Skip to main content

Full text of "The bishop's English: a series of criticisms on the Right Rev. Bishop Thornton's laudation of the revised version of the Scriptures; and also on the English of the revisers, showing that the version put forth by them, and likewise the authorized version, contain errors against religion and morals so unpardonable as totally to unfit them for circulation, and that it is slandering God to call either of them His Word"

See other formats 


TiiE  Bishop's  English 


'mwA^ffoo^v. 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


Class 


% 


I 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/bishopsenglishseOOmoonrich 


THE    BISHOFS    ENGLISH 


n^^y/toi 


^^ .,...,. 


THE   BISHOP'S   ENGLISH: 

A   SERIES   OF   CRITICISMS 

On  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Thornton^ s  Laudation  of 
THE   REVISED   VERSION   OF  THE  SCRIPTURES; 

AND  ALSO  ON  THE 

ENGLISH   OF  THE   REVISERS, 

SHOWING   THAT   THE  VERSION    PUT   FORTH    BY  THEM,  AND  LIKEWISE 

THE     AUTHORISED     VERSION,     CONTAIN      ERRORS     AGAINST 

RELIGION     AND     MORALS     SO     UNPARDONABLE     AS 

TOTALLY  TO  UNFIT  THEM  FOR  CIRCULATION, 

And  that  it  is  slander i^ig  God  to  call  either  of  them 
HIS  WORD. 

BY 

GEO.  WASHINGTON  MOON,  Hon,  RRS.L., 

AUTHOR   OF    "the   DEAn's   ENGLISH,"    "THE   REVISERS*   ENGLISH,"  ETC. 

With  the  Authors  Portrait. 


SECOND   EDITION. 


SWAN  SONNENSCHEIN  &  CO.,  LIMITED. 
NEW   YORK:  E.   P.  DUTTON   &   CO. 


1904 

Alt  rights  reserved. 


<5^ 


-"'-^ 


Dedicated 

TO   THE   MEMORY   OF   MY   ANCESTOR 

THOMAS  ALDAM 

OF  WARMSWORTH,    IN   THE   COUNTY   OF   YORK 

ONE  OF  THE  EARLIEST  MEMBERS 

OF 

«'THE     SOCIETY     OF     FRIENDS" 

A  good  man,  who  died  in  peace  with  all  men,  and  loving 
trust  in  God,  a.d.  1660 


The  Bible  was  to  hiiin  his  greatest  treasure;  and  ^reaching  its  truths, 
his  greatest  delight.  But  he  was  'persecuted,  he  was  reviled,  he  was  buffeted, 
he  was  spit  upon,  and  for  conscience's  sake  he  suffered  the  robbing  of  his 
goods,  and  endured  years  of  cruel  imprisonment.  However,  the  knowledge 
of  his  own  rectitude  and  of  God's  love  sustained  him  through  it  all ;  and, 
mi  his  release,  being  moved  with  sympathy  for  his  companions  in  tribulation, 
he  visited  and  condoled  with  them  in  the  various  prisons  throughout  the 
kingdom,  drew  up  a  report  of  the  ivrongs  and  sufferings  of  his  co-religionists, 
personally  laid  it  befoi'e  Oliver  Cromwell,  and  pleaded  repeatedly,  in  the 
name  of  humanity  and  justice,  that  they  might  be  liberated.  His  petition 
being  finally  rejected,  he  fearlessly  denounced  the  Protector  to  his  face  for  his 
tyranny,  and  predicted  the  dovmfall  of  his  government. — "Encyclopaedia 
Britannica,"  8th  edition,  vol.  xviii.  p.  718. 


221591 


ABBREVIATIONS 

EMPLOYED  IN  THIS  WORK 

A.  V.  — Authorised  Version. 
R.V. — Revised  Version. 
C.A. — Codex  Alexandrinus. 
C.S. — Codex  Sinaitious. 
C.V. — Codex  Vaticanus. 


PREFACE. 

The  English  language  is  the  common  property  of 
us  all  for  our  mutual  benefit;  and  our  duty  is 
strenuously  to  oppose  all  corrupting  influences  which 
would  mar  the  beauty  of  the  language,  weaken  its 
force,  and  degrade  it  from  its  proud  prerogative 
of  being  a  sacred  shrine  for  our  noblest  aspirations. 

Hence  the  compilation  of  this  work,  which  con- 
sists of  criticisms  on  the  English  of  the  Kevisers 
and  on  the  English  of  the  Eight  Reverend  Bishop 
Thornton,  the  latest  advocate  on  behalf  of  the  so- 
called  ^^  Revised  ^^  Version  of  the  Bible. 

Perhaps  the  public,  if  they  care  at  all  about  the 
matter,  will  not  be  surprised  at  my  taking  up  the 
gauntlet  which  the  Bishop,  in  publishing  his  essay 
on  this  subject,  has  thus  thrown  down;  for,  I  do 
so  in  defence  of  a  position  which  I  carried  at  the 
point  of  the  pen,  forty  years  ago  in  combat  with 
the  late  Dean  Alford,  and  twenty  years  ago  in 
combat  with  the  Revisers  and  their  champions. 

I  am  an  old  man  now,  being  in  my  eightieth 
year,  and  consequently  am  not  so  "keen  of  fence" 
as  I  was  then ;  but  I  may  still  be  able  to  do  some- 


viii  PEEFACE 

thing  which,  if  not  redoubtable,  may  haply  be 
deemed  of  public  service  in  an  attempted  over- 
throw of  disgraceful  error. 

It  will  be  said  that  the  fearful  severity  of  these 
Criticisms  demands  justification.  I  admit  it;  and 
I  am  prepared  to  justify  the  severity  of  every 
criticism  which  I  have  written.  But  I  would 
preface  the  justification  by  saying  that,  for  the 
Revisers  themselves  and  for  their  advocate,  the 
Right  Reverend  Bishop  Thornton,  I  entertain  pro- 
found respect;  believing  them  to  be  conscientious 
men.  They  did  their  best;  and  no  man  could 
do  more. 

But,  in  their  zeal  for  the  Truth,  they  erred  in 
undertaking  work  for  which  they  were  not  qualified. 
Profound  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars  they  probably 
were;  but  unquestionably  they  were  lamentably 
deficient  in  the  knowledge  of  their  own  mother 
tongue — e.g.  what  Englishman  who  is  master  of  his 
own  language  would  ever  think  of  writing  such  a 
sentence  as  the  following,  unless  he  wished  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  God  has  a  brother  whom  it  is 
our  duty  to  love  !  "  This  commandment  have  we  from 
him,  that  he  who  loveth  God  love  his  brother  also" — 
1  John  iv.  21. 

Sometimes  the  ideas  are  blasphemous;  as  in 
Rev.  xiv.  10,  where  the  pronoun  "Ae"  grammati- 


PEEFACE  ix 

cally  refers  to  God;  while  the  pronoun  ^* their'* 
grammatically  refers  to  Him  and  to  the  holy  angels 
and  to  the  Lamb.  The  passage  is  as  follows : — 
"...  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  prepared 
unmixed  in  the  cup  of  His  anger;  and  HE  shall  he 
tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in  the  presence  of 
THE  HOLY  ANGELS,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Lamb  :  and 
the  smoke  of  their  torment  goeth  up  for  ever  and  ever.'* 

In  Rom.  i.  27,  the  most  degrading  obscenity  is 
palliated  by  being  euphemistically  designated  an 
^^ error'*  The  Greek  word  means  ^^ wandering " ]  but, 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  means  that  wandering 
from  the  right  path  which  is  due  to  wilful  corrup- 
tion; consequently  our  word  ^^ error"  does  not 
adequately  convey  the  meaning  of  the  Greek. 

In  1  Cor.  vii.  36,  the  shocking  crime  of  incest 
between  father  and  daughter  is  declared  to  be 
not  sinful! 

Sometimes  the  ideas  are  humorous ;  as  in  Gen.  vi. 
16-22,  where  it  says  that  Noah  had  ^^ stories**  [not 
storeys]  in  the  ark;  as  if  the  patriarch  had  pro- 
vided himself  with  a  little  light  literature  for 
rainy  days. 

And  sometimes  the  language  is  execrably  in- 
felicitous in  its  suggestiveness ;  as  in  Job  xx.  15, 
where  we  read  of  riches,  under  the  similitude  of 
food,  which,  it  is  said,   "Ae  shall  vomit  up  again,** 


PEEFACE 


But,  before  anything  can  be  vomited  up  *^  again, 
it   must  have    been    vomited    up    previously,   andj 
then  have  been  swallowed  a  second  time ! 

It  is  such  sentences  as  these  (combined  wit] 
the  fact  of  their  occurring  in  the  Sacred  Volume" 
which  arouse  one's  indignation,  and  fully  justif; 
the  severity  of  the  Criticisms. 

I  leave  the  work  to  speak  for  itself. 

GEO.  WASHINGTON  MOON, 
Hon,  FM.S.L. 


7  Princess  Tereace, 

Sussex  Square, 
Brighton. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS. 


The  Times. — Mr  Washington  Moon's  first  heading 
is  "Blasphemy."  The  Revisers  speak  of  God  as  if  he 
were  a  human  being  with  a  Christian  name,  as  in, 
"  There  came  a  man,  sent  from  God,  whose  name  was 
John."  They  also  imply  that  God  has  a  brother — 
"That  he  who  loveth  God  love  his  brother  also." 
However,  Mr  Moon,  who  has  written  a  good  deal  on 
errors  in  English,  is  editing  a  new  "  Eevised  English  " 
Bible,  when  these  things  will  be  put  right. 

The  Literary  Guide. — Bishop  Thornton  deemed 
he  was  doing  quite  the  proper  and  usual  thing  when  he 
praised  the  Eevised  Version  of  the  Bible  as  "  light  in 
all  its  purity  and  clearness."  Ordinary  folk  do  not 
scrutinise  such  rhapsodies  too  closely.  No  flattery  is 
too  gross  if  applied  to  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  never 
blushes.  But  Mr  George  Washington  Moon  keeps 
pe'  petual  watch  upon  all  evil-doers  in  the  realm  of  the 
King's  English;  and  his  merciless  lantern  throws  an 
awful  gleam  on  misplaced  adverbs  and  vile  syntax. 
His  present  book  is  a  record  of  grammatical  crimes — 
and,  worse  things --committed  by  the  bad  Revisers.  To 
complete  their  punishment,  he  prints  a  full  list  of  the 
learned  and  unlearned  gentlemen  who  pretended  to 
give  us  an  uncorrupt  translation  of  God's  own  Word. 
The  result  is  amusing  enough  for  seaside  reading. 


Mr  Moon  cries'  ^'^  tP accuse  ^^  on  every  page,  and,  in 
most  instances,  he  is  justified  by  the  text.  He  says  :  a 
curious  slip  occurs  in  1  Tim.  iii.  12:  ^' Let  deacons  be 
husbands  of  one  wife.  Now,  says  our  literary  police- 
man : 

It  does  not  say  (though  doubtless  Paul  meant 
it,  and  the  Revisers   ought  to  have  put  it  so), 
"let  each  deacon   be   the  husband  of  one  wife." 
No  !   virtually  the  Eevisers  say  that  the    *one 
wife '  is  to  be  the  common  property  of  deacons ; 
they  are  to  be  her  husbands. 
The  long  series  of  Mr  Moon's  exposures  is  a  treasury 
of  recreation  for  the  man  who  is  moderately  well  ac- 
quainted with  his  Lindley  Murray. 

We  are  grateful  to  Mr  Washington  Moon,  on  purely 
literary  grounds,  for  his  vigorous  assault  on  the  Eevised 
Version. 

The  Expository  Times. — Mr  Washington  Moon 
has  written  another  volume  against  the  English  of  the 
Revised  Version.  It  is  like  a  book  of  the  dead.  For, 
it  is  forty  years  since  Mr  Moon  made  his  name  known 
through  *^  The  Dean's  English,"  a  clever  attack  on  Dean 
Alford's  "The  Queen's  English."  But  Mr  Moon  is  not 
dead.  Judging  by  the  vigour  of  his  language  here, 
though  eighty,  his  natural  force  is  little  abated.  He 
calls  his  new  book  *'The  Bishop's  English,"  for,  it  is  a 
chastisement  of  Bishop  Thornton,  Suffragan  of  Man- 
chester, for  daring  to  recommend  the  use  of  the  Re- 
vised Version  in  public  worship. 

The  School  World. — The  Revisers  themselves  are 


declared  to  have  produced  an  "  ungrammatical,  immoral 
and  blasphemous  version."  This  contention  Mr 
Washington  Moon  expounds  upon  many  pages,  with 
copious  examples.  The  Revised  Version  is  practically 
a  dead  book,  and  it  was  scarcely  worth  while  to  devote 
so  much  attention  to  its  deficiencies. 

The  London  Quarterly  Review. — Mr  Washington 
Moon's  plea  for  absolute  clearness  in  the  framing  of 
sentences  ought  to  lead  many  of  us  to  prune  our  pages. 
In  that  respect  the  little  book  is  to  be  welcomed,  and  it 
shows  that  the  critic  who  attacked  "  The  Dean's 
English  "  forty  years  ago  is  still  as  acute,  and,  we  might 
add,  as  severe,  as  he  was  at  the  age  of  forty. 

The  Birmingham  Daily  Post. — Anyone  gifted 
with  a  sense  of  humour  will  enjoy  reading  this  remark- 
able little  book,  by  the  well-known  author  of  *'The 
Dean's  English,'*  "The  King's  English,"  and  several 
other  books  of  the  kind,  exposing  common  errors  in 
speaking  and  writing.  Forty  years  ago  the  author  had 
combat  with  Dean  Alford.  Now,  he  says,  "I  am  an 
old  man,"  and  "being  in  my  eightieth  year  .  .  .  am 
not  so  *  keen  of  fence.' "  Yet  the  vim  and  vigour  of 
this  onslaught  are  amazing.  They  certainly  afford  no 
evidence  of  age  or  dulled  perception.  The  sub-title 
admirably  defines  the  scope  of  the  work  ;  it  reads  :  "  A 
series  of  criticisms  on  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Thornton's 
laudation  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Scriptures ;  and 
also  on  the  English  of  the  revisers,  showing  that  the 
version  put  forth  by  them,  and  likewise  the  Authorised 
Version,  contain  errors  against  religion  and  morals  so 


6 

unpardonable  as  totally  to  unfit  it  for  circulation." 
This  is  a  "large  order,"  but  most  impartial  readers 
will  admit  that  it  has  been  fully  and  ably  executed. 
Englishmen  who  are  masters  of  their  own  language,  and 
have  a  high  regard  for  it,  will  appreciate  most  Mr 
Washington  Moon's  efforts.  Here  is  a  minor  example 
of  his  method:  "Mark  xiv.  3 — 'She  brake  the  cruse, 
and  poured  it  over  his  head.'  Broken  pieces  of 
alabaster,  even  if  scented  with  spikenard,  could  not 
have  been  very  pleasant  on  the  head.  But  probably 
the  revisers  meant  the  ointment.  Their  language  often 
says  what  they  do  not  mean."  Perhaps  a  better  illus- 
tration is  the  following:  "In  Mark  vi.  7-8,  another 
curious  incident  is  related.  It  is  this  :  '  He  gave  them 
authority  over  the  unclean  spirits ;  and  he  charged 
them  that  they  should  take  nothing  for  their  journey.' 
What  journey  were  '  the  unclean  spirits '  going  to  take  1 
And  why  was  Jesus  interested  in  their  luggage  1 
Perhaps  the  Bishop  will  tell  us,  as  he  praises  the  Re- 
vised Version.  To  him  it  is  '  light  in  all  its  purity  and 
clearness.' " 

The  Christian  Age. — Mr  Washington  Moon  con- 
tends with  some  reason  that  many  passages  in  the  Re- 
vised Version  are  very  bad  English  and  worse  sense. 
The  book  is  largely  taken  up  with  examples,  of  which 
the  following  may  be  mentioned.  In  Rev.  xiv.  10, 
Revised  Version,  the  pronoun  "  he "  grammatically 
refers  to  God,  while  the  pronoun  "  their  "  refers  to  Him, 
and  to  the  holy  angels,  and  to  the  Lamb.  The  passage 
is  as  follows :  " .  .  .  the  wine   of   the   wrath   of   God^ 


which  is  prepared  unmixed  in  the  cup  of  His  anger,  and 
He  shall  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Angels^  and  in  the  presence  of  the 
Lamb  \  and  the  smoke  of  their  torment  shall  go  up  for 
ever  and  ever." 

In  Genesis  vi.  16-22,  the  Eevised  Version  says  that 
Noah  had  ^^  stories^'  (not  storeys)  in  the  Ark;  as  if ,  the 
author  says,  "  the  Patriarch  had  provided  himself  with 
a  little  light  literature  for  rainy  days." 

The  Publishers'  Circular. — We  are  glad  to  meet 
again  in  the  field  of  criticism  that  doughty  champion 
of  the  noble  language  which  made  Addison  feel  very 
happy  that  he  was  born  an  Englishman.  Bishop 
Thornton  having  advocated  in  a  pamphlet  the  public 
reading  of  the  so-called  Revised,  in  place  of  the 
Authorised,  Version  of  the  Bible  in  our  churches,  Mr 
Washington  Moon,  in  the  volume  before  us,  criticises 
most  scathingly  both  the  Bishop's  English  and  that  of 
the  Revisers.  The  errors  in  the  Revised  Version  ex- 
posed by  Mr  Moon  are  calculated  to  rouse  a  feeling  of 
indignation  at  the  ignorance  or  heedlessness  of  the  one 
hundred  and  one  persons  forming  the  company  re- 
sponsible for  an  undertaking  of  such  supreme  im- 
portance. Mr  Moon's  criticisms  claim  the  attention  of 
Bible  students. 

The  Scotsman. — The  work  will  interest  students 
of  the  niceties  of  English  diction. 

The  English  Churchman. — Just,  though  caustic, 
criticism.     This  little  book  cannot  fail  to  attract  public 


8 

attention  to  the  many  egregious  errors,  grammatical, 
moral,  and  spiritual,  abounding  in  the  English  employed 
in  the  Eevised  Version  of  the  Scriptures.  We  thank 
the  venerable  author  for  his  scholarly  and  timely  con- 
tribution to  the  already  extensive  literature  on  the 
merits  of  the  work  of  the  Eevisers.  It  was  the  late 
Mr  Spurgeon,  we  believe,  who  tersely  summed  up  the 
characteristics  of  the  Eevised  New  Testament,  by  re- 
marking, *'  Strong  in  G-reek,  weak  in  English." 

The  Morning  Post. — It  is  due  to  Mr  Moon  to 
acknowledge  that  he  has  very  forcibly  exposed  some 
inaccuracies  in  the  Eevisers'  English,  as  well  as  in  the 
Authorised  Version. 


PREPARING  FOR  PUBLICATION. 

THE   "REVISED   ENGLISH"  BIBLE. 

Embodying  the  labours  of  many  Eminent  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
English  Scholars. 

Edited  by 
SAMUEL   LLOYD, 

ONE  OF  THE  LIFE  GOVERNORS  OF  THE  BRITISH  AND  FOREIGN  BIBLE  SOCIETY 
AND 

GEO.  WASHINGTON  MOON,  Hon.  F.R.S.L., 

AUTHOR  OF   **  THE   DEAN'S  ENGLISH,"    "  THE  BISHOP's  ENGLISH," 
"  THE  REVISERS'  ENGLISH,"  *"  ECCLESIASTICAL  ENGLISH,"  ETC. 


Part  I. 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 

Will  be  published  on  January  1st,  1904, 
By  Messrs  Bagster  &  Sons,  Paternoster  Row,  London. 


The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  Preface  : — 

"  Our  English  Bible,  which  to  millions  of  the  human 
race  will  for  ever  remain  the  standard  of  moral  and 
religious  truth,  ought  to  be  also  the  standard  of  all 
that  is  pure,  and  graceful,  and  noble,  in  our  language. 

"  The  Bible  is  the  Temple  of  Truth  in  whose  solemn 
archives  are  kept  the  records  of  past  ages,  and  the 
memorials  of  the  infancy  of  our  race. 

"Therein  are  enshrined  also  all  human  experiences, 


10 

the  utterances  of  holy  desire,  the  breathings  of  fervent 
hope,  the  expressions  of  unwavering  faith,  and  the 
exulting  songs  of  a  nation's  triumphs. 

"  Therein,  likewise,  are  heard  the  sighs  of  the  broken- 
hearted, the  groans  of  the  soul's  agonies  in  its  wrest- 
lings with  sin;  and,  coming  up  from  the  dungeon- 
depths  of  despair,  the  smothered  cry  of  remorse  from 
the  self-condemned. 

"  But  these  are  not  the  only  voices :  therein,  too,  are 
heard  the  prayers  of  the  mighty  minds  which  have 
moved  Heaven  by  their  earnestness;  and  therein  are 
heard  the  lispings  of  the  little  ones  who  have  taught 
us  life's  lessons  of  child-like  trust. 

"  Moreover,  therein  above  all  is  heard  the  voice  of 
GrOD ! — heard  in  its  mighty  thunderings,  heard  in  its 
awful  holiness,  heard  in  its  yearning  pity,  and  beard  in 
its  undying  love. 

"  All  these  voices  live  and  reverberate  in  this  Temple 
of  Truth,  and  thence  are  ever  echoed  through  the  long 
corridors  of  Time  for  the  world's  instruction  and 
admonition. 

"  In  the  varied  themes  of  the  Word  of  God,  there 
is  scope  for  the  grandest  organ-utterances  of  language ; 
and  these,  bearing  those  themes,  should  peal  through 
the  mighty  cathedral  of  the  world  in  tones,  which  could 
not  but  thrill  with  responsive  vibrations  the  throbbing 
hearts  of  the  many  millions  of  worshippers. 


11 

"  On  the  public  reading  of  such  a  version,  blessed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  they  would  tremble  under 
the  rolling  thunder  of  its  fearful  denunciations  of 
hypocrisy ;  melt  into  tearfulness  of  repentance  beneath 
the  gracious  offers  of  mercy ;  and,  in  their  depths  of 
godly  sorrow,  would  hear  so  tender  a  voice  speaking  to 
them  in  pitying  accents  of  forgiveness  that,  influenced 
by  those  wondrous  words  of  love,  they  would  in  spirit 
rise  as  on  angels'  wings  of  ecstasy  to  Heaven,  and 
adoringly  bow  in  unutterable  gratitude  before  the 
Throne  of  the  Most  High." 

Language  is  the  vehicle  of  thought ;  and,  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  the  vehicle  of  God's  thoughts ;  therefore, 
if  perfection  in  language  ought  to  be  looked  for  any- 
where, it  ought  to  be  looked  for,  and  found,  in  the 
Bible. 

I  have  looked  for  it,  both  in  the  Authorised,  and  in 
the  Revised,  Version,  and  have  not  found  it ;  hence 
this  work  which  I  deeply  regret  is  so  unworthy. 

Not  in  my  day,  for  I  am  in  my  eighty -first  year,  but 
probably  in  the  near  future,  some  eminent  English 
scholar  will  arise,  to  whom  will  appertain  the  honour  of 
having  given  to  the  world 

The  Pure  Word  of  God  in  the  Purest  English^ 


12 

To  that  writer,  perhaps  this  edition  may  be  of  some 
little  service,  I  hope  that  it  will,  and  that  his  work 
also  will  be  of  service  to  some  succeeding  editor ;  for, 
language  is  ever  changing,  and  thereby  constant 
revision  of  the  Bible,  from  time  to  time  is  rendered 
imperative. 

The  following  is  a  List  of  the  most  impartant 
English  Versions  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  succeeded 
by  specimens  of  various  versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer 
showing  the  changes  through  which  our  language  has 
gone  during  the  last  fifteen  hundred  years. 


J 


THE   BISHOP'S   ENGLISH 

CHAPTER  I 

I  WAS  engaged  in  my  work  as  English 
editor  of  Tlie  '' Revised  English''  Bible, 
Canon  Girdlestone  being  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  editor,  when  my  attention  was 
drawn  to  a  pamphlet  written  by  the  Right 
Reverend  Bishop  Thornton  of  Manchester 
advocating  the  public  reading,  in  our 
churches,  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the 
Scriptures  in  the  place  of  the  Authorized 
Version. 

Of  course  I  eagerly  perused  the  pam- 
phlet, wondering  what  was  the  ground  of 
his  advocacy,  and  what  were  the  qualifica- 
tions which  led  him  to  nominate  himself 
a  judge  of  that  matter.  I  soon  found 
that  his  English  was  as  disgraceful  as 
is  that  of  the  Revisers  themselves ;  and 
therefore  I  was  not  surprised  that  he 
commended  their  work.     It  is  to  be  re- 


2  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

gretted  that  he  was  unaware  of  his  ignor- 
ance of  the  laws  of  the  language ;  as,  a 
knowledge  of  that  ignorance  might  have 
deterred  him  from  presuming  to  discuss  a 
subject  upon  which  he  is  not  competent 
to  speak  with  authority.  I  will  criticize  his 
English  after  exposing  the  Revisers'  shame- 
ful errors,  which  the  Bishop  eulogizes  as, 
''  Light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness.'' 

I  cannot  believe  that  he  has  read  the 
criticisms  which  were  indignantly  pub- 
lished upon  the  Revisers'  English  more 
than  twenty  years  ago ;  or  else  he  is 
hoping  that  time  has  obliterated  from  the 
minds  of  Englishmen  the  disappointment 
and  deep  regret  which  the  Revisers'  work 
occasioned  when  scholars  realized  that  it 
fell  deplorably  short  of  that  which  the 
public  had  so  earnestly,  and  so  reasonably, 
hoped  that  it  would  be — viz. 

THE   PURE   WORD    OF   GOD    IN   THE 
PUREST   ENGLISH 

The  Revised  Bible,  so  far  from  being 
''the  well  of  English  undejiled,''  is  defiled 
by  the   grossest   errors ; — errors   against 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  3 

religion,  morals,  and  grammar.  These 
are  grave  charges ;  but,  in  Chapter  iii. 
and  elsewhere  in  this  book,  I  will  establish 
the  truth  of  every  one  of  them ;  and  yet 
will  refrain  from  adducing  very  many 
grave  instances,  one  especially,  too  gross 
even  to  be  mentioned. 

How  are  we  to  account  for  the  Revisers' 
work  being  not  only  a  lamentable  fail- 
ure, but  something  far,  far  worse  ?  The 
Revisers  were  good  men,  earnest  students 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  they  devoted 
years  of  their  valuable  time  to  the  carry- 
ing  out  of  their  labour  of  love.  They 
numbered  more  than  one  hundred  men 
renowned  for  their  learning ;  some  were 
eminent  Hebrew  scholars  ;  most  of  them 
were  proficient  in  Greek  ;  and  a  few  were 
masters  of  English.  Their  names  and 
titles  are  given  in  the  Appendix.  More- 
over, it  had  been  resolved  that  every 
question  should  be  settled  by  the  votes 
of  the  majority.  What  could  give  better 
promise  of  success  ?  Yet,  utter  failure 
was  the  result. 


4  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

Where  was  the  fault?  The  fault  lay 
in  this : — The  Revisers,  not  being  all 
equal  in  learning,  it  was  a  grave  error  to 
make  their  votes  all  equal;  so  that  the 
vote  of  one  who  was  a  profound  Hebrew 
scholar,  counted  for  no  more  than  did  the 
vote  of  one  who  had  only  a  smattering  of 
Hebrew.  It  was  the  same  with  Greek, 
and  also  with  English.  My  Right 
Reverend  correspondent,  Bishop  Words- 
worth of  St.  Andrews,  complained  to  me 
most  bitterly  of  this  arrangement ;  re- 
marking that  very  few  of  the  Revisers 
were  good  English  scholars ;  and  the 
eminently  learned  few  were,  of  course, 
outvoted  by  the  comparatively  unlearned 
many. 

The  course  which  should  have  been 
taken  was  the  appointment  of  sub-com- 
mittees for  special  studies, — committees 
formed  of  the  ablest  men  for  each  specific 
subject,  Hebrew,  Greek,  English,  etc. 
And  if,  in  any  such  sub- committee,  there 
was  one  member  preeminently  learned, 
he  should  have  had  three  or  more  votes ; 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  5 

and  any  one  less  learned  than  the  first, 
but  better  informed  than  the  rest,  should 
have  had  two  votes ;  and  the  others,  one 
vote  each.  Then,  at  a  general  meeting, 
the  results  of  all  the  sub-committees'  de- 
liberations should  have  been  made  known, 
but  made  known  as  final;  no  further 
discussion  being  permissible.  Some  such 
arrangement  as  this  would  certainly  have 
had  better  results. 

Another  fatal  error  made  by  the 
Revisers  was  their  not  issuing  a  tentative 
edition  of  their  work,  with  the  object  of 
eliciting  criticisms  from  learned  men  who 
were  not  numbered  among  the  Revisers, 
but  were  deeply  interested  in  the  work, 
and  well  qualified  to  render  valuable 
assistance.  I  suggested  this  course  to 
the  Revisers  by  a  letter  in  The  Times  of 
May  22nd,  1875,  but  they  had  not  humility 
enough  to  accept  external  aid ;  the  result 
being  that  they  have  drawn  down  upon 
themselves  the  severest  censures  for  their 
culpable  mistakes ;  and,  worst  of  all,  the 
Bible  itself  has  suflFered  at  their  hands  ! 


6  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

The  basis  of  this  series  of  criticisms 
is  a  pamphlet  with  this  title  : — 

THE  REVISED  VERSION 

OF  THE  BIBLE : 

OUR  DUTY  IN  REGARD  TO  IT, 

BY 

THE  RIGHT  REV.  SAMUEL  THORNTON,  D.D., 

Assistant  Bishop  of  Manchester ^ 

and 

Vicar  of  Blackburn. 


PUBLISHED   UNDER  THE   DIRECTION   OF  THE 
TRACT  COMMITTEE. 


By  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge, 
London,  1902. 

I  read  the  pamphlet  uninfluenced  by 
the  appendages  to  the  author's  name,  for 
I  judge  of  an  author  by  the  knowledge 
which  he  evinces  of  his  subject,  and  the 
language  in  which  he  imparts  it. 

I  have  too  much  of  the  old  Quaker 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  7 

blood  in  my  veins  subserviently  to  accept 
what  is  not  true,  even  though  it  be  pro- 
claimed by  a  Bishop,  a  Dean,  or  other 
titled  personage.  As  authors  we  all 
have  to  rank  with  untitled  laymen,  and 
be  judged  by  the  merits  of  our  works. 

The  Right  Reverend  Bishop's  pamphlet 
is  a  laudation  of  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  Bible,  combined  with  a  severe  dis- 
paragement of  the  Authorized  Version. 

Of  the  two,  henceforth  distinguished 
in  these  criticisms,  as  the  A.V.  and  the 
R.V.,  he  speaks  thus,  on  page  19  : — 

''  If  Scripture  is  the  Spirit's  two-edged 
sword,  the  A.V.  presents  that  sword 
notched  and  blunted  in  many  places, 
while  [he  should  have  said,  'whereas'] 
the  R.V.  puts  it  into  our  hand  ground 
and  sharpened  :  if  Scripture  is  the  lamp 
of  the  Lord,  the  A.V.  offers  [to]  us  that 
lamp  with  its  glass  greatly  clouded  and 
blurred,  while  [whereas]  the  R.V.  has 
cleaned  the  glass,  and  fitted  it  to  trans- 
mit the  light  in  all  its  purity  and 
clearness." 


8  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

As  for  his  Lordship's  having  employed 
the  word  "while,''  instead  of  "  whereas''  \ 
does  not  the  Bishop  know  that  ''while" 
means  ''during  the  time  that" "i  And, 
as  the  notching  and  blunting,  whatever 
that  refers  to,  was  done  nearly  three 
hundred  years  ago,  his  statement  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  the  A.V.  of 
1611  was  really  cotemporaneous  with 
the  KV.  New  Testament  of  1881,  and 
the  RV.  Old  Testament  of  1885, 

With  regard  to  the  Bishop's  figurative 
remark  that  the  R.V.  puts  into  our 
hand  a  two-edged  sword  ground  and 
sharpened,  I  shall  be  able  to  give  full 
proof  of  the  appositeness  of  his  metaphor. 
The  two-edged  sword  will  cut  keenly, 
as  the  Reader  will  soon  see ;  for,  the 
criticisms  are  a  running  commentary  on 
it  throughout  the  whole  of  this  book, 
and,  the  sword,  being  "  two-edged,"  cuts 
both  ways. 

Leaving,  for  the  present,  the  Bishop's 
two-edged  sword  metaphor,  let  us  test 
the    accuracy    of    his    other    simile,    by 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  9 

examining  some  passages  in  the  RV., 
and  ascertaining  whether  they  do  trans- 
mit ''the  light  in  all  its  purity  and 
clearness, '' 

But,  first  of  all,  I  must  draw  attention 
to  the  Bishop's  reference  to  the  ''  original 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  scarcely 
ingenuous  of  him  to  speak  of  that  which 
does  not  exist,  as  if  its  existence  were 
a  verity.  Surely  the  Right  Reverend 
Bishop  is  not  wholly  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that,  of  the  sixty -six  books  consti- 
tuting the  Bible,  there  is  not  one  ''  origijiar' 
remaining.     All  have  perished. 

