not only altered as to the word, but as to the part of speech, being rendered "carnally" and " carnal;" (as also Heb. ix. 10, carnal) and Col. ii. 18, where it is altered as to the part of speech, being made an adverb. We can perceive in all these passages reasons why the translators did not construe literally; but even at the risk of some supposed difficulty, we should have preferred the uniform rendering; nay, we think that every one of the passages would have been more clear and more striking to the English reader by the use of the well-known word "flesh," as employed in the inspired epistles, than by the substitution. Heb. ix. 10 would run, "Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and ordinances of the flesh; Col. ii. 18 would read, "Puffed up by his mind of flesh;" and Rom. viii. 6, 7, with the preceding words, would be "They that are after the flesh would mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; for the minding of the flesh [so the margin construes it; or the wisdom, or sensuality, or affection or desire, as our ninth Article says it may be construed] is death; 1; but the minding of the things of the Spirit is life and peace; because the minding of the flesh is enmity against God." Keeping to the same expression gives point to the passage; but as the translators set it in the margin, they are not to be blamed for choosing what they considered a better rendering in the text. But when they construe the corresponding adjective σaρkikog nine times by the latinized word "carnal," and twice by the Saxon "fleshly," we can assign no reason for the variety, except their own statement that they did not think uniformity necessary. Inour view, "carnal wisdom," 2 Cor. i. 12, would even

have been preferable to "fleshly wisdom: " and "carnal lusts," 1 Pet. ii. 11, would have been quite as good a rendering as "fleshly lusts."

Again, to each of the words ayyeλos and aroσroλos we should have wished to see, if convenient, one specific rendering, so that they might not be confounded with each other, or with any other word, or words. But the word ayyeλos, which occurs more than one hundred and eighty times, is always construed angel, except in Matt. xi. 10, Mark i. 2, Luke vii. 24, 27, ix. 52; and 2 Cor. xii. 7, where it is rendered "messenger." The frequently. recurring word aroσroλos is always rendered "apostle," except John xiii. 16, where it is translated "he that is sent;" and 2 Cor. viii. 23, and Phil. ii. 25, where it is rendered “ messenger." We do not say that there was no reason for altering the word to messenger" and " him that was sent," in these places, in order to prevent mistake; though, if we were to venture our own private opinion, it would be, as in the case of the word "tribe," that it might have been better to have kept to one word, as the few passages in which it would have seemed incongruous to an English reader who had taken too narrow a view of the meaning of that word, would suggest to him his mistake, and give him a better idea of the original text. If an illiterate person is asked what is meant by an angel, he answers, "A heavenly being;" and an Apostle he defines to be "One of the followers of our Lord." The substitution of the word “ messenger" in a few passages is in condescension to his ignorance; but the retention of the word "angel" might have corrected it, and the meaning would have been pointed out in sermons and school

manuals, so that there would not be much risk. But be this as it may, our argument is, that this occasional substitution of the word "messenger," and its being applied both to ayyeos and amooroos indiscriminately, renders it impossible, in reading the English testament, to know, without reference to the original, which word is used in the Greek; and the vernacular reader has no clue to the difficulty. So also, whereas the word righteousness is in every other place the representative of dukaloon, it is used in one place, (Heb. i. 8, "A sceptre of righteousness,) for EvOurns? We doubt not that many clergymen, in reading that passage, take for granted that the original is the usual word, unless they happen specially to have turned to it. It might have been difficult to find another word,

if

rectitude" was too classical, and "straightness" ambiguous; but we adduce the passage as an instance of the inconvenience of want of uniformity; though not alleging that it is always practicable to attain it. It might however be more often attained than it is. Why, for instance, when dikatoσvvn is invariably rendered righteousness, and dekatos, generally, righteous, should we find a few exceptions to the latter; such as "Joseph her husband being a just man" (Matt. i. 19); Sendeth rain on the just" (Matt.v. 45); "Whatsoever is right" (Matt. xx. 4, 7), &c. &c. Surely righteous would have done as well; and it would have enlarged the vernacular reader's notion of the meaning of the word. Again, why should ouooyew be profess, confess, and give thanks; or Xpnororns be good, goodness, kindness, and gentleness : or ayarnros beloved, well-beloved, dearly beloved, and dear. The English reader naturally supposes that well-beloved is the translation of a stronger word

than beloved; and dearly beloved than dear. And why should not "followers of God, as beloved children," do as well as 66 dear children?"

to

We are not at all convinced by the assertion that we ought not to be "curious" about words, for that God has not been curious about them, but has himself employed various words "indifferently express the same thing; for we believe that every word of inspiration is rightly and aptly chosen ; and that the same thing could not have been so justly expressed in any form of words which human wisdom could have substituted. Besides, even if it were true that the Holy Ghost uses words "indifferently," it does not follow that in translating his words we may do the same. If a man's testament were written without any "curious choice of words, still in translating it we must try to give a fac-simile version of his meaning; and assuredly much more so in regard to the Testament of Christ himself. If the principle were admitted in translation, it might be applied to the original text; so that under the notion that words are used “indifferently," we might interchange them, alleging that though we did not give the identical phraseology of the Holy Ghost, we gave what was quite as good. Our venerable translators did not mean this; but in defending their own variations they have made their argument too elastic.

