and in the point they are designed to illustrate, there is greatness, and there is interest. But, if an epic poem be correctly described (and it is the most general description that can be given to it) as "the recital of some illustrious enterprise in a poetical form," or a "poetical recital of great adventures;" we can hardly, without straining, bring the case of Job within the description; and far less can we admit its epic character, if, with the recital of real events, there is understood to be mingled the free introduction of fictitious personages, speeches, and incidents, and the employment of an unreal machinery. Perhaps we shall be nearest the truth, if we do not attempt to give the poem a place, exclusively, under any one of the different species of poetical composition usually enumerated, but consider it as partaking, in some degree, of the distinctive attributes of each. It is dramatic, inasmuch as the parties, the dramatis persona, appear and speak for themselves; and characters are unfolded by the utterance of sentiment and passion. It is epic; inasmuch as character is partly evolved in action; and, by means of interesting incidents, and speeches in the loftiest style of eloquence, pathos and sublimity, truths of the highest order of importance are illustrated and established. It is narrative and didactic; inasmuch as, not merely at the beginning and end, but throughout, it is a relation of what was actually done and said; every address being introduced in the narrative style of "Job, or Eliphaz, or Zophar, or Bildad, or Elihu, answered and said;" and those of Jehovah himself in the same manner. In whatever department, however, we choose to class the poem, all must be agreed, who are not insensible to the charms of poetry altogether, that, in addition to the highest of all recommendations to attentive study, arising from the paramount value of the truth of God designed to be conveyed by it, the book possesses powerful attractions to the taste as well as to the devotion of every intelligent mind; being throughout, as was formerly observed, in the very highest order of beauty and sublimity, characterized by diversified elegance of diction, richness of imagery, elevation and boldness of conception, burning vehemence, and melting tenderness of emotion, and admirable adaptation of language to variations of character. I have already hinted at the main design, or principal lesson of the book, and consequently, at the purpose of its introduction into the sacred canon; for the latter must of course be determined by the former. This, however, forms our last subject of inquiry: and, as we purpose, in answering it, to give a rapid sketch or analysis of the poem, with the view of bringing out, with clearness and effect, its special design, and as this cannot be done now without extending this article to quite an undue length, we leave it to form the contents of No. III. Blair. BIBLE TRANSLATION SOCIETY. I HAVE read, with a degree of painful interest, the account in the Patriot newspaper of the meeting for the formation of a new “Bible Translation Society;" and deeply do I regret that for a word, and that word relating only to the mode of baptism, another secession is to take place from the ranks of the Bible Society, and of those who have hitherto been among its most attached friends and supporters. In the course of its proceedings, I observe a charge of inconsis tency brought against the committee of the Bible Society on two distinct grounds, on neither of which, I am bold to say, can the allegation be sustained. It is perfectly true that the committee of the Bible Society did encourage the Serampore missionaries in their versions for more than twenty years, and that they did assist them to the extent of more than £27,000; but it is not true that the committee had been apprised of the denominational rendering of the word Barrio, such as would render it inapplicable to the purposes of the missionaries of other christian bodies. You, Sir, are old enough to recollect the extraordinary interest which the labours of the Serampore missionaries excited more than thirty years ago; and I respond to all that Dr. Duff has said, when " he would not consent to remain silent when the first stone was thrown at the noble, the immortal triumvirate of Serampore." Lauded as were their labours by the Rev. Dr. Buchanan, Rev. David Brown, and other bygone names, it did not once occur to the committee to inquire how the word for baptism had been rendered in their versions; and whatever might be known subsequently by the Rev. Joseph Hughes, a name never to be mentioned without affectionate respect, there was no communication on the subject ever made to the committee; and I have no doubt he had his reasons for withholding the disclosure, hoping that his friends of the Baptist body would be induced to yield what appeared to him a point not worth contention. But I have it on unquestionable authority, that when the Protest from Calcutta arrived, signed by more than twenty missionaries from other bodies, the feeling was one of complete surprise to the committee: and if they would preserve their catholic and neutral principles; if they would not countenance versions subversive of the practice