ness of Mr. Curtis to accumulate blame upon the late Hebrew professor of Oxford should be rebuked. His revision of the Bible contains many alterations which no one is prepared to defend; and many of them have been corrected in editions which in other respects have been rendered conformable to it. Mr. Curtis's censures might with advantage to his reputation, in many cases have been spared. The Contents of Chapters' in Blayney's revision have been, to a great extent, abandoned, and the Bible of 1769 is no longer followed; but, if none of them had been more exceptionable than the following, we do not see in what manner the Bible could have suffered deterioration.

Dr. Blayney and his coadjutors seem also to have been strongly attached (according to these summaries of their doctrine) to the heathen deity Fortune, of whom the Bible of the Translators certainly knew nothing. Thus the predictions of the angel, who is called Jehovah, Gen. xvi., are said to be "informing" Hagar" of her and her son's fortunes;" and Gen. xxv., the struggling of the children during Rebekah's pregnancy, a token of the future fortunes of their posterity." p. 65.

We could easily refer to writers of unquestionable attachment to evangelical doctrines, and of eminent piety, who have not scrupled to use the language for which Mr. Curtis so severely remarks upon the Oxford Hebrew Professor. But, be the language proper or improper, it is to be read in much more interesting parts of a Biblical page than in the notation of the contents of a chapter we find it in the text of the Bible itself. In Coverdale's Bible, Eccles. ix. 11, is rendered, All lyeth in tyme ' and fortune,' and the phrase, it fortuned,' is frequently employed. 2 Sam. xix. 9. Ruth, i. 1. Job, i. 5. 7. King James's Translators inserted in the Contents of the cxlixth Psalm, prophet exhorteth to praise God-for that power which he hath given to the Church to rule the consciences of men.' If Blayney had been the author of such a sentence as this, the sharpest animadversions of Mr. Curtis would have been employed to rebuke the temerity of such a proceeding. From the modern Bibles it has been displaced. Blayney's revision has for that power which he has given to his saints.' Would Mr. Curtis restore the old reading? Nothing short of this could be in satisfaction of his assumption and his arguments.

The

Mr. Curtis comments in the following manner on the account given by Blayney of his labours in the revision of 1769.

IV. The COLUMN TITLES." The running titles at the top of the columns in each page, how trifling a circumstance soever it may appear, required no small degree of thought and attention." Akin in principle to the abandoned comment above, (Heads or Contents of Chapters,) is the continued one here alluded to, which contains some

6

corruptions of the doctrines and statements of the Bible, as understood by our Translators, that I am far, my Lord, from regarding as trifling! 'Man's righteousness,' is their column-title of that part of Isa. Ixiv. which contains the memorable phrase, "And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Dr. Blayney avoids this for- The calling of the Gentiles,' the subject of the lxv. chapter. So we have for None is just,' All are alike.' Eccl. vii. and viii. two other subjects substituted, Patience and wisdom,' Kings are to be respected; and None righteous,' Rom. iii. exchanged for The Jews universally sinners.' (Bl.) The first two of these corruptions are in the last Camb. 8vo. Ref. Bible, finished at the period of my visit to that University. None is just,' Job xxv., is thus also withdrawn; None is clean,' Prov. xx. The heart wicked,' Jer. xvii. 'God's justice in punishing sinners-God's ways equal,' Ezek. xviii. (Trans.) exchanged for Every man shall stand or fall by his own good or bad actions,' (Bl.) and Camb. 8vo. 1831. Was there any thing honourable in the animus of these alterations? The Church of England, we know, furnished during the last century, but too many advocates of a righteousness by works, which made the grace of God no more grace; but they should have contented themselves with a fair field, and fair weapons of controversy; thus silently to withdraw an important sanction of a directly opposite opinion, was surely any thing but fair or becoming.' Curtis, 66, 67.

