witness is at an end with the subject of his testimony. Men puzzle themselves in this matter by confounding an oath with a vow. In a vow, God is the promisee, and no human authority can discharge the promise; but in oaths men are the promisees, and God is only called upon to see that the parties act conscientiously towards each other,a distinction so clear, that it is difficult to comprehend by what confusion of mind any man can overlook it.

I swear to do my neighbour a certain service: times change, and what was a service becomes an injury: nevertheless, upon our Author's principle, I am bound to go on doing him injury, because I have called God to witness that I would do him a service. Was there ever such a perversion of ethics! In like manner the people have required their King to swear that he would exclude the papists from certain civil privileges for the sake of the safety of the State, and for no other reason. If afterwards the same people declare that such exclusion has become a source of danger instead of safety, still the King is bound to continue the exclusion at the risk of public convulsions, because he has sworn to exclude for the sake of peace and security. Is it not manifest that when the condition of an obligation is satisfied, the obligation itself is discharged? We shall add no more upon so plain a point, but conclude with expressing our honest conviction, that though there may be a thousand good arguments against Catholic Emancipation, there cannot be conceived so bad a one as this of the Coronation Oath, and that to persist in pressing it into the service is to sow tares among the wheat, to confound sense with nonsense, and give the Protestant interest great reason to exclaim, "Our enemies we can withstand, but may we be delivered from our friends!"

ART. III.-Scriptural Geology; or Geological Phenomena consistent only with the literal Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures upon the subjects of the Creation and Deluge. Vol. I. Hatchard. 1826.

THIS Work, the object of which is sufficiently expressed in the title, is dedicated to all the Bishops and Clergy, the Universities, and Scientific Institutions, &c. &c. for the purpose of enlightening them as to the true scriptural view of primary and secondary formations, and the orthodox exposition of the difficulties attending the phenomena of depositions. It is published by subscription, and evinces a most praiseworthy zeal on the part of the Author to uphold the truth of revelation, and of his friends to support him in doing so;-which calls for our most unreserved approbation, whatever we may think of the mode in which his design is executed.

The agreement or disagreement of geological phenomena, real or

supposed, with the accounts given in scripture, has of late become a topic of much discussion. No candid examiner can doubt, that upon the whole the result of such discussions has been eminently favourable to the cause of revelation. And the most distinguished writers on geology have not been backward in offering their unqualified testimony to the general confirmation which the Mosaic history receives from the investigations of science; but when we come to stretch every expression of the inspired historian to the utmost rigour of philosophical accuracy, it needs but little reflection on the professed design of scripture, to see that we are pushing our speculations beyond their just limits. Such however is very much the character of our Author's lucubrations. He quotes at the commencement of his book some of the most truly admirable and sensible reflections of the Quarterly Review, of Professor Buckland, of M. Cuvier, and of Mr. Faber, agreeing nearly in substance with what we have just observed, and treats them with a supercilious hostility, which gives us no very favourable impression of his modesty or knowledge of the subject. He expressly regards the Bible as a record of science (p. 51.) and is particularly anxious to display his knowledge of geology in representing the phenomena of successive formations to be nothing but an imaginary theory. (p. 6, &c.) The whole argument is carried on with a violent predilection for his own views, and a dogmatical positiveness in the mode of stating his opinions, as well as a tone of triumph and ridicule towards his opponents, which is as little warranted by the force of his reasoning, as consistent with candid and courteous discussion. We shall not pretend to go into the details of the argument, trusting that those readers who are curious on the subject will take measures for satisfying themselves. In general, as to the mutual relation of the facts of geology with the expressions of scripture, we have fully stated our opinion in a late number, when a work on the same subject with the present was under review, (See Christian Remembrancer, No. 88. p. 211); and with respect to the volume before us, we can say little more than what we then observed, and must refer our readers to that passage. The fact is, that if on subjects incidentally treated by the Sacred Writers, not forming essential parts of the sacred system of truths which it was their proper object to inculcate, we are bound to take every expression in its rigidly literal sense, as an infallible scientific truth, then we shall be compelled not only to give up the facts of geology, but also the Newtonian system of the universe; -and must religiously believe that the sun does actually move round the earth. If we admit that no harm is done to the cause of divine truth, and no violence to the interpretation of scripture, in understanding the expressions relating to the motion of the sun as used in accordance with prevailing notions without our being obliged to take them as so many

scientific enunciations, then why should we object to viewing the expressions bearing on the structure of the earth in a similar light?

