examined by our author, not one is to be found wholly free from this defect. The third chapter relates to it; and the first inftance is Matthew iii. 16. where he faw' is fuppofed to refer to John. Dr. Campbell, we perceive, has avoided this difficulty, perhaps at the risk of a little inaccuracy. He fays, the Spirit of God appeared," but i can scarcely have this power. The antecedent in Matthew v. 12. is, we think, fufficiently perfpicuous; but our author's alteration renders it more fo. Dr. Symonds proceeds, and points out various ambiguities in each of the four Gospels, and in the Acts of the Apolles; but thofe, which depend on the omiffion of Jefus, can perhaps be scarcely ftyled ambiguities, for HE, without any antecedent, can, in general, be understood of no other perfon. As we shall endeavour to select an interesting inftance of each fault, we shall tranfcribe the observation on Luke v. 17.

ガ

“And it came to pay on a certain day as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law fitting by, which were come from every town of Galilee, and Judæa, and Jeru falem, and the power of the Lord was prefent to heal them." Dr. Macknight obferves in his very useful effay, that the relative pronoun aures, in this verfe, refers not to the Pharifees, and doctors of the law, who are juft before mentioned, but to fuch fick people as were in the crowd agreeably to the ofe of relative pronouns. This may be true in refpect to a Greek relative pronoun; but an English one muft neceffarily refer to the nearest, and not to a remote antecedent. We should therefore.render; To laotai auT85, to heal thofe who had difeafes." The author of the verfion of Mons has avoided any obfcurity s "la vertu du Seigneur agiffoit pour la guerifon des malades.' So likewife L'Entant and Beaufobre: "la verett du Seigneur fe déploya dans la gúerifon des malades." And Wicklif has judiciously departed from the Vulgate on this occafion : "And the vertu of the Lord was to heele fyk men."-Perhaps it would not be improper to place a colon after ropodidaoxaños, and to read with the Cambridge MS. & Xbores, &c. in which cafe this verfe might be thus rendered: "While Jefus was teaching on a certain day, feveral Pharifees and doctors of the law were fitting by: and there were also thofe who came out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and from Jerufalem; and the power of the Lord was prefent to heal them."

The Cambridge MS. is, we believe, fingular in this read-ing, though, fo far as we can perceive, it is the only me

Effay iv. on tranflating the Greek language afed by the writers of the N. T. p. 49-Mr. Pilkington, in his Remarks, &c. p. 99. quotes Luke v. 17. and feems to have too haftily defended the indeterminate ufe of pronouns in the English language."

thod

thod of avoiding the ambiguity in the original, for Dr. Macknight's obfervation is, too indiferiminate. Dr. Campbell has very properly rendered the paffage in this manner: One day, as he was teaching, and Pharifees and doctors of law were fitting by, who had come from Jerufalem, and from every town of Galilee and Judea, the power of the Lord was exerted in the cure of the fick.' Dr. Symonds' obfervation on Luke vii. 29. refpecting the phrafe of juflifying God, is perfectly proper. Perhaps Dr. Campbell's glorified' is not the most correct version of idiniwoar, our author's acknowledged the justice,' is much more proper.

The next fource of ambiguity is the ufe of equivocal expreffions. In Matthew xviii. 23. • Would take an account of his fervants,' instead of, fettle his accounts with his fervants, is an inftance of this kind; worship,' instead of humbly intreat (gorxur, Matth. xviii. 26.), is another; and, indeed, as Dr. Symonds very justly obferves, the word worship is too often ufed in the facred writ without fufficient authority:

Acts vii. 38. "Who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Werftein mentions λoyo, as being in the editions of Erafmus, Colinæus, &c. and this was the reading adopted by the Vulgate, which feems to be unexceptionable. Thus Wicklif: the wordis of lyf," and to the fame purport in Tyndal, Coverdale, and the Bishop's Bible. But if we retain the common reading, viz. λoyix (wrra, we muft at leaft render it, the living oracles," and expunge the equivocal epithet lively.”'

