233

REVIEW.

1. The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, commonly styled the New Testament, translated from the Original Greek by Doctors George Campbell, James Mac knight, and Philip Doddridge: with Prefaces, Vurious Emendations, and an Appendix By ALEXANDER CAMPBELL of Bethany, U. S. 3rd English Ed. London, Wightman, 1839. pp. 509, 16mo.

2. The New Testament, translated from the Text of J. J. Griesbach. By SAMUEL SHARPE. London, Green, 1840. pp. 505, 12mo. THE appearance of these publications may be taken as a symptom of a growing desire in scriptural students, for a corrected version of the Sacred Writings. Many such attempts have been made since the appearance of King James' translation: but none has been so successful as to command for any length of time the approbation of the public. Among the theologians who have employed their talent in amending the Received Version of the whole New Testament, perhaps the most eminent are Doddridge, Wakefield, and Archbishop Newcome. The former is studious but verbose; the second original, but not always judicious; the translation of the last is chiefly known through the Improved Version, executed by Mr. Belsham for the Unitarian Society of London, and founded on the basis of the Archbishop's: but with so many alterations, that the learned prelate, were he alive, would undoubtedly disclaim all responsibility for the volume as it stands: and the work, though occasionally referred to and consulted as a critical book, is no great favourite with the denomination for whose use it was composed. We believe it is not employed in a single Unitarian pulpit, or family, in Great Britain.

But, although all these attempts have been unsuccessful, they have not been useless. A great mass of criticism has been accumulated by the labours of scholars who have commented either upon the whole New Testament, or upon particular books and passages: and it is fully time that some effort were made to lay the result of so much learned labour before the general reader, in the form of a new translation of the Sacred Volume. In making an effort to effect this object, it will occur at once to every judicious critic, that no departure should be made from the version in common use, unless for reasons amounting

to a moral necessity: as in cases where King James' translators have followed an erroneous reading of the original text; where they have mistaken the sense; or where the English language has so much changed since their day, that their version no longer bears the meaning which they intended; or is become ungrammatical. The style of the common version is so excellent in itself, and so closely connected with our religious feelings by the use of many years, that no alteration in this respect, ought to be introduced. In fact, in point of style it scarcely admits of any improvement.

With reference to the two publications placed at the head of this article, we are happy to be able to state that, in perusing two entire books of the New Testament, and several particular passages, as exhibited in their pages, we have found in both of them, many improvements upon the version in common use: we have also noted not a few instances in which they have departed from the common version without any sufficient grounds, and some in which we think the received translation preferable to theirs. They are, however, of very different degrees of merit.

Mr. Sharpe's is, in our judgment, incomparably superior to that edited by Mr. Campbell. Mr. Sharpe adheres uniformly, so far as we have observed, to the reading of the text preferred by Dr. Griesbach, whose edition of the original is now regarded as the standard. He follows, in general, the style of the common version: and in most instances in which he departs from their rendering, he has a sufficient reason for so doing. In truth, without regarding his work as immaculate, it appears to us to be one of the most judicious translations of the New Testament now in print in the English language. Mr. Sharpe also shows a praiseworthy impartiality. He is apparently no Unitarian: yet in his rendering of the principal controverted texts, he so faithfully represents the meaning of the original that no reader will be at a loss to see that the expressions of the sacred writers are in most exact accordance with the proper Unitarian doctrine. We are pleased to learn that the work has already obtained a wide circulation: for we have no doubt, that it will powerfully contribute to the understanding of the sacred records, wherever it is employed.

As for the work compiled or edited by Mr. A. Campbell

of Bethany, it is not easy to know what to think of it. It is impossible to deny to it, in many places, the merit of ingenuity, and even of sound judgment: but in a great many more we are offended by unnecessary and absurd deviations from the original, from the version in common use, and even from the translations which Mr. Campbell professes to employ as guides. Indeed, when we look to the vast number and arbitrary nature of the departures from the versions of Drs. Doddridge, Macknight, and G. Campbell, we cannot but think that the parade of their names on the title-page is of the nature of an artifice: a ruse de guerre: calculated to impose on the unwary reader. At all events, there is scarcely a line in the book as it now appears, which does not contain something or other for which the editor alone is responsible: and this something is usually marked by the absence of just discrimination and the violation of the principles of good 'taste. Yet Mr. Campbell apparently seems to suppose that he possesses taste and judgment most refined: and very condescendingly undertakes to elevate the works of the apostles and evangelists to his own standard of excellence. For instance, the sacred writers being Jews, have followed their national idiom in employing but one connecting particle, "and;" instead of that great variety of conjunctions and relatives, which gives so much elegance to the classic Grecian period, and majesty to the Roman. Most translators of the New Testament have felt themselves bound, in this respect, to imitate the simplicity of the original: and such simplicity has been found to be very consistent with true dignity: but not so thinks Mr. Campbell. The writers of the sacred books appear to him to have deviated from the just standard of elegant composition and, accordingly he has most carefully obliterated all vestiges of their barbaric style. He avoids the oriental "and" as if it were tainted with the plague or the leprosy: adopts in its stead other particles of diverse significations: - changes the entire structure of sentences to get rid of it: or suppresses it altogether when no other remedy is at hand. So also, with regard to the singular pronoun, "thou" and "thee" as applied to individual perIt does not accord with Mr. Campbell's notions of modern good manners, and accordingly it is expunged; to make way for the more refined "you," "your," &c.

