that would be imposed upon them by such authority, and they will not agree among themselves to select persons, in whose judgment and fidelity they might repose confidence. Individuals will occasionally make their corrections and amendments, and the number of translations may greatly increase; until, at length, that obtains, whose merits shall give it the ascendant. This was once the case already, and the Western Roman Empire had but one translation for twelve hundred years. The taste for polemic theology and the jargon of the schools is every day declining. That uncharitableness, which proscribed thousands from the standing and reputation of christians, because of a refusal to subscribe a few unintelligible and inexplicable, cheerless and gloomy dogmas, will be frowned out of countenance. A regard for the oracles of God, and a strong desire for the unadulterated milk of the word, will triumph over the declension and fall of every species of intolerance and bigotry. And that translation will be universally received, which has the strongest claims on an intelligent, united, and happy christian community.

But another argument in favor of a new translation may be drawn from the fact, that we are now in possession of much better means of making an exact translation, than they were at the time when the common version appeared. The original is now much better understood than it was then. The conflicts of so many critics have elicited a great deal of sound critical knowledge, which was not in the possession of any translators before the last century. But as this topic has been so well handled, and so frequently argued by eminent writers, we shall not dwell upon it.

There is no doubt but many smatterers in the original Greek, and some, who may be pretty well acquainted with the classical use and meaning of words and phrases, will think and say, that, in some passages, the common version is more literally correct than this translation. Indeed, we remember since we once thought so ourselves. But after forming a better acquaintance with the idiomatic style of the apostolic writings, and of the Septuagint Greek, we have been fully convinced, that what a classical scholar, or a critical etymologist, might approve as a literal version of some passages, is by no means the meaning of the writer. And the King's translators have frequently erred in attempting to be, what some would call, literally correct. They have not given the meaning in some passages, where they have given a literal translation. An example or two will suffice to confirm these remarks:

ПPOOPAN, in the estimation of almost every student, literally means 1 foresee. This, in a quotation from the Psalms, is, in the common version, rendered, "I foresaw the Lord always before my face." This, a Greek scholar would say, is very correctly rendered, and much more so than to have read it, "I fixed my mind upon the Lord." Yet the latter is just the meaning of the passage; for ПPо in composition signifies place as well as time, and is here what grammarians call intensive. Again, the Hebrew word, translated in the Septuagint by ПOOPАn, signifies to place or set. But even when IPO in composition with OPAN signifies time and not place, it will not always suit the design of the passage to translate it I foresee. The King's translators found it would not do to render it, Acts xxi. 29., as they have done above. Here they render it "seen before," "They had seen before with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian." To have said, They had foreseen with him, would have changed the meaning altogether.

The same sort of error is found in Romans xi. 2., though in another word, ПPOгINOK, I foreknow. The phrase is, "God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." This is literal enough, and yet not the meaning of the -passage. Foreknow means to know some event before it happen. But this gives no meaning to the passage. Here is nothing that distinguishes God's people from any other people; and yet the Apostle, to have spoken good sense, must have meant something, on account of which God would not cast away his people. But there is nothing said in this translation about them, that might not have been said about the greatest reprobates.

Now there is the same difference between knowing before, and foreknowing; that there is between seeing before and foreseeing. The translators seem at other times to have known this, for they render Acts xxvi. 5. quite differently: "The Jews which knew me from the beginning," not foreknew me. In another place they have rendered ПPOEIPHKA very properly, "I have said before;” because it would have been absurd to render it literally, "I have foretold." Now in the Septuagint Greek, the verb гINNEKO signifies I approve, as well as I know, and is so used in the apostolic style. In the phrase, "Depart from me, I never knew you," it ought to have been rendered, I never approved or acknowledged you; and in many other places the sense would have been obvious, had the Helenistic sense of the term been given. The passage in the Epistle to the Romans, therefore, means, "God has not cast away his people, whom heretofore he acknowledged," or approved.

This is not the place for entering largely into such specifications. We can only produce an instance or two, and proceed. Those who may be disposed to object to some passages in this version, as not being so literal as in the common one, before they proceed to pronounce sentence upon them, had better read all Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations and Notes, Critical and Explanatory; and particularly his fourth dissertation, from which we have taken the above examples. Let him also read Macknight's disquisitions and criticisms on the minor terms such as adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions; and then, he will be better prepared to estimate the merits of this, and the common version, on the subject of literal translations.

We would also remind the same class of readers, that an intimate acquaintance with the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament, is of essential importance in translating the New. The seventy Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into the Greek language, gave to that translation the idiom of their vernacular tongue. Their translation, if I may so speak, is a sort of Hebrew Greek. The body is Greek, but the soul is Hebrew; and, in effect, it comes to this, that, as we have no other Hebrew by which to understand the Hebrew scriptures, but the Hebrew of the Old Testament; so, we have no Greek by which to understand the apostolic writings, but the Greek of the Jewish and Christian Prophets. The parallelism is so nearly exact, that it subtracts but little from it to allow, that there is much advantage in having a correct knowledge of the Greek classics. The Septuagint being read for nearly three centuries prior to the Christian era, in all the synagogues of the Helenistic Jews, and being generally quoted by our Lord and his Apostles, must have essentially affected the idiom of all the inspired writings of the Christian Apostles; consequently, incomparably more regard should be paid to the Septuagint, than to the classic use of Greek terms.