Doubtless  this  loss  has  been  permitted, 
in  the  wise  providence  of  God,  for  some 
beneficent  purpose ;  probably  to  guard 
against  the  degenerating  of  praiseworthy 
reverence  into  superstitious  adulation  and 
ultimately  into  idolatry ;  as  was  the  case 
with  the  brazen  serpent  of  the  wilderness. 
On  that  very  account,  it  had  to  be  de- 
stroyed.    See  2  Kings  xviii.  4.  IvIlT 

There  being  no  ''  original  in  existence, 
the  Bishop  is  deluding  his  Readers  (or 


10  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

those  of  them  who  do  not  know  better) 
when,  on  p.  12  of  his  pamphlet,  he 
speaks  of  certain  men  of  letters  as 
having  ''access  to  the  ojnginaV  All  that 
scholars  have  access  to  are  what  profess 
to  be  copies ;  such  as  the  ''  Codex  Alexand- 
rinus,''  the  "  Codex  Sinaiticus,''  the  '*  Codex 
Vaticanus,''  etc. ;  but  not  one  of  these  is 
earlier  than  the  third  century  after  Christ ; 
and  no  two  of  them  wholly  agree. 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Right  Reverend  Bishop  must  have 
been  thinking  of  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society's  contemplated  action  with 
regard  to  its  circulating  the  R.V.  ;  for, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  pamphlet,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  fact  that  the  Society  is  bound 
by  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which 
it  was  established,  not  to  circulate  any 
other  version  of  the  Scriptures  than  the 
A. v.,  he  says,  ^'It  is  scarcely  fair — as  is 
commonly  done  —  to  put  the  Revised 
in  contrast  with  the  Authorized  Bible, 
as  though  [he  should  have  said,  as  if\ 
the  word  '  though '  implies  negation, 
and  means  '  notwithstanding '~\  they  were 
different  translations.  It  is  not,  properly 
speaking,  a  new  Version  at  all ;  it  is  only, 
as  its  title-page  proclaims,  the  Version 
set  forth  a.d.  1611,  compared  with  the 
11 


12  THfi  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

most  ancient  authorities,  and  revised ; 
that  is,  it  is  the  Authorized  Version  with 
its  mistakes  corrected." 

The  Reader  will  detect  the  questionable 
nature  of  this  statement  when  he  learns 
that,  by  the  Bishop's  own  admission  on 
page  7  of  his  pamphlet,  the  R.  V.  contains, 
on  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
30,000  emendations.  How  can  it  be  the 
A.V.  since  it  has  been  altered  in  30,000 
places  ?  The  Rev.  Prof.  Moulton  says 
^^37,000";  and  he,  being  one  of  the 
Revisers,  is  a  better  authority  than  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter. 

Bishop  Thornton,  in  making  the  quota- 
tion, on  page  7  of  his  pamphlet,  forgot 
that  it  would  clash  with  his  statement  on 
the  first  page ;  but  he  wanted  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  to  adopt  the 
R.V. ;  so  he  ''blows  hot  and  cold"  to 
suit  his  purpose  :  he  first  says  that  it  is 
the  same  as  the  A.  V.,  therefore  the  Society 
will  not  be  violating  the  fundamental 
principle  of  its  existence  in  adopting  it  ; 
and  he  afterwards  says  that  it  is  not  the 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  13 

same,  but  better  by  30,000  corrections, 
and  therefore  a  very  desirable  possession 
for  the  Society. 

As  to  the  *'  corrections,'"  so  called,  I 
have  given  specimens  of  them  in  my 
former  works,  '  The  Revisers  English '  and 
'  Ecclesiastical  English ' ;  more  shall  follow, 
in  this  volume. 

I  had  almost  forgotten  to  say  that  the 
Bishop,  by  way  of  offering  to  the  Society 
his  most  tempting  of  all  baits,  promises, 
on  page  12,  that,  if  the  E.V.  be  adopted, 
he  will  again  become  a  Member  of  the 
Society.  How  gracious !  But  will  the 
Society  reinstate  their  former  Member 
who  receded  from  them  years  ago  ?  Will 
they  not,  the  rather,  treat  him  as  Paul 
treated  Mark,  who  had  ''  departed  from 
them,  and  went  not  with  them  to  the 
work''%  Acts  XV.  38.  Actsxv.ss. 

The  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society, 
as  it  values  its  unsullied  past,  should  have 
nothing  more  to  do  with  that  objection- 
able volume,  the  RV.  The  circumstance 
is  much  to  be  deplored,  that  that  venerable 


14  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

Society  seeking,  at  the  instigation  of  a  few 
supporters,  to  identify  itself  with  the  cir- 
culation of  the  R  v.,  actually  assented  for 
that  purpose,  to  set  aside  the  fundamental 
principle  upon  which  it  was  established ; 
which  principle,  as  shown  in  the  very 
first  rule  in  its  code  of  laws,  was  that, 
only  the  A.V.  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
or  translations  of  it,  should  be  issued  by 
the  Society ;  and  for  the  faithful  carrying 
out  of  that  principle,  the  Society  has 
received  bequests  amounting  to  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  pounds  ;  and  the  Society, 
having  accepted  those  bequests,  is  morally 
and  legally  bound  by  the  conditions  of 
those  bequests. 

Let  the  Members  of  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  pause  before  circu- 
lating so  objectionable  a  work  as  that  of 
the  Kevisers.  A  new  edition  of  the  A.V., 
with  its  errors  eliminated,  is  being  pre- 
pared for  publication  by  Messrs  Bagster 
&  Sons ;  first  as  a  tentative  work,  in 
order  to  elicit  criticisms,  and  then,  in  the 
year  1904,  as  a  perfected  work  which,  it  is 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  15 

hoped,  will  be  worthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion. 

The  Bishop  evidently  thinks  of  himself 
and  his  co-prelates  as  a  very  powerful 
body  of  men.  He  says,  in  the  last 
paragraph  of  his  pamphlet,  "  The  verdict 
of  prominent  newspapers,  a  few  years  ago, 
that  [the]  RV.  was  'dead,'  has  now  been 
shewn  to  be  mistaken.  The  opposition  to 
it  of  a  few  good,  able,  and  weighty  men 
can  hardly  prevail  against  the  practically 
unanimous  decision  of  the  Bishops,  and 
the  deliberate  verdict  of  the  Bible  Society, 
in  its  favour." 

But  is  that  verdict  ''final "  ?  I  very 
strongly  doubt  it.  The  Bible  Society, 
after  refusing,  for  20  years,  to  circulate 
the  R.V.,  is  not  likely  to  reverse  all  its 
former  decisions  respecting  this  matter. 
Why  should  it  ?  What  new  element  has 
been  introduced  into  the  discussion? 
Not  one ! 

And  does  the  Bishop  expect  that  his 
opinion  will  influence  the  Bible  Society  ? 
What  influence,  in  such  a  matter  as  this. 


16  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

can  attach  to  the  opinion  of  a  man  who 
does  not  know  his  own  mother  tongue  ? 
None  whatever.  The  fact  that  he  is  a 
Bishop  does  not  qualify  him  for  a  judge 
as  to  the  relative  value  of  the  two  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible. 

Of  course,  no  one  denies  that  the 
A.V.  of  1611  needs  revision;  but  that 
which  is  most  emphatically  denied  is 
that  the  present  R.V.  is  worthy  to  take 
its  place. 

Oh  !  that  the  Revisers  had  published 
a  Tentative  Edition  of  their  work. 

The  criticisms  which  such  an  edition 
of  the  R.V.  would  have  elicited  would 
have  opened  the  Revisers'  own  eyes  to 
the  glaring  mistakes  which  are  so  evident 
to  every  one  else ;  except,  of  course, 
Bishop  Thornton,  to  whom  the  Revisers' 
''darkening  of  counsel  by  words  without 
jobxxxviii.  knowledge,''  would  still  be  ''light  in  all  its 
purity  and  clearness,'' 

He  strives  to  influence  public  opinion 
by  speaking  with  exultation  of  the  R.V. 
as  being  used  in  Canterbury  Cathedral, 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  17 

and  in  Westminster  Abbey ;  but  those 
persons  who  can  *'read  between  the 
lines,"  know  all  about  that. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  the  Canterhury 
Convocation  which  was  the  parent  of  the 
Revision ;  therefore,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  Canterbury  should  foster  her  own 
child.  Indeed,  it  would  be  strange  if 
she  did  not. 

As  for  Westminster  Abbey,  the  copy 
of  the  R  V.  which  is  there,  was  presented 
to  the  Dean  and  Chapter  by  the  Members 
of  Parliament  for  the  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge Universities  ;  and  those  Universities 
own  the  Copyright  of  the  R.  V.  Hence 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear  on  the 
four  Members  of  Parliament  represent- 
ing those  Universities. 

So  the  Reader  will  see  that,  notwith- 
standing the  Right  Reverend  Bishop's 
exultation  over  the  fact,  there  is  abso- 
lutely nothing  extraordinary  in  it ;  and 
he  ought  to  have  related  to  the  public 
not  merely  the  aforesaid  bare  facts,  but 
also     the    attendant    circumstances    ex- 


18  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

planatory  of  those  facts.  Moreover,  the 
Dean  of  Canterbury,  and  the  Dean  of 
Westminster,  for  the  time-being,  were 
Members  of  the  Revision  Committee. 

But,  brighter  days  are  coming;  not- 
withstanding that  every  ''Original"  of 
the  sixty-six  books  constituting  the  Bible 
has  perished.  For  ages  it  has  been  the 
ceaseless  endeavour  of  students  to  be  able 
to  produce  a  faithful  transcript  of  the 
lost  Originals,  by  gathering,  from  ancient 
MSS.  all  attainable  evidence  respecting 
the  Sacred  Scriptures ;  and  thereby  be 
in  a  position  to  restore  to  the  world  the 
words  which  holy  men  of  old  wrote 
under  the  inspiration  of  The  Spirit  of 
God. 

The  Textus  Receptus  on  which  the 
A.V.  of  1611  was  based  was  formed  by 
Stephanus  from  the  compilations  of 
Erasmus,  Zimenes,  and  the  Codex  Bezae. 
Since  that  time  many  ancient  MSS. 
have  come  to  light;  the  most  important 
being  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  of  the  fourth 
Century,    a.d.     Of   these,    the    Revisers 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  19 

have  availed  themselves ;  but  their  work 
is  not  a  New  Translation ;  it  is,  as  they 
themselves  tell  us  in  their  Preface,  a 
revision  of  the  A.V.  of  1611.  '^t  did 
not  fall  within  their  province  to  con- 
struct a  continuous  and  complete  Greek 
text." 

However,  that  matter  is  about  to  be 
taken  up  by  The  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  which  will  shortly  issue 
a  New  Greek  Testament  that  has  been 
prepared  by  Dr  Eb.  Nestle  for  The 
Wlirttemberg  Bible  Society  of  Stuttgart ; 
of  which  edition  40,000  copies  have  been 
sold  in  the  short  space  of  three  and  a  half 
years.  With  the  cordial  approval  of 
the  Wurttemberg  Bible  Society,  Dr 
Nestle  has  undertaken  to  prepare  a 
fourth  edition  of  his  text,  for  the  afore- 
said Society  and  for  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society.  The  text,  which 
exhibits  the  combined  labours  of  the 
best  and  most  recent  scholars,  is  based  on 
the  texts  of  Tischendorf,  Westcott-Hort, 
Bernhard  Weiss,  and  Dr  Weymouth. 


20  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Therefore,  all  that  is  now  needed,  is 
an  accurate  translation  of  it  into  the 
purest  English,  on  the  basis  of  the 
language  of  the  A.V. ;  but  freed  from 
its  archaisms  and  errors  of  grammar. 

Messrs  Bagster  &  Sons'  Tentative 
Edition  of  the  ''Revised  English"  New 
Testament,  preparatory  to  the  issue  of 
the  whole  Bible,  is  an  earnest  of  the 
accomplishment  of  that  end ;  and  all 
Greek  students  of  The  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society's  New  Greek 
Testament  are  invited  to  assist  in  per- 
fecting the  English  work  by  their 
valuable  suggestions. 

What  the  world  wants  is  not  an  ex- 
tended circulation  of  the  R.V.,  but 
a  version  which  shall  give  us 

THE   PURE   WORD    OF   GOD    IN   THE 
PUREST   ENGLISH  ; 

because,  as  Samuel  Lloyd,  Esq.,  one 
of  the  Life  Governors  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  has  most 
felicitously   said,   in    a    published   letter 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  21 

to  the  Secretary  of  that  Society, — ''It 
is  indisputable  that  the  utterances  which 
sink  most  deeply  into  our  hearts,  and 
of  which  our  memories  retain  the  firmest 
hold,  are  {cwteris  paribus)  those  which 
are  most  rhythmically  expressed.  And 
what  are  the  utterances  which  should, 
above  all  others,  be  remembered?  Un- 
questionably the  Divine  truths  of  the 
Bible.  All  infelicities  of  expression,  and 
all  offences  against  the  laws  of  the 
language  should  therefore  be  expunged 
from  our  translation  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  The  Society's  acceptance 
and  publication  of  such  a  version  would 
be  a  noble  memorial  of  the  Society's 
devotion  to  the  eternal  cause  of  Truth." 


CHAPTER  III 

I  NOW  proceed  to  establish  the  justness 
of  the  charges  which  I  bring  against  the 
Revisers'  work;  and  I  do  so  by  giving 
chapter  and  verse  for  every  passage  on 
which  those  charges  severally  are  based, 
together  with  criticisms  thereon. 

It  is  a  source  of  great  sorrow  to  me 
that  I  have  to  make  the  exposure ;  and 
I  assure  my  readers  that  I  do  so  with 
no  ill-feeling  towards  the  Revisers  them- 
selves ;  but  solely  from  a  profound  sense 
of  duty  to  God  and  loyalty  to  His  Truth. 

The  charges  which  I  bring  against  the 
work  of  the  Revisers  are  that,  owing  to 
their  ignorance  of  their  own  mother 
tongue,  combined  with  their  culpable 
negligence  in  the  construction  of  their 
sentences,  the  R.V.  contains  passages  of 
blasphemy  against  God,  besides  passages 

22 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  23 

of  revolting  obscenities !  And  I  say 
fearlessly,  that  among  all  examples  of  the 
evils  which  result  from  unintentional 
errors  in  language  on  the  part  of  learned 
men,  there  cannot  exist  any  so  awful  as 
are  those  which  are  found  in  the  RV.  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures. 


Blasphemy 

To  bring,  against  the  Revised  Version  of 
the  Bible,  the  awful  charge  of  blasphemy, 
is  indeed  to  throw  into  the  ecclesiastical 
world  a  fulminating  bomb,  the  detona- 
tion of  which  will  probably  reverberate 
throughout  Christendom. 

Some  of  the  timid  Uzzahs  will  quake 
with  fear  for  the  safety  of  the  Ark  of 
God,   because   of  the   stumbling   of  the  2  sam.  vi. 
oxen.     I  am  sorry  for  the  timid  ones. 

Others,  principally  clerics,  will  anathe- 
matize me  for  my  work.  I  care  nothing 
for  their  curses  ;  their  impotency  is  as 
well  known  as  is  the  fact  that  ''curses, 


24  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

like  birds  of  evil  omen,  return  home  to 
roost." 

But,  some  earnest  seekers  after  Truth 
will,  I  hope,  feel  grateful  for  my  labours ; 
and,  haply,  will  join  me  in  my  endeavours 
to  free  the  Sacred  Scriptures  from  the 
errors  which  give  rise  to  the  scoffings  of 
infidels.  What  nobler  object  in  life  can 
there  be  than  that  of  doing  battle  for  the 
Truth  ? 

Does  any  person  think  me  irreverent 
because  I  have  dared  to  attack  falsehood 
in  its  stronghold?  For,  that  the  Bible 
has  become  the  stronghold  of  falsehood, 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  whenever  a 
falsehood,  no  matter  how  egregious,  gets 
into  the  Bible,  the  sanctity  of  the  Book 
attaches  to  the  falsehood,  and  renders  its 
eradication  almost  an  impossibility;  e.g. 

2Chron.xxi.  iu  thc  A.V.  lu  2  Chron.  xxi.  20,  and  xxii. 

^  ,am  xxii.  2^  ^^  vedidi  that  a  man  was  born  two  years 
before  his  father!  And,  palpable  false- 
hood as  this  is,  the  Revisers  have  not 
dared  to  expunge  it ;  though,  of  course, 
it  is  only  a  clerical  error  by  some  scribe 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  25 

writing   centuries   ago ;    and,  of  course, 
forms  no  part  of  the  Truth  of  God. 

As  to  whether  praise  or  blame  will  be 
awarded  me  for  drawing  attention  to 
passages  so  awful,  is  to  me  a  matter  of 
indifference.  I  can  truthfully  say  that  I 
have  the  testimony  of  a  good  conscience, 
that  I  have  fearlessly,  but  with  reverence, 
endeavoured  to  do  my  duty  in  eradicating 
the  evil  from  the  good,  the  false  from  the 
true,  and  I  leave  the  result  with  God. 

No  !  I  am  not  irreverent.  Irreverence 
in  this  matter  consists  in  leaving  untruths 
to  fester  in  the  Bible,  and  contaminate 
by  their  presence  the  truth  of  The  Most 
High. 

For  centuries  this  has  been  going  on ; 
and,  through  all  those  years,  the  blas- 
phemies have  been  doing  their  evil  work ; 
and  the  Revisers  have  left  the  passages 
as  they  found  them,  thus  condoning  their 
predecessors'  shameful  errors ;  and  no 
man,  up  to  the  present  time,  has  been 
bold  enough  to  denounce  the  blasphemy, 
which   in   its   incipiency,  its   progressive 


26  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

development,  and  its  awful  climax,  appears 
like  a  deliberate  and  intentional  insult  to 
God. 

The  sequence  of  the  blasphemous  texts 
is  most  remarkable.  They  occur  in  this 
order : — 

John  i.  6.  1.  God  is  spoken  of  as  if  he  were  a 
human  being,  with  a  Christian  name. 

johnxix.        2.  God  is,  by  implication,  charged  by 

^^'  "•        Jesus  Christ  with  having  sinned. 

Acts  xii.         3.  God  is  s^id  to  have  died  a  loathsome 

^^'^^'        and  horrible  death. 

Rev.  xiv.  10.  4.  God  is  said  to  have  been  consigned 
to  Hell ! 

This  seems  incredible ;  but  it  is  an 
awful  fact ;  and  I  will  give  chapters  and 
verses  for  it,  and  more  besides ;  for,  the 
R.V.  out-Herods  Herod  in  its  atrocities, 
and  goes  beyond  even  the  A.V.,  and 
actually  advocates  incest,  and  con- 
icor.vii.86.  dones  it;  saying  that  it  is  not  sin,  etc. 
etc.  etc.  And  as  for  the  most  de- 
grading obscenities  which  it  is  possible 
to   conceive,   they  are   disgracefully  pal- 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH           27  ' 

liated    by    being    euphemistically   called 

''errors''!                                                     ^^;-  \ 

1. — First  we    read    in    John    i.    6, —  John  i.e.  "^ 

''There   came   a    man,    sent   from   God,  ] 

whose  name  was  John."     Now,  as,  in  the  i 

English   language,   pronouns   are   under-  ] 

stood  to  refer  to  the  nouns  nearest  to  \ 

them  of  the  same  number  and  person,  the  j 

pronoun  "  whose,''  in  the  foregoing  passage  i 

clearly  refers   to  ''God."     The  sentence  ! 

speaks  of  "God,  whose  name  2vas  John.''  \ 

The  Revisers  should  have  corrected  the  '{ 

error  thus  : — "  There  was  sent  from  God,  1 

a  man  whose  name  tvas  John,''  ] 

2. — Next,  in  John  xix.  10,  11,  we  read  johnxix.  j 

as  follows  : — Pilate  said,  "Knowest  thou  ^  '^^'  I 

not  that  I  have  power  to   release  thee,  j 

and  have  power  to  crucify  thee  ?     Jesus  1 
answered   him,  Thou  wouldest  have  no 

power  against  me,  except  it  were  given  ; 

thee    from    above :    therefore,    he    that  ] 

delivered    me    unto    thee    hath    greater  j 

sin."       Now,    remembering    that    Jesus  ^ 

was    ''delivered    up    by    the    determin-  \ 

ate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,"  Acts  u.  28.  '\ 


28  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

the  passage  in  John  really  represents 
Jesus  as  charging  God  with  sin !  And 
the  Revisers  have  made  the  charge  the 
more  emphatic  by  the  word  "  there- 
fore,''  which  connects  it  with  the  preced- 
ing statement  respecting  God  as  being 
the  Supreme  Ruler.  This  blasphemy 
would  have  been  avoided  had  the  Revisers 
said,  not,  "He  that  delivered  me  unto  thee 
hath  greater  sin  " ;  but,  "  The  man  who 
delivered  me  unto  thee  hath  greater  sin." 

3. — The  third  blasphemous  passage 
occurs  in  Acts  xii.  21-23,  and  reads  as 
follows  : — "  And  upon  a  set  day  Herod 
arrayed  himself  in  royal  apparel,  and  sat 
on  the  throne,  and  made  an  oration  unto 
them.  And  the  people  shouted,  saying, 
The  voice  of  a  god,  and  not  of  a  man.' 
And  immediately  an  angel  of  the  Lord 
smote  him  because  he  gave  not  God  the 
glory :  and  he  was  eaten  of  worms,  and 
gave  up  the  ghost." 

Here  again,  through  the  erroneous  use 
of  a  pronoun,  a  blasphemous  meaning  is 
given  to  a  passage  of  Sacred  Writ.     It 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  29 

says,  ''He  gave  not  God  the  glory,  and 
he  [i.e.,  God]  was  eaten  of  worms,  and 
gave  up  the  ghost "  I 

Lastly,  I  have  said  that  the  awful 
errors  in  the  Revised  Version  are  mainly 
due  to  the  Revisers'  ignorance  of  English. 
Look  at  their  blasphemous  treatment  of 
Rev.  xiv.  10.  There,  by  inserting,  after  Rev.  xiv.  lo. 
the  word  ''God,"  the  pronoun, "  A^,"  instead 
of  repeating  the  noun  which  governs 
the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  they 
have  made  the  pronoun  apply  to  God  ; 
who,  it  says,  "shall  be  tormented  with 
fire  and  brimstone  in  the  presence  of 
the  holy  angels " ;  for,  as  I  have  just 
said,  and  as  every  schoolboy  is  taught, 
"a  pronoun  is  understood  to  refer  to 
the  last  preceding  noun  of  the  same 
number  and  person " ;  therefore,  as  the 
last  preceding  noun  in  the  passage  is 
"God,"  the  pronoun  refers  to  Him.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  sentence,  the  pro- 
noun ''their''  intensifies  the  blasphemy. 

The  passage  is  as  follows  : — "  He  also 
shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of 


30  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

God,  which  is  prepared  unmixed  in  the 
cup  of  his  anger ;  and  he  [i.e.  God]  shall 
be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in 
the  presence  of  the  holy  angels,  and  in 
the  presence  of  the  Lamb :  and  the 
smoke  of  their  torment  goeth  up  for 
ever  and  ever":  i.e.,  the  smoke  of  the 
torment  of  God,  and  of  the  holy  angels 
and  of  the  Lamb !  There  is  not,  in  the 
passage,  any  preceding  plural  to  which 
the  pronoun  "their''  can  apply. 

Again,    1    John   iv.    21.  — "  And    this 

commandment  have  we  from  him,  that 

ijohiiiv.2i.  he  who  loveth  God  love  his  brother  also." 

Here  we  have  the  statement  that  God 
has  a  brother !  and  that  our  duty  is 
that  ''he  who  loveth  God,  love  God's 
brother  also."  That  is  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  passage ;  and  had  the  Revisers 
intended  to  express  that  meaning  with 
the  utmost  clearness,  they  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  expressed  it  in  more  unmis- 
takable language. 

This  is  another  instance  of  error 
arising  from  the  misplacement  of  a  pro- 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  31 

noun.  When  the  Revisers  saw  that  the 
word  "his,''  by  immediately  following 
the  word  '^God/'  gave  a  false  meaning 
to  the  sentence,  they  should  have  re- 
constructed it.  It  might,  with  perfect 
propriety,  have  been  done  thus: — "And 
we  have  this  commandment  from  Him, — 
that  those  who  love  God  should  love  each 
other  also.'' 

It  may  be  said  that  the  errors  occur 
in  the  A.V.  Well,  what  of  that?  The 
duty  of  the  Revisers  was  to  revises  and, 
of  all  passages  in  the  Scriptures,  the  one 
in  Rev.  xiv.  10,  was  the  one  most  in  i^^^'^^^-i'^- 
need  of  revision ;  and  the  Revisers,  by 
leaving  it  as  it  is,  have  perpetuated  the 
error. 

They  boast  in  their  Preface  thus  : — 
''As  to  pronouns  and  the  place  they 
occupy  in  the  sentence,  a  subject  often 
overlooked  by  our  predecessors,  we  have 
been  particularly  careful."  This  back- 
handed slap  in  the  face  which  the  Revisers 
give  their  predecessors  comes,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  with  very  bad  grace  from  the 


32  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

Revisers,  whose  own  errors  in  grammar 
are  so  egregious. 

And  this,  with  more  like  it,  is  what 
Bishop  Thornton  calls  ''Light  in  all  its 
purity  and  clearness,''  If  there  is  any 
light  at  all  from  this  dark  portion  of 
the  Apocalyptic  vision,  it  is  from  the 
lurid  flame  which  arises  from  the  Jire 
and  brimstone  of  which  the  Kevisers 
speak  so  blasphemously. 

Other  Unpardonable  Errors  in  the 
Revised  Version 

The  last  instance  of  verbal  error  re- 
sulting in  blasphemy  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  occasioned  by  the  insertion  of  a 
pronoun.  We  have  now  to  consider  an 
error  occasioned  by  the  insertion  of  a 
noun. 

In  the  former  instance,  the  Revisers' 
error  was  attempted  to  be  condoned  by 
calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
error  existed  in  the  A.V.  In  this  in- 
stance,   no   such    excuse   can   be   made ; 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  33 

for,  the  offending  noun  is  not  in  either 
the  A.V.  or  in  the  Greek.  The  blame 
of  its  insertion  therefore  rests  wholly 
with  the  Revisers.  Palmam  qui  meruit 
ferat 

The  offending  passage  is  in  the  Revised 
Version  of  1  Cor.  vii.  36;  and  is  as  icor.vii.se. 
follows  : — ''  If  any  man  thinketh  that  he 
behaveth  himself  unseemly  toward  his 
virgin  daughter,  if  she  be  past  the  flower 
of  her  age,  and  if  need  so  requireth,  let 
him  do  what  he  will;  he  sinneth  not; 
let  them  marry." 

The  only  persons  mentioned  being 
father  and  daughter,  to  whom  else  can 
the  pronoun  "them''  refer?  ''Let  them 
marry."  And  the  words,  ''Let  him  do 
what  he  tvill;  he  sinneth  not,''  make  it 
appear  as  if  the  crime  of  incest  were 
actually  contemplated ! 

As  has  been  said  ;  for  the  mistranslation 
in  this  passage,  the  Revisers  alone  are  to 
be  censured  ;  seeing  that  it  was  they  who 
gratuitously  inserted  the  word  "  daughter,'' 
which  is  not  in  either  the  A.V.  or  in  the 


12. 


34  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Greek ;  and  without  it,  the  passage  might 
have  had  reference  to  a  guardian  and  his 
ward ;  between  whom  marriage  would  be 
legitimate. 

What  could  have  induced  the  Revisers 

to  perpetrate  such  an  atrocity,  and  Bishop 

Thornton  to  characterize  their  work  as, 

'^  light  ifi  all  its  purity  and  clearness  "  ! 

What  are  we  to  think  of  the  Revisers' 

1.  Tim.  iii.  2.  treatment  of  1   Tim.  iii.  2,  and,  in  con- 

LTiin.iii.    nection  with  it,  of  1   Tim.  iii.  12?      In 

the  former,  they  deviate  from  the  Greek 

by  inserting    the    definite   article    "the'' 

before  "husband,''  and  so  save  the  passage 

from  inculcating  whoredom  upon  Bishops ; 

but,  in  the  latter,  which  refers  to  Deacons, 

no  such  alteration  has  been  made. 

The  passage  referring  to  Bishops,  if 
translated  literally,  would  be,  "  The  bishop 
must  be  ...  ^  husband  of  one  wife." 
''Such  a  rendering,  however,  would  pre- 
sent unutterable  horrors  to  the  episcopal 
mind;  for,  while  forbidding  the  bishop 
to  indulge  in  polygamy,  it  would  give, 
or  seem  to  give,  Scripture  sanction  for 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  35 

his  wife's  luxuriating  in  the  barbaric 
dignity  of  polyandrism  [alias  'whore- 
dom '].  Therefore,  for  the  Bishop's  sake, 
the  so-called  'Revisers'  did  not  revise 
the  passage,  but  continued  to  make  the 
rules  of  grammar  succumb  to  the  dictates 
of  sober  theology."  "^ 

But  why  had  the  Revisers  such  respect 
for  the  sensibilities  of  Bishops,  and  none 
whatever  for  the  feelings  of  Deacons  ? 
In  verse  12  of  the  same  chapter  we  iTiDi.iii.12 
read,  "  Let  deacons  be  husbands  of  one 
wife."  It  does  not  say  (though  doubt- 
less Paul  meant  it,  and  the  Revisers 
ought  to  have  put  it  so),  ''  Let  each 
deacon  be  the  husband  of  one  wife." 
No !  virtually  the  Revisers  say  that  the 
''one  wife"  is  to  be  the  common  pro- 
perty of  '^deacons'';  they  are  to  be  her 
''husbands^'  and  she  their  prostitute! 

Is  this  what  Bishop  Thornton  calls, 
^' Light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness''"^. 
By  no  possible   stretch    of   imagination 

"^  See  "  The  Bibles  of  England,"  by  Andrew  Edgar, 
D.D.,  London,  1899,  p.  355. 


36  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

can  the  passages  be  conceived  to  be 
that.  The  two  redundant  s's  much  more 
resemble  what  we  can  imagine  to  be 
the  exulting  sibilant  hissing  of  the  Prince 
of  Darkness,  at  the  Revisers'  having 
brought  ridicule  on  the  Scriptures. 

In  olden  times  bigamy  was  permissible, 
but  the  promise  of  a  hundred  wives  to 
one  man  was  a  promise  with  which  the 
Revisers  did  not  know  what  to  do ;  and 
would  have  been  glad  to  get  rid  of  it, 
if  they  could;  but  that  was  impossible. 
Litera  scinpta  manet 
Matt.xix.  In  the  A.V.  of  Matt.  xix.  29,  we 
read,  **  Every  one  that  hath  forsaken 
houses,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father, 
or  mother,  or  wife,  or  children,  or  lands, 
for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  an 
hundredfold,  and  shall  inherit  everlast- 
ing life." 

The  same  passage,  with   some   varia- 

Markx.  29.  tlous,  occurs  iu  Mark  x.  29,  and  in  Luke 

Luke  xviii.  xviii.  29 ;  but,  in  all  three  gospels  there 

are  the  words,  "or  wife''    However,  the 

Revisers  have  struck   out   those  words 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  37 

in  Matthew,  and  also  in  Mark,  on  the  ^^*^- ^^'^• 
ground    that    in    the    Codex     Vaticanus,  Mark  x.  29. 
though   not  in  the   Codex  AlexandrinuSy 
or    in    the    Codex    Smaiticus,    they   are 
missing    from    Matthew;     and     in     the 
Codex     Sinaiticus,    and     in     the    Codex 
VaticanuSy   but  not  in  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus,  they  are   missing  from  Mark. 
While,  in  all  three  of  these  ancient  MSS. 
the    words    occur     in    Luke;     and    the  ^^^j^^^^*"- 
Revisers  admit,   in  a  foot-note  to   the 
passage    in    Matthew,    that    they   occur  ^J^^^ 
also  in  "many  ancient  autho7nties,'' 

Why,  then,  have  the  Revisers  struck 
out  the  words,  seeing  that  the  majority 
of  ancient  MSS.  favour  their  insertion, 
and  that  Rule  IV.  of  the  Committee  of 
Convocation  is,  ''That  the  Text  to  be 
adopted  be  that  for  which  the  evidence 
is  decidedly  preponderating ''  ? 

I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  words 
"  or  wife,''  were  struck  out  by  the  Revisers 
because  they  dreaded  to  face  the  very 
questionable  blessedness  of  being  repaid 
a    hundredfold     if    they    forsook     their 


.  XIX. 

29. 


38  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

wives,  i.e.  of  having  a  hundred  tvives 
each!  They  would  then  be  in  a  sad 
plight;  but  one  not  so  bad  as  the  poor 
deacons,  who,  according  to  the  Revisers' 
incorrect  and  immoral  language,  had  to 
share  one  wife  between  them ! 


CHAPTER  IV 

MISCELLANEOUS 

The  Revisers  have  some  astounding  ideas. 
Here  is  a  physiological  impossibility. 
The  Revisers  say  that  Eve  bore  Cain  s 
brother,  Abel,  twice ;  for,  in  Gen.  iv.  2,  Gen.  iv.  2. 
v^e  read, ''  And  again  she  bare  his  brother 
Abel."  A  similar  error,  with  regard  to 
the  word  ^' again,''  occurs  in  Acts  x.  15.  Acts  x.  15. 
"  A  voice  came  unto  him  again  the  second 
time.''  How  can  there  be  tivo  second 
times?     See  also  John  iv.  54.  John  iv.  54. 

Even  where  the  A.V.  was  right,  in 
such  like  matters,  the  Revisers  pervert 
the  truth.  In  Gal.  iv.  30,  the  A.V.  Gai.iv.ao. 
speaks  of  a  '' bondwoman  and  her  son," 
This  the  Revisers  have  altered  to  a 
^'hdia&maid  and  her  son."  As  if  a  maid 
could  have  a  son ! 


