and

ceeds: "These Articles were agreed upon in the year 1562, then printed with this very title before by us transcribed out of that edition. In the year 1571 those Articles were reprinted; and then this Act was published. Whether therefore the original were enrolled or not enrolled, the Articles comprised in the book imprinted and so intituled were confirmed by the statute." The reference to the title transcribed from the earlier edition shows which Articles are confirmed by the statute.1

Lastly; the third quære of the divers ministers is so pertinent that we wonder at Mr. Swainson not printing it. "If any man be indited or sued at law upon the statute of 13 Eliz. 12, for not reading the Articles of 1562, and the defendant plead not guilty, and deny those books2 to be those confirmed by those laws till the plaintiff prove them to be of record; whether is not the plaintiff bound to prove that, and in the mean time the defendant not punishable by the statute? The grounds of this quære are, first, that there are no records of them to be found; secondly, the books have several times been altered since those Acts."

A very hasty examination supplies these references. Others will probably occur to those who are not afraid of dirtying their fingers with the dusty volumes of theological tracts in our public libraries. If so, the general consent which connects the 13 Eliz. 12 with the Articles of 1562, and not with our present XXXIX. Articles, will far outweigh not only the deliberate opinion of Dr. Lushington, but the obiter dictum of Lord Coke.

In conclusion; we recommend Mr. Swainson's pamphlet for its history.

It is suggested to us not infrequently as we trace the operation of laws, that a statute designed for one end answers oftentimes an end quite different. This is both for good and for ill. The statute of Mary, e.g., designed to preserve the Church in Romish times from the interruption of unruly opponents, is now the safeguard of the Reformed Church from the interruptions of her unruly members. On the other hand, the statute of Elizabeth designed, whether wisely or not, to mitigate the rigour of subscription is now the instrument of persecuting one who subscribes willingly.

Besides the cautions which this suggests to legislators, it may serve also to remind us, who obey, of the unbroken continuity of our Church-a wholesome thought at all times, whether they be times of papal aggression or puritanic violence.

And regarding the violence and wrath of opponents we are taught by higher authority, not only that the wrath of man shall praise our GOD, but that the remainder of wrath He will restrain.

1 Pearson's inaccuracy (and Mr. Swainson is rather too severe upon him) appears to have been occasioned by his viewing the Articles as a whole, and by his considering, probably, that the alterations did not imply a change of doctrine.

? The foregoing queries and the next sentence show that by "those books" the writers meant not the edition of 1562, but the books as altered subsequently.

VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION.

A Vindication of the Authorized Version of the English Bible. Parts II. and III. By the Rev. S. C. MALAN, M.A. London: Bell and Daldy.

We have already noticed the first part of Mr. Malan's work. The second and third parts have now appeared. In the second part he devotes himself chiefly to the consideration of the words ixxλŋola, ἐπίσκοπος, πρεσβύτερος, διάκονος.1 It is well known that our translators were specially instructed to retain ecclesiastical words in their translation, and not to attempt to substitute for them any imaginary equivalent of the vulgar idiom. That this was wisely done, no one will doubt who gives the subject a few minutes' serious consideration. It is quite true that the words used by the early Christians were words in common usage in the vulgar tongue, but it is equally clear that they invested certain chosen words with fixed meanings for the purposes of their own society. Probably indeed they did this to a very much greater extent than we are at all aware of. The perpetual recurrence of many words in the most fervid passages of S. Paul's writings, clearly indicates that those words belonged to a secret system of thought which other words would not adequately express. In many cases it is very difficult to determine whether the new element or the old predominates. We however, possessing a language which has grown up subsequent to the establishment of these new elements of thought, find a separate class of words expressing the objects of revelation quite distinct from those which express the lower analogical ideas of natural conception. The early Christians were guided to set apart certain words. We find separate words existing for the same purpose. This causes a perplexity chiefly in abstract ideas, such as charity or love. We cannot translate without losing either the influence of the primary natural meaning or the intensity of the Christian theological sense.

When some definite object arose correspondent to the term, we can have no doubt that its Christian name is to be used, for it is the one alone expressive of it. The name might indeed to the Greek connote other secular thoughts, but these were in no way

1 This applies chiefly to such titles as those above referred to. In other respects, as Mr. Blunt has shown in his Lectures, the Translators yielded too much to the influence of Beza. For instance, how inadequate a rendering is the English Version of Romans xv. 16, Εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη èv Пveúμuтi åvíæ. In this passage we have, as it were, heaped together every ecclesiastical term, as Liturgy, Priest, Oblation, and Consecration, together with the assertion of the concurrent Agency of the HOLY GHOST.

part of the new thought. They might perhaps illustrate the name, and they might lend themselves occasionally to historical embellishment, but they were entirely extraneous to it. As long then as we retain "the Holy Catholic Church" in our Creed, we must keep the word Church in our Bibles, and not merely 'congregation,' as the translation of the Greek. When the word ixxλŋσía is used as a proper name, which it now becomes, we cannot translate it by any common name without casting aside the most important part of what was intended. This is not merely a loss of idea, but it leads to a falsification of statement, for we are thus led to affirm certain things of the congregation, which only belong to it when it is gathered together under certain conditions.

