rituality of her faithful ministers. May God ever pour upon them "the spirit of grace and supplication," and teach them both to cut off occasion from those that seek occasion, and to win souls to Christ.

Πιστις.

As our respected Correspondent states that the practice which he mentions "is not uncommon," we have inserted his just remonstrance, otherwise we should have thought it superfluous. We can hardly persuade ourselves that such conduct is not as rare as it is exceptionable.

ON THE MODERN IMPRESSIONS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In a former paper inserted in your Number for December, p. 758, I expressed my full concurrence in the opinion of the American Bible Society, that our modern editions of the English Bible are greatly improved with regard to punctuation, italics, headings, and running titles, above the exemplar of 1611. I mentioned as an instance the placing in italics the words " as though he heard them not" (John viii. 6), so as to shew they are not in the original; whereas, in the edition of 1611, they are given as a portion of the inspired text. I do not think that they ought to be admitted even as an interjected explanation; being of opinion, for the reasons which I specified, that they are at variance with the whole spirit of the passage. There are, I know, a few Greek manuscripts, but of no authority, which have the words thus translated; but it seems difficult to suppose that our translators went out of their way to adopt this unauthenticated reading, which no biblical scholar admits; and yet if they did not, but only thought that the interpolation was a useful explanatory comment, then why did they not give the usual typographical warning? We must infer either that they adopted this interpolation as text; or that, accepting it only as comment, they inadvertently omitted the typographical notification. I am induced to return to the subject, from having observed another passage in which the translators have inserted words not in the original, and which I think not rightly introduced. Our translation of Matt. xx. 23, reads, "To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." The words "it shall be given," are not warranted by the Greek; and this the translators knew; for they very properly printed them with the usual typographical indication of interpolation. I think the interpolation very unhappy; for it derogates from our Lord's prerogatives. What he really says is, that it is in his power; what the interjected words make him say is, that it is not. Omitting the clause, the contrast is not between Him and his Father as to the ability to give; but only between those for whom it was prepared and those for whom it was not. If a mother were to present her two sons at the Queen's levee, and to ask her Majesty to confer knighthood upon them, and the Queen were to reply, "I cannot confer knighthood but upon those whose names have been determined upon in Council;" she would not mean that she cannot confer knighthood; but that it shall be conferred upon those whose names have been determined upon in Council. The latter is a negation of her

power; the former only a declaration that she exercises it according to a certain plan decided upon. But still, though I do not approve of the interpolation, yet as it is not forced upon me, the typographical notification being duly given, I am satisfied. The same course ought to have been pursued with regard to the words "as though he heard them not," unless the translators thought that they were a portion of the text; which they certainly are not.

I will now mention an instance in which our modern Bibles have altered the punctuation of a clause, in order to avoid, so far as could be, the ambiguity of a translation which does not unequivocally bring out the meaning of the original, in a text much referred to in proof of our Lord's divinity. The memorable passage (Titus ii. 13) is one of those to which Granville Sharp and Bishop Middleton's doctrine of the Greek article clearly applies; and if translated in conformity with the idiom of the original, it would run "The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." It might have been too critical for the translators thus to have rendered it; but it is important to know whether they thus understood it; and if so, whether they have adopted the punctuation best calculated to convey their meaning to others. They translate and punctuate as follows: "The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us," &c. Our modern editions do not of course alter the translation, but they punctuate it as follows: "The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us," &c.

Here we find that the comma after "God" is left out; and a semicolon is substituted for a comma after the words Jesus Christ." The object of this change, by whomever made (probably by Dr. Blayney; for Field's Bible, 1653, and I suppose others to Blayney's time, retain the old pointing,) was clearly to shew that the “great God" and "our Saviour" are one person; for which purpose the comma between them is elided, and a stronger stop, a semicolon, is placed after the words "Jesus Christ," apparently with a view to make the connection of the former words more decidedly marked,

The question arises, did our translators construe the passage according to the meaning which Sharp's rule brings out from the Greek idiom; and if so, is their punctuation adapted to express that meaning? Now it is abundantly clear that the omission of the comma better expresses it; and that the Socinian might have some ground for arguing that the translators would not have put a comma after God, if they had considered that the Greek means that Christ is "God our Saviour." There comes in, also, another result; that if they did not thus consider, then the alteration of their punctuation is an alteration of their translation; and I think it must be admitted, that however much the revisors may have been at liberty to alter the punctuation, in order to bring out the better what they believed to be the meaning of the translators, they had no right to alter it with a view to substitute another meaning which they thought better. Have they done so in this instance? I think not; and I will state why.

