den Virgil, whereas the latter should have translated the Greek, and the former, the Latin poet. Cowper chose Homer, when he could not probably have found in the whole compass of ancient verse, a single poem, suited to his peculiar cast of mind. It is a fact that the great body of those, who have translated out of Latin and Greek, have totally failed. The fault is not in the English language, which is capable, in the hands of a suitable writer, of representing to the life, all the excellencies of the classics. If Milton had translated Sophocles and Euripides; Lord Byron -Eschylus; Tasso-Virgil and Ariosto-Homer; if Campbell would translate Virgil and Tasso-and Scott, Homer and Ariosto; if Brougham would translate Demosthenes, and Canning had left us Cicero, no man of taste could deny the equality, even if he would not concede the superiority of the translation. The classic devotee has apparently a triumphant argument in favor of the superiority of the ancients, when he cites the failure of so many scores of translators. But there is a view of vast importance against him. All of the translators were classical scholars, in Latin and Greek; but not in English. They undertook to render an elegant poet or orator into English, when they had never cultivated the composition of ELEGANT ENGLISH; though they had religiously observed the maxim, "nocturnâ versate manû, versate diurnâ." Now, does not this demonstrate, when we look at the English translation, that the writers had actually derived no assistance, as English writers, from all their Greek and Latin Studies? Hobbes, says Sir Jas. Macintosh, affords in his translation of Thucydides, "a specimen of a version still valued for its remarkable fidelity, tho' written with a stiffness and constraint, very opposite to the masterly facility of his original compositions.”

The translation of the Bible, in the reign of James the First, is the most remarkable and interesting event in the History of Translations. That of the Septuagint, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, bears no comparison with it. Their simplicity and modesty, humility, learning and admirable sense, entitle the translators of the English Bible to the praise bestowed by Pope on Lord Roscommon.

"To him, the wit of Greece and Rome was known,
And every Author's merit, but his own.'

It is remarkable how the translators have been influenced not only by the Spirit of the Scriptures, which pervades the whole work, but by their indestructible metre, a metre the more curious and surprising, because it has none of the monotony, which a critic would have pronounced à priori to be inseparable from it. The great excellence of the translation is due to six considerations. First, it was made under a very solemn sense of the important duty, devolved on those, who were thus selected. Hence arose that prevailing air of dignity, gravity, simplicity, which is so conspicuous. Secondly, the Translators came to the task, looking to the thoughts, not to the style. Their object was not that of all other translators, to imitate and rival the beauty of style. Their sole object was to render faithfully, and in a plain, appropriate style the thoughts of the Sacred Writers. Hence, they became thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the original: and gave an incomparably better version of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, than any or all of them together could have done of any classic. Had each of them left us translations of some classic, I hesitate not to say, they would not now have been found in any› library, but as mere curiosities. Thirdly, the number of persons em

ployed contributed very much to prevent any personal style from prevailing and gave to the whole an air of plain, simple uniformity. Fourthly, the æra was providential in one important view. As the translation was made before all the bitterness of sectarian spirit distracted the English Protestant Church, it was executed far less with a view to party differences, than could have been the case, at any time afterwards. Fifthly, fortunately the only great religious difference, that could have affected it, was the dispute with the Catholic Church, and, as to that, all Protestants were agreed in England, on every important point. Sixthly, the English Language was then at the happiest stage of its progress, with all the strength, simplicity, and clearness of the Elder Literature; whilst, at the same time, it was free from the cant of the age of Charles 1. and Cromwell, from the vulgarity and levity of that of Charles 2., and from the artificial character of that of Anne.

Such a translation is an illustrious monument of the Age, the Nation, the Language. It is properly speaking, less a translation than an Original; having most of the merit of the former as to style, and all the merit of the latter as to thought. It is the noblest, best, most finished classic of the English Tongue.

