66 The word in Jobb is ftrangely rendered in our verfion, he hath formed," when the real meaning is "he "woundeth, pierceth, or flayeth," and fo the Septuagint and Syriac tranflate it; and it is remarkable that the former renders m not the "crooked ferpent," but Spanovla anosary, the "apoftate dragon." The text in Ifaiah is a commentary on this in Job, and both united, throw that light upon the amplified defcription of Leviathan at the conclufion of the poem, which thews that nothing lefs was meant under the formidable reprefentation than Satan, the accufer and the adverfary. The 13th verfe, or the second of this fuperfetation, (as it has been very unwarrantably called) contains, I am inclined to think, an allufion to the primary denunciation against Satan; "the feed of the woman fhall bruise the serpent's head." The words in Job was are very obfcurely rendered "the face of his garment," inftead of the "glory or ftrength of his face." The queftion then is "who will venture to face, or attack the head of Leviathan, in which his boast and power confift? Among the fons of men, who will undertake the perilous encounter, and endeavour to avenge the injury committed by this tremendous Being on the human race, and ftrip this " fierce king of terrors" of his ufurped authority; who, in fhort, can deprive him of his crefted, helmet, and inflict upon him that mortal wound, in the dread of which he conftantly exifts, and against which he is always on his guard ?" Such, I take it, is the hidden meaning of this enigmatic queftion; but if the explanation be condemned as fanciful, the rejection will not affect what has been faid on the fubject of the LEVIATHAN, which Being is exhibited in such uncommon colours, and with fuch terrible imagery, as cannot, even with poetical license, apply altogether to the cro codile, or any other animal of prey. If thefe remarks upon a curious, and furely not unimportant fubject, be admitted as deferving the attention of your readers, I may be induced at another opportunity to offer fome obfervations on other parts of the book of Job, which, after all that has been faid by Grotius, Le Clerc, Warburton, Garnett, and the Bishop of Killalla, I ftill firmly believe to be, not only the oldest poem, but the most antient book in the world. No can company ral fervice over any one who has not been baptized in the Church of England, and the inftances adduced to the contrary will not avail. To obey an injunction in contradiction to a rubric is not canonical obedience: perhaps it would be the moft defirable to have the rubric altered, as having been framed before the toleration act took place, and defigned to prevent the procraflination of baptifm. And if it be forbidden to read the fervice over felf-murderers, it is not very proper to read it over those who have been exe. cuted for capital offences. I deem myself fortunate in having never been called upon in the latter inftance, to do that which I must have done with pain to myfelf, and yet could not have refufed. Such perfons, it is faid, die in the communion of the church, and many of them receive the facrament; but can I fay in any fenfe that God hath taken them to himself, when they die by their own crimes? As to Diffenters, fince there are no words in the fervice inconfiftent with their admiffion to Christian burial, I fhould feel myself difpofed to connive, upon the perfuafion that they would not be excluded, were the rubric to be framed in the prefent day. But there is a fhameful practice with fome of the Diffenters which the more confcientious among themselves condemn, and it is that of taking their children to be baptized in the church, whom they never intend to educate as members. In a large town in this kingdom, the refufal of a clergyman to receive within the bofom of the church, children, who, he knew, were only introduced for the fake of being registered, raised the clamour of various defcriptions of perfons, many of whom did not know the baptifmal fervice, and who are ready to catch at every opportunity of cenfuring what they call Church Bigotry. One of the cafes was reprefented to the bishop of the diocese, and fome had the malignity to report that he had reprimanded the imaginary offender. This, in the nature of things, was impoffible : Any Any clergyman, who should knowingly admit a child under fuch circumftances, would be highly blameable, as both the parents and fponfors would be grofs prevaricators. Could any thing be more fhocking than to thank the Almighty for incorporating the child, who is to be, as far as can be forefeen, a fchifmatick? The promises of the fponfors are in general terms, but the child is to be called upon to hear fermons, that is, fermons by the regularly ordained: he is to learn the church catechifm, confequently to hear it explained in the Church, and he is to be confirmed. Such are the conditions required, and he is not an honeft man who afferts that any child fhould be admitted without a probability that they will be performed. The parents do not promife any thing perfonally, but they are bound by the engagements of the fponfors, who merely give collateral fecurity, not to exonerate, but to aid and affift. In all the inftances abovementioned, the parents not only would not themselves promife, but referving the power of acting as they pleased, by neceffary implication renounced the conditions on which alone children can be confcientiously admitted. But faid one of thefe equivocators,fneeringly, to the refufing divine," you did not object to the churching the mo"ther," in allufion to the fee, which did not, however, belong to him.