does not hesitate to point out the flaws in his theology. In conclusion he remarks, that "Experience has proved that the Evangelical Church, with its Confession of Faith, has taken deep root among the population of Geneva, and its existence may be regarded henceforth as secure. Thus, in spite of the changes that have taken place in the bosom of the National Church, the Evangelical Church must hitherto be considered as the centre of living souls in Geneva" (p. 545), K. D. F.

ART. VI. Revision of the Authorised Version of Scripture -St John's Gospel.

The Gospel according to St John, after the Authorised Version. Newly Compared with the original Greek, and Revised. By FIVE CLERGYMEN. Third and revised edition, London: Parker, Son, & Bourn. 1863.

A PERFECT translation of the Holy Scriptures is one of those ideals at which biblical scholarship is bound constantly to aim. The great majority of professing Christians must always be dependent for their knowledge of the inspired Word of God on versions into the vernacular tongues; and it is an evident duty which the learned owe to their less favoured brethren, to endeavour to make such versions as accurate as possible. There will always be room for exertion in this matter. Perfection is not here attainable, even by the utmost effort, any more than in the other works of man. But there may be many degrees of approximation made towards it; and there is no nobler task for the biblical scholar than to be ever striving to bring out, with more and more exactness, the precise import of the infinitely precious, because divinely-inspired, original text. It is in some points of view a very solemn position which the possessors of sacred learning occupy, and one which entails great responsibility. They stand as interpreters between God and their fellow-creatures upon earth. But for them, the volume which contains a revelation of Heaven's will must remain a sealed book to the far larger proportion of mankind. To them, in a peculiar sense, have been committed the oracles of God. And far from cherishing that spirit of pride or exclusiveness which prompted the Roman lyrist, in a consciousness of his own superior gifts, to exclaim, "Odi profanum vulgus et arceo," it must ever be reckoned both their privilege and duty to lead the unlearned as near as possible to that shrine trom

which the voice of Deity speaks, and to convey to them an accurate acquaintance with its communications.

Our readers are all familiar with the numerous and striking testimonies which have been borne to the excellency of our ordinary English version. Few indeed are the translations, either ancient or modern, which will not suffer in comparison with it. In many respects it challenges our warmest and sincerest admiration; and we cannot but feel thankful to a gracious Providence that, now for two centuries and a-half, the light of divine truth has, through its medium, shone in so pure and uncorrupted a form upon the churches and families of our country.

The very text from which our English version was made, has, in a wonderful manner, endured the ordeal of criticism. This could scarcely have been anticipated, when we consider the meagre resources which were available to biblical critics at the time when it was formed, and contrast with these the vast materials for textual criticism which have since then been collected. Not one of the most ancient MSS. of the New Testament which time has spared us, had been critically examined at the date when what is known as the Received Text,' and from which substantially our English version is derived, was fixed. Yet all the investigations that have, since the days of Erasmus, and his immediate followers, been carried on by Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and others, have not disclosed the necessity for almost any important changes being made in the common text of the New Testament. Some verses, indeed, such as 1 John v. 7, and Acts viii. 37, have been clearly shewn to have no claim to stand in any edition of the sacred Scriptures. And many other slight changes would, no doubt, require to be made in the readings of our English Bible, if these were to be rigidly conformed to the results which have now been reached by the science of textual criticism. But when we reflect how trifling, in general, such alterations would be, and how criticism, after fluctuating for a time in respect to some important readings (such as between Kugíou and OEO in Acts xx. 28), has now finally acquiesced in the reading adopted in our ordinary version, we shall find great cause for satisfaction in regard to this fundamental point, and abundant reason for gratitude to a wise and superintending Providence.

Our authorised version is also distinguished by many of the highest merits which can belong to a translation. In its general character it may be not inaptly compared to the Syriac Peschito version, which was, in all probability, formed not long after the apostolic age, and which is not only the earliest, but one of the most excellent of the many extant translations of the New Testament. Like that precious legacy of primitive times,

our English version is marked at once by fidelity and freedom. Both represent with great accuracy the meaning of the original text, yet both preserve, in a remarkable degree, the idiom of the language in which they exist. Both are, for the most part, abhorrent of paraphrase, while, at the same time, both avoid that literal scrupulosity which, while it strives to exhibit the precise meaning of the original, is one of the most certain means of misrepresenting it. Sometimes, according as the Syriac or English furnishes the greater facility for an exact and expressive rendering of the Greek, the advantage appears on the side either of the ancient or modern version. But, generally speaking, both translations seem of almost equal excellence; and it would be difficult perhaps to say which of them, as a whole, is to be preferred. In no respect does our common version suffer from a comparison either with this or any other translation of the Scriptures in existence. Simplicity and dignity of style, rhythm, perspicuity, and correctness are, on a wide and comprehensive view, the qualities which belong to it, and give it a very high and honourable place among all the versions of the Holy Scriptures that have ever been produced.

