of the 
 word "unworthily," and the discerning the body. The word 
 " damnation " here is said to have given great offence, as 
 deterring people from partaking of the Lord's Supper who 
 feel themselves " unworthy " to partake of it, and who would 
 therefore incur "damnation" if they did. If this were 
 the meaning, damnation would not be the word. On the 
 contrary, they that consider themselves " unworthy," they who 
 are lamenting their condition, as " poor, and maimed, and lame, 
 and blind," are they who are especially invited and welcomed. 
 The centurion, who would not ask our Lord to enter his house ; 
 the woman afflicted with an issue of blood, who felt herself 
 unworthy to touch our Lord, but contented herself with touching 
 only the hem of His garment; the Publican who stood "afar 
 off ; " the Syro-Phcenician woman, who likened herself to a 
 pariah dog these, and such as these, are those who are es- 
 pecially invited, especially commended, and especially blessed ; 
 for our Lord came not to call the self-righteous, but those who 
 acknowledge themselves as sinners. The word is not therefore 
 for them ; far from it ; but it applies to those who are trusting 
 in their own righteousness, or to those who continue to partake 
 of the Lord's Supper from custom, in remembrance of His death, 
 while they disbelieve in the atonement of His blood. Is this 
 unreasonable, or unlikely ? " He that despised Moses' law died 
 without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much 
 sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who 
 hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the 
 blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified (or, would 
 have been sanctified) an unholy thing, and hath done despite 
 unto the Spirit of Grace ? " 
 
 The second alteration is not less dangerous. For, by 
 omitting the word " unworthily," which is so necessary, and so 
 confirmed by verse 27, " Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be 
 guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ; " and thirdly, by 
 altering the final words to, if he discern not the body ; much 
 " greater offence " would be given to Christians ; as the 
 sentence, according to the Revision, would then be interpreted
 
 58 1 COR. XL GAL. II. 
 
 according to the Romish belief, and being regarded as the 
 unadulterated Word of God, would confirm them in that 
 belief, that they who partake of the Lord's Supper are 
 damned if they do not believe in the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation ! 
 
 xv. 49. " And as we have borne the image of the 
 
 earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." 
 The note says, "Many ancient authorities read, let 
 us also bear" 
 
 Like the alteration in Rom. v. 1, 2, the affirmation and pro- 
 mise is changed into the mere expression of a wish. The 
 alteration is the result of a single letter. 
 
 2 COR. v. 14. " For the love of Christ constraineth us : 
 because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then 
 were all dead." that one died for all, therefore all 
 died. 
 
 The natural construction of this emendation (!) would signify 
 that Christ died for the sin of the whole world, therefore, we all 
 died for sin. But of course this is not what the Revisers mean. 
 They mean that Christ died for sin : therefore we all died to sin 
 in our baptism. But St. Paul does not say this, although it is a 
 very necessary thing that we should die to sin. He argues that 
 the very circumstance of Christ's dying for our sins, shows that 
 but for His so dying, we should be dead in our sins ; and that we 
 were so dead before He resolved to die for us. So far, however, 
 from the Revisers considering themselves in error, one of their 
 body says, the Authorized Translation " completely ruins the 
 sense " ! 1 
 
 GAL. ii. 16. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the 
 works of the law, but by the faith (or rather, by faith) 
 in Jesus Christ." save through faith in Jesiis Christ. 
 See remarks on Jas. ii. 24. 
 
 From this alteration it would appear that a man is justified 
 by his own works, provided he believes in Christ ; whereas the 
 same verse goes on to say, " we have believed in Jesus Christ, 
 1 Companwn to the Revised Version, p. 134.
 
 GAL. II. V. 59 
 
 that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the 
 works of the law : for by the works of the law shall no flesh be 
 justified." In all his Epistles St. Paul declares salvation to be 
 " the gift of God." What does he say in the following chapter, 
 v. 11 ? "That no man is justified by the law in the sight of 
 God, it is evident : for the just shall live by faith." The author 
 of the Companion has not eulogized this alteration. The Revisers 
 have put in the margin, but, only, which is even more emphatic 
 than the Authorized Translation, and opposed, like the two 
 Poles, to the text of the Revised Version. 
 
 - iv. 22, 23, 30, 31." bondwoman "handmaid 
 
 By this mischievous alteration the Revisers have destroyed 
 the connection and teaching of the whole chapter with the 
 chapter which follows, in the first verse of which we read, 
 '* Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made 
 us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." It 
 is most important that we should preserve this distinction, which 
 St. Paul so laboured to enforce. As the children of Israel, when 
 Moses was taking them to the promised land, longed to go back 
 into slavery in Egypt, so too many of us in the present day long 
 to go back into the bondage of works, (before grace, and not 
 after grace, see Art. XIII.,) when Christ offers us the freedom of 
 the Gospel. 
 
 - v. 17. " For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and 
 the Spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary 
 the one to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things 
 that ye would." that ye may not do the things that ye 
 would. 
 
 One of the Revisers ! enters at length into the advocacy of 
 this alteration, showing, or rather attempting to show, that the 
 flesh does not get the upper hand ; but what says the following 
 verse ? " But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the 
 law." Does not this show that the flesh, without the Spirit, 
 prevents our doing that which we should ? And is not this in per- 
 fect harmony with Rom. vii. 14-25 ? We may readily accept the 
 translation given by the Vulgate and Syriac " So that you do 
 not what you would : " though the proper translation should 
 1 Companion to the Revised Version, p. 84.
 
 60 GAL. V. EPH. III. 
 
 be So that you do not what you should. All this shows the 
 necessity of our " striving against sin," so that we " grieve not 
 the Spirit," and what is worse, that we " quench not the Spirit." 
 Eph. iv. 30; 1 Thess. v. 19. 
 
 19. " Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which 
 
 are these, adultery, fornication, &c." The word " adul- 
 tery " is omitted. 
 
 21. " Envyings, murders, drunkenness . . ." The 
 
 word " murders " is omitted. 
 
 vi. 15. " For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision 
 
 availeth anything, nor uncircumcision." The words 
 " in Christ Jesus " are omitted. 
 
 It is only through Jesus Christ that they became un- 
 necessary. 
 
 EPH. ii. 1, 5, 6, 8. "And you hath he quickened, who were 
 dead in trespasses and sins ; . . . Even when \\Q were 
 dead in sins hath God quickened us together with Christ, 
 by grace ye are saved and hath raised us up toge- 
 ther " and you did he quicken .... even when we, were 
 dead through our trespasses .... quickened us . . . . 
 and raised us . . . . See remarks on Rom. v. 1, 3. 
 Can it be supposed that the whole Ephesian Church was 
 quickened, or brought to eternal life, at any one moment, and 
 that after the first converts, no others afterwards arose ; or that 
 St. Paul's preaching was to them only, and not also to any others 
 who should afterwards cast off their sins ? St. Paul says 
 " quickened us," " raised us up : " but St. Paul was converted and 
 quickened before he preached to the Church at Corinth : conse- 
 quently there must have been a succession of conversions and 
 quickenings, and no doubt some were converted and quickened 
 in consequence of hearing St. Paul's Epistle read to them : so 
 that at the very time that his epistle was being read, the words 
 " you hath he quickened " would most forcibly apply to them, 
 just as equally as to those at Ephesus whom St. Paul first 
 preached to. 
 
 - iii. 9. "who created all things by Jesus Christ." 
 The words "Jesus Christ" are omitted.
 
 EPH. III. COL. II. 61 
 
 14. "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord 
 
 Jesus Christ." The words " of our Lord Jesus Christ " 
 are omitted, although essential to the meaning of the 
 following verse. 
 - v. 30. " members of his body, (of his flesh, and of 
 
 his bones)." The words in brackets are omitted. 
 It is probable that these words were meant by St. Paul to 
 denote the spiritual union between us and our Lord, who is 
 the spiritual or "last Adam," similar to the physical union 
 between our first mother and the " first Adam," " who is the 
 figure of him that was to come." 
 
 COL. i. 14. "In whom we have redemption through his 
 blood." The words " through his blood " are omitted. 
 16, 17. " For by him were all things created, that 
 are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and in- 
 visible, whether they lie thrones, or dominions, or 
 principalities, or powers ; all things were created by 
 him, and for him." For in him . . . created through 
 him, and unto him.. 
 See remarks on 1 Cor. viii. 6, and Eph. iii. 9. 
 
 ii. 11. "in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 
 flesh, by the circumcision of Christ " in the putting 
 off of the body of the flesh 
 
 18. " Let no man beguile you of your reward in a 
 
 voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, in- 
 truding into those things which he hath not seen, 
 vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." dwelling in the 
 things which he hath seen, 
 
 St. Paul never ceases to enjoin this teaching " Neither give 
 heed to fables, and endless genealogies, which minister questions, 
 rather than godly edifying which is in faith ; " " Refuse profane 
 and old wives' fables ; " " He is proud, knowing nothing, but 
 doting about questions and strifes of words ; " " Avoid profane 
 and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called ; " 
 " Strive not about words to no profit ; " " But shun profane and 
 vain babblings : for they will increase unto more ungodliness ; " 
 "Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do
 
 62 COL. II. 2 TUESS. II. 
 
 gender strifes;" "Not giving heed to Jewish fables;" "But 
 avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and 
 strivings about the law : for they are unprofitable and vain ; " 
 " Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines." 
 
 And with this teaching of St. Paul accords a golden saying of 
 Moses : " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God : but 
 those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our 
 children for ever." Deut. xxix. 29. 
 
