of a Latin Manuscript, as an explanation of the passage; and afterwards have been inserted as part of the Latin Text. There are indeed no traces of any word corresponding to "vobis," in the Greek Manuscripts. However, the reading, "vobis," has the sanction of Papal Authority; and the Authentic Bible of the Roman Church gives the passage to this effect: "But to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand, is not mine to give to you, but to those for whom it is prepared." And yet, what will now be generally allowed to be the true explanation of the passage appears to have been preferred even by Roman Catholic writers; for Estius gives us the following excellent note: "Non est meum dare nisi quibus paratum est; ut sed pro nisi sumatur; sicut contra frequenter nisi ponitur in Scripturis pro sed. Hic sensus nullam habet dubitationem, quo non negat Christus suum esse dare ut sedeant; sed negat se aliis dare posse, quam quibus a Patre jam ab æterno paratum sit."....If we look to the Fathers, "vobis" was not the reading of Augustine's time. He considered the phrase, "is not mine to give," as referring only to our Lord's human nature; which shews the difficulty raised in his mind by the word sed; and indicates that he would supply the ellipsis in some manner not unlike that adopted by our Translators. The Greek Fathers also supposed that there was an ellipsis—which they supplied by the words ékeivwv éotiv, “it is their's"—" is not mine to give, but it is their's for whom it is prepared;" and those Fathers interpreted the clause, "is not mine to give," not with relation to our Lord's power, but with regard to his justice, and equity....Erasmus inclined to the notion of an ellipsis; but wrote not very satisfactorily on the subject. Beza likewise-although, as appears

from his note on the place, aware of the occasional use of aλλa for ei un—preferred the supposition of an ellipsis. He thought that donσeraι was the deficient word; and

so, rendered the passage, "non est meum dare, sed

dabitur quibus paratum est." Conformably to this, we find, in the Geneva Bible, "is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared." The Bishops' Bible presents the passage of St Matthew thus

"is not mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared;" and the passage of St Mark as follows"is not mine to give, but it shall be given unto them for whom it is prepared:" and thus it passed to our present Authorized Version....Such, without minute particulars, is the history of the interpretations given to this text. There are various reflections which readily arise at the conclusion of such an account; but I content myself with one-which is, that, in the case of a text, which had been so variously expounded during the course of more than a thousand years, especial care ought to have been taken, to mark whatever supplementary words were deemed requisite to express the meaning assigned to it.

In Heb. x. 6. and also x. 8. we find, in the Original Greek, the following expression: ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ apaρrías-which is, properly translated, "burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin”—and "burnt offerings and offering for sin." Our present inquiry relates to the Italics here employed; which, although they do not appear in the Text of 1611, are given in our modern editions:-"burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin" and "burnt offerings and offering for sin.”

...

We read, Rom. viii. 3, according to the Authorized Version: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh :"-where the words "and for sin" correspond to the Greek, καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. From the margin, however, we learn that the expression "for sin" may be understood-"by a sacrifice for sin;" and for this there is good warrant, both from the tenor of the passage under consideration, and from the mode of expression in other places. With regard to Apostolical usage, Heb. x. 18. presents the expression in full, οὐκ ἔτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἁμαρτίας—“ there is no more offering for sin ;" and again, Heb. x. 26. οὐκ ἔτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν (al. ἁμαρτίας) ἀπολείπεται θυ oia" there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." Now inasmuch as the phrase is important—as it is occasionally complete and as in Rom. viii. 3. although the abbreviated expression is adopted in the text, yet its full import is given in the margin-we naturally expect that, whenever the abbreviated form does appear, some intimation should be given, either in the text or in the margin. But such expectations will be disappointed. In Heb. x. 6. we read, "In burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin, thou hast had no pleasure "—without any variation of type; yet for "sacrifices for sin" the Greek affords no more than Tepi duaρrías, which in Rom. viii. 3. was translated" for sin." Moreover, Heb. x. 8. we read, "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not"-under the same circumstances as to type; and here also, for "offering for sin," we read in the Greek Tepi apapтías" for sin,"

as translated in Rom. viii. 3. When we examine the edition of 1638, we find, of course, "sacrifices" in the former case, and "offering" in the latter, printed in the Italic character. Instances of this kind decide at once the degree of authority which is due to the Text of 1611, and lead us to rejoice that a text, more fully representing the state of the Original, should have been followed in the modern editions....It may be observed that, in the third verse of this chapter, the Text of 1611 presents us with the following reading:

"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."

Here we find only "there is" and "made" marked as deficient in the Original; no intimation whatever being given, by the mode of printing, that the word "sacrifices," although implied, is more than the Original contains. And this is the edition which has so recently been called the Standard Edition. The edition of 1638 and the modern editions agree in giving the word "sacrifices" in the Italic character.

The only remaining passage of Scripture, to which, under the present head, I shall venture to request attention, is Heb. x. 38. Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται· καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου αὐτῷ. μov ev aúтê. “Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Such is the version which the Text of 1611 presents. Now, whether this is the true interpretation of the passage, or not, it must be acknowledged, by every person entitled to an opinion on the subject, that the words "any man" have no word, or words, corresponding to them in the Original. Under any circumstances,

therefore, they ought, on the Translators' own principles, to have been marked, as supplied. But in a passage, which it must have been quite certain would be made use of for the purpose of supporting particular views of much controverted doctrines, the care taken, to indicate the insertion which appeared to be required, ought to have arisen to scrupulosity.* Notwithstanding all this, the words "any man" appear, in the Text of 1611, as if essentially existing in the Greek. On referring to the edition of 1638, we find the passage exactly as (if the insertion be admitted) it ought to be printed: "Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him:"—and so, of course, it appears in the modern editions.+ The passage, however, may undoubtedly be translated as follows:

* On this text, Owen (the advocate of final perseverance) thus writes, "In the former [part of the verse] the person is righteous, the way of his acting is by faith, and the event is life, he shall live.' On the other hand, there is a supposition made of a person not so qualified, not so acting, not so living, not having the same success, but contrary in all these things. Wherefore they do greatly deceive themselves and others, who suppose it is the same person who is thus spoken of; and countenance themselves by the defect of the pronoun (Tis) any one, which is naturally and necessarily supplied in our translation."-Expos. of Ep. to Heb. edited by Dr. Williams.

On the same text, Whitby (the opponent of the before mentioned doctrine) thus writes: "Note that av de vπoσteíλntai [but if he draw back] refers plainly to the just man, the man who lives by his faith. The words do therefore plainly suppose that the just man who liveth by that faith, in which, if he persisted, he would save his soul, may draw back unto perdition. And this is also evident from the ensuing words, My soul shall take no pleasure in him; for they do plainly intimate that God took pleasure in him before his drawing back; for otherwise this threat would signify nothing, the Lord taking pleasure in no man but in just men only, and such as live by faith." Annot. in loc.

+ “Our Translators have been so far very fair, as to cause the words any man to be printed in a character different from the rest of the verse; thereby to let the English reader know, that there is nothing in the Greek to answer to these words." Peirce and Hallett, in loc. This praise, it will be observed, is not due to the Translators.