, 1881-05-29

ever. who do not associate the word
with the practice Of relieving suffering aud
hclp,ne the poor, and that alone, the use OF
tic more generic and comprehensive word
stlove'' is to be preferred, and can leave no
possibility of misconstruing the sense.
g. The story of the woman taken In adultery.
As there seems to be no doubt that this story
is au Interpolation, its detachment rs a part
of the sacred text was warranted. 1t Is all
evidence, however, Of the exqnisit beauty
of the story and the deep hold it has taken
11pon the popular mind that the revisers
keep it in its connection, but inclosing it i'll
brackets to show that it is ali Interpolation.
So far rs it was intendrd to enforce the
necessity of the sublime doctrine Of forgive
hess, 1t was unnecessary, for that doctrine
shines out conspicuous1y upon almost every
page Of the New Testament. Th ose who adj
lnire tho story and have come to accept 1t as
part Of tho Scriptures will hardly have their
views changed, certainly not their adnira-
tion, by the brackets with which the reylsers
lave iedgcd 1t in.
i. The Lords Prayer. The universal ap-
neal Of mankind to God the Father remains
substantially as in the old version, with the
exception that ''deliver us from evil - ap-
pears Us deliver us from the evil one the
latter version being strictly correct, MS has
been shown by II reviewer whose criticisms
were published yesterday, who states that
the old translators followed the Fulsate,
where the Latin, having no article, gives a
1lalo' for the Greek "apo tou poneron'
The other change is the omission Of the BEN
edictlon or 1oxoloSy. As it does not appear
in the version Of the Prayer in Luke, is not
found i'll tho Latin version In any OF the
earlier manuscripts, nor III any Of the refer
cnccs OF the Fathers to the Lords Prayer.
any criticism as to its removal would be
merely sentimental.
s, The use Of the word "Devil." The Devil
is distinctly recognized rs personal by sin:
CLING him out with the article to specify him
III distinction froul the evil spirits who at
tend him. In this use Of the word 1t IS re-
n.arkable that tho suggestion OF The Amer
lean reyisers to characterize all others called
s:devils" rs "lelnons," making the same
distinction rs is made between 1.-THE Christ"
and tho ':augcls,' was not adopted.
These are the most important changes
which have been made. It Is apparent ut
once that they do not disturb any of The doc
tr.nes Of The Church. Those who have been
won't to prove their grounds Of faith upon
certain texts will still find them there with
their old meanings, though they may bo i'll
new dress. Those who believe III personal
Devil and those who do no not, those who
believe III literal Hell and those
who Ito not, those who believe in immersion
and those who believe i'll sprinkling, those
wllu believe i'll eternal punishment and those
! who believe in the ultimate salvation of all,
will find all their old texts and arguments.
What has been changed does not radically
| change meanings, anti what has been omitted
is not essential. Tie changes rs a rule are
certainly for the better, though sometimes
the verses lose in their beauty and statellness
OF tlfction, but as the Offset to this it is to be
taken into account TINT the new version
comes nearer to tile literal meaning of tho
original than the old, Us might be expected
from tl.d progress that has been made in
Biblical history aud Information AMI ln All
departments Of science aud general study.
For these reasons, though we may be Inclined
to cling to the old version BY sentiment and
| association, there can be no question that the
new version will be the Bible of the future.