ject, it might have been supposed that Beza had not been fairly treated....As the late Bishop Middleton has expressed an opinion in favour of the rendering adopted by our Translators, I cannot, although the opinion is but incidentally mentioned, pass it by without notice. In discussing a difficult passage, John viii. 44, which he explains by supposing is (any man) to be supplied, he says" and if I mistake not, a similar form of expression is found in Heb. x. 38 : so at least ἔαν υποστείληται is understood by our Translators." On this subject I would observe, that Bishop Middleton was in quest of passages in which is (any man) must from necessity be supplied; that it does not appear that he had made himself acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of Heb. x. 38;-and that when passages are produced of which no sense can be made, unless Tis (any man) be supplied-such passages can furnish no reason for supplying the word in passages which present an unobjectionable meaning without it.

Let me state in conclusion, that my object in this discussion has been, to point out the ground on which Tis (any man) is not to be introduced—supposing the case to be so settled-namely, because the entire passage, as it is read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is perfectly clear without it;—and also to point out the ground on which alone ris (any man) can with any sort of propriety be introduced—namely, because the Apostle, when he inverted the order of the clauses in the Septuagint, intended that the verb (vπoσteíλntai) should carry its indefinite nominative case along with it.... Whether, indeed, the supplementary words were warranted, or not warranted, two things are certain—first,

that so important a passage ought to have been printed as follows" Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him"-and secondly, that IT WAS NOT.

From the preceding instances, the reader will perceive the importance of Italics, for the right understanding of our Authorized Version of the Bible; and be able in some measure to estimate the care that has been taken in correcting the Text of that Version, with regard to them. There is, however, one particular in which the care so directed has never yet been considered. It may be supposed that the only anxiety has been, to increase the number of Italics; but the truth is, that, in many instances, the words which appear in Italics, in the Text of 1611, have subsequently been printed in the common character. From a list of cases of this kind, which occurred to me when in quest of other matters, I will adduce two or three from the Old Testament, and two or three from the New; in order that some judgement may be formed of the mode in which the revision has, in this point of view, been carried into effect. I begin as usual with the Old Testament.

Gen. xv. 17. Here, according to the Text of 1611, we read as follows:

"And it came to pass that when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp, that passed between those pieces.”

To the word, "dark," as above printed, we naturally expect that there is no corresponding Hebrew term. The Original, however, contains a word, which may

be rendered "gloom," or "darkness." Gesenius gives caligo spissa, as the meaning of the word; and refers to this passage. The Latin Vulgate has the first clause thus: "Cum ergo occubuisset sol, facta est caligo tenebrosa : "Schmid: "Tandem cum sol occidisset, et tenebræ factæ essent:"-Dathe: "Deinde cum sol occidisset et tenebræ essent: "Ainsworth : "And the sun was going down, and there was a darkness."... Moreover, the same word occurs three times in Ezek. xii. 6-12; the Text of 1611 giving the last of the passages thus: "The prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth :"--which some of the English Bibles, before 1611, thus render : "And the chiefest that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the dark, and go forth." We therefore conclude that a proper correction was applied, when the word, "dark," appeared in the ordinary character; in which character it appeared in 1638, as it continues to appear in modern times.

Ps. v. 3. We read thus, according to the Text of 1611" In the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up-and according to the edition of 1638 and subsequent editions, thus: "In the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.' '... We have, then, to inquire, whether the word "up" ought, on the principles of our Translators, to be in Italics, or not... Now, the Original of the expression, "and will look up," is rendered by Bythner, “et intensè speculabor;" and explained, "oculos intendam, et expectabo. ut des mihi petitionem meam." Ainsworth, who never throws away words or fails to mark the slightest supplement, thus translates the clause:

"and will look out; " and to the words, "look out," affixes the following note:-or espy, as he that keeps watch and ward, expecting what God will answer, as is explained in Hab. ii. 1. This noteth diligence, hope, and patience so Mich. vii. 7."....In Ps. v. 3. the Original word occurs in a form and position which give it especial force; and when a word so full of meaning is translated "look up," it is a great weakening of its import, to print the particle "up" in Italics....We infer that the change of type, with regard to this particle, was quite warranted.

...

Ps. vii. 17. according to the Text of 1611: "I will praise the LORD, according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most High.”. We read Ps. ix. 2. "I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High:" according to the same Text. Now, in these two passages the Original has the same word— translated, "I will sing praise:" Italics being employed in one case, and not in the other. So that there must be an error in one of the cases....Ainsworth regularly translates the original word by "I will sing psalm;" and it really does involve some substantive as psalm, or praise. Our conclusion is, that the Editor of the edition of 1638 did well in endeavouring to give uniformity to the Authorized Version, by printing "praise" (Ps. vii. 17) in the ordinary character.... In like manner, when we find, "Sing praises unto the Lord," (Ps. ix. 11) in the Text of 1611-by printing the word "praises" in the ordinary character, that passage has been rendered consistent with passages where the same original word is used, without Italics in the translation: as Ps. Lxviii. 4. "Sing praises to his name;" and Ps. cv. 2. "Sing

psalms unto him."...Here also we hold that the reading of the edition of 1638 and of the modern editions is to be preferred to that of 1611.

"In .

Ps. xxx. 5. Here the Text of 1611 gives us, "In his favour is life."....In the preceding part of the verse we read, "For his anger endureth but a moment; where the pronominal suffix to the word translated "his anger" is precisely the same as that to the word translated "his favour." The inference is, that it was by oversight that the pronoun "his" was printed in Italics; and we think that the editor of the edition of 1638 was fully justified in printing the word in the ordinary character.

Passing on to the New Testament, we find, Gal. i. 8, Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίο ζηται ὑμῖν παρ' ὅ εὐηγγελισάμεθα, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω : and according to the Text of 1611, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Here no one would venture to decide at once upon the propriety of printing the words, "any other Gospel," in Italics. But when we read, in the very next verse, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ ̓ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω: and according to the same Text, "If any man preach any other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed :"-we naturally inquire why the words "any other Gospel" should be in Italics in the one case and not in the other. When, besides, it is recollected that the different forms of the word evayyeλ(w, in the sense of preaching

M