cidate my own remarks, by citing the following extract from the Hibernian Bible Society's paper, as occasioned by a recent schism. The principle in both cases is identical:-" Should the exclusive principle be adopted, a multitude of questions would immediately offer themselves, in the course of conducting the society's business, to which the committee could find no answer in the word of God. For example; if it be unlawful to admit persons who are not really Christians to the right of membership in the society, is it lawful to consult with such, and receive their advice and assistance in conducting its various operations; such as translating the Scriptures, correcting printed editions of them, or even publishing and circulating them? Is it lawful to receive money from such persons? Is it lawful to permit them to vote in the election of the conductors of the society? If it be unlawful to unite with them in purchasing and circulating the Bible, might it not be made a question whether it be lawful to unite with them in carrying into effect any command of the Bible; such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or caring for the sick? In short, the committee see no means of determining how far such a principle might carry them. They apprehend it would tend to divide men interminably; and erect insuperable barriers around each division and subdivision, which would effectually prevent the diffusion of the Truth, and put a stop to every united work of benevolence. They are inclined, therefore, to think that the principle of Scripture on this matter is, that Christians should unite with every man in every good work, so far as they can without compromising truth or aiding in the diffusion of error."-Trying a similar principle by its operation upon the civil or inferior departments of life, I wish to know whether, for example, I am to issue, I speak in all seriousness, a promissory note in its customary form, when we know not

what a day may bring forth; and by so doing expose myself to reproof as one presuming upon many days to come; or am I to write, "I promise to pay, if the Lord will, two months after date, the sum of £500 to A. B., Esq., or order, &c.?" Am I to advertise property in the usual manner; or must I, on pain of being otherwise deemed reckless of the providential government of the world, direct my agent to advertise in the Times and Morning Herald, "To be sold by auction, on the 24th of October next, if the Lord will, all that estate called C, consisting of 3550 acres or thereabouts, &c.?" I protest, sir, against the suspicion of putting these illustrations, in order to court a smile or to make ridicule the test of truth, much less to profane any scriptural allusion. I adduce them only as fair elucidations of the question in discussion. It shall be allowed that, on the merely verbal scheme of Christianity, it is tempting Providence to promise what a dying creature, like man, will do with his money at the end of sixty days, or to engage to sell either a square inch or a thousand acres of land at the termination of seven months. Yet these things are done, and without express reference to the uncertainty of all human things.

If we return from affairs of common life to higher, and to the highest, concerns of man, the verbalist must also tell where we must then stop. Is every circular of five lines, appointing meetings of committees for religious societies, to include a DEO VOLENTE? Is a subscriber or donor to give a cheque to the secretary upon his banker, interlining the engrained blank with "by the Lord's permission?" And must the receipt be so worded as on its scite to introduce also the Divine name? There is no end, sir, to such questions; and I only say, that if the rule of the verbalists is good for any thing, they are bound to use it invariably; and not merely upon paper, but orally; so that I must, on their sys

tem, tell my gardener this fine vernal morning to sow the annuals, but not without prefacing the direction with the language of religion. I am reminded by this very circumstance, that there are gardeners in my own neighbourhood who gravely prefer sowing their flower seeds in Passion Week! And what does it concur in proving but the general principle attempted to be explained in this address: even the universal disposition of mankind to be devotional in words and manual performances. Were this confined to the superstitious and to the acknowledged patrons of formality, this paper had not been written. But I see the world creeping into sacred enclosures under forms once peculiar to itself, and it is high time to sound in the ears of ALL parties, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Alas! how many of the Spanish seaman on board the SALVADOR DEL MUNDO, and who, in the melancholy depths of their selfrighteous ignorance, felicitated themselves on belonging to a ship thus consecrated; how many knew more of the Saviour than they saw in a crucifix nailed to the mast, or in the rude sculpture fixed below the bowsprit! The mantling smile of some incredulous reader may possibly be repressed by the recollection, that thousands and tens of thousands of sailors, in our own enlightened country, are alarmed at the thought of steering out of port on a Friday; and are equally afraid of putting to sea in a new ship, before they have hammered a horse-shoe, the crucifix of the Protestant mariner, to the mast. I have seen this palladium in that triumph of modern science, a steam-packet. The heresy of verbal Christianity, like many other aberrations from its spirit and influence, may be traced, among other causes, to a forgetfulness of the distinction between a scrupulous and a tender conscience. The former of these is, very often, severe in the details and minor parts of a system; and, at the same moment, loose and

