Peter Richer, one of the ministers, lay extended in his little cabin, so deprived of strength that he was scarceÎy able to raise his head in prayer to God; though while thus prostrate, he was almost constantly engaged in that sacred exercise. Meanwhile five or six of the crew died of absolute starvation,-and from the disposition of the survivers, as well as the necessity of their circumstances, it seems truly wonderful, that they did not devour the bodies of their unfortunate companions. They had now, as often happens in cases of famine, acquired such a degree of ferocity, and such an irritability of temper, that they could scarcely speak to each other but in passion; and without a particular cast of the eye, as if they were ready to eat one another. After a voyage of nearly five months, they at length discovered the coast of Bretagne; but as they had already been deceived by the pilot, they scarcely believed the person who first announced the joyful tidings. Nothing could be more seasonable than this discovery, for the master of the vessel declared that had they remained another day in the same wretched condition, he had resolved to kill one of the ship's company; not by lot as has sometimes been done by persons in similar circumstances, but by stealth, in order to provide food for himself and his fellow sufferers. Having steered for the shore, they landed at the port of Blavet, near Henbonne; where the relation of their sufferings excited, as might be expected, the tender sympathy of the inhabitants. They were warned not to indulge freely in food at first, but to repair by degrees their wasted strength. This salutary caution many of the sailors neglected: but they paid dearly for their folly; for of twenty who arrived in port, more than one half died in a short time. Others were affected with various complaints; but by the use of suitable remedies, they gradually recovered.-As to the process against the Geneva di vines, it so happened that the judges to whom it was delivered were not unfavourable to the Protestants; and, instead of executing the treacherous designs of Villegagnon, they treated with kindness the unfortunate victims of his malignity. Such was the termination of the first attempt of the Protestants, to plant the Christian faith in the new world. The primary design of the undertaking appears, indeed, to have been the securing an asylum to the Reformed, from persecution in Europe: the conversion of the natives was only a secondary object. The colony itself was of short duration. The Portuguese who had previously settled in Brazil, and who at first had allowed the French to remain unmolested, soon afterwards attacked them, and expelled them from the country. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. YOUR Correspondent PASTOR(Christian Observer, Oct. 1826, p. 600,) states his opinion, that the recent researches of the Rev. Mr. Todd have proved the version of Sternhold to be duly authorised; and requests that any of your correspondents, who see reason to dissent from his conclusion, will state to your readers the result of their investigation. Previous to the appearance of Mr. Todd's work, it was reported that this gentleman had discovered the long-sought-for authority for Sternhold's Psalms; but, on the publication of his work-which undoubtedly conveys much new and valuable information-I, for one, after a careful perusal, came to the conclusion, that he had left the question as he found it. In perusing Mr. Todd's "Observations," it should be borne in mind, that he is the avowed advocate for the Old Version; and that other versions, even though honoured with the royal permission to be used in public worship, are depre ciated by him as of less intrinsic value; as well as of inferior authority, and as intruders on an authorized version*. It must also be recollected, that the version of Sternhold which Mr. Todd contends for, is not that which is contained in the editions of the last century and a half, but what he terms (p. 101) "the old unsophisticated publication," from which I have already presented extracts. So sanguine is Mr. Todd, that he appears even to anticipate (p. 105) the restoration of the old unsophisticated publication which has now been out of print for one hundred and fifty years. These circumstances should be kept in mind, not as affecting Mr. Todd's facts, but as influencing his inferences. 1. The first document which your correspondent notices, as weighing in favour of Mr. Todd's view of the subject is, "A licence for printing this version at the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth." Now it is important to observe, that by the Queen's Royal Injunctions, published in 1559, (Mr. Todd, p. 34,) it was strictly charged and commanded, that no manner of person should print " any maner of booke or paper, of what sort, nature, or in what language soever it be, except the same be first licensed by her Majestie, by expresse wordes in writing, or by six of her privy councell; or be perused and licensed by the archbishops, &c, &c." Mr. Todd proceeds to shew how this injunction was carried into effect, and how the licence given to print a work was noticed in the title-page, Thus "Sermons of John Calvin, &c. Newly set forth and allowed, 1560." Again-"A very profitable treatise, made by M. John Calvyne. Set forth and authorized according to the Queene's Majesty's Injunctions, 1561." Again "A Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles, &c, perused and allowed according to the Queene's Majesties' Injunctions, See preface, pp. 14, 15; and the work itself, pp. 30, 59, 63, 69, 71, 78-82, &c. CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 300. 1565." And in like manner, a renewed licence for the printing of an old play, in 1623. A licence to print is therefore one thing, and a permission to use in public worship is another. But Mr. Todd has arranged all the versions, whether merely licensed to be printed, or expressly permitted to be used in churches, in one chronological list; including in it versions which not only were never admitted into the church, but which are not calculated or designed for public use. With respect, however, to the licence for the printing of Sternhold's Psalms, as no book could then be printed without a licence, the existence of such a licence in the case of the Old Version might have been taken for granted, even though Mr. Todd had not discovered it; for otherwise, the book could not have been committed to the press. 