usage peculiar to the original writers, and show their method of expressing time, especially in the epistles, the fourth gospel, and the Apocalypse; for the synoptical gospels have been written over more than once, and each is a growth. In the received version the aorist and perfect are often confounded, as in Luke i. 1, "many have taken in hand" for "took in hand;" and i. 3, "thou hast been instructed" for "wert instructed." So also the imperfect is rendered like a perfect in Luke ii. 48, "have sought thee." The true sense is often impaired by erroneous renderings of the tenses, as in John xi. 25, ❝ though he were dead" instead of "though he die;" Romans v. 15, "if through the offence of one many be dead" instead of "if by the trespass of the one the many died." Different writers employ occasionally different tenses in describing the same thing, as in Matthew xxi. 20 and Mark xi. 21, where the former has the aorist," withered" the latter the perfect, " has withered," or "is withered." Such minute particulars should not be neglected. A harmonizing tendency has sometimes been prejudicial here, as in Matthew xiv. 3, where the aorist is erroneously rendered by a pluperfect, "had laid hold on John and bound," etc.; and John xviii. 24, where the aorist is rendered by the pluperfect "had sent him," etc. So Mark xvi. 2 has in the received version “at the rising of the sun" contrary to the aorist tense, "after the sun rose." ὁμοιώθη, In Matthew xiii, 24, xviii. 23, xxii. 2, at the beginning of several parables we have retained the proper aorist meaning of ouotó0n, "was likened," where the English version has the present, "is likened;" supposing that the tense implies a previous narration of the parables before they assumed their present forms and places. In John xv. 6 the aorist is singular along with the present, "if any one abide not in me, he was cast out," etc.; but it may be justified, perhaps, by the explanation of Winer, the not abiding has this as the instantaneous consequence. It is undesirable to use the past here, as the sense is expressed sufficiently well by the English present is cast out, co-ordinate with abide. So the aorist uspioon after the present Exẞáλλε in the context, must be rendered is divided, The same remark applies to nudóknσa in Matthew iii. 17 and elsewhere. The connection and the sense control the translation in these and other respects, causing departure from rules. The subject of uniformity is one on which much might be written. It is certainly desirable to translate the same word or phrase in the same manner as far as possible. Capricious alterations of the same word in the same verse, paragraph, or writer should be avoided. The English translators often transgressed in this matter, and that purposely, according to their preface, where they say, "we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words." The importance of aiming at such uniformity is obvious. We have kept it in view throughout the entire work. Many departures from the received version have originated in this endeavour, where there was no other reason for change. Perhaps it will be thought that the attempt has been carried too far in some cases. But it is worth the labour involved. To render the same word or phrase in exactly the same manner throughout the whole of the New Testament is a desirable thing. Yet there are many limitations. Words have various senses, and therefore they cannot be translated by identical terms. Thus Taç denotes both son and servant; and it is sometimes uncertain which is meant, as in Matthew viii. 6, 8, etc., where Strauss, followed by Alford, understands son or boy rather than servant, though the latter is far more probable. So y signifies the land of Israel or the earth generally, rendering it doubtful at times which is intended, as in Matthew v. 4, where some restrict it to the promised land, in conformity with the Jewish conception of the Messianic kingdom; while others suppose that Christ generalizes as well as spiritualizes the idea, so that earth agrees better with His teaching. So in Matthew xxvii. 45, the same word is differently understood, over all the land, or over all the earth; the former adopted by Olshausen, and the received version; the latter, which seems to us the right sense, by De Wette and the Dutch New Testament. Another modification of uniformity is caused by the variety of writers in the New Testament volume, each having his own style and diction. The Apostle Paul, for example, has his characteristic modes of thought and vocabulary; John has another in the Revelation. The fourth gospel has also its abstract, symbolic, philosophical phraseology. Thus we find in the latter that the devil is called the ruler of this world (xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11), a phrase not used in the Synoptists, where the devil or the evil one occurs; while Paul speaks of "the god of this world," and the Ephesian writer of " the ruler of the power of the air." The fourth gospel applies to Christ ó μovoyévns vids, the onlybegotten Son; Paul, πρштóтокоç Tάons Kriσews, the first-born of all creation; the former more metaphysical than the latter, and conveying a higher idea. The fourth gospel has ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι in the name; whereas the Synoptists use ἐπὶ TQ óvóμari, upon the name, more frequently. The verbs kúpaкa and Oɛão a are not in the Apocalypse, though common in the fourth gospel. It is instructive to note the way in which a writer who