signs;" which admits of an easy application to the notes in music, which, as set to any words, always signify something beyond the mere sounds. Here, then, a new and highly poetical idea flashed across my mind, as having been in the mind of the Psalmist when he composed this psalm. Having his harp, as we may suppose, in his hand, on whose strings he was accustomed to strike out the praises of God and His works, it seems (which was natural enough to a poetic mind like his) that he contemplated the outstretched heavens, with their orbs for fixed points, as connected altogether by an invisible line or string, and forming one vast instrument of music, whose notes, when its strings were struck by its Almighty Maker, sounded through the wide world, making what is called by poets "the music of the spheres," and that what these notes or unheard sounds signified was His "eternal power and Godhead." This is the fine idea which I have endeavoured to embody in my version, keeping as close, both in thought and expression, to the original text, as the requirements of verse would allow. Whether I have succeeded in giving a better version than any that exists, it is not for me to judge. There will always be many to whom it is easy to censure, where it is hard for one to excel.-I am, yours faithfully, STEPHEN JEnner.

PSALM XIX.

THE heav'ns with orbs of glory shine,
The handywork of Power Divine,
To tell by day, to shew by night,
The marvels of His wondrous might,
Who spread the blue expanse on high,
And gemm'd with stars the vaulted sky,
A tabernacle whence the sun,

In radiance clad, his course should run.

Like bridegroom issuing from his bow'r,
Or giant glorying in his pow'r,
Swiftly he speeds his azure way,
Pouring on all the beams of day;
And when at eve he sinks to rest
Behind the curtains of the west,

The moon and stars, with mystic voice,
Uprise, and bid the earth rejoice.

Though speech nor sound salutes man's ears,
Yet there is music in the spheres ;
Their chord extends to every land,
And, struck by an Almighty Hand,
It fills with deep harmonious chime
The boundless realms of space sublime,
And speaks to all on earth's wide sod
The glory of their Maker-GOD.

The Vicarage, Camberwell; Nov. 4, 1865.

ON VERBAL INSPIRATION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-As a subscriber and reader of the Christian Observer for more than thirty years, I venture to ask your observation of two things; but first will you permit an illustration of the necessity of verbal inspiration?

St. Peter, an apostle to the Circumcision (Gal. ii. 6—9), reported, viva voce, a verbal expression of the Lord's will concerning his fellow apostle St. John, (John xxi. 19—24). This the only apostolical tradition, certainly known as such, that is not contained verbatim in the Holy Bible-became so verbally corrupted, even among the disciples, and during the life of John, as to propagate a falsehood concerning both the persons and the period of which it was originally spoken.

Peter probably adverted to his own knowledge and experience of this departure from the truth of "the Word," when he so absolutely declared that the written words of Moses and the Prophets, and the Apostles and Evangelists, and of Jesus, would remain more sure than would his own vocal report of the voice he heard from Heaven on the holy mount.

66

Verbal exactitude-so necessary to a pure stream of tradition, but found to be a nonentity when man uses his own interpretations and expressions-is absolutely necessary at the fountain-source of inspi ration; and there only it is so possible and certain, that we slander the Holy Spirit if we question its purity. St. Peter affirms two things:First. The inspired writers did not-because they could not-fully understand the matter and meaning of the inspired communications; and consequently could not, and would not, be left to their own judg ment to determine the best words by which to express the Divine meaning. They could not paint in words even a shadow, much less an accurate image, of what there existed no substantial idea in their minds. Ergo, verbal inspiration was necessary. (1 Pet. i. 10-12.)

Second. Not at any time was the writer moved by his own will or judgment in interpreting and expressing the inspired ideas; but holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Ergo, verbal inspiration is a fact. (2 Pet. i. 20, 21.)

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," &c. (2 Tim. iii. 16.) Tradition is a whirling wind, that takes up chaff rather than wheat, and carries it any whither.

As there is no other authority than tradition for the assumed origin of any one of our European Gentile Churches from any one of the twelve Apostles, as its founder or bishop; those sacrificing priests, who profess to derive their apostolical authority through Rome from St. Peter, are of all ministers most miserable! What they can say for their Papal Apostolical Succession they had better say quickly, for judgment is already going forth against them.-I am, Sir,

A CHURCH OF ENGLAND PROTESTANT CATHOLIC.

