reader will find the startling proposition affirmed, that the Divine command' to search the Scriptures, cannot, in the present state of our Bibles, be complied with so advantageously, by the British public, as it might have been two hundred years ago. On the reverse of his title-page he has printed a list of Inten⚫tional departures from King James's Bible,' amounting in number to upwards of two thousand nine hundred, suggesting, he remarks, the presumption that there are upwards of eleven thousand in the entire version. In this calculation the general alterations of the orthography and minute punctuation are not included. In a modern octavo or nonpareil Bible, there are about eight hundred and fifty pages, so that every page of our modern Bibles will be supposed to contain on an average thirteen errors. Such statements as these cannot be read without alarm, as they must necessarily induce suspicion of the integrity of the text to an extent subversive of the confidence with which unlearned persons, accustomed to read the Scriptures only in the public version, should receive the volume purporting to be a faithful representation of the Hebrew and Greek originals. It is not to be supposed that common readers will be able to determine the character of these alleged alterations; because, as on the one hand they are not produced, so, on the other, it is not to be imagined that the collation of copies is within the means or the competency of readers in general. The Authorized Version has of late years been most widely circulated. Not only have many thousands of copies been distributed in all directions, but some millions of Bibles and Testaments have been sent forth for the use of persons who have no other access to the sources of sacred knowledge, than that which is afforded to them by these substitutes for the original Scriptures. A most serious injury must therefore be received by those who use these Bibles, if, from any impressions forced upon them by statements which they can neither examine nor appreciate, they continue to peruse them with distrust, and are in constant doubt what to accredit as genuine, and what to reject as unfaithful or spurious. Every one who knows the value of the Scriptures, must feel the weight of Dr. Cardwell's remarks in the introductory paragraphs of his 'Letter.'

In my estimation, there is nothing more-deserving of respect and protection, than the honest confidence with which an unlettered peasant looks upon his English Bible as expressing to him the genuine word of God. Take merely the blessings that Bible affords to one single individual, the fortitude it imparts to him in his moments of temptation, and the calmness it gives to days and nights of sickness and sorrow, and there is an amount of virtue inspired by it, which has never been equalled by any other instrument of happiness. But consider also the multitude of places where such individuals may be found, follow our language into every quarter of the globe, and see

that its constant companion, and in many cases the only instructor that it brings with it, is the English Bible; and it will be manifest, that no limit can be assigned to the importance of translating the Scriptures faithfully, and preserving that translation, as far as may be, pure and undefiled.'

On the behalf, then, of unlearned readers, and for the sake of many others, who, not being destitute altogether of the necessary information for determining the question of fidelity in respect to the English Bibles in common use, may not have the means of verifying or refuting the allegations which charge corruptions so extensively vitiating the authorized text, it is proper that they should be brought under the consideration of those tribunals to which the public are accustomed to look for decisions in matters of so grave a character. If many thousands of errors are diffused throughout our modern Bibles;-if, so far as the English text of the English Bible is in question, we clearly have all our modern Bibles printed after copies of no authority, or after bad or erroneous authorities, with the important exception of what remains of the Authorized Version itself; (and how much of that remains would seem to be doubtful;) we should be guilty of dereliction of our duty, if we hesitated to denounce evils of such magnitude, and which might involve such perils. If, to the poor, the Bible which is in their hands be not a trust-worthy book, to which they may look with most assured satisfaction that they are not misled in the sentiments and feelings of their faith and hope, it is more than time to warn them of the delusions by which they have been led astray in their judgements, and deceived and abused in their confidence.

It would indeed be a ground of most serious complaint, and could not fail of furnishing matter of grave accusation against parties who have had the ordering of their Bibles, if humble and serious inquirers of the present day could not, with those books open before them, obey the Divine injunction which directs them to the examination of the Scriptures, with as much advantage as was possessed by readers of the Bible two hundred years ago. Has the stone been rolled back upon the well's mouth, that the living waters can no more be drawn from them as in other times? Have briars and thorns been set around it, to become a thicket impervious, or rendering access to the salubrious element perilous and difficult? Or are the footmarks worn out, by which the path was so easily traced by former travellers? The circumstances from which arise the disadvantages to modern readers of the Bible, that place them so unfavourably for the acquisition of the knowledge contained in it, compared with others of a much earlier time, are to be learned from Mr. Curtis's statements, and particularly from the Report of a Sub-Committee of Dissenting Minis

ters, which we must now present to our readers, as we find it in his pamphlet, p. 114.

Present-Dr. Bennett, Dr. Cox, and Dr. Henderson, a SubCommittee 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

6

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's 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 rest of the text.

3. That those who have made these alterations, have discovered a great want of critical taste, unnecessarily exposed the sacred text to the scoffs of intidels, and thrown such stumbling-blocks in the way of the unlearned, as are greatly 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.

King James's Translators have prefixed an address to the readers of their Bible, in which they vindicate the undertaking completed by them, and state many particulars in respect to their proceedings in preparing it. On the subject of Italics, however, they have not given us any information. Some readers of the preceding resolutions would be apt to conclude, that the Bible of 1611 was without Italics, or characters answering to Italics. This, however, is not the case; for though, strictly speaking, the Translators do not employ Italics, they frequently have printed words and phrases in a distinguishing type. The letter of the edition of 1611 is a large black one, and the passages distinguished from the other portions of the text, are printed in Roman letters. The Translators, doubtless, had their reasons for

.