We should be much distressed, if the above remarks were read in disparagement of the best version of the Holy Scriptures extant. We are not shewing how an indifferent translation might be improved; but how, under favourable circumstances, an excellent one might in some instances be usefully revised; though we are far from practically recommend.

ing any national revision at present; for we doubt whether a better version would be secured than that which we now enjoy; and we are sure that changes would unsettle the minds of men; that an altered version, even though improved, would not command general approbation; that it would be no slight evil either to have two public texts, or to cast aside the many scores of millions of English Bibles now extant; and that it is best, having so good a translation, for each biblical student to make his own improvements, or what he considers such, without their being adopted in a nationally authorized exemplar. We merely say that should a revision be made, it will be well, among other points, to consider the propriety of making a nearer approach to uniformity of rendering so that the deviations from it may never be casual, but only such as are adopted upon principle. We say a nearer approach," for complete uniformity is impracticable; and even where practicable it would often be inexpedient; for this among other reasons, that the usages of speech are so arbitrary, that a word which is in the main coincident with another, is not always so in all its applications: so that after rightly using it nineteen times, it may fail in the twentieth. There are many cases in which it would be very useful to the reader to be aware of the identity or variety of expression; but in which it would not be well that the text should be altered. It is chiefly in reference to this point that we have noticed the book before us. We will open at the very first page to illustrate our remark, and will take the first three words as they occur in alphabetical order. The first is Alpha;" this occurs four times, and is every where (it is confined to the Revelation) so given. The

next word is abapns, which occurs only once (2 Cor. xi. 9,) "from being burdensome," and therefore is not a subject for collation. But the third word is differently rendered in different places. The ver nacular reader, seeing the remark. able expression " bottomless pit " somewhere in the book of the Revelation, is desirous, we will suppose, of examining every passage of the New Testament in which it occurs, in order the better to gather its import. By his memory, or by marginal references, or a Concordance, he finds that it occurs only in the above-mentioned book, where it appears seven times; nor is there anything to lead him to suspect that the word of which it is the representative (a¤voroç) is found elsewhere; for though that word does occur twice elsewhere-namely, Luke viii. 31, where the devils besought Christ that "he would not command them to go out into the deep; " and Romans x. 7," Who shall descend into the deep?"—the English rendering ("the deep") is quite different; so that he has no clue to the collation of these passages, which might materially aid his researches. There was therefore powerful primâ facie reason for translating abvoroç "bottomless pit" in these as well as the other passages. There was also the additional reason, that the vernacular reader, when he should come to collate the expression "the deep," in Luke viii. 31, and Rom. x. 7, with other texts in which that expression occurs, (never suspecting that it is used in these two passages as a translation of what is everywhere else construed "the bottomless pit") would suppose it identical with "the deep," Batos, Luke v. 4, "Launch out into the deep; " or Buloç, 2 Cor. xi. 25, “A day and a night I have been in the deep;" and in point of fact, owing to this verbal coincidence, our

translation, it has become the popular notion that the devils asked Christ not to cast them into the sea; as if their request had some reference to what afterwards happened when the swine "ran violently down a steep place into the lake (or sea) and were choked," (or drowned.)

Here then, we say, was a case in which there were strong primâ facie reasons for keeping to the same rendering of abvoooc throughout; and if the word " abyss," which conveniently corresponds with the original, so as to suit every meaning, were thought too difficult, the expression" bottomless pit" might have been adhered to. Still-to return to our first remark concluding that our translators thought that the word in St. Luke and the Romans did not mean the same as in the book of the Revelation, they did right to sacrifice the convenience of collation to the correctness of translation; so that, even in this striking case, uniformity must be sacrificed to substantial accuracy. We say this upon the supposition that they did come to the conclusion that the alvoroç of Luke viii. 31, and Romans x. 7, is not the same as that so often mentioned in the Revelation. Our own opinion, however, is, that it is the same; and that there is not the slightest reason for varying the rendering. This will perhaps be more easily conceded in regard to the abyss into which the devils besought Christ not to cast them, ("to torment us," said they," before the time"); for why might they not mean that he should not send them to "the bottomless pit"; or what did they mean? Nor do we think that Romans x. 7, is an exception; for whatever difficulties may attend the passage when thus construed, they are not greater than in several other passages in which our Lord's descent into CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 20.

"hell," or the place of disembodied spirits, and his going "to preach to the spirits in prison are mentioned. To construe a¤voσος "the deep" in this passage, is merely to avoid a supposed difficulty by using a vague expression. The passage is in strict antithesis ; "ascend' and "descend"; "bring down" and "bring up"; "heaven and αβυσσος. Now the antithesis for "heaven" in our language is "hell"; and we say in our creeds and articles that Christ" descended into hell "; and there could have been no greater difficulty, had the words in question been translated "Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above;) or who shall descend into the bottomless pit? (that is, to bring Christ from the dead)," than in the other passages which relate to our Lord's descent into åồns; and which we every where construe "hell," (except in one single passage, 1 Cor. xv. 25, where also it might be, and we think should be, so construed; "O death, where is thy sting? O hell, where is thy victory?") We are not now considering what is the scriptural purport of the expressions which relate to the subject; we only say that, be it what it may, the keeping to the same expression, " bottomless pit," in the passage in question, would introduce greater difficulty than arises, if any there be, from other texts which speak of Christ in the period between his crucifixion and his resurrection. Yet even in this strong instance, (in which, to our mind, there was every reason, not only for collation, but in the passages themselves, for uniformity of phrase) we readily admit that,if our translators thought that this uniformity would convey an incorrect sense, they did right to vary the rendering.

no

The foregoing remarks and examples are but a fragment of what 3 T