irregular in regard to the higher and more important operations of the very principle of which it supposes itself to be in full possession. Those of your readers who have at hand the earlier volumes of your work, I would earnestly recommend to study the expressions of a Self-observer in June, 1806 (pp. 341-348), as the most vivid and realizing illustration of my general subject. It was written, as I well know, by one of the most sagacious, consistent, and laboriously benevolent Christians of his day, the late Mr. Henry Thornton. "She made a free use of that species of pious phraseology which, though it usually indicates a devout mind, and is a recommendation in some circles, excites prejudice in others; and has obtained in the world, and even among religious persons of a fastidious kind, the unfavourable name of cant. My aunt had acquired few She also lived in a narrow circle; and I am persuaded that her too frequent repetition of the same pious expressions arose not so much from any peculiarity in her religion, as from the general poverty of her mind. She was well grounded in the great doctrines of Christianity, but she could speak of these only after one manner; and she was accustomed to consider every deviation from her own form of words as implying an imperfect knowledge of the language of Zion,' and a want of that full acquaintance with the truth' which she herself possessed *.”

ideas.

Let the reader examine the whole of the context, and he will discern that, at the end of six-and-twenty years, the nominally religious world may gather wisdom from a neglected, but not forgotten, monitor of a preceding generation. I have no doubt but that your then living and revered correspondent brought himself with much reluctance to use the word cant. But he well fortifies his introduction of it; and ex

The reader will be aware that the Self-observer writes in an assumed character, and not as describing the actual history of his connexions.

plains in what manner even Christians of a sensitive and shrinking character can employ one of the world's ever ready and effective weapons. And here I retire from the field. The party whom I have ventured to advise and caution, are too likely, I fear, from the unperceived influence of the very habit I have endeavoured to dissect, to misconstrue my motives. They may talk of " the man with the paper mask." Such is certainly worn on the present occasion; but a vizor, whether of iron or pasteboard, may conceal the features of a friend, even when he adopts the signature of

SCRUTINEER *

* It was not without caution that we have inserted the foregoing paper, lest its tendency should be misrepresented, for we cannot think it can be honestly mistaken. Our Reverend correspondent was addressing us as above, from the calm retreat of a country village, at the very moment when we were penning, in the notice of Public Affairs in our last Number, some remarks upon religious ostentation, which were meant in part to bear upon this very subject. It may not be amiss if we endeavour briefly to follow it up to its source.

In the fourth chapter of the Epistle of St. James we read the following solemn injunction: "Go to, ye that say To-day, or to-morrow, we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy, and sell, and get gain; whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live and do this or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings; all such rejoicing is evil." The intention of this passage is clearly to check a confident and vain-glorious spirit, and to inculcate a constant sense of our frailty and dependence upon God. In him we live, and move, and have our being; our life and death are in his hands, and not a hair of our heads fall to the ground without our heavenly Father's notice. So far there is no difficulty; the scope of the passage is obvious, nor can we enter too intimately and humbly into its spirit.

But then comes the question as to the particular formula of expression here prescribed, "If the Lord will." Does our obedience to the injunction require the literal use of it by word or writing on every occasion; or if not, on what occasions is it befitting? That it is necessary to be verbally used on every occasion no one,

we presume, will assert; certain at least it is, that none of those very persons who have of late employed it in so marked a manner in advertisements and other public announcements, would say that they use this specific phrase every time they speak, which they must do if they conthe interval between the speech and the strue the precept literally, even though action were but a fraction of a second; for that fraction is as much in the ordering of God, and beyond the controul of man, as a thousand years. In fact, there could be no such thing as a 66 yea, yea, or nay, nay," if this rule were thus verbally construed. "Will you reach me that inkstand? Yes." "Will you read me that psalm? Yes." "Will you walk with me? No." In such cases to interpose this solemn parenthesis would not only be ill-judged, but impossible. There is therefore, of necessity, some limit; for the text cannot be construed in the literal manner in which the Society of Friends take certain other injunctions, without defeating its object by rendering it incapable of application.

