Secondly, That a word is familiar to us, is no evidence that we understand it, though this circumstance, its familiarity, often prevents our discovering that we do not understand it.

Thirdly, Ecclesiastical use is no security that the word, though it be understood, conveys to us the same idea which the original term did to those to whom the Gospels were first promulged. In a former Dissertation, the fullest evidence has been given that, in regard to several words, the meaning which has been long established by ecclesiastic use, is very different from that which they have in the writings of the New Testament.

Fourthly, That to render the plain Greek words okavdaλıw and Evayyed into Latin, by the words scandalizo and evangelizo, which are not Latin words, is so far from allowing the Gospel to speak after its own manner, (as Bois calls it,) that it is, on the contrary, giving it a manner of speaking the most different from its own that can be imagined. This I intend soon to evince, even from Simon himself, though, in the passage above referred to, he seems to have adopted the sentiment of the English critic.

Lastly, The argument implied in the remark, that Jerom had not so much delicacy as the translators of Port Royal, because he did not scruple to employ the word scandalizo, though not Latin, in his Latin version, admits a two-fold answer. The first is, Jerom did wrong in so doing. Simon acknowledges that he was neither infallible nor inspired; he acknowledges, further, that he might, and in a few instances did mistake, and is, by consequence, not implicitly to be followed. "It would be wrong,' says the critic in a passage formerly quoted, " to imitate the faults of St. Jerom, and to pay greater deference to his authority than to the truth." The second answer is, that the cases are not parallel. Scandalum was not a Latin word; consequently, to those who understood no Greek, it was obscure, or, if you will, unintelligible. This is the worst that could be said. Jerom, or whoever first introduced it into the Latin version, had it in his power to assign it in a note what sense he pleased. But scandale was a French word before the translators of Mons had a being; and it was not in their power to divert it from the meaning which general use had given it long before. Now, as they justly observe in their own vindication, the import of the French word did not coincide with that of the original; they were, therefore, by all the rules of interpretation, obliged to adopt another. Jerom, by adopting the word scandalum, darkened the meaning; they, by using the word scandale, would have given a false meaning. Their only fault, in my opinion, was their admitting an improper word into their version, even though coupled with another which expresses the sense.

24. But as our author frequently recurs to this topic, the consecration of such words by long use, it will be proper to consider

* Diss. IX.

it more narrowly. Some have gone further on this article than our author is willing to justify. "Sutor," says he,* "pretended that it was not more allowable to make new translations of the Bible, than to change the style of Cicero into another: Nonne injuriam faceret Tullio, qui ejus stylum immutare vellet?' But, by the leave of the Parisian theologist," says Simon, "there is a great difference between reforming the style of a book, and making a version of that book. One may make a translation of the New Testament from the Greek, or from the Latin, without making any change on that Greek or that Latin." The justness of this sentiment is self-evident; and it is a necessary consequence from it, that if the words and phrases in the version convey the same ideas and thoughts to the readers which those of the original convey, it is a just translation, whatever conformity or disconformity in sound and etymology there may be between its words and phrases, and the words and phrases of the original, or of other translations.

Of this Simon appears, on several occasions, to be perfectly sensible, insomuch that he has, on this very article, taken up the defence of Castalio against Beza, who had attacked, with much acrimony, the innovations of the former in point of language. "It is not, as Beza very well said," (I quote Beza here as quoted by Simon,)+"so much my opinion as that of the ablest ecclesiastic writers, who, when they discourse with the greatest elegance concerning sacred things, make no alteration on the passages of Scripture which they quote." Though this verdict of Beza is introduced with manifest approbation, dit-il fort bien, and though, in confirmation of it, he adds, that both Beza and Castalio have taken, in this respect, unpardonable liberties, yet it is very soon followed by such a censure as, in my opinion, invalidates the whole. "There is, nevertheless," says he, "some exaggeration in this reproach. For the question here is about the version of the sacred books, and not about the original; so

*Sutor pretendoit qu'il n'etoit pas plus permis de faire de nouvelles traductions de la Bible, que de changer le stile de Ciceron en un autre: "Nonne injuriam faceret Tullio, qui ejus stylum immutare vellet?" Mais n'en déplaise à ce theologien de Paris, il y a bien de la difference entre reformer le stile d'un livre, et faire une version de ce même livre. On peut faire une traduction de Nouveau Testament sur le Grec ou sur le Latin, sans toucher à ce Grec, ni à ce Latin.-Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. ch. 21.

Ce n'est pas, dit-il fort bien, tant mon sentiment, que celui des plus habiles ecrivains ecclesiastiques, lesquels, quand-même ils parlent avec le plus de politesse des choses sacrées, ne changent rien dans les passages de l'Ecriture qu'ils citent.—Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. ch. 24.

Il y a neanmoins de l'exaggeration dans ce reproche. Car il n'est ici question que de la version des livres sacrés, et non pas de l'original: et ainsi l'on ne peut pas objecter à Castalio, comme fait Beze, d'avoir changé les paroles du Saint Esprit, ou, comme il parle, divinam illam Spiritus Sancti eloquentiam." Il est certain que le Saint Esprit, pour me servir des termes des ministres de Geneve, n'a point parlé Latin. C'est pourquoi Castalio a pû mettre dans sa traduction Latine lotio et genii au lieu de baptisma et angeli, sans rien changer pour cela dans les expressions du Saint Esprit.-Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. ch. 24.

that one cannot object to Castalio, as Beza does, his having changed the words of the Holy Spirit, or as he expresses it, divinam illam Spiritus Sancti eloquentiam.' It is certain, tó adopt the style of the ministers of Geneva, that the Holy Spirit did not speak Latin. Wherefore, Castalio might well put in his Latin translation lotio and genii, instead of baptisma and angeli, without changing aught in the expressions of the Holy Spirit." The moderation and justness of his sentiments here do not well accord, either with the high claims which, in favour of ecclesiastic terms, he makes to consecration, canonization, &c., or with the accusations brought on this very article against Erasmus and others.