 It is possible, however, that the rendering by the Revisers may 
 be correct, and that the Apostle is urging them to live " by faith 
 and not by sight," and this rendering would agree with what we 
 read in the following verses against trusting in mortifications of 
 the body, such as " Touch not, taste not, handle not," which he 
 describes as having only "a shew of wisdom." 
 
 iii. 1. " If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those 
 
 things which are above " If ye, tJien were raised. See 
 remarks on Rom. v. 1, 3 ; vi. 2. 
 
 2 THESS. ii. 7. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already 
 work " mystery of lawlessness 
 
 8. " And then shall that Wicked (one) be revealed " 
 
 the lawless one 
 
 The Revisers' rendering of these two verses, tlie mystery of 
 lawlessness, and the lawless one, and in note of v. 3, the man of 
 lawlessness, might be interpreted by some, for party purposes, as 
 referring to offences against Church authority, to acts which are 
 called " persecution " outside the Church, and " brawling " inside 
 the Church ; and by others to infidelity in general. 
 
 Now, considering the importance of the passage, and the 
 interpretation put upon it by our church, it is most necessary 
 that we should preserve the exact rendering, and that we should 
 keep the initial capital letter given it by the translators of 1611, 
 showing that it represents, not an individual, but an impersona- 
 tion of wickedness. An impersonation of " lawlessness " does 
 not meet the description given in the context. This description 
 does not tally with the "lawless" character of Infidelity, so 
 rampant in the present day, although that is described by 
 St. John; but rather with tin- spirit of Superstition, from which
 
 2 THESS. II. 63 
 
 the Church has already suffered and is suffering : for Infidelity 
 tells us there is no God : but Superstition puts itself in the place 
 of God, and usurps to itself the attributes of God. For, it is 
 evident that " the Wicked one " in v. 8, o avop,o<$, is identical 
 with "the Man of Sin," o dvQpopjros TT}? a/Mpria?, "the Son of 
 perdition," o vib<; TT}? d-Trw/Veto.? ; in v. 3 ; for we there read that 
 this Man of Sin is to " be revealed." In v. 6, St. Paul assures 
 the Thessalonians again that he will " be revealed " in his time ; 
 and in v. 8, he says, " Then shall that Wicked (one) be revealed." 
 They are therefore the same. And what are the characteristics 
 of this Man of Sin 1 Let us listen to St. Paul " Who opposeth 
 and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that, is 
 worshipped : so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, 
 shewing himself that he is God," or, as is better rendered by the 
 Revisers, "setting himself forth as God." "Even him, whose 
 coming is after the working of Satan with all power, and signs, 
 and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteous- 
 ness in them that perish ; because they received not the love of 
 truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause, God shall 
 send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie." (w. 
 4, 9-11.) This is not "lawlessness," nor Infidelity ; but is " sin " 
 or " blasphemy " as Ave read in a parallel description given 
 by St. John, Rev. xiii. ; and the description of "sin," v. 3, or 
 "wickedness," v. 8, is Impiousness, that Impious one. Satan is 
 " the Wicked one " or " the Evil one ; " but Superstition is the 
 Impious one. 
 
 12. "That they all might be damned who believed 
 
 not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 
 
 that they all might be judged 
 
 What do the Revisers believe, looking at the passage we have 
 just been considering, wih 1 be the lot of those who knowingly 
 resist the " truth " and " have pleasure in unrighteousness," but 
 damnation ? Is it only an abstract Impersonation of Wicked- 
 ness or Impiety that " the Lord shall consume with the spirit of 
 his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming ; " 
 (v. 8 ;) is it only a figurative " Man of Sin " who shah 1 be the " Son 
 of perdition ; " or must not the words apply to those who form 
 that system, who reject the truth, and have pleasure in unright-
 
 64 2 THESS. II. 1 TIM. III. 16. 
 
 eousness ? And if the actors are a reality, and not a figure, must 
 not the penalty be real also ? And what is that penalty ? 
 " damnation," or " perdition " (v. 3) if you will ; for there is no 
 difference between the two words : it is a loss of heaven, a loss 
 of God; " everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, 
 and from the glory of his power." 2 Thess. i. 9. 
 
 As all the preceding verses are prophetical of the future, it 
 is evident that this verse should agree with them, and be under- 
 stood as That all shall be damned who believe not the truth, but 
 have pleasure in unrighteousness. 
 
 - hi. 3. " The Lord .... shall stablish you, and keep 
 you from evil." -from the evil one. See p. 17. 
 
 1 TIM. iii. 16. "And without controversy, great is the 
 mystery of godliness : God was manifest in the flesh," 
 He who was manifested in the flesh, . . . Note, 
 " The word God in place of He who, rests on no suffi- 
 cient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read 
 Which." 
 
 Here again, the dispute is upon a single letter whether it is 
 an O or a ; whether the O had a stroke in the middle, and a 
 stroke over it, and whether these strokes were added afterwards 
 by some copyist, or would-be corrector; or whether the original 
 strokes were merely strengthened, because faint by age; or 
 whether what appear to be strokes may not be the penetration 
 of the writing on the other side of the vellum. This last sup- 
 position, however, has been clearly shown to be not the case, by 
 a Member of the Old Testament Revision, Dr. Field. 1 While 
 doctors, scholars, experts, and grammarians are thus disputing, 
 we may content ourselves with the reflection that it must be 
 ONE who is a Spirit, who is referred to, ONE who existed ever, 
 be/ore He was " manifested in the flesh," and therefore that this 
 ONE must be GOD. And further, that it cannot be God the 
 Father, for God the Father has never been manifested in the 
 flesh ; and therefore that it must be God the Son ; and conse- 
 quently that our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD. We might say 
 then, that the dispute, interesting as it is, is of no theological 
 Opinion, No. 12, pp. 273, '-'71.
 
 1 TIM. in. 16. Go 
 
 importance ; though efforts are had recourse to by some to make 
 it so : but it will appear from the remarks which follow that it 
 is of the utmost importance, if the word is " God," and not 
 He who, or Which, that the word " God " should be retained 
 and we will endeavour to show why it is so. 
 
 Now, it is evident that the words, " And without controversy 
 great is the mystery of godliness " have their equivalent, like 
 the two sides of an equation, in the words which follow. But 
 before we attempt to ascertain the meaning of the following 
 words, let us examine these. We meet with the word " mystery" 
 in 1 Cor. ii. 7-9, where we read, " But we speak the wisdom of 
 God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained 
 before the world, unto our glory ; which none of the princes of 
 this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have 
 crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, Eye hath not 
 seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, 
 the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." 
 Every one must see that the two passages are very parallel. 
 They both speak of a " mystery," and that mystery is a revelation 
 of that which was imperfectly seen lef ore ; and that mystery was 
 the Incarnation of the Son of God ; a mystery which is referred 
 to in many other passages, Rom. xi. 25 ; xvi. 25 ; Eph. i. 9 ; 
 iii. 3, 4, 9 ; and vi. 19. The word " godliness " is piety, or 
 religiousness : the word then must signify something like 
 religious faith, or religious scheme, or our holy religion. That 
 the whole of what follows relates to our Lord is denied by none ; 
 but that the first word cannot be Christ is evident from what we 
 have already said, that it must be a Spirit. It must then refer to 
 Christ in His divine nature, as " God." The passage, then, would 
 read thus, putting it, as we say, in the form of an equation : 
 
 " And, without controversy, GOD : manifest in the flesh, 
 great is the mystery of" our iustified in the spirit, 
 
 religious faith ; i.e. of our seen of angels, 
 
 Christian religion. preached unto the Gen- 
 
 tiles, 
 
 believed on in the world , 
 received up into glory. 
 E
 
 66 1 TIM. in. 16. 
 
 It is, therefore, an epitome of our Christian Creed, as given by 
 St. Paul. He who is GOD, took upon Him our nature, was 
 testified to by the Holy Ghost, was ministered to by angels, was 
 preached unto the Gentiles, is, or shall be, believed on throughout 
 the whole world, (Rom. xiv. 11,) and was received back again 
 into heaven. 
 
 With such a passage before us, why should we coldly and 
 indifferently give up such a clear statement of Christ's divinity, 
 because the most eminent schoolmen and grammarians of the 
 present day tell us that a letter is uncertain ? Because through 
 the antiquity of time the writing becomes faded, and a letter 
 uncertain, let us not make our faith uncertain. It is a reason- 
 able thing to suppose that where a letter may have become 
 almost obliterated, a reader may have piously strengthened and 
 restored the letter : but it is unreasonable to imagine that any- 
 one would wantonly of his own accord alter the divine text to 
 accord with his own notions of what is right : and this supposi- 
 tion may be as futile as that other allegement, that the mark 
 was nothing more than a line on the other side of the vellum 
 shining through for the futility was demonstrated when it was 
 shown that no such line exists on the other side or that other 
 allegement made by "A Layman" in Christian Opinion, No. 
 18, where it is stated that the " OC has, with knife and pen, been 
 altered into 0C." For we can understand how the pen might 
 make the alteration ; but what has the pen-knife to do with it ! 
 
