that might be introduced-minute though they severally bewould not be inconsiderable, may be easily imagined. Who can doubt it, that considers the immense labours that have been expended on the text itself—on the grammar and philosophy of the sacred languages-on the more accurate investigation of oriental history and antiquities, manners and customs, since our venerable translators completed their work? Though in such revision no one passage of importance were altered, the collective effect of a number of minute improvements (like the last touches of the sculptor's chisel or the painter's brush when the work seems, to every eye but the artist's, finished), might greatly aid to the beauty of the whole; as, on the other hand, the collective effect of a number of deteriorations, though each trifling, might greatly impair that beauty. Hence, effectual securities are necessary that any alterations should be improvements, and that there should be no rough handling of such an heirloom as the English nation possesses in the common version.

A certain class of minute improvements, that would commend themselves to instant and universal approval, would alone add not a little to the elegance, and detract nothing from the fidelity of the version. They are too obvious to need mention. Our translators have unhappily adopted certain literal translations of Hebrew idioms, which having passed into common speech, sug gested nothing coarse to oriental ears, and would also sound less coarse in our ancestors' ears than in our own. They might be readily exchanged for modes of expression which, being the correspondent idioms of our own speech, mean with us just what the original expressed to the Hebrews, and would, therefore, be in fact a more faithful, though a less literal, reflection of the sense. We need not particularise any of these few expressions; for which, indeed, the common sense of the public reader generally substitutes a ready equivalent. But it is well to get rid of them, if only to silence the prudery of a captious infidelity which, amidst the often unutterable impurities of its own literature, is apt to be seized with qualms of scrupulous delicacy when it is its cue to dilate on the grossness of the Bible! The grossness consists, however, in renderings ill-adapted to our Western ears, not in idioms of the East, which, as commonly received forms of speech, conveyed none of the indelicacy which we fancy in them to those who daily used them.

Similar observations apply to the translation of some of the oriental tropes. These are sometimes rendered, not as they ought to have been, in accordance with the principles of really faithta translation, into equivalent tropes of our own language, but into the terms which literally stand for them. It is justly remarked

by Campbell in his "Philosophy of Rhetoric," that different nations, following different analogies or fancies, or the notions of their current physiology, have assigned very different organs of the body as the habitat of the very same emotions. In every such case, truth of translation would require that the trope should be rendered into correspondent tropes, not into the literal terms, which in the language of the translator may have, and generally have, no tropical equivalence. For example, the word "bowels" when used metaphorically for "compassion" should be rendered by the word "heart," which we westerns have generally fixed upon as the symbolical seat of the same emotion. When once such a symbol of speech has become the established sign of a purely mental conception, those who ordinarily use it think no longer of the original meaning of the word-of the organ which has given origin to the metaphor. When the Hebrews or Greeks used "bowels" for "compassion," they were doubtless as little troubled with any ludicrous visual images as we, when we speak of a man of a tender "heart," are led to think of the physical organ-the cone of flesh-so called. Yet, because we have a different trope from theirs (though they had ours too), the use of the word "bowels" in some contexts gives our translation a ludicrous air; just as to an oriental many of our metaphors, for which they have no litoral counterpart, would also sound uncouth or ridiculous. The true method of giving the faithful translation of all such expressions would be to render them, not into their literal, but their tropical equivalents.

Another obvious improvement would be the getting rid of by far the greater part of the italics with which our too scrupulous translators have loaded the sacred page, and which give the ignorant reader an idea that they have added a great deal of their own, whereas in nine cases out of ten these italics simply express what is included essentially in the Hebrew and Greek forms of speech, in the idioms and inflections, and are a substantive part of the rendering.

Other, and still more important emendations, such as improvements occasionally in the syntax, the getting rid of forms once current, but now truly archaic; and, in not a few instances, the correction of positively obscure or erroneous translations, will be found specified in Chapters V. to X. of the interesting work by Dean Trench, recently published, and entitled "On the Authorised Version of the New Testament, in Connection with some Recent Proposals for its Revision."*

An obvious improvement in form would be gained by the adoption of the principle of the paragraph Bible. The convenience of the old division into verses, for the purpose of reference, might still be secured by printing the numbers, as in that Bible, in the margin, without making each verse a paragraph in itself.

Some translations of insulated portions of the New Testament have recently been made in this country with the professed desiz of "improving" the common version. The attempt which has excited most attention is that under the joint editorship of five clerg men of considerable reputation for talent and learning, of wh Dean Alford is one.

This attempt, at all events, illustrates one point-the very limited amount of change that any judicious editing can operat in the " common version.' It is impossible not to awari mat praise to our "five divines" for moderation and self-control in a case in which there are so many temptations to overdo, if only show to critical acumen that the task is not a needless on! But instead of indulging the love of novelty, they have acted o the principle of doing a minimum; and the consequence is, th we may read page after page of their new translation, ani t.. only a few verbal changes; not always, by the way, necessary, and we must add not always, in our estimation, improvements We cannot, for example, say that the words, "My meat is to th will of my father" are improved by the form, "My meat is fo 'e doing the will of my father;" nor, as we think, is the alterati in John, xiii. 23, at all to be commended. The word leaning" seems to us the only genuine English word which expresses t posture; and as the ancient custom at meals is universally know”. we cannot see what end is answered by lengthening and weaken

