clearly, will be glad to receive as much philological and critical light as the most accomplished annotator may be able to reflect upon them.

Chap. v. 20. Moreover the law entered. νόμος δὲ παρει ῆλθεν. “ And the law entered incidentally.' I am aware that this expression will hardly suit the general simplicity of style which so admirably characterizes our authorized translation; but it is better than another, which is perhaps still more correct, entered by the by. Our Translators seem to have intended to express the Tagà by moreover. Bishop Middleton objects to mapo being applied to the Law of Moses, because that, instead of entering privily, came in with much pomp and notoriety. But I consider the sense of it to be, that when sin had entered, the direct and obvious method would have been, to introduce the gospel as its great counteraction and remedy; instead of which, the law came first to answer a collateral end, viz. to aggravate the evil and make it more manifest and desperate, that men might be most effectually prepared to welcome the blessing. Thus it was an indirect step towards the accomplishment of God's ultimate purpose.'

1 Tim. ii. 6. To be testified in due time. To μagrúgov xalpois idios. Which is the testimony for his times. The difficulty of this ἰδίοις. passage is confessed by all, and is not a little increased by the presence of the article. I understand it to mean, that the great fact of Christ's having given himself a ransom for all, is that which is to be testified by his servants in his times, i. e. in the times of the gospel: it is to be the great subject of their preaching. Compare Titus i. 3. The words napos idiots occur in a sense a little different from this in Chap. vi. 15. of this Epistle.'

iv. 1, 2. Doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy: having their conscience seared with a hot iron. διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν. Doctrines of dæmons, through the hypocrisy of liars, who have their own conscience seared with a hot iron. If the construction followed by our Translators be admitted, of course ψευδολόγων must agree with δαιμονίων; whereas their translation unquestionably conveys to an English reader the idea that it agrees with Ts, the persons who depart: even on this ground, some correction is absolutely necessary. And few, I think, will doubt, after a full consideration of the passage, that nothing less will do than that which I have adopted, which clears up the whole construction by introducing a term to which the following genitives may be referred; whereas otherwise they must have belonged somehow or other to damovías, the subject of the heresy, when the sense of the whole shews that they belong to the heretics themselves. I have given the strong sense, their own, to idlar, as intimating that, their own conscience being seared, they have no compunction in destroying the souls

of others

Almost all modern translators have seen the erroneous construction of the Common Version, and render in a different 'Doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars,

manner.

'whose own conscience is seared.' Doddridge. 'Doctrines con'cerning demons, through the hypocrisy of liars, who are seared in their own conscience.' Macknight. Doctrines about dead men, through the hypocrisy of liars with a seared conscience.' Wakefield.

Heb. iv. 2. "For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them.” Καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι, καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι. This passage describes the gospel as being preached to the ancient Israelites, and the persons whom the writer of the Epistle associates with himself, as admitted to a participation of the same privilege. It seems here to be supposed, as Campbell remarks, that we all know that the gospel was preached to them, but need to be informed that it has ever been preached to ourselves. With the proper rendering of the verb, and the guidance of the context, no attentive reader can fail of perceiving the sense of the writer. "For unto us glad tidings have been published as well as unto them."

8. Jesus. 'Ing. Joshua. Whether such a rendering as that proposed would be consistent with the duty of a faithful translator, may perhaps be questioned. But it is to be considered, that our translation after all is made for English readers, the great bulk of whom never enter into the bearings of the question about the different languages in which the different parts were written; and consequently are hopelessly perplexed about the assertion here made of Jesus. The Son of Nun is known to them only by the name of Joshua: it is really a hard lesson for them to learn and reduce to practical use, that Joshua is the same name with Jesus; the difference between Jehoram and Joram, and other similar instances, is nothing to it. As a practical question, therefore, in which the spiritual welfare of millions is more or less concerned, it may be worth while to consider whether the change would not be justifiable; especially as it would occasion no perplexity to those who understand the principles of the respective formations of the two words from different languages.'

That many readers are perplexed or misled by the reading of the Common Version, there can be no doubt. As perspicuity is the first of all qualities in a translation, we should not hesitate to substitute the proposed term, which is adopted by almost all modern translators. On the subject of proper names, much might, indeed, be said, by a fastidious critic; but it is of more importance, in such a book as the New Testament, to preserve common readers from mistaking its meaning in any case, than to contend for philological niceties, which can only be appreciated by scholars, to whom a translation is not an indispensable acquisition. We have heard it asked, Who is the Simeon mentioned Acts, xv. 14? and of whom no previous notice appears in the chapter. The reference is plainly to Peter, whose speech is reported in the preceding verses: but every one does not perceive

this. If the text had exhibited the name Simon, every one would see the reference, as no reader of the New Testament can be ignorant that Simon and Peter denote the same person. Why the Translators did not insert the name here, as they have done in other places, it may be difficult to discover. It may indeed be suggested, that they have in this instance followed the original, which is here not av but Euμev; but in 2 Pet. i. 1, where the latter form appears, they render Simon. We should recommend a uniform mode of designation, and to follow the example of those translators who adopt the usage by which the persons are best known and most easily recognized; -Elijah rather than Elias, Elisha instead of Eliseus Hoshea, and not Osee.

Art. V. Poor Laws for Ireland, a Measure of Justice to England; of Humanity to the People of both Islands; and of Self-preservation for the Empire. With a practical Development of an improved System of Settlement, Assessment, and Relief. By R. Montgomery Martin, Author of "Ireland as it Was, Is, and Ought to Be," &c. 8vo. pp. 49. Price 2s. London, 1833.