And in like manner with the officers of the Church. The early Christians did not indeed trouble themselves to coin new words to denote their officers, but as they set apart special words, we should be entirely misconceiving their purpose if we were to translate these words by some supposed etymological equivalent, without any regard to whether it had been set apart for this purpose or no. It might indeed be argued a priori, that when Christianity passed from its mother tongue as a tradition into a new era of language, it must carry along with it the traces of its own substantial reality by the formation of a special terminology. If it is a revelation, it must have introduced some new idea, and probably many. When a language arises, it endeavours as near as may be, to find some word for every idea existing in the minds of those who speak it. Since then a revealed religion is a system of philosophy having ideas of its own, it must be provided with words of its own. Doubtless there was some purpose for which providence ordained that Christianity should spring up just before the decay of the Latin and Greek languages. One purpose may not improbably have been to supply an accurate phraseology which should be less liable to confusion with the mere language of worldly considerations. It would be as ungrateful to Providence as it would be unphilosophical in itself, to attempt to reject the store of appropriate language which has thus been secured to us.

Besides vindicating the Authorised Version in the matter of its ecclesiastical nomenclature, Mr. Malan also gives Dr. Turnbull's version of the Epistle to Titus side by side with it. In his notes he utterly overthrows the supposed improvement.

The American Bible Union" is found most unmistakeably wanting in a much briefer space, the first chapter of S. John's First Epistle.

Certainly the sole result of modern efforts at translation is, to show the immense superiority of the one which is happily in possession of the ground. So laborious a vindication as Mr. Malan's, of the whole work would be impossible. It would not be amiss if we had printed in parallel columns,-1. the authorized version, 2. fresh renderings of evident errors, and of passages on which modern

criticism has been supposed to throw so much light as really to alter the meaning confidently for the better. 3. Renderings of well sustained various readings. 4. Modernizings of archaisms. Such a work would show how very little could possibly be gained by a fresh translation. Mere matters of taste ought of course to be excluded, for it is not worth unhinging the religious thoughts of the nation merely for the satisfaction of some few persons' literary taste, especially when there would be a preponderating number of adherents to the original for its mere phraseological excellence. But the amount of blank paper which the two columns would show would be a clear evidence of the fidelity of the translation. Doubtful suggestions should of course find no place in such a tabular view, because when the change is doubtful, it is unreasonable to make a change. It would be seen also how very insignificant for the most part the changes of meaning would be. In this column, the more considerable of the proposed changes of translation in cases which are doubtful might also be added in this place in italics. And this would show how very little real doctrine would be affected, and consequently how inappreciable the gain would be in taking the new for the old. The strength of error consists not in genuine efforts at translation, but in palming off mistranslations upon the ignorant. The third column would also show the security of the established text. Many of the various readings of the text could not of course be retained at all in a translation, as involving no appreciable change of meaning whatever. The table of modernized archaisms would show how very insignificant, and, if it may be said, unimportant is the class of words which have become obsolete. The fact is, the Authorized version has been the bulwark of the English language, and words which occur in its more doctrinal statements have been preserved by the very fact of that canonization. Articles of dress and armour and such like may have names in some chapters of the Bible which give little or no meaning now, because these chapters or passages are not those which are commonly studied. There are indeed some few more important words which have changed their meaning, but those persons who would be able to attach a meaning to those passages under any reading are almost universally acquainted with the fact of the word having an old meaning as well as a new one. At any rate the argument would have held good so as to require for the Jews a new edition of the Pentateuch in the later days of their commonwealth. The Hebrew of the early books had become much more out of date in the time of the later prophets, than our version has become yet.

It is certainly a phænomenon of our days that the leading journal should have been glad to fill up the vacuum of the summer vacation with such long and continued correspondence upon the proposed new translation of the Bible. One thing we may hope it shows satisfactorily, and that is the strong hold which the Author

ized version possesses upon the minds of Englishmen. One thing more it also shows most clearly, and that is the deservedness of the respect which is given to that version. That assailants should have been obliged to take refuge in such bare falsehoods, and equivocal, declamatory analogies, and ignorant calling of names, is no slight proof that it was rather assailed for its excellence than for its faults. Commentators are not lacking in the present day, and persons who have new translations to suggest will have no difficulty in finding some one to give them a mouthpiece. Let Biblical hermeneutics be investigated to the greatest possible degree. Results which are worth anything to the public will soon work their way into publicity. The real reason why most commentaries are so drearily dull is because instead of investigating the meaning of the passage, they beat about the bush in trying to exhibit all the particular bearings of some extraneous investigation. Any person who desires to search out the principal intention of the writer may do it with more probability of success in our Authorized version than in any which he is likely to get. He may have a scholar's version intended to represent the effect of collocation, and cases, and prepositions, and perhaps find that this version is after all not English and therefore gives no meaning. Or he may get something which reads as glibly as if it had just been received from a daily correspondent with a postage stamp on its back, and he may probably find that in dressing it up to suit popular taste, all the real solid goodness and flavour has been eliminated. But it is not probable that any version will ever be supplied to meet the requirements of common sense and practical piety, to which so much honesty and talent, intellectual power and moral weight, prayerful devotion and accumulated learning have contributed, as were brought together by the wise Providence of GoD in a critical juncture of a nation's history to produce that great treasure of the English Church whose words have supplied the atmosphere of thought in which so many have rejoiced to breathe out their life into the keeping of their GoD and SAVIOUR. love it too deeply to invent legends about its origin; but if no miracles distinguished its first composition, many are the miracles which have glorified its subsequent history, miracles of grace, hearts won to GOD by its familiar sounds, and expanding into heavenly intuition by daily meditation upon its pages. Let us not say that so it must have been whatever our yersion were. It could not so have been had not GOD set upon its pages the approving stamp of His continual blessing. This is the heritage of our National Church, and like all the other functions of the Church it spreads its blessing over the nation even beyond the limits of our own outward communion. This is the heritage which God has given to our nation, and woe be to the day, if it ever come, when this nation, by any authoritative act of its own, shall treat this heritage with scorn.

We