lays me under, I have availed myself of every opportunity of better information, in regard to all those terms and phrases in the version of which I was doubtful. I feel myself under particular obligations, on this account, to one gentleman, my valuable friend and colleague Dr. Beattie, who, though similarly situated with myself, has with greater success studied the genius and idiom of our language; and to whom it is no more than justice to add, that the acknowledged purity of his own diction, is the least of his many qualifications as an author. But if, notwithstanding all the care I have taken, I shall be found in many places to need the indulgence of the English reader, it will not much surprise me. One who often revises and alters, will sometimes alter for the worse; and, in changing, one has not always. at hand a friend to consult with. The apology which Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul in the second century, makes for his language, in a book he published in defence of religion, appears to me so candid, so modest, so sensible, and at the same time so apposite to my own case, that I cannot avoid transcribing and adopting it: "Non autem exquires a nobis qui apud Čeltas commoramur, et in barbarum sermonem plerumque avocamur, orationis artem quam non didicimus, neque vim conscriptoris quam non affectavimus, neque ornamentum verborum, neque suadelam quam nescimus: sed simpliciter et vere et idiotice, ea quæ tibi cum dilectione scripta sunt, cum dilectione percipies; et ipse augeas ea penes te, ut magis idoneus quam nos, quasi semen et initia accipiens a nobis; et in latitudine sensus tui, in multum fructificabis ea, quæ in paucis a nobis dicta sunt; et potenter asseres iis qui tecum sunt, ea quæ invalide a nobis relata sunt."*

Need I, in so late and so enlightened an age, subjoin an apology for the design itself, of giving a new translation of any part of Scripture? Yet there are some knowing and ingenious men who seem to be alarmed at the mention of translation, as if such an attempt would sap the very foundations of the Christian edifice, and put the faith of the people in the most imminent danger of being buried in its ruins. This is no new apprehension. The same alarm was taken so early as the fourth century, when Jerom was employed in preparing a new translation of the Bible into Latin; or, at least, in making such alterations and corrections on the old Italic, as the original, and the best Latin manuscripts, should appear to warrant. The people in general exclaimed; and even the learned were far from applauding an attempt which, in their judgment, was so bold and so dangerous. I do not allude to the abuse thrown out by Ruffinus, because he was then at variance with Jerom on another account; but even men who were considered as the lights of the age, were not without their fears. Augustin, in particular, who admired the profound * Adversus Hæreses, lib. i. Prefatio.

erudition of Jerom, and had a high esteem of his talents, yet dreaded much that the consequence of such an undertaking would prove prejudicial to the authority of Scripture, and did not hesitate to express his disapprobation in very strong terms. That interpreter, however, persevered in spite of the greatest discouragements, the dissuasion of friends, the invectives of enemies, and the unfavourable impressions which, by their means, were made upon their people. The version was made and published, and those hideous bugbears of fatal consequences, which had been so much descanted on, were no more heard of.

Luckily, no attempt was made to establish the new version by public authority. Though Damasus, then Bishop of Rome, was known to favour it, the attempt to obtrude it upon the people would probably have awaked such a persecution against it as would have stifled it in the birth. On the contrary, its success was left entirely, as it ought to be, to the efficiency of its own merit. In consequence of this, the prejudice very soon subsided: many of those who were at first declared enemies of the undertaking, were entirely reconciled to it. Augustin himself came to be convinced, that it was guiltless of those horrors which his warm imagination had foreboded. Nay, he did not scruple to recur to it for aid, in explaining the Scriptures. The version, thus quietly introduced about the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century, and left to its fate, to be used by those who liked it, and neglected by those who disliked it, advanced in reputation every day. The people very soon and very generally discovered, that, along with all the simplicity they could desire, it was in every respect more intelligible, and, consequently, both more instructive and more agreeable, than the old. The immediate effect of this general conviction was greatly to multiply the copies, which proved, in a very few centuries, the total extinction of the Italic, formerly called the Vulgate version, and the establishment of the present Vulgate, or Jerom's translation, in its room. To make this sudden revolution, which is a matter of so much importance, better understood by the unlearned, it is proper to observe, that it was in consequence of no law of the church, or indeed of any Christian country, that the old Italic first, and the present Vulgate afterwards, were used in churches in the offices of religion. Such matters were regulated in every individual church by the bishop and presbyters of that church, as appeared most for the edification of the people. Now, the general and growing reputation of the new version made it soon supplant the old. As it was not to any law of church or state that the Italic owed its promotion at first, so it required no law of either, to make it give place quietly to a better version. After this of Jerom had come gradually to obtain everywhere the preference, and to be used in private families by individuals, it might be expected that so general an approbation

17

would gradually usher it into the churches. For an authoritative sentence of either Pope or Council in favour of any translation, was a thing unheard of till the sixteenth century, when the decree of the council of Trent was obtained in favour of the present Vulgate. Now, the Vulgate, we may observe by the way, had been for ages before, by the tacit consent of all ranks, in full possession of all the prerogatives conferred by that council.

