du temps, de l'expérience, et de la constance admirable du peuple Anglais à faire fructifier toutes les semences de liberté qu'il trouva répandues par hasard dans les anciennes lois Saxonnes. Tandis que tous les autres peuples de l'Europe laissèrent ces heureuses semences se perdre par leur négligence, ou les laissèrent étouffer, sous leurs yeux. par leurs tyrans, les Anglais s'occupèrent au contraire à les cultiver avec soin, et ils en recueillent aujourd'hui les produits abondans. Leurs assemblées nationales, soit par patriotisme, soit par l'intérêt de leur propre puissance, ajoutèrent d'âge en âge de nouvelles garanties à leurs libertés, et ne négligèrent aucune occasion d'affermir les droits du peuple dont chacun de leurs membres faisait partie comme citoyen, et dont, comme homme public, il tirait toute sa force et toute sa dignité. Le premier soin de ces assemblées fut de mettre chaque citoyen à l'abri du ressentiment de la couronne et des grands, tant par l'établissement des jurés, que par la loi d'habeas corpus, et par la liberté accordée à la presse. Leur second soin fut de conserver à la nation un droit de surveillance et de contrôle sur toutes les opérations du gouvernement. Mais sentant l'impossibilité d'appeler un grand peuple à délibérer en masse sur ses intérêts, et reconnaissant en outre le danger qu'il y aurait à le rassembler, quand bien même une pareille réunion serait possible, elles divisèrent tout le corps du peuple en une infinité de petits corps particuliers, auxquels elles donnèrent le droit d'examiner tous les actes du gouvernement, et la conduite de ses agens. Ainsi les freeholders de chaque comté, quand ils sont convoqués pour l'election de quelque officier, comme le coroner; les habitans des villes assemblés par le maire ou les aldermen ; les grands jurés aux assises et aux quarter-sessions; les juges de paix, à ces mêmes époques; tous, ont la faculté d'adresser leurs réclamations au roi et au parlement, et ils en usent très-fréquemment et avec la plus grande liberté. Ajoutez à ce nombre déjà si grand de citoyens délibérans toute la masse du peuple lui-même à l'époque des élections qui, quoique n'ayant pas le droit de voter, entoure les hustings, ainsi que je l'ai expliqué plus haut, et proclame à haute voix son candidat ses vœux: et l'on conviendra que ce n'est pas sans raison que toute la nation Anglaise croit avoir part au gouvernement. Aussi n'est-il rien au monde qu'un pareil gouvernement ne puisse entreprendre, quand il marche de concert avec l'opinion publique: Lorsque quelque matière importante est soumise à la discussion du parlement, le roi et les deux chambres ont l'avantage de voir à découvert quel est le sentiment de la nation sur la mesure proposée, et de savoir jusqu'à quel point ils doivent la soutenir ou y renoncer; et c'est ainsi que la force du peuple qui, si elle était réunie en une seule masse, formerait un torrent dont les flots accumulés pourraient, au premier obstacle, renverser le gouvernement; divisée au contraire en une infinité de corps particuliers, ressemble à une multitude de ruisseaux paisibles qui ornent et fertilisent la contrée qu'ils arrosent, sans y pouvoir jamais porter aucun ravage." (P. 200-202.)

We trust, that in succeeding editions of this work, M. Cottu will give us more of such passages as that which we have just exhibited, and correct the mistakes of other passages disfigured by prejudice or inadvertency.

>

ART. XI.-VINDICATION OF THE AUTHORIZED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.

1. Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures. By Sir James Bland Burges, Bart. 8vo. London. 1819. 2. A Vindication of our authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, and of preceding English Versions authoritatively commended to the Notice of those Translators: occasioned by certain Objections made by Mr. John Bellamy in his late Translation of the Book of Genesis, and by Sir James Bland Burges, in his Reasons in favour of a new Translation of the Holy Scriptures. By the Rev. Henry John Todd, M. A. F.S. A. 8vo. London.