 But we have yet another proof. What is the meaning 
 of the word "justified ? " The word Sifcatoa) signifies to 
 justify, to prove just, or righteous, or innocent, to vindicate. 
 But what can we make of this ? We have the Spirit's indica- 
 tion shown to us at our Lord's baptism, and at His transfigura- 
 tion ; on both which occasions a voice was heard " This is my 
 beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him." And 
 after our Lord's death, the Holy Ghost appeared to the 
 assembled disciples on the day of Pentecost, and imparted the 
 gift of tongues, to enable the apostles and disciples to 
 preach the gospel in all lands. On these occasions the 
 Holy Ghost bore vntness to the divinity, and divine mission, 
 of Christ ; as our Lord affirmed that He would do so, in His
 
 1 TIM. in. 16. 67 
 
 parting discourse to His Apostles, John xvi. 13 ; and we thus 
 see a parallelism between this gift of the power of preaching 
 and the admonition to listen to that preaching, and the clause 
 which corresponds, " preached among the Gentiles." The 
 words, then, will have the signification witnessed to by the 
 Spirit ; and we then get the following epanodos : 
 
 GOD ! 
 
 Manifested in the flesh, 
 Witnessed to by the Spirit, 
 
 Seen of angels, 
 Preached unto the Gentiles, 
 Believed on in the world, 
 Received up into glory. 
 
 each line of which corresponds with that opposite to it : it 
 begins and ends with God and heaven, showing that Christ 
 came from heaven, and returned there ; while " angels," the 
 ministers of God and ministers to men, occupy the middle 
 space. It may be objected that a single word, " God," is not a 
 balance for the four words, " Received up into glory : " but an 
 examination of the Psalms of David, where we find peculiar 
 reverence shown to the name of God, will show that this is not 
 uncommon, as will appear from the following instances : 
 
 O Lord ! 
 
 In the morning shalt thou hear my voice ; 
 In the morning will I prepare myself, and will look up. 
 
 Ps. v. 
 O Lord, my God ! 
 
 If I have done any such thing, 
 
 If there be any wickedness in my hands, Ps. vi. 
 
 O Lord ! 
 
 Who shall dwell in Thy tabernacle ? 
 Who shall rest upon Thy holy hill ? Ps. xv. 
 
 O Lord ! 
 
 In Thy strength shall the king be glad : 
 In Thy salvation shall he exceedingly rejoice. Ps. xxi.
 
 68 1 TIM. III. I! HI'.. VI. 
 
 O Lord ! 
 
 Thou hast searched me out, and known me ! 
 Thou knowest my down-sitting, and mine up-rising ! 
 Thou understandest my thoughts long before ! Ps. cxxxix. 
 
 and many other instances in " The Book of Psalms of David 
 the King and Prophet," 1 the author of which might have carried 
 out his principle further than he has done ; for he might have 
 given us, which would have been more to our purpose, for the 
 words we translate " As for," do not exist in the Hebrew 
 
 GOD ! 
 
 His way is perfect ! Ps. xviii. 30 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 31. 
 If this reasoning be correct, the word must be GOD, and can 
 be no other. See remarks on Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 2 Tim. i. 7. " For God hath not given us the spirit of 
 fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 
 but of power, and love, and discipline. 
 
 We need not point out what advantage might be taken of 
 this last rendering. 
 
 iii. 16. " All scripture is given by inspiration of 
 
 God, and is profitable for " . . . . Every scripture 
 inspired of God is also profitable .... 
 
 By altering the primary meaning of Tra?, " all " to every, and 
 interpolating also, any scripture of God might be objected to 
 by those to whom it is repugnant, on the pretence that the 
 inspiration is uncertain. 
 
 TITUS ii. 13. " Looking for .... the glorious appearance 
 of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ " of 
 our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ 
 
 A correction similar to that of 2 Pet. i. 1, and justified by 
 Gal. i. 4. 
 
 HEB. i. 2 ; ii. 10. " by whom also he made the worlds " 
 
 through whom also 
 See remarks on 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 16, 17. 
 
 vi. 4 6. " It is impossible for those who were 
 
 once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly 
 
 1 Longmans, 1875.
 
 HEB. VI. XIII. 69 
 
 gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
 and have tasted the good word of God, and the 
 powers of the world to come, if they should fall away, 
 to renew them again unto repentance." and then 
 fell away 
 
 What a fearful doctrine ! For how often do we grieve God, 
 and fall into sin, notwithstanding all His goodness to us ! The 
 78th Psalm ought to have taught the Revisers better ; for there 
 we read of the repeated sins of the children of Israel, (vv. 10, 
 17, 32, 41, 56,) and of the repeated forgiveness of God. " But 
 he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and de- 
 stroyed them not : yea, many a time turned he his anger 
 away." 
 
 - ix. 12. "having obtained eternal salvation for us." 
 The words " for us " are omitted by the Revisers, 
 because they do not exist in the original : 
 
 but why might they not have left them in italics, as the 
 Translators of 1611 inserted them ? For if not for us, then our 
 Lord must be supposed to have obtained eternal redemption for 
 Himself! Surely to prevent such a supposition, they should 
 have left the words in italics. 
 
 x. 21. "And having a high priest over the house of 
 
 God " having a great priest .... 
 
 This alteration greatly diminishes the applicability of the 
 Epistle to the Jewish converts. The original, indeed, is great 
 priest, but in all other instances in this Epistle, except iv. 14, it 
 is arch priest, or " high priest : " in that instance, however, it is 
 " great high priest." It is evident, therefore, that the present 
 instance is a shortening only of that title ; and that instead of 
 meaning something less than high priest, it means something 
 more great high priest, and should have been printed by the 
 Revisers, great high priest. 
 
 - xiii. 7, 8. " Remember them which have the rule 
 over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God : 
 whose faith follow, considering the end of their con- 
 versation : Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, 
 and for ever." (The punctuation is altered.) 
 Remember them that had the rule over y<m, which spake
 
 70 HEB. XIII. JAS. II. 
 
 itnto you the word of God : and considering the issue of 
 their life, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same 
 yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. 
 
 This is one of the most important passages altered by the 
 Revisers. The question is, whether we are to show reverence 
 to and obey the clergy, whatever their doctrine, or only if 
 they preach Christ Jesus? or whether, if they do not preach 
 Christ Jesus, we should " anathematize " them, and avoid them ; 
 instead of blessing them, and following them ? For St. Paul 
 said, " Woe be to me if I preach not the gospel ; " " if any 
 man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema : 
 for the Lord is at hand ! " " Though we, or an angel from 
 heaven, preach any other gospel unto you ... let him be 
 accursed." So earnest is the Apostle on this subject, that he 
 repeats what he says " As we said before, so say I now again, 
 If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have 
 received, let him be accursed." Now, it is not likely that in 
 St. Paul's time so many of the leaders of the Christian Church 
 had passed away, that reference should be made to them, rather 
 than to those who in his time were over the churches. Neither 
 does the passage before us warrant our supposing that it referred 
 to such. " Have the rule," rjyov^evoiv, or " are the guides," as in 
 the margin of our Bibles, who direct and guide us, is in the 
 present, not the past tense ; and in the eighth verse the word /'.s 
 does not exist. With these two essential points, the words, " the 
 end of their conversation " are of little moment ; we may quite 
 accept the rendering of the Revisers, the issue of their life, or as 
 the original signifies, which is better, " their manner of life," i.e. 
 the issue or outcome of their manner of life : words which 
 justify and commend the Translators of 1611 in putting the idea 
 in language which we understand, " the end of their conversa- 
 tion" (which is) "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever." See remarks on 2 Pet. ii. 3. 
 
 JAS. ii. 24. " Ye see then how that by works a man 
 is justified, and not by faith only." and not only 
 l>y faith. 
 The effect of this apparently simple and harmless transposition,
 
 JAS. II. 2 PET. II. 71 
 
 a process which the Revisers are so fond of, is very similar to 
 that of Gal. ii. 16. It implies that a man can be saved by his 
 works ; as well as by his faith if he has any : whereas St. James 
 says that if a man's faith produce no works, he cannot be saved. 
 A very great distinction: for it would show that he has no 
 faith. See remarks on Gal. ii. 16. 
 
 1 PET. iv. 1. "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered 
 
 (for us) in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the 
 same mind : for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath 
 ceased from sin." The words "for us" in brackets are 
 omitted by the Revisers. 
 
 By the omission of the words " for us," it might be thought 
 that our " suffering in the flesh " is the same as Christ's 
 " suffering in the flesh ; " thus doing away with the sacrifice 
 of Christ. 
 
 2 PET. i. 1. "through the righteousness of God and our 
 
 Saviour Jesus Christ " of our God and Saviour Jesus 
 
 Christ 
 
 This rendering of the Revisers is evidently the correct 
 one, and is justified by the correction of Gal. i. 4. See 
 Tit. ii. 13. 
 
 ii. 3. "whose judgment now of a long time 
 
 lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 
 
 whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their 
 
 destruction slumbereth not. 
 
 What word is wanted will depend upon whether it relates to 
 present or future punishment. Of whom is St. Peter speaking ? 
 " False prophets " and " false teachers, who privily shall bring in 
 damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and 
 bring upon themselves swift destruction : and many shall follow 
 their pernicious ways." He is speaking therefore of those who, 
 from their sacred office, ought to teach men the way of salvation, 
 but who, instead of so doing, lead them into the way of damna- 
 tion. And what is their punishment ? Is it destruction ? 
 Gladly would they accept that, gladly but vainly would they say 
 to the " mountains and rocks, fall on us : " for St. Peter goes on to 
 say, " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
 
 7- 2 PET. II. 1 JOHN V. 
 
 them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of dark- 
 ness, to be reserved unto judgment .... the Lord knoweth 
 how to .... reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to 
 be punished." It is not destruction therefore to which he refers, 
 but eternal damnation, or perdition, as the same Greek word is 
 translated even by the Revisers, in several other places, and ought 
 to have been so translated here, such as John xvii. 12 ; Phil. i. 28 ; 
 1 Tim. vi. 9; Heb. x. 39; and Rev. xvii. 8, 11. It ought to 
 have been so translated also in 2 Pet. iii. 7, instead of destruction, 
 the word which they use here, and they and the Translators use 
 in v. 1 ; the proper word for which is given in 1 Tim. vi. 9, and 
 is so translated by the Revisers. 
 
