confirmed our worst anticipations. We find him to be a person whose arrogance, presumption, and contempt of others are perfectly intolerable, who proceeds in a rash and wild spirit of innovation, setting aside, on the authority of his own assertion, the decisions of the learned and the wise, and hazarding statements of the most intrepid kind, on the slenderest foundations. His knowledge of the Hebrew consists in little more than a common acquaintance with the meaning of the roots, and the more ordinary and obvious rules of grammar, not of the peculiarities of idiom, and the niceties of construction: he is, besides, totally destitute of judgment. Generally speaking, when a person proposes to give a new translation of the Bible, or of any other well known book, we are prepared to expect that the most be will endeavour to accomplish will be, to express the received meaning of the original with greater closeness or propriety, and, where the construction is difficult, to bring out the sense with greater clearness. Not so Mr. Bellamy; he pretends not, in the ordinary meaning of the word, to give a new translation, but to make new and unheard of discoveries of the sense; and this, in plain historical passages, where the meaning and construction of the words have hitherto been deemed as little subject to doubt, as in any sentence that was ever written in any language.

Before we examine the manner in which he arrives at these discoveries, we intreat the reader to reflect for a moment how the probabilities stand, on the first view of such a proceeding. That part of the Bible which we are now considering is the oldest composition in the world; and has been always reverenced by Jews and Christians, as proceeding from a person inspired by God, and conveying the records of his dispensations to his creature. To say that as much pains have been bestowed on the discovery and elucidation of the meaning of this and the Bible at large as were ever bestowed on the most admired writings of classical authors, is to put the matter on too low a ground. The feeling of the high importance of the sacred book, and the reverence with which it has been viewed, have caused it to be sifted and examined with far more scrupulous diligence. Every phrase has been the subject of painful investigation; whole treatises have been composed on single passages; the principles of its grammar and construction have been carefully explored; translations have been made not only in modern times, but when a dialect of the Hebrew language was vernacular, and carefully handed down for our use; and concordances have been formed of every individual word. In short, all human means have been employed in the development of the true sense of Scripture. And will it be be

translated from the original Hebrew. Now the term Holy Bible includes the Old and New Testaments, and, as only the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, it is only that part of the Holy Bible which can be translated from the original Hebrew.'

lieved,

lieved, after all this, that, in plain historical passages, where there is no doubt about the integrity of the text as to a single letter affecting the sense, and where the language has hitherto been deemed so clear that no suspicion even of a doubt has been hinted-will it be believed that in such passages, every person, ancient or modern, Jew or Christian, has hitherto been grossly mistaken, and that the day on which Mr. John Bellamy published his new translation was the first on which the true meaning was unfolded to the understandings of mankind!

But we have not even yet come to the worst part of Mr. Bellamy's proceedings. In his notes on many of those passages. which, as he pretends, have been hitherto understood in a sense at variance with the original, he eagerly dwells on the absurdity and inconsistency of the received sense,' and retails at full length the objections which have been advanced by the most notorious infidel writers, as Chubb, Morgan, Tindal, Sir William Drummond, &c.; objections which have been refuted over and over, but which, as if with the most determined purpose of mischief, he repeats in the most offensive language. Thus, (Introduction, p. xiii.) he says, No one can possibly silence the arguments which objectors have advanced against the common translations of the Bible." Again;As long as such objectionable passages are permitted to disgrace the pages of the sacred volume, if men were to preach with the language of angels, arguments, however reasonable for the defence of the Scriptures, cannot possibly produce any ultimate good.' At Gen. vi. 6. after bringing together all the impious trash that has ever been written about repentance being ascribed to the all-perfect God, he says, 'Surely it is a reproach to all the Christian nations to see the errors of the early ages still retained in the sacred pages.' At Gen. xi. 1. after a similar collection of the objections advanced by the most malicious unbelievers, he says, 'The received view of this subject as it now unfortunately stands in all the translations, operates against the religion of the Bible. The most strenuous advocates of the sacred volume can neither comprehend nor believe it, and it does them credit, because it is not contained in the original: while, on the other hand, it is one of those objections which render the Deist so formidable in his arguments against the Scriptures.' And at Gen. xxii. he bursts forth into language more outrageous than we ever met with among the bitterest effusions of the most envenomed infidel. Every individual must necessarily feel here that disgust which is impossible for all the powers of language to describe;' when we consider what is stated, one of the most astonishing considerations is, that the Scriptures during this long period have been preserved from oblivion, and have been deemed sacred in the eyes of Europe to the present day.'

6

Language

Language like this naturally leads to a suspicion, that the writer is secretly endeavouring to serve the cause of infidelity, and to undermine as much as possible the credit of the Bible. On this subject, we leave others to form their own opinions; and when we have said that, in other passages, as far as outward professions go, he appears to be a believer in its divine original, and anxious to preserve its credit, we shall quit all general observations on the nature and tendency of his work, and descend to particulars.

The eagerness of Mr. Bellamy to lower the credit of all existing translations, and to make way for the reception of his own, is so great, that he does not wait to insert passages to this effect in the body of his work, but prints them on the cover, so that those who do not even open his book, may yet enjoy the benefit of having their confidence in the correctness of the authorized version shaken. In his address on the cover, he says, 'It may be necessary to inform the public that no translation has been made from the original Hebrew, since the 128th year of Christ. In the fourth century, Jerome made his Latin version from this Greek translation; from which came the Latin Vulgate, and from the Latin Vulgate all the European translations have been made, thereby perpetuating all the errors of the first translators.'

