and gospels were inserted from king James's Bible; but the psalms of the Great Bible were allowed to remain. CRANMER'S BIBLE.-In 1540 another edition of the English Bible was printed in folio, with this title: "The Bible in Englishe; that is to say, the content of al the Holy Scripture, both of the Olde and Newe Testament, with a prologe thereinto made by the Reverende Father in God, Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury." On account of this prologue, and because Cranmer amended the translation in this edition, in some places, with his own pen, it hath been called Cranmer's Bible, though it is little dif ferent from the Great Bible. In this, as in the Great Bible, the verses of the psalms, proverbs, &c. which are not in the Hebrew, but which are translated from the Vulgate, are printed in smaller letters, and the order of the psalms is different from that of the Vulgate, being according to the Hebrew.

By Cranmer's influence with the king, a proclamation was issued in May 1540, ordering this Bible to be bought, and placed in the churches. But the popish party making great complaints of the English translations in general as heretical, an act of parliament passed in January 1542, prohibiting the reading of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation in any church or open assembly within the kingdom. However, the king being resolved to have an English translation of the New Testament, which should be authorized by the clergy, Cranmer, in a convocation which met in February 1542, required the bishops and clergy, in the king's name, to revise the translation of the New Testament. Accordingly, each bishop had his part assigned to him. But Stokesly, bishop of London, refusing to execute his part, the design miscarried.

Of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation of the Bible, and of its revisions by Cranmer and others, many complaints were made, even by the Protestants. B. Sandys wrote to Abp. Parker, that "the setters forth of this our common translation followed Munster too much." And of the New Testament in the Great Bible, Laurence, a noted Greek scholar in that age, observed, that there are words which it hath not aptly translated; words and pieces of sentences in the original which it hath omitted; words not in the original which it hath superfluously added; nay, he charged this translation even with errors in doctrine. The encouragers also of the Geneva edition represented this Bible as ill translated, and falsely printed, and gave it the invidious name of a corrupted Bible.

Henry VIII., dying in January 1546, was succeeded by his son, Edward VI., in whose first parliament the above mentioned statute was reversed. The gospels and epistles were now, for the first time, appointed to be read in English in the public service.

In 1550 an edition of the New Testament was published with this title, "The Newe Testament diligently translated by Myles Coverdale, and conferred with the translacyon of William Tyndal." Coverdale's translation here mentioned seems to have been that which he published in the second edition of Hollybushe's New Testament.

GENEVA BIBLE.-Edward VI. dying in July 1553, was succeeded by Mary, who immediately restored the popish service and sacraments, and persecuted the favourers of the reformation with such cruelty, that many of

Sebastian Munster was a learned protestant, well skilled in the Hebrew language, and in rabbinical learning. He published a Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible at Basil in the year 1534; and in 1546 he gave a second edition of it in two volumes folio, containing not only his Latin translation, but the Hebrew text with grainmatical annotations, which F. Simon commends as useful for understanding the Hebrew language. Huet gives Munster this com mendation: "He always adapted his style to the Hebrew, and, at the same time, is not neglectful of the Latin, though he be not over attentive to the elegance of it." F. Simon preferred Munster's version both to Pagnin's translation and to that of Arias Montanus.

He, with

them fled into foreign countries; among whom was Coverdale, who, in Edward's reign, had returned to England, and had been made bishop of Exeter. some others, fixed their residence at Geneva, where they employed themselves in making a translation of the Bible. They began with the New Testament, which they published in 12mo., printed with a small but beautiful letter, in 1557. This is the first printed edition of the New Testament, in which the verses of the chapters are distinguished by numeral figures and breaks.

