Besides, the participle of the aorist joined to a verb in the aorist, implying a coincidence, or an immediate sequence of the actions respectively expressed by them, necessarily leads to the conclusion, that Coláσavres is as much a part of Justin's imaginary case, as εiroler. For an illustration of this principle, see Buttmann's Lexilogus. ποιπνύειν. 3.

I would accordingly translate thus, being at the same time aware how unfitted our language is to express exactly the force of this peculiar construction:-" With whom I do not agree; nor should I, even if very many were to adopt and express this opinion (of the mere humanity of Christ); since we are commanded by Christ himself, &c."

I hope that the historical conclusion to which both the abovequoted renderings, if correct, would lead, is thus established on strictly grammatical, and therefore firmer, grounds-viz., that "very many' had not yet adopted humanitarian opinions.

To prevent this appearing an attempt to deduce a preconceived meaning from a passage by conjectural alteration, it should be remarked, that the proposed reading is, in a manner, forced upon us by the context, and the historical value of the passage depends mainly upon the correct interpretation of what is actually found in the pre

sent text.

When we consider the learning and labour bestowed upon profane authors, the text of the fathers appears scarcely to have received its fair proportion of critical care, at least in this country.

X.

ON THE WORD "MERIT."

MY DEAR SIR,Mr. Barter's "Remarks" are not at present within my reach; but I find in the foul copy of my note to you on them, (December number,) that, in the extract to which he appears to refer, the words" books of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge," are enclosed in a parenthesis, to shew that they were not part of the extract, but a reference to the supposed subject of it-an exclusion from the parenthesis of the word "books," either in transcribing or printing, has, I suppose, given the appearance of incorrectness to the extract. It appears, however, from Mr. Barter's note to you, that I have mistaken his meaning, and that I should have referred to certain expressions contained in books of the society, and not to the books which contained them, as the objects of his disapproval. As I have done so, in fact, in my observations on this passage, which are entirely addressed to the propriety or impropriety of one particular expression objected to by him, and as I have spoken of his " condemnation" of this expression, but never, as Mr. Barter supposes, of his condemnation of any of the society's books, the mistake is, I hope, of the smallest possible importance. Trivial, however, as it is, I readily express my regret to Mr. Barter for having made it, as well as for having supposed him to "disapprove" of the word "merit" in the case in question as a "confused" one. Allow me this opportunity of as

suring Mr. Barter, that, with the exception of his reproof of the word "merit," which I have ventured to defend on high authority, and 1 hope in a fair and courteous manner, no one more fully accords with the general tenour of his " remarks" than,

My dear Sir, yours very truly,

A MEMBER OF THE SOC. FOR PROM. CH. KNOW,

P.S. In my note to you (December number) the word "ominatis" is misprinted "ominates."

THE "RECORD" NEWSPAPER.

DEAR MR. EDITOR,-I have only this morning received an extract from the "Record" of January 30th, containing a letter, signed "W. C.," in answer to one of mine which was inserted in your January number. "W. C." observes, that "the task which the editor had assigned him, of furnishing a reply to that letter, is by no means a difficult one, and need not occupy much space in the columns of the Record.' "The only statement," he remarks, which appears "to him" to require an answer, is the following:-"That the editor had represented the conductors of the British Magazine as seriously arguing for the propriety of the protestant ministers and people partaking of the sacrifice of the mass;" whereas, the very object of one of the original papers, a "Tract on Popery," is directly to condemn such a practice; and that, therefore, the word FOR, in the above connexion, ought rather to have been AGAINST. "A personal inspection," he says, "would at once have convinced the writer of that letter what the passages really were upon which the editor's remarks were founded." These passages, it appears, are the following:

"Nor does the church of England forbid her members to communicate in the churches of those countries where the authorized pastors adhere to the Romancatholic communion. And if we do not so, it is because they will not admit us, unless we comply with the unsound terms of communion which the pope has put forth. Let those terms of communion be withdrawn, and neither their defective administration of the eucharist, nor the speculative errors which many of them hold in regard to it, will, I conceive, warrant us in refusing to communicate with them when we are in those countries.”—British Magazine for May, 1835, p. 291.

"I suppose that, by partaking in the bread of the eucharist, a man communicates in the body of our Lord; and that that grace cannot be hindered by the profaneness of the priest subsequently withholding the blood. If a man is, then, in a country where they who have rightly received the ministry of reconciliation, both order and mission, have presumed to diminish somewhat of the means of grace, I see not how the truth of scripture, or the rules of the church, require us to account him a schismatic because he is willing to receive at their hands all that they will give.”—Ibid., July, 1835, p. 60.

"These passages, then," "W. C." goes on, "professedly from the pen of a clergyman of the church of England, and the meaning of which is certainly by no means equivocal, were inserted by the editor, without note or comment. I did not quote them as language for which the editor was strictly responsible, because they did not occur in the Original Papers; but I did express surprise at the repeated insertion of letters containing these and similar sentiments, if, in fact, not in unison with the editor's own opinions why permit such remarks and statements as these to be perpetually introduced without any suited reply? Surely, it is not usual, as I have already

observed, for the conductors either of political or of religious journals to introduce letters in direct opposition to their own professed opinions, (the British, be it recollected, is professedly a church-of-England Magazine,) merely contenting themselves with the general statement, that they are not responsible for the sentiments of their correspondents. But an original paper has been inserted expressly condemnatory of the practice of protestants communicating with the church of Rome. This is, indeed, so far satisfactory, since, although not introduced into this