(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V.

has, "and straightway they _forsook_" (which the Revisionists alter into "_left_") "their nets." Why? Because in verse 20, the same word ?f??te?

will recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement ("they _left_ their father Zebedee") stand. They "level up" accordingly; and plume themselves on their consistency.

We venture to point out, however, that the verb ?f???a? is one of a large family of verbs which,-always retaining their own essential signification,-yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the context in which they occur. Thus, ?f???a? is rightly rendered "_to suffer_," in S. Matth. iii. 15;-"_to leave_," in iv. 11;-"_to let have_,"

in v. 40;-"_to forgive_," in vi. 12, 14, 15;-"_to let_," in vii. 4;-"_to yield up_," in xxvii. 50;-"_to let go_," in S. Mark xi. 6;-"_to let alone_," in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render ?f???a? as often as possible "_leave_," they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other word would have been more appropriate. Thus "_laying aside_" might have stood in S. Mark vii. 8. "_Suffered_" (or "let") was preferable in S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark i. 18, "forsook" was better than "left." And why? Because men "_leave_ their father," (as the Collect for S. James's Day bears witness); but "_forsake_ all covetous desires" (as the Collect for S. Matthew's Day aptly attests). For which reason,-"And they all _forsook_ Him" was infinitely preferable to "and they all _left_ Him, and fled," in S. Mark xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to be the same.

For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be un.o.btrusive Scholarship of the best kind. An ill.u.s.tration presents itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR'S practice to "_send away_" the mult.i.tude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal manner,-whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when, at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers succ.u.mbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him "as He was" in the ship, and at once He "fell asleep;"-on that solitary occasion, _the Disciples_ are related to have "_sent away_ the mult.i.tudes,"-_i.e._ to have formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their Master do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable occasions is ?p???e??:(575) on the other two, ?f???a?.(576) This proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the Latin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted learning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circ.u.mstance entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,-not "Then JESUS _sent the mult.i.tude away_" ("_dimissis turbis_" in every Latin copy,) but-"Then He _left_ the mult.i.tudes." Also S. Mark iv. 36,-not "And when they had _sent away the mult.i.tude_," (which the Latin always renders "_et dimittentes turbam_,") but-"And _leaving_ the mult.i.tude." Would it be altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with authority such specimens of "Revision" as these?

(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another ill.u.s.tration of the principle for which we are contending.-We are soon made conscious that there has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to subst.i.tute "_maid_" for "_damsel_" as the rendering of pa?d?s??. It offends us. "A damsel named Rhoda,"(577)-and the "damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,"(578)-might (we think) have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because pa?da?

has been (properly) rendered "menservants," pa?d?s?a?, they (not unreasonably) render "_maid-servants_,"-whereby _they break their rule_.

The crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine "Allegory"

in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)-where all turns on the contrast(579) between the pa?d?s?? and the ??e????a,-the fact that Hagar was a "_bondmaid_"

whereas Sarah was a "_free woman_"? "Maid" clearly could not stand here.

"Maid-servant" would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists adopt _a third_ variety of reading,-_thus surrendering their principle entirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the question,) does not resent their subst.i.tution of "_handmaid_" for "bondmaid" throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of "_bondage_" in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent English translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and helpful equivalent for pa?d?s?? which, as it happens, the English language possesses? More than that. _Who_-(except one who is himself "in bondage-with his children")-_who_ does not respond gratefully to the exquisite taste and tact with which "_bondmaid_" itself has been exchanged for "_bondwoman_" by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?...

Verily, those men understood their craft! "There were giants in those days." As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz.

because the SPIRIT of their G.o.d was mightily upon them.

Our contention, so far, has been but this,-that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We desire to pa.s.s on to something of more importance.

Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our Revisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that we overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to adventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly realized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,-as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware,-the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named.

And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling up_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words,-every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a will_ of its own,-is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble ill.u.s.tration of our meaning-the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural Translation:-

(_d_) The place of our LORD'S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, ??e???. This appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;-six times by S.

Mark;-eight times by S. Luke;(580)-eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by another name, viz. t?f??.(581) King James's translators (following Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the "_sepulchre_." So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a "tomb" (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by "the LORD of Glory," _in the same verse_ they give it a different English appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on "making a fresh departure," _everywhere_ subst.i.tute "_tomb_" for "sepulchre" as the rendering of ??e???.

Does any one ask,-And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in connection with "_the Sepulchre_" of our LORD, there has grown up such an ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_ to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist that t?f?? and ??e??? are two different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent t?f?? in some other way.) It remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR'S Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as "_the Holy Sepulchre_"

till the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: "For is the Kingdom of G.o.d become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?"... As for considerations of etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for ??e??? (be it remembered) is _not_ "tomb," but "_monument_."

(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them.

It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt.