1819.

3. Reasons why a New Translation of the Bible should not be published, without a previous Statement and Examination of all the material Passages, which may be supposed to be misinterpreted. 8vo. London. 1819.

UPWARDS of two centuries have elapsed, since the authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures, now in use, was given to the British Nation. During that long interval, though many passages in particular books have been elucidated by learned men, with equal felicity and ability; yet its general fidelity, perspicuity, and excellence, have deservedly given our present translation a high and distinguished_place in the judgment of the Christian world, wherever the English language is known or read. It has been our lot, however, of late years, to see this admirable Version-the guide and solace of the sincere Christianattacked with no common virulence, and arraigned as being deficient in fidelity, perspicuity, and elegance; ambiguous and incorrect, even in matters of the highest importance; and, in short, totally insufficient for teaching "all things necessary to salvation." We speak not now of the bold and unmeasured assertions of the late Dr. Geddes, Dr. Priestley, and others; who have not hesitated to attack the original text, as well as our authorized English Version, with all the licentiousness of criticism; and who have invented and applied canons of interpretation, which, if they had been applied to the exposition of any profane writer, would have provoked the utmost indignation of every lover of classical literature. Their bold and unhallowed criticisms have long since been most ably refuted.* Nor should

Respecting the bold corrections of the Scriptures, by Socinians, and their equally bold misinterpretations of them, the reader may find some curious facts and specimens, recorded in the sixth volume of this Journal, pp. 239–242.

we have reminded our readers of the attack made on our present authorized English Version, by Mr. John Bellamy (whose total want of qualifications for the office of a translator of the Bible, has been exposed with equal learning and ability by several of our contemporaries), had not the respectable author of the first work, at the head of this article, directed our attention to the subject.

The design of Sir James Burges's "Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Holy Scriptures," is to show that our present authorized Version is insufficient for teaching all things necessary to salvation: and they declare, with Mr. Bellamy, that it is not made from the original Hebrew, but from the Septuagint or Greek translation, and from the Vulgate, or Latin version. The greater part of Sir James Burges's volume is filled with questions concerning the merit and purity of the Septuagint, which, in reality, do not at all affect the English Translation; and then, after much appearance of other preparation, he has tried the merits of our insulted Version,-not by a fair collation of it with the original Hebrew and Greek, but merely by the text of Mr. Bellamy!-In Mr. Todd, Sir James Burges has an indefatigable and learned adversary, who has followed him, step by step, through all his assertions, and has met them by a laborious collection of facts and evidence; which, though principally designed to protect our unlearned and unsuspecting countrymen from the effects of error, may, nevertheless, be advantageously consulted by the critical student, who may not have access to the various works whence it has been compiled. As, however, the limits of our journal do not allow us to institute a minute investigation of Sir James Burges's "Reasons," we shall briefly notice the most material of his objections, together with Mr. Todd's satisfactory replies, to which we can with confidence refer such of our readers as are desirous of prosecuting a full inquiry into this important and interesting subject.

Sir James Burges affirms, that the sole reason assigned for the introduction of a new translation, was, the notoriously corrupted state of all the English Versions; which, in effect, were translations only of the Septuagint and the Vulgate. This assertion is completely refuted by Mr. Todd, who has given a short history and character of those Versions, from which it is evident that they were made, for the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and for the New Testament from the Greek.

From the first and fourteenth of the instructions given by King James to the English translators, Sir James Burges asserts that "it clearly appears, that, by whatever title his Majesty might have been pleased to dignify the projected work, and those engaged in it, it was by no means his intention that it should be

a new translation from the original Hebrew,' but that it should be merely a collation or revision of the existing English Versions." * This is one of Sir J. Burges's most formidable objec tions; we shall, therefore, consider it at some length.

The instructions alluded to are the following:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original† will permit.

