the labours of Kennicott and De Rossi, of Mill and Griesbach, have contributed to the elucidation of the texts of both Testaments, are circumstances to my present audience perfectly well known.

But valuable as these collections are in themselves, the most essential advantages to be derived from them must depend upon the critical skill and sagacity with which they are applied ;* and fortunately the same period which furnished this copious supply of materials, introduced a new and better method of studying the Scriptures, and the means of converting these materials to the most important uses. Though it is now about three hundred years since the language of the Old Testament has been cultivated in the theological schools of this and other countries,† yet the knowledge of its several dialects (a thing of equal importance) had been much neglected. The Arabic language in particular, the remains of which are so much more extensive than those of the Hebrew, was rarely included among the acquisitions even of men of the greatest

* Griesbach, Præf. ad N. T. sect. iii. et ad Symbol. Critic. prope init. Kennicott, Hebr. T. vol. 1, p. 567, et Dissert. General, p. 8.

+ The first Professor in England was Robert Wakefield. He delivered his inaugural lecture at Cambridge in 1524. See Hody de Textibus, p. 465.

learning. But as these two languages were, if not originally the same, at least closely resembling each other, "their general correspondence must," as is observed by a late celebrated professor,† "throw a light upon the Sacred Text, which will lead to the most important accessions of knowledge. Terms that are of rare occurrence in the Hebrew, and therefore of dubious signification, are often familiar in the other dialects," and consequently "by their assistance are determinable in the Hebrew."

It is by this mode of studying the Scriptures of the Old Testaments, and a judicious application of their phraseology to the New, that some foreign divines of eminence, and especially those of the German continent, have been so successful in their interpretation of the text of many parts of the Holy Scriptures. That their knowledge of the language of both Testaments is accurate and profound, their acuteness very considerable, and their diligence

* There seems to be no doubt that the alphabet of the Homerite or Sabæan Arabs was the same as the Hebrew ; the point added to six letters of the former for the purpose of enunciation no more increasing the number than the Dagesch affixed to six letters of the latter. Vide Robertson. Clav. Pentat. Introd. p. 27, et Gram. p. 7.

Dr. Jos. White, Reg. Prof. of Hebr. and Laud. Prof. of Arabic. See his Sermon on a revisal of the English Translation of the O. T. p. 12.

extraordinary, cannot be denied. At the same time we must lament that their boldness in criticism is not unfrequently such as to offend orthodox believers, and to bring their own religious principles into suspicion: so that, to use the language of a modern literary journal, "it is just to admire the scholars of Germany, but it is indispensable to admire them with discrimination."* Much to the credit of our own countrymen, they have in general trod in the footsteps of their continental neighbours only so far as is consistent with sober and rational criticism and sound learning. If for instruction in the exegetical department of Sacred Literature some have been induced to attend the lectures of eminent professors abroad, there is now, probably, less occasion to have recourse to such assistance. In our own universities, ample means are afforded of acquiring a competent knowledge of the language of both Testaments. The liberal endowment appropriated many years since in one of them to the study of these languages, is well known to have been productive of the most important consequences.† Additional donations have lately been made in both, for the promotion of Hebrew

* Edinburgh Review, No. 109, p. 240.

+ Dr. Hody's Exhibitions at Wadham College, Oxford; to which both Kennicott and White were indebted for their first acquaintance with the Hebrew language. Hebrew

learning in particular, by the munificence of distinguished individuals. If we add to these the numerous advantages to be derived from our extensive intercourse with the East, the contributions of travellers, the learning and diligence of our academical professors, and the noble accessions constantly making to our public libraries from various quarters, we must perceive that a large field is now opened to the curiosity and industry of the biblical student.

Upon a collective view of these circumstances, I have been led to imagine that the present may be no unseasonable time for undertaking a work long since recommended by the most respectable authorities, but not, it must be confessed, without many objectors; a revisal of the last English translation of the Bible. It has been so often observed, as hardly to bear repeating, that, for the time in which this translation was produced, it is a work of extraordinary merit. This could not be denied even by those who were most studious to point out its defects. * Though some passages of Scripture may have been adduced, which are

scholarships have since been founded by Mrs. Kennicott, Messrs. Pusey and Dr. Ellerton, at Oxford; and by the Rev. Robert Tyrwhitt at Cambridge.

* See the objections of Dr. Gell in Lewis's History of English Translations, p. 332-335.

*

obscurely, or even erroneously rendered, this is chiefly to be ascribed to the want of critical materials, and the imperfect state of critical learning. There is not the least reason for suspecting that any portion of the text has been unfaithfully translated from design; since our English Bible was not published, like those of Douay and Geneva, to support a particular system of doctrines. One of the principal grounds for censure seem to have been that the version is too literal; that is, that it adheres too closely to the idiomatic phraseology of the originals. But notwithstanding all the captious objections of the adversaries of our church, "proper acknowledgements," says the same learned professor whom I before cited, "have ever been made to our ancient translation by all impartial judges. It cannot be impressed too often," he adds, "that in its present form" this translation "is extremely well calculated to answer every purpose of general piety, both for the learned and unlearned christian. What is wanting, is wanting not for the necessity of edification, but for the improvement of Sacred Literature. When that which is wanted is

+ The observation of the learned Selden is, that "the Bible is rather translated into English words, than into English Phrase." Yet he allows that it is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best. Lewis ubi supr. & p. 353, 354.