* We wish we could say as much for the "first part " of a New Translation the New Testament by the Rev. T. S. Green, M.A., containing the Gospel St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans. It has comparatively few impr changes as regards meaning; but it strongly illustrates two other points on wi. we have insisted; that it is very possible to deteriorate the common version or change of diction; and that in any attempt at revision. it is necessary that LA! minds should be engaged upon it, not only as mutual aids, but as checas. W think that we may affirm that nearly all the changes of phraseology props T Mr. Green are palpably for the worse, and that he could not have given thimitë any public co-adjutors with an ear for genuine English or any purity of tast As we deem it a duty to give some proof of our assertions, we would cite t following renderings:—“ Well done, good and trusty servant; thou wast 757 as far as a few matters, I will place thee in control of many, enter the of thy master."-Matthew, Chap. xxv. 23. Or, "how can one enter int house of the strong man, and pillage his chattels, unless he should first e strong man."-Matthew, Chap. xii. 29. "And whenever the unclean spirt gone out of the man, it traverses waterless places, seeking rest, and finds he Matthew, Chap. xii. 43. "And if God thus attires the herbige of the 1 which to-day is, and to-morrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much m clothe you, you scant of faith."-Matthew, Chap, vi. 30. And if thy ng i hand is stumbling thee, cut it off, and throw it from thee; for it is for ty got that one of thy members should be lost, and not thy whole body go z ar pers Gehenna."-Matthew. Chap, vi. 30. And if you greet your brethern what are you outdoing?"-Matthew, Chap. v. 17. Blind folk regain sight, i lame ones walk lepers are cleansed, and deaf ones hear, dead ones are rais så, at poor folk are addressed with good tidings; and blessed is he whoever is stumbled in me."-Matthew, Chap. xi. 5, 6.

the word into the phrase, "reclining at meat." We may say the same of several verbal alterations which appear to us to convey neither more nor less than the terms which were previously used, and which might therefore have been retained. "Thou wast altogether born in sin" seems to us every whit as good as "Thou wast wholly born in sin," which change of word is the only alteration in the verse. In like manner, some of the transpositions of words, where no change of them is proposed, are, we fancy, wholly unnecessary, and occasionally render the passage less musical. "Neither I for these alone" does not seem to us to be improved by the form, "Yet not for these alone do I pray."

pray

On the whole, however, these tentative efforts of our five divines deserve high praise; most of all for the severe self-control which the editors have exercised, and their superiority to the littleness of ostentatiously innovating for innovation's sake. Of one thing we are certain, that their labours must have a happy tendency at least in checking all exaggerated estimates of the error which remains to be corrected in the common version, and of the improvements of which it is susceptible. We entirely agree in the statements with which their modest preface commences. They say, "Refraining altogether from any expression of opinion respecting the desirableness of an Authorized Revision of the existing Version, we have thought that the best method of allaying agitation, and enabling those who cannot examine the question for themselves to form a correct view of the real state of the case, would be to offer as faithful and complete a version of a portion of the New Testament as it was in our power to construct. In so doing, however, we have kept two objects distinctly in our view: the one to exhibit in the fullest, most honest, and most loyal manner the actual meaning of the inspired Word of God, allowing no subjective preferences or preconceived views to interfere with this simple and faithful exposition in English of the original text of Holy Scripture; the other, to show, as far as is compatible with this first and chiefest object, that the Authorized Version is indeed a precious and holy possession, and that the errors of it are very slight and few in comparison of its many and great excellencies."

We commend the whole of this preface to the attention of the reader, as well as the very interesting and able work of Dean Trench. Both will have the effect of healthfully stimulating public attention to this important subject, and of helping to form public opinion upon it.

II.

LIFE AND HEALTH ASSURANCE.

THERE are few financial arrangements connected with personal prudence and foresight with which it so much behoves the public to be acquainted, and with which, nevertheless, they are acquainted, as Life Assurance, or a provision against the calamity of premature death; and also under those various other aspects in which it presents itself as an alleviation of misfortune and sickness in association with Friendly and Benefit Societies. The causes of the prevailing ignorance on these matters are due partly to the general indifference of mankind respecting the future, but principally to the lack of accessible and readable information about them. This latter cause, again, is traceable to others, such as the inherent difficulty of popularizing purely technical and financial subjects, and the number of subsidiary topics which spring up at every attempt to make the science intelligible, each of which seems to demand explanation before proceeding further. The number of persons possessing an accurate and extended knowledge of Life Assurance principles and practice has hitherto been very small, nor is it large even in our day. Actuaries have not been so much specially educated for their profession, as inducted into it by fortuitous occur. rences. Even though the number of competent persons may be larger than it once was, yet these professional men seldom have the faculty of popular exposition, or in the few cases where they possess it, they are commonly so lucratively and thoroughly occupied, that they are indisposed and unprepared to spend time in teaching elements, and in addressing the common people in unauthoritative and unpretending modes. There are, indeed, numerous self-styled Lecturers on Life

It may be well to explain at once and for all some principal terms. An Actuary is the financial manager of an Assurance Company, and, either by himself or with assistants, its computer and accountant. Directors advise, with the Medical Officer, upon the acceptance or rejection of lives offered for assurance upon certain rules called premiums. These are founded upon Rates of Mortality, and are graduated according to the age at the time of Assurance. The term Life Office is the most convenient designation of the Company, or Society, or Institut which assures lives, and which may either be Proprietary, or founded upon shares for which interest is paid, or Mutual, in which case the assurers all form a co-partnery; or Mixed, in which the two other principles are combined. The Poi Assurance is that parchment or paper document which the assurer receives up a paying his first premium, and which binds the office. A Life Assurance contract, in its simplest form, is a contract entered into by a public society to pay upon the death of a subscriber to its funds a fixed sum of money, either with or without additions derivable from its surplus funds. On his part the assurer engages terr a premium, or computed equivalent for the assurance, either annually, during i fà or for a fixed number of years. All the more complex, or more peculiar co trata of Assurance are founded upon similar conditions, varied according to the diversities of the several cases and customers.