Vulgate version was formally affirmed by a decree of the council of Trent. Immediately after that sentence, it appears to have been the prevalent opinion of zealous Romanists, that that translation ought to be considered as inspired, and consequently as absolutely faultless. On this account, the champions of the party did not hesitate to exalt it far above the original, which, though they acknowledged to have been inspired, they affirmed to have been, since that time, miserably corrupted, in passing through the hands of collators and copyists. In about a century after, how much more moderate the opinions, even of Romanists, were become, appears sufficiently from what we are informed of on this subject in Simon's Critical History. The high style, so common with former theologians and controvertists, was heard no more. All moderate and judicious Romanists were ashamed of it. The prevalent opinion of such was then, what no reasonable Protestant will dissent from at this day, that, in every thing essential to the faith and practice of a Christian, it was a good version, and might be safely used. "Opinionum commenta delet dies." Let not the hand of power interfere; let there be neither bribes nor terrors to bias the mind on either side; and men of the most opposite factions will soon become reasonable, and learn to understand one another. Free and fair discussion will ever be found the firmest friend to truth. At the time I speak of, the most moderate of the Roman Catholic party were however convinced, that, in deference to the council's declaration, every true son of the church, who, for the use of the people, purposed to translate the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue, ought to translate from the Vulgate version only. What then would those people have thought of a new translation into Latin, by one of their own priests, from the original Hebrew and Greek? They had some specious grounds, I acknowledge, for considering it as presumptuous, at least in the appearance which it has of setting up the opinion of an individual in opposition to the declared judgment of the church: Yet, in little more than half a century after the publication of the Critical History, another priest of the oratory undertook, and, with the Pope's approbation, executed a new translation of the Old Testament from the original into Latin, in which he corrects the errors of the Vulgate with as much freedom as any candid Protestant could have done. Is there not reason then to say, that Rome seems to have changed her measures? How great was the encouragement which was given lately by the most eminent personages in that church to the labors of an English Protestant, who undertook to give the public a more correct edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, with the various readings, than the Christian world had enjoyed before?

But if Rome, from whatever motive it may arise, shall now at length judge it proper to contribute to the advancement of know

ledge, and assist in furnishing the world with light and information, is it incumbent on Protestants, in opposition to all their former maxims, to do their utmost to withhold the light, and involve matters as much as possible in darkness? Might it not, in that case, be justly concluded, that they were actuated, not by the love of truth, but by the spirit of faction; and that they had become at last enemies to the light, finding, upon further inquiry, that the light was no friend to their cause? As no judicious Protestant can seriously think that there is ground for suspecting this, let not any one act as if he suspected it. If there were ground for suspicion, this itself would be an additional reason for inquiry, unless we are absurd enough to be more attached to a sect than to truth, and to have more of that bigotry and implicit faith which are of the essence of superstition, than we have of genuine religion, which is ever found a reasonable service, and as completely amiable as the other is hateful.

Yet, is there not, even in some who are the friends of truth and the friends of freedom, who in religion as in other matters would give scope to inquiry and communication, a sort of jealousy on the article of translation, which makes them less equitable, less candid judges, in regard to it, than in regard to any other matter that comes under their discussion? They are jealous for the honor of the common version; and though they are far from ascribing any supernatural power to the translators, they are afraid of the detection of any error which might make that version sink in the opinion of the people. "This," say they, "could not be productive of a good effect, either on the faith of the nation or on their practice; for, as the people cannot be supposed nice in distinguishing, their Bible and their religion are to them the same thing. By discrediting the one, you injure the other; and by introducing questions about the proper rendering of a particular passage, you weaken the effect of the whole." As there is some plausibility in this method of arguing, I beg leave to offer a few more thoughts on the subject.

In every question relating to fact, where experience may be had, our safest recourse is to experience. Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, many Latin translations of the Bible, of very different characters, have been published. Can we justly say, that by means of these the authority of Scripture, among those who do not understand the original, but are readers of those versions, has been weakened, and scepticism has been promoted? I do not think that, with any shadow of reason, this can be asserted. If people will but reflect, they will soon be sensible, that it is not among the readers of Scripture, either in the original or in translations, that those evils chiefly abound. But there are many other species of reading, and many other causes to be traced, by which the effects above-mentioned may be amply accounted for. To me it is evident, that of all sorts of reading and study, that of the Scrip

So the sa

tures is the most innocent of those evil consequences. cred writers themselves have thought, by whom this reading is of ten and warmly recommended; and not only reading the Scriptures, but searching into them, and meditating on them. Now, those who seriously comply with these injunctions, will never reject any aid by which they may be enabled to discover what lies deeper than the surface: so also have thought those pious men celebrated in Scripture, as having drawn much profit and delight from this exercise. I would not say so much for the reading of theological controversy, yet I would not that men, who liked this species of reading, were restrained from using it. The accidental bad consequences which may accrue to individuals from any literary pursuit, are of no consideration, compared with the general advantage resulting from the liberty of search, and free communication of knowledge. No person would think it better for the world that all men were enslaved, because some men make a very bad use of their freedom.

On the first publication of Erasmus' translation of the New Testament into Latin, much offence was taken by many, and dismal apprehensions were entertained of the hurt it would do to the cause of religion and Christianity. Even men who were esteemed both moderate and judicious, seemed to think that it was at least a hazardous experiment. The experiment, however, has been tried, not only by him, but by several others since his time. Yet there is not one, as far as I can learn, who has pretended to deduce from that, or any other translation, the irreligion and incredulity of the times.

