: "Those who have compared most of the European translations with the original, have not scrupled to say, that the English translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James I., is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its was agreed to be the best of any translation in the | English Bible with all the MSS. and collections world." Such is the narrative of the lord com- from MSS. to which he could obtain access, he missioner Whitlock, who had the care of the thus speaks of this Version :business, and who took great pains in the design, which became fruitless by the dissolution of the parliament. Johnson, in his account of the English translations, relates, that the committee and their learned associates "pretended to discover some mistakes in the last English translation, which yet they allowed was the best extant." This judgment, which was confirmed by Walton, personally, in the prolegomena to his Polyglott, was delivered at a time when the nation, as this profound scholar himself has told us, "had more men of eminent skill in languages than ever heretofore." 4. These testimonies, however, only refer to the comparative excellence of the English Vulgate; something more positive and unqualified will add to their value. We select the following out of many entitled to equal weight : (1) Bishop Walton, in the Defence of his Polyglott Bible (p. 5), says that this translation "may justly contend with any now extant in any other language in Europe." (2) Dr. Geddes, whose profound and various learning, and extensive acquaintance with biblical literature, entitle his judgment to great respect, while his peculiar theological opinions render his testimony the more independent, and therefore valuable, thus speaks of the authorised Version : "The means and the method employed to produce this translation promised something extremely satisfactory; and great expectations were formed from the united abilities of so many learned men, selected for the purpose, and excited to emulation by the encouragement of a munificent prince, who had declared himself the patron of the work. Accordingly, the highest eulogiums have been made on it, both by our own writers and by foreigners; and, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent Version, this, of all Versions, must in general be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed, either in the text or margin, with the greatest precision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal; and it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that it may serve for a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation."* (3) Dr. Adam Clarke's testimony is highly valuable. After having himself translated every word from the originals, which he made his constant study for more than half a century, and diligently collated the common printed text of the * Prospectus of a New Translation, p. 92. only praise; the translators have seized the very almost every where with pathos and energy..... The spirit and soul of the original, and expressed this ori inal, from which it was taken, is alone superior to the Bible which was translated by the authority of King James. This is an opinion in which my heart, my judgment, and my conscience coincide."+ (4) Dr. Doddridge says: "On a diligent comparison of our translation with the original, we find that of the New Testament, and I might also add that of the Old, in the main faithful and judicious. You know, indeed, that we do not scruple, on some occasions, to animadvert upon it; but you also know, that these remarks affect not the fundamentals of religion, and seldom reach any farther than the beauty of a figure, or, at most, the connexion of an argument."‡ (5) The late Rev. William Orme, whose judgment was as sound as his learning was solid, speaks of the English Version in the following terms :— "Like every thing human, it is no doubt imperfect; but, as a translation of the Bible, it has few faithful, simple, and perspicuous. It has seized the rivals, and, as a whole, no superior. It is in general spirit and copied the manner of the divine originals. It seldom descends to meanness or vulgarity; but often rises to elegance and sublimity. It is level to the understanding of the cottager, and fit to mect the eye of the critic, the poet, and the philosopher."|| 5. Such, according to the most competent and independent judges, is the general excellence— the fidelity and high literary qualities, of the English Vulgate. The testimony to this important fact cannot but be gratifying to those whose daily companion it is, and who constantly study its pages for religious instruction and comfort. as well as of the excellencies of which it partakes. | But in a phrase exactly similar (Judg. xvii. 6), The authorised Version of the Bible having been made at a time when the critical apparatus for ascertaining and restoring the purity of the text of both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures was very defective, it must partake, of course, in a very large degree, of those imperfections of which mention has already been made in Section V. But independently of these imperfections, which belong to all the early Versions in common, the following intrinsic and peculiar blemishes are observable in the English translation. 