A LETTER, &.c. MY LORD, IN addressing your Grace, on one of the most important subjects that can occupy the Christian mind, I am persuaded that I shall be honored with your attention, even though you may not take the same view of it which I do myself. Nothing that has promised utility or improvement, within the sphere of your authority, has ever yet been presented to your notice, without meeting with the readiest encouragement; and scarcely has a year passed, since your elevation to the metropolitan see, without producing some beneficial effects, some noble scheme for the promotion of civil or religious happiness. I need not enumerate instances of the wise and enlightened policy, of the mild and just administration of the powers attached to your rank, which have distinguished your primacy: they speak for themselves. On one topic, however, I must be allowed to touch, before I enter on my own subject, because it may be said to be not remotely connected with it. It was under the auspices of your Grace, that that most useful work, The Family Bible, was begun and completed: of which 17,000 copies have already been dispersed-a sure proof that the word of God was never before so ably illustrated, or so zealously disseminated in any one impression of the Scriptures! The protection, my Lord, which you have thus extended to Biblical laborers in one department, induces me to hope that you will not dismiss the subject, which I now submit to your consideration, without weighing well the argument which I shall endeavour to advance in favor of a similar undertaking; arguments, however, which I do not presume to offer as being entirely new, or which would not have been suggested to yourself, if you had time to reflect on the matter as fully as the literary leisure of an humble individual has suffered him to do. The object of this letter is to urge the expediency of an authorised revision of Scriptures; and the following will be the leading topics it will embrace: 1. The necessity of taking the work out of incompetent and unauthorised hands. 2. The advantages which enable the present age to produce translation of the Bible superior to that of 1611. a 3. The flux and improvement of language, since 1611, its present stability, and the expediency of having such a version of Scriptures as shall be the standard of the English language. 4. The defects of grammar, diction, and style, in the common version. 5. Examples of erroneous translation, where the translators of 1611 had not the means of giving correct readings. 6. An appeal to the preface of King James's translators in favor of a revision. If some of the brightest ornaments of the church establishment had not openly delivered their opinions on the same side of the question, as that on which I am now writing, I should be apprehensive of being charged with entertaining notions inconsistent with canonical submission. But, happily, I am supported by the testimonies of such men as Archbishop Newcomb, who did not hesitate to assert, that "the Hebrew Prophets are not yet seen in their best garb" as Bishop Lowth, who proved, by his own luminous expositions, that the "Scriptures might be placed in a more advantageous and just light;" as Dr. Kennicott, who declared, "that improvements would naturally result from the cultivation which Hebrew literature has received since 1600;" and, as Dr. Blaney, who boldly expressed himself to this effect: "The common version has sometimes mistaken the sense of the original text." Such are the sentiments of men of approved learning and piety; but of late years, circumstances have occurred, which, independently of the inherent defects of the common version, strongly recommend that a revision should be undertaken, under the direction of the heads of the establishment. It cannot have escaped your Lordship, that the Roman Catholics, the Dissenters, and the Unitarians, are at this time separately employed in producing new translations of the Scriptures; and that they do not pursue their labors without attacking the integrity of our authorised copy, and challenging our church to produce men sufficiently acquainted with oriental learning, either to defend our own version, or to compile a correct one. The dignity of our establishment, and the character of our authorised version, require that we should assert the one, and vindicate the other: this can only be done by undertaking a new translation: and I am convinced, that if able men were to engage in such a work, they would not only produce a very correct text, but they would also clear the translators of King James from many of the aspersions which are maliciously thrown on them. These translators had not the opportunities of arriving so completely at the sense of the original, in all cases, as Hebrew scholars now have: but with respect to general integrity, and a faithful regard to the spirit and meaning of the sacred oracles, they acquitted themselves in a manner which cannot be sufficiently extolled. Let me here take the opportunity of explaining, that, although I am proposing a revision, I am not one of those who undervalue the common version. To make use of the words of the translators themselves, "We are so far from condemning any of their labors that travelled before us in the same kind, either in King Henry's time, or in King Edward's, or in Queen Elizabeth's, of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his church, and that they deserve to be had of us, and of posterity, in everlasting remembrance. Therefore blessed be they, and most honored be their names, that break the ice, and give the onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of souls. Yet, for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, so if we, building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavour to make that better, which they left good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us."