these elisions, though not entirely laid aside, are 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 favourable 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. viii. 9. And in the parallel place in Luke, ch. vii. 6. "Lord, don't give yourself the trouble of coming; I don't deserve you should honour 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 αμην αμην λεγω ύμιν, 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 honour." 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 Protestants 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 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,

* 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 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," &c. 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, Romans, 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 abovementioned, they are inconclusive applied to English. Yet in this some English translators have followed the French manner, but not uniformly.

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. i. 23, "Being born again by the 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 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 which 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 of 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, recognise 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 Jubæ, 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

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.

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 that of appellatives, to serve as signs for recalling to the mind what is signified by them. When this purpose is attained, their end is answered. Now, as it is use alone which can convert a sound into a sign, a word that has been long used (whether a proper name or an appellative) as the sign of person or thing, genus, species, or individual, must be preferable to a new invented, and therefore unauthorized sound. If there is generally in proper names a greater resemblance to the original words than in appellatives, this difference nowise affects the argument. Appellatives are the signs of species and genera, with the more considerable part of which the people are acquainted in all civilized countries. Common things have consequently names in all languages; and the names in one language have often no affinity to those in another. Proper names are the signs of individuals, known originally only in the neighbourhood of the place of their existence, whence the name is transferred with the knowledge of the individual into other languages.

But the introduction of the name is not because of any peculiar propriety in the sound for signifying what is meant by it, but merely because, when the language we write does not supply a suitable term, this is the easiest and most natural expedient. It is in this way also we often provide appellatives, when the thing spoken of, which sometimes happens, has no name in our native idiom. But when an individual thing is of a nature to be universally known, and to have a name in every language, as the sun, the moon, and the earth, we never, in translating from an ancient tongue, think of adopting the name we find there, but always give our own. Yet the things now mentioned are as really individuals, as are Peter, James, and John. And when, in the case of appellatives, we have been obliged at first to recur for a name to the language whence we drew our knowledge of the thing, we never think afterwards of reforming the term, because not so closely formed on the original as it might have been. It has, by its currency, produced that association which confers on it the power of a sign, and this is all that the original term itself ever had, or could have. Who would think of reforming flail into flagel, messenger into messager, and nurse into nourrice,