own way and in its native idiom? It would have been easy to mutilate all, or most of the Greek works, forming them in the same manner as evangelizatus and scandalizatus are formed, and so to turn the whole into a gibberish that would have been neither Greek nor Latin, though it might have had something of the articulation of the one language, and of the structure of the other. But it is an abuse of speech to call a jargon of words, wherein we have nothing but a resemblance in sound without sense, the eloquence of the Holy Spirit, or the idiom of the Scriptures. It is sometimes made the pretence for retaining the original word that it has different significations, and therefore an interpreter, by preferring one of these, is in danger of hurting the sense. Thus, the Rhemish translators, who render ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, John 14: 16: " He will give you another paraclete," subjoin this note: "Paraclete by interpretation, is either a comforter or an advocate; and therefore, to translate it by any one of them, only is perhaps to abridge the sense of this place;" to which Fulke, who publishes their New Testament along with the then common version, answers very pertinently, in the note immediately following: "If you will not translate any words that have diverse significations, you must leave five hundred more untranslated than you have done." But there is not even this poor pretence for all the consecrated barbarisms. The verb svayyeλišoμaι never occurs in the Gospels in any sense but one, a sense easily expressed in the language of every people. Eccle 27. It may be replied, "If you will not admit with Beza, that this mode of writing is the eloquence of the Spirit, or with Bois, that it is the idiom of Scripture, you must, at least allow, with Melancthon, that it is the language and style of the church: "Nos loquamur cum ecclesia. Ne pudeat nos materni sermonis. sia est mater nostra. Sic autem loquitur ecclesia." This comes indeed nearer the point in hand. The language of the Latin church is, in many things, founded in the style introduced by the ancient. interpreters. But it ought to be remembered, that even the Latin church herself does not present those interpreters to us as infallible, or affirm that their language is irreprehensible. And if she herself has been anyhow induced to adopt a style that is not well calculated for conveying the mind of the Lord, nay, which in many things darkens, and in some misrepresents it, shall we make less account of communicating clearly the truths revealed by the Spirit, than of perpetuating a phraseology which contributes to the advancement of ignorance, and of an implicit deference, in spiritual matters, to human authority? On the contrary, if the church has in process of time, contracted somewhat of a Babylonish dialect, and thereby lost a great deal of her primitive simplicity, purity, and plainness of manner, her language cannot be too soon cleared of the unnatural mixture, and we cannot too soon restore her native idiom. To act thus is so far from being imputable to the love of novelty, that it results from that veneration of antiquity which leads men to ask for the old paths, and makes the votaries of the true religion desirous to return to the undisguised sentiments, manner, and style of holy writ, which are evidently more ancient than the oldest of those canonized corruptions. This is not to relinquish, it is to return to the true idiom of Scripture. With as little propriety is such a truly primitive manner charged with the want of simplicity. A technical or learned style is of all styles the least entitled to be called simple; for it is the least fitted for conveying instruction to the simple, to babes in knowledge, the character by which those to whom the gospel was first published were particularly distinguished; Matt. 11:25. Luke 10: 21. Whereas the tendency of a scholastic phraseology is, on the contrary, to hide divine things from babes and simple persons, and to reveal them only to sages and scholars. Never, therefore, was controvertist more unlucky in his choice of arguments than our opponents on this article are, in urging the plea of simplicity, and that of Scripture idiom, topics manifestly subversive of their cause. 28. The impropriety of changing, on any pretext, the consecrated terms, and the impropriety of giving to the people, within the pale of the Roman church, any translation of Scripture into their mother-tongue unless from the Vulgate, are topics to which Father Simon frequently recurs. And it must be acknowledged, that, on his hypothesis, which puts the authority of tradition on the same foot with that of Scripture, and makes the church the depository and interpreter of both, there appears a suitableness in his doctrine. He admits, however, that the translation she has adopted is not entirely exempted from errors, though free from such as affect the articles of faith, or rules of practice. This propriety of translating only from the Vulgate he maintains from this single consideration,its being that which is read for Scripture daily in their churches. Now this argument is of no weight with Protestants, and appears not to be entitled to much weight even with Roman Catholics. If there be no impropriety in their being supplied with an exact version of what is read in their churches, neither is there any impropriety in their being supplied with an exact version of what was written by the inspired penmen for the instruction of the first Christians. This appears as reasonable and as laudable an object of curiosity even to Romanists as the other. Nay, I should think this, even on Simon's own principles, defensible. The sacred penmen were infallible; so was not the ancient interpreter. He will reply, "But ye have not the very handwritings of the apostles and evangelists. There are different readings in different Greek copies. Ye are not, therefore, absolutely certain of the conformity of your Greek in every thing, any more than we are of our Latin, to those original writings." This we admit, but still insist that there is a difference. The Latin has been equally exposed with the Greek to the blunders of transcribers. And as in some things different Greek copies read differently, we receive that version, with other ancient translations, to assist us, in doubtful cases, to discover the true reading. But the Vulgate, with every other version, labors under this additional disadvantage, that, along with the errors arising from the blunders of copiers, it has those also arising from the mistakes of the interpreter. 