literature which have of late been made, in respect not only of languages, but also of antiquities and criticism, it cannot be thought derogatory from the merit and abilities of those worthy men who formerly bestowed their time and labour on that important work, to suppose that many mistakes, which were then inevitable, we are now in a condition to correct. To effect this, is the first, and ought doubtless to be the principal motive, for attempting another version. Whatever is discovered to be the sense of the Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures, ought to be regarded by us as of the greatest consequence; nor will any judicious person, who has not been accustomed to consider religion in a political light, as a mere engine of state, deny, that where the truth appears in any instance to have been either misrepresented, or obscurely represented, in a former version, the fault ought, in an attempt like the present, as far as possible to be corrected. To say the contrary, is to make the honourable distinction of being instruments in promoting the knowledge of God of less moment than paying a vain compliment to former translators; or perhaps showing an immoderate deference to popular humour, which is always attached to customary phrases, whether they convey the true meaning, or a false meaning, or any meaning at all. This, therefore, is unquestionably a good ground for varying from those who preceded us. I 4. It deserves further to be remarked, that, from the changes incident to all languages, it sometimes happens that words which expressed the true sense at the time when a translation was made, come afterwards to express a different sense; in consequence whereof, though those terms were once a proper version of the words in the original, they are not so after such an alteration, having acquired a meaning different from that which they had formerly. In this case it cannot be doubted, that in a new translation such terms ought to be changed. I hinted before,* that I look upon this as having been the case with some of the expressions employed in the Vulgate. They conveyed the meaning at the time that version was made, but do not so now. shall instance only in two. The phrase poenitentiam agite was in Jerom's time nearly equivalent in signification to the Greek μɛTavoεITE. It is not so at present. In consequence of the usages which have crept in, and obtained an establishment in the churches subject to Rome, it no longer conveys the same idea; for having become merely an ecclesiastic term, its acceptation is regulated only by ecclesiastic use. Now, in that use, it exactly corresponds to the English words do penance; by which, indeed, the Rhemish translators, who translate from the Vulgate, have rendered it in their New Testament. Now, as no person of common sense, who understands the language, will pretend, that to enjoin us to do penance, and to enjoin us to reform or repent, Part iii. sect. 9. is to enjoin the same thing; both Erasmus and Beza were excusable, notwithstanding the censure pronounced by Bois and Simon, in deserting the Vulgate in this place, and employing the ambiguous term resipiscite, in preference to a phrase now at least become so equivocal as poenitentiam agite. We may warrantably say more, and affirm, that they would not have acted the part of faithful translators if they had done otherwise. It was, to appearance, the uniform object of the priest of the Oratory (I know not what may have biassed the canon of Ely) to put honour upon the church, by which he meant the church of Rome; to respect, above all things, and at all hazards, her dogmas, her usages, her ceremonies, her very words and phrases. The object of Christian interpreters is, above all things, and at all hazards, to convey, as perspicuously as they can, the truths of the Spirit. If the former ought to be the principal object of the translators of holy writ, Simon was undoubtedly in the right; if the latter, he was undoubtedly in the wrong. The other expression in the Vulgate, which may not improbably have been proper at the time when that translation was made, though not at present, is sacramentum for μvorηpiov, in the second scriptural sense which I observed to be sometimes given to the Greek word.* But, in consequence of the alterations which have since taken place in ecclesiastical use, the Latin term has acquired a meaning totally different, and is therefore now no suitable expression of the sense. 