Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

English Bible 1535, many, and indeed the greater part of these Supplements are omitted, particularly those Pfalms xxix. I, xxxvii. 29. ( but that large one in the xivrh Pfalm is in

: serted. And I hope no one will believe that Dr. Coverdale, who omiteed so many of them in the first Edition, received them into the latter for want of skill in the Hebrew,especially when 'tis confis der'd, that in that Edition begun 1539, which hath all those Supplements, that are now in our Liturgy-Pfalcer, they are Printed in a less Character and clearly diftinguish'd from the rest of the Text.

Where I could meet with any Translators, whether Older or Younger than ours, that understood the Hebrew as they did, in such places where they disagree with our present Bible-Pfalter

, I have quoted their Translations. For I suppose thar any Rca. der, who is not very immoderately conceited of his own skill in the Hebrew, will conclude that they Tranflare according to the Hebrew Text, when they give us the same sense that those great Masters had done before, or have done fince; and by this means I do not only save my self and Reader a great deal of pains in pur« suing the meaning of Difficult Hebrew words and Phrases, bur I Thew chat our Disfenters cannot despife this Translation, but that they must at the same time pass a slight upon chose Men, who have à deserved name for their skill in the Hebrew Tongue, amongst all imparcial Judges. Sometimes I produce the Authority of the moft Learned Dr. Hammond, whose judgment will weigh much with all untiafs’d Men, and who was far enough from any fondness for this Translation ; upon occasion I appeal to Mr. Ainsworth, as supposing that the Confession of one of the most Learned Adversaries of our Liturgy and Pfalcer, is a good proof that our Translators are in the right, when they understand che Text in a fente, which he allows of in that very Translation, which he composed chiefly in opposition to that which I am now Vindicating: Nor do Í omit the opinion of the Right Reverend Bishop Patrick, when it is to my purpose, and let no Man think that he was prejudiced in favour of this Translation; so far from this, thaç he does not make this Pfalter the Text to his Paraphrase, tho' at the same time he Dedicates, and Commends ir [to those that frequent the daily Prayers of the Church.]

All Translators are tolerably well agreed in every thing tbat neațly concerns our Faith and Practice: In other leffer matters

, the Hebrew, especially in the Poetic and Prophctical Books, is nor fo clear, but that it may admit of various constructions, tho? the Sense be still much what the fame:; and this is the chief cause of the seeming difference betwixt the last Translators, and those otlier: So tļiat Men should by no means conclude, that this Psalter was not done from the Hebrew for this reason, that it does not always exactly agree with that in our Engiish Bibles, and yet 'tis to be fear'd that 'tis from hence that some have draws such hafty conclusions in prejudice to this Psalter.

1

à. I proceed to consider the second Objection, namely, That some Words and Verfes are added, which are not in the Hebrew Texc. Now I shall endeavour to Thew,

I. That these Supplements are Innocent.

II. They were Prudent... 1. That they are Innocent, and do no injury either to the Bible or Reader. And this will appear from this Confideration, That these Supplements are for the most part the very Words of the Hebrew Scripture, tho' not in those very Verses of the Plála ter, where the Vulgar and LXX, and our Translators place them. The most observable Supplement in this Pfalter, is that of three Verses, in Psalm xiv, viz. 5, 6, 7, which words are not only all extant together, Rom. iii. 13, 14, &c. but are yet to be found in the Hebrew Bible, cho' ar several places : [See the account of the Supplements at the end of this Preface. So that if they were not all the words of David, yet they are the Words of Men divinely inspired; and I suppose there can no good reason be given, why we may not rehearse these words all together, since St. Paul, as is just now said, hath done so before us, Further, the Reader may observe, thar the Addition is to the words, not to the fence; to che bulk, not to the weight; for he that does but consider the meaning of the words contained in the s, 6, 7th Verses, which are supply'd in this Translation, will find that they are only a Repetition of the fame fence, which is contained in the 4th Verse, and is exaggerate in the Hebrew.