To come to our own case: Have the attempts which have been made in this island, I may almost say since the days of Wickliff, to translate the Scriptures into English, ever been found to lessen their authority? I have not heard this affirmed by any body. Yet every new version altered, and pretended to correct, many things in those which had preceded. But whatever may be the private judgment of individuals concerning the comparative merit of the different translations, we cannot discover any traces of evidence, that their number did, in the smallest degree, derogate from the veneration for holy writ generally entertained by the people. Against the common translation in use at present, which was made and authorized in the beginning of the reign of James I, there were precisely the same exceptions taken, founded in the like apprehensions of pernicious consequences. Whoever will consult the preface of that translation, and read the paragraph which is titled on the margin, "The speeches and reasons both of our brethren and of our adversaries against this Work," will be surprised to find how much they coincide with what has been thrown out of late, against any new attempt of the same kind. It is remarkable, that, from the days of Jerome to the present, the same terrible forebod

ings have always accompanied the undertaking, and vanished on the execution, insomuch that the fatal effects predicted have never afterwards been heard of.

Now, to take the matter in another view, the cause assigned is nowise adequate to the effect. If the different ways of rendering one passage may make the unlearned doubtful with regard to the meaning of that passage, the perfect harmony of the different interpreters, as far as regards the sense, in many more passages, nay, I may justly say, in every thing that can be considered as essential in the history and doctrine, serves as the strongest confirmation of these in particular. The different translators are like so many different touchstones. Those truths which can stand such numerous trials, are rendered quite indubitable. I know not any, even of the common people, that are possessed of an ordinary measure of understanding, who need to be told that it is in the meaning and not in the sound that the doctrine of the gospel lies; or, as the English translators have well expressed it, "Is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free?" When people find those translations, though differing in words, yet in every thing material agreeing in sense, they prove to them, as was hinted before, like so many different witnesses, each, in his own style and in his own manner, attesting the same things, the great truths of our religion. They are witnesses who perfectly agree in the import of their testimony: their differences in expression, far from derogating, in the judgment of any sensible reader, from their veracity, serve to establish it, and, consequently, prove confirmations of the facts attested. Various translations are, therefore, upon the whole, much better calculated for confirming than for weakening the faith of the unlearned.

Has the margin in the English Bible, which in a very great number of passages gives every reader his choice of different translations, ever been found to endanger the faith of the people? or has it ever been suggested to have the same tendency with the arguments of the deists? Yet what should more readily, upon the principles of those gentlemen with whom I am arguing, have produced this effect, than the confession (for their margin manifestly implies no less) of those learned men who were employed in the work, of the numerous doubts which they had to encounter in the execution. They have honestly told their doubts, and, as far as I know, were never suspected of having done any hurt to the cause by this ingenuous conduct. On the other hand, I am sorry to observe men of knowledge, discernment, and probity, appearing in support of measures which seem to proceed on the supposition, that a sort of disingenuous policy must be used with the people for the defence of the truth. However necessary dissimulation and

pious frauds, as they are called, may be for the support of false, I have never seen them of any service to true religion. If not treacherous, they are dangerous allies at the best.

That one version expresses the sentiment more intelligibly, more perspicuously, or more emphatically, than another, will indeed occasion its being read with more pleasure, and even more profit; but it will never on that account be considered by any as giving a contradictory testimony. Yet it is such opposition of evidence that is the only circumstance which can affect the veracity of holy writ, and consequently the credit given to it by the people. And surely, whatever can, on the contrary, be rendered conducive to the emolument of the reader, cannot be prejudicial to the cause of religion, or disrespectful to the word of God, which does not consist in the words of any translation, but in the dictates of the divine Spirit.

The words of a translation that has long been in common use have an advantage, of which they cannot be of a sudden divested. The advantage results from this very circumstance, that it has been long in general use, and men are familiarized to its expressions. But notwithstanding this, it may have considerable faults; it may, in several places, be obscure; and, though it should very rarely convey a false sense, it may be often ambiguous. In this case a new version will be of great utility, if it were but for rendering the old more intelligible. For my part, I shall think my labor more than sufficiently recompensed, if, by the pious and the impartial, I shall be judged to express no extravagant opinion, and to form no presumptuous hope, when I say, in the words which Erasmus (in Apolog.) employed on a similar occasion: "Illa [Vulgata editio] legatur in scholis, canatur in templis, citetur in concionibus, nullus obstat. Illud ausim polliceri, quisquis hanc nostram domi legerit, suam rectius intellecturus."

Some, perhaps, are ready to interpose," If translations were to be used only as private helps for understanding the Scriptures, as commentaries and paraphrases are used, they would not be objected to; but what has alarmed the minds of men is, that of late some attempts have been made to persuade the public of the need there is for a new and more correct translation of the Bible, with the sanction of the higher powers, for the use of churches." As to any project of this kind, I can say very little, as I know not, in particular, what is projected; at the same time I must acknowledge, that, in the general view, it appears to me a very delicate point. To establish a version of Scripture by human authority, to be used by the people (without any regard had to their sentiments) in the public service of God, to the express exclusion of every other version, is a measure about the propriety of which, at any time, I am far from being satisfied. The public use of particular translations of the Bible in the churches, oriental and occidental, for many centuVOL. I.

5