I trust that I may be pardoned for intruding on the peculiar province of the Divine, by suggesting a scheme for making the present translation more perfect. It is agreed among Protestants, that our English Bible admits of improvement, arising from a better knowledge of Hebrew and the other Oriental Languages, of ancient Eastern history, geography, manners and customs, and from a more extensive and accurate acquaintance with all the departments of Sacred Literature. The various able commentators of different denominations have pointed out, from time to time, the amendments, which they have thought desirable. I regard the English Bible, as the Religious Constitution of Protestant America. Why then may not a plan of this kind be acted on, a plan bearing some analogy to the scheme for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States? Let any one of the various Theological Institutions of our country, propose to every other, such alterations, as may appear to the Seminary suggesting them, to be desirable. If any one of the proposed changes be disapproved by any one of all the other Divinity Colleges, let it be considered as rejected. But, if any one of the amendments offered be accepted by all the other Institutions, let it then be regarded as adopted by them. This step being taking by the preparatory tribunals, let the amendment then be proposed to the highest ecclesiastical body of each denomination, such as the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, &c. If agreed to by all, let it then be considered as an admissible change, in any edition of the English Bible, that may be afterwards published by any of those denominations, or by the American Bible Society. If no amendments be proposed, but such as are free from sectarian difficulties; and if the whole matter be conducted in a truly Christian, Protestant, American spirit; in the spirit of Christian love, of Protestant freedom, and American fellowship; as servants of the same Heavenly Master, as children of the same glorious Reformation, as brothers of the same national family, I can not doubt, that much good would flow from the plan proposed.

To look to England for any change in the present version of the English Bible, is out of the question. The relative situation of the Established and Dissenting Churches, is sufficient to satisfy any one, that

while it subsists, there can be no agreement, even on such points as a reformation of the present English Bible, in matters not sectarian. We must, therefore, judge and act for ourselves; and as unquestionably the changes, that might be adopted in this country, would be sanctioned, for the most part, if not altogether, by the best English and Scotch commentators, we may indulge the hope that we might thus be instrumental in preparing the way in Great Britain, for an amendment of King James' Bible among themselves.

NOTE F. p. 122.

The idea of cultivating style, as in a manner independent of thought, is a sad mistake. It is like the cultivation of manners, without any regard to duty and affection, their only genuine source. Style may be called the manners of the mind. And like them it will be natural or artificial, according as it arises from natural or artificial cultivation. Every mind has its own appropriate style, and that style can only be drawn forth and finished, by the cultivation of thinking and reasoning. It is not surprising that we see such lamentable deficiences in style; when the writers have been led to cultivate a foreign, artificial style, instead of their own natural style, flowing out of the character of their own minds. "The style of a man," said Buffon to Herault de Sechelles, "is the man himself." Does it not then seem little less than absurd, to select this or that writer for his style, as a text book, and it is chiefly in Latin or Greek, without any regard to the character of the student's mind, whether gifted with talents, or possessed only of common sense? Can the study of style make any other than a cold, unnatural style; unless the model be congenial to the character of the student's mind? But by cultivating the mind of the student, and teaching him to keep constantly before him thinking and reasoning, as the only fountains of style, he would acquire, or rather, would develope his own peculiar, personal style, far better than in any other mode. How seldom does an Instructor pay any attention to the peculiar character of mind of this or that pupil, with a view to its appropriate cultivation! This neglect is one of the chief reasons, why so little valuable improvement is discovered in those, who have received liberal educations. One half of life, if not more, is wasted by our youth on Greek and Roman models, (and there is scarcely any writer studied that contains sufficient valuable thought to compensate for the time spent,) for the sake of their style; but-the mind-the mind is neglected. It seems to me no answer to say, that the student acquires a discipline of mind by the study of language, through the Grammar and Dictionary. Except to those, who pursue the study of languages afterwards, and they are as one out of every hundred, who learn Latin and Greek, it is to be remembered, that this species of discipline is absolutely useless; for they never have occasion for it in life. The discipline of mind, which the vast majority want, is that which arises from important and interesting facts, as the basis of thinking and reasoning. Things and their relations constitute the whole substance of life: and yet, of the whole body of education, through the medium of mathematics and languages, how very little has any thing to do with the practical, and purely practical life, to which the great majority are destined! This disregard of the species of discipline of mind, which the great majority need, (and the remark is as true of mathematics as of languages,) and the disregard of the small relative value of the species of knowledge now

acquired in our present schemes of instruction, appear to me two other fundamental reasons, for the little benefit so generally derived from education. The truth is, instead of being accommodated to the difference of minds, and the actual wants of the majority of the educated in real life, the whole scheme of liberal education is founded on this, that all ought to be fitted to become scholars in the exact sciences, and in the classics. Now it is matter of fact, that not one out of twenty is capable of being such, in the latter, and not one out of fifty in the former. And it is equally matter of fact, that the vast majority of those who study mathematics and languages, abandon them forever when they leave. Thus the knowledge acquired in a course of ten or fifteen years of study, in these branches, is cast aside for life. And the mind having been exercised almost altogether on facts and relations in languages and mathematics, having nothing to do with the employments and interests of the great majority, they find themselves, on entering life, with minds actually undisciplined for the purposes of life. Is it not then a lamentable truth, that the majority are thus sacrificed to a very small minority? The same sacrifice is continually made in another form. In a class of any size, whether ten or a hundred, there are different orders of minds, and different degrees of talent. And yet, this actual state of things is totally disregarded; for our schemes proceed on the supposition that all have the same talents, and in the same degree. Is not this a strange violation of duty, common sense and justice? The effect is seen in every class. The inferior minds are disheartened, and neglected. The minds of a middling quality are never able to rival the few superiors, who stand above them-and they are either discouraged and indifferently attended to, or they are tasked far beyond their capacity. It is my personal experience, and that of every one with whom I have conversed, that in languages and mathematics especially, the studies are adapted only to the best minds in each class. My observation has invariably confirmed this. Is there no remedy for such evils? I answer, yes: the remedy is a very obvious one. Follow Nature. Respect the variety of talents, and the different degrees of them, in different members of the class. Let the first great object of the teacher be to discover these all important facts. Let him ascertain who has memory and who has not? Who has imagination, and who has not? Who is quick and who is dull? Who has a fine intellect, and who is deficient in the power of thinking? Who is adapted to literature, who to languages, and who to mathematics? Let him ascertain the actual state of each mind, (a thing never, never thought of,) as to the species of powers, which it possesses; as to the degree of those powers; as to the extent, to which they have been cultivated; and the knowledge that has been acquired. Now, there is no personal relation between each mind and the teacher. Each feels, that the Instructor has nothing to do with him. His only concern is with the class. I admit that the task thus imposed is arduous and delicate. But is it not a plain duty? Do not common sense and common justice both demand it? There can be but one answer. Education thus conducted would give a tenfold value even to what is now taught.

If the difference in the kinds and degrees of talents be the order of nature, and who doubts it? then let us conform our schemes to this indestructible order of nature. Let the scholars of the highest character of mind in each department, whether languages or mathematics, speaking or composition, literature or philosophy, be placed in one division to compete with one another. Let those of the second or or

dinary rank be placed in a second, and those of inferior capacity in the third. Let those of the third rise to the second, and those of the second to the first division, whenever they shall have proved themselves fit. If necessary, have more divisions. Thus the specific talents of each student would be regarded and improved: and the degree of talent in each would be carefully consulted. Thus the specific studies and the quantity of each could be adapted to the pupil's powers and state of mind. All this, I am sensible, will enhance the labor of every teacher. And is not this equally true of every addition made to the difficulties and extent of studies? The standard of education is raised, indeed, as to the quantum; but not in the all-important particular, the mode of instruction. The same disregard of the species of discipline, of the relative value of the knowledge to be acquired by the great majority, of the variety and degrees of talent, of the actual state of improvement and information, and the same mechanical mode of instruction, continue to prevail from year to year. I feel that these are solemn, affecting truths. I feel that the fate of the country depends on them; for on the adherence to or abandonment of the present plan, depend the happiness, welfare and usefulness of every educated man,

NOTE G.. p. 122.

I am of opinion that the great majority of educated men would write and speak in a better style and taste; if their instruction in youth were founded on the thorough study of the Scriptures. I think so; because these excel in thought, the vital principle of taste, the primum mobile of style; and in the most simple, perspicuous, energetic modes of expressing it. The prevailing style and taste of the Scriptures, are every where the same, artless, grave, clear, vigorous. This is the only book, in which you cannot study style as something separate from thought. You must study thought, or you cannot move a step. Thought is the engrossing, the overpowering object. Style holds but an exceedingly subordinate rank. Now these characteristics of the style of the Bible, are necessary to all educated men: and of supreme importance to the great majority, who cannot rise to the compositions of philosophy, poetry, eloquence. It is in these departments of writing, that mannerism prevails not in those, to which the great majority are called. Now, mannerism can only arise from imitation: and the style of the Bible as to its formal peculiarities never would be imitated. It would be far more difficult to imitate these, (which may be called unnatural, compared with the ordinary forms of style in conversation and business) than to transfer to that natural, ordinary style, the excellencies of the Scripture style, the clear, the concise, the simple, the grave, and the vigorous. No doubt if the master taught the pupil to imitate the forms of Scripture phraseology, he would become a mannerist. But we do not believe that any master would be so deficient in good taste and in good sense. We insist then strenuously on the study of the Bible, even for the sake of style; not upon the ordinary principle of imitating forms of expression; but on the master-principle that thought is the only true source of style; that every mind has its own appropriate style; that the cultivation of its powers of thinking and reasoning is the only wise and efficient mode of developing that style; that thought in the Bible stands in a more intimate and varied relation to the mind of each man, then the same quality in any other book; and that consequently in the study of