Strype, in his Annals of the Reformation, tells us, that the Geneva brethren, after publishing their New Testament, proceeded to revise the Old. But not having finished it when Elizabeth came to the throne, some of them staid behind the rest to complete their design. And having finished the Old Testament, they published the whole Bible at Geneva in 4to, in the year 1560, printed by Rowland Hall. This is what is commonly called The Geneva Bible; concerning which F. Simon affirms, that it is only a translation of a French version, made at Geneva some time before. But he said this perhaps to disparage the work. In this translation cuts are inserted, representing the garden of Eden, Noah's ark, &c. They likewise added a variety of notes, with two tables; the one containing an interpretation of the names, and the other an account of the principal matters in the Scriptures. There is also an epistle to Queen Elizabeth, in which they charge the English reformation with retaining the remains of popery, and exhort her to strike off certain ceremonies. But this epistle giving offence, it was omitted in the subsequent editions.--The Geneva Bible was so universally used in private families, that there were above thirty editions of it in folio, 4to., and 8vo., printed from the year 1560 to the year 1616. The authors of this edition being all zealous Calvinists, their translation and notes are calculated to support the doctrine and discipline of that party. For which reason it was better esteemed at its first appearance than it hath been in later times.

THE BISHOPS' BIBLE.--Queen Mary dying in November 1558, was succeeded by Elizabeth, who, treading in the steps of her brother Edward VI., suppressed the Romish superstition in all her dominions, and filled the sees with Protestants. After this, Abp. Matthew Parker having represented to the queen that many churches either were without Bibles, or had incorrect copies, she resolved that a revisal and correction of the former translation should be made, in order to publication. The archbishop therefore appointed some of the most learned of the bishops and others to revise the Bible commonly used, and to compare it with the originals; and to each of them he assigned a particular book of Scripture, with directions not to vary from the former translation, except where it was not agreeable to the original, and to add marginal notes for explaining the difficult text; reserving to himself the oversight of the whole. A revisal of the English Bible, on the same plan, had been proposed by Cranmer, (see above); but the design did not take effect. Parker was more successful in his attempt. The persons employed by him performed their tasks with such cheerfulness, that the whole was ready for the press some time before the year 1568; for in that year the Bible of the bishops' revisal was printed in a very elegant manner, with a beautiful English letter, on a royal paper, in a large folio, by Richard Jugge, the queen's printer. In this edition, which contains the Apocrypha, the chapters are divided into verses, as in our Bibles; and the several additions from the Vulgate Latin, which in the Great Bible were printed in small characters, are omitted, except 1 John v. 7. which is printed in the same character with the rest of the text. To this edition Parker added some good notes, different from those of Tyndal

and Coverdale, and two prefaces. In the one to the Old Testament he exhorted the people to study the Scriptures, which, after St. Jerome, he termed The Scriptures of the People. In the preface to the New Testament, he advised the reader not to be offended with the diversity of translation. After the preface to the Old Testament Cranmer's prologue is inserted, and before the psalms there is a prologue of St. Basil. On the margin, besides the notes, there are references, and the whole is embellished with cuts and maps. This Bible, on account of the pains which the bishops took in perfecting it, was called The Bishops' Bible, and was authorized to be read in the churches. Yet it was found fault with by some, on pretence that it was not as exact as it should be; hecause in the Old Testament it does not always follow the Hebrew, but in some places is on purpose accommodated to the LXX., and is disfigured with divers errors. But Lewis says, the Bishops' Bible "hath fared somewhat the worse through the intemperate zeal of the sticklers for the Geneva translation." In 1572 the Bishops' Bible was reprinted in folio, in the same splendid manner as in 1568, with a few additions and alterations.

L. THOMSON'S NEW TESTAMENT.-In the year 1583, one Laurence Thomson, an under-secretary to Sir F. Walsinghame, published an English version of Beza's Latin translation of the New Testament, to which he added notes from Beza, Camerarius, and others. This translation differs so very little from the Geneva Bible, that it was sometimes printed with the Geneva translation of the Old Testament.

