Herein we have been much aided by the criticism with which we have been favoured, and to which, where it seemed to deserve it, we have at all times paid a ready and deferential attention. It is, however, right to say that the observations which have been made upon our revision have not often led us, where questions of scholarship were concerned, to reverse our previous decisions, or to change our practice. In these particulars we think our reviewers have failed to afford us that assistance which we should have gladly welcomed; and we observe with regret that two of the most elaborate reviews which have been devoted to our Revisions have contained numerous inaccuracies in scholarship and criticism.*

In these particulars, then, and in questions of debated con

*We allude to two articles in the Christian Observer,' viz., for August, 1857, and May, 1858; and it is in no unfriendly spirit, but in simple verification of our remarks that we subjoin the following instances out of many of the want of accuracy to which we allude. We find it stated, for instance, that the Greek aorist denotes the action simply' (p. 539), when reference to Jelf's Gr. (§ 401, i.) will show that the only important word in the definition ('action simply past') is forgotten;-that the most exact translation of John ν. 35, ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, is ‘He was indeed a burning and a shining light' (p. 536);—that the insertion of the article by the resurrection of the dead' (Rom. i. 4) is an error (p. 410, No. 245), when there are at least two reasons for its being latent though omitted in the Greek; -that by whom' is to be preferred to 'through whom,' as a translation of di' où (Rom. i. 5) on the ground that the verse implies that our Lord was both the occasion and the author of the Apostle's calling' (p. 410), when there are so very few exceptions to the rule, that dià does not point to the 'causa principalis,' but to the 'causa medians;' see Winer, Gr. p. 338; -that aλà kai (Rom. v. 12) 'is intensive' (p. 419), whereas the aλà is adversative, and the kai belongs to the participle which follows;-that 'but' or 'yet' is preferable as a translation of aλà as contrasted with 'howbeit' or 'nevertheless' (p. 407), when the real object is to preserve the distinction between δὲ and ἀλλὰ;—that in the words παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ét' oùê č◊vei (Rom. x. 19), ènì is to be translated 'by,' and the foolish nation be regarded as the means of awakening jealousy (p. 423), when the true force of enì with verbs denoting 'affectum animi,' is so well known and recognised; see Winer, Gr. p. 351, where this very passage is specified.

struction we fear that we cannot say we have received much assistance from our critics. In those matters, however, where common-sense and a sober judgment of the necessities of English idiom make an appeal against the rigour of scholastic criticisms, we thankfully acknowledge that we have received many useful and judicious suggestions. The tendency of careful Greek scholars is ever to Grecize in translation, and against this bias we have always endeavoured to be watchful. Still we have been made aware that this vigilance has not in all cases been sufficiently persistent; and instances have been brought before us where our adherence to the Greek has partially led us to desert the usual forms of English diction. We now, however, venture to express the hope that in this point we shall be found to have paid attention to the suggestions of our critics, and to have benefited by their advice.

2. With regard to the two portions of the Inspired Word now before the reader, we would wish briefly to call attention to the very great difficulties of translation. In the Epistle to the Romans it was otherwise. There the regular development of a sustained argument often placed in our hands a clue which we felt led us right in the particular translation; but in these present Epistles, the variety of the topics, the profound doctrinal allusions ever and anon emerging from what might at first sight seem only answers to questions of little more than local interest, the personal reference, the vivid and half-indignant appeal, the fine-edged, though loving irony, the studied defence, and the sustained exhortation, all pass before the translator in such rapid succession, and claim from him such varied powers of expression, that in respect to our own efforts we may well desire to express ourselves with diffidence. We may permit ourselves, however, still

to hope that in most cases our changes will be found to have cleared up the meaning, and to have rendered intelligible what before remained ambiguous or obscure.

3. With regard to textual criticism, we have adhered to the course we followed in the Epistle to the Romans, and have endeavoured to proceed on more purely critical principles than we deemed it wise to enter upon in the case of the Gospel of St. John, where the number of Uncial MSS. is so much greater, and their contents so much less accurately known. Without entering into a detailed account of these principles, we may state generally that to this necessary portion of our work we have paid our best attention, feeling well assured that no sound step can be taken in Biblical Revision without an impartial investigation into the state of the Received Text, and a sober study of the whole subject of textual criticism.*

For the sake of bringing all our changes of text distinctly before the eye of the reader, we subjoin, as in the preface to the Epistle to the Romans, a complete list of all the alterations we have made in the Greek text of Stephens.

We may give the following as an example of the manner in which questions of criticism are often treated. The reviewer in the Christian Observer' (No. 245) objects to our reading ei dè in Rom. ii. 17, instead of de, as in Stephens.

The evidence is as follows:-For de, the third hand of D. J.; the majority of cursive [running hand] MSS.; the Philoxenian Syriac [this our reviewer calls the Syriac,' misled by the symbol in the current editions]; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theodorus of Mops., and Ecumenius .

For ei dé, A. B, the first hand of D., E. K. [C, F, and G having lacunæ]; at least seventeen cursive MSS.; the Old Latin, Syr. (Pesch.), Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopic and Armenian Versions [the Gothic having a lacuna]; Clement of Alex., writers named by Theod. Mops., Damascene, and Theophylact. In the face of this the reviewer says 'the external evidence fairly weighed is greatly in favour of the Received Text.”

FIRST EPISTLE.