29. But in fact the secret reason, both for preserving the consecrated terms and for translating only from the Vulgate, is no other than to avoid, as much as possible, whatever might suggest to the people that the Spirit says one thing and the church another. It is not according to the true principles of ecclesiastical policy, that such differences should be exposed to the vulgar. This the true sons of the church have discovered long ago. "Gardiner," says bishop Burnet,* "had a singular conceit. He fancied there were many words in the New Testament of such majesty that they were not to be translated, but must stand in the English Bible as they were in the Latin. A hundred of these he put into a writing which was read in Convocation. His design in this was visible, that if a translation must be made, it should be so daubed all through with Latin words that the people should not understand it much the better for its being in English. A taste of this the reader may have by the first twenty of them: Ecclesia, pœnitentia, pontifex, ancilla, contritus, holocausta, justitia, justificatio, idiota, elementa, baptizare, martyr, adorare, sandalium, simplex, tetrarcha, sacramentum, simulacrum, gloria.' The design he had of keeping some of these, particularly the last save one, is plain enough, that the people might not discover that visible opposition which was between the Scriptures and the Roman church in the matter of images. This could not be better palliated than by disguising these places with words that the people understood not." Thus far the bishop. 30. It would not be easy to conjecture why Gardiner, that zealous opposer of the Reformation, selected some of the words abovementioned as proper to be retained, unless by their number and frequent recurrence to give an uncouth and exotic appearance to the whole translation. In regard to others of them as the bishop justly remarks, the reason is obvious. And it is to be regretted, that that historian has not inserted in his valuable work the whole catalogue. Nothing could serve better to expose the latent but genuine purpose of the consecrated terms. Not that any judicious person can be at a loss to discover it; but the more numerous the examples * History of the Reformation in England, Book iii, year 1542. are, the evidence is the stronger. The meaning of common words is learnt solely from common usage, but the import of canonized words can be got only from canonical usage. We all know what an image is, it being a word in familiar use; we therefore find no difficulty in discovering what we are forbidden to worship, by the command which forbids the worship of images. Whereas, had the word simulacrum, quite unused before, been substituted for image, it would have doubtless acquired a currency on theological subjects; but, being confined to these, would have been no better than a technical term in theology, for the meaning of which recourse must be had to men of the profession. Nor would it have required of the casuist any metaphysical acuteness in distinguishing, to satisfy those whom he taught to worship images, that they were in no danger of adoring a simulacrum. 31. To prevent mistakes, it may not be improper to observe, that the word simulacrum in the Vulgate itself is no more a term of art than similitudo or imago are; for they are all words in familiar use in Latin; but simulacrum is not in familiar use in English, though similitude and image are, which are both formed from Latin words of the same signification. It is not, therefore, their affinity, or even identity in respect of sound, but their difference in respect of use, which stamps nearly related words, or what we call convertible terms, with these different characters in different languages. Thus εὐαγγελίζω and σκανδαλίζω are common, not technical terms, in the Greek New Testament; but evangelizo and scandalizo in the Vulgate are the reverse, technical, not common. Now it is for this reason, I say, that to adopt without necessity such terms in a language to which they do not belong, and in which consequently they are unknown, or known merely as professional terms, is to form a style the very reverse of what I should call the eloquence of the Holy Spirit, and the proper idiom of the Scriptures. For a greater contrast to the plain and familiar idiom of Scripture, and the eloquence of the Spirit, addressed entirely to the people, than a style that is justly denominated dark, learned, and technical, it is impos sible to conceive. Let it be observed, therefore, that it is the use, not the etymology, to which in translating we ought to have respect, either in adopting or rejecting an expression. A word is neither the better nor the worse for its being of Greek or Latin origin. But our first care ought to be, that it convey the same meaning with the original term; the second, that it convey it as nearly as possible in the same manner, that is, with the same plainness, simplicity, and perspicuity. If this can be done with equal advantage by terms which have obtained the sanction of ecclesiastic use, such terms ought to be preferred. For this reason I prefer just to virtuous, redeemer to ransomer, saviour to deliverer. But if the same meaning be not con veyed by them, or not conveyed in the same manner, they ought to be rejected; otherwise the real dictates of the Spirit, and the unadulterated idiom of Scripture, are sacrificed to the shadowy resemblance, in sound and etymology, of technical words and scholastic phrases. 32. Such, upon the whole, are my sentiments of the regard which, in translating holy writ into modern languages, is due to the practice of former translators, especially of the authors of the Latin Vulgate. And such, in particular, is my notion of those words which by some critics are called consecrated, and which in general, in respect of the sense, will not be found the most eligible; nay, by the use of which there is greater hazard of deserting that plainness, and that simplicity, which are the best characteristics of the Scripture style, than by any other means I know. PART II. THE REGARD DUE TO THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. HAVING been so particular in the discussion of the first part of this inquiry, namely, the regard which, in translating the Scriptures, is due to the manner wherein the words and phrases have been rendered by the authors of the Vulgate, it will not be necessary to enter so minutely into the second part, concerning the regard which an English translator owes to the expressions adopted in the common translation. The reasons for adopting or for rejecting many of them are so nearly the same in both cases, that to avoid prolixity by unnecessary repetitions, I shall confine myself to a few observations, to which the special circumstances affecting the common. English version naturally give rise. 2. That translation, we all know, was made at the time when the study of the original languages, which had been long neglected, was just revived in Europe. To this, the invention of printing first, and the Reformation soon afterwards, had greatly contributed. As it grew to be a received doctrine among Protestants, that the word of God contained in the Scriptures is the sole infallible rule which he has given us of faith and manners, the ineffable importance of the study of Scripture was perceived more and more every day. New translations were made, first into Latin the common language of the learned, and afterwards into most European tongues. The study of languages naturally introduces the study of criticism; I mean that branch of criticism which has language for its object, and which is, in effect, no other than the utmost improvement of the grammatical art. But this, it must be acknowledged, was not then arrived |