To superficial readers many improvements in this version will appear of little importance; but to those who think more profoundly, some of the most minute alterations will throw a new light and lustre on many passages. But of this every reader will judge after his own measure. We would only say, that the edification and comfort of christians may be greatly promoted, by a minute examination of this version, and a diligent comparison of it with the

common one.

But some are so wedded to the common version, that the very defects in it have become sacred; and an effort, however well intended, to put them in possession of one incomparably superior in propriety, perspicuity, and elegance, is viewed very much in the light of "making a new Bible," or of "altering and amending the very word of God!" Nay, some are prepared to doom every attempt of the kind, to the anathema, in the conclusion of the Apocalypse upon those, who add to the word of God, or subtract from it. To such we had concluded to offer some remarks; but finding our ideas so much more happily expressed in the Preface to "Campbell's Gospels," we had extracted a few passages, and in examining the London edition of this same version, found that the Editor of

it had actually published in his preface the passages we had selected for ours. Struck with the coincidence, we here insert the whole preface to the late London edition of this translation, which, with the exception of the two first sentences, is all extracted from Campbell's original preface to this translation:"Many timid, yet well disposed persons have been apprehensive, that a new translation of the Holy Scriptures might tend to diminish the veneration of mankind for those sacred oracles, and thereby unsettle their faith in the Christian doctrine. To such, the subjoined extracts from Dr. Campbell's preface to the Four Gospels, may not prove altogether unprofitable:

"Need I, in so late and so enlightened an age, subjoin an apology for the design itself of giving a new translation of any part of scripture? Yet there are some knowing and ingenious men, who seem to be alarmed at the mention of translation, as if such an attempt would sap the very foundation of the Christian edifice, and put the faith of the people in the most imminent danger of being buried in its ruins. This is no new apprehension. The same alarm was taken so early as the fourth century, when Jerome was employed in preparing a new translation of the Bible into Latin; or, at least, in making such alterations and corrections on the old Italic, as the original, and the best Latin manuscripts, should appear to warrant. The people in general exclaimed; and even the learned were far from applauding an attempt which, in their judgment, was so bold and so dangerous. Augustin, in particular, who admired the profound erudition of Jerome, and had a high esteem of his talents, yet dreaded much, that the consequence of such an undertaking would prove prejudicial to the authority of scripture, and did not hesitate to express his disapprobation in very strong terms. That interpreter, however, persevered in spite of the greatest discouragements, the dissuasion of friends, the invectives of enemies, and the unfavorable impressions which, by their means, were made upon the people. The version was made and published; and those hideous bugbears of fatal consequences, which had been so much descanted on, were no more heard of.

"How dismal were the apprehensions, which were entertained immediately after the Reformation, on account of the many translations of scripture which came in quick succession, one after another! Have men's fears been justified by the effect? Quite the reverse. The violent concussion of parties at the Reformation, produced, as might have been expected, a number of controversies, which were for some time hotly agitated: but the greater part of these were in being, before these versions were made. Nothing will be found to have conduced more to subvert the dominion of the metaphysical theology of the schoolmen, with all its interminable questions, cobweb distinctions, and wars of words, than the critical study of the sacred scripture, to which the modern translations have not a little contributed.

1

"It has been said, that the introduction of different translations tends to unsettle men in their principles, particularly with regard to the authority of sacred writ, which, say they, is made to speak so variously in these productions. For my part, I have not discovered that this is, in any degree, the effect. The agreement of all the translations, as to the meaning, in every thing of principal consequence, makes their differences, when properly, considered, appear as nothing. They are but like the inconsiderable variations in expression, which different witnesses, though all perfectly unexceptionable, employ in relating the same fact. They rather confirm men's faith in the scripture, as they show, in the strongest light, that all the various ways, which men of discordant sentiments have devised, of rendering its words, have made no material alteration, either on the narrative itself, or on the divine instructions contained in it. People are at no loss to discover, that the difference among interpreters lies chiefly in this, that one renders the account of things, which that book exhibits, more intelligible, more perspicuous, or even more affecting than another. These differences are, I acknowledge, of great moment to readers; they are such, as may show one version to be greatly superior to another, in point of use; yet as

they are all compatible with justness of representation, in every thing essential to the historical and didactic parts of the work, they are so far from affecting the credibility of the whole, that they serve not a little to confirm it."

