synagogues of Galilee." The grammatical accuracy, also, is worthy of observation, with which he has corrected many words and clauses which were erroneously translated in the common version. The most remarkable of these amendments is, his employing the anxiliary will, in the third person of the future tense, when prophecy merely is intended. It is surprising how often an erroneous use is made of the verb shall in the old translation. Take for an instance the prophecy in the 24th chap. of Matt. The third person of the future is rendered uniformly by shall instead of will, and the mistake occurs no less than forty-nine times in a chapter of fifty-one verses; which are all corrected by Wakefield. Of a similar kind is the erroneous use of the pronoun which for who, as Matt. ii. 20. "For they are dead, which sought the child's life." Examples of this occur on almost every page of the old translation, and are generally amended by Wakefield. These grammatical corrections are not absolutely peculiar to him, as many of them are found in Campbell's Gospels, and in the Improved Version. But he has surpassed them both in uniform attention to the proper rendering of these words.

4. A fourth peculiarity of Wakefield's Translation is the care which he has used to give the force of idiomatical expressions, not by translating the words literally, as is so frequently done in the Common Version, but by a more accurate rendering of the word or phrase, in appropriate English expressions. By translating an idiom literally, according to the usual meaning of each individual word, a wrong idea is sometimes given to the mere English reader, and at others, no idea at all. Thus the words oxgibus u are nothing more than an idiomatic pleonasm, and siguify "he spake," or "addressed them;" but our translators, by always rendering these words, "answered and said," have sometimes implied, that part of a conversation was lost or omitted. This expression occurs in the account of the transfiguration, Matt. xvii. 8. 4. " Behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias, talking with him. Then answered Peter and said unto Jesus," &c. and if we are not led astray by the inaccuracy, it is still an erroneous as well as inelegant translation. This and other similar instances Wakefield has rendered far better by the single word, spake," or "said."

In Gal. i. 15. 16. we find the words, "when it pleased God to reveal his son in me,"-an expression apparently very ill adapted to the communication of any idea. Wakefield, observing the Hebraism,* has expressed it, "was

* Vide Vorstium De Hebraismis N. T. p. 215-219.

pleased to reveal his son by me." Matt. xiii. 57. stands in the Common Version, "they were offended in him," avla being rendered verbally. Wakefield has very properly used the English idiom, "they were offended at him." Another Hebraism, which occurs frequently in the Common Version, is the use of a substantive for an adjective; thus Rom. vi. 6. To σaun Tas anaglas is rendered, "the body of sin ;" but Wake. field has given the meaning of the original by translating the second substantive adjectively, "The sinful body." In Ep. James i. 18. Xoy big means "true word," or "true doctrine," as Wakefield has it; but in the Common Version it is given verbatim, "the word of truth;" to which expression we are so habituated, that we do not at first perceive that it means nothing. Another idiomatic expression of the sacred writers, which is rendered verbally by the old translators, but more corrrectly by Wakefield, consists in the use of the verb dixi, to think, or to seem, when there is no intention to express doubt or suspicion. Thus Mark x. 42. "ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles," meaning, as Wakefield has given it," the rulers of the Gentiles." So, I Cor. xi. 16. "If any man seem to be contentious," for "If any one love contention," as Wakefield has accurately rendered it. The same form of expression occurs in several other places, as Matt. iii. 9. Luke xxii. 24. Gal. ii. 9. Heb. iv. 1. in all of which we find Wakefield's Translation the superior.

A fifth peculiarity in the phraseology of the New Testament, almost entirely disregarded by King James's translators, is the occasional use of the conjunction i to denote an effect instead of a cause. I cannot find that the word was used in this manner by any of the Classical writers; the best lexicographers do not mention it; and Hoogeveen* who speaks of this use of it, draws his examples from the New Testament, except one from Archimedes.† That it is so used by the sacred writers, I think cannot be doubted by any one who turns to John v. 20. where we read in the Received Version, "For the father loveth the son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth; and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel;" iva iuus lavua. It is certain that the astonishment of the Jews could not have been the final cause, or the motive to the performance of greater miracles, though it it would probably have been the effect; and. Wakefield has, without doubt, given the true meaning by the words, "so as to make you wonder." In Gal. v. 17. occurs one of the few instances in which the old translators have deviated from their

* Doctrina Particularum.

And this not exactly in point.

usual practice in order to comply with the exigence of the passage, or the rules of grammar, "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,

so that

ye cannot do the things that ye would." All agree that i in this instance indicates the effect. In Luke xi. 50. we find the following remarkable passage; "that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation." Wakefield has given a very different meaning to this verse, rendering it thus, "So that the blood of all the prophets, that has been shed from the foundation of the world, will be required of this very race." Without stopping to inquire, whether this translation of ysa be correct, is it not obvious that he has greatly improved upon the Common Version, by rendering iva in such a manner as not to imply, that the punishment of the Jews was the motive or object of the Divine Being in sending to them prophets and apostles? Instances of a similar use of iva may be found in Luke ix. 45. Rom. iii. 19. 11. 31. and if these examples be sufficient to establish the principle, it may be applied to the explanation of the phrase ίνα πληρωθη.