-See Translators' General Preface. Another circumstance, which may justly excite an anxiety in the jealous friends of the establishment, to see a revision undertaken by proper authority, is the fact of a translation having been begun by an individual, and meeting with the most flattering encouragement from the highest personages both in church and state, although the author makes the most indefensible attack on the common version that ever proceeded from any person who was not hostile to the establishment. I allude to the "First Part of a Translation of the Holy Bible," by MR. BELLAMY. This work is ushered into notice by a dedication to H.R.H. the Prince Regent, (who, to his eternal honor be it spoken, is ever forward in the patronage of literature) and with a long list of exalted subscribers; among whom stand the names of ten members of the Royal family, the chancellors of the two universities, seven bishops, twenty peers, and six dignitaries of the church. Now, my Lord, the fact here stated gives rise to two very serious reflections. First, that these illustrious, noble, and right reverend persons, see the necessity of a new translation: and secondly, that they are so strongly impressed with that necessity, as to have had recourse to a very dangerous expedient for supplying the desideratum. They have given encouragement to an undertaking which must be incompetent, as being the work of one person only, whereas it requires the wisdom and experience of a body of learned men. There is no doubt but Mr. Bellamy has drank deeply from the springs of oriental literature, that he is a profound Hebrew scholar, and, with the exercise of a little more discretion, that he is qualified to make one of a select number, who might be employed in revising the Scriptures. But when an individual lays claim to so much infallibility, delivers his opinions with so much arrogance, offers so many wild emendations, and assaults the translators of King James with so much virulence, as he has done, we are constrained to treat his labors with much less respect than they would have met with, had they been conducted with the modesty which becomes an attempt of so much hazard. The Hebrew language is by far too difficult of interpretation, to be rendered into English, on so gigantic a scale as the whole Bible, by any one person, however great his pretensions may be therefore, when such a bold undertaking is begun, countenanced by the first characters in the kingdom, and accompanied, not with a few objections to detached passages, but with a sweeping clause, condemning the whole of the authorised version as "a translation at which we ought to blush and be shocked," it is high time for the friends of the church to take alarm, and to investigate the volume which we are told, to our surprise, is so unworthy of our estimation. Hitherto, when the common version has been examined by pious and well-disposed Hebrew scholars, we have been gratified by finding, that if they have objected to certain errors and defects, they have yet, on the whole, pronounced it to be as accurate and faithful a translation as the state of learning in 1611 would allow it to be. One learned oriental scholar, with a degree of candor which is most honorable, considering that he is of a different communion with ourselves, pays this high tribute of applause to the translators of 1611, after he had devoted thirty years to the study and exposition of their work: "Those who have compared most of the European translations with the original, have not scrupled to say, that the English translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise; the translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the original." Dr. Adam Clarke. But now, for the first time, a person, professing himself well disposed towards the doctrines of revelation, throws down the gauntlet, and pledges himself to prove that the authorised version is "a reproach to Christian nations," and that " it contains inconsistencies and contradictions which serve only to disgrace the sacred book, and to aid the cause of infidelity." Can this language be that of a friend to the sacred cause of truth? or, would any man, who is truly anxious to give a correct reading of the Holy Book, hold up any copy of that book to the contempt of the Christian community, merely on account of a few partial errors? It is always indecent to speak lightly of grave and serious subjects; still worse to confuse irreverend combinations with pious intentions, and to pretend that what is meant to be the vehicle of the most awful truths can ever be charged with effects diametrically the reverse. In our present imperfect state, where our best motives are liable to invidious construction, we ought to hesitate before we accuse each other of what is base and malevolent. God forbid, then, that I should speak harshly of a man, who has studied the word of God as intensely as Mr. BELLAMY! his very labors imply good intentions. It is a hasty and a superficial perusal of the Bible which makes the scoffer, not months and years of meditation. I am constrained, therefore, to believe that Mr. BELLAMY is well inclined towards the household of faith: but as he values the salvation of others, as he values his own Christian name, let him in future speak less irreverently of a copy of Scripture which merits our veneration in spite of all its errors. He may detect, and endeavour to remove its defects; but he has no right to proceed otherwise than in the spirit of meekness and forbearance. Mr. BELLAMY is so often mistaken in his own attempts to improve the sense and style of the common version, and stumbles so frequently, that there is no fear of any mischief when his pages meet the eyes of persons who can compare his translation with the original. To them he will at once appear not infallible, and not a little arrogant. But there is much evil to be apprehended when his text and his notes are read by those who are unlearned in Hebrew lore. At the very onset, such readers yield implicit confidence in all his assertions and emendations, by being led to suppose they have previously encountered the ordeal of a severe census: that the great and learned persons, whose names appear like an imposing Ægis in the list of subscribers, would never have patronised his book, had they not approved of what they are indirectly recommending to others. Like the fatal shafts of Teucer, which flew on a more certain and deadly errand, because they were securely aimed from behind the shield of Ajax, so will Mr. BELLAMY'S that |