title page. Now, it is an axiom agreed upon by both parties, that the Bible Society is not censurable for any thing which the other Society has condescended to copy; it must, therefore, have been an oversight in Mr. Norris to complain so heavily of this practice, and charge it to so disgraceful an account.' pp. 149-50.

The next series of frivolous and vexatious charges relates to the Translations. Mr. Norris, in the plenitude of his self-sufficiency and ignorance, complains, that the Society multiplies translations unnecessarily, several of the dialects being of the same philological family,'-a remark not less applicable to many of the tongues enumerated Acts ii. 9-11. Of course, the translation of the Bible into the Welsh, Irish, and Gaelic dialects, must be a very supererogatory labour. But it is useless to reason with a man destitute of even common information on the subject on which he presumes to write. Mr. Norris proceeds to charge the Bible Society, with undertaking the Welsh Bible at a time when the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge were preparing as large an edition as could be wanted. Mr. Scholefield shews that Mr. Norris must have known to the contrary of what he here asserts. Mr. Norris affirms, that the Bible Society intended to introduce objectionable improvements into the Irish New Testament. This is shewn to be a pure fabrication. Mr. Norris asserts that the person employed to superintend that edition, was an ignorant fellow, a fanatic of the worst class, who had behaved ill to Dr. Hales, and who knew as little of the Irish language as of Greek or divinity. This infamous aspersion is shewn to be of precisely similar authenticity. Mr. Mc Quige, the person alluded to, was so well known for his critical knowledge of the Irish, that, previously to being employed by the Bible Society, he had been engaged by Trinity College, Dublin, to translate some ancient Irish MSS.; which he performed so much to the satisfaction of the College, as to have offered to him the Professorship of the Irish language. The charge of outrageously offensive conduct to Dr. Hales, is explained by Mr. Mc Quige's son, and turns out to be of a piece with the rest of Mr. Norris's misrepresentations. Mr. Norris reiterates the series of imbecile charges which first appeared in the Christian Remembrancer, relative to the French Bible, with a few additional misstatements of his own. On this subject, we must refer our readers to our notice of Mr. Owen's Letter on the subject, E. R. for Oct. 1822. The Icelandic Testament is represented as having been so corrected and revised, that it broke the hearts' of the worthy Icelanders to see the liberties that had been taken with their Scriptures. The reply to this charge is, that the alterations are stated by Dr. Henderson to be of no great importance; that the edition,

whatever were its faults, was not undertaken by the Bible Society, but by a Society at Fuhnen; and that the second edition, published under Dr. Henderson's superintendence in 1813, is open to no such objection. Mr. Norris s base attack on Leander Van Ess's German Testament founds itself on the complaint, that the second edition follows the Vulgate, giving the more approved renderings in the margin. The Spanish Testament is stated by a Writer in the Christian Remembrancer, to be nearly unintelligible to the Spaniards, to be among the worst translations of the New Testament extant, and to be, like the Society's French Testament, Calvinistic in its rendering. But no proof or authority is adduced in support of this anonymous calumny. Our readers will find some remarks on this subject in our review of Mr. Luccock's Notes on Brazil. (E. R. for Sept. 1821. Vol. XVI. p. 295.) Passing over the attack on Professor Lee, we next come to a droll story copied from the same Christian Remembrancer, aimed at the Serampore Translators, whose establishment, Mr. Norris says, has been very happily designated the spiritual steam-engine ⚫ of the East.' Every syllable of that statement,' says Mr. Ward, is as destitute of truth as the Arabian Nights.' Mr. Norris affirms that the Hindoostanee version of Matt. vii. 1. renders it: Do no justice, that justice be not done to you.' A letter given by Mr. Scholefield from Professor Lee, shews this to be either an ignorant or a wilful misstatement. And thus ends Mr. Norris's evidence of the Society's' versional defects.

Our readers must be sick of this disgusting subject; but, having disposed of the matter of Mr. Norris's charges, we must now say a few words about the spirit in which they are made. Some specimens of his vituperative powers have been given in the preceding pages. The Bible Society Committee, for instance, is charged with dishonesty, extortion, shop-keeping trickery, craft, and falsehood; and to them is elegantly applied the language of Solomon, in reference to their foreign operations," A fool's eyes are in the ends of the earth." The London Missionary Society is charged with knavery; the Serampore Missionaries with imposition and ignorance. The libel on Mr. Mc Quige is but one of a number of personal attacks. Mr. Charles is stigmatised as a renegado clergyman.' Dr. Henderson is reproached with having once moved with his com⚫panion Dr. Paterson in a much less splendid sphere of life, in the Carron Iron works.' Gross as is this contemptible and low-bred attack, it yields in baseness to the imputations cast on the venerable Professor Leander Van Ess and the Rev. Mr. Gossner.

'I know not,' says Mr. Scholefield, in what language to express my as

stonishment at the terms, in which Mr. Norris, a minister of a Protestant Church, characterizes these intrepid and laborious men. He shall speak for himself." Both of them," he says, " Roman Catholic Clergymen, and both signalized by this remarkable trait of character, that continuing to hold offices of trust and emolument under the Church of Rome, and bound by all the solemn vows which that See imposes, they are casting scorn upon its authority, are giving the right hand of fellowship to Protestants, and promoting the wildest fanaticism by every means in their power." p. 176.

