brew, and equally well acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, it would be the highest treat, as likely to be productive of the inost beneficial consequences, to find them combating together. For such a conflict Mr. Bellamy may probably long wait in vain!

Apologizing for the digression here made from the main object of this letter, which was to exculpate Mr. Bellamy and his friend Sir J. Bland Burges from the undue censure of Mr. Horne, I now beg leave to return to the Baronet.

I have at this moment before me the “ Reasons in Favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures, by Sir James Bland Burges, Bart.,” as' also his “ Reply to the Rev. Mr. Todd's Vindication,” &c. Believe me, Mr. Editor, I have scrupulously examined every page in both, nay, I have even endeavoured to amuse inyself in twisting and turning occasional passages in them; but, again, not an expression have I found in either, which, as before said, could be tortured, save by the grossest and most wilful perversion, into an assertion that our present authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures is totally insuficient for teaching all things necessary for salvation. This is certainly nothing more than a mere negation on my part ; but, on the other hand, it is opposed to the simple assertion of Mr. Horne, who has quoted neither page nor paragraph where the obnoxious expression is to be met with ; as both pamphlets are, however, open to the public, your readers will be best able to judge for themselves, whether Sir James deserves the censure thus passed on him or not, and by their decision I am very willing to abide.

And here, by the way of a second digression, which, however, I apprehend may collaterally aid in proving Mr. Horne to have laboured under a grievous mistake when writing as above, I would observe that a perusal of the Baronet's" “Reasons,” &c., will amply repay the unprejudiced reader for his trouble, whilst his short “ Reply to Mr. Todd,” written with all that force of reasoning and critical acumen for which Sir James is eminently distinguished, most satisfactorily assists in proving, amongst the rest,

Ist. That the Septuagint of our day is not the same which was in use in our Saviour's time.

2nd. That the Vulgate contains numerous instances of mistranslations from the Hebrew, and servile traductions from the Septuagint.

3rd. That although in some places our own authorized Version approaches nearer to the true sense of the original than that of Jerome does, yet in an infinite majority of passages it can be regarded no otherwise than as a close translation of the latter, and from its discordance with the original text cannot possibly have been directly translated from it.

As Sir James confirms his assertion of the incorrectness of our authorized Version by the testimony of a number of witnesses, it cannot be wondered at that Mr. Horne should come forward also, in opposition to the Baronet, withi the list to which allusion has already been made, in support of its general fidelity, and for the purpose of denying the pressing necessity of a revision. The evidence on both sides is sufficiently curious to warrant an abridgment of it being given here; if, therefore, for the better accomplishment of this purpose, the testimony of Mr. Whittaker, in Mr. Horne's statement, and the assertions of Mr. Todd be set off against those of Mr. Bellamy and Sir James Bland Burges, as being parties alike interested in the decision; and, if further, the testimony of Selden, as to the mode in which our Version was got up, be omitted on both sides, a concession which Mr. Horne may the more readily make, as Selden's account rather operates to his prejudice than otherwise, the following may be considered as a pretty fair recapitulation of it : Sir J. BLAND BURGES

Rer. Mr. HORNE proving the incorrectness of our authorized in support of the correctness of our auVersion, and the necessity of a revision. thorized Version, and disproving the ne.

cessity of a revision. Bishop Lowth. And here I cannot Bishop Lowth." The vulgar translabut mention that nothing would more ef- tion of the Bible is the best standard of Sectually conduce la: this end," (the illus. our language."

(Sir J. BLAND Burges.)

(Rev. Mr. Horne.) tration and confirmation of the truth of the Holy Scriptures,) “ than the exhibit. ing of the Holy Scriptures themselves to the people in a more adrantageous and just light, by an accurate revisal of our Vulgar Translation by public authority. This hath often been represented, and, I hope, will not always be represented in vain."

“ These valuable remains of that great and good man (Archbishop Secker) will be of infinite service when that necessary work, a new translation, or a revision of the present translation of the Holy Scrip. tures shall be undertaken."

The preseut Euglish translation, as to style and language, adnits but of little improvemevi; but, in respect of the sense and the accuracy of interpretation, the improvements of which it is capable, are great and numbetless."

Dr. Waterland.“ Our English trans- Bishop Wullon.-" The last English lation is undoubtedly capable of very greut translation, made by divers learned men Improvements."

at the command of King James, though it may justly contend with any now extant in auy other language in Europe, was yet carped and cavilled at by divers among ourselres ; especially by one," (Hugh Broughton, Fellow of Christ College, Cambridge,) “ who, being passed by, and not employed in the work, as one though skilled in the Hebrew, yet of little or no judgment in that or any other kind of learning, was so highly offended that he would needs undertake to shew how many thousand places they had falsely rendered, when as he could hardly make

good his undertaking in any." Dr. Kennicolt." Sunt certe, et ii Bishop Horsley.--" When the transla. magni nominis viri, qui versionem im- tors in James the First's time began their pense flagitant perfectiorem."

work, they prescribed to themselves some “During the long extent of years since rules, which it may not be amiss for all our last translatiou was made, many im- translators to follow. Their reverence perfections and errors in it have been dis- for the Sacred Scriptures induced them covered by learned men."

to be as literal as they could, to avoid obscurity; and it must be acknowledged that they were extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their expressions. Their adherence to the Hebrew idiom is supposed at once to have enriched and adorned our language; and as they laboured for the general benefit of the learned and the unlearned, they avoided all words of Latin original, when they could find words in their own language, even with the aid of adverbs and prepositions, which would express their mean. ing."