of all other Protestant denominations, they were bound to stay their hand. They did what they could to induce their Baptist friends to adopt a neutral term, or to transfer the original word; but having endeavoured to meet the difficulty, as soon as it was announced, where, I ask, is the inconsistency? But we are again told, that the Bible Society is still circulating other versions with a similar immersional rendering; and hence another charge of inconsistency. On the contrary, I am assured by some distinguished scholars that the fact is quite otherwise; and if your readers will be at the trouble of turning to a review of Mr. Greenfield's criticisms, in your Magazine for March, 1830, and at tributed to the Rev. Dr. Henderson, they will find, with respect to the Syriac, the Ethiopic, and other Eastern versions, the term employed is one which does not determine the mode of baptism, whether by sprinkling, by pouring, or immersion. And with respect to the German, the Dutch, and other Teutonic versions, the fact is undeniable, that the word employed is restricted to the rite of baptism; and that whenever dipping or immersion is to be expressed in these languages, a different word is employed. Thus, when the Germans would express dip, or immerse, they employ tauchen, eintauchen, untertauchen, and not taufen, by which the word Barr is translated. Moreover it is remarkable, that even the Baptists or Mennonites, in Holland and other parts, though they reject infant baptism, administer the ordinance by pouring, and not by immersion. If then there is no plea for a strictly immersional rendering in these versions, where again is the inconsistency of the committee of the Bible Society? But even if the case were otherwise, I humbly conceive that the question, as it respects these national versions, rests upon a far different ground than that of our Baptist friends in India, who might be expected to make a common effort with other bodies, not for the propagation of their own peculiar views, but for the christianization of 150 millions of our pagan fellow-subjects. I will only add, that if our friends knew the inconvenience, even in France and Switzerland, of differing versions, and every edition brought out with some alterations, so that it is next to impossible to carry a copy of the Bible, in which you can exactly follow the reading in any church, they would, I think, be disposed to make great sacrifices, certainly that of a mere word, in order to obtain something like a standard translation. I rejoice, however, that the principal speakers on the occasion were content to raise a fund for their own special objects, and that they still intend to support the Bible Society in its general operations. I wish them "good speed in the name of the Lord;" and I am sure, when they look at our home operations, the circulations which are going on in France and other countries, they cannot be indifferent to a cause which they have so long supported. I am, Sir, yours very truly, AN OLD FRIEND. We are happy to state that Dr. Henderson has publicly acknowledged the authorship of that masterly article in a pamphlet he has just published on this controversy, entitled, "Baptism and the Bible Society. A Letter to the Rev. A. Brandram, M. A. on the meaning of the word Barril, and the manner in which it has been rendered in versions sanctioned by the Bible Society." Sold by Jackson and Walford; price 6d. We cordially recommend it to the attention of our readers, as supplying an antidote at once mild and learned, to the extraordinary statements of our Baptist brethren, some of whom appear to think that the hardihood of their assertions will compensate for the lack of evidence to support them. We deeply regret that they have resolved to force their opinions upon the public, and that a controversy is therefore inevitable between those who, in all other matters, are united. When are we to learn that there may be christian fellowship without ritual uniformity? But we must recur shortly to this painful subject.-EDITOR. N. S. VOL. IV. 3 B REMARKS ON A RECENT PAPER RESPECTING THE (To the Editor.) I HAVE perused, with some concern, a paper in your number for April "on the Propagation of the Gospel 'in' Heathen Lands," a subject which demands, as it unquestionably deserves, all the attention that can be given to it by the christian public. I deeply sympathise with some of the writer's views, and with none more than those relating to the necessity, on the part of missionaries, of studious attention to the character, customs, and modes of thought peculiar to the people amongst whom they labour; and in regard to China and Japan, the countries more especially alluded to by your correspondent, it is, without doubt, desirable that our missionary brethren should, if possible, surpass, in every instance, the most cultivated natives in all that pertains to literature and the theory of the arts. I am more than inclined to doubt, however, whether the "success" of the Jesuits in China in a former age is so unaccountable and so surprising as he has supposed, and whether the universal tendencies of human nature, to which the all-accommodating spirit of Popery offers but little violence, may not sufficiently explain the adhesion