from a full manuscript. But we say seriously, that there is another and higher department of work, in which we should like to luxuriate. We love a demand for well studied divinity lectures. But such a demand is never made, where people are so pious, and simple hearted, and weak minded, as to eschew all elaborations, and enjoy themselves in their own way. We therefore submit to circumstances, and accommodate; and thus our pulpit work is not a labour, but a religious relaxation. Much against the will, then, we stick fast in the non-improvement system. Yet we are not lazy; we write very much, not for present use, but to discharge our griefs, to record our ponderings, to indulge our fancy, to recreate our minds. In the midst of cares, labours, and sorrows, we have written a load of manuscripts. Some have been printed, and sold off, others we have put into the fire, others we retain. We have worked hard at midnight, after our regular ministerial labours, thinking it possible, just possible, that is all, that some time or other, nobody knows when, contemporaries and posterity may see us again in type. We are not like the cruel boys in the fable, who diverted themselves in pelting the poor frogs; but we do confess to feel some exhilaration in the fun of poking up old grumpies who banish men for eccentricity, and rubbing up great people who talk so compassionately about our little books. Ah, now, if we could but write great books, or fifty guinea articles for the six shilling quarterlies! If we could but come out with

something equal in power and research to "The British species of Angiocarpous Lichens, elucidated by their spondia; by the Rev. W. A. Leighton, B. A. F. B. S. E. and L.," in the London Quarterly Review, No. 1, Page 88, this would be something indeed to look like greatness! We do not ridicule any science, because we have never studied it; still less do we indulge "the spirit that dictated the sneers of Wolcot, Pope, and the wits of the last two centuries;" yet we cannot help but prefer articles in which there is less display of technicalities or scientific nomenclature." The devotees of science are, we humbly think, apt to be excessively enamoured with their peculiar studies, and to speak contemptuously of men who prefer something else to the study of botany. It is rather too much to charge such men with dulness and ignorance, and to say, "in spite of their intellectual, or rather unintellectual dulness, these truths are replete with beauty; and the studies which develope a knowledge of them, are rapdily extending in all educated circles. Hence, we trust the day is not remote, when the obtuseness of narrow minds, and the one-sided witticisms of higher intellects, will be known only as obselete things, to be classed with shilling postages, tinder boxes, and mail coaches running eight miles an hour." Now, notwithstanding this reference to the witticisms of higher intellects, and the stupidity of some of us "tinder box" fellows, it would be impossible, for even such distinguished botanists as Suminski,

Thuret, Decaisné, Ralfs, Thwaites, Berkely, Tulasné, Hoffmeister, following up the inquiries of Hedwig and Amici, to allure some of us to their favourite pursuits. We intensely admire the Quarterly Review, and ought to thank it for its admonitory solemn and sublime illustrations of our ignorance, by the classical allusion to tinder boxes.

We are seriously sincere in saying that the London Quarterly Review, now published by Alexander Heylin, 28, Paternoster-row, London, is a Quarterly of pre-eminent and unrivalled excellence. With regard to Botany, I should be glad to see from the pen of some eminent Botanist, who is nervous when his studies are ungratefully ignored by naughty people, a learned dissertation on the sensitive plant. That day will be a most happy one, when competent writers, in the various and diversified departments of science and literature, shall cease to diminish one another in public estimation; when they shall, as far as they possibly can, consistently with a good conscience, commend and recommend one another with mutual good feeling, and not tamper with one another's sensibilities on either side. Faithful criticism, though it may give some pain, is allowable and virtuous; but expressions of contempt, when a thing with all its infirmities is not contemptible, provoke the very best of men. A blow is sometimes more endurable than a verbal insult. Let all literary men, and especially all Gospel ministers, think of this.

A Voice. "Then think of it yourself. Why do you use expressions of contempt ?"

Answer.-I treat no men with contempt, but those whose sayings and conduct seriously deserve it; men who give themselves airs, assume great consequence, and practically despise and injure their superiors. I appeal from you to men of superior discernment; I challenge criticism. Men that look at detached parts of any of my books only, will not understand me, and should, therefore, not expose their incompetency by pronouncing judgment. Men, who as some people say, have their heads set on right, and go through with me, I have no reason to fear.

As I am very much in the habit of anticipating objections, because in past time they have been made, and because it is likely there will always be a class of readers not relishing any thing in my way,' I will state a fact or two. “ The first time I read your books," said a good man in Lancashire, "I did not like them. I read them a second time, and liked them a little. I went over them a third time, and liked them altogether." Not long since, a minister of long standing, and maintaining an elevated status, said to me, "I have recommended your 'Punctuality' to the book room." The same book had formerly been deemed objectionable. Simply in defence, nothing more, numerous instances could be produced of objectors becoming patrons and approvers. A very respectable objection may be made to the absence of classification, order, and arrangement, in the present volume; I have made this objection myself, and have myself removed it. The book is, I think I may say,

G

essentially peculiar, and does not admit of those artificial arrangement of subjects and parts, so easily effected in the construction of books in general. And perhaps the reader will have no objection to be reminded of the fact, that the text of the "Sacred Books" themselves, was originally written without any breaks, or divisions into chapters or verses, or even into words; so that a whole book, as written in the ancient manner was, in fact, but one continued word; of which mode of writing many specimens are still extant in ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts. [See Intro. to Comprehensive Bible-Bagster, p. 68.] "We allow," says the Rev. Thomas Stackhouse (in his Apparatus' to his history of the Bible) "that method is an excellent art, highly conducive to the clearness and perspicuity of discourse; but then we affirm that it is an art of modern invention in comparison to the times, when the sacred penmen wrote, and incompatible with the manner of writing, which was then in vogue. We, indeed, in Europe, who, in this matter, have taken our examples from Greece, can hardly read any thing with pleasure, that is not digested into order, and sorted under proper heads; but the Eastern nations, who were used to a free way of discourse, and never cramped their notions by methodical limitations, would have despised a composition of this kind, as much as we do a school boy's theme, with all the formalities of its Exordium's, Ratio's, and Confirmatio's."

Supported then in our free and easy way of writing, by learned authorities, we use our liberty.