The other Supplements are either of the same nature with this, or however contain no sence but what is imply'd in chose Verses or Sentences, where they are placed, and do rather exaggerate, or explain, or give an agreeable close, than add to the Sence of the Text, as the Reader may see, by taking notice of all these Supplements drawn up together in the following Papers. If there be any words that are not to be found expresly in any other part of Scripture; nor their fence concained in the words immediately going before or after in this Pralcer, they are those, Psalm xxxvii. 29. [The unrighteous shall be punished : ) Bue it is to be consider'd, that if thefe very words are not elsewhere in the Bible, yet there is no truth more frequently inculcated in that Holy Book, than that which is imported by them, and 'tis no less than fix cimes repeated in this very Pfalm, tho' in other words, viz. ver. 2, 9, 15, 17, 20, 22 ; so char' even this cannot properly be called an Addition to the Word of God, unless

you have more regard to the Letter than the Sence : Some very Learned Men have been of opinion that these words were once in the Hebrew. Bible, as you may see in my. Nores on that Verse.

But since 'tis evident, that our Translators and Reformers had a much greater regard to the Hebrew than the Greek, and since they have inserted no Supplement at least into the Psalter, but

what

A 4

what is contained as to its Sence in the one, as well as the other, therefore I have waved all disputes concerning the Authority of the Hebrew Code. Learned Men will always have different Sentiments of this matter, but there is, God be thanked, no difference between the Greek and Hebrew in any thing that concerns our Faith, or Devotion, or Practice, but only in Chrono logies and Genealogies, and matters of mere Speculation.

Further, chofe Men are moft unreasonably Cenforious, who would condemn every word that is inserted into a Translation; that is not in the Hebrew, as a Transgreffion against that Rule, Deut. iv. 2. xii. 32. an English Reader mighe almost as soon understand the Hebrew Bible, as a Translation made from it without any Supplements at all. Mr. Ainsworth himself, who fo closely pursues the Hebrew Words, that he often loses the Sence, yet owns that he was forced [to add some neceffary words of Explanation.]

Nor are we to chink it a Crime in Translators, that they some. times lupply a Word more than is absolutely necessary. When a certain Lawyer came to our Saviour, Lu. x: 25. to be resolv'd how he might enter into Life, our Saviour frst bids him give his own Judgment in this matter, by asking him how it was written in the Law? He apsivers, (Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy sout, with ail the strength, and with all thy mind.) Now in this Answer, there are four English words more than are to be found in thae Text which he quoted. The Text is, Deut. vi. si where no such Words as [ with all thy mind ] are to be read; yet our Blessed Lord docs not reprehend him as guilty of adding to the Word of God, but on the con. trary, says, ( Thou hast answered rightly;] nay, further, our Saviour himself, in repeating this Commandment, Mar. xii. 33. uses the very laine Words. If then our Saviour cited Scripture fritlifully, when he used more words than are in the Hebrew Text, or are necessary to express the Sence of it, by consequence they ought not to be charged with doing what is unlawful, who do the fame thing that our blessed Lord himself did. It may indeed be pretended, that our Saviour had a Divine Authority, by which he might alter the Scriptures, and add to them as he pleared, which no mere Translators must prerend to. In answer 10 which, ļ need only fay, That choʻour Saviour had the most unlimited Authority in this, and all other respects, yet he was not now exercising it, pot making new Laws, but rehearsing the old, not writing, or Dictating new Scriprures of his own, but citing those of Moses: Bur further, cho' Christ had such an Authority, yet the Lawyer had not, and yet our Saviour approves of his Quojacion coo. The only nfe I would make of this

, is to thew, that if Tranflators in enumerating several particulars, do fomecinies inferca word or two, thar are not in the Original, is should pot from thence be inferr'd, that they are guilty of

[merged small][ocr errors]

making Criminal additions to the Scripture, the Lawyer to [ the heart and Soul] added [the mind; ] our Translators from the Vul: gar, and they from the LXX, to Corn and Wine, Psal. iv. 71 add [oile: The case is, I suppose, the same, and 'cwas no more a fault in the one than in the other; in the first Text we have a defcription of doing a thing with the greatest earnestness, in the other of a plentiful crop; and in chose Countries [ Oile) was as neceffary an Ingredient to plenty, as [ the Mind ] to represent the greatest application and diligence.