 - 9. "and to reserve the unjust unto the day of 
 judgment to be punished" and to keep the un- 
 righteous under punishment unto the day of judgement. 
 The sentence, of which this is the conclusion, begins at v. 4, 
 where we read, " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, 
 but cast them- down to hell, and delivered them into chains of 
 darkness, to be reserved unto judgment " so now the conclusion 
 must agree with this, and we read accordingly, " The Lord 
 knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to 
 reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 
 It is essential that the two parts compared should agree 
 together : otherwise there is no agreement. As the angels are 
 reserved for judgment, so the ungodly are reserved unto the 
 day of judgment to be punished. Till then, there is only 
 "a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indig- 
 nation." The judgment naturally comes first ; and the 
 punishment afterwards, not before. Were we to accept the 
 alteration of the Revisers, we should have to admit the Romish 
 doctrine of Purgatory, and to strike out the Twenty-second 
 Article of our Church. 
 
 1 JOHN iv. 19. " We love him, because he first loved us." 
 The word " him " is omitted. 
 
 v. 7. (The heavenly witnesses) omitted. 
 
 Great capital has been made out of the generally admitted 
 s] mriousness of this passage, which is said to have originated
 
 1 JOHN V. 73 
 
 from a note by some writer in the margin of his MS., which 
 
 note was subsequently presumed by a copyist to be an omission 
 
 restored by some corrector. But surely, if this one passage 
 
 can be proved to be an interpolation, we have no right to 
 
 suppose that the whole Bible is full of such interpolations. 
 
 Each disputed passage must be weighed upon its own merits, 
 
 and care should be taken that we " condemn not the innocent 
 
 with the guilty." It is not usual in our courts of law to 
 
 condemn one man because another man is guilty. In studying 
 
 the host of passages condemned in this manner by the Revisers, 
 
 we cannot do better than follow the wise and just practice of 
 
 our courts of law, to dismiss everything we have heard outside, 
 
 and to judge the case solely from the evidence before the court. 
 
 This verse may be so judged, and the verdict be against it. It 
 
 is a curious circumstance, however, that the Revisers hide the 
 
 omission by putting the numeral 7 in the margin : but we 
 
 presume that this oversight has been subsequently corrected. 
 
 - 13. " These things have I written unto you that 
 
 believe on the name of the Son of God : that ye may 
 
 know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may 
 
 believe on the name of the Son of God." These things 
 
 have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have 
 
 eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of 
 
 the Son of God. 
 
 One of the Revisers 1 says of this alteration, "It is an obvious 
 gain to get rid of the clumsy and almost absurd repetition which 
 occurs in the Authorized Version, and to read simply . . . ." 
 This is certainly a summary way of " getting rid " of passages 
 of Holy Scripture which offend us. One would have thought 
 that the very "clumsiness" and "absurd repetition" would 
 have been points of commendation to those who hold the 
 maxim The more obscure and unintelligible, the more 
 genuine. The passage, however, is very simple. St. Peter 
 says, These things have I written unto you who affirm your 
 belief in the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have 
 eternal life, and that you may gain that eternal life by a 
 steadfast and abiding belief in Him. 
 
 1 Companion to tlit Revised Version, p. 47.
 
 74- JUDE REV. XI. 
 
 JODE 25. " To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory 
 and majesty, dominion and power, both now and 
 ever." To the only God our Saviour, through JCSILS 
 Christ our Lord, be glory, &c. 
 
 By the addition of the" words " through Jesus Christ our Lord," 
 the passage ceases to apply the title of God to our Saviour. 
 
 REV. i. 7. " Behold he cometh with clouds ; and every 
 eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him : 
 and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of 
 him." and all the tribes of the earth sJiall mourn 
 over him. 
 
 The Revisers evidently thought, from the similarity of the 
 words, that this passage is to show the accomplishment of the 
 prophecy by Zechariah, xii. 10, " And they shall look upon me 
 whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him :" but 
 though the words are similar, the signification and meaning of 
 the two passages is entirely dissimilar. Zechariah is foretelling 
 the restoration of Jerusalem, when the Jews will mourn with 
 exceeding bitterness, when they think that they and their 
 fathers put to death, with insults and cruel sufferings, the 
 Messiah who was so frequently foretold to them, and whom 
 they in their folly did not know ; and that, notwithstanding 
 their sins, that same Messiah had now come to draw them back 
 unto their holy city ! What has this to do with our Lord's 
 coming in the Day of Judgment, when His saints are described 
 in the previous verse as being "made kings and priests unto 
 God and his Father ; " while His enemies, and those who have 
 crucified the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame, 
 and those who have continued to reject Him, shall (not mourn 
 over Him ! but) wail because of Him ! Let us add the words 
 which follow " Even so, Amen." 
 
 - xi. 17 ; xvi. 5. " We give thee thanks, O Lord God 
 Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come." 
 " O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be." The 
 words " and art to come " are omitted in the first 
 passage ; and the words, " and shalt be," in the 
 second passage.
 
 REV. XL XIII. 75 
 
 Is it likely that St. John, to whom it was revealed to write 
 an apocalypse of the church, a Kevelation of secret things, 
 and who in the beginning of his book spoke of God and of the 
 Lord as of Him " which is, and which was, and which is to 
 come, the Almighty," i. 4, 8 ; iv. 8 ; and as " Alpha and Omega, 
 the beginning and the ending ; " and who, all through the book, 
 speaks of their living and reigning " for ever and ever ; " should 
 in these latter passages, when addressing God, omit to mention 
 the futurity of God ? 
 
 - xiii. 18. "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath 
 understanding count the number of the beast : for it 
 is the number of a man : and his number is six 
 hundred, threescore and six." The Revisers affix a 
 note, " Some ancient authorities read six hundred and 
 sixteen" 
 
 We must here quote what the writer in the Quarterly says 
 on this subject, and we do so the more gladly as it gives us an 
 opportunity of adducing an example of the masterly manner in 
 which that learned writer has, in three successive numbers of 
 the Quarterly, 304, 305, and 306, written " On the New Greek 
 Text," "The New English Version," and on " Westcott and 
 Hort's Textual Theory," as exhibited in the New Testament 
 Revision. Nothing can exceed the learning or the patient 
 industry of this writer; and indeed it is fortunate for the 
 Church of England that such a defender of its Authorized 
 Translation has come forward, who, amid much obloquy, has 
 proved himself so able to meet Drs. Westcott and Hort, and the 
 Revisers generally, on their own field of Textual Criticism, on 
 which they have built up their Revised Version of the New 
 Testament. He says : 
 
 " Why is not the whole truth told ? viz. that only one 
 corrupt uncial (C), only one cursive copy (11), only one Father 
 (Tichonius), and not one ancient Version, advocates this reading ; 
 which Irenseus (A.D. 170) knew of, but rejected, remarking that 
 6G6, which is ' found in all the best and oldest copies, and is 
 attested to by men who saw John face to face,' is unquestion- 
 ably the true reading, (pp. 798, 799.) The same number, 666, 
 is expressly vouched for by Origen, (iii. 474,) by Hippolytus,
 
 70 REV. XIII. XIX. 
 
 [Aut. c. 50 ; Consum. c. 28,) by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl. v. 8,) as 
 well as by Victorinus and Primasius, not to mention Andreas 
 and Arethas. Why therefore, for what possible reason, at 
 the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly 
 nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon 
 the attention of ninety millions of English-speaking people ? 
 Was it done in order to perplex and mystify ' those that have 
 understanding,' and would fain 'count the number of the 
 beast/ if they are able ? Or was it because the margin of 
 the New Testament is judged a proper place for reviving the 
 memory of forgotten perversions of the Truth ? " l 
 
 xix. 8. "And to her was granted that she 
 should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : 
 for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." 
 for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the 
 saints. 
 
 What a delusion ! St. Paul says, " It is not by works of 
 righteousness which we have done, but by his mercy that we 
 are saved; by the washing of regeneration." "And be found 
 in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the 
 law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the 
 righteousness which is of God by faith." It is thus that the 
 saints are described in heaven " What are these which are 
 arrayed in white robes ? . . . . These are they which .... 
 have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood 
 of the Lamb," vii. 13, 14. So, in the verse before us, The 
 Church, that is, all who believe in Christ, and are accepted by 
 God, do not appear in their own righteousness, but the fine 
 linen of righteousness is "granted unto them;" and so far 
 from presuming to trust in their own righteousness, they are 
 represented in another chapter as "casting their crowns before 
 the throne," iv. 10, to signify that all the glory which they 
 have proceeds from God : and it is thus that our Saviour, in 
 the parable of the marriage feast, teaches us that all those in 
 heaven are there only through Christ's righteousness being 
 imputed to them in consequence of their faith in Him ; while 
 
 1 No. 305, p. 12.
 
 REV. XIX. 
 
 77 
 
 those who appear in their own righteousness are "cast into 
 outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth." 
 