Necessary to inform the public!' In what sense he uses the word he does not explain, and we are left to conjecture whether he feels himself impelled by a physical or moral necessity to take this step; but, in no sense can it be necessary to inform the public of what is completely and absolutely false. And no assertion can be more palpably untrue than that the Bible has never been translated from the original Hebrew since the time of Aquila, who is the person alluded to, we conceive, as having translated it about the 128th year of Christ. To specify a few only-there were the Greek translations of Symmachus and Theodotion, made within a century after that of Aquila; of Latin translations there was that of Jerome, not made, as Mr. Bellamy states, from this Greek translation, but from the original Hebrew; in more modern times that of Sanctus Pagninus, made from the Hebrew, under Leo X. and afterwards revised by Arius Montanus; that of Sebastian Munster, in 1534-5, of which Father Simon says, that of all modern translations, it best expresses the sense of the Hebrew text; and Dupin, that it is the most literal, and at the same time the most faithful, of any done by protestants.' There is also the version of Junius and Tremellius, published in 1587, expressly called in the title-page, Biblia sacra, sive Libri Canonici, Latini recens ex Hebræo facti. So much for Mr. Bellamy's first assertion!

Again; he informs his readers that, in the fourth century, Jerome made his Latin version from this Greek translation.' To

prove the falsehood of this, we can produce an authority which the writer, we conceive, very highly values, we mean that of a Mr. John Bellamy; in the Introduction, p. xx. he quotes the very words of Jerome, that he was induced to attempt a Latin translation from the Hebrew.' In fact, it is matter of historical record, of which it is most strange that a person who professes to have inquired into these things should be ignorant, that Jerome first employed himself in revising the old Latin version, but, having lost the fruits of his earlier labours by the treachery of a person to whom he entrusted them, he determined to persist no longer in revising an old translation from the Greek, but to make a new translation from the Hebrew. For this, he was well qualified by the study of Hebrew from his earliest youth, having spent many years of his life under the instruction of Jewish doctors in Egypt, at Jerusalem, and at Tiberias, and sparing neither pains nor expense to make himself perfect master of the language. · Hieronymus, (says Walton, Polygl. proleg. p. 69.) vir acri et fervido ingenio, rem Ecclesiæ utilem se facturum existimabat, si novam versionem ex Hebraico fonte exprimeret, quam ingenti animo et laboribus indefessis tandem perfecit, quæ magis quàm reliquæ cum Hebræo conveniebat et accuratior erat.' Such is the accuracy of Mr. Bellamy's second assertion in this notable passage!

His third, that from the Latin Vulgate, all the European translations have been made,' is of equal value with the rest. In Roman Catholic countries, indeed, where the Latin Vulgate is prized beyond its just value, the versions into the vernacular tongues have been chiefly made from this, and not from the original: but the case is far otherwise in protestant countries. All the principal English translations, in particular, have beyond question been made directly from the Hebrew. The Geneva Bible, for instance, translated by English refugees, and first printed in 1557, is described in the title-page as being translated according to the Hebrewe and Greke, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages.' In forming Archbishop Parker's Bible, directions were given to the learned men employed, to compare diligently the old translation with the original text. It was objected that this trauslation did not always strictly follow the Hebrew, and in some places was purposely accommodated to the Greek, an objection which fully proves that it pretended to be formed from the Hebrew, otherwise the charge would not have been made. But, as Lewis says in his history of English translations, to any one who peruses it with care, this censure will appear to be ill founded.' And that our authorized version was framed from the original languages, was, we believe, never called in doubt by any one before Mr. Bellamy. For the present we shall only remind the reader that the title-page

of

of it is, 'The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.'

In order to further his purpose of exciting impressions in the public mind unfavourable to the accuracy of the received translation, Mr. Bellamy produces, also on the cover, a list of persons who, according to his statement, were of opinion that'a new translation of the Scriptures was absolutely necessary. Of the authorities which he quotes, some, as Purver, Wesley, Romaine, will not carry much weight with the public; others, indeed, such as Lowth, Kennicott, Newcome, Blayney, were persons of real learning, to whose judgment great deference will be at all times paid. In thus quoting their opinions, however, Mr. Bellamy has made a representation which is completely false; these persons were amongst the warmest admirers of the authorized version as to its general fidelity, and the propriety and dignity of its language; their opinions merely went to this extent, that advantage might now be taken of the improvements in modern criticism to illustrate the meaning of Scripture, in some obscure passages; that here and there a partial error might be corrected, and better words be occasionally substituted for those which, by the flux of language, had become obsolete or inelegant, or, in some degree, departed from their pristine meaning. By quoting their authority, however, as a sanction for his new translation,' he evidently wishes to impress us with the belief that these learned men were of his opinion, namely, that our present version is full of errors, and does not, in the main, convey the true sense of the original. We can well conceive what their astonishment and grief would be if they could know that their words had been produced by Mr. Bellamy to justify representations as far removed from their real opinions as from truth.

he

But we think it necessary to advert more particularly to some of the assertions of this writer, in disparagement of our present authorized version, and especially to his principal charge that it was not made from the original Hebrew. In his general Preface, p. i. says, 'As the common translations in the European languages were made from the modern Septuagint and Vulgate; where errors are found in these early versions, they must necessarily be found in all translations made from them.' And after mentioning the number of those concerned in framing the present authorized version, he subjoins, But it appears that they confined themselves to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, so that this was only working in the harness of the first translators, no translation having been made from the original Hebrew only for 1400 years.' At p. xiii. he affirms, that the common translations of the Bible are only the Greek and Latin speaking in the European translations.' And at

6

p. xiv.