on the part of the poor heathen to the idolatries of the Church of Rome. In a religious sense, little, if any thing, appears, even from their own accounts, to have been done, beyond the incorporation of some new, with pre-existing rites and ceremonies, and the partial transference of divinely forbidden worship from false gods, to the images of real or fictitious saints. The zeal and intrepidity of many of the first followers of Loyola cannot be questioned; and it were indeed matter of just lamentation if, in these respects, they should be found, on inquiry, to have surpassed the modern messengers of a purer faith. But what can "E. P." mean by "the firm and extensive footing which once seemed permanently established in these soils," and which, he adds, "is now lost?" His references throughout do not go farther back than to the labours of the Jesuits; but he will not surely maintain that any thing is lost to Christianity, either by the comparative depression of that class of men, or by the abstinence of Protestant missionaries from that iniquitous course of compromise and intrigue to which the Romanists were mainly indebted for their temporary influence in China. The gospel of the grace of God had but little to do with whatever of "success" attended their exertions; and it is very questionable whether, if Protestant missionaries were instantly to realize similar success by similar means, this would furnish any just ground of gratulation to the churches of our own or of other lands. Sufficient, indeed, may be gathered from the paper of your correspondent to show his conviction that the Jesuits, at the time he writes of, were, as a body, destitute of all the great moral qualifications of christian missionaries; and in reference to our own modern missionaries, he distinctly says, "These last, indubitably, are the men who walk in Christ's steps, and may especially hope for God's blessing." This is a high commendation, but it is a just one; and sorry should I be were it now, or at any future period, to be qualified by the detected approximation of one of their number to the spirit and proceedings of the Romish emissaries. But if, in these respects, they are not to be imitated, in what other points, save those of general intelligence, intrepidity, and zeal, are they to be a pattern to our agents? And why select the Jesuits, as exemplifying these necessary and indispensable characteristics of every effective enterprize? May they not be found associated in the records of past ages, and in the transactions of the present age, with enterprizes less questionable, both as to ends and means, than the proceedings of the Jesuits? They are not in themselves moral qualities, and are praiseworthy only as associated with what is good in nature and in tendency. Were the youthful missionary, therefore, requiring a stimulus of the kind your correspondent is anxious to supply, it were far more safe and suitable to direct him to those illustrious instances of intelligence and industry which already enrich the pages of modern missionary biography, and to which there are many equally illustrious counterparts in the ministerial biography, both of the old world and the new. In these he would meet with such illustrations of ministerial and missionary character, such deeds and such endurances of holy heroism, as may be contemplated without that revulsion of feeling, and that spiritual injury which might ensue from an inspection of the blotted records of Romish policy and Jesuitical chicanery and craft. Notwithstanding all that I have said, you would not have been troubled, Mr. Editor, with this communication, but for another sentiment of your respected correspondent, and which, for his sake and for my own, I shall express in his own words: "Has it not been the policy," he asks, "of some of the most successful missionaries to humanize the barbarians to whom they preached, before they evangelized them? The soil must be prepared before the seed is sown. The disposition to receive and to appreciate the blessings offered must be created, prior to the full and extensive reception of all the benefits to be derived from the christian revelation," &c. Here I am decidedly at issue with your correspondent, and affirm, without qualification, precisely the reverse of what, doubtless with much sincerity, but without due consideration, he has thus advanced. The problem as to the relative order of christianity and civilization has, in our own day, been so completely, so frequently, and in such a variety of circumstances solved, that any thing like a serious confutation of so strange a position as has been so unguardedly assumed seems utterly superfluous. Yet there is obviously some confusion of ideas in your correspondent's mind, inasmuch as he speaks of the missionaries as "humanizing the barbarians to whom they preached, before they evangelized them;" " E. P." might here seem to place preaching in precedence of, and in distinction from evangelization. He has too much intelligence and good sense to make such a blunder; and yet, ten thousand such blunders would be more creditable than the serious maintenance of the principle which he has ventured to lay down. May I hope that these few words will be enough to |