'servants.' A real and important distinction between the several actors in the parable is in this way obliterated. The douλo are men, the ambassadors of CHRIST, those that invite their fellowmen to the blessings of the kingdom of heaven; but the diákovo are angels, those that 'stand by' (S. Luke xix. 24) ready to fulfil the Divine judgments, and whom we ever find the executors of these judgments in the day of CHRIST'S appearing. They are distinct from one another as the 'servants of the householder' who in like manner are men, and the reapers' who are angels, in the parable of the Tares (S. Matt. xiii. 27, 30.)"

The following chapter gives some instances of "better renderings forsaken or placed in the margin." It may seem strange that a revision so carefully conducted as that of 1611 should ever have gone back from a perfection which a previous version had attained. That this was the case, in some few instances, may surely be a warning to us not to think too certainly that we can improve their work. Some of the alterations which we should be inclined to make were certainly known to them, and well weighed by them before they determined upon the rendering which now stands.

Perhaps they who were familiar with the other rendering felt that there was some impropriety in it which made them cast it aside. One of the most remarkable of these variations is in 1 Thess. v. 22; where Dean Trench says most truly that our translation, "abstain from all appearance of evil," is, "a going back from the right translation 'abstain from all kind of evil' which the Geneva version had." This translation is probably to be lamented as having often influenced practice, under the idea that Scripture inculcated a fear of man's judgment which it is ever foremost to set at nought, except when appearance of evil involves reality. In speaking of the choice of readings provided by our translators, the Dean says:

'Marginal variations are quite without influence as modifying the view which the body of English readers take of any passages in the English Bible; and this leads me to observe that the suggestion which has been sometimes made of a large addition to these as a middle way and compromise between leaving our Version as it is and introducing actual changes into the text, does not seem to me to contain any real solution of our difficulties, not to say that it would be attended with many and most serious objections."-P. 78.

The argument from the neglect of the present various renderings to the neglect of fresh ones is not valid. The mere fact of novelty and the supposition that probably these fresh marginal readings were preferable would create an interest in the new occupants of the margin which the readings at present there do not possess. The majority of persons probably neglect to look at the various readings because they think that the translators having put them in the second place branded them with inferiority, and in this case

what is inferior is valueless. With a new supply of renderings the prejudice would lie in favour of the new over the old, and consequently everyone would diligently study his margins, probably with rather an exaggerated affection. Matters of doctrine would be so little touched by the changes that the new glosses would be little more than expository helps, and in this way they would probably be very valuable.

In speaking of" some errors of Greek Grammar in our Version," it is surprising that no mention is made of that large class of aorists which have in our version the appearance of futures. The disciples are admonished (Eph. iv. 22-24) that they had put off the old man which was undergoing a gradual process of destruction by the deceitful lusts of our natural condition, and that they had put on the new man which had been created in a new and Divine relationship. It is probably owing to the ambiguity of our verbal form rather than to error of translation that these texts assume the form rather of precept than of admonition. It is because they had put away the lie that they are admonished to walk worthy of their calling by speaking truth. So again in the last verse of the chapter the forgiveness of CHRIST is extended in its duration by the use of the full perfect form, whereas it ought merely to be the aorist. "GOD in CHRIST forgave you." "Upon your admission to membership with CHRIST, GOD forgave you. As long as you abide in CHRIST, that forgiveness remains." The English version might be taken (though not necessarily) as implying that the sinner once forgiven is forgiven for ever" GOD for CHRIST's sake hath forgiven you." This is more than the Apostle expressed.

Then again there is that unfortunate confusion of the present and aorist participles in the Epistle to the Romans. "Being justified," in Rom. iii. 24, represents a process necessary to be undergone by each individual, which is expressed in Greek by the present participle. The same words are used in Rom. v. 1, to translate the aorist participle, and express the change which has come upon the disciples. The Apostle says, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. As both sinned alike, so both are justified alike. Both must seek justification as a free gift at the hands of GOD. The Jew was left in his sins by the law, just as much as the Gentile who had no law." Here the present participle expresses the law according to which justification is to be given. In the other passage, the past fact of our justification is mentioned as the ground of our present peace. The use of the participle covering such an indefinite extent of time, as "being justified," obliterates the sequence of the argument. CHRIST was raised, says S. Paul, for our justification. When we were made partakers of CHRIST's death, we did not merely have our sins taken away, so as to be in a neutral state, we had a living

righteousness, the righteousness of GOD, given to us. Our justification was not a mere death unto sin. It was a death in union with Him Who liveth for ever. He that has died has been justified from sin-but the justification of death would be profitless. We need and we have received a justification unto life. We died not alone, but along with CHRIST, and therefore we believe that we shall live with Him. Now then that we have been justified according to the operation of faith, we have been brought into such a state of life that we have peace with GOD. Union with CHRIST was the ground of our original justification, and entrance into this state of life. Union with CHRIST is the ground of our present peace and continuance in this state of life.