[This seems to us too strong an expression. With this letter we must close a controversy which has already occupied many of our pages.-EDITOR.]

ON UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-Can you, or one of your correspondents, recommend me, for lending, a book or pamphlet which clearly points out the error of the doctrine of Universal Redemption-that the mercy of God will prevail over His justice in the final salvation of sinners? I have reason to fear that some amiable men, who are styled Evangelical preachers, entertain this doctrine, as they make it an easy matter to get to Heaven;-a few words expressive of sorrow for the past-and all will be well. Yours obediently, AN OLD FRIEND.

[We join in "An Old Friend's" request. We do not know of such a tract, but we fear with him that it is much wanted.—ED.]

WILKS'S LAW OF MARRIAGE.

We noticed, a few months' since, a valuable as well as interesting little volume, by the Rev. S. C. Wilks, on the Law of Banns. He has since published two letters on the Law of Marriage. It contains some statements of great importance to the clergy, especially to those who reside in large parishes. It is well known that Lord Eldon, in a case in which a ward in Chancery had been clandestinely married, declared that the onus of proving the residence of parties married within their parishes-one of them at least -rested upon the Incumbent of the said parish. It was not enough that he caused inquiry to be made; he must himself ascertain it by personal visitation. We never attached the slightest importance to this preposterous dictum, founded upon no law or canon of the Church, nor upon any ancient custom. Just like a more recent dictum in a well-known case, which threw the Church for a while into a paroxysm of alarm, it was thrown out as it were by the way side (obiter dictum) upon a question which was not before the Judge; on which his opinion had not been asked; which had not been argued on either side; and on which he had no more right to give a legal decision than we ourselves. However, Lord Eldon's authority seems to have been taken for law, and it has lately been acted upon in the diocese of Exeter, where it was broadly affirmed, as a point upon which no question could be entertained, that the minister of the parish, who in this case had made inquiry through his clerk, was bound to have made the inquiries in his own person! and was guilty of a felony for having married the parties without making these previous inquiries in person. It is the well-known case of Mr. Martin, who was proceeded against in the Bishop's Court, and punished with a fine of ten pounds, as a very mitigated sentence for a transgression so enormous. Now, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the Bishop of Exeter, we maintain that the whole proceeding was utterly illegal. The charge against Mr. Martin was, that he had feloniously married, &c. Imagine a Bishop's Court undertaking to try a felony, and compounding it in a penalty of ten pounds! Further, the Court in this instance decided not by any law or canon; they did not attempt to refer to any; Lord Eldon was their sole authority.

We wish to draw the reader's attention to what Mr. Wilks writes upon these points.

But we have a still graver objection, to which Mr. Wilks has devoted a few lines. This is one of many attempts which have been made, for a series of years past, to secularize the clergy. Let them beware, and resist. There is a large and powerful party jealous of the parochial clergy. High Churchmen would have them the creatures of the bishop; Broad Churchmen, and mere politicians, would have them an ecclesiastical police anything rather than a spiritual priesthood, devoting themselves incessantly to the proper work of the ministry, and possessing that living power which makes the parish feel and rejoice in its presence. A clergyman is to visit in person every abode in which parties who put up banns, or produce a license for marriage, may live or lodge; he is to satisfy himself in person (how, we are not informed) that they have lodged, or lived, in the house so visited during the whole period required by law. He may have, as some of our friends have, a parish containing ten, twenty, or even thirty thousand inhabitants; still this toil, or slavery rather, he must undergo, and some clergymen are actually making the attempt. Another oracle, great in its way, maintains that the clergy ought to spend an hour every day in their schools, and lectures them at the same time on the insipidity of their sermons. Let the clergy once allow themselves, on whatever pretext, to be brought down from their high position, and thus made to "serve tables," and as ministers of the Gospel they are betrayed and lost. But it is time our readers should listen to Mr. Wilks. We have only to premise, that he would have a Banns Book provided, properly ruled and headed, in which the person who brings the banns, or the license of marriage, should be obliged to subscribe a solemn declaration, that the statements therein made are true, thus taking all the responsibility upon himself:

