old copies, we find "their nets”—the word "their" being printed in the ordinary character, on account of its having a word (avτwv) corresponding to it in the Greek. It is observable that Beza translates the passage in St Matthew, "omissis retibus;" and the passage in St Mark, "omissis retibus suis:" - thereby shewing, as the Latin language easily permitted, his attention to the presence or absence of the Pronoun. Beza, indeed, is generally attentive to this matter; and I mention the fact, because his authority was undoubtedly great with the Translators. That, in the printing of so large a work, their principles should have been occasionally lost sight of, cannot surely be a matter of surprise... It is impossible for me to suppose that the eleven specified instances, of Italics not warranted by the Text of 1611, can need any farther defence or apology.

MATT. X. 1.

xx. 25.

MARK iii. 13.

23.

"Called unto him his twelve disciples."
A similar case. (πpoσкaλeoáμevos.)

The same. (TроσкαλETTα.)

The same. (Tроσкаλеσάμеvos.)

In these cases, the printing of "him" in Italics is objected to; and I suppose it must be on the principle, that the word is necessarily involved in the term προσκαλεσάμενος. If it really be maintained that πроσкаλеσάμеvos must be translated "having called προσκαλεσάμενος unto him," I can at least shew that the Translators were not of that opinion; for in Matt. xv. 10. we find that they have translated, Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν oxλov, "And he called the multitude." ὄχλον,

D

To say

more on this subject would be to waste words. The rule generally; followed by the Translators requires that the word "him" should be in Italics.

MATT. iii. 15. "Suffer it to be so now." ("Apes äpti.) The Italics in this text are condemned, as usual. Now two things I will venture to affim: 1. that "Suffer it to be so now" represents the meaning of the original; and 2. that no other mode of printing those words could so well suggest, to the learned reader of the English Translation, the precise expression of the Evangelist— Ἄφες ἄρτι. How the phrase was understood in antient times, will appear from the Latin Vulgate—" Sine, modò;" and when Beza gave "Omitte me nunc," the equivalent expression, he took care to print "me" in Italics-to shew that the word was more than the

as

Greek text contained. In the same manner, the words "it to be so" have been printed in Italics, to indicate that there are no words corresponding to them in the original.*

His

*It is singular that Beza should have translated apes, omitte. note is this: "Omitte [me] apes. Vulgata sine. Et paulo post, ȧpínow, dimisit. Ego Erasmi versionem prætuli, quia melius respondet Græco verbo : quod tamen etiam interdum coactus sum interpretari, Permittere, Remittere et Relinquere: ut sunt interdum variæ unius et ejusdem vocabuli significationes."...Bishop Pearson (Creed, p. 582, 8vo. ed. 1824.) has an able note on the expression aperis apapтiv: from which I extract the following remark:- "Secondly, apiéval is often taken for permittere, as Gen. xx. 6. οὐκ ἀφῆκά σε ἅψασθαι αὐτῆς. Matt. iii. 15. ἄφες ἄρτι and τότε ἀφίησιν avtov, which the Vulgar translated well, sine modo, and then ill, tunc dimisit eum."...In comparing the views of Beza, on this matter, with those of Pearson, the learned reader will doubtless agree with the Bishop.

Lawrence Tomson-to whose Version I shall occasionally refer-gives, "Let be now." In this and many other places, he by no means follows Beza, as in his work he is generally supposed to do. I use the edition of 1607.

MATT. xii. 31. "But the blasphemy against the holy Ghost.” (ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία.)

αν

It is thought wrong that "against" should be printed in Italics. When the Evangelists use the Verb ßλaopnuéw with reference to the Holy Spirit, it is in this manner: Mark iii. 29. ὃς δ ̓ ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα : Luke xii. 10. τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα βλασφημήσαντι :—and it was to indicate the absence of a preposition in the case of Matt. xii. 31. that the word "against" was printed in Italics. It was, in fact, to shew that the English version was not literal. A similar instance occurs Matt. x. 1. dwкev avtoîs ἐξουσίαν πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων, “ he gave them power against unclean spirits;" for so the word "against” is printed in the Text of 1611, as well as in modern editions. Lawrence Tomson has "against" in Italics,

66

MATT. xiii. 19. "Then cometh the wicked one." (ô πovnρós.)

