ries, took its rise solely from the general use in private; and to this private use, no doubt, the favorable opinion of the pastors, such especially as were eminent for piety and learning, greatly contributed. But then, the effect was produced gradually and tacitly; in consequence of which, it appeared the result of the people's free choice, though not formally declared, well enough understood. It was in this way, certainly, that the old Italic first came into use in the Latin church; and it was in this way, from the growing predilection of the people, that the present Vulgate came at length to supplant it. It was fortunate for the success of Jerome's version, that no sanguine patron stood forth to push it into notice, and that no law was made commanding its reception, and prohibiting the public use of the Italic. Though men's opinions and attachments, even in matters which do not affect them so deeply as religion, cannot, at the command of a superior, be changed in a moment, the same effect will often, by proper means, be produced in a gentle and gradual manner. When the Italic was first introduced, there was probably no other Latin translation of any account. In consequence of this, and of that desire of religious instruction which universally animated the primitive Christians, they would receive it with joy. To read it to them would be highly to gratify them; for we ought to reflect, that books were then matters of very difficult acquirement compared to what they are now. But when the introduction of one book was the dispossession of another, to which they had been long accustomed, and were from habit warmly attached, the case was very different. Yet even this effect, which it is probable would not have been produced by stronger measures, was silently, and as it were imperceptibly, brought about by time. If in some places tumults were occasioned by the change, this, I suspect, when impartially examined, will be found imputable more to the rashness and imprudence of the pastors, than to any want of docility in the people. Immediately after the Reformation, the opportunity was very favorable for procuring, among those who favored the measures of the Reformers, a welcome reception to any version of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, which had the approbation of the heads of the party. If gratified in the thing chiefly wanted, they would not be critical as to the mode of introduction; and if, from the changes in their rulers, there had been some changes in relation to the Scriptures to be read in the congregation, what was established in some places was of so short continuance that the mind could hardly be said to be preoccupied by it.

But the case, at present, is widely different. Learning is in more hands. Critics are multiplied. The press is open; and every cavil, as well as every argument, is quickly circulated. Besides, the prepossession in favor of the translation to which we have been so long habituated, is, at this day, very strong. Add to all

this, that the religious as well as the civil rights of mankind were never better understood; the genuine principles of toleration had never greater influence. How, then, should we be affected upon hearing, that we are commanded, under pains and penalties, by our superiors, to read, and cause to be read in our churches, such a particular translation of the Bible only, and never more to admit into the sacred service that version to which we have been hitherto all our lives accustomed, and for which we have contracted a high veneration? For my part, I will not dissemble the matter. I should think such a measure exceedingly incongruous to the spirit of that religion which the legislators perhaps intended to serve by it; and no less unseasonable, in respect of the age and country wherein we live. I perfectly agree with Tertullian, that religion and coercion of any kind are utterly incompatible: "Humani juris et naturalis potestatis est, unicuique quod putaverit, colere." Again; "Nec religionis est cogere religionem, quae spontè suscipi debeat, non vi." I cordially subscribe to the sentiment of Lactantius, who deems it essential to the value of every thing in religious service, in respect both of the object and of the mode, that it be voluntary : "Nihil est tam voluntarium quam religio, in qua si animus sacrificantis aversus est, jam sublata, jam nulla est." Nor does it make any difference in the nature of the thing, whether the power that would compel us be called civil or ecclesiastical.

But is there nothing, then, which can with propriety be attempted by the higher powers, spiritual or temporal, for promoting the success of an accurate translation of the Bible? The utmost which, in my judgment, can be done, if such a version should in any future period be offered to the public, is to remove the obstructions which those powers have heretofore raised to prevent its introduction, and to permit, not command, the use of it, wherever it shall be found agreeable to the people, and judged by the pastors to be edifying. In the reign of Christian charity which subsisted in times truly primitive and apostolical, it was not necessary that the limits of jurisdiction and authority should be so accurately ascertained, as afterwards, when love began to give place to ambition and secular prospects. Esteem and love are unsuspicious. In such a state of things, the opinion of no persons would go so far with the congregation as that of their pastors; nor would the pastors know any motive so powerful as that of contributing to the edification of the people. "But," it will be objected, " to leave things in this manner, would appear like giving a sanction to different translations at the same time." If it should, I can perceive no absurdity in such a sanction; no evil consequence that would follow from it. In fact, would it be any more, with respect to the whole Bible, than that which has long obtained in England with regard to one considerable book, the Psalms, of which two very different versions, one in

the Bible the other in the Common Prayer, have equally the sanction of the higher powers? Are the people ignorant of this difference? Those who know any thing of the religion of the country, who read their Bible at home, and attend the service of the church, know it perfectly. Yet I have not heard that any private Christian was scandalized at it; much less, that any one pretended to deduce from this cause the libertinism and infidelity of the times. Yet in no part of Scripture would the people have so many opportunities of remarking the variations as in that book, which they hear in church not seldomer than twelve times a year. So much cannot be said of any other part of the sacred volume, the New Testament. being read over only thrice a year, and the Old Testament but once. If the people were so easily alarmed as some seem to imagine, how has it happened, that the striking difference between the two authorized translations above-mentioned have not, long ere now, raised a clamor, either against the common translation or against the Common Prayer?