2. These Translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishop's Bible, viz. Tyndal's, Coverdale's, Mathewe's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

On these rules, Mr. Todd has the following very satisfactory remarks:

"From the first of the royal instructions to the Translators, it seems, Sir James Burges has interpreted the King's intention of having no new Translation from the Hebrew. Now, therein, he has entirely overlooked the fact of his Majesty having pointed out to them the original Hebrew for their basis. They are expressly directed to observe what the original will permit:' or, as the very valuable copy of the instructions before mentioned + gives it, 'the truth of the original; in other words, might I not say, the Hebrew verity? They, therefore, in their dedication, illustrate, as they were well enabled to do, the real intention of their sovereign. 'When your Highness had once, out of deep judgment, apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue, your Majesty did never desist to urge and excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner as a matter of such importance might justly require. And now at last by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought into such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal mover and author of the work.' there be language more clear, or instruction more explicit ? ‹ That, out of the original tongues, there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue!' Once more; by their primarily regarding nothing as authority, except, according to his Majesty's first instruction, the original, what the original will permit;' and then by availing themselves of the labours, according to his Majesty's fourteenth instruction, of former translators, which certainly weakens not the preliminary determination. For it is hardly neces

* "Reasons," p. 121.

Can

+ Or, the truth of the original, according to the copy of the King's Instructions; which Bishop Burnet received from Dr. Ravis, one of the translators, and has printed in his History of the Reformation, Vol. II. p. 406. (folio edit.) and Ibid. Records, p. 268. This copy has been wholly overlooked by Sir James Burges.

sary, * Mr. Whittaker observes, to dwell on the utility of old Translations. There are many passages, particularly in the Old Testament, of such acknowledged difficulty, that learned men never did, and perhaps never will, agree about them. In these cases, if a Translator feel any uncertainty, his object ought to be the selection of that interpretation from former Versions, which after mature consideration he thinks the best; nor would he be justified in forsaking them, unless à priori he had reason to believe that their authors were influenced by prejudice or the desire of supporting some favourite tenet. At any rate it must be his duty to divest his mind of that ambitious tendency towards novelty, to which at some periods of life most critics are subject. A Translator must always incur great blame in adopting a new reading, and departing from the sense given by former interpreters, unless he could prove, at least in foro conscientiæ, that theirs was incorrect, and that his own gives the precise force which the inspired writer intended the words to bear. If in translating the Old Testament he consider none of the Versions thus employed as of ultimate and decisive authority, it is contended that his Translation is made from the original Hebrew, and from nothing else. Of this principle our forefathers were well aware; for they adopted the wise pre caution of never altering an old Translation, except in those passages where it was plainly at variance with the Hebrew, or where the revisors thought it so. Upon this principle were formed the first and fourteenth instructions of the King to the Translators. But the Translators, if the authority of Sir James Burges were undeniable, neither so thought, nor acted in subserviency to it."(Todd's Vindication, p. 38-41.)

Sir James Burges's next assertion is, that the translators "solemnly declared to the monarch by whom they had been employed that they had obeyed his instructions, not by making a new translation, the remotest design of doing which they utterly disclaim, but by collating and revising the former translations."

The preceding quotation, from Mr. Todd's elaborate work, will have shown our readers, that Sir James Burges's affirmations are not to be received with implicit confidence: and Mr. Todd's observations on the assertion just noticed, are equally satisfactory. He most clearly proves, from the declarations of the translators themselves, in their preface, that, while they gladly availed themselves of the labours of those who had preceded them, they did not servilely copy them, but (agreeably to the passage above cited from their dedication to James I.) they executed a more exact Version" out of the original sacred tongues," together with a collation of the labours of others.

The next section of Mr. Todd's volume contains a short account of the forty-seven translators of our authorized Version, and of the actual state of learning in their time. This does not admit of abridgment: but the result is highly satisfactory, and proves that those venerable men were eminently skilled in the

* Hist. and Crit. Enq. p. 2.