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 σεληνιάζεται, 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,) constitute a title
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 αἰώνιος, 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_ (αἰών) to come,”
invariably glossed “the _age_ to come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so
persistently explained in the margin to mean, “_unto the ages_”? (See the
margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read “GOD blessed _unto the ages_”?) Also
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “_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_
GOD 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.
Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted “every Scripture,” can only mean
every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα 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 θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate,
καί 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 passage 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 GOD _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 GOD”?... 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
assertion 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 καί. 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 GODhead;” 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 circumstance 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 circumstance 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], GOD_ blessed for ever_!
Amen.” A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD’S eternal
GODhead 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 assailed 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 God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or,
_He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate,
_flesh, who is over all. God 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 pass 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
Manuscripts,—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 tittle
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], GOD_ blessed for ever_” is
expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60
illustrious names:—
Irenæus,(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)—Cæsarius, 3 times,(623)—Theophilus Alex.,
twice,(624)—Nestorius,(625)—Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)—Proclus,
twice,(627)—Severianus 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)—Cassian, 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.
All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead
of CHRIST.
Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have
enumerated _upwards of sixty_ ancient Fathers—it will not surely be
pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give
such prominence, can stand. But why has it been introduced _at all_? We
shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such
perverse imaginations of “modern Interpreters” are not entitled to a place
in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them
currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a
very grave offence.(659) A public retraction and a very humble Apology we
claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of
Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But _a Socinian gloss
gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman’s N. T._ admits of
no excuse—is not to be tolerated on _any_ terms. It would by itself, in
our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present
Revision.
XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of _set-off_ against all that goes
before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in
question, “THE EVIL ONE” has been actually _thrust into the Lord’s
Prayer_? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be
impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case
has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines,
Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That
_the change ought never to have been made_ is demonstrable. The grounds of
this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands
that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the
expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S.
Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19,
38: Eph. vi. 16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The
Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that,
for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high
degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of
_certain_ knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken:
and unless “from evil” be “_a clear and plain error_,” the Revisionists
were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the
narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear
the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger
meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase
in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (_a_) from all sin and
wickedness, and (_b_) _from our ghostly enemy_, and (_c_) from everlasting
death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this
behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only “the Devil,” but
also “_all his works_, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all
covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”(660)
And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in
attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition
in the LORD’S Prayer: for when S. Paul says—“the LORD will deliver me
_from every evil work_ and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to
whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”(661)—what else is he referring to
but to the words just now under consideration? He explains that in the
LORD’S Prayer it is “_from every evil work_” that we pray to be
“delivered.” (Note also, that he retains _the Doxology_.) Compare the
places:—
S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.
2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει
εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.
Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our LORD would end with
giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to
have “destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the
Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the LORD’S
Prayer with “OUR FATHER,” and literally end it with—_the Devil_!—But above
all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is _the pattern Prayer_, a
portion of every Christian child’s daily utterance,—the most sacred of all
our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is
attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When
it is called to mind that nothing short of _necessity_ has warranted the
Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“_clear and
plain errors_”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present
occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted
to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on
which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction
of the Devil into the LORD’S Prayer. From the position we have taken up,
it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.
XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few
dark places of S. Paul’s Epistles their labours have thrown important
light. Let it not be supposed that we deny this. Many a Scriptural
difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far
greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange
indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of
twenty Scholars, whose _raison d’être_ as Revisionists was to do this very
thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V.
of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for
every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have
been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been
the planting in of a _fresh crop of difficulties_, before undreamed of; so
that a perpetual wrestling with _these_ is what hereafter awaits the
diligent student of the New Testament.
We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse:
as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift
and every _perfect boon_ is from above, coming down from the Father of
lights, with whom _can be no variation_, neither _shadow that is cast by
turning_. Of his own will _he brought us forth_.” Grievous as such
blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to
nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that,
misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what
before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our LORD’S
precious utterances out of sight, (_e.g._ Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and
xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which
He certainly never uttered, (_e.g._ Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a
twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer
recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a
sample:—
(1.) The Church has always understood her LORD to say,—“FATHER, I will
that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they
may behold My glory.”(662) We reject with downright indignation the
proposal henceforth to read instead,—“FATHER_, that which Thou hast given
Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me_,” &c. We suspect a
misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in
Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the
countless _bêtises_ for which א B D are exclusively responsible; and which
the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new
Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better
Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to _every known Lectionary_: to
Clemens Alex.,(663)—to Eusebius,(664)—to Nonnus,(665)—to Basil,(666)—to
Chrysostom,(667)—to Cyril,(668)—to Cælestinus,(669)—to Theodoret:(670) not
to mention Cyprian,(671)—Ambrose,(672)—Hilary,(673) &c.:(674) and above
all, 16 uncials, beginning with A and C,—and the whole body of the
cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer _their_
“mumpsimus” to _our_ “sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray
let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave our
SAVIOUR’S words alone.
(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is.
Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will.
Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our
SAVIOUR that He “_was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty
days_” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar
Greek. It proves to be the Greek of _all the copies in the __ world but
four_; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic
Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was
familiar to Origen,(675)—to Eusebius,(676)—to Basil,(677)—to
Didymus,(678)—to Theodoret,(679)—to Maximus,(680)—and to two other ancient
writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,(681) the other for
Basil.(682) It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that
JESUS “was led by the Spirit _into the wilderness_;” and there was “_forty
days tempted of the Devil_.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a
statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character
(א B D L) exhibit “in” instead of “into:” and that—(2) Our Revisionists
have been persuaded to believe that _therefore_ S. Luke must needs have
done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that
it was the _leading about_ of our LORD, (and not His _Temptation_,) which
lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the
90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the
plea of “necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of
the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the
present so-called “Revision.”