show how confidently her claim was vindicated at a period only twenty-three years after her death. (2.) But we may approach still nearer; and without the necessity of appealing to anonymous vindicators. Dr. Hickes, in the preface to his Saxon Grammar inscribed to Sir J. Pakington, has the following passage on the virtues and talents of his ancestor:-" In which she was so accomplished, that she deserves to be called and reputed the authoress of a book on the Duty of Man, published in English by an anonymous person, and well known through the Christian world as a work wonderfully perfect of its kind."* Dr. Hickes, who came to Worcester only seven years after the death of Lady Pakington, was a favourite inmate of Westwood-house in the vicinity of his deanery. He had, therefore, abundant opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of Lady Pakington's family as to the probability that she composed this work; nor is it likely that he would have so publicly recorded his conviction in an address to her descendant, had not the sentiments which he expresses been sustained by tolerably strong probabilities, and been consonant with the feelings of his friend.

(3.) Her descendants without hesitation ascribed this work to Lady Pakington; for at the bottom of a monument erected near the family vault in the church at Hampton Lovett, there is a small memorial of her in which the following words occur: justly reputed the authoress of The Whole Duty of Man."

(4.) The most decisive evidence, however, is the remarkable attestation of which a copy was in

* Quibus adeo excelluit, ut libri DE OFFICIO HOMINIS Anglice ab anonymo editi, et ob mirificam operis in suo genere perfectionem, per totum orbem Christianum notissimi auctrix et dici et haberi meretur." Gram. Anglo-Sax. Prof. p. 2.

+ This certificate was mentioned by me as having been hitherto unpublished.

serted in the Christian Observer, Vol. XV. p. 435. Upon the solemn declaration of a clergyman on his death-bed, a MS. of The Whole Duty of Man, in Lady Pakington's handwriting, is traced to the possession of Mrs. Eyre,‡ her daughter, only ten years after the reputed author's death. This MS. bore the marks of correction by Bishop Fell, who is known to have been the editor of the whole works, and whose handwriting was recognised by Prideaux in the interlinings of the copies reprinting at the Oxford press. Here is a concurrence of circumstances by no means unimportant or indecisive; and, in my opinion, the evidence arising from this certificate, when combined with other conspiring testimonies, is not so easily overthrown as R, W. D. imagines.

Omitting a vast number of objections to this evidence, which are too trivial to merit observation, I shall briefly notice two or three of the most plausible replies.

First. Some little difficulty arises from the statement in the attestation, which denies all the pieces, except one, ascribed to the author of The Whole Duty of Man, to bave been written by Lady P.; whereas Bishop Fell inserts several other

tracts in his edition. It should be remarked, however, that the terms in which this negation is conveyed, do not necessarily fix the denial upon Lady Pakington, but merely state the opinion (probably erroneous) of her daughter Eyre.

Mrs.

as

Secondly. Dr. Hammond's introductory epistle to the bookseller, is thought to be inconsistent with the fact, that he was at that time living in the same house with the authoress. It is considered strange that the MS. should have been sent from Westwood to London, and have been returned from London to Westwood for Dr. H.'s perusal. I confess, however, that I perceive nothing extravagant in one or other of the following suppositions:-either that Lady P. (with a view to obtain for her work the sanction of so learned a divine, without affording the public any direct clue to the author, which an immediate application to her friend might have given) transmitted the MS. to Mr. Garthwaite, with a request that he would send it to Dr. H. for approval ;-or that the bookseller, without any intimation from the anonymous writer, accidentally selected the doctor, as an eminent theologian whose recommendation of the work was important to secure its popularity. Thirdly. The last objection which appears deserving notice, is rather in the shape of an hypothesis to get rid of the conclusion which so naturally follows the fact mentioned in the attestation, that Lady Pakington's daughter produced a copy of the work in her mother's band. It has been stated that

this was possibly a mere transcript from the printed edition, made by the pious zeal of the good old Lady, who hoped by this means to impress the contents of the work on her mind. This barely possible position is overthrown by the circumstance (also recorded in the attestation) that the MS. in question was not a simple copy, but contained corrections by Bishop Fell. Dean Hickes is further reported to have seen the MS., which, from the numerous erasures, alterations, and interlinings, he was satisfied was the original work.

After all, sir, the name of this author is a matter of little importance; and I confess, that I close my paper in some degree abashed by the observation of Bishop Fell: (in his preface to the whole works:) "It is an ill-mannered thing to pry into that which is studiously concealed." I only wish that the accuracy of the doctrinal views of this anonymous writer, was such as to permit me, in an unqualified manner, to adopt as my own sentiment the elegant language of the same learned prelate: "Our author, like the river Nilus, that gives fertility and blessing wheresoever he passes, hides his head, and permits himself to be only known in the benefits which he dispenses."*

G. C. G.

P. S. In addition to the authorities quoted in this paper, the curious reader may refer to Nash's Hist. of Worcestershire, Vol. I. p. 352:-Gent. Mag. 1754, p. 26.and The Monthly Repository, Vol. 1. p. 71.

* Introduction to The Lady's Calling.

The Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, translated into Hebrew, under the Direction of the London Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews, and

printed at the Society's Press. London. 1813-1816. AMONGST the many incalculable benefits which have resulted from the operations of the Bible Society,

arisen to the undertaking. We deem it of some importance to notice one or two of these objections.