40  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

Here  is  another  similarly  mysterious 
affair :  Bilhah  and  Zilpah  were  still 
maids,  though  they  had  each  borne  Jacob 
two  sons ;  at  least,  so  the  learned  Re- 
visers say.  But  the  A.V.  does  not  say 
Gen.xxxii.   SO  lu  Gcu.  xxxll.  22.     There  it  is  "^vomen 

22 

servants^ 

Thus,  according  to  the  Revisers,  the 
prophecy  that,  ^'a  virgin  shall  conceive, 
isa.  Yii.14.  and  bear  a  son,"  was  not  a  prediction 
of  an  event  which  was  at  all  un- 
common. Evidently  there  were  more 
than  one  '^miraculous  conception,"  ac- 
cording to  the  Revisers'  teaching.  But 
if  they  had  had  the  slightest  acquaint- 
ance with  obstetrics  and  the  cognate 
sciences,  I  cannot  think  that  they  would 
have  been  so  foolishly  credulous,  and 
naively  have  expected  to  impart  their 
credulity  to  others.  The  primary  mean- 
ing which  is  the  basis  of  the  word 
"maidj'  is  ''youth,  freshness,  virginity''-, 
and  that  idea  so  dominates  all  others  in 
connection  with  it,  that  even  sex  is  sub- 
servient to  it ;  for,  the  word  is  allied  to 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  41 

the  Gothic  '^  magus,"  a  boy  \  and  to  the 
Gaelic  ^'mac,"  a  son.  But  the  prevailing 
meaning  is  ''a  virgin^ 

Here  is  a  filthy  simile: — "He  hath 
swallowed  down  riches,  and  he  shall 
vomit  them  up  again.''  Surely,  before  Job. xx.  15. 
anything  can  be  vomited  up  again, — I 
will  say  no  more  about  it,  only  that  the 
Hebrew  does  not  convey  the  filthy  idea 
suggested  by  the  Revisers'  language. 

And  why  have  the  Revisers  spoken  of 
a  woman's  ''  latter  end''  ?  "  Her  filthiness 
was  in  her  skirts ;  she  remembered  not 
her  latter  end. "  Lam.  i.  9. 

When  the  imagination  is  allowed  to 
^'run  riot"  through  the  realms  of  Nature, 
what  wonders  may  we  not  behold  !  The 
investigation  of  the  Revisers'  language  is 
certainly  fraught  with  much  interest; 
and  the  careful  student  will  meet  with 
many  surprises ;  as,  for  instance,  when 
he  reads,  in  Gen.  iv.  12,  that  the  earth  cen.  h.  12. 
is  both  neuter  and  feminine.  But  the 
most  astounding  surprise  will  be  that 
which   he  will   experience   when   he   re- 


42  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

Hab.  iii.  10;  gards  collectively  Hab.  iii.  10  ;  Ezek.  xxxi. 

Ezek.  xxxi.     ~i  i     -r»  t  rt 

4;  Rev.  XX.  4;  and  Kev.  xx.  13. 

Talk  of  the  Greek  myth  of  Herma- 
phroditos !  That  was  nothing,  to  the 
marvellous  creation  of  the  brains  of  the 
Revisers  respecting  the  '^  vasty  deep/' 
They  tell  us  that  the  sea  is  at  once 
masculine,  feminine,  and  neuter! 

No  wonder  that  such  mysteries  elicit 
the  unbounded  admiration  of  the  Bishop  ; 
but  are  they  emanations  of  '^  light  in  all 
its  purity  and  clearness  "  ? 

Some  of  the  Revisers'  translations  are 

Actsxxvi.  very  droll:  e.g.  in  Acts  xxvi.  16,  we 
read,  "Arise,  and  stand  upon  thy  feet." 
Why  ''upon  thy  feet''  ?  Did  the  Revisers 
think  that  Christ's  appearing  to  Paul 
would  so  delight  him,  that,  in  his  de- 
lirious joy,  he  might  probably  stand  upon 
his  head  ? 

Heb.x.  13.  In  Heb.  x.  13,  and  Luke  xx.  43,  the 
Revisers  speak  of  "  the  footstool  of  his 
feet''  How  could  there  be  a  footstool 
of  any  other  part  of  the  body?  What 
nonsense ! 


Luke  XX.  43. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  43 

In  Luke  viii.  23,  we  read,  "  As  they  Lukeviii.23. 
sailed,  he  fell  asleep :  and  there  came 
down  a  storm  of  wind  on  the  lake ;  and 
thei/  were  filling  with  water,  and  were  in 
jeopardy."  The  words  "with  water,''  are 
not  in  the  Greek ;  and  possibly  the 
Revisers  conceived  that  it  might  be 
thought  that  the  sailors  were  ''filling'' 
with  something  stronger  than  water,  and 
therefore  it  was  desirable  to  guard  against 
such  a  misconception;  so  they  inserted 
the  words,  ^'ivith  water." 

Luke  viii.  32. — "  Now  there  was  there  a  Luke  viii.s2. 
herd  of  manj/  swine  feeding  on  the  moun- 
tain :  and  they  intreated  him  that  he 
would  give  them  leave  to  enter  into  them," 
What*  a  book  of  wonders  the  Revisers 
have  made  of  the  New  Testament !  We 
are  accustomed  to  read  of  pigs  squeaking; 
but  here  we  read  of  their  speaking  (a 
mere  matter  of  p's  and  qs).  However, 
that  is  not  all :  the  Revisers  (what  a 
misnomer !)  say  that  the  pigs  asked 
Jesus  Christ  that  they  might  enter 
the  devils !   whereas  it  was   the  devils 


44  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

who  asked  that  they  might  enter  the 
swine. 

isa. xiiii.  13.  Isa.  xliii.  13. — ''I  am  he;  and  there  is 
none  that  can  dehver  out  of  my  hand  :  I 
will  work,  and  who  shall  let  it  ? "  By  one 
of  the  strange  mutations  of  language,  the 
word  ''lety'  which  originally  meant  to 
''hinder,''  now  means  to  ''allow'':  con- 
sequently the  above  passage  in  the  RV. 
asks  a  question  which  is  the  exact  opposite 
of  that  which  was  intended  :  and  yet,  with 
the  Revisers'  usual  inconsistency,  they  have 

2Thess.ii.7.  altered  the  word  in  2  Thess.  ii.  7. 

psa.iix.  10.  Psa.  lix.  10. — ''The  God  of  my  mercy 
shall  preve7it  me."  Here  is  another  word 
which,  like  "  let"  has  changed  its  meaning. 
It  is  derived  from  the  Latin,  ''-  jprcevenio" 
to  come  before,  with  the  object  of  assist- 
ing] that  was  its  original  meaning;  but 
it  now  means,  to  come  before  with  the 
object  of  frustrating.  Hence  its  objec- 
tionableness  in  the  above  passage ;  as  the 
Revisers  ought  to  have  known.  Perhaps, 
being  mostly  clergymen  of  the  Church  of 
England,  they  were  accustomed  to   the 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  45 

antiquatedness  of  the  word's  signification, 
through  having  to  say,  in  one  of  the 
collects,  "  Pr event  us,  O  Lord,  in  all  our 
doings '' :  a  prayer  which  I,  when  a  boy, 
and  knowing  only  the  modern  meaning  of 
the  word,  ''prevent'^''  would  never  say. 

Matt.  ix.  2. — ''They  brought  to  him  Matt. ix. 2. 
a  man  sick  of  the  palsy."  No  doubt  the 
man  was  sick  of  it ;  but  the  Revisers 
instead  of  employing  an  expression  which 
partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  pun,  should 
have  said,  ''sick  with  the  palsy." 

In    the    next  verse,   we   read,    "  And  Matt.  ix.  3. 
behold,  certain  of  the  scribes  said  within 
themselves."     In  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  and  xvii.  5,  ^^^^f^"^-^' ' 
we  are  called  upon  to   behold  a  voice  \ 
here  we    are    called  upon    to   behold  a 
thought!    How  can  we  "behold''  either? 

Matt.  xii.  22. — "The  blind  and  dumb  Matt. xn. 
.  .  .  spake  and  saw ;  and  all  the  multi-  ^^' 
tude  were  amazed."  And  well  they 
might  be ;  for,  the  Eevisers'  sequence  of 
events  implies  that  the  blind  man  spoke 
with  his  eyes,  and  saw  with  his  mouth ! 
In  a  narrative,  events  should  follow  their 


23. 


46  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

natural  sequence :  the  Revisers  should 
have  said,  ''The  blind  and  dumb  saw 
and  spoke''  \  not  ''spake  and  saivT 

Here  is  a  passage  which,  owing  to 
the  Revisers'  ignorance  of  the  right  use 
of  '' shalV  and  '' ivill^'  really  points  to 
premeditated,  compulsory  murder !     It  is 

Matt.xvii.  in  Matt.  xvii.  23,  ''They  shall  kill  him." 
Doubtless  that  which  Jesus  said,  was, 
"  They  ivill  kill  him."  It  was  a  grievous 
prophecy,  not  a  threat,  as  the  Revisers' 
language  makes  it  appear  to  be. 

Matt.x.  See  also  Matt.  x.  21. — "  Brother  ^A^// 
deliver  up  brother  to  death,  and  the 
father  his  child  :  and  children  shall  rise 
up  against  parents,  and  cause  them  to 
be  put  to  death."  The  word  ''shall,''  in 
this  passage,  makes  it  a  decree  ordain- 
ing these  horrors.  The  Revisers  should 
have  said  "tvill,''  not  "  shalV  \  it  was  a 
prediction,  not  a  decree. 

Matt.xix.  Matt.  xix.  13. — "Then  were  there 
brought  unto  him  little  children,  that 
he  should  lay  his  hands  on  them  and 
pray :   and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.'' 


21 


13. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  47 

Poor  little  dears  !  Why  did  the  disciples 
rebuke  "  them  "  ?  or,  is  it  that  the  Revisers 
are  again  at  fault  ?     Oh  !  these  pronouns. 

Matt.  XX.  34.  —  *'And  Jesus,  being  Matt.  xx. 
moved  with  compassion,  touched  their 
eyes :  and  straightway  they  received  their 
sight,  and  followed  him."  Very  natural 
for  the  eyes  of  the  blind  men  to  follow 
Jesus ;  but  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  that  the  men  followed  him? 

What  wonderful  doves  those  must  have 
been  which  were  offered  for  sale  in  the 
Temple  in  Jerusalem.  The  Revisers  tell 
us,  in  Matt.  xxi.  12,  that  Jesus  over- Matt.  xxi. 
threw  '^  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  doves,  ^^^' 
and  he  saith  unto  them,  It  is  written. 
My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of 
prayer :  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of 
robbers."  Very  naughty  of  the  doves; 
or  else  very  naughty  of  the  Revisers  not 
to  have  been  ^'particularly  careful  as  to 
the  pronouns r 

It  is  said  that  ''variety  is  charming," 
the  Revisers  seem  to  think  so  with  regard  * 
to  words.     Hence,  in  Matt.  xxii.  26,  we^**^""* 


48  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

are  told  that  the  man  "deceased''  \  and, 
in  verse  27  of  the  same  chapter,  that 
the  woman  ''died,'' 

I  have  given  some  examples  of  the 
awful  immorality  of  the  Revisers'  work, 
now,  for  a  change,  let  us  look  at  some 
instances  in  which  the  Revisers'  ignorance 
of  English  has  made  them  (unwittingly, 
I  admit)  turn  sacred  history  into  pro- 
fanity, and  certain  teachings  of  Christ 
into  that  which  is  simply  drollery. 

A  critic  in  the  last  century  once  said, 
''When  I  see  a  writer  careless  of  his 
pronouns,  I  tremble  for  him/'  The 
Revisers,  however,  were  not  troubled 
with  fears  for  themselves.  Indeed,  their 
self-confidence  is  rather  amusing,  as  we 
shall  see. 

We  will  take  the  first  six  chapters  of 
Mark,  and  from  them  will  cull  a  few 
examples  of  the  Revisers'  boastful 
"particular  carefulness"  as  to  pronouns. 
Mark  i.  13.  Ju  Mark  i.  13,  we  read  in  the  R.V., 
''He  was  in  the  wilderness  forty  days 
tempted  of  Satan  \  and  he  was  with  the 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  49 

wild  beasts."  Who  was  ?  Satan  or  Jesus  ? 
As  a  pronoun  is  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  noun  immediately  preceding  it,  the 
natural  inference  is  that  it  was  Satan 
who  was  with  the  wild  beasts.  If  that 
is  not  the  meaning  of  the  sentence,  the 
Revisers  should  have  omitted  the  pro- 
noun ''he!'  The  passage  would  then 
have  read  thus — "He  was  in  the  wilder- 
ness forty  days  tempted  of  Satan,  and 
was  with  the  wild  beasts."  And  that 
is  as  the  passage  stands  in  the  A.V. ; 
for,  the  error  does  not  occur  there. 
This  passage  shows  us  how  little  the 
Revisers'  ''predecessors"  deserved  the 
scornful  treatment  which  they  have  re- 
ceived from  their  successors. 

Mark  iii.  22,  23,  reads  thus, — ''And  Mark m. 22, 
the  scribes  which  came  down  from  ^^' 
Jerusalem,  said,  'He  hath  Beelzebub, 
and.  By  the  prince  of  the  devils  casteth 
he  out  the  devils!  And  he  called 
them  unto  him."  What!  called  "the 
devils''  unto  him?  If  this  is  the  result 
of  the  Revisers'  particular  carefulness  as 

D 


50  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

to  the  pronouns,  what  should  we  have 
had,  if  there  had  been  carelessness  "i 
The  Revisers  could  not  have  done  worse 
than  they  have  done ;  and  they  might, 
perchance,  have  done  better.  Is  this 
"7'evising''  the  Scriptures? 

Mark  V.  16.  Mark  V.  16  gives  us  another  example 
of  the  Revisers'  ''particular  carefulness^ 
There  we  read  of,  ''him  that  was  pos- 
sessed with  devils,  and  concerning  the 
swine.  And  they  began  to  beseech  him 
to  depart/*  This  is  especially  extra- 
ordinary considering  that  the  swine  were 

Mark  V.  13.  dcad !  See  v.  13.  We  may  well  ask 
what  is  the  meaning  of  "  revision,''  seeing 
that  such  passages  as  these  abound  in 
the  R.V.  ? 

Markvi.7,       lu    Mark    vi.    7,    8    another    curious 

^*  incident    is    related.     It    is    this,     "  He 

gave  them  authority  over  the  unclean 
spirits]  and  he  charged  them  that  they 
should  take  nothing  for  their  journey.'' 
What  journey  were  ''the  unclean  spirits'' 
going  to  take  ?  And  why  was  Jesus 
interested  in    their    luggage?      Perhaps 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  51 

the  Bishop  will  tell  us,  as  he  praises 
the  RV.  To  him  it  is  ''light  in  all  its 
purity  and  clearness.'' 

Once   more:    in    Mark    vi.    38,   39   it  Mark  vi. 

38   39 

says,  ''How  many  loaves  have  ye?  go  ' 
and  see.  And  when  they  knew  they 
say  [it  should  be  '  they  said,'  to  agree 
with  'knew,'  which  refers  to  the  past~\ 
Five  and  two  fishes.  And  he  commanded 
them  that  all  should  sit  down."  Fishes 
commanded  to  "sit  down'' \  This  is 
worthy  of  "Alice in  Wonderland,"  Fishes 
sitting  on  their  tails !  One  cannot  help 
smiling;  but  really  it  is  the  Eevisers' 
fault ;  they  should  not  have  written  such 
nonsense,  as  Satan  keeping  company 
with  wild  beasts ;  Jesus  calling  devils 
unto  him;  swine  beseeching  him  to 
depart;  unclean  spirits  instructed  as  to 
what  luggage  they  should  take  on  a 
journey ;  and  fishes  commanded  to  sit 
down !  What  wonder  that  the  word 
of  God  is  described  by  others,  besides 
Greeks,  as  "foolishness"  \  See  1  Cor.  i cor. i, 23 
i.   23,     And   this    is    the    result  of  an 


52  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

examination  of  six  consecutive  chapters 
of  only  one  book  out  of  the  sixty-six 
constituting  the  Bible,  and  concerning 
only  one  class  of  errors ;  moreover,  a 
class  about  which  the  Revisers  boast  of 
having  been  ''particularly  carefuV  ! 

Maikix.  20.  Mark  ix.  20. — ''  They  brought  Mm  unto 
liim :  and  when  lie  saw  Am."  This, 
instead  of  being  ''light  in  all  its  purity 
and  clearness,''  is  certainly  "cery  foggy, 

Mark  ix.  26.  Mark  ix.  26. — "The  more  part  said, 
He  is  dead."  What  language  is  this? 
Undoubtedly  it  is  not  English.  Who, 
except  the  Revisers,  ever  heard  of  "the 
more  parV  of  a  multitude?  The  A.V. 
tells  us  that  "many  said,  He  is  dead." 

Markxiv.  8.  Mark  xiv.  8. — "She  hath  anointed  my 
body  ^forehand  for  the  burying."  Why 
have    the     Revisers    said    "  <^forehand," 

Mark xiii. 23.  here;  and  '"fi^forehand,"  in  verse  23  of 
the  previous  chapter?  But  I  do  not 
expect  an  answer  to  my  question;  for, 
the  Revisers  could  not,  I  am  sure,  give 
a  satisfactory  reason  for  their  vagaries. 

Mark  xiv.  3.     Mark  xiv.  3. — ^'She  brake   the  cruse. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  53 

and  poured  it  over  his  head."  Broken 
pieces  of  alabaster,  even  if  scented  with 
spikenard,  could  not  have  been  very- 
pleasant  on  the  head.  But  probably 
the  Eevisers  meant  the  ointment.  Their 
language  often  says  what  they  do  not 
mean. 

Mark  xiv.  41. — ''Sleep  on  now  and  Mark xtv. 
take  your  rest."  Either  these  words 
were  spoken  sarcastically, — as  a  reproof ; 
or  they  were  spoken  interrogatively,  as  a 
reproof.  They  could  not  have  been 
spoken  in  the  form  of  a  command,  as 
the  Revisers  have  put  them;  for,  im- 
mediately afterwards,  Jesus  said,  ''Arise, 
let  us  be  going."  The  disciples  could 
not  ''sleep  on,''  and  yet  be  ''going''; 
unless  they  were  to  walk  in  their  sleep. 

Mark  xv.  37. — "And  Jesus  uttered  a  Mark  xv.  37. 
loud    voice,   and    gave    up    the    ghost." 
First,  he  did  not  utter  a  voice ;  his  voice 
uttered  a  cry.     Next,  why  have  we  here, 
"  gave  up  the  ghost " ;  and,  in  Matt,  xxvii.  Matt,  xxvii.. 
50,  "yielded  up  his  spirit"  "i     If  a  ghost  ^^' 
is   a  disembodied   spirit,  a  man   cannot  46^'.^® '''''"• 


54  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

''give  up  the  ghost,"  because  it  is  not 
a  ''ghost,"  until  it  has  been  given  up. 

Luke i.  18.  Luke  i.  18.  —  "I  am  an  old  man, 
and  my  wife  well  stricken  in  years." 
When,  in  a  sentence,  the  nominative  to 
the  verb  changes,  in  either  number  or 
person,  the  verb,  also,  must  change.  In 
the  foregoing  sentence,  the  Revisers  say, 
virtually,  "I  am  an  old  man,  and  my  wife 
[am~\  well   stricken   in  years."     See  also 

Rev.x.  1.  Rev.  X.  1.  "His  face  was  as  the  sun, 
and  his  feet  {leas']  as  pillars  of  fire."     So, 

Rev.xiii. 2.  likewise,  in  Rev.  xiii.  2.  "His  feet  ^^r^ 
as  the  feet  of  a  bear,  and  his  mouth  [wei^e] 
as  the  mouth  of  a  lion." 

Lukeii.4.  Luke  ii.  4. — "And  all  went  to  enrol 
themselves,  every  one  to  his  own  city. 
And  Joseph  also  went."  If  "aW  went 
to  enrol  themselves,  '^  every  one  to  his  own 
city,"  how  could  there  be  "  also  "  another  ? 
Really  the  Revisers  had  very  funny  ideas  ! 

Luke  ii.  38.  Luke  ii.  38. — "And  she  gave  thanks 
unto  God,  and  spake  of  him  to  all  them 
that  were  looking  for  the  redemption  of 
Jerusalem."     To  whom  does  the  pronoun 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  55 

*'  him ''  refer ;  to  God,  or  to  the  boy  Jesus  ? 
Oh,  these  pronouns !  How  fortunate  it 
was  that  the  Revisers  were  able  to  say, 
as  they  did,  in  their  Preface  that  they 
had  been  "particularly  careful  as  to  the 
pronouns " ;  otherwise  what  trouble  we 
should  have  had  to  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures. For  instance,  in  Luke  v.  12,  we  Luke  v.  12. 
read  ''When  he  saw  Jesus,  he  fell  on  his 
face."  Did  the  leper  fall  on  Jesus's  face  ; 
or  did  Jesus  fall  on  the  leper's  face ;  or 
did  the  leper  fall  on  his  own  face  ?  How 
kind  of  the  Revisers  to  make  it  all  so 
clear !  Can  we  wonder  that  the  Bishop 
should  describe  the  Revised  Version,  as 
"light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness'' 1 
Why  did  not  the  Revisers  say,  "  The  leper 
boived  himself  to  the  earth^'  if  that  is  what 
was  meant  ? 

Luke  iii.  13. — ''And  he  [John]  said  ^uke m.  13. 
unto  them,  Extort  no  more  than  that 
which  is  appointed  you."  If  this  is  a 
correct  rendering,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  John  sanctioned  extortion.  But  it 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  Revisers' 


56  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

wording  of  the  passage  is  at  fault,  and 
that  the  soldiers  were  told  to  ''  demand'' ; 
not  to  ''extort''  The  A.V.  says,  ''Exact 
no  more  than  that  which  is  appointed 

you." 

Lukeiv.  Luke  iv.  1,  2. — ''Jesus  was  led  hy  the 
Spirit  in  the  wilderness  during  forty  days, 
being  tempted  of  the  devil."  Why  have 
the  Revisers  said,  ''led  hy  the  Spirit,"  yet 
"  tempted  of  the  devil "  ?  What  difference 
is  there  between  being  led  hy  the  good 
Spirit,  and  being  tempted  hy  the  bad 
Spirit,  that  necessitates  a  change  in  the 

Actsxxiii.    preposition?     See  also  Acts  xxiii.  10,  27 

10,27.  •  _*<Xorn  in  pieces  hy  them,"  "Slain  of 
them." 

Luke vi. 34.  Luke  vi.  34. — "And  if  ye  do  good  to 
them  that  do  good  to  you,  ivhat  thank 
have  ye?"  Very  often  no  thanks  at  all ; 
we  do  not  receive  that  which  is  due  to 
us.  But  the  question  which  Jesus  put 
was  not,  "What  thank  ham  ye?"  But 
"  What  thanks  are  due  to  you?"  And  no 
thanks  were  due;  the  act  was  merely  a 
reciprocation  of  kindness,  conferring  no 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  57 

obligation  whatever.  And  that  was  the 
lesson  which  Jesus  intended  to  teach ; 
therefore  the  Revisers  should  have  put 
the  question  in  that  form. 

Luke  vi.  34. — ''Even  sinners  lend  toLukevi.34. 
sinners  to  receive  again  as  much!'  In 
the  A.V.  the  passage  says,  "to  receive  as 
much  again''  \  i.e.  100%  interest!  and,  as 
the  money  was  lent  by  sinners^  the  latter 
version  is  probably  the  correct  one ;  for, 
usurers  are  undoubtedly  ''sinners^'  in 
the  popular  acceptation  of  that  word. 

Luke  vii.  7. — *'Say  the  word,  and  myLukevii.  7. 
servant  shall  be  healed."  The  Revisers' 
use  of  '' shall"  and  "ivilV  is  grossly 
incorrect.  "  Shall,"  in  the  second  person, 
is  a  threat :  *'  he  shall  do  it " ;  whereas, 
"ivill"  in  the  second  person,  is  a  pre- 
diction :  ''he  ivill  do  it";  and  that  is  it 
which  the  centurion  meant ;  and  which 
the  Revisers  should  have  said. 

In  2  Kings  xix,  35,  and  Isa.  xxxvii.  ^^ingsxix. 
36,  we  read  of  "  dead  corpses  "  ;  were  there  If-  ^'^^^"• 
then  ''live  corpses'"^.     That  is  a  horrible 
conception.     But  all  things  seem  to  be 


58  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

possible  to  the  fertile  imagination  of  the 
Luke  vii.  15.  Revisers.  Look  at  Luke  vii.  15.  ''And 
he  that  was  dead  sat  up,  and  began  to 
speak."  If  the  Revisers  did  not  mean 
that  he  was  dead  when  he  sat  up,  they 
should  have  said,  ''And  he  who  had  been 
dead  sat  up,  and  began  to  speak." 
Lukeviii.  Luke  viii.  61. — "And  when  he  came  to 
the  house,  he  suffered  not  any  man  to  enter 
in  with  him,  save  Peter,  and  John,  and 
James  and  the  father  of  the  maiden  and 
her  mother."  [Was,  then,  the  "mother" 
a  man?]  "And  all  were  weeping,  and 
bewailing  her,''  By  the  awkward  con- 
struction of  this  sentence,  the  pronoun 
"her"  refers  to  the  "mother."  But  it 
was  the  '^maiden''  whom  they  were  be- 
wailing. Therefore  the  Revisers  should 
have  said,  not  "  the  father  of  the  maiden 
and  her  mother";  but,  "the  father  and  the 
mother  of  the  maiden  "  ;  then,  the  pronoun 
''her''  would  naturally  have  referred  to 
the  maiden,  and  not  to  the  mother. 
Luke ix.  10.  Luke  ix.  10. — "And  the  apostles,  when 
they  ivere  returned,  declared   unto  him 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  59 

what  things  they  had  done."  If  the 
apostles  had  been  returned  by  somebody 
else,  it  would  have  been  correct  to  say 
that  they  "  were  returned  " ;  but,  as  they 
were  free  agents,  and  had  returned  of 
their  own  accord,  the  Revisers  should 
have  said,  '^And  when  the  apostles  had 
returned,  they  declared  to  Jesus  those 
things  which  they  had  done." 

Luke  ix.  17. — ''They  did  eat,  and  were  Lukeix. n. 
all  Jilled.''    This  is  extremely  vulgar;  and 
the  word  "did''  seems  to  emphasize  the 
vulgarity.       The    Revisers    should    have 
said,  ''They  all  ate,  and  were  satisfied,'' 

Luke  ix.  31.  —  "At  Jerusalem."  I  L^ke  ix.  31. 
am  surprised  that  the  Revisers  did  not 
know  that  it  is  incorrect  to  speak  of 
being  "at''  a  city.  No  one  speaks  of 
being  at  London ;  why,  then,  say,  "  at 
Jerusalem  "  ?  Correctness  requires  that 
we  say  iii  a  city,  and  at  a  village.  See 
also  Acts  xvii.  16.  "  Paul  waited  for  them  f^^'  ""' 
at  Athens."  Yet  Paul  was  in  the  very 
heart  of  the  city;  "m  the  Market  Place 
every  day"  \  v.   17,  "in  the  midst  of  the A.^tsxxn,22, 


60  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Actsviii.  1.  Areopagus''  \  v.  22.  See  likewise  Acts 
viii.  1,  there  we  read  ^'in  Jerusalem." 

Luke ix. 53.  Luke  ix.  53. — ''His  face  was  as  though 
he  were  going  to  Jerusalem. "  The  Revisers 
do  not  seem  to  have  understood  that  the 
conjunction,  ''though"  implies  negation, 
and  means  "notivithstanding''  ]  and  that 
the  proper  conjunction  to  use  in  an 
affirmative  sentence  is  "  if,''  which  means 
''given,"  or  "  granted"  Therefore  they 
should  have  said,  "His  face  was  as  if 
he  were  going  to  Jerusalem."     See  also 

Luke  xxiv.  chapter  xxiv.  28  :  there  the  same  error 
occurs.  From  this  circumstance  we 
may  justly  infer  that  the  error  was  not 
made  inadvertently;   but  was  the  result 

Actsxvii.25.  of  ignorance.  See  criticism  on  Acts 
xvii.  25. 

Luke X.  18.  Luke  X.  18. — "I  beheld  Qsitsin  fallen 
as  lightning  from  heaven."  What  a 
marvellous  atmospheric  simile !  I  can- 
not but  characterize  the  statement  as 
an  untruth.  Not  Jesus,  nor  the  Revisers, 
nor  anyone  else  ever  beheld  lightning 
which    had    "fallen."      They  may   have 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  61 

beheld  it  ''falling  "  ;  but  ''fallen^' — never ! 
With  the  flash,  it  ceases  to  exist ;  except 
to  the  fertile  imagination  of  Bishop 
Thornton,  to  whom  it  is  still  ''light  in 
all  its  purity  and  clearness.''  However, 
on  second  thoughts,  there  may  be  hidden 
a  very  important  truth,  even  in  this 
strange  simile.  If  it  teaches  anything, 
it  certainly  is, — the  non-existence  of  the 
devil.  ^ 

Luke  xi.  22. — ''When  a  stronger  than  ^^^"  ^^' ^2- 
he   shall   come  upon   him,   and  overcome 
him."     Is  this  intended  for  a  pun?     Of 
course,  if  he  comes  upon  him,  he  over- 
comes  him. 

Luke  xi.  37.—''  As  he  spake,  a  Pharisee  ^^^^^*-  '^• 
asketh  him  to  dine  with  him."  No  one 
would  imagine  that  the  word  here  trans- 
lated "  dine  "  is,  in  the  Greek,  "  breakfast " ; 
yet  so  it  is.  Why  did  the  Revisers  not 
say  so?  Is  it  that  the  Greek  signifies 
what    the    French    call    dejeuner    a    la 

■^  In  the  ^^ brevier  16mo^'  edition,  it  is  ^^ falling"; 
but  that  is  a  misprint;  for,  in  all  other  editions  of 
the  R.V.  it  is,  ''fallen,'' 


62  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

fourchettej'  which  is  somewhat  like  a 
dinner,  though  called  a  breakfast  "i 
Luke xi. 48.  Luke  xi.  48. — ''Ye  are  witnesses,  and 
consent  unto  the  works  of  your  fathers." 
The  word  "consent,''  by  universal  custom, 
applies  to  the  present,  though  its  deriva- 
tion from  the  Latin,  "  consentio,''  shows 
that,  originally,  it  was  independent  of 
time,  and  might  be  used  in  reference  to 
past,  present,  or  future.  Now,  in  speaking 
of  the  past,  it  is  usual  to  employ  the 
word  "approve.''  We  say,  ''By  common 
consent,  we  approve  of  the  works  of  our 
fathers." 
Lukexii.8,  Luke  xii.  8,  9. — "Every  one  who  shall 
^'  confess  me  before  men,  him  shall  the  Son 

of  man  also  confess  before  the  angels  of 
God;  but  he  that  denieth  me  in  the 
presence  of  men  shall  be  denied  in  the 
presence  of  the  angels  of  God."  "  Con- 
fess'' and  ''deny"  are  appropriate  words 
to  use  in  reference  to  actions :  e.g.  we 
*'  confess  "  our  faults  ;  we  "  deny  "  the 
truth  of  certain  allegations ;  but  we  can- 
not   ''confess"   a   person;    nor    can    we 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  63 

''  deny  "  a  person ;  meaning  by  the  word, 
''  deny,''  that  we  do  not  recognize  his 
authority.  Preferable  words,  in  the 
passage  quoted  above,  would  be  ''ac- 
knowledge'' and  ''disown," 

Luke  xii.  46. — ''  The  lord  of  that  servant  Lukexn. 

46. 

shall  come  in  a  day  when  he  expecteth 
[him]  not  .  .  .  and  shall  cut  him  asunder, 
and  appoint  his  portion  with  the  unfaith- 
ful." To  cut  a  man  asunder  is,  unquestion- 
ably, to  kill  him;  but  that  that  is  not 
the  meaning  intended  to  be  conveyed,  is 
shown  by  the  words  which  follow ;  he 
was  still  to  have  a  portion;  but  it  was 
to  be  ''with  the  unfaithful."  He  was 
not  to  be  "  cut  asunder " ;  but  to  be  cut 
off,  sundered,  from  the  privileges  which 
he  had  enjoyed. 

Luke  xii.  55. — *'And  when  ye  see  aiukexii. 
south  wind  blowing."  I  have  previously 
spoken  of  the  impossibility  of  seeing  the 
wind;  and  here  we  have  the  impossible 
phenomenon  reasserted.  For  this  the  Re- 
visers only  are  to  blame ;  for  there  are 
not,  in  the  Greek,  any  words  corresponding 


64  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

i7^-^viif'29-  ^o  ''y^  ^^^•"  For  similar  errors,  refer  to 
^x/3;  xW. '  jvj^g^tt.  iii.  17  ;  viii.  29  ;  ix.  3  ;  xiv.  30. 
Lukexiii.  Luke  xiii.  1-5. — On  Jesus  being  told 
of  certain  Galilaeans,  ''  whose  blood  Pilate 
had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices,"  the 
Revisers  state  that  Jesus  said,  (verse  3) 
''Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  in  like 
manner  perish  " ;  and  of  those  on  whom 
the  tower  in  Siloam  fell  and  killed  them  ; 
(verse  5)  "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all 
likewise  perish."  There  appears  to  be 
little  difference  in  these  two  expressions ; 
but  the  difference  is  simply  awful.  The 
former  states  that  unless  [not  'except'] 
his  hearers  repented,  they  should  all 
perish  ''in  like  manner'':  i.e.  their  own 
blood  should  be  mingled  with  that  of 
their  sacrifices !  The  latter  expression 
states  that  unless  they  repented,  they 
"  likewise "  should  perish  :  the  manner 
how  is  not  told.  Why  have  the  Revisers 
made  this  awful  difference,  since  the 
word  in  the  Greek  is  the  same  in  each 
instance?  And,  in  the  A.V.  also,  the 
word  is  the  same.     Yet  the  Bishop  com- 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  65 

mends    the    R.V. ;    and    condemns    the 
A.V. 

Luke  xiii.  24. — '^Strive  to  enter  in  by  Luke xm. 
the  narrow  door :  for  many,  I  say  unto 
you,  shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be 
able."  The  Revisers'  misuse  of  " shalV 
and  "tvilV  makes  the  Scriptures  teach 
some  fearful  heresies.  Can  we  imagine 
anything  more  awful  than  that  Jesus 
said,  "Many  shall  seek  to  enter,  and 
shall  not  be  able "  ?  It  is  contrary  to 
his  own  teaching:  ''Seek,  and  ye  shall  Matt.  vii.  7. 
find ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened  unto 
you."  Doubtless,  what  Jesus  said  was, 
"  Many  will  seek  to  enter,  and  will  not 
be  able  "  ;  and  why  ?  Because  they  are 
half-hearted ;  the  promise  being,  "  Thou 
shalt  find  Him,  if  thou  seek  Him  with 
all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul,''  Deut.  J^^^^^-  ^^^  ^o- 
iv.  29.  But,  to  represent  Jesus  as  saying, 
"  They  shall  not  be  able,''  is  to  make  him 
decree  their  damnation  !  And  all  this  is, 
in  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop's  estimation, 
"light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness'' 
Surely  his  own  words  do  him  injustice  ? 

