Tindal's, Coverdale's, Cranmer's, Matthews', the Geneva, and the bishops' Bibles, and not to deviate from them, except when the original required it. That the church and state might be conjointly concerned in completing á revision, the new translation had to be reviewed by the bishops, read before the privy council, and ratified by the sovereign, before the seal of authority should be affixed to it. What plan could be more admirably calculated to answer the proposed purpose? It insured the confidence and approbation of the public, and convinced them, that a translation was preparing for their perusal, which should be the most faithful, and perfect, that had yet been edited.

The execution of the undertaking was as praiseworthy as the plan. The translators entered upon their work with diligence, zeal, and ardor. Sensible of the magnitude and immeasurable importance of the trust committed to them, they humbly implored the aid of God's grace, and enlightening spirit. Diffident of their own abilities, they all paid a becoming deference to the opinions of their fellow-laborers, and, unlike some vain-glorious pedants, who have lately affected to respect no interpretations of Scripture but their own, they were more willing to subscribe to the expositions of others, than to insist on their own. Not satisfied with the strict attention to the directions. they had received, not thinking it enough to compare their translation with previous English translations, they carried their scrupulous anxiety to produce a correct copy still farther, and examined the best of the European versions, before they ventured to affix the final reading. Such were the labors of King James's translators, who, to use their own words, "thought it not much," after having first set before them the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New," "to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, Italian, French, or Dutch." And yet MR. BELLAMY has three or four times asserted in the Preface and Notes to his "New Translation," that they "confined themselves to the Septuagint and Vulgate," and "made no appeal to the Hebrew verity." Nay, he has since gone still farther, and with an obstinacy, which is unworthy of so accomplished a scholar, he has repeated these intemperate charges in a recent pamphlet.1

The Quarterly Review having severely criticised MR. BELLAMY's Work, he has written a Reply, in which he defends his opinions and assertions, and among other things persists in affirming that "the translators did not translate from the Hebrew only." But what proof does he give? None other, forsooth, but that the translators were mistaken in their interpretation of several passages.-Pray might not I with equal justice deny that MR. BELLAMY has translated from the Hebrew, because I am of opinion

But if the translators had not followed the Hebrew text, and very closely too, how could they have completed a work which was long considered to be the standard of the English language, in sublimity, simplicity, and beauty? For a century and half at least after its publication, it was considered to be such, and very deser vedly for beyond all question, the style of Rayleigh, Bacon, Tillotson, and Clarendon, is not to be compared with that of the common version. How then are we to account for this excellence in a work, which was composed by so many different persons, and at a time, when, as it has been justly observed, the English tongue was not equal to such a work? It is to be ascribed to that simplicity, which never sought any graces beyond those of the original; to that fidelity which assimilated the English idiom as closely as it could to the Hebrew. I would fain exemplify my position by the best example I could select, but so many occur to me at once, that I scarcely know which to choose; the following however will suffice: it is a portion of the 24th Psalm, and a reader of common taste will observe in a moment how the language rises from simple to beautiful, and from beautiful to sublime.

Verses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 3. Who shall ascend unto the hill of the Lord, or who shall stand in his holy place?

4. He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

5. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

6. Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the king of glory shall come in!

7. Who is the king of glory? The Lord strong and mighty. The Lord mighty in battle.

In the 3rd and 4th verses the question is simply proposed, and answered in an easy and familiar style. In the 5th verse, where the subject begins to assume a nobler turn, the language rises with it but when, as in the 6th and 7th verses, the submission of all created matter to the will of God, and the glorious attributes of the most high are to be expressed, then the lofty language of the translators shows that the sublime tone of the Hebrew bard is neither lost nor lowered. It is only necessary to compare the original with the English, and to notice how closely and literally the former is rendered into the latter, and the justice of the above

that he also has mistaken the sense of several passages? A thousand errors in the common version cannot refute what the translators themselves truly declared, that they set before them "the Hebrew text." But Mr. B. seems determined to ruin the reputation which a long life of study had raised: if he would wish to have respect shown to his own labors, he must first learn to respect those of others.

remarks will not be denied: read, the clean in hands, and the pure in heart, for he that hath clean hands, and a pure heart," and I do not think that a more literal translation can be found.

But in the midst of all the graces, which every just critic will confess occur in every book of the Holy Volume, who can be surprised that there should be yet room for improvement, that there should be some errors capable of amendment; some harsh and antiquated expressions, which might be softened to modern ears; some obscure passages that might be rendered more intelligible? The progress of literature, the researches of piety and learning, the miscellaneous information derived from travellers in the East, the flux of language, the refinement of the age, and the lapse of time, have exposed defects in the common version which its compilers could neither have foreseen nor prevented.

Nobody surely will deny, that if the age of James First could produce a good translation of the Bible, the era of George the Third can produce a better. And this is what we want―AN IMPROVED VERSION; compared with the materials that are now provided for facilitating and completing a revision of Scripture, the translation of 1611 had but little to build on. With the exception of some of the notes in the Zurich Bible, the critical observations of Tremellius, the commentaries of John Drusius, and the insignificant assistance which Munster and Piscator affected to give; the one in his critical notes, and the other in his comments on the Bible; what superior means had they for improving the English translation, as far as biblical criticism went, to those possessed by Cranmer, when he edited the Great Bible in 1541? Some of the works of Grotius might have reached their hands, but certainly not all. As to the light which naturalists and travellers have thrown on the sacred writings, King James's translators had scarcely the opportunity of consulting any production which was not well known to Jerome, when he published the Vulgate.