In the same chapter (Rom. v. 7,) our translators have increased the inherent difficulties of the original by introducing unnecessary change and limitation. It may be translated "CHRIST died for the ungodly. This," says the Apostle, "is the great sign of God's love to us. Why? Because scarcely will one die for a just person, because it is for the supreme good that a person may be conceived daring to die. What then was the good which led CHRIST to die for us sinners? There is none good but one, that is God. It was the longing to bring us safe from the wrath of GOD into the love of God. GOD then commends His love to us in that when we were sinners CHRIST died to set us free from sin, and He Who began the work could not fail to accomplish it. As He has died for our sins, He has given us also living righteousness, the Spirit, the bond of the Divine Love, to knit us securely unto Himself as partakers of the Divine Nature." The text is a very difficult one, and this solution is offered with diffidence, but certainly it would be desirable not to limit Toũ άyalou by the substantive " man," nor to change the meaning of yàg from its causal force in one half of the verse to a corrective force in the other half. We wonder that no notice has been taken by the Dean of the translation of this verse, which is certainly clumsy, even though it may be difficult to offer a translation in its place against which the same charge should not be brought. Professor Scholefield says, "It is remarkable that Bishop Middleton takes no notice of the article before ayabou, though to me it appears to increase the difficulty not a little." If it be taken in the neuter as a contrast to the finite personality of dixaou, the difficulty seems to be greatly lessened. The good is the object of the highest effort. The glory of GoD is that for which a person would die. CHRIST coming in the fulness of the love of God towards man, died in order to advance the glory of GOD by making man fit to receive the gift of the Divine Love. No object short of this would be an adequate reason for His death. -But we must return to our author.

In the two next chapters the Dean gives some interesting specimens of questionable renderings and mistranslations, and proceeds

then to vindicate the translators from any charge of theological bias. It is certainly a marvellous proof of their honesty of purpose that so few passages can be alleged in which a theological bias can even be suggested. Those who have indulged their party purposes so little, may be well believed not to have indulged them at all. Had they been capable of warping the meaning of Holy Scripture for such unworthy ends in these few places, they certainly would have done so in many more. This general answer seems a sufficient warrant of their integrity.

May their work long remain without alteration! Its very defects serve at times to enable the commentator to see and to show the more clearly what is the force of the original. They are not such as to impair the spiritual efficacy of the Divine Records, even though argumentative coherence or circumstantial illustration may at times be obscured. The Dean of Westminster proposes that a body of divines, as comprehensive in its religious character as possible, summoned as scholars rather than as divines, be gathered together if possible by some authority royal or ecclesiastical, and that these should produce a volume containing what emendations may be considered really important.

"Let then such a body as this, inspiring confidence at once by their piety, their learning, and their prudence, draw out such a list of emendations as were lifted beyond all doubt in the eye of every one whose voice had any right to be heard in the matter; avoiding all luxury of emendation, abstaining from all which was not of primary necessity, from much in which they might have fitly allowed themselves if they had not been building on foundations already laid, and which could not without great inconvenience be disturbed-using the same moderation here which Jerome used in his revision of the Latin. Let them very briefly, but with just as much learned explanation as should be needful, justify these emendations when they were not self-evident. Let them, if this should be their conviction, express their sense of the desirableness that these should at some future day be introduced into the received text as bringing it into more perfect accord and harmony with the original Scripture. Having done this, let them leave these emendations to ripen in the public mind, gradually to commend themselves to all students of GOD's Holy Word.”—P. 139.

By this means would the Dean seek to have the craving after revision satisfied. We fear that it requires a much more philosophic tone of society to accept such gradual and cautious measures. If a commission were gathered together at all, the public would not be satisfied with the Bible they were reading if they thought there was a Blue Book containing important emendations. If the work is to be done, it must be done by the Church for herself, not altering the text of the version but adding marginal readings. As long as the text remains, the various bodies external to

the Church can have no ground for complaint that the Church has added her own marginal readings. It certainly would be a serious evil for the Church to have a Bible of her own different from that in use by the sects. It is impossible to form a commission upon the basis of scholarship, and "set aside the so-called Baptists." On such a commission, these as well as Unitarians and Roman Catholics must claim their seat, unless we would charge them with intentional dishonesty. We believe it is much better that the real merits of our version should be felt by all, as we have no doubt they will be more and more if individuals like the five clergymen set reverently about their work, and enable the public at large to judge, without resorting to commentaries, upon the nature, and the real insignificance of those changes which scholars feel to be desirable.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

Missionary Adventures in Texas and Mexico. By the Abbé DOMENECH. London: Longman and Co.

WERE it not for one flaw which greatly tarnishes the merit of this work, we should pronounce it one of the most interesting volumes which have come under our notice for a considerable time. It contains the history of the ceaseless labours and almost supernatural endurance of a French priest on a distant mission, written by himself; and the one fault, which appears in almost every line, is the boastful spirit in which the whole account is given. Wonderful, indeed, are the selfabnegation, the patient suffering, and the indomitable zeal of this young missionary and his companion; and if only he did not so perpetually remind us of his entire consciousness of his own self-devotion, his recital would be one calculated to rouse the most apathetic into sympathy with his ardent love and emulation of his noble deeds. As it is, no one can read the book without giving glory to GOD, who gave such grace to these His servants, in their self-denying labours for the increase of His kingdom upon earth; for the Abbé Domenech's companion Abbé Dubuis, was, if possible, more devoted and self-forgetting even than himself. What these two brave and good men bore in perils by land and water, among wild beasts and poisonous snakes, in cold and heat, hunger and thirst, want and privation, no words can even describe; and it is evident that the book itself contains but a faint picture of their sufferings. They literally followed the command, to go forth without purse or scrip, and being dependent even for their daily food on the people among whom they laboured, they were often left to positive starvation. Yet marvellous to say, in this condition these two men actually managed to build a handsome and substantial church, partly by the actual labours of their own hands, partly by undertaking long and perilous journeys to beg a little money with which they paid