2. And if these Supplements were lawful, no doubt but they were expedient also, because by this means they remov'd one occafion of offence, which the Papists might have had against the Psalter; for they, in all probability, would have made loud outcries against it, as having (Sacrilegiously taken away pare of the Scriptures :) And they had had as good prerence for it, as our Dissenters have for accusing this Psalter of the same Crime, for omitting the words subjoin’d to the lxxii Psalm ; nay, they had had a more plausible appearance of reason, for saying the former, than our Diflenters for the latrer, because these Supplements have by many, and indeed most Churches been receiv'd as the very Words of those Pfalms, in which they are inferred; but what is called the 20th verse of the lxxfi Psalm, was never thought a part of it till now of very late.

And if the Papists had raised this Objection, it miglit not only look like a real one to chose of their own Parry, but raise fufpicions in the Minds of those honest and well-meaning People, who were well-affected to the Reformation ; for it was very hard, if not impossible, to convince these Men, that these words were not in the Hebrew, that being a Language, whose Characters were scarce known to any that lived here in England in those Days: But the Vulgar Latin, especially the Psalter, was understood by many; and 'cwas easy for any one, with a very indifferent degree of knowledge in the Latin Tongue, to discover chat those Verses and Words were extant in the Latin Psalters, or if they could. nor read Latin, yer they might see the main Supplement, that in the xiv Píalm, standing all together in the English Translation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans : And this must at first sigho have stagger'd an unlearned Reader, and made him believe that our Tranllators had given them the Scriptures but by halves.

That they did not make these additions for want of skill, or better information, will appear from what has been afready said, that they had other Trandations done from the Hebrew, and in all probability the Hebrew Bible it self before them, throughout the whole Work; as I suppose will appear to any, who shall please to compare this Translation with others of that Age, and especially with that of Muniter, who rejected all. chese Supple-? ments, but to whom in other relocats, pur Translators had a par.

ticular

ticular Eye;, which was so well known in Queen Elizabeth's timo thar Munster's Transacion was used in our Latin Common-PrayerBooks, with that great Supplement, Psalm xiv. inserted in distinct Characters, and all the rest omitted. I have seen two of these Edicions, one by Vautrolliei 1574, in pretty large Octavo, and the other by Wolf, 1572, in a much less Volume.:

There is indeed another particular, wherein they comply'd with the Vulgar Latin, or rather with the Custom of that-Age, I mean in placing the first Larin Words, as the Title or Name of the Psalm. These Names or Titles they did indeed take from the Vulgar Latin, and they were not put there by the Compilers of our Liturgy, but by the Translators themselves; but let it be observed too, that tho they retain the very fame iniţial Words that are in the Vulgar Latin, yet they don't Tranflate even those words according to the Vulgar Latin, as may be seen Pfalm Ixv, Ixxiii, lxxxiii, xcv, dr.

I hope it evidently enough appears, that nothing of this kind was done through Carelelinefs or Ignorance, but for good and wife Reasons; for by this means, our Translators and Reformers have made it appear, that they did not affect needless Innovations, and took the best course to convince all foreign Charches, that we rejected nothing, meerly because used, or receiv'd by them: Especially since by doing so, we do no wrong to Scripture, make no real addition to the Sence of the Bible; and every one that can but read English by comparing this Psalter with the other, may know which words are in the Hebrew and which are not.

3. But the greatest Objection of all is yet behind, and that is, that we do diminish, or take away fome part of the Scriptures, or to use the decent Language of our Diflenters [Sacrilegioully steal (See the Idolatry of Common-Prayer Worfhip, ) from the People, part of the Psalms; and this is indeed a heavy charge, if there were any truth to support it.

But fuppose we had nor the Psalms entirely in our Liturgy, would this amount to the grievous Sin of Sacrilege ? Surely not, except they were left out of our Bibles coo. For the Title is, [ the Pfalter or Psalms of David, as they are appointed to be Jung or said in Churches; ) and if the Reformers of our Church had thought fit to omit the

use of some Psalms or Verses, as less edifying, what Crime had there been in so doing? Do our Diffenters, in their Meetings, fing the whole Pfalter thorow, from the beginning to the end? do they not rather chuse some select Verses or Portions? and if we should do soin Chancing or Reading chem, why would the fault be greater in us, than in them? Suppose any of their way should make a Collection of those Psalms, or part of Psalms, which were judged more fit to be Sung in Publick Assemblies, and should print the Collection, wich this Title [The Psalms as they are sung in the Congregations of, &c.] would they think it tair to have the Publishers stigma

« EdellinenJatka »