and the hero shone together, that he knew how to assuage the heat of bloodshed, that the sweetest of his triumphs was to save the lives of the vanquished, and that faithful to his promises he scarcely ever wandered from the path of humanity and justice. He had gained the love and confidence of his troops by the goodness of his heart, by his affability, by his exactness in providing for their subsistence, and by his care not to expose them to unnecessary danger. Had they to march to battle? Joy shone on every countenance: under the orders of the chief whom he adored, every soldier became a hero. But the most admirable of all was, that the camp of Marlborough resembled a tranquil and well-governed city, where decency and good manners reign throughout. Oaths and blasphemies were banished from it; drunkenness and debauchery were unknown in it; severe laws kept bad characters at a distance-in a word it was a school where the soldier formed himself to virtue. After one or two campaigns the most gross learned politeness, and acquired manners which placed him above the vulgar; the most violent became gentle and tractable-so true it is, that good discipline can correct and even reform nature. Divine service was regularly performed in the stationary camps and garrisons. Prayers were read morning and evening, and every Sunday there was a sermon."

Such is the character which history gives of the troops who fought at Blenheim; and such all who love their country, would wish for ever to attach to a British army. I need not say from whence the attempt must originate, or at least derive its main support. Much I believe has been done, and much is still in contemplation and when we consider the influence which an army and navy like our own necessarily exercise, whether by their numerous connections, by their position in society, or by their residence in so many foreign coasts and distant colonies, we cannot but trust that every endeavour to improve their moral discipline will meet with the cordial sympathies of the country. When public opinion goes hand in hand with the march of amelioration, those in power feel their best encouragement to prosecute the work with vigour; nor can we imagine that any such stimulant will be withheld in a nage, whose prevailing feature seems to be the bettering of society in all its departments. The men that have bled for their country, and who are even now evincing their readiness to venture life at any moment when that country may demand it, will not surely be the only class in whose way difficulties are placed; nor will the too common and too just imputation of national ingratitude be suffered to supplant those generous feelings that ought to animate a British public. What means are the best for so holy a purpose those to whom the mili. tary professions are confided will best devise. Springs of action must be familiar to them, of which others are necessarily ignorant ; and agencies must be set in motion, which legitimate authority alone can awaken or direct. Evils exist which that only can remedy: wants demand redress which that must recommend, if not supply. With that authority the will, as we believe, is actively existing; and, we trust, responded to by those who in subordinate stations have to put that will into effect. The mind of England has not made all its progress within the last twenty-five years, without carrying the naval and military professions along with it.

And here it must be regretted, that in that highly talented history of the war in the Peninsula, written of course expressly to commemorate the glories of this favoured country, and to bequeath to soldiers of future days a scientific detail of the skill and courage by which those glories were won, all allusions in the spirit which we should have thought most obvious, have been so

studiously avoided. To narrate the annals of a hundred battles, to dwell with critical minuteness on their "hair-breadth scapes," and at length to trace them all to a glorious conclusion, yet throughout the whole eventful tale to have seen no other agencies watching over the interests of the world, save the talents of the victor, and his fortune, does indeed appear an attempt at philosophy, or a servile imitation of Bonaparte, in whose bulletins destiny and fortune were alone recognized, which a heathen, we firmly believe, would have scrupled to adopt. Neither Livy, nor Sallust, nor Tacitus would have put his own divinities so out of the question; nor can I believe that the illustrious warrior, whose achievements have formed the groundwork of the history, would think himself less honoured, had he been placed under an all-powerful superintending Providence, rather than under the caprices of blind chance. It is unnecessary to multiply examples, the spirit of which prevails throughout the book: the concluding sentence will be sufficient. 'Fortune," writes the author, after detailing the rise, character, and fall of Napoleon, "Fortune, that name for the unknown combinations of infinite power, was wanting to him, and without her aid the designs of men are as bubbles on a troubled ocean." Earnestly do I wish that in future editions of a work otherwise so valuable, the name of Fortune may be erased, and Providence may be allowed some influence in crowning the contests of five-and-twenty eventful years with victory.