1. Some persons object, that the work is unnecessary, inasmuch as the Jews are already provided with copies of the New Testament in the vernacular languages of the countries in which they reside. In this country, for instance, they can be furnished with the English Scriptures-why then be at the expense of making and publishing a translation in Hebrew for their particular use? To this it may be answered, in the first place, that it is by no means the fact, that the Jews are well enough acquainted with the languages of their respective countries to read, so as to understand, vernacular copies of the Scriptures. We know the contrary to be the case, in several instances, in this country; and we are credibly informed that it is so likewise abroad. But even were it otherwise, it is, we believe, undeniable that the Jews at large have a peculiar veneration for their own language, as connected with all that is sacred among them; and that they consider it the only authorized medium of communication between God and his creatures. The testimony of the foreign Jews who have come over to this country is express upon this point, as to their countrymen abroad; and those who have had much intercourse with the rabbis and Hebrew teachers residing in England, know to what a length, even in many respects, of blind and superstitious reverence, they carry their notions of the sacredness of their language. And this feeling is by no means confined to the more learned members of their body, but prevails generally among them, as might be proved by indubitable testimony.

2. But others affirm, that the work in question is useless; because the Jews in general do not understand the Hebrew language. Here

again, we must be permitted to observe, that the objection is not founded in fact-not at least, by any means, to the extent to which it is urged. Those who make it, we apprehend, ground their opinion upon what they know of the Jews living in England; and we are ready to admit, that with respect to many, perhaps, on the whole, with respect to the majority, of them it may hold good. We happen,however, ourselves to know, that in the case of the Jews, residing both in the metropolis and in another principal mercantile city of this kingdom, a considerable proportion of the adults do understand the Hebrew language, if not critically and grammatically, yet well enough to read their sacred books in the original; many of them better than they understand the English or other languages; and most of them, we apprehend, as well as the generality of the lower classes in this country understand their native language as contained in books. Many of them also instruct their children in it. On the whole, we are much inclined to the opinion that the ignorance of their own language, and the consequent inability to read the Scriptures in it, is not so prevalent amongst the Jews of England as is commonly supposed. But even if this were the fact, and to the extent that has been alleged, it really would not form an argument of any weight against the work of which we are now speaking. For how small a part do the English Jews form of the whole body of the nation? On the lowest computation of their number, in various parts of the world, certainly not a five hundredth part, and in all probability not nearly so much. Jews abroad generally understand Hebrew? We wish not to give an unguarded answer to this question. The state of their knowledge is not the same in the different foreign countries which they inhabit: what is true of those residing in one, is

Do then the

not equally true of those in another. But on careful inquiry, we believe we may venture to assert, that the Hebrew language is understood amongst them much more extensively than in this country. It is the opinion of some competent judges, that on the continent of Europe they can read Hebrew generally. In Poland, especially, all the educated Jews understand it well; and the greatest part of the rest can read it, so as to understand the original Scriptures, though they do not know it grammatically. The same, we believe, may be said of the Krimea, of Asia Minor, and of the East generally. The testimony of Dr. Buchanan, with respect to the Oriental Jews, is well known. "You must send them," says he, "the NEW TESTAMENT in the Hebrew tongue-in the language and character of the Old Testament, which all understand and revere. A similar testimony, though not couched in such explicit terms, will be found in a communication, to which we shall afterwards refer, from Dr. Naudi of Malta, respecting the Jews of the Levant and those of the northern shores of the continent of Africa.t 3. Some objectors, however, advance a step further-and assert, that a Hebrew version of the New Testament not only will do no good, but may eventually do much harm; as the superior knowledge, possess ed by the learned Jews, of the genius and peculiarities of their language, will enable them to detect the imperfections of any transla

*See his Speech at the Second Anniversary Meeting of the London Society, &c.

+ We have here been arguing on the state of knowledge among the Jews, as it is at present. There is no difficulty, however, in supposing, that, as one part of God's providential dispensations towards them, education may become much more general among them, as it has lately done in this country, meeting as it were, and rendering efficacious, the efforts of the Bible Society.

tion which may be made into it, and thus to discredit the Society under whose auspices it comes forth. But, surely, such an objection were equally applicable to versions of the holy Scriptures into other languages: they must always be open to the critical censures and cavils of the more learned among the enemies of Christianity, by whom such languages respectively are better understood than by the translators themselves; yet would any person consider this a reason why the work of translations should not have been undertaken, or why it should be abandoned? The versions which have been made into twenty-seven of the dialects of the East are not, we apprehend, so perfect as that no learned Brahmin could find out inaccuracies, or even faults, in them; and, if he pleased, take advantage of such imperfections to expose the ignorance of Christian Missionaries and Missionary Societies. Why should a more absolute perfection be deemed necessary in a Hebrew version of the New Testament, to vindicate its authors from such a reproach as might injure the cause in which they are engaged? It may surely claim to be put on the footing of other translations, none of which are perfect at first; yet which have been, we trust, and will be, important instruments in carrying forward the conversion of the heathen. And who can tell, but that, through the mysterious agency of Divine Providence, some hardened Rabbi, who takes the Hebrew New Testament into his hands for the purpose of exposing its defects, may be converted whilst be examines it; as was that learned Jew of Travancore, mentioned by Dr. Buchanan, who translated the New Testament into Hebrew for the purpose of confating it, and became himself a convert to Christianity through the instrumentality of his own work?

After all, however, though we have thought it expedient to notice distinctly some of the leading ob