It will not be deemed by our readers at all inconsistent with this estimate of the excellence of our authorized English translation, when we now add that we are staunch friends of all reverent, scholarly, and well-considered attempts at its revision. We rejoice to see piety and learning engaged in this work. We would fain have our common people put on terms of as great equality with scholars as possible, in regard to the means of obtaining an accurate acquaintance with the revealed mind and will of God. And we have only to reflect for a moment on the very long period which has elapsed since our present version was made, in order to feel that, while that version only is in their hands, they must read the Scriptures at no little disadvantage. Biblical science has made immense strides since the times of James I. A vast number of additional MSS. have been discovered and collated. Great light has been thrown upon obscure passages both in the Old and New Testaments. More exact principles of interpretation have been adopted and brought to bear on the sacred text. The Hebrew language especially has been far more accurately studied in connection with the cognate dialects of the great Shemitic family. And to mention nothing more, our own language has greatly changed in character since the authorised version was made, so that many words occurring in that version are either totally unintelligible to the common people at the present day, or suggest to them a very indefinite meaning, if not even one which is altogether erroneous.

Now, it is very true, as has already been said, that neither the additional stores which have been collected for the purposes of textual criticism, nor the more thorough acquaintance which is now possessed with the original languages of Scripture, as well as the greater delicacy and care with which the minutest points are attended to in translation, lead to any very important or essential modification of our views as to the signification of Scripture. But, taking all things together, we do find that the scholar occupies, at the present day, a very high vantage-ground as compared with his unlearned brother, who must be entirely dependent on the common version for his knowledge of the word of God. The former has at his command the fruits of all the sacred learning of more than two centuries. He knows what changes are to be made in the text, and what on the received interpretation of Scripture. He sees the true meaning of many passages which an obsolete phraseology renders obscure to those acquainted only with modern English; and he can frequently trace a precision, beauty, and suggestiveness in the words which the Holy Spirit has employed, that have been unnecessarily sacrificed in the terms which were at first adopted, and are still retained, in the common translation.

Accordingly, a vast mass of emendations have been proposed on the authorised version. Many of these may be silly enough, but it would be vain to deny that a multitude of others rest on a solid foundation. There is a deep-seated feeling in the community that the English Bible is not altogether what it ought to be. Every now and then this feeling breaks forth in intelligible utterance, and the cry for revision is heard. Parliament is appealed to, ecclesiastical assemblies discuss the subject, and the newspapers are filled with correspondence and arguments on both sides of the question. It seems for a time as if something must be done, under public and competent authority. But the practical difficulties in the way of doing anything are soon felt, or imagined, to be insuperable. For one thing, there is a large party who, from sentimental or superstitious motives, will not hear of any change. In their eyes, the very errors of the English version are sacred. It has now happily long outlived that opposition and vituperation which, almost as a matter of course, greeted its introduction into the world, and has enlisted in its favour those strong conservative feelings which were once arrayed so vehemently against it. But, besides this unreasoning opposition to all change, there are many powerful arguments which may be brought against every attempt at innovation. Our present version is the common Bible of all English readers throughout the world, and forms, as it were, a sacred bond of union between them, which ought not, it is said,

on account of any fancied advantages flowing from a new translation, to be severed. It is, moreover, common to all churches and sects, so that amid their many divisions, they still appeal to its venerated pages-an advantage that would at once be destroyed by any attempt to supersede it by a new translation. Its words and phrases, also, have been familiar to our ears from infancy, and are connected with so many solemn and tender associations in our minds, that we can hardly listen to any argument which would persuade us to have them altered. In short, obscure as in some passages it confessedly is, its style is in general so stately and perspicuous, and the somewhat antiquated aspect which it now presents is so well fitted to increase that feeling of reverence with which the word of God ought ever to be regarded, that, it is argued, a change which would, on the whole, be an advantage, is scarcely a possible achievement; and therefore, shrinking from any effort at amending it, we should be content to learn from its pages, as our fathers through so many generations have done, the way to holiness and heaven, and be grateful for its many excellencies, while we willingly forget its trifling errors.

Under the influence of these and other considerations, the cry for revision from time to time dies away, without leading to any public and united effort. But it is not on that account altogether without results. Individual scholars devote themselves to the onerous task of Bible translation, and every now and then present the fruits of their labours to the world. And there is manifestly a demand for such works. This is strikingly shewn by the fact, that a translation of the New Testament, founded on Griesbach's text, by a well-known scholar, has already passed through some four or five editions, and that although its merits, which are far from small, must be largely counterbalanced in public estimation by the decided doctrinal bias which many of its renderings indicate towards Socinianism.

Among those who have of late years been occupied in this work of Bible revision, a high place must be assigned to those five clergymen of the Church of England, whose labours have just been brought to a close by the publication of the third edition of their revised translation of St John's Gospel. The names of the authors are a sufficient guarantee for the general character of their work. The first name appended to the brief preface prefixed to the present edition, is that of Bishop Ellicott, whose writings are among the most valuable in the exegetical literature of England, and who combines, in a remarkable degree, the most honest and fearless criticism with the profoundest reverence for holy Scripture. The next is that of Dean Alford, the well-known editor of the Greek New Testa