Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

what is contained as to its Sence in the one, as well as the other, therefore I have waved all difputes concerning the Autho rity 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 Chronologies and Genealogies, and matters of mere Speculation.

Further, thofe Men are moft unreasonably Cenforious, who would condemn every word that is inferted into a Tranflation, that is not in the Hebrew, as a Tranfgreffion against that Rule, Deut. iv. 2. xii. 32. an English Reader might almoft as foon understand the Hebrew Bible, as a Tranflation made from it without any Supplements at all. Mr. Ainsworth himself, who fo clofely purfues the Hebrew Words, that he often lofes the Sence, yet owns that he was forced to add fome neceffary words of Explanation.

Nor are we to think it a Crime in Tranflators, that they fometimes fupply a Word more than is abfolutely neceffary.

a certain Lawyer came to our Saviour, Lu. x. 25. to be refolv'd how he might enter into Life, our Saviour first bids him give his own Judgment in this matter, by asking him how it was written in the Law? He anfwers, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy fout, with all thy ftrength, and with all thy mind. ] Now in this Anfwer, there are four English words more than are to be found in that Text which he quoted. The Text is, Deut. vi. 5. where no fuch Words as [with all thy mind] are to be read; yet our Bleffed Lord does not reprehend him as guilty of adding to the Word of God, but on the contrary, fays, Thou haft answered rightly;] nay, further, our Saviour himself, in repeating this Commandment, Mar. xii. 33. ufes the very fame Words. If then our Saviour cited Scripture faithfully, when he used more Words than are in the Hebrew Text, or are neceffary to exprefs the Sence of it, by confequence they ought not to be charged with doing what is unlawful, who do the fame thing that our bleffed 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 pleafed, which no mere Tranflators muft pretend to. In answer to which, I need only fay, That tho' our Saviour had the most unlimited Authority in this, and all other refpects, yet he was not now exercifing it, not making new Laws, but rehearsing the old, not Writing, or Dictating new Scriptures of his own, but citing thofe of Mofes: But further, tho' Chrift had fuch an Authority, yet the Lawyer had not, and yet our Saviour approves of his Quotation too. The only nfe I would make of this, is to fhew, that if Tranflators in enumerating feveral particulars, do fometimes infert a word or two, that are not in the Original, should not from thence be inferr'd, that they are guilty of

making Criminal additions to the Scripture, the Lawyer to the heart and foul] added [ the mind'; ] our Tranflators from the Vul gar, and they from the LXX, to Corn and Wine, Pfal. iv. 71 add Oile: The cafe is, I fuppofe, the fame, and 'twas no more a fault in the one than in the other; in the firft Text we have a defcription of doing a thing with the greatest earnestness, in the other of a plentiful crop; and in thofe Countries [ Oile] was as neceflary an Ingredient to plenty, as [the Mind] to reprefent the greatest application and diligence.

2. And if thefe Supplements were lawful, no doubt but they were expedient alfo, becaufe by this means they remov❜d one occafion of offence, which the Papifts might have had against the Pfalter; for they, in all probability, would have made loud outcries against it, as having [Sacrilegioufly taken away part of the Scriptures:] And they had had as good pretence for it, as our Diffenters have for accufing this Pfalter of the fame Crime, for omitting the words fubjoin'd to the lxxii Pfalm; nay, they had had a more plaufible appearance of reafon, for faying the former, than our Diffenters for the latter, because thefe Supplements have by many, and indeed moft Churches been receiv'd as the very Words of thofe Pfalms, in which they are inferred; but what is called the 20th verfe of the lxxi Pfalm, was never thought a part of it till now of very Late.

And if the Papifts had raifed this Objection, it might not only look like a real one to thofe of their own Party, but raise fufpicions in the Minds of thofe honeft and well-meaning People, who were well-affected to the Reformation; for it was very hard, if not impoffible, to convince these Men, that thefe Words were not in the Hebrew, that being a Language, whofe Characters were fcarce known to any that lived here in England in thofe Days: But the Vulgar Latin, especially the Pfalter, was understood by many; and 'twas eafy for any one, with a very indifferent degree of knowledge in the Latin Tongue, to difcover that thofe Verfes and Words were extant in the Latin Pfalters, or if they could. not read Latin, yet they might fee the main Supplement, that in the xiv Pfalm, ftanding all together in the English Tranflation of St. Paul's Epiftle to the Romans: And this must at first fight have flagger'd an unlearned Reader, and made him believe that our Tranilators 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 already said, that they had other Tranflations done from the Hebrew, and in all probability the Hebrew Bible it self before them, throug hour the whole Work; as I fuppofe will appear to any, who fhall pleafe to compare this Tranflation with others of that Age, and efpecially with that of Munter, who rejected all thefe Supplements, but to whom in other refpects, our Tranflators had a par. ticular

ticular Eye; which was fo well known in Queen Elizabeth's time that Munfter's Translation was used in our Latin Common-PrayerBooks, with that great Supplement, Pfalm xiv. inferted in diftinct Characters, and all the reft omitted. I have seen two of thefe Editions, one by Vantrollier 1574, in pretty large Octavo, and the other by Wolf, 1572, in a much lefs 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 Latin Words, as the Title or Name of the Pfalm. Thefe 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 Tranflators themselves; but let it be obferved too, that tho' they retain the very fame initial Words that are in the Vulgar Latin, yet they don't Tranflate even thofe words according to the Vulgar Latin, as may be feen Psalm lxv, Ixxiii, lxxxiii, xcv, &c.

I hope it evidently enough appears, that nothing of this kind was done through Carelefinefs or Ignorance, but for good and wife Reasons; for by this means, our Tranflators and Reformers have made it appear, that they did not affect needlefs Innovations; and took the beft courfe to convince all foreign Churches, that we rejected nothing, meerly because used, or receiv'd by them: Efpecially fince by doing fo, 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 Pfalter 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 Diffenters [Sacrilegiously fteal (See the Idolatry of Common-Prayer Worship,) from the People, part of the Pfalms; and this is indeed a heavy charge, if there were any truth to fupport it.

But fuppofe we had not the Pfalms entirely in our Liturgy, would this amount to the grievous Sin of Sacrilege? Surely not, except they were left out of our Bibles too. For the Title is, [the Pfalter or Pfalms of David, as they are appointed to be fung or faid in Churches; ] and if the Reformers of our Church had thought fit to omit the ufe of fome Pfalms or Verfes, as lefs edifying, what Crime had there been in fo doing? Do our Diffenters, in their Meetings, fing the whole Pfalter thorow, from the beginning to the end? do they not rather chufe fome felect Verfes or Portions? and if we should do fo in Chanting or Reading them, why would the fault be greater in us, than in them? Suppofe any of their way fhould make a Collection of those Pfalms, or part of Pfalms, which were judged more fit to be Sung in Publick Affemblies, and fhould print the Collection, with this Title [The Pfalms as they are fung in the Congregations of, &c.] would they think it fair to have the Publishers figma

tized for Sacriledge? And here let it be obferved, once for all, that the Tranflators of the great Bible] were not at all guilty of this pretended Sacrilege, but infert all which our Diffenters, complain of, as wanting in our Liturgy; the Compilers of which, were pleased to make these Omiffions, which are so much cry'd out upon. But let us confider particulars.

r. They omit the Titles, which are in the Hebrew: So do our Diffenters in Singing the Pfalms. Mr. Ainsworth himself has not thought fit to turn them into Metre, tho' he would have the Reader believe, that the Titles are part of the first Verse of every Pfalm in the Profe-Tranflation; but it may as rationally be afferted, that the Name is a part of the Man, or the Sign a part of the House, as that the Titles are any Effential Members of the Pfalms.

