Since that time many other copies, the property of public bodies or private individuals, have been placed at the disposal of the Delegates.

66

"Down to a very late period," says Mr. Curtis, "the holy Scriptures have been most carelessly printed at the authorized "presses;" and shortly afterwards, "In the Bibles printed within "the last ten or twelve years there is a decided improvement in "this respect," [with regard to typographical errors,]"particularly "in those of the Clarendon Press," p. 3.

66

"There is no kind of adequate benefit for which the British public should pay from forty to fifty thousand pounds per ann. "to the authorized printers of the Bible," p. iv, note. "The crown "and people of England have largely provided and paid,” &c. p. 79. The reader will remember, whatever may be the amount paid by the British public to the three authorized printers, that accurate and handsome Bibles cannot be produced without considerable expense. If he has read the evidence given on this subject before a committee of the House of Commons *, he will have seen that the actual profit received from the Oxford press is only twelve per cent., including, be it known, the interest of capital and the rent of extensive buildings.

"The Oxford Delegates have commenced reprinting' the edi"tion of 1611,' which they possess. The Book of Genesis, the only part published, assists me in making the following compa"rative extracts." p. 55.

66

Now in a pamphlet where the object of the author is to hold up certain presses to universal contempt, and more especially in a passage where he was publishing a strict collation for the purpose of distinguishing between two rival documents, we might expect that he would shew his peculiar fitness for such employments. And yet the extracts are printed so inaccurately, that were he to issue an edition of the Bible similar to the one now in progress at the Oxford press, after the copy of 1611, and with as little correctness as the comparative extracts in pp. 55 and 56, there would be exactly forty errors to a page. The book will contain 1428 pages; so that the whole amount of the errors would be 57,120. We will now examine some of the mistakes imputed by Mr. Curtis to the Oxford Bibles.

"One" [clergyman told me] "that an important part of a text "he had taken in the Lesson of the day, to his great astonishment, was not in the Church Bible when he came to read the "Lesson. It was, 1 John v. 12, and of God were the omitted "words," (p. 14.) Now it is singular that these words, although required by the Greek, are actually wanting in the editions A, B

* See Report on the Patents of the King's Printers, No. 1885.

and C; but it is still more singular that Mr. Curtis (p. 105.) should mention this very passage as one in which the Oxford Delegates have violated their duty by inserting the omitted words.

"In the Burial Service alone," says Mr. Curtis, "two minor "interpolations occur," p. 80. These two cases are in 1 Cor. xv. 41. and xv. 48. The reader will see them noticed hereafter, and he will there find that the interpolations, as Mr. Curtis calls them, are in the original Greek, and had appeared in English Bibles as early as 1629.

"An Antinomian Oxford Testament of the year 1807." Note, "I must thus characterize a New Testament which, Heb. ix. 14. "reads, "How much more shall the blood of Christ-purge your "conscience from good works,' instead of, dead works," p. 17. Mr. Curtis was informed last June that a copy of this edition had been sought for in vain; that another edition of the same year, two of the year following, and all editions that could be found of eleven years nearest to the time in question, had been examined, and the passage was printed correctly in them all.

At the close of his pamphlet Mr. Curtis publishes two lists of errors, which I must consider separately. The first consists of "typographical errors, in and since Dr. Blayney's edition," and enumerates fifty-six mistakes, some of importance, and others totally unimportant, in different Oxford editions published from the year 1769 to the year 1823, inclusive. They are collected from eleven different editions; so that the result of this examination is, that the Oxford Bibles in question contain on an average five errors of the press. I have compared the list with the 4to edition of 1824, and in that edition, and probably in all that have succeeded it, not one of these mistakes is to be found.

The other list consisting, as Mr. Curtis says, of "intentional "departures from the Authorized Version," must be considered a little more in detail. On the many cases of Italics noticed among them, I shall merely observe, that in practice, as before in principle, Mr. Curtis has perverted this distinction of the Translators and subsequent Editors to a purpose totally unknown to them. They intended Italics to denote a difference of idiom: he applies them as if in some cases their object was to point out a mere approximation to the meaning, and in others as if the sentence required such a supplemental word, but there was nothing in the language of the original to justify the use of it.

Gen. xxxix. 1. "Bought him of the hands, for hand, of the Ish"maelites." This change would certainly seem to be unnecessary, and is opposed both to the earliest editions and to the Hebrew. The error, if it be worth while to

consider it as such, may be found in Bibles as early as 1629.

66

Gen. xxxix. 16. "Until his lord, for until her lord, came home. Vulg. ostendit marito revertenti domum. Right in 1750." The Hebrew is his, and the change had been made in 1701. Exod. xv. 25. "Made for them a statute; For them inserted." This change also is according to the Hebrew, and had been made in the year 1701.

Exod. xxvi. 24. marg. "twined, for twinned." It is singular that in the only other case where this word occurs, viz. Exod. xxxvi. 29, Mr. Curtis' favourite edition B and the edition C have the word with a single n.

Lev. ii. 4. "Unleavened cakes, for an unleavened cake." The Hebrew is plural, and so Bishop Lloyd printed the word in 1701. Deut. xxvi. 1. "The LORD thy God. Thy God inserted." This was probably an error of copy on the part of the Translators; for this expression is in the Hebrew, and the words appear in English Bibles as early as 1629.

