the ground of its freedom from conjectural criticism; and this opinion is in no degree changed by the mere reiterated assertion of the contrary,-the sic volo, sic jubeo, beyond which reply is deemed unnecessary.

I might have hoped to escape the charge of being "disposed to drink only from such a muddy stream as the Septuagint," seeing that my chief objection was founded on the original Hebrew alone; and more particularly as Silurus himself acknowledges that he "drank from the streams" of the GREEK, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Welsh, in the first instance, and only had recourse to the Hebrew, in the end, "as a last resource."

In reply to the expression of an opinion on my part, that the original of the text in question would not bear the translation which Silurus has given of it, without some conjectural emendation, he merely puts forward the dogmatical assertion that I am wrong, and that he is right, and prepared to await the issue. I am satisfied, however, that no Hebrew scholar will for an instant question the justice of my opinion, that "Ye cannot," or ye will not be able to "serve the Lord," is a just and faithful rendering of the words which Silurus would translate differently. So say Buxtorf and Leusden, Gesenius and Pauli, among many others that might be quoted to the same purpose; and my opponent in this matter must not think me disrespectful if I am content to follow such authorities, his ipse dixit notwithstanding. The only question that can really remain is, will the words, as they stand in the original, admit of the "new version" at all? And to this question I reply, that if the inflections of the Hebrew verbs given by Buxtorf and Pauli may be relied on, this proposed new version is altogether inadmissible. It has been formerly proposed, as a conjecture, by others; but that it involves a conjectural emendation of the original text, has not, I believe, been denied by any, while it has been expressly admitted by some. I am well aware, however, how close a resemblance there is between the Hebrew and Welsh inflections, and shall be prepared, with all readiness and gratitude, to profit by the learning and diligence of Silurus, if he will candidly, and can successfully, defend his translation of the text under consideration.

In conclusion, allow me to remind your correspondent and your readers, that no attempt has been made by the former to shew that the view which I suggested of Josh. xxiv. 19, is in any respect insufficient, either in the sense which it conveys, or in its conformity to the original in this place, or in its consistency with the idiom of the Hebrew language generally. Till it has been shewn that in some of these respects it is deficient, it will surely be admitted as preferable to one which is in any of these respects doubtful. S. H.

SIR,

JEPTHAH'S DAUGHTER.

Nov. 6, 1840.

JEPTHAH'S VOW and its consequences have engaged the attention of many learned men; and the conclusions which different writers have arrived at on that subject are various. Before offering any opinion relative to the fate of Jepthah's daughter, it will be proper to examine the original, and to give such a translation as may be in accordance with the Hebrew. I therefore respectfully submit the following version of Judges xi. 29-40, to the consideration of your readers.

29. And the spirit of Jehovah came upon Jepthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh. He also passed through Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed forward to the children of Ammon. 30. And Jepthah vowed a vow to Jehovah; and he said, "If thou wilt really deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, 31. Then it shall be that whoever cometh forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall be for Jehovah, and I VOL. VIII.

D

will offer him a burnt-offering." 33. Then Jepthah passed forward to the children of Ammon to fight with them; and Jehovah delivered them into his hands. 33. And he smote them from Aroer even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon quailed before the children of Israel.

34. Then Jepthah came to Mizpeh, to his house; and behold, his daughter came forth to meet him with tabours and with dances. Now she was his only beloved daughter, and, except her, he had neither son nor daughter. 35. And it came to pass when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and he said, "Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Jehovah, and I cannot turn back!" 36. And she said to him, "My father! if thou hast opened thy mouth to Jehovah, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth, inasmuch as Jehovah hath taken vengeance for thee of thy enemies, even the children of Ammon." 37. She also said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me. Let me alone for two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and lament for my virgin state, both I and my companions." 38. And he said, "Go." So he sent her away for two months; and she went with her companions, and lamented her virgin state upon the mountains. 39. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did to her according to his vow that he had vowed; and she knew no man. And it became a custom in Israel, 40. That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament for the daughter of Jepthah, the Gileadite, four days in a year.

From the text, thus translated, we learn the following facts:

First. Jepthah's vow consisted of two things; a solemn promise, if he returned victorious, to set apart, or dedicate to Jehovah, the first person who came to meet him from his own house,-and also to offer up a burntoffering to Jehovah, as a token of gratitude for his success in the war against the Ammonites. These two things are distinctly stated in the vow recorded in the text.

Secondly. As Jepthah's only and beloved daughter was the first person who met him on his return from the war, he was greatly troubled and rent his clothes, on account of the vow which he had made.

Thirdly. His grief arose from her being his only and beloved child. Besides her, he had neither son nor daughter. From her he had hoped to perpetuate his race and, to use the language of Scripture, to build up his house. He now saw his fond hopes blasted. He had made a hasty but a solemn vow. He had opened his mouth to Jehovah, and he could not go back.

Fourthly. To remain a virgin and to be obliged to continue in that state, through such a vow, would be considered by the Jews of that time as a severe calamity. It was felt as such both by the father and the daughter. Hence the grief and the solemn mourning of two months' duration among

the mountains.

