the author hath mentioned in his notes; but without examining their authenticity, because of these matters the unlearned are no judges; and, with respect to the learned, they may consult Mill, Wetstein, and others, who have made large collections of the various readings, and may judge for them- felves. In the larger edition of this work, the author, following Origen's plan, hath fet the common English version oppofite to in the ancient MSS, were wanting in the printed editions, enriched his copy with Wechelius's readings, and thofe of the Clermont MS, and of that of Thuanus, which contains the whole new teftament, except Matthew's gospel, and of cardinal Mazarin's MS, which is more than 800 years old, and of a MS of his own, still more ancient. All thefe readings he placed at the foot of the pages of his own edition. But when he had procceded half-way, having received, from a learned friend, readings excerpted from Froben's, the Complutenfian, and other approved copies, he placed them at the end of his Greek teftament, together with fome from Ifaac Cafaubon's notes on the gofpels, and from the Hervagean edition. Mill tells us, that he propofed afterwards to add the readings of the Alexandrian MS, and of the MS of the gofpels and Acts, which was Beza's; but he died in the year his new teftament came abroad. About feventeen years after his death, it was reprinted, but without the readings which he intended to have added. Bcfides the above-mentioned, there were feveral other Greek teftaments, with various readings, published, of which Mill hath given an account; but being of lefs importance, it is needless to mention them here. Farther, as the text of the new teftament was fettled before the Alexandrian MS was brought into Europe, and before Walton publifhed his Polyglot, it was not neceflary here to defcribe either the one or the other. Mill hath given a full account of both in his Prolegomena, from whence moft of the above mentioned particulars concerning the editions of the Greek bible are taken. Mill, -in his own noble edition of the Greek new teftament, befides a prodigious collection of readings from MSS, hath noted all the varicties which he found in the quotations from the new teftament, made by the ancient chriftian writers.--The text in his edition differs, in a few inftances, from that which is commonly used; and, in his notes, he hath propofed more alterations, chiefly on the authority of the vulgate verfion. Concerning these, the reader may confult Whitby's Examen, where it is shewn that they are neither so well supported by MSS, as the common readings, nor give so good a fenfe of the paffages. For which reafons they are by no means to be ad mitted. From the manner in which the text of the Greek new teftament in common ufe, was afcertained, every attentive reader must be fenfible, that the learned men who employed themselves in that important work ufed the greatest diligence, fidelity, and critical kill. And as they were many in number, and of different fentiments with respect to the controverted doctrines of christianity, no reading could be admitted from prejudice, or any particular bias, but every thing was determined agreeably to the authority of the greatest number of the most ancient and beft MSS. Therefore, if the present text is not precifely the fame with that which was written by the infpired penmen, it approaches o very near to it, that it well deferves to be regarded as the infallible rule of our faith and manners. See Pr. Eff. 2. at the end. his new tranflation, that the reader may fee in what particulars they differ. And having placed the Greek text in a column between the two tranflations, the learned, by comparing them with the original, can easily judge to which verfion the preference is due. } SECT. IV. Of the Prefaces, the Illuftrations prefixed to the Chapters, and the Notes. It is well known that the epiftles to particular churches were written, either to correct certain irregularities into which they had fallen, or to confute the errors of falfe teachers, who endeavoured to feduce them. It is equally well known, that the epiftles to particular perfons were written to direct them in the discharge of the offices affigned to them, and to support them under the evils to which they were expofed, while faithfully executing thefe offices. Wherefore the knowledge of the state of the churches, and of the characters of the perfons to whom the epiftles were addreffed, and of the erroneous doctrines which prevailed in the first age, must be of great ufe in ftudying the epifties. To give the reader some idea of these matters, the author has prefixed a preface to each epistle, in which, from the hints given in the epiftle itself, and from particulars mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the writings of the fathers, he hath endeavoured to fettle the date of the epiftle, and to explain the ftate of the churches, and the character of the perfons to whom it was fent, together with the errors which it was written to correct. In the new tranflation, the common divifion of the text into chapters and verses, is retained, because the fcriptures have long been quoted according to that divifion. But, to remedy the inconveniences which that divifion hath occafioned, by breaking the text, fometimes even in the middle of a fentence, the author hath prefixed to each chapter what he hath termed a view and illuftration. In thefe, the principal matters contained in the chapters are fet forth at greater length than could be done in the commentary; the arguments ufed by the infpired writers. for proving their pofitions, are diftinguished, their relation to thefe pofitions is pointed out, and the conclufion drawn from them is fhewn to be juft. Also because St. Paul, in particular, hath omitted fometimes the major propofition of his argument, fometimes the minor, and often the conclufion itself, (See Gal. iii. 20.) the author, in his illuftrations hath endeavoured to complete these unfinished reasonings. He hath alfo marked the apostle's digreffions, mentioned the purposes for which they are introduced, and apprized the reader when he returns to his main fubject. Laftly, in these views care hath been taken to shew how the apostle's reasonings may be applied, for defending the Jewish and Chriftian revelations against the cavils of infidels. Oppofite to the new translation, the author hath placed an interpretation, in which the tranflated words of the text are inferted, for the most part, without any alteration; because, in general, they express the inspired writers' meaning with more energy than it is poffible to do by any words of human invention. This interpretation the author has called a commentary, rather than a paraphrafe, because it is commonly made, not by expreffing the meaning of the text in other words, but by supplying the things that are neceffary, for fhewing the scope and connection of the reafoning, or by mentioning