63 rarely traversed road.” And Dean Burgon has this to say : “The A. V. should have been jealously retained wherever it was possible; but on the contrary every familiar cadence has been dislocated; the congenial flow of almost every verse of Scripture has been almost hopelessly marred. So many of those little connecting words, which give life and continuity to a narrative, have been vexatiously displaced, so that a perpetual sense of annoyance is created. The count less minute alterations, which have been needlessly introduced into every familiar page, prove at last as tormenting as a swarm of flies to a weary traveller on a summer’s day. To speak plainly, the book has been made unreadable.” And Bishop Wordsworth expresses himself thus: “I fear we must say in candor that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and irritating, even the more so because they are small; which seem almost to be made for the sake of change.” And this is the view not of Bible scholars only. A writer in a recent number of a popular household magazine expresses, in the words that follow, what is undoubtedly the view of a great host of Bible readers. Speaking of one of the Modern Speech Versions she said : “The one thing concerning it to which I object is that the sonorous sweep and beauty of the Bible are eliminated in an effort to be more literal in translation. So ingrained in my mentality is the King James Version that any word of change in it hits me like a blow.” Conclusion What shall we then say to these things ? Shall we accept the E. V. (either the English or American) as a substitute for the A. V.? That question,, we take it, has been settled by the almost unanimous rejection of the modern Versions. But can we profitably avail ourselves of the R. V. for any purpose? The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that — conceding that there are improvements (and perhaps many) in the R. V., — nevertheless — the Greek Text upon which it is based is so corrupt, that it is not safe to accept any reading which differs from that of the A. V. until the reader has ascertained that the change in question is supported by preponderating testimony. Furthermore, in the important matter of the work of Translation we believe it to be the consensus of the best opinion that, in this feature also, the Authorized Version is vastly superior to that of 1881. And finally, as regards style and composition, the advantage is so greatly