of the voluntary system," that these "great interests" cannot flourish without endowments; that it is mean and beggarly to leave them to occasional charity-i. e., to be repaid by the demand. The writer thinks that he avoids the difficulty by talking about "voluntary endowments." What does he mean? Are not tithes "voluntary endowments," if you respect the volition of the original donor? And would the rent charges which may support Coward College be paid by future landlords, if the law did not compel them to fulfil the testator's intentions? Or, would the "friend to voluntary endowments" make the usefulness of these endowments to depend upon the possessors of a life interest in such property from generation to generation, paying voluntarily, and of themselves, the rent charges to which their estates are subject? It is curious and instructive to see how in this, as in a thousand other instances, these men are driven into manifest inconsistencies. Their system can only provide, on its true principles, for unlettered teachers who should be accountable to none but their own congregation, (i. e., those whom they have to teach!) for their doctrine; and, therefore, we see them now trying to gain strength by having recourse to "a declaration of faith," (see p. 799,) while they abhor "a rule of doctrine" and "perpetual endowments," whilst they are "thorough advocates of the voluntary system." Verily, Sir, we have here an apt illustration of "the iron mixed with the miry clay." I remain your obedient servant, R. Y. B.

IMPROVED VERSION.

MY DEAR SIR,-After that most felicitous character of the Improved Version which was drawn from the Vice-Chancellor, in the luminous judgment that he pronounced in the case of Lady Hewley's charities, some outcries and abuse were to be expected in our liberal newspapers. His Honour found ample proof of his position, from the one short chapter, Heb. i. I will not travel out of the record, when I offer you a corroboration of his description of Unitarian improvements.

Sir Launcelot paid due honour to the rendering "this day I have adopted thee," (in v. 5,) where the apostle draws his inference of the infinite superiority of our Lord to the heavenly host, from the Scriptures of the Old Testament addressing him, as they could never address any of the angels-viz., as Son, qvoɛɩ kaι ov Oɛσɛt, son by natural relation, and not by appointment; or, as the Fathers express it, Kvpwę viov, truly and properly son. But, whether they are to remain angels, according as the Imp. Ver., with admirable consistency, admits they must, at ii. 16-("Christ helpeth not angels,") or are to be converted into "those messengers" Kevwv Twv ayyeλwr, it is equally evident that, when the Unitarian creed was to be imposed on the reader in the shape of a translation, Newcome's rendering, "I have begotten,” could not stand; so, both here and at v. 5, the apostle is to make our Lord to be Son, ere, by appointment; and yɛyɛvvŋka is rendered “I have adopted," in both places. It would be futile, in considering

Improvements, to observe that the word never was rendered “adopted” in any other sentence of any other author, sacred or profane. But it may be interesting and useful to notice, that it is not rendered so by the Improvers, when the quotation occurs at Acts xiii. 33, where its introduction does not so strikingly contradict the creed that was to be imposed.

There, Newcome's translation is not improved; but it stands, as it does in our bibles, "I have begotten thee." And (when the self same word of the self same psalm in the self same quotation is to have its constant sense in one place, and to denote that our Lord was Son, voɛt, by natural relation, and, in another place, to have the opposite sense, and assert that he was Son, violeria, by adoption,) I cease to wonder at Mr. Belsham's anxiety, in 1822, to declare that whatever credit may be due to the alterations in the primate's text, to this he can lay but a very limited claim. FRANCIS HUYSHE.

DESTRUCTION OF CITY CHURCHES.

SIR,-The first notice of this proceeding will be found in the minutes of the Common Council, the 31st of October, 1833, which I shall give at full length, that your readers may see the jesuitical and deceptious character of the document which it is well known is to be the foundation of a determined attack on the established church.

"Resolved and ordered, that it be referred to a committee, consisting of the Lord Mayor, all the Aldermen, and one commoner from each ward, to consider the expediency and practicability of taking down several churches within this city, and consolidating small benefices and parishes, where the joint population will admit of it, in order to widen streets, reduce the church rates, and promote the residence and increase the efficiency of the parochial clergy, with power to confer with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London upon the subject, if they shall see fit, and to report thereon to this Court."