E 


66  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Luke  XV.  17.  Luke  XV.  17.  —  ''How  many  hired 
servants  of  my  father's  have  bread  enough 
and  to  spare,  and  I  perish  with  hunger ! '' 
This  implies  that  though  "many''  of  his 
father's  servants  had  bread  enough  and  to 
spare,  some  had  not  enough  ! — an  imputa- 
tion not  in  accordance  with  the  loving 
nature  of  him  who  ran  and  fell  on  his  son's 
neck  and  kissed  him  much^  as  the  Greek 
says.  The  passage  should  be,  —  ''My 
father's  many  servants  have  bread  enough 
and  to  spare  ;  and  I  perish  with  hunger  !  " 

Luke XV. 20.  Luke  XV.  26. — "And  he  called  to  him 
one  of  the  servants,  and  inquired  what 
these  things  might  be.''  Well,  they  "  7night 
be  "  anything ;  but  that  was  not  what  he 
wanted  to  know ;  he  wanted  to  know  the 
occasion  of  the  rejoicing ;  or,  as  the  A. V. 
has  it,  "tvhat  these  things  meant"  Why 
did  the  Revisers  alter  the  passage  ? 

Lukexvi. 9.  Luke  xvi.  9. — "Make  to  yourselves 
friends  by  means  of  the  mammon  of  un- 
righteousness ;  that,  when  it  shall  fail, 
they  may  receive  you  into  the  eternal 
tabernacles,"     Whatever  did  the  Revisers 


20. 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  67 

mean  by  "  the  eternal  tabernacles  "  ?  Were 
those  learned  men  unaware  of  the  fact 
that  the  words  are  a  contradiction? 
"Tabernacle''  is  a  temporary  habitation. 
What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  an  eternal 
temporary  habitation  ?  The  A.  V.  reads, 
"everlasting  habitations''  \  doubtless  re- 
ferring to  what  Jesus  spoke  of  as,  "  My 
Father's  house  of  many  mansions."  Johiixiv.2. 

Luke  xvi.  20. — ''And  a  certain  beggar 
named  Lazarus  was  laid  at  his  gate,  full  mke  xvi. 
of  sores."  At  whose  gate?  The  con-  ^ 
struction  of  the  sentence  is  such  as  to 
imply  that  he  was  laid  at  his  own  gate. 
And  then,  ''his  gate,  full  of  sores."  Of 
course  we  know  that  it  was  the  beggar, 
and  not  the  gate,  that  was  "  full  of  sores": 
but,  a  slight  transposition  would  have  got 
rid  of  both  difficulties.  The  Revisers  should 
have  said,  "  There  was  a  certain  rich  man 
.  .  .  and  there  lay  at  his  gate,  a  certain 
beggar  named  Lazarus,  full  of  sores,  and 
desiring  to  be  fed  with  the  broken  food 
which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table. 

Luke   xvii.    3. — "If  thy  brother  sin.t. 


Luke  xvii. 


68 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 


rebuke  him ;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him. 
And  if  he  sin  against  thee  seven  times  in 
the  day,  and  seven  times  turn  again  to 
thee,  saying,  I  repent ;  thou  shalt  forgive 
him."  The  very  fact  that  the  offence, 
w^hich  is  here  called  "sin,''  is  not  sin,  is 
shown  by  its  being  forgivable  by  man ;  for, 
who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?  See 
Markii.7.  Mavk  11.  7.  The  Revisers  should  have 
said,  "  If  thy  brother  offend  ...  if  he  offend 
seven  times  in  the  day,  .  .  .  thou  shalt  for- 
give him."     Si7i  is  an  offence  against  God. 

Luke  xvii.  34. — ''In  that  night  there 
shall  be  two  men  on  one  bed ;  the  one 
shall  be  taken,  and  the  other  shall  be  left. 
There  shall  be  two  women  grinding 
together ;  the  one  shall  be  taken,  and  the 
other  shall  be  left."  In  each  case,  the  de- 
finite article,  "the,''  should  be  omitted  be- 
fore the  word  "  one  "  ;  because  there  is  not, 
in  the  sentence,  anything  definite  about  one 
of  two,  until  one  has  been  taken  ;  then,  it 
is  correct  to  say,  "  the  other  shall  be  left." 

Luke  xviii.  8. — ''When  the  Son  of  man 
cometh,  shall  he  find  faith  on  the  earth  ?  " 


Psa.  li.  4. 


Luke  xvii. 
34. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  69 

Here   we   find   another   instance   of  the 
misuse  of  ''  shall "  for  ''  iviir     ''  Shall  he 
find    faith    on    the   earth  ? "    is   a   wide 
question  which  no  one  can  answer,  except 
for  himself.     And  even  then,  the  sad  ex- 
ample of  Peter  recurs  to  one's  mind  :  he 
said,  ''  Though  I  should  die  with  thee,  yet  Matt.xxvi. 
will  I  not  deny  thee."     But  he  did;  and  ^^" 
went  out,  and  wept  bitterly.     Matt.  xxvi.  Matt.  xxvi. 
75.     The  Revisers  should  have  given  the  '''' 
passage  thus  :■ — "  When  the  Son  of  Man 
Cometh,  tvill  he  find  faith  on  the  earth  ?  " 

Luke  xviii.  32. — ''  He  shall  be  mocked,  Lukexvm. 
and  shamefully  ^Tztreated,  and  spit  upon."  ^^' 
The  Revisers  should  have  said,  ''  shame- 
fully treated, "  not ' '  entreated.''    To  entreat 
is  to  beseech.     See  Ruth  i.  16  :  '' Entreat"^''^''^'^'^^'' 
not  me  to  leave  thee!'      The  same  error 
occurs  in  Acts  xiv.  5,  and  in  1  Thess.  ii.  2.  ^Thes^'u!* 

Luke  xviii.   40.  —  '*And  Jesus  stood,  L«ke  xviii. 
and  commanded  him  to  be  brought  unto  '*^- 
him ;   and   when    he  was   come   near  he 
asked  him,  What  wilt  thou  that  /  should 
do  unto  thee  ? "     More  than  a  fourth  part 
of  the  words  in   this  sentence  are  pro- 


70  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

nouns.  Certainly  the  Revisers'  employ- 
ment of  that  part  of  speech  is  very 
infelicitous,  notwithstanding  their  boasted 
carefulness.  Pronouns,  when  employed 
judiciously,  prevent  much  circumlocution  ; 
but  when,  through  using  them,  we  sacri- 
fice perspicuity,  their  employment  is  to 
be  deprecated. 

Lukexix.  Luke  xix.  11. — ''  He  added  and  spake  a 
parable,  because  he  was  nigh  to  Jerusalem, 
and  because  they  supposed  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  was  immediately  to  appear." 
To  suppose  an  occurrence,  is  simply  to 
imagine  it, — to  put  it  before  the  mind 
hypothetically.  We  may  suppose  the 
moon  to  be  made  of  green  cheese ;  but 
that  is  very  different  from  believing  it. 
And  Jesus  spoke  the  parable  '^because 
they  believed  that  the  Kingdom  of  God 
was  immediately  to  appear  "  ;  and  that  is 
the  statement  which  the  Revisers  should 

Acts  vii.  25.  have  made.      See  also  Acts  vii.  25  and 

and  xxvii.         .  •  •     ^  ^ 

13.  Acts  xxvn.  13. 

Lukexix.  L^i^g  xix.  26. — "From  Imn  that  hath 
not,  even  that  which  he  hath  shall  be 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  71 

taken  ^w^jfrom  him.''  What  an  absurd 
sentence  !  Something  ivhich  has  no  exist- 
ence shall  be  taken  from  him,  from  him. 
The  Revisers  must  have  known  that 
Jesus  did  not  utter  any  such  nonsense. 
The  context  shows  that  what  was  to  be 
taken  from  the  unprofitable  servant,  was 
not  something  which  he  did  not  possess  ; 
that  were  an  impossibility :  ''  ex  nihilo 
nihil  fit " ;  that  which  was  to  be  taken 
from  him  was  the  pound  which  he  had 
not  increased  by  trading. 

Luke  xix.  42,  margin. — '^  Or,  0  that  Luke  xix. 
thou  hadst  known."  It  is  clear  that  the  ^^' 
Eevisers  did  not  know  the  proper  use  of 
"0"and  ''oh.''  The  former  is  vocative, 
as  "  0  God  ! "  The  latter  is  an  exclama- 
tion of  pain,  joy,  sorrow,  desire,  etc. ;  and 
therefore  should  have  been  employed, 
instead  of  ''  0,"  in  the  aforesaid  note. 
''  Oh !  that  thou  hadst  known," 

Luke  XX.  14. — ''  When  the  husbandmen  Lukexx.  u. 
saw  him,  they  reasoned  one  tvith  another, 
saying,  This  is  the  heir :  let  us  kill  him 
that   the  inheritance  may  be  ours,"     If 


72  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

there  were  only  two  husbandmen,  the  ex- 
pression ''one  with  an  other"  is  wrong; 
it  should  be  ''  one  with  the  other  "  ;  and 
if  there  were  more  than  two,  the  expres- 
sion is  equally  wrong;  in  that  case,  the 
Revisers  should  have  said,  "  they  reasoned 
with  each  other."  I  cannot  but  express 
surprise  that  these  simple  matters  were 
unknown  to  the  so-called  "  learned  Re- 
visersy  Certainly  they  were  not  learned 
in  even  the  most  elementary  rules  of 
English. 

Luke XX. 35.  Luke  XX.  35. — ''They  that  are  ac- 
counted worthy  to  attain  to  that  world, 
and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
neither  marry  nor  are  given  in  marriage." 
We  can  understand  that  some  may  be 
accounted  ivorthy  of  that  world  \  and, 
being  accounted  worthy,  will  attain  it. 
But  what  is  meant  by  being  ^'worthy  to 
attain  "  ? 

Lukexxi.  Luke  xxi.  23. — "Woe  unto  them  that 
are  with  child  and  to  them  that  give 
suck  in  those  days ! "  Again  the  ques- 
tion forces  itself  upon  us.  Why  have  the 


23, 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  73 

Eevisers  changed  the  preposition,  and, 
in  this  case,  said,  "imto  them  that  are 
with  child  and  to  them  that  give  suck  "  ? 
I  cannot  imagine  any  reason  for  its  being 
done.  It  is  strange ;  and  yet  it  is  not 
strange  that  the  Revisers  should  do  it ; 
for,  it  is  quite  in  accordance  with  much 
of  their  work.  Certainly  they  are  con- 
sistently inconsistent.  See  the  continua- 
tion of  the  verse  ; — ''  There  shall  be  great 
distress  upon  the  land,  and  wrath  unto 
this  people."  The  change  is  wholly 
uncalled  for;  since,  in  this  passage, 
''  land "  and  ''people "  are  synonymes  ; 
and  each  should  have  been  preceded  by 
the  same  preposition. 

Luke  xxi.  36. — ''Watch  ye  at  every  Luke  xxi. 
season,  making  supplication,  that  ye  '^ 
may  prevail  to  escape  all  these  things." 
What  did  the  Eevisers  mean  by  "  making 
supplication  that  ye  may  prevail  to 
escape  "  ?  Surely  the  italicized  words  are 
superfluous  ;  the  obvious  meaning  being, 
''  Watch  ye  at  all  seasons,  making  supplica- 
tion that  ye  may  escape  all  those  things." 


36. 


74  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Lukexxii.  Luke  xxii.  15. — *'With  desire  I  have 
desired  to  eat  this  passover  with  you 
before  I  suffer."  The  tautology  of  this 
passage  would  have  been  avoided,  and 
yet  the  Hebraic  meaning  have  been 
retained,  had  the  Revisers  said,  ''With 
longing  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  passover 

Actsxxviii.  with  you  before  I  suffer."  See  also  Acts 
xxviii.  10:  ''Who  also  honoured  us  with 
many  honours!'  The  Revisers  should 
have  said,  "Who  also  honoured  us  with 
many  favours!' 

Lukexxii.  Luke  xxii.  31. — "Simon,  Simon,  be- 
hold,  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he 
might  sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  made 
supplication  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail 
not."  Did  the  Revisers  mean  us  to 
infer,  from  this  change  in  the  pronouns, 
that,  in  the  former  part  of  the  address  to 
Simon,  Jesus  referred  to  all  the  disciples  ; 
and,  in  the  latter  part,  to  Simon  only? 
If  so,  the  meaning  would  have  been  clearer 
had  the  Revisers  said,  "Simon,  Simon, 
Hearken !  Satan  asked  to  have  you  all, 
that  he   might  sift  you  as  wheat ;  but  I 


31. 


XXll. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  75 

made  supplication  for  thee  specially  that 
thy  faith  fail  not."  If  this  was  not  the 
Revisers'  meaning,  they  ought  not  to  have 
changed  the  pronouns. 

Luke  xxii.  56-58.  —  ''And  a  certain  Luke 
maid  seeing  him  as  he  sat  in  the  light  ^^'^^' 
of  the  fire,  and  looking  steadfastly  upon 
him,  said,  This  man  also  was  with  him. 
But  he  denied,  saying,  Womaii,  I  know 
him  not.  And  after  a  little  while  another 
saw  him,  and  said,  Thou  also  art  one  of 
them.  But  Peter  said,  Man,  I  am  not." 
As  the  first  accuser  was  ''  a  certain 
maid "  ;  and  we  read  subsequently  that 
^^  another  saw  him,"  we  naturally  con- 
clude that  the  second  accuser  also  was 
a  maid;  and  it  is  not  until  we  read 
Peter's  reply,  ''Man,  I  am  not,"  that 
we  find  we  have  been  misled  by  the 
Revisers'  ambiguous  language. 

Luke  xxii.   66. — ''And  as   soon   as  itLukexxn 
was  day,  the  assembly  of  the   elders  of  ^^• 
the  people  tvas  gathered  together,  both 
chief  priests   and   scribes."       Was   they\ 
''  Assembly ''  is  what  is  called  a  noun  of 


76  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

multitude ;  and  is  to  be  regarded  either 
as  singular,  or  as  plural,  according  to  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  employed.  Now, 
in  the  verse  quoted,  the  word  ''assembly'' 
is  used  in  a  plural  sense ;  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  expression.  ''The  assembly  .  .  . 
was  gathered  together,  both  Chief  Priests 
and  Scribes.''  Therefore  the  Eevisers 
should  have  said,  ''The  assembly  of  the 
Elders  of  the  people  ivei^e  gathered  to- 
gether, both  Chief  Priests  and  Scribes." 

Lukaxxiii.  Luke  xxiii.  11.  — "  And  Herod  with  his 
soldiers  set  him  at  nought,  and  mocked 
him."  The  meaning  of  the  Revisers' 
word  "nought,"  being  intended  to  be 
"nothing,"  it  should  have  been  written 
thus,  "naught";  i.e.  the  negation  of 
"  aught,"  anything.  "  Nought "  is  an  error 
of  the  illiterate.  The  two  words  "aught" 
and  "ought"  have  distinctly  different 
meanings ;  and  only  the  former  admits 
of  being  made  into  a  negation  by  the 
6.  prefix  of  an  "n"     See  also  Acts  v.  36. 

Luke  xxiii.  Luke  xxiii.  39.  — "  And  one  of  the 
malefactors    which    were    hanged    railed 


11. 


39, 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  77 

on  him."  When  we  speak  of  a  male- 
factor as  having  been  ''hanged^'  we 
mean  that  he  was  suspended  by  a  rope 
round  his  neck  until  he  was  dead.  As 
that  was  not  the  fate  of  the  two  who 
died  with  Jesus,  the  Revisers  should 
have  stated,  as  they  previously  had  done 
in  verse  33,  that  the  malefactors  were 
criicijied, 

Luke  xxiii.  46.  — ''  Father,  into  thy  Luke  xxui. 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit :  and  having 
said  this  he  gave  up  the  ghost y  The 
Revisers  should  not  have  said,  ''  he  gave 
up  the  ghost'']  but,  ''he  gave  up  his 
spirit "  :  or  else  consistently  have  said, 
''Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend 
my  ghost "  :  for,  the  word  is  the  same 
in  each  part  of  the  verse.  But  I  believe 
that  even  the  Revisers  would  shrink  from 
saying  that.     See  also  Mark  xv.  37.  ^?'^^"- 

Luke  xxiii.  52,  53. — "This  man  went  i uke xxm. 
to   Pilate,   and    asked  for  the   body  of  *^' 
Jesus.      And    he    took    it    down,    and 
wrapped  it  in   a  linen   cloth,   and    laid 
him   in    a    tomb."      Did    the    Revisers 


13-1 


78  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

believe  that  Jesus  was  not  in  the  body 
when  Joseph  of  Arimath^ea  took  it  from 
the  cross  and  wrapped  it  in  a  linen  cloth ; 
but  that  Jesus  was  in  the  body  when 
Joseph  laid  him  in  a  tomb?  How  else 
can  the  Revisers'  change  of  the  pronoun, 
from  ''it''  to  ''him,''  be  accounted  for? 
Lukexxiv.  Luke  xxiv.  13-17. — ''And  behold  tivo 
of  them  were  going  that  very  day  to  a 
village  named  Emmaus  .  .  .  and  Jesus 
himself  drew  near,  and  went  with  them. 
.  .  .  And  he  said  unto  them,  What  com- 
munications are  these  that  ye  have  one 
with  anoihQV  ? "  ''  An  "  is  the  indefinite 
article,  and  applies  to  one  of  several-, 
"  the "  is  the  definite  article,  and  applies 
to  one  only,  or  to  several  considered  as 
one.  Now,  as  there  were  only  two 
disciples  journeying  to  Emmaus,  each 
must  have  spoken  to  the  other,  in  their 
mutual  conversation.  If,  as  the  Revisers 
say,  one  of  them  spoke  to  (^7^other,  it 
must  have  been  to  a  third  traveller. 
Therefore  the  Revisers'  statement,  imply- 
ing that  there  were  but  ''  two,"  is  incorrect. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  79 

John  i.  15. — ''John  beareth  witness  John  1. 15. 
of  him,  and  crieth  saying,  This  tvas  he 
of  whom  I  said,  He  that  cometh  after 
me  is  become  before  me."  If  when  John 
spoke,  Jesus  was  dead  (which  he  was 
not,  see  verse  30),  then  it  would  have 
been  correct  to  say,  "  This  ivas  he " ; 
but  as  he  was  alive,  John  should  have 
said,  doubtless  did  say.  This  is  he  of 
whom  I  said,  He  who  cometh  after  me 
is  preferred  before  me."  The  expression 
"cometh,''  followed  by  ''hecome^'  is  very 
infelicitous. 

John  i.  32. — ''And  John  bare  witness,  John  i.s2. 
saying,  I  have  beheld  the  spirit  descend- 
ing as  a  dove  out  of  heaven  ;  and  it 
abode  upon  him."  To  abide  is  to  stay, 
with  a  certain  degree  of  permanence. 
What  permanence  did  the  Revisers  wish 
us  to  attribute  to  the  resting  of  the  dove- 
like form  on  Jesus  ? 

John  i.  51. — "Ye  shall  see  the  heaven  John  i.  51. 
opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending 
and  descending  upon  the  Son  of  man." 
As  the  abode  of  the  angels  is  Heaven; 


80  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

MatLxviii.  (^see  Matt  xviii.  10)  and  Heaven  is  con- 
sidered to  be  above  us ;  (though,  with  a 
world  revolving  in  space,  how  can  there 
be  any  ''  above  "  or  "  beneath  "  ?)  the  angels 
piust  descend  before  they  can  ascend.  And 
that  is  the  order  in  which  the  events 
should  have  been  recorded  by  the  Eevisers. 

John ii.  17.  John  ii.  17. — ''The  zeal  of  thine  house 
shall  eat  me  up."  Why  have  the  Revisers 
said  "thine  house"?  as  if  the  "h''  in 
"  house "  were  not  aspirated,  and  the 
word  had  to  be  pronounced.  Cockney 
fashion,  'ouse!  And  yet  the  Revisers,  with 
their    usual    unjustifiable    inconsistency, 

Matt.  ix.  0.  have  said,  in  Matt.  ix.  6 ;   and  Luke  v. 

Luke V.  24.  24.   ufj^y  house." 

johniii.i6,  John  iii.  16,  17,  24.  — ^^  For  God"; 
^^For  God";  "For  John."  In  each  of 
these  instances ;  and  in  many  others 
which  are  similar  throughout  the  Re- 
visers' work,  there  should  be  a  comma 
after  the  preposition,  ''/or";  the  mean- 
ing there,  being,  ''because'';  whereas, 
without  a  comma,  the  meaning  is,  "  ap- 

mmAJi.\i.  pertaining  to.''     See  Rom.  ix.  17. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  81 

John  iii.  32,  33. — "What  he  hath  seenJohnin. 

82   83 

and  heard,  of  that  he  beareth  witness; 
and  no  man  receiveth  his  witness.  He 
that  hath  received  his  witness  hath  set 
his  seal  to  this,  that  God  is  true."  This 
is  a  very  strange  passage ;  for,  it  appar- 
ently contradicts  itself:  it  says  that, 
''no  man  receiveth  his  witness''-,  and 
immediately  adds,  ''He  that  hath  received 
his  witness  hath  set  his  seal  to  this,  that 
God  is  true."  Probably  the  meaning  is 
this  : — ''  No  man  receiveth  his  witness. 
Had  any  received  his  witness,  he  would 
have  set  his  seal  to  this,  that  God  is 
true." 

John  iv.  43. — ''And  after  two  days  he  John  w.  43. 
went  foi^th  from  thence  into  Galilee."  In 
verse  11  of  this  chapter,  the  Revisers  joimh.]!. 
employed  the  objectionable  expression 
"from  whence,''  —  objectionable  because 
the  word  "  whence "  embodies  in  itself 
the  word,  "from " ;  the  meaning  being, 
"from  which  place,  or  circumstance." 
So  also  is  it  with  the  words  "hence" 
and   "thence,"     But,   in  this   verse,   the 


82  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

Revisers  have  given  us  ^^ forth  from 
thence  "  !  i.e.  ''  He  went  from  from  from 
there.''      They  should    have    said,    ''He 

Acts  xvi.  12.  ^^^^  thence  into  Galilee ^  See  also  Acts 
xvi.  12. 

John  iv.  54.  John  iv.  54.  —  ^'This  is  again  the 
second  sign  that  Jesus  did."  How  could 
there  be  two  ''second''  signs;  or  two 
second  things  of  any  kind?  This  is 
another  example  of  the  Revisers'  non- 
sense. Yet,  to  Bishop  Thornton,  it  is 
^' light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness r 
Perhaps,  as  it  is  all  so  clear  to  his  mind, 
he  will  explain  to  less  gifted  individuals 
how  this  impossibility  is  possible. 

John  V.  16.  John  V.  16. — ''And /or  this  cause  did 
the  Jews  persecute  Jesus,  because  he  did 
these  things  on  the  Sabbath."  What 
are  we  to  say  of  such  tautology  as 
this?  It  is  too  contemptible  even  for 
condemnation.  The  A.V.,  of  which  the 
above  is  a  revision  !  reads  thus  : — ''  And 
therefore  did  the  Jews  persecute  Jesus 
.  .  .  because  he  had  done  these  things 
on  the  Sabbath  day." 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  83 

John  V.  31. — ''If  I  bear  witness  ofjoimv.ai. 
myself,  my  witness  is  not  true  J'  It  does 
not  follow  that,  because  a  person  bears 
witness  of  himself,  his  witness  is  not 
''  true^  It  may  be  true,  but  it  is  not 
trustworthy,  because  it  is  not  the  witness 
of  one  who  is  disinterested  :  and  doubt- 
less what  Jesus  said  was,  ''  If  I  bear 
witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not 
trustworthy,'' 

John  vi.  15. — "Jesus  there/ore  per- J^^^  ^  i- 1^. 
ceiving  that  they  were  about  to  come 
and  take  him  by  force  to  make  him 
king."  In  the  first  place,  ''therefore'' 
should  have  been  ''thereby,"  "There- 
fore" means,  for  a  certain  reason 
which  had  just  been  stated ;  and  is 
followed  by  an  action,  as  a  consequence ; 
but  in  this  instance  it  is  not  followed  by 
an  action ;  it  is  followed  by  an  effect. 
On  that  account  the  proper  word  to 
have  used  was  not  "therefore,"  but 
"thereby,"  ''Jesus  thereby  perceiving,'' 
etc.  Another  error  here  is  the  using  of 
the   conjunction  "and"  in  place  of  the 


84  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

preposition  ''to''-,  the  verse  says,  "they 
were  about  to  come  and  take  him  by 
force/'  It  should  be  ^Hhey  were  about 
to  come  to  take  him  by  force":  that 
was  their  object. 

itil^''  John  vi.  16-18. — "And  when  evening 
came,  his  disciples  went  down  to  the 
sea;  and  they  entered  into  a  boat,  and 
were  going  over  the  sea  unto  Capernaum. 
And  it  was  now  dark,  and  Jesus  had 
not  yet  come  to  them.  And  the  sea 
was  rising."  Here  we  ^lave  a  passage 
of  only  six  lines,  in  which  the  word 
''and''  occurs  six  times!  Such  com- 
position would  disgrace   even  a  school- 

Matt.xiii.  boy.  See  also  Matt.  xiii.  37-39.  "And 
he  answered  and  said,  He  that  soweth 
the  good  seed  is  the  Son  of  man;  and 
the  field  is  the  world ;  and  the  good 
seed,  these  are  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  ; 
and  the  tares  are  the  sons  of  the  evil 
[one] ;  and  the  enemy  that  sowed  them 
is  the  devil :  and  the  harvest  is  the  end 
of  the  world ;  and  the  reapers  are  angels." 
The  word  "and,''  eight  times  in  eight  lines. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  85 

John  vi.  22. — ''On  the  morrow  the  John  vi.  22. 
multitude  which  stood  on  the  other  side 
of  the  sea  saw  that  there  was  none 
other  boat  there  save  one."  The  Revisers 
should  not  have  said,  ''  none  othei*  boat 
there  save  one";  the  word  "other''  re- 
quires "than''  to  follow  it;  therefore 
they  should  have  said,  "none  other  than,'' 
But,  in  this  case,  the  word  "other"  were 
better  omitted ;  and  the  sentence  made 
to  read  thus  : — "  There  was  but  one  boat," 

John  vi.  46.  —  "  Not  that  any  man  •^^^^^i-  ^e. 
hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is 
from  God."  Did  not  the  Revisers  know 
that  "save,''  in  the  sense  of  "except," 
is  a  preposition ;  and  that  prepositions 
govern  the  accusative  case?  And,  if 
they  did  know  this  simple  rule  of 
grammar,  why  did  they  write  ''save  he" 
seeing  that  "he"  is  not  accusative,  but 
nominative  ?  The  Revisers  should  have 
said,  "  save  (or  except)  him  who  is  from 
God."  The  same  error  occurs  in  Matt.  Matt.  xi.  27. 
xi.  27. 

John  vi.   67,  68.— "Jesus  said   there- ^g'.'^"  "'• '^' 


86  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

fore  unto  the  twelve,  Would  ye  also  go 
away?  Simon  Peter  answered  him, 
Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?"  It  is 
seldom  that  one  meets  with  so  strange 
a  transposition  of  the  auxiliary  verbs  as 
is  in  these  two  verses  :  the  future  con- 
ditional being  put  for  the  present,  and 
the  present  being  put  for  the  future 
conditional.  The  Revisers  should  have 
written:  ''Jesus  said  to  the  twelve, 
Will  ye  also  go  awaj?  Simon  Peter 
answered  him.  Lord,  to  whom  should 
we  go  ? " 
joimvii.o.  John  vii.  9.  —  ''And  having  said 
these  things  unto  them,  he  abode  still 
in  Galilee."  As  the  word  "  stilV  has 
more  than  one  meaning,  the  Revisers 
should  have  been  ''particularly  careful" 
as  to  its  position  in  the  sentence,  know- 
ing that  the  position  often  determines 
in  which  sense  the  word  is  used.  One 
meaning  of  the  word  is  '' quieV  \  and 
the  expression,  "  He  abode  still  in 
Galilee,"  might  mean,  "He  remained 
quiet    in    Galilee."      And    even    if   you 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  87 

transpose  the  words  and  say,  ''He  still 
abode  in  Galilee,''  the  sentence,  though 
better,  is  not  wholly  free  from  ambiguity. 
But  why  did  the  Revisers  employ  the 
word  ''stiir'^l  It  has  no  equivalent  in 
the  Greek.  A  clearer  expression  would 
have  been,  ''He  remained  in  Galilee'' 

John  vii.  34. — ''Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  Johnvii.34. 
shall  not  find  me."     Again  we  have  that 
awful  falsehood,  "  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and 
shall  not  find   me " ;  words  which   it  is 
certain  Jesus  never  uttered  ;  so  contrary 
are  they  to  the  loving  spirit  of  him  who 
wept   over   Jerusalem,   and   said,    '' Oh !  L^^exix. 
that  thou  hadst  known,  in  this  thy  day, 
the   things  which  belong  to  thy  peace." 
''How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  Matt.  xxm. 
children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gather-  ^'' 
eth   her   chickens   under  wings,   and   ye 
would  not !  "     Doubtless,  the  fault  of  the 
language    is     the     Revisers' ;     and     the 
words    of   Jesus    were,    "Ye   will    seek 
me,  and  will  not  find  me."     And  why? 
Because  they  would  seek  him  from  un- 
worthy motives.     See  John  vi.  26.  John  vi.  26. 


88  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

johnvii.49.  John  vii.  49.  —  '*  But  this  multitude 
which  knoiveth  not  the  law  are  accursed." 
Here  we  have  a  noun  which  the  Revisers 
have  treated  as  both  singular  and  plural 
in  the  same  verse  !  ''  This  multitude 
which  knoweth  not "  (there  it  is  singular) 
" m^e  accursed"  (there  it  is  plural). 

johnviii.  John  viii.  11.  —  ''And  Jesus  said, 
Neither  do  I  condemn  thee  :  go  thy  way ; 
from  henceforth  sin  no  more."  The  words, 
''from  henceforth "  are  redundant ;  as 
, ''  sin  no  more "  embodies  their  meaning. 
Moreover,  the  word  ''from "  is  doubly 
wrong,  being  embodied  also  in  the  word 
"henceforth^ 

Johnviii.  John  viii.  24. — " Except  ^^  believe  that 
I  am  he,  ye  shall  [will]  die  in  your  sins." 
Once  more  I  call  attention  to  the  Revisers' 
misuse  of  " except''  and  "unless.''  The 
words  are  not  interchangeable  :  each  has 
its  own  proper  use.  "  Unless''  refers  to 
verbs,  and  "except"  refers  to  nouns  and 
pronouns  in  the  accusative  case ;  as  in 
V.  Acts  xxiv.  21,  e,g.  "Unless  I  mistake y  all 
the    officers    with    the    army   in    South 


24. 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  89 

Africa  are  under  seventy  years  of  age, 
except  Lord  Roberts,''  Actsvm. 

John  viii.  33,  37. — ''We  be  Abraham's  John  vin. 
seed  ...  Ye  are  Abraham's  seed."  Why 
this  change  in  the  verb?  Did  the  Re- 
visers mean  by  it  to  teach  that  there  was  a 
difference  between  the  vernacular  of  the 
people,  and  of  Jesus  ?  I  cannot  think  of 
any  other  reason  ;  but  not  infrequently  the 
Revisers  appear  to  have  acted  without 
reason ;  and  sometimes  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  it.  Our  inquiry  for  a  motive  is 
therefore  obliged  to  remain  unsatisfied. 
We  can  only  conjecture. 

John  viii.  55. — ''  If  I  should  say,  I  know  joim  vui. 
him  not,  I  shall  be  like  unto  you,  a  liar."  ^^• 
As  the  former  part  of  this  sentence  is 
conditional,  the  latter  part  also  should 
have  been  made  conditional,  thus  : — "  If 
I  should  say,  I  know  him  not,  I  shoidd  be 
like  you,  untruthful^  It  is  offensive  to 
call  a  man  a  ''liar,'' 

John   ix.    6.  —  ''When    he    had    thus  John  ix.  6. 
spoken,  he  spat  on  the  ground,  and  made 
clay  of  the  spittle,  and  anointed  his  eyes 


90  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

with  the  clay."  No,  no ;  that  is  wrong. 
Jesus  did  not  make  clay  of  the  spittle. 
He  spat  on  the  ground  \  and  made  clay 
with  the  spittle. 
johnix.  25.  John  ix.  25. — ''  Whether  he  he  a  sinner, 
I  know  not."  Notwithstanding  what 
Bishop  Thornton  says  about  the  Revisers' 
work  being  ''light  in  all  its  purity  and 
clearness,''  unquestionably  they  had  very 
hazy  ideas  as  to  the  right  employment  of 
the  subjunctive  mood  of  verbs.  The 
Revisers  seem  to  have  thought  that 
whenever  the  word  ''if  or  the  word 
"whether,''  occurs,  it  must  be  followed  by 
a  verb  in  that  mood ;  but  there  also  they 
were  wrong.  The  general  rule  is,  that 
the  subjunctive  mood  should  be  employed 
only  when  there  is  a  concurrence  of  con- 
tingency and  futurity.  Where  there  is 
either  contingency  without  futurity,  or 
futurity  without  contingency,  the  verb 
must  be  in  the  indicative  mood.  In  the 
verse  quoted,  there  is  contingency  without 
futurity,  therefore  the  Revisers  should  have 
said,  ''Whether  he  is  a  sinner, I  know  not." 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  91 

John  X.  i. — ''He  that  entereth  not  by-^oi^nx.!. 
the  door  into  the  fold  of  the  sheep,''     A 
sheepfold  does  not  have  a  "  door  "  ;  it  has 
a  gate. 

