It may perhaps be thought that, inasmuch as the documents from which these Christian writings are obtained are themselves of a later date, the testimony they give to the text of Scripture is of no higher worth than that of Biblical manuscripts of the same age. The scribes, it may be said, would be influenced by the form of text then current, and in copying these writings would naturally, when Scripture quotations occurred, give them in the form with which they were familiar. To some extent this may have been the case, and the testimony of these writings is of less weight when they simply reflect the form of text which prevailed at the date when they were copied. But then, on the other hand, their testimony is for the same reason proportionally the stronger whenever they do not agree with the current form, but give a different reading. Moreover it must be remembered that in many cases the authors comment minutely upon the Scripture text, and that here their testimony is quite unaffected by any tendency on the part of the copyist to use a familiar form, the comment itself showing beyond all doubt what was the form of the text which the author was expounding. In all such places the testimony of these early writers is especially valuable. From this mere outline of the manifold researches which scholars have made during the years that have passed since the Revision of 1611 was issued, some notion may be gathered of the extent to which our resources for the satisfactory determination of the sacred text have been multiplied. It will hence be seen how great is the confidence with which we are thereby enabled to affirm the verbal correctness of that far larger portion of the text in which our numerous and varied authorities are all agreed, and with what confidence also we can place our finger upon certain blemishes, and say that here an error has crept in through the inadvertence, or carelessness, or ignorance of the transcriber. If then there were no other reasons for the revision of the English Bible, this alone would be a sufficient ground for it. When it is in the power of any one to say that there are passages in our common Bibles which, as there given, are found in no Greek manuscript whatever, as is the case in Acts ix., the latter part of verse 5, and the beginning of verse 6; 1 Peter iii. 20; Heb. xi. 13; and Rev. ii. 20; and when there are other passages, respecting which the evidence is greatly preponderating, that they ought to have no place in the text, as is the case with Matt. vi. 13; Matt. xvii. 21; Matt. xxiii. 35 (last clause); Mark xv. 28; Luke xi. 2, 4 (the last clause of each verse); John v. 3 (last clause), and 4; Acts viii. 37; Acts xv. 34; Acts xxviii. 29; Rom. xi. 6 (last clause); 1 Cor. vi. 20 (last clause); 1 Cor. x. 28 (last clause); Gal. iii. 1 (second clause); Heb. xii. 20; and 1 John v., from “in heaven,” verse 7, to “in earth,” verse 8. When these things can be said, and can be truly said, then all true lovers of the