I purposely omit the names of the committee, but let any of your readers, who think it worth their while, obtain a list, and peruse attentively the names of the men who are appointed to "increase the efficiency of the church clergy," and to confer, "if they think proper," with the highest dignities of the church, and let them judge for themselves the nature of the measures which such men are likely to propose.

The object of the appointment of the committee is the consolidation of small benefices, with a view of effecting a local improvement. Now, in order to carry this into effect, the benefice and parish to be united, with the population, must all be small, and the church so situated that its destruction will have the effect of widening a street, and, lastly, it must be a parish in which there is neither a resident nor an efficient clergyman. These are the only cases contemplated by the resolution of the Common Council. Now, if the committee-men set to work, and examine, with care and impartiality, the several city churches, they must report that no one in the whole compass of the metropolis falls within the words or spirit of the resolution. I am, Sir,

pretty well acquainted with the city churches, certainly more so, I apprehend, than the majority of these street improvers. To prove the truth of my assertion, I am ready, in the instance of any church which may be named, to shew that its destruction will not in itself have the effect of improving any public way, unless the removal of a number of houses accompanies the destruction of the church. To this it may be answered, that if both churches and houses are taken down, there will be an undoubted improvement. I can as confidentially reply,that any improvement which may be necessary, can equally be effected by the removal of the houses only, and I am quite certain, that unless the houses are removed the church may as well be left standing. So much for the expediency of the measure.

A powerful objection will, therefore, arise, which will have its due weight in the present time, viz., the funds to be raised, not only to purchase and remove the houses, but to take down the church, stow away the ashes of the dead (pardon the expression), and to make good the road and pavement. Whence are these funds to come? Suppose it to be understood that twenty churches are to be removed, and possessing the knowledge that the destroyed church of St. Michael cost the Bridge Committee some thousands, let every one who is able to make the calculation with precision, say whether a sum of less than 50,0007. would be sufficient to complete the work of improvement. If the veil was stripped off, I fear something like a job would be seen at the bottom of the measure.

If you had seen the demolition of St. Michael's Church (a scandalous precedent for the present attempt), if you had listened to the af flictions of the surviving members of a family when they saw the coffin of a parent, a brother, or a relative hauled out of its restingplace; if you had witnessed the decayed coffins, and the half-consumed relics of mortality which they contained, lying about the church, handled by the workmen with careless levity; if you had seen the piles of skulls and bones of the nameless dead thrown in heaps,--you would have burned with indignation against the men who effected this idle and useless degradation, and you would have sincerely prayed that such a scene might never again occur. But, sir, in that instance, a comparative degree of decency was observed, the relatives of the deceased were allowed to superintend the exhumation and re-interment of their deceased friends; in the proposed measure the dead are to be removed by contract, carted away, perhaps, like a load of rubbish or paving stones! Shame to the nation! shame to any legislative body which could sanction a profanation so unfeeling.

I now proceed to give a list of churches which are first to be attacked; and setting aside the question of the loss which the arts will sustain, and any considerations of a minor nature, I think the mere perusal will be sufficient to answer my object:-St. Clement's, Eastcheap; St James, Garlick-hithe; St. Bene't, Gracechurch; Allhallows the Great; St. Michael, Queenhithe; St. Benet Fink; St. Martin, Outwiche; St. Mary, Somerset; St. Bartholomew, by the Exchange; St. Mildred, in the Poultry; St. Augustine, Watling Street; Allhallows, Bread Street.

This, Sir, is a sample of the labours of the destroyers; it is understood that about thirty buildings will in all be consigned to the mattock and the pick-axe.

I find a difficulty to explain without a plan the situation of each of these buildings, but if this is perused by any person well acquainted with the city, it must be manifest that not one of these churches comes under the letter of the resolution, and it will at once be seen that the question of improvement is not the real object for the destruction of either of them. What possible improvement, for instance, could result from the removal of St. Mildred's Church in the Poultry?

We will next consider the mode in which the proposition has been met by the parishioners.

St. Clement, Eastcheap, was the first church publicly marked out for removal. No sooner was the preference given to this building made known, than an objection was started by the parishioners; and a requisition being, in consequence, presented to the legal guardians of the church, the Lord Archbishop refused his assent, the Bishop of London did the same, and the Bishop of Llandaff, patron of the living, as Dean of St. Paul's, joined with his brother dignitaries in the refusal of his sanction. Here, then, is defeat the first. The other churches are only known by report as marked buildings; yet the inhabitants have taken the alarm in the four parishes which succeed to St. Clement's, and both in ward and vestry meetings denounced the measure; and before this is published, I have little doubt that all the others will concur in the opposition, and it will become so general, that it must succeed in scaring away the destroyers. In St. Benet's Gracechurch Street, the destructive party could procure but three hands to be held up at the vestry against the church, and this too in a parish containing a large number of Quakers-a sect which might conscientiously object to the existence of an episcopal church. But, Sir, I believe that, as a body, the dissenters have kept aloof from the destructives, and have, indeed, in some cases, aided the preservative measures of the friends of the establishment. The parliament will soon meet; the legislature will be asked for their sanction; but before that period arrives, let the respectable part of the press put the matter in its proper light, and the defeat of our opponents will be certain. There is a firm and faithful band in the city engaged on the side of the church, keeping a watchful eye on the proceedings of the destroyers; and they have the powerful assistance of a gentleman of talent and energy, whose services have been already enlisted in the same good cause. That their exertions may be crowned with complete success, must be the wish of every sincere churchman.

Your's, ATHANASIUS.

P.S. It appears from the newspapers, that Dr. Bennett, a dissenting minister, in a lecture delivered at a large chapel in the city, adverted to the measure, and expressed his conviction that there were not churches enough in the metropolis, recommending the dissenters to put in a claim for the twenty churches which he stated were to be pulled down. I mention this to shew that, in every quarter, the

pretended improvement of streets is not understood to be the object of this wholesale church destruction.*

ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE CONNECTED WITH

SAVINGS BANKS.

I beg leave to offer a few considerations upon a subject which appears to me of no small importance to those gentlemen and clergy who have, from a sense of public duty, given themselves the trouble of devoting more or less of their time to superintending the accounts of the savings banks in their respective neighbourhoods. And I am particularly anxious to lay it before the readers of the British Magazine, under a conviction that many a zealous minister may, by this gratuitous contribution of his labours, be unconsciously laying the foundation for his own ruin; or be, at this very moment, reclining in fancied security, while, little aware of it, the sword of Damocles is suspended over him, threatening the annihilation of his whole property. The subject is one which has long seriously occupied my thoughts; but, perhaps, I might not have deemed my private fears, or misgivings, of sufficient weight to justify me in obtruding it upon others, had not the opinion of an eminent counsellor, on a recent trial, proved that my apprehensions were far from groundless. The trial to which I allude, appeared in the "Globe" newspaper, December 21, in a case of bankruptcy, at the Court of Review, Southampton Buildings, held on the previous day. It is unnecessary to record the whole of the proceedings; suffice it to say, that it originated in a petition from the trustees of the Carmarthen savings bank. The comments of Sir J. Cross, and Sir G. Rose, are as follows:

Sir J. Cross said, "this was not the first case of the sort which had come to his knowledge; indeed, he found country gentlemen willing to lend their names, as trustees, in the establishment of savings banks; but negligent, too often, in giving their personal services, whereby the business fell almost entirely under the management of the actuary. This had given rise to many serious evils, and numerous defalcations had ensued in consequence.'

Sir G. Rose concurred in these observations; "he thought it should be borne in mind, that the deposits were made by parties, not on the faith of the actuary, but upon that of the gentlemen who acted as trustees. Where such persons neglected the duties incumbent on them, their conduct was deeply worthy of censure. If, therefore, the clerk or other person employed by them were guilty of peculation, they were themselves liable for any peculation."

And now let me state my own case, as a practical illustration of, to say the least of it, the awkward situation in which the useful as well as useless trustees of savings banks may be placed. On the first establishment of a saving bank, in a populous manufacturing town,

Many thanks are due to the gentlemen who are so spiritedly resisting destruction and destructives. When the Archbishop, and the Bishops of London and Llandaff, have refused their assent, no one can doubt the nature of the measure.-Ep.