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. xi. 25, Luke x. 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 everything, 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, labours 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 above-mentioned 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, * History of the Reformation in England, Book iii. year 1542. VOL. I.

D D

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 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 ευαγγελίζω and σκανδαλιζω 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 impossible 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 conveyed 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, epecially 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 a 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 at that perfection, which, in consequence of the labours of many learned and ingenious men of different parties and professions, it has reached since. What greatly retarded the progress of this study in the first age of the Reformation was, the incessant disputes about articles of doctrines, ecclesiastical polity, and ceremonies, in which the reformers were engaged, both with the Romanists and among themselves. This led them insensibly to recur to the weapons which had been employed against them, and of which they had at first spoken very contemptuously-the metaphysical and unintelligible subtilties of school divinity.

This recourse was productive of two bad consequences: First, it diverted them from the critical study of the sacred languages, the surest human means for discovering the mind of the Spirit; secondly, it infused into the heads of the disputants, prepossessions in favour of such particular words and phrases as are adapted to the dialect and system of the parties to which they severally attached themselves, and in prejudice of those words and phrases which seem more suitable to the style and sentiments of their adversaries. There is, perhaps, but too good reason for adding an evil consequence produced also upon the heart, in kindling wrath, and quenching charity. It was when matters were in this situation that several of the first translations were made. Men's minds were then too much heated with their polemic exercises to be capable of that impartial, candid, and dispassionate examination, which is so necessary in those who would approve themselves faithful interpreters of the oracles of God. Of an undue bias on the judgment.in translating, in consequence of such perpetual wranglings, I have given some specimens in the former Dissertation.*

3. In regard to the common translation, though not entirely exempted from the influence of party and example, as I formerly had occasion to show, it is, upon the whole, one of the best of those composed so soon after the Reformation. I may say justly, that if it had not been for an immoderate attachment in its authors to the Genevese translators, Junius, Tremellius, and Beza, it had been still better than it is; for the greatest faults with which it is chargeable are derived from this source. But since that time, it must be owned, things are greatly altered in the church. The rage of disputation on points rather curious than edifying, or, as the apostle calls it, 1 Tim. vi. 4, the dotage about questions and strifes of words, has, at least among men of talents and erudition, in a great measure subsided. The reign of scholastic sophistry and altercation is pretty well over. Now, when to this reflection we add a proper attention to the great acquisitions in

* Diss: X. Part v. sect. 4. &c.