them, also, the genius of flippancy reigns pre-eminent; and although a threadbare maxim, or a borrowed sentiment of a more sober cast, be occasionally introduced, yet their maxims, sentiments, and morality, are essentially and undisguisedly the maxims, sentiments, and morality of the world. Talent, indeed, is frequently manifested, but it is talent devoted to no beneficial purpose; and when the end is only to make the reader laugh, it matters little whether the feather, which tickles him, be handled by a philosopher or a buffoon.

There is a department, however, of the fashionable periodical literature of the day which merits especial notice, from the influence which it exerts upon the public mind. This is the department of criticism. In addition to the costly and influential publications, which are properly termed reviews, every magazine, and almost every newspaper, has a space allotted for the critical examination of books. That the opinions thus promulgated are often honest in themselves, and founded on a candid perusal of the works reviewed, admits not of a doubt; but that opinions are often published of books which have never been read is equally undeniable. How is it possible, we ask, that the editor of a weekly paper, in addition to the toil and drudgery of his own immediate avocations, can find time to read, so as to be able honestly to comment upon, eight or ten different publications weekly? And yet there are men who pretend to do this; and who deliver their opinions with as much confidence as if the wisdom of an empire concentrated in themselves. But flagrant as the dishonesty of these pseudo-critics is, their pertness and dogmatism are more disgusting still. Does an author belong to the narrow circle of their acquaintanceship, he is extolled as a prodigy of genius, one of the master-spirits of the age, a man whose talents require only to be known in order that they may be universally admired. On the other hand, is an author unknown to them, and has no more influential voice pointed him out to fame, they treat him with neglect, or bestow only that cold and negative sort of notice, which, to a mind of sensibility, is peculiarly galling. Nor are the pertness, and dogmatism, and egregious partiality which we have mentioned, confined to the editors of newspapers or hebdomadal reviews, they pervade to a greater or a less extent every organ of

literary criticism with which we are acquainted. To the conductors of one and all of them the bitter sarcasm of Job might be addressed," No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Cases, indeed, have not been wanting in which a contributor to a review has been allowed to review his own works, and apply to himself the epithets of learned, ingenious, illustrious, and so forth. Nay, we have lived to see a professedly Christian reviewer assail, with the most unmeasured and unprovoked vituperation, a contemporary Christian magazine, to the literary merits, evangelical sentiments, and extensive usefulness of which the religious public of Great Britain had borne testimony for nearly half a century.

Such being the state of the periodical literature of the day, whether intended for the labouring, the middle, or the higher classes of society, it becomes the duty of the Christian to be careful that, in any walk of science, of learning, or of criticism, which he may choose to enter upon, his scholarship shall be of a kind calculated to lead men to Christ. It becomes him to be careful to countenance, as far as in him lies, every effort to spread the knowledge of the Redeemer's name; and, in the same degree, to discourage the circulation of any work which is calculated, directly or indirectly, to injure the cause of religion. These are not the days for indolence and supineness, still less for contention and animosity, among the friends of Jesus. "The schoolmaster is abroad"-the people are becoming enlightened--and if Christians do not unite their efforts to add the light of the gospel to that of literature and science, they may expect to see a race of men rise up around them, with the same disposition as now to do evil, and with their ability to achieve it infinitely increased.

No man denies the truth of the adage that knowledge is power; it is of incalculable importance, then, that the power, now in the course of being rapidly acquired by the population of this country, be a power of a right kind, and directed to a right end. It is of incalculable importance that, along with the first elements of education, they imbibe, in order that they may practise, those two great maxims of Christian polity, Fear God, and honour the king. The friends of Jesus, therefore, must be always at their post. Much of the character, much of the well-being, of the next generation

depends on their fidelity to their Divine Master. Let no false modesty, no love of learned ease, induce them to shrink from their duty. When a lectureship is founded for the benefit of the labouring classes-when a village library is instituted for tradesmen and mechanics-when a scientific journal is started for the operative classes-when a new magazine or review is undertaken for any sort of readers-let Christians be ready to cooperate, and take the lead if possible. To every thing of this kind a Christian cha

racter may, and therefore ought to be given; and if, at the outset, it receive the hallowed impress, it will be comparatively easy to preserve the influence alive. But if, on the other hand, the golden opportunity be lost, it may be impossible, even for the wisest and the best, to repair the omission; and the friends of religion may have to submit, as heretofore, to the painful reflection, that "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Edinburgh.