With these general remarks we shall take our leave of the anonymous Author and his speculations. We are always sorry to find ourselves compelled to say anything in disparagement of what is advanced with good intentions, and in a sincere desire to uphold the cause of religious truth; but we cannot think that that cause is likely to gain any thing by being propped up with weak arguments, or that the grand doctrines of salvation can ever lose anything by the admission of just and enlightened views respecting the Mosaic account of the

creation.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE STATUTES REGULATING ECCLESIASTICAL AND ELEEMOSYNARY LEASES.

As the statutes which have now been glanced at form the basis of the existing statute law respecting ecclesiastical and eleemosynary leases, and afford an excellent exemplification of the distinction between enabling and restraining or disabling statutes, it may not be improper to pause at this stage of the narrative, in order briefly to consider to what extent, and in what manner, they affected and modified the previously existing law on the subject. The effect of the enabling statute 32 Hen. VIII. was merely to dispense with the necessity of confirmation to leases by certain sole spiritual corporations, in cases where the directions of that statute were duly followed. The united effect of the disabling statutes of the 1 & 13 Eliz. (dismissing from consideration the exception in favour of the crown, afterwards removed by I James) embraced the whole range of ecclesiastical and Deleemosynary corporations, and avoided all grants not made according to certain prescribed restrictions. An observance of the enabling statute of Henry was sufficient, though not essential, to establish the grants of the particular spiritual personages within its operations: whilst, on the other hand, a compliance with the conditions of the disabling statutes of Elizabeth, though absolutely essential, was not of Vitself in all cases sufficient to insure the validity of a lease. The consequence of a non-compliance with the provisions of the 32 Hen. VIII. Dwas only to exclude a lease from the benefit of that act. The most minute observance of the conditions prescribed by the 1 & 13 Eliz. had no effect beyond exempting the grant from their general avoiding elauses, and simply gave it a capacity of being valid, if all other requisite circumstances were attended to. Thus grants, if made within the statute of Henry, were good without confirmation; and if not so made, might still be good, if duly confirmed. On the contrary, though the slightest deviation from the provisions of the statutes of Elizabeth would be fatal, a lease might nevertheless be in entire

conformity with those provisions, and yet fail of effect for want of confirmation, or some other circumstance required by law. In short, as the law stood immediately subsequent to the 13 Eliz., no lease or grant by any ecclesiastical corporation, whether sole or aggregate, other than for 21 years or 3 lives, and at the accustomed yearly rent, could be good; nor, if the lessor were a corporation sole, would a compliance with these particulars insure validity, unless either confirmation, or the requisites substituted for it by the 32 Hen. VIII. were superadded. Parsons and vicars being expressly excepted out of that statute of Henry, their leases in every case required confirmation. "Of the several legislative enactments on the subject, passed since that of the 13 Eliz. c. 10, some may be viewed as restorative, and others as disabling, the former class enlarging, and the latter contracting the limits within which the power of alienation had been previously restrained: but none of these statutes can (like the 32 Hen. VIII.) be considered as of a positive enabling nature. The first in order of time was the statute 14 Eliz. c. 11, which restored in some measure the ancient right of alienation, by repealing the statute 13 Eliz. c. 10, as to houses in towns, with the view, as it is said, of making such places more populous, and substituted other, and in some respects less rigid, restrictions. The statute 14 Eliz. enacted that such houses (not being the mansion houses of the lessors, nor having more than ten acres of ground belonging to them) might be granted as before the statute 13 Eliz., so that leases were for no longer term than forty years, not in reversion, the accustomed yearly rent reserved, and the lessee made liable to repair and absolute alienations of such property were permitted by way of exchange for lands of equal value. This statute, having reference only to the preceding statute 13 Eliz., conferred no power on bishops to let houses otherwise than according to 1 Eliz. c. 19: and they continued incompetent to exchange their episcopal possessions on any terms.

"

The 14 Eliz. declared that leases, which it authorized to be made of houses in towns, should not be in reversion; a restraint not contained in any of the preceding statutes. The enabling statute of Henry indeed required, as one of the conditions to be observed in order to render confirmation unnecessary, that any subsisting lease should not continue beyond the year. But as confirmation superseded the necessity of having recourse to this enabling statute, there existed nothing to prevent the granting of reversionary or concurrent leases of any ecclesiastical or collegiate property, other than the houses within the 14 Eliz., provided proper attention were paid to the particulars required by the statutes of the 1 & 13 Eliz. It would seem that spiritual and collegiate lessors were not backward in availing themselves of the power which the law thus left in their hands: so that it shortly became necessary to pass an act for the express purpose of restraining concurrent leases. The statute 18 Eliz. c. 11, after noticing in the preamble that the 13 Eliz. had been evaded by leases made for twenty-one years

*Bac. Abr. Leases.

or three lives, long before the expiration of the former leases, avoided all such reversionary leases, unless the subsisting lease should be expired, surrendered or ended within three years next after the making of any such new lease; and declared void all bonds and covenants for renewing or making leases contrary to the 13 Eliz.-This act of 18 Eliz. having relation only to evasions of the 13 Eliz. did not affect bishops; and it is doubtful whether it had any application to houses in towns, which had been taken out of the operation of the 13 Eliz. by the 14 Eliz. Hence since the passing of the 18 Eliz. the law as to concurrent or reversionary leases has stood thus:- Bishops retain their original power of making concurrent leases with confirmation, as before the statute;-other ecclesiastical and eleemosynary corporations cannot grant such leases of houses in towns within 14 Eliz. on any terms, nor of any other of their corporate property, unless the subsisting lease be ended by surrender or otherwise within three years;-and where a lease being made by a bishop, or other sole corporation without confirmation, depends for its validity upon the statute 32 Hen. VIII, one year is the extreme limit within which any old lease must be determined.

The clauses in 18 Eliz. c. 11, vacating bonds and covenants for renewing or making any lease contrary to the intent of that act, or the 13 Eliz., seem not to have extended to bonds or covenants for leases contrary to the statute 1 Eliz. concerning bishops' leases, or the 14 Eliz. relating to houses in towns: and the clergy of that period, to whom those clauses did apply, were not long before they endeavoured to evade their force, by means of collusive judgments and other ingenious devices. Although it seems to have been decided, upon a liberal construction of the 18 Eliz., that such judgments were void, the legislature nevertheless thought proper to introduce into the 43 Eliz. c. 9, a clause, (sect. 8) which, embracing in its operation all the preceding statutes, declares void all judgments thereafter to be had to the intent to enjoy any lease contrary to those statutes; and by directing that such judgments should be deemed void in such sort as bonds and covenants for similar purposes, appears to assume that such bonds and covenants were previously void, without any distinction in respect to the statute 14 Eliz. or otherwise. It seems therefore impossible, according to the modern rules of equity, that covenants for renewal can now be introduced into church, college or hospital leases.

The statutes which have now been enumerated, are those which are the most important and comprehensive in their operation. There remain, however, a few to be noticed of more limited application, which, if noticed in strict chronological order, might have obscured or interrupted the foregoing historical outline.

The earliest of these subordinate statutes was the 33 Hen. VIII. c. 27. It had no reference to sole corporations, but was introduced with a view to facilitate the surrender by religious houses of their possessions; and it enacted that notwithstanding any local or peculiar statute or regulation to the contrary, no individual should have a negative voice to hinder grants, leases, &c. made with the assent of the majority of the constituent members.

In the reign of Elizabeth, a statute (18 Eliz. c. 6) was passed