After this, such expressions as Calvinistic heresies,' 'Socinian and Presbyterian heresies,' obviously wicked,' 'palpably and malignantly mischievous,' applied to the operations of the Bible Society, process of female demoralization,' &c. &c. appear scarcely to deserve notice. Nor does it seem worth while to animadvert on Mr. Norris's assertion, that the words without note or comment, are in themselves a commentary upon Scripture,' and a commentary of no immaterial import; for, argues this exquisite logician,

it fixes this character upon the word of God-that its doctrines are for the most part of doubtful disputation, and conveyed in terms sufficiently undeterminate to warrant all the anomalies for which it is made responsible; that thus confusedly promulgated by its Divine Author, it has been turned as it were adrift into the world, without an authorised interpreter, or a consistent interpretation, to be tossed to and fro by the varying conceits and perverseness of human opinion, and to be the common document of all sects and persuasions.'

This passage, we say, requires no animadversion; any more. than the declaration, that the word of God circulated, not in its ⚫ original language, but in translations, is necessarily commented on; the version produced being neither more nor less than the 'translator's exposition.' Nor need we do more than simply cite the assertion, that a Persian translation of Mother Bunch would have been quite as highly approved by the King of Persia as Martyn's Persian Testament. But, when Mr. Norris proceeds in so many words to deny that the Bible Society's labours have generally promoted Christianity,' or that there is any tendency in these labours to promote it throughout the world;' when he boldly asks,. How can such a society contribute any thing to the propagation of Christianity?" when he more than insinuates, that the only fruits of the mighty stir which it has been making in every part of the country for upwards of seventeen years,' have been crimes enhanced in guilt, and multiplied in the same degree and proportion ;we are ready to ask, Is this the language of Tom Paine or of Carlile? Can it possibly proceed from a dignitary of a

Protestant Church? It is the distribution of the Bible, of which this infatuated man thus blasphemously speaks. It is on a Society formed for the sole purpose of distributing the holy Scriptures, and which has actually distributed near four millions of copies, that he vents his malignity. And can such a man be even a believer in the Scriptures, leagued as he is with the Papist and the Infidel, in ridiculing and opposing their unrestricted circulation?

We are grieved and pained to notice the concluding paragraph of Mr. Scholefield's Letter.

'And for Mr. Norris,' he says, I take leave of him in your Lordship's presence, with an expression of my cordial willingness to believe, that we both have at heart the same honest desire to promote the welfare of a Church, to whose service we are bound not less by inclination than by the most solemn vows, though, unfortunately, we differ so widely in our estimate of the most suitable means for attaining the same end. May all these unhappy bickerings among us be speedily terminated, "lest Satan should get an advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices."' p. 199.

We readily give Mr. Scholefield credit for the best intentions in penning this paragraph, and we almost envy the tranquillity of temper which it seems to breath. But in what a light does a Christian minister place himself, who, after such disclosures as his Letter contains, can recognise in his opponent a brother minister, actuated by the same honest desire to promote the welfare of the Church? What would an infidel think of such a declaration? Would not he be ready to suspect, that the two parties were, after all, no more sincerely at variance, than two well fee'd advocates, who, after the wordy combat of the bar, meet at night to laugh over the same bottle? There is a spurious candour which becomes the apologist for iniquity, and which is abhorrent from the spirit of the Gospel. We cannot be too patient under personal injuries; and when reviled, it ill becomes a follower of the Lord Jesus to revile again. But the case of a public offender comes under a very different rule. If there ever was a man who knew how to unite the polished courtesies of life with the integrity and independence of the Christian character, it was St. Paul. In addressing the Roman procurator, he scrupled not to pay honour to his official dignity, by styling him" Most noble Festus." But what is his language on another occasion? "O full of all subtlety and "all mischief, thou child of the Devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways "of the Lord?"

Our readers will not misunderstand us as meaning to in

timate, that a difference of opinion on the merits of the Bible Society, could justify a severity of language, or the imputation of improper motives. We speak of the spirit in which the present assault has been made, the utter faithlessness by which it has been characterized, the bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, with all malice, which have been exhibited in the false accusations brought against the Society, the dereliction of integrity which they betray, and, above all, the scarcely concealed infidelity which calls in question the utility of distributing the sacred Scriptures. Putting these together, we say, that every principle of Christianity forbids the compromising courtesy into which Mr. Scholefield has been, with the best intentions, betrayed. Bishop Watson has been often blamed, and not without reason, for his excess of courtesy towards Gibbon. Yet, it is observable that, towards the heathen, the Apostles always maintained a marked courtesy and forbearance: their severest language was reserved for the false teacher and the blind guide. Mr. Scholefield would be shocked and scandalised at a person's charitably ascribing to Mr. Carlile an honest desire' to promote the welfare of his country, though unfortunately he mistook the means. Yet, on comparing the respective proofs of an honest desire' in the two cases, he would find that he has been guilty of scarcely less impropriety. So analogous, to say the least, are the essential traits of conduct and character betrayed in the malignant opposition made to the circulation of the Scriptures, that it may seem to be referrible to the sovereign dispensations of Providence, rather than to any moral difference in the individuals, that Mr. Carlile is not the dignified reviler of the Bible Society, and H. H. Norris the half-starved vender of sedition and blasphemy in Fleet-street.

Art. VII. Observations on the Conduct and Character of Judas Iscariot: in a Letter to the Rev. Mr. James Primrose, by the Rev. John Bonar, one of the Ministers of Perth. A new Edition. 18mo. pp. 54. Edinburgh. 1822.

THE

HE Author of this Tract, which has long been out of print, was one of the ministers of Perth, from 1756 to 1761, when he was cut off in the midst of his usefulness. Dr. Doddridge has recommended it, in his Lectures, as setting the important testimony of the apostate Judas to the innocency of his Master in a most just and beautiful light.' The encomium of such a man will supersede any opinion of ours; nor can we have any hesitation in recommending the Tract to the perusal