The last two hundred years have done more towards enabling Hebrew scholars to give a right interpretation to the Holy Volume, than the whole flood of time which rolled between the age of the Apostles, and that of the reformation. Consequently if there be any person who contends that the text of the common version will not admit of improvement, he must first have persuaded himself to account as nothing, all the mass of biblical illustration which has been collected in various ways since it was edited. It will be found," says Parkhurst in his preface to his Hebrew and English Lexicon," that not only the lexicographers and verbal critics, but the more enlarged philologists, the writers of natural and civil history; travellers into the eastern countries, and even the poets; have been made to draw water for the service

of the sanctuary, or to contribute their quotas to the illustration of the Hebrew Scriptures."

Such is the opinion of Parkhurst; and most of the volumes to which he alludes in a note, have been published since King James's reign. If, indeed, the studies of such men have not made the original text more intelligible to us than it was to the translators of 1611, then in vain are we in possession of Wetstein's Critical Comments on the New Testament, in which he has so ably illustrated the forms of speech used by the Evangelical and Apostolical writers, by his learned quotations from Jewish, Roman, and Greek authors: in vain have we Lightfoot's invaluable folios, in which he brings history, chronology, and topography to bear upon his successful mode of elucidating the holy book: in vain do we estimate Calmet's Commentaire Litérale, with its curious explanations, its valuable maps and plans, and its elaborate tables: in vain too are our libraries stored with Houbigant's profound Hebrew criticisms; with Leigh's Critica Sacra; Robertson's Thesaurus Lingua Sancta; Schulten's Origines Hebrææ; with the works of Patrick and Whitby; in which all that piety and learning could do, is employed to expound the sacred text. If nothing has been done to clear the original of its difficulties, in vain did Lowth expend so much erudition on Isaiah, Newcomb on the Minor Prophets, Campbell on the Evangelists, and Macknight on the Epistles: in vain too did Buxtorf, Michaelis, and Parkhurst, employ so much time on their lexicographical labors. If natural history, as connected with the Holy Land, if the manners, customs, and habits of the orientáls, if the character of the people, and the local peculiarities of the country be not better understood now, than they were two centuries ago, then Scheutzer, and Bochart, and Harmer, have undertaken thankless offices, and Shaw, Hasselquist, Maundrell and Hanway, have thrown away words to no purpose, while they detailed their voyages and travels, and explained facts which were before unknown to Europeans. The names of the above-mentioned are but few of those authors who have opened new and inestimable sources of information for the use of some future revisers of the authorised version; and every day adds to the number of illustrations, which, in the shape of conjectures, annotations, and criticism, serve to place the sense of the original text in a clearer and more intelligible point of view. It is deeply to be lamented, that we have not a translation which benefits by these treasures of theological erudition, that they are not embodied as it were in the sacred text, and that the public is not edified by a reprint of Scripture, which shall embrace all the confessedly sound emendations which have resulted from the toils of pious, and learned, and enterprising men, in defence of the pure

word of God. Dispersed as they now are, through innumerable volumes, they are known only to the studious and the wealthy; whereas the humblest reader of the Bible should have the advantage of them. Before I dismiss this part of my subject, I trust I shall be pardoned, if I hazard a few expressions of regret at the little encouragement which studies, connected with a literal knowledge of the Old Testament, find in those quarters where alone they could be effectually promoted. It really appears quite preposterous, that the languages, which contain the false mythology of the Pantheon, should be cultivated with almost idolatrous ardor at our public schools and universities, whilst that, which is the pure fountain of true theology, should be entirely neglected. And yet that this is the case, the warmest apologists of our academic institutions cannot deny. If it be a requisite in the sacerdotal candidate to understand the Greek tongue, as indispensably necessary towards a critical acquaintance with the New Testament, there is a similar reason why he should understand Hebrew, in reference to the Old Testament. Why then are we to spend so much time in acquiring the former, whilst none is devoted to the latter? Among other courses of theological study which are shamefully disregarded, this is one; and until the great schools,' and the two universities, make a better provision for the encouragement of Hebrew literature, they will still have the mortification of hearing it said, that the collegiate institutions of Dissenters take more pains to qualify their students in this valuable branch of biblical knowledge, than the legitimate and established nurseries of the sacerdotal order. It will be absurd for them to reply to these objections, that there are Hebrew professorships both at Cambridge and Oxford; since it is notorious, that lectures are rarely or never given on this language at either university, and that the stipends attached to the professorships are insufficient for any useful purposes. "Shame on those pretended patrons," says a living writer, "who, appointing a professorship of oriental languages, counteract the purpose of the professorship, by their utter neglect of the professor, whose stipend cannot keep him on the spot, where only he ought to dwell." To such as point to the letter, instead of the spirit, of such mock provisions for the encouragement of He brew literature, I am able to relate two anecdotes. In the year 1780, a student entered at a college in Cambridge, where there is a Hebrew scholarship. He was qualified, and applied for the scholarship, but was given to understand, that as it had not been

1

Winchester, St. Paul's, Christ's Hospital, and Reading, are, I believe, the only public schools where Hebrew is taught. I wish it may appear that it is not confined to these.