I trust I shall not be so far misunderstood, as to be suspected of recommending an ornamented or florid style; I am only calling for a chaster phraseology than that which was peculiar to the seventeenth, and therefore unworthy of the more refined, nineteenth century. Antiquated terms, coarse and obsolete forms of speech, and grammatical inaccuracy,' cannot but make their appearance in a work two hundred years old; and though they are the more excusable as being common to an epoch in which perfect style was unknown, yet we wish to see that volume free from them, which ought to be the standard of pure English diction, and construction. When their version was editing, there is every reason to believe that the translators avoided what was then considered faulty; but as the flux of language has rendered some of the choicest of their expressions harsh and uncouth to modern ears, the same pains should be now taken to improve their style, which they exerted to improve that of their predecessors. I am not charging the general style of the vulgar translation with being defective quite the contrary. The testimony of six generations of men has concurred in pronouncing the simplicity and dignity of the original to be admirably preserved in the authorised copy of Scriptures. Certain sentences only are faulty, and certain words only require to be accommodated to the taste of the present century. Examples shall be presently adduced; in the mean time it is not too much to say, that a version which has so many beauties, should, if possible, be placed beyond the reach of objection. Its very graces make its admirers the more anxious to see it divested of its few deformities.

Some attempts of a very ridiculous nature have been made by injudicious writers, to show what a new translation ought to be in point of style and diction. In one of these, the translator' has thought it a great improvement to introduce colloquial and professional terms such as, "They sneered at him.” Luke xvi. 14.— "So the Regiment, the Colonel, and Officers, took Jesus and bound him." John xviii. 12. In another, the author3 has considered it to be wonderfully praiseworthy "to clothe the ideas in the vest of modern elegance." Such is his professed intention; and the following are specimens of his taste:

"Thorns produce not the generous grape; the thistle bears not the luscious fig." Matt. vii. 16.

age,

It is astonishing how little the most common rules of grammar were understood, before the writers of queen Anne's reign pointed out the necessity of observing them. Works of the highest merit previous to their abound in the grossest violations of grammar; it was therefore a fault which the translators shared in common with Shakspeare, Bacon, and even Milton, accurate as the latter attempted to be in all his expressions.

2 Power.

VOL. XIII.

3 Dr. Harwood.

"Soon as the morning dawned, a gentleman rose to hire daylaborers to work in his vineyard." Matt. xx. 1.

"Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting on a place opposite to the sepulchre, were pleased spectators of the funeral obsequies.' Matt. xxvii. 61.

"And very early on the first day of the week, they set out in a body for the sepulchre; the rays of the sun now streaking the edge of the horizon." Mark xvi. 2.

Nothing can be more ill-judged, than to admit of terms of art in a version of Scripture. The Bible, in whatever tongue, should speak a universal language; general and not appropriated expressions become the volume, which addresses itself to persons of every rank and order. Flowery language, inflated diction, farfetched epithets, and the affectation of rounded periods, and soft cadences, are equally inconsistent with the dignity of Scripture. What Johnson says on the subject of "poetical diction," in his critique on Waller's Sacred Poems, may, with the alteration of a few words, be rendered applicable to the present subject. Of sentiments purely religious, it will be found, that the most simple expression is the most sublime: elegant language would lose its lustre and its power in the holy volume, because it would be applied to the decoration of something more excellent than itself. The ideas of Christian theology are too simple for eloquence, too majestic for ornament: to recommend them by tropes and figures, is to magnify by a concave mirror the siderial hemisphere. Omnipotence cannot be exalted by any choice of words: infinity cannot be amplified: perfection cannot be improved.

The great perfection of a translation, next to fidelity and perspicuity, consists in a nice adjuştation of the simple and the sublime; what the original was in its own tongue, and what it would be, if the sacred writer had now to express himself in the language of the day-these are the great objects to be kept in view. No attempts must be made to surpass the original, either in diction or style. King James's translators have, in most instances, succeeded in retaining the Hebrew manner; and where success has best attended their imitation, there they have best suggested the ideas of solemnity and elevation. But some persons, mistaking the quaintness and stiffness of certain antiquated English terms in the common version for the features of the original, persist in praising these defects. They fancy that words which time has rendered

1 "Sebastian Costello stands in the first rank for critical abilities and theological learning among the modern translators of Scripture; but by endeavouring to give a new cast to the whole composition of his translation, he has given us something that is neither Hebrew nor Latin. We regret the loss of the Hebrew simplicity, and we are disgusted with the perpetual affectation of Latin elegance." See Lowth's Prel. Dis. to his Trans. of Isaiah.

ambiguous or obsolete, carry solemnity and gravity with them; and that what is awkward and uncouth, approximates to the magnificent grandeur of the ancient Hebrew. In fact, with them, "Omnia ignota pro magnifico sunt." The translators, however, did not admit these expressions, because they thought that quaintness and obsoleteness resemble the simplicity or sublimity of the original, but because they were part of the phraseology of the age, and not quaint or obsolete at that period. In like manner we should endeavour to produce a version, whose diction should be the diction of the day: and the attempt would now be more feasible than formerly, inasmuch as the language has arrived at its level, and no further revision will be required. A few specimens of different translations of Scripture, at different times, will not be mal-apropos in this place; and will serve to show how gradually the language has been changing, and what various features it assumed, until it finally arrived at its present state.