-To that fervice no conditions are annexed, and the malignant remark, therefore, might have venom but no fting. I farther add that, with the cant of candour, the Evangelical people are ready either directly or indirectly to join in any reproach against the clergy, who are not of their perfuafion, but who, in defiance of the coarfe Mr. Overton and his fleeping partners, will for ever claim the appellation of true churchmen. I am, Sir, Your humble fervant, P. S. It would be worth while to frame an act of parliament, compelling Diffenters of all denominations to keep regular regifters, and to tranfmit copies to the provincial courts every year, as is the practice in the church. HARDSHIPS OF THE CLERGY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S IN SIR, MAGAZINE. N every country the condition of the clergy is of the utmoft confequence and the greatest importance. On their welfare the intereft of religion depends, and according as their ftate is profperous or adverfe, in like manner that of religion itself will be; if we wifh our holy religion to profper and be regarded, thofe who wait at its altars must be poffeffed of that eafy affluence which will render them refpectable in the eyes of the people. If the minifters of religion in these days are fubjected to the extreme hardships of poverty, and their income be fcanty and their attire mean, though they may be poffeffed of the eloquence of the fage, and endued with the wifdom of the fon of Sirach, yet their inftructions will be difregarded, and their persons treated with ignominy and contempt. Sequestered by their education and profeffion from worldly concerns, they are not, to use a modern phrase, men of the world, and therefore are unable to cope with the artifices and cunning by which they are fo often furrounded. Though candour will allow that the clergy are men of like paffions as others, yet how cruelly are their indiscretions magnified, and their failings made the proud triumph of the infidel and the fcorner! It has been justly observed. that more men are ruined by indifcretion than by vice. I am fully perfuaded that this may be faid of the clergy in general, and to their honour be it faid, that very few of them have brought ruin upon themselves and families by their vices, but by mere indifcretion and want of knowledge of the world they have too frequently done fo. Öne remarkable circumftance comes within my knowledge there was living in my neighbourhood a clergyman. in the decline of life, and with a wife and large family, one of which is infane. This poor man was overwhelmed with debt, and the horror of a prifon alone waited to com plete plete his accumulated mifery. In the hour of agony and diftrefs, imprudence led him to embrace the kind offer of a foreigner to extricate him from his difficulties. Accord ingly this pretended man of benevolence paid the debt, and, by way of reimburfing himself for his generofity, made the clergyman fign over the profits of his living to him during the natural term of his life, allowing him, however, a certain fcanty portion, a decent maintenance as he calls it, putting the remainder into his own pocket. What the cler-, gyman himself would not do, the confcientious foreigner has done: he has raifed the tithes to a confiderable amount, and as several years have elapfed fince this affair took place, he is faid to have repaid himself both principal and interest over and over. From this tranfaction, not only the clergyman fuffers, but his parishioners alfo, for the former being thereby rendered totally unable to pay his rates, the latter are obliged to pay them for him. I am not lawyer enough to know whether this tranfaction comes within the flatute against ufury. I fhould be glad to be informed by fome of your intelligent correfpondents, whether a clergyman can legally make fuch a contract, and thereby empower a layman to raise the tithes of a parish at his arbitrary will and pleasure, or whether by applying to the chancellor, this leafeholder, if he may be fo called, would not be obliged to refund what he has received on account of tithes, under the confideration that this agreement was wrung from a man labouring under diftrefs, of which the law allows no man to take advantage, admitting however the payment of the fum originally advanced, the legal intereft thereon, and the infurance upon the life of the clergyman? At all events, should there be no clause of redemption in the agreement to which I allude, I wish to know whether it could not be set aside, and legal redrefs obtained. I remain, Sir, Your humble feryant, |