This, we hesitate not to say, is one of the most remarkable paragraphs which ever came under the notice of a Reviewer;remarkable alike for the errors which it embodies, and the disingenuous spirit which pervades it. The language which it contains, is explicit enough, nor are the insinuations at all chargeable with obscurity; neither the one nor the other can be mistaken. Dr. Blayney is boldly charged with the offence of wilfully perverting and corrupting the Scriptures: Was there any thing honourable in the animus of these alterations? We shall examine the grounds on which an accusation so grave and serious is founded. Every reader is referred, by Mr. Curtis, to Blayney, the Church of England divines of the last century, and the modern Bibles, as the guilty parties, and the witnesses of their desperate proceedings. Now what will our readers think of such charges, when we assure them that the above alterations are not modern; are not of the last century, are not peculiar to modern Bibles, and are not chargeable upon Dr. Blayney as the author of them! It is impossible that Dr. Blayney should have been the author of Column-titles in the English Bible, which had a place there a century before the date of his revision. The injustice which Mr. Curtis has shewn towards Blayney, it is impossible for any upright and candid mind to overlook; and our sense of justice, as well as the generous feelings which the occasion requires, impel us to rescue the memory of the learned critic from his unrighteous imputations. As the most unexceptionable testimonies,

we shall produce the readings in the Column-titles of the Authorized Version as we find them in editions of the century before the last. Mr. Curtis affirms, that Blayney has displaced the Column-title of Isa. xiv. Man's righteousness,' for The calling of the Gentiles.' Now the Column-title of the folio blackletter edition of 1613, is A prayer. A black-letter quarto, 1620, reads God our Father-The calling of the Gentiles. In 1639, the reading is, God's power and greatness,' and in 1679, we find, The Churches' complaint.-The Jews rejected.' 'None is just-All are alike.' Eccles. vii.-viii., are read in 1613. In 1620 we have A good name-No man is just. In 1639, None are just-Good and bad alike;' but in 1679, we have in the Column-titles, The difficulty of wisdom.-Kings are to be respected.' 'None righteous,' Rom. 3, is not read at the top of the page in the Bible of 1613, where we have, The true Jew-Justification.' In 1620, we have, The true JewNo flesh is justified by the law.' The reading in 1639 is, The Jew's prerogative -Justification by faith.' In 1679, All are sinners-Justification by faith.' Job xxv. has, in 1639, God's power is infinite;' 1679, God's infinite power. Proverbs xx., The state of the wicked,' 1679. Jer. xvii., The observation of the Sabbath day,' 1613. Trust in God,' 1620. The observation of the Sabbath,' 1639. Judah's captivity,' 1679. Ezek. xviii., God's justice in his punishment,' 1620. The charge against Blayney, therefore, must be, not that he introduced innovations into the Translator's readings, but that he followed the example of his predecessors in this department; and if they stand clear of corrupting the doctrines and statements of the Bible, the accusation is not to be sustained against him.

'Our modern Bibles retain,' says Mr. Curtis, several instances of the withdrawment of the name and character of our blessed Redeemer from the top of the page. As Ps. xxii. A prophecy of Christ,' (Trans.) (one hardly need add quoted by all the Evangelists as such,) changed to David complaineth in distress,' Bl. and the modern Bibles, Oxford, 1828, and Camb. 1831. Prov. viii. CHRIST'S ETERNITY,' (Trans.) The call of wisdom,' (Bl.) and Oxford, 1828; Excellency, &c. of wisdom,' Camb. 1831.-Jer. xxxi., Christ promised,' (Trans.) Rahel mourning is comforted,' (Bl. and modern Bibles.)Dan. vii. Christ's dominion,' (Trans.) The interpretation thereof,' [i. e. the vision just before] (Bl. and modern Bibles)."

6

6

Mr. Curtis is so copious in his examples, and so remote from all ambiguity of expression in his statements, as to preserve every reader of them from the possibility of misconceiving his meaning. The imputation again repeated against Blaney is, that he wilfully falsified the description of the contents of the chapters of the Bible by withdrawing the direct references which they contain to Christ. Let us then compare the old copies. How stands

the reading of 1620? The excellencie of wisdom: Her riches and eternitie.' What is that of 1639? The commendation of wisdom.' What is the Column-title of 1679? Wisdom's excellency, &c.' In Ps. xxii., the edition of 1679 reads David's prayer in distress.' In Jer. xxxi. many modern Bibles do read Christ promised;' so Camb. 1793. Christ is promised' appears in a most beautiful Camb. 12mo, 1828; and so reads the 8vo. edition of London, 1821. Other modern Column-titles are, Ephraim's repentance,' Israel's restoration.' In Daniel vii., Tenne hornes,' 1613. 'Four beasts,' 1620. "The interpretation thereof,' 1679.