 " great Absolver, grant my soul may wear 
 The lowliest garb of penitence and prayer ; 
 That in the Father's courts my glorious dress 
 May be the garment of Thy righteousness." 
 
 Hymns Ancient and Modern.
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 No one, we think, can fail to notice a general lowering of 
 Christian doctrine in the Revised Version, as exhibited in the 
 foregoing examples of alterations and omissions from our 
 Authorized Translation. And, if so, the pretence that no 
 alteration has been made in the vital doctrines of our Christian 
 faith (see pp. 10 12) cannot be sustained. For, although every 
 doctrine of the Christian faith may doubtless be found in the 
 Revised Version, yet, if a great many of the foundations of that 
 faith which are contained in the Authorized Translation, are 
 struck out from the Revised Version, there must necessarily 
 be a weakening of that faith. 
 
 It is alleged that no passages are struck out but those which 
 have been found unsupported by ancient MSS. and other 
 authorities. Although all must acknowledge and admire the 
 learning and ability of the Revisers, we may say that writers 
 of equal ability and learning have sustained these passages, by 
 an overpowering evidence of MSS. and authorities in support of 
 them. It has been our attempt, following their labours, feebly 
 and imperfectly as it has been carried out, when no one else 
 rose up to do so, to examine these passages by the internal 
 evidence of Scripture itself, where such evidence can be dis- 
 covered ; and, where that is not evident, simply to give the 
 passages of the Authorized Translation bearing upon doctrine, 
 where omitted or altered by the Revisers. 
 
 We proceed now to exhibit such passages.
 
 CONCLUSION. 79 
 
 I. Passages bearing upon the divinity of our Lord : 
 
 " Son of God " omitted in St. Mark's declaration. Mark i. 1. 
 
 ., in St. Peter's confession. John vi. 69. 
 
 as confessed by the centurion at the 
 
 Crucifixion. Note to Matt, xxvii. 54. 
 
 " The Son of man " (though only in italics) omitted. Mark 
 
 xiii. 34. 
 The title of " Son " changed to Sen-ant. Acts iii. 13, 26 ; 
 
 iv. 27, 30. 
 The word "Lord" omitted in the father's petition for his 
 
 child. Mark ix. 24. 
 in the dying thief's confession. 
 
 Luke xxiii. 42. 
 
 ,, in speaking of the body of the 
 
 Lord Jesus. Note to Luke 
 xxiv. 3. 
 
 The word " God " altered to Lord. Note to Acts xx. 28. 
 taken away in the celebrated passages 
 
 Rom. ix. 5, and 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
 ,, and by an interpolation in Jude 25. 
 
 The centurion's declaration at the Crucifixion. Mark 
 
 xv. 39. 
 
 An act of adoration omitted. Note to Mark i. 40. 
 Our Lord's omniscience. Luke vii. 39. 
 Salvation through Christ. John iii. 15 ; vi. 47. 
 Praying to God in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 John xiv. 14; xvi. 23. 
 The Creation not "by" Him, but through Him. 1 Cor. 
 
 viii. 6 ; Eph. iii. 9 ; Col. i. 16, 17; Heb. i. 2; ii. 10. 
 Divine power in working miracles. Matt. viii. 3 ; Mark ii. 
 
 12; v. 23, 33; vii. 35; xi. 3. 
 
 The Judgment taken away from Christ, and given to God. 
 Rom. xiv. 10. 
 
 That these alterations are not due to any theological motive 
 on the part of the Revisers whatever it may have been on the 
 part of ancient copyists but simply to different readings in 
 ancient MSS. is evident from the following passages in which
 
 80 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the Revisers have restored the reference of the word God to our 
 Saviour. 
 
 Stephen calling upon the Lord. Acts vii. 59. 
 
 The word " God " applied to our Saviour in Titus. Tit. 
 
 ii. 13. 
 The word "God" applied to our Saviour by St. Peter. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 1. 
 
 Another passage may be added, 1 Pet. iii. 15, "But sanctify 
 the Lord God in your hearts," which has been altered by the 
 Revisers to, But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord. 
 Griesbach, however, did not consider the alteration justifiable. 
 And in another passage, 1 John v. 18, " He that is begotten 
 of God keepeth himself," is altered by the Revisers erroneously 
 so as to refer to our Lord He that is begotten of God keepeth 
 him. But it is quite evident that it refers to the child of God, 
 as given in the Authorized Translation. Thus we read in 1 John 
 iii. 9, " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; " in v. 6, 
 " Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not ; " in Jas. i. 27, the 
 godly man is said " to keep himself " unspotted from the world ; 
 while in the beginning of the verse before us we have, 
 "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not." 
 
 II. In like manner, it is evident that the Revisers never 
 intended to draw the deductions which may be made from the 
 passages which follow : but we maintain that, in consequence of 
 the alterations made, readers of the Revised Version may draw 
 these deductions, and sceptics may take advantage of such 
 alterations for their own purposes. These alterations refer to 
 
 The birth of our Lord. Matt. i. 18. 
 
 The possibility of our Lord's yielding to temptation. Matt. 
 
 xvi. 23. 
 The Transfiguration capable of a natural explanation. Matt. 
 
 xvii. 2. 
 
 The title of " good " as applied to our Lord. Matt. xix. 1 (>, 17. 
 Limit to God's forgiveness. Heb. vi. 4 6. 
 Our Lord's hiding Himself. John viii. 59. 
 The voluntary sacrifice of Christ. Mark ix. 12; Luke 
 
 xxiv. 46.
 
 CONCLUSION. 81 
 
 Redemption through "His blood." Col. i. 14. 
 Christ revealed in the Old Testament. John v. 39. 
 
 mourned over in heaven ! Rev. i. 7. 
 Futurity of God. Rev. xi. 17 ; xvi. 5. 
 
 III. We regret the doubt thrown upon some of the most 
 touching incidents of our Lord's crucifixion, by the insertion of 
 a Note stating that some ancient authorities omit such passages. 
 
 Words uttered at the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Luke xxii. 19, 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 29. 
 Agony in the garden. Luke xxii. 43, 44. 
 Words on the Cross, " Father, forgive them," &c. Luke 
 
 xxiii. 34. 
 
 " He is not here, but is risen." Luke xxiv. 6. 
 " Peace be unto you." Luke xxiv. 36. 
 Showing His hands and feet. Luke xxiv. 40. 
 The Ascension. Luke xxiv. 51. 
 " Worshipped Him." Luke xxiv. 52. 
 
 What are we to say of the " ancient authorities " which omit 
 such passages ! 
 
 IV. Leaving out portions of God's Word. 
 
 Portions of the Lord's Prayer. Matt, and Luke, 
 Mark xvi. verses 9 20. 
 John vii. 53 viii. 11. 
 
 And what are we to say of the Revisers who paid heed to 
 such " ancient authorities " ! 
 
 V. Other alterations or omissions affecting doctrine. 
 
 Record of the fulfilment of prophecy. Matt, xxvii. 35 ; 
 
 Mark xv. 28. 
 
 Scriptural nature of predestination. Acts ii. 47. 
 Baptismal regeneration taking the place of daily dying to 
 
 sin. Rom. vi. 2 ; 2 Cor. v. 14 Eph. ii. 1, 5, 6, 8. 
 Philip's requirement before baptism, and the Eunuch's 
 
 confession. Acts viii. 37. 
 
 Christian precepts. Matt. v. 44 ; xvii. 21 ; xx. 16, 22, 23; 
 
 F
 
 82 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Mark ix. 29 ; x. 21 ; xi. 26 ; Luke iv. 4 ; Rom. xi. 6 ; 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 5. 
 Christian promises. Matt, xviii. 11; Luke ii. 10, 14; 
 
 iv. 18; ix. 55, 56. 
 
 Christ the end of our conversation. Heb. xiii. 7, 8. 
 Procession of the Holy Ghost. Acts xvi. 7. 
 Justification by faith. Gal. iv. 22, 23, 30, 31. 
 
 works. Gal. ii. 16 ; Jas. ii. 24 ; Rev. xix. 8. 
 Everlasting punishment. Matt, xxiii. 33 ; Mark iii. 29 ; 
 
 ix. 44, 46, 48, 49 ; xii. 40 ; xvi. 16 ; John iii. 17, 18 ; 
 
 v. 29 ; 2 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3, 9. 
 Purgatory. Mark ix. 48, 49 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9. 
 Transubstantiation. 1 Cor. xi. 29. 
 The Virgin Mary. Matt. i. 23. 
 The " number of the beast." Rev. xiii. 18. 
 
 To what are we to attribute this lowering of the doctrinal 
 fulness of our Authorized Translation ? 
 
 I. In the first place, and principally, to the fact that the two 
 oldest MSS. which we possess are remarkable for the great number 
 of omissions which they naturally contain, in consequence of the 
 very hurried manner in which they were executed ; if, as Canon 
 Cook shows it to be most probable, if not certain, that they formed 
 part of the fifty copies ordered by Eusebius for the churches of 
 Constantinople. These two MSS. being conspicuous, not only for 
 their great antiquity, but for the fineness of their vellum, and 
 the beauty of their calligraphy, have been regarded with an 
 almost superstitious reverence and veneration, and have been 
 supposed to contain the " precise sense of the words spoken by 
 Christ, and written by His Apostles and Evangelists," and to 
 be second only to the Divine autographs themselves. Where 
 these two MSS. agree, all other MSS. have been regarded as 
 supernumerary and useless. 
 
