country, must be contemplated by every friend to truth, and Chriftianity, with a pleasure ftill more interefting and exalted.

The Hebrew and other Oriental languages have lately been cultivated by scholars, whofe tafte is equal to their erudition, and who, to the labour of patient and minute inveftigation, have joined that accuracy of judgment, and chaftity of ornament, without which, diligence is often mifapplied, and learning itfeif difgufting. Should the example of fuch critics excite the emulation of others, equally qualified to engage in fimilar purfuits, theology would no longer open to the fteps of the young ftudent thofe intricate and thorny paths, which few have courage to tread, and in which even those who have explored them, have rarely gathered a fingle flower, to cheer them on their way.

But while we are thus taught how the brow of criticism may be fmoothed, while the facred pages are gradually exhibited to us in a form which attracts our curiofity by its novelty, and challenges our admiration by its elegance, there is reafon to apprehend that these advantages, however fubftantial they may be to the learned reader, and however plaufible fome perfons may deem them in every inftance, will, if caution be not used, produce effects the most injurious to religion. There would be no caufe, indeed, to dread thefe effects, if the writers here alluded to, addreffed their criticifms only to fpeculative men; if they were content to hold up that light to fcholars only, the blaze of which, instead of directing the illiterate, will but dazzle and miflead them. The contrary, however, and we fay it with the most serious concern, is unhappily the cafe. To fpeak plainly, we think the frequent recommendations of a new tranflation of the Scriptures the more alarming, as they come from perfons whofe talents derive additional refpe&tability from the purity of their intentions, and whofe reputation confers authority, as well as fplendour, on the highest ftations in the church.

The probable, not to fay the neceflary confequences, of this measure, are dangerous in the extreme. It would tend to shake the faith of thousands, to whom it were impoffible to demonstrate the neceffity of a change, or the principles on which it was conducted. These would lose their veneration for the old verfion, without acquiring fufficient confidence in the new. They would even expect ftill farther alterations, in what they have hitherto received as the infallible oracles of heaven; and thus, being incapable of inquiry themfelves, and fufpicious of their inftructors, might they be abandoned at length, either to doubts that admit of no folution, or to Atheism, which mocks conviction. Great indeed must be the benefits, that can compensate even for the remoteft probability of fuch an evil. Yet we might afk the most zealous advocate for a new verfion, whether the prefent does not convey every inftruction to Chriftians of the lower ranks which they are capable of receiving? Is their view

of

of the great outlines of religion intercepted, or obfcured, because fome of the minuter touches, which their fituation could never have enabled them to perceive, are copied with a lefs faithful pencil? Will the peafant, who has already learnt from his Bible, that there is one God, the punisher of the wicked, and the rewarder of the righteous, reap any neceffary, or ufeful inftruction, from being told, that the words which originally recorded thefe awful principles of religion were arranged in metrical order? In paffages relating to ancient cuftoms, of which he is neceffarily ignorant, will he feel the fuperior force of a tranfla tion, that marks such allufions with greater exactnefs and propriety? In the felection of correfponding idioms, by means of which a good verfion refleas the beauties of the original language, what charms fhall he be able to discover, who, inheriting only a mechanical ufe of his own tongue, is equally igno rant of univerfal grammar, and of the peculiar force of idiomatical expreffions?

It were easy to multiply arguments to the fame purpose; nor would thefe obvious remarks have found a place in our Review, had it not been the profefled design of the work before us to recommend and facilitate an improved English version of the Scriptures. In the opinion of the learned Prelate, nothing could be more beneficial to the cause of religion, or more honourable to the reign and age, in which it was patronized and executed.' The reafons for its expediency,' fays he, are the mistakes, imperfections, and invincible obfcurities, of our prefent verfion, the acceffion of various helps, fince the execution of that work, the advanced ftate of learning, and our emancipation from flavery to the Maforetic points, and to the Hebrews text, as abfolutely uncorrupt *.

