translation, a new edition of the Italic verfion was compiled, in which its tranflations of the Pfalms, and of fome other books of the old teftament, were retained, (Simon Hift. Crit. L. ii. c. 7.) and Jerome's fecond version of the reft were adopted, together with his corrected tranflation of the new testament. The Italic verfion of the bible, thus modelled and amended, is what hath long been known in the church by the name of the Vulgate. And though at the first that edition was rejected by many who adhered to the Italic tranflation in its primitive form; yet the prejudices of the public fubfiding by degrees, it came at length. into fuch general esteem, that it was substituted in place of the Italic, which had been long publicly read in the western churches, and in all the churches of Africa, (No. 546.) And thus the vulgate became the only verfion of the fcriptures, used in the Latin church, down to the times of the reformation.

The Italic tranflation of the new teftament having been made from copies of the original, nearly as ancient as the apoftolical age, the readings of these copies exhibited in the vulgate, were confidered as fo authentic, that in the fifth and following centuries, fome of the tranfcripts of the Greek testament were corrected by the vulgate. In this manner, the famous Alexandrian MS. was corrected, if we may believe Wetstein, (fee Pref. to his Greek teftament) as likewife, according to Mill, (No. 1457. 1479.) were the Vatican and the St. Germain copies; and, according to Kufter, fome others. (See his Preface.) Nay, Mill himself thought the readings of the vulgate fo authentic, that he imagined certain paffages of our present Greek teftament might, by these readings, be reftored to what he calls their primitive integrity. (No. 1309. 133.) Be this as it may, if the vulgate edition of the Italic verfion was in fuch efteem as to be used anciently in correcting the Greek copies, we may well believe that the perfons who tranflated the new teftament into the Syriac, the fecond time, and into the other eastern languages, would be much guided by the vulgate, or by the verfions which followed it. Hence, in the fecond Sy.. riac, and other eaftern verfions, there is fuch a furprising agreement with the vulgate, that Mill once thought them: translations actually made from it. (No. 1249.) Afterwards, indeed, to give the greater authority to the readings of the vul

gate, he supposed the Greek copies, from which these oriental verfions were made, were the fame with the copy from which the Italic was taken. (No. 1250.) But it can hardly be thought that these tranflators met with copies of the original exactly fimilar to that from which the Italic was made. The general esteem in which that verfion first, and afterwards the vulgate, was held in the early ages, makes it more probable that the oriental verfions copied the Italic, or vulgate, as the Italic itself seems to have been copied from, or corrected + by the first Syriac tranflation. What confirms this conjecture is, that the. Saxon verfion of the four gospels was made from the Italic, before it was corrected by Jerome. (No. 1401.) This verfion was printed at London in the year 1571, by John Fox, the martyrologist, from a copy now in the Bodleian library.

As most of the ancient tranflations of the new teftament copied the vulgate, it may be presumed that the persons who, in later times, tranflated the inspired writings into the different European languages, made their tranflations from the vulgate likewife. Accordingly, when Peter Waldus, in the year 1160, got the gospels and fome other books of scripture tranflated into the French language, and John Wickliff, in the year 1367, tranflated the new teftament into English, these translations were not made from the originals, but from the vulgate. About that time, likewife, there were other vernacular tranflations of the fcriptures used in different countries, which were all made from the vulgate. (See Simon Hift. Crit. V. T. L. ii. c. 22.) Nor could they be otherwife made, very few in that age having any skill in the original languages. Nay, in times more en

If what is alleged above be true, namely, that the most ancient copies of the Greek teftament were corrected by the vulgate, and that the Ethiopic, the fecond Syriac, the Arabic, and other oriental verfions of the new teftament, were tranflations from the vulgate, it will follow that the readings of these ancient MSS. and verfions, are to be confidered in no other light than as the readings of the vulgate. The fame judgment must be paffed on the readings of the Saxon verfion; for it was made fron the vulgate. Wherefore, though, at first fight, the agreement of fo many MSS. and verfions, in any reading, may seem to add weight to that reading; yet, in so far as thefe MSS. were corrected by the vulgate, and the verfions mentioned were made from it, their agreement in that reading is of lefs confequence, as the authority of the whole refolves itself ultimately into that of the vulgate.

+ The agreement of the Italic with the first Syriac, is hewn by Ecza, in many paffages of his notes.

1

lightened, I mean about the beginning of the reformation, when Luther tranflated the new teftament into the German language, and Tyndal into the English, and Olivetan into the French, though these excellent men are faid to have made their tranflations from the Hebrew and Greek, it is more probable that they made them from the Latin, and corrected them by the Greek. This was the cafe with Tyndal, as shall be shewn afterwards. These fathers of the reformation, before their eyes were a little opened, having known no other word of God but the Latin bible, it was natural for them to follow it in their translations, where the doctrines in dispute between them and the Papifts did not interfere. The high efteem in which the vulgate verfion was held at that time, was strongly displayed by the fathers of the council of Trent, many of them men eminent for their learning, when, in their fourth feffion, after enumerating the books of fcripture, they decreed as follows: If any perfon does not effeem these books, with all their parts, as contained in the vulgate edition, to be feriptures and canonical, let him be anathema*. Then, to ftrengthen their decree, they added, That in all public readings, difputations, preachings, and expofitions, the vulgate edition of the fcriptures is to be held as authentic. (Fra. Paolo's History of the Council of Trent.) It is true, the firit reformers neither acknowledged the authority of the council, nor carried their refpect for the vulgate tranflation, fo far as to place it on an equality with the originals. Yet, it was natural for them to follow that highly esteemed ancient verfion, especially when they were at any lofs for the meaning of the Greek

text.