* Mr. Jerans, in The Monthly Repository for February, (p. 82,) quotes the following : “ Bishop Horsley, speaking of the Seventy having translated Jehovah, Lord, says," (Sermons, III. 6–8) Later translators have followed their mischievous example, -mischievous in its consequences, though innocently meant,--and our English translators, among the rest, in innumerable instances, for the original Jehovah, (Sir J. BLAND BURGES.)

(Rev. Mr. Horne.) Blackwell (Sacred Classics).-" An ac- Bishop Middleton.-" The style of our curate translation, proved and supported present Version is incomparably superior by sound criticism, would quash and si- to any thing which might be expected lerce most of the objections of pert and from the finical and perverted taste of profane cavillers. It would likewise re- our own age. It is simple, it is energemore the scruples of many pious and tic; and, which is of vo small importconscientious Christians."

ance, use has made it familiar, and time Innumerable instances may be shewn has rendered it sacred.” in the English Bible of faulty translalions of the divine original, which either weaken its sense, or debase and taroish the beauty of its language.".

“A new translation can give no offence to people of sound judgment and consi. deration; because every body conversant in these inatters, and unprejudiced, must ackuowledge that there was less occasion to change the old version into the present, than to change the present into a new one.

Dr. Durell.-" The Version nou in use Dr. Geddes." The highest eulogiums certainly does not exhibit in many places have been made on the translation of the sense of the text, and mistakes it, be- James the First, both by our own writers sides, in un infinite number of instances. and foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, It may justly be questioned, whether any fidelity, and the strictest attention to the possible seuse can, by fair interpretation, letter of the text be supposed to constibe deduced from the words in not a few tute the qualities of an excellent Version, places."

this of all versions must, in general, be By a new translation, the caviiler, accounted the most excellent. Every senthe sceptic and the deist would find the tence, every word, every syllable, every sharpest and most trusty arrows of their letter and poiut seem to have been weighquiver blunted."

ed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed either in the text or margin with the greatest precision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal; and it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that it may serve for a lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a

translation." Dr. Symonds." Whoever examines Dr. Doddridge." On a diligent comour Version in present use, with the least parison of our translation with the origidegree of attention, will find that it is nal, we find that of the New Testament, ambiguous and incorrect, even in matters and, I might also add, that of the Old, of the highest importance. Experience in the main faithful and judicious. You teaches us that mistakes in religion are know, indeed, that we do not scruple on of all others the most pernicious; not some occasions to animadvert upon it ; ouly because they affect us in the most but you also know, that these remarks important concerns, but as they are the affeci not the fundamentals of religion, most difficult to be corrected and it and seldom reach any further than the might almost be questioned, whether it beauty of a figure, or, at most, the conwould not be safer to take the Bible out of nexion of an argument."* the hands of the common people, than to expose them to the danger of drawing false conclusions from erroneous translations ; for it is doublless much worse to be misled than to be ignorant."

The ambiguities in our Version are very numerous, and sometimes too gross to be defended." which ought upon all occasions to have been religiously retained, have put the more general name of Lord. A flagrant instance of this occurs in that solemn proem of the Decalogue in the xxth chapier of Erodus, &c.; and another example of the same unhappy alteration is to be found in the cxth Psalm," &c. &c.

* In the Preface to his Family Expositor, Dr. Doddridge has observed, that “ the Old Testament has suffered much more than the New in our translation,"


2 E


(Rev. Mr. HORNE.) Dr. Blayney.-" A new translation of Dr. John Taylor (of Norwich). " In the Scriptures has long been devoutly above the space of one (now two) hun wished by many of the best friends to dred years, learning inay have received religion and our Established Church, who considerable improvements; and by that sorrowfully confess that our present Ver- means, some inaccuracies may be found sion is still far from being so perfect as it in a translation more than a two) hune might and should be; that it has mistaken dred years old. But you may rest fully the true sense of the Hebrew in not a fero satisfied, that as our English translation places, and sometimes substituted an inter. is in itself by far the most excellent book pretation so obscure and perplexed, that in our language, so it is a pure and plen. it becomes almost impossible to make out tiful fountain of Divine knowledge, giving with it any sense at all. And if this be