Without pursuing a fubject which would lead us beyond the limits prefcribed to this article, it may be fufficient to remark, in general, that these reafons do not feem to us fufficiently cogent. We have already obferved that the imperfections complained of, feldom affect either the faith or practice of illiterate perfons; and that, in many inftances, even a more accurate verhon would to them be attended with equal obfcurity. At the fame time, every pious and inquifitive fcholar is under the higheft obligations to fuch critics as Bishop Newcome. To men of this defcription, therefore, let him prefent the fruits of his theological fpeculations, fince they only can derive thofe advantages from his labours, which his mistaken zeal would extend to all. In them he will find no innocent prejudices, which it may be dangerous to remove, and from them he will certainly receive that meed of honeft and well-earned fame, which in every good man's eftimation is inferior only to the filent praise of his own heart.

Preface, p. xvi. xvii.

The

The acceffion of various helps, and the advanced state of learning, would be highly favourable to the execution of a new verfion, if the reasons given above did not convince us that fuch a verfion is neither neceffary nor expedient. The fame may be faid, with fome limitations, of what it is fashionable to call our emancipation from flavery to the Maforetic points, and to the Hebrew text as abfolutely uncorrupt.' We fay with fome limitation, for though we are no longer interested in the debates which were supported with fo much acrimony by Buxtorf and Capellus, we are forry to fee the most faithful tranflation of the Hebrew Scriptures gradually finking into contempt. We are juftified by the concurrent opinion of Bishop Lowth *, when we confider the Maforetic punctuation as preferable, upon the whole, to any one of the ancient verfions, from the peculiar advantage it poffeffes of having been formed upon a traditionary explanation of the text, and of being generally agreeable to that fenfe of Scripture which paffed current, and was commonly received by the Jewish nation in ancient times. We know that the fuperftitious zeal of the Rabbins once fuppofed the points to have been written by the finger of God. They are now, on the contrary, too often denied that credit which is juftly challenged by the best human authority.

Let us however be careful to guard our fentiments on the expediency of a new verfion against the poffibility of mifconftruction. We mean not to reprefs that laudabie fpirit of inquiry which has prompted fo many able fcholars to examine the Scriptures of the Old Teftament in their original language; we prefume not to pass an undistinguishing cenfure on every attempt to improve our present verfion: on the contrary, we fincerely rejoice in the fuccefs of every effort, which tends even in the remoteft degree to illuftrate the facred Oracles of Truth; and we heartily wish, that as much may fpeedily be done toward the elucidation of the remaining parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, as we have lately feen accomplished for Ifaiah, for Jeremiah, and for the Twelve Minor Prophets, by their respective tranflators. Our objections are levelled folely against the authoritative subftitution of a new verfion in the room of that which cuftom has familiarized to the ears, and hallowed in the imaginations of the great mafs of English Chriftians; and thofe objections are founded merely in the apprehenfion, that the poffible advantages of such a measure would be more than counterbalanced by the evils which, we think, would probably refult from it.

After these observations, all tending to difcourage the introduction of a new verfion into our religious affemblies, candour. obliges us to fubjoin the rules propofed by our Author for the

*Prelim. Differt. to Ifaiah, p. 55.

condu&

conduct of fuch a work. To each of thefe rules he has added a variety of pertinent remarks and exemplifications, which we have not room to tranfcribe.

Rule I. The tranflator fhould exprefs every word in the original by a literal rendering, where the English idiom admits of it; and where not only purity, but perfpicuity, and dignity of expreffion can be preferved.

II. Where the English idiom requires a paraphrafe, it should be fo formed as to comprehend the original word or phrase; and the fupplemental part fhould ftand in Italics; except where harshness of language arifes from purfuing this method.

III. Where a verbal tranflation cannot be thus interwoven, one equivalent to it, and which implies the reading in the original, fhould be fubftituted; and the idiom in the text should be literally rendered in the margin.

IV. The fame original word, and its derivatives, according to the leading different fenfes, and alfo the fame phrafe, fhould be refpectively tranflated by the fame correfponding English word or phrafe: except where a diftinct reprefentation of a general idea, or the nature of the English language, or the avoiding of an ambiguity, or harmony of found, requires a different mode of expreffion.

