Providence backward? Do we grow up from infancy in vain, and worse than in vain ? Is all this discipline of joy and sorrow, are these assaults of temptation, these strugglings of the spirit with the flesh, worthless, and worse than worthless? Shall we charge God with folly and ill success in his plans for the education of his children? It is plain, our work is to bring out in the child all its latent powers, especially the spiritual. Those best acquainted practically with this work, will best appreciate its difficulty.

As we have already said, the two principles that seem to us to have been most neglected, are those of reverence and conscience. Dr. Spurzheim was in the habit of remarking the danger in our country, especially on this first point. Doubtless the peril is increased by the character of our institutions, the youth of the nation itself, the absence of established ranks, ancient associations, a hereditary throne. The principle of reverence needs some ladder, resting on the earth, to aid its ascent into the skies. Let us, in the absence of one kind of means, make more efficient use of others. Let us present the Deity, not only in his tenderness and kindness, but also in the marks, everywhere visible in revelation and nature, of his power and greatness, and glory, and make constant use also of the histories and portraits of great and good men, dead and living. We fear also, that sufficient attention is not paid to the developement of the conscience. A great deal is said about the necessity of interesting the children, and making religion pleasant to them. But how shall we do this? By presenting only the agreeable traits of truth, and neglecting its more solemn features? Let us interest them, but rightly. Let us take care that, in endeavouring to interest them in religion, we do not, with unconscious dexterity, substitute something else in the place of the religion, and lecture all the while upon that. If we could make the Ohio roll, or Niagara foam, at our Chapel door, or hang the walls with the paintings of the best masters, or deck the pulpit with the richest flowers of the tropics, though we might thus interest the children, we ought to decline using our power. And, after all, would not the history of all education prove, that the surest way of interesting child or man is by direct and vigorous appeals to the living conscience itself? Yes. The giant in iniquity cannot be more deeply interested, as well as humbled, than by suddenly touching that tender place of sin within him, which he imagined no human skill could

reach. He who has this power of reaching the conscience, may, like the ancient mariner, stop whom he will, and make him "listen like a three years' child!"

One remark, by way of qualification, in closing this branch of the subject. We have insisted strongly, that the ministry at large should exert its main influence by using the instrument of Christian truth. And, in its capacity of a ministry of Christ, this it should be careful to do. But we would by no means shut out the individuals composing it from other means of influence, or from appearing in other capacities. We do not desire to censure, but warmly to approve, other operations than those adopted simply to exert a Christian influence. There is, for instance, a sewing school kept in each chapel, which meets every week, and in which ladies, glad to employ their leisure in good works, give free and constant aid. In the chapel in Warren Street there are also two other schools, one for young men, the second for young women, in which, during the week, instruction is given in reading, writing, and arithmetic. There are, sometimes, also lectures given to mechanics and other young men, or meetings for conversation and debate. All these means are good. As a philanthropic institution in the general sense, let the ministry at large use them. But let it not, for any thing else, neglect its own mission. Let not the commerce of other things swallow up the "one thing needful." Let not inferior designs and labors, however well attended to, be indiscriminately mingled together with the great design and labor; but let that take precedence, by a long, long interval, of all other occupation. Thus, alone, preserving the purity of its idea, will the ministry at large be able to finish its work.

A few words let us say under our last head, the hope of the ministry at large. This rests greatly of course with the established churches, whose child this ministry is. We doubt not, they will foster it as they have done, pardoning its faults, saving it from the dangers of its youth, and training it up to a manly strength and wisdom. Its hope rests also, in a measure, in the spirit of the community, which has, thus far, been so sympathetic and generous. Still let us remember, that, however aided from without, it cannot long stand without retaining its own vitality and energy. But in speaking of the hope of the ministry at large, our chief purpose was to allude to some indications of its probable spread greatly beyond its present limits. In England the same work is advancing with a vigorous growth. VOL. XXI.-3D S. VOL. III. NO. III.

45

In our commercial metropolis, New York, the idea is rooted beyond all danger of decay. And what nobler spectacle can there be, than that of the educated and refined so loving their race, that they are willing to plunge into the moral corruption. of that city, and raise men from the living sepulchre of foul lusts and flaming passions! We trust the time is not far distant when such ministries will exist in other places nearer that in which the work was begun. And a clergyman lately among us from the West, expressed his belief that such an institution would meet with perfect success, and work with great power in that section of the country. That so much has been done is proof of a commencing regeneration, which, if it go on to the end, the need will no longer exist of what is called a reform in society. Let men be truly born again, and reformation will take care of itself.

One word more. A certain body of Christians has always been reproached with the epithets, negative, barren, infidel. No reply is needed to such theological censure but the existence of the ministry at large.

C. A. B.

ART. VI. 1. Biblia Sacra Vulgate Editionis. Juxta Exemplar ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, Romæ 1592. Correctis corrigendis ex Indicibus correctariis Romæ, &c. Edidit LEANDER VAN ESS, S. T. D. Tubingæ, 1824. 2. The New Testament, first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582, with Annotations, &c. Corrected and revised and approved of by the Most Rev. Dr. TROY, R. C. Archbishop of Dublin. Dublin and London, 1816.

3. The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated out of the Latin Vulgate, diligently compared with the original Greek, and first published by the English College of Rheims, Anno 1582: with the original Preface, Arguments and Tables, marginal Notes and Annotations. To which are now added an Introductory Essay, and a complete topical and textual Index. New York, Leavitt; Boston, Crocker & Brewster. 1834.

THE history and character of the Vulgate are subjects of interest to us, as, by the authority of the Church of Rome,

it is made the only authentic record of truth to the large majority of Christians. It owes its existence to a policy the exact opposite to that which now excludes the people from the possession of the records of our faith. The name Vulgate, as it denotes something common to all, is now certainly a misnomer. The Roman Church professes to have inherited the sacred volume in its purest form, and by unbroken descent, from a version of general and high authority. This is a claim, which in order to its support must allow of an appeal to facts and to history. Of course it depends upon the assumption or the proof of the position, that there was a Latin translation of the Scriptures in the earliest ages of Christianity, to which high credit was allowed. This, then, is the great question, Was there such a translation? Criticism offers some good arguments to dispute its existence. Our information on this point is as satisfactory as the nature of the case could be supposed to admit.

When the collection of writings contained in our Bible was made from those deemed canonical, the Old Testament Scriptures existed in the Hebrew original, and in a Greek translation; and if the writings of the New Testament were not all originally composed in Greek, they undoubtedly were known in that language at that period. The Greek was then very prevalent both as a spoken and written language, particularly in the city of Rome; but the Latin was gradually recovering its place and crowding out the Greek both here and in the provinces. Consequently, Latin versions of the Scriptures became necessary. From the quotations of Tertullian it would appear that one or more translations of different books existed before the close of the second century. After this period they became. very numerous in Africa, Italy, and Gaul. We do not know who were the authors of these early Latin versions. Michaelis,† on the ground that Oriental proper names were sometimes written in the Latin Testament according to the Syriac, rather than the Greek orthography, supposed that they might have been written by some native Jews in Syria in the first century. This conclusion, however, would not follow even upon the admission of the truth of his premises. These indeed are not

*Suetonius, Vit. Claud. c. iv. Juvenal. Sat. vi. Introduction, Vol. ii. Sect. xxv.

conformable with the truth; and, if such had been the origin of the earliest Latin translation, we should find the language of what now remains of it, much more impure than it really is. Eichhorn supposes, with better reasons, that the first Latin version was made in Africa.*

Whether one or more original translations were made from the Hebrew and the Greek of the Old and New Testaments, we know that copies from them soon became very numerous and very faulty. Previous to the fifth century St. Augustine bears witness to this fact. He says, "It would be easy to enumerate the interpreters from the Hebrew into the Greek, but not so to number the Latin interpreters. For, as soon as any one in the early times obtained possession of a Greek copy, and seemed to himself to have a trifling acquaintance with both languages, he presumed to become an interpreter." Probably some complete copies of the Scriptures in his time, were made up of parts taken from several different translations of them. From the books supposed to be still preserved in the Vulgate in the language of the ancient copies, we should conclude that they were very faulty. Bowyer‡ and Hug|| give several of their variations. The question now comes before us, which has long been in dispute between Romanists and other Christians, whether there was one among these many translations to which peculiar credit was attached. A passage in the writings of St. Augustine, as we now read his text, seems thus to designate one.

Among the versions which he has just referred to in the passage we have quoted, he says, "the Italic may be preferred, for it is more clear and exact in the rendering of the words." The original is, "In ipsis autem interpretationibus, Itala cæteris præferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiæ." The dispute rests upon the word Itala, rendered Italic. It was the commonly received opinion, both among Romanists and Protestants, that there was in early times a well-known version which went by this name, and had received the sanction of the bishops of the Western church. Dr. Bentley first questioned the genuineness of the reading in the text of St. Augustine. He suggested the substitution of

* Einleitung in das Alt. Test. § 321. De Doct. Christ. Lib. ii. cap. ii. Conjectures, &c. Preface, p. ix.

Einleitung, § 113.