Page images
PDF
EPUB

sages of Scripture, never say, would have all men to be saved, and, the Saviour of all men, but invariably, all sorts of men; charitably intending, by this prudent correction, to secure the unwary from being seduced, by the latitudinarian expressions of the Apostle. If this be not being wise above what is written, I know not what is. In the first and second passages quoted, I know no translator who has chosen to imitate Beza; in the third, he is followed by the Geneva French only, who says Le conservateur de tous hommes. [The preserver of all men.] But it is proper to add, that it was not so in that version, till it had undergone a second or third revisal: for the corrections have not been all for the better.

[After criticising Beza's translation of Heb. i, 3, and the note in which he assigns his reasons for rendering it as he does, Dr. Campbell thus continues.]

Of

Here we have a man who, in effect, acknowledges that he would not have translated some things in the way he has done, if it were not that he could thereby strike a severer blow against some adverse sect, or ward off a blow, which an adversary might aim against him. these great objects he never loses sight. Accordingly, the controvertist predominates throughout his whole version, as well as commentary; the translator is, in him, but a subordinate character; insomuch that he may justly be called what Jerom calls Aquila, contentiosus interpres, [a controversial translator.]

Again, in the same Epistle it is said, Ὁ δε δικαιος εκ πίςεως ζήσεται· και εαν ὑποςείληται, εκ ευδοκει ἡ ψυχή με εν αυτω. [Now the just shall live by faith; but if he draw back, (in the common version, after Beza, if any man draw back,) my soul shall have no pleasure in him, Heb. x, 38.] In the Vulgate, rightly, Justus autem ex fide vivet: quod si subtraxerit se, non placebit animæ meæ. [But the just man shall live by faith: but if he draw back, he shall not be pleasing to my soul.] In Beza's version, Justus autem ex fide vivet; at si QUIS se subduxerit, non est gratum animo meo. [But the just shall live by faith; but if ANY MAN draw back, IT is not agreeable to my soul] Here we have two errors. First, the word quis [any man] is, to the manifest injury of the meaning, foisted into the text. Yet there can be no pretence of necessity, as there is no ellipsis in the sentence. By the syntactic order, & dixalos [the just man] is understood as the nominative to rossiλnra; [draw back ;] the power of the personal pronoun being, in Greek and Latin, sufficiently expressed by the inflexion of the verb. Secondly, the consequent displeasure of God is transferred from the person to the action: non est gratum, [IT is not agreeable ;] as though Ev auTW [in him] could be explained otherwise than as referring to dalos, [the just man.] This perversion of the sense is, in my judgment, so gross, as fully to vindicate from undue severity, the censure pronounced by bishop Pearson, Illa verba a Theodoro Beza haud bona fide sunt translata, [Theodore Beza's translation of those words is fraudulent.] But this is one of the many passages in which this interpreter has judged that the sacred penmen, having expressed themselves incautiously, and given a handle to the patrons of erroneous tenets, stood in need of him more as a corrector than as a translator. In this manner Beza supports the doctrine of the perse

verance of the saints, having been followed, in the first of these errors, by the French and English translators, but not in the second; and not by the Italian translator in either, though as much a Calvinist as any of them. In the old English Bibles, the expression was, If he withdraw himself.

In order to evade, as much as possible, the appearance of regard, in the dispensation of grace, to the disposition of the receiver, the words of the Apostle, Τον προτερον οντα βλασφημον και διωκτην, και ὑβριζην· αλλ' ηλεήθην, ότι αγνοών εποίησα εν απιςία, [Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief,] he renders Qui prius eram blasphemus et persecutor, et injuriis alios afficiens: sed misericordia sum donatus. Nam ignorans id faciebam: nempe fidei expers. [Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy. For I did it ignorantly: that is in unbelief.] Here I observe, first, that he divides the sentence into two, making a full stop at nλenny, [I obtained mercy,] and thus disjoins a clause which, in Greek, is intimately connected, and had always been so understood, as appears from all the ancient versions and commentaries: and, secondly, that he introduces this sentence with nam, [for,] as if, in Greek, it had been yag, instead of quia, the proper version of ori, [because.] Both are causal conjunctions; but as the former is generally employed in uniting different sentences, and the latter in uniting the different members of the same sentence, the union occasioned by the former is looser and more indefinite than that produced by the latter. The one expresses a connection with the general scope of what was said, the other with the particular clause immediately preceding. This second sentence, as Beza exhibits it, may be explained as an extenuation suggested by the Apostle, after confessing so black a crime. As if he had said: For I would not have acted thus, but I knew not what I was doing, as I was then an unbeliever.' It is evident that the words of the original are not susceptible of this interpretation. Beza has not been followed in this, either by Diodati, or by the English translators. The Geneva French, and the Geneva English, have both imitated his manner.