RHEMISH NEW TESTAMENT.-The English Papists, who after Queen Mary's death fled to Rhemes, finding it impracticable to hinder their countrymen from having the Scriptures in their mother-tongue, published an English translation of the New Testament from the authentical Latin; that is, from the Vulgate, printed at Rhemes by John Fogny, in the year 1582. At the same time they promised a translation of the Old Testament in the same language. Their translation of the New Testament the Rhemists rendered unintelligible to common readers, by introducing into it a number of hard words, neither Greek, nor Latin, nor English, but a barbarous mixture of the three languages, such as Asymes, Tunike, Holocaust, Prepuce, Pasche, Parasceue, Neophite, Evangelize, Penance, Chalice, Host, &c. These are what the Romish clergy call ecclesiastical and sacred words; and by affirming that they contain certain deep and inexplicable meanings, they have raised in the minds of the vulgar a superstitious veneration of the clerical orders, to the enslaving of their consciences; (see p. 4.) To their translation the Rhemists added notes, from what they called catholic tradition, from the expositions of the fathers, and from the decrees of popes and councils, for the support of the Romish errors. This is what goes by the name of the Rhemish New Testament.-In the year 1589, Dr. Fulke, master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, reprinted this translation, together with that of the Bishops' Bible, in two columns; and in his notes confuted all its " guments, glosses, annotations, manifest impieties, and slanders against the translations used in the church of England;" and dedicated the whole to Queen Elizabeth.

ar

DOWAY BIBLE.-About twenty-seven years after the publication of the Rhemish New Testament, an English translation of the Old Testament, from the authentical Latin, came forth from the English college of Doway, in two vols. 4to; the first in the year 1609, the second in 1610, both printed at Doway by Laurence Kellam. But this translation is of the same complexion with the Rhemish New Testament, having been made many years before in the college of Rhemes, by the very same persons who translated the New Testament; for it was only

revised and published by their brethren of the college of Doway.

KING JAMES'S BIBLE.-Queen Elizabeth dying in March 1602, was succeeded by James VI. King of Scotland, who, soon after his arrival at London, received a petition from the puritan ministers, desiring a reformation of certain ceremonies and abuses in the church. In consequence of this petition, the king appointed several bishops and deans, together with the principal petitioners, to meet him at Hampton-court, January, 12, 1603, to confer with him on these abuses. On the second day of the conference, the puritans proposed that a new translation of the Bible should be made; and no one opposing the proposition, the king, in the following year, 1604, appointed 54, or according to others, 47 persons, learned in the languages, for revising the common translation. These he divided into six companies, and to the several companies he allotted certain books of Scripture, to be translated or amended by each individual of the company separately. And that they might execute their work in the best manner, he prescribed to them certain rules which they were to observe.-The first was; the ordinary Bible read in the churches, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original would permit.-The third was; the old ccclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church not to be translated congregation, &c.-The fifth; the division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all or as little as might be.-The sixth; no marginal notes to be affixed, but only for explaining the Hebrew and Greek words which could not be expressed in the text without some circumlocution.— The eighth; every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and having amended or translated them severally by himself, where he thought good, all were to meet together to compare what they had done, and to agree on what they thought should stand.— The ninth; when any one company had finished any book in the manner prescribed, to send it to the other companies to be considered by them.-The fourteenth ; the translations of Tyndal, Coverdale, Matthew, Whitechurch, (the Great Bible), and Geneva, to be used where they agree better with the original than the Bishops' Bible. This, therefore, was not to be a new translation, but a correction only or amendment of the Bishops' Bible.-The translators entered on their work in spring 1607.

Selden, in his table-talk, says, “The king's translators took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to the person who was most excellent in such a tongue. And then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault they spoke; if not, he read on."

After long and earnest expectation, the Bible, thus revised, came out in the year 1611, dedicated to the king; and is that which at present is used in all the British dominions.

To this edition of the Bible it hath been objected, 1. That it often differs from the Hebrew, to follow the LXX. if not the German translation; particularly in the proper names.-2. That the translators, following the Vulgate Latin, have adopted many of the original words, without translating them; such as hallelujah, hosannah, mammon, anathema, &c. by which they have rendered their version unintelligible to a mere English reader. But they may have done this in compliance with the king's injunction concerning the old ecclesiastical words, and because, by long use, many of them were as well understood by the people as if they had been English.— 3. That by keeping too close to the Hebrew and Greek idioms, they have rendered their version obscure.-4. That they were a little too complaisant to the king, in

favouring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, &c. But these, it is probable, were their own opinions as well as the king's.-5. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect. But this, perhaps, was owing to the restraint they were laid under by those who employed them.-6. That where the original words and phrases admitted of different translations, the worse translations, by plurality of voices, was put into the text, and the better was often thrown into the margin.--7. That notwithstand ing all the pains taken in correcting this and the former editions of the English Bible, there still remain many passages inistranslated, either through negligence or want of knowledge; and that to other passages improper additions are made, which pervert the sense; as Matt. xx. 23. where, by adding the words it shall be given, it is insinuated, that some other person than the Son will distribute rewards at the day of judgment.

