of a revision, would be under the necessity of framing one for itself. There seems, however, to be some reason for believing, that when the excitement growing out of the novelty of the discussions which are going on, in lay as well as clerical circles, shall have subsided, there will be a more general concurrence of opinion, both in denominations and between them; and then there is room to hope that increased harmony and increased knowledge may conspire to give the English Bible a greater perfection in point of accuracy and of expression, and at the same time a catholic adaptation to both the future speech and the future opinion of English and American Protestant Christianity.

The objections against a multitude of sectarian translations are very serious. The dialect of the English Bible is also the dialect of devotion and of religious instruction wherever the English language is spoken, and all denominations substantially agree in their sacred phraseology, with whatever difference of interpretation. There are always possibilities of reconciliation, sympathies even, between men who, in matters of high concernment, habitually use the same words, and appeal to the same formulas; whereas a difference of language and of symbols creates an almost impassable gulf between man and man. When, therefore, we have, not different churches only, but different Bibles, different religious dialects, different devotional expressions, the jealousies of sectarian division will be more hopelessly embittered, and the prospect of bringing about a greater harmony of opinion and of feeling among English-speaking Protestants proportionally dark

ened.

At this day, there could be no harmony of action on this subject between different churches. Even Trench, a man of a liberal spirit, seems to reject the plan of uniting for this purpose with those not embraced in the organization of his own church, though he admits, that, with the exception of the "so-called Baptists," they might advantageously be invited to offer suggestions-to be decided upon, apparently, by a body of which they are not to be members. Those who proclaim views of such narrow exclusiveness have no right to expect that theologians who dissent from them on questions of ecclesiastical government will be more charitable than themselves, and it is not probable that scholars who are not of the English church will be very prompt to offer suggestions

upon such terms. So long as this sectarian feeling-for it can be appropriately designated by no other term-prevails on either side, there can be no union upon conditions compatible with the self-respect of the parties; and unless better counsels prevail, whenever revision comes, English and American Protestantism will have not one Bible, one standard of religious faith, but many.

Besides the inconveniences of such a state of things as that to which I have just alluded, there is the further evil, that each one of the new revisions will be greatly inferior to what the joint labors of scholars of different denominations might produce. Whatever crude and hasty opinions* individuals may adopt with respect to the superior learning and ability of their own religious communions, it is very certain that neither the English church, nor any other Christian sect, possesses, within its own limits, so full a measure of knowledge and talent, that in such a work as the revision of the English Bible, it can afford to dispense with the cooperation of other denominations; and the ecclesiastical body which cuts itself off from other branches of the church, by attempting that work without at least an earnest effort to secure such co-operation upon equal and honorable terms, may justly be deemed schismatic.

In a brief discourse like the present, the arguments on this question can be hinted only, not detailed; but I think we may justify the general conclusion, that as there is no present necessity for a revision, so is there no possibility of executing a revision in a way that would be, or ought to be, satisfactory even to any one Protestant sect, still less to the whole body of English-speaking Protestants. To revise under present circumstances, is to sectarianize, to divide the one catholic English Bible, the common standard of authority in Protestant England and America, into a dozen different revelations, each authoritative for its own narrow circle, but, to all out of that circle, a counterfeit; it is a practical surrender of that human excellence of form in the English Bible,

*An old and just definition of opinio, is assensus rei non exploratæ, and there is a vast deal of sectarian religious opinion in all Christian denominations, which cannot lay claim to any higher logical value.

Veritate manifestata, cedat oppinio veritati. Qui est à dire en François, que quant vérité est manifestée, toute oppinion doit cesser et donner lieu à vérité.-Oresme, p. 1.

.

which, next to the unspeakable value of its substance, is the greatest gift which God has bestowed on the British and American people.

