been felt, nor any objection have arison against the measure of revision. No evil consequences followed the repeated revisions of the English Bible in the sixteenth century. The amended version of 1611 produced no unpleasant effects; and there is not the smallest occasion to fear that, in a more enlightened age, a corrected publication of the scriptures would be attended with any other than beneficial results.

The ministers of the established church, it should seem, virtually pledge themselves to the revision of the common version, since the assent which is required from them to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, binds them to an approval of a version of a part of the Bible, different from the common translation. They read in their churches passages as the word of God, which their hearers, on looking into their common Bibles, cannot find but in a sense very different from that which was read to them from the desk. The translation of the Psalms, as inserted in the Book of Common Prayer, varies essentially from the Bible translation. If the former gives the true meaning of the divine word, the latter cannot, in those several cases in which discrepancies exist. The approbation of the one version necessarily implies the condemnation of the other. No clergyman, surely, would inform an inquirer, that the Psalter is the word of God, but that the Psalms in the Bible translation are not the word of God; nor, vice versa, that the Bible translation of the Psalms is the true word of God, but that the Psalter is not. He must reply, that the differences between the two versions are occasioned by errors in the translation of one or both of them. This is the only proper answer which he could give, and it would surely be immediately remarked by the inquirer, and admitted by the other party, that the errors of translation ought to be corrected. If the Psalter be correct, let the Bible translation be made conformable with it; or if the former be erroneous, let it be amended by means of the latter. It is impossible for the same persons to maintain that the same passages in the original can convey two very different senses in a correct translation. As the assent of the clergy to the Book of Common Prayer includes the approval of the sense, as given in the Psalter version, they, to be consistent, must plead for a revision of the Bible; at least for the revision of a part of it: and, as no good reason can be assigned for reading the same passages of the Bible in a different sense in the service of any church, the following discrepancies supply an unanswerable argument for revising the public version.

Mr. Boothroyd's publication is divided into nine sections. In the first is given a short account of the ancient, and of the English versions of the holy scriptures. The second contains the opinions of some distinguished divines and critics on the authorized version, intended to show that it admits of improvement; those of Doddridge, Durell, bishow Lowth, Blaney, Symonds, and Blackwall, are inserted in this section: the opinions of archbishop Newcome, and the present bishop of Landaff (Dr. Marsh), occur in other parts of the work. The following sections comprise the reasons which the author assigns for his attempting a new translation.

The first reason assigned by the author, for the present attempt to improve the public version of the scriptures, is the imperfect and erroneous state of the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the common translation was made. Owing to this cause, the beauty and symmetry of the sacred writings are often injured; contradictions which no ingenuity has been able to reconcile, have been introduced; and omissions and interpolations are numerous in the common version. Each of these particulars is accompanied with appropriate examples.

"No approximation," Mr. Boothroyd remarks, "can be made towards a perfect version of the Hebrew Scriptures, unless the translator be allowed to supply the acknowledged deficiencies, and correct the manifest errors of the original texts, by the aid of manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the rules of sound and temperate criticism. With what success this method has been adopted by Dr. Lowth in his improved version of Isaiah, by Dr. Blaney in his version of Jeremiah, and by Archbishop Newcome in his version of the minor prophets, the learned are generally agreed; and the same judicious method pursued in reference to the whole scriptures, cannot fail to be attended with a similar result."

Conjectural emendation is one of the means of removing the errors of the original text, which the author proposes to employ: a desperate remedy, and one which, we trust, will be used with extreme caution in the proposed translation. It is, we allow, highly probable, that neither existing manuscripts, nor versions, have preserved in their primitive state the whole of the readings of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament; and that manuscripts which have perished with the wrecks of time, might contain original lections: conjecture, therefore, may possibly supply what is wanting to correct the errors of a passage. Its use, however, has in the present age been by far too common. It affords the opportunity of displaying ingenuity, which many authors have been extremely ready to seize; adopting, on almost every occasion of embarrassment, the suggestions of their own fancy, as the means of clearing difficulties which better learning or more patient examination may assist to remove. On this subject, we agree in opinion with bishop Marsh, that it is better to declare at once that the Hebrew text requires no emendation, than submit the Bible to the critical licentiousness of authors and editors, who correct without control. In numerous cases difficulties have been supposed to exist, scarcely for any other purpose than that of displaying critical dexterity. In profane authors this is comparatively of slight importance, and we may with little hazard applaud and adopt the conjectural emendations of Porson, in a tragedy of Euripides: but where all is sacred, as in the scriptures, we are unwilling to admit conjecture as our guide to its true readings; never receiving a letter or a word through this medium, till every other method of explanation has been tried; and even then we are reluctant to admit conjectural emendations, since it is at least doubtful, in our judgment, whether the obscurities of the Bible might not better be suffered to remain, than its sense be endangered by the presumptuous corrections of human fancy. Many writers and translators in modern times would have " conjectured less, had they known more." We cannot but hope that we shall find in Mr. Boothroyd a praise-worthy exception to a prevailing practice, and that conjecture will, in his hands, be invariably under the direction of the most severe critical judgment.

