ADVERTISEMENT.

BELIEVING that obedience to a Divine command "Search," EpevvaTE, investigate," the Scriptures," (addressed to all who possess them) is at issue, I fearlessly produce this case. This command 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.* If the general reader begin in earnest to search the English Scriptures, he must ask, What do these italics mean? What, these small capital letters? And what, the presence of the latter in many thousand passages of the University Bibles, from which they are excluded by his Majesty's Printers? The answers to these questions will frequently implicate either the Authorised Translators in considerable error, and indefensible negligence; or their modern Emendators in uncalled for, unwarranted, and even ignorant criticism:-not here to dwell on the startling omission of a promised REDEEMER (see p. 9, note) in one Bible who appears in others, (indeed in all correct ones) and a host of Typographical errors, which should induce the Universities to buy up and destroy particular editions.

If, zealous in the defence of our Translators, to the annoyance, doubtless, of all those who have trifled with, or would impugn their labors, I have occasionally exhibited what may be thought an excessive attachment to their memory, my apology is—they are absent, disinterested, "no more in this world;" and that often

their ashes flew,

No marble tells us whither.

Their labors and their memory indeed, appear in many instances, to have been alike neglected.

My humble request to the learned and impartial reader, is, that he would cally watch the issue of this discussion, and weigh well

* Sin: learn.

ording to Professor Lee, (see Preface to his Hebrew Grammar) oriental etrograded, rather than advanced. Professor Stuart, of Andover, U.S. not omit his eulogium on our Authorised Translation. "It is," he noble production. The divines of that day were very different of their successors have been in England and Scotland, s classic work on Isaiah, no other effort at translation among r in respect to taste, judgment, or sound understanding of sion."

(as they are called by Mr. Horne) of the late Mr. Reeves,

the representations of the living, interested, and powerful defenders of the past and present University systems. Dr. Paley has well said in an inquiry which he was too prudent to pursue, The man who attacks a flourishing Establishment, writes with a halter round his neck;" that " few," therefore, will "ever be found to attempt alterations, but men of more spirit than prudence, of more sincerity than caution; of warm, eager, and impetuous tempers; that consequently, if we are to wait for improvement till the cool, the calm, the discreet part of mankind begin it, till Church Governors solicit, or Ministers of State propose it, I will venture to pronounce that (without His interposition with whom nothing is impossible) we may remain as we are, to the renovation of all things."

While, however, the writer has been taught, by this blessed Book, to fear no human opposition, or opprobrium, in the cause of GOD, its Author, he can with great sincerity state, that he has not willingly, nor without great personal pain, brought forward any fact that may seem to have the tendency of depreciating others, or that can give them pain; and that he long hoped to be excused this unwelcome office. He adds, in the words of the earliest vindicator of English Holy Writ, "I take God, which alone searcheth the heart, to record to my conscience, if I wrote of all that I have written-aught, of any evil purpose, of envy or malice to any man; to stir up any false doctrine or opinion in the church of Christ; or that I should be esteemed or had in price above the least child that is born. But to weed out all that our heavenly Father hath not planted, and to bring down all that lifteth up itself against the knowledge of the salvation that is in the blood of Christ."-TINDAL.

During the considerable period that has elapsed since my attention was first called to this matter, I beg to add, that I have seen abundant reason no longer to dissent from the presumed opinion of the House of Commons' Committee, alluded to p. 11.

There is no kind of adequate benefit for which the British Public should pay from Forty to Fifty Thousand Pounds per Annum to the Authorised Printers of the Bible. This at least would appear to be paid on its entire supply, over and above what the Bible might otherwise be procured for-a tax on the noblest and most needful knowledge, I would hope, and do believe, quite unparalleled. A judicious friend calculates that the Bible Society alone pays Twenty four Thousand Pounds annually above what it could print its English Bibles for, if the monopoly were broken up. Precautions in breaking it up might be necessary, but need not cost the country a twentieth part of this tax.

* See a pamphlet, in Vindication of Bishop Law, in the controversy respecting Subscription, 1774.