1. There is a want of uniformity in the mode of translating the absence of "an identity of phrasing," as the translators themselves call it, which greatly impairs its value. We may give a few specimens of this diversity of rendering, both in words and in phrases. (1) Of words. Passing over many others that may, perhaps, be deemed nearly synonymous, as fountain or spring; dwelling-place or habitation; shield or buckler; mitre, diadem, or hood; to rail, to mourn, or to lament; we find the same word translated locust and grasshopper; reormwood and hemlock; lintel and door-post; onl and ostrich; nettles and thorns; hell and the grave; cormorant and pelican; law, statute, decree, and ordinance; coat of mail, habergeon, and breastplate; a fort, hold, strong hold, castle, munition, and bulwark; vessels, furniture, instruments; stuff, armour, and weapons; nations, Gentiles, and heathens; a pattern, likeness, form, similitude, and figure; heaven, heavens, the heavens, and air. This incongruity of rendering is certainly objectionable, since it not only necessarily implies a want of fidelity in giving the exact sense of the original phrases, but also, and perhaps chiefly, because it is calculated to embarrass and perplex the reader. they translate, "Every one did that which was right in his own eyes." Again, in Gen. xli. 37, they say, " And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh;" but in Numb. xi. 10, they have not translated, "It was also evil in the eyes of Moses," but "Moses was also displeased." But there are no phrases, in the rendering of which our translators have shown more variety than in those in which the words ben and aish make a part. The former of these, which primarily signifies a son, and secondarily a descendant of any kind, has in the Oriental dialects a much wider acceptation, and is applied, not only to the offspring of the animal creation, but also to productions of every sort; and what is still more catachrestical, even to consequential or concomitant relations; so that an arrow is called "the son of the bow;" the morning star, "the son of the morning;" threshed-out corn, "the son of the floor," and anointed persons, "the sons of oil." In rendering such phrases as these, our translators have generally softened the Hebraism, but after no uniform manner. "Sons of Belial" is surely not more intelligible to an English reader, than "sons of oil," and much less so than sons of valour,” sons of righteousness,” “sons of iniquity:" yet, while they retain the first Hebraism, with all its original harshness, and partly in its original form, they mollify the last three into "valiant men," "righteous men," "wicked men." Nay, even in the retention of the Hebraism in the first case, they are not consistent. If once they admitted the word Belial, they should have retained it, as Geddes remarks, throughout; and said, "a thing of Belial," "a heart of Belial," "a witness of Belial,” the floods of Belial;" which, however, they render, an evil disease," "a wicked heart," "an ungodly witness," "the floods of ungodliness." 66 "How (3) Not only in similar phrases have our translators broken the rules of uniformity, but they have often violated them in rendering the same phrase, and that sometimes in the same chapter. old art thou?" says Pharaoh to Jacob (Gen. xlvii. 8), instead of, "How many are the days of thy years?" But in Jacob's answer (ver. 9) we have, "The days of the years of my pilgrimage are," &c. In ver. 28, they again drop the Hebraism, and translate, "So the whole age of Jacob," for, "all the days of the years of Jacob." (2) Of sentences. There is a diversity in the rendering of these, especially in the translation of idiomatic phrases in the Hebrew language, in which the translators appear to have been guided by no uniform principle, nor even by any rules of grammatical analogy. "To lift up one's feet," for "to remove," is certainly not a more harsh idiotism than "to lift up one's eyes," for "to look up" yet they every where retain the latter Hebraism; never the former. In like manner, "to deliver one's self from the eyes of another," for "to escape from one," is not more abhorrent from our idiom than "to hide one's eyes from another," for "to connive at him;" yet, in the former case, our (4) Many additional instances of this variety of translators rejected the Hebraism in 2 Sam. xx. 6, phrasing might be given; but we have cited but in the latter retained it, in Lev. xx. 4. "To do enough to show that the English translators were what is good in one's eyes," is a Hebraism which not guided by any uniform rule or fixed principle, they have generally rendered by "doing what especially in dealing with the Hebraisms; and, pleaseth or liketh one," Gen. xvi. 6; Esth. viii. 8. | moreover, that this want of uniformity must often produce some inconvenience to the reader of the of no divine authority, but some of them are English Bible. highly valuable as historical documents; particularly the two books of the Maccabees, which help to fill up the history of the interval of time that elapsed between the scaling up of prophecy and the advent of the Messiah. It is to be regretted that some of the other apocryphal books contain gross perversions of truth, and details of an indelicate nature. 