Such are the objections which have been made to the king's translation by the protestants. They are mentioned here as historical facts. How far they are just lies with the reader to consider. The objections made by the papists were the same with those which were made to the former translations; and particularly, that several texts are mistranslated, from the translators' aversion to the doctrines and usages of the church of Rome.

If the reader desires more full information concerning the English translations of the Bible, he may consult Anthony Johnson's historical account, published at London in 1730; also John Lewis's complete history of the several translations of the Bible in English, 2d edit. published at London in 1739. From which treatises, most of the facts relating to the English translations of the Bible mentioned in this section are taken.

Since the commencement of the present century, several English translations of the gospels and epistles have been published by private hands. But they are little dif ferent in the sense from the king's translation; or, if they differ, it is occasioned by their giving the sense of a few passages, not in a different translation, but in paraphrases which do not truly express the meaning of the original. And even where the meaning is truly expressed, it cannot be said that the translation is improved by these paraphrases, at least in those instances, where the sense could have been represented with equal strength and perspicuity in a literal version.

From the foregoing account of the English translations of the Bible, it appears, that they are not different translations, but different editions of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation. It appears likewise, that Tyndal and Coverdale's translation, of which the rest are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the Vulgate Latin. For as they did not say in the title pages that their translation was made from the originals, and as Coverdale, in particular, declared in his prefaces to Hollybushe's New Testament, that he swerved as little as possible from his Latin text, it is reasonable to think that Tyndal and he made their translation from that text. Besides, did not suit their purpose to translate from the originals. The Vulgate Latin text being the only word of God that was then known to the people, and even to many of the clergy, these translators knew, that the nearer their version approached to the Latin Bible, they would be the less offensive; a consideration which Coverdale acknowledges, in his prefaces, had great weight with him.

As Tyndal and Coverdale made their translation from the Vulgate, they could hardly avoid adopting a number of its errors. Some that were palpable they corrected, especially when the sense of the passage suggested the correction. But in translating the more difficult texts which they did not understand, they implicitly followed the Vulgate, as Luther, Erasmus, and others had done before B

them. It is true, their translation was often corrected in the editions of the English Bible, which were published from time to time. But the corrections were made chiefly in the phraseology. The alteration of the English language made it necessary, in every revisal of the translation, to substitute modern words and phrases in place of those which were becoming obsolete. But few alterations were made in the sense, except in the passages which had a relation to the popish controversy, which, on that account, were considered with more care. Wherefore, each new edition being little different from the preceding one, none of them were esteemed new translations, as is plain from the public acts prohibiting the use of the English Bibles. For, in these acts, they are all called Tyndal and Coverdale's Translation.

To conclude:-If Tyndal and Coverdale's translation was made from the Vulgate Latin, and if the subsequent English translations, as they have been called, were only corrected editions of their version, and if the corrections made from time to time in the different editions, respected the language more than the sense, is it to be thought strange, that many of the errors of that translation, espe cially those copied from the Vulgate, have been continued ever since, in all the editions of the English Bible? Even that which is called the King's translation, though, in general, much better than the rest, being radically the same, is not a little faulty, as it was not thoroughly and impartially corrected by the revisers. It is, therefore, by no means such a just representation of the inspired originals as merits to be implicitly relied on for determining the controverted articles of the Christian faith, and for quieting the dissensions which have rent the church.

SECT. III. Of the Principles on which the Translation now offered to the Public is formed.

