Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I edited my original post so you can better see what I'm asking. Please help me understand why this is the way it is. The original beginning of the Matthew Henry sermon called "A Church in the House" reads like this:
"Some very good interpreters (I know) understand this of a settled, stated, solemn meeting of Christians at the house of Aquila and Priscilla, for public worship; and they were glad of houses to meet in, where they wanted those better conveniences, which the church was afterwards, in her prosperous days, accommodated with. When they had not such places as they could wish, they thankfully made use of such as they could get.
But others think it is meant only of their own family, and the strangers within their gates, among whom there was so much piety and devotion, that it might well be called a church, or religious house. Thus the ancients generally understood it. Nor was it only Aquila and Priscilla, whose house was thus celebrated for religion, (here and Romans 16:5) but Nymphas also had a church in his house, (Colossians 4:15) and Philemon 1:2. Not but that others, to whom and from whom salutations are sent in St. Paul’s epistles, made conscience of keeping up religion in their families; but these are mentioned, probably because their families were more numerous than most of those other families were; which made their family devotions more solemn, and consequently more taken notice of.
In this sense I shall choose to take it; hence to recommend family religion to you, under a notion of a church in the house".
But I bought the physical copy of the modern printed and edited version, and it reads like this:
"Some very good interpreters I know understand that 1 Corinthians 16:19 refers to a settled, stated,
solemn meeting of Christians at the house of Aquila and Priscilla, for public worship. The early church was glad for houses to meet in. Where they wanted those better conveniences, with which the church was afterwards in her prosperous days accommodated, then they thankfully made use of what they could get.
Nor was it only Aquila and Priscilla whose house was used as a church. In Romans 16:5, we see that Nymphas also had a church in his house. We see the same in Colossians 4:15 and Philemon, v.2. I recommend family-religion to you, under the notion of a church in the house."
Doesn't it seem like the whole premise of the book was changed? I can't figure out why this was done, and I am now wondering if other older works are tampered with.
"Some very good interpreters (I know) understand this of a settled, stated, solemn meeting of Christians at the house of Aquila and Priscilla, for public worship; and they were glad of houses to meet in, where they wanted those better conveniences, which the church was afterwards, in her prosperous days, accommodated with. When they had not such places as they could wish, they thankfully made use of such as they could get.
But others think it is meant only of their own family, and the strangers within their gates, among whom there was so much piety and devotion, that it might well be called a church, or religious house. Thus the ancients generally understood it. Nor was it only Aquila and Priscilla, whose house was thus celebrated for religion, (here and Romans 16:5) but Nymphas also had a church in his house, (Colossians 4:15) and Philemon 1:2. Not but that others, to whom and from whom salutations are sent in St. Paul’s epistles, made conscience of keeping up religion in their families; but these are mentioned, probably because their families were more numerous than most of those other families were; which made their family devotions more solemn, and consequently more taken notice of.
In this sense I shall choose to take it; hence to recommend family religion to you, under a notion of a church in the house".
But I bought the physical copy of the modern printed and edited version, and it reads like this:
"Some very good interpreters I know understand that 1 Corinthians 16:19 refers to a settled, stated,
solemn meeting of Christians at the house of Aquila and Priscilla, for public worship. The early church was glad for houses to meet in. Where they wanted those better conveniences, with which the church was afterwards in her prosperous days accommodated, then they thankfully made use of what they could get.
Nor was it only Aquila and Priscilla whose house was used as a church. In Romans 16:5, we see that Nymphas also had a church in his house. We see the same in Colossians 4:15 and Philemon, v.2. I recommend family-religion to you, under the notion of a church in the house."
Doesn't it seem like the whole premise of the book was changed? I can't figure out why this was done, and I am now wondering if other older works are tampered with.
Last edited:
