that all its literature were lost except a small volume of tracts, in which there occurred the phrase to play at fives;-to commentators who should live three thousand years hence, this expression would cause no little perplexity. They would probably all agree that it meant an amusement of some kind. But, whilst one might think it a dance by parties of five, as quadrilles are by parties of four, another might contend that it was a musical entertainment, arguing, that as from wife is formed the plural wives, so from fife is evidently derived the plural fives.* Now surely it would be unreasonable to call in question the authenticity of the book itself because the translation of it should contain such an immaterial error.

This statement will explain, to the English reader, the nature of one class of difficulties which translators meet with in the Hebrew text. Of course, there are others. But what I have said will serve to satisfy the pious Christian, how it is possible for him to have the history, doctrines, and precepts of scripture in their perfect integrity, whilst learned men entertain different opinions on minor points. Thus, in the passages cited above, he knows that the persons mentioned received a mortal wound, and, without any great loss to himself, may leave to others, acquainted with the originals, to determine whether it was in the waist, or under the fifth rib.

It is certainly desirable to remove from our Bible every little inaccuracy, and to benefit the world with the researches of learned men through the last two hundred years. I should rejoice to see, by no means a new translation, but a judicious revision of the authorized translation; yet I know not the men to whom I would trust the work. They would indeed remove a few apparent discrepancies, and clear up many obscure places; but they would mar, I fear, the simple dignity of many more. I love my English Bible; and the more I see of modern translations, the more I feel willing to let well alone.

W. B. W.

Vicarage, Beds.

THE RIVER SAMBATTION.

THOSE who are curious about the river Sambattion may read much about it in the first volume of Julius Bartolocci's Bibliotheca Rabbinica. The ten tribes of Israel are situated beyond the Sambattion, which is a river impassable from the impetuous torrent of sand and rocks which it carries down, except on the sabbath day, when it is tranquil; but then they cannot cross it, lest they should profane the sabbath. Four of those tribes were not led into captivity, but emigrated of their own mind, to avoid fighting against their brethren in the reign of Rehoboam, viz.-Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asber. They went beyond the rivers of Cush, and settled in Havila, Ghoijim, Konim, and Azurim, places in the kingdom of Parvaim and empire of Horinoth. They wage war every year against seven kingdoms which are beyond the rivers of Cush, and each of those four tribes carries on the war during three months out of the twelve,-first Dan, whose numbers equal those of the sand for four days' journey along the sea-shore, then Naphtali, then Gad, and then Asher. The tribe of Moses, otherwise called the Janus, seem to be esteemed worthy of less confidence, for their land is surrounded and insulated by the Sambattion, which has no water, but is a torrent of dry rubble; and although it ceases to rage on the sabbath, there is on that day a wall of fire to prevent the Janus from passing. On that day the four tribes approach the river, and behold the tribe of Moses, and say to them, "Brothers of the tribe of Jeshurun, shew us

Sir W. Jones has recorded an error in a translation less excusable than that which I have supposed. "Where Menu says that emissaries are the eyes of a prince, the Persian translator makes him ascribe four eyes to the person of a king; for the word chár, which means an emissary in Sanscrit, signifies four in the popular dialect."

your camels, dogs, and asses;" and, when they are shewn, they say, "How long that camel is, and how long his neck, but how short his tail!" and they salute each other.

Issachar is in the empire of the Medes and Persians, in the mountains of Abyssus,-Zabulon in the mountains of Pharan,-Reuben behind them, on the way to Persia and Babylon,-Ephraim and Manasseh in Mesciugha, &c. (Rabbi Eldad Haddani, or the Danite, cit. Bartolocci, i., p. 100-12.)