Another fource of ambiguity is occafioned by an indeter minate ofe of prepofitions. But this chapter furnishes nothing very interefting, and indeed nothing very ambiguous," though from this caufe there are many inelegancies, which might be fafely, if filently rectified.

The fixth chapter is on paffages ungrammatical; and thefe alfo, though they greatly injure the elegance of the facred writings, have no great effect on the perfpicuity. The learned can easily correct them, and the unlearned ufe the fame language. The first part relates to participles, and the modes and times of verbs; but, with refpect to the modes and times of verbs, the language had not at that period, nor many years afterwards, attained to a moderate fhare of correctnefs. Even Addifon ufes the indicative after the hypothetical conjunetion. Though this be a fault, it cannot, therefore, be with more propriety imputed to the tranflators than that they had not em ployed in their verfion the Sanferit, or facred language of Bengal. Besides, at this time, we have not properly established the past tense of many verbs, as thofe of to eat, to fpit, or to read ate, fpat, and redde, though they have been employ

Bb 2

ed,

ed, are uncouth and unpleasant. The following translation of John xix. 24. is undoubtedly very reprehenfible in our verfion :

"They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rent it, &c." Either "rend it," or "divide it," as in Tyndal, and in most of our old verfions.-There is a worse fault in Matth. xxvii. 51. "And behold! the veil of the temple was rent in twain [in two, or, in pieces] from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake [trembled], and the rocks rent [were rent."] There are undoubtedly fome English verbs which have both an. active and a neuter fignification; but the verb "to rend" is not of this clafs; yet even if it were, it would be improperly ufed in its two forms, in the fame fentence; for this, how agreeable foever to the learned languages, feems contrary to the genius of our own."

The adverbs, Dr. Symonds remarks, are often misplaced, fometimes nugatory; and the adverb alfo' occafionally deftroys the sense of the original. The first inftance of this kind is a very ftriking one: it is in Matth. ii. 8.

"And he fent them to Bethlehem, and faid, Go and fearch diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him alfo." Bishop Pearce faw, that the adverb alfo, in this verse, ought to refer to Herod; for the words of the original are dwe nay Abe, &c. but our tranflators, by mifplacing it, have connected it with the child Jefus." Herod fays to the wife men, "When ye have found him, bring me word, that I alfo (i. e. as well as you) may go and worship him." But our prefent verfion conveys a very different fenfe, and makes the pronoun "him" emphatical, instead of " I," as if he had faid, "that I may go and worship Jefus, as well as worship others."

In Luke xxiii. 32. it is faid, and there were also two other malefactors led with him; a tranflation which is obviously exceptionable in more than one refpect. Dr. Symonds has examined this text particularly, and feems to approve of H. Stephens' and Mr. Bowyer's putting xaxegyes between commas. Dr. Priestley has followed the fame method- and there were alfo two others, malefactors, led with him.' Dr. Campbell, we think, more neatly and happily has tranflated, and two malefactors were alfo led with him to execu tion.'-Omitting the offenfive word go. But, if we recol lect rightly, there are fome MSS. particularly one in the Bodheian library, where the whole verfe is wanting. In the tranflation of Acts xxvi. 26. alfo' is ufed improperly; before whom I also fpeak freely. The xat in the original is evidently illative, and should have been tranflated therefore, for

• I am

I am perfuaded,' adds Paul, that none of these things are hidden from him.'

The third grammatical error relates to the improper ufe of prepofitions and conjunctions. The following note connected only with the fubject in its firft part, may be of ufe to many of our readers, who would be angry at being styled illiterate:

"Matth. xiii. 57. And they were offended in him." It ought to be "at him," as in Coverdale. It will not be improper here to speak of the manner, though it hath often been remarked, in which king James's tranflators have rendered Guarda, in ch. v. 29, 30. and in other paffages. "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,-and if thy right hand of fend thee, cut it off. Thefe tranflators looked upon themselves as authorised to infert nonfenfe into the text, provided they foifted the true meaning into the margin; for we find in it this reading,"cause thee to offend." But ought they not rather to have rendered it in the text "make thee to offend," or, "cause thee to offend," (as, in fact, it is in the Geneva Bible) than to affect the parade of a marginal note, which would be confulted by very few readers? So Matth. xviii. 6. "Whoso hall offend one of these little ones." If it had been tranflated thus: "Whofoever fhall caufe one of these little ones to offend," it might be eafily understood by the common people; whereas they must now take it in a fenfe directly oppofite.'

Dr. Symonds obferves, that' and' appears in not fewer than two hundred paffages in the Gofpels as a connecting particle, when the fentences ought to have been disjoined. In the 9th chapter of Luke are 62 verfes, of which 41 begin with this conjunction.

The fourth error is, where the pronouns are either fuperfluous, deficient, or ungrammatical; but numerous instances of these must occur to any one who reflects for a moment. The fifth is where the definite artiele the' is improperly used; the fixth where the verb precedes in the fingular number, when it ought to be in the plural, as in Luke v. 9. For he was aftonifhed and all that (who) were with him. In John xv. 6. is an instance of a pronoun ufed in the plural, when the fubftantive with which it agrees is in the fingular.

The feventh and eighth chapter is upon mean and vulgar, on obfolete and harsh expreffions; but though we allow that thefe injure the elegance of a verfion, and fometimes detract from its dignity, they do not often mislead those who seek for inftruction in the facred writings. The tranflation quoted (Luke xii. 29.) of Twist, neither be ye of doubtful mind,' is indeed inaccurate as well as inelegant. A few of the vulgar expreffions may alfo miflead: whofe fan is in his hand;

Bb3

hand; and he will thoroughly purge his floor,' can scarcely be understood even by our threshers and winnowers.

Dr. Symonds proceeds to how the neceffity of a literal tranflation, by which he means what we have formerly called a fuitable correfponding verfion, that reprefents nearly the style, the peculiarities, and the diftinguishing features of the original. To illuflrate his idea of a literal verfion, he has compared that of Caftalio and Dr. Harwood; the former of which is clear, faithful, and elegant; the latter diffufive and improperly adorned with adventitious images of modern life. But to a literal verfion there must be exceptions, for fometimes the language will not admit of an intelligible literal tranflation. In the firft inftance, Matth. iv. 23. Ta suayγέλιον της βασιλίας, is unintelligible in the common Englif Bible, the Gofpel of the kingdom,' and not quite properly rendered by Dr. Campbell, glad tidings of the reign:' it fhould be certainly tranflated, glad tidings of the kingdom, that is, the kingdom of God. The fecond inflance, au To πargos vμwr, may, we think, be tranflated without any great ambiguity, literally: again, we think no great difficulty can arife from tranflating of it, Mark iv. 11. thofe without,' for the words certainly exclude, by their tenour and the context, every one but the difciples. Mark might perhaps allude to the ifateric and exoteric doctrines.

Sometimes the times of verbs will not admit of a tranflation perfectly literal; and this deviation is abfolutely neceffary, fince the genius and idiom of each language often differ; fo that what may be good Greek is bad English. The third circumstance, in which we must give up a literal tranflation is, where the peculiar forms of expreflion are repug pant to the English idioms. A ftrong inftance of this we find in rendering the word amongibas, anfwering,' which it literally means in a few paffages; but this tranflation often renders the whole abfurd, as an answer appears to be given where no queftion is afked, and fometimes to things inanimate; Matth. xi. 25. and Mark xi. 13. afford paffages of this kind. 'The meaning undoubtedly is, as Dr. Priestley has rendered it, at that time Jefus took occafion to fay,' or, according to Dr. Campbell, On that occafion Jefus faid,'-Agxoua is often an expletive, though it has, in more than one instance, a peculiar force. The diftinction our author has properly pointed out, and we find it is well preferved in Dr. Campbell's tranflation. Lox is a fimilar word, and often an expletive. Opening his mouth, avižas to soμa, is not always an expletive, or an Hebraifm. Our author feems to think that it may be occafionally tranflated, He raised his voice,

6

and