I must, first, do the editor the justice to admit that, so far as I have examined, I have found no passage which appears to have been either introduced or omitted "under the influence of any peculiar view of Christianity, doctrinal or practical." And I also admit that, as the version in the scripture lessons is much more faithful than the Douay, and the lessons well selected and adapted to convey a certain portion of scriptural instruction, the book may be used with great benefit for instructing the children of Roman catholics, if their parents do not object to the intermixture of passages taken from the authorized version. Let us now proceed to examine how far the editor has faithfully executed that which, in the preface, he professes to have done. As the book is intended for Roman catholics and protestants, no reasonable objection can be made to the use of the Douay version, so far as that version accurately represents the Hebrew text; but I think the members of the church of England have reason to complain of the very numerous departures, though generally in very unimportant instances, from a version of so much excellence as the authorized version. It has been proposed, at various times, to revise this version with all the recent and important aids which the advanced state of criticism can furnish; but it has been generally stated in answer, that the authorized version is so faithful in itself, and has, for so long a period, been regarded with such just veneration, that more injury would be done by shocking the feelings of the people by the changes which would be introduced, than would be compensated by a nearer approach to the sense and expression of the sacred original. Perhaps too much weight has been attached to this line of argument; but, at all events, it will be admitted that, for a work of such difficulty and delicacy, none but the most judicious and competent persons should be employed, and that no changes should be made in the authorized version but such as a regard either to the sense or to the literal construction of the original rendered necessary. It is true that new versions have often been made by persons who either were or professed to be well acquainted with the Hebrew language, but no one has ever shewn such a want of judgment as to attempt to introduce any one of them into schools designed for the education of the lower classes. chapters of the scripture lessons which have been compared with the two versions and the original text comprise the first and second chapters of Genesis, the xix. and civ. Psalms, and are taken from "Scripture Lessons, No. I., Old Testament;" and it will be admitted that I do not complain without reason of the numerous departures from the authorized version, when it is stated that in 105 verses, there are, at least, 156 alterations, and that many of these alterations, though trifling in themselves, are less exact translations of the original Hebrew than the authorized version. The alterations may be thus stated :

The

:-

It must be remembered that the writer of the preface professes to have compared the authorized and the Douay versions with the original; and also that these lessons are in the language of scripture translated literally from the original. Let me ask, then, are there any words in the Hebrew original which are literally translated in the authorized version, and left untranslated in the Scripture Lessons? and are these words so improperly omitted, also omitted in the Douay version? If there are such words, I think it will be admitted that the anonymous translator has not fairly and faithfully executed his task. Let us see. Perhaps some of the readers of this letter may not be able to refer to the Hebrew original; it has, therefore, been thought best to place, in a separate column, Pagninus's interlinear version, which is, in general, an exact literal translation of the Hebrew, and, of course, can contain no words which are not to be found in the original.

* The translators of the authorized version, with singular fidelity, have printed the words in italics which are not in the Hebrew, but which they judged necessary to complete the sense. These are here inserted between brackets.

I would now ask this simple question-Did the translator find in the Hebrew Bible all the following words, which he has left untranslated? Are they translated in the authorized version? and, if so, has he faithfully executed his task in leaving them untranslated, in exact conformity with the Douay?

The words untranslated are these:-Gen. i. 5, p, vocavit; ver. 7, 26, 1, in, ', aquas; ver. 25, secundum speciem suam; ver. omitted four times; ver. 28, 1, in; ver. 29, -, superficiem omnis ; ver. 31,

ecce.

My next inquiry will be, whether there are any words in the original which are accurately translated in the authorized version, and are less accurately translated in the Scripture Lessons? and whether these changes also are in exact conformity with the Douay version. We will begin with the first chapter of Genesis.

For what reason, let me ask, did the translator compare the authorized and Douay versions with the original text, if it was not to select impartially that which corresponded most exactly with it? Has he done this? It will be observed that in one instance only does Pagninus's version correspond with that of the Scripture Lessons and the Douay-namely, Psalm xix. 10. The words in the authorized version are as follows:-"The judgments of the Lord are true [and] righteous altogether." The verb PT is used in both senses to be righteous, and to be justified. "py, Justificari, justum esse, haberi, vel asserere se." (Buxtorfii Lexicon.) The only question, therefore, is, whether the authorized version or the Douay conveys the clearest sense, and the most consistent with the context.

"The judgments of the Lord [are] true [and] righteous altogether."

"The judgments of the Lord are true justified in themselves."

Douay.

"The judgments of the Lord are truth, they are justified together."

Judicet lector.

Scripture Lessons.

The word n, Psalm xix. 7, signifies perfectus, integer. It is sometimes applied to animals to be offered in sacrifice, free from defects or blemish; but I believe it never signifies unspotted in the metaphorical sense of the word. The common expression which

פתי I do not think בלי מום but ,תמים signifies without spot is not

ever signifies little ones. Buxtorf says, simplex, fatuus. Nor does

I believe, ever signify holy. The phrase Ty by signifies for ever and ever; by, which is the word used Psalm xix. 9, signifies for ever. The words "O Lord," Psalm xix. 13, are interpolated, without any authority from the original.

The other passages I may safely leave to the examination of any person at all conversant with the Hebrew Bible, without further

comment.

Let me now call the attention of the reader to the statement in the preface, that "the translation has been made by a comparison of the authorized and Douay versions with the original. The language sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other, has been adopted, and occasionally deviations have been made from both." And let me ask, has the translator ably and faithfully executed this part of his task? Has he been careful not to deviate from the authorized and

the Douay versions, where the sense is accurately conveyed in either of these versions? And when he has so deviated, is his translation more literal and exact? This we shall now examine.

I would first ask, on what authority the translator has given to the verby in two passages, in the second verse, the sense created and done? It cannot express both; and the authorized version is perfectly accurate. On what authority does he give to the singular noun the sense of precious jewels, in close accordance with the equally false translation of the Douay? "aurum," (Buxtorfii Lexicon.) generally supposed to signify the fine gold of of Uphaz. "Root " (from whence D) "applied to the finest gold, or such as has the least mixture of alloy." (Taylor's Heb. Conc.) The translator has rejected statutes, which every one knows is the common meaning of, and has substituted visitations, a translation equally well founded with those which precede it. It is true that the root signifies to visit, and the feminine noun singular derived from the root signifies visitation in some places, but I have yet to learn that the masculine noun ever has this sense. In translating from a language whose idiom differs so widely from that of the European languages, it is often necessary to depart a little from the exact literal meaning of the words, in order to convey the real sense in conformity with the idiom of the English language. For instance, no one in his senses would translate the words in the sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis, " And let it be dividing between the waters to the waters," which is the exact literal translation of the words. Again, in Isa. v. 1, no one would translate, " on a horn the son of oil," which would con