It looks to me somewhat like carrying distinctions of this kind too far to print the word "one" in Italics. I should have been contented with the ordinary character. I observe, however, that the rendering of rapadovvaι Tov TOLOÛTOV, 1 Cor. v. 5. is thus printed in the Old Edition : "To deliver such a one:"-where the Italics are scarcely defensible. In the modern editions they do not appear. Moreover, in 2 Pet. ii. 5, we find oydoov Noe, "Noah the eighth person;" the passage being so read in the Antient as well as the Modern Text.

ΜΑΤΤ. xxiv. 41. “Two women.” (δύο ἀλήθουσαι.)

There may be some doubt whether "women" in Italics can be fairly objected to. The question is, whether it is right that the translation should mark the

presence or absence of yvvaîkes, in the original expression. In the Old Editions we find, ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις, (1 Cor. xiv. 21.) given, "With men of other tongues ;" -TIσi de Kai ÉTAкоλovovσw, (1 Tim. v. 24.) " and some men they follow after ;” and ἡ γὰρ ἄνοια αὐτῶν ἔκδηλος EσTαι Tâσi, (2 Tim. iii. 9,) "for their folly shall be manifest unto all men." There can be no doubt but the word "women" (Matt. xxiv. 41.) in Italics is more defensible than the word "men" so distinguished in these latter instances; because in the latter instances the expression applies to all-whether men or women.

ACTS v. 33. "They were cut to the heart." (DIETρίOVтO.)

Far from allowing the Italics in this place to be liable to censure, I hold that they are applied most properly. From Acts vii. 54. we ascertain the expression in its complete form: διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις avrov, which is rendered, without Italics, "they were cut to the heart;" and therefore when the verb dieπρioνTо is rendered "they were cut to the heart,” it is manifest that the last three words ought to be in Italics.

ACTs xiii. 25. "I am not he." (oúk eiμì ¿yw.)

This passage refers to John i. 20. where John the Baptist "confessed, I am not the Christ," or ovк eiμi ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός: and the passage might have been rendered, "I am not the Christ"-as in Mark xiii. 6. and Luke xxi. 8. öтi éyw ein, is translated and printed, in the Text of 1611, "I am Christ."...If oux eiμì éyw may be rendered either "I am not he" or "I am not the Christ," the rule requires the added word, or words, to be in Italics.

ACTS xxii. 28. "But I was free born." (éyw' dè kai γεγέννημαι.)

If it were not for the connection between these Greek words and what has preceded, it would be impossible to translate them, "I was free born." The word "free" therefore is printed in Italics, because there is not found in the original any word corresponding to it. Beza thus translates the expression: "Ego verò etiam natus sum civis;" supplying a different word. Lawrence Tomson-" But I was so born."

ROM. i. 21. 66 Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν.)

They glorified him not as God." (oux ws

The word "him" in Italics denotes the absence of αὐτὸν, in the Greek. Such matters are marked, again and again, in the Text of 1611. For example, in Heb. xi. 13. μὴ λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, ἀλλὰ πόῤῥωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες, καὶ πεισθέντες, καὶ ἀσπασά uevo, is rendered and printed—"not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them :"-in which place a remarkable attention is paid to the presence and absence of the Pronoun.

ROM. viii. 29. "He did predestinate to be conformed.” (προώρισε συμμόρφους.)

When in Rom. i. 1. and 1 Cor. i. 1. it is written KANTÓS άπÓσTOλos, the text of 1611 presents us with "called to be an apostle;" and when in Rom. i. 7. and 1 Cor. i. 2. we read kλŋτoîs ȧylois, the same text gives us "called to be saints."* It appears to me that the

* In editions bearing date 1611, 1612, 1614, and probably in other old editions, the word "called" (Rom. i. 7) is in Italics, as if the original κλητοῖς were wanting. The mistake was corrected as early as 1617.