consider great nonsense. I believe that the constitutional idea of the king's supremacy includes nothing of spiritual authority, and, therefore, demands nothing of spiritual obedience. This, by the bye.) 3rdly. The word church is employed, and, perhaps, most generally, to denote the clerical order-as when a person is said to enter into the church," i. e. to be admitted into a corps, who pretend to have a peculiar sanctity of character, and a peculiar authority for what is called the administration of religious duties. Now, as property belongs only to persons, either individuals or bodies corporate, it is plain that, when tithes are said to be the property of the church, the word church must be used in this last sense, for the clergy; and here the clergy are spoken of as a body corporate, which they are not: though I am aware that there are bodies corporate composed of clerical persons. But we are now prepared to examine the truth of the position by the illustration of a similar case.

Let us suppose that the legislature, ever so many centuries ago, had allotted a tenth of the land to the maintenance of the army. While that law continued, military persons undoubtedly would have a legal right to its benefit; and it might be considered unfair to deprive of it any of those who had entered into the army in expectation of this advantage. But suppose that the impolicy of this legal allotment were discovered at any time: who would not laugh if the military or their advocates should question the right of the le gislature to alter or abolish it? Who could be imposed on by the outcry, "you are invading the property of the army, and might as well invade the property of any private nobleman ?" It would be obvious to reply-no one is injured by the legislature's lessening, commuting, or abolishing, this provision for the maintenance of the army, as long as we guard the interest of those who are already of the military profession: the profession is not hereditary, and no one has a right to any of its advantages but those who are in the army. It was for the supposed benefit of the country that the legislature formerly decreed that fund for the maintenance of a military force: it is now discovered that such a military force is not beneficial to the country, and (saving the interests of the present officers and soldiers) who is injured by a legislative act applying that military fund to other purposes? All that can be said is, that there will be fewer inducements to men hereafter to take upon them the military profession. It seems to me, Mr. Editor, that all the same reasoning is directly and obviously applicable against the present clamour that tithes are the property of the church. On the question whether it be, or be not beneficial to the country that tithes should be either commuted or abolished, I do not enter. But, that any reasonable man should, for a moment, question the equitable right of the legislature to commute or to abolish them, can be accounted for only from the vulgar errors and prejudices, which are mainly supported by the abuse of language; while that abuse of language, I am aware, originates in man's selfish interests and passions.

CLXXIII.

TO WILLIAM SMITH, ESQ. M.P.

SIR, WE take the liberty of addressing you in behalf of some Christian societies with which we are connected, and in consequence of our learning, through the public papers, that the bill you had intended to introduce on the marriages of Dissenters has been abandoned, and that you designed to frame a new bill upon the subject. Considering you as a warm friend of the most liberal toleration, we doubt not but you will be kindly disposed to frame your bill, as far as possible, so as to afford relief in the matter, to all whose conscientious principles subject them to grievance from the law as it stands at present.

But, from the peculiarity of our sentiments, we apprehend that any new bill which you introduce may fail of meeting our case, as much as that would which you have withdrawn, unless we obtain an opportunity of previous communication with you. We would, therefore, request to be allowed the honour of a personal interview, at any time that you may please to appoint for our waiting on you; and, in the mean time, permit us to submit the following observations

to your attention.

İn Ireland, where the principal number of our churches is, the law of marriage (as you probably are aware) is much more liberal than here. All dissenting congregations are allowed to solemnize their own marriages by their own ministers, with a full legal validity to the contract. Yet even there we cannot avail ourselves of the act, though it seems to have been studiously drawn up with the view of affording the fullest liberty and indulgence to Dissenters. The framers of the act seem not to have contemplated the possible existence of any churches or congregations, without some persons under the name of ministers or preachers at their head, and exercising something of the clerical character. Now, we neither have nor could allow such persons among us, or the exercise of any such character, however modified. We acknowledge, indeed, the scriptural office of elders, or overseers of a Christian church but even where any of our churches have those gifts (of which most of them are yet destitute), we consider the office essentially distinct from that of clergymen, ministers, or preachers; and therefore could not think of allowing them to be employed in solemnizing our marriages: no more than we could apply to a clergyman of the Establishment for the purpose, even though he should omit all his acts of worship. Yet, considering it our duty to provide things honest in the sight of all men, we feel ourselves called on, as far as possible, to obtain a legal validity to our marriage contracts; and we have for some time effected this, though at considerable

inconvenience and expense, by going to Scotland, where the declaration of the parties, before any competent witnesses, that they are husband and wife, produces a civil obligation of full validity, and afterwards recognized in any part of the British dominions.

We conceive that the marriage contract is binding in the sight of God and the conscience, whenever a man and woman, at present free, seriously and deliberately receive each other in that relation. Yet we own that the state has fairly a right to prescribe certain terms as necessary to civil recognition of this contract. But we think it most unreasonable that the state should prescribe any religious acts for the purpose. This is at once prescribing a religion to the people, and therefore inconsistent with religious toleration. The marriage relation (though so lasting and important) we think essentially a civil and not a religious connexion, else it could not subsist in binding obligation (as we know it may) between a Christian believer and an unbeliever; between whom there can be no religious fellowship. But, waving the discussion of this, we consider it indisputable, that the civil government of the country can have nothing to do with it rightfully but in a civil way: while, undoubtedly, so far as the legislature provides a favoured religion for the people, it may quite consistently direct any rites of that religion to accompany the solemnization of marriage in the case of those who choose to conform to it. But to impose those rites on others, or to say that others must employ any religious rites or religious officers for ratifying their marriages, seems as contrary to sound policy as to equitable fairness, and we should hope that the state of the law upon the subject, both in Ireland and in Scotland, might prepare the way for a bill to legalize all marriages declared before a civil magistrate, by parties competent to form the contract, and after a sufficient notice of the intentions of the parties.

The hardship we feel in this matter is very slight indeed, from the resources which the Scottish law affords us, in comparison of the sufferings to which we are exposed from some other principles; as you may perceive, if you condescend to look at the pamphlet which we have the honour of sending to you with this letter. Yet we trust that, if you can, you will be disposed to frame your bill so as to comprehend our societies in its relief.

Hoping to be favoured with a communication from you, and that you will pardon us for occupying so much of your time, we have the honour to be, sir, with much respect,

Your obedient humble servants,

REVIEW

OF

"THE EPISTLES OF PAUL THE APOSTLE,

TRANSLATED;

WITH AN EXPOSITION AND NOTES.

BY THE

REV. THOMAS BELSHAM,

MINISTER OF ESSEX STREET CHAPEL.

4 vols. 8vo. London: Hunter, 1832."

[Published in No. VIII. New Edinburgh Review, April, 1823.]

WHEN we reflect on the history of that version of the Scriptures, which has long been sanctioned by public authority in this country; when we contemplate the multifarious learning and talents which were employed in the work, the caution and sober judgment with which it was conducted, and, above all, the intentional fidelity which it generally manifests; and, when we turn from this view to consider the ordinary character of those, who have from time to time, in later years, presented their reformed versions to the public; when we mark their ignorance, their rashness, their vanity, but especially their dishonest object of supporting a favourite system:-we cannot but be struck with the contrast, and thankful that the overruling providence of God has given such general currency to a translation, which, with all its imperfections, is so superior to any that could at this day be adopted in its place. In saying this, let us not be supposed either to uphold the received translation as faultless, or to deny as unimportant many of the corrections which are to be picked out of the mass of modern biblical criticism, or to intimate the least dissatisfaction, that ever so many individuals, however various in their sentiments and their qualifications, should bring forward their respective versions: much less should we be disposed to withhold our warmest approbation from such a version of any portion of the Scriptures, as Dr. Lowth has given of Isaiah. But we do avow our opinion, that most of the professedly improved translations are such as,

in the judgment of a sound and candid scholar, cannot stand a moment in competition, upon the whole, with our public version. We say, upon the whole, because, perhaps, in the very worst of them, there are here and there alterations which are undeniable improvements, as might naturally be expected from the quantity of learned labour which has been expended on the original text since the time of James I.

Archbishop Newcome and others have been earnest for obtaining a revision of our English Bible by public authority. We confess, that even his Grace's versions would be sufficient to make us rejoice that our governors have not sanctioned the attempt. And, though we should be very glad to see an edition of the English Scriptures, in which all the indisputable corrections should be introduced either into the text or the margin, and a few antiquated phrases exchanged for others more intelligible; yet we cannot wish, that even this object should be taken up by the authority of the state. For we scarcely know any set of men, who would be contented to make sufficiently little alteration; and any change in the general texture of our public version, we are persuaded, would be a change for the worse. Many a new translation have we examined; but we have seen very few in which we were not disgusted by the vain and tasteless effort to improve passages, which are not only most faithful to the original, but unrivalled also for excellence as specimens of English composition. One example may perhaps convey and illustrate our meaning.

66

We read in our English Bible, (Luke ii. 8.) And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night." A writer* of learning and taste has noticed this simple passage as a sentence of exquisite harmony and the most beautiful structure, presenting to attention successively the several circumstances of the scene in the most happy collocation. Let the reader who has an ear, and anything of critical judgment, pause a little on the words, and say whether the praise is undeserved. "And there were in the same country-shepherds-abiding in the field-keeping watch over their flock-by night." No one also can deny that the English words faithfully convey the meaning of the Greek. Might we not then reasonably expect, that the improvers of our public version would suffer such a passage at least to remain unaltered; a passage in which not a word can be changed or transposed without injury to the sentence? But no we do not at present recollect one of the new versions, in which even that passage has escaped the prurient vanity of alteration. Curiosity led us to look at the rendering of it given in the last soi-disant improved version of the New Testament which has issued from Mr. Belsham's school; and, indeed, we were rather surprised to find so little change. But instead of the fine musical cadence, keeping watch over their flock by night, they give us, "keeping night watches over their flock." What an improvement! Such things, we admit, are comparatively trifles; and we

* We think Dr Thomas Leland, in his Lectures on Eloquence; but we have not the work before us.

Harwood's magnificent version of the passage is really worth exhibiting in a note. "It happened that there were in the adjacent fields a company of shepherds employing the hours of night in guarding their respec'ive flocks!"