affected by the moon's changes (neither of which things are certainly true): even so, men would not be warranted 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 possession1 besides. Unless therefore it be claimed that all epileptic persons are possessed, (which is what few will venture to declare), it was clearly unlawful for the Revisionists to depart from their habitual literalness of rendering on the present occasion. They have gone out of their way, in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. After all, the English reader desires to know what the child's father actually said: and 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,' in fact, 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. (i) 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 often but another name for the latest phase of modern 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 1 Consider our LORD's solemn words in ver. 21,- But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,'-12 words left out by the R.V., though witnessed to by all the Copies but 3: by the Latin, Syriac, Čoptic, and Armenian Versions: and by the following Fathers:-(1) Origen, (2) Tertullian, (3) the Syriac Clement, (4) the Syriac Canons of Eusebius, (5) Athanasius, (6) Basil, (7) Ambrose, (8) Juvencus, (9) Chrysostom, (10) Opus imp., (11) Hilary, (12) Augustine, (13) J. Damascene, and others. Then (it will be asked), Why have the Revisionists left them out? Because (we answer) they have been misled by B and &, Cureton's Syriac and the Coptic,-as untrustworthy a quaternion of witnesses to the text of Scripture as could be named. E 2 the 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 every time it occurs as the translation of alovios, in favour of the more palatable epithet '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 verse2 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 unbelief? to say the least, ought they in this indirect way to avow 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. 6 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 (alov) to come,' invariably glossed 'the age to come'? and eis Tous alvas 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 eis Toùs aiovas Tŵv aiwvwv, 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! (j) 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 clearly so understood S. Paul's The word is only not banished entirely from the N. T. It occurs twice (viz. in Rom. i. 20, and Jude ver. 6), but only as the rendering of åtdios. 2 S. Matth. xxv. 46. 3 Clemens Al. (p. 71) says: τὰς γραφὰς ὁ ̓Απόστολος θεοπνεύστους καλεῖ, ὠφεAipovs otoas. Tertullian,-Legimus omnem Scripturam ædificationi habilem, divinitus inspirari. Origen (ii. 443),πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος οὖσα ὠφέλιμος ἐστί. Gregory Nyss. (ii. 605),-πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται. Dial. (ap. Orig. 1. 808), πᾶσα θεόπνευστος λέγεται παρὰ τοῦ ̓Αποστόλου. 3ο Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, &c. words: words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Iâoa ypaon, even if it be interpreted 'every Scripture,' can only mean every portion of those iepà yрáμμaтa of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify the whole of Scripture.1 So that the expression all Scripture' expresses S. Paul's meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.-But it is very difficult' (says the learned Chairman of the Revisionists) to decide whether eóπvevσTOS is a part of the predicate, kai being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little towards 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? (k) 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 appealed to as confidently by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by 1 See Archdeacon Lee on Inspiration, pp. 261–3, reading his notes. unbelievers. 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 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.' But 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'? 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 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 the Manuscripts and find that the oldest codices, besides the whole body of the cursives, know nothing about the method of some modern Interpreters.' There is absolutely not a shadow, not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions, to warrant what they do.'2 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 55 illustrious names :— 1 Irenæus,3-Hippolytus in 3 places,—Origen,5-6 of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,6-ps.-Dionysius Alex., the Constt. App.,-Athanasius in 6 places,'-Basil in 2,10-Didymus in 5," Greg. Nyss. in 3,12-Epiphanius in 5,13. Theodorus Mops.,14-Methodius, 15- Eustathius,16 — Eulogius, twice, Cæsarius, 3 times, 18 - Theophilus Alex., twice,19Nestorius, 20-Theodotus of Ancyra,21-Proclus, twice,22 Chry 17 IC alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin. 2 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan. Opusc. i. 52, 58; Phil. 339. 4 7 Concilia, i. 873 d. 10 i. 282. And in cat. 317. 12 ii. 693, 697; iii. 287. 5 iv. 612. 8 vi. c. 26. 3 i. 506. Routh, iii. 292. (Concil. i. 845.) 9 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908. 11 Trin. 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303. 13 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74. ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560. 9 sostom, 8 times,1-Cyril Alex., 15,2-Theodoret, 12,3-Amphilochius, Gelasius Cyz., - Anastasius Ant. Leontius Byz., 3,-Maximus,8-J. Damascene, 3 times. Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,10-Cyprian,"-Novatian, twice,12Ambrose, 5 times,13- Hilary, 7 times,14-Jerome, twice, 15-Augustine, about 30 times, Victorinus,16-the Breviarium, twice,17 -Marius Mercator, 18-Cassian, twice, 19-Alcimus Avit.,20-Fulgentius, twice,21-Ferrandus, twice, 22-Facundus; 23-to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3 24 have been mistaken for Athanasius, and 325 for Chrysostom. These all see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of CHRIST. Against such a torrent of Patristic testimony, it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, can stand. why has it been introduced at all? We trust we shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such imaginations of modern Interpreters' are not entitled to notice 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.26 6 (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 even freely questioned, 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 by two eminent Divines; but Bp. Lightfoot will find it quite impossible to dislodge Canon Cook from his main position: viz. that the change ought never to have been made. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for 1i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172. 2 v. 20, 503, 765, 792; v2. 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. ap. Mai, ii. 70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 in Luc. 26. i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295, 1309; v. 67, 1093. p. 166. 5 Concilia, ii. 195. 6 ap. Gall. xii. 682. 7 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232. 14 ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590. ap. Gall. x. 722. 25 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421. 23 Ibid. 674. 21 18 11 p. 287. ap. Gall. viii. 627. ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237. 24 ii. 16, 215, 413. * Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may consult with advantage Dr. Gifford's learned note on the passage in the 'Speaker's Commentary.' Dr. Gifford justly remarks that it is the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were inv.lved.' |