particulars which the apostles have omitted, becaufe they were well known to the perfons to whom they wrote; but which, at this distance of time, being unknown to ordinary readers, must be suggested to them. These additions, being properly fhort notes intermixed with the text, for the purpose of explanation, are all printed in Roman characters, that the reader may distinguish them from the text, which is printed in Italics. As a tranflator of the fcriptures, the author thought himself bound to give the true literal verfion of every paffage, according to the best of his judgment, without regarding whether it favoured or opposed his own particular opinions, or any of the fchemes of doctrine which have divided the chriftian world. Yet, as an interpreter, he hath taken the liberty, in his còmmentary, to fubmit to his readers, though not always with the fame affurance, what in his opinion is the meaning of the paffage. There are, indeed, fome texts which he hath not ventured to explain, becaufe, though all agree in the tranflation of them, their meaning hath been much difputed. But in the notes notes he hath shewn how the contending parties explain them, for fupporting their particular tenets; and hath fairly reprefented the arguments by which they justify their own interpretations, without concealing any thing that feemed to be of importance on either fide. And if, on some occafions, he hath leaned towards the interpretation of a difputed text, given by one of the parties, the reader must not conclude that he holds the opinion which that interpretation is advanced to support. For he will find that, in explaining other texts, he hath given interpretations which favour the contrary doctrine. In both cafes, his only motive for approving thefe interpretations was, that he judged them the true meaning of the paffages. The balancing of these seemingly oppofite paffages against each other, and the application of them, for the purpose of supporting a particular doctrine, or scheme of doctrine, not falling within the author's plan, he hath left it, for the most part, to theologians, with this opinion, that the only foundation on which the doctrines of revelation can be fecurely built, is the fcriptures, understood in their plain grammatical meaning. And therefore, in all cafes where oppofite doctrines have been founded, not on one or two, but on a number of texts, according to their unconstrained meaning, the one clafs of texts ought not, by forced criticism, to be turned from their plain grammatical meaning, to make them accord with the scheme of doctrine built on the other clafs. For it will be found that these seemingly inconfiftent texts speak of perfons and things of whofe existence we are not able to judge. So that the things faid concerning them in the fcriptures, which appear inconsistent, may all be true, though we are not able to reconcile them with each other. And as, in natural religion, there are facts difcovered to us, by reason and experience, from which feemingly contradictory conclufions may be drawn, both of which we must believe, though we are not able to reconcile them, why may not the feemingly inconfiftent facts made known in the fcriptures be received as true, upon the teftimony of God, though we cannot reconcile them with each other? Wherefore it is no objection to the plain grammatical interpretation of the fcriptures that it gives them the appearance of inconfiftency. If that i that appearance is in the fcriptures themselves, why should it be concealed, either in the tranflation or in the interpretation? A tranflator or an interpreter of the facred oracles will certainly fhew not only greater honefty and candour, but will even come nearer to the truth when he fuffers their real afpect to remain, than if, for the purpose of establishing particular doctrines, or for reducing every thing in revelation to the measure of human conceptions, he attends only to one clafs of texts, and, by forced criticisms, turns all the oppofite texts from their plain grammatical meaning to artificial fenfes, which they do not admit, without much ftraining: a practice which hath been too much followed in interpreting the fcriptures, not by one fect only, but by all the different fects of chriftians in their turn*. It * Strained criticisms, for the purpose of establishing particular doctrines, the reader will find in Beza's notes on Rom. i. 4. fpiritum fan&litatis,—and on ver. 17.—and on Rom. iii. 31. But particularly on Rom. iv. 3, where, to prevent us from thinking that faith is counted to believers for righteoufnefs, Beza affirms, that the phrase, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, is an hypallage, for righteousness was counted to Abraham by faith; and strongly contends, that that righteoufnels, was the righteousness of Chrift; contrary to all the rules of grammar, and to the plain fenfe both of Mofes and Paul's words, which declare as expressly as it is poffible for words to declare, that the thing counted to Abraham was his believing God. See alfo his notes on Rom. ix. throughout. The following paffages Beza hath mis-tranflated, from his too great attachment to his own opinions. Ads, κιν. 23. (χειροτονήσαντες δε αυτοις πρεσβύτερες) cumque ipfi per fuffragia créassent per fingulas ecclefias prefbyteros. According to this tranflation, Paul and Barnabas ordained perfons elders, whom the churches chose by their fuffrages. But as the word Xegotovnoavtes must be conftrued, not with the churches, but with Paul and Barnabas, if it be tranflated, per fuffragia creaffent, it will imply, that the elders were made by the fuffrages, not of the churches, but of Paul and Barnabas; which is abfurd. The common translation of the passage is more juft; for Xugotovw fignifies, to nominate or appoint fimply: fee Acts x. 41.-Rom. ii. 7. τους μεν, ная υπόμονη έργα αγαθε, δόξαν και τιμην και αφθαρσίαν ζητεσιν : Iis quidem qui fecundum pas tientem expectationem, quærunt boni operis gloriam, &c. Here, by tranflating woμovny, patientem expectationem, and by feparating it from egye ayads, and joining egys avads, with doğay, contrary to all rules, Beza has reprefented believers as feeking the glory, bonour and immortality of a good work. This forced conftruction and abfurd tranflation, he has adopted, not to remove any difficulty, but to prevent, as it would feem, his readers from fuppofing that perfeverance in good works, is neceffary to the obtaining of glory, honour, and immortality Rom. v. το μεν γαρ κριμα εξ ενώ: Nam reatis quidem eft ex una offenfa: For the guilt indeed is of one offence, to condemnation. By this tranflation, Beza makes the apoftle affirm, that all Adam's pofterity are actually guilty of his first tranfgreffion; and, on that account, are liable to eternal death. But that doctrine is not taught in this paffage; for I know no text in which xpx fignifies (reatus) guilt.-Rom. viii. 4. (iva тo dixxwwpa te roμe: ut jus illud legis compleatur ΤΟ 15 1 |