piety, was found to produce no more extensively decisive results. It was surely not intended by Our Saviour to reflect the character of inefficiency on the ministry of the Baptist; when he reproached the Jews of that generation with their perverseness in not having profited by his ministry; when he compared them to children sullenly refusing to dance when their fellows piped, or to lament when they played the mourner. It may be true that Mr. Hall's general style of preaching was not of a cast which would justify its being held up as a model of popular instruction; but his very faults as a preacher were above the reach of imitation, since they were allied to qualities of mind rarely found in those who could be misled by his example. It was a kind of preaching almost sui generis. Of his printed discourses, it is remarked by the Reviewer in the British Critic, that these, 'even when studied without the advantage of any personal know'ledge or recollection of the preacher, must always be sufficient to give the world assurance of a man", such as very rarely 'has borne the office of turning many to righteousness: and these, "--when aided by a vivid remembrance of his outward aspect and 'demeanour, his overpowering impressiveness of delivery, and his frequent appearance of abstraction from all earthly things,'must convey the notion of one whose faculties were merely as 'channels for conducting down to earth the choicest influences of 'heaven.'

66

Of the sermons contained in the sixth volume, this Reviewer appears to speak in terms of disparagement, which can be accounted for only on the supposition of his not having found time to peruse them. He deems it necesssary to guard the reader against the delusion of imagining that they have before them in many of the feeble sketchings contained in these volumes, any tolerable representation of the " dazzling miracles" of Robert 'Hall.' This remark is just as regards some of the briefer sketches, but is quite inapplicable to the discourses given with such felicitous fidelity from the compared notes of Mr. Gurney, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Grinfield, and other gentlemen accustomed to track Mr. Hall's fiery course,' and well acquainted with his phraseology. We have given above some specimens of the second discourse in the present volume. There are several others of an equally splendid character, and preserved with similar success. Mr. Foster refers to the XVIth Sermon, on the Love of God, as a remarkable example of specific illustration, pointedly applied, the quality in which Mr. Hall's preaching is represented to have been ordinarily deficient. The XVIIIth, on the Nature and Danger of Evil Communications, preached at Cambridge in 1826, is a most beautiful specimen of Mr. Hall's admirable and peculiar method of treating a practical subject in a philosophical spirit, yet so as to make the philosophy of the dis

course strictly subservient to the religious lesson. But, indeed, all the sermons in this volume are, without an exception, highly characteristic and valuable; and the selection, as well as the very careful manner in which they are edited, does great credit to the judgement of the learned Editor of the Works. The public are indeed greatly indebted to Dr. Gregory for the manner in which he has discharged his most honourable but delicate office, both as the biographer of his friend and the superintendent of the whole publication. The blame he has incurred in certain quarters, for not suppressing what the public would not have allowed him to suppress, even had there been any sufficient reason for the attempt, he will know how to appreciate. Had the principle which it is thought he ought to have applied to the published writings of Robert Hall, been observed by the editors of Warburton, South, or Burke himself, we should have been deprived of some of the finest specimens of their eloquence.

Art. IV. 1. The existing Monopoly, an inadequate Protection, of the Authorized Version of Scripture. By Thomas Curtis. 8vo. pp. 115. London, 1833.

2. Oxford Bibles. Mr. Curtis's Misrepresentations exposed. By Edward Cardwell, D.D., St. Alban's Hall, Oxford. 8vo. pp. 23. 3. The Text of the English Bible considered. By Thomas Turton, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough. 8vo. pp. 44.

4. Report from Select Committee on King's Printers' Patents, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 8th of August, 1832. Bungay. Reprinted and published by J. R. and C. Childs. 1833. pp. 111.

THE public Version of the Scriptures, is generally described as the Authorized Version,' though it would be difficult to assign the grounds on which the authority prescribing its exclusive circulation is supposed to rest. No Act of Parliament was ever passed in its favour. It was not, we believe, even so much as sanctioned or protected by any proclamation. It was undertaken, and, as the title to the Bible declares, was with the former Translations diligently compared and revised', by his Majesties speciall commandment." At the Hampton Court Conference, a new Translation was solicited by the Puritan leader, Dr. Reynolds; and the suggestion being approved by the king, he signified his pleasure, that some special pains should be taken in this matter for one uniform translation, and this to be 'done by the best learned in both universities; after them to be reviewed by the Bishops and the chief learned of the church :

VOL. IX.- -N.S.

3 R

6

'from them to be presented to the privy-council; and last of all to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole church to be bound to this translation, and not to use any other.' Soon after, the king issued his commission nominating the persons to whom the work should be assigned, and prescribing rules for their proceedings. But when the translation was completed and published, no authoritative measure on the part of the parliament or the king appears to have accompanied it. In preceding reigns, the use of the Bible had been allowed or prohibited by royal proclamations and acts of parliament. Henry VIII. by his proclamation directed the Great Bible to be set up in every parish church. The parliament of 1546 suppressed Tyndal's Bible; and a proclamation followed, prohibiting the use of any other Bibles than those which were allowed by parliament. This act was afterwards repealed by the first parliament of Edward VI.; and proclamations were subsequently issued, relative to the possession and use of the English Bible. But none of these precedents seem to have been followed in respect to the Translation of 1611. In what manner it was ratified by the king's authority, does not appear. This whole church' was certainly not bound to that Translation,' and not to use any other,' since the Geneva Bible was still in use, several editions of it being printed by the king's printer subsequently to the year when the New Version was issued from the press. The Act of Uniformity of Charles II. does not recognize any particular Translation of the Bible.