John  X.  16. — "  And  other  sheep  I  have  Joimx.  i6. 
which  are  not  of  this  fold  :  them  also  I 
must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice, 
and  they  shall  become  one  flock,  one 
shepherd,''  As  the  Revisers  did  not  mean 
that  the  sheep  would  become  a  shepherd, 
as  well  as  a  flock,  those  learned  men 
should  have  said  that  the  sheep  would 
become  one  flock,  having  one  shepherd. 

John  X.  30. — ''I  and  the  Father  are  John x. so. 
one."  In  considering  this  text,  as  an 
evidence  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  we  should 
not  be  forgetful  of  his  own  words  re- 
specting the  nature  of  his  oneness  with 
The  Father;  for,  there  could  be  no 
interpreter  so  competent  to  explain 
the  statement  of  Jesus,  as  was  Jesus 
himself.  In  his  prayer  for  his  disciples,  JoJ"i  xvii. 
he  says,  ''  Holy  Father,  keep  through 
Thine  own  name  those  whom  Thou 
hast  given   me,  that  they  may  be   one, 


92  THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

johnxvii.  even  as  we  are."  ''Neither  pray  I 
'  '  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which 
shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word ; 
that  they  all  may  be  one ;  as  Thou,  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  Thee ;  that  they  also 
may  be  one  in  us,''  From  this,  it  is  evident 
that  the  oneness  was  not  a  oneness  of 
essence,  but  of  spirit,  and  of  thought,  and 
of  purpose,  and  of  affection.     If  we  hold 

John  X.  30.  that  the  passage  in  John  x.  30  proclaims 
the   Deity  of  Jesus,    we   must,  in   very 

Johnxvii.  consistency,  hold  that  the  chapter  xvii. 
11-21  proclaims  the  Deity  of  his  disciples  ; 
for,  the  oneness  was  the  same. 

John xi. 23,      John  xi.  23,  25;  34,  35. — ''Jesus  saith 

or.  .    Oil     OK  7  ^  / 

unto  her";  .  .  .  "Jesus  said  unto  her." 
"  They  sai/  unto  him  ";..."  The  Jews 
therefore  said.''  Why  this  constant 
"see-sawing"  between  the  present  and 
the  past  ?  The  Revisers  should  have 
been  consistent,  and  either  have  described 
the  event  historically  in  the  past  tense 
throughout ;  or,  for  dramatic  effect,  have 
narrated  it  in  the  present  tense,  as  taking 
place  before  the  eyes  of  those  whom  the 


25  ;  34,  35. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  93 

apostle  addressed.  To  change  the  tense 
mars  the  effect  of  this  most  touching 
narrative. 

John  xii.  1. — *^  Jesus  therefore  six  days  Johnxn.  i. 
before  the  passover  came  to  Bethany." 
If  the  narrator  was  at  Bethany,  then  it 
would  have  been  correct  for  him  to  speak 
of  Jesus  as  having  come  to  Bethany ;  but 
if  the  narrator  was  elsewhere,  then  he 
should  have  said  that  Jesus  went  to 
Bethany.  And,  that  the  narrator  was 
elsewhere,  is  evidenced  by  what  is  stated 
in  the  next  verse  respecting  Jesus  :  viz. 
that  "  they  made  him  a  supper  there  J' 

John  xii.  18. — ''They  heard  that  he  John xn. is. 
had  done  this  sign''  Why  have  the 
Revisers  substituted  the  word  '^ sign''  for 
''miracle"?  Did  they  not  believe  in 
miracles  ?  How  Hume  and  Bolingbroke 
would  have  chuckled  over  the  alteration  ! 
And  what  did  the  Eevisers  mean  by  doing 
a  sign  ?  The  Revisers  employ  the  word 
"miracles''  in  Acts  xix.  11.  Actsxix. 

John  xii.    27. — "What    shall    I   say ? iohn xu. 27. 
Father,  save  me  from  this  hour.     But  for 


94  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  Father, 
glorify  thy  name."  In  this  verse  we  have 
a  very  good  illustration  of  the  importance 
of  correct  punctuation.  The  Revisers 
should  have  put  a  comma  after  the  word, 
''But''  However,  the  substitution  of 
'*No!"  for  " But''  would  have  made  the 
meaning  clearer.  The  passage  would 
then  have  run  thus  : — "  What  shall  I  say, 
Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  ?  No ! 
for  this  cause  I  came  to  this  hour. 
Father,  glorify  Thy  name."  Notice  the 
emphatic  difFerdnce  which  is  made  by  the 
change  of  position  of  the  note  of  inter- 
rogation. 

johnxii.4o.  John  xii.  40. — ''He  hath  blinded  their 
eyes   and    hardened    their    hearts."      In 

Matt.xm.    ]^^^|.     ^••-     -j^g^   |.]^^   same   passage  from 

Isaiah  is  quoted,  but  there  it  does  not 
say  that  God  had  blinded  their  eyes ;  it 
says  that  the  people  themselves  had 
closed  their  eyes.  It  is  not  probable 
that  both  versions  are  correct;  and  that 
which  is  in  Matthew  seems  more  like  the 
truth  concerning  our  Heavenly  Father. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  95 

John  xii.  44. — ''And  Jesus  cried  and  John  xii.  44. 
said,  He  that  believeth  on  me,  believeth 
not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent  me/' 
As  these  words  are  a  contradiction,  it 
is  not  probable  that  they  accurately  re- 
present what  Jesus  said.  I  think  that 
the  context  shows  his  meaning  to  be  this  : 
— ''He  who  believeth  on  me,  believeth 
not  on  me  only^  but  also  on  Him  who 
sent  me.'' 

John  xiii.  9,  10. — "Simon  Peter  saith  John xm. o, 
unto  him.  .  .  .  Jesus  saith  to  him."  Can 
the  Revisers,  or  their  advocate.  Bishop 
Thornton,  give  a  satisfactory  reason  for 
this  change  of  the  prepositions?  What 
was  there  peculiar  in  Simon  Peter's 
words  to  Jesus,  which  necessitated  the 
narrator's  saying  that  Simon  Peter  spoke 
unto  Jesus,  but  that  Jesus  spoke  to 
Simon  Peter?  And  what  difference  did 
the  Revisers  consider  there  to  be  between 
"  unto  "  and  "  to  "  ?  In  the  above  sentence 
there  is  no  difference ;  but  the  words 
are  not  synonymous:  "to"  is  sometimes 
a  prefix  to  a  verb;   as  in  the  infinitive 


96  THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

mood;  whereas  ''unto''  is  never  that, 
e.g.  "Dying  to  sin''  means  being  con- 
sumed with  a  desire  to  commit  a  certain 
sin;  but,  "dying  unto  sin''  means  being 

Rom.vi.  2.  dead  to  temptation.  In  Rom.  vi.  2. 
"died  to  sin"  should  be  "died  unto  sin." 

johnxiii.  John  xiii.  23,  25. — ''There  was  at  the 
table  reclining  in  Jesus'  bosom  one  of  his 
disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved.  .  .  .  He 
leaning  hack,  as  he  was,  on  Jesus'  h^east" 
What  change  of  attitude  was  there  in 
the  disciple  who  is  first  described  as 
"reclining  in  Jesus'  bosom,"  and  then  as 
"leaning  back  on  Jesus'  breast" "i  And 
what  difference  did  the  Revisers  conceive 
there  to  be  between  a  man's  "  breast " 
and  his  " bosom"  "i  I  do  not  profess  to 
be  wise  in  such  matters ;  but  I  thought 
that,  in  these  days,  only  women  have 
"bosoms"  The  word  "bosom"  when 
metaphorically  used  as  synonymous  with 
"affection"  cannot  be  objected  to,  even 
when  applied  to  a  man  or  to  God  ;  as 
when  we  speak  of  "the  bosom  ojt  The 

John i.  18.    Father."      But,    in    actual    description, 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH  97 

the  term  is  objectionable.  Perhaps  Bishop 
Thornton,  to  whom  the  Revisers'  work 
is  "light  ifi  all  its  purity  and  clearness,'' 
will  kindly  explain  to  us  the  difference 
between  ''  breast "  and  "  bosom  "  ;  and, 
if  he  considers  the  words  to  be  syno- 
nymes,  give  us  his  opinion  as  to  why 
the  Revisers  varied  their  expression. 
It  may  assist  the  Bishop's  profound  in- 
vestigation if  I  tell  him,  that  the  word 
''  bosom,''  being  allied  to  the  Sanscrit 
'^bugan,"  to  curve,  is  more  applicable 
to  a  woman's  breast  than  to  the 
breast  of  a  man. 

John  xiv.  3. — ''If  I  go  and  prepare  aJohnxiv. 3. 
place  for  you,  I  [will]  come  again,  and 
will  receive  you  unto  myself;  that  w^iere 
I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also."  The  reader 
will  observe  that  the  word  "there"  is  in 
italics  in  the  N.T. ;  which  circumstance 
shows  that,  in  the  Greek,  there  is  no 
word  corresponding  to  it.  Consequently, 
its  being  in  the  R.V.  is  the  Revisers' 
very  own  doing.  But,  let  me  ask,  what 
raisofi  d'eti^e  has  it?     What  want  does 

G 


19. 


98  THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

it  supply  ?  What  additional  thought  does 
it  convey?  What  idea  does  it  impart 
which  is  not  in  the  word  ''  ivliere "  that 
precedes  it?  The  end  of  the  RV. 
verse,  ''ye  may  he  also,''  should  be  ''ye 
also  may  be." 

johnxiv.  John  xiv.  19.  —  ''Because  I  live,  ye 
shall  live  also,''  Adverbs  should  be 
placed  as  near  as  possible  to  the  words 
with  which  they  are  most  intimately 
connected,  so  that  their  reference  may 
be  unmistakable.  In  the  sentence  which 
we  now  have  under  consideration  the 
adverb,  "  also,"  is  not  so  placed ;  its 
reference  is  to  "ye."  Therefore  the  Re- 
visers should  have  said,  "  Because  I  live,  ye 
also  shall  live  "  ;  not,  ''  ye  shall  live  also" 

Johnxiv.  John  xiv.  28. — ''Ye  heard  Jioiv  I  said 
to  you,  I  go  away."  "  Hoiv"  means 
"  ill  what  manner "  ;  and  the  Revisers 
did  not  mean  to  speak  of  the  inanner 
in  which  Jesus  spoke ;  but  of  the  fact 
of  his  speaking,  and  therefore  should 
have  said,  "Ye  heard  that  I  said  to 
you,  I  go  away." 


28. 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH  99 

John  XV.  11. — '*  These  thmgs  have  iJoimxv.  n. 
spoken  unto  you,  that  my  joy  may  be 
in  you,  and  that  your  joy  may  be  ful- 
filled!' Joy  is  not  an  emotion  which 
can  be  said  to  be  ''fulfilled''  \  a  promise 
of  joy  may  be  fulfilled,  but  not  joy  itself. 
Probably  what  Jesus  said,  was,  ''  that 
your  joy  may  be  completed 

John  xvi.  1,  3,  4. — ''These  things  have  Joim  xvi.  i, 
I  spoken  unto  you.  .  .  .  And  these  things 
will  they  do.  .  .  .  But  these  things  have 
I  spoken  unto  you.  .  .  .  And  these  things 
I  said  not."  Four  times  in  three  verses, 
we  have  the  words,  "these  things,"  And 
the  so-called  "things,"  are  not  always 
"  things!'  Three  times  out  of  the  four,  they 
are  sayings.  What  dearth  of  resource  as 
to  language  such  tautology  manifests ! 

John  xvi.  27,  28. — ''I  caine  forth  from so\mxxi. 

97  28 

the  Father.  I  came  out  from  the  Father."  '^ ' 
Is  not  to  ''  come  out  from''  to  "  come  forth 
from "  ?  What,  then,  did  the  Revisers 
think  would  be  gained  by  the  change 
of  expression,  and  the  repetition  of  the 
idea? 


100         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

johnxvi.  John  xvi.  16,  17,  19. — "A  little  while, 
and  ye  behold  me  no  more ;  and  again  a 
little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me.  .  .  . 
A  little  while,  and  ye  behold  me  not ; 
and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall 
see  me.  ...  A  little  while,  and  ye  behold 
me  not;  and  again  a  little  while,  and  ye 
shall  see  me''  What  is  the  meaning  of 
this  change  from  ''behold  me,''  to  ''see 
me "  ?  And  why  has  the  former  been 
considered  preferable  in  a  negative  clause 
of  a  sentence ;  and  the  latter  in  an 
affirmative  clause ;  and  that,  three  times 
over  ?       A    parallel    passage    occurs    in 

Lukexiii.  Luke.  xiii.  35. — ''Ye  shall  not  see  me,  till 
ye  shall  say.  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  If  the  word 
"behold"  is  preferable  in  the  former  sen- 
tences, why  not  in  this  ?  They  both  are 
negative  assertions ;  and  both  refer  to  the 
same  event. 

johnxvii.  John  xvii.  11,  12. — ''Holy  Father,  keep 
them  in  thy  name  which  thou  hast  given 
me,  that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we 
are.      While   I  was  with  them,   I  kept 


THE  BISHOPS  eMlISK  >  '  '  U&li 

them  in  thy  name  which  thou  hast  given 
me  :  and  I  guarded  them,  and  not  one  of 
them  perished,  but  the  son  of  perdition  ; 
that  the  so  nptui  -e  migh  t  he  fulfilled, ' '  There 
must  be  some  awful  mistake  here !  I  do 
not  say  that  the  Revisers  have  mistrans- 
lated the  Greek  :  the  translation  may  be 
accurate  ;  but,  in  justice  to  Jesus,  my 
soul  revolts  against  attributing  such  words 
to  him ;  for  they  affirm  that  he  guarded 
all  the  disciples  except  Judas;  and  that 
he  left  him  to  perish,  in  order  ''that  the 
scripture  might  he  fulfilled  "  !  As  if,  in 
the  estimation  of  him  who  came  to  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  was  lost,  the 
fulfilling  of  a  prophecy  was  a  sufficient 
reason  for  leaving  a  soul  to  perish !  I 
have  not  so  learned  Christ.  How  can 
Bishop  Thornton  designate  the  Revisers' 
work  as  "-  light  hi  all  its  purity  and 
clearness  "  ! 

John  xvii.  15. — '^I  pray  not  that  thou  John  xvu. 
shouldest  take  them  from  the  world,  but  ^^' 
that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  from  the 
evil  one!'     That  which  the  Revisers  have 


<     c  162 :  :     ^rME  iBISHOFS  ENGLISH 

translated  "from^'  is,  in  the  Greek,  ''out 
of  \  and  the  reason  why  they  so  trans- 
lated it,  is  not  far  to  seek.  There  is  no 
word,  in  the  Greek  of  this  passage, 
corresponding  to  the  word,  "one,''  in  the 
phrase  ''the  evil  one''  \  it  is  simply  "tJie 
m/";  and,  as  the  Revisers  wished  to 
make    the   expression    agree   with    their 

Matt.  vi.  13.  version  of  The  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matt, 
vi.  13,  they  were  obliged  to  alter  the 
Greek,  "out  of  to  "from'';  as  they 
could  not  speak  of  being  kept  out  of 
the  evil  one.  Neither  in  this  passage, 
nor  in  the  one  in  Matthew,  is  there 
in  the  Greek  the  word,  "one":  it  is 
''deliver  us  out  of  eviV 

johiixviii.  John  xviii.  15. — "That  disciple  was 
known  unto  the  high  priest,  and  entered 
in  with  Jesus  into  the  court  of  the  high 
priest."  Did  not  the  Revisers  know  that 
the  word,  "enter"  embodies  the  idea  of 
"in"%  Why,  then,  did  they  say,  "enter 
in"  \  "In"  is  superfluous;  they  could 
not  "enter  out"  \  nor  could  they  enter 
otherwise  than  by  going  "  in."     And  what 


15. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         103 

on  earth  did  they  mean  by  the  silly  dupli- 
cation of  the  error,  saying  they  entered  in 
into  the  court  ? 

John   xviii.    18.  —  '*Now  the   servants  Joim  x^-iii. 

18 

and  the  officers  were  standing  there, 
having  made  a  fire  of  coaUr  In  the 
Greek  it  is  ''a  fire  of  charcoal "  ;  and  why 
the  Revisers  did  not  leave  it  so,  it  is 
puzzling  even  to  surmise.  It  is  even 
questionable  whether  coal  was  used  in 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But, 
when  the  Eevisers  had  decided  to  make 
the  alteration,  they  might  at  least  have 
put  it  into  good  English.  "Coals''  for 
coal  is  simply  a  vulgar  error.  I  wonder 
whether  the  Revisers  and  their  friend 
the  Bishop  speak  of  lumps  of  sugar  as 
"sugars!'     See  also  John  xxi.  9.  Johnxxi.9. 

John  xviii.  31,  32.  —  "The  Jeivs  said  John  xvm. 
unto  him.  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put 
any  man  to  death  :  that  the  tvord  of  Jesus 
might  he  falfiUed,  which  he  spake,  signify- 
ing by  what  manner  of  death  he  should 
die."  Did  the  Revisers  themselves  be- 
lieve, and  did  they  wish  us  to  believe, 


104         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

that  the  Jetvs,  who  sought  to  bring  about 
the  death  of  Jesus,  did  so  in  order  that 
the  word  of  Jesus  might  he  fidfilled  ?  The 
idea  is  absolutely  incredible. 

johnxix.  John  xix.  18. — ''They  crucified  him, 
and  with  him  two  others,  on  either  side 
one,  and  Jesus  in  the  midst."  Either 
means  one  of  two,  but  not  both  ;  hence  the 
inaccuracy  of  the  Revisers'  expression  : 
they  should  have  said,  ''  On  eadi  side  one, 
and  Jesus  in  the  midst." 

Johnxix.  John  xix.  28.  —  ''After  this  Jesus, 
knowing  that  all  things  are  iioiv  finished, 
that  the  scripture  might  be  accomplished, 
saith,  I  thirst."  In  the  first  place,  as  the 
Revisers  were  recording  a  past  event, 
they  should  have  said,  not,  "all  things 
are  now  finished";  but,  "all  things  ivere 
then  finished."  And  if  the  Revisers  did 
not  mean  that  Jesus's  expression,  "/ 
thirst,''  was  said  merely  to  fulfil  a  pro- 
phecy, they  should  have  put  into  brackets, 
as  a  parenthesis,  the  words  ("knowing 
that  all  things  were  then  finished,  that 
the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled"). 


28. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         105 

John  XX.  14,  15. —  ''When  she  had Jji^j^^^x. 
thus  said,  she  turned  herself  back,  and 
beholdeth  Jesus  standing,  and  knew  not 
that  it  was  Jesus,  Jesus  said  unto  her." 
To  make  good  English  of  the  Revisers' 
language  is  almost  a  hopeless  task.  Look 
at  these  two  verses  :  "  she  turned  "  [_past 
tense']  ''and  beholdeth"  [preseitt  tense] 
"Jesus  standing,  and  knew  not  [past 
tense]  that  it  was  Jesus.  Jesus  saith  unto 
her."  When  the  Revisers  saw  that  they 
had  the  name  "Jesus''  three  times  in  ten 
consecutive  words,  the  substitution  of  a 
pronoun  for  the  second  time  of  the  word's 
occurrence  should  have  been  felt  to  be 
imperative.  Then  the  passage  might 
have  stood  thus  : — "  She  turned  herself 
back,  and  beheld  Jesus  standing,  biit  knew 
not  that  it  was  he  J'  The  same  error 
occurs  in   verses   4   and   5   of  the  next^*^^^^''^- 

4,  5. 

chapter. 

John  xxi.  3. — "Simon  Peter  saith  unto  John xxi. 
them,  1  go  Si  fishing.     They  say  unto  him, 
We  also  come  with  thee."     The  Revisers 
were  right  in  representing  Simon  Peter 


106         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

as  saying,  "I  go  a,  fishing";  but  they 
should  have  reported  the  others  as  saying, 
"  We  will  ffo  with  thee"  ;  not,  ''We  also 
co7ne  with  thee."  If  Peter  had  to  go,  so 
likewise  had  the  others  who  purposed 
accompanying  him.  This  error  is  not 
found  in  the  A.V. ;  there  it  is — ''We also 
go  with  thee." 

johnxxi. 9.  John  xxi.  9. — "A  fire  of  coals.''  Here 
is  a  repetition  of  the  vulgar  error  occur- 
ring in  ch.  xviii.  18.  The  word  "coals'"  is 
correct  only  when  different  kinds  are 
spoken  of 

There  is  one  very  strange  error  which 
occurs  with  remarkable  frequency  in  the 
Gospels.  I  say,  "  strange,''  because  its 
grossness  is  so  palpable.  I  refer  to  the 
expression,  "Verily  I  say  unto  you" 
where  the  adverb  ''verily"  does  not  refer 
to  the  fact  of  Christ's  speaking,  but  to 
that  which  he  spoke:  e.g.  "Verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  They  have  their  reward." 
This  should  be,   "I  say  unto  you,  rerily 

Matt.vi. 2.  they  ham  their  reward" — Matt.  vi.  2,  and 
elsewhere. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         107 

Acts  i.  8,  13. — "Both  in  Jei^usalem,  and  Acts i. s, is. 
in  all  Jud^a  and  Samaria,  and  unto  the 
uttermost  part  of  the  earth."  The  word 
"both''  correctly  refers  to  tivo  only,  but  the 
Revisers  have  here  given  to  it  an  extended 
meaning  which  is  inconsistent  with  its  sig- 
nification. See  also  v.  13,  where  the  word 
"  both  "  is  used  concerning  eleven  apostles  ! 

Acts  i.  12. — ''Olivet,  which  is  nigh j^^u  112. 
unto  Jerusalem  a  sabbath  day's  journey 
0  ."  Better  thus  : — "  Olivet,  which  is  a 
sabbath  day's  journey  from  Jerusalem  "  ; 
we  then  avoid  the  solecism  of  "nigh "  and 
"off'')  the  former  meaning  "near''  \  and 
the  latter,  "distant!' 

Acts  iii.  21. — ''Even  Jesus:  whom  ^/^^ Acts m. 21. 
heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of 
restoration  of  all  things."  "  The  heaven" 
is  an  expression  employed  by  the  Revisers 
to  denote  the  firmament ;  (see  Luke  iv.  i uke  h.  25. 
25)  therefore  unless  the  Revisers  meant 
that  Jesus  would  be  up  in  the  clouds 
until  the  restoration  of  all  things,  the  ex- 
pression should  have  been,  "  whom  Heamn 
must  receive." 


108         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

Actsiv. 3.  Acts  iv.  3.  —  ''It  ivas  ?iotv  eventide." 
Why  have  the  Revisers  thus  confused  the 
past  and  the  present?  If  the  intention 
was  to  describe  a  past  event,  what  busi- 
ness has  "noiv''  in  the  sentence?  If  the 
Revisers  intended  to  speak  of  a  present 
event,  why  put  the  verb  in  the  past\ 
The  expression  "was''  [past],  "iioiv'' 
[present]  is  wholly  indefensible. 

Acts h.  18.  Acts  iv.  18. — ''And  they  called  them, 
and  charged  them  not  to  speak  at  all  nor 
teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus."  It  is  the 
word  "neither''  which  is  followed  by 
"nor"\  the  word  "not"  is  followed  by 
"or."  Therefore  the  Revisers  should 
have  said,  "They  called  them,  and 
charged  them  not  to  speak  at  all  or  teach 
in  the  name  of  Jesus."  The  word  "nor" 
would  be  permissible  after  "not"  only  in 
a  sentence  wherein  the  auxiliary  verb 
were  repeated :  e.g.  "  They  were  not  to 
speak ;  nor  were  they  to  teach  in  the 
name  of  Jesus." 

Actsiv. 32.  Acts  iv.  32. — "Not  one  of  them  said 
that  aught  of  the   things  which  he  pos- 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         109 

sessed  was  his  own ;  but  they  had  all 
things  common^  The  expression  ''they 
had  all  things  common,''  might  mean  that 
they  did  not  indulge  in  luxuries ;  but  as 
it  is  evident  from  the  context  that  that 
was  not  the  meaning  intended  to  be  con-  ^ 
veyed;  but  rather,  that  ''they  had  all 
things  in  common,"  the  Revisers  should 
have  said  so. 

Acts  V.  25. — "The  men  whom  ye  put  Acts  v.  25. 
in  the  prison  are  in  the  temple."  The 
little  word,  "  m "  occurs  twice  in  this 
short  sentence ;  but  being  used  in  the 
first  instance  as  a  preposition  of  action, 
it  is  inaccurate  there.  The  Revisers 
should  have  said,  that  the  apostles  who 
were  "  put  into  the  prison  are  in  the 
Temple."  The  words  are  not  inter- 
changeable ;  it  is  as  incorrect  to  say 
that  the  apostles  were  "put  in  the 
prison,"  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  they 
were  found  "into  the  Temple." 

Here  is  another  instance  of  erroneous 
spelling.      In  Acts  v.  36,  we  read,  ''As  Acts  v.  36. 
many  as  obeyed  him  were  dispersed,  and 


110         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

came  to  nought."  It  should  be  "  nought," 
the   negative   of  "aught,''   which   means 

Acts iv. 32.  ''anything."  See  Acts  iv.  32.  The  Re- 
visers might,  with  equal  propriety,  or 
rather,  with  equal  impropriety,  call  a 
''draught"  of  water,   its  very  opposite, 

Lukexxiii.  a  ''drought."     See  also  Luke  xxiii.  11. 

Actsvi.  1.  Acts  vi.  1. — "  There  arose  a  murmuring 
of  the  Grecian  Jews  against  the  Hebrews 
because  their  widows  were  neglected  in 
the  daily  ministration."  Whose  widows  ? 
The  widows  of  the  Grecian  Jews,  or  of 
the  Hebrews  ?  Did  the  Grecian  Jews, 
in  a  spirit  of  disinterested  philanthropy, 
murmur  that  the  Hebrews  were  neglecting 
their  own  widows  ?  The  construction  of 
the  sentence  is  very  ambiguous,  owing  to 
the  pronoun  "their"'  which  the  Revisers 
have  employed  so  injudiciously. 

Actsvii. 6.  Acts  vii.  6. — "And  God  spake  on  this 
wise,  that  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a 
strange  land,  and  that  thej/  should  bring 
the7n  into  bondage."  Who  should  bring 
whom  into  bondage  ?  Where  is  the  noun 
to    which   the    pronoun   "  the^/ "   refers  ? 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         111 

Was  it  Abraham's  seed  who  should 
bring  into  bondage  the  inhabitants  of 
the  strange  land?  Certainly  not,  though 
the  sequence  of  the  words  makes  the 
passage  state  so.  Thus  the  Revisers' 
carelessness  about  pronouns  has  falsified 
history. 

Acts  vii.  25.  —  ''  He  supposed  [this  Acts  vu.  25. 
should  be  " believed'']  that  his  brethren 
understood  how  that  God  by  his  hand 
was  giving  them  deliverance."  Here  is 
another  example  of  error  as  to  the  place 
which  a  pronoun  should  occupy  in  a 
sentence.  The  words,  "  by  his  hand," 
in  consequence  of  their  immediately 
following  the  word,  "  God,"  naturally 
makes  the  pronoun,  ''his''  refer  to  God, 
whereas  it  really  refers  to  Moses.  The 
Revisers  should  have  said,  ^'He  trusted 
that  his  brethren  understood  that,  by 
his  hand,  God  was  giving  them  deliver- 
ance."    See  Luke  xix.  11.  Lukexix. 

Acts   vii.  43. — ''And  ye   took  up  the  Acts  vh.  43. 
tabernacle   of  Moloch."      To   take  up  a 
tabernacle   is  very  like   taking  it  down ; 


112         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

and  that  was  the  opposite  of  the  meaning 
of  Stephen,  who,  doubtless  said,  ''  Ye 
raised  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch  "  ;  as 

Amos ix.  11.  in  Amos  ix.  11,  ''I  will  raise  up  the 
tabernacle  of  David." 

Actsvii. 53.  Acts  vii.  53. — ''Ye  who  received  the 
law  as  it  was  ordained  by  angels."  The 
Law  was  not  an  ordinance  of  the  angels ; 
it  was  an  ordinance  by  God  (see  Luke 

Luke  i.  6.     i.  6);  and  was  ministered  by  the  angels 

Acts  vii.  30,  (see  V.  30,  35,  38  of  this  chapter).  The 
difficulty  would  be  obviated  by  transposing 
the  words,  ''hy  angels','  and  reading  the 
passage  thus,  ''  Ye  who  received,  from 
angels,  the  Law  as  it  was  ordainedr 

Acts  viii.  Acts  viii.  14. — ''The  apostles  which  were 
at  Jerusalem."  As  previously  remarked, 
we  do  not  say  at  a  city,  but  in  a  city ; 
and  at  a  town  or  a  village ;  therefore  the 
Revisers  should  have  said,  "The  apostles 

Actsiv.  y,  who  were  in  Jerusalem."  In  ch.  iv.  5 
and    16    the    Revisers    have    said,    "m 

Acts  ix.  21,  Jerusalem";  and  in  Acts  ix.  21  and  28 
they  have  said  both  "  in  Jerusalem "  and 
''at  Jerusalem";  and  why,  it  would  puzzle 


28. 


a 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         113 

anyone,  except  Bishop  Thornton,  to  say. 

See  also  Luke  ix.  31.  Luke  ix.  si. 

Acts  viii.  20. — ''Thy  silver  perish  with ^<^tsYin. 
thee,  because  thou  hast  thought  to  obtain 
the  gift  of  God  with  money."     The  word 

tvith''  has  here  two  different  significa- 
tions. In  the  former  clause,  it  means 
'^  accompanied  hy''  \  and  if,  as  is  only 
natural,  it  should  be  taken  to  mean  the 
same  in  the  latter  clause,  the  true  significa- 
tion of  the  passage  will  thereby  be  per- 
verted ;  for,  the  assertion  will  be,  ''  Thou 
hast  thought  to  obtain  the  gift  of  God 
accompanied  by  money."  The  Revisers 
should  have  said,  ''Thou  hast  thought  to 
obtain  the  gift  of  God  hy  means  o/* money." 

Acts   viii.    31. — "How  can    I,   except Act^vm. 
some  one  shall  guide  me  ? "     The  Revisers'  ^^' 
misuse  of  "except''  for  '^ unless''  is  very 
strange.      Everywhere  in  the  A.V.  the 
word,  "unless"  is  correct;  but  in  1  Cor. i cor. xv. 2. 
XV.  2,  the   Revisers  have  altered  it  to 
''  except "  ;    and    yet,    where    the    word, 
"except"    is    incorrect    in    the    A.V.    inj^g^^-^^^- 
1  Cor.  xiv.  6,  9;  and  2  Cor.  xiii.  5,  the^^^^-^"^- 


114         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

Revisers  have  altered  it  to  "unless^     In 

xx^/29!' ^ '  Acts  viii.  1;  and  xxvi.  29;  the  word, 
'*  except,''  is  correct  in  both  versions.     In 

prov.iv.i6.  Prov.  iv.  16,  both  words  occur,  in  both 
versions ;  '^  They  sleep  not  except  they 
have  done  mischief;  and  their  sleep  is 
taken  away  unless  they  cause  some  to 
fall."  It  should  be  ''  unless "  in  both 
instances.  For  the  rule  as  to  the  right 
use  of  the  two  words,  see  the  criticisms 

It"'''''     on  John  viii.  24. 

Acts  viii.  Acts  viii.  32. — ''He  was  led  as  a  sheep 
to  the  slaughter ;  and  as  a  lamb  before 
his  shearer  is  dumb,  so  he  openeth  not 
his  mouth."     In  both  the  A.V.  and  the 

i8a.iiii.r.  KV.  this  passage,  from  Isa.  liii.  7,  is 
misquoted ;  "  sheep  "  being  put  for  "  lamb,'' 
and  ''lamb"  for  "sheep,"  It  is  surprising 
that  the  Revisers  did  not  correct  the 
error ;  for  everybody  (except,  of  course, 
the  Revisers)  knows  that  "  lambs "  are 
not  shorn.  What  if  the  error  is  in  the 
Greek ;   it   is  not,   on   that   account,  in- 

icor.xiv.   ^pij.^^      ''God  is  not  a  God    of   con- 

jer.x.io.    fiision"  He  is  the  "true  God." 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         115 

Acts  ix.  26.  —  ''He  assayed  to  join  Acts  ix.  26. 
himself  to  the  disciples."  This  should 
have  been,  '' essayed'' \  i.e.,  attempted. 
''Assayed^'  in  that  sense,  is  obsolete; 
and  its  use  is  restricted  to  the  deter- 
mining the  quantity  of  metal  in  an  ore. 

Acts  ix.  39. — ''Shewing  the  coats  a;z6/ Acts  ix.  39. 
garments  which  Dorcas  made."      Is  not 
a  coat  a  garment  ?     The  Revisers  should 
have  said  ''coats  and  other  garments." 

Acts  X.  20.  —  "Arise,  and  get  i^A^^ Acts x. 20. 
down."  This,  unquestionably,  should  be, 
"  Arise,  and  get  thou  down  "  ;  just  as  in 
Ruth  iv.  11,  "  Do  thou  worthily."  "  Thee  "  Ruth  iv.  n. 
for  "  thou^'  is  an  error  which  is  common 
among  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  is 
thus  spoken  of  by  that  greatest  of 
English  Grammarians,  Goold  Brown  of 
Lynn,  Mass.  U.S.A ;  in  his  "  Grammar 
of  Enghsh  Grammars,"  Second  ed.  p.  320  : 
"  The  religious  sect  that  entertained  a 
scruple  about  applying  '  you '  to  an  in- 
dividual, fell  for  the  most  part  into  an 
ungrammatical  practice  of  putting  '  thee ' 
for    ^  thoic\''      But    how    the    Revisers 


116         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

came  to  sanction  the  error  is  a  mystery. 

Actsxxii.  The  error  occurs  also  in  Acts  xxii.  18. 
''Make  haste,  and  get  thee  quickly  out 
of  Jerusalem." 