5. Now, what has been observed of the Latin words abovementioned, has already happened to several words employed in the common English translation. Though this may appear at first extraordinary, as it is not yet two centuries since that version was made, it is nevertheless unquestionable. The number of changes whereby a living language is affected in particular periods, is not always in proportion to the extent of time: it depends on the stage of advancement in which the language happens to be during the period, more than on the length of the period. The English tongue, and the French too, if I mistake not, have undergone a much greater change than the Italian in the last three hundred years; and perhaps as great as the Greek underwent from the time of Homer to that of Plutarch, which was more than four times as long. It is not merely the number of writings in any language, but it is rather their merit and eminence, which confers stability on its words, phrases, and idioms. Certain it is, that there is a considerable change in our own since the time mentioned; a change in respect of the construction, as well as of the significations of the words. In some cases we combine the words differently from the way in which they were combined at the time above referred to: we have acquired many words which were not used then, and many then in use Diss. IX. Part i. sect. 7. are now either obsolete or used in a different sense. These changes I shall here briefly exemplify. As habit is apt to mislead us, and we are little disposed to suspect that that meaning of a word or phrase, to which we are familiarized, was not always the meaning; to give some examples of such alteration may prevent us from rashly accusing former translators for improprieties wherewith they are not chargeable; and to specify alterations on our own language, may serve to remove the doubts of those who imagine there is an improbability in what I have formerly maintained, concerning the variations which several words in ancient languages have undergone in different periods. Now, this is a point of so great moment to the literary critic and antiquary, that it is impossible thoroughly to understand, or accurately to interpret, ancient authors, without paying due regard to it. Through want of this regard, many things in ecclesiastic history have been much misunderstood, and grossly misrepresented. Unluckily, on this subject, powerful secular motives interfering, have seduced men to contribute to the general deception, and to explain ancient names by usages comparatively modern. But this by the way; I proceed to the examples. 6. I intend to consider, first, the instances affected by the last of the circumstances above-mentioned, namely, those wherein the signification is changed, though the term itself remains. Of such I shall now produce some examples: first, in nouns. The word conversation, which means no more at present than familiar discourse of two or more persons, did, at the time when the Bible was translated, denote behaviour in the largest acceptation. The Latin word conversatio, which is that generally used in the Vulgate, answering to the Greek avaorpoon, has commonly this meaning. But the English word has never, as far as I have observed, this acceptation in the present use, except in the law phrase criminal conversation. And I have reason to believe, that in the New Testament it is universally mistaken by the unlearned, as signifying no more than familiar talk or discourse. Hence it has also happened, that hypocrites and fanatics have thought themselves authorized, by the words of Scripture, in placing almost the whole of practical religion in this alone. Yet I do not remember that the word occurs so much as once in Scripture in this sense. What we call conversation must indeed be considered as included, because it is a very important part of behaviour; but it is not to be understood as particularly specified. In one passage it is expressly distinguished from familiar discourse or conversation, in the modern import of the word: TUTOS YIVOU TWV πιστων εν λόγῳ, εν αναστροφή, rendered in the common version, "Be an example of the believers in word, in conversation," 1 Tim. iv. 12. That these words Aoy and avaσrpoon are not synonymous, the repeating of the preposition sufficiently shows. Though, therefore, not improperly rendered at that time, when the English term was used in a greater latitude of signification, they ought manifestly to be rendered now, in conversation, in behaviour; the first answering to λογος, the second to αναστροφη. Another instance of such a variation we have in the word thief, which, in the language of Scripture, is confounded with robber, and probably was so also in common language at that time, but is now invariably distinguished. They are always carefully distinguished in the original, the former being Kλεns, the latter Anoτης. The two criminals who were crucified with our Lord are always called, by the two Evangelists who specify their crime, λησται, never κλεπται. * Yet our translators have always rendered it thieves, never robbers. This is the more remarkable, as wha we now call theft was not a capital crime among the Jews. Yet this penitent malefactor confessed upon the cross, that he and his companion suffered justly, receiving the due reward of their deeds.