Greek words in the mighty message they were delivering to their fellow-men and to all who should hereafter receive it, they did mean that those words were to be understood in the plain and simple meaning that every plain reader would assign to them. They were not speaking; they were writing; and they were writing what they knew was to be for all time. Thus to take an example from the passages above referred to of which Bishop Westcott makes such impressive use, who can doubt, with any fair show of reason--however frequent may be the interchange of the particular prepositions in the first century--that, in those passages, when St. Matthew wrote [Greek text] he did mean _into_; and that when St. Paul used [Greek text], he did mean _in_, in the simplest sense of the word? But to the devout Christian we have a far deeper answer than the answer we have just considered. In the first place, does not the manifold wisdom of God reveal itself to our poor human thoughts in His choice of a widespread spoken language, just by its very diffusion readily lending itself to the reception of new words and new thoughts as the medium by which the Gospel message was communicated to the children of men? Just as the particular period of Christ's manifestation has ever been reverently regarded as a revelation of the manifold nature of the eternal wisdom, so may we not see the same in the choice of a language, at a particular period of its development, as the bearer of the message of salvation to mankind? Surely this is a manifestation of the Divine wisdom which must ever be seen and felt whenever the outward character of the Greek of the New Testament is dwelt upon by the truth-seeking spirit of the reverent believer. And is there not a second thought, far too much lost sight of in our investigation of the written word of the New Testament--that just as the writers had their human powers quickened and strengthened by the Holy Ghost for the full setting forth of the Gospel message by their spoken words, so in regard of their written words would the same blessed guidance be vouchsafed to them? And if so, is it not right for us, not only to draw from their words all that by the plain laws of language they can be understood to convey to us, but also to do what has been done in the Revised Version, and to find the nearest equivalent our language supplies for the words in the original?