THE history of the ancient and modern versions of the Scriptures, given in the preceding sections, must have convinced every unprejudiced reader, that a translation of the sacred writings, more agreeable to the original, and more intelligible and unambiguous than any hitherto extant, is much wanted. In this persuasion, the author formed the design of translating the apostolical epistles, although he was sensible the attempt would be attended with great difficulties, and be liable to many objections. But objections were made to Jerome's corrections of the Italic version of the New Testament. And in an age much more enlightened, when the correction of the Bishops' Bible was proposed, there were some who did not approve of the design, fearing bad consequences would follow the alteration of a book rendered sacred in the eyes of the people by long use. On both occasions, however, these objections were justly disregarded, for the sake of the advantages expected from a translation of the inspired writings more consonant to the original. Wherefore, that the reader may be enabled to conjecture, whether, in the following version of the apostolical epistles, the alterations that are made in the translation be of sufficient importance to justify the author in publishing it, he will now explain the principles on which it is formed, in such a manner as to give a general idea of the number and nature of these alterations. At the same time, to remove such prejudices as may remain in the minds of the serious against altering the common translation, he will mention a few of the many advantages which will be derived from a new translation of the Scriptures, skilfully and faithfully executed.

Sensible that the former translators have been misled by copying those who went before them, the author, to avoid the errors which that method leads to, hath made his translation from the original itself. And that it might be a true image of the original, he hath, in making it, observed the following rules:-1. He hath translated

the Greek text as literally as the genius of the two languages would permit. And because the sense of particular passages sometimes depends on the order of the words in the original, the author, in his translation, hath placed the English words and clauses, where it could be done to advantage, in the order which the corresponding words and clauses hold in the original. By thus strictly adhering to the Greek text, where it could be done consistently with perspicuity, the emphasis of the sacred phraseology is preserved, and the meaning of the inspired penman is better represented, than it can be in a free translation, (See p. 11. note.) To these advantages add, that, in this literal method, the difficult passages being exhibited in their genuine form, the unlearned have thereby an opportunity of exercising their own ingenuity in finding out their meaning; whereas, in a free translation, the words of the inspired writer being concealed, no subject of examination is presented to the unlearned but the translator's sense of the passage, which may be very different from its true meaning.

2. As the Greek language admits an artificial order of the words of a sentence, or period, which the English language does not allow, in translating many passages of the apostolical epistles it is necessary to place the words in their proper connexion, without regarding the order in which they stand in the original. This method the author hath followed in his translations where it was necessary, and thereby hath obtained a better sense of many passages than that given in our English version, where the translators have followed the order of the Greek words, or have construed them improperly.

3. With respect to the Hebraismst found in the Scriptures, it is to be observed, first, That as the Greek language, in its classical purity, did not furnish phrases fit to convey just ideas of spiritual matters, these could only be expressed intelligibly in the language of the ancient reve• The following are examples of the propriety of translating some passages according to a just, though not an obvious construction of the original words:-Matt. xix. 4. That he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female.' In this translation our Lord's argument does not appear. But the original, ¿OINORS ' ex eo x JUST RUTUS, rightly construed, stands thus: oras AUTOUS, REXRS IN REX SA, which, literally translated, gives this meaning, That he who made them, at the beginning made a male and a female.' According to this translation, our Lord's reasoning is clear and conclusive. At the beginning, God made only one male and one female of the human species, to show, that adultery and polygamy are contrary to his in tention in creating man. See Mal. ii. 14, 15.-Matt. xxvii. 66. ó1 ds πορευθέντες ασφαλίσαντο τον τάφον, σφράγισαντες τον λίθον, μετά THE MOUSTWING: 'So they going away, made the sepulchre sure with the watch, having sealed the stone-1 Cor. xvi. 2. Kara iny out. βατων εκαστος ύμων παρ εαυτώ τίθετω θησαυρίζων ό τι αν ευοδώται, construed will stand thus : Κατά μιαν σαββάτων εκστος ύμων τιθετώ τι παρ' ἑαυτῷ (sup. καθ') & ευοδώται αν, θησαυρίζων, On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, accord ing as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come there may be no collections.'-Heb. xi. 3. So that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' Here our translators have followed Beza. But the original, rightly construed, stands thus: E TO TUBASTOMOV, yigoveva ex un gulVONIYEV, 'So that the things which are seen were made of things which did not appear;' that is, were made of nothing. See more examples, p. 4.