6

such occasional deviations. They did indeed but follow the mode of printing adopted by their predecessors. In the Bibles of Henry VIII.'s time, we find passages in parentheses and in smaller type, which have nothing corresponding to them in the original, but were introduced as readings from the Vulgate, thus: And 'beholde, it is written in the boke of the righteous. (And he said: 'Consydre, O Israel, these that be dead and wounded upon thy hie hilles.) O noble Israel the wounded are slaine upon thy hylles.' 2 Sam. i. 18, 19. Oh let my mouth be filled with prayse (that I maye synge of thy glory) and honoure all the daye long. Ps. lxxi. 8. The Geneva Bible has many words and phrases distinguished by a type different from the ordinary letter; and in reference to such cases, the Translators say in their preface: Whereas the necessitie of the sentence required any thing to be added (for such is 'the grace and proprietie of the Ebrewe and Greeke tongues, that it cannot but either by circumlocution, or by adding the 'verbe, or some word be understood of them that are not well 'practised therein,) we have put it in the text with another kinde of letter, that it may easily be discerned from the common 'letter.' Thus we have, Salvation belongeth unto the Lord.' Ps. iii. 8. —answere mee in saving me from the hornes of the unicornes. My prayse shall be of thee.' For the kingdome is the 'Lords.' Ps. xxii. 21, 25, 28. King James's Translators have printed the text of their Bible, using Italics instead of smaller letters, in a similar manner; but an examination of it will shew many irregularities in the application of their rules, and some instances of the deviation in question are of a very anomalous character. We shall give a few specimens of the inconstant readings furnished by a collation of the edition of 1611. Gen xxii. 2. thy sonne, thine only sonne.' vs. 16, thy sonne, thine only sonne.' In the original, the expressions are precisely the same; but the Translators have, in the first of these examples, printed the second instance of the word sonne in a manner corresponding to the use of the modern Italics. So, in Gen. xxiv. 19, the reading is, 'draw water,' where no word occurs in the original answering to the noun water; but, in the following verse, where the same mode of expression is used in the Hebrew text, the supplied word is marked, to draw water.' In Chap. xxxvii. 13, we have, feed the flocke;' vs. 16, 'feed their flockes; the Hebrew expressions in each case being the same. And Abraham planted a grove.' Gen. xxi. 33. * Joseph I went into the house.' Chap. xxxix. 11. The nominatives are wanting in the Hebrew text in both examples, yet the translation of 1611, marks the one as implied, and the other as expressed. In Matt. xxvii. 46, the Translators have distinguished by their peculiar type the entire sentence, Eli, Eli, Tama sabachthani; but in Mark xv. 34, the parallel passage

is printed in the ordinary letters, the two cases being alike in the Greek Testament.

We shall now notice some of the passages brought forward by Mr. Curtis as instances of the depravation of the text by Italics inserted in the modern Bibles. In not a few of these instances, 'God's offspring have been bastardized.' Such is the language applied by Mr. Curtis to these transmutations.' A list of passages is produced by him, (p. 62.) in all of which', it is affirmed, the words falsely put into Italics are as much in the original, as a man's money is in his pocket, when it is not seen.' Let us consider the following cases.

"Gen. xx. 17.—"And they bare children." From a Hebrew verb signifying to bear a child (Gesenius); not bare burdens, evil usage, or any thing of a more general nature."

The objection here is, that the verb is used in Hebrew only to denote the bringing of children into the world, and that, therefore, the text of the Translators has been corrupted by the insertion of the word in Italics by the modern editors of the Bible; and the assumption is, that, in the Bible of 1611, the usage is invariably observed of printing the phrase without any distinction of letters. Such, however, is not the case. The Translators have used the very mode of treating the text, which Mr. Curtis so unceremoniously reprehends. Gen. vi. 4. -they bare children.' Chap. xvii. 17. Shall a child be borne?'

Gen. xxiv. 52.-"Worshipped, bowing himself to the earth." Not bowing to the earth, but bowing his whole person in the entire prostration of the east, to God.'

We have some difficulty in understanding precisely the nature of the objection as here stated. We cannot find in any Bible accessible to us the reading as here inserted by Mr. Curtis. All our modern editions read: 'he worshiped the LORD, bowing 'himself to the earth.' The Bibles of 1611, 1613, and all the early editions have the reading, 'he worshipped the LORD, bow'ing himself to the earth.' The exact rendering of the Hebrew text is, 'he bowed himself to the earth to Jehovah.

In other instances, the phrase appears in a more com

and he fell on his face and ויפל על פנין ארצה וישתחו,plete form

worshipped. In Gen. xxvi. 52, the Translators had rendered the whole original phrase adequately and properly, by the words 'he 'worshipped the LORD; but, intending to preserve the idiom, they translated more copiously, and marked by the change of letter the peculiarity of the expression. Why the Translators did not mark himself,' as well as bowing, we cannot conjecture; but the modern Bibles present the passage in a form which cannot be with any propriety described as a corruption of their version.

VOL. IX.-N. S.

3 s