What then is this limit? Why, evidently that we should always mentally cherish a feeling of the uncertainty of life and our dependence upon him in whom are its issues, and also verbally express it, where the expression may bring glory to God, or benefit our fellow-creature, or give proper vent to the overflowings of humility. Such has ever been the received exposition of the passage." Among Christians," says Bishop Sanderson, "who acknowledge God's providence to rule in all things, and to dispose of all actions and events it is needless in every speech concerning a future contingency to express this clause, if the Lord will, because we readily conceive it as a clause which either is, or should be, understood in every such speech, as the Apostle requires." A score of other annotators make nearly the same remark; but no where is the sentiment more simply and satisfactorily expressed than by the pious Matthew Henry; " Ye ought to say it in your hearts at all times, and with your tongues upon proper occasions." What those occasions are must be a matter of individual judgment, as they arise; but well does Henry add, that " it must not be said in a flighty, formal, or customary way." We shall not allude to those instances in which this solemn expression is used "flightily;" but we must remind our readers of the danger of its being employed in a manner "formal and customary," as would soon be the case if all charity sermons, meetings of societies, committees, and announcements of secular business, were as a general rule to be thus solemnly prefaced. And besides formality and custom, we should dread also a mixture of ostentation; which is the very sin which St. James is guarding

us against in the passage; "Ye rejoice in your boastings." Well does Matthew Henry, in commenting upon our Lord's words, "Do not sound a trumpet before thee," remark: "Vain-glory is a subtle sin, and insinuates itself into all we do, ere we are aware;" and this being the case, it is just as possible that "boasting" may shew itself in spiritual ostentation as in worldly self-dependence. St. James's remark in the last verse above quoted, about "rejoicing in boasting," is a key to the whole passage; his object is to inculcate the contrary feeling to this boastful rejoicing, and the parenthetical form of acknowledgment which he introduces, is only by way of contrast with the spirit of self-dependence which he condemns.

Among those who have of late been conspicuous in introducing or urging this frequent use of the words "if the Lord will" in public announcements, there are, or may be, some who are members of the legislature, as was Mr. Thornton above alluded to. Now we would ask, Why do you not in the house of commons preface every motion, every speech, every intention of presenting a petition with these precise words? The answer would probably be one of these, Because I do not judge it necessary; or, Because it might appear ostentatious; or, Because it would seem hypocritical; or, Because it would only be casting pearls before swine, and causing profane merriment; or, Because I am too cowardly to act up to my conscience and knowledge of what is right. Let us apply these several reasons generally.

Is it said then, in the first place, that this express declaration is not judged in the parliamentary case always necessary; that is, that the particular circumstances do not require it as a Christian duty? It is then admitted that there may be occasions, even important occasions, when the mere form of words is not requisite, provided the heart be rightly affected. Why then is a man censured by one of our scrupulous friends for saying "I intend to be at Exeter Hall next month," and not verbally adding "if the Lord will." What says St. Paul himself? "Whenever I take my journey into Spain I will come to you." Did the Apostle mean this in "boasting," or was the occasion less important or less religious than many of those which are now by certain persons considered necessary to be distinguished in advertisements and newspapers, with the interjected quotation. Nay, further, St. Paul writing from Greece, goes on to describe a perilous journey which he proposed making to Jerusalem, which when accomplished he speaks of going to Rome, and thence to Spain, and all this with "I will," without once adding "if the Lord will." But did he the less feel his dependence and the frailty of human life? or do those feel it the less who do not on every occasion, particularly in matters of

customary business, use this particular form of words? Few Christians probably in so serious a matter as a long and toilsome journey, exposed to all the perils which the Apostle elsewhere so feelingly describes, would have omitted to add an express acknowledgment of their dependence upon the providence of their Heavenly Father; yet St. Paul himself did not verbally do it; and there are hundreds of similar passages in Scripture, from which we may safely infer that a man is not to be christianized for using, or unchristianized for not using, this or any other particular expression on all occasions. If St. James's rule were to be applied as some are now applying it, St. Paul himself would be unchristianized.

