[v] ANY value which Part I. possesses lies in its being the work of one who was groping after truth, and had no fixed views as to the history and origin of the book of the Acts. Now that I have acquired such views during further years of study, there are various things which I should modify; but the alteration would necessarily affect the character, and therefore the text is left as it stands. Only on p. 168 the full chronological scheme, which is contained in my later work, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, is appended, as illustrating the text and showing the chronology towards which the studies begun in this book naturally lead.

In Part II. I have no change to make. It expresses, imperfectly indeed, but as well as I am capable of doing, the views which seem to me right. In the footnote on p. 333, and on p.491, I should now, after long study, decidedly reject the view that the Octavius of Minucius Felix was written as early as 160.

[vi] The epitaph of Avircius Marcellus has become the centre of vigorous controversy, and the subject of a body of writings too large to be noticed in this work. I have discussed the subject in my Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia I., pp.722 - 30. The writer who seems to me to take the most correct and instructive view of the subject is Dr. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des N. T. Canons, V., p. 57 ff.

W.M. RAMSAY.
ABERDEEN, May 31st, 1897.