dual, 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 labours 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 knowledge, 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 with-hold 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 honour 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 produc'tive 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 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 ac counted for. To me it is evident, that of all sorts of reading and study, that of the Scriptures is the most innocent of those evil consequences. So the sacred writers, themselves, have thought, by whom this reading is often 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 the First, 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 Jerom to the present, the same terrible forebodings 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 com