2. The Jewish church divided the canonical 2. The anxiety of the translators to render the original literally into English, has sometimes induced them to adopt modes of expression incompatible with the idiom of the language. It is true, the language which they have employed has become so familiar to our ears, by being the language of the national church, that it is in no way offensive to our feelings; but it has been justly remarked, that a proof of many of the Bible ex-books into three classes, under which form they were pressions being neither natural nor analogous, is seen in the fact, that they have never yet been able to force themselves into common usage, even in conversation. Any person who should employ them in his discourse, would be supposed to jeer at Scripture, or to affect the language of fanaticism. In short, what Selden said of the author-inclusive; and also the books of Job, Joshua, ised Version is strictly just; namely, that it is translated into English words, rather than into English phrase.* I. The BIBLE a word denoting THE BOOK, and applied to the Scriptures by way of eminence or distinction, is divided into two principal parts; THE OLD TESTAMENT, and THE NEW TESTAMENT: the former comprising those books that were written antecedently to the birth of our Saviour; the latter embracing those writings that narrate his history and expound his doctrines. 1. THE OLD TESTAMENT resolves itself into two great divisions; the Canonical Books and the Apocryphal Books: the former were written by persons under the influence of divine inspiration, are a part of the rule of faith and conduct of all believers, and have ever been undisputed in the church, as regards their authority; the latter are generally referred to and quoted: THE LAW, THE PROPHETS, and the HAGIOGRAPHA, or holy writings. THE LAW contained the five books of Moses; frequently called the Pentateuch, i. e., the five Books. THE PROPHETS comprised the whole of the writings now termed prophetical-from Isaiah to Malachi, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; these books having been either written or revised by prophets-probably the former. THE HAGIOGRAPHA included the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. It is thought that our Saviour recognised this division of the sacred books when he said, "All things must be fulfilled which are written in the LAW of Moses, and in the PROPHETS, and in the PSALMS, Concerning me" (Luke xxiv. 44). 3. The books of THE NEW TESTAMENT are divisible into three classes-HISTORICAL, DOCTRINAL, and PROPHETICAL. The first embraces the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; the second includes the Apostolic Epistles; and the third, the Book of Revelation. We do not mean, however, that either of these classes excludes the subject of the other; like all the rest of the sacred books, those of the New Testament are of a mixed nature; each one containing something of history, prophecy, and doctrine. Testament was divided into two parts-the Gospels (1) In the second and third centuries the New and the Epistles, or Gospels and Apostles. Other divisions have been made in subsequent ages, but it is unnecessary to trouble the reader with a description of them. (2) THE NEW TESTAMENT is called in the ment or Covenant, a title that was early borrowed Greek, H KAINH AIAOHKH, the New Testaby the church from the Scriptures (Matt. xxvi. 28; Gal. iii. 17; Heb. viii. 8, ix. 15, 20), and authorised by the apostle Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14. The word diann, in these passages, denotes a covenant; and in this view, THE NEW COVENANT signifies, "A book containing the terms of the new covenant between God and man." But, according to the meaning of the primitive church, which 66 adopted this title, it is not altogether improperly | the New Testament Scriptures, and also that rendered NEW TESTAMENT; as being that in system of grace and mercy which they unfold. which the Christian's inheritance is sealed to him as a son and heir of God, and in which the death of Christ as a testator (Heb. ix. 16, 17) is related at large, and applied to our benefit. As this title implies, that in the gospel unspeakable gifts are given or bequeathed to us, antecedent to all conditions required of us, the title of TESTAMENT may be retained, though that of COVENANT is more exact and proper.* This word, which exactly answers to the Greek term Evayyskov, is derived from the Saxon words, God (good) and spel (speech or tidings), and is evidently intended to denote the good message, or the "glad tidings of great joy," which God has sent to all mankind, "preaching peace by Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all," Acts x. 36. + (4) Concerning the chronological order of the New Testament books, biblical writers are not agreed. The following table is compiled from Mr. Townsend's Chronological Arrangement, where the conflicting opinions of chronologists have been considered and decided upon with great care and (3) The term GOSPEL, which is more generally applied to the writings of the four Evangelists, comprising a history of the transactions of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not unfrequently used in a more extended sense, as including the whole of judgment: 4. That all the books