In the fourth section, Mr. Boothroyd assigns a second reason for attempting an improved version-the great and essential improvement in respect to propriety of language and grammatical accuracy. This is the longest section in the pamphlet, and it must be granted by all competent judges, that on this part of the subject there is very ample scope for enlargement. It cannot be pretended that our language has received no improvement for the last two hundred years, or that the meaning of words has remained unchanged. If therefore the common version had been ever so unexceptionable at the period when it was made, unless it be accommodated by the requisite alterations to the present improv

ed state of the English language, it may fail in conveying the sense of the original to a reader of the present day. Many words which were generally understood in the age of James I. may have become obsolete, and others may have acquired a meaning different from that which they bore at that time. In both these cases the very same reasons which require and justify translation at all, demand revision and amendment. The book is, so far as obsolete words are retained, unintelligible to the common reader. "Seek after leasing"-the translation of pan Ps. iv. 3. in the common version, is, we apprehend, as little understood by most readers as is the original Hebrew itself; and the same reason which requires an English word for a requires that leasing be exchanged for another term. A copious list of words, either wholly obsolete, or obsolete in the sense noticed, is supplied in this section: the bare inspection of it is sufficient to convince the reader that, in point of perspicuity, the English Bible is susceptible of essential improvement.

"The authorized version contains many obsolete, idiomatical, ambiguous, and harsh phrases. Judges ix, 53. And a certain woman cast a piece of a mill-stone upon Abimelech's head, and all to break his scull.' The vau should be rendered which: Which fractured or broke his scull.' Go your way, for go. Which would take account of his servants:' Matt. xviii, 23. If the following parable did not suggest the true sense of these words, we should suppose that they meant that the master took an account how many servants he had. 'And Herod with his men of war set him at nought.' Luke xxiii, 3. (11). This is both idiomatical and vulgar. It should be, treated him contemptuously.' And if this come to the governor's ears we will persuade him and secure you.' (Matt. xxviii, 14.) Here seem to be three particulars objectionable within a very narrow compass. The first member of this compounded sentence is both vulgarly expressed, and ill translated,-the second is ill translated,-and the third is ambiguous. Perhaps it would be better thus: And if this come to a hearing before the governor, we will appease him, and bear you harmless.'

"Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia.' It would be difficult to point out a more harsh and ambiguous sentence. Locke and Dr. Waterland (as quoted by Dr. Dodd from an interleaved Bible), propose to render it, We make known to you the godly charity given by the churches of Macedonia. This is perspicuous, and the sense of the passage. For it is evident that the charitable collection was made by (and not for) the churches of Macedonia."

Of this last example Wakefield gives the following version: "We signify unto you the extraordinary generosity that hath been displayed by the churches of Macedonia." This translation of the words coincides with that which Mr. Boothroyd would adopt, who, it should seem, is too hasty in determining the meaning which he approves, to be "the sense of the passage." The original is, Γνωρίζομεν δὲ ὑμῖν ἀδελφοί, τὴν χάριν του θεον τὴν δεδομένην ἐν ταῖς εκκλησίαις της μακεδονίας, which we think, with Macknight and Doddridge, is to be understood rather in relation to the "gra

cious disposition given to the churches in Macedonia," than to the contribution which they furnished for the relief of their fellowchristians in Judea. We should prefer Wakefield's rendering of the fifth example, to that which Mr. B. has copied from Dr. Symonds: "And if this affair be brought to a hearing before the governor, we will satisfy him, and keep you from trouble." Dr. Campbell's version would come under the author's censure: "And if this come to the procurator's ears, we will appease him, and indemnify you."

"The ancient use of prepositions and adverbs renders innumerable passages of the authorized version obscure, ambiguous, and in some instances totally alters the sense. It is well known that our old writers made use of prepositions in senses now obsolete; and it is not intended to reflect on our translators, when examples are produced of inaccuracies on this point. The obvious inference from such inaccuracies is, that if the use and signification of words be so much changed, the common version ought to be revised."

In the common version the preposition of is improperly used for by:-" a son of her"-for," a son by her."-To denote the agent of the verb: as, " said of some:" "Lydia attended to the things spoken of Paul." We should imagine that in this example some person was speaking to Lydia concerning the apostle-not that she was listening to his discourses: "by some," "by Paul," are the proper expressions. Of occurs in numerous instances where modern use requires from: heard of the Lord, from the Lord; "heard of me," "heard from me." It is used in many passages instead of at: as, "of (at) my hand shalt thou require him." Gen. xxxiii, 3. In other cases, out of, over, to, are more proper.

"Ambiguity is occasioned by placing adverbs in a wrong position. Luke xxiii, 32. is one of the most singular renderings in the whole scriptures: And there were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death.' Every one just initiated in the principles of the English grammar, must perceive, that the two words also and other, as they stand in our present version, necessarily indicate that our blessed Lord was a malefactor, as well as the thieves who were crucified with him. But if we substitute others for other, and place also close to the verb, there will be no obscurity or ambiguity: And two others, who were malefactors, were also led with him to be put to death.' The Bishops' Bible is not liable to the least exception in this respect; for we find, And there were two others, who were evil-doers, led with him to be slain." "

This grievous error has been corrected in several recent impressions of the common version. Two Oxford Bibles now be fore us, one of them printed in 1793, the other in 1813, read, "And there were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death." In two Cambridge Testaments, printed in 1805, the passage is read differently; one of them, in octavo, presenting the false reading, and the other, in duodecimo, giving the correct