a TRUE, CLEAR and FULL account of the the case, shall we not be solicitous to ob- "Divine dispensations, and of the gospel lain a remedy for such glaring imperfece of our salvation: insomuch that whoever tions? Can we with certainty foresee all studies the Bible, THE ENGLISH BIBLE, is the mischief that may possibly and even. sure of gaining that knowledge and faith tually result from an error, of what kind which, if duly applied to the heart and soever, wilfully retained in a book of conversation, will INPALLIBLY GUIDE such high and universal importance ? HIM TO ETERNAL LIFE.” Are we not taught to believe that all and every part of Scripture is given by inspi. ration of God, and is, according to the intention of the donor, profitable for doc. trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ? Bat can any Scripture be profitable, except it be understood? And if not rightly understood, may not the perversion of it be propor. Tionably dangerous ? Or is it nothing to deprive the people of that edification which they might have received, had fair and just expositiou been substituted instead of a false one? Do we not know the advantage that is commonly taken by the enemies of revelation of triumphing in objections plausibly raised against the Divine word upon the basis of an unsound text or wrong translation ? And though these objections have been refuted over and over again, by the most solid argumentations of private religionists, do they not still continue to ring them in the ears of the vulgar and unlearned Christian, as if they toere owned and admitted to be unanswerable ? So that it seems requisite for the honour of God and his true religion, that these stumbling blocks should be removed out of the way, as soon as possible, by a solemn and public disavowal. Let the work of purifying and reforming what is amiss in the present edition of our Bible be fairly and honestly set about."

Dr. Pilkington.-" These instances are Dr. James Beattie..." It is a striking here mentioned to shew the benefit and beauty in our English Bible, that though expediency of a more correct and intelli- the language is always elegant and nergible translation of the Bible than we have vous, and for the most part very harmoat present."

nious, the words are all plain and common ;-10 affectation of learned terms, or of words of Greek and Latin etynio.

logy." Archbishop Secker." Novam Seripturæ Versiouem desiderari plurimis videtur: nempe ut populus Christianus eâ Juce fruatur, quæ, favente numine, oraculis divinis per continuas virorum doc

[ocr errors]


(Rey. Mr. Horne.) torum vigilias affulsit, lis 150 annis proxime elapsis ante quos confecta est Anglica Versio. Et quis refragetur honeslissimæ petitioni?

Archbishop Newcome.--"Let any com- Dr. Adam Clarke." Those who have petent scholar study the Bible in the compared most of the European transla. original tongues, and theu pronounce tions with the original, have not scrupled whether our authorized Version is not to say that the English translation of the capable of amendment and improvement Bible, made under the direction of King in numberless places, many of which must James the First, is the most accurate and be considered as very important."

faithful of the wbole. Nor is this its " It is my full persuasion, that what. only praise : the translators have seized ever tends to the perfectiou of our Esta- the very spirit and soul of the original, blishment, would not shake it, but give and expressed this almost every where it splendour, strength and security; and with pathos and energy. Besides, our that a version of the Seriptures, as accu- translators have not only made a standard rate as the united learning of the present translation ; but they have made their age could make it, would reflect the highest translation the standard of our language : honour on our National Church, and hold the English tongue was not equal to such a distinguished place among those treasures a work--but God enabled them to stand thick ecould fix it on a basis as firm as ás upon Mount Sinai, and crane up their truth, virtue and Christianity."

country's language to the dignity of the “ The arguments of the Deists are originals, so that after the lapse of two either general speculatire objections, or hundred years the English Bible is, with absurdities imputed to the Sacred Writ. very few exceptions, the standard of the ings. Many difficulties of the latter class purity and excellence of the English are superticial ones, arising from an igno. tongue. The original, from which it was rance of the original languages, and would taken, is alone superior to the Bible canish from the text by judicious render. translated by the authority of King ings."

James," “ Were a version of the Bible executed la a manner suitable to the undertaking, such a measure would have a direct tendency to establish the faith of thousands, to open their understandings, to warm their hearts, to enliven their devotions, and to delight their imaginations."

Now, let the candid and unbiassed reader examine the authority of the witnesses here produced on both sides, and the nature of their testimony; let him, at the same time, remember that the witnesses quoted by Sir J. Bland Burges are the same whom Archbishop Newcome has brought forward to establish the necessity of a new translation of the Holy Scriptures, or, at least, of a revisal of our authorized Version, but whom Mr. Tödd, the Librarian of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Horne, the Curate of Christ's Church and St. Leonard's, have thought proper to call in to their assistance to prove the very reverse, and surely he cannot for a moment doubt on which side there must be a great mistake.' That Mr. Horne, in attempting to shew that our authorized Version needs no revisal, should rest mainly on the evidence of an Arian, a Deist, (whom he taxes with bold and unmeasured assertions," and whose Version and Commentaries he censures as "heterodox,”). and two Dissenters, appears contrary to all etiquette, and to betray an error, a grave mistake in judgment. That he should further have regarded the circumstance of a man (who “ though skilled in the Hebrew tongue, possessed little or no judgment in that or any other kind of learning,”) not having pointed out the thousand errors in our authorized Version, which he asseried it contains, or have considered a string of eulogiums on the style of it, as positive testimonies in favour of its fidelity as a translation, are mistakes which cannot fail to strike every one who reads the evidence he brings forward under the sanction of Bishops Walton, Lowth, Horsley, Middleton and others ; and, that he should gravely add his eleven testimonies to those which he says have been previously collected by Archbishop Newcome and Mr. Todu, only further proves (what, indeed, any reader of his valuable compilation will not

« VorigeDoorgaan »