expedient or contrivance, with which we are acquainted, can form an adequate substitute: but what are we to say to the want of them both? These, however, are points on which we find ourselves directly at issue with the managers of the British and Foreign Bible Society. Arrogating to themselves the credit of all that is done by the Baptist missionaries in India, as well as by the Russian Bible Society, they claim the merit of having produced about ninety-eight new versions of the Scriptures. But of all these versions of the sacred writings, we challenge them to point out five, executed by individuals possessing at once a critical knowledge of the originals, and a vernacular familiarity with the languages into which they have been made. We admit, that the adoption of another system would, in each particular case, have pressed more heavily upon the funds of the institution; that acting upon it would have rendered it impossible for these directors to dazzle their subscribers by an annual display of so many new translations. But we are sure that the inconvenience thus created would have been more than counterbalanced by the confidence which the public would have reposed in the new versions; and can scarcely doubt that this would have acquired for the committee more than an adequate supply of means to meet any extra-expenditure rendered necessary. The public now feel, that, while pursuing their present plan, the proceedings of the committee must be worse than useless. While they circulate versions of the Scriptures, made by individuals not possessed of the qualifications indispensable for the due execution of such a task, every man who fears to make himself a participator in measures having a direct and unavoidable tendency to impair the integrity of the sacred text, is bound to withhold from them his support and contributions. That the managers of the Bible Society should never have formed this opinion of the qualifications requisite in translators of the Scriptures is the more extraordinary, as we find, from their own Reports, that it has been openly expressed, and, indeed, manfully acted upon, by one of the Society's affiliated branches. We find in the Sixteenth Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, that the committee of the St. Petersburgh Bible Society proposed to publish a version of the New Testament in the Georgian dialect. To meet their views, a translation into this dialect, executed or revised by the archbishop of Astrachan, was offered to them. This dignified ecclesiastic was well acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek originals, and had as much knowledge of the Georgian tongue as could be acquired by an individual not born and educated in the district in which it is spoken. His version version, however, was at once rejected, on the ground that no confidence could be reposed in its fidelity, because the translator was destitute of a vernacular knowledge of the Georgian dialect. Nor did this Muscovite committee adopt the example which had been so frequently set them by Earl-street, and with the view of procuring a correct version into the Georgian dialect, think it enough that a translation made from some other modern tongue by natives of Georgia acquainted only with that other modern tongue and their own vernacular language, should be revised by foreigners possessing 'a competent knowledge' of the Hebrew and Greek originals. They, on the contrary, began with selecting some of the natives of Georgia thoroughly acquainted with their own vernacular tongue, and causing these to be instructed in the Hebrew and Greek languages; and then they set about the translation of the Scriptures into Georgian. Nay, the principles upon which alone a correct version of the Holy Scriptures could be expected, were distinctly pointed out to the managers of the Bible Society long before the above example was set them by the Russian committee. About the year 1809 they formed the resolution of publishing a version of the Old Testament in modern Greek. Several persons were consulted by them as to the best mode of giving effect to their intention; and one of their correspondents thus replied; 'The question is, in what sense your Bible Society would be understood when it speaks of a translation? Does it wish that such translation should be made from the Greek versions of the Septuagint ? I should think not: at least, if such were its wish, I should beg leave to be of a different opinion. The actual state of knowledge (which is also beginning to penetrate into Greece) would not justify the measure of adopting the version of the Septuagint as a standard text, though, in other respects, it may and ought to be made use of as a mean of facilitating a new version. Since, then, there remains only the Hebrew from which a version should be made in modern Greek, it follows that the future translator ought to possess the Hebrew language besides that of the ancient and modern Greek. But among us, who are only beginning our new career, there are very few Hebrew scholars. To begin with myself (for I have paid some attention to the Hebrew), they are too slightly acquainted with this language to undertake such a translation. I see but one way of getting the design of the Society executed; and that would be to send over to you two young Greeks, who, in addition to their natural tongue, possess also that of their ancestors. These students are to employ themselves principally in the Hebrew, and other oriental languages which facilitate the understanding of the Hebrew, without, however, neglecting other sciences, particularly so much natural history as is necessary (or, at least, useful) for under standing standing the biblical animals and plants.'-Fifth Report, App. pp. 57, 58. So superfluous do such niceties as these appear to the directors, that one of the advocates who have been employed to repel the charges recently brought against them, asks, with a sneer, whether it could be expected that they should abdicate their light functions in Earl-street, and convert themselves into a board of translators?' Although the Serampore missionaries were driven, by untoward circumstances, to act upon different principles, it is evident that their eyes are now fully open to the error of the system which continues to find favour in Earl-street: witness a passage, which we shall extract from the Third Memoir of Translations carrying on at Serampore.' It has long occurred to some of us, that the training up of a number of youths to the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and of the languages of India, almost from their infancy, would be an auxiliary in the work, the value of which time alone can fully demonstrate. The advantages which youths trained from their infancy to grammatical studies, and at the same time habituated to speak the various languages of India, must necessarily possess beyond those who, perhaps, commencing grammatical studies late in life, have, still later, to acquire a foreign idiom, must be obvious to all. A seminary for training up youths, so as to fit them for the work of translations in the various languages of Asia, has therefore been for some time in our contemplation. We have, therefore, laid the foundation of such a seminary at Serampore, where youths are instructed in the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin languages, while they are acquiring, and perhaps conversing, in the languages in which they may probably have to examine the translation of the word of God.'