the same place originally. For instance, there are religious Communities who have not introduced into their Services the Creeds, and the Commandments, but which are not thereupon suspected of having denied the Faith, or annulled moral obligation. Yet this suspicion would be likely to arise against any Church which did use those Forms, and afterwards expunged them. Whenever there is an amputation, there will be a wound and a lasting scar.

It is true, that whatever is established, and already existing, has a presumption on its side; that is, the burden of proof lies on those who propose a change. No one is called on to bring reasons against any alteration, till some reasons have been offered for it. But the deference which is thus claimed for old laws and institutions is sometimes extended (through the ambiguity of language-the use of 'old' for 'ancient ')' to what are called the good old times;' as if the world had formerly been older, instead of younger, than it is now. But it is manifest that the advantage possessed by old men—that of long experience -must belong to the present age more than to any preceding.

Is there not, then, some reason for the ridicule which Bacon speaks of, as attaching to those who too much reverence old times? To say that no changes shall take place, is to talk idly. We might as well pretend to control the motions of the earth. To resolve that none shall take place except what are undesigned and accidental, is to resolve that though a clock may gain or lose indefinitely, at least we will take care that it shall never be regulated. If time' (to use Bacon's warning words) 'alters things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?'

It were good that men, in their innovations, would follow the example of Time itself, which indeed innovateth greatly, but quietly and by degrees scarce to be perceived.'

There is no more striking instance of the silent and imperceptible changes brought about by what is called 'Time,' than that of a language becoming dead. To point out the precise period at which Greek or Latin ceased to be a living language,

1 See Elements of Logic, Appendix.

would be as impossible as to say when a man becomes old. And much confusion of thought and many important practical results arise from not attending to this. For example, many persons have never reflected on the circumstance that one of the earliest translations of the Scriptures into a vernacular tongue was made by the Church of Rome. The Latin Vulgate was so called from its being in the vulgar, i.e., the popular language then spoken in Italy and the neighbouring countries; and that version was evidently made on purpose that the Scriptures might be intelligibly read by, or read to, the mass of the people. But gradually and imperceptibly Latin was superseded by the languages derived from it-Italian, Spanish, and French, -while the Scriptures were still left in Latin: and when it was proposed to translate them into modern tongues, this was regarded as a perilous innovation; though it is plain that the real innovation was that which had taken place imperceptibly; since the very object proposed by the Vulgate-version was, that the Scriptures might not be left in an unknown tongue. Yet we meet with many among the fiercest declaimers against the Church of Rome, who earnestly deprecate any the slightest changes in our authorized version, and cannot endure even the gradual substitution of other words for such as have become obsolete, for fear of 'unsettling men's minds.' It never occurs to them that it was this very dread that kept the Scriptures in the Latin tongue, when that gradually became a dead language.

It has been suggested in a popular Periodical, that if the mass of the People had been habitual readers of the Vulgate, Latin might have never become a dead language. No doubt, if printing had been in use in those days, and the People generally had had as ready access to cheap Bibles as now, this would have retarded and modified the change of the language. But the case which is adduced as parallel is very far from being such namely, the stability given to our language by the use of our English version. For, it ought not to have been forgotten that our country was not, like Italy-subjugated and overrun (subsequently to the translation of the Bible) by numerous tribes speaking a different language. As it is, there can indeed be no doubt that our Authorized Version, and our Prayer-book (and, in a minor degree, Shakespere and Bacon)

have contributed to give some fixedness to our language: but after all, the changes that have actually taken place in it are greater than perhaps some persons would at first sight suspect. For, though the words in our Bible and Prayer-book which have become wholly obsolete, are but few, the number is many times greater, of words which, though still in common use, have greatly changed their meaning: such as conversation,' 'convenient,' 'carriage,' (Acts xxi. 15) 'prevent,' 'reasonable,' 'lively,' 'incomprehensible,' those most important words 'shall' and will,' and many others. And words which have thus changed their meaning are, of course, much more likely to perplex and bewilder the reader, than those entirely out of use. These latter only leave him in darkness; the others mislead him by a false light.

Universally, the removal at once of the accumulated effects gradually produced in a very long time, is apt to strike the vulgar as a novelty, when in truth it is only a restoration of things to their original state."

For example, suppose a clock to lose only one minute and a few seconds in the week, and to be left uncorrected for a year; it will then have lost a whole hour; and any one who then sets it right, will appear to the ignorant to have suddenly robbed

them of that amount of time.

This case is precisely analogous to that of the change of style. There was, in what is called the Julian Calendar (that fixed by Julius Cæsar), a minute error, which made every fourth year a trifle too long; in the course of centuries the error amounted to eleven days, and when, about a century ago, we rectified this (as had been done in Roman Catholic countries a century earlier), this mode of reckoning was called the new style.' The Russians, who still use what is called the old style,' are, now, not eleven, but twelve days wrong; that is, they are one day further from the original position of the days of the month, as fixed in the time of Julius Cæsar: and this they call adhering to the Julian Calendar.

So, also, to reject the religious practices and doctrines that have crept in by little and little since the days of the Apostles,

1 See Bishop Hinds on the Authorized Version; and also a most useful little Vocabulary of Obsolete Words in our version, by the Rev. Mr. Booker. 2 See Cautions for the Times, No. 2.

and thus to restore Christianity to what it was under them, appears to the unthinking to be forsaking the old religion and bringing in a new. Bishop Hinds's views, in his work on The Three Temples, have been censured (as he himself had anticipated) as novel; though so familiar to the Apostles as to have tinged all their language; as in their use of the word 'edify,' &c. It is to be observed that hurtful changes are often attributed to harmless ones; and apprehensions are entertained that a change, however small, is necessarily a dangerous thing, as tending to produce extensive and hurtful innovations. Many instances may be found of small alterations being followed by great and mischievous ones (Post hoc; ergo propter hoc'); but I doubt whether all history can furnish an instance of the greater innovation having been, properly speaking, caused by the lesser. Of course, the first change will always precede the second; and many mischievous innovations have taken place; but these may often be explained by the too long postponement of the requisite changes; by the neglect of the homely old proverb-A tile in time saves nine.' A house may stand for ages if some very small repairs and alterations are promptly made from time to time as they are needed; whereas if decay is suffered to go on unheeded, it may become necessary to pull down and rebuild the whole house. The longer any needful reform is delayed, the greater and the more difficult, and the more sudden, and the more dangerous and unsettling it will be. And then, perhaps, those who had caused this delay by their pertinacious resistance to any change at all, will point to these evils-evils brought on by themselves—in justification of their conduct. If they would have allowed a few broken slates on the roof to be at once replaced by new ones, the timbers would not have rotted, nor the walls, in consequence, leaned, nor would the house have thence needed to be demolished and rebuilt.

It is to be observed, however, that there does exist a danger from any change which, though not bad in itself, is introduced irregularly. And against this danger, a man of real good sense will endeavour to provide, by observing betimes what changes are desirable, or unavoidable, and seeking, not to have them put off for a few years, but introduced in a regular, and, consequently, a safer mode, If, by competent authority an incon

venient law is repealed, or some defect supplied in any of our Institutions, civil, or Ecclesiastical, this does not shake the whole Fabric. But if, instead of this, the object is accomplished by a violation of law, or by an irregular stretch of power, a dangerous PRECEDENT is created, which may lead to evils far greater than the immediate good at first aimed at. Indeed, a very large portion of all the abuses that have ever existed, may be traced to some evil precedent originating in some step that was in itself beneficial. And the obvious precaution against this danger is (as I have said), to open the door betimes to needful changes, instead of waiting till the door is broken open so that it cannot afterwards be shut against such as are mischievous.

Most wise, therefore, is Bacon's admonition, to copy the great innovator Time, by vigilantly watching for, and promptly counteracting, the first small insidious approaches of decay, and introducing gradually, from time to time, such small improvements (individually small, but collectively great) as there may be room for, and which will prevent the necessity of violent and sweeping reformations.

'It is good not to try experiments in States, except the necessity be urgent, or the utility evident; and well to beware, that it be the reformation that draweth on the change, and not the desire of change that pretendeth the reformation.”

It has been above remarked that most men have no desire for change, as change, in what concerns the serious business of life. True it is, that great and sudden and violent changes do take place that ancient institutions have been recklessly overthrown-that sanguinary revolutions have taken place in quick succession, and that new schemes, often the most wild and extravagant, both in civil and religious matters, have been again and again introduced. We need not seek far to find countries that have had, within the memory of persons now living, not less than nine or ten perfectly distinct systems of government. But no changes of this kind ever originate in the mere love of change for its own sake. Never do men adopt a new form of government, or a new system of religion, merely from that delight in variety which leads them to seek new amusements, or to alter the fashion of their dress. They seek changes in what relates to serious matters of fundamental importance, only