trina potissimum hic agi liquet." When the subject is again resumed in explaining the latter part of the sentence, every thing which relates to life and practice is excluded from a share in what is said; for, after this gradual preparation of his readers, they are plainly told," de solis doctoribus hic agit." Now everybody knows that Beza meant, by orthodoxy or sound doctrine, an exact conformity to the Genevese standard. The import of our Lord's declaration, then, according to this bold expositor, amounts to no more than this, "If ye be not completely orthodox, ye shall not be teachers in the church." In this way of expounding Scripture, what purposes may it not be made to serve? For my part, I have seen nothing in any commentator or casuist, which bears a stronger resemblance to that mode of subverting, under pretence of explaining the divine law, which was adopted by the Scribes, and so severely reprehended by our Lord. In the passage taken from John's Epistle, I do not find that Beza has had any imitators. In the version of the like phrase in the Gospel, he has been followed by the Geneva French, which says, "Vous qui faites le mêtier d'iniquité."

13. I might collect many more passages, but I suppose that those which have been given will sufficiently verify what has been advanced concerning this translator's partiality. Any one who critically examines his translation, will see how much he strains in every page, especially in Paul's Epistles, to find a place for the favorite terms and phrases of his party. A French projector, Monsieur Le Cene, (whose project for a new translation was, in what regards one article, considered already), seems, though of a party in many things opposite to Beza's, to have entertained certain loose notions of translating, which in general coincide with his; but, by reason of their different parties, would have produced in the application contrary effects. As a contrast to Beza's corrections of the unguarded style (as he certainly thought it) of the sacred penmen, I shall give a few of Le Cene's corrections, which he proposed with the same pious purpose of securing the unlearned reader against seduction.* The words of the apostle, Rom. 4: 5, rendered by Be"Qui credit in eum qui justificat impium," Le Cene thus translates into French, Qui croit en celui qui justifie CElui qui avoit ETE un impie." The expression rendered by Beza, "Quem autem vult indurat," ch. 9: 18, Le Cene thinks ought to be corrected; and though he does not in so many words say how, it is plain, from the tenor of his remark, that he would have it, permittit ut seipsum induret. He adds, "It behoveth also to reform (I use his own style, 'Il faudroit aussi reformer') what the Vulgate and Genevese versions (he might have added, Moses and Paul) represent God as saying to Pharaoh, Rom. 9: 17. Exod. 9: 16, In hoc ipsum exci

za,

66

*Proj. etc. ch. xiv.

tavi te, ut ostendam in te virtutem meam;"" but does not mention the reformation necessary.

I cannot help observing here by the way, that though Castalio was, in regard to the subject of the chapter from which some of the foregoing quotations are taken, of sentiment, as appears from his notes, opposite to Beza's and coincident with Le Cene's, he has translated the whole with the utmost fairness. Nor has he employed any of those glossing arts recommended by Le Cene, and so much practised by Beza, when encountering a passage that appeared favorable to an adversary. Merely from his translation we should not discover, that his opinions of the divine decrees, and the freedom of human actions, differed from Beza's. If both interpreters, however, have sometimes failed in their representations of the sacred authors, the difference between them lies in this: The liberties which Castalio has taken are almost solely in what regards their style and manner; the freedoms used by Beza affect their sentiments and doctrine.

But to return to Le Cene, of whom I shall give but one other specimen; the words rendered by Beza, John 12: 39, 40, “Quia iterum dixit Esaias, Excæcavit oculos eorum, et obduravit cor eorum; ne videant oculis, et sint intelligentes corde, et sese convertant et sanem eos ;" he proposes in this manner to express in French, "Ce qui avoit fait dire à Isaie, Ils ont aveuglés leurs yeux et endurci leur cœur, pour ne pas voir de leurs yeux, et pour n'entendre point du cœur, et de peur de se convertir, et d'être gueris." "They have blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart," etc. instead of, "He hath blinded," etc. Surely, the difference between these interpretations regards more the sense than the expression. In the latter instances, we have the Arminian using the same weapons against the Calvinist, which, in the former, we saw the Calvinist employ against the Arminian; a conduct alike unjustifiable in both.

14. These examples may suffice to show, that if translators shall think themselves entitled, with Beza and Le Cene, and the anonymous English translator above quoted, to use such liberties with the original in order to make it speak their own sentiments, or the sentiments of the party to which they have attached themselves, we shall soon have as many Bibles as we have sects, each adapted to support a different system of doctrine and morality; a Calvinistic Bible and an Arminian, an Antinomian Bible, a Pelagian, and I know not how many more. Hitherto, notwithstanding our dis

putes, we have recurred to a common standard; and this circumstance, however lightly it may be thought of, has not been without its utility, especially in countries where the Christian principle of toleration is understood and practised. It has abated the violence of all sides, inspiring men with candor and moderation in judging of one another, and of the importance of the tenets which discriminate

them. The reverse would take place if every faction had a standard of its own, so prepared as to be clearly decisive in supporting all its favorite dogmas, and in condemning those of every other faction. It may be said, that the original would still be a sort of common standard, whose authority would be acknowledged by them all. It no doubt would; but when we consider how small a proportion of the people, of any party, are qualified to read the original, and how much it would be the business of the leading partisans, in every sect, to preoccupy the minds of the people in regard to the fidelity of their own version, and the partiality of every other; we cannot imagine that the possession of a standard, to which hardly one in a thousand could have recourse, would have a sensible effect upon the party. Of so much consequence it is in a translator to banish all party considerations; to forget as far as possible that he is connected with any party; and to be ever on his guard, lest the spirit of the sect absorb the spirit of the Christian, and he appear to be more the follower of some human teacher, Calvin, an Arminius, a Socinus, a Pelagius, an Arius, or an Athanasius, than of our only divine and rightful teacher, Christ.