+ He probably would not have expressed himself in this manner if their condemnation had not been warranted by the law of Moses. And though, doubtless, the English word at that time was used with greater latitude than it is at present, yet, as they had rendered the same original term Anorns, when applied to Barabbas, robber, they ought to have given the same interpretation of the word as applied to the two malefactors, who on the same occasion were accused of the same crime. In like manner, in the parable of the compassionate Samaritan, the words rendered "fell among thieves," are Anotais πepieteσev. Hardly would any person now confound the character there represented with that of thieves. Again, the expression the uppermost rooms,|| does not suggest to men of this age the idea of the chief places at table, but that of the apartments of the highest story. "The good man of the house," though sufficiently intelligible, is become too homely (not to say ludicrous) a phrase for the master of the family. The word lust** is used, in the common translation, in an extent which it has not now; so also is usury.†† Worship,‡‡ for honour or civil respect paid to men, does not suit the present idiom. The words lewd and lewdness,§§ in the New Testament, convey a meaning totally different from that in which they are now constantly used. The word pitiful, with us, never means, as it does in Scripture,|||| in conformity to etymology, compassionate, merciful; but paltry, contemptible. In the following words, also, there is a deviation, though not so considerable, from the ancient import. Meat ¶¶ and food are not now synonymous terms, neither are cunning*** and skilful, honest††† and decent or becoming, more‡‡‡ and greater, quick §§§ and living, faithless || || || * Matt. xxvii. 38, 44. Mark xv. 27. Luke x. 30. || Matt. xxiii. 6. ++ Matt. xxv. 27. Luke xix. 23. + Luke xxiii. 41. John xviii. 40. **Rom. vii. 7. See an excellent illustration of the remark, in regard to these two words, in the Disquisitions concerning the Antiquities of the Christian Church, p. 4. note. *** Exod. xxxviii. 23. John xx. 27. James v. 11. ttt 2 Cor. viii. 21. ¶¶ Matt. iii. 4. ### Acts xix. 32. 666 Acts x. 42. and incredulous, coasts* and territories, or borders not confining with the sea. The like variations have happened in verbs. To prevent † is hardly ever now used, in prose, for to go before; to faint, + for to grow faint, to fail in strength: to ensue, § for to pursue; to provoke,|| for to excite to what is proper and commendable; to entreat,¶ for to treat; and to learn,** for to teach. Even adverbs and particles have shared the general fate. Yea and nay,†† though still words in the language, are not the expression of affirmation and negation as formerly; instantly‡‡ we never use for earnestly, nor hitherto §§ for thus far. Yet this was, no doubt, its original meaning, and is more conformable to etymology than the present meaning; hither being an adverb of place and not of time. More instances might be given, if necessary. Now to employ words, which, though still remaining in the language, have not the sanction of present use for the sense assigned to them, cannot fail to render the passages where they occur almost always obscure, and sometimes ambiguous. But, as every thing which may either mislead the reader, or darken the meaning, ought carefully to be avoided by the interpreter, no example, however respectable, will in such things authorize our imitation. An alteration here implies nothing to the disadvantage of preceding translators, unless it can be supposed to detract from them, that they did not foresee the changes which, in after-times, would come upon the language. They employed the words according to the usage which prevailed in their time. The same reason which made them adopt these words then, to wit, regard to perspicuity by conforming to present use, would, if they were now alive, and revising their own work, induce them to substitute others in their place. 7. Another case in which a translator ought not implicitly to follow his predecessors, is in the use of words now become obsolete. There is little or no scope for this rule, when the subject is a version into a dead language like the Latin, which, except in the instances of some ecclesiastic terms, such as those above taken notice of, is not liable to be affected by the changes to which a living tongue is continually exposed. The very notion of a dead language refers us to a period which is past, whose usages are now over, and may therefore be considered as unchangeable: but in living languages, wherein use gradually varies, the greatest attention ought to be given to what obtains at present, on which both propriety and perspicuity must depend. Now, with respect to our common version, some words are disused only in a particular signification, others are become obsolete in every meaning. The former ought to be avoided, in such accep * Matt. ii. 16. § 1 Pet. iii. 11. + 1 Thess. iv. 15. || Heb. x. 24. Matt. xv. 32, Luke xviii. 1. ¶ Luke xx. 11. ** Psal. xxv. 4. Com. Prayer. ++ Matt. v. 37. #Luke vii. 4. § Job xxxviii. 11. |