But although the moral cultivation of the warlike professions must in a great measure depend upon those who by their station, care, and example, ought naturally to exercise the chief influence over them, yet it is not by these alone that the important object can be effected. At an earlier age than that for girding on the sword must the seeds of piety and humanity be sown. Many now alive can doubtless recollect when, if there was a son from whom no good was expected, his destination was at once the army. A profession notoriously dangerous, whether the uncertainty of existence or the variety of its temptations be considered, was selected as most appropriate for that individual of the family, who of all the group was least likely to resist the one, or to be prepared for the other. Those prejudices are I believe exploded. The army is now viewed through a juster medium; and arms are regarded as one of the honourable engagements of a life, or as an occupation in which a young man of fortune may pass the few years that precede his settlement in the world, as in a school of good manners, and praiseworthy em. ployment. Let this revolution in opinion be followed up. Let us rejoice to see the profession of arms raised to its proper standard; let us desire that its followers may be ornaments to their country, brave but compassionate in war, gentle and refined in peace. With such aspirations we shall prepare the way by duly training those of our infant charges that may be destined for it: we shall hold up to their veneration the great and the good who have in various ages filled its ranks; we shall shew how the most eminent of the early Christians numbered soldiers amongst them; and we shall accustom their tender minds, whilst yet susceptible of impressions, to consider piety as the indispensable accompaniment of an honourable career. Thus will the calamities of war best be mitigated. Happy will it be for mankind, should they be averted altogether;

but should dire necessity again summon our soldiers to the field, England will have the consoling assurance that her name will be as renowned for humanity, as for courage and skill.

P. W.

ON A CONJECTURAL EMENDATION OF JOHN VII. 12.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

In the Edinburgh Review for October there is an article on Biblical Criticism. An example is there given (p. 135) of conjectural emendation of the sacred Text:

The reading proposed for discussion, is ἀληθινος instead of ἀγαθος, John vii. 12; Some said he is a good man ;" and it is determined, that "the total probability for ȧyalos, obtained by multiplying the external and the internal probabilities, is far greater than for the conjectural ἀληθινος."

As the received text is thus allowed to remain undisturbed, it may seem of little use to examine the weight of the arguments adduced by the reviewer against it. But he "does not," he says, "recollect an instance in the New Testament, in which there is a greater degree of internal probability in favour of a reading, which is not also supported by strong external evidence." It may therefore help to turn students from such unprofitable speculations, if we weigh the reasons alleged in this instance in favour of a change.

1. 'Aλnovos, says the reviewer, "is a favourite word with St. John." It is a superficial sort of criticism, to count, by the aid of Schmidius, how often one of the inspired writers uses a word, if we do not endeavour to ascertain the exact meaning attached to it in different passages, and observe who the parties are that employ it. Now, the word àλŋvos is only used by our Lord, or by the inspired Evangelist speaking in his own person. He never puts it into the mouths of unbelievers. And as he generally, if not always, gives it a lofty meaning, (as at chap. i. 9, which it would be presumption in any man to assume that he can fully fathom,) I would assign the probability, on this first argument, to the rejection, not to the reception, of the conjecture.

We must examine the Evangelist's use of the substantive åλŋ0ɛla, if we wish to obtain a just conception of this important word and its congeners. I count that he introduces it forty-three times, exclusive of Pilate's inquiry, who felt that it conveyed a meaning which surpassed his comprehension.

'Anons, the adjective, is, I think, only twice used, except by our Saviour or the Evangelist; namely, at John viii. 13, where the Pharisees refer to the law, as appears by v. 7; and at chap. x. 41. Repeatedly, however, it does not rise to any meaning beyond its common acceptation, as opposed to deceit and falsehood. The adverb aλnow is mostly so used. And this, I allow, is the meaning required for the conjectural reading. But aλnovos, and not aλnons, or aλnows, is the word contended for.

2. 'Ayalos, says the reviewer, "is in no other place used by St. John as an adjective."

I would refer the reader, in direct contradiction to this affirmation, to John i. 46, John v. 29, and 3 John v. 11. It would be childish to

contend that these are substantives and not adjectives: and yet on what else than such grammatical puerility can the assertion be based? It will not be seriously urged that St. John adopts the adjective before "thing," but carefully rejects it before "man" understood. At 3 John v. 11, ȧyalov is opposed to кakov, and this is almost identical with the meaning which, it is asserted, St. John always consigns to καλος.

