Such are the objections which have been made to the king's translation by the protestants. They are mentioned here as historical facts. How far they are just, lies with the reader to consider. The objections made by the papists, were the same with those which were made to the former translations; and particularly, that several texts are mis-translated from the translators' aversion to the doctrines and usages of the church of Rome.

If the reader desires more full information concerning the English translations of the bible, he may consult Anthony Johnson's historical account, published at London in 1730; also John Lewis's complete history of the several translations of the bible in English, 2d. edit. published at London in 1739. From which treatises, most of the facts relating to the English translations of the bible, mentioned in this section, are taken.

Since the commencement of the present century, several English translations of the gospels and epistles have been published by private hands. But they are little different in the sense from the king's translation; or, if they differ, it is occasioned by their giving the sense of a few passages, not in a different translation, but in paraphrases which do not truly express the meaning of the original. And even where the meaning is truly expressed, it cannot be said that the translation is improved by these paraphrases, at least in those instances where the sense could have been represented with equal strength and perspicuity, in a literal version.

From the foregoing account of the English translations of the bible, it appears, that they are not different translations, but different editions of Tyndal and Coverdale's translation. It appears likewise, that Tyndal and Coverdale's translation, of which the rest are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the vulgate Latin. For as they did not say in the title pages that their translation was made from the originals, and as Coverdale, in particular, declared in his prefaces to Hollybushe's new testament, that he swerved as little as possible from his Latin text, it is reasonable to think that Tyndal and he made their translation from that text. Besides, it did not suit their purpose to translate from the originals. The vulgate Latin text being the only word of God that was then known to the people, and even to many of the clergy, these translators knew, that the nearer their version approached to the Latin bible, they would

be the less offensive; a consideration which Coverdale acknowledges in his prefaces, had great weight with him.

As Tyndal and Coverdale made their translation from the vulgate, they could hardly avoid adopting a number of its errors. Some that were palpable, they corrected, especially when the sense of the passage suggested the correction. But in translating the more difficult texts, which they did not understand, they implicitly followed the vulgate, as Luther, Erasmus and others had done before them. It is true, their translation was often corrected, in the editions of the English bible, which were published from time to time. But the corrections were made chiefly in the phraseology. The alteration of the English language made it necessary, in every revisal of the translation, to substitute modern words and phrases, in place of those which were becoming obsolete. But few alterations were made in the sense, except in the passages which had a relation to the popish controversy, which, on that account, were considered with more carc. Wherefore, cach new edition being little different from the preceding one, none of them were esteemed new translations, as is plain from the public acts prohibiting the use of the English bibles. For, in these acts, they are all called Tyndal and Coverdale's translation.

To conclude: If Tyndal and Coverdale's translation was made from the vulgate Latin, and if the subsequent English transla tions, as they have been called, were only corrected editions of their version, and if the corrections made from time to time in the different editions, respected the language more than the sense, is it to be thought strange, that many of the errors of that translation, especially those copied from the vulgate, have been continued ever since, in all the editions of the English bible? Even that which is called the king's transla'ion, though, in general, much better than the rest, being radically the same, is not a little faulty, as it was not thoroughly and impartially corrected by the revisers. It is therefore, by no means, such a just representation of the inspired originals, as merits to be implicitly relied on, for determining the controverted articles of the Christian faith, and for quieting the dissensions which have rent the Church.

SECTION III.

Of the principles on which the translation now offered to the public

is formed.

The history of the ancient and modern versions of the scriptures, given in the preceding sections, must have convinced every unprejudiced reader, that a translation of the sacred writings, more agreeable to the original, and more intelligible and unambiguous, than any hitherto extant, is much wanted. In this persuasion, the author formed the design of translating the apostolical epistles, although he was sensible the attempt would be attended with great difficulties, and be liable to many objections. But objections were made to Jerome's corrections of the Italic version of the new testament. And in an age much more enlightened, when the correction of the bishops' bible was proposed, there were some who did not approve of the design, fearing bad consequences would follow the alteration of a book rendered sacred in the eyes of the people by long use. On both occasions, however, these objections were justly disregarded, for the sake of the advantages expected from a translation of the inspired writings, more consonant to the original. Wherefore, that the reader may be enabled to conjecture, whether, in the following version of the apostolical epistles, the alterations that are made in the translation, be of sufficient importance to justify the author in publishing it, he will now explain the principles on which it is formed, in such a manner as to give a general idea of the number and nature of these alterations. At the same time, to remove such prejudices as may remain in the minds of the serious, against altering the common translation, he will mention a few of the many advantages which will be derived from a new translation of the scriptures, skilfully and faithfully executed.

Sensible that the former translators have been misled, by copying those who went before them, the author, to avoid the errors which that method leads to, hath made his translation from the original itself. And that it might be a true image of the original, he hath, in making it, observed the following rules: 1. He hath translated the Greek text as literally as the genius of the two languages would permit. And because the sense of particular passages sometimes depends on the order of the words in the original, the author, in his translation, hath placed the English words and clauses, where it could be done to advantage, in VOL. I.

6

the order which the corresponding words and clauses hold in the original. By thus strictly adhering to the Greek text, where it could be done consistently with perspicuity, the emphasis of the sacred phraseology is preserved, and the meaning of the inspired penmen is better represented, than it can be in a free translation, (See p. 31. note.) To these advantages, add, that in this literal method, the difficult passages being exhibited in their genuine form, the unlearned have thereby an opportunity of exercising their own ingenuity in finding out their meaning. Whereas, in a free translation, the words of the inspired writer being concealed, no subject of examination is presented to the unlearned, but the translator's sense of the passage, which may be very different from its true meaning.

2. As the Greek language admits an artificial order of the words of a sentence, or period, which the English language does not allow, in translating many passages of the apostolical epistles, it is necessary to place the words in their proper connection, without regarding the order in which they stand in the original. This method the author hath followed in his translation, where it was necessary, and thereby hath obtained a better sense of many passages*, than that given in our English version, where the translators have followed the order of the Greek words, or have construed them improperly.

3. With respect to the Hebraisms † found in the scriptures, it is to be observed, first, That as the Greek language, in its

* The following are examples of the propriety of translating some passages according to a just, though not an obvious construction of the original words: Mat. xix. 4. That he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female. In this translation, our Lord's argument does not appear But the original, ότι ο ποιήσας απ' αρχής άρσεν και θήλυ εποίησεν αυτές, rightly construed, stands thus: ότι ο ποίησας αυτός, απ' αρχής εποίησεν αρσεν και θήλυ, which literally translated, gives this meaning: That he who made them, at the beginning made a male and a female. According to this translation, our Lord's reasoning is clear and conclusive. At the beginning, God made only one male and one female, of the human species, to shew, that adultery and polygamy are contrary to his intention, in creating man. See Mal. ii. 14, 15.→→→→ Mat. xxvi. 66. ει δε πορευθέντες ησφαλίσαντο τον ταφον, σφράγισαντες τον λίθον META THE x85wdtas. So they going away, made the sepulchre sure with the watch, having scal. ed the stone.----1 Cor. xvi. 2. Κατά μια σαββαλων έκας ὑμῶν παρ' ἑαυτῷ τίθετα θησαυρίζων ό τι αν ευόδωται construed, will stand thus : Κατά μιαν σαββαλαν έκαςο ύμων τίθετω τι παρ' ἑαυτῷ (sup. καθ') ὁ ευοδώθαι αν, θησαυρίζων. On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come there may be no collections.Heb. xi. 3. So that things = which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Here our transiators have followed Beza. But the original, rightly construed, stands thus: s ro ru Brewoμeva, jeg ovevæι en un pivoAvv. So that the things which are seen, were made of things which did not appear: that is, were made of nothing. See more examples, p. 10.

+ Modern critics contend, that in a translation of the scriptures, the Hebraisms should not be rendered literally; but that words and phrases, expressive of their meaning, should be substi” tuted in their places. This, it must be acknowledged, is a proper method of translating such

classical purity, did not furnish phrases fit to convey just ideas of spiritual matters, these could only be expressed intelligibly, in the language of the ancient revelation, dictated by the Spirit of God. Many, therefore, of these Hebrew forms of expression are retained in this translation, because they run with a peculiar grace in our language, and are more expressive than if they were turned into modern phrase: besides, having long had a place in our bibles, they are well understood by the people. Secondly, There are in scripture some Hebraisms, quite remote from the ideas and phraseology of modern nations, which would not be understood, if literally translated. Of these, the meaning only is given in this version.-Thirdly, There is a kind of Hebraism, which consists in the promiscuous use of the numbers of the nouns, and of the tenses of the verbs. These the author hath translated in the number and tense which the sense of the passages requires.-Fourthly, The inspired writers being Jews, naturally used the Greek particles, in all the latitude of signification, proper to the corresponding particles in their own language; for which reason, they are, in this translation, interpreted in the same latitude. Of the two last mentioned kinds of Hebraism, many examples are given in Prel. Ess. iv.

4. In St. Paul's epistles there are many elliptical sentences, which the persons to whom he wrote could easily supply; because they were familiar to them, and because the genders of the Greek words directed those who understood the language, to the particular word or words which are wanting to complete the sense. Wherefore, no translation of St. Paul's epistles, into a language which does not mark the genders, by the termination of the words, will be understood by the unlearned, unless the elliptical sentences are completed. In this translation, therefore, the author hath completed the defective passages; and the words which he hath added for that purpose, he hath printed in a dif

Hebraisms as are not understood by the vulgar, if the learned are agreed as to their signification. For example, because it is universally acknowledged, that Rev. ii. 23. I am he who searcheth the reins and hearts, signifies, I am he who searcheth the inward thoughts and dispositions, the pas sage may with propriety be so translated. But when the meaning of an Hebraism is disputed, and its literal sense is made the foundation of a controverted doctrine, such as Rom. ix. 18. Whom he will, he hardeneth; what the translator supposes to be the meaning of the expression, should by no means be substituted in the translation. For candour requires, that in such cases the translator should keep close to the words of the original, if they can be literally translated in an intelligible manner, and should leave it to theologians to settle the meaning of the Hebraism, by fair reasoning from the context, and from other passages relative to the same subject because, in this method, its meaning will at length be successfully established.