copies another varies his phraseology, as the author of Peter's second epistle does that of Jude's, changing σπελάδες into σπίλοι, and ἀγάπαι into ámára; or as the author of the Ephesian epistle has "the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses," for the Colossian, "the redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Ephesians i. 7 and Colossians i. 14), The verbal distinctions between the Synoptists in narrating the same occurrences or reporting the same sayings, illustrate this feature. That it did not depend on the mere pleasure of the writers is apparent from many examples. Their conceptions shaped their language. Their ideas, purposes, and objects influenced it considerably. It is not without design that the fourth gospel never uses aid in the way that the other evangelists do, meaning a period of the world or an age, time being distinguished into two such periods, ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος and αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων οι ipxóμevoç, but has instead the idea of two worlds, the latter being the heavenly home. Nor is it an accidental thing that the same gospel employs TÉкva where men are spoken of as the children of God, not vioì, sons; though both are applied to them by the other New Testament authors. Christ Himself is the Son of God in a high and peculiar sense; and He gives believers the authority or privilege of becoming TÉκva roυ Oɛoυ (John i. 12), “ children of God." The idioms of the Greek and English languages are also a limit to uniformity of translation. Thus it is impossible to translate yívouai even in the same tense, in the same manner. The same remark applies to a number of words of frequent occurrence, such as ἵστημι and its compounds, λέγω, λόγος, ἔρχομαι and its compounds, ἀγγέλλω and its compounds. The Hebraized form of the New Testament Greek contributes to the difficulty of finding the same equivalent English for it in every case. Thus we have ὁμολογεῖν followed by a preposition with the dative confess me or him (Matthew x. 32; Luke xii. 8); and the same verb followed by a simple dative in Hebrews xiii. 15, giving thanks to or praising, not confessing. In some cases the fact of written sources having been used by a writer, or the mode in which a work current in his name grew into its present form, creates difficulty in carrying out an identity of English words and phrases. This appears from the expressions applied to the resurrection of Christ, ἀναστῆναι, ἐγερθῆναι with μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, ἐν τρίτῃ nuépa. Jesus, speaking of His resurrection, announced to ἡμέρᾳ. His disciples that "he would rise again after three days,' μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσομαι. These expressions were subsequently altered, the first into ¿v τñ τpíry ňuέpa, on the third day; the second into yeр0ñvaι, to be raised. Both forms appear in the gospels. A translator must not render the passive verb like the intransitive one, to be raised instead of to rise; but this precaution has been often neglected. The efforts of modern scholars, at the head of whom is Winer, have contributed much to precision of exposition founded upon the language of the New Testament. They have vindicated for the writers an exactness little inferior to that of the classical writers. Tenses, moods, prepositions, particles, have been made conformable to the idiom of profane authors. Grammatical interpretation has performed good service in the hands of critics conversant with classical literature, especially in its minute distinctions and niceties. Fritzsche, Meyer, and A. Buttman have thrown great light on the verbal peculiarities of the Hellenistic language. In this country a few have pursued the same path, following out the subject as far as possible, and finding intentional or appropriate usage in every phrase or word. But Winer and his school have gone to an extreme. The sacred writers were not so studious or careful in the selection of their phraseology as is implied in these laboured explanations. The tenses themselves are used loosely in various instances, especially in the strongly Hebraised diction of the book of Revelation. So are the prepositions and conjunctions; and constructions are negligently formed. The authors were more intent on ideas than words. This is especially applicable to the Apostle Paul, whose temperament and habit of dictation were alien to precision of language or the selection of accurate words. Mere linguistic acuteness may bring more exactness out of the writers than they dreamt of. The article, prepositions, and particles may be made to illustrate artificial rules which have originated in the minds of later scholars. Compound words may be given an intensive force over above the simple ones, which they do not bear. It makes no real difference of meaning whether the verb βαπτίξω have εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, οι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οι ἐπὶ Tη óvóμarı after it. The variety of construction was not meant to mark distinctions of sense. Nor had the writer any subtle distinction in his mind when using the words about John the Baptist, δ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, “ the lamp that burns and shines," as if he intended to mark by the first epithet that his light was not inherent but borrowed, “the lamp that is lighted, and then shines." The participles are all but synonymous, "the lamp that burns and shines" (John |