2. The second document noticed by your correspondent is, "a royal privilege, for a part of this version, which almost immediately followed the publication of the whole.". Here we have an admission, that the firstmentioned document was a mere licence to print and publish, since the "royal privilege" to sing in the church is supposed to follow. But what is this "royal privilege?" It consists (see Mr. Todd) of a permission to publish sixty-two of these Psalms with tunes to them, "whiche may be song to al musical instrumentes; seth forth for the encrease of vertue, &c. Cum gratia et privilegio Regiæ Majestatis per septennium." Now this is merely an exclusive privilege of printing the words and music for seven years. If it could for a moment be considered as a licence to sing these sixty-two Psalms in the church, they must be sung only to the identical tunes, and at the end of the seven years the authority ceased. 3. The next particular noticed by your correspondent, is an entry in the register of the Stationers' Company, in 1561 or 1562, of 4d. 5 B "received of John Daye, for his licence for printing the residue of the Psalms not heretofore printed." The nature of their licences has been noticed. It will not be contended, that the licence to print the sermons and treatises of Calvin, the English Chronicles, and the old play, authorised their use in the church; neither did the licence to print the Psalms confer any such authority. 4. Your correspondent observes, that "Mr. Todd adduces several other facts, which illustrate the public reception and usage of the Old Version." On this head, there is no question. The Queen, by her Injunctions in 1559, permitted that "in the beginning, or in the end of common prayer, either at morning or evening, there might be sung a hymn, or such like song," &c. It is clear, that this was intended to allow of the metrical psalmody, then introduced from Geneva; and as the version of Sternhold was either the only English one which had then been attempted, or, if not the only one, incomparably the best, there is no question that for many years it was the only one in use. The passage in the title-page, on which some stress is laid by Mr. Todd, "set forth and allowed to sung in all churches, before and after morning and evening prayer," &c., appears to have a reference to the Queen's permission in the Injunctions; but this was a permission in favour of metrical psalmody in general, and not of any one version in particular. And here it should be noticed, that the existence of any allowance, in favour of the use of Sternhold's version in the church, was early called in question. Wither, in his Scholler's Purgatory, published about 1625, thus appeals to the privy council: "Your reverencies can witness it, that those metrical Psalms were never commanded to be used in Divine service, or in our public congregations, by any canon or ecclesiastical constitution, though many of the vulgar be be of that opinion." And after all the researches of Mr. Todd, the assertion of Heylin, made in 1661, continues to be correct, that "no allowance is any where to be found, by such as have been most industrious and concerned in the search.” The versions noticed by Mr. Todd, may be accurately classed as follows:: I. Versions merely licensed to be printed; comprizing, 1. Archbishop Parker's, published about 1560, "cum gratiâ et privilegio Regiæ Majestatis, per decennium." Mr. Todd labours to shew that the Archbishop intended these Psalms for public use. Of this, I conceive, there is no proof; but admitting that he ever entertained such an intention, it proves that he knew there existed no exclusive privilege, for the version of Sternhold. 2. Sternhold and Hopkins's version-first published entire in 1762. 3. Dod's version, first published entire in 1620. For this version, Mr. Todd finds no imprimatur or privilege, beyond Dod's own assertion in the preface to his work. 4. Sandys's Paraphrases on the Psalms, published in 1636, “cum privilegio Regiæ Majestatis." This work was laid on my table, when I wrote my inquiry; but, as I found it to consist principally of poems, not divided into verses, so as to admit of being sung to any psalm tunes, ancient or modern; and as it therefore must have been published, without any view to congregational psalmody, I did not place it amongst the versions which had received the royal permission. II. Versions licensed to be merely printed; but with extraordinary powers. Under this special head, I place Wither's Hymns and Songs of the Church, published in 1623. The royal licence of James not only authorised the printing of the work, but prohibited, on pain of seizure, the publication of any metrical Psalms, without the hymns and songs of the church appended thereto. This arbitrary power was successfully resisted, and, at the end of ten years, was taken away by an order of the privy council. III. Versions expressly permitted to be used in public worship. 1. The version of King James, printed in 1631; to which is prefixed, the royal privilege of Charles I., not only authorising these Psalms to be printed, but "allowing them to be sung in all churches, and recommending them to all his good subjects for that effect." 2. Tate and Brady's new Version, published in 1696, which, by an order in council, is "allowed and permitted to be used in all such churches, &c., as shall think fit to receive the same." 3. Blackmore's Version, published in 1720, which, by an order in council, is "allowed to be used in all churches, &c., which shall think fit to receive the same." In no instance, therefore, did the crown interfere, so as to controul the inclination of the people. The allowance amounted to no more than a recommendation; and for this plain reason, that the sovereign has no power to command the use of any metrical psalms or hymns, because the psalms and hymns which are directed to be sung in churches, and are pointed-that is, punctuated with colons-for that purpose, are part of the Liturgy established by Act of Parliamant. So long as Sternhold's Version suited the taste of the times, but no longer, it continued to have the preference. Afterwards, it was first altered and modernized, and afterwards was gradually superseded by more modern compositions. What Mr. Todd says of the authorised version of Blackmore, may with equal truth be said of Sternhold's. "It is certainly slumbering in repose, which will, perhaps, never be disturbed." Mr. Todd, in his conclusion (p. 105), quotes Bishop Marsh's sug gestion, that a new collection, better adapted to modern taste, might be submitted to the bishops, and allowed by the king in council. This, Mr. Todd thinks, would "remove divisions" as to psalms in metre, and would "silence the exclamation, What is become of our uniformity?" But the history of royal allowances of metrical versions, and the inefficiency of those allowances to enforce any version which it did not please the congregations to receive, forbids the expectation that such an expedient, would be productive of that uniformity of metrical psalmody, which Bishop Marsh and Mr. Todd are desirous to effect. They may possibly wish to go a step further, and to put down all collections of psalms and hymns, except a licensed one; but if a similar attempt was successfully resisted in the arbitrary reigns of James and Charles, it surely will not succeed, nor will it probably be attempted, in this age of freedom, and under the conciliatory sway of our present sovereign, I am, &c., JONA. GRAY. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. As several papers have occasionally appeared in your miscellany upon the subject of the Deaf and Dumb, most of which have been written with the intent of shewing the inutility of public establishments for their instruction, I trust you will in candour give place to the following observations in favour of such establishments, especially as the principal arguments I shall adduce will be derived from the secretaries of the London and Dublin Asylums, who I trust you will consider fully qualified to speak as practically upon the subject as either Mr. Arrowsmith or the Quarterly Reviewers. It is now upwards of four years, since the Quarterly Reviewers expressed their full conviction, of the practicability of teaching deaf-and dumb children in common parishschools, a long quotation from which appeared in your magazine in 1822. I cannot sufficiently admire the wisdom of those who conduct the different establishments for the instruction of these unfortunates, in having suffered these remarks to remain so long unnoticed, because it has given a full opportunity for a trial of the method recommended by Mr. Arrowsmith, and so warmly advocated by the reviewers. Their silence hitherto has, in a most forcible manner, disproved the observation that "the doctors now engaged in educating the deaf and dumb will probably oppose the modifications of the system here recommended." While they have been teaching language to the deaf mute, they have themselves been deaf to the aspersions of their adversaries, and have opposed them only by the eloquence of silence. I have been induced to intrude myself at the present moment on your attention, from having observed, in the Report of the Dublin institution for the deaf and dumb, published in September last, some very cogent arguments and striking facts brought forward by Dr. Orpen, the secretary, at the last annual meeting, in reply to the observations of an individual then present. Without further preface, therefore, I will furnish some extracts from his speech on that occasion. "There is at present a strong feeling, I confess, in the public mind against boarding schools for the children of the poor. Now, without entering into the general question, whether it be possible or wise to abolish altogether such parochial schools for destitute or deserted children, or asylums for orphans or foundlings, I think it cannot admit of a doubt, that for the deaf and dumb, and also for the blind, it is indispensable to have establishments where they can be congregated and maintained while receiving education. For in the insulated and wild districts of every parish in the kingdom, where they are to be found at a distance from any town or village, or even school. house, how would it be possible to introduce any plan of day-school for their education that would be a substitute for an institution which would give temporary reception, with a view of affording them such a degree of instruction as will enable them, on their return to their families, to communicate their own thoughts in written, spoken, or manual language, and to understand what others speak or write? "Another reason why it is found of importance to place deaf-anddumb children in an asylum for a few years, is the manifest fact, that, in their earlier years, they are of all children the most neglected. In fact, they are generally allowed to run wild, and do what they will; partly out of mistaken kindness and pity, partly from the extreme trouble and difficulty of communicating to them, precisely, either orders or threats, corrections or restraints. Habits thus formed, and self-will thus matured, inattention, irregularity, and disorder, thus produced and nurtured, can scarcely be corrected, except by a total change of association, of discipline, of occupation; in short, of every circumstance in their condition. "But it has been said that a dayschool would cost only about fifty pounds a-year. I know it would, at the end of a-year, be found to cost three or four time as much. But suppose a day-school did cost but fifty pounds a-year-Well. Here is a circular issued by the committee, in which is a list of all the places in Ireland, from which their pupils have come, and by reckoning them you will find the number of places fifty-five. Now, what is the result of fifty pounds multiplied by fifty-five? is it not 27501.? Would it not therefore cost more to establish even a day-school at fifty pounds a-year, in each of these fifty-five places, than to support the ninety-three pupils who came from them, at Claremont? |