to pull down some of the wretched pest-houses of which I have been writing, but to build others at the public expense. The new houses would pay well as a pecuniary speculation, especially if built at present. But suppose they did not, what then? This is an age of considerable self-conceit; it is continually lauding its own wisdom and penetration, but its actual character will be written by an impartial posterity. It has one remarkable feature-the greatest amount of its sympathy seems to be reserved for criminals and sturdy beggars,' and it has done almost nothing for industrious honest men. It deals but feebly with effects, and not at all with causes. It makes splendid hotels at vast expense for criminals in the most airy situations, and with every appliance for the production of comfort. I was told, in a provincial town, that a question was raised between the magistrates and one of the government officials, as to whether the prisoners should have one or two pair of slippers! in addition to all their other comforts. In your last paper it was stated that the most successful specimen of ventilation in the kingdom is in the new Police Office. The workhouses are splendid, well aired buildings. We have great masses of idle men also, called soldiers, kept up with every comfort, at great public expense, during the time of peace. Very little as yet, so far as I know, has been done for the struggling poor and working classes, except to saddle them with a share of all this expense. No, I am wrong. Splendid sepulchres have lately been made to bury them in, all around the city, after they are dead. If the dead could breathe fresh air, the object might be gained; but, meantime, masses of the living are crowded into places little better than sepulchres, and the splendid gardens are reserved for the dead. What is the practical effect of all this, but to place a bounty on idleness and crime? I do not say that the filth of our former prisons should not have been done away -that most of these things should not have been done; but it is clear that the other must no longer be left undone. The other, in fact, should have been done first; and if it is not now done at all, what is it but to say to the labouring population, If ye are hard-working, honest men, little or nothing will be done for you; nay, you will be stifled and starved; but if ye are thoroughly indolent, or tear up (as some do) your floors for firewood, and sell the very doors of your houses for drink, and tear the lath off your walls to make matchesif you are guilty of theft and riot-you shall dwell in a palace with the purest air, and every comfort and convenience?'

"Posterity will characterize this folly as it deserves. Suppose a gardener were to take all the weeds, the docks, nettles, and thistles, of his garden, and place them along the warmest wall, and in the finest soil, and surround them with the richest manure, he would be a fit object of ridicule if he expressed any astonishment at a rank and luxuriant crop of them. And so our empty boasts of intelligence and progress are ludicrous, so long as we merely dabble with the streams ef evil, without dealing with the fountain-nay, so long as we absolutely foment and increase the evil by partial and short-sighted legislation, and then wonder at the fruits of our own folly.

But even suppose something effectual were done thus to dry up the fountain-head of the evil, it still appears that there is a growing want of profitable employment in this country, which, of course, has a tendency to produce pauperism; and, at the same time, it is plain that the multiplication of mere handicraftsmen has no tendency to cure the evil. The evil itself threatens to become very serious. Dr Begg remarks

"It appears from authentic reports, that, whilst the poor's rates of Scotland amounted in 1836 to £171,042, in 1846-7 they amounted to £435,367. During last year they increased by the immense sum of £129,323, or £14,493 more than the whole increase for the previous ten years. They amount now to nearly £5 per cent on the annual value of the real property of the kingdom, and are increasing so rapidly, as to threaten to swallow up, as they have done in some parts of England, the whole property. Meantime, other burdens are heavy, and especially crime, which is also attended with vast expense, is increasing in the same proportion. In 1836, the number of criminals in Scotland was 2,922; in 1847, it was 4,635. And if to all this frightfully increasing local expense be added the disclosures which have

been made by the Financial Association, in regard to the wasteful public expenditure of the country, it will be seen that the middle and industrious classes are being rapidly eaten up both from above and below. A great flight of aristocratic paupers from above, and a growing swarm of idlers and criminals from below, have gradually placed the middle classes between two fires, which equally threaten to consume them."

On the subject of an effectual remedy, the following statements and proposals are made; and when it is remembered that not one half of the arable land in Scotland is cultivated, they are worthy of the most immediate and earnest attention:

"1. It is ruinous in every respect to have men supported in idleness; and it may be laid down as a certain fact, that every human being not lunatic, or bed-rid with age or disease, can do something, more or less, for his own support. No one, therefore, in such circumstances, ought to receive either food or money for nothing, as a general rule. The wholesale distribution of soup is a mere means of manufacturing beggars upon a large scale. The masses of drones basking in a summer day--like plethoric cats round an old maid's parlour fire-round the walls of what is called the charity work-house, but which should be called the assessment idlehouse,' is all so much upon a wrong principle, however wellmeaning. But,

"2. Whilst all must be made to work in return for charity, it will not do to multiply mere ordinary craftsmen. At this stage the real problem of ragged schools, as well as of charity work-houses, comes in. There are already enough of shoemakers, and tailors, and basket-makers. A man only needs two coats or two pairs of shoes in the year for himself. He cannot live upon shoes or clothes; and to send a great crowd of additional hands into the trade, is only to destroy the existing handicraftsmen by a ruinous competition, kept up by public charity. Instead, therefore, of solving the problem, this plan will only complicate it, and ultimately crush down all, without relieving any effectually. But,

3. There are two effectual outlets for our spare labour, to which this formidable objection does not apply, at least with the same force, viz., the supply of two of the chief necessaries of life-food and fuel.