RELAND, without poor laws, has doubled her ragged, halffamished population in thirty-three years: England, with poor laws, has not doubled its population in less than a century. In Ireland, where there is no poor's rate to depress the rate of wages, or to eke out the labourer's pittance with parish relief, labour is worse paid than in any other country under a northern clime in England, labour is better paid than in any other old and well peopled country. In Ireland, where there is no provision for the poor, to operate as a premium upon marriage and an indemnity for improvidence, the lower classes marry before they are twenty years of age; and their reckless indifference to the future, aggravated by their extreme poverty, is fast converting them into a nation of lazzaroni and brigands. In England, under the poor law system, as it existed for more than two hundred years, the labouring classes acquired and maintained a character for forethought, decency, and economy, which raised them above the corresponding classes in any other nation. And still, notwithstanding the abuses that have vitiated the whole operation of that system, to compare the English with the Irish poor, would be to offer an insult to the former, as it would be a cruel mockery of the latter.

And yet, we are sometimes told, that the redundance of population, the depression of wages, the spread of immorality in this country, are all owing to the poor laws! And Ireland, poor Ireland, were this horrible provision for the poor to be introduced there, would soon be in as bad a condition as England itself!

But the truth is, that the absence of a poor law in Ireland, is one very principal cause of the increase of pauperism in England;

and one of two results seems to be inevitable, if a remedy is not applied either the Irish population must be raised towards the standard of the average condition of the English, or the wheatfed English labourers will be depressed to a level with the potatoe-fed population of Ireland. The periodical immigration of myriads of pauper labourers from the sister island, is admitted to have had the effect of lowering the wages of labour in England, and consequently of lowering the character, as well as condition of the labouring classes, by depriving them of any benefit arising from their superior prudence. The evidence brought before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in July, 1828, proves the number of persons coming from Ireland to this country in search of employment, to have annually increased immensely during the preceding nine years; and to have been even systematically encouraged by the Irish landlords; and the Committee express their decided conviction, that, if the present system is to continue unchecked, the effects of its operation will inevitably be, to throw upon England, and that at no distant period, the ex'pense of maintaining the paupers of both countries."

Mr. Montgomery Martin deserves the thanks of his country for this well timed and well reasoned appeal on behalf of the few and scanty rights of the poor.' He has condensed into a few pages the results of various and extended investigation; proving beyond all reasonable question, that justice and mercy, policy and humanity, alike imperatively demand the prompt extension of the law of relief to the paupers of Ireland; otherwise England herself may have reason to join in the cry of the Arch-Agitator for a repeal of the Union. We are tempted to transcribe the following citation from a speech of the O'Connell.

"Who in Scotland lowered the condition of her people by working almost for nothing? The wretch flying from Ireland!—Who filled the factories all over England, and reduced the already too low rate of wages? The outcast of Ireland !-Who made the English poor rates so burdensome? The Irish!-Who brought such misery and ruin on the agricultural labourer? The forlorn Irishman coming from the wilds of Connaught, and slaving for that which an English labourer would turn from with disgust!-What gentleman would suggest a plan for this growing curse? There is no remedy but a Repeal of the Union, or, as some think, the enactment of Poor Laws for Ireland.”' p. 11.

As some think! Yes, and Mr. O'Connell knows, that this would be, not indeed in itself a sovereign or sufficient remedy for the complicated disorders of his faction-torn, church-ridden country, but a far more salutary and beneficent measure, one that would conduce more to its present tranquillity and the eventual melioration of its condition, than any other legislative measure that could be adopted.

The equitable right of the poor to a legislative provision for their protection and relief, has been called in question by onesided theorists and cold-blooded utilitarians, who consider that starvation is a just punishment of those individuals who obtrude themselves into existence without being called for by the capitalist. Mr. Martin has shewn, in a few words, that this right is created by the very nature of civil society, being but an equivalent for the restrictions under which the poor man is laid by the laws created for the protection of the property of the rich. By what 'right,' asks the Bishop of Cloyne, (Woodward), did the rich ( take upon them to enact certain laws which compel the poor 'man to become a member of their society,-which preclude him 'from any share of the land where he was born, any use of its spontaneous fruits, or any dominion over the beasts of the field, on pain of stripes, imprisonment, or death;-how can they 'justify their exclusive property in the common heritage of mankind, unless they consent in return to provide for the subsistence of the poor, who are excluded from those common rights, by laws of the rich to which the poor were never parties?'-Language like this becomes a Christian bishop. To shew that he is not singular in the opinion, that nothing but such a provision for the poor will improve the condition of Ireland, Mr. Martin cites the forcible declaration of the Roman Catholic prelate, Dr. Doyle, before the Select Committee on the state of the Irish Poor in 1830.

6

• When asked whether there was any other measure necessary for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging the application of capital in Ireland, this exemplary pastor says: I think that measure (Poor Laws) alone in its operation would produce that result in as great a degree as would be consistent with the preservation of the moral progress of society in Ireland, independently of all other measures. I have heard of an act of parliament for the purpose of encouraging the draining of bogs, sinking the beds of rivers, fixing the limits of estates, and enabling people under settlements to make leases of lands. I know that these measures would be subsidiary to, and greatly assist, the other; but the other I consider the main measure, so much so, that without it every other act of the legislature that may be passed for the improvement of Ireland will, in my opinion, fail to produce the effects that are hoped from them."

But methinks I hear it said, "Laws should not be made exclusively either for the benefit of the poor or for the benefit of the rich." Granted:-can it however be said, that a law which provides for the comfort of the sick, maimed, and aged, and affords hard labour and bare subsistence to the unemployed, and at the same time secures the peace of the country, the stability of the government, and the security of the wealthy-can such a law be said to be enacted merely for the benefit of the poor? Certainly not. Ireland possesses in a pre-eminent degree the main ingredients of wealth and social happiness, namely, an exuberantly fertile soil, and a superabundance of active and intelligent