In

declare anew" renders the verb incorrectly, as does "content yourselves," Romans xii. 16. Nor can the loose paraphrase for καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, “and in what appertained to him appearing as a man" (Philippians ii. 7) be considered a fair representative of the original. John iii. 3 the translation is "unless a man be born again," a note stating, “Possibly, born from above." The textual rendering is wrong, and that which the writer seems uncertain about is the right one, as the use of avw0εv in the New Testament shows. It must be due to carelessness that the singular noun without the article in Matthew xi. 7 is translated "the reeds."

The tenses are usually observed, though not so exactly as in the American Bible Union's Testament. Thus in · John xvii. 4, the aorist and the perfect are rendered erroneously, "I have glorified thee, etc., thou gavest me," etc., instead of, "I glorified thee, thou hast given me," etc. In Colossians iii. 25, "he hath done" should be "he did." In Matthew xviii. 17 the article is twice overlooked, "the Gentile and the publican." In Luke xxiii. 2," saying that he himself is the Christ, the King," puts the article where it should not be. And though the note gives two other renderings, all are incorrect. On the whole, the work shows marks of inexactness and looseness; though it is respectably executed.

The notes chiefly consist of references to the passages quoted from the Old Testament, to parallels in the gospels, and other renderings. The remarks about other readings are few. Sometimes they are expository. It is probably best to leave the exegetical department to such as treat of it professedly; since a few remarks, and those not always important, are of little use.

The controversies once carried on about the right reading in 1 John v. 7, 8, are now past. They should not have been conducted in the spirit that often prompted them. Griesbach's dissertation on the passage in the second volume of his edition of the Greek Testament published in 1806, may be said to have set aside the claims of the contested words to a

place in the epistle, though the words never had any proper authority in their favour. Admirably too did Professor Porson in his letters to Archdeacon Travis discuss the three heavenly witnesses and prove the spuriousness of the place where they are. This he did before Griesbach's dissertation appeared, for his letters were collected and enlarged in 1790. His summing up deserves to be quoted. "In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two; one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate; and even from many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth and most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine, and Satan has been permitted for many centuries, miraculously to banish the finest passage in the New Testament from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and transcribers." But a cardinal proof in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity could not be easily surrendered, and therefore the defenders of it fought persistently in the face of testimony which could not but overwhelm them in the end. Burgess, Hales, and their coadjutors continued to write in favour of its authenticity, as if "faith in the Holy Trinity" depended on the disputed clause. Now that the spuriousness of the passage is acknowledged by all, we are saddened by looking back at the waste of time and labour over it, and observing the bitter spirit exhibited by some of the champions for truth.

The dispute about 1 Timothy iii. 16 has also terminated against the reading "God was manifested in the flesh," etc. Since it was clearly ascertained that ôc is in the text not only of the Alexandrian MS., but of the Sinaitic and Ephraem ( and C); since both Lachmann and Tischendorf have edited it in their texts, the point has been settled.

Here again the critical sagacity of Griesbach led him to the true reading, which he established with his usual ability in the Symbolæ Criticæ, and subsequently in the note to the passage in the second edition of his Greek Testament. Abused as he was by Dr. Hales and others, he adhered to his first judgment, with the consciousness of having truth on his side. It mattered not that Dr. John Jones "engaged to show his incompetence as a critic and his want of fidelity as a collator of the ancient copies;" that he pronounced the new reading "neither good sense nor good Greek;" it was impossible to stop the progress of sound criticism by unfounded assertions or pointed suspicions. We ourselves can remember some of the combats waged over the word; the republication of Sir Isaac Newton's observations upon it, and the rejoinder it called forth under the title, "Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text, 1 Timothy iii. 16." Happily this kind of warfare is also past. When orthodoxy and heterodoxy come into close collision, calm reasoning necessarily suffers.