† Modern critics contend, that in a translation of the Scriptures the Hebraisms should not be rendered literally, but that words and phrases, expressive of their meaning, should be substituted in their places. This, it must be acknowledged, is a proper method of transfating such Hebraisms as are not understood by the vulgar, if the learned are agreed as to their signification. For example, because it is universally acknowledged, that Rev. ii. 23. I am he who searcheth the reins and the heart,' signifies, 'I am he who searcheth the inward thoughts and dispositions,' the passage may with propriety be so translated. But when the meaning of an Hebraism is disputed, and its literal sense is made the foundation of a controverted doctrine, such as Rom. ix. 18. 'whom he will, he hardeneth;' what the translator supposes to be the meaning of the expression should by no means be substituted in the translation. For candour requires, that in such cases the translator should keep close to the words of the original, if they can be literally translated in an intelli gible manner, and should leave it to theolgoians to settle the meaning of the Hebraism, by fair reasoning from the context, and from other passages relative to the same subject; because, in this method, its meaning will at length be successfully established.

lation, dictated by the Spirit of God. Many, therefore, of these Hebrew forms of expression are retained in this translation, because they run with a peculiar grace in our language, and are more expressive than if they were turned into modern phrase; besides, having long had a place in our Bibles, they are well understood by the people.-Secondly, There are in Scripture some Hebraisms quite remote from the ideas and phraseology of modern nations, which would not be understood if literally translated. Of these, the meaning only is given in this version.

Thirdly, There is a kind of Hebraism, which consists in the promiscuous use of the numbers of the nouns, and of the tenses of the verbs. These the author hath translated in the number and tense which the sense of the passages requires.-Fourthly, The inspired writers being Jews, naturally used the Greek particles in all the latitude of signification proper to the corresponding particles in their own language; for which reason, they are, in this translation, interpreted in the same latitude. Of the two last mentioned kinds of Hebraism, many examples are given in Prel. Ess. IV.

4. In St. Paul's epistles there are many elliptical sentences, which the persons to whom he wrote could easily supply; because they were familiar to them, and because the genders of the Greek words directed those who understood the language, to the particular word or words which are wanting to complete the sense. Wherefore, no translation of St. Paul's epistles, into a language which does not mark the genders by the termination of the words, will be understood by the unlearned, unless the elliptical sentences are completed. In this translation, therefore, the author hath completed the defective passages; and the words which he hath added for that purpose, he hath printed in a different character, that, from the sense of the passages, the reader may judge whether they are rightly supplied.-On this head it is proper to mention, that, by a close attention to St. Paul's style, the author hath discovered that the words wanting to complete his sentences are commonly found, either in the clause which precedes, or which follows the elliptical expression. He hath, therefore, in his translation, for the most part, supplied the words that are wanting from the context itself.§

In translating the apostolical epistles, the author having carefully observed the four rules above mentioned, he hopes his translation hath thereby become, not only more accurate, but more intelligible, than the common version; and that the unlearned, who read the epistles in his translation, will understand them better than by read

Concerning the manner of printing the words that are supplied to complete the sentences, the reader is desired to take notice, that the words supplied by our translators are in this printed in Roman capitals, to show that they belong to the version in common use. But if the words supplied belong to the new translation, they are printed in capitals of the Italic form. Farther, it is to be observed, that all the words and clauses of the new translation which are different from the common English version are printed in Italie characters, that the reader may at once see in what particulars the two translations agree, and in what they differ.

$ Of the author's method of supplying the elliptical sentences in St. Paul's epistles, the following are a few examples, by which the reader may judge of the rest.-Rom. ii. 27. By supplying the words though a Jew, from the beginning of ver. 28, the translation will run thus: Judge thee a transgressor of the law, though a Jew by the literal circumcision. 28. For he is not a Jew who, &c.-Rom. iv. 13. By supplying the word righteousness from the end of the verse, the translation will be, Now not through a righteousness of law, was the promise to Abraham and to his seed.-Rom. v. 16. By supplying the word sentence from the second clause of the verse, the translation of the first clause will be, Also, not as the sentence, through the one who sinned, is the free gift: for verily the sentence, &c.-Rom. vii. 21. O, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25. Ithank God, who delivers me, through Jesus Christ our Lord.-James ii. 13. Judg ment, without mercy, will be to him who showed no mercy: but mercy will exult over judgment. This latter clause is evidently incomplete, and must be supplied from the former, thus: But mercy will exult over judgment, to him who shewed mercy. In completing inconsequent sentences, the sense likewise directs a transla tor. See examples, Rom. v. 12. 2 Pet. ii. 4-6.

