My object, in the present undertaking, has been, in the first place, to afford such general information, on the subject of the Italics which appear in our Bibles, as may be acquired with a moderate degree of observation; and in the second place, to consider the instances of Italics upon which the Sub-Committee are represented to have founded their Report, subjoining, in each case, such remarks as appeared to be requisite...From all that has been said, it must be manifest, that the Italics objected to have been introduced in strict accordance with the rules followed by the Translators themselves; and that the main point, concerning which doubts can reasonably be entertained, is, whether there may not be, now and then, somewhat of needless refinement in the application of the rules. On that point, men of learning will probably hold different opinions; but it is difficult to imagine how persons, who decide that a mistake has been committed in such a matter, should visit it with any great severity of reproof.

From a wish to keep separate-subjects which are distinct from each other, I have, in the preceding observations considered solely how far the Italics in our Modern Bibles, in addition to those of 1611, might be warranted on the score of propriety; without the slightest allusion to the period at which the Italics under discussion might have been first introduced. At the present moment, I have access to a Folio Bible printed at Cambridge, by Buck and Daniel, in the year 1638; and so far as I can judge, the edition was carefully superintended. Having referred to this volume, with a view to the instances of Italics discussed from p. 13 to p. 34, I will faithfully communicate to the reader the result of my examination.

And first, as to the instances from the Old Testa

The

the reading, with regard to Italics, is precisely the same, in the edition of 1638, as in the current editions. only passages, in which the Italics are not the same, are these:

GEN. i. 9, 10. "Dry land."

i. 27. "His own image."

passages certainly the least likely to attract the attention of those who first undertook to revise the text with a view to the Italics.

Of the cases of the Possessive Pronoun in page 23, to which I beg leave to refer, only the three following are not in Italics in the edition of 1638 :

The four instances, (p. 25), involving πρoσкαλeîтaι and προσκαλεσάμενος, have not the Italics in the edition of 1638. I have observed the first of them in Italics, as early as the year 1747.

The following instances from the New Testament, viz.

MATT. iii. 15. "Suffer it to be so now."

xii. 31.

xxiv. 41.

“The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." "Two women."

'They were cut to the heart."

"I am not he."

ACTS v. 33. 66

xiii. 25.

xxii. 28.

"But I was free born."

ROM. viii. 29.

"He did predestinate to be conformed.” "Not to think of himself.”

xii. 3.

HEB. ii. 17.

x. 10.

REV. xii. 13.

“Things pertaining to God." "Once for all."

"The man-child."

appear in the edition of 1638 exactly as they are now printed; and the only cases, which do not so appear, are these:

MATT. xiii. 19. "Then cometh the wicked one.”
ROM. i. 21. "They glorified him not as God."
1 COR. xiii. 3. "To feed the poor."

And thus we perceive that the great principle, of rendering the Text of the Authorized Version consistent with itself, was systematically acted upon as early as the year 1638; and that by far the most numerous and most important instances of those Italics, the sight of which drew from the Sub-Committee the Report which I shall soon produce, have had possession of the Text for very

nearly two centuries at the least. I say, have had

possession of the Text:-for on examining a Folio edition of the Bible, printed at Oxford in 1688, I find the Italics objected to retained in the Text, at the distance of half a century; and on referring to another edition printed about half a century later—the Cambridge Quarto of 1762-I find the same Italics maintaining their ground.*

* With regard to Gen. i. 9, 10, "Dry land;" and Gen. i. 27, "In his own image ;" I have observed those passages so printed, in various editions, between 1700 and 1750. I will instance a Cambridge edition, of 1747.

The reader will now be enabled to estimate the credit which may be due to the Report of the SubCommittee. That Report shall therefore, without farther delay, be submitted to his inspection, in the hope that he will peruse it with attention. My notion is, that he will be somewhat astonished at the terms in which it is expressed.

"At Grove House, Islington, June 13, 1832.

"Present-Dr Bennett, Dr Cox and Dr Henderson, a Sub-Committee appointed to verify and report upon a collation of various editions of the Holy Bible, made by the Secretary. Dr Smith, though not of the Sub-Committee, kindly assisting in the investigation, it was

"Resolved 1. That this Committee are perfectly satisfied that an extensive alteration has been introduced into the text of our Authorized Version, by changing into Italics innumerable words and phrases, which are not thus expressed in the original editions of King James' Bible, printed in 1611.

"2. That these alterations so far from being an improvement of our Vernacular Translation, greatly deteriorate it; inasmuch, as in most instances, they convey to the reader the idea, that wherever any words are printed in Italics, there is nothing corresponding to them in the original text: whereas it must at once be obvious to every person who is competent to judge on the question, that what has been supplied in these instances was absolutely necessary in order to give the full force of the Hebrew and Greek idioms; and consequently, should have been printed in the same characters as the re est of the text.

"3. That those who have made these alterations, have discovered a great want of critical taste, unnecessarily ex,. posed the sacred text to the scoffs of infidels, and thrown such stumbling-blocks in the way of the unlearned, as are greatly y calculated to perplex their minds, and unsettle their confidence in the text of Scripture.

4. That it be recommended to the general Committee, to take such measures as they shall deem most likely to effect a speedy return to the Standard text, which has thus wantonly been abandoned; but that it is expedient to wait till the reprint of the edition of 1611, now printing at Oxford, be before the public, ere any further correspondence be entered upon with the Universities.

It may be right to state that the members of the Committee are J. Bennett, D. D.; J. Blackburn; George Collison; F. A. Cox, LL.D.; Thomas Curtis; J. Fletcher, D.D.; E. Henderson, D.D.; J. Pye Smith, D.D.; J. Townley, D.D.; R. Winter, D.D.

It is with the most painful feelings that I approach the consideration of this Report; to which, so far as I can judge, it would not be easy to find a parallel. Never were premises and conclusion more completely at variance, than we here find them; I mean, on the supposition that the Sub-Committee had really considered and approved the Italics of King James's Bibles. But it would be doing great injustice to the learned persons, whose names are subscribed to the Report, to believe that they possessed even ordinary information on the subject, on which they ventured to pronounce judgement. The alternative seems to be, either that by censuring the modern Italics, as productive of the evils they describe, they intended to pass the same censure on the whole of the Italics, of whatever date

-or that they condemned the Italics of the current editions, without being at all acquainted with the nature of the Italics with which the Text of 1611 abounds.