3. St. John's word for good is elsewhere always kaλoç.”

I have shewn that this is not the fact; and I add that kaλoç is only used by him in two independent passages, in the sense of moral good; and that ȧyaboç is so used four times. "Good wine," (chap. ii.), has no moral excellence; "the good shepherd," (chap. x.), is repeated thrice; and in the same chapter "good works," our Lord's expression, is taken up and commented on by his enemies. The word kaλos does not elsewhere appear in St. John.

4. " The sentence was evidently intended to convey an antithesis."

It cannot be denied that such may have been St. John's intention; but it does not necessarily follow, in a philological view, from the use of aλλa. If, however, we look at the argument, it is easy to discover an elliptic antithesis latent in the existing text. Goodness surely might be predicated of Him who was unwearied in performing works of beneficence. But this inference was denied, because he did them not with a good intention; his object was to mislead the people from their fealty to Moses and the Divine Law: and when the fruit was bad, the tree must be corrupt; Beelzebub planted it, and not God.

5. The conjecture about the allusion in the 18th verse to a conversation of other parties at another time, has, even in the writer's estimation, too slight a probability to be worth a lengthened consideration.

6. There may, says the reviewer, "have been a contraction, AOos. which may have anciently stood for both adjectives."

It is not pretended that any proof can be given of this confusion; and in its absence we may affirm it be highly improbable that the same contraction stood for two such very different words; that in the one word should be selected from the ultima, and in the other be extracted from the penultima, and, as it should seem, with no other aim than that of mystifying the matter.

T. B.

QUERY ON AN EXTRAORDINARY NOTION OF BISHOP

PATRICK'S.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN reading Bishop Patrick's "Advice to a Friend," which has lately been placed on the list of the Christian Knowledge Society, I was much surprised to meet with the following passage, in Letter III. sec. 11, p. 28.-"Truly from thence you may take some estimate of it, by considering the time you must stay and wait till 'your happiness be completed, and that is, till the day of His appearing again unto salvation. They are great things which are long in preparing. And therefore the longer your life is hid with Christ in God, as St. Paul

speaks, the more glorious will it appear, when it shall be manifested. The longer your body sleeps in the dust, to the greater dignity shall it be raised. God will pay us (if I may so speak) principal, and use, and all. The treasure multiplies the longer it lies in his hands. If he should give us our reward now, it could be but little but it increaseth infinitely, beyond all our thoughts, by being deposited with Him, till the Lord Jesus shall come from heaven, with all His mighty angels, to be admired in His saints, and glorified in all them that believe.'

The assertions here made appear to me so extraordinary, that I cannot forbear calling your attention to them; requesting, at the same time, that either yourself, or some of your correspondents, will be kind enough to inform me what Scriptural ground the Bishop had for making them.

CLERICUS DUNELMENSIS.

ON THE PLURALITY OF ARCHANGELS.

[Among the papers which we have received on this subject, the following will suffice to shew the opinions of various correspondents, without continuing the discussion.]

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE question of your correspondent" Bedell," in January (p. 33), as to the plurality of archangels, will, I apprehend, receive the best answer from one of those passages of holy writ to which he refersviz., Dan. x. 13. The angel appearing to Daniel, as recorded in the previous verses of this chapter, after speaking to the prophet in words of the richest consolation and encouragement, adds: "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one-and-twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one (margin' the first') of the chief princes, came to help me,' from which passage we may fairly infer a plurality of those exalted beings in the celestial hierarchy, although the pen of inspiration has not revealed them by name.

It behoves us, as fallen and ignorant creatures, in entertaining such high and mysterious subjects, to bow with deep humility and awful veneration; for "the secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.'

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

AZUR.

In your Number for January of the present year an interrogatory has been put, under the signature of " Bedell," relative to the assumed plurality of archangels, in which your correspondent requested to be informed "why the word archangels has been introduced into the service of our church, when it does not appear that mention is made in the Sacred Scriptures of more than one archangel." (Jude ix; Dan. x. 13, 21; and xii. 1.)

The passage in Dan. x. 13, 21, being the first in chronological order, I shall attempt to shew how far it is in doctrinal unison with the Church of England. "But the prince of the kindom of Persia withstood me one-and-twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief