deioidaiμoveσtépous (Aets xvii. 22) is not too superstitious, but too much addicted to multiply divinities.

ye

As instances of harsh translations, I would refer to those passages (Rom. xiv. 23; 1 Cor. xi. 29) where damnation is threatened to him who doubts, and to him who eats the Supper of the Lord unworthily. The word in each case has not the strength of damnation, but of condemnation. At Gal. v. 17 we read-" The flesh warreth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these things are contrary, the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that would." Now here our translators have made Paul say that it is impossible to do the things that we would; whereas the idiom in the original expresses only that the opposition between flesh and spirit has this tendency,-operates as an impediment to our doing what we would. In addition to these examples, there is Peter's rebuke of our Lord, "Far be it from thee," &c., mentioned in its proper place, and the recurrence of the apparently harsh term woman," ," where we should use a milder or per

66

haps a nobler word, which should not be omitted.

IV. The next class of errors arises from the recurrence of words and expressions, which, though formerly common and well understood, are now obsolete, or have changed in some measure their meaning since our translators used them. "Edify" and "edification are notable instances, being words of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament, not however with the once

1 See Hinds on Authorized Version, p. 21.

figurative, though now ordinary, sense, but with much of the primary sense of building up. See Eph. iv. 12, 16; 1 Thess. v. 11; Rom. xiv. 19. "Preach" is another worthy example of a word which, though it has an extended and loosely defined meaning at present, had formerly a strictly defined one. At present it is synonymous with discourse, teach, and proclaim news; but with the writers of the New Testament are found three words, one for each of these meanings, and never running into the province of the others; and our translators have almost without an exception kept up the proper distinction, using preaching in the narrow, defined sense of proclaiming something which the hearers have never heard before, and for what constitutes that which we now call preaching, using the terms discoursing or teaching. Acts xx. 9, affords, I believe, the only exception, dianeyouévou being there rendered preaching, instead of discoursing. To these examples may be added the following, most of them mentioned in their proper place : "publican," a tax collector (frequently used throughout the Gospels); "offend," to cause to stumble (Matt. v. 29, and elsewhere); "strait," narrow (Matt. vii. 13, 14); "doctrine," mode of teaching (Matt. vii. 28); "saint," a baptized Christian (frequent throughout the Epistles. We find it affixed to the names of the Evangelists and Apostles, but without authority, almost without meaning); "scrip," a small bag (Mark vi. 8); "room,"

1 Κηρύττειν, to preach; Διδάσκειν, to teach; Διαλέγεσθαι, το discourse.

b

15);

not, as now, an apartment, but a place for a single person (Luke xiv. 8); "affect," to pay court to (Gal. iv. 17; affections, meaning passions, occurs at verse 24); "sometimes," once (Eph. ii. 13); "piety," regard for filial duty (1 Tim. v. 4); "usury," interest (Matt. xxv. 27); "charger," a dish (Matt. xiv. 8); "frankly," without fee or reward (Luke vii. 42); agony," a vehement struggle (Luke xxii. 44); "lewd," not, as now, given to a certain vice, but generally wicked (Tovngóus, Acts xvii. 5); "constantly," firmly (Acts xii. 15); "carriages," baggage (Acts xxi. "reprobate," unable to bear a test (2 Cor. xiii. "seditions," not confined to state crimes but, separations, of any description (Gal. v. 20); "nephew,” descendant (1 Tim. v. 4); "religion," religious exercises (James i. 27); "wot," to know (Rom. xi. 2; Phil. i. 22); "do to wit," to make known (2 Cor. viii. 1). Referring the reader to the Notes for more examples, I shall only mention the word "mystery," formerly applied in this country to a thing revealed-as when a sacred story was disclosed in a "mystery" or drama, or the mystery of a craft or trade was taught. Even in King James' day the word was becoming obsolete; but in ours, as originally used, it lingers only in indentures of apprenticeship.

5);

1

V. On the use of shall and will in our Version Bishop Copleston says, "It is worthy of remark that the frequent use of shall for will favours the Calvinistic

Sermons on Necessity and Predestination, 2nd edit. p. 101, note.

interpretation of prophecy, and gives the appearance of an authoritative decree to many passages which simply announce what is about to happen. But this use of the word shall is no evidence of the opinions of the Bible translators one way or the other, if it be true, which I have heard asserted by a competent judge, that the word will is never used in that translation as the sign of the future tense merely, but that when employed it always denotes volition. The extended use of the word will to express simple futurition seems to be one of the changes our language has undergone during the last two centuries." "If," says Archbishop Whately, after quoting the above, "I am going too far in saying, that the word will is never used in that translation to denote simple futurity but always volition, at least it may be safely asserted that such is the rule generally observed. The probability is, that our language was at that period in a state of transition as to the use of will and shall; and that the rule which our Bible translators have, chiefly at least, adhered to, was that of the older use."

These are words which should be read and remembered by every earnest searcher of Scripture, and to them I shall add nothing, merely noting Luke xiii. 31, and John viii. 44, as two passages out of very many, to which the above remarks apply.

VI. One of the greatest inaccuracies in our Version is its great carelessness of the force of the Greek Ar

2 Whately's edition of Dr. King's Discourse on Predestination, 3rd edit. 476, note.

ticle, and to this point-a point involving most serious consequences, as we shall presently see-much attention has been devoted in the following pages, though I have not thought fit to note every recurrence of an inaccuracy which is much to be deplored. A remarkable instance of the oversight of it-an oversight the source of a common error- -is found at John xviii. 15, where in our translation we read that "Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did an other disciple." The Greek (annos μabnths) has "the other disciple," referring us back to a disciple mentioned before, as he who was "known unto the High Priest," and who brought Peter into the palace when Jesus after betrayal was led there. In verse 5 we find this disciple was Judas Iscariot, not John, as is popularly believed, and thus an historical error of no little moment is satisfactorily solved. Other instances of want of attention to the use of the Greek article are found in great abundance in the Epistles of Paul, especially where it is joined with "others" or 66 many." Take an example: Paul says (Rom. v. 15), " If through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." In this passage, instead of "many," in both cases, we should read the many, or the body of mankind, and instead of "by one man," the one man, as pointing out Christ as the, one, only Saviour of the whole world. A perusal of the following Notes will show how prevalent is this omission of the article where power and tone of the sentence are powerfully af

the