I shall produce but one other instance. The words of the beloved disciple, Πας ὁ γεγεννημένος εκ τ8 Θε8, ἁμαρτίαν 8 ποιει ; [Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin,-1 John iii, 9 ;] rendered in the Vulgate, Omnis qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, [Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin,] Beza translates, Quisquis natus est ex Deo, peccato non DAT OPERAM; [Whosoever is born of God, doth not DEVOTE HIMSELF TO SIN ;] by this last phrase, endeavouring to elude the support which the original appears to give to the doctrine of the sinless perfection of the saints in the present life.

There is still another reason which seems to have influenced Beza in rendering ȧuagriav Tois [committeth sin] peccato dat operam, [devotes himself to sin,] which is kindly to favor sinners, not exorbitantly profligate, so far as to dispel all fear about their admission into the kingdom of heaven. This construction may be thought uncharitable. I own I should have thought so myself, if he had not explicitly shown his principles, on this subject, in other places. That expres

sion, in the sermon on the mount, Αποχωρειτε απ' εμς δι εργαζόμενοι την avourav, [Depart from me ye that work iniquity,-Matt. vii, 23,] he renders, Abscedite a me qui OPERAM DATIS iniquitati, [Depart from me ye who DEVOTE YOURSELVES to iniquity.] And though he is singular in using this phrase, I should not, even from it, have concluded so harshly of his motive, if his explanation in the note had not put it beyond doubt. Thus, if he wound the sense in the version, he kills it outright in the commentary.

When

Not only Scripture in general, but that discourse in particular, on which Beza was then commenting, speaks a very different language: Except your righteousness, says Jesus, shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. It would have better suited Beza's system of Christian morality, to have said, Except your unrighteousness shall exceed the unrighteousness of publicans and harlots, ye shall in no case be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. But as our Lord's declaration was the reverse, it is worth while to observe in what manner this champion of Geneva eludes its force, and reconciles it to his own licentious maxims. [After quoting Beza's note on the place, Dr. Campbell adds,] According to this learned commentator, then, your righteousness here means, chiefly or solely, your orthodoxy: I say, chiefly or solely: for, observe his artful climax, in speaking of teachers and teaching. When first he obtrudes the word doctrine, in explanation of the word righteousness, he puts it only on the level with a good life; it is 'tum doctrinam tum vitam,' [as well doctrine as the life.] mentioned the second time, a good life is dropt, because as he affirms, 'de doctrina potissimum hic agi liquet,' [it is plain that it is doctrine especially that is here treated of.] When the subject is again resumed, in explaining the latter part of the sentence, every thing which relates to life and practice is excluded from a share in what is said; for after this gradual preparation of his readers, they are plainly told, de solis doctoribus hic agit,' [he (Christ) here speaks concerning teachers only.] Now, every body knows, that Beza meant, by orthodoxy, or sound doctrine, an exact conformity to the Genevese [Calvin's] standard. The import of our Lord's declaration, then, according to this bold expositor, amounts to no more than this,' If ye be not completely orthodox, [that is, according to Beza, thorough Calvinists,] ye shall not be teachers in the church.' In this way of expounding Scripture, what purposes may it not be made to serve? For my part, I have seen nothing in any commentator or casuist, which bears a stronger resemblance to that mode of subverting, under pretence of explaining, the divine law, which was adopted by the Scribes, and so severely reprehended by our Lord. In the passage taken from John's Epistle, I do not find that Beza has had any imitators.

[ocr errors]

I might collect many more passages, but I suppose that those which have been given will sufficiently verify what has been advanced concerning this translator's partiality. Any one who critically examines his translation, will see how much he strains in every page, especially in Paul's Epistles, to find a place for the favorite terms and phrases of his party.

[graphic][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »