character which has been used instead of the common character, or the common character instead of the Italic -I have not been able to discover a single instance, in which the Bible of Dr Clarke does not differ from the Text of 1611, and agree with that of our present Bibles. ...To this account, I will subjoin no reflections. The reader is in possession of all the materials that can be required for the satisfaction of his own mind, on the subjects discussed in the foregoing pages; and my only wish, in this as in every other case, is-that Truth may prevail.

So much having been said on Heb. x. 38, it may perhaps not be uninteresting to the reader, to have placed before him Dr Adam Clarke's sentiments on that text. Thus, then, he writes:

"Kai čav VTOOTεíλntai, but if he draw back; he, the man who is justified by faith, for it is of him, and none other, that the text speaks. The insertion of the words any man, if done to serve the purpose of a particular creed, is a wicked perversion of the words of God. They were evidently intended to turn away the relative from the antecedent, in order to save the doctrine of final and unconditional perseverance; which doctrine this text destroys."

This is a mode of writing which I am far from admiring, for two reasons: 1. there is ground, apart from Theological considerations-although in my own opinion very untenable ground-for the version adopted by our Translators; and 2. I do not very much like to contemplate the metamorphosis of a Commentator into a Controversialist.-At the same time, there are also two things which may be learned from the preceding Comment: 1. the importance of the passage; and 2. the right of the public, at the present day, to

"any

expect that the motives for introducing the words " one," or "any man," should be distinctly pointed out by the Translator.

Dr Adam Clarke states, in the General Preface to his Bible, that our Authorized Version was corrected "by Dr Scattergood in 1683; by Dr Lloyd, Bishop of London, in 1701; and afterwards by Dr Paris, at Cambridge."... Dr Scattergood was a learned member of the University of Oxford; and, if I mistake not, was one of the Compilers of the Critici Sacri....It is singular that Dr Clarke should have mentioned Dr Lloyd (also a member of the University of Oxford) as Bishop of London. Bishop of London that eminent prelate never was. He died Bishop of Worcester, in 1717....Dr Paris was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was distinguished for his attainments in his life-time; and is still commemorated, as a Benefactor to his College. His edition of the Bible was published, in 1762, in two Quarto Volumes. It is a correct and beautifully printed work....The most remarkable circumstance, attending Dr Clarke's statement of the Corrected Texts of our Authorized Version, is the omission of all notice of the Revision of the Text of 1611, which, it is now certain, was carried into effect, from the beginning of the Volume to the end, at Cambridge, in 1638. That Revision was, I have no doubt, entirely unknown to him; although he was a professed Bibliographer-the most accurate, perhaps, of his own time-in this department of learning.

IN a Postscript to the former edition of this Work, I put down a few observations on the Italics of our Translators in a point of view not considered in the work itself. On the present occasion, I shall adopt the same plan; stating such circumstances, connected with the subject, as have come to my knowledge.

There are, as almost every one must be aware, Various Readings, as well in the Manuscripts of the Original Hebrew of the Old Testament, as in the Manuscripts of the Original Greek of the New; and in the margin of the Authorized Version a few occasional intimations are afforded, of such various readings, whether consisting of words or phrases. But as Various Readings relate to words, phrases, and sentences, which do not appear at all in some, or perhaps many Manuscripts, to which much weight is justly attached the question is-how far the Translators intended, by means of Italics, to indicate the absence of such portions-or, at least, to express doubts of their belonging to the Sacred Originals. Now whoever expects that the Italics of our Translators will throw much light on the Various Readings of the Hebrew and the Greek, will be disappointed. In the time of King James, Italics had so long been established in translations of the Bible as to have acquired a kind of prescriptive right there; and the object for which they were at first avowedly introduced, and

afterwards avowedly retained, was not the indication of Various Readings, but the marking of such supplementary words as the mode of translation, from its very nature, required. This fact affords strong pre

sumptive evidence that King James's Translators employed Italics, as their predecessors had employed them, for the sole purpose of warning the reader, of the supplementary words they had made use of. This however is not all. Had supplementary words been very carefully marked, it is possible that-now and then, and by accident—a Different Reading of the Original might have been pointed out; but considering the incredible negligence manifested with regard to Italics, the slightest confidence, as to any Various Readings which, at the first view of the subject, might be supposed to be pointed out by Italics, would be a proof of folly, beyond the power of language to describe. There is indeed one instance, of a considerable clause marked by Italics, which marking is clearly to be attributed to the different readings of the Manuscripts. On this I shall very soon offer a few observations.... So far, in short, as I have been able to make out the matter, the intentions of the Translators were, to mark supplementary words in the Text, and to record Various Readings, such at least as they thought proper, in the Margin; and of the Various Readings, which I have found so recorded, I will now give a list. I will not positively affirm that no other Various Readings than the following are to be found in the Margin, but the impression on my mind is that no others do exist there.

JAMES ii. 18. Shew me thy Some copies read, by thy

faith without thy works.

1 PET. ii. 21. Because Christ suffered for us.

works.
Some read, for you.

2 PET. ii. 2. Their pernicious Or, lascivious ways, as some

ways.

copies read.

11. railing accusation Some read, against themselves. against them.

18. Those that were

clean escaped.

2 JOHN 8. That we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive, &c.

Or, for a little, or a while, as

some read.

Some copies read, which ye have gained, but that ye receive, &c.

In the tenth chapter of St Luke's Gospel, we have the following verses:

21. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.

22. All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father: and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. 23. And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see.

R