*The above decree muft feem strange to those who know, that before it was made, the edition of the vulgate mentioned in it was acknowledged by the fathers of the council to be exceedingly faulty, and to need much correction. Accordingly, after the council, pope Sixtus V. employed a number of learned men to compare the common edition of the vulgate with the best copies thereof. And they having finished their talk, Sixtus published his corrected edition in the year 1589, and, by his bull prefixed to it, declared it to be that which the council of Trent held as authentic. Neverthelefs, the fucceeding popes endeavoured to fupprefs this edition, as inaccurate and imperfect. And, in the year 1592, pope Clement VIII. published a new edition, which not only differs from that of Sixtus, but in many places is directly contrary to it; as Dr. Thomas James keeper of the Bodleian library, who compared the two editions, hath fhewn in a book, which he entitled, The Papal War. See Lewis's Complete Hiftory, 2d. edit. p. 288.

Beza,

Beza, perhaps, may be thought an exception from this charge. He tranflated the new teftament into Latin, profef fedly to amend the vulgate verfion. Yet any one who compares his tranflation with the vulgate, will find that, notwithstanding he hath corrected a number of its faults, he hath often followed it in paffages where it is erroneous*. Many of the Greek particles he hath tranflated with more latitude than is done in the vulgate. Yet, having followed its uniform tranflations of the particles in other paffages, he hath perpetuated, in his verfion, a number of its errors. Befides, being deeply tinctured with the scholaftic theology, by adopting the readings of the vulgate which favoured that theology, (No. 1258.) and by strained criticifms, he hath made texts exprefs doctrines, which, though they may be true, were not intended by the infpired writers to be fet forth in them. And thus, by prefenting his favourite doctrines to the view of the reader, more frequently than is done in the fcriptures, he hath led the unlearned to lay a greater stress on these doctrines than is done by the Spirit of God. Nor is this all; he hath mis-tranflated a number of texts, for the purpose, as it would feem, of establishing his peculiar doctrines, and of confuting his opponents of all which examples fhall be given afterwards. Farther, by omitting fome of the original words, and by adding others without any neceffity, he hath, in his tranflation, perverted, or at leaft darkened some paffages: fo that, to speak impartially, his translation is neither literal, nor faithful, nor perfpicuous. Nevertheless, Beza having acquired great fame, both as a linguist and a divine, the learned men who afterwards tranflated the new testament, for the use of the reformed churches, were too much fwayed by his opinions.

Since, then, the first tranflators of the fcriptures were confidered as patterns, and copied by those who fucceeded them, to judge whether the verfions of the new teftament, hitherto published, stand in need of amendment, it will be proper to inquire a little into the character and qualifications of the first translators of these inspired writings. It is true, neither their names, nor any particulars by which we might have judged of

* In the following texts, Beza has adopted the erroneous translations of the vulgate, Rom. i. 17. 2 Cor. ix. 4. Ephef. ii, 10. Heb. x. 15,-18. 1 Pet. ii. 8. iv. 6. B 4 their

their learning and ability, are preserved in the history of the church. Yet both may be estimated, by the well-known characters of their contemporaries, whofe writings ftill remain; particularly Tatian, Irenæus, and Tertullian; and by the characters and talents of the Chriftian writers of the ages immediately following; fuch as Origen, Chryfoftom, Jerome and others. These ancient writers, however learned in other respects, were not well acquainted with the meaning of the scriptures, nor free from the prejudices of the age in which they lived. This appears from the writings of the three first mentioned fathers, in which we find them mifinterpreting particular paffages, for the purpose of establishing their own erroneous tenets. In like manner the three laft mentioned ancients, in their writings, have perverted a number of texts, to support the doctrines of purgatory and celibacy, and to bring monkery and rigid fafting, and other bodily mortifications into vogue; and to confirm the people in their fuperftitious practice of worshipping angels and departed faints*: all which corruptions had then taken place in the church. We find these fathers, likewise, mifinterpreting paffages, without any particular defign. Of this number was Origen, as may be seen in his expofition of the epiftle to the Romans. Even Jerome himself was not faultless in the respects above mentioned, as fhall be fhewn in the author's notes on Gal. ii. 11. iii. 16. Not to mention, that in his criticifms on St. Paul's style, he hath discovered that he was not well acquainted with the use and propriety of the Greek language+.. Wherefore, though we do not know who were the first tranflators of the new teftament, we may believe that they were not more intelligent, nor more skilful in the scriptures, than their contemporaries, whose writings ftill remain; consequently, that they were not perfectly qualified for making an accurate tranflation of writings divinely inspired, wherein many

* Of the texts perverted by the fathers, for fupporting the doctrine of purgatory, Beza hath produced examples, in his notes on Rom. ii. 5. Col. ii. 18.-And for recommending virginity and celibacy, in his notes on Rom. xii. 3. 1 Tim. iii. 4. Titus i. 8. 1 Pet. iii. 7.—And to establish the worship of angels, Col. ii. 18.

+ Of Jerome's improper criticisms on St. Paul's ftyle, the reader will find examples in Beza's notes on Rom. vi. 19. 2 Cor. xi. 18. Col. i, 18, 19. ii. 19. Gal, vi. 1. See also the author's notes on 2 Cor. xi. 9.