Actsxii.  10.  Acts  xii.  10. — ''And  when  they  were 
past  the  first  and  the  second  ward,''  I 
am  glad  to  find  that  the  Revisers  have 
left  this  passage  unaltered,  because  it  is 
correct ;  but  many  clergymen  are  puzzled 
by  similarly  constructed  sentences,  and 
do  not  know  whether  to  say,  "The  Old 
and  New  Testament,''  or  "  The  Old  and 
New  Testaments " ;  nor  do  they  know 
whether  to  say,  "  The  first  and  the 
second  verse,"  or  "The  first  and  the 
second  verses''  But  the  rule  governing 
such  expressions  is  very  simple ;  it  is 
this :  If  you  repeat  the  article  "  the " 
before  the  noun,  then  the  noun  must  be 
in  the  singular ;  otherwise  the  noun  must 
be  in  the  plural.  Thus  :  "  The  Old  and 
New  Testaments,"  or,  "The  Old  and  the 
New  Testament"  \  and,  "The  first  and 
second  verses,''  or,  "The  first  and  the 
second  verse." 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         117 
Acts  xiii.  25. — "Behold,  there  cometh  Acts xm. 

25 

one  after  me,  the  shoes  of  whose  feet 
I  am  not  worthy  to  unloosed  Why  did 
the  Revisers  alter  the  word  "loose''  as 
it  occurs  in  the  A.V.,  to  the  vulgarism, 
'*  ^^/^loose  "  ?  U71  is  a  particle  signifying 
negation ;  therefore,  if  *'  to  loose "  is  to 
liberate,  ''  to  unloose  "  must  mean  to  bind 
fast;  just  as  ''to  hind''  and  ''to  unbind" 
are  the  very  opposites  of  each  other, 
therefore  they  cannot  be  used  inter- 
changeably. 

Acts  xiv.  18. — "  And  with  these  sayings  Actsxiv.is. 
scarce  restrained  they  the  multitudes 
from  doing  sacrifice  unto  them."  As 
verbs  should  be  qualified  by  adverbs, 
and  not  by  adjectives,  the  Revisers 
ought  to  have  said,  ''And  with  these 
sayings,  scarcely  restrained  they  the 
multitude." 

Acts  XV.  4. — ''And  they  rehearsed  all  Acts  xv.  4, 
things   that  God  had  done   ivitli  them." 
In   verse   12   of   this    chapter,   we  read  . 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas  "  rehearsing  what 
signs    and  wonders    God    had   wrought 


118         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

among  the  Gentiles  by  them."  That 
which  God  does  tvith  a  man,  and  that 
which  God  does  by  a  man,  are  quite 
different.  The  former  refers  to  the  man 
as  passive ;  the  latter  refers  to  him  as 
active ;  and  the  reference  in  each  of  the 
verses  being  to  Paul  and  Barnabas  as 
active  agents,  the  preposition  in  each 
case  should  have  been,  "by'' :  not  " tvith'' 
in  one  instance,  and  ''  by''  in  the  other. 

Acts xr.  14.  Acts  XV.  14.  —  ''Brethren,  hearken 
unto  me :  Symeon  hath  rehearsed  how 
first  God  did  visit  the  Gentiles."  To 
alter  the  spelling  of  a  proper  name  in 
history  is  very  objectionable ;  it  is  con- 
fusing. The  person  whose  name  the 
Revisers  give  here  as  Symeon,  is  appar- 
ently the  same  as  he  whose  name  they 
have   spelled   Simeon    in   the   history   to 

Luke  ii.  25,  which  this  passage  refers.  See  Luke  ii. 
25,  34.  Or  does  the  passage  refer  to 
Simon   Peter's   mission  to    the    Gentiles 

Acts  xi.  18.  as  recorded  in  Acts  xi.  18?  Either  way, 
the  spelling  is  different. 

Acts XV. 24.      Acts  XV.  24. — -''Forasmuch  as  we  have 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         119 

heard  that  certain  which  went  out  from 
us  have  troubled  you  with  words,  subvert- 
ing your  souUr  A  perusal  of  the  event 
referred  to  (see  verse  5)  will  show  that 
the  teaching  spoken  of  could  not  have 
subverted  their  souls,  though  it  may  have 
unsettled  their  minds  respecting  a  certain 
ceremony. 

Were  the  Revisers  in  a  humorous 
mood  when  they  penned  this  conundrum  ; 
for,  it  is  nothing  less  ?  It  occurs  in 
Acts  xvi.  22.  *'And  the  magistrates  ^^ts  xvi.  22. 
rent  their  garments  off  them,  and 
commanded  to  beat  them  with  rods." 
Query.  Did  the  magistrates  rend  their 
own  garments,  or  the  garments  of  the 
prisoners  ?  And  were  the  garments  to 
be  beaten,  or  the  men  ? 

Acts   xvii.    25,   27.  —  '^ Neither    is   he :Jf^s™ 

'  Jo,  27, 

served  by  men's  hands,  as  though  he 
needed  any  thing."  ...  "if  haply  they 
might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him  though 
he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us."  Here 
are  two  sentences  in  which  the  word, 
''though''  is  used;   in   the   former,  it   is 


120         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

used  incorrectly ;  and  in  the  latter, 
correctly.  The  meaning  of  the  word, 
as  I  have  previously  stated,  is,  ''not- 
withstanding " ;  and,  having  that  negative 
signification,  it  is  out  of  place  in  an 
affirmative  phrase.  The  Revisers  should 
have  said,  in  verse  25,  ''as  if  he  needed 

Luke  ix.  53.  any  thing."     See  criticism  on  Luke  ix.  53. 

Sometimes  the  Revisers  (is  it  by  way  of 

relieving  the  monotony  of  their  labours) 

play   at    ''see-saw''   with    the    language. 

Actsxviii.  In  Acts  xviii.  22,  we  read,  ''And  when 
he  had  landed  at  Caesarea,  he  went  up 
and  saluted  the  church,  and  ivent  doivn  to 
Antioch."  Why  could  not  the  Revisers 
have  said,  "  And  when  he  had  landed 
at  Caesarea,  and  had  gone  and  saluted 
the  church,  he  went  doivn  to  Antioch "  ? 
The  meaning  is  the  same,  and  the  "see- 
saw "  is  avoided. 

Actsxix.ii,  Acts  xix.  11,  12. — "And  God  wrouo^ht 
special  miracles  by  the  hands  of  Paul : 
insomuch  that  unto  the  sick  were  carried 
away  from  his  body  handkerchiefs  or 
apronSy  and  the  diseases  departed  from 


12. 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         121 

themy  If  the  Revisers  did  not  mean  that 
the  diseases  departed  from  the  ''handker- 
chiefs  or  aprons^'  the  sentence  should 
have  been  arranged  thus: — ''And  God 
wrought  special  miracles  by  the  hands 
of  Paul :  insomuch  that,  from  his  body, 
handkerchiefs  or  aprons  were  carried 
away  to  the  sick,  and  the  diseases  de- 
parted from  themr 

Acts  xix.  26. — ''Paul  hath  persuaded  Acts  xix.  20. 
and  turned  away  much  people,  saying 
that  they  be  no  gods  which  are  made 
ivith  hands."  We  may  be  sure  that 
Paul  never  discriminated  between  idols 
"-with  hands''  and  idols  ivithout  hands ^ 
as  the  Revisers'  language  seems  to  imply. 
What  the  Ephesians  said,  was  that  Paul 
affirmed  that  gods  made  by  hands  were 
not  Gods.     See  criticism  on  Acts  xv.  4.     Acts  xv.  4. 

Acts  xix.  34. — "  Great  is  Diana  of  the  Acts  xix.  34. 
Ephesians  ! "  As  there  is  no  verb  in  the 
Greek  of  this  passage,  the  exclamation 
was  not  an  assertion  of  the  greatness  of 
Diana ;  but  was  an  invocation  to  her ; 
"  Great  Diana  of  the  Ephesians  ! "  and  the 


122         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

Revisers  ought  to  have  given  it  as 
such. 

Acts XX. 0.  Acts  XX.  9. — ''And  there  sat  in  the 
window  a  certain  young  man  named 
Eutychus,  borne  down  with  deep  sleep ; 
and  as  Paul  discoursed  yet  longer,  being 
borne  doiv7i  by  his  sleep,  he  fell  down 
from  the  third  story  J'  But  a  ^^  story''  is 
a  tale  :  the  floor  of  a  house  is  spelled 
''storey."  How  was  it  that  the  Revisers 
mistook  the  former  for  the  latter  ?  Did 
they,  like  Eutychus,  become  drowsy,  and 
think  that  Paul  had  been  telling  tales 
to  the  company,  and  that  the  young 
man  fell  asleep  at  the  end  of  the  ''  third 
story'' \  This  error  is  not  in  the  A.V. 
It  is  the  Revisers'  own  invention.  In 
the  A.V.  the  word  is  ''loft"  \  but  that 
did  not  please  the  Revisers  ;  they  had  no 
lofty  ideas.     Nor  is  it  a  unique  example 

Gen.vi.i6.  of  tfaclr  cn'or.  In  Gen.  vi.  16,  they  tell 
us  that  the  ark  had  three  "stories"  in 
it;  as  if  Noah  had  provided  himself 
with  a  little  light  literature  for  rainy 
days  !     "  Stories  "  is  the  plural  of  "  story" 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         123     ^ 

a  tale.  The  Revisers  should  have  known 
that  the  plural  of  ''storey,"  the  floor  of  a 
house,  is  ''  storey sJ'  Where  y  at  the  end 
of  a  word  is  preceded  by  a  vowel,  the 
plural  is  made  by  simply  adding  5;  it  is 
when  yy  at  the  end  of  a  word,  is  preceded 
by  a  consonant  that  the  plural  is  made 
by  changing  the  y  into  ies. 

The  Bishop  describes  the  Revisers' 
work  as,  ''  light  in  all  its  purity  and 
clearness  "  ;  but  they  were  certainly  very 
much  in  the  dark  in  their  knowledge  of 
English. 

Acts  xxi.  4. — ''And  having  found  the ^^t« xxi. 4. 
disciples,  we  tarried  there  seven  days : 
and  these  [i.e.,  the  disciples]  said  to  Paul 
through  the  Spirit,  that  he  should  not  set 
foot  in  Jerusalem^  This  verse  needs 
some  explanation,  seeing  that,  according 
to  verse  17  of  the  same  chapter,  Paul  Acts  xxi.  17. 
did  set  foot  in  Jerusalem.  Perhaps 
Bishop  Thornton,  to  whom  the  R.V.  is 
"  light  in  all  its  purity  and  clearness,''  will 
clear  up  the  difficulty  for  us. 

Acts  xxi.   20. — ''And   they  said  unto  Acts  xxi.  20. 


124         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

him,  Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many 
thousands  there  are  among  the  Jews  of 
them  which  have  believed."  It  is  evident 
that  the  Revisers  did  not  believe  in  the 
verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures ;  or 
they  would  not  have  interpreted  as 
"thousands,''  the  Greek  word  which 
signifies  ''myriads^ 

Actsxxi.2c,  Acts  xxi.  26. — ''Then  Paul  took  the 
men,  and  the  next  day  purifying  himself 
with  them  went  into  the  temple,  declaring 
the  fulfilment  of  the  days  of  purification, 
until  the  offering  was  offered  for  every 
one  of  them."  This  is  not  correctly 
stated.  Paul  did  not  declare  "th^fidjil- 
ment  of  the  days  of  purification "  ;  for, 
those  days  had  only  just  begun.  He 
announced  the  period  of  the  days  of 
purification ;  and  that  an  oblation  would 
be  offered  for  himself  and  for  each  of  his 
companions. 

Acts  xxi.  30,  Acts  xxi.  30,  31.^ — ''And  they  laid  hold 
on  Paul,  and  dragged  him  out  of  the 
temple  :  and  straightway  the  doors  were 
shut.     And  as  they  were  seeking  to  kill 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         125 

him."  Who  were  seeking  to  kill  Paul? 
The  passage  says  that  "the  doors  were 
shut.  And  as  they  were  seeking  to  kill 
him."  When  a  pronoun  is  apt  to  lead  to 
confusion  of  thought,  even  though  that 
be  only  momentary,  the  noun,  and  not  a 
pronoun,  should  be  used.  The  Revisers 
should  have  said,  ''And  as  the  Jews  from 
Asia  were  seeking  to  kill  him." 

Acts  xxiii.  2. — ''And  the  high  priest  Acts  xxui. 
Ananias  commanded  them  that  stood  by  ^' 
him  to  smite  him  on  the  mouth."  To 
whom  does  the  first  "him''  refer?  Does 
it  refer  to  Ananias  or  to  Paul  ?  The 
second  "him''  doubtless  refers  to  Paul; 
but  the  reference  of  the  first  is  doubtful. 
As  far  as  the  construction  of  the  sentence 
is  any  indication  of  its  meaning,  the  word 
"him,"  in  each  case,  might  refer  to 
Ananias. 

Acts  xxiii.   10,  and  27.  —  "Lest  Paul  Acts xxiu. 

10  27 

should  be  torn  in  pieces  by  them."  .  .  .    '   ' 
"  This  man  was  seized  by  the  Jews,  and 
was  about  to  be  slain  of  them."      Why    . 
have  the  Revisers  made  this  ridiculous 


126         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

difference  in  the  prepositions?  And 
what  difference  was  there  in  the  contem- 
plated actions  that  justified  it  ?     See  also 

Lukeiv.i,   comments  on  Luke  iv.  1,  2. 

Actsxxiii.  Acts  xxiii.  15. — "And  we,  or  ever  he 
come  near,  are  ready  to  slay  him/'  "  Or,'' 
for  "ere,''  is  a  vulgarism.  Doubtless  it 
has  the  sanction  of  antiquity;  but  that 
does  not  make  it  the  less  a  very  silly 
error.  What  possible  meaning  can  attach 
to  ''  or"  in  the  above  sentence  ? 

Actsxxiv.  ^cts  xxiv.  10.  —  "I  know  that  thou 
hast  been  o/many  years  a  judge  unto  this 
nation."  The  Revisers  have  strangely 
misused  the  little  preposition  "  of,"     In 

Actsxxiii.  verse  27  of  the  previous  chapter  they 
used  it  for  " by"  Here  they  have  used  it 
for  ''during"  We  read,  ''I  know  that 
thou  hast  been  of  many  years  a  judge 
unto  this  nation."  He  may  have  been  a 
judge  of  important  cases  brought  before 
him  ;  but  certainly  he  never  had  to  judge 
''years." 

Actsxxiv.  Acts  xxiv.  15.  —  ''There  shall  be  a 
resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  unjust." 


27. 


15. 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         127 

In  sentences  where  the  word  "both''  is 
followed  by  a  preposition,  the  preposition 
should  be  repeated  before  the  second 
part  of  the  sentence  referred  to  by  the 
word  "both,''  e.g.  ''There  shall  be  a 
resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust." 

Acts  XXV.  3.  —  ''And  they  besought  Acts  xxv.  3. 
hiin,  asking  favour  against  him,  that  he 
would  send  for  him."  Oh !  these  pro- 
nouns, about  which  the  Revisers  boasted 
of  having  been  so  "particularly  careful," 
Why  did  they  not  say,  "And  besought 
Festus,  asking  favour  against  Paul,  that 
he  might  be  sent  to  Jerusalem  "  ? 

Acts  XXV.  26,  andxxvi.  3. — "Wherefore  Actsxxv. 

2()  *  xwi    3 

I  have  brought  him  forth  before  you,  and 
specially  before  thee,  King  Agrippa  .  .  . 
especially  because  thou  art  expert  in  all 
customs."  What  difference  in  meaning 
is  there  between  the  words,  "specially" 
and  "  especially "  ?  And  if  there  is  no 
difference,  why  have  the  Revisers  used 
both  within  four  verses  of  each  other  ? 

Acts  xxvii.  32,  33.—"  Then  the  soldiers  ^2^T'"- 


128         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

cut  away  the  ropes  of  the  boat,  and  let 
her  fall  off»  And  while  the  day  was 
coming  on^ 

The  Revisers  appear  not  to  have  taken 
a  comprehensive  view  of  the  sentences 
which  they  were  writing;  but  confined 
their  attention  to  the  one  on  which 
they  were  then  engaged,  regardless  of 
its  surroundings.  How  else  can  we 
account  for  their  saying  that  the  soldiers 
let  the  boat  fall  off,  while  the  day  was 
coming  on  ? 

Actsxxviii.  Acts  xxviii.  6.  —  ''But  they  expected 
that  he  would  ham  sivollen,  or  fallen  down 
dead."  Expectation  cannot  refer  to  a 
past  event.  The  inhabitants  of  Melita 
did  not  expect  that  Paul  would  ham 
swollen  and  fallen  down  dead.  That  which 
they  expected,  was  that  he  would  swell  and 
fall  down  dead, 

Rom. i.  10.  Rom.  i.  10. — ''Making  request,  if  by 
any  means  now  at  length  I  may  be 
prospered."  The  use  of  ''at  length^'  for 
"  at  last,''  is  a  very  common  error ;  the 
expressions    are    not    synonymous ;    the 


6. 


THE  BiSHOFS  ENGLISH         129 

former   means    ''extended";    the    latter, 
''  ultimately^ 

Romans  i.  22. — ' 'Professing  themselves  Rom. i. 22. 
to  be  wise,  they  became  fools,  and  changed 
the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  for  the 
likeness  of  an  image  of  corruptible  man." 
The  words  '^^corruptible"  and  "tmcor- 
ruptible"  have  each  a  separate  meaning 
and  office  :  the  former  is  used  in  reference 
to  matter ;  the  latter  in  reference  to 
spirit.  "  Incorruptible  "  means  "  not  liable 
to  decay":  its  cognate  word,  "incor- 
ruption^'  is  appropriately  used  in  1cor.xv.54. 
1  Cor.  XV.  54.  "  So  when  this  corruptible 
shall  have  put  on  incorruption,"  etc. 
The  fact  that  the  word  ''uncorruptible'' 
refers  to  spirit,  is  seen  in  Titus  ii.  7,  Titus  ii.  7. 
"  In  thy  doctrine  showing  ?/72Corruptness." 
And  it  is  the  word  "  ^^/^corruptible," 
and  not  "  ^corruptible,"  which  the  Re- 
visers should  have  employed  in  speaking 
of  God,  the  Great  Spirit.  John  iv.  24. 

Romans  iii.  12. — "There  is  none  that  Rom. m.  12. 
doeth  good,  no,  not  so  much  as  one."     In 
the  A.V.  it  is,  "no,  not  one'' ;  and,  which 


130         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

is  the  preferable  expression,  needs  no 
indication ;  for,  ''  not  so  much  as  one " 
implies  that  there  may  be  part  of  one 
person,  which  is  an  absurdity. 

Roin.iv.  17.  Romans  iv.  17.  —  '*  Even  God,  who 
quickeneth  the  dead,  and  called  the  things 
that  are  not,  as  though  they  were."  Here 
the  Revisers  affirm  something  which  is 
widely  different  from  that  which  they 
intended  to  state.  The  expression, 
"  though  they  were,"  is  equivalent  to, 
''  notwithstanding  that  they  were "  ;  and 
brings  before  the  reader  an  affirmation  of 
existence ;  but  the  real  meaning  of  the 
passage  is,  not  an  affi7i7iation  of  existence, 
but  a  supposition  of  existence.  Con- 
sequently, the  Revisers  should  have  said, 
'*as  ^/they  were." 

Rom.v.7.  Romans  v.  7.  —  ''For  scarcely /6^  a 
righteous  man  will  one  die  :  for  perad- 
venture  for  the  good  man  some  one 
would  even  dare  to  die."  Passing  over 
the  inelegancy  of  ''for,... for,... for,... for," 
I  ask  what  is  the  difference  between  a 
''righteous  man,'  and  a  "good  man,''  that 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         131 

some  would  even  dare  to  die  for  the 
latter ;  but  would  hesitate  to  die  for  the 
former  ?  Is  it  that  a  so-called  ''  righteoiis 
man''  is  one  whose  life  is  given  up  to 
religious  observances,  fasting,  making 
long  prayers,  giving  tithes,  etc. ;  and  who 
regards  selfish  ceremonial  as  the  acm6  of 
duty,  to  the  neglect  of  his  fellow- crea- 
tures ;  whereas  a  "good  man  "  is  one  who 
holds,  and  lives  up  to,  the  belief,  that 
those  who  love  God,  should  love  each 
other  also?  H'''''''^' 

Romans  vii.  1.  —  ''The  law  hath  Rom. vii. i. 
dominion  over  a  man  for  so  long  time  as 
he  liveth."  The  rule  respecting  "  so — as,'' 
and  "  as — as  "  is  very  simple  ;  yet,  simple 
as  it  is,  it  was  evidently  unknown  to 
the  Revisers  and  to  their  Right  Reverend 
defender.  The  rule  is  this :  —  In  an 
affirmative  sentence,  the  correct  phrase 
is  "as — as"  \  but  in  a  negative  sentence, 
it  is  "so — as."  The  Revisers'  sentence, 
then,  being  affirmative,  should  have  been 
"  as  long  as  he  liveth." 

Romans    viii.    38. — ^*I   am  persuaded^™''"'- 


132         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels, 
nor  principalities,  nor  things  present, 
nor  things  to  come,  nor  powers,  nor 
height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creation, 
shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love 
of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord."  "Neither''  is  '' not  either'' \  and 
"  either  "  is  "  07ie  oftivo  " ;  yet  "  neither  "  is 
here  applied  to  ten !  The  Revisers 
should  have  said,  ''  I  am  persuaded  that 
not  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,"  etc. 

Rom.  ix.  4.  Romans  ix.  4. — "  Whose  is  the  adoption, 
and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the 
giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God, 
and  the  promises."  How  strange  that 
the  Revisers  should  say,  of  six  things, 
they  ^>!  and  then  add,  ''whose  are  the 
fathers."  And  it  is  the  stranger  because, 
in  the  Greek,  the  verb  in  each  instance 
is  omitted ;  therefore  the  glory  of  the 
inconsistency  belongs  wholly  to  the 
Revisers. 

Rom.ix.  17.  Romans  ix.  17. — '^  For  the  scripture 
saith  unto  Pharaoh,  For  this  very 
purpose    did    I    raise    thee    up."      The 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         133 

word  ''for''  is  sometimes  used  as  a 
preposition,  and  sometimes  as  a  con- 
junction ;  both  uses  occur  in  this  verse. 
Now,  when  the  word  is  used  as  a  con- 
junction, and  is  that  by  which  a  reason 
is  introduced  for  something  previously 
stated,  it  should  be  followed  by  a  comma. 
This  has  not  been  done  in  the  passage 
which  is  under  consideration.  It  should 
be, — ''For  [,]  the  Scripture  saith."  But, 
in  the  following  part  of  the  sentence, 
the  word  ''for'''  is  a  preposition,  and 
does  not  require  a  comma  after  it.  The 
error  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the 
RV.  See  the  first  word  in  chapter  x.,  Rom  x  2  3 
verses  2,  3,  4,  5,  11,  12,  etc.;  and  John eV; "' ''' ' 
iii.  16,  17,  24.  n,^^^"-^^' 

Romans  ix.  28.  —  "  Finishing  it,  and  Rom  ix.  2s. 
cutting  it  short."  Events  should  be 
narrated  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence  ; 
and  as  "finishing  it "  must  be  subsequent 
to  "cutting  it  short ''  the  latter  should,  in 
the  narrative,  have  preceded  the  former. 

Romans  x.  9. — ''If  thou  shalt  confess  Rom. x. 9. 
with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  shalt 


134         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him 
from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
What  can  the  writer  of  this  epistle  have 
meant  by  this  assertion  ?  Is  the  essential 
of  the  soul's  salvation  a  confession  with 
the  mouth  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  combined 
with  a  belief  that  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead?  Wherein  does  such  a  faith 
differ  from  that  which   is  spoken  of  in 

James  ii.  19.  James  ii.  19,  of  which  it  is  said, — 
"  The  devils  also  believe,  and  tremble "  ? 
Surely,  the  faith  which  saves  is,  a  loving 
trust  of  the  heart;  and  of  that,  this 
passage  says  nothing.  Still,  it  has 
Bishop  Thornton's  approval. 

Rom.xi.ii.  Romans  xi.  11. — "By  their  fall  salva- 
tion is  come  unto  the  Gentiles,  for  to 
provoke  them  to  jealousy."  Was  that 
so?  Certainly  not!  Salvation  did  not 
'^come  unto  the  Gentiles  to  provoke 
them  to  jealousy"  ;  but  to  provoke  Israel 
to  jealousy ;  or,  rather,  to  emulation. 
Again  the  Revisers  have  stumbled  into 
error  through  a  pronoun.  And  why 
did  they   say,    "/or  to  provoke  them "  ? 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         135 

Concerning  the  expression,  ''for  to'' \ 
this  is  the  opinion  of  one  of  our  best 
lexicographers,  Dr  Ogilvie,  who,  in  his 
'  Comprehensive  English  Dictionary ' ;  Ed. 
1879,  p.  459,  says,  ''For  to,  before  an 
infinitive,  denoting  purpose,  is  now 
obsolete,  except  in  vulgar  language^ 

Romans  xi.  35. — "  Who  hath  first  given  i^om.  xl  36. 
to  him,  and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto 
him  again  ? "  Unless  the  giver  had  been 
recompensed  previously,  how  could  he 
be  said  to  be  recompensed  again  ?  And 
as  the  hypothesis  named  (our  having 
first  given  to  God)  is  an  impossibility, 
there  can  have  been  no  former  recom- 
pensing ;  and  consequently,  no  recompens- 
ing again.  But  Bishop  Thornton  does 
not  see  it ;  to  him  it  is  ''  light  in  all  its 
purity  and  clearness.'' 

Romans  xii.  19. — *' Avenge  not  your- Rom. xu.  19. 
selves,  beloved,  but  give  place  unto 
wrath."  This  seems  like  a  contradic- 
tion; but,  of  course,  it  is  not  intended 
to  be  such.  It  is  simply  a  fault  in  the 
Revisers'   English.      Strange    as   it  may 


136         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

appear,  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage 
would  be  better  expressed  by  its  very 
opposite.  "Avenge  not  yourselves, 
beloved ;  neither  give  place  unto  wrath  "  ; 

Eph.iv.  27.  as  it  is  in  Eph.  iv.  27, — ''Neither  give 
place  to  the  devil."  The  margin  reads, 
''the  ivrath  of  Gody'  i.e.  ''Avenge  not 
yourselves,  beloved,  leave  the  matter 
in    the    hands    of    Him   who    has   said, 

Heb.  X.  30.  '  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  Me  ;  I  will 
recompense.' "  This  is  certainly  prefer- 
able to  the  text  as  the  Revisers  have 
left  it. 

Rom.xiii. 7.  Eomans  xiii.  7. — ''Render  to  all  their 
dues :  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due ; 
custom  to  whom  custom ;  fear  to  ivhom 
fear]  honour  to  whom  honour."  Fear 
is  not  due  to  any  man ;  we  are  to  love 
each   other;    and   "perfect   love   caste th 

i^johniv.    Q^^    f^^j,;.      rpj^g   ^^^^    "fear;'    in    the 

Bible,     often    means    "reverence'';     and 
that,  no  doubt,  is  the   word   which   the 
Revisers   should   have  employed  in   this 
passage. 
Rom. XV.  18.      Romans  xv.   18. — "I  ivill  not  dare  to 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         137 

speak."  There  are  certain  mental 
operations  which  are  not  under  the 
control  of  the  will ;  such  as  to  like ;  to 
believe ;  to  dare.  To  like,  depends  on 
taste ;  to  believe,  depends  on  evidence ; 
to  dare,  depends  on  courage.  Therefore 
the  Revisers  ought  not  to  have  said,  ''  I 
will  not  dare  "  ;  for,  to  dare  is  not  a  matter 
of  option. 

Romans  xiv.  22. — '^  Happy  is  he  that  Rom. xiv. 22. 
judgeth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
approvethy  On  the  contrary ;  Happy 
is  he  who  does  judge  himself  in  that 
which  he  appro veth ;  for,  ''if  we  would 
judge  ourselves  .  .  .  we  should  noticor.xi. 
be  condemned  with  the  world."  It  is 
the  Revisers'  fault  that  there  is  this 
apparent  contradiction.  They  should 
have  said,  ''Happy  is  he  who  con- 
demneth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
alloivethr 

1  Cor.  xiv.  19. — "In  the  church  I  had^^cov.xxw. 
rather  speak."     The   Revisers   have   re- 
peated this  error  through  not  discerning 
its   erroneousness.     The   expression   had 


138         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

its  origin  in  the  abbreviation,  ''  Td  rather 
speakr  But,  that  the  original  of  the 
abbreviation  is  not  ''  I  had  rather  speak  " 
is  seen  by  omitting  the  qualifying  word, 
^'rather^  We  then  have,  '' I  had  speak,'' 
which  is  nonsense.  The  abbreviated  ex- 
pression, "  rd  rather  speak,"  is  from 
^'  I  ivould  rather  speak." 

Eph. iii.i9.  Eph.  iii.  19. — ''That  ye  may  be  filled 
unto  all  the  fulness  of  God."  The  A.V. 
says,  ''filled  ivith  all  the  fulness  of  God." 
But  how  can  a  finite  creature  be  filled, 
either  "unto''  or  "tvith,"  all  the  fulness 
of  God  ?  The  less  cannot  contain  the 
greater,  or  the  finite  contain  the  infinite, 
but  we  may  be  filled  from  the  infinite ; 
and  that  is  what  the  Revisers  should 
have  said,  instead  of  that  which  draws 
forth  the  scorn  of  scoffers. 

Phil.  1.16.  Phil.  1.  16. — The  Revisers,  very 
properly,  have  transposed  verses  16  and 
17 ;  but,  very  improperly,  have  not 
transposed,  in  like  manner,  the  number- 
ing of  the  verses  ;  so  verse  16  is  numbered 
17 ;  and  verse  17  is  numbered  16 ;  thus 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         139 

making  confusion  when  either  has  to  be 
referred  to,  or  to  be  quoted. 

Heb.   i.    3. — In    the    A.V.,    we    read,  Heb.  i.  s. 
" The  express  image  of  his  person''     The 
Revisers  have  altered  this  to,  ''  The  very 
image  of  his   substance^     But   how   can 
God,  a  pure  Spirit,  have  "  substance''  ? 

Heb.  xii.  3.  —  ^'  Consider  him  that  Heb.  xii.  3. 
endured  such  contradiction  of  sinners 
against  himself''  The  foregoing  is  from 
the  A.V.  But  the  Revisers  have  altered 
"  himself"  into  "  themselves."  Wherein, 
then,  comes  Christ's  endurance,  if  the 
contradiction  of  sinners  was  against 
''- themselves"  and  not  against  '' himself"  \ 

Heb.  xii.  12. — In  the  A.V.  this  passage  Heb.xii.  12. 
reads,  ''  Wherefore  lift  up  the  hands  %vhich 
hang  down,  and  the  feeble  knees  ;  and 
make  straight  paths  for  your  feet,  lest 
that  which  is  lame  be  turned  out  of  the 
way."  The  Revisers  have  altered  the 
wording  thus,  ''  Wherefore  lift  up  the 
hands  that  hang  down,  .  .  .  that  that 
which  is  lame  be  not  turned  out  of  the 
way."     This  is  very  much  in  the  style  of 


140         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

the  man  who  said,  concerning  the  word 
"that,''  "that  that  'that'  that  that  man 
used,  ought  to  have  been  'ivhich\" 

iTim.i, 20.  1  Tim.  i.  20. — ''Of  whom  is  Hymenseus 
and  Alexander ;  whom  I  delivered  unto 
Satan,  that  they  might  be  taught  not  to 
blaspheme."  Rather  a  bad  schoolmaster 
for  teaching  that  lesson  :  and  it  seems 
that  Paul's  own  schoolmaster,  in  the 
matter  of  grammar,  was  no  better,  if  he 
taught  him  to  say,  "  Of  whom  is  Hymen^eus 
and  Alexander " ;  for,  so  it  is  in  the 
Greek,  which  has  been  servilely  copied 
into  the  A.V.  and  thence  into  the  li.V. 

2  Tim.  ii.  17.  The  same  error  occurs  in  2  Tim.  ii.  17. 
"  Of  whom  is  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus  "  ; 
and  yet,  in  the  previous  chapter,  verse  15, 
we  read,  "  Of  whom  are  Phygellus  and 
Hermogenes."  How  is  this  ?  Was  there 
something  peculiar  about  Hymena^us, 
that,  whenever  he  is  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  another,  the  verb  is  put  in 
the  singular.  Was  he  a  ''  nobody,"  and 
therefore  ignored  ?  If  so,  why  was  he 
mentioned  ? 


THE   BISHOP'S  ENGLISH  141 

1  Tim.  iii.  16.— The  A.V.  reads,  ^^  6^06?iTim.iii. 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  etc.  The 
Revisers  have  very  justly  omitted  the 
word  "  God,"  and  substituted  for  it  the 
words,  "He  tvho'' \  in  accordance  with 
the  original  readings  in  the  oldest  MSS., 
and  say,  in  a  foot  note,  "  The  word 
'God,'  in  place  of  'he  ivho^  rests  on  no 
sufficient  ancient  authority."  Some  of 
the  later  MSS.  have  ''  God,"  but  it  has 
been  by  a  fraud.  The  MSS.  are  in 
uncial  Greek  letters ;  and  the  fraud  has 
been  this: — "00"  has  been  altered  into 
90 ;  for,  a  microscopic  examination  of 
the  writing  reveals  the  fact  that  the 
transverse  line  across  the  0,  and  the 
abbreviation  line  above,  have  been  made 
in  comparatively  recent  times.  Thus  the 
00  becomes  60"  =  Theos,  God.  But  not 
one  of  the  ancient  fathers  can  be  certainly 
quoted  in  support  of  that  reading :  nor  any 
of  the  very  ancient  versions.  Therefore 
the  reference  is  to  Christ,  not  to  God. 

Another  fraud,  in  connection  with  this 
subject,   occurs  in   1   John  v.    7,  where  i  John  v.  r. 