1 Sam. v. 4. marg. "The fishy for the filthy part of Dagon." To shew that fishy is not the right reading Mr. Curtis refers us to Parkhurst. Now Parkhurst's words are these: "From 1 Sam. v. 4, it is probable that the lower part of "this idol resembled a fish; and it appears plain from the "prohibitions, Exod. xx. 4. Deut. iv. 18, that the idolaters "in those parts had anciently some fishy idols." Could Mr. Curtis suppose that his references would be taken on trust? The real error is in filthy in editions A and B, and it was corrected as early as in 1617.

1 Kings xiii. 11. "His sons came, for his son came and told him.” The alteration, whether right or wrong, was made as early as in 1617.

2 Chron. iii. 10. "In the most holy house, for most holy place." The change was made in conformity with the Hebrew as early as in 1629.

2 Chron. xxxii. 5. "Repaired Millo, for prepared." The error is in prepared, and it was corrected in 1617.

Job xxxix. 30. "Where the slain are, there is she, for he, i. e. the "male bird." Mr. Curtis is here defending a palpable misprint. It was correctly printed she in 1617.

Isaiah lvii. 8. "Made thee a covenant. Thee inserted.

Lowth

"omits it." I answer, Bishop Lloyd in 1701 inserts it, according to the Hebrew.

Dan. i. 12. "Give us pulse. Us inserted." The Hebrew requires it, and the word was in English Bibles as early as 1629. Dan. iii. 18. "Nor worship the for thy golden image." The same answer as the last.

Hos. ix. 3. marg. "Not into Egypt. Flatly contradicting text." Reader, the whole note is as follows," Not into Egypt it"self, but into another bondage as bad as that." Is this a flat contradiction of the text? Is the writer, who quotes it as such, and mutilates it for his own purpose, deserving of your confidence?

Matth. iv. 20. "Left their nets. The article rà used for the pos"sessive pronoun." In other words Mr. Curtis complains

that their is printed in Italics, because rà, he says, is used for the possessive pronoun.

John vii. 16. "Jesus answered them, and said. And said inserted." The Greek requires it, and so it was printed in 1701.

1 Cor. iv. 9. "As it were appointed, for approved to death." And yet in 1617 it was appointed.

1 Cor. xv. 41. " And another glory of the moon. And and glory "inserted." The change had been made in 1629, and is

justified by the structure of the sentence and the words of the original.

1 Cor. xv. 48." Such are they also that are earthy. Also inserted." The Greek requires it, and the insertion was made as early as in 1629.

66

2 Cor. xi. 32. "Kept the city of the Damascenes. Of the Damascenes inserted." The words are in the Greek, and are to be found in English Bibles in 1629.

Ephes. vi. 24. " Amen inserted. The better MSS. omitting it." Does Mr. Curtis talk of MSS.? The word is wanting in A, but appears in 1617.

1 Tim. i. 4. "Rather than godly edifying. Godly inserted." The word appears in Bishop Lloyd's Bible of 1701, and the word coû ought not to have been left untranslated.

1 John iii. 16. "Love of God, because he laid down his life. "To discard a reading, which implies that Christ was "God." Mr. Curtis here complains that the words of God are now printed in Italics, although he knows, or ought to know, that they do not appear in the Greek *. And afterwards.

1 John v. 12. "Son of God, (second time Son occurs). Of God "inserted." This insertion was made, according to the Greek, at least as early as in 1629.

In another part of his pamphlet (p. 85) Mr. Curtis says, "I "would not, as the pretensions of the King's Printers and Uni❝versities, I conceive, now do, speak CROOKEDLY FOR GOD." Who then is it, that in the first of these two passages complains of the

In these cases I refer to the Greek text of Rob. Steph., Paris, 1550, as well as to the more critical editions of modern times.

Italic reading, although he knows that the idea is not contained expressly in the Greek, and in the latter passage wishes to suppress the important addition, although he knows that the genuine word of God demands the insertion of it?

Mr. Curtis says on

A few words more, and I will conclude. the first leaf of his pamphlet, "Counting the words only which are altered in the modern Bibles, and a few of the paragraph "marks, which are important; that is, not at all including the "general alterations of the orthography or minute punctuation, "there appear intentional departures from King James' Bible,

"In the book of Genesis, containing

Exodus...

50 chap...

807

"Or, in about one fourth of the Bible, upwards of two thousand "nine hundred such departures, suggesting the presumption, "that there are upwards of eleven thousand in the entire Ver"sion." In this calculation, Mr. Curtis has studiously omitted to inform us from how many different editions, and where and when printed, these variations have been collected. Now I have examined, with the help of a minute collation, the text of the Book of Genesis and St. Matthew's Gospel, and I affirm that, if we exclude changes as to Italics and the printing of the word Lord or God, and such differences as between toward and towards, ye and you, among and amongst, born and borne, flee and fly, to and unto, including, in short, those departures only which convey an actual difference of meaning, there are not in the copy which I have used (the Oxford 4to of 1824) more than nine departures, intentional or otherwise, correct or incorrect, from the text of King James' Bible A in the Book of Genesis, nor more than eleven in the Gospel of St. Matthew. I affirm also, that in most of these cases the departure is justified by the words of the original languages, and by the length of time during which each corrected reading has had possession in our English Bibles.