V. The collocation of the words fhould never be harfh, and unfuited to an English ear. An inverted ftructure may often be used in imitation of the original, or merely for the fake of rhythm in the fentence but this fhould be determined by what is eafy and harmonious in the English language: and not by the order of the words in the original, where this produces a forced arrangement, or one more adapted to the licence of poetry than to profe.

VI. The fimple and ancient turn of the prefent version should be retained.

VII. The old ecclefiaftical terms fhould be continued: as grace, elet, predeftinated, &c.

VIII. Metaphors are, in general, to be retained; and the substitution, or unneceffary introduction, of new ones fhould be avoided. IX. Proper names fhould remain as they are now written. X. The best known geographical terms fhould be inferted in the text, and the original ones fhould ftand in the margin. As Syria, marg. Aram: Ethiopia, marg. Cufh, &c.

XI. The language, fenfe, and punctuation of our prefent verfion fhould be retained; unless when a fufficient reafon can be affigned for departing from them.

XII. The critical fenfe of paffages fhould be confidered; and not the opinions of any denomination of Chriftians whatever.

XIII. Paffages which are allowed to be marginal gloffes, or about the authenticity of which critics have reafon to be doubtful, fhould be placed in the text between brackets.

XIV. In the best editions of the Bible, the poetical parts fhould

be divided into lines anfwering to the metre of the original.

XV. Of dark paffages, which exhibit no meaning as they stand in our prefent verfion, an intelligible rendering fhould be made, on the principles of found criticifm.'

Moft

Moft of these rules are pregnant with good fenfe, and difplay an accurate and extenfive knowledge of the fubject. We will add, too, that, fhould the wishes of the learned Prelate be gratified by the publication of a new, or a revifal of the old verfion of the Scriptures, his own rules may, with fome few limitations, be very properly and fafely recommended to the tranflators, as the models on which their work fhould be formed.

In found criticism, as it is mentioned in the last rule, the Bishop includes conjectural criticism, the fober use of which he frequently recommends. We agree with him, that, if it be admiffible at all, it cannot be used too feberly. "Si ita literas ac verba mutare et transferre liceat," fays the great Pocock*, “ ubi tandem pedem figemus? Tot erunt textus facri, quot critici vel interpretes, five in conjectando feliciores, five paulum æquo doctiores."

Bentley's fpecimen of his intended edition of the Greek Teftament, excites no regret in our minds, that even the first conjectural critic this country has boafted, was induced at length to leave the facred volume untouched. We rather fufpect, that had the work itself appeared, it would have afforded a ferious example of what Burman + observed, indeed ironically-Doctus criticus et adfuetus urere, fecare, inclementer omnis generis libros tractare, apices, fyllabas, voces, dictiones confodere, et flylo exigere, continebitne ille ab integro et intaminato divinæ fapientiæ monumento crudeles ungues?

We doubt, indeed, whether conjecture can ever be authorized in a tranflation which is intended for general ufe. For if it be exercised on flight occafions, it must be in fome degree fuperfluous; if on material ones, it must ever be indecifive.

In juftification of conjectural criticifm, our Author cites the authority of Bifhop Lowth, in the following extract from his Preliminary Differtation to Ifaiah:

"If the tranflation fhould fometimes appear to be merely conjectural, I defire the reader to confider the exigence of the cafe; and to judge, whether it is not better, in a very obfcure and doubtful paffage, to give fomething probable, by way of fupplement to the author's fenfe apparently defective, than either to leave a blank in the tranflation, or to give a merely verbal rendering which would be altogether unintelligible." Prelim. Differt. p. 73.

But the Bishop of London fpeaks of fuch verfions only as are offered to the theological student. "I believe," fays he, in the paffage immediately following that quoted by our Author, "that every tranflator whatever, of any part of the Old Teftament, has taken fometimes the liberty, or rather has found himself under the neceffity, of offering fuch readings as, if examined, will be found to be merely conjectural. But I defire to be understood, as offering this apology, in behalf only of thofe tranflations which are defigned for the pri-、 *Notæ mifcellanea in Portam Mofis, p. 135.

+ Burman. Orat. Lugd. Bat. 1720.

I