the Gospel, frequently occur in the New Testament; and that Italics are never applied to the expression, except in the case of Gal. i. 8, we cannot but approve the judgement which directed the application of the ordinary character to those words. In that character we find the expression in the modern editions, as well as the edition of 1638.

Take the word TOLOÛTOS, generally translated "such an one; and there may be some doubts whether it should be printed "such an one :"-but if in any case it is found so printed, we naturally expect that the plan of printing should be persevered in. Now, 1 Cor. v. 5, we observe παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ Σατανᾷ: “to deliver such an one unto Satan:" but in verse 11 we have τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνἐσθίειν: “ with such an one, no, not to eat." The word occurs in the New Testament several times: once it is translated "such," and only in one other instance it is printed "such an one.” In other instances it is printed "such an one." In 1638, the two cases of Italics were made to correspond with the other cases; and in the modern editions, we find the expression "such an one" uniformly printed in the common type.

In Eph. ii. 17, the expression, тоis μakρav, Kai Tois éyyus, is thus given, "which were afar off, and to them that were near." Now, why the words, "which were," should be in Italics, any more than the words, "that were," no man can point out. The edition of 1638 gave consistency to the passage, by exhibiting the

whole in one character. It has been followed by the modern editions.

It is a plain tale that has been told, and it carries its own moral along with it; yet I will venture to suggest a few inferences.

To say that those who have been brought to the bar of public opinion—whether the learned Editors who effected the alterations in question, or the learned Bodies who adopted them-must stand acquitted of all wrong, either in intention or in act—is true indeed, but falls very far short of the whole truth of the matter.... The Text of 1611 never seems to have possessed authority with regard to Italics; in which respect, occasional corrections were from the first applied, as mistakes happened to be detected. As early as the year 1638, the Text of 1611 underwent a systematic revision-the nature of which will be in some degree ascertained, from what has been stated in the foregoing pages. If it should hereafter appear that an earlier revision had taken place, the argument from antiquity will be so much the stronger. The revision, indeed, was a work of great labour; and it cannot be too steadily borne in mind that, two centuries ago, there lived men who possessed learning to discover the anomalies with which the Text of 1611 abounded; formed resolutions to remove them; and had diligence sufficient to carry their purposes into execution. In this way was transmitted to succeeding times a Text which compared with that of 1611, may be considered as a model of correctness. The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more

than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.

That the present Essay, small though it be, is the result of much inquiry and much thought, is beyond doubt. Moreover, the name of the author is given with his opinions. Under these circumstances, I declare, in all the sincerity of honest conviction, that it would not be easy to point out a mode in which the learned persons, to whom we owe the revisions already mentioned, could have been employed more beneficially to mankind. It is possible indeed that there may still remain some irregularities in the use of Italics; and it is proper that manifest irregularities should be corrected. But there must be some limit to alterations of that kind. It cannot but be clear to all, except those who are entirely ignorant of every language but their own, that if, in translations, the differences of idioms be marked by some method equivalent to the Italics of the Bible-whatever rules we may lay down for the application of them, we shall often find ourselves in the region of uncertainty-in fact, upon debateable ground. From this cause, there will always be ample scope for dispute. Then again, some persons appear to have a dislike to what they deem small distinctions; while others delight in the precision which such distinctions communicate. And thus, if the number of Italics in our Bibles were greatly diminished, there would be too many for some; and if the number were greatly increased, there would still be too few for others. Notwithstanding all the attention that can be paid to the subject, some irregularities in the use of Italics will remain-so long as

the human faculties remain what they are.

For my own part, I am not in the habit of condemning any work on which great care has been bestowed, because it bears not the impress of perfection.

To Biblical Scholars it cannot be supposed that I have communicated any thing new, with regard to the principles on which the Italics of our Bibles have been introduced; but it is probable that many amongst them will learn, from this Essay, how much we are indebted to the labours of those who, with a view to the Italics, have, at different times, revised the imperfect Text which was given to the world in 1611. The various illustrations of Scripture Language, which have been presented, may to others prove not uninstructive; and lead them to peruse the Sacred Volume with increased intelligence. It is hoped that even those, who are not at all conversant with Antient Languages, may derive advantage from the observations contained in the foregoing pages.

Although much had been done towards removing the irregularities of the Text of 1611, with regard to Italics, it is to Dr Blayney and his Co-adjutors that we owe the last revision of it, in that respect. But, in adopting Italics not found in the Text of 1611, we are accused of having abandoned the Authorized Version— the Standard Version. Let not the reader be misled by words. The Translators produced a Standard Version; but the Printers have not transmitted to us a Standard Text. This distinction between a Standard Version and a Standard Text, or Copy, ought to be constantly kept in view. What, indeed, is a Standard

Text? It is a Text that is not to be departed from on any account; and no one will pretend to point out that Antient Volume in which such a Text can be found; for in other matters, as well as Italics, the earliest editions of the Authorized Version are undoubtedly incorrect. ... If it should be asked-To what shall we attribute the great irregularity, as to Italics, which is manifested in the Text of 1611?—My deliberate reply, after much inquiry, is—that the Translation, however admirably executed, had not the care bestowed upon it, in carrying it through the press, which a work of so much consequence demanded; and it appears to me that the necessity for the exertions which have been made, towards removing the anomalies with which it abounds, has been clearly made out.

The circumstances under which I am writing compel me to declare, which I do with great reluctance, that as I advanced in my examination of the text of 1611, I became more and more convinced of its extreme incorrectness with regard to Italics. In the same Book, in the same Chapter, indeed in the same Verse, may be found the same expression differently printed in respect of typographical character-when the Original required that it should be printed in the same manner...* On behalf of the modern Bibles, it may be truly said—

* The different degrees of exactness in marking the words in Italics have sometimes been attributed to the circumstance of different portions of the Book having been translated by different persons, who might entertain different views of the subject. This circumstance will not account for the phenomenon. I received my first strong impressions, respecting the irregularity with which the Italics were marked in the Text of 1611, from the comparison of one of St Paul's Epistles in the Original, with the Version, as given in a Copy of that date.