[ocr errors]

2. Another omiffion complain'd of, is, That of those hard Words Neginoth, Alamoth, Mehalath, re.] together with Selah which is often met with in the middle of a Pfalm; but let it be confider'd, that thofe who are fuppofed to guefs beft at. the meaning of thefe Words, do fuppofe that they relate to the Mufical Inftruments, which they of old ufed in Singing thefe Pfalms, or however, to the Tunes then in ufe, but now utterly loft. One; would think our Diffenters have no nianner of reason to complain of this matter, fince they now think all Inftrumental Mufick unlawful in the Service of God, and never fing the Pfalms at all in a Profe Tranflation as this is, nor, if they did, would they be at at all affifted by having thefe Words fix'd in the front of the Pfalms, much lefs do they give any light to the meaning of the Pfalm, or any ways concern the Piety or Devotion of those who ufe the Pfalter; and what neceffity there can be of having fuch Words in the Pfalter, as do make us neither more Mufical, nor more devout, I cannot fee. Mr. Ainsworth, that in fomething. or other he might mend our Tranflation, never omits [Selah either in his Verfe or Profe, and yet he himself, (See Ainsworth's Note on Pf. iii. 3.) as well as others, feems inclin'd to believe that it was but [a Mark of ftraining or elevating the Voice; and if fo, then 'tis a down-right blunder in him to infert it, as he does among the Words of the Pfalm to be fung or faid: 'Tis juft as if unskilful Readers or Tranfcribers, fhould make [Elah]. a part of any Song or Anthem, or fhould fuppofe that Bafe,. Tenor, &c. were to be Pronounced or Sung.

pretended

3. As to the Hallelujah's, or [Praife ye the Lord to be omitted at the beginning of feveral Pfalms, the Reader will find, by confulting the Notes on thofe particulars, that the fault is not in our Tranflators, who do not make them a part of thofe Pfalms, but in thofe that do; and if the Hallelujah be fometimes wanting at the end of a Pfalm, this feeming defect is abundantly made up by the Doxology, or [Glory be to the Father, &c.] which is but an Orthodox Chriftian's Paraphrafe on the Hallelujah,

and

[ocr errors]

and which no one can reafonably object againft, who knows in whofe Names he was baptized. It fhould be the bufinefs of our whole Lives, to glorify thofe divine Perfons, to whofe Service we have been fo folemnly devoted; and therefore no good Christian can think, that he honours them too much, or too of ten; and they who difpute againft it, do but give occafion to make Men fufpect, that they are creeping down to Socinianifm by the back-Stairs.

4. But the moft ftrange Objection of this fort, is not yet mention'd, and indeed I could not have thought it worth anfwering, if fo confiderable a Man as Mr. Baxter had not made it. He charges our Tranflation for omitting whole Verfes, in his [English Nonconformity,] which I fuppofe can be no other than the Title of the Pfalms, which have been already accounted for, or those Words at the end of the Ixxii Pfalm, [the Prayers of David the fon of Jeffe are ended. ] The Reader may well think that Mr. Baxter had good reafon not to explain himself, for the very rehearsing the Words, is, I fuppofe an effectual confutation of the Objection; any Man that is not unreafonably prejudiced, will rather believe, that the Pfalm has its full Period at those Words, Amen, Amen; and that what follows, is no more than [Finis] at the end of a Book: And if this exception be of any force, every Printer must be Indited and found guilty of Theft, who neglects to put that Word at the foot of the laft Page of every Book he Publifhes. David's Pfalms were not Collected all at once, and the foregoing Pfalms were all that the Collector had yet found, and this is what he feems to acquaint the Reader with; or elfe the lxxii Pfalm, being that which was made by David on Solomon's Coronation, juft before his own Death, there was this intimation pur at the foot of the Pfalm, to let us know, that David never compofed any other after this. For it is needless to inform the obferving Reader, that the Pfalmis are not placed in the fame order that they were made. But thefe Words are fo tar from being part of the lxxii Pfalm, that in all appearance they were never Written by the hand of David. However, Mr. Ainsworth himlelf did not think that this Verse (if I may fo call it) belong'd to the Pfalm, [fo as that it was to be fung, or faid,] for he does not pretend to Tranflate it into Metre, nor any other that I have met with. I am fully perfwaded that if the Infcriptions following after St. Paul's Epiftles, especially thofe to Timothy and Titus, had been wholly omitted in our English Teftaments, we had never heard a Word from our Diffenters on that fubject, by way of Objection; now why should this after the Ixxii Pfalm, be thought fo facred, thofe others so needlefs or falfe, as thefe Men would have them thought?

II. As to thofe Objections which have been made against other particular paffiges not mentioned in this Preface, the Reader will find them accounted for in their proper place. I have endeavour'd

to

« EdellinenJatka »