I take for granted that most scholars are agreed that Sharp's rule is well-founded, and that the idiom of the Greek language indicates that in such a construction as occurs in this sentence one person is meant, not two persons; and that a correct translation would be, Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour:" or, " Our great God and

Saviour, Jesus Christ." Now with regard to the doctrine conveyed in these words, our translators were agreed; and they could not but know that the Greek fathers use the passage in this sense; and that it was invariably used by them as one of those which prove the divinity of our Lord and I think, from the way in which they have rendered it, that they intended it to bear this signification, though they did not consider themselves authorized to translate to the idiom, but confined themselves to the letter.

:

Upon referring to the very first printed translation of the New Testament in the English language-Tyndale's as lately reprinted-I find the passage construed and pointed as follows: "Looking for that blessed hope, and glorious appearing of the mighty God, and of our Saviour Jesu Christ." Here, grammatically speaking, the repetition of the preposition "of " makes the " mighty God" and "our Saviour" two persons; though I do not believe that Tyndale really meant so. I am entitled to this conclusion, because in five editions of Barker's Bible—the first in 1577 and the last in the identical year 1611-though we have the comma, and the obtrusive second "of," as in Tyndale, there is added this marginal note: "Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God." It is evident, therefore, that though the translators of Barker's Bible did not give the idiomatic meaning of the Greek, they were aware of it; and were anxious that the reader should not be misled by their own translation; which, however, they did not consider incompatible with the real meaning of the passage.

In an English translation of the New Testament published at Geneva *, with an epistle to the reader by Calvin, in 1557, the passage

On turning to Beza's version and notes, “Englished by L. Tomson," of which numerous editions were published, I find the rendering to be, "That glory of that mighty God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ;" and in the margin is added, "Christ is here called that mighty God." Thus we have the very same note accompanying this free but just translation, which accompanies the translation above mentioned with the second "of." It is clear, therefore, that the verbal translation was not meant to assert a different sense from the idiomatic, since to both is the same explanation affixed. My copy of Tomson's Beza is the edition of 1598, which is bound up with the English Geneva Old Testament,in the place of the proper Anglo-Geneva Testament. There is the same junction in some other editions; and indeed in the general history of the Reformation Bibles, there is so much confusion and intermixture of versions and editions, and so much ambiguity respecting impressions and titlepages, that in collating them it is more easy to make than to avoid mistakes. I have been obliged to trust for some of the dates to the Bishop of Salisbury's collation in his "Vindication of Mr. Sharp's rule from the objections of the Rev. C. Winstanley," which I conclude are correct.

It may not be amiss, while alluding to this subject, to correct a mistake of Fox the Martyrologist, which derogates from the claims of Coverdale. Fox says that the Bible of 1537 (Matthew's) was the first English Bible. He is certainly wrong; for Coverdale's was, without doubt, finished in 1535, as is expressly declared at the end of the volume; and it seems extraordinary that Fox had never heard of it. It is still more remarkable, however, that Bishop Marsh has made the same mistake in his Lectures. He says, "The translation of the whole Bible made by Tyndale and Rogers, was published at Hamburg under the feigned name of Matthewe; and hence it has been called Matthewe's Bible. Subsequent English editions were Coverdale's Bible, Cranmer's Bible, &c." Possibly Matthewe's Bible being the first "set forth with the king's most gracious licence" on the title-page, so threw poor Coverdale's into the shade, that it was wellnigh forgotten. But Fox himself gives Henry the Eighth's proclamation of 1536, in which he enjoins, that "Every parson and proprietary of any parish church shall, on this side the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula next coming, provide a book of the whole Bible, both in Latin and English, and lay the same in the quire for every man that will to read

is correctly, though freely, translated, "The glory of the mighty God, which is our Saviour." In the editions of 1535 and 1582, and perhaps some others, the comma after God is omitted. This, perhaps, was intended, though somewhat awkwardly while the second" of" was retained, to prevent any division between the words "God" and "our Saviour." But what is of more importance, the second "of " was omitted in the Bibles printed in 1538, 1561, 1568, 1572, 1575, 1585, 1589 (the last two the London Rhemish); and this omission characterises King James's Bible of 1611.

Surely, then, judging from the marginal note in the authorized edi. tions of Barker's Bible, we may infer, that even if King James's translators had retained the second "of," this would not have proved that they did not consider the passage, construed according to the Greek idiom as proving our Lord's Divinity; but their omission of it clearly shews they designed to bring the English words as near to that meaning as a strictly literal rendering would allow. As to the insertion of the comma, the passage had been punctuated both ways; and they probably did not notice it as of any consequence. But if their meaning was what I have endeavoured to shew, and omitting the comma helps to make it more clear, the modern editions are more correct than that of 1611.