To these judicious remarks, extracted from Dr. Campbell's preface to his translation, I will add another. "Against the common translation, in use at present, which was made and authorized in the beginning of the reign of James I. there were precisely the same exceptions taken, founded in the like apprehensions of pernicious consequences. Whoever will consult the preface to that translation, and read the paragraph which is titled on the margin, The Speeches and reasons both of our Brethren and Adversaries against this Work,' will be surprised to find how much they coincide, with what has been thrown out of late against any new attempt of the kind. It is remarkable, that since the days of Jerome to the present, the same terrible forebodings have always accompanied the undertaking, and vanished on the execution; insomuch, that the fatal effects predicted, have never afterwards been heard of."

If the mere publication of a version of the inspired writers requires, as we think it does, the publisher to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to all that we have written on religious subjects, to show that we have no such object in view. We have disclaimed, and do again disclaim, all affection or partiality for any human system, creed, or formulary under heaven. The whole scope, design, and drift of our labors, is to see Christians intelligent, united, and happy. Believing that all sects have gone out of the apostolic way, and that every sect must go out of the way (for Christianity is in its nature hostile to each and to every sect,) we will not, we cannot, we dare not do any thing for the erection of a new one, or for assisting any now in existence in its human appendages. As to any predilection or preference to any one now existing, we have none, farther than they hold the traditions of the Apostles. As far as they hold fast these, we hold with them; and where they desert these, we desert them. Besides, we have no aversion to, or umbrage against, any one more than another. We oppose them most, who most oppose and depart from the simplicity, that is in Christ. I do most solemnly declare, that, as far as respects my feelings, partialities, reputation, and worldly interest as a man, I would become a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Quaker, a Universalist, a Socinian, or any thing else, before the sun would set to-day, if the Apostolic writings would, in my judgment, authorize me in so doing; and that I would not give one turn to the meaning of an adverb, preposition, or interjection, to aid any sectarian cause in the world. Whether every reader may give me credit in so declaring myself, I know not; but I thought it due to the occasion, thus to express the genuine and unaffected feelings of my heart. May all, who honestly examine this version, abundantly partake of the blessings of that Spirit, which guided the writers of this volume, and which in every page breathes, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, peace on earth, and good will among men."

January 29th, 1826.

A. C.

MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN.

THESE books were designed to be read and understood, by persons of the humblest capacity, as well as by those of the most exalted genius. Readers of the most limited education, as well as those of the most liberal attainments, were equally embraced in the views of the writers. If particular attention was paid to any class of readers, it was doubtless to the poor, who have not the means of a refined ucation. One of the most striking evidences of the divine mission of the Saviour was, that, to the rooR his glad tidings were announced. A revelation not adapted to them, forfeits all claims to a divine original.

In laying down some general principles or rules, for reading intelligibly the following narratives, regard must be had to all sorts of readers-the young as well as the old; the illiterate as well as the learned; and also some attention must be paid to the difficulties, that lie in the way of a rational and profitable perusal of them.

In the first place, then, there is no opinion or notion, which is more prejudicial to an intimate acquaintance with these writings, than that of the Egyptian priests, introduced into the first theological school at Alexandria, and carried throughout christendom-viz. "That the words of scripture have a mystical, spiritual, theological, or some other than a literal meaning; and that the same rules of interpretation are not to be applied to the inspired writings, which are applied to human compositions:" than which, no opinion is more absurd and pernicious. If this notion were correct, all efforts to understand this book must be in vain, until God sends us an interpreter, who can resolve those enigmas and mystic words of theological in,port, and give us the plain meaning, of what the Apostles and Evangelists wrote.

The reader will please to consider that, when God spoke to man, he adopted the language of man. To the fathers of the Jewish nation he spoke in their mother tongue. By his Son, and his Son by the Apostles, spoke to every nation in its own language. When he spoke to any nation, he uniformly adopted the words of that nation, in expressing his will to it. And that he used their words in the commonly received sense, needs no other proof than this, that if he had not done so, instead of enlightening them in the knowledge of his will, he would have deceived and confounded them: than which, no hypothesis is more impious. For example, were God to speak to us in English, and select from our vocabulary the words death, punishment, perpetual, and wicked; were he to use the last term as we use it, and annex to the others a signification, different from that we affix to them-such as to mean life by the term death, happiness by the term punishment, and a limited time by the word perpetual; and, without apprising us of such a change in their meaning, say, "Perpetual death shall be the punishment of the wicked," what a deception would he practise upon us! His words, in our acceptation, would convey a tremendous thought; but, in his reserved sense, would mean no more than, “A limited life shall be the happiness of the wicked."

Once more on this topic. As nothing can be said to be revealed or made known, by words which are not perfectly intelligible, so we find the sacred writers so conscious of this, that when they used any word, which was not familiar to the readers whom they addressed, they immediately add, "Which being interpreted, signifies." If, then, those writers were accustomed to explain any word not familiar to their readers, does it not undeniably follow, that they supposed every word or allusion, not so explained, sufficiently plain already?