??da?? occurs 30,-d?das?a??a 21 times,-in the N. T. Etymologically, both words alike mean "_teaching_;" and are therefore indifferently rendered "_doctrina_" in the Vulgate,(582)-for which reason, "_doctrine_"

represents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers have well-nigh extirpated "DOCTRINE" from the N. T.: (1st), By making "_teaching_," the rendering of d?da??,(584)-(reserving "_doctrine_" for d?das?a??a(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times subst.i.tuting "_teaching_" (once, "_learning_") for "_doctrine_," in places where d?das?a??a occurs.(586) This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The "_teachings_" of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _"doctrines"_ of Christianity_. When S. Paul speaks of "the _doctrine_ of baptisms" (Heb.

vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why "the _teaching_ of baptisms" should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning against being "carried about with every wind of _doctrine_," may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?

(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to subst.i.tute "_bowls_" for "vials" in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that f???? no more means "_a bowl_" than "saucer" means "a cup."

But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English equivalent, has pa.s.sed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever.

"_Vials of wrath_" are understood to signify the outpouring of G.o.d'S wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas "bowls" really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station,-labouring-men,-when they hear of "the seven Angels that had _the seven bowls_"? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The f????,-if we must needs talk like Antiquaries-is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,-of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it.

Specimens are to be seen in abundance.

The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the "alabaster _box_ of ointment."-for which they have subst.i.tuted "an alabaster _cruse_ of ointment."(588) But what _is_ a "cruse"? Their marginal note says, "Or, '_a flask_:' " but once more, what _is_ "a flask"? Certainly, the receptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a powder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance whatever to the vase called ???ast???. The probability is that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_ the ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the good sense to leave standing "the bag," for what was confessedly a _box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and "your purses" for what in the Greek is unmistakably "your _girdles_"(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but repeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. "Vials" will certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.

(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as ??e???-d?da??-f????, it is time to invite the Reader's attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance.

And first for ???p?-a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment pa.s.sed by our Revisionists on "that most excellent gift, the gift of _Charity_," and the general subst.i.tution of "Love" in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that "Love" is not an equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of "CHARITY," and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pa.s.s that the word "_Charity_" connotes many ideas to which the word "Love" is an entire stranger? that "Love," on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in "_Charity_" find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,-and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word "_Charity_" has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,-ancient, mediaeval, modern,-as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of "household words"? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the ninefold recurrence of the name of "that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY"?

(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize in the present Revision a resolute elimination of "MIRACLES" from the N.

T.-Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of _the Name_,-(except in the few instances which are enumerated below,)-will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified,-cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circ.u.mstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words "Miracle" and "Miraculous," what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by subst.i.tuting "_sign_" for "_miracle_" on some 19 or 20 occasions-("this beginning of _his signs_ did JESUS,"-"this is again the _second sign_ that JESUS did")-we really fail to see.

That the word in the original is s?e???, and that s?e??? means "a sign,"

we are aware. But what then? Because ???e???, in strictness, means "a messenger,"-??af?, "a writing,"-?p????t??, "an actor,"-?????s?a, "an a.s.sembly,"-e?a???????, "good tidings,"-?p?s??p??, "an overseer,"-apt?st??, "one that dips,"-pa??de?s??, "a garden,"-a??t??, "a learner,"-?????, "favour:"-are we to forego the established English equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of "grace,"

"disciple," "Paradise," "Baptist," "Bishop," "Gospel," "Church,"

"hypocrite," "Scripture," "Angel"? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber.

The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are quite dissimilar. All "_signs_" are not "_Miracles_,"(591) though all "_Miracles_" are undeniably "_signs_." Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And _why_ was the term "_Miracle_" as the rendering of s?e???(592) spared only on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S.

Peter's miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our Readers, whether,-especially in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in the Miraculous,-it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists almost everywhere to subst.i.tute "Sign" for "Miracle" as the rendering of s?e???.

(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S.

Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in short, against every fresh first mention of "the HOLY GHOST," five lines are punctually devoted to the remark,-"_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so throughout this book_." Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,-

"Does this imply that the marginists object to the word 'GHOST'?

If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an archaism. The word is in every Churchman's mouth continually. For the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very question,-see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard the word as '_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for Spirit.' "(594)

But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the Revision, that "in the most substantial sense," (whatever _that_ may happen to mean,) it is "contrary to fact" "that the doctrines of popular Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,"(595)-Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had no share in the production under review,-why is no protest publicly put forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?

(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of "_Miracles_" from the N. T. of the future,-we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce "is _Epileptic_," as the rendering of se??????eta?, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on "_the lunatic child_" may never more come abroad under a different name.