142         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

we  read  words  which  have  no  counter- 
part in  the  Greek.  They  are,  ''  There 
are  three  that  hear  record  in  Heaven^ 
the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one''  This 
verse,  by  overwhelming  testimony,  is 
acknowledged  to  be  an  interpolation ; 
and  therefore  the  Revisers  were  com- 
pelled to  strike  it  out.  The  verse  is 
omitted  also  from  an  edition  of  the 
New  Testament  in  Greek ;  a  copy  of 
which  I  possess.  It  was  printed  in 
Argentoratum  (i.e.  Strassburg)  in  1524. 
So  the  Revisers  were  not  the  first  to 
discover  the  imposition.  But  why  did 
they  not  insert  a  foot  note  giving  their 
reasons  for  the  omission  ;  and  why  did 
they  try  to  conceal  the  omission  by 
dividing  v.  6  into  two,  calling  the  former 
part  of  it  '^  V,  6,''  and  the  latter  part 
''  V.  7,"  which  it  is  not,  and  never  was  ? 
It  has  been  part  of  v.  6  ever  since  the 
Scriptures  were  divided  into  verses,  and 
each  verse  received  its  own  distinguishing 
number,  350  years  ago.     How  could  the 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         143 

Revisers  do  this,  when  the  very  verse 
which  they  have  thus  falsified  contains 
the  admonishing  statement,  "  The  Spirit 
is  truth'' "i 

2  Pet.  iii.  1. — This  verse  contains  a2Pet.  iii.  i. 
good  example  of  the  Revisers'  English  ; 
an  example  of  their  having  "  revised " 
the  English  of  the  A.V.  by  making  it 
incorrect!  The  A.V.  reads,  "In  both 
which "  ;  this  the  Revisers  have  changed 
to,  "  l7i  both  of  them,''  They  do  not 
seem  to  have  been  aware  that  ''  both " 
means  all,  when  it  consists  of  two ;  and 
therefore,  as  "  of"  is  partitive,  and  con- 
sequently cannot  embrace  the  whole,  it 
is  as  incorrect  to  say,  ''both  of  them," 
as  it  would  be  to  say,  "  the  ivhole  of 
them":  it  is  sufficient  to  say  ''both," 
or  "all" 

Rev.  XV.  6. — ''There  came  out  from  Rev.  xv.  6. 
the  temple  the  seven  angels  that  had  the 
seven  plagues,  arrayed  with  [precious] 
stone"  Were  the  plagues  arrayed  with 
stone,  or  was  it  the  angels  ?  The  Revisers 
justify  their  rendering  of  this  verse,  on 


144         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

the  ground  that  some  Greek  versions 
read  XiOov,  stone  But  others  read  Xivov^ 
linen  ;  and  common  -  sense  might  have 
told  the  Revisers  that  ''  arrayed  in  linen,'' 
was  much  more  likely  to  be  correct  than 
''arrayed  with  stoned 
Rev.  i.  6.  Rev.  1.  6. — "  For  ever  and  ever,''  This 
expression  is  objectionable  because  if 
"for  ever "  means  eternally,  how  can 
any  extension  of  time  be  added  to  it  ? 
The  words,  "  and  ever "  are  therefore 
meaningless.  Nay,  they  are  worse  than 
meaningless ;  for,  they  negative  the 
meaning  of  "for  ever "  ;  because  their 
presence  implies  that  the  writer  felt 
their  addition  to  be  needful.  But  if 
one  "  ever "  does  not  mean  "  eternally," 
how  can  any  number  of  "  evers "  mean 
"  eternally,"  seeing  that  no  number  of 
finites  can  make  an  infinite  ?  What 
persons  mean  when  in  the  church  ser- 
vice, they  say,  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
"for  ever  and  ever"  I  cannot  imagine  ; 
and  I  do  not  think  that  they  them- 
selves   know.      No,    nor    the    Revisers. 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         145 

Well  may  God  say,  ''My  people  do  notisa.i. 
consider."  If  any  person,  when  using 
the  form  of  words  which  is  popularly 
called  ''  The  Lord's  Prayer,''  wishes  to 
dwell  on  the  fact  of  the  eternity  of 
God's  attributes,  the  repetition  of  the 
words,  "for  ever,"  is  not  objectionable ; 
we  may  say,  ''for  Thine  are  [not  "i^"] 
the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and  the 
glory  for  ever:  —  for  ever,"  but  there 
must  be  no  '' and"  \  for,  ''and"  means 
something  added  \  and  there  cannot  be 
any  extension  of  the  infinite. 


There  are  Bibles  to  which,  on  account 
of  certain  peculiarities,  distinctive  titles 
have  been  assigned ;  such  as  "  The 
'  Breeches '  Bible  "  ;  "  The  '  Vinegar ' 
Bible "  ;  etc.  :  and  there  could  not  be 
assigned,  to  the  Revisers'  work,  any 
more  appropriate  designation  than, 

THE   revisers'    UNGRAMMATICAL,    IMMORAL, 
AND   BLASPHEMOUS   VERSION. 
K 


CHAPTEK  V 

DEALING   PRINCIPALLY  WITH   THE   BISHOP'S 
ERRORS   IN   GRAMMAR 

The  Bishop's  pamphlet,  which,  as  far  as 
I  can  ascertain,  is  all  that  he  ever  has 
published,  is  a  little  brochure  in  praise 
of  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Bible  ;  and 
his  own  English  being  on  a  par  with 
that  of  the  Revisers,  his  partiality  for 
their  work  cannot  be  wondered  at. 

We  will  critically  examine  a  few  of  his 
sentences  ;  and  the  result  of  the  examina- 
tion will  enable  us  to  determine  his  fitness, 
or  otherwise,  for  speaking  authoritatively 
on  the  comparative  merits  of  the  two 
versions  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
Mattxii.  «<By  his  words  he  shall  be  justified,  or 
by  his  words  he  shall  be  condemned." 

140 


THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH         147 

His  essay  begins  thus  : — 

''I  hold,  that  it  is  not  only  allowable 
for,  but  has  now  become  the  duty  of, 
the  Clergy  and  Church  Teachers,  to  dis- 
continue the  official  use  of  the  Unrevised 
Authorised  Version,  and  to  read  to,  and 
teach,  both  young  and  old  out  of  the 
corrected  form  of  it/' 

Could  any  sentence  of  an  educated 
man  be  more  ungraceful,  or  any  expres- 
sions of  his  be  more  infelicitous  ?  In  the 
first  place,  notice  the  inharmoniousness  of 
the  language.  No  one  possessing  an  ear 
for  musical  cadence  and  rhythm  would 
tolerate,  much  less  speak  or  write,  such 
a  repetition  of  the  same  vowel  sounds 
in  words  of  close  proximity  as  occur  in 
the  Bishop's  first  sentence  :  viz.  ''  hold  " 
and  ''  only  "  ;  ''  allo?/'able  "  and  "  notv  "  ; 
"  JJnreyised  "  and  ''  Authori^^d  "  ;  and 
*^r^ad"  and  'H^ach." 

Although,  in  this  quotation,  the  Bishop 
calls  the  A.V.  the  "  Unrevised,''  on  p.  15, 
he  speaks  of  it  and  others  as  *'the  six 
English    Revisions.''      Which    statement 


148         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

does  he  wish  us  to  accept  ?  Both  cannot 
be  true. 

Notice  next  what  grammarians  severely- 
reprobate  under  the  definition  of  "  the 
sundering  of  particles,''  In  this  instance, 
the  particle  "for''  is  separated  from  its 
context,  "  the  clergy,"  by  the  insertion  of 
seven  other  words;  thus  making  most 
awkward  reading.  The  punctuation,  also, 
is  redundant;  no  comma  being  needed 
after  the  words,  "I  hold,"  and  still  less 
after  the  word  "  Teachers"  The  Bishop 
says  that  it  is  the  duty  of  ''  Teacher^,  to 
discontinue"  etc. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 
paragraph,  there  is  no  grace,  or  elegance, 
or  forcibleness  in  it.  The  persuasiveness 
which  results  from  a  judicious  collocation 
of  words  is  wholly  absent. 

On  the  same  page  we  have  the  word 
"either"  (which  means  one  of  two) 
applied  to  three.  The  Bishop  says  : — 
"  Either  by  Sovereign,  Convocation,  or 
Parliament.'^ 

Then,  lower  down,  the  Bishop  tells  us 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         149 

that  printers  have  "introduced''  .  .  . 
"omissions''  into  the  text.  How  can 
that  which  has  no  existence  be  introduced 
into  the  text?  What  striking  evidence 
of  an  illogical  mind  ! 

The  next  sentence  begins  thus: — "At 
any  7^ ate,  Bishop  Westcott  publicly  as- 
serted," etc.  What  is  meant  by  Bishop 
Westcott's  making  an  assertion  "  at 
any  rate "  ?  Has  the  expression  any 
reference  to  the  Bishop's  rapid  utter- 
ance ?  On  the  following  leaf  the  same 
three  inappropriate  words  respecting 
"rate,"  again  occur,  and  likewise  on 
page  9. 

On  page  4  we  have  the  expression  ''for 
some  50  years."  The  word  "some"  is 
indefinite,  both  as  to  quantity  and  to 
identity.  It  is  vulgarly  used  to  mean 
''somewhere  about";  perhaps  that  was 
what  the  Bishop  meant. 

Immediately  following  the  words,  ''for 
some  50  years,"  we  have,  ''for  a  long 
time." 

On  the  same  page  lower  down,  we  read, 


150         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

"  A  new  form  of  medicine,  though  really 
valuable,  ivould  certainly  be  eschewed 
.  .  .  until  it  ivas  recommended  by 
medical  men."  In  the  first  place,  the 
word  "eschewed,''  because  of  its  sugges- 
tiveness  of  "chewed,''  is  singularly  unsuit- 
able to  be  employed  respecting  anything 
which  has  to  be  put  into  the  mouth. 
Moreover,  the  Bishop  should  have  said, 
"  until  it  tvere  recommended  "  ;  ''  was  " 
refers  to  the  past ;  and  the  word  "  would," 
in  the  early  part  of  the  sentence,  shows 
that  the  Bishop  was  speaking  of  the 
future;  therefore  the  verb  should  be  in 
the  subjunctive  mood,  as  the  statement  is 
contingent.  The  same  error  occurs  on 
page  6.  There  we  read,  ^'if  it  tvas," 
though  the  reference  is  to  the  future. 
This  error  is  by  the  Bishop  of  Southwell. 
Then  we  come  to  the  word  "suppose," 
which  the  Bishop  has  misused  for 
"believe."  To  suppose  is  to  put  a  case 
hypothetically ;  but  that  was  not  what 
the  Bishop  meant  when  he  said,  "May 
we  not  confidently  suppose,"  etc.     We  may 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         151 

'*  confidently "  believe ;  but  how  does 
''confidently''  apply  in  a  supposititious 
case? 

The  Bishop  writes,  ''  King  James'  Ver- 
sion," "King  James'  Bible,"  "King  James' 
Translators"  and  "Moses'  Lata,"  The 
Bishop  evidently  does  not  know  that  if, 
in  speaking,  we  pronounce  the  additional 
5  in  the  possessive  case,  we  ought  to 
write  it;  and  therefore  he  should  have 
written,  not  "King  James'  Version"  but 
"King  James's  Version"  etc.  The  ex- 
pression, "Moses'  Law"  is  correct,  be- 
cause as  there  are  two  s's  in  the  name,  it 
is  not  customary  to  pronounce  the  other 
s,  which  is  understood,  but  is  not  written. 

The  next  error  to  be  commented  on  is, 
"so  far  as,"  in  an  affirmative  sentence. 
''So  far  as"  is  correct  in  a  negative 
sentence ;  but,  in  an  affirmative  sentence, 
we  should  say,  "as  far  as"  :  e,g,,  ''John 
is  not  so  tall  as  William,  but  he  is  as  tall 
as  Robert."  The  error  occurs  on  pages  8, 
17,  and  19. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Bishop  uses 


152         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

"so''  where  he  should  have  used  "as'' ; 
and,  in  the  following  sentences,  he  uses 
''such,"  where  he  should  have  used  "so," 
"Such"  means  "of  that  kind"  ;  but  that 
is  not  what  the  Bishop  meant  when  he 
said,  on  page  6,  ''It  is  such  an  improve- 
ment." Judging  from  the  context,  the 
Bishop's  meaning  was,  ''It  is  so  great  an 
improvement."  On  page  12  we  read  of 
"such  an  unmitigated  blessing,"  instead 
of,  "  so  unmitigated  a  blessing."  "  Such  " 
qualifies  the  " unmitigated  Messing "  ;  "so" 
qualifies  the  "  unmitigatedness "  of  the 
blessing. 

The  Bishop  of  Southwell,  as  quoted 
by  Bishop  Thornton,  on  page  6,  tells  us 
that  "The  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  the 
Ephesians,  and  the  Hebrews  are  entirely 
transformed,"  in  the  R.V.  This,  in  the 
face  of  Bishop  Thornton's  statement  that 
the  R.V.  "is  not^ properly  speaking,  a  new 
Version  at  all"  certainly  requires  some 
explanation.  In  the  same  passage  the 
Bishop  of  Southwell  speaks  of  the  three 
Epistles,  as  "  the  three  last  books " ;  but 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         153 

how  there  can  be  "three  last,''  he  does 
not  say. 

On  page  13  Bishop  Thornton  says  : — 
''Does  the  book  correctly  present  the 
utterances  of  the  inspired  writers  of  the 
original  or  not "  ?  This  is  correct ;  but, 
on  page  9,  we  read,  ''Whether  the  laity 
in  a  Parish  have  a  statutory  voice  on 
such  a  point  or  no,  it  were  well  that  it 
should  be  talked  over  with  them." 

"Averse  to,''  instead  of  " averse  from," 
is  another  of  the  Bishop's  errors  (page 
12).  I  should  have  thought  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  Latin  derivation  of  the 
word,  "  ab,"  and  "verto,"  would  have 
guarded  him  from  the  error.  Besides, 
in  English,  when  we  speak  of  a  man's 
having  "averted"  his  face,  we  do  not 
mean  that  he  turned  it  to  us.  Quite  the 
contrary ;  he  turned  his  i^^Q^from  us. 

Here  is  an  extraordinary  blunder,  the 
expression,  "  a  most"  The  Bishop  speaks 
of  "  a  most  compassionate  nature"  (page 
14),  and  of  ^'a  most  unhelpful  and  inac- 
curate summary"  (page  19),  and  of  "a 


154         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

7nost  puerile  defence"  (page  20).  It  is 
apparently  a  pet  phrase  of  his  ;  but  notice 
its  absurdity  :  ''  ^^ "  is  indefinite,  and  means 
one  of  several \  but  "most''  is  superlative 
and  exclusive ;  hence  their  incongruity. 
We  may  say,  "  the  most "  ;  but,  "  a  most," 
never ! 

We  next  have  to  notice  the  Bishop's 
improper  use  of  the  expression  ''  differ 
from,''  He  says,  on  page  16,  ''In  a  very 
few  places  a  few  scholars  still  differ  from 
the  great  majority  of  the  learned  Eevisers 
on  a  textual  detail."  Does  not  the  Bishop 
know  that  we  '^ differ  from"  each  other 
in  whatever  relates  to  the  hody  \  and 
''differ  with"  each  other  in  whatever 
relates  to  the  mind%  We  differ  from 
each  other  in  stature,  or  complexion,  or 
agility,  etc. ;  but  we  differ  tvith  each 
other  in  opinion,  etc.  In  the  former,  we 
are  passive  agents ;  in  the  latter  we  are 
active  agents.  To  differ  with  is  to  wrestle 
with  mentally ;  to  differ  from  is  not  to 
wrestle  at  all,  but  simply  to  he  different. 

On  the  same  page,  the  Bishop  makes 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         155 

the  very  common  error  of  employing  the 
word,  ''people  "  for  ''persons^  The  words 
are  wholly  different  in  derivation,  and 
also  in  meaning,  except  that  the  former 
signifies  an  aggregation  of  the  latter. 
"People''  refers  to  a  community;  "per- 
sons "  to  individuals.  That  the  words  are 
not  interchangeable,  can  be  demonstrated 
thus  : — If  you  say  that  there  were  three 
people  present  at  a  meeting,  and  two 
of  them  departed,  would  you  say  that 
" one  people''  remained?  Certainly  not. 
Then  why  speak  of  the  three  as  "people  "  ? 
There  were  three  "persons"  present,  not 
three  "people."  And  the  Bishop  should 
not  have  said,  "Again  and  again  have 
people  told  me."  He  should  have  said, 
''Again  and  again  persons  have  told  me." 
The  words  are  not  synonymous ;  we 
speak  of  the  American  people  ;  but  never 
of  the  American  persons,  when  referring 
to  them  as  a  nation. 

The  next  error  to  be  commented  on 
is  the  Bishop's  use  of  the  word  "less" 
for  "fetver"  (page  17).     "Less"  refers  to 


156         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

quantity  in  bulk\  it  is  the  word  "fewer'' 
which  should  be  used  when  speaking  of 
numbers.  The  Bishop  employs  the  ex- 
pression, thus  : — ''  No  less  than  20  years," 
he  should  have  said,  ''  No  fewer  than  20 
years  " ;  or,  "  No  smaller  a  space  of  time 
than  20  years " ;  but  that  would  have 
been  a  very  awkward  periphrasis. 

Then  we  have  ''in''  for  ''into,"  The 
Bishop  says  (page  17): — "So  soon  as"; 
he  should  have  said,  "As  soon  as." 
Well,  he  says,  ''  So  soon  as  the  book  is 
introduced  in  our  Churches."  Here  the 
word  "in,"  which  is  a  preposition  of 
rest,  should  have  been  "into,"  which  is 
a  preposition  of  action,  governed  by  the 
word  "  inti'oduced"  The  book  would  be 
introduced  into  the  Churches ;  and  then 
it  would  be  "in"  the  Churches. 

The  Bishop  falls  into  the  very  common 
error  of  so  framing  his  sentence  that  a 
pronoun  occurs  in  it  before  there  is 
any  noun  to  which  it  refers.  He  says 
(page  18)  "The  advocates  of  this  fail  to 
see,   that,   in   doing  so  at  his  own  dis- 


THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH         157 

cretion,  each  clergyman  would  set  up  for 
being  a  Reviser  himself."  The  Bishop 
should  have  put  the  noun  first,  and 
the  pronoun  afterwards,  thus  :  —  "  The 
advocates  of  this  fail  to  see,  that  each 
clergyman^  in  doing  so  at  his  own  dis- 
cretion, would  set  up  for  being  a  Reviser 
himself"  The  same  error  occurs  on  the 
next  page,  where  we  have  the  pronoun 
''W  fourteen  words  before  we  have  the 
noun  to  which  it  refers.  The  sentence 
is  as  follows  :  *'Is  any  one  who  has  fully 
studied  it  prepared  to  deny  the  enormous 
superiority,  upon  the  whole,  in  accuracy 
and  instructiveness,  of  [the]  R.  V.  "  ? 

The  same  idea  might  have  been  much 
more  succinctly  expressed  thus:  ''Is 
any  one,  who  has  fully  studied  the  R.  V. 
prepared  to  deny  its  very  great  superiority  ? 
etc."  The  word  ''enormous,''  which  the 
Bishop  has  used,  is  wholly  inappropriate 
in  his  sentence.  '' Enormoiis''  means  out 
of  the  normal,  but  what  is  the  normal 
*'  superiority  "  of  the  R.  V.  ?  Is  there  such 
a  state  ? 


158         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

Now  we  come  to  the  error  of  placing  an 
adverb  between  the  sign  of  the  infinitive 
mood  and  the  verb.  The  Bishop  says, 
(page  20)  ''  So  careful  were  the  Revisers, 
only  to  finally  exclude  readings  which 
they  felt  sure  did  not  represent  the 
sacred  writers'  meaning."  The  Bishop 
should  have  said,  ''So  careful  were  the 
Revisers  to  exclude  finally,  only  those 
readings  which  they  felt  sure  did  not 
represent  the  sacred  writers'  meaning." 
The  reader  will  see  that,  in  the  Bishop's 
sentence,  there  is  another  adverbial 
error ;  the  word  ''  only  "  is  misplaced.  It 
should  always  be  as  near  as  possible  to 
the  words  which  it  is  intended  to  qualify. 
The  Bishop  says  that  the  Revisers  were 
careful,  ''only  to  finally  exclude','  etc., 
whereas  it  is  apparent  that  he  meant  the 
word  ''only''  to  apply  to  those  ''readings 
which  the  Revisers  felt  sure  did  not  re- 
present the  sacred  writers'  meaning." 

The  same  error  is  found  on  page  24. 
There  we  read  respecting  assaults  on  the 
Scriptures,    "They  can    only  he  met  by 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         159 

accurate  learning  on  the  part  of  Bible- 
lovers  " ;  instead  of  ''  They  can  be  met 
only  by  accurate  learning,''  etc.  The  same 
paragraph  says,  "  I  am  persuaded  that 
the  assaults  on  the  Scriptures  of  the 
'advanced  criticism'  can  be  met,"  etc. 
Whatever  are  ''the  Scriptures  of  the 
'  advanced  criticism '  "  ?  I  never  heard 
of  them.  Are  they  the  works  of  Herbert 
Spencer,  Huxley,  and  others  ?  or  have  I, 
in  consequence  of  the  Bishop's  faulty 
English,  mistaken  his  meaning?  It  is 
very  likely ;  and  vrhat  he  intended  to 
say  was,  ''I  am  persuaded  that  the 
assaults  of  the  'advanced  criticism'  on 
the  Scriptures  can  be  met,"  etc. 

In  the  last  paragraph  of  the  Bishop's 
pamphlet,  the  word  "  mistaken  "  has  been 
misused.  He  says,  "The  verdict  of 
prominent  newspapers,  a  few  years  ago, 
that  [the]  RV.  was  'dead,'  has  now  been 
sh^wn  to  be  mistaken."  He  should  have 
said,  "to  be  a  mistake":  '' mistaken" 
means  that  the  readers  of  the  newspapers 
mistook  the  statement;  whereas  it  was 


160         THE  BISHOP'S  ENGLISH 

the  editors  who  made  a  mistake,  if  indeed 
any  was  made.  But,  if  the  E.V.  is  not 
dead,  how  is  it  that  we  have  not  heard 
of  a  second  edition,  though  the  R.N.T. 
has  been  published  more  than  20  years  ? 
Rev.  xxii.  The  Bishop  thus  misquotes  Eev. 
xxii.  14  as  it  occurs  in  the  A.V.  : 
''Blessed  are  they  who  keep  His  Com- 
mandments, that  they  may  have  a  right 
'to  the  tree  of  life"  (page  22).  The 
italicised  letters  and  words  show  the 
Bishop's  errors.  Then  he  tells  us  that 
the  true  evangelic  reading''  is  given  in 
the  E.V.,  and  is,  "Blessed  are  they  that 
wash  their  robes."  How  does  the  Bishop 
know  which  is  the  "true''  reading,  seeing 
that  the  most  ancient  MSS.  differ?  It 
would  have  been  more  modest  to  have 
said  that  ancient  MSS.  do  not  agree. 
The  Codex  Vaticanus  says,  "Blessed  are 
they  that  do  his  commandments."  The 
Bishop  adds,  "Which  of  us  could  hope 
for  Heaven  on  those  terms?"  What 
has  that  to  do  with  the  correctness  or 
the    incorrectness    of    the    text?      The 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         161 

passage,  as  in  the  A.V.,  is  quite  in 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Christ : 
''This  do,  and  thou  shall  liver  Does  Liikex.2s. 
the  Bishop  think  that  Christ  was 
mocking  the  inquirer  after  salvation,  by 
telling  him  to  perform  an  impossibility? 
Christ  was  too  honest  a  character  to  do 
that.  He  no  more  required  then  that 
which  was  impracticable,  than  he  did 
when  he  said  *'Be  ye  perfect,  even  as  ^^^^^- ^- ^^• 
your  Father  in  Heaven  is  perfect."  Does 
the  Bishop  think  that  the  finite  is  re- 
quired to  equal  the  infinite?  Surely 
not.  The  obvious  meaning  of  both 
passages  is,  that  we  are  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God,  and  to  be  perfect 
to  the  extent  of  our  limited  capacity,  as 
God  is  perfect,  according  to  His  infinite 
capacity. 

We  are  to  do  our  "  best " ;  though  a 
sorry  affair  our  "best''  often  is.  But  it 
will  be  accepted,  as  was  the  poor  widow's 
off'ering  of  '*two  mites,  which  make  a 
farthing,"  if,  as  in  her  case,  it  is  our  all. 
Therefore,  despite  the  Bishop's  teaching, 


162         THE  BISHOPS  ENGLISH 

we  will  cling  to  the  glorious  truth,  that 
''  Blessed''  are  they  who  do  His  command- 
ments, however  feebly  and  imperfectly,  if 

psa.  cxix.  2.  it  is  but  with  their  whole  heart ;  for, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  they  have  right  to 
the  Tree  of  Life,—''  The  Tree  of  Life  which 

Rev.ii.7.  is  in  the  midst  of  the  Paradise  of  God." 
One  word  more.  The  Bishop,  after 
eulogizing  the  Prelates,  himself  among 
the  number  (see  pp.  8  and  13  of  his 
pamphlet)  dishonours  himself  and  his 
Church  by  asking  contemptuously,  ''Should 
the  Church  of  England  be  content  to  be 
taught  fidelity  to  the  text  of  Scripture 
by  Rome  and  Dissent  V 

Is  this  the  spirit  which  should  actuate 
us  ?  Has  the  Right  Reverend  Bishop 
wholly  forgotten  the  large-hearted  teach- 
ing of  Christ,  when  it  was  said  to  him, 

Mark  ix.  38-  "  Mastcr,  wc  saw  one  casting  out  devils 
in  thy  name,  and  he  followeth  not  us  ; 
and  we  forbad  him,  because  he  followeth 
not  us.  But  Jesus  said.  Forbid  him  not 
...  he  that  is  not  against  us,  is  on 
our  part "  ? 


THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH         163 

Christ's  most  scathing  anathemas  were 
hurled  against  those  who  '*  trusted  in 
themselves  that  they  were  righteous,  and 
despised  others "  ;  and  one  of  the  most 
powerful  metaphors  in  the  whole  Bible 
occurs  in  Isaiah  Ixv.  3-5,  and  is  em-  isaiah  ixv. 
ployed  in  expressing  God's  detestation^"^' 
of  such  characters:  —  ''A  people  that 
provoked  Me  to  anger  continually  to 
My  face  .  .  .  which  say,  'Stand  by  thy- 
self, come  not  near  to  me ;  for  I  am 
holier  than  thou.'  These  are  a  smoke  in 
My  nose,  a  fire  that  burneth  all  the  day." 

The  Pharisaic  Jews  had  no  dealings 
with  the  Samaritans ;  but  the  noble- 
minded  Jesus  was  actuated  by  a  very 
different  spirit.  He  spent  two  days  in 
Sychar,  a  city  of  Samaria ;  and  many 
believed  in  him  there.  (See  John  iv.  Jjhniv.4. 
4-42.)     A  bishop  should  not  speak  evil  *"    .. 

f^         '  ^  ^  Titus  iii.  2. 

of  any  man. 

Bishop  Thornton's  contempt  for  Dis- 
senters reminds  me  of  a  little  book 
written  by  a  Dissenting  Minister,  the 
Eev.  Frank  Ballard,  M.A.,  Double  Prize- 


164         THE  BISHOFS  ENGLISH 

man  in  Hebrew  and  New  Testament 
Greek,  in  the  University  of  London.  It 
is  entitled,  "  Which  Bible  to  Head — 
Revised  or  Authorised''-,  therefore  it  is 
on  the  same  subject  as  the  Bishop's 
pamphlet ;  but  is  a  far  abler  work,  and 
one  from  which  he  might  learn  many 
important  lessons.  I  mention  the  little 
book  because  there  is  in  it  one  matter 
which  I  cannot  allow  to  pass  unnoticed ; 
on  p.  79,  the  Rev.  F.  Ballard  charges 
Dean  Burgon  and  me  with  ''  idolizing " 
the  A.V.  That  charge  is  untrue,  and 
therefore  the  statement  is  unjust.  See 
my  opinion  of  the  A.V.  in  the  Preface 
to  '"The  Revisers'  English''  There  I  say : 
"Language  is  the  vehicle  of  thought;  and, 
in  the  Bible,  it  is  the  vehicle  of  God's 
thoughts ;  therefore,  if  perfection  in  lan- 
guage ought  to  be  looked  for  anywhere, 
it  ought  to  be  looked  for,  and  found,  in 
the  Bible.  I  have  looked  for  it  in  our 
translation,  and  have  not  found  it." 


PREPARING  FOR  PUBLICATION. 

The"HeVised  English  "  Bible. 

Hebrew  and  Greek  Editor: 

THE   REV.    CANON   GIRDLESTONE, 

Assisted  by  other  Eminent  Scholars. 

English  Editor: 
GEO.  WASHINGTON  MOON,  Hon.  F.R.S.L. 


A  Tentative  Edition  of  Part  Lf 

The  ''  Revised  English '' 

flem  Testament, 

JV/LL  BE  PUBLISHED  SHORTLY 

BY  MESSRS   BAGSTER  &  SONS,  LONlJoN,  E.G. 

The    fearful  errors  exposed    in   **The    Bishop's    English," 
**  The  Revisers'  English,"  and  "  Ecclesiastical   English,"  are 
evidence  of  the  necessity  for  such  a  work. 
165 


HeVision  of  ]VISS. 


The  author  of  this  work  and  of  various  other 
critical  works  on  the  English  language  (see  p.  187), 
will  be  happy  to  correct  the  style,  grammar,  punctua- 
tion, and  composition  generally,  of  important  private 
letters,  essays,  poems,  sermons,  or  other  addresses, 
or  MSS.  intended  for  publication. 

TERMS, 

Revision  of  MSS. — Prose, 

A  minimum  charge  of  20s#  for  any  number  of 
words  under  1000;  over  1000  will  be  charged 
at  the  rate  of  10s#  per  1000  words,  after  the 
first  thousand. 

Revision  of  MSS* — Poetry, 

A  minimum  charge  of  20s/  for  any  number  of 
lines  under  100;  over  100  will  be  charged 
at  the  rate  of  20s*  per  100  lines. 

All  Fees  must  be  paid  in  advance* 

7  Prince's  Terrace, 
Sussex  Square, 

Brighton. 
166 


APPENDIX 


A  LIST  OF  THE  EEVISEES  OF  THE 
SACRED  SCRIPTURES 

This  includes  all  who  accepted  the  appointment  and  have 
at  any  time  taken  part  in  the  work  of  revision. 

THE  ENGLISH  REVISION  COMMITTEE 

The  Old  Testament  Company 

Right  Rev.    Edward  Harold   Browne,   D.D.,   Bishop  of 

Winchester  (Chairman). 
Right  Rev.  Lord  Arthur  Charles  Hervey,  D.D.,  Bishop 

of  Bath  and  Wells. 
Right  Rev.  Alfred  Ollivant,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Llandaff. 
Right  Rev.  Connop  Thirl  wall,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  St.  David's. 
Right  Rev.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 

Lincoln. 
Very  Rev.  John  James  Stewart  Perowne,  D.D.,  Dean  of 

Peterborough. 
Very  Rev.  Edward  Hayes  Plumptre,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Wells. 
Very  Rev.  Robert  Payne  Smith,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
Ven.  Benjamin  Harrison,  M.A.,  Archdeacon  of  Maidstone, 

Canon  of  Canterbury. 
Ven.  Henry  John  Rose,  Archdeacon  of  Bedford. 
Rev.   William   Lindsay   Alexander,   D.D.,   Professor  of 

Theology,  Congregational  Church  Hall,  Edinburgh. 
Robert  L.  Bensly,   Esq.,   Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer, 

Gonville  and  Caius  College,  Cambridge. 

167 


168       NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS 

Rev.  John  Birrell,  Professor  of  Oriental  Languages,  St. 

Andrews,  N.B. 
Frank  Chance,   Esq.,   M.D.,   Fellow  of   Trinity  College, 

Cambridge. 
Thomas  Chenery,  Esq. ,  Lord  Almoner's  Professor  of  Arabic, 

Oxford. 
Rev.  Thomas  Kelly  Cheyne,  Fellow  and  Hebrew  Lecturer, 

Balliol  College,  Oxford. 
Rev.  F.  C.  Cook,  Canon  of  Exeter.     Declined  to  serve. 
Rev.  Andrew  Bruce  Davidson,  D.  D.  ,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Free  Church  College,  Edinburgh. 
Rev.  Benjamin  Da  vies,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 

in  the  Baptist  College,  London. 
Rev.   George    Douglas,   D.D.,   Professor  of    Hebrew  and 

Principal  of  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 
Samuel  Rolles  Driver,  Esq. ,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Oxford. 
Rev.    C.   J.    Elliott,   Formerly  Fellow  of  St.  Catherine's 

College,  Cambridge. 
Rev.  Patrick  Fairbairn,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  Free  Church 

College,  Glasgow. 
Rev.  Frederick  Field,  D.  D.  ,  Formerly  Fellow  of  Trinity  Col- 
lege, Cambridge. 
Rev.  John  Dury  Geden,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Wesleyan 

College,  Didsbury. 
Rev.    Christian    D.   Ginsburg,    LL.D.,    Editor   of    ^*  The 

Massorah,"  etc. 
Rev.  Frederick  William  Gotch,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the 

Baptist  College,  Bristol. 
Rev.  John  Jebb,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Hereford. 
Rev.  William  Kay,  D.D.,  Honorary  Canon  of  St.  Albans. 
Rev.  Stanley  Leathes,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  King's 

College,  London. 
Rev.  Joseph  Rawson  Lumby,  D.D.,  Norrisian  Professor  of 

Divinity,  Cambridge. 
Prof.  J.  McGiLL,  Professor  of  Oriental  Languages,  St.  Andrews, 

N.B. 
Rev.    Dr.    Pusey,    Regius   Professor   of   Hebrew,   Oxford. 