The exclusive privilege of printing the Bible, is assumed as a vested right by the King's Printer and the two Universities of England, and by the King's Printers for Scotland and Ireland. It may be proper enough to consider this exclusive interest as a trust, intended to protect the Translation of the Scriptures, and to ensure its uncorrupted transmission; but even of this there is no proof. The privilege was evidently conferred in the spirit of the monopolies which were supposed to be dependent on the royal prerogative. The monopoly, however, should unquestionably be considered in reference to the correctness of the books, the printing of which it limits. Other considerations necessarily present themselves as of importance on the question of the Patents of the King's Printers and the claims of the English Universities; but the state of the Bibles in common use, which they have issued, is the principal subject which at present requires to be examined. It may be of consequence to inquire, whether the monopoly does not enhance the price of Bibles and Testaments, which might, it is presumed, be sold at less cost if there were no restrictions on the preparation and sale of the printed Scriptures; but the integrity and fidelity of the copies at present circulated

from the privileged presses, are of greater moment than their cheapness.

No persons acquainted with the process of printing will expect perfect accuracy in any extensive work. Immaculate editions of a book are extremely rare and in some works which have been thus designated, errors have been detected. It does, however, seem to be too plain a case to allow of successful dispute, that many editions of the English Translation of James I. have been very carelessly superintended. We have been accustomed to note the errata of the public Version in the copies used by ourselves, which we have found exhibiting very different marks of the skill and diligence of the editors. In some of these, the errors are few and unimportant; but in others, the faults are more serious, and reflect no credit on the persons entrusted with the final revisal of the copy. Jerusalem the prophet' is a strange reading, which we have noted in an edition of 1793, in Daniel ix. 2. The same Bible has, The LORD at the right hand.' Ps. cx. 5. I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth them.' Malachi iii. 17. When he shall come in his only glory.' Luke ix. 26. —purifying their hears by faith. Acts xv. 9. Thou

6

that mayest thy boast.' Rom. ii. 23. It is so, that there is not a wise man among you?' 1 Cor. vi. 5. -was once suf'fered to bear.' Heb. ix. 28. -serving against sin.' Chap. xii. 4; with others less remarkable. A copious list of typographical errors might without much difficulty be obtained from a collation of Bibles, and others of greater moment might be included; but it would then be a question, to what extent they vitiate the text of Scripture. The array would look formidable; and if all the errors were found in one copy, if any particular edition were so deformed, we should not hesitate to repudiate it as disgraceful, and wish it to be suppressed. But the case is very different, when we compare the errata with the number of editions, and limit, as we ought to do, our consideration of the alterations thus introduced into the text, to the copy of the Scriptures in our hands. Dr. Cardwell, in reference to a list of errors published by Mr. Curtis, remarks, that the fifty-six mistakes, some of importance, and others totally unimportant,' which he has brought forward, are collected from eleven different editions, so that the result of this examination is, that the Oxford Bibles in question contain on an average five errors of the press. (Oxford Bibles, p. 15.) This is certainly far from any very blameable excess of errors in so large a work. Our own opinion, however, from our acquaintance with such copies as have been used by us, would be, in respect to the less recently printed Bibles, not so favourable. In more recent times and at present, the improvements which the Bibles issued from the privileged press exhibit, are in all respects very great.

66

In his evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons, Dr. Lee states, that some of the most incorrect editions of the Bible which have come under his notice, have been printed in Scotland; and afterwards he remarks, that there are several cases in which he thinks the Scottish editions preferable to the English ones. Of this supposed superiority, however, he produces only one example. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel according to John,' he observes, in all the English editions I 'have seen, no man occur repeatedly, where in the Scottish ' editions" none " is introduced: the word "man" is not in the ' original at all, and the word "none" is preferable, inasmuch as 'it may be held to be a declaration that no created being, though 'higher than human, has the power.' We cannot in course estimate the comparative value of the Scottish Bibles from the 'several cases' to which Dr. L. refers as shewing their superiority, since he has not particularly described them; but if they are at all similar to the single specimen which he has above given, the character of them is at once decided, since in this example he is altogether in error. We shall shew the state of the question thus raised, by a collation of some of the editions before us in the passages of John's Gospel. The early English editions read, in chap. x., "No man taketh it from me. "-neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." 28. -no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." 29. The modern editions, Camb. 1805, 1819, 1823; Oxford, 1793, 1830; London, 1825, 1829, have, "No man- any man-no man.” But in the London edition of 1679, and in the Oxford Quarto, 1765, the readings are, "No man taketh it from me-neither shall any pluck them-none is able to pluck them."

vs. 18.

6

66

6

Mr. Curtis has furnished (at p. 86) a list of typographical errors in and since Dr. Blayney's edition.' In this list, a reading appears as of an Oxford Testament of 1807, purge your 'conscience from good works,' instead of dead works.' Heb. ix. 14. From Dr. Cardwell we learn (Oxford Bibles, p. 15), that ' a copy of this edition had been sought for in vain; that another edition of the same year, two of the following, and all editions 'that could be found of eleven years nearest to the time in question, had been examined, and the passage was printed correctly ' in them all.' In this list, p. 90, Blayney's Bible, Oxford, 1769, is described as reading 1 John i. 4.-That our joy, for your joy may be full." And this erroneous reading is said to be traced in twenty editions of various sizes, and by all the authorized Printers, to Cambridge 12mo. 1824, i. e. fifty-five 'years. The error is in Blayney, but in Cambridge Testaments before us of 1805 and 1819, the true reading, 'your joy,' is certainly to be found.

66

6

In Mr. Curtis's Advertisement' to the pamphlet before us, the