NOTE. During the twenty and more years that have passed since the above lecture was written, a Revision of the Authorized Version of the Bible of 1611 has been undertaken, and the best scholars in England and America have contributed, either as actual translators or as advisers, to its completion. The Revision of the New Testament has made its appearance within the last few months. But a minute criticism of this Revison would involve too much both of theological and linguistic discussion to find an appropriate place in a course of Readings the object of which is the illustration of English philology, not of Protestant religious opinion nor of English classical learning. It may be added that the Revision, whatever may be its merits, has not been so generally accepted in England or in the United States of America, as to be justly considered as having superseded the version of 1611, to which indeed it for the most part conforms. It is not therefore, at present, entitled to be treated as the authorized representation of Protestant views of Christian doctrine, nor as the best example of the English sacred dialect. So far as it conforms to the standard translation, its value as an English classic is, of course, very great, but where it deviates from the earlier version, though there is no doubt sometimes a real and important gain in accuracy of interpretation, yet I do not think that it is, in general, equally felicitous in expression, and consequently does not seem to me to hold so high a rank in this respect.

I cannot avoid the conclusion, that the result of this experiment at Revision will strengthen rather than otherwise, the position taken in this Lecture, viz., that an immediate revision is premature.

LECTURE XXIX.

CORRUPTIONS OF LANGUAGE.

IN studying the history of the successive changes in language, it is by no means easy to discriminate, at all times, between positive corruptions, which tend to the deterioration of a tongue in expressiveness or moral elevation of vocabulary, in distinctness of articulation, in logical precision, or in clearness of structure, and changes which belong to the character of speech, as a living semiorganism connatural with man or constitutive of him, and so participating in his mutations.. By these latter changes, language continually adapts itself to the intellectual and material condition of those who use it, grows with their growth, shares in their revolutions, perishes in their decay. Its changes of this sort can be resisted by no limited special effort, and they can be checked only by the same conservative influences that retard the decline of the race to which it is vernacular. Mere corruptions, on the contrary, which arise from extraneous or accidental causes, may be detected, exposed, and if not healed, at least prevented from spreading beyond their source and infecting a whole nation. To pillory such offences, to point out their absurdity, to detect and expose the moral obliquity which too often lurks beneath them, is the sacred duty of every scholar, of every philosophic thinker, who knows how nearly purity of speech, like personal cleanliness, is allied with purity of thought and rectitude of action. When, therefore, the Autocrat of the Breakfast Table ridicules the affectation of responding to a remark of your companion by an interrogative, Yes? when a journalist laughs at the Cockney use of immediately and directly in the place of as soon as, or after; as for example, directly John came, I went away;* or the Ameri

*It is to be regretted that even Buckle and other distinguished English writers of our day have sanctioned by their example this very objectionable form.

canism of employing community without the article, as in community, for in the community; the vulgarism of such phrases as, in our midst, and, unbeknown to me; the preciosity, if I may use an expressive Gallicism, of not merely pronouncing but of exaggerating the t in often, as if it were ofttun or oftten; the provincial substitution of the obscure for the clear pronunciation of the final vowel, transforming Mississippi and Ohio into Mississippŭh and Ohiŭh; in all these cases, a real service is rendered to the community, and to the language.

Latham appears to me to confound the progress of natural linguistic change, which is inevitable, and the deterioration arising from accidental or local causes, which may be resisted, and he denies that there can be any such thing as the corruption of a language. All languages, he thinks, are equally intelligible, and consequently, equally what they ought to be, namely, mediums of intercourse between man and man, and hence, continues he, "in language whatever is is right." In the concluding paragraph of the Preface to the second edition of his Treatise on the English Language, he observes: "I am not desirous of sacrificing truth to an antithesis; but so certain is language to change from logical accuracy to logical license, and at the same time, so certain is language, when so changed, to be as intelligible as before, that I venture upon asserting that not only whatever is is right; but also that in many cases whatever was was wrong." There is in this passage a singular confusion of thought and of expression. First it maintains the paradox that when languages have degenerated from logical accuracy to logical license they are right, and that when they were spoken with logical accuracy they were wrong; and, secondly, the final conclusion contradicts the premises from which it is deduced. The argument is, that language always adapts itself to the uses of those who employ it, that it changes only as they change, and that it is at all times equally well suited to the great purposes for which that faculty was given to man. If this is so, then that which was must have been right for the time when it was, upon the same principle that that which is is right for the present time. To affirm, then, as a result from the general doctrine of the constant adaptation of language to man's nature and wants, that all that at any time is in language is right, but that something which at a past time was