very properly to the words in English, It was not you who chose me, but it was I who chose you.

I recollect one instance in the Old Testament, wherein our translators have taken this method. Joseph, after he had discovered himself to his brethren, observing that the remembrance of their guilt overwhelmed them with terror and confusion; in order to compose their spirits, says to them, " It was not you that sent me hither, but God," Gen. xlv. 8. The expression in the Greek translation is perfectly similar to that above quoted from the Gospel. Ουχ ύμεις με απεταλκατε ώδε, αλλ' η ὁ Θεός. In the

לא אתם שלחתם אתי הנה כי :original Hebrew it is not less s0

. I do not say, however, that the pronoun when mentioned is in every case emphatical, or that in every case it would be proper to deviate from the more simple manner of translating.

33. Thus much shall suffice for what regards those leading rules in translating, which may be judged necessary for securing propriety, perspicuity, and energy; and, as far as possible, in a consistency with these, for doing justice to the particular manner of the author translated; and for bestowing on the whole, that simple kind of decoration which is suited to its character. This finishes the first part of this Dissertation, relating to the matter or principal qualities to be attended to in translating.

PART II.

THE READINGS OF THE ORIGINAL HERE FOLLOWED.

I SHALL now subjoin a few remarks on the readings, where there is in the original a diversity of reading which are here preferred.

Were it in our power to recur to the autographies of the sacred penmen, that is, to the manuscripts written by themselves, or by those whom they employed, to whom they dictated, and whose work they supervised, there could be no question that we ought to recur to them as the only infallible standards of divine truth. But those identical writings, it is acknowledged on all hands, are nowhere now to be found. What we have in their stead, are the copies of copies (through how many successions it is impossible to say) which were originally taken from those autographies. Now, though Christians are generally agreed in ascribing infallibility to the sacred penmen, no Christian society or individual, that I know, has ever yet ascribed infallibility to the copiers of the New Testament. Indeed, some Christians appear absurd enough to admit thus much in favour of those who have transcribed the Old Testament; about which they seem to imagine, that Providence has been more solicitous than about the New. For, in regard to the New Testament, nothing of

this kind has ever been advanced. Now, what has been said of the transcribers of the New Testament, may with equal certainty be affirmed of the editors and printers. It is nevertheless true, that, since the invention of printing, we have greater security than formerly against that incorrectness which multiplies the diversities of reading; inasmuch as now, a whole printed edition, consisting of many thousand copies, is not exposed to so many errors as a single written copy was before. But this invention is comparatively modern. Besides, the effect it had in point of correctness, was only to check the progress, or more properly to prevent the increase of the evil, by giving little scope for new variations; but it could have no retrospective effect in rectifying those already produced.

2. It behoved the first editors of the New Testament in print, to employ the manuscripts of which they were possessed with all their imperfections. And who will pretend that Cardinal Ximenes, Erasmus, Robert Stephens, and the other early publishers of the New Testament, to whom the republic of letters is indeed much indebted, were under an infallible direction in the choice of manuscripts, or in the choice of readings in those passages wherein their copies differed from one another? That they were not all under infallible guidance, we have ocular demonstration, as, by comparing them, we see that in many instances they differ among themselves. And if only one was infallibly directed, which of them shall we say was favoured with this honourable distinction? But in fact, though there are many well meaning persons, who appear dissatisfied with the bare mention of various readings of the sacred text, and much more with the adoption of any reading to which they have not been accustomed, there is none who has yet ventured to ascribe infallibility, or inspiration, to any succession of copyists, editors, or printers. Yet without this, to what purpose complain? Is it possible to dissemble a circumstance clear as day, that different copies read some things differently-a circumstance of which every person, who, with but a moderate share of knowledge, will take the trouble to reflect, must be convinced that it was inevitable? Or, if it were possible to dissemble it, ought this truth to be dissembled? If, in any instance wherein the copies differ, there appear, upon inquiry, sufficient reason to believe that the reading of one copy, or number of copies, is the dictate of inspiration, and that the reading of the rest, though the same with that of the printed edition most in use, is not; will the cause of truth be better served by dissimulation, in adhering to a maxim of policy merely human, or by conveying in simplicity, to the best of our power, the genuine sense of the Spirit? The former method savours too much of those pious frauds, which, though excellent props to superstition in ignorant and barbarous ages, ought never to be employed in the service of true religion. Their assistance she never needs,

and disdains to use. Let us then conclude, that as the sacred writings have been immensely multiplied by the copies which have been taken from the original manuscripts, and by the transcripts successively made from the copies, the intrusion of mistakes into the manuscripts, and thence into printed editions, was, without a chain of miracles, absolutely unavoidable.

3. It may be thought, that the transmission through so many ages, merely by transcribing, in order to supply the place of those copies which from time to time have been destroyed or lost, must have long before now greatly corrupted the text, and involved the whole in uncertainty. Yet, in fact, the danger here is not near so great as at first it would appear. The multiplication of the copies, the very circumstance which occasions the increase of the evil, has, in a great measure, as it began very early, brought its own remedy along with it, namely, the opportunity it affords of collating those which have been made from different ancient exemplars. For let it be observed, that different transcribers from a correct standard, rarely fall into the same errors. If, therefore, which is highly probable, as almost all those writings were originally intended for the use of multitudes, several copies were made directly from the writings of the sacred penmen, those transcripts, when the common archetype was lost, would serve when collated to correct one another; and, in like manner, the copies taken from one would serve to correct the copies taken from another. There are several considerations arising from external circumstances, from which, among the different readings of different manuscripts, the preference may with probability be determined; such are, the comparative antiquity, number, and apparent accuracy of the copies themselves. There are considerations also arising from internal qualities in the readings compared; such as, conformity to the grammatical construction, to the common idiom of the language, to the special idiom of the Hellenists, to the manner of the writer, and to the scope of the context. Need I subjoin the judgments that may be formed, by a small change in the pointing, or even in dividing the words? for in these things the critic is entitled to some latitude, as, in the most ancient manuscripts, there were neither points nor accents, and hardly a division of the words.

