ter into the joy of thy Lord: and moreover, that you may be able to say boldly, Lord, thou gavest me five talents, behold I have gained five other talents. "The pope replied, That must be my care: But do you ask something for yourself. Then, rejoined Wesselus, I beg you to give me out of the Vatican library a Greek and a Hebrew Bible. You shall have them, said Sixtus: But, foolish man, why don't you ask for a bishopric, of something of that sort? For the best of reasons, said Wesselus, because I do not want such things. "The pious student cannot fail to be interested in this account of a very eminent Christian, so very little known." To the Editor of the Christian Observer. AMONG the MSS. brought by the Rev. Dr. Buchanan from India are two MS. copies of the New Testament in Hebrew: one containing the whole of the New Testament, excepting the Revelation of St. John; another having the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians, in large quarto. This last has the book wanting in the former; so that the entire text of the New Testament in Hebrew is furnished by this oriental collection. It is a circumstance which will no doubt promote the views and interests of the societies formed for spreading the knowledge: of Christianity among the Jews, that at the very time when such great and laudable exertions are making towards the conversion of this people, the means and instruments of advancing the work should be daily coming forward, as if moved by the secret hand of Providence to concur in bringing into the fold of the Christian church the long-lost sheep of the house of Isruel! The want of an accurate Hebrew translation of the New Testament has been hitherto much deplored, not only in England, but in other countries of Christendom where at tempts to convert the Jews have at different times been made. It is taken for granted, therefore, that such a work, whenever it shall be effected, will be regarded as a most essential preparatory measure. The Romish church never put the New Testament into the hands of their proselytes in the sacred tongue; and their attempts in regard of the Jews were, perhaps on this account, without success, not only in Europe, but in Asia. There are already extant in print some Hebrew translations of the whole and of parts of the New Testa→ ment; but they are much too incorrect and imperfect to convey to the Jews an accurate knowledge of the Christian Scriptures. It is therefore important that we should avail ourselves of every new resource, whereby we may be enabled to produce a translation more just and acceptable. The manuscripts mentioned above, as forming a part of the Buchanan collection, were obtained from the Black Jews, and were found deposited in the chest of one of their synagogues at Cochin: that containing all the books except one of the New Testament, is written in the Jerusalem hand, and a transcript of it is now making from the original into the square or sacred character, at Dr. Buchanan's expense. The text has already been sufficiently examined to ascertain that it is an oriental translation, wholly independent of, and distinct from, those Hebrew versions which are known in Europe. It has numerous Syraisms, which declare that the translator had at least some assistance from the Syriac text, and some Rabbinical words and constructions; which shew how very arduous a work it is to produce an exact Hebrew translation. The dialect of the Old Testament, the Syriac text of the New Testament, and the Rabbinical language, appear to have rendered their combined assistance on this occasion. The chapters and verses are numbered after the Earopean manner. The quotations from the Old Testament do not literally follow the Hebrew; but are translations from the Greek, the Syriac, or whatever other copy this version was made from ;-a point which at present it is difficult to ascertain. This manuscript has some peculiar readings; and, whatever their authority may be, they at least shew in what manner the Eastern Jews have understood particular texts of Scripture. I am, Sir, yours respectfully, T. Y. Cambridge, July 1, 1810. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. ADMITTING, as I most readily do, the arguments adduced by your correspondents S. H. and W. H., against the custom of saying "Not at home," though actually at home; permit me to call your attention to a grievance, which has in part produced the evil complained of, and which certainly demands both consideration and redress. There are too many persons, who, freed from the obligation of labour ing for their daily bread, make no other use of their leisure but to consume that of others. Perfectly insensible to the value of the commodity, of which they so wantonly deprive their neighbours, they go from house to house, and plunder every body, whom they find at home, of what many value more than they do their money. Now, sir, I beg to inquire, what are the bars and bolts we may oppose against such thieves? Is there no method of civilly giving them to understand, that we are desirous of making some use of the few hours which the necessary engagements of life leave us to call our own? Or must we hire a lodging, if we wish to have a morning to ourselves; and quit our more convenient dwelling, because otherwise we must be at home to every visitor? I assure you, sir, this is a matter of real importance; and I have long wondered that the more considerate part of society have not adopted some regulation which would at once protect the interests of truth and of time. We have, as a nation, been too prone to adopt foreign