Bishop Strossmayer on the Speech.

W. Kelly.

(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 160.)

It seems right to say that Bishop Strossmayer wrote not long ago to the Francais, repudiating the speech at the Vatican Council against papal infallibility attributed to him in many home as well as foreign publications. He declares that he never uttered anything derogatory to the Roman see. If one did not know the casuistry of worldly religion, this might seem decisive against the thought of such a speech from him; but it is likely that, if delivered at all, it may have been so highly seasoned by others as to afford an occasion of denying its genuineness when the dogma was passed, and the heat of opposition gone. It is hard to suppose that Bishop Strossmayer said nothing like it in the face of the general rumour.



(B.T. Vol. 9, p. 175-176.)


Dear brother,

 It seems only right to inform your readers that the abridgment of the Memoir of Daniel Mann, referred to in your last number, was made by a christian lady in the South of France, a member of the Free Church. This lady writes for the "Eglise Libre" and furnished her narrative to that Journal. Her object was to supply an article adapted for the generality of French readers. The tract referred to was reprinted from the four or five numbers of the Journal referred to, the publisher undertaking to print it as a tract before he know from what source it was obtained.

The right of translation not having been reserved, no reflection can be cast upon the lady who abridged the narrative; but as we are not only to recognize legal rights, but to act graciously one towards the other, the London publisher has since been communicated with and compensation been offered, in case he considered his rights were infringed upon. This he declined.

The printer's name was through his mistake omitted on the first few hundred copies which were issued. When this error was discovered, it was immediately corrected as publications cannot legally be circulated in France without the name of the printer.

Yours faithfully,

Oct, 11th. B.

[The foregoing statement is printed as explanatory of the circumstances. Every unbiassed reader will see that it is no real justification. If a christian writer does not reserve his legal rights, this leaves it open to any one to translate but not to mutilate. I do not agree with "B.," that this is a question of acting graciously or not, but rather a plain moral wrong. Even a worldly person of upright mind ought to feel the impropriety of such mutilation without leave first obtained on good and candid and christian grounds. A money compensation might suit the world but hardly a Christian: the publisher did right to refuse.

As to the general duty of seeking to spread testimony to Christ, and especially gospel truth, in the French as in all other tongues, I warmly sympathize with every such effort if directed after a godly sort. I should counsel every servant of the Lord to reserve no rights; but this gives no sanction to perpetrate a wrong. — Ed. B. T.]