judged it better to retain it than to shock many readers by the dismission of what they have been accustomed to read in their Bible. At the same time, to distinguish such clauses, as of doubtful authority, I inclose them in crotchets. Of this the doxology, as it is called, in the Lord's prayer, is an example. In other cases, I have not scrupled to omit what did not appear sufficiently supported.

PART III.

THE DIALECT EMPLOYED.

As to what concerns the language of this version, I have not much to add to the explanations I have given of my sentiments on this article in the latter part of the preceding Dissertation, and the first part of the present. When the common translation was made, and (which is still earlier) when the English liturgy was composed, the reigning dialect was not entirely the same with that which prevails at present. Now, as the dialect which then obtained does very rarely, even to the readers of this age, either injure the sense or affect the perspicuity, I have judged it proper in a great measure to retain it. The differences are neither great nor numerous. The third person singular of the present of the verb terminates in the syllable eth in the old dialect, not the letter s, as in that now current. The participles are very rarely contracted; nor is there ever any elision of the vowels. Indeed, these elisions, though not entirely laid aside, or becoming much less frequent now than they were about the beginning of the last century. The difference is in itself inconsiderable; yet, as all ranks and denominations of Christians are, from the use of either the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer, or both, habituated to this dialect; and as it has contracted a dignity favorable to seriousness from its appropriation to sacred purposes; it is, I think, in a version of any part of holy writ, entitled to be preferred to the modern dialect.

2. The gayer part of mankind will doubtless think that there is more vivacity in our common speech, as, by retrenching a few unnecessary vowels, the expression is shortened, and the sentiment conveyed with greater quickness. But vivacity is not the character of the language of the sacred penmen. Gravity here, or even solemnity, if not carried to excess, is much more suitable. “I bid this man," says the centurion in the anonymous translation, "Go, and he's gone; another, Come, and he's here; and to my servant, Do this, and it is done," Matt. 8: 9. And in the parallel place in Luke, ch. 7: 6, "Lord, don't give yourself the trouble of coming; I don't deserve you should honor my house with your presence."

There are, I believe, not a few, who would prefer this manner to that of the common version, as being much smarter as well as more genteel. Surely, if that interpreter had given the smallest attention to uniformity, he would never have rendered ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, as he sometimes does, by the antiquated phrase, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." It would have been but of a piece with many passages of his version, to employ the more modish and more gentlemanlike asseveration, "Upon my honor." With those who can relish things sacred in this dress, or rather disguise, I should think it in vain to dispute.

3. Another criterion of that solemn dialect is the recourse, when an individual is addressed, to the singular number of the second personal pronoun thou and thee, and consequently to the second person singular of the verb; which, being in common language supplied by the plural, is in a manner obsolete. This also is, from scriptural use, and the constant use of it in worship in the British dominions, both by those of the establishment and by dissenters, universally intelligible, and now considered as the proper dialect of religion. Immediately after the Reformation, the like mode in using the pronoun was adopted by all Protestant translators into French, Italian, and German, as well as into English. But as, in Roman Catholic countries, those translations were of no authority, and as the Scriptures are read in their churches, and their devotions and ceremonies performed, in a language not understood by the people, the customs of dissenters, as all Protestants are in those countries, could not introduce into the language of religion so great a singularity of idiom. And as there was nothing to recommend this manner to the people, whilst there were several things to prejudice them against it, we do not find that it has been employed by any late Popish translators into French.

What tended to prejudice them against it is, first, the general disuse of it in the ordinary intercourse of men; and secondly, the consideration, that the few exceptions from this disuse in common life, instead of showing respect or reverence, suggest always either pity or contempt; no person being ever addressed in this way but one greatly inferior, or a child. This being the case, and they not having, like us, a solemn to counterbalance the familiar use, the practice of Protestants would rather increase than diminish their dislike of it. For these reasons, the use of the singular pronoun in adoration, has the same effect nearly on them which the contrary use of the plural has on us. To a French Catholic, Tu es notre Dieu, et nous te benirons, and to an English Protestant, You are our God, and we will bless you, equally betray an indecent familiarity.* By

The way in which Saci, who appears to have been a pious worthy man, translates from the Vulgate the Lord's prayer, rendered literally from

reason of this difference in the prevailing usages, it must be acknowledged that French Romanists have a plausible pretext for using the plural. We have however a real advantage in our manner, especially in worship. Theirs, it is true, in consequence of the prevalent use, has nothing in it disrespectful or indecent; but this is merely a negative commendation: ours, on account of the peculiarity of its appropriation in religious subjects, is eminently serious and affecting. It has, besides, more precision. In worship it is a more explicit declaration of the unity of the Godhead; and, even when in holy writ addressed to a creature, it serves to remove at least one ambiguous circumstance consequent on modern use, which does not rightly distinguish what is said to one from what is said to many. And though the scope of the place often shows the distinction, it does not always.

