expounded to them the significance of each ceremony. Dr. Ussher then ascended the pulpit and delivered an oration on the text Hoc est Corpus Meum, and was followed by the other Doctors, who disputed on the same subject. These Exercises having concluded they all rose up and returned to Trinity College, near Dublin, where a stately dinner was provided for the Lord Deputy and Council, and thus were composed all things concerning the Acts of Commencements in the University of Dublin, to their high credit and commendation."

The foundation stone of the first building was laid on the 13th of March, 1592, by Thomas Smith, Lord Mayor of Dublin, and on the 9th of January, two years later, the first students were admitted. The weather during all this interval seems to have been wonderfully propitious towards the design, if we are to believe the testimony of Fuller, the Church historian, who says:

Josephus reports that during the time of the building of the Temple, it rained not in the daytime but in the night--that the showers might not hinder the work. I say what by him is reported hath been avouched to me by witnesses without exception that the same happened here from the founding to the finishing of this College, the officious heavens always smiling by day, though often weeping by night till the work was completed."

We need not dilate here on the good work which since that day has been effected by this University of Dublin. It has indeed been the mother of a liberal culture and is the one great institution of which all Irishmen can be proud.

THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

BY THE AUTHOR OF "PESSIMISM," ETC.

THIRD PAPER.

It has been commonly reported that the members of the New Testament Company, who produced the recently published Revised Edition of the New Testament, are surprised and disappointed at the reception generally accorded to their work. We take leave to doubt the truth of this rumour. Apart from the fact that the revisers can hardly have met in one body since the publication of their work, and therefore their united opinion cannot have been ascertained, it is scarcely likely that any considerable number of them can be so little acquainted with human nature as to be very much astonished that their work has not been received with universal favour. Ignorance and prejudice are more formidable opponents in such a case than any others that could be named, and they must certainly have been prepared to encounter their unrelenting enmity.

Let it be remembered how strenuous an opposition was offered a few years ago to the revised Lectionary, led, if we remember aright, by the very men who were most conspicuous in Convocation for their opposition to the vote of thanks to the revisers; let us remember how many persons threw themselves into a state of great excitement and declared, first, that they would not read the newly appointed lessons at all, and then, that they would not read them until they were forced to read them; and all this for reasons which were scarcely intelligible to the ordinary understanding. We imagine that there is now hardly a Church in England in which the new Lectionary is not thankfully used, as being, in most respects, a great improvement upon it predecessor. But the preparation of the new Lectionary was accomplished in a manner which cannot be compared with the authority which belongs to the revised New Testament. We have no doubt that, within a few years, the revised Bible will be thankfully used in most English Churches, and appre

ciated as one of the greatest and most precious aids to the right understanding of the word of God.

In what spirit ought we to approach this great work? It is a matter of some importance to answer this question, for the spirit of our undertaking will do much to determine its right issue. We do not for a moment advise the mere blind acceptance of what has been given us, without any critical examination of its contents. But we cannot forget the necessity of considering by whom the work has been done, in what circumstances, and in what manner.

First, as regards the circumstances, it has already been pointed out that these have never been anything like so favourable for such a work, whether we consider the possibility of forming an accurate text, or the state of scholarship at present existing. On these points we have already insisted, and we need therefore only repeat that, in the judgment of all competent persons, the text which underlies the present version is immensely more accurate than the one used by King James's revisers; and that the scholarship of the present company is immensely superior to anything which could possibly have been produced (to go no further) by the grammars and dictionaries then existing.

As regards the composition of the company, although many have objected to the union of men of different forms of belief, yet it cannot seriously be maintained that this is a hindrance to arriving at the true meaning of the original, which is, or ought to be, the great object of the work.