-Period. Acc. No. 23, p. 378-381. It is impossible to calculate either the extent or the duration of the injury effected by the circulation of incorrect and unauthorised versions of the sacred records. The attempts which may hereafter be made to revise and correct them, however discreet and successful, will be attended with great inconvenience, if not with serious danger. An alteration of the sacred text even for the better is calculated to shake the confidence of the ignorant and unlearned reader. Distracted between two rival or dissimilar versions, the relative merits of which he is incapable of estimating correctly, he incurs no little risk of attempting to escape from his dilemma, by rejecting them both. From the hasty and most indiscreet proceedings of the Earlstreet directors, we turn with much satisfaction to the institution founded at Calcutta by the late excellent Bishop Middleton, with the view of counteracting their injurious effects. We are encouraged to hope that this establishment will ultimately provide an adequate remedy for the serious injury which the circulation of unauthorised and incorrect versions of the Scriptures cannot have failed to inflict upon the Indian community. Having the proceedings of the Earl-street committee's translators daily before his eyes, the bishop meditated upon the best means of neutralizing the ill consequences which he anticipated from their ill-digested measures; and it occurred to him, that the most efficient means of accomplishing the purpose which he contemplated, would be the foundation of a college at Calcutta, in which natives of different districts of India might be instructed in the original languages of the scriptures, and in such other sciences as might be deemed requisite to render them competent to translate the sacred writings into their own vernacular tongues. We cannot believe that the operations of an establishment so wisely planned, and directed to the attainment of an object so important, will be allowed to languish through the want of funds. We cannot help thinking that the Indian government has laid itself open to the charge of a culpable supineness, in having hitherto permitted within its territories the circulation of versions of the scriptures, without having ascertained, by competent authority, that they had been faithfully executed. We need not dwell upon the importance of accuracy in translations of the sacred writings: it is felt by the governing powers of all Christian nations; and in no country is it more highly estimated than in our own. The monopoly of printing Bibles, secured to the universities and the king's printers, was introduced, and is still continued, solely on the ground that it constitutes a safeguard to preserve the integrity of the authorised version. Whether we argue, therefore, from principles of general expediency, or from European, and, above all, English precedents, we are fully warranted in coming to the conclusion, that when the rulers of India gave their consent to the circulation of the scriptures in the vernacular languages of their empire, it became their imperative duty to provide that the task of making these versions should be intrusted only to hands in all respects properly qualified for its faithful execution. The public, whatever they may think of it, ought to know the fact that, with three or four exceptions, none of the individuals who have been employed under the auspices of the British and Foreign Bible Society, either in translating or in editing the scriptures, have received the benefit of a regular and learned education. We state this not as a ground of reproach against these persons themselves, but as a plain fact which seems to point out a pecu liar feature in the management of this Society. That its directors deem human learning unnecessary in the editors and translators of holy writ is more than we can venture positively to assert; but it is quite evident that they act as if they really entertained such an opinion. By departing from the principles upon which all approved versions of the Scriptures have been made-by employing translators destitute of education, ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek originals, and imperfectly acquainted with the languages in which their translations have been printed, the managers of the British and Foreign Bible Society have contrived to throw away the fairest chance ever offered to any public institution for establishing a lasting claim to the gratitude and admiration of posterity. Had they proceeded upon a sound system-had they been cautious in rejecting all translations except such as had been executed by individuals known to possess the skill and acquirements indispensable for their task, the translations of this Society would have descended to after-ages as the imperishable monuments of Christian benevolence and rational enterprise. But, for reasons best known to their own consciences, they have let this golden opportunity slip; and without arrogating to ourselves the possession of any extraordinary degree of sagacity, we venture to predict, that, with scarcely a single exception, the existing versions of the British and Foreign Bible Society will be remembered hereafter only for the errors and blunders which disfigure them. In defence of the proceedings of the Earl-street committee, it has been urged that it is unreasonable to require that their Bibles should, at their first appearance, exhibit that degree of accuracy and purity of which subsequent labour may render them susceptible; and we are advised to reflect, that, although the first English Bible appeared in 1535, the English version did not acquire its present authoritative character until the publication of King James's Bible in 1611. We are, however, inclined to think, that the arguments of these advocates must, when properly weighed, tell against their cause. It will not, we imagine, be disputed, that the authors of the first printed English version stood in the. very foremost rank as scholars for the times in which they lived. They came, therefore, to the execution of their task prepared with all the resources which the state of knowledge could then have supplied; and their devotion to the undertaking in which they engaged was at least equal to their qualifications for its proper fulfilment. But surely it is very extraordinary logic to argue that, because, some centuries ago, it took seventy years to perfect a version of the Scriptures executed by men ver nacularly |