Lastly. Jepthah_did not immolate his daughter. At the end of two months she returned to him, and he did to her according to his vow. That is, he set her apart to the service of God. By that act he became, as it were, childless; for, according to the vow, "she knew no man."

This view of the transaction appears to me to be just, and in harmony with the statement in Hebrew. It removes the horrible idea, so generally entertained, that Jepthah really immolated his only beloved daughter, and it makes the account agree with the spirit of the Sacred Code. But though this is my view of the transaction, I shall be happy to peruse any additional article upon the subject which may be furnished by any of your learned and candid correspondents.

SILURUS.

ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE'S "CHARGE."

THE SONS of Mr. Wilberforce have reason to rejoice in their name; it has conferred upon them competence, rank in the Church, and a certain degree of reputation. Had the writer of the "Charge" before me owned some undistinguished man for his father, it may be doubted if he would ever have appeared before the world in the character of " Archdeacon."

66

As a first address from one of the higher clergy to his brethren, the Charge" is not without interest. The preacher has the reputation of being full of zeal for religion-not for that merely practical sort of religion which approved itself to such men as Tillotson, Paley and Jortin, but of the newer and more pretending kind, dignified with the name of spiritual, which of late years has found so many admirers in the Church of England. What are the "deep things" upon which one so evangelically inclined deems it most important to commune with his brethren?

First, he informs them what an "Archdeacon" is; traces the office as far back as the third century-candidly acknowledging, however, "that he did not then fill exactly the same place that he does now;" quotes from ecclesiastical writers and the canons the many arduous duties a modern Archdeacon is called upon to fulfil; and beseeches his reverend brethren to assist him "in endeavouring to infuse life and vigour" into his annual visitations.

The next subject discussed by the new Archdeacon is "the present state of the law of Church-rate." Partaking as church-rates do so much more of pelf than of piety, this is not exactly the matter one would expect to find foremost in a discourse by an evangelical preacher. "Out of the abundance of the heart," however, the mouth will speak, and it generally speaks of things in the order in which the heart is impressed with their importance. The Archdeacon is abundantly justified, if, as he alleges, church-rates be "one of the last remaining acts of national adhesion to the Church of Christ." As a nation, our Christian character will be gone, the moment Churchmen learn to do as they would be done unto! For Dissenters to refuse payment of the rate upon the plea of conscience, "is precisely the same thing," he says, "as if a Churchman bought or inherited a certain property at a lower price because it was burthened with a rent-charge to support a Dissenting meeting-house, and then pleaded conscience as a reason why he should suspend his future payments and appropriate to himself that for which he had not paid." And then are quoted some remarks of Mr. Baron Gurney's in a church-rate case, in which that learned Judge was pleased to indulge in a sneer at Dissenting consciences because the plea is a modern one. An Archdeacon ought to know that there is some little difference in the cases he puts as "precisely the same." The Dissenter buys or inherits property subject, not to a fixed charge to support the Established Church, but subject to pay any thing only if himself and his neighbours consent that it shall be paid. That, and that alone, as regards church-rates, is the condition with which every man's property is burthened. The decision in the Braintree case concedes to the vestry the right of granting or refusing a rate: the vestry may determine whether any and what repairs are required, and the time when they shall be made. Archdeacon Wilberforce hints that that decision may yet be reversed; and until it is, he suggests the following as the proper course for churchwardens to adopt in the discharge of their duty:

"A Charge delivered to the Archdeaconry of the Clergy of Surrey, by Samuel Wilberforce, M. A., at his Primary Visitation, in September and October, 1840: and published at their Request." 8vo. Pp. 38.

"The churchwardens must first ascertain what repairs are needful. They must lay this estimate before a regularly summoned vestry: if the parishioners do not attend, the churchwardens are themselves a vestry and can make the rate: if they do attend, and grant the rate, all is easy. Any evasion of the question, such as a proposal to adjourn it for six months, must be met by the refusal of the chairman to put such an amendment. This will bring the question to an issue-ay or no. If that issue be, that the vestry refuses to grant a necessary rate, have the wardens any remedy? Surely they have, for they are liable themselves to punishment, if they neglect repairs; and if they had no power of enforcing what they are punishable if they do not enforce, there would be in their case that which English law abhors, wrong without a remedy.' What then is their remedy? The judgment on the Braintree case proves so long as it stands unreversed, that it is not, as was supposed, in the power of making a rate by their own authority: it suggests, moreover, the true remedy. Two modes of redress are pointed out: to the first, the laying the whole parish under an interdict, there might probably be now insuperable objections; but the second is easy-it is, to proceed in the Ecclesiastical Courts against those who refuse to perform their duty in granting a necessary rate. The names of the leaders in this opposition should be taken down, and they should be forthwith proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts for their refusal. And this is no impotent redress. They will first be monished of their duty, and ordered to fulfil it; and in the event of a refusal, the Court, under the express authority of the 53 Geo. III. cap. 127, will proceed to pronounce them contumacious, and certify the same within ten days to the Court of Chancery; after which a writ de contumace capiendo will issue from the Court of Chancery against the offenders; and 'all sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, are authorised and required to execute the same, by taking and detaining the body of the person against whom the said writ shall be directed. Nor can they be afterwards dismissed till they have purged themselves from their contempt, and paid the necessary costs. This is the remedy appointed by the law; and so long as this is the law, every churchwarden who regards the obligation of his solemn declaration must have recourse to it before he can honestly say that he his unable to obtain a necessary rate. He is not a legislator, to determine whether the law be bad or good; he is but charged with the due execution of it as he finds it. Should he neglect his duty, either by refusing to call a vestry or to make a rate, he is himself exposed to the monotions of the Court, with all its unpleasant consequences of personal confinement."-Pp. 14-16.