H. E.

SIR,-Attached as I have long been to the British and Foreign Bible Society, I regret, in common with yourself, the attempt that has been made to form a counter-society; and I am sorry to find that an impression has been made in some parts of the country, and particularly in Wales, chiefly by reading the Record paper, and the continual play upon the term "Socinian."

I admit that the founders of the new society make a strong appeal to the best feelings of every truly Christian mind, when they declaim against an alliance with Arians, Neologians, and Socinians. Who that feels his obligations to the Saviour who that prizes the efficacy of his atonement, or the power of his grace, does not at once revolt at the thought of a league with those who would rob him of his glory, or cast a shade over his divinity? Were I to be governed by my feelings alone on this question I should be carried to the veriest extreme, well knowing that my hope is delusion if I am trusting for my salvation to an arm less than divine. But, surely, we ought not to be governed by a mere impulse in a case like this. The B. and F. Bible Society-an institution which God has so eminently blessed under its present constitution-deserves something better at our hands, and ought not to be rashly changed in all its fundamental principles, merely because some few men, of warm feelings and hasty judgment, fancy that they see more clearly than many who have gone before them, and many their contemporaries as pious, as active, and as devoted as they. Surely it becomes us

dispassionately to consider present evils, if such there be, and whether they may not be corrected under the present management; and I believe that if I had access to the minutes of the Committee, I could produce various resolutions calculated to provide against all probable evils, and to prevent the recurrence of any that have arisen.

But, after all, it is not for the sake of a few Arians or Socinians that I care to trouble you with a single line upon the subject, whom I regard as so many leaves or feathers floating upon the surface of the stream. Here the advocates of the new society have rested the whole burden of the case; while I think, on the contrary, that they affect the question very slightly, if at all; and I do complain that they have not met other and far more important difficulties-that they have not shown more satisfactory reasons for a test, a test at all times objectionable, and more especially so in a benevolent society like our own-but particularly that they have not noticed the exclusion of the whole body of Friends; and next of a large proportion of Dissenters, sound in every essential point, who yet, like myself, reject all human impositions in matters of faith. The Friends are a numerous and influential body in London and in various parts of the country; they have contributed largely, and have laboured most perseveringly in the cause of the B. and F. Bible Society, and they have ever ranked among its most active and unobtrusive supporters. I have had the happiness to associate with them occasionally, and whatever objections I may entertain with

respect to the peculiarities of their system, yet I cannot deny to very many whom I have known the convictions I cherish of their solid piety and their devotional habits. I refer with pleasure to their yearly epistles for their general, or at least avowed, orthodoxy; and to the writings of such men as Mr. Gurney, on "The Evidences, Doctrines, and Duties of Christianity," and his more recent work on the very subject of our Lord's divinity; yet such are their scruples that the introduction of a test would separate them from the Society for ever.

And besides these it is well known that Dissenters generally, both Independents and Baptists, object to every thing in the shape of a test, although their orthodoxy is unquestionable on all the vital doctrines of Christianity. And why are not their scruples to be respected, more particularly in a Society to which they have rendered such willing and abundant service? I had hoped that all tests were done away with the Test Act, and among Christians that the Bible itself would be regarded as the surest bond of union, and its truths received into the heart as the best proof and pledge of orthodoxy.

Yet apart from every private feeling I do contend that the real question is, Whether the fundamental principles of the B. and F. Bible Society shall be changed, its basis narrowed, and a test be introduced, merely for the sake of a few names which never had any influence over its direction, and never will? I am surprised that it should now be necessary to discuss such a question. For nearly thirty years it has been the glory of the Society that it asks no compromise from any, while it invites the co-operation of all. This has been the favourite topic at every anniversary-this the ever-recurring theme at every auxiliary and association meeting; and did not the thousands who attended on these occasions understand what they were cheering? That the founders of the Society understood this to be its broad and catholic principle is unquestionable. The Rev. Mr. Hughes has told us that at its formation he invited the co-operation of Arian and Socinian ministers in common with others; and I am able to state, upon the authority of a friend who accompanied him, that the late excellent Mr. Charles went further still; that he personally called upon the late Dr. A. Rees to press him into the service of the Society, who immediately became secretary of the Welsh

Auxiliary in London; proving, I think, that that apostle of North Wales (as he has been called) perfectly understood the comprehensive principles of the Society, and that he had no such fears or scruples as are now entertained when he asked the support of one so confessedly heterodox.