5. A fifth peculiarity of this translation is the happy ingenuity which is often discovered in arranging and connecting clauses. Wakefield has, by a judicious use of this expedient, frequently elucidated what was obscure, and shewn the connexion of what was before apparently loose and disjointed. Thus in 1 Cor. xi. 16, 17. we read in the Common Version, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. [Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse." The clause inclosed in brackets, in the 17th verse, appears altogether redundant and useless; and the word wagayya is rendered in a manner entirely unprecedented in the New Testament. It occurs in twenty-nine other places, and in all of them requires to be rendered by command, or charge, and is accordingly so translated uniformly. But it is impossible to render it in that manner as it stands ; and Wakefield has judiciously separated it from the verse with which it is now joined. He has also, on very respectable authority, changed the form of the verb from the present participle, to the present tense indicative, and gives the verses thus. "If any one, however, love contention, neither we nor the church of God allow this custom. And such is my charge to you." i. e. respecting the wearing of veils, of which St.

* See Griesbach.

Paul had just been speaking: This converts an awkwardly redundant clause into a suitable expression of apostolical authority, is a more correct translation of the words, and forms a very proper conclusion to the subject on which the apostle had just been writing.

In Acts v. 12-15. and Rom. ii. 12-16. he has avoided long parentheses, and made what was obscure, perspicuous, by a very proper transposition of a clause in the one case, and a verse in the other. In 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. occurs an instance, in which he has happily connected two verses, and judiciously altered the arrangement of clauses. Examples of this sort are very frequent throughout the work, but particularly numerous in the Epistles; and they are important, because they give distinctness and exactness to writings, which as they are read in the Common Version, are productive of many mistakes and much confusion.

Under this head, may be remarked the judgment with which he has divided the various books into paragraphs, according to the custom generally adopted by the later editors and transla tors of the New Testament. It is a custom which cannot be too much commended, and Wakefield has been peculiarly judicious in his divisions.

6. A sixth peculiarity of Wakefield's Translation, and an excellence of far greater importance than any that I have mentioned, is its freedom from a class of words, which have acquired a technical meaning, to which there is nothing corresponding in the language of the sacred writers. From seeing these words frequently employed in controversial theology, we have learned to associate with them the signification in which they are used by the sectarian, not that in which they were employed by the Apostles and Evangelists; and in order to arrive at a knowledge of the latter, it is obvious that we must throw off all these foreign associations, and carry ourselves back to the time when systems of divinity were calamities yet unknown. But how is he to throw off these shackles, and learn the apostolical sense of this class of words, whose whole idea of them is drawn from the " doubtful disputations," which have been so multiplied in the theological world? To the mere English reader, it is nearly impossible to disentangle them from that mass of associations, which has been accumulating for centuries; and the only means left to represent to him the simple meaning of Scripture, is to erase these words from his Bible, and supply their places with those which have not yet been made to convey unintelligible mysteries, or to stand as the expression of incommunicable ideas. This it is cer

tainly not too much to say Wakefield has accomplished far better than most other English translators.

The most striking illustration of what I have remarked, is the word grace, which is almost uniformly used by our translators as corresponding to the Greek word xags. It is possible that it meant little or nothing different from that word at the period when our Common Version was made, but it has since acquired a peculiar theological and technical sense, to which Zagis certainly does not correspond. There is nothing in the Greek word which can imply that secret and mysterious divine influence, which is so generally conveyed by the word grace to the English reader. It is acknowledged by most scholars, that the word favour represents more accurately than any other the language affords, the exact meaning of xegis, yet this is complained of as not "an adequate substitute" for grace.It is said to be "extremely languid; acting as a sedative to the fervour of a devout mind." Undoubtedly it is not an adequate substitute for the word grace; if it were, it should be rejected; but the true question is, whether it is "an adequate substitute" for xes, and if it be, no disgust at its languid character or sedative effect will dever the conscientious man from adopting it. Wakefield, whose scholarship and integrity are alike above detraction, has usually substituted it for grace, sometimes however rendering xaçı by kindness, or gift, but uniformly banishing a word which makes the Bible speak the language of a sect. In like manner he has preferred deliverance to redemption, choice to election, chosen to elect, and reconciliation to atonement.

χαρις,

With equal propriety he has adopted master, instead of Lord, as the translation of xvg, when it is used as a term of address. The title, Lord, is so often applied to the Supreme Being, both in the Old and New Testament, that the union of something sacred and divine with our idea of the word is almost unavoidable; and it has undoubtedly had a great effect, as much perhaps as any single word in the Bible, in strengthening and confirming that opinion of the supreme divinity of our Saviour which is so common among Christians. We find his disciples using an appellation, which we ourselves should employ as a sign of the highest possible respect and reverence; and without the knowledge, or without the reflection, that the same word was then used as the common mode of address between equals, that it was nothing more than a term

* By Dr. Cogan in bis Theological Disquisitions, Vol. 2, Note B. P. 602. New Series-vol. II. 2