Declined  to  serve. 


NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS       169 

Rev.  Archibald  Henry  Sayce,  Deputy  Professor  of  Com- 
parative Philology,  Oxford. 

Rev.  William  Selwyn,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Ely. 

Rev.  William  Robertson  Smith,  LL.D.,  Lord  Almoner's 
Professor  of  Arabic,  Cambridge  (formerly  Professor  of 
Hebrew  in  the  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen). 

Rev.  Duncan  Harkness  Weir,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  the  University  of  Glasgow. 

William  Wright,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Arabic,  Cambridge. 

William  Aldis  Wright,  Esq.  (Secretary),  Bursar  of  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge. 

The  English  Old  Testament  Company^  37. 


The  English  New  Testament  Company 

Righb    Rev.    Charles   John   Ellicott,    D.D.,    Bishop    of 

Gloucester  and  Bristol  (Chairman). 
Right  Rev.  Samuel  Wilberforce,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester (formerly  of  Oxford). 
Most  Rev.  Richard  Chenevix  Trench,  D.D.,  Archbishop 

of  Dublin. 
Right  Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Lightpoot,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop 

of  Durham. 
Right  Rev.  George  Moberly,  D.C.L.  ,  Bishop  of  Salisbury. 
Right  Rev.  Charles  Wordsworth,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  St. 

Andrews. 
Very  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  D.  D.  ,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 
Very  Rev.  Edward  Henry  Bickersteth,  D.D.,  Prolocutor, 

Dean  of  Lichfield. 
Very  Rev.   Joseph  Williams  Blakeslby,  B.D.,  Dean  of 

Lincoln. 
Very  Rev.  Charles  Merivale,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely. 
Very  Rev.  Robert  Scott,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Rochester. 
Very  Rev.    Arthur    Penrhyn    Stanley,   D.D.,   Dean  of 

Westminster. 
Very    Rev.    Charles    John    Vaughan,    D.D.,    Dean    of 

Llandaff. 
Ven.  William  Lee,  D.D.,  Archdeacon  of  Dublin. 
Ven.  Edwin  Palmer,  D.D.,  Archdeacon  of  Oxford. 


170       NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS 

Rev.  Joseph  Angus,  D.D.,  President  of  the  Baptist  College, 
Regent's  Park,  London. 

Rev.  David  Brown,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  Free  Church 
College,  Aberdeen. 

Rev.  John  Eadie,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical 
Literature  in  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  Glasgow. 

Rev.  Fenton  John  Anthony  Hort,  D.D.,  Hulsean  Pro- 
fessor of  Divinity,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  William  Gibson  Humphry,  B.D.,  Vicar  of  St. 
Martin-in-the-Fields,  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's  Cathe- 
dral, London. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Hall  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Ely,  and 
Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge. 

Rev.  William  Milligan,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Divinity  and 
Biblical  Criticism  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen. 

Rev.  William  Fiddian  Moulton,  D.  D.  ,  Master  of  the  Leys 
School,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Samuel  Newth,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  New  College, 
Hampstead,  London. 

Rev.  Alexander  Roberts,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Humanity  in 
the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  N.B. 

Rev.  Frederick  Henry  Ambrose  Scrivener,  LL.D., 
D.C.L.,  Prebendary. 

Rev.  George  Vance  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor. 

Mr.  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  LL.D. 

Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Peterborough 
and  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity,  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge. 

Rev.  John  Troutbeck,  M.A.  (Secretary),  one  of  the  Minor 
Canons  of  Westminster  Abbey. 

The  English  Neiv  Testament  Company,  30. 
Members  in  both  Companies,  67. 


NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS       171 


A  LIST  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVISERS 

General  Officers  of  the  whole  Committee 

Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President. 
George  E.  Day,  D.D.,  Secretary. 

The  American  Old  Testament  Company 

Rev.    William  Henry  Green,   D.D.,   LL.D.   (Chairman), 

Professor    of    Hebrew    in    the    Theological    Seminary, 

Princeton,  N.J. 
Rev.    George    E.     Day,    D.D.    (Secretary),    Professor    of 

Hebrew  in  the  Divinity  School  of  Yale  College,   New 

Haven,  Conn. 
Rev.    Charles    A.   Aiken,   D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Test. 

Criticism  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Princeton,  N.J. 
Rev.   Talbot  W.    Chambers,    D.D.,   Collegiate  Reformed 

Dutch  Church,  N.Y.,  and  Lecturer  in  the  Theological 

Seminary  at  New  Brunswick,  N.J. 
Rev.   Thomas  Jefferson  Conant,  D.D.,   Brooklyn,   N.Y., 

formerly    Professor    of    Hebrew    in    the     Theological 

Seminary  at  Rochester,  N.Y. 
Rev.   John  De   Witt,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the 

Theological  Seminary,  New  Brunswick,  N.J. 
Rev.   George    Emlem    Hare,   D.D.,   LL.D.,   Professor    of 

Hebrew  in  the  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 
Rev.     Charles     Porterfield    Kratjth,      D.D.,     LL.D., 

Vice  -  Provost    of    the     University    of    Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia,      and     Professor     in     the      Evangelical 

Lutheran  Theological  Seminary  in  Philadelphia. 
Professor  Tayler  Lewis,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Greek  and 

Hebrew,  Union  College,  Schenectady,  N.Y. 
Rev.  Charles  Marsh  Mead,  D.D.,  formerly  Professor  of 

Hebrew  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  Mass. 
Rev.  Howard  Osgood,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew 

in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Rochester,  N.Y. 
Rev.  Joseph  Packard,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the 

Theological  Seminary,  Alexandria,  Va. 


172       NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS 

Rev.  Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.D.,  Hartford,  Conn.,  formerly 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  in  Andover,  Mass. 
Professor    James    Strong,    S.T.D.,    LL.D.,    Professor    of 

Hebrew  in  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  Madison,  N.J. 
Rev.  Cornelius  V.  A.  Van  Dyck,  D.D.,  M.D.,   Professor 

in  the  American   College  at  Beirut,   Syria.     Advisory 

Member  on  questions  of  Arabic. 

The  American  Old  Testament  Company ,  15. 

The  American  New  Testament  Company 

Rev.   Theodore  D.    Woolsey,   D.D.,    LL.D.    (Chairman), 

Ex-President  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Rev.    J.     Henry    Thayer,     D.D.     (Secretary),     formerly 

Professor  of    New  Test.    Exegesis  in    the  Theological 

Seminary  at  Andover,  Mass. 
Professor  Charles   Short,   LL.D.,   Professor  of  Latin  in 

Columbia  College,  New  York. 
Professor  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test. 

Exegesis  in  the  Divinity  School  of  Harvard  University, 

Cambridge,  Mass. 
Rev.  J.  K.  Burr,  D.D.,  Trenton,  N.J. 
President  Thomas  Chase,  LL.D.,  President  of  Haverford 

College,  Pa. 
Rev.  George  R.  Crooks,  D.D.,  Professor  in  Drew  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Madison,  N.J.     (Accepted  the  original 

appointment,  but  found  it  impossible  to  attend,   and 

resigned. ) 
Rev.  Howard  Crosby,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Ex-Chancellor  of  the 

University  of  New  York. 
Rev.    Timothy    Dwight,   D.D.,    Professor  of    New    Test. 

Exegesis  in  the  Divinity  School  of  Yale  College,  New 

Haven,  Conn. 
Professor  James  Hadley,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Greek,  Yale 

College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Rev.  Horatio  Balch  Hackett,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 

New  Test.    Exegesis    in  the  Theological  Seminary  at 

Rochester,  N.Y. 
Rev.  Charles  Hodge,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theology 


NAMES  OF  THE  REVISERS       173 

in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  N.J.  (Never 
attended  the  meetings,  but  corresponded  with  the 
Committee. ) 

Rev.  AsAHEL  Clark  Kendrick,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  oc 
Greek  in  the  University  of  Rochester,  N.Y. 

Right  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Diocese  of  Delaware. 

Rev.  Matthew  B.  Riddle,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New  Test. 
Exegesis  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Sacred 
Literature  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

Rev.  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Systematic  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York.  (Attended  one  session,  and  resigned  from 
ill-health.) 

Rev.  William  Fairfield  Warren,  D.D.,  President  of 
Boston  University,  Boston,  Mass.  (Accepted  the  original 
appointment,  but  found  it  impossible  to  attend,  and 
resigned. ) 

Rev.  Edward  Ariel  Washburn,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Rector  of 
Calvary  Church,  New  York. 

The  American  New  Testament  Company y  19. 
Members  in  both  CompanieSf  34. 

[A  number  of  Bishops  and  Professors  of  sacred  learning, 
who  had  been  invited  to  join  the  American  Committee  at 
its  first  organization  in  1871,  declined,  from  want  of  time, 
or  other  reasons,  but  expressed  interest  in  the  work  and 
confidence  in  its  success.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned 
Bishops  Mcllvaine,  Whittingham,  and  Williams,  Dr.  Whedon 
(Methodist),  Dr.  Nevin  (Reformed),  Dr.  Shedd  (Presby- 
terian. )] 

Number  of  English  and  American  Revisers  on  the  Old 

Testament  Company  .  .  .  .62 

Number  of  English  and  American  Revisers  on  the  New 

Testament  Company  .  .  .  .49 

Total  number  of  Revisers  .  .  .       101 


THE  COMPANION  VOLUME  TO 
'THE  SOUL'S  DESIRES  BREATHED  TO  GOD." 


THE    SOUL'S   INQUIRIES   ANSWERED 
FROM    THE    BIBLE, 

"^j-  if  a  man  had  inquired  at  the  Orach  of  God." 
2  Sam.  xvi.  23. 

BY 

G.   WASHINGTON    MOON,    Hon.    F.R.S.L. 

AUTHOR   OF    "the   SOUl's    DESIRES   BREATHED    TO    GOD    IN    THE   WORDS 

OF   SCRIPTURE," 

''ELIJAH   THE   PROPHET,    AND   OTHER  SACRED   POEMS," 

"poems   of   love   and    HOME,"   ETC. 

REVISED  EDITION. 
More  than  100,000  copies  of  this  little  work  have  been  sold, 

LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 

39  PATERNOSTER   ROW,   LONDON, 

NEW  YORK  AND   BOMBAY. 

1900. 

All  rights    reserved. 
174 


PREFACE 
TO   THE   FIRST    AMERICAN    EDITION 

OF 

"THE    SOUL'S    INQUIRIES    ANSWERED," 

BY 

The  Rev.  THEO.  L.  CUYLER,  Brooklyn,  N.Y. 


One  of  the  happiest  and  most  encouraging  symptoms  in  our 
churches — and  in  many  households — is  an  increasing  hunger  for 
the  Word  of  God.  It  has  become  a  very  interesting  feature  of 
social  entertainment  among  some  of  the  most  refined  and  cul- 
tured families  of  Great  Britain,  to  have  '*  Bible  readings,"  in 
which  all  the  guests  join,  "hearing  and  asking  questions."  In 
all  circles  of  Bible  readers,  this  delightful  little  book  will  be  a 
valuable  acquisition. 

It  is  the  most  ingenious  little  combination  of  inspired  texts 
that  has  yet  fallen  under  my  eye.  The  Divine  Spirit  suggests  to 
us  the  question.  Such  pithy,  solemn,  weighty  questions,  too, 
are  suggested, — the  very  ones  about  which  the  soul  of  man  has 
the  deepest  and  most  eager  curiosity  !  and,  to  the  inquiries  thus 
raised,  the  Divine  Spirit  gives  back  the  luminous  answer.  It  is 
as  if  one  had  inquired  at  the  oracle  of  God. 

This  volume  is  an  exquisite  spiritual  mosaic.  In  looking  at 
the  wonderfully  adroit  and  skilful  manner  in  which  Bible  truths 
are  "dovetailed"  and  fitted  into  each  other,  I  was  reminded  of 
those  brilliant  pavements  of  minute  bits  of  marble  in  Rome  and 
Florence.  And  I  rejoice  to  have  the  opportunity  to  commend 
this  pocket-companion  to  our  American  readers.  It  may  be 
carried  on  a  journey,  or  be  opened  at  a  spare  moment,  amid  the 
business  of  the  shop,  the  counting-room,  or  the  study.     In  the 

175 


morning,  it  furnishes  a  key-7ioU  for  the  day.  At  evening,  it 
suggests  a  fitting  theme  for  meditation  on  retiring  to  rest.  No 
one  can  study  it  without  being  impressed  anew  with  the  wonder- 
ful richness  and  inexhaustible  suggestiveness  of  God's  glorious 
book. 

*'When  you  write  to  me,"  said  the  sainted  McCheyne  of 
Scotland,  "tell  me  the  meanings  of  Scripture:  one  gem  from 
that  ocean  is  worth  all  the  pebbles  of  earthly  streams."  This  is 
a  volume  in  which  such  a  soul  as  McCheyne's  would  have  found 
great  delight.  It  throws  ** cross-lights"  on  the  grand  canvas  of 
Revelation,  and  brings  out  new  and  undiscovered  beauties.  To 
all  who  love  the  precious  Book  of  God,  this  little  volume  will  be 
both  a  prize  and  a  surprise.  May  the  Holy  Spirit  go  with  it 
into  thousands  of  homes  and  hearts  ! 

Lafayette  Avenue  Church, 
Brooklyn,  October  1872. 


"THE  SOUUS  INQUIRIES  ANSWERED," 

By  G.  WASHINGTON  MOON. 

*' There  are  many  books  of  motto  texts  from  Holy  Scripture 
or  every  day,  but  in  our  opinion  this  is  among  the  very  best. 
It  has  stood  the  test  of  many  years.  The  present  is  a  new  and 
revised  edition,  demanded  by  the  widening  circle  of  readers  who 
have  found  this  little  book  a  friendly  and  stimulating  spiritual 
influence." — The  Churchman^  Sept.  1900. 


176 


OPINIONS    OF 
THE    TWO    ENGLISH    ARCHBISHOPS 

,    ON 

''THE  SOUL'S  INQUIRIES   ANSWERED/' 


From  THE  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY. 

Lambeth  Palace,  lyd  April  1875. 

Dear  Sir, — I  have  to  thank  you  for  sending  me  a  copy  of 
your  work,  entitled,  **The  Soul's  Inquiries  Answered  in  the 
Words  of  Scripture."  I  am  glad  to  hear  from  your  letter  that 
it  has  had  a  successful  sale. — Yours  faithfully, 

(Signed)     A  C.  CANTUAR. 

George  Washington  Moon,  Esq. 

Note. — In  another  letter  to  me,  His  Grace  orders  a  dozen 
copies  to  be  sent  to  him  at  Lambeth  Palace. 


From  THE  ARCHBISHOP  OF  YORK. 

38  Queen's  Gate,  London,  S.W.,  30M  July  1875. 

Dear  Sir, — I  have  been  very  ungrateful  in  not  acknow- 
ledging sooner  your  kind  present  of  a  work  called  *'  The  Soul's 
Inquiries  Answered."  I  have  had  occasion  to  examine  it  a 
good  deal,  and  that  with  profit  to  myself,  and  I  am  glad  to 
possess  it. — Ever  yours  truly, 

(Signed)    W.  EBOR. 

G.  Washington  Moon,  Esq. 

M  177 


COMPANION  VOLUME  TO 
*THE   SOUL'S   INQUIRIES   ANSWERED/' 


I  vol.  i6mo,  price  is.  6d. 

The  SouFs  Desires 

BREATHED  TO  GOD  IN  THE  WORDS 
OF  SCRIPTURE  : 

A  Book  of  Prayers  for  Private  or  for  Family  Devotion, 

CONSISTING  OF 

A  SACRED   MOSAIC  OF  OVER  2,000   QUOTATIONS  ON 
PRAYER   AND   PRAISE  ; 

By  G.  WASHINGTON  MOON,  Hon.  F.R.S.L. 

••  Worship  GOD"—'R^v.  xxii.  g. 

**  Teach  us  rvhat  we  should  say  unto  HIM ; 

/or  we  cannot  order  our  speech  by  reason  o^ darkness ." 

Job  xxxvii.  19. 

LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  COMPANY, 

39   PATERNOSTER   ROW,    LONDON, 

NEW  YORK   AND   BOMBAY. 
190I. 

All  rights  restfved. 

178 


1 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 


I  vol.,   i2mo,  price  2s.  6d. 

ELIJAH   THE   PROPHET 

AND 

OTHER  SACRED  POEMS. 

FIFTH  EDITION, 
LONDON  :   LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 


UNIFORM  WITH  THE  ABOVE. 


I  vol.,   i2mo,  price  2s.  6d. 

POEMS   OF   LOVE  AND 
HOME. 

WITH  PORTRAIT  OF  AUTHOR, 

LONDON  :   LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 
m2  179 


EXTRACTS   FROM   REVIEWS 

OF 

ELIJAH    THE    PROPHET 

AND  OTHER  POEMS 

"  It  is  really  a  sacred  epic  of  the  highest  order." — The  Orb, 

"  The  poem  is  a  noble  effort  to  embody  a  noble  theme." — 
The  Advertiser. 

**It  is  a  poem  worthy  of  the  subject  and  of  the  author." — 
The  Christian  Examiner. 

*'The  romantic  history  of  the  great  prophet,  told  in  Spen- 
serian stanzas,  is  full  of  life  and  interest." — The  London 
Literary  World. 

**It  is  full  of  quiet  beauty,  and  is  specially  remarkable  for 
elegance  of  diction  and  purity  of  language." — The  Freeman. 

' '  The  story  of  the  great  Hebrew  prophet  is  told  in  powerful 
and  melodious  verse." — The  Hereford  Times. 

'*  A  work  that  may  stand  in  a  high  place  among  the  specimens 
of  modern  English  classical  literature." — The  Court  Circular. 

"  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  '  Elijah'  is  an  epic  poem  of  great 
merit,  finely  conceived  and  vigorously  expressed." — The  Baptist 
Times. 

*  *  It  is  an  epic  poem  of  great  beauty  and  power,  containing 
many  a  glorious  stanza." — The  Weekly  Review. 

"* Elijah  the  Prophet'  is  the  most  noticeable  poem  of  the 
season.  It  is  poetical  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term." — The 
Bookseller. 

180 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS     181 

*'In  this  beautiful  volume  there  are  many  sweet  thoughts 
and  tender  touches,  and  many  highly  finished  passages." — The 
Londoft  Quarterly  Review, 

"  Mr.  Washington  Moon  is  aware  of  the  difficulty  of  the  task 
he  has  set  himself,  and  he  has  gone  about  his  work  in  a  very  fine 
and  noble  spirit." — New  York  Literary  World, 

"This  poem  is  one  of  unusual  interest  and  beauty.  It  will 
find  favour  chiefly  with  persons  of  refined  and  cultivated  taste, 
who  can  appreciate  the  nicer  elegancies  of  composition." — 
Evangelical  Christendoiti. 

**The  title  poem  is  a  masterly  rhythmical  exposition,  and 
many  of  the  shorter  selections  which  follow  are  precious  gems 
of  marvellous  lustre." — The  Philanthropic  Review. 

"  The  sentiments  of  Mr.  Washington  Moon  are  exceptionally 
devout,  and  will  win  their  way  to  the  hearts  of  numbers  of  pious 
Christians  who  will  find  both  comfort  and  solace  in  them." — 
The  San  Francisco  Church?nan, 

**  There  is  evident,  throughout,  a  remarkable  command  of 
language ;  but  we  attribute  the  unquestionable  success  of  the 
epic  to  the  devoutness  of  the  mind  which  has  conceived  it,  as 
well  as  to  the  imaginative  faculty  with  which  the  author  is  so 
richly  endowed. " —  The  Edinburgh  Daily  Review. 

**  Mr.  Washington  Moon  must  be  congratulated  on  having 
made  a  contribution  to  sacred  minstrelsy  of  which  all  religious 
classes  ought  to  be  proud.  He  has  produced  a  sacred  poem 
alike  honourable  to  his  heart  and  to  his  head  ;  for,  it  reflects 
genuine  piety  and  poetic  genius." — Public  Opinion. 

"Her  Majesty  has  graciously  been  pleased  to  accept  a  copy 
of  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  *  Elijah  the  Prophet,'  an  epic  poem 
of  great  merit,  exhibiting  powers  rarely  equalled  for  sublimity 
and  strength,  and  breathing  a  noble  and  an  elevated  spirit  which 
deserves  all  praise." — The  Court  Journal. 

"Mr.  Washington  Moon  is  equal  to  great  things,  and  is  not 
afraid  to  grapple  with  them.  There  is  much  noble  thought  here, 
set  forth  in  correct  and  brilliant  diction.    We  are,  indeed,  some- 


182     EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS 

what  surprised  that  a  gentleman  of  such  ability  in  poetry  has 
not  written  much  more.  The  whole  is  nobly  thought  and 
marked  by  the  dignity  the  subject  demands." — The  British 
Standard, 

*'This  is  a  remarkable  poem,  and  is  from  first  to  last  worthy 
of  its  subject.  We  think  that  the  extract  which  we  have  given 
[*  The  Translation  of  Elijah ']  will  go  far  to  prove  that  it  deserves 
at  least  comparison  with  Milton's  *  Paradise  Lost. '  To  say 
more  of  a  modern  poem  would  scarcely  be  tolerated,  but  we 
leave  the  extract  to  speak  for  itself." — Our  Own  Fireside. 

"  In  this  work  the  library  has  one  of  the  most  valuable 
additions  that  have  for  many  years  emanated  from  the  press. 
Gifted  with  a  master-mind — imaginative,  penetrative,  refined, 
and  modest  withal — the  author  of  this  poem  has  thrown  the  full 
force  of  his  powers  of  expression  into  the  accomplishment  of  a 
great  end,  namely,  the  effective  rendering,  with  the  aid  of 
poetry,  of  one  of  the  most  sublime  records  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment."— The  Oxford  University  Herald. 

"The  magnificent  epic  poem  before  us  is  one  of  those  rare 
issues  which,  like  wandering  comets,  appear  only  at  long  inter- 
vals. Every  page  teems  with  high  poetic  beauty,  often  soaring 
to  the  sublime.  The  author  has  approached  his  subject  with 
studied  care,  and  has  mastered  it  in  a  style  so  grand,  that  little 
is  left  to  be  desired  further  than  that  the  poet  may  attain  the 
position  which  his  brilliant  epic  entitles  him  to  hold." — The 
Illustrated  Weekly  News. 

**The  author  has  not  only  the  attributes  and  qualifications  of 
a  poet  in  the  true  and  highest  sense,  but  a  rare  amount  of  varied 
knowledge,  which  he  brings  in  the  happiest  manner  to  bear  on 
the  grand  heads  of  his  subject.  We  have  not  for  many  a  day 
perused  a  volume  of  poetry  that  possesses  so  many  attractive 
features.  The  book  is  one  series  of  beautiful  and  brilliant  gems 
and  profound  thoughts,  set  in  pure  and  ornate  language."— 
The  St  Ja^nes^s  Ch-onicle. 

"Mr.  Washington  Moon  must  not  be  ranked  among  the 
ordinary  poets   of  the  present  day.      He  has  chosen,   as  his 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS      183 

subject,  the  history  of  that  prophet  whom  Dean  Stanley  has 
styled,  *The  grandest  and  most  romantic  character  Israel  ever 
produced.'  To  relate  the  incidents  of  his  life  in  the  highest 
form  of  verse  and  the  most  intricate  stanza  was  a  difficult  task  : 
but  the  author  has  approached  it  with  studied  care,  and  mastered 
it  in  a  style  that  entitles  him  to  a  high  place  as  an  epic  poet."— 
The  Christian  World. 

'**  Elijah'  is  well  calculated  to  add  another  laurel  to  Mr. 
Washington  Moon's  reputation.  The  grandeur  of  the  subject  is 
well-nigh  unsurpassed,  and  perhaps  the  highest  praise  which 
could  be  bestowed  on  the  poem  is  that  it  is  not  unworthy  of  the 
subject.  The  language  is  eminently  simple,  but,  by  its  very 
simplicity,  is  commanding.  Lofty  thought  and  poetic  imagina- 
tion grace  each  page.  The  elegance,  as  well  as  the  power  of 
description  which  belongs  to  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  language 
may  be  gathered  from  almost  any  part  of  '  Elijah.' " — The  North 
British  Daily  Mail, 

''  We  are  bound  to  say  that  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  poem  is 
a  great  work,  and  has  many  passages  of  rare  beauty  and  well- 
sustained  sublimity — a  grandeur  and  sublimity  which  remind 
one  of  Milton  and  of  Young,  even  at  their  best,  in  the  poet's 
description  of  the  Day  of  Doom,  and  also  of  the  Translation  of 
Elijah.  It  is  awarding  no  slight  merit  to  the  author  to  say  that 
his  whole  poem  breathes  the  purest  morality  and  the  loftiest 
devotion.  Going  through  it  is  like  going  through  a  cathedral, 
where,  as  the  grand  music  rolls  on  the  ear,  the  eye  is  almost 
everywhere  enchanted  with  visions  of  unearthly  interest  and 
scriptural  beauty,  breaking  in  richest  colours  from  its  storied 
windows,  while  the  soul  is  touched  and  stirred  with  the  deepest 
emotions  of  religion." — The  Church  and  School  Gazette. 

"  Mr.  Washington  Moon  needs  no  introduction  to  those  who 
are  in  any  way  acquainted  with  English  literature.  The  feature 
of  his  poem  which  will  appear  most  striking  to  many  readers 
is  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  its  diction.  He  has  aimed  at 
using  simple  terms,  and  he  has  accomplished  his  task  in  a 
manner  rarely  equalled,  certainly  never  surpassed.  We  ques- 
tion whether  there  is  anything  more  free  from  what  may  be 
called    literary  foppery   within    the   compass    of   the   English 


184     EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS 

language.  There  is  a  masculineness  about  the  poem  which 
indicates  that  the  thoughts  are  those  of  a  strong,  stalwart  mind  ; 
a  mind  not  in  any  degree  gross ;  but  one,  which,  while  it  takes 
a  firm  grasp  of  material  things,  can  relinquish  that  grasp  at 
pleasure,  and  rise  to  the  contemplation  of  the  immaterial." — 
The  Christian  News. 

***  Elijah  the  Prophet'  is  a  fine  subject  for  a  great  poem. 
The  deep  religious  mystery  which  pervades  the  whole  story,  the 
moral  grandeur  of  the  prophet's  character,  its  terrible  power  and 
its  tender  pathos,  the  superhuman  and  supernatural  elements 
that  interweave  the  whole  texture  of  his  mighty  mission  as  an 
avenging  prophet  of  *  the  living  God '  all  form  a  dramatic  basis 
of  the  broadest  kind  on  which  to  build  a  poem  of  more  than 
ordinary  interest ;  and  nothing  is  more  worthy  of  praise  than 
the  manner  in  which  our  author  has  everywhere  embodied  in  the 
substance  of  his  poem  the  simple  grandeur  of  the  Bible  narrative. 
The  epic  clings  with  loving  fidelity  to  the  divine  record,  and  in 
sentiment  breathes  the  very  soul  of  humble  piety  and  exalted 
faith.  The  whole  tone  and  temper  of  the  poem  are  not  only 
religious  but  devotional  in  the  highest  degree. 

**  Mr.  Washington  Moon  is  equally  successful  in  what  may  be 
fairly  called  the  earthly  element  in  his  poem  ;  he  has  here 
shown  that  penetrating  insight  into  the  workings  of  the  human 
will  and  human  passion,  without  which  no  poet  can  hope  to 
reach  the  highest  department  of  poetry.  The  dramatic  power 
severally  shown  in  the  evolution  of  the  character  of  Ahab  and  of 
Jezebel,  and  of  the  sublime  prophet  who  is  the  hero  of  the 
poem,  is  distinct  evidence  of  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  capacity 
in  this  province  of  his  art.  His  powers  of  imagination  are 
worthy  of  an  epic  poet.  His  descriptions  of  nature  are  drawn 
with  remarkable  finish  and  taste.  The  night  scene  in  the  Invo- 
cation is  an  admirable  picture. 

**The  metre  adopted  is  that  of  the  Spenserian  stanza,  with 
some  slight  alteration.  With  the  exception  of  Lord  Byron,  no 
imitator  of  Spenser  has  shown  a  freedom  and  vigour  in  the 
handling  of  this  graceful,  but  difficult  measure,  which  can  be 
compared  with  the  mastery  almost  universally  evinced  by  Mr. 
Washington  Moon.     We  are  bound  to  remark  that,  taken  as  a 


EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS     185 


whole,  it  is  by  far  the  best  poem  on  a  sacred  subject  that  has 
appeared  for  a  considerable  time." — The  Imperial  Review. 

**  Mr.  Washington  Moon  has  reprinted  his  beautiful  epic  poem 
upon  the  life  of  Elijah,  that  first  appeared  in  1865.  Poems 
rising  to  the  dignity  of  epic  form  upon  Old  Testament  subjects 
being  somewhat  rare,  the  work  of  Mr.  Moon  will  be  warmly 
welcomed  by  the  present  generation  of  lovers  of  poetry  who 
have  not  yet  made  the  acquaintance  of  this  notable  production. 
The  story  of  Elijah's  life  is  narrated  in  powerful  and  melodious 
verse  which  is  marked  by  deep  religious  feeling  and  high  poetic 
genius.  The  other  poems  of  the  volume  are  all  of  a  religious 
character  that  will  appeal  to  the  best  instincts  of  both  Jew  and 
Chnsiizii.'''-The  Jewish  World. 


Minor  Poems 


**Mr.  Washington  Moon 
hopes,  in  a  plaintive  preface, 
that  his  poems,  *  sweeping  in 
sympathetic  tremulousness  over 
the  sensitive  chords  of  other 
hearts,  will  awaken  therein  re- 
sponsive emotions.'  The  thing 
is  so  utterly  [_sic]  impossible, 
and  yet  Mr.  Moon  has  so  long- 
ingly set  his  heart  upon  it  that 
one  has  hardly  the  hardness  to 
assure  him  that  his  trite  and 
commonplace  verses  do  not 
give  the  slightest  ground  for 
any  such  hope  '  — The  Daily 
News. 


"Mr.  Washington  Moon  tells 
us,  in  his  preface,  that  he  pub- 
lishes this  little  volume  in  the 
hope  that  his  poems,  *  sweeping 
in  sympathetic  tremulousness 
over  the  sensitive  chords  of 
other  hearts,  will  awaken  there- 
in responsive  emotions.'  This 
we  believe  they  are  certain  to 
do,  as  the  poetic  feeling  must 
be  very  dull  in  the  breast  of 
any  person  who  can  read  such 
utterances  as  *  Love  Seeketh 
not  her  Own '  or  *  That  Heaven 
of  Love — thy  Dear  Face,'  with- 
out being  deeply  touched  by 
their  pathos  and  naturalness." 
— The  Christian  Advocate. 
**  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  *  Poems  of  Love  and  Home'  and 
*  Elijah  and  Other  Poems,*  will  be  heartily  welcomed  by  lovers 
of  true  and  deep  sentiment  couched  in  graceful  and  melodious 
phrase." — London  Quarterly  Review. 


186     EXTRACTS  FROM  REVIEWS 

**The  popularity  of  Mr.  Moon's  poetry  is  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  this  is  the  fifth  edition  of  '  Elijah,'  and  his  devout  and 
clever  work  deserves  its  success.  His  verse  is  of  a  high  order 
and  is  always  inspiriting.  There  is  a  heartfelt  ring  about  this 
little  sheaf  of  poems.  *  Love  and  Home '  appeal  to  everybody, 
and  Mr.  Moon's  tender  lyrics  will  find  an  echo  in  many  a  breast." 
— The  Publishers^  Circular. 

**  Mr.  Washington  Moon's  two  little  volumes,  *  Elijah  and 
Other  Poems,'  and  *  Poems  of  Love  and  Home,'  are  the  work  of 
a  man  of  culture  and  a  scholar ;  a  deep  religious  feeling  runs 
through  them,  and  they  are  characterised  by  much  grace  and 
refinement." — The  Court  Circular. 

"All  the  sacred  subjects  of  which  Mr.  Washington  Moon 
treats,  he  touches  with  a  spirit  of  reverence  which  elevates  the 
mind  to  their  level.  By  the  simplicity  and  directness  of  their 
appeal  to  the  affections,  these  lyrics  will,  perhaps,  strike  a  chord 
in  many  hearts  inaccessible  to  the  more  abstruse  melodies  of 
some  latter-day  poets.  Love  in  its  various  phases,  in  youth  and 
age,  in  life  and  death,  is  celebrated  here  in  strains  which  express 
feelings  common  to  humanity,  and  are  uttered  by  the  few  for 
all." — The  Dublin  Review. 

'  *  They  are  replete  with  amiable  sentiments ;  and  if  a  de- 
cidedly religious  feeling  pervades  them,  it  is  the  emanation  from 
a  religion  of  love  and  charity  in  its  widest  acceptance." — The 
Kent  Herald. 

**  Mr.  Washington  Moon,  mighty  in  prose,  is  still  mightier  in 
poetry  ;  and  these  beautiful  poems  must  touch  the  chords  of  the 
roughest  heart  with  their  plaintive  notes." — The  Cambridge 
Independent  Press. 

"They  are  of  elevated  morality,  of  fervent  devotion,  and  of 
fascinating  eloquence  in  song." — The  St.  James's  Chronicle. 

"Their  author  is  one  of  the  most  elegant  writers  in  the 
English  language. " — Public  Opinion, 


WORKS   BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR, 

BUT   AT   PRESENT   OUT  OF    PRINT. 

"THE  KING'S  ENGLISH." 

"THE  DEAN'S  ENGLISH." 

"THE  REVISERS'  ENGLISH." 

"ECCLESIASTICAL  ENGLISH," 

"BAD  ENGLISH  EXPOSED." 

"COMMON  ERRORS  IN  SPEAKING  AND 
WRITING." 

"THE  MONOGRAPH  GOSPEL." 

"THE  OLDEST  TYPE-PRINTED  BOOK  IN 
EXISTENCE." 


187 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


LIBRARY  USE 


rEC'D  L-C^ 


m- 


YB  71245 


221591