"In regard to food-apart from the vast openings for additional fishermen-so long as we are an importing country, the competition would be chiefly with foreigners. There are immense tracts of waste land, and there is a great surplus of waste labour. The cultivation of the soil was the first employment of man, and is the healthiest employment. The £400,000 of poor's rates-if we must pay it-devoted as a capital for bringing in the waste land of the kingdom, would add vastly to the national wealth; and as there is the distant sound of war, we know not how soon the ports may be closed, and we may be thrown back for food upon our own resources. There would be no great difficulty, if the law of entail were abolished, of finding land enough for the purpose. Every new acre brought into profitable cultivation would be a distinct gain; and the national burdens would be lightened by increasing the shoulders made to bear them. Paupers forced to sustain themselves, and taught to do it, would tire of leaning upon others; and men and women accustomed to the healthy occupations of husbandry might not only become self-sustaining at home, but would make by far the best colonists abroad.

"No doubt it is alleged that much of the spare land in Scotland is poor. But, apart from the consideration that what would be aimed at in the first instance is the growth of the plainest food, it is quite certain that the poorest land on the line of a railway could easily be enriched. There is as much waste manure in all our cities as waste labour. See the barren sands of Craigintinney converted into land worth from £30 to £50 a-year for every acre, by the mere flooding of them with the waste manure of Edinburgh. It is quite certain that as much more is floated at present into the sea and lost, both from Edinburgh and Glasgow, as would enrich like a garden hundreds of thousands of acres of poor land. Let it be either carried out in pipes, or collected in great tanks and carried off by rail, and we should soon make a vast surface of fertile land. Thus the refuse of our cities would be turned into vast sources of national wealth. Besides, why should not the Queen's

Park, the Meadows, and all the crown lands both in England and Scotland, be made available for the production of food? There might be great model farms in every district; the men might dig, drain, trench, plough; the boys, women, &c., be employed in weeding, hoeing, managing the dairy, &c.; many might be hired out to neighbouring farmers; and, in short, instead of the present plan of sinking under a hopeless and ever-increasing pressure of idleness and expense, an effort might be made to turn the spare strength of the kingdom into really profitable channels.

"For, besides the production of food, and the multiplication of a healthy race of country people, it strikes me that in the production of fuel many hands might be profitably employed. In America, a vast population is employed in preparing wood for fuel to the cities. So long as coals cost 10s. and 12s. a ton, it does not appear why peats might not be prepared in great quantities at a much cheaper rate. There are great mosses on the lines of our railways. There is a splendid moss, for example, between Falkirk and Alloa, through which the branch of the Scottish Central passes. It covers, besides, a splendid alluvial soil, which, on the removal of the moss, would come into profitable cultivation. Old men and children could prepare peats for fuel. If they were sold at 6s. a ton, and could be brought to market for 2s. or 2s. 6d., there would be 3s. 6d. or 4s. of profit on each ton; and there is no reason why there should not be covered sheds, or even an artificial drying process, as there is abundant fuel on the spot, so that the operations could be carried on during the whole year. Peats form an admirable and economical fuel, give a powerful heat, do admirably mixed with coal, and keep in a poor man's fire when coals would let it go out."

We are glad to see that the subject is being taken up in certain influential quarters.

GERMAN CRITICISM-DR DAVIDSON'S INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. IN a recent Number we reviewed this work somewhat unfavourably, on grounds which we fully stated. Our contemporary, the United Presbyterian Magazine, with characteristic officiousness, assails our review as incorrect in its statements and as dictated by jealousy and spleen. We think it right to insert, partly for his benefit, a portion of a review of the same work which has since appeared in the London Patriot-the chief newspaper of the denomination with which Dr Davidson is connected. And we do so the more readily, because, apart from all reference to that gentleman, it contains a number of statements and considerations which at the present time are of special importance, and may render spe

cial service:

"With the section on the Gospel of St John Dr Davidson appears to have taken very great pains, especially in the examination of the numerous capricious and heterogeneous objections which German criticism has levelled against it. Yet, it is on this point of the work, we must confess, that we have most painfully felt the misgivings already alluded to. Dr Davidson's refutations, so far as they go, may be pronounced both able and successful. But we deeply regret that they do not go farther. When we have taken as proved all that Dr Davidson argues for, we feel that something more is wanting to make the Gospels what the heart desires to find in themthe infallible guide of our intellect, and the resting-place of our faith. The author seems to have felt that he was writing, not merely for inquirers or believers, but for sceptics and cavillers. And it was, perhaps, unavoidable, that this idea should operate so as to chill the tone and temperature of his work. Still, we cannot but deeply lament this result. In a work which will find its place, and that a high one, in the libraries of hundreds of our youthful ministers, we should have desired a pervading spirit of deep reverence,

piety, and love. We should have liked to see a clear and emphatic warning against that most prevalent vice of German literature, the exaltation, almost deification, of mere learning, apart from the consideration of the judgment, and piety, which alone can render it valuable. A giant's weapon is of use only in the hands of a giant; and we question whether the ponderous erudition of many a German critic, which constitutes his only claim to set up as Sir Oracle,' has not, in fact, overburdened and stunted his judgment-if he ever had any; just as the armour of Saul would have been a useless incumbrance, when the sling and the stone, in the hand of faith, won a speedy triumph. We are not for a moment disparaging learning. The teacher of Divine truth cannot have too much of it, if he has strength and skill to use it; but we do mean to deny that mere learning can fit a man to interpret, criticise, or understand the New Testament. And we should have liked to see this principle clearly enounced, and boldly applied, in a work professing to be an Introduction to the New Testament. Let the sceptical critic be met with learning equal and superior to his own; but let it be clearly made known, that we do not regard him as standing on equal ground with ourselves; that we deem him deficient in the grand essential qualification for forming a right judgment on the character, design, and contents of the New Testament writings; in a word, that we believe the real source of his scepticism to be not objective in the writings, but subjective in his own heart; and, therefore, do not expect that he will be convinced, however often refuted, till he can be persuaded to descend from his fancied elevation, and, enthroning the apostles, instead of himself, in the teacher's chair, to sit down at their feet as a little child.' A candid examination of such difficulties as naturally present themselves to an honest and humble student of the Scriptures, is, of course, perfectly consistent with the truest and most reverent and affectionate faith in them. But it cannot be the duty of the Christian scholar to cool down his own mind to the frigid and suspicious tone of the infidel critic's. Nor ought he to be required to discuss the false or frivolous aspersions cast upon the inspired writers with the same stoical indifference with which they are advanced by the sceptic, as if the genuineness and integrity of a Gospel were a purely literary question, like those of a book of Livy, or a novel of Cervantes. The cool balancing of probabilities, whether or not the men whom we revere and love as our masters in sacred wisdom were a set of blunderers or impostors, affects us, we confess, somewhat as if we witnessed the application of the surgeon's knife to the person of a beloved friend. The operation may be necessary, but it is a painful and revolting necessity. We do not wish to be able to view it with philosophic indifference. We do not desire to feel an atom of sympathy with the mere critic, for whom the Scripture is not a living word, but a dead ancient document, which he dissects and analyzes with the scientific coolness of a surgeon conducting a post-mortem examination.

"At the risk, then, of being thought bigoted. narrowminded, old-fashioned, or what not, we must beg to enter a demur against treating New Testament criticism as a purely literary process. We cannot consent that the Christian should public of letters. We do not see why the most scrutinizing be merged in the scholar, or the kingdom of Christ in the reinquiry into the credentials of Scripture may not be conducted with the same reverence and earnestness with which a man would trace the evidence necessary to rebut a calumny on the character of his father, or to vindicate the purity of his own descent. And the inquiry forced on a thoughtful mind in connexion with this topic is, Will not the absence of this religious and reverent spirit in the German criticism be likely to do immeasurably more harm than all the stores of its learning can compensate?

Calls Moderated.

Barrhead.-Rev. Robert Philip of Ellon, January 11. Kennoway.-Rev. John Lister, South Shields, January 17.

Printed by JOHNSTONE, BALLANTYNE, & Co., 104 High Street; and published by JOHN JOHNSTONE, 15 Princes Street, Edinburgh, and 26 Paternoster Row, London. And sold by the Booksellers throughout the kingdom.

