fidelity of the translator, being destitute of that knowledge, without which we can form no estimate whatever. But the case is widely different, when we consult a Lexicon. It is not in the power of a Lexicographer to impose on us, as a common translator can. In a Lexicon (at least if it is of any value) we frequently find the same word quoted in various passages, which assists us in determining its meaning; if it is a derivative, we become acquainted with the primative, with which its meaning must have some connexion; and if it has various senses, (which we should never know from a continued translation,) we may judge from the context and other circumstances, which of those various senses is best adapted to any particular passage. If we extend our knowledge to the oriental languages. allied to the Hebrew, and apply also the Septuagint version, the dependence on our Lexicon will be further diminished. We ourselves shall obtain possession of the sources, from which the Lexicographer himself must have drawn his materials, and thence we shall be enabled to judge, whether he has properly applied them.

Lastly, let us consider the additional obligation of studying the original Scriptures, which lies especially on those, who pretend to the title of Protestant. To repose implicit confidence in a translation, is characteristic of the Church of Rome. Let the Church of Rome decree of her authorised version, Ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prætextu audeat

vel præsumat. But let no Protestant apply these words of the Council of Trent to his own authorised version, whatever predilection he may have for it himself. It is the privilege of Protestants to appeal to the inspired originals. We do not believe, that our translators were inspired, though the Jews believed it of their Septuagint translators. The early Reformers, especially Luther and Melancthon, thought it one of the most important advantages obtained by the Reformation, that the learned were no longer forced to walk in the trammels of an authorised version, but were at liberty to open the originals. Nor have the foreign Protestant Clergy, from the period of the Reformation to the present age, appealed, either in Academic disputations, or in writings designed for the learned, to any other scriptural authority, than that of the Hebrew, and the Greek. For those indeed, who were unable to understand the originals, they provided translations conducted to the best of their abilities. And since it is infinitely better to read the Scriptures in a translation, than not to read them at all, the legislature of different Protestant countries has wisely provided for the reading of them in Churches, according to those translations, which were most approved. But the high and decisive authority, belonging to the inspired originals, was never supposed by any Protestant, at least not by any real Protestant, to attach to a mere translation; though the Church of Rome requires such authority for her

own authorised version. When a Protestant gov. ernment has selected a particular translation, and appointed it to be read in Churches, this selection and appointment has implied only, that such translation was the best which could then be obtained. But it did not imply perfection, or that no future amendment could be required. Indeed we know that the English version, which had been authorised by Queen Elizabeth, was exchanged for another version, authorised by James the First. We have therefore a precedent in our own Church, for following the advice of Archbishop Newcome, and again revising by authority our English version. But whether we revise it or not, there is one inference, which must be drawn from the preceding remarks, namely, that we cannot be qualified for the Interpretation of the Bible, till we understand the languages of the Bible.

LECTURE XV.

THE sources of biblical interpretation having been explained in the preceding Lecture, let us now consider what rules must be observed in the investigation of words, in order to make them perform the office, for which they were intended, and become signs to the hearer or reader of what was thought by the speaker or writer.

Whether we speak, or whether we write, it is in either case our object to be understood. Every Author therefore must be supposed to employ such words, for the conveyance of his thoughts, as he believes will excite in his readers the same thoughts. Otherwise, he defeats his own object. His words will be fallacious signs; they will be signs of one thing to the writer, of another thing to the reader; and whether they convey a true, or convey a false proposition, they will not convey, what the reader wants to know, the proposition of the author. Hence also he must be supposed to use his words in the same sense, in which they are commonly us ed by the persons, who speak the language, in which he writes. For, if he uses them in any oth

er sense, they will again be signs of one thing to the writer, of another to the reader.

To interpret therefore a word in any language, (whoever be the author that used it) we must ask in the first instance; What notion is (or was) affixed to that word, by the persons in general, who speak (or spake) the language? And the answer to this question will constitute our first rule of interpretation. Now the question, when applied to a living language, is easily answered, because the usage of a living language is known from conversation. But when it is applied to a dead language, of which the usage can be learnt only from books, the answer may involve very extensive inquiries. If, for instance, the question be applied to a word in the Hebrew Bible, the answer will involve the use of those sources of intelligence, which were explained in the last Lecture. In like manner, if it be applied to any word in the Greek Tastament, the answer will involve inquiries into the usage of words, both among the Greeks in general, and among those in particular, who used the peculiar dialect of Hebrew-Greek.

But whatever be the sources, from which we derive our knowledge of words, whatever be our means of answering the question above-proposed, that answer will in general determine our interpretation of words, as it determines in general an author's application of them. The rules themselves therefore, which we are now considering, may be