fashions;in the present instance, however, there is one which might perhaps be adopted with advantage. On the continent, morning visits are never made, because their mornings are necessarily short, as they dine early; but this leaves the afternoons open to that kind of short visits which we make in the forenoon. Many years ago I resided for some time in the neighbourhood of France. Our servant after dinner regularly made this inquiry," Les dames, sont-elles visibles aujourd'hui ?" meaning, did we choose to see company? According to our reply he gave the answer to every comer, who perfectly understood by "Madame n'est pas visible," that we chose to be alone: and was Ia servant, I should make no scruple, if ordered to say my master or mistress was not at home when they really were so, to alter the phrase, and say, they did not see company that day; which might satisfy any one who had no real business; and those who have, ought to be admitted. I knew a servant who told his master he could not tell his visitors he was out when he was at home. His master, who valued him, knowing he acted upon principle, replied, "Say what you will, only keep people out when I do not wish to let them in." He did so, and succeeded in pleasing his master and affronting nobody. I hope, sir, my remonstrance will not lie on the table of your numerous correspondents, unnoticed and unanswered. But it will not be sufficient to talk, or even to write, about it, unless some efficient measures are entered into by persons of some influence, who will unite to give the tone to others. It ought to be considered, that those who really feel the force of the arguments used by your correspondents against the practice of falsely saying they are not at home, are the very persons who secretly sigh over the hours To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE Christian Observer being, I apprehend, not unfavourable to candid discussion, and therefore disposed occasionally to allow a hearing on both sides of a question, no apology, I trust, is necessary for offering a few remarks, should you think them worthy of insertion, upon two papers in your number for May respecting the custom of saying "Not at home." In order to form an impartial judgment whether the use of these words be inconsistent with truth, or have a tendency to generate a disregard to it; not merely their literal sense, but that in which they are generally received, as well as the principle on which their adoption is founded, must be adverted to. This is a consideration too obvious to have required my noticing, did it not appear to be somewhat too hastily dismissed, if not quite overlooked, by both your correspondents. Two ladies, let it be supposed, are desirous of keeping up their mutual acquaintance; neither of them, however, possessing the inclination, possibly not time or opportunity, for cultivating it further by frequent interviews; their intentions, if translated into language, would be to this effect:-"We will call upon one another once or twice in the year. I may very likely be at home when my servant denies me to you: you, of course, are at liberty to give the same order when I return your visit. We agree, then, neither to be surprised or offended whenever this may happen; and on these terms, which will authorize our speaking whenever we meet, at the aware that I saw her, would consider this denial, instead of being generally exclusive, to be directed agamst her in particular; but I should not have any objection to her knowing that I was at home. If, for instance, I had happened, while her carriage was stopping at mydoor, to have been standing with my back to the window, or from any other circumstance had reason to believe she had seen me, I should not on this account think myself obliged to admit her; and the next time we met, it would be without any confusion on my part, or offence on hers. My reason, then, for not occupying so conspicuous a post would be principally this: not from the fear lest I should be known to be at home, but lest I should appear to retuse admittance in consequence of a previous inspection of my visitor." To shew that I have not selected a very impudent or a very fashionable female to make this answer, I would appeal to the experience of any of your readers, who have chanced to call upon a lady during the time that her carriage was standing before her door, and who, therefore, had good reason to presume that she was not from home: have they, upon experiencing a denial, felt authorized from this presumption to repeat their inquiries, and to persist in requiring admittance? Have they not, perhaps, during this interval, been wit nesses of the successive visits and denials of others at the same door? Now, Mr. Editor, it strikes me that this lady's fearless retention of her carriage under her windows, taken in conjunction with this unobtrusive behaviour of her visitors on such an occasion, is, with the limitation I have above proposed, much the same with her standing all this time at her window; it is the same, I mean, with respect to any deception designed on her part, or sustained on theirs. Your correspondent S. H. represents a cross-examination of the servant, and consequently a repetition of the denial by him, as a circumstance frequently occurring; and thence takes occasion to shew how powerfully such a custom must operate in rendering him callous to the distinctions between truth and falsehood on other occasions. Here I think S. H. is mistaken in point of fact. I believe such a question as this, "But is not your master really at home?" to be