"It may seem strange that the cases against clergymen for encouraging clandestine marriages have turned upon comparatively small questions; but the reason is, that the really important questions are interdicted. Take, for example, the stock case which is always quoted, that of Martin, in the diocese of Exeter. In that case, a father deposed that Martin had feloniously' married his minor son without his consent or knowledge. If it was, as he deposed, a case of felony, the Bishop had no right to try a case of felony under the Church Discipline Act, or any other Act; and the whole proceeding was, from first to last, illegal. But, passing this by, why did not the Bishop try him for marrying a minor without consent? for that was the real offence. He could not do it, for the father had deposed that the banns were without his knowledge; therefore he could not have expressed his dissent to the clergyman. Now, what says the Act? A clergyman shall not be punishable by ecclesiastical censure for solemnizing such marriage without consent of parents or guardians, unless they shall have given him notice of dissent.' And what said Sir Herbert Jenner, the Judge of the Court of Arches, in the case of Wynn? The Act of Parliament certainly repeals that part of the sixty-second Canon [which the bishop relied upon in his pastoral letter upon banns] which prohibited marriages between minors before the parents or governors of the minor, either personally or by sufficient testimony, signified their consent to the marriage.' And what says Dr. Lushington, the present judge of the same Court Christian? I have his opinion lying upon my table, in his own handwriting, in reference to a similar case, respecting which he says:-'The charges respecting minority and want of consent must be struck out, upon the ground that such prosecutions are forbidden by the Marriage Act, which declares

that unless the father or guardians forbid the banns there shall be no ecclesiastical censure. If the banns are forbidden, the clergyman is guilty of felony.'

"The Bishop was thus driven back to the small matter, whether Martin had taken due pains to ascertain if the minor had resided seven days in his parish. Here, also, I have an opinion lying upon my table in the hand-writing of that eminent civilian, Dr. Addams, who says, 'I am not aware that the law imposes on ministers the duty of ascertaining that persons who put up banns are really resident in their parishes.' The assessors whom the Bishop had appointed, when they came to hear the particulars, palliated Martin's proceeding so effica ciously, that the Bishop inflicted only a fine of 10l., which every lawyer will say was legally ten sovereigns too much for anything he had done or left undone. I request my readers to re-peruse the words of Dr. Lushington printed in italics. "If I were not intruding too far upon your columns, I would quote some of the passages which I have cited in point, to show that it was predicted, at the time of Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, that this all-heal discretional seven days, even if it were imperative, would heal nothing, especially in our locomotive era, and with our dense population; for a boy and girl may go to any place where they are not known, and, as there is no law to oblige them to sign any deposition about age, consent, affinity, or anything but their names and present residence, it is at his peril that a clergyman refuses to publish their

banns.

"But the seven-day prevenient scrutiny, even if it were made imperative, would be impracticable. A statement has appeared in the newspapers that at Manchester Cathedral there are sometimes a hundred pair of banns. But suppose a much smaller number. The Bishop of Exeter charged Martin with having neglected his duty by taking the word of his parish clerk and a lodginghouse keeper that the young man had resided as they declared. Well, then, suppose only six cases, that is, twelve persons, whom the clergyman must, in person, visit every morning for seven days to know that they have dwelt, inhabited, and lodged' there the nights before, and so on, week after week, and year after year, for every new couple. Some clergymen would continue the duty during the asking. The legislature has imposed no such impracticable duty; nor, if it had, would the finding the parties at their lodging prove who or what they were. They have only to be silent, and the clergyman is nonplussed.

"Permit me to quote the declaration of Dr. Joseph Phillimore in March 1822, on moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act: Banns have, of late years, furnished the most effectual cover for evasion, deceit, and fraud that the ingenuity of man could have devised.'" "S. C. WILKS."

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

The End of all Things; or, the Coming and Kingdom of Christ; By the Author of "God is Love;""Our Heavenly Home," &c. London: Darton and Co. 1865.-The popular author of this volume has undertaken, and performed, a task from which many other eminent writers have shrunk. He has compiled a history of the Millennarian Controversy, from the days of the Apostles to the present time. Nearly two hundred pages, forming one-half of the present work, are thus occupied. After this, two leading errors, as the writer deems them, of the Millennarian School, are discussed:-the strictly literal interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures, and "the secret coming of Christ." But here the allotted space has been filled; and for the remaining portions of the subject-"the Second Coming of Christ;"