As regards the manner in which the work has been executed, when we remember that the present revision has taken about three times as long as that which was produced in the reign of King James I., and that the parts have been done not by isolated groups out of the company, as in the former case, but by the united efforts of the whole company, and by correspondence with a similar body sitting in America, and that the result has been arrived at after repeated consultations and revisions, there certainly is a very strong presumption in favour of the work being as satisfactory as could possibly be obtained—perhaps in any age of the Christian Church. It is, then, in the spirit engendered by these considerations and by this conviction that we have read the Revised Version, noted its correspondence with what we regard as the meaning of the original, and considered many of the criticisms which have been published since its appearance.

In further drawing the attention of our readers to the manner in which the work has been executed, we will first explain and illustrate the kind of changes which have been made in the Authorized Version, and then we will consider some of the adverse criticisms which have appeared, and ask how far a candid reader must regard them as justified.

In the first place, then, the changes which have taken place in the language during the last 270 years have necessitated the removal of some words from the Authorized Version as now unintelligible, or as conveying a different meaning to ourselves from what they bore to their first readers. It was not desirable, let it be remarked, that the whole should be modernized. The archaic tone by which the version was distinguished was a distinct advantage, so long as the meaning was not obscured. But there were words and phrases which were no longer as clear as when they first found their place in our English Bible.

In illustration, we may refer to an oft-quoted passage, 2 Thess. ii. 7: "The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." Now, apart from minor instances of inexactness in this passage, the word "letteth" would certainly convey no true idea of the Apostle's meaning to the ordinary English reader. To let with us means to permit. In this passage it means to hinder. We still possess this old meaning of the word in the phrase, "Without let or hindrance." We turn to the Revised Version and read: "The mystery of lawlessness doth already work; only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way." There is not an alteration here which is not a gain, we might almost say, which was not a necessity, taking the present state of our knowledge into account; but, apart from this, the passage, by the particular change to which we have specially referred, has, for the first time, become intelligible to the ordinary English reader.

"Prevent" is another word, perhaps better understood on account of its use in our Collects, yet it may be doubtful whether any reader easily remembers its meaning in 1 Thess. iv. 15: "We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep; " where the new version has the word precede.

Many other examples might be given. Thus the word "conversation" is used to mean what we should call "conduct," and in one place (Phil. iii. 20) for "citizenship," although in the

latter place it occurs rather from inexactness of rendering than from the meaning of the word having changed. So again it is not every English reader who will know that when the word of God is said to be "quick and powerful" (Heb. iv. 12), the word "quick" means, as it does in the Creed, "living.'

It would be easy to give further illustration of this principle of correction; but we imagine there are few who would object to a revision which went no further than this. The appending of notes to explain obsolete terms would be a very clumsy device. No one could justify the retention of a text which needed explanation, when one could be provided that should explain itself.

Another class of alteration arises from the rule, as far as possible, to represent the same Greek word by the same English equivalent. Of course, this rule is general and not universal. The same word in Greek does not always have the same meaning, any more than the same word in English. The meaning, determined by its position in the text, must be represented by the English word which is nearest to its signification. This is a rule which no one thinks of disputing. But surely, where the same Greek word occurs over and over again, in the same passage, and with the same meaning, it is a simple duty to represent it by the same Greek word.

It may seem strange that the revisers under King James deliberately departed from this principle; but it will seem stranger still that some modern critics have defended the course they took, and have blamed the revisers for acting upon the principle just described.

Do we not, it is said, when we write a letter, vary our expressions, and put a new word when we refer a second time to the same thing? Undoubtedly we do this, and very often with manifest advantage. Doubtless St. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament often did the same, and wherever they have done so they are rightly followed in the translation. But it can be no part of a translator's duty to vary words which the original writer has not varied to improve, as he imagines, and perhaps rightly, the style of the author whom he is translating.

use.

Even in regard to ordinary literature it is a very hazardous matter to change the mere expressions of which a writer makes To take an extreme case, we will suppose a translation of one of Mr. Carlyle's works to be made into French. The translator is shocked at the uncouthness of his style, at the