4. A few other particulars of the ancient dialect I have also retained, especially in those instances wherein, without hurting perspicuity, they appeared to give greater precision; but those, on the contrary, which might in some instances darken the expression, or render it equivocal, I have rejected altogether. For I consider no quality of elocution as more essential than perspicuity, and nothing more conducive to this, than as much uniformity and precision in the application of words as the language will admit. For this reason, though I have retained whether for which of two, whoso for whoever, and a few others little used at present; I have not employed which, as in the old dialect, for who or whom, his or her for its, that for that which, or what: for these, though they do not often occasion ambiguity, sometimes occasion it; and there is no way of preventing doubt in every case, but by observing uniformity, when practicable, in all cases. In such an expression, for example, as that of the apostle Peter, 1 Ep. 1: 23, "Being born again by the

French into English, is a striking example of the difference of manner: "Our Father who are in heaven, let your name be sanctified, let your reign arrive, let your will be done," etc. Yet the earlier Popish translators chose to use the singular number as well as the Reformed. It had been the universal practice of the ancients, Greeks, Romaus, and Orientals. It was used in the English translation of Rheims, though composed by Papists in opposition to the Protestant version then commonly received. In the later versions of French Protestants, this use of the singular number of the second person is given up entirely, except in addresses to God; the formularies read in their meetings having, in this particular, established among them a different usage. Beausobre and Lenfant [see Preface Generale sur le Nouveau Testament] strenuously maintain the propriety of their not using the singular of the second personal pronoun except in worship. I admit their arguments to be conclusive with respect to French; but for the reasons above-mentioned, they are inconclusive applied to English. Yet in this some English translators have followed the French manner, but not uniformly.

word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever;" if the relative which were applied indiscriminately to persons or to things, it might be questioned, whether what is affirmed be affirmed of the word of God, or of God himself. But if, according to present use, it be confined to things, there is no question at all.

5. Another point, in which the scriptural differs from the modern dialect is in the manner sometimes used in expressing the future. In all predictions, prophecies, or authoritative declarations, the auxiliary shall is used, where, in common language, it would now be will. This method, as adding weight to what is said, I always adopt, unless when it is liable to be equivocally interpreted, and seems to represent moral agents as acting through necessity, or by compulsion. In the graver sorts of poetry, the same use is made of the auxiliary shall. As to the prepositions, I observed in the preceding Dissertation, (Part ii), that the present use gives them more precision, and so occasions fewer ambiguities, than the use that prevailed formerly: I have therefore given it the preference. There is one case, however, wherein I always observe the old method. Called of God, chosen of God, and other the like phrases, are, for an obvious reason, more agreeable to Christian ears, than if we were to prefix to the name of God the preposition by. The pronouns mine and thine, I have also sometimes, after the ancient manner, in order to avoid a disagreeable hiatus, substituted for my and thy.

6. To the foregoing remarks on the subject of dialect, I shall subjoin a few things on the manner of rendering proper names. Upon the revival of letters in the West, Pagnin first, and after him some other translators, through an affectation of accuracy in things of no moment, so justly censured by Jerom, seem to have considered it as a vast improvement to convey, as nearly as possible, in the letters of another language, the very sounds of the Hebrew and Syriac names which occur in Scripture. Hence the names of some of the most eminent personages in the Old Testament were, by this new dialect, so much metamorphosed, that those who were accustomed to the ancient translation could not, at first hearing, recognize the persons with whose history they had been long acquainted. The Heva of the Vulgate was transformed into Chauva, the Isaia into Jesahiahu, the Jeremia into Irmeiahu, the Ezechiel into Jechezechel, and similar changes were made on many others. In this Pagnin soon had, if not followers, at least imitators. The trifling innovations made by him after his manner, have served, as an example to others to innovate also after theirs. Junius and Tremellius, though they say with Pagnin Chauva, do not adopt his Jesahiahu, Irmeiahu, and Jechezechel; but they give us what is no better of their own, Jischahjah, Jirmeja, and Jechezkel. Munster's deviations are less considerable, and Castalio went no further (except in transforming

the name of God into Javo) than to give a Latin termination to the names formerly used, that he might thereby render them declinable.

7. A deviation purely of this last kind, as it served to prevent ambiguities otherwise inevitable in the Latin, where there was no ambiguity in the original, did, in my opinion, admit a good apology: For what was expressed in Hebrew by the aid of the status constructus, as their grammarians call it, or by prepositions, was expressed with equal clearness in Latin by means of declension; whereas, by making the names indeclinable in this language, that advantage had been lost in regard to many names; and ambiguities, of which there was not a trace in the original, introduced into the translation. The declension of proper names was not, however, equally essential to perspicuity in Greek as in Latin. Their want of cases the Greeks could supply by the cases of the article, which the idiom of their tongue permitted them to prefix. But the Latins had no article. It was, therefore, very injudicious in the first Latin translators to imitate the Seventy in this particular; the more so, as it had been the common practice of Latin authors to decline the foreign names they adopted, in order the more effectually to fit them for use in their tongue. Thus they said, Hannibal, Hannibalis, Juba Juba, and Hanno Hannonis. The inconveniences of the other manner appear from many equivocal passages in the Vulgate, which, without some previous knowledge of the subject, it would be difficult to understand.* Castalio, in like manner, introduced into his version patronymics formed on the Grecian model, as Jacobida and Davidides, in which, as he has not been followed, we may conclude that he is generally condemned; and, in my opinion, not undeservedly, because the departure from the Hebrew idiom, in this instance, is both unnecessary and affected.

8. But, though it be excusable to alter the names in common use, so far as to make them admit inflections in languages which use inflections, since this alteration answers a necessary purpose; to alter them for the sake of bringing them nearer the ancient orthography, or for the sake of assisting us to produce a sound in pronouncing them that may resemble the sound of the ancient names, is no better than arrant pedantry. The use of proper names is, as

* Several instances occur in the prophetical benediction which Moses gave to the twelve tribes, immediately before his death, Deut. XXXIII. In verse 4, "Legem præcepit nobis Moyses, hæreditatem multitudinis Jacob." To one unacquainted with Scripture, it would not be obvious that Moyses here is in the nominative, and Jacob in the genitive. Hardly could it be suspected, that in the following verses, 8, "Levi quoque ait," 12, "Et Benjamin ait," (and so of the rest), the names are in the dative. The form of the expression in Latin could not fail to lead an ordinary reader to understand them as in the nominative. Yet nothing can be more unequivocal than the words in Hebrew.