15. Some allowance is no doubt to be made for the influence of polemic theology, the epidemic disease of those times wherein most of the versions which I have been examining were composed.. The imaginations of men were heated, and their spirits imbittered. with continual wranglings, not easily avoidable in their circumstances ;. and those who were daily accustomed to strain every expression of the sacred writers in their debates one with another, were surely not the fittest for examining them with that temper and coolness which. are necessary in persons who would approve themselves unbiassed translators. Besides, criticism, especially sacred criticism, was then but in its infancy. Many improvements, through the united labors of the learned in different parts of Europe, have since accrued to that science. Much of our scholastic controversy on abstruse and undeterminable questions, well characterized by the apostle, 1 Tim. 6: 3, etc. "strifes of words, which minister not to godly edifying," are now happily laid aside. It may be hoped, that some of the blunders into which the rage of disputation has formerly betrayed interpreters, may with proper care be avoided; and that the dotage about questions which gender contention, (questions than which nothing can be more hollow or unsound),* being over, some will dare to speak, and others bear to hear, the things which become sound doctrine, the doctrine according to godliness.

See an excellent sermon on this subject, by my learned colleague, Dr. Gerard, vol. ii. p. 129.

DISSERTATION XI.

OF THE REGARD WHICH, IN TRANSLATING SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, IS DUE TO THE PRACTICE OF FORMER TRANSLATORS, PARTICULARLY OF THE AUTHORS OF THE LATIN VULGATE, AND OF THE COMMON ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

PART I.

THE REGARD DUE TO THE VULGATE.

IN the former Dissertation* I took occasion to consider what are the chief things to be attended to by every translator, but more especially a translator of holy writ. They appeared to be the three following: first, to give a just and clear representation of the sense of his original; secondly, to convey into his version as much of his author's spirit and manner as the genius of the language which he writes will admit; thirdly, as far as may be, in a consistency with the two other ends, to express himself with purity in the language of the version. If these be the principal objects, as in my opinion they are, they will supply us with a good rule for determining the precise degree of regard which is due to former translators of reputation, whose works may have had influence sufficient to give a currency to the terms and phrases they have adopted. When the terms and phrases employed by former interpreters are well adapted for conveying the sense of the author, when they are also suited to his manner, and do no violence to the idiom of the language of the translation, they are justly preferred to other words equally expressive and proper, but which, not having been used by former interpreters of name, are not current in that application. This, in my opinion, is the furthest we can go, without making greater account of translations than of the original, and showing more respect to the word and idioms of fallible men, than to the instructions given by the unerring Spirit of God.

2. If, in respect of any of the three ends above-mentioned, former translators, on the most impartial examination, appear to have failed, shall we either copy or imitate their errors? When the question is thus put in plain terms, I do not know any critic that is hardy

* Diss. X. Part i.

enough to answer in the affirmative. But we no sooner descend to particulars, than we find that those very persons who gave us reason to believe that they agree with us in the general principles, so totally differ in the application, as to show themselves disposed to sacrifice all those primary objects in translating, to the phraseology of a favorite translator. Even Father Simon could admit that "it would be wrong to imitate the faults of Saint Jerom, and to pay greater deference to his authority than to the truth."* How far the verdicts he has pronounced on particular passages, in the several versions criticised by him, are consistent with this judgment, shall be shown in the sequel.

3. But before I proceed further, it may not be amiss to make some remarks on what appears to have been Simon's great scope and design in the Critical History; for, in the examination of certain points strenuously maintained by him, I shall chiefly be employed in this Dissertation. His opinions in what regards biblical criticism have long had great influence on the judgment of the learned, both Popish and Protestant. His profound erudition in oriental matters, joined with uncommon penetration, and I may add, strong appearances of moderation, have procured him on this subject a kind of superiority, which is hardly disputed by any. Indeed, if I had not read the answers made to those who attacked his work, which are subjoined to his Critical History, and commonly, if I mistake not, thought to be his, though bearing different names, should not have spoken so dubiously of his title to the virtue of moderation. But throughout these tracts, I acknowledge, there reigns much of the illiberal spirit of the controvertist. None of the little arts, however foreign to the subject in debate, by which contempt and odium are thrown upon an adversary, are omitted. we may say with truth, that by assuming too high an ascendant over Le Clerc and his other antagonists, he has degraded himself below them, further, I believe, than by any other method he could have so easily effected.

I

And

4. In regard to Simon's principal work, which I have so often had occasion to mention, The Critical History of the Old and New Testaments, its merit is so well known and established in the learned world, as to render it superfluous now to attempt its character. I shall only animadvert a little on what appear to me, after repeated perusals, to be the chief objects of the author, and on his manner of pursuing these objects. It will scarcely admit a doubt, that his primary scope, throughout the whole performance, is to represent Scripture as in every thing of moment either unin

* En effet, il [Paguin] auroit eu tort d'imiter les fautes de St Jerôme, et de deferer plus à l'autorité de ce père, qu'à la verié.-Hist. Crit. du Vieux Testament, liv. ii. ch. 20.