mon people, that are possessed of an ordinary meas sure 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 can

not 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 labour 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 employed on a similar occasion: "Illa [Vulgata editio] legatur in scholis, canatur in tem

plis, citetur in concionibus, nullus obstat. Illud "ausim polliceri, quisquis hanc nostram domi lege"rit, suam rectius intellecturus "."

Some, perhaps, are ready to interpose, If trans'lations 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

15 Erasm. in Apolog.

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 centuries, took its rise, solely, from the general use in private: and, to this private use, no doubt, the favourable 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 peo ple'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 Jerom'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 so deeply affect them 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 favourable for procuring, among those who favoured 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