former translators, or, perhaps, showing an immoderate deference to popular humour, which is always attached to customary phrases, whether they convey the true meaning, or a false meaning, or any meaning at all. This, therefore, is unquestionably a good ground for varying from those who preceded us.

4. Ir deserves further to be remarked that, from the changes incident to all languages, it sometimes happens that words, which expressed the true sense at the time when a translation was made, come afterwards to express a different sense; in consequence whereof, though those terms were once a proper version of the words in the original, they are not so after such an alteration, having acquired a meaning difIn ferent from that which they had formerly. this case, it cannot be doubted that, in a new translation, such terms ought to be changed. I hinted before 70, that I look upon this as having been the case with some of the expressions employed in the Vulgate. They conveyed the meaning at the time that version was made, but do not so now. I shall instance only in two. The phrase pœnitentiam agite was, in Jerom's time, nearly equivalent in signification to the Greek ustavoEITE. It is not so at present. In consequence of the usages which have crept in, and obtained an establishment in the chur ches subject to Rome, it no longer conveys the same

70 Part. III. § 9..

idea; for having become merely an ecclesiastic term, its acceptation is regulated only by ecclesiastic use. Now, in that use, it exactly corresponds to the English words do penance; by which, indeed, the Rhemish translators, who translate from the Vulgate, have rendered it in their New Testament, Now, as no person of common sense, who understands the language, will pretend, that to enjoin us to do penance, and to enjoin us to reform, or repent, is to enjoin the same thing; both Erasmus and Beza were excusable, notwithstanding the censure pronounced by Bois and Simon, in deserting the Vulgate in this place, and employing the unambiguous term resipiscite, in preference to a phrase, now at least become so equivocal as pœnitentiam agite. We may warrantably say more, and affirm, that they would not have acted the part of faithful translators, if they had done otherwise,

It was, to appearance, the uniform object of the priest of the Oratory (I know not what may have biassed the canon of Ely) to put honour upon the church, by which he meant the church of Rome; to respect, above all things, and at all hazards, her dogmas, her usages, her ceremonies, her very words and phrases, The object of Christian interpreters is, above all things, and at all hazards, to convey, as perspicuously as they can, the truths of the Spi rit. If the former ought to be the principal object of the translators of holy writ, Simon was undoubt edly in the right; if the latter, he was undoubtedly in the wrong. The other expression in the Vulgate,

which may not improbably have been proper at the time when that translation was made, though not at present, is sacramentum for μvnptov, in the second μυςήριον, scriptural sense which I observed to be sometimes given to the Greek word". But, in consequence of the alterations which have since taken place in ecclesiastical use, the Latin term has acquired a meaning totally different, and is therefore now no suitable expression of the sense.

§ 5. Now, what has been observed of the Latin words above mentioned, has already happened to several words employed in the common English translation. Though this may appear, at first, extraordinary, as it is not yet two centuries since that version was made; it is, nevertheless, unquestionable. The number of changes whereby a living language is affected in particular periods, is not always in proportion to the extent of time. It depends on the stage of advancement, in which the language happens to be, during the period, more than on the length of the period. The English tongue, and the French too, if I mistake not, have undergone a much greater change than the Italian, in the last three hundred years; and perhaps as great as the Greek underwent, from the time of Homer to that of Plutarch, which was more than four times as long. It is not merely the number of writings in any language, but it is rather their merit and eminence, which confers stability on its words, phrases and idioms.

71 Diss. IX. Part I. § 7.

Certain it is that there is a considerable change in our own since the time mentioned; a change in respect of the construction as well as of the significations of the words. In some cases, we combine the words differently from the way in which they were combined at the time above referred to: we have acquired many words which were not used then, and many then in use are now either obsolete, or used in a different sense. These changes I shall here briefly exemplify. As habit is apt to mislead us, and we are little disposed to suspect that the meaning of a word or phrase, to which we are familiarised, was not always the meaning; to give some examples of such alteration, may prevent us from rashly accusing former translators, for improprieties wherewith they are not chargeable; and to specify alterations on our own language, may serve to remove the doubts of those who imagine there is an improbability in what I have formerly maintained, concerning the variations which several words, in ancient languages, have undergone in different periods. Now, this is a point of so great moment to the literary critic and antiquary, that it is impossible thoroughly to understand, or accurately to interpret, ancient authors, without paying due regard to it. Through want of this regard, many things in ecclesiastic history have been much misunderstood, and grossly misrepresented. Unluckily, on this subject, powerful secular motives interfering, have seduced men to contribute to the general deception, and to explain ancient names by usages and opinions comparatively

modern. But this by the way; I proceed to the examples.

6. I INTEND to consider, first, the instances affected by the last of the circumstances above mentioned, namely, those wherein the signification is changed, though the term itself remains. Of such I shall now produce some examples; first, in nouns, The word conversation, which means no more at present, than familiar discourse of two or more persons, did, at the time when the Bible was translated, denote behaviour in the largest acceptation. The Latin word conversatio, which is that generally used in the Vulgate, answering to the Greek avaspoon, has commonly this meaning. But the English word has never, as far as I have observed, this acceptation, in the present use, except in the law phrase, criminal conversation. And I have reason to believe that, in the New Testament, it is universally mistaken by the unlearned, as signifying no more than familiar talk or discourse. Hence it has also happened, that hypocrites and fanatics have thought themselves authorised, by the words of Scripture, in placing almost the whole of practical religion in this alone. Yet, I do not remember that the word occurs, so much as once, in Scripture, in this sense. What we call conversation must, indeed, be considered as included, because it is a very important part of behaviour; but it is not to be understood as particularly specified. In one passage, it is expressly distinguished from familiar discourse or conversation, in