Such, according to the Archdeacon of Surrey, is the process by which we are to prove that we are indeed a nation of Christians! "National adhesion to the church of Christ" will be forfeited unless contention, fine and imprisonment be made auxiliary to its support, with any additional aid that "sheriffs, gaolers and other officers" may be able to render. Why do not the Heads of the Church seriously set about a new version of the New Testament? For clerical purposes, and to dovetail with clerical pretensions, it becomes every year more and more necessary. Then, instead of "Blessed are the merciful," "Blessed are the peacemakers," we shall probably read, "Blessed are the merciless," "Blessed are the strifemakers-for they shall inherit," not "the kingdom of heaven," but "the good things of the Church."

The next subject urged upon the attention of his clergy by Archdeacon Wilberforce is, the principles on which tithes should be rated to the poor. Secondly, money, and thirdly, money-in the pulpit and out of the pulpit, how often is it the burden of a clergyman's song! How they may get and how they may save, are the subjects on which, next to his own office, a new Archdeacon thinks it his duty first of all to enlighten his brethren. Notwithstanding that originally tithes were burthened with the entire support of the poor, it is now deemed a hardship by the clergyman to rate them like other kinds of property chargeable to the poor-rate; partial relief from the burthen is claimed by our preacher as the clergy's right; and he urges his brethren to lay their "just claim" before the legislature. Should this peculiarly Christian endeavour be crowned with success, the Church may

in a few years, perhaps, surrender to the laity all the merit of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

"Church-extension" (another money-matter!) is next brought before the clergy of Surrey :

"Every parish should be made to feel the urgent claims of duty in this matter. They should be taught, in the language of the Oxford petition, 'that while it belongs to the very essence of a national Church, that her spiritual ministrations should be co-extensive with the spiritual wants of the whole community, offered freely to all men, though not enforced upon any one, it is notorious that our population, having increased with a vast and unwonted rapidity, has outgrown the resources of the national Church; and that a large proportion of the people are altogether excluded, without their consent or fault, from her public worship, religious instruction, and pastoral superintendence; and that this evil the nation only can permanently and effectually counteract.""-P. 22.

Churchmen boast of their wealth and their zeal for religion; how comes it, then, that there exists any want of accommodation for all who are willing to benefit by the Church's ministrations? The "sectaries," spite of their poverty, generally contrive to find church-room for all who will avail themselves of it. The confession, "that a large proportion of the people are altogether excluded, without their consent or fault, from her public worship," is a sorry compliment to those who are not excluded, and would justify the inference that they cannot be much benefitted by the teaching and preaching of the Church, or they would surely be more ready to extend the benefit to others.

Satisfaction is expressed by the Archdeacon at the passing of an Act last session, which allows, "with certain limitations," the clergy of the episcopal communion in Scotland and America to officiate in the public services of the Church in England. This closer union with the "sister Churches" is hailed as another proof of the truly Catholic character of "our Church." The next subject introduced into Archdeacon Wilberforce's "Charge" is a pounds, shillings and pence one, viz., "the formation of a fund for endowing additional bishoprics in the colonies," to which he attaches great importance. He borrows a few of the Bishop of London's "pregnant sentences" in recommendation of the plan-amongst others, the following: "An Episcopal Church without a Bishop is a contradiction in terms.. Let every band of settlers which goes forth from Christian England....take with it not only its civil rulers and functionaries, but its Bishop and clergy." (P. 24.) By all means, if the settlers have a fancy for them; only let such of the settlers (likely, happily, to be the larger number) as have no fancy of the sort, take care to preserve their own independence of the bishops.

The preacher's claim for the Church as the promoter and safeguard of civilization would pass current in none but a clerical assembly. He uses the terms "Church" and "Christianity" as if they were identical. To the latter, all that he claims may be conceded, without granting much of which the former has reason to be proud. Had the Nation trusted to the guidance of the Church, of what sort of "civilization" should we at this moment have been in possession? Let History and every one's recollection testify. Can one single object, of a merciful or useful social character, be mentioned, to which the Church led the way? In matters peculiarly Christian, involving no possible interference with system, privilege or revenue, when have the clergy not appeared in the character of opposers instead of promoters? Of many examples, I would invite Archdeacon Wilberforce's attention to the following, from a source which even to him must be unexceptionable.

In "Memoirs of Sir Samuel Romilly," (3 vols. 8vo, 2nd ed., 1840, Vol. II. p. 331,) he says,