Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

AMONG the inconveniences resulting from the use of two authorised vernacular versions of Scripture, as is the case with the Psalms in our Bible and Prayer-book, it is not the least that illiterate persons cannot understand how the word of God can be expressed in two forms, though the meaning should be substantially the same. A respectable yeoman, in a parish under my pastoral charge some years since, shook his head, and remarked, that the new clergyman, he was sorry to say, did not understand a word of Latin,because it seems I had translated an epitaph in a county history in prose, which did not literally correspond with a free metrical translation which the honest yeoman had slily doubled down in another page. The friend to whom he made the objection partly solved his difficulty, by pointing to an almanack on his table, with the motto, "Fronti nulla fides," which he told him might be translated either, "Trust not to the outward appearance," or, "It is not all gold that glitters." But, unhappily, the uneducated classes of society have not always a friend at hand to set them right in their misconceptions on the subject of our Bible and Prayer-book versions of the inspired Psalms; and these misconceptions are sometimes not a little perplexing, as in the passage to which I am about to call the attention of your readers.

The latter clause of Psalm cv. 28 is rendered, in the Bible version, "And they rebelled not against his word:" in the Prayer-book translation it is, "And they were not obedient to his word." Both cannot be right; and the only way in which a person ignorant of Biblical criticism can reconcile them, is by concluding that the one translation refers the declaration to Moses and Aaron, or to the elements of nature under the Creator's controul; and the other to the rebellious Egyptians.

This solution, however, is clearly unsatisfactory; for as the two translations profess to be versions of the same inspired passage, the one or the other must be incorrect. The question then is, which is wrong. And here I think the internal evidence is in favour of the Prayerbook version; the sense of the passage seeming to be, that, though Jehovah had wrought such signs and wonders among the Egyptians, "sending darkness and making it dark," yet their obdurate hearts were not softened, and "they refused to let the people go." But though this would appear to be the natural meaning of the passage, it has been, I think, the general understanding of Biblical scholars to prefer the Bible version, on the ground, chiefly, that this version is a direct translation from the Hebrew, whereas the Prayer-book version is only a version of a version, being translated, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek of the SeventyMust the Greek copies, then, bend to the Hebrew, or the Hebrew to the Greek? or can both be reconciled?

If the Bible version be right, the only way of making the Septuagint conform to it, is by shewing, either that the Greek translators mistook the sense of the passage, or that their translation is incorrectly handed down in the current copies. The latter must certainly be allowed to be possible; for some copies insert the word ότι before παρεπικραναν, which might, by a slight clerical error, have been written for 87,which last corresponds precisely with the Hebrew 5. But the internal sense of the passage and the current of Septuagint manuscripts being on the other side, we should not hastily resort to this solution. Still less must we venture upon conjectural alterations of the Hebrew text. Both texts must remain as they are. And this being the case, the question is, will the Hebrew, as it stands, allow of the omission of the negative in the translation? Now we

may fairly assume from the Septuagint version, either that the learned and venerable authors of that version considered that the Hebrew words did allow of the omission of the negative, or that their Hebrew copies did not contain the negative; in either of which cases a strong argument arises in favour of the Prayer-book rendering. If their rendering be right, the only way of making the Hebrew translation conform to it, is to read the passage interrogatively, "Did they not rebel against his word?" But this is always so doubtful an expedient, and has been applied, especially of late years, with so dangerous a latitude, that a judicious scholar will not willingly have recourse to it, except where the sense of the passage clearly requires this solution. In the present instance, it has been often and strongly doubted whether the Hebrew will allow of the ellipsis of the interrogative. It is true that in such passages as 2 Kings v. 26, &c. we meet with this ellipsis; but in these cases the is not placed before the interrogative. Should it be replied, that it is so placed in other passages-as, for example, in Leviticus xviii. 28, &c.-it may still be doubted whether in these alleged passages the interrogative form is absolutely necessary: so that, at all events, there still hangs considerable difficulty around the solution.

Under these conflicting circumstances, I should be much obliged to any of your Biblical critics who will extricate me from my dilemma. The Prayer-book sense appears, both from internal evidence and on the authority of the Seventy, to be the right one; but if the Hebrew does not fairly allow of it, which King James's learned and revered translators, notwithstanding the natural preference which they must have felt for the old translation, do not seem to have thought it did, then let us adopt and adhere to the Bible translation, unless we can shew that the Hebrew text has been

altered since the time of the Seventy. The Bible version, it must be allowed, makes a good and clear sense, though not that sense which would most obviously present itself to the mind. At present, many clergymen hesitate to quote the passage in their conversation or sermons, lest, whichever sense they give to it, they should disturb the minds of some of their hearers, who have both versions before them. I most heartily agree with all that your various correspondents have said respecting the high merits and general correctness of King James's' translation, and deprecate most earnestly the rash hands which some modern critics seem inclined to lay upon it; but it is not pretended that this, or any other version, is faultless (though this is far, very far, the best); and there can be no judicious friend of the Church of England who will not rejoice in every attempt to throw light on any of its dubious renderings.

CLERICUS

upon my lips the grace of thy benediction. Give me quickness to comprehend, and memory to retain: Give me a facility in expounding, an aptitude in learning, and a copious eloquence in speaking. Prepare my entrance into knowledge, direct me in my pursuits, and render the issue of them complete: through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. AMONG the references in your volumes to the (anticipated) Calvinism or Anti-Calvinism of the Fathers and Reformers of the Church of England, I do not recollect to have seen adduced the following decisive passage from the Sermons of the venerable Bishop Latimer. As I bring it forward chiefly to throw additional light on a great historical and ecclesiastical fact (for the theology of the question must be settled, not by human names or authorities, but by a direct appeal to the inspired volume itself), I shall not permit myself to make on it any other observation than that, whatever may be our speculative opinions, we shall do well diligently to apply the good bishop's practical test to our own consciences: for if we are thus enabled to ascertain the certainty of our "conversion," our " calling and election" also will be "made sure," whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the precise import of those scriptural expressions.

The bishop, in his thirty-first sermon, writes as follows:

"Think that God hath chosen those that believe in Christ, and that Christ is the book of life. If thou believest in him, then thou art written in the book of life, and shalt be saved. So we need not go about to trouble ourselves with curious questions of the predestination of God; but let us rather endeavour ourselves that we may be in Christ; for when we be in Him, then are we well, and then we may

be sure that we are ordained to everlasting llfe.

"But you will say, How shall I know that I am in the book of life? how shall I try myself to be elected of God to everlasting life? I answer, first, we may know that we may be one time in the book, and another time come out again as it appeared by David, who was written in the book of life; but when he sinned, he at the same time was out of the book of the

favour of God, until he had repented and was sorry for his faults. So we may be in the book one time, and afterwards, when we forget God and his word, and do wickedly, we come out of the book; that is, out of Christ, which is the book; and in that book are written all believers. But I will tell you how you shall know that you are in the book; and there are three special notes whereby you may know the same. The first note is, if you know your sin, and feel your own wretchedness and filthiness-which is a great matter, for the most part of the people are so drowned in sin that they no more feel the same, for sin grieveth them no more; according to the saying of Solomon, 'The ungodly man, when he entereth into the midst of all sin and mischief, despiseth not the same; he regardeth sin nothing at all, neither is he sorry for it.' But, as I said, the first note is, when you know your sins, and feel the same, then are they heavy unto you, and grieve you?

Then follows the second point, which is faith in Christ; that is, when you believe most stedfastly and undoubtedly that God our heavenly Father, through his Son, will deliver you from your sins. When you believe, I say, that the blood of our Saviour was shed for you, for the cleansing and putting away of your sins; and believing this most stedfastly with an unfeigned heart; then you have the second point. The third point is, when you have an earnest desire to amendinent, and hatred against sin,

the types under which they were represented and the ceremonies with which they were connected, afforded to the Israelites under the Mosaic economy. But the Law, being only "a shadow of good things to come,' was not able to communicate that clear and definite information on religious subjects which is enjoyed by those who live under the New Testament dispensation. In a peculiarly appropriate sense, therefore, may light be said to have come into the world by the incarnation of the Saviour, and the more explicit publication of the doctrines relating to human redemption. "Life and immortality are brought to light by the Gospel."

The light with which we are thus favoured, discloses to us our depravity and danger as offenders against God. The Gospel, in which the rays of this light are concentrated, informs us that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God ;" and it likewise declares, that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." It shews the deceitfulness, the pride, the obstinacy, of the human heart; the misery invariably attendant on a course of sin; and the awful punishment which will hereafter be inflicted on those who live and die in an impenitent state." It affirms, that "a day is coming in which God shall judge the world in righteousness; and that eternal happiness will then be awarded to the righ teous, and eternal misery be the portion of the wicked. To incline us to forsake the paths of iniquity, and to seek the attainment of future blessedness, it speaks of God as willing to be reconciled to sinners through the death of his Son; as waiting to be gracious; as inviting even the most profligate and abandoned characters to turn to him and live. It exhibits the Lord Jesus Christ as the Friend of sinners; the Refuge of the helpless; the Saviour of a lost world. Through him the tidings of mercy are proclaimed, and

restoration to the favour of God is freely offered. And to induce us to accept of these overtures of mercy, the most weighty considerations are presented to our minds. We are invited and threatened, allured and terrified: we are entreated to reflect on the wisdom, the propriety, the necessity of attending to the concerns of religion; and at the same time we are warned of the dreadful consequences which will certainly result from a continued indifference to them. In a word, the Gospel reveals to us every thing essential to virtue and happiness: it states what is to be avoided, and what pursued; what is to be omitted, and what practised. It is directly calculated to enlighten the understanding; to impart correct ideas of human nature, of the Supreme Being, of Christ, of every thing connected with the present and future welfare of mankind. Before its publication, the most learned and polished nations were in ignorance or doubt as to the very elementary truths of religion; and, with the exception of the degree of information possessed by the Jews on this subject, the night of moral error may be said to have been universal. "Ďarkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people." But the Sun of righteousness at length arose on this hitherto benighted world; scattering, by means of the Gospel, his mild and benignant beams on every object.

Christianity resembles natural light, in several important respects; in its purity, its utility, its beauty; but the obvious scope of the figure in the text is its property of disclosing and illuminating objects. Without the Gospel, we must wander in spiritual darkness, and ultimately sink into the pit of eternal destruction. During the shades of night, the face of creation is veiled from our eyes; its woods and waters, its vales and mountains, are blended together in one undistinguishable mass: but when the morning dawns, the fields, the trees, the sky, all the objects of nature, begin to assume their