ing them in their ordinary Bible. Farther, though he hath often deviated from the beaten road, the diversity of his translation will not be offensive, because, throughout the whole, he hath endeavoured to preserve that beautiful simplicity of style for which the Scriptures are so justly admired, together with those allusions to ancient manners and historical facts, implied in the phraseology by which the age and nation of the authors of these writings are known. In short, by observing the rules mentioned, the author hath endeavoured to make his translation as exact an image of the original as he could; not only because, in that method, it acquires the authority which a translation of writings divinely inspired ought to have, but because, by a faithful exhibition of the Scriptures in their original dress, there arises such a strong internal proof of their antiquity and authenticity, as far overbalances any inconveniences resulting from a few pleonasms, uncouth expressions, and grammatical anomalies, all common in ancient writings, and retained in this translation of the apostolical epistles, for the purpose of shewing the Scriptures in their unadorned simplicity. Yet many modern translators, disregarding that advantage, and aiming at an imaginary elegance of style, have departed from the words and phrases of the original, in such a manner as to convert their translations of particular passages into paraphrases, which exhibit a meaning often different from that of the inspired writers; a fault from which our translators of the Bible are not altogether free. It must be acknowledged, however, that there are some sentences in these invaluable writings which cannot be literally translated; and therefore, to represent their true meaning, recourse must be had to the paraphrastic method. But these are the only passages, in books divinely inspired, which should be paraphrased in the translation.

Among the free translators of the Scripture, Sebastian Castalio, some time professor of the Greek language at Basil, is the most eminent. But whatever praise he may deserve for the general propriety and conciseness of his translation of the New Testament, and for the purity of his Latin, it is certain that, by aiming at a classical and polished style, he hath often lost sight of the original, and hath given what he imagined to be its meaning, in words not at all corresponding to the Greek text; so that his translation of a number of passages hath little relation to the original, consequently is often erroneous.* Wherefore, neither his nor Erasmus's, nor any other free translation of the Scriptures, can be relied on; because if a material word in the original is omitted in the translation, or if a word not in the original is added, without marking it as added, or if words not corresponding to the original are used,† much more if a whole sentence,

* Of Castalio's free translation of the Scriptures, wherein he hath misrepresented their meaning, all those passages are examples, in which he hath translated the word yy by genit, and the word 6 by lavo, and Exμx by lotio, and s××××σiz by respublica, and vaya by collegia, and 905 Heb. i. 8. applied to the Son, by Divus, and gт, Rom. xii. 6. by divinatio, and dwa by deastros. Other examples of more importance are, Luke vii. 35. K εδικαιώθη ή σοφία από των τέκνον αυτής ; Μία suis omnibus aliena est sapientia.Rom. i. 17. Δικαίωσυνη γαρ θεού εν αυτή αποκαλυπ τεται εκ πίστεως εις πίστιν. Nam per it divina justitia exeritur per petuandia fide. Rom. vii. 5. Τα παθήματα των άμαρτιών, τα διά του ops: Peccatorum perturbationes a lege orientes.-Rom. xiv. 1. Tov δε ασθενούντα τη πίστει προσλαμβανίσθε, μη εις διακρίσεις διαλογι v: Si quis autem imbecilla fide est, huic, nulla cum animi, dubi tations, opitulemini.-2 Cor. i. 24. Ouz óт XURINOMIY UMUY THE WI στους άλλα συνεργοί εσμεν της χαρας ύμων : Non quod vobis fidu ciam deroge mus, sed consulimus vestro gaudio.-2 Cor. vi. 12. Ou στενοχωρείσθε εν ήμιν, στενοχωρείσθε δε εν τοις σπλαχνοις ύμων: Si vos estis angusti, non erga nos estis angusti, sed erga hominem cui estis intimi.-1 Thess. i. I. Kai λngwon Tuσav sudо××××30συνής, και έργον πιστεως εν δυνάμει : Perficiatque ut bonitatem, et fidei opus, et libentissime, et fortiter persequamini, atque absolva. tis. Acts v. 12. - Δια δε των χείρων των αποστόλων, εγένετο σημεία, **I TIGHTA, OV TN Aαx Oz: Apostolorum autem operâ, multa vulgo monstrosè, prodigioseque fiebant. This strange translation conveys a most improper idea of the apostle's miracles.