which convey to us the history of events under the New Testament were written and immediately published by persons contemporary with the events, is most fully proved by the testimony of an unbroken series of authors, reaching from the days of the Evangelists to the present times; by the concurrent belief of Christians of all denominations; and by the unreserved confession of avowed enemies to the gospel. In this point of view the writings of the ancient Fathers of the Christian church are invaluable. They contain, not only frequent references and allusions to the books of the New Testament, but Michaelis' Introduction, chap. i.; and Bishop Percy's Key, p. 32. also such numerous professed quotations from them, that it is demonstrably certain, that these books existed in their present state a few years after the conclusion of our Saviour's ministry. But this is not the place to enlarge upon this topic; it will be fully treated of in a subsequent Part. II. From what has now been said, it will be perceived, that the existing arrangement of the sacred books has been made with a view to their subject matter, rather than with reference to their historical connexion; the order of the parts of each division being determined either by the relative importance of the matters to which they ment. See Dr. Adam Clarke's Introduction to the New Testa relate, the comparative consideration of the persons to whom they are addressed, or some other incidental circumstance of a similar kind. This arrangement, which is adopted in most of the modern Versions of the Bible, was originally borrowed, with some trifling exceptions, from the Latin Vulgate, as settled at the council of Trent. It possesses some advantages for reference and consultation; but it should not govern the student in his Scripture studies, in which the natural order of history and chronology should be gene-in one line as were to be read uninterruptedly, so rally adhered to. He who has thus studied the Bible, will readily subscribe to the remark of the erudite Lightfoot, who says, "Such a method is the most satisfactory, delightsome, and confirmative of the understanding, mind, and memory, that may be. This settles histories in your mind; this brings the things as if done before your eyes; this makes you mark what else you would not; and this suffers you not to slip over the least tittle of a word; and sometimes, in things of doubt and scruple, this strikes all out of question." * Hence arose the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew text, and the Euthalian divisions in the Greek text. The date of the former is a matter of uncertainty; some refer it as far back as the days of Ezra, while others maintain that it was unknown before the second century of the Christian era. The divisions made by Euthalius, in the fifth century, were very different from those now made by the usual points, or grammatical stops, and consisted in setting just so many words III.-1. The sacred writings had originally, and for a long period of time, no punctuation, nor any such divisions as that of chapter and verse. The words were not so much as separated by intervals from one another. Letter was strung on to letter, and so continued, that every line was order to form words and discover the sense. So as clearly to disclose the sense of the author. THAT THE AGED MEN BE SOBER SOUND IN FAITH IN LOVE THE AGED WOMEN LIKEWISE NOT GIVEN TO MUCH WINE like a single word. Hence, the reader was obliged It is clear that this mode of writing occupied first to separate and re-combine the letters, in a very large space, to no good purpose, and copyists soon began to improve upon the system, by running on the stichoi or lines, and separating each one by the introduction of a point. The grammarians, however, at length took offence at a mode of punctuation so entirely ungrammatical, fixed rules. This was gradually improved, but and began to introduce distinctions according to did not arrive at any thing like perfection, until very long after the invention of printing. late even as the fifth century, the New Testament had none of the ordinary marks of distinction, although Christendom had no lack of grammarians, who might have here found an undertaking worthy of their art. The following passage will give the uninformed reader some idea, though a very inadequate one, of the continuous form of the original text, and of the misconceptions to which it was liable: 3. Previous to the introduction of these verbal divisions into the sacred text, there existed other and larger divisions, adopted for the purposes of reference and worship. 4. It appears from the references in the New Testament to the Book of Psalms, that they were at that time, and most likely had always been, divided into distinct odes or songs, as we now possess them. But with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures it was different. These were divided, for the convenience of reading, into sections, called Parashim and Haptaroth: the former comprising the law; the latter, the prophets As these divisions were made for the service of the synagogue, each division included fifty-three Parashim or Haptaroth, so that by reading one of each on the several sabbaths, the entire Scriptures were publicly read through in the course of the |