 II. The fact of these two- MSS. being remarkable for the 
 number of omissions which they contain, and consequently 
 being regarded as free from the supposed interpolations of later 
 MSS., and so being looked upon as quasi divine, may possibly,
 
 CONCLUSION. 83 
 
 and unconsciously, have been the cause why the maxim was 
 laid down, 
 
 " A shorter to be preferred to a longer reading," 
 and an argument adduced to prove that the constant habit 
 of corrupt scribes has been to interpolate, to harmonize, to 
 accommodate, to explain, to make more clear, to expand, and 
 even to correct (!) the Word of God which they were copying. 
 But it never appears to have occurred to these textual critics, 
 by any possibility, that it was much more likely that careless 
 scribes accidentally omitted words, or sentences, or entire 
 paragraphs ; or that corrupt scribes left out purposely anything 
 that offended them, or attempted to correct anything they 
 thought wrong by omitting it altogether ; that interested 
 copyists struck out anything opposed to their own class ; or 
 that ignorant scribes got over a difficulty which they could not 
 understand by leaving it out. 
 
 III. The frequent omission of words, the frequent alteration 
 of words, and the frequent alteration of a single letter, when 
 added to the attempt to give a literal translation, and a uniform 
 translation, word for word, into English from the original Greek, 
 must naturally in many instances render the signification abrupt, 
 or confusing, or doubtful, or unintelligible. But if in other MS. 
 copies these difficulties and roughnesses were not apparent, it 
 was presumed that it could only be from their having been 
 smoothed over by interpolations and alterations by a later 
 hand ; and consequently that those apparent defects in the 
 earlier MSS. were only a proof of their greater purity and 
 genuineness. (As if the Gospels were not originally written so 
 that all might understand them !) Beogel's famous aphorism 
 would prove this 
 
 " Proclivi seriptioni prsestat ardua." 
 
 Happy thought ! For by so simple an expedient all difficulties 
 are removed. That which, under ordinary circumstances, would 
 be considered an intolerable defect, now becomes a beauty ; and 
 admirers and followers run into ecstasies at these truncated 
 sentences, declaring that a flood of light is thus thrown upon 
 the sacred scripture, reminding us of "le renard qui avait la 
 
 F 2
 
 84 CONCLUSION. 
 
 queue couple." Like the famous saying, " I believe : because 
 it is impossible," so in these MSS., the more hopelessly wrong 
 a sentence appears, with the greater reverence is it regarded. 
 Like Moslem lunatics, the more mad they are, the more holy 
 are they thought to be. 
 
 IV. The superior authority of these two MSS. has been en- 
 deavoured to be further proved by supposed genealogical descent. 
 This is of two kinds. One way was by conceiving that all extimt 
 MSS. may be arranged into two, three, or four classes for different 
 writers differ in their differences all classes being distinguished 
 by some defect, except the class to which B and N belong, which 
 may be called the Immaculate or Infallible class. Consequently, 
 to accuse any MS. of belonging to any one of the other classes, 
 was sufficient to insure its rejection for its utter worthlessness. 
 The other way was to get rid of what would be otherwise an 
 overpowering host of opposing MSS. by drawing up a pedigree, 
 and showing that if MS. A was copied twice, in MSS. B and C, 
 and each of these, though now lost to us, was copied nine times ; 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 but that while all the copies of C are extant, there is only one 
 copy of B now existing ; the nine copies of C cannot be reckoned 
 of more value than the single remaining copy of B : for all these 
 nine copies of C represent but one copy, C ; while the single 
 copy of B also represents one copy, B. By this specious process 
 the great host of cursive copies has been set aside, as merely 
 representing the original copy C from which they were all taken. 
 But the originators of this ingenious scheme forget that the nine 
 copies of C are not all alike, but that they are all different, the 
 errors and mistakes they contain being peculiar to each copy :
 
 CONCLUSION. 85 
 
 so that the probability is that they may never contain the same 
 mistakes in the same place ; and, consequently, the errors and 
 mistakes of each one of them would be corrected by the other 
 eight ; and thus, by collating the nine together, the errors being 
 thus eliminated, we should obtain a perfect copy of the lost MS. 
 C. On the other hand, the remaining copy of B could not be a 
 perfect copy of the lost MS. B, for the other eight copies being 
 lost, there would be no possibility of correcting its errors. There- 
 fore, although the value of any one of the copies of C would be 
 only of the same value as the only remaining copy of B, the 
 collective value of the nine copies of C must be of nine times 
 the value of the only remaining copy of B. Thus, the 
 genealogical pedigree, instead of proving the contrary, proves 
 that the vastly increased number of cursive MSS. must naturally 
 contain a truer text if, as is supposed in starting, B and C were of 
 equal authority. Moreover, if an argument may be adduced 
 from the Darwinian theory, that the stronger survives, and it 
 certainly appears more than probable in this case, then the text 
 from which the cursives derive their origin, must be the truer 
 text ; for how otherwise are we to explain the fact that B and N, 
 with their few immediate followers, have been swallowed up, 
 like Korah and his company, in the pit of oblivion, while the 
 Syrian text has increased and multiplied ? How else shall we 
 explain the wonderful fact, as already narrated, that with the 
 scanty materials said to be possessed by Erasmus "for the 
 Gospels an inferior MS. of the fifteenth century, with occasional 
 use of two others ; for the Acts and Epistles a MS. of the 
 thirteenth or fourteenth century ; and for the Apocalypse a muti- 
 lated MS. of the thirteenth century," or, as another account says, 
 sixteen MSS. ; and with some additional MSS. which Stephens 
 and Beza had access to, " but of which they made no real or 
 consistent use " ; and to which text of Beza the Translators of 
 1611 made only 190 additions such a marvellous translation 
 should have come down to us, as we possess in the Authorized 
 Translation ? How else can we explain except by the admitted 
 fact that these despised cursives from which our Received Text 
 and our Authorized Translation have been taken, are, as we 
 have already seen, " identical U1 > the dominant Antiochian
 
 86 CONCLUSION. 
 
 or Gneco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century," 
 and that " the first ancestor of the Received Text was, at least, 
 contemporary with the oldest of our extant MSS. if not older 
 than any of them " how this mere handful of despised, "scanty," 
 " inferior," and " mutilated " MSS. could have resulted in so pure 
 a version as our Authorized Translation ? 
 
 The ancestry and materials of our Authorized Translation 
 have been given to us the Antiochian, or Grseco-Syrian text 
 of the second half of the fourth century, springing from a Syrian 
 text of the second century, Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and our 
 Translators of 1611. Let us now look at the ancestry and the 
 materials of the Revised Text and Version. The most ancient 
 MSS. we at present possess, B and N, Lachmann, Tregelles, 
 Tischendorf, Alford, Drs. Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. 
 And what are their materials? " Lachmann' s text"- -Dr. 
 Scrivener tells us "seldom rests on more than four Greek 
 codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two, sometimes 
 on only one," and he " made a clean sweep of the great mass of 
 MSS. usually cited in critical editions," Thus, he entirely rejects 
 the evidence of the later uncials, and of the five or six hundred 
 cursive MSS. Dr. Tregelles' principle " consists in resorting to 
 ancient authorities alone in the construction of the text, and in 
 refusing not only to the received, or printed text, but also to the 
 great mass of MSS., all voice in determining the true reading ; " 
 stating, " that eighty-nine ninetieths of our extant MSS. and 
 other authorities may safely be rejected, and lost sight of, when 
 we come to amend the text, and try to restore it to its primitive 
 purity." Dr. Tischendorf began by doing so likewise. In his 
 seventh edition, however, he restored the Received Text in 600 
 places where before he had rejected it. But after twenty years' 
 labour, having discovered the Sinaitic MS. fc$, he went back in 
 his eighth edition to the more ancient authorities, thus 
 strengthened by this MS., " making 3,369 alterations to agree 
 with it," saying, "the evidence of codex N, supported, or even 
 unsupported, by one or two other authorities of any description, 
 is sufficient to outweigh any other witnesses, whether MSS., 
 Versions, or Ecclesiastical writers," Dr. Scrivener remarking on 
 his so doing " to the scandal of the science of Comparative
 
 CONCLUSION. 87 
 
 Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment 
 and consistency." Dean Alford says, " I have become disposed, 
 as research and comparison have gone on, to lay more and more 
 weight on the evidence of our few most ancient MSS. and Ver- 
 sions, and less on the great array of later MSS." " Perhaps 
 these four or five are just the consensus of our most ancient and 
 venerable authorities, and all the rest may, for aught we know, 
 be in many cases no more worthy to be heard in the matter than 
 so many separate printed copies of our own day." Thus Dean 
 Alford has recourse to the specious fallacy of the pedigree argu- 
 ment (p. 84), that the nine copies of B are all alike, instead of 
 being all ditferent. The only difference between Dr. Tischendorf 
 and Drs. Westcott and Hort is that while Tischendorf naturally 
 gave the first place to the MS. which he discovered in St. 
 Catherine's convent at Mount Sinai, Drs. Westcott and Hort 
 give it to the Vatican copy ; otherwise, they " have deliberately 
 chosen, on the whole, to rely on documentary evidence, on the 
 stores accumulated by their predecessors ; " and state that " in 
 the absence of specially strong internal evidence to the contrary, 
 .... the readings of N and B combined may safely be accepted 
 as genuine." Speaking of the Kevision Company, two of the 
 Revisers tell us, " It was impossible to mistake the conviction 
 upon which its textual decisions were based. It was a con- 
 viction that the true text was not to be sought in the Textus 
 Receptus, or in the bulk of the cursive MSS., or in the later 
 uncials, with or without the support of the Codex Alexandrinus, 
 or in Chrysostom or his contemporaries." . . . . l 
 
 The result of a comparison of these two ancestries will show 
 that " the great mass " of cursive MSS. which have formed the 
 greatness and the glory of our Authorized Translation, have 
 been entirely discarded by the successive ancestors of the Re- 
 vised Version, for the supposed greater authority of the " four 
 or five " uncials, B, N, A, C, D. From this group, however, we 
 must take away A, for it is out of company with its fellows, at 
 least as regards the Gospels. Indeed, A, although ranking with 
 these primary MSS. with regard to age, the costliness of its 
 vellum, and the beauty of its calligraphy, has not been regarded 
 1 The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, p. 28.
 