Other doctrinal views of the Translators, reformed by those of the Oxford Divines of 1769, will be interesting to some of my readers. I shall merely, for the sake of brevity, put down the withdrawn doctrine. The reader can generally find the substituted one of Blayney in the modern Bibles. Ps. lvii. God saveth his.' Isa. x. A remnant saved.'-xliv. God's love to his chosen people.'-xlvi. God beareth his.'-xlviii. God trieth his '- Jer. xv. God saveth his.'-xxxi. Everlasting love.'-id. A new covenant and everlasting.'-Acts v. Ordained to life.'-Eph. i. The election of the saints.'

It may surprise our readers to learn that not one of these passages is found in the Bibles of 1639, and 1679, and but one of them in the black-letter quarto of 1620, that of Eph. i. Isa. x. has, in 1620, A remnant of Israel saved;' and modern Bibles have the similar heading, A remnant of Israel shall be saved.' Whatever be the points of doctrine included in these sentences placed at the top of the pages in the chapters specified, Mr. Curtis has charged upon the Oxford Divines of 1769, the withdrawing of them, and the reforming of the tenets exhibited by them. But the editors of 1620, 1639, and 1679, could not withdraw the passages which are exchanged for others in their Bibles from any wish to accommodate them to any doctrines to which Mr. Curtis may suppose Blayney and his coadjutors were favourably disposed.

6

Mr. Curtis goes on to shew that the Translators, after the example of their Geneva brethren, chose for the head of the page, some notable word or sentence for the help of the memory', and he copies, p. 68, a few of these of which our modern bibles are ' denuded. These words and sentences, of whatever value they may be, are not of sacred authority; and it is quite obvious, as Dr. Cardwell observes, that they could not have been preserved, unless all editions subsequent to that in which they first appeared had 'corresponded exactly in page and in column with the first 'impressions. We shall compare some of these titles as given by Mr. Curtis with the headings in some bibles before us. Exod. xxxiii. 'God not seen '. Not in 1613, 1620, 1639, all of which read, Moses talketh with God.' Blayney, Moses de'sireth to see the glory of God.' Deut. xxx., Mercy to the

6

' repentant.' Not in 1613, which has, 'His (God's) mercie.' 'Promises to the repentant', is in 1620. Blayney, Great mercies 'promised to the penitent.' Ps. xxxix., Man is vanity.'; in 1613, Man's vanity'; 1620, 'David's care of his thoughts'; Blayney, His reflections on the vanity of human life.' Other modern bibles have, The brevity and vanity of life.' Ps. xlviii., 'Zion's beauty'; modern bibles read "The beauty of Zion.' The sentiment in the titles at the head of the page is, in some of the earliest bibles expressed with great brevity and terseness, and is, as Mr. Curtis describes it, adapted to catch a 'careless eye'; but the titles were very early changed, and successive editions shew great variety in the sentences thus displayed. The denudation is not by any means peculiar to our modern bibles. And let it not be forgotten, that the passages thus removed, are no part of the sacred Scriptures, the text of which is not affected by these withdrawments or substitutions.

In his fourth Letter,' (p. 74, &c.) Mr. Curtis's remarks relate principally to the mode of distinguishing certain Divine names in the printed Bibles. King James's Translators have used the term Jehovah but in a very few cases of a peculiar kind. LORD is the mode of representing the Hebrew observed by them, and the same word in a different letter, Lord, intimates to the reader of their version, that the Original is : the former denotes the Self-existent Being, but the latter is used of men or other creatures. These terms are often found associated with each other, and are, respectively, frequently combined with other names of God. It is of considerable importance that these names should be correctly represented in a Translation, and that there should be an unbroken uniformity in the usage adopted. Mr. Curtis severely reprehends Dr. Blayney and the modern Editors for their carelessness in respect to this particular, and points out some of the errors which disfigure their Bibles. We are not acquainted with any English Bibles which, in respect to this class of words, are faultless; and considerable differences are to be found in their modes of representing them. Mr. Curtis, p. 78, quotes Blayney's Bible 1769, as reading in Ps. cxlviii. 8. (7)" O GOD, the LORD," equal, he remarks, to "O Jehovah, Jehovah!" Now this is another of Mr. Curtis's blunders. Blayney's reading, and the reading of many other modern Bibles, besides that of 1769, is, O God the LORD.' This is erroneous, the true mode of representing the original being, O GOD the Lord,' but it does not furnish the kind of objection adduced by Mr. Curtis, a repe'tition of the word never found.' No errors found in the modern Bibles are, however, more in violation of the Translators' rules, than instances of these names which are found in the Bible of 1611, and which are four times more numerous than Mr. Curtis represents them to be. What example in Blayney's text is worse