sons.

and such and similar liberties are so frequently, so uniformly taken with the sacred text, that we can hardly help saying, while we peruse the book, this is not the gospel according to Luke, but the gospel according to Campbell. We exempt Mr. Campbell from all culpability in these instances. We have no doubt whatever, that his object was pure and good. His intention was to make the sacred books more refined and interesting: but we put it to any judicious reader whether such a mode of translating does not go far to make them ridiculous!

One thing we think it necessary to add. Mr. Campbell, in general, follows the reading of Griesbach's text: but wherever that text admits of a rendering that is unfavourable to the doctrine of the proper Unity, he systematically prefers such a mode of translating. There is, conse

quently, no version in the English language, not even that executed by order of King James I. which we regard as so strongly, so uniformly opposed to Unitarianism: and if it be circulated by any Unitarian Book Societies, it can only be on the principle of the medical profession, who dispense the poison and the antidote from the same establishment.

In point of mechanical execution, we could have wished that both Mr. Sharpe and Mr. Campbell had followed the example of the common version in giving a marginal list of various readings and different translations of doubtful passages. This is only fair to the unlearned reader: who, from the want of such an apparatus, is led to regard the translation in the text as absolutely certain, when, perhaps, it has been adopted only upon a consideration of nicely balanced probabilities, and with no small degree of doubt and hesitation. For the same reason the words inserted to complete the sense, ought, as in the common version, to be distinguished by a different type. This is the more necessary, as several among them have been introduced on very slight grounds: and some are clearly

erroneous.

Supreme Religious Worship due to God the Father only. By WILLIAM HAMILTON DRUMMOND, D.D.-Dublin, Tegg and Co. Lower Abbey-street; London, Smallfield & Son. 1840. pp. 106, 12mo. This Essay contains the substance of several Lectures which Dr. Drummond delivered at the request of the

Unitarian Society in Dublin, in reply to a book published by Dr. Urwick, on "The Saviour's Right to Divine Worship." In it the reader will be gratified by the perusal of a brief, but masterly discussion of an important subject in theology, interspersed with casual notices of some interesting correlative topics, and conducted in a lively and animated style: in which learning waits on wit, and both are placed under the controul of good sense, and good humour. We have perused it with much satisfaction, and can cordially recommend it to all religious inquirers.

Dr. Drummond commences his Essay, by stating the general idea annexed to the term worship: the particular use of the word with reference to religious or divine worship: the proofs that such homage ought to be, and by the scriptures is exclusively attributed to the One God the Father; and the arguments which show that it was not rendered, nor is required in scripture to be rendered to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The author then notices and obviates, some of the principal points advanced by Dr. Urwick, in his defence of the contrary doctrine.

In adverting to the latter, we could not help occasionally feeling a degree of surprise, not unmixed with some little amusement. The arguments put forward by the Trinitarian divines, are indeed of a very singular nature; they show how inconsistent the practice of those who habitually decry human reason, is with their own principle. Unitarians, for instance, maintain that in inculcating the strict Unity of God, they are only enforcing the leading doctrine of the Old Testament:-but here our opponents say that we are under a mistake, owing to our ignorance of the power of the plural termination of the word Elohim: and that we must err from the true saving faith, unless we have an accurate conception of a doubtful and obscure point in the grammatical criticism of a language which has been dead for 2000 years! We are in the habit of saying that our Lord is, in the New Testament, so frequently and pointedly distinguished from God, that he cannot be worshipped as God, without contradicting both his own assertions, and those of his apostles: but down come Mr. Granville Sharp, Dr. Wardlaw, and Bishop Middleton, assuring us that we are under a grievous error in our assertion; and that we should at once perceive our mistake, if we would only allow them to explain to us