 88 CONCLUSION. 
 
 by these critics as of equal authority with them : for, unlike 
 them, it is written carefully and at leisure, and is in consequence 
 comparatively free from omissions in the synoptical Gospels; 
 and, as stated by Dr. Hort, it " represents most fairly the text 
 commonly occurring in citations by the Greek fathers of the 
 fourth century." It is also more in conformity with the cursives 
 than any other uncial, so far as the synoptical Gospels are 
 concerned. Unlike the Eusebian MSS. which were in 3's and 
 4's, this MS. is in two columns only. 
 
 The remaining four, B, N, C, D, are those upon which the 
 Revised Version is chiefly founded. They are all remarkable 
 for the great number of their omissions and alterations. D, the 
 codex Bezae, at Cambridge, is the most corrupt. Dr. Scrivener 
 says of it " When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we find 
 ourselves confronted with a text, the like to which we have no 
 experience of elsewhere. It is hardly an exaggeration to assert 
 that codex D reproduces the Textus receptus much in the same 
 way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of 
 the Old Testament ; so wide are the variations in the diction, so 
 constant and inveterate the practice of expounding the narrative 
 by means of interpolations which seldom recommend them- 
 selves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability." 
 Tischendorf says of it, " Saepe dubites per ludumne an serio 
 scripta legas." 
 
 N, the Codex Sinaiticus at St. Petersburg, the next at fault ; 
 with B, the Codex Vaticanus, at Rome ; are, as we have already 
 seen, remarkable for their omissions and alterations. Indeed, 
 the writer in the Quarterly says of N, " It is found that at least 
 ten revisers between the fourth and the twelfth centuries busied 
 themselves with the task of correcting its many and extraordinary 
 perversions of the truth of Scripture." 
 
 Of MS. B, Dr. Scrivener writes "One marked feature, 
 characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, 
 which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting an 
 abbreviated text of the New Testament ; and certainly the facts he 
 states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that 
 codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no fewer than 330 
 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John
 
 CONCLUSION 1 . 89 
 
 384 in Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles, or 2,556 times in 
 all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of 
 the scribe seems evident from a circumstance which has only 
 come to light of late years, namely, that this same scribe has 
 repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mis- 
 takes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to 
 notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by 
 the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate 
 of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primi- 
 tive Christianity." But this calculation of Dr. Dobbin's is far 
 below the mark ; for the writer in the Quarterly states that " In 
 the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 2,877 words, to 
 add 536, to substitute 935, to transpose 2,098, to modify 1,132, 
 (in all, 7,578). The corresponding figures for N being severally, 
 3,455, 839, 1,114, 2,299, 1,265, in all, 8,972 ; these omissions, 
 additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications being 
 by no means the same in each." How many of these are the 
 result of accidental carelessness, and how many to Arian tenden- 
 cies in the fourth century, we must leave those to determine 
 who will make a special study of the subject. It will have been 
 seen that many of the alterations are those which result from 
 the alteration of a single letter of the original. The Bp. of 
 Lincoln states that in the MS. B, the confusion of &> and o 
 occurs no less than 68 times. 
 
 C, the Ephraem Palimpsest, at Paris, is but a fragment. Such 
 are the materials from which the Revised Version has been 
 chiefly formed. L, being a descendant of B, is frequently quoted 
 in support. 
 
 Dr. Roberts, one of the Revisers, deplores the " changes 
 traceable to the excessive deference which has been paid to 
 one or two of the most ancient authorities. . . . The exaggerated 
 respect, amounting sometimes almost to servility, displayed 
 towards a few of the most ancient MSS. has, in my humble 
 judgment, gravely injured the Revised Version." 1 
 
 V. The last cause to which we must attribute the lowering 
 of the doctrinal fulness of the Authorized Translation, is the 
 
 1 " Criticisms on the Revised Version of the New Testament " in The Quiver, 
 Ko. 193.
 
 90 CONCLUSION. 
 
 rejection of internal evidence. The object of this essay has been 
 to show by internal evidence whether passages have been cor- 
 rectly or incorrectly altered or expunged. If the context of a 
 passage shows that such alteration or omission does not agree 
 with the context, then such internal evidence is a proof that 
 the alteration or omission is an error. Again, if the alteration 
 or omission conflicts with other portions of Scripture, then the 
 internal evidence of Scripture would also show such alteration 
 or omission to be an error. For if we believe in the inspiration 
 of Holy Scripture, we must not only believe that each of the 
 Evangelists who wrote Gospels, and each of the Apostles who 
 wrote Epistles, was inspired individually ; but also that what one 
 inspired writer has written agrees perfectly with what all the 
 other inspired writers wrote : that, for instance, St. James's 
 doctrine of works cannot contradict St. Paul's doctrine of faith, 
 as some objectors allege ; but that it is a just corollary or conse- 
 quence to it. (Jas. ii. 17, 18.) Internal evidence, therefore, must 
 be sought not merely in the context of any particular passage, 
 or even in what any particular writer has written elsewhere, but 
 in whatever was written by any other inspired writer of the 
 New Testament. For Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. 
 
 But, it is replied, the most ancient MSS., by not containing 
 certain passages, evidently show that such passages in other 
 MSS. are interpolations ; and if we accept these MSS. as the 
 most genuine, by reason of their greater antiquity, and the 
 excellence of their vellum and calligraphy, we must reject 
 internal evidence when we find it conflicts with these MSS. ; 
 but if we accept internal evidence, we must reject the MSS. 
 But that would be against reason. We must, therefore, reject 
 internal evidence. For what is internal evidence ? Does it not 
 embrace objective evidence, and subjective evidence ? Objective 
 evidence of the MSS. themselves; and subjective evidence of 
 the critic? But the critic may be mistaken: there fun 1 \v<- 
 reject internal evidence altogether. 
 
 Such appears to have been the reasoning of the learned critics 
 who have applied the principles of textual criticism to the MSS. 
 of the New Testament. Accordingly, Dr. Tregelles would ex- 
 clude it altogether. Dean Alford says, that consideration of the
 
 CONCLUSION. 91 
 
 context is the very last thing that should be allowed by the 
 critic to be present to his mind as an element of judgment. 
 He thinks that " it is from this very consideration that our 
 deteriorated text has in many cases arisen," and that " the 
 general adoption of it as a critical law would be the worst 
 imaginable retrograde step in sacred criticism." This is cer- 
 tainly strange language ! and yet this opinion seems to have 
 been adopted, and carried out in the Revised Version by the 
 majority of the committee. The Bishop of St. Andrews, one of 
 the Revisers, says, " I could not yield to the argument with 
 which we were sometimes pressed, that all reasoning whatever 
 from internal evidence must be disallowed." Dr. Field, a 
 member of the Old Testament Revision Company, in speaking 
 of ancient evidence as used by the Revisers, says, " The word 
 ' ancient/ while it includes the testimony of MSS., versions, and 
 quotations from the Fathers, excludes proofs from internal 
 evidence, to which the Revisers, in common with the majority 
 of textual critics, seem to have assigned a very subordinate 
 place, if any at all, in the determination of the readings which 
 they have adopted." Another Reviser, Prof. Leathes, D.D., 
 says, " There can be no question that in many points the text 
 our Translators followed is more in accordance with the verdict 
 of common sense than that which the Revisers have preferred to 
 
 it The external evidence may be great, but is there 
 
 nothing else to which legitimate appeal may be made, more 
 especially when the weight and value of the external authorities 
 themselves is the matter in dispute ? This is indeed a subject 
 in which the public at large are at the mercy of the experts, 
 and cannot expect to be heard ; but the time will assuredly come 
 when the experts themselves will be arraigned before other ex- 
 perts, and these are matters on which even learned opinion is 
 liable to oscillation. Unfortunately, therefore, in the matter of 
 text, it is altogether impossible to exclude the verdict of common 
 sense and popular opinion ; and many prophecies would be more 
 rash and unwarrantable than that which should declare that the 
 ultimate verdict of the world will be given in a variety of cases 
 against the Revisers' text." 
 
 What is the result ? It is that as these textual critics insist
 
 92 CONCLUSION. 
 
 upon textual criticism only, no one henceforth is to be permitted 
 to interpret Scripture for himself, to examine Scripture by 
 Scripture, to question the translation of the Revised Version, to 
 point out, as a Bible student, as we have endeavoured to do, how 
 far it agrees or disagrees with the internal evidence of the Bible; 
 but we shall be required to accept the conclusions of these 
 critics, although opposed to our own conscience, and the col- 
 lective teaching of the Word of God. Thus these MSS. and the 
 Version founded on them, are superior to all other MSS., and 
 are [independent of what internal evidence shows to be the 
 Word of God ! 
 