THE

EXISTING MONOPOLY AN INADEQUATE PROTECTION,

&c. &c.

LETTER I.

"IT IS OUR FIRM OPINION, THAT THERE IS NO INSTANCE ON RECORD, IN

ford is so far roused as publicly to notice the "Complaints** which have been made on the subject of these Letters, some of them more than twelve months ago, that the Established Church also will assert her character and rights as a deposi

* "Complaints having been made that the English Bibles printed at the Universities, besides necessary alterations in the spelling, differ greatly from the Authorised Version of the Scriptures, the Delegates of the Oxford Press have caused collations to be made preparatory to a careful consideration of the subject. They have also commenced an exact reprint, in roman letter, of the Authorised Version printed in the year 1611, in large black letter, folio." (Notice prefixed to "The Book of Genesis, an exact reprint, page for page, of the Authorised Version published in the year 1611.")

B

tary of God's word? With those rights, considered legally, I am but little acquainted; but this character we have the highest authority for attributing under both the Old and New Covenants, to the true Church of God:* and I am well assured that there is not any thing in which the Rulers of the Church could at this juncture do the State more service, or more happily conciliate all churches and parties, who throughout the world use our language, than in complying with the request which I humbly urged upon your Lordship at London House, that the Established Church would protect effectually her own excellent Version of Scripture.

I will come at once to my chief point-one to which (much to the satisfaction of my friends and myself) the Delegates of the Oxford Press seem at last disposed to attend. "Besides necessary alterations in the spelling," our modern Bibles "DIFFER GREATLY [AND INTENTIONALLY] FROM the AuthorisED VERSION." I presume to contend that they ought not at all critically to differ from that Version. By reprinting the Edition of 1611, the Oxford Delegates either mean to dispute the matter of fact, or to deny the principle thus stated; and which is their meaning, my Lord, I really find it difficult to understand. They mean, perhaps, to assert for the Universities, some right to alter the successive reprints of our public Version, according to their own judgment of its merits! Here, then, I venture to join issue with them; affirming the fact of material critical alterations, denying their right to make any. Charging it, in plain terms, my Lord, as an abuse of their privilege of being the pro tempore Printers of the Version; indeed as using that privilege so as directly to defeat the chief object for which it was bestowed, i. e. to preserve the PUBLIC and AUTHORISED, a SETTLED and UNIFORM Version. This is my chief point.

In addition to this, my Lord, I allege that down to a very late period the Holy Scriptures have been most carelessly

*Rom. iii. 2. and Jude 3.

printed at the Authorised Presses; so that the Typographical errors in Bibles still on sale and constantly in use (particularly amongst the poor) are, in the present improved state of the printing art, disgraceful. In the Bibles printed within the last ten or twelve years there is a decided improvement in this respect, particularly in those of the Clarendon Press; but the character of all the Authorised Bibles in common use belongs, I must contend, to the Authorised Printers; belongs materially to the history of a privilege which has been in very profitable exercise for above two centuries.

Competent judges will not therefore deny, that my topics bear generally and considerably on the duties of the Established Church, as well as on those of the Universities and King's Printers. The Rev. Mr. Lewis, our principal historian "of the several Translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament," furnishes me with another reason, I presume, why the attention of the Bishop of London may be consistently called to these points. He states, that after the "careless printing" of "this Holy Book grew to that height" early in the last century— that complaint was made to King George I. of their being printed on bad paper, and with bad letter; as also that "due care had not been used in correcting the press:” His Majesty having caused this complaint to be inquired into, was pleased to order his patentee for printing these books-to employ such "correctors of the press as shall be appointed from time to time by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London for the time being." This order, he says, was dated Whitehall, April 24, 1724.* I cannot find either that it ever has been rescinded, or that it has been acted upon to any beneficial extent. Certain I am that the learned prelates who filled these high offices in the year 1811, could not have approved of the alterations then introduced by the King's Printer into at least two extensive editions of the Holy Bible, i. e. the entire omission of all the original titles of the Psalms, as well as of all distinction throughout the Old Testa

* Lewis' History, 8vo. Eton, 1739, p. 351.