very unusual in the course of morning visiting. It may indeed be asked by an intimate friend, who is in the habit of being always admitted, supposing him not to be personally known to the servant; but in this case, the denial will of course not be persisted m. I am at a loss therefore to conceive what description of visitors would attempt this forcible mode of entry, except those who are unacquainted with the meaning of the common form of exclusion, or those who disregard it, from their presuming upon a greater degree of intimacy than they actually possess. With respect to the remaining classes of visitors, the sound of "Not at home" is in general too satisfactory to prompt them to further researches after truth; and they depart well pleased to have fulfilled the duties of the morning by means of their paper representatives, Among those families, who, being inhabitants of the country, make only occasional visits to the metropolis, there are some, who, upon conscientious principies not availing themselves of the common form of denial, allow all that call проп them to be admitted. Their own stay being very limited, they do not find any great, or overbearing, inconvenience resulting from this practice. The case, however, is by no means the same with those who, on the like grounds disapproving of the custom in question, reside there the greater part of the year. Such persons, especially if, owing to their rank in life or other causes, their circle of acquaintance be extensive, find themselves under the necessity of adopting a practice somewhat different: when, unwilling to be subject to intrusion, they direct their servants to say they are " engaged." Now, besides that this term, from its singularity, must be frequently unintelligible, I doubt whether, upon strict examination, it will be found to contain more truth than the common phrase. If the latter be objected to because it may dismiss the visitor under a false impression-thinking that you are from home, when you are not--the former also may, and very often must, mislead him as to truth-the lady of the house may chance, when the rap is heard at her door, to be drawing a pattern, and the gentleman reading the newspaper; or if they be early folks, they may, according to the modern hours of morning visiting, be both sitting after dinner, doing nothing. But it is far from my intention, though of opinion this term is not without its faults, to blame, or wish it aboJished: on the contrary, I never hear it but with a desire of being better reconciled to its use ;--a prejudice in its favour, which I can attribute only to its being adopted by some whom I have reason to believe are uniformly engaged in the best pursuits, the service of their Maker and their fellow-creatures. My principal reason for noticing it was to shew, that some obstacle to admission seems necessary; and that to be visible to all comers, is a system not generally practicable. With respect to the practical effects on the minds of servants, which your correspondent considers as almost necessarily produced by a compliance with this custom, I much doubt whether they exist, at least in the degree which he would intimate. As far as I have been enabled to judge from my own experience, or by means of that of others, I have not found that the servants of those houses where it prevails have in general paid less regard to truth on other occasions, or been less actuated by a spirit of integrity in the discharge of duty, than those who, with about the same portion of religious instruction, have, from their residence in the country, been always strangers to its adoption. Should any of your readers have had patience to follow me thus far, by some of them, I fear, these remarks will be viewed with a jealous eye, as appearing to come from one who is determined at all hazards to justify the practice in question: or, at least, is more solicitous to do so than to promote the interests of truth and Christian simplicity. I beg, therefore, to be heard a little further, when, I trust, we shall be found to agree better on the subject before us, than they may at present expect.-It has hitherto been my aim to shew, not that the words under consideration are, in all the ways in which they may be used, unobjectionable; but that, in the general way, they are not fairly chargeable with upholding a system of deception, or with a tendency to produce a spirit of deception in the minds of those most habituated to them.-I have intimated that they may be used in an unjustifiable way. They cer tainly are so when intended merely to deceive; which is the case when they are persisted in. They then, and not till then, in my opinion, become lying words; and I heartily concur with H. S. in his condemnation of them. The very repetition of inquiry by the visitor, I conceive to constitute his right to have the truth told him: he has, in so doing, virtually dissolved the " previous contract" on his part, and he has a right to expect the same conduct of mine. Perhaps he never was a menber of it; but this rather increases than detracts from his claim to the truth. He must then be admitted, though I may be certain of thereby incurring all those protracted suffer ings which an obstinate sitter has it in his power to inflict. "Not at home," therefore, while addressed only to those who, from not repeating their inquiry, may be fairly presumed not to be desirous of ascertaining the truth, or who are perfectly satisfied to think the master or mistress of the house from home when ever they choose to be so considered (a disposition which, as I have ob |