The following is an example from Erasmus's version, where the meaning of a passage is perverted by translating a single word free

or even a part of a sentence is paraphrased, the meaning of the text very probably will be altered, if not entirely lost; consequently the version, in these passages, can have no authority.

It is time now to inform the reader, that this translation of the apostolical epistles differs not a little from the former versions, because therein meanings are affixed to a number of Greek words and phrases diverse from those given to them in the same passages by other translators. Yet the translation of these passages is not the less literal on that account. Persons conversant in the language know, that many Greek words have more meanings than one, all of them equally literal, though not equally common; and that the skill of a translator is shown in his choosing from among these different literal significations, the one that best suits the scope of the passage where it is found. And if he chooses judiciously, his translation will be more truly literal than those in which the more ordinary significations of the Greek words have been adopted, if these significations do not accord so well with the writer's design. The truth of this remark will appear, especially in those passages of the new translation, where the Greek particles have meanings affixed to them different from those given them in other versions, but agreeably to their acknowledged use elsewhere in Scripture. For, however much it hath been overlooked hitherto, it is certain that, in a version of St. Paul's epistles, the connexion and propriety of his reasonings will either appear, or be lost, according to the manner in which the particles, which connect the different parts of his discourse, are translated.— The author, therefore, to lay a firm foundation for the just translation of the Scriptures, hath been at great pains, in Prelim. Ess. IV. to establish the uncommon significations which, in some passages, he hath affixed to the Greek words and phrases, by examples brought from the Scriptures themselves, or from approved Greek writers. In the same essay he hath offered some grammatical remarks, by which the peculiarities of style observable in the writings of the Jews are illustrated. But what hath been one of the chief objects of his attention in that essay was, by examples taken from the Scriptures themselves, to explain the meaning and powers of the Greek particles, as used by the sacred writers. Some of these examples, at first sight, may perhaps appear inconclusive; because the word, for the sake of which the example is produced, may, in that passage, be taken in its ordinary acceptation. Yet the other examples, in which it can have no meaning but that which the author hath given it, and which is acknowledged by ly; Rom. ii. 19. Adoxaros IY: Doctorem imperitorum. A teacher of the unskilful. This translation of the clause Erasmus gave, on the pretence that no one teaches babes. But he had forgotten that the Jews gave to the Gentiles that appellation, with the others mentioned by the apostle, to shew their contempt of them; and did not know, I suppose, that the apostle, by introducing these contemptuous names in this passage, intended to paint the intole rable arrogance of the Jews in a lively manner. This example shows, that every translation of the Scriptures ought to be as literal as possible: because those who afterwards study them with care, inay find proprieties in the original expressions, altogether overlooked by the free translator.

Of the influence which the right translation of the Greek particles hath to render the apostle's reasonings clear and conclusive, take Tag for an example. This particle sometimes signifies for, sometimes wherefore. Now, if it is translated in the former sense, where it hath the latter, the scheme of the apostle's discourse will be reversed; because that will be a reason, which was meant as an inference. (Compare the common English version of Rom. iv. 2, 3. Heb. vi 1. 11. 18. with the new translation of these passages.) In like manner, the other Greek particles having different significations, if, in a translation of the epistles the same sense is uniformly given to the same particle, or if one of its senses is substituted for another, it will render the translation erroneous. Of this, Rom. viii. 4. That the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled (v) in us,' is a remarkable example. For this translation represents men as absolutely passive in fulfilling the righteousness of the law. Whereas the true literal translation is, That the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled (v) by us, who walk not according to the flesh.' Many other examples might be given. but these may suffice,