No good reason has been given for such a discrimination. If the new term can be fitly used at all, it is clear that it ought to be used uniformly.
The use of "who" and "that" for "which," when relating to persons, should commend itself to all as required by grammatical accuracy. The same remark applies to the substitution of "are" for "be" in indicative clauses, the omission of "for" before infinitives, and the change of "an" to "a" before "h" aspirated. The latter change was made in the English Revision of the New Testament, but not in that of the Old. Likewise we have uniformly adopted the modern spelling in place of antiquated forms. No one would advocate the resumption of the exact orthography of the edition of 1611. The mere fact that in a few cases an older form has happened to be retained constitutes no reason for its perpetual retention.
II. Inasmuch as the present edition differs from the English Revision not simply in presenting in the text the American preferences as given in the Appendix, a few remarks may be made with regard to the additional variations which will be found to exist.
1. As has already been intimated, this edition embodies a very considerable number of renderings originally adopted by the American Old Testament Company at their second revision (and so by a two-thirds majority), but waived when the Appendix was prepared. These represent the deliberate preference of the American Company; but, for reasons already assigned, they were not included in the Appendix.
2. Partly coinciding with the foregoing is a number of alterations which consist in a return to the readings of the Authorized Version. While in some cases the older readings, though inaccurate, seem to have been retained in the English Revision through an excessive conservatism, in others they have been abandoned needlessly, and sometimes to the injury of the sense and the sound. In such cases fidelity to the general principle that has governed us has required us to give the preference to the rendering of the Common Version. Among the many instances of these restorations we may note: Ex. xx. 4, 13; Lev. xix. 22; Ps. xlviii. 1; civ. 26; cxiv. 4; cxvi. 11; Prov. xiii. 15; Am. vi. 5.
3. Sometimes we have found occasion to recede from proposals originally made, when a more careful and mature consideration required us to do so. Besides individual cases, like Ps. lxviii. 8; Ezek. v. 13, may be mentioned the fact that the requirement of the Appendix, that "be ashamed" should everywhere be changed to "be put to shame," has been found to need qualification. While the change seems desirable in a majority of the instances, it is by no means so in all. We have therefore retained "ashamed" in a large number of passages; in some, however, we have preferred "confounded" as better suiting the connection.
4. Very many of the instances in which we have gone beyond the literal requirements of the Appendix are alterations demanded by consistency. Changes were originally proposed in certain passages only, though the reason for the changes equally requires them to be made in numerous others. Thus at Ps. xxxiii. 5, and in twenty-four other places, "justice" was to be put for "judgment." But it is manifest that in a multitude of other passages there is equal need of the same alteration. We have accord-