I have referred to the revision in what may be called a businesslike view; not as discussing by what authority the changes were made, but only to shew that now we have them it would be folly to go back to a less perfect impression. At the same time, great jealousy ought to be exercised in reference to future alterations; nor should any be permitted, except of a strictly typographical kind, and those only where clearly necessary. I believe that some alterations, espe

and look upon." There was at that period no printed translation of the whole Bible but Coverdale's. Or may not the mistake have arisen from the confusion introduced by Coverdale's altered dedication from Anne (Boleyn) to Jane (Seymour), whom Henry did not marry till 1536? The date of 1535 is given at the end; but Anne Boleyn being beheaded just as the book was published, and the dedication to her being cancelled, and another substituted addressed to her successor, a reader, looking at the dedication for the date, there being none on the title-page, would naturally infer that the book was printed much later than it was.

I will add another instance of chronological mistake respecting our early Bibles, which I happened lately to meet with. Dr. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature and Scarce Books, says that Tyndale's Testament of 1533 was the first edition; but the recent reprint of the edition of 1526 disproves this statement; and indeed there were several editions before 1533.

The Anglo-Geneva Bible, little as James the First esteemed it, is a translation of great value. It is known to

book fanciers, who are not book readers, rather by a reference to one of its peculiar readings, than by its proper characteristics. Would-be wits have shewed neither their good taste nor their religious reverence, by giving strange names to particular editions of Bibles. Thus the Bishop's Bible has been called the Leda Bible, from a wood engraving at the commencement of the epistle to the Hebrews, which was said to have been originally designed for a mythological subject. There is a Bible called the "Vinegar" Bible, from a misprint of that word for "vineyard." Young students should guard against the foolish levity which is sometimes affected by sciolists of calling books by "slang titles, as if it indicated a knowingness which might pass for scholarship. I was lately disgusted, on inquiring for a Bible by its proper characteristics in a public library, at being asked if I meant such and such a one-the interrogator describing it by a conceited vulgarism. A ripe scholar should not stoop to the littleness of false wit; and a man who reverences the word of God, should not connect even its bare letter with irreverent associations.

cially in the headings of the chapters, have been made even in recent years, without any shadow of authority, and nobody can tell by whom. The following is a notable instance. King James's translators gave, or I believe retained, the well-known heading of the 149 th Psalm : "The prophet exhorteth to praise God for his love to the church; and for that power which he hath given to the church to rule the consciences of men." On turning to several modern Oxford and Cambridge copies, I find that the words "to rule the consciences of men," have been suppressed. And yet they were continued till within a very few years since. I observe them in an Oxford Bible of 1808, which is the latest, except very recent ones, that happens to be at hand; but I think they were retained much longer. Who expunged them? I remember a story, to the effect that some person having remarked that the headings of the chapters are comments, and mentioning this as one which he disapproved, the late Rev. J. Owen (I think it was) replied, "Then it shall be altered." Altered certainly it was, at both Universities, whether at Mr. Owen's suggestion I know not; but Mr. Owen's authority was quite as good as that of any body else for such a purpose; for no person was empowered to make the alteration. It was not a mere abridgment; for it occurs in Bibles with the full headings. Such a liberty would not be thought of now; and, even if it were, stereotype, multiplied copies, and public jealously would forbid its indulgence.

BIBLICUS.

THE BISHOP OF CALCUTTA, THE REV. H. MELVILL, AND DR. CHALMERS, ON SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGY.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

As you have quoted from the Bishop of Calcutta, in your Appendix last month, page 830, a passage which bears rigorously upon many scriptural geologists, I could have wished, as you were also noticing Mr. Melvill's discourses, that you had quoted a paragraph from the sermon entitled, "The Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters," which places the subject in a just light. You cite Bishop Wilson as enumerating, among the ways in which Christians may be spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit

"The rash and hazardous overstatements on topics connected with geology; confessedly hypothetical as much of the theory is, and feeble as is at present the induction of facts as if the generally received exposition of the Mosaical account of the creation were doubtful.'

66

Now, sir, there is a very expressive proverb, about giving a bad name and then proceeding to punishment. If, as Bishop Wilson affirms, every geological inference from undeniable facts which does not happen to coincide with-mark! not "the Mosaical account of the creation," but " the generally received exposition" of that account, whatever that exposition may be (for the Bishop gives no specification, and there are at least half a score expositions" among divines of high repute in the church of Christ, who knew nothing of geology, and some of which expositions actually anticipate the decried remarks of modern scriptural geologists);-if, I say, popular expositions, the expositions of frail fallible men, are to be put so much upon a level with the sacred text; that reverently to receive the CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 13. E