In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for "_lunaticus_" is the reading of all the Latin copies,) const.i.tute a t.i.tle which may not be disputed. "EPILEPTIC" is a sorry _gloss_-not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon's changes, (neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist's language, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that what is called "_Lunacy_" here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called "Epilepsy." This was confessedly an extraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know-_not_, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child, but-_what the child's Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was "Epileptic," but that he was "_Lunatic_." The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;-a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_ revolutionize their Terminology. "The advance of Science," however, has nothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process "_de lunatico inquirendo_" for having imagined the contrary.

(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of "modern Thought," which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets "ETERNAL" and "EVERLASTING,"-how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_ as the translation of a??????, in favour of the more palatable epithel "eternal"! King James's Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove "plain and clear _errors_."

They were instructed to introduce "as few changes _as possible_." Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church's teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,-our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be serious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they have _not_.

(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is "the _world_ (a???) to come,"

invariably glossed "the _age_ to come"? and e?? t??? a???a? so persistently explained in the margin to mean, "_unto the ages_"? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read "G.o.d blessed _unto the ages_"?) Also e?? t??? a???a? t?? a?????, "_unto the ages of the ages_"? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz.

"for ever," and "for ever and ever"), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!

(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that "_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_ G.o.d and is profitable," &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S.

Paul's words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns.

??sa ??af?, even if it be interpreted "every Scripture," can only mean every portion of those ?e?? ???ata of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the whole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression "_all Scripture_"

expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.

But-"It is very difficult" (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) "to decide whether ?e?p?e?st?? is a part of the predicate, ?a? being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject.

Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision." Not so thought Bishop Middleton. "I do not recollect" (he says) "any pa.s.sage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable."-And yet it is proposed to thrust this "forced and improbable" translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our Revisionists translate, "Every Scripture inspired of G.o.d _is also profitable_," &c.,-which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) "profitable for teaching," &c. which is _not_ commonly held to be "inspired of G.o.d"?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul's a.s.sertion is that "every portion of Scripture _being inspired_" (_i.e._ inasmuch as it is-because it is-inspired); "is _also_ profitable," &c.

Else there would be no meaning in the ?a?. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?

(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark's Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the SON'S "equality with the FATHER as touching His G.o.dhead;" or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the FATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _"that Day and Hour"_ included_,) the SON hath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circ.u.mstance that the clause "_neither the_ SON," which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark's Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word "only" effectually excludes it.(603) We call attention to this circ.u.mstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of "necessity" cannot be pretended?

(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel's highest boast and glory that of them, "as concerning the flesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], G.o.d_ blessed for ever_!

Amen." A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD'S eternal G.o.dhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly a.s.sailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:-

"Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and translate, _He who is G.o.d over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or, _He who is over all is G.o.d, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate, _flesh, who is over all. G.o.d be (is) blessed for ever._"

Now this is a matter,-let it be clearly observed,-which, (as Dr. Hort is aware,) "belongs to _Interpretation_,-and _not to Textual Criticism_."(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of "_some modern Interpreters_"?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was "_Ancient_ authorities" exclusively,-(whether "a few," or "some," or "many,")-to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pa.s.s that _the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth's remotest verge,-give universal currency to the view of "some modern Interpreters,"-and in the end "tell it out among the heathen" also? We refer to Ma.n.u.scripts,-Versions,-Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives_, know nothing about the method of "some modern Interpreters."(606)-(2) "There is absolutely not a shadow, _not a t.i.ttle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they do."(607)-(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression "_who is over all_ [things], G.o.d_ blessed for ever_" is expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60 ill.u.s.trious names:-

Irenaeus,(608)-Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)-Origen,(610)-Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D.

269,(611)-ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)-the _Constt.

App._,(613)-Athanasius in 6 places,(614)-Basil in 2 places,(615)-Didymus in 5 places,(616)-Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)-Epiphanius in 5 places,(618)-Theodoras Mops.,(619)-Methodius,(620)-Eustathius,(621)-Eulogius, twice,(622)-Caesarius, 3 times,(623)-Theophilus Alex., twice,(624)-Nestorius,(625)-Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)-Proclus, twice,(627)-Severia.n.u.s Bp. of Gabala,(628)-Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)-Cyril Alex., 15 times,(630)-Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)-Theodoret, 12 times,(632)-Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)-Severus, Abp. of Antioch,(634)-Amphilochius,(635)-Gelasius Cyz.,(636)-Anastasius Ant.,(637)-Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)-Maximus,(639)-J. Damascene, 3 times.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,(641)-Cyprian,(642)-Novatian, twice,(643)-Ambrose, 5 times,(644)-Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)-Hilary, 7 times,(646)-Jerome, twice,(647)-Augustine, about 30 times,-Victorinus,(648)-the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)-Marius Mercator,(650)-Ca.s.sian, twice,(651)-Alcimus Avit.,(652)-Fulgentius, twice,(653)-Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)-Ferrandus, twice,(655)-Facundus:(656)-to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,-and 3(658) for Chrysostom.