the Version, set forth and allowed to be sung in Churches, may be amended; or that we may have leave to make use of a purer Version." They ask leave, we see, to use another Version; plainly implying, that they considered the Version of Sternhold and Hopkins authorized, and that they presumed not, or affected not, to depart from it without leave. They again advert to the authority of the Old Version. * Your distinction between Hopkins' and David's Psalms, as if the metre, allowed by authority, to be sung in Churches made them to be no more David's Psalms, seemeth to us a very hard saying.' The Episcopal Commissioners did not think fit to attend to the remarks of the Presbyterians on this point, as they rightly considered the Old Version as forming no constituent part, (though it formed an accustomed part,) of the Book of Common Prayer; and therefore no purt of the Commission.' Yet at the same time they did not deny the authorized usage of this Version nor did they concede, that it might be changed at the discretion or wish of any who disliked it." Todd, p. 48.

Mr. Todd enters at length into the history of Archbishop Parker's Metrical Translation of the Psalms; and shews both that it was intended by its illustrious Author for the public, service of the Church, and that he did not on this account discountenance the older and more popular Version.

"In a quarto edition of the translation of the Bible in 1569, which had been just before made and published by the direction of this great prelate, we are informed, indeed, that the Psalms in metre, printed by John Day in the same year, follow the New Testament. These are the Psalms of Sternhold, &c. And if they had not been allowed, as the title of them has expressed it, would the Archbishop of Canterbury have suffered such an appendage to his Bible? The inference is plain. To the admissibility of the Metrical Version there was no objection, and the value of it the primate had no wish to dispute." Todd, p. 59.

We cannot follow Mr. Todd through his account of the other Metrical Versions-Dod's, Wither's, King James the First's, George Sandy's, William Barton's, Tate and Brady's, and Sir Richard Blackmore's-For each of these the royal privilege and permission was duly obtained; although with the exception of Tate and Brady's, none of them acquired a permanent footing in the Church. Wither endeavoured to prepare the way for his " Hymns and Songs of the Church" by undervaluing the received Version; and urging that "whatsoever the Stationers in their title-page

"* An Account of all the Papers that passed between the Commissioners, &c. p. 31.".

"+Ibid. p. 59."

Lewis's Hist. of the English Translations of the Bible, 2d. edit. p. 256.".

pretended to that purpose, the Psalms of Sternhold, &c. being first allowed for private devotion only, crept into public use by toleration rather than command." It is probable therefore that Wither is the author of the statement, which was adopted by Heylyn. He insinuated, as Mr. Todd has shewn, a very gross falsehood; namely, that the title-page containing the royal allowance, was introduced by the Company of Stationers, and had not been used by the first or earlier Printers of the Psalms. The contrary is notoriously the fact. The allowance for private devotion only, in which Wither and Heylyn so suspiciously concur, is a fact of which neither of them adduce any proof. The Statute of King Edward and the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth bearing date in the first year of their respective reigns, permitted Psalm-singing in Churches, and any Collection of Psalms which they sanctioned in general terms, must have been sanctioned with a view to general use. The only real alteration that we are acquainted with, respects the mode of printing, not the purpose to which the publication was applicable. The first edition was separately printed, subsequently they were added to the Prayer Book, and afterwards to the Bible. But this was a change suggested by fashion or convenience, and not material to the authority of the work.

We cannot conclude this article without offering a few remarks upon Mr. Vernon's judgment. There can be no doubt that he has correctly expounded the law. Being required to consider the conduct of a Clergyman who had introduced into his Church certain hymns and psalms, not permitted by any lawful authority, he pronounced that such conduct was illegal. At the same time he declared, that if asentence was called for he should not condemn the Clergyman in costs, and he stated that the Archbishop of York would be happy to act as a mediator between the contending parties.

"The parties agreeably to Mr. Vernon's suggestion, ultimately referred the dispute to the amicable adjustment of the Archbishop; who, in a spirit of conciliation, undertook to compile a new Selection of Psalms and Hymns for Mr. Cotterill's Church; and in consideration of the expence and loss which Mr. Cotteril's Work had occasioned to him, his Grace further took upon himself the charges of printing the new Selection.

This circumstance, while it is honourable to the character of the Archbishop of York; exhibiting him as the promoter of peace and union in the Church; affords an additional testimony, in favour

VOL. XIX, MAY, 1823.

Hh

of the modern practice of introducing into the Church, selections of Psalms and Hymns, accommodated to the popular taste and feeling." Gray, p. 52.

We cannot congratulate the Church of England upon this termination of the dispute. In refusing to give costs in an intricate case against an individual who might believe himself to be in the right, and who had shewn no symptoms of contumacy, Mr. Vernon acted the part of a kind and considerate Magistrate, anxious to allay local irritation, and to administer justice in mercy. But what followed, although equally kind, and equally well-intentioned, we are not prepared to consider as equally judicious. Taking it for granted, as we readily do, that the Archbishop's selection is unexceptionable (Mr. Gray assures us that it is absolutely the very best of all selections)" the accommodation of popular taste and feeling," at the expence of uniformity and law, is a step which we must deplore and condemn. Mr. Vernon imagines that it can lead to no evil, because a Diocesan may prohibit the use of any improper hymns. But in what a situation will this place congregations, incumbents and Bishops? When an individual among the former is offended at seeing theChurch indebted for its psalmody to the conventicle, he is to appeal immediately to the Ordinary, and require him to exercise the very agreeable privilege of giving the people a triumph over their minister, or the minister a triumph over his people. As long as there exists the least tendency to abuse in the choice of hymns, to call upon individual Prelates to pronounce individual judg ments upon the propriety and orthodoxy of each new modelled stave, is to confer upon them a most invidious and unappropriate duty. Every word that has been urged against the Bishop of Peterborough's Examination Questions may with equal wit and more truth, be urged against the system of diocesan singing books. One Bishop may reject what another has approved and recommended. A collection of godlye hymnes and songes may be "admitted at Barnet, rejected at Stevenage, re-admitted at Buckden, kicked out as a Calvinist at Witham Common, and hailed as an ardent Arminian on its arrival at York." And the harmony of the Church will be most woefully interrupted by the jarrings and discords with which such music will abound.

John Wesley (Southey's Life, Vol II. p. 223.) strictly forbad his preachers" to introduce any hymns of their own composing.' In other respects they had great latitude allowed them: they might use the Liturgy or parts of it, or might substitute an extemporaneous Service of their own.

But the Hymns were of greater importance; they served at once for creed and catechism, and their purity was at all events to be preserved. It was a wise provision,-and Clergymen who imitate John Wesley in his due estimation of the effects of congregational singing, should like him, be alive to the danger of its abuse. Mr. Gray and Mr. Vernon may or may not be right in their utter condemnation of Sternhold and Hopkins. We have no desire to disturb or to share their insensibility to the charms of that pure English, undefiled,' with which the Old Version abounds. But whether these gentlemen who loathe, or Bishop Horsley and Mr. Todd who admire the version, be the better judges of poetical merit, the proper and the only proper issue of such a dispute should be to encourage or to discourage another translation. The Hymn-books now abroad are with one consent methodistical. "Venn's, Kempthorne's, Noel's, Cotterill's", (it is thus that the most popular selections are classed by the Reviewer of Mr. Gray) bear their character in their names. It is admitted, although these select volumes be pure and spotless, that many such works contain 'revolting specimens of bad taste,' and some slight approaches to heretical doctrine. It is from these that each Clergyman is to make his selection; and the plough-boys and dairy-maids whom he turns into Antinomians, are to denounce his aberrations to the Bishop of the Diocese. Would it not be safer to confine ourselves to authorised Psalm-books, even though in the modern phraseology which Mr. Vernon has condescended to adopt, they may happen to be less edifying and acceptable?" The Hymns affixed to the original and authorised editions of the Old and New Versions are the only Hymns which can be properly used or really wanted. For every other purpose of congregational singing the Psalms of David (even in their present unsatisfactory dress) are amply sufficient. And we conceive that among the * mistakes which have crept into Mr. Vernon's judgment, there is none greater than the declaration that a practice which he condemns, but encourages, which he pronounces in the same breath to be both proper and wrong, is "a practice adopted by a majority of the Established Clergy." We hope and believe better things of a very great majority of the Clergy. They know the danger

*We have already noticed the errors respecting Edward's Statutes and Elizabeth's Injunction. Mr. Todd calls our attention to another trifling mistake. The Parliament is represented (upon what authority we do not know) as discussing and negativing the admissibility of Sternhold's Psalms, several years before they were written. Todd, p. 14.

of making improvements, real or imaginary, in the authorised Church Service. They know that it is impossible to say where such improvements will end. The Prayer-book, as well as the singing Psalms might be rendered more " edifying and acceptable" if they were reformed after the example of Wesley. Such reformations are partially adopted by a minority of the Clergy; and as these persons happen to be the very same individuals to whom the collection of Ven and Noel, are so naturally and excusably dear, the fact furnishes another and an unanswerable argument against encouraging a system which is found in such suspicious company, and leads to such mischievous results.

ART. III. Poems Divine and Moral. Many of them now first published. Selected by J. Bowdler, Esq. In Two Volumes. 12mo. 10s. 6d. Cadell. 1821.

THE object of this publication, and the name of the Editor, could not fail to secure a favourable reception at our hands, even if the selection had been made with less taste and judgment. A work indeed, whose professed design is "to do good," appeals to a higher tribunal than that of criticism, and deserves (if the endeavour be properly directed) a nobler reward than the praise of men. But this very circumstance, which at first sight seems to take it out of our jurisdiction, makes us more desirous to bestow upon it a portion of our attention. It is our delight as it is our duty, to bring forward those works which, without making lofty pretensions, convey wholesome instruction in a pleasing form; and the Reviewer will feel his office hallowed and ennobled when he contributes his small offering towards the glory of God and the good of his fellow-crea

tures.

Of all the various publications, which aim at combining the useful with the agreeable, there is none more successful than sacred and moral poetry. It possesses a charm which fixes the attention and engages the affections. The solemn character of the subjects are softened, and rendered engaging by the dress in which they appear; and while they captivate the artless innocence of the youthful mind, they afford to the sober piety of advanced years a cheering relief in sickness and sorrow, and a retreat from the cares and bustle of life. If the attributes of the Deity can ever be familiarized