Other passages have now been eliminated from the genuine text, such as John vii. 53-viii. 11, containing the story of the woman taken in adultery; John v. 3, 4, about the angel troubling the pool; the doxology of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew vi. 13; the three clauses of the same prayer in Luke xi. 2-4, viz., "who art in heaven," "thy will be done as in heaven so in earth," "but deliver us from evil;" the statement of Philip to the eunuch and the latter's confession of faith before baptism in Acts viii. 37. These will return no more to form an integral part of any critical text. Others are scarcely settled as yet, as Mark xvi. 9-20, though general opinion inclines to the rejection of this passage; and Von Tischendorf asserts that it was not written by Mark, after giving the evidence for and against it fully. But as Irenæus already knew it, the opponents of its authenticity admit that it was an early appendix to the gospel. They hold it to be canonical, i.e., pronounced such by the authority of the universal Church. Not only so, but

orthodox impugners of the passage call it " genuine and inspired, an addition that ought as much to be received as part of our second gospel, as the last part of Deuteronomy is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses;" and say that it "has ever been regarded as possessing the same canonical authority with the three gospels." If this language be taken in its natural sense, the section has the same authority and value as the rest of the gospel, though it was not written by Mark. But was the whole gospel with this exception written by that evangelist? Are we not as much in the dark about its authorship, as far as the present character and form of the gospel are concerned, as we are about the section in question? The appendix has been called "inspired," which is explained as meaning "the Holy Ghost was its author;" but there is no evidence that "the Book of Mark," with or without the section, "was received as authoritative by the Apostolic Church."

As to the text, Acts xx. 28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," it may be considered all but settled among Biblical critics that the reading " feed the church of the Lord" is the original one. It is not indeed in the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.; yet other considerations outweigh these valuable authorities. "The blood of God" could hardly have emanated from the author of the Acts, much less from Paul himself; though it would not have created surprise at a later time of the Church. Von Tischendorf's note on the diversities of reading here is an excellent example of critical fulness and fairness, contrasting very favourably with the reasonings of Dean Alford in his Greek Testament, which are weak and perverted. The reading "church of God” (roυ Oɛoυ) is rejected not only by Lachmann and Tischendorf, but by De Wette and Meyer. Those who adduce Pauline usage in favour of the received reading ignore circumstances which blunt the force of their reasoning; for example, that the genitive God is

applied to the Father not to the Son, in the authentic Pauline epistles; that a literal reproduction of the apostle's language in his address to the Ephesian elders is highly improbable; and that the phraseology of the writer of Acts is by no means identical with the apostle's, as indeed it could hardly be when the important interval between the latest of Paul's epistles and the composition of the Acts is considered. Hence an appeal to the absence of such words as "church of the Lord" in the writings of Paul or his contemporaries, is out of place. Though the author of the Acts was a Paulinist and employed the language of the master, the speeches exhibit distinctive peculiarities of thought and diction. His object in writing and the time when he lived affected both phraseology and ideas. The phrase "churches of Christ" occurs in the epistle to the Romans (xvi. 16); "church of the Lord" may therefore be appropriate in the Acts; especially as the word Lord had been often applied to Christ in the Pauline epistles.

The clear judgment of Griebach fixed upon кuρíov. Even after the Vatican reading →ɛou was known, Lachmann decided as Griesbach had done. Still more, when the testimony of the Sinaitic was added to that of the Vatican MS., Von Tischendorf declined to follow the weighty evidence, because other considerations pointed in a different direction. It may be conjectured that the motive which altered de into Otoç in 1 Timothy iii. 16, along with the known Pauline usage of ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ, led to the change of κυρίου into Oɛou; the context being insufficiently attended to. The reading, however, is theologically unimportant, since the title God may have been applied to Christ by the author of the Acts; though he could scarcely have associated blood with God, as the common reading does.

It has been often remarked that our English translators were negligent in their treatment of the article, inserting or omitting its English equivalent arbitrarily. Yet it is important to observe and mark its use. We do not suppose that the sacred writers employed it according to definite