Translation of St. Matthew, by an unknown writer, about the year 1280.

"Blynde men seen, crookid men wandren, mesels been maad clene, deef men heeren, deed men rysen agein, pore men ben taken to prechynge of the Gospel." St. Matthew xi. 5.

By Wicklif. A. D. 1377.

"And Jhesus thretynde him, and anoon Jhesus putte hym out." Mark i. 42.

"He expownede to his disciplis alle thingis bi hemsilf." Mark iv. 34.

"And whanne wijn failide." John ii. 3.

"Thanne thei that resseyden his word weren baptized." Acts ii. 41.

"As they were come oute, beholde, a dum man, possessed of a devil, was broughte too him." Matt. ix. 32.

"Pilate sayed unto them, Take watchmen, go, and make it as sure as ye can: and they wente, and made the sepulcre sure with watchmen, and sealed the stone." Matt. xxvii. 65, 66.

'Earlier specimens might be adduced, but they would have been AngloSaxon: whereas I have thought proper to confine myself to such as are strictly English.

By Miles Coverdale. 1535.

"And whatsoever ye axe in prayer, if ye belefe, ye shall receive it." Matt. xxi. 22.

"But these are written that ye should belefe that Jesus is Christe the sonne of God, and that ye, thorow belefe, might have lyfe in his name." John xx. 21.

The next extracts are taken from the Great (or Cranmer) Bible, 1541; the Geneva Bible, 1560; the Bishops' Bible, 1568; and King James's Bible, 1611. So little time elapsed between the publication of these, that much difference cannot be expected in their respective diction or orthography; but, as each was edited with the intention of improving and revising preceding editions, they afford a fair opportunity of showing what was considered correct and grammatical English, at the time of their publication. That the comparative view may be more distinct, the same passage is selected from each version, viz. St. Matthew ii. 7, 8.

The specimen of King James's Bible is as it came out of the translators' hands, in 1611; and it will be observed, that the orthography does not correspond with the copies now in use. The fact is, when the common version has been reprinted at different times, the editors and printers have been suffered to take liberties with the text, and not only to correct orthographical errors, but even to make insertions of words and whole sentences. The greater part of those words printed in Italics, with which the later copies abound, are the licences of no distant date. Some, indeed, are to be traced back to the first edition, but scarcely in

Properly speaking, the Geneva Bible was published at Geneva, by English Protestant refugees, when they dare not print it in England, and not merely by way of revising preceding editions.

the proportion of one to five. Both the Universities have more than winked at these liberties; they have ventured to authorise them and hence the corrections of Dr. Scattergood, which were inserted in the reprint of 1683; and of Dr. Lloyd, in the reprint of 1701. The greatest freedom of the kind was taken under the direction of Dr. Blaney, in the year 1769, who was openly commissioned, by the Vice Chancellor and Delegates of the University' of Oxford, to revise the punctuation, to add more words in Italics, by way of rendering the sense more clear, to correct the heads of the chapters, and to increase the number of marginal references. My object in making this statement is, to supply an additional argument in favor of a new version: for if individuals have been suffered to make partial revisions, if such emendations have been judged necessary, if the sanctity of the authorised translation has not been thought to be invaded by these practices, what objection can be made against a thorough revision?-a revision which shall employ the talents and judgment, not of an individual only, but of a competent and learned body of men, selected by the heads of the church, and authorised by the sovereign and his privy council. It appears that the common version has been pronounced defective by the means already taken to improve it: why then hesitate to revise it completely and effectually?

My business is now to adduce examples of the alleged defectiveness of our authorised copy of Scripture, or rather of its comparative defectiveness; for, as I have observed before, it is quite equal to the age in which it was edited, in style, diction, grammar, and fidelity,-although far behind such a translation as the present state of literature demands, in every one of these particulars. The following examples are chiefly taken from such chapters in the Old Testament, as form the lessons on sabbath days, and on the principal festivals. More numerous and more glaring errors might be selected; but my end will be answered without swelling the list unnecessarily.

Misapplication of the Copulative and Adverbial Expressions. Verbal niceties were so little attended to, by writers of every description, in the sixteenth, and greater part of the seventeenth

My reason for confining these strictures to the Old Testament is, that the defective passages in the New were exemplified at large, by a very able scholar, about 30 years back. Dr. Symonds exhibited great taste and judg ment in the execution of his task; but it is probable that his treatise would have met with a better reception from all parties concerned in the purity of a national translation, if he had not been too diffuse, and too severe against the venerable compilers of the common version. He did not duly estimate either the patience of his readers, or their habitual respect for what had long been consecrated in their eyes.