With respect to the new society, it is so perfectly sectarian in its character, and so objectionable in its whole constitution, that it seems to be incapable of acting on any grand scale, or, if the B. and F. Bible Society were extinct, of supplying the deficiency. How objectionable is its designation, as though only its members believed in the important doctrine of the Trinity, or the Bible which they circulate alone revealed that fundamental verity! And, to say the least, it is extremely offensive that a term should be bandied about in common usage, heading every advertisement, every letter, and every report, which at best serves very imperfectly to express the mysterious distinctions which subsist in the one Divine Essence.

How objectionable, too, is its close committee! There is no provision made for the attendance of visitors, or right of vote to subscribing ministers and subscribing laymen as a check upon their proceedings, which has often been exerted with incalculable advantage in Earl Street.

And again, how indefinite the terul "Gospel Ministers," as only eligible for the committee! And how fruitful of controversy! Many may hereafter be there whom I should not deem such; while the churchman might consider the term applicable only to those who have been episcopally ordained.

It is, however, plain that its projectors began with one test, a Trinitarian one; and that they have followed it by a second, which excludes the co-operation of Catholics; for, says Mr. Phillips," the visible church of Christ at this day includes none but Trinitarian Protestants." p. 14. Alas, for Catholic Ireland, and for every Catholic country, if our efforts of zeal are to be conducted in such a spirit, or if in no case a Catholic agent is to be employed. If I am not misinformed, other tests have been virtually adopted by the Committee, in the execution of the most extraordinary powers lodged with them, of filling up their number to the extent of ten members; not being provided at the general meeting, I presume, with a sufficient number of orthodox names to pro

pose. However this may be, I am not surprised that those who could refuse to give, in the lowest sense, the name of a Christian writer to Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, whose laborious collection of Testimonies has furnished materials to every Christian apologist, have also excluded Pascal and Fenelon from "the pale of the visible church;" but making it abundantly evident, that if the B. and F. Bible Society had yielded a single point, test must have followed test, till it became no longer a grand confederacy to spread abroad the word of life, but a petty conclave for the settlement of what is orthodoxy and what is not.

Far be it from me to say that the B. and F. Bible Society is immaculate-that its Committee have never acted in error, nor committed a fault; they are men of common infirmities with ourselves, and of One only can it be said, "HIS WORK IS PERFECT." Like individuals, they have often had to gather wisdom from much painful and bitter experience. Their confidence has sometimes been abused, or the laws of the Society misunderstood and misinterpreted by those in correspondence with them, and, perhaps in some instances, the actings of their zeal have been hasty and indiscreet; but I believe it will be found that they have become more cautious and circumspect, and that they have from time to time adopted various resolutions to guard the laws of the Society, and the purity of its versions, more sacredly.

There can be no objection to the statement of the strongest facts, let them only be stated fairly, and with candour,-the charge and the defence-the case in all its circumstances: but surely it is little consistent with Christian charity, or common honesty, to search the records of ten, twelve, or fifteen years, for charges, and to reiterate them, as though no explanation had been offered-no answer given!

In the proceedings at Exeter-hall, on the 7th December last, the cases of the Danish Testament, the Turkish Testament, the Strasburg Bible, and the Lausanne Bible, are again referred to, as matters of painful charge, against the B. and F. Bible Society; though official statements have long since been given, and, to my mind, most ample and satisfactory.

Thus, with respect to the Danish Testament, Mr. Platt, in his account of the Society's versions, has assured us, that it was not printed at the expense, or under the direction of the London Committee; that

they had no control over it; and, whatever may have been its bad renderings, that they had nothing to do with it.-Sec page 34, Mr. Platt's Reply to the Quarterly Review.

With respect to the Turkish Testament, Mr. Platt has also told us that "not more than 100 copies had been circulated, if so many, when notice of some errors was received; that the circulation was immediately suspended, and the text revised; and that of the errata, forty-nine in number, there was not one that appeared directly to affect any point of faith or practice." See page 23. What could the committee do more?

The Strasburg Bible requires a rather larger statement. Mr. Melvill has said that "it was published at the expense of the Society, and that many thousands were circulated before the edition was recalled;" but he is incorrect, and the assertion is calculated to make a most erroneous impression. From the statement of facts published by the Committee on this particular case, I find that it was never recalled, being an edition from Luther's version, and therefore unexceptionable; and next, that the Committee did not undertake the expense, or do more than vote two grants in aid of the edition.

66

In 1815, the Committee voted £300; and in 1816, £200 more, on condition of a society being formed at Strasburg, on the same principles as their own ;” and a distinct assurance was received, “that all the Bibles circulated by that society should be without any note or comment whatever." This was one of its rules. I understand these grants to have been made in furtherance of the general objects of that society; for it was twelve months after the latter grant of 1816 that the proposal was received of their edition of the Scriptures, "without alteration, addition, or com ment," which was not completed till the year 1819, and in the interval they were occupied in distributing various copies of the Scriptures, to a considerable extent, both in French and German.