But though the introduction of a new translation produced none of those terrible consequences which had been presaged; though, on the contrary, by rendering the style of Scripture purer, as well as more perspicuous, it came soon to be read by the people with greater pleasure and improvement; yet it must be owned, that the clamour and jealousies that had been raised on this subject were productive of one very unfavourable effect upon the interpreter. Though it did not make him desist from his undertaking, it made him prosecute it with a timidity which has proved hurtful to the work itself. Many things which, by the old interpreter, had been improperly rendered; many things which had been obscurely, or even unintelligibly expressed, Jerom, through dread of the scandal which too many changes might occasion, has left as he found them. We have, therefore, the utmost reason to conclude, that to this cause alone it is imputable, that the present Vulgate is not greatly superior to what we find it. Jerom was strongly impressed with a sense of the danger to which his attempt exposed him. This appears from many parts of his writings; particularly from his letter to Pope Damasus, prefixed to the translation of the Gospels: "Periculosa presumptio," says he, judicare de cæteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum. Quis, enim, doctus pariter vel indoctus; cum in manus volumen assumpserit, et à saliva quain semel imbibit, viderit discrepare, quod lectitat; non statim erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me clamans esse sacrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris, addere, mutare, corrigere ?"

66

How dismal were the apprehensions which were entertained immediately after the Reformation, on account of the many translations of Scripture which came in quick succession, one after another? Have men's fears been justified by the effect? Quite the reverse. The violent concussion of parties at the Reformation produced, as might have been expected, a number of controversies, which were for some time hotly agitated; but the greater part of these were in being before those versions were made. And if a few have arisen since, many have subsided, which once made a great noise, and produced a great ferment in the church. Nothing will be found to have conduced more to subvert the dominion of the mataphysical theology of the schoolmen, with all its interminable questions, cobweb distinctions, and wars of words, than the critical study of the sacred Scriptures,

VOL. I.

с

to which the modern translations have not a little contributed. Nothing has gone further to satisfy reasonable men, that, in many of the profound disputes of theologians, revelation could not with justice be accused of giving countenance to either side. Yet no disputes have been productive of more rancour in the disputants, or been carried on with greater virulence, than those which are merely verbal.

It has been said, that the introduction of different translations tends to unsettle men in their principles, particularly with regard to the authority of sacred writ, which, say they, is made to speak so variously in these productions. For my part, I have not discovered that this is, in any degree, the effect. The agreement of all the translations, as to the meaning, in every thing of principal consequence, makes their differences, when properly considered, appear as nothing. They are but like the inconsiderable variations in expression, which different witnesses, though all perfectly unexceptionable, employ in relating the same fact. They rather confirm men's faith in Scripture, as they show, in the strongest light, that all the various ways which men of discordant sentiments have devised of rendering its words, have made no material alteration, either on the narrative itself, or on the divine instructions contained in it. People are at no loss to discover, that the difference among interpreters lies chiefly in this, that one renders the account of things which that book exhibits more intelligible, more perspicuous, or even more affecting, than another. These differences are, I acknowledge, of great moment to readers; they are such as may show one version to be greatly superior to another in point of use; yet as they are all compatible with justness of representation in every thing essential to the historical and didactic parts of the work, they are so far from affecting the credibility of the whole, that they serve not a little to confirm it. A gentleman, who knows neither Greek nor Hebrew, but understands Latin and several modern tongues, told me once, he had read the New Testament in different languages, and that he had reaped considerable benefit from the practice, in more ways than one; particularly in this, that those versions served as vouchers for the fidelity of one another, by their concurrence in every thing essential in that book; for when it was considered, that the translators were not only men of different nations, but of hostile sects, Roman Catholics, Church of England men, Lutherans, Calvinists, Remonstrants, &c. their perfect harmony on all material points is the best pledge we could desire of their veracity.

Of nearly the same kind and consequence have been the fears which even judicious men have entertained about the publication of the various readings of the Scriptures. These readings are tremendous only when considered in a general view, and when we are told of the number they amount to. Nothing serves

more to undeceive us, than to consider them in detail, and fairly examine those collections. I will acknowledge, for one, that I believe I should not have been easily persuaded, till I made the experiment, that the authority of Scripture could be so little injured by them. The actual collection is, therefore, of great consequence for satisfying candid and reasonable men, that there is nothing in them so formidable, as the vague and general representations of their number and weight would lead men to conclude. Now, if such a man as Dr. Whitby, a man of distinguished learning and abilities, was alarmed at Mill's publication, as dangerous to the cause, not only of Protestantism but of Christianity itself, we need not be surprised that men of inferior talents, and less acquainted with the science of criticism, should look on the edition of the Old Testament by Kennicot, or of the New by Mill or Wetstein, as at least a very hazardous experiment. Yet, now that the experiment has been made, is there any appearance of those evils which have been dreaded from it? I am not sensible that there is. It is true, that Kennicot's publication of the Old Testament is so recent that we have scarcely yet had time to discover its consequences; but if we may judge from the reception given to the New, we have no ground to fear them. Mill's work has been now in the hands of the public for more than half a century, and Wetstein's for not much less. Yet it is not in my power to discover, that in the judgment of any reasonable man, or even in the judgment of the people, the cause of Christianity has suffered by these publications. I know that the most enlightened readers have judged them to be, in many respects, of service to the cause: and the opinion of the most enlightened, where there is no interference of secular motives or of violent measures, will always prove at last the opinion of the generality.

Soon after Mill's edition appeared, which was about the beginning of the present century, the various readings of the New Testament became a topic for declamation to sceptics and freethinkers. There needed but a little time, in which men might canvass those variations, to convince every person who reflected, that there was nothing terrible in the case. Accordingly, he would now be deemed but a sorry advocate for the infidel hypothesis, who should have recourse to an argument, which if allowed to have any validity, would subvert our belief in all history whatever, as well as in that of the Gospels; for the writings of the Old and New Testament have not been exposed to more hazards from transcribers than other ancient writings. Now, if any one should say, We can believe nothing in ancient history on account of the variations to be found in the different editions and manuscripts of the different authors, no man of common sense would think him fit to be argued with. Yet there is one reason (without recurring to a miraculous interposition) to think, that we