Wherein does the expression of Theodore Beza, in calling those ancient words and phrases of the Vulgate "divinam illam Spiritus Sancti eloquentiam," differ in import from that given by John Bois, who says, in reference to them, "Libenter audio Scripturam suo quidem modo, suoque velut idiomate loquentem ?" May it not be replied, just as pertinently to Bois as to Beza, "The question here is about the version of the sacred books, and not about the original. It is certain, that as the Holy Spirit did not speak Latin, the Scriptures were not written in that language." Their phrases and idioms, therefore, are not concerned in the dispute; for, if those expressions, concerning which we are now inquiring, be not the language of the Holy Spirit, as Simon himself maintains that they are not, neither are they the language of the Scriptures. Thus, the same sentiment, with an inconsiderable difference in the expression, is quoted by our author with high approbation from the canon of Ely, as worthy of being turned into a general rule,* and with no little censure from the minister of Geneva.

25. I have often had occasion to speak of the obscurity of such terms, and I have shown† the impropriety of several of them, as conveying ideas very different from those conveyed by the words of the original, rightly understood: and though this alone would be a sufficient reason for setting them aside-sufficient, I mean, to any person who makes more account of obtaining the mind of the Spirit than of acquiring the dialect of uninspired interpreters; the very reason for which the use of them is so strenuously urged by Simon and others, appears to me a very weighty reason against employing them. They are, say these critics, consecrated words; that is, in plain language, they are, by the use of ecclesiastic writers, become a sort of technical terms in theology. This is really the fact. Accordingly, those words hardly enter into common use at all. They are appropriated as terms of art,

Cette reflexion doit servir ce règle pour une infinité d'endroits du Nouveau Testa. ment, où les nouveaux traducteurs ont affecté de s'eloigner de l'ancienne edition Latine. -Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. ch. 22.

Diss. IX. throughout.

which have no relation to the ordinary commerce of life. Now, nothing can be more repugnant to the character of the diction employed by the sacred writers; there being, in their language, nothing to which we can apply the words scholastic or technical. On the contrary, the inspired penmen always adopted such terms as were, on the most common occurrences, in familiar use with their readers. When the evangelist tells us in Greek, Luke ii. 10, that the angel said to the shepherds, Evayyedicoua viv, he represents him as speaking in as plain terms to all who understood Greek, as one who says in English "I bring you good news," speaks to those who understand English. But will it be said that the Latin interpreter spoke as plainly to every reader of Latin, when he said, "Evangelizo vobis ?" Or does that deserve to be called a version, which conveys neither the matter nor the manner of the author? Not the matter because an unintelligible word conveys no meaning; not the manner, because what the author said simply and familiarly, the translator says scholastically and pedantically. Of this, however, I do not accuse Jerom. The phrase in question was, doubtless, one of those which he did not think it prudent to meddle with.

26. Nor will their method of obviating all difficulties by means of the margin, ever satisfy a reasonable person. Is it proper, in translating an author, to make a piece of patchwork of the version, by translating one word, and mistranslating, or leaving untranslated, another, with perpetual references to the margin for correcting the blunders intentionally committed in the text? And if former translators have, from superstition, from excessive deference to their predecessors, from fear of giving offence, or from any other motive, been induced to adopt so absurd a method, shall we think ourselves obliged to imitate them? Some seem strangely to imagine, that to have, in the translation, as many as possible of the articulate sounds, the letters and syllables of the original, is to be very literal, and consequently very close. If any choose to call this literal, I should think it idle to dispute with him about the word; but I could not help observing, that, in this way, a version may be very literal, and perfectly foreign from the purpose. Nobody will question that the English word pharmacy is immediately derived from the Greek papuakɛia, of which it retains almost all the letters. Ought we, for that reason, to render the Greek word papuakela, pharmacy, in the catalogue the apostle has given us of the works of the flesh? Gal. v. 19-21. Must we render παροξυσμος, paroxysm and παραδοξα, paradoxes ? Acts xv. 39, Luke v. 26. Idiot is, by this rule, a literal version of the Greek diwrns. But an interpreter would be thought not much above that character, who should render it so in several places of Scripture.* Yet if this be not exhibiting what Beza denominates "divinam illam Spiritus Sancti eloquentiam ;" or

Acts iv. 13. 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24. 2 Cor. xi. 6.

what Bois, with no better reason, calls "Scripturam suo quidem modo, suoque velut idiomate loquentem," it will not be easy to assign an intelligible meaning to these phrases.

But, if such be the proper exhibition of the eloquence of the Spirit, and of the idiom of Scripture, it will naturally occur to ask, Why have we so little, even in the Vulgate, of this divine eloquence? why do we so seldom hear the Scripture, even there, speak in its own way and in its native idiom? It would have been easy to mutilate all, or most of the Greek words, 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 aλλov apaKANTOV Swσει vv, John xiv. 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 evayyedioμai never occurs in the Gospels in any sense but one, a sense easily expressed in the language of every people.

999

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. This Ecclesia est mater nostra. Sic autem loquitur ecclesia." 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