not lead us to enter into the details of this celebrated controversy, or to do more than characterize in the most general terms, the parts respectively played in it by the two great combatants. That in point of accuracy of learning, fidelity in respect to historical representation, conclusiveness of reasoning, in short, all the essential elements of victory, the Archdeacon had immensely the advantage over his opponent, it is scarcely possible for any one to doubt, who peruses the productions on both sides in a spirit of candour and impartiality. In truth, the combatants were not properly on a footing. Priestley, though a man of genius and of varied acquirements, was not possessed of any peculiar qualifications for conducting a controversy on matters connected with ecclesiastical antiquity; and his original work was only a sort of side-piece to the leading drama of his life, thrown off in the midst of other employments, which were more congenial to his taste, and which received much more of his attention. Horsley, on the other hand, came fresh to the task, with the full bent and vigour of his mind directed to the points at issue; and in the subject itself found a theme, which, more perhaps than any other that could be named, admitted of his turning to account his highest gifts and most valuable acquirements; so that his productions here formed by much the greatest literary achievement of his life. He, therefore, easily peers above his rival; while yet it must be admitted-if respect be had to the absolute, rather than the relative value of this portion of his writings-that his own acquaintance with the ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries was but barely adequate to the occasion that on some of the subordinate points, he advanced positions that were partly doubtful and partly indefensible-and that, while he successfully repelled the assailant, he can scarcely be said to have done any thing more: he has settled no question previously involved in doubt, nor thrown any new light on the state of primitive Christianity. At the same time, it is not to be denied, that, entering the field simply as a controversialist, he did not properly undertake to do this, and that what he has done is amply sufficient to secure him a distinguished place among those who, in times of backsliding and rebuke, have nobly contended for the faith once delivered to the saints.

The service rendered to the creed of the Church of England, and to the cause of Christianity itself, by the part which Horsley took in this controversy, brought its due recompense in the way of ecclesiastical promotion. Besides other lucrative appointments, he was raised, in 1788, to the see of St David's, from which, in 1751, he was transferred to the bishopric of Rochester and the deanery of Westminster. A still further promotion awaited him, for, in 1802, he was translated to the see of St Asaph. As a bishop he was reputed, as things went in those days, to be more than usually active in the reformation of abuses, and exemplary in the discharge of his public duties; yet it is painful to think, that there were marked imperfections of a private kind, which must also have formed considerable abate ments to his usefulness-imperfections which drew from Robert Hall the pungent remark, "that in the virtues of private life, Dr Priestley was as much superior to his antagonist, as he was inferior in the correctness of his speculative theology." After a short illness, he died in the October of 1806, in the seventy-third year of his age.

There was evidently a strong predilection in Bishop Horsley's mind for sacred criticism. A considerable portion of the sermons that have been printed from his papers, amounting, with those occasionally published in his lifetime, to upwards of fifty, have the critical and expository character predominant in them. They display a laudable anxiety to have his hearers, even those of the more common order, made acquainted with the meaning of Scripture; and he doubtless contributed not a little to recommend by his example, as in his charges (especially in that admirable one, the first) he most strenuously enforced, the preaching of a full gospel from the pure fountain-head of divine truth, in opposition to the cold moralizing, "the aping of Epicurus," or "the preaching only of Seneca and Socrates," as he fitly terms it, which had so long borne sway in the pulpits of England. The sermons which partake most of this character, are also for the most part the best in the collection, and contain many able expositions of interesting and important passages of the Word of God, characterized by a freshness and vigour of thought, a boldness of illustration, and raciness of style, peculiar to themselves. They all deserve a careful perusal, though, it is necessary to note, they are by no means destitute of questionable and even plainly objectionable matter. Sometimes, as in the sermon on Matt. xvi. 28, an arbitrary interpretation of a text is assumed as the basis of a discourse; and, scattered throughout the sermons, one not unfrequently meets with statements most oracularly made, which rest on no solid foundation, and attempted explanations of what is difficult or peculiar, which seem more like the sportive creations of a vigorous fancy, than the results of a cautious and sober inquiry into the truth of God.

We shall produce a few examples by way of speci men. Thus, in the sermon on 1 John v. 6, he throws out the following explanation of two titles of Carist : -"Son of God is a title that belongs to our Lord in his human character, describing him as that man who became the Son of God by union with the Godhead; as Son of Man, on the contrary, is a title which belongs to the Eternal Word, describing that person of the Godhead who was made man by uniting himself to the man Jesus." What could be conceived more fanciful in itself? And if applied to the various passages where the expressions occur, how utterly would such an explanation defy all consistent and rational interpretation! Again, in the sermons on Mal. iii. 1-2, he most positively affirms, and at length illustrates the point, that in the phrase, "The messenger (angel) of the covenant," there mentioned, the covenant in question is the new covenant in contradistinction to the old-an assumption not peculiar to him, indeed, though seldom so dogmatically affirmed, but still one perfectly gratuitous, and entirely opposed to the connexion; for the persons addressed are represented as desiring and asking for this covenant-angel. But these persons were self-righteous murmurers, complaining of the treatment they were receiving, as not what they were entitled to expect by the covenant they were actually living under; and therefore, in demanding the appearance the covenant-angel, they must be understood to refer to what then existed; or, me properly, the angel of the covenant must be ne representative and ambassador of God in the covenant generally, There are without respect to its being old or new. other things in the same sermons on Malachi which