But the second supposed plea was, that it might appear ostentatious to preface a parliamentary motion with this scriptural quotation. And may it not appear equally ostentatious in some other cases? Might not a society, which published conspicuously all its announcements on the walls and in the newspapers in a form so peculiarly calculated to excite attention and cause remark, be suspected of wishing to appear more spiritual than other societies which did not use this scriptural formula? The suspicion might not be just; far from it; but then neither might the suspicion be just on the other side, of boasting and self-dependence. The first society might not be really ostentatious, and the other might fear the appearance of ostentation, though composed of persons as spiritually minded as their neighbours.

least be honest: and, as we have written on the one side, we will now, in conclusion, add what occurs to us on the other; which is, that if a few persons have, through a mistaken construction of a passage of Scripture, been led to adopt this phraseology in some cases in which, on thewhole, it had better have been mental than published at the corners of the streets, on walls, and in newspapers, there are thousands of persons making high pretensions to religion who shrink from the offence of the cross of Christ, and, far from erring on the side of a scrupulous conscience, are afraid of writing or uttering any word by which men may take knowledge that they have been with Jesus. There are even clergymen whose whole life is thus spent in striving to keep fair with all parties; and who practise every ignominious expedient to prevent its being thought that they symbolize too closely with those whom the world chooses to scorn. We are speaking not of such as are ignorant of the character of true religion, but of those who know it abundantly well, and can preach on it very fluently; but who shun as the leprosy whatever would too closely identify them with the faithful followers of Christ. Oh, if these men only knew how contemptible they appear in the eyes of the very persons they seek to conciliate, how greatly would their self-love be wounded. They will make a clap-trap speech at a Bible-Society meeting where all is sunshine, but will spring across the room at a visitation dinner to avoid the salutation of a friend or neighbour who might be so indecorous as to remind them of their religious adventure. Unlike the Psalmist who would not know a wicked person, these borderers will not know a righteous one, if an unrighteous one who is higher in rank, or whom they wish to court, be present. All this is as common as it is miserably mean and despicable, to say nothing of its being utterly unchristian. Why may there not be a strict, honest, and manly bearing in these matters; neither cloking our religion nor desecrating it; boldly taking up our cross, God being our helper, and following Christ; but attaching no value to a few shibboleths, as if religion were a mere matter of phrases; and that even pride, self-seeking, backbiting, and falsehood, were no crimes if they pretend to be committed under the disguise of peculiar zeal and spirituality.

The issue of the whole is this, that whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we are to do all to the glory of God. The precise way in which this paramount and all-pervading object is to be effected must be left to the judgment of a tender conscience and a scripturally enlightened understanding, under the ever-implored guidance of the Holy Spirit. This habitual self-renunciation, with a constant willingness to bear the offence of the Gospel, would probably lead the Christian

He

to a far greater degree of faithfulness and explicitness than is customary even among those who are in reality sincere disciples of Christ; but as to the exact mode of operation in any given particular, that is a matter of detail not to be settled by general rules, and it is not for Christians to judge each other in such matters. that complies with a certain unessential form, if he does it conscientiously, to the Lord he does it; he that complies not, having a conscience equally tender but under a different view of the bearing of the scriptural requirement, to the Lord he does it not; and why, then, is his li berty judged of another man? The Christian never purposes any thing, or plans any thing, but with the habitual feeling that his life is a vapour, that all human affairs, so far as man's apprehension is concerned, are uncertain and contingent; and as this is always in his heart it will be often on his lip, and might, perhaps, be more often so if his spirit were duly vigilant; but God looks to the inward man, and not to mere forms of words, so that it would be a most unjust and uncharitable inference to judge of the degree of faith and prayer that accompanied any action by so uncertain a test as the phraseology in which it was announced. We have thought these remarks necessary, both lest the tenor of our correspondent's communication should be misunderstood, and also to guard religious persons from being seduced against their deliberate judgment into ill-judged peculiarities, and to induce them to strive to possess a scripturally enlightened and truly tender, and not a merely scrupulous, conscience.

ON THE STUDY OF HEATHEN

CLASSICS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. WHEN I read R. A.'s letter in your last Number, I took up my pen to reply to the extraordinary statement, that not merely the mind and imagination deserve culture, but that it may be lawfully sought at the expense of the morals; but upon reconsideration I restrain myself, first, because I cannot believe that R. A. really meant any thing so exceptionable; and secondly, because side by side with his paper is my own the Westminster Latin-Play, which is a practical answer to his argument, that no evil arises from the careless introduction of heathen writers into our schools and families.

on

A PARENT,