Next to the aid of manuscripts is that of the Greek commentators, who give us in their commentaries the text, as they found it at the time; and, next to this, we have that of ancient translations. I do not mean the aid they give for discovering the import of the original terms; for in this respect, modern versions may be equally profitable; but their leading to the discovery of a different reading in the manuscripts from which they were made. In this way, modern versions are of no use to the critic, the world being still in possession of their originals. Next to ancient translations, though very far from being of equal

weight, are the quotations made by the Fathers, and early ecclesiastical writers. Of the degrees of regard due, respectively, to the several assistances above-named, it would be superfluous here to discourse, after what has been writtten by Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Simon, Michaelis, Kennicott, and many others. As we can ascribe to no manuscript, edition, or translation, absolute perfection, we ought to follow none of them implicitly: As little ought we to reject the aid of any. On these principles I have proceeded in this version. Even the English translators have not scrupled, in a few instances, to prefer a manuscript reading to that of the printed editions, and the reading of the Vulgate to that of the Greek. Of the former, I remember two examples in the Gospels, wherein our translators have adopted a reading different from the reading of the common Greek, and also different from that of the Vulgate: and not a few, wherein they have preferred the latter to the former, sometimes in my opinion rashly. The passages are mentioned in the margin; the reader may compare them at his leisure, and consult the Notes relating to them subjoined to this Translation.

*

4. Bengelius, though he consulted manuscripts, declares, that he has followed none in the edition he has given of the New Testament, unless where they supported the reading of some one at least of the printed editions. "This," says Bowyer,‡ "is the greatest deference that was ever paid to the press." But, with all due respect to the judgment of that worthy and learned printer, I do not think it evidence of a deference to the press, but of an extravagant deference to the first editors of the sacred books in print. The Scriptures of the New Testament had been conveyed by manuscript, for about fourteen hundred years before the art of printing existed. As it has never been pretended that the first printers or the first publishers were inspired, or ought to be put on the footing of prophets, we conclude, that if their editions contain things not warranted by the manuscripts or ancient versions then extant, such things must be erroneous, or at least apocryphal. And if every thing they contain may be found in some manuscripts or versions of an older date, though not in all, our giving such a preference to the readings copied into the printed editions, can proceed from nothing but a blind deference to the judgment of those editors, as always selecting the best. Whether they merited this distinction, the judicious and impartial will judge. But no reasonable person can hesitate a moment to pronounce, that if, of all the readings they had met with, they had selected the worst, the press would have conveyed them down to us with equal fidelity. We may then have a prejudice in favour of the printed editions, because we are accustomed

* Matt. x. 10; John xviii. 20.

Matt. xii. 14; xxv. 39; xxvi. 15; Mark vi. 56; Luke i, 35; ii. 22; xi. 13; John xvi. 2; xviii. 1, 15.

Pref. to his Critical Conjectures.

to them; but have no valid reason for preferring them to manuscripts, unless it arise from a well-founded preference of the first editors of the New Testament to all other scriptural critics, as men who had the best means of knowing what was preferable in the manuscripts, and who were the most capable of making a proper choice. But hardly will either be admitted by those who are acquainted with the state of this species of literature at that time, and since.

5. Though not the first published, the first prepared for publication was the Complutensian Polyglot, by Cardinal Ximenes, a Spaniard. The sentence formerly quoted from him, relating to the place he had assigned the Vulgate, in his edition, between the Hebrew and the Greek, and his indecent comparison of its appearance there to our Lord crucified between the two malefactors, do not serve to raise our opinion either of his judgment or of his impartiality. He boasted of the use he had made of the Vatican and other manuscripts of great antiquity, as to which Wetstein is not singular in expressing doubts of his veracity.

Erasmus is considered as the second editor. His New Testament was published, but not printed, before the Complutensian. He made use of some manuscripts of Basil and others, which he had collected in different parts; but he was so little scrupulous in regard to the text, that what was illegible in the only Greek copy he seems to have had of the Apocalypse, he supplied by translating back into Greek from the Vulgate. He published several editions of this work, the two or three last of which he brought to a greater conformity to the Complutensian printed at Alcala, than his three first were.

The third editor of note, (for I pass over those who did little other than republish either Ximenes or Erasmus,) was Robert Stephens. He allowed himself in a great measure to be directed by the two former editors; but not without using, on several occasions, the readings which he found in some of the best manuscripts he had collected. Many of the later editions of the New Testament are formed from some of his.

Beza, indeed, who was himself possessed of some valuable manuscripts, and was supplied by Henry Stephens with the various readings which had been collected by his father, sometimes introduced them into the text. But his choice was directed by no principle of criticism. His great rule of preference, (as might be expected from the manner in which he conducted his translation,) was conformity to his own theological system, This led him to introduce variations, sometimes on the authority of a single manuscript of little or no account, sometimes without even that, insomuch that several of his alterations must be considered as conjectural. Yet his edition has been much followed by Protestants. Curcelleus* complains of him for having, by his own • Pref. to his edition of the N. T. Nescio quo consilio, plurimas quas præ manibus habebat, publico inviderit.