I should not have thought it necessary to say any thing on this head, if the subject had not been started of late, and warmly agitated (I believe with the best intentions on both sides) by some learned and worthy men. As my sentiments on the subject do not entirely coincide with those of either party, I thought it incumbent to add the explanation now given. The publishing of a new translation is not to be considered as implying a condemnation of any that preceded. This was objected to those employed by James I, in preparing the translation used at present; and the reply which those translators made to their opponents in this business, as it had served Jerome before them, and served them, will equally serve me, or any translator who shall afterwards bestow his time and labor in the same way. "We answer them," say they, "with St. Hierom, 'Do we condemn the ancient? In no case; but, after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.' As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent, in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to God's church, lest I should seem to have labored in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them." So said those worthy men, who, as they did not think themselves precluded from making improvements on the valuable labors of their predecessors, show sufficiently, that they did not consider their own labors as superseding all attempts at still further improvements by those who should come after them.

The due consideration of the progressive state of all human knowledge and art, will ever be unfriendly to the adoption of any measure which seems to fix a barrier against improvement, and to

say to science, "Thus far shalt thou come, and no further." And if, in matters merely of science, such measures would prove hurtful, how much more in any thing wherein religion is concerned? My opinion, therefore, on this question, I freely acknowledge, favors the removal of all legal restraints as much as possible, and not barely the change of the object. Indeed, this will be found the natural result of the argument, as it has heretofore been conducted. There is not a topic which the present adversaries of an improved translation in English employ now, which was not, with the same plausibility, employed against Jerome's Latin translation called the Vulgate, at present in universal use in the Latin church, and which was not also employed against the English translation of James I; that very version for which our adversaries on this article now so strenuously contend. On the other hand, there was not any plea which Jerome urged in support of his attempt, or which the English translators urged in support of theirs, that will not equally serve the purpose of any present or future well-meant attempt of the like kind, and, consequently, that does not strike against every measure which might effectually preclude any such attempt in time to come. There are only two differences, in point of circumstances, between us and the inhabitants of this island in the beginning of the last century, which impartiality obliges me to mention, and which, (as they render more delicacy requisite in these days than was necessary in those), if attended to, may prevent men from concluding too hastily, that those measures cannot fail of success now which have succeeded formerly. Though some versions had been publicly authorized before that of James I, none of them had been of near so long standing as that which is in use at present; and, consequently, the people's attachment to any one of them was not so much strengthened by habit, as the present attachment to the English Bible may be supposed to be. An alteration, therefore, in respect of the public use, might be a much more difficult attempt now than it was then. The other difference arises from the consideration, that the spirit of liberty is much higher at present in the nation than it was at that period; the rights of conscience are better understood, and the absurdity, as well as tyranny, of employing coercion in matters of religion, are almost universally acknowledged.

All these considerations, whilst they give the utmost encouragement to the study of biblical criticism, show sufficiently, in a matter which so nearly affects the rights of conscience, the danger of all measures that can be justly accounted compulsory. For my own part, it is enough for me that common sense assures me, that, if God condescends to speak to us mortals, it is our duty to attend to what he says; and if, in any writing, he has revealed his will to us, it is our duty carefully to read that writing, and do our utmost rightly to understand it. The language of the Christian revelation, we quick

ly see, concurs with that of reason in enjoining this practice; nay, it excites us still more strongly, by the example it sets before us of those who have found much comfort and improvement in it. Can I require stronger motives to induce me to make God's word the subject of my study and meditation, day and night? And if I have reason to think that, by the blessing of Heaven, I have been in some measure successful in this application of my time, does not our common Christianity, one of the great commandments of which is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," oblige me, for the benefit of others, to communicate any lights I may have received from this exercise? When they are communicated, I have discharged a Christian duty. The reception will be such as it pleases Providence to give them.

Though in these volumes I have not affirmed any thing, as my opinion, which did not at the time, and does not still, appear to me probable; and though many things in them appear certain, I desire nothing to be admitted by the reader upon my affirmation; my wish is, that every thing may be candidly and deliberately examined; that my reasons, which I commonly give where the subject requires it, may be impartially weighed, and the opinion adopted or rejected, as the reader, on due reflection, shall find cause. If to make proselytes by the sword is tyranny in rulers, to resign our understanding to any man, and receive implicitly what we ought to be rationally convinced of, would be, on our part, the lowest servility. Now, tyranny and servility, how much soever adapted to the genius of worldly domination, are by no means suited to the heavenly character of Christ's kingdom. The only means the gospel itself permits us to employ, for promoting this spiritual power, is persuasion, which operates upon the understanding, and, by it, upon the will and the affections; the great engine of secular dominion is force, which, without regarding the understanding, will, or affections, lays hold of the body. The language of our Lord to his hearers was, "If any man wILL come under my guidance;" 'Et ris ΘΕΛΕΙ ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν. Nothing is obtruded or forced upon the unwilling. Now, as the great source of the infidelity of the Jews was a notion of the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, we may justly say, that the great source of the corruption of Christians, and of their general defection, foretold by the inspired writers, has been an attempt to render it in effect a temporal kingdom, and to support and extend it by earthly means. This is that spirit of antichrist, which was so early at work as to be discoverable even in the days of the apostles.

Every thing, therefore, here, is subjected to the test of Scripture and sound criticism. I am not very confident of my own reasonings; I am sensible that on many points, I have changed my opinion, and found reason to correct what I had judged formerly to