 But though internal evidence of the Bible is thus set aside, 
 these textual critics lay great stress on the objective evidence of 
 the MSS., and, in order to judge of their authority, the following 
 canons have been framed by one writer : 
 
 1. A hard reading to be preferred to an easy one. 
 
 2. A shorter reading to be preferred to one more diffuse. 
 
 3. A reading is preferable from which the others might 
 
 have more easily been derived. 
 
 4. Also one which best suits the style, manner, and habits 
 
 of thought of the writer. 
 
 5. Attention must be paid to the usage and character of 
 
 each authority in assigning the weight due to it. 
 
 6. A reading may be suspected which manifestly favours, 
 
 above others, orthodox dogmas. (Griesbach.) 
 
 7. Probabilities of erroneous transcription must be taken 
 
 into account. 
 
 Drs. Westcott and Hort divide internal evidence into two 
 kinds the thought of what an author is likely to have written ; 
 and the thought of what a copyist is likely to have made him 
 write. 
 
 So, instead of studying the internal evidence of the Bible 
 itself, the unfailing " word of Truth, the Gospel of our salvation," 
 we are to study, as a professional exercise, not only the character 
 and style of the. author, and what lie was likely to write, but 
 the character and mode of thought of the copyist, and how he 
 might represent the author's thoughts ; instead of weighing the
 
 CONCLUSION. 93 
 
 internal evidence of Scripture, we are to weigh the relative value 
 of different MSS. Though we are convinced that the word of 
 God, as delivered to the Evangelists and Apostles, was clear 
 and simple, so that all might understand, not only those to 
 whom it was originally preached, but all succeeding ages we 
 are to accept now as the most genuine, the rendering which is 
 the least clear and least simple ; and, strange to say, though 
 we have the promise of our Lord that " the Spirit of truth shall 
 guide us into all truth," we are now told that we must look with 
 most suspicion upon a rendering which " manifestly favours " 
 the truth. (" orthodox dogmas.") And what is the result ? 
 It is that a curtailed, crabbed, confused, contradictory, and 
 what we can only look upon as an unevangelical Gospel, is to 
 be preferred to a plain and simple Gospel, so plain that " he 
 may run that readeth it ; " and that the copyists are to be 
 looked upon as inspired writers, while what we have regarded 
 as, and believe to be, the statements of the Evangelists in giving 
 the words of our Lord, and of the Apostles as inspired by the 
 Holy Spirit, is to be set aside and regarded as error ! 
 
 Again we ask, what is the result ? It is that the waves of 
 opposition to God's Word are already surging, and threatening 
 our common faith. The Bible is God's compact with us, and 
 our compact with God. The Gospel is " the earnest of our in- 
 heritance," the pledge of our inheritance ; a word common to the 
 Old and ISTew Testaments, for the HebreAV and Greek words are 
 the same, not only in signification, but in sound. But of what 
 use is a legal instrument, if it is scored over with countless 
 alterations and explanations which change its meaning ? If 
 some words are taken away, others added, and doubts attached 
 to those that remain, it becomes a new document ; and the old 
 one is cancelled and destroyed. 1 
 
 1 Those who dislike the covenants of the old are beginning to rejoice. 
 The Psalmist says 
 
 " The floods are rising, Lord, 
 The floods lift up their voice, 
 The floods lift up their waves."
 
 94 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Already we find it stated 
 
 "With the emendations of certain single texts, the whole stock of some 
 fanaticisms is swept into sj 
 
 What are the utterances of infidel publications we have no means of telling ; 
 but we read the following in a Jewish serial : 
 
 " The chief changes which a necessarily hasty perusal has brought to light tell 
 in favour of Judaism in the long-continued struggle between Christ and Synagogue. 
 Thus the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is considerably weakened by the 
 admission made in the marginal notes of the New Version that the concluding 
 verses of the Gospel of Mark are absent in the two oldest Greek MSS. The 
 passage in John's Gospel about the three witin -.->> > is wisely omitted, and a strong 
 
 text for the doctrine of the Trinity thus removed One of the most 
 
 charming anecdotes about Jesus his treatment of the woman taken in adultery 
 is now recognised to be a late interpolation, and this lends some strength to the 
 conviction that many of the New Testament narratives are ben trovati. Through- 
 out, the addition of ' Christ ' to the name of Jesus is seen to be absent in the most 
 trustworthy authorities, and the late origin of his claims to divinity is thus 
 shown. The New Version is in many ways an additional confirmation of the 
 position Jews have always taken up in denying the extravagant claims of the 
 followers of Jesus." 
 
 "While a writer "On the Doctrinal Effects of the Revised Version" thus 
 expresses himself relative to the Future State : 
 
 " Should the Revised Version ever come into general use, the popular con- 
 ceptions of Christian doctrine will be largely, and in some respects happily, 
 changed. Let the Authorized Version once fall out of use and be forgotten by 
 all but few scholars as half-a-dozen older translations have already done and 
 the New Version be generally accepted, and the alterations in it will, I believe, 
 inevitably induce grave changes, at least in the popular theology. Doctrines 
 are but abstract statements of the truths taught in Scripture. How then can 
 you touch the Scriptures without touching doctrine ? The changes you make in 
 the one must sooner or later be reflected in the other. And when our Version is 
 largely and seriously modified, how can there fail to ensue a large and serious 
 modification of our doctrinal conceptions ? They must and will ensue, and that 
 both in directions which will be very welcome to some of us, and in directions 
 which will be no less unwelcome 
 
 "The word 'everlasting' is not once applied either to the future life or the 
 future punishment of men in the New Version, though in the Old Version it 
 occurred again and again. The words 'damn,' 'damnation,' 'damnable,' 
 'damned,' nave all disappeared, and have been replaced by such words as 
 'judge,' 'judgment.' 'condemn,' 'condemnation,' 'condemned.' .... Now 
 that we may estimate the eflect of these changes on the popular mind, let us 
 suppose that the New Version has become the Authorized Version, and that a 
 man of good intelligence, but simple and unlettered, comes to his New Testament 
 to learn what it has to teach him of the future doom of the wicked. What 
 does he find ? He finds no such word as 'damn,' or 'damnation.' .... The 
 word 'everlasting,' implying endless duration, is never once applied whether 
 to the future life or to the future punishment of man : wherever this word 
 once stood, we now read 'eternal,' and even where we still read 'for ever,' or 
 ' for ever and ever,' we are fairly warned in the margin that in the original we 
 have 'through the ages,' or ' for the ages of the ages.' And here I may remark, 
 in passing, that in such marginal readings as 'this age' and 'the coming age,' 
 which abound in our New Version, there Be the germs, latent for the present, of 
 far larger doctrinal changes than either of those I am now sug^-sting. Nor is it 
 possible, even where the word ' eternal ' occurs, that any careful student of the 
 Engli-li T.--;:iment can take it as an equivalent for 'everlasting.' And that as 
 for other reasons, so also for this. St. Paul thrice speaks (Rom. xvi. 25 ; Tit. i. 2 ; 
 2 Tim. i. 9) in our New Version of ' times eternal.' Now a time may be aeonial 
 or agelong ; but how can time be everlasting ? and how, above all, can there be
 
 CONCLUSION. 95 
 
 many everlasting times ? If our supposed student, intelligent but unlettered, 
 with nothing but the New Version of our English Testament before him, should 
 make this discovery also, as in time he must, could it fail to confirm the con- 
 clusion he had already drawn from the other changes of which he had taken 
 note? With all three words gone 'hell,' 'damnation,' 'everlasting' is it 
 credible that he should hold that doctrinal conception of the future state of the 
 wicked which, in the popular mind at least, has been mainly founded on these 
 very words ? Nor is it of any use, as he will soon detect for himself, for those of 
 us who have rejected this dogma, or for those who still hold to it, to pretend 
 that, after all, we differ only on a single point, and that not of the first importance. 
 It is of the first importance, and it runs far beyond a single point, so far as to 
 give form and colour to our whole system, not of theology alone, but of ruling 
 principles and practical beliefs. It radically affects our conception of God, of 
 His character, of His rule. We can hardly take up the biography of any great 
 writer of our own time without seeing that the dogma of endless torment and 
 punishment has much of the growing scepticism and unbelief of the age to answer 
 for. Many of them have rejected it, and with it, alas ! the whole creed of which 
 it has hitherto formed part. When we are admitted to their most secret thoughts, 
 we find them asking such questions as these 
 
 " ' To what end do men tell us God is just, when they attribute to Him deeds 
 from which our natural sense of justice revolts ? To what purpose do they assure 
 us that God is love, when they ascribe to Him deeds from which even the fellest 
 Hate would shrink ? ' " 
 
 Well may the Psalmist add 
 
 " The waves of the sea are mighty, and rage horribly ; 
 But yet the Lord, who dwelleth on high, is mightier! "
 
 LOS DOS : 
 
 B. CLAY, SONS, AMD TAYLOR, 
 
 BREAD STREET HILL, 
 
 //
 
 -U CM 
 
 s 
 
 CD = 
 > 
 
 g I 6 F 
 
 ^ k- * 
 
 ?? ^ ^' 
 
 
 \\\EUNIVER5-/A v^lOSANCE 
 ^ <b <$" 
 
 "^^ ^S 
 
 HIBRARY0/ 
 
 \\\E.-UNIVERS/
 
 ^J 
 
 mn& 
 
 HVERS/A 
 
 3 1158009895086 
 rxa 13 S v || I S 
 
 O 0^ V .S 5^ /'I I- 17 
 
 
 A\\E -UNIVERS/A