the mind could hardly be said to be pre-occupied by it.

But the case, at present, is widely different. Learning is in more hands. Critics are multiplied. The press is open; and every cavil, as well as every argument, is quickly circulated. Besides, the prepossession, in favour of the translation to which we have been so long habituated, is, at this day, very strong. Add to all this, that the religious, as well as the civil, rights of mankind were never better understood; the genuine principles of toleration had never greater influence. How, then, should we be affected, upon hearing that we are commanded, under pains and penalties, by our superiors, to read, and cause to be read in our churches, such a particular translation of the Bible only, and never more to admit into the sacred service, that version to which we have been hitherto, all our lives, accustomed, and for which we have contracted a high veneration. For my part, I will not dissemble the matter; I should think such a measure exceedingly incongruous to the spirit of that religion which the legislators, perhaps, intended to serve by it; and no less unseasonable, in respect of the age and country wherein we live. I perfectly agree with Tertullian, that religion, and coercion of any kind, are utterly incompatible. "Humani juris et naturalis potesta-, "tis est, unicuique quod putaverit, colere." Again: "Nec religionis est cogere religionem, quæ sponte suscipi debeat, non vi." I cordially subscribe to the sentiment of Lactantius, who deems it essen

tial to the value of every thing in religious service, in respect both of the object, and of the mode, that it be voluntary: "Nihil est tam voluntarium quam "religio, in qua si animus sacrificantis aversus est,

jam sublata, jam nulla est." Nor does it make any difference in the nature of the thing, whether the power that would compel us, be called civil or ecclesiastical.

But, is there nothing, then, which can, with propriety, be attempted by the higher powers, spiritual or temporal, for promoting the success of an accurate translation of the Bible? The utmost which, in my judgment, can be done, if such a version should, in any future period, be offered to the Public, is to remove the obstructions which those powers have heretofore raised prevent its introduction, and to permit, not command, the use of it, wherever it shall be found agreeable to the people, and judged, by the pastors, to be edifying. In the reign of Christian charity, which subsisted in times truly primitive and apostolical, it was not necessary that the limits of jurisdiction and authority should be so accurately ascertained, as afterwards, when love began to give place to ambition and secular prospects. Esteem and love are unsuspicious. In such a state of things, the opinion of no persons would go so far with the congregation, as that of their pastors; nor would the pastors know any motive so powerful, as that of contributing to the edification of the people. 'But,' it will be objected, to leave things in this 'manner, would appear like giving a sanction to dif

6

'ferent translations at the same time.' If it should, I can perceive no absurdity in such a sanction; no evil consequence that would follow from it. In fact, would it be any more, with respect to the whole Bible, than that which has long obtained in England, with regard to one considerable book, the Psalms, of which two very different versions, one in the Bible, the other in the Common Prayer, have equally the sanction of the higher powers? Are the people ignorant of this difference? Those who know any thing of the religion of the country, who read their Bible at home, and attend the service of the church, know it perfectly. Yet I have not heard that any private Christian was scandalized at it; much less, that any one pretended to deduce, from this cause, the libertinism and infidelity of the times. Yet, in no part of Scripture would the people have so many opportunities of remarking the variations, as in that book, which they hear in church not seldomer than twelve times a year. So much cannot be said of any other part of the sacred volume, the New Testament being read over only thrice a year, and the Old Testament but once. If the people were so easily alarmed, as some seem to imagine, how has it happened, that the striking difference between the two authorized translations above mentioned, have not, long ere now, raised a clamour, either against the common translation, or against the Common Prayer?

I should not have thought it necessary to say any thing on this head, if the subject had not been started, of late, and warmly agitated (I believe with

the best intentions on both sides), by some learned and worthy men. As my sentiments, on the subject, do not entirely coincide with those of either party, I thought it incumbent to add the explanation now given. The publishing of a new translation is not to be considered as implying a condemnation of any that preceded. This was objected to those employed by James the First, in preparing the translation used at present; and the reply which those translators made to their opponents in this business, as it had served Jerom before them, and served them, will equally serve me, or any translator, who shall afterwards bestow his time and labour in the same way. "We answer them," say they, " with St. Hierom, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case; but, after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the "house of God. As if he said, Being provoked, by "the example of the learned, that lived before my "time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether

my talent, in the knowledge of the tongues, may “be profitable, in any measure, to God's church, "lest I should seem to have laboured in them in

vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them." So said those worthy men, who, as they did not think themselves precluded from making improvements on the valuable labours of their predecessors, show, sufficiently, that they did not consider their own labours as superseding all attempts at still far

ther improvements, by those who should come after them.

The due consideration of the progressive state of all human knowledge and art, will ever be unfriendly to the adoption of any measure which seems to fix a barrier against improvement, and to say to science, Thus far shalt thou come, and no farther. And if, in matters merely of science, such measures would prove hurtful, how much more in any thing wherein religion is concerned? My opinion, therefore, on this question, I freely acknowledge, favours the removal of all legal restraints, as much as possible, and not barely the change of the object. Indeed, this will be found the natural result of the argument, as it has heretofore been conducted. There is not a topic, which the present adversaries of an improved translation in English employ now, which was not, with the same plausibility, employed against Jerom's Latin translation, called the Vulgate, at present in universal use in the Latin church, and which was not also employed against the English translation of James the First, that very version for which our adversaries, on this article, now so strenuously contend." On the other hand, there was not any plea, which Jerom urged in support of his attempt, or which the English translators urged in support of theirs, that will not equally serve the purpose of any present.or future well-meant attempt of the like kind, and, consequently, that does not strike against every measure which might effectually preclude any such attempt in time to come.