The Targum bearing the name of Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, upon Exod. xxxiv. 10, says, "In the days when they shall go into captivity beyond the rivers of Babylon.... I will make them dwell beyond the river Sambattion." That is one among other reasons for disbelieving that Rabbi Jonathan is the author of that work; because the whole fable is founded upon the story of the sabbatical river in Josephus. That was a river in Palestine, which had a full and rapid flow upon one day, and then was entirely dry for six days, and flowed again on the seventh; and from its thus distinguishing the seventh day, the Jews called it Sabbaticus. (Bell. Jud. vii. c. 5.) That is bad enough, for the age in which it was written; but the Sambattion is a monstrosity that could not have belonged to the Christian era in Jewry.

The Mahometans say that the ten tribes are the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel, and that Alexander shut them up between two impassable mountains by means of a wall of brass; but in the time of Antichrist a fox shall mine and pierce through the mountains, and the Israelites shall escape by that narrow passage, and eat human flesh, and commit numerous atrocities. (Sale's Koran, c. 18. Mandeville's Travels, p. 319, 324. Jacob. de Vitriaco, c. 92. Roger Bacon, Opus Majus, p. 23.)

I do not know whether the opinion that Messiah ben Joseph must appear in order to reproduce these tribes, supposed to be lost, before the coming of Messiah ben David in his glory, is still prevalent among the Jews, or not. That opinion stands rather in the way of the great imposture, as Rabbi Akiba felt, when he was engaged with Barcochab in that blasphemy. And he therefore argued, by every quibble he could imagine, to prove that their's was an everlasting captivity, and that they were to have no part in the reign of the Messiah. It would have been so much easier and more rational to say, that they were returned, and that Zerubbabel's restoration included all that remained of the nation or was willing to return, that we must conclude the contrary of that to have been notorious in the time of Trajan. Thus we may clicit a truth of some moment even from his cavils and subterfuges.

H.

ON THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST THE CHURCH.
To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR, It is very desirable that the attention of the nation should be called to several charges made against the church and clergy as corruptions and abuses, the discredit of which (through the gross delusion practised on a thoughtless public) they are made to bear; but of which the church, as a permanent body, and the passing generations of its ministers, are equally innocent; they have not created, neither can they remove, these subjects of complaint :—

:

1st, As to Pluralities.—The number of small livings has been ascertained; and it is allowed, that such of them as will not maintain, in a decent station, a clergyman and his family, must be held either by unmarried clergymen or with another living, so that such an amount of income may be made up as shall enable the holder of the two to educate his family, or to provide for them, in some degree, in case of his death. As long as it is deemed desirable to have a married clergy, these objects must not be lost sight of. I will not at present consider farther this topic, but wait until you shall have framed a table of the small livings, or only of the number held as pluralities, shewing how

many of them are in private or lay patronage, and in how many the tithes are impropriate, that is, are in lay hands.* I venture to predict that, when such a table is completed (if only for a single diocese or a single county), it will be found that this abuse-pluralities-is neither caused, nor can be remedied, by the church. It is an evil in the church; but not to any extent chargeable, in candour or justice, either on our ecclesiastical governors, or on individual clergymen.

Let this be kept in view when complaint is made of the number of livings which are without, or have only insufficient glebe houses. Every candid mind will admit, that, where this radical evil exists, and the tithes or the patronage are in lay hands, no blame is imputable to the church. Here I will venture another prediction, viz., that comparatively few deficiencies of this nature will be found to exist on livings which are of ecclesiastical patronage.

2nd, As to the unequal distribution of Ecclesiastical Incomes,—let us inquire what is the root of the evil; and what difficulties are presented to the church in any attempt to correct it.

The clergy of the towns are not sufficiently paid. Look then first for the number of these livings, of which the principal sources of ecclesiastical income are not in the possession of the incumbent. When such a table is completed, we will take up the remaining cases, and inquire who repairs the parsonage house, if there be one; who provides a residence for the incumbent; who contributes to the curate's income, &c. &c. Wherever we shall find that the incumbent holds all the sources of income which ever belonged to the living, and yet is not sufficiently paid for his labour and the expenses of a town residence, poor's rates, &c. &c., it will be necessary, as in the case of the smaller livings held as pluralities, to inquire as to the patronage before we can recommend a mode of augmenting the living. Let me ask any candid and upright reformer, how the governors of the church or the clergy are to proceed in removing this abuse, in handling this topic of church reform? The assertion made is this-that every clergyman ought to be adequately paid for his labour. Who denies it except the radical and the infidel? But from what source are the funds necessary for this purpose to be taken? Reasonable people will say, "from the tithes of each of such parishes: they were given for ecclesiastical purposes, and were once ecclesiastical property."

Does any one in his senses suppose that the governors of the church will attempt to move this obvious measure? The Archbishop of Canterbury, in bringing in (I think) the Bill for the Augmentation of small Livings, thought it right distinctly to state, that he would not venture to propose any interference with the lay holders of ecclesiastical patronage or property. The very men who assert that church property is public property, will tell us that tithes in lay hands are private,-that they cannot be touched,—that they are so implicated in settlements, titles, entails, &c. &c., that they cannot be made available for the augmentation of the small livings, from which they have been taken. We must next inquire how many, among livings held as pluralities, are in private or corporate patronage; and then ask whether the bishops are to be required to look out for, or create a fund out of the existing revenues of the church from which such livings shall be augmented? Shall the proportion of ecclesiastical income still left in clerical hands be taxed in order to increase the value of a species of property which, alas! is saleable, in order to add so much to the sum to be demanded by a lay patron for the advowson or the next presentation? I am sure that the clergy will not pretend to join in a voluntary taxation for such a purpose, nor yet for the permanent augmentation of livings of which the presentation (being in private hands) is alternate. Nor do I anticipate that any minister or any Parliament will be found to be so profligate as to seize on, or to tax the incomes of the clergy with such

table.

The Editor would be extremely obliged to any one who would send him such a

a view. It is not improbable that the clergy of every diocese may follow the example of that of Oxford, and form a voluntary society in aid of the augmentations of small livings by Queen Anne's Bounty; but where the livings are of private patronage, or the tithes impropriate or appropriate, I see not any mode which the clergy will be likely to adopt, but that of a varying augmentation of the income of the incumbent, annually voted with reference to the state of the fund, so that the comfort of the individual, and not the saleable value of the living, will be increased. If the blind cry for church reform shall issue in the spoliation of clerical property, I feel confident that lay tithes will not long remain unregulated with reference to their appropriation in some shape to the remuneration of clerical labours, or to some other more popular object.

With respect to the inequality of ecclesiastical incomes, it is asked, “Why should the incumbent of a country parish have, perhaps, double the income with (it may be) only a fifth of the population of a neighbouring town? Why should he who has so much more limited a charge have so much more income?" How would you remedy this? Would it be just to take the tithes paid by the land-owners (for they, and not the farmers, do pay the tithes) in the country parish of A, and give them to the incumbent of the town parish of B, with whom the former have no connexion, on whom they cannot call for any religious instruction, any spiritual consolation, any temporal aid? As this would not be a popular measure, I am inclined to think that it will not be attempted: it would not relieve the landlord or tenant in A., nor yet the shopkeepers in B; and I cannot be persuaded that in either parish the inhabitants really care whether the clergyman has more or less, except the alteration of his income affects them personally or individually.

The thoughtful person will perceive that such an attempt, or indeed any attempt to equalize (or render less unequal) ecclesiastical incomes, will not effect the supreme object, viz., the better discharge of clerical ministrations. The powers, feelings, opinions, and opportunities of ministers are so varied and so continually changing, that no new allotment of income will ever permanently secure the highest remuneration to the most zealous and efficient clergyman. It must also be remembered, that the various duties are not always most efficiently performed where they are most onerous, nor most neglected or trifled with where the income is greatest; in the latter case there may be as much devotion to the work, and as much exertion, as in the former.

Let us turn now to another proceeding, the odium of which is thrown most unjustly on the church and clergy, I mean the sale of livings. Surely it is well known that the Bishops and Chapters cannot sell livings in their gift; that laymen, or individual proprietors (it may sometimes happen that they are clergymen inheriting such property) are the parties who are concerned principally in this most objectionable traffic. In the name of candour and common sense, what can the Bishops do with reference to this charge against the church? They cannot remove it: they can only take care that no clergyman benefits by it unduly, and cordially join in any endeavour to abate the evil.

The eyes of all the friends of true religion must be now anxiously bent on the proceedings which are in progress or in contemplation for the augmentation of small livings. It is to be hoped that they will be so speedy and so effective that all reasonable minds may be satisfied, and that the lay patrons and impropriators may feel conscience urging them to "go and do likewise." Indeed, the declaration, in the House of Lords, of one noble Peer,* leads us to entertain sanguine hopes that the ecclesiastical patrons will not be permitted to stand alone, for any length of time, in the good work.

One word as to the Abolition of Tithes.-Do the clamourers against tithes mean that the payment of them should be totally abolished? I do not believe that the nation will ever desire to make so liberal a donation to the landowners; that the farmers or the inhabitants of the towns will ever wish thus

*The Marquis of Bute.

to plunder the clergy merely to benefit the squire or the peer. The wise-heads who would give the tithes to the State, for national purposes, would throw a much heavier burthen on the land-owner, without materially relieving any portion of the community. The continuation of the payment of tithes for other than religious purposes, would only augment the present senseless outcry against them.

Let

Let the complainers look to the interests of the great body of the people, and attempt to shew how the spoliation of the church, or the reduction of ecclesiastical income will benefit them. I am confident that the people of England cannot in any way have religious instruction and consolation at so cheap a rate as they have it now in connexion with the Established Church. any one compare the annual payments made by an individual of the labouring classes in any dissenting congregation with those of the Church, and I fear not the result: the difference will probably be two-thirds in favour of the latter. But if the spoliation of the church will not benefit the great body, the English nation, why should it be demanded? A very large proportion of the population is attached to it; a considerable part of the remainder have no wish to benefit one class only at the expense of the clergy; and the enemies of true religion who, on that account, call for the downfal of the church are few and unimportant.

Let us then meet the outcry against the church by reminding our lay friends of these facts and arguments. Let us promote discussion, and disseminate these views of the difficulties attending the Church Reform which is demanded, whilst we protest against the unfair charges made against the church and its ministers, boldly maintaining that the welfare of the community and a sense of their own advantages demand that they should join in the declaration as it regards the church,

"Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari."

Let the people never be permitted to forget, that to them and to their descendants the church property is open; and that in every rank of ecclesiastics at present they behold eminent and pious men, who have raised themselves, by God's blessing, from the bosom of the multitude; yet it is this heritage of the people which the thoughtless, the covetous, and the irreligious would now destroy!

Sept. 1832.

I am, Sir, your's &c.,

LITTORALIS.

ON THE BURIAL SERVICE.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-The observations in your fourth number by a correspondent who signs himself "A Churchman upon that "still-vext" portion of our liturgy, the Burial Service, have led me to reflect with considerable surprise on the feeble method of defence usually adopted in behalf of the "hearty thanksgiving for the removal of our departed brother out of the miseries of this sinful world,” and the expression of our "hope that he rests in God." On the latter I shall not dwell further than to ask, in how many cases a minister would feel himself justified in pronouncing that a sinner was certainly damned? If the answer be, as doubtless it must be for the sake of Christian charity, In no case, or in extremely few, then it may be fairly pleaded that in no case, or in very few, is the possibility of salvation excluded, or, consequently, the hope of it forbidden. With regard to the thanksgiving, it is commonly asserted, that language so decided is not warranted except where a reasonable presumption exists of the salvation of the deceased; and the objection has in general been evaded rather than rebutted, by answering, that according to the intention VOL. II.-Oct. 1832.

X