supplied by an English reader; but the Translators deemed it better to give the sense in full, by supplying the words which must otherwise have been understood:-"but those things which are revealed belong unto us." Nothing more can be desired, to evince the propriety of the Italics in this passage. JUDG. viii. 13. "Returned-before the sun was up." In this passage, the literal rendering seems to be "earlier than the rising of the sun;" and therefore the term was up" might, as well have remained in the ordinary character. 66 Ps. lxxxvi. 8. "Neither are there any works like unto thy works." According to the text of 1611, the whole verse stands thus: "Among the Gods, there is none like unto thee (O Lord), neither are there any works like unto thy works." It is here indicated by Italics that the words "there is" are not found in the Hebrew; and, upon the same principle, it ought to have been indicated, in the same manner, that the words " are there any works" have no words corresponding to them in the Original. In fact, we here have a common instance of the omission (in Hebrew) of words in one part of the sentence which are expressed in the other. Ps. lxxxix. 19. "I have laid help upon one that is mighty: I have exalted one chosen out of the people.” In the Hebrew, we find "a mighty" and "a chosen ;" that is, "a mighty [one or man]," and "a chosen [one or man]." From the explanation here given, the reader may judge whether "one" ought to be considered as supplied. For my own part, I should not strongly insist upon "one" being in Italics, although the substantive, according to the Hebrew idiom, really is understood. As for "that is," it may be considered as deriving sufficient warrant from the text of 1611, in such cases as this: "Man that is in honour." "Ps. xlix. 20. Ps. cx. 5. The text of 1611 has Lord, in small letters : the modern editions have LORD, in large letters. In the common Hebrew text we here find Adonai, and according to that reading the text of 1611 is right; but several manuscripts read Jehovah; which, if it were admitted, would sanction the change to LORD. My own opinion is that, in such a case, the text of 1611 should not have been departed from. Isai. xxxviii. 18. For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee." Undoubtedly the negative is, in the Hebrew, expressed only in the former member of the sentence-although understood in the latter. In the latter member therefore-to convey to the English reader the complete meaning of the passage the negative was very properly supplied by the Translators, although the word is not distinguished from the rest of the sentence in the text of 1611. In a case like this, the Italics of the modern editions must be considering as marking a Hebrew idiom; and similar cases have been attended to in the text of 1611. In 1 Sam. ii. 3 we read: "Talk no more so exceeding proudly, let not arrogancy come out of mouth ;"—in Job iii. 11. your Why died I not from the womb: why did I not give up the ghost?"— and in Ps. xci. 5. "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day."...Nothing more needs to be said in behalf of the Italics in Isai. xxxviii. 18. 66 TEXTS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, Examined by the Sub-Committee, MATT. iv. 20. "Left their nets.” (ápévtes tà diktva.) viii. 3. "Jesus put forth his hand." (ékTeivas τὴν χεῖρα.) κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.) ἁμαρτίαι.) 20. "Hath not where to lay his head.” (Tηv ix. 5. "Thy sins be forgiven." (ápéwvтaι ai xix. 10. "The man - with his wife." (μerà τῆς γυναικός.) MARK ii. 9. The same as Matt. ix, 9. οὐρανοῦ.) "Your heavenly Father." (ò Tarnp ò é JOHN X. 30. "I and my Father are one." (o Taτnp.) PHIL. iii. 19. “Whose god is their belly.” (ô Ocòs ʼn κοιλία.) HEB. i. 3. "The brightness of his glory." (áravyaoμа τῆς δόξης.) xii. 10. "But he for our profit.” (ò dè éπì Tò συμφέρον.) To every one of these texts, as here printed, the same objection is made, viz. that the pronoun appears in Italics, I have therefore brought them together; the reply, as well as the objection, being, in each instance, as nearly as possible, equally valid, or equally invalid... Now, instances from the New Testament, according to the text of 1611, have already (p. 3) been produced; in which the same manner of printing the pronoun was adopted. Let us examine the circumstances of those cases. We may, by so doing, throw some light upon the texts specified in the list above drawn out. The instances (p. 3) may be divided into two classes : the first consisting of cases in which the pronoun is printed in Italics, when the corresponding word in the original has no article prefixed-the second consisting of those in which the article appears. Of the first class are the following: "We have Abraham to our father." (Taтépа éxoμev тòv Aßpaάu.) Matt. iii. 9; "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge." (οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει.) Rom. i. 28 ; "Whomsoever you shall approve by your letters." (ous ἐὰν δοκιμάσητε δι' ἐπιστολῶν.) 1 Cor. xvi. 3. Of the second are these: "And knowest his will.” (kai YiVWσKELS TO Oéλnua.) Rom. ii. 18;-"The author and finisher of our faith.” (τὸν τῆς πίστεως ἀρχηγὸν καὶ TEλEITηv.) Heb. xii. 2;—" That they may by your good τελειωτήν.) ;works.” (ek tŵv kaλŵv épywv.) 1 Pet. ii. 12. It happens that the pronouns in Italics, in the preceding list, are all to be referred to this second class; and I will venture to say that, if the Italics objected to be compared with the Italics here adduced from the text of 1611, there can be no good reason assigned why they should be retained in the latter case, and not in the former... If nice distinctions —such as our Translators have partially carried into effect -are to be made, there seems to be a propriety in retaining the Italics in the cases now under consideration. Taking, for example, the text, Matt. iv. 20. "Having left their nets," (άpévtes tá díkтva); St Mark, relating the same event, writes αφέντες τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν, and in the modern as well as the old editions, we find "their nets"—the word "their" being printed in the ordinary character, on account of its having a word (avtŵv) corresponding to it in the Greek. It is observable that Beza translates the passage in St Matthew, "omissis retibus ;" and the passage in St Mark, "omissis retibus suis:”—thereby shewing, as the Latin language easily permitted, his attention to the pre sence or absence of the pronoun. Beza, indeed, is generally attentive to this matter; and I mention the fact, because his authority was undoubtedly great with the Translators. That, in the printing of so large a work, their principles should have been occasionally lost sight of, cannot surely be a matter of surprise...It is impossible for me to suppose that the eleven specified instances, of modern Italics not warranted by the text of 1611, can need any farther defence or apology. MATT. X. 1. "Called unto him his twelve disciples." xx. 25. A similar case. (πроσкαλeσáμevos.) MARK iii. 13. The same. (πроσкaλEITαι.) 23. The same. (πpoσkaλeσάμevos.) In these cases, the printing of "him" in Italics is objected to; and I suppose it must be on the principle, that the word is necessarily involved in the term προσκαλεσάμενος. If it be maintained that προσκαλεσάμενος must be translated "having called unto him," I can at least shew that the Translators were not of that opinion; for in Matt. xv. 10. we find that they have translated, Kai TρoσKaλeσάμеVOS Tоv oxλov, by "And he called the multitude." To say more on this subject would be to waste words. The rule generally followed by the Translators requires that the word "him" should be in Italics. προσ MATT. iii. 15. "Suffer it to be so now." (Apes apтi.) (Αφες ἄρτι.) Now The Italics in this text are condemned, as usual. two things I will venture to affirm: 1. that "Suffer it to be so now" represents the meaning of the original; and 2. that no other mode of printing those words could so well suggest, to the learned reader of the English Translation, the precise expression of the Evangelist "Apes apti. How the phrase |