modern Italics in Rom. viii. 29. are not in the least more liable to objection, than those of 1611 now adduced.

Let me avail myself of this opportunity to present a few observations on expressions of the form προώρισε συμμόρφους...In Eph. i. 11, 12. we read, προορι σθέντες—εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ

"being predestinated—that we should be to the praise of his glory;”—and in James i. 18. Βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας, εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων-“ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." These two passages present the mode of expression in its complete form which includes the words εἰς τὸ εἶναι. So also, in Philip. iii. 21. we read, Ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ— Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body:” where instead of εἰς τὸ εἶναι, we have εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι, making the form as complete as in the two preceding cases. Whether there are in the New Testament any other instances of the kind, I do not recollect....In Eph. i. 4. we find, καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς—εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους -"According as he hath chosen us-that we should be holy and without blame;" where the expression is abbreviated by the omission of eis Tó....The mode of expression is still further varied in Acts xiii. 47. τέθεικά σε εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν, τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς — “ I have set thee to be a light "I of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth." The latter clause ex

presses the purpose for which our Lord was to be " a light of the Gentiles," as declared in the former; and the phrase Toù eivat, so used, is sanctioned by the best writers. * A still more abbreviated turn of expression may be found in the passage (Rom. viii. 29.) which has already been placed before the reader, and in the following instances : Τοῦτον ὁ Θεὸς ἀρχηγὸν καὶ σωτῆρα ὕψωσε τῇ δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ — Him hath God exalted with tņ his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour." Acts v. 31;—τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ declared to be the Son of God." Rom. i. 4;-Ov πρоéleто ò eos iλaστýρiov-" Whom God hath set forth to be a propiστήριον. tiation." Rom. iii. 25 ; καὶ ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἱλασμὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν— “And sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins;" 'O Tаτηρ ἀπέσταλκε τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου“ the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." 1 John iv. 10 and 14. In these latter passages the reader cannot have failed to remark the irregularity, as to Italics, with which the supplied words "to be" are presented in the version, as extracted from the Old Text.† In the editions now printed, the words "to be" are uniformly in Italics.

ROM. xi. 23. "If they abide not in unbelief." (càv μr ἐπιμείνωσι τῇ ἀπιστία.)

The reading of 1611 is, "If they bide not still in unbelief;" and why it should have been altered I know not.

* See Heindorf's note on Tоû Katapavès yevéobal, in Plato's Gorgias, Sec. 30.

For the sake of brevity I have omitted to cite the following passages, of similar form: Rom. vii. 10; Eph. i. 22; Phil. i. 30; Heb. i. 2; v. 10; James ii. 5; Apoc. xiv. 4. With a view to the structure of the language of the New Testament, they deserve attention. In the version of some of these passages, words are supplied; in the version of others, not.

ROM. xii. 3. "Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.” (μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ ̓ ἃ δεῖ φρονεῖν.)

Nothing more than the sight of the Original Greek can be requisite to prove that there are no words in it corresponding to the words "of himself;" and consequently to vindicate their being printed in the Italic character. It is however worth while to consult 1 Cor. iv. 6. as it appears in the old editions: va ev nμîv μáθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ὁ γέγραπται φρονεῖν " that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written." Are not the Italics quite as requisite in Rom. xii. 3. as in this place?

ò

1 COR. xiii. 3. "Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor.” (ἐὰν ψωμίζω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου.)

The objection to the Italics in this passage seems to imply a belief on the part of the objectors that the words so marked exist, in some way or other, in the verb Ywuilw. They do not so exist. In Numbers xi. 4. according to the Septuagint we find τίς ἡμᾶς ψωμιεῖ Kρéa; "who shall give us flesh to eat?" and in Rom. κρέα xii. 20. we read ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου, ψώμιζε αὐτόν, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him." The conclusion is that the Italics are not misapplied.

HEB. ii. 17. Things pertaining to God." (TÀ πρÒS τὸν Θεόν.)

That "pertaining" should be printed in Italics is deemed worthy of censure. The Sub-Committee may perhaps have overlooked the fact that, in Heb. v. 1. where the very same Greek expression occurs, the Text of 1611 presents us with "things pertaining to God," precisely as we find the words now marked in Heb. ii. 17; as well as the fact that τὰ πρὸς ζωὴν

(2 Pet. i. 3.) has "things that pertain unto life" corresponding to it, in the same edition.

HEB. X. 10. 66 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (εφάπαξ.)

as follows:

There is a note appended to this text, from which it might be inferred that the Italics were objected to by Dr J. P. Smith. Let us therefore ascertain what Dr Smith has really written, and under what circumstances. In p. 132 of his "Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ," he quotes Heb. vii. 27. and Heb. x. 10; in each of which texts épárat occurs; and as his manner is, translates the passages for himself. The former passage he thus renders: "Who hath not every day need, like the high Priests [of the Levitical institution] first for his own sins to offer sacrifices, and then for those of the people; for this he hath done once (épárač), (ἐφάπαξ), offering himself; "the latter passage, "We are consecrated to God through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (épárač)." Having thus literally translated épáñağ by the word "once," he very justly goes on to observe that in these passages, "once is not an adequate translation of ἐφ ̓ ἅπαξ οι ἐφάπαξ.”..." It denotes emphatically, or Dr Smith goes on to observe, "the absolute cessation of an act under the idea that it has been perfectly performed; and it would be better rendered by our common phrases, were they not too colloquial, once for all, or once for ever."...Now two particulars are worthy of observation in this matter. In the first place, it seems to have escaped Dr Smith's recollection, at

E

the moment, that our Translators really had, in the latter instance, rendered épárak, "once for all;" and in the second place, Dr Smith's observations upon the meaning, which in those instances he would give to the word épáraž, afford a sufficient vindication of the mode in which "for all" is printed in our modern editions. The word occurs, Rom. vi. 10. "For in that he died, he died unto sin once (épárač);”— 1 Cor. xv. 6. "And that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once (épárağ):”—Heb. ix. 12.

66

By his own blood, he entered in once (épára) into the holy place.""Once for all" is a good English idiom, employed to convey as fully as possible the signification of épárač in Heb. x. 10.

REV. xii. 13. "The woman which brought forth the man child."

It may perhaps appear to the Sub-Committee the more reprehensible that "child" should be here in Italics, inasmuch as we find it stated, in verse 5 of this chapter, that the woman "brought forth a man child;" where "child" is in the ordinary character. The mystery may be explained. In verse 5, the original expression is viòv äppeva, literally "a man child;" whereas in verse 13, we read Tov äppeva, and to distinguish this expression from the preceding one, to which it refers, the words corresponding to it are printed "the man child." In this way the absence of viòv is indicated with great exactness.