1822,] > 
Bible? Surely all the Bibles ought to 
be alike; and, as there was suck a dif- 
ference in the verse I read last night 
in our different bibles, there may be 
ia the whole book a vast number of 
differences.”’ Lreplied: ‘ [tis true, the 
number of differences is very great, 
and it arises partly from the printers 
not printing from the same copy, and 
partly from the errors they commit in 
printing from the eepy before them.” 
*« But sureiy, sir, (she replicd,) there 
must be some persons to compare these 
Bibles with each other, and there 
ought to be at the end of the book a 
list. of these diflerent readings, and 
that pointed out to us which is the 
right one.” “That would be very right 
aud proper, (1 said;) but it has never 
been thought of, IL believe; or, if 
thought ef, never practised. Itis now 
upwards of 200 years since this Bible 
was first printed. It is not allowed to 
be printed but by three bodies of men, 
who, f believe, have no communication 
with eack other; and it is natural, 
therefore, that their editions should be 
different.” ‘“ But, (said she,) is there no 
person to see that they print these 
Biblescorrectly?” ‘“Noone,(Lreplied,) 
that I know of.” “Then thatis a great 
shame, (she exclaimed;) for surely, if 
these persons haye the exclusive privi- 
lege of printing Bibles, there ought to 
be some mode of ascertaining that 
they do their duty. Why should poor 
people like myself be misled?” 
. Phis was a home question; but, 
some persons coming in, our conversa- 
tion was. interrupted. I take. it for 
granted, that none of your readers will 
think it right that poor people should 
be misled. by their Bibles; and that itis 
the duty of those who have the exclu-. 
sive privilege of publishing them, to 
take all the care possible that tbey 
should be correct: But, if the different 
parties have different standards, by 
which they regulate their oditions ; or 
if they adopt dificrent readings, each 
‘om the other two, according as it 
suits the fancy of the party; the vari- 
ous readings in these editions may form 
a collection, not inferior in number to 
those in the notes of Kennicott’s 
Hebrew Bible. When Bentley issued 
his prospectus for a new edition of the 
Greek Testament, and talked of thirty 
thousand different readings to be 
found in manuseripts and preceding 
editions, many of the learned world 
were, or affected to be, in horror at the 
boldness of the assestion; and, were L 
Editions of the Bible. 
213 
to hazard the probability, that, if all 
the editions of the Bible, taken frony 
the first edited by James, were eol- 
lated, there would be found twice as 
many different readings as Bentley 
talked of for his Greek Testament, [ 
very much fear that, by the majority. 
of dissenting ministers, £ should be set 
down as an infidel at least, and per- 
haps might run the risque of being ac- 
cused of an attempt to bring the Bible 
into contempt, and thus of reviling 
Christianity, which has of late years 
been declared, but upon what grounds 
I am yet to learn, to be the law of the 
land. 
The exclusive privilege of printing 
Bibles is entrusted to three bodies ; the 
Universities of Cambridge, of Oxford, 
of the king’s printers; and to cach of 
them itis the means of a very consi-= 
derable revenue. ‘To these bodies this 
great and valuable power was en- 
trusted, on the idea, doubtless, that 
they were the most competent to give 
to the public correct editions of the 
authorized version of the Bible. The 
prototype was James’s Bible. This 
is. a standard easily to be referred to. 
Every deviation fromit ought to be no- 
ted, for I donot know of any power 
being yested in any persons to make 
an alteration from that prototype. 
That alterations have, however, beep 
made from that prototype by one of 
those bodies, I learn froma late publi- 
cation, from which I have made an ex- 
tract, that any of your readers may 
judge for themselves of the truth of 
the assertion. 
_The'work I allude to has been dis- 
tributed, but not exposed to public’ 
Sale. Itisentitled, “The Expediency 
‘of Revising the present Authorized 
Translation of the Holy Bible, consi- 
dered in a Letter, addressed to the 
Right Honourable the Earl of Liver- 
pool.” London, printed by Thomas 
Davison, White Friars ; 1821. 
It is the work evidently of a good 
Hebrew scholar, and is attributed to 
an eminent dignitary of the church #° 
England. In page 6, we read:—A few 
alterations were made,,sub silentio, by: 
Dr. Blayney £ believe, when he re- 
vised the printed University copies of 
our Bible in 1769. For instance, more 
was substituted for mo,or moe, impos- 
sible for unpossible, midst for mids, 
owneth for oweth, jaws for chaws, 
and alien for aliant. But these are 
matters of trifling importance, though 
more perhaps than any correclonof the 
press, 