Of the Strasburg edition there were 10,000 Bibles and 2,000 Testaments printed in 8vo., which, at the low selling price of three francs the Bible, and 75 centimes the Testament, must have cost £1,260; and, even deducting some grants after wards made by the London Committee from that edition of 1000 Bibles and 500 Testaments to various objects, the expense to the Strasburg society would still be £1,135, towards which the London Committee contributed £400, upon the dis

tinct understanding that it should be printed "without alteration, addition, or comment," of Luther's version.

If the Strasburg society had done nothing more than this, they would have deserved the thanks of the Christian world; but, unhappily, they printed a preface of the same size, to be bound up, or otherwise, at the option of the purchaser, not only without the sanction, but without the knowledge, of the Committee in London. I am not the person to justify the sentiments of that preface; it is enough that there was any preface; but what, I ask, could the Committee do in such a case, when its confidence was thus abused, but remonstrate? They could not recal their grant; and it appears, that from the first intimation they received of the fact, they did remonstrate, nor ever ceased to remonstrate, until such preface was not only separated from the Bible, but taken from the Strasburg Repository, and the expense of printing it refunded to the society there: and I feel thankful to them for their unceasing efforts upon the occasion.

And, finally, with respect to the Lausanne Bible,-I find, from the published minutes of the Committee in that case, that it was taken up at the strong recommendation of Mr. H. Drummond, because, as he said, "it would give to Christian ministers an excuse to get rid of the Arian version of their churches, without any noise, and prevent the further distribution of that wicked book." It cost from £1,500 to £1,700 for an edition of 10,000 4to. Bibles; and the London Committee voted £750 towards it, on the express condition that it should be printed either from Martin's or Ostervald's version, and under a promise to fulfil this condition of the grant, and to secure an edition of the word of God in as pure a state as possible, without any human additions." This version, when completed, was found to have some exceptionable renderings; yet Mr. Platt has stated, "that no sufficient proof has been brought fairly to impeach the general character of the version;" and Dr. M'Bride, of Oxford, adds, "that a great majority of the variations from the edition of 1744 have no other object than to improve the style; that the editors hare evidently no sinister intentions, and appear to be perfectly orthodox.”

But the principal objection to this edition, and that no doubt a serious one, is that it contains some short explanatory notes in the margin; they are about forty

in number, sometimes of not half a dozen words, and wholly unimportant, so far as I have gone through them; but still a single note was altogether at variance with the stipulations of the London Committee. Yet whether we regard it as an abuse of the confidence reposed, or a misinterpretation of the rule of the society, which was pleaded at the time, by a reference to the marginal readings in our own Bible: still what could the Committee do, upon learning the facts of the case, but complain and remonstrate, which it did to the utmost. The reply of Professor Lerade on the occasion, acknowledging his error, and expressing his regret, is touching in the extreme; and it is evident, so far as the London Committee are concerned, that instead of acting in a Socinian spirit, the version was expressly undertaken to serve the cause of orthodoxy.

Besides these specific charges, however, the advocates of the new society advance others of a most sweeping character, wholly unsupported by proof. Mr. Melvill asserts, that "the B. and F. Bible Society has been the nurse of Neology (p. 21); and Mr. Haldane adds, "that Bible Societies on the continent have become synonymous with confederacies of Neologians, Arians, and Socinians." The best reply to such monstrous charges may be given in the words of Mr. Platt, at the same meeting: "that it must be known to every person at all acquainted with the continent of Europe, that there has been a considerable revival of deep religious feeling among the Protestants in some parts of that continent;" for to what as the means can it be mainly attributed, but to the labours of this much-abused Bible Society, and to its large circulation of the Scriptures? It is notorious that Neology had risen to its height before the existence of the B. and F. Bible Society; that Neology has received its check, and better principles begin to prevail, wherever the B. and F. Bible Society extends its operations-→ whose labours are the hope and the delight of the pious in every part of the world.

The only proof attempted to be given of these extravagant charges as offered by Mr. Platt, is holding up to view, after the lapse of ten years, some inconsistencies and worldly compliances on the part of his late hospitable friend and host Professor Lerade, "who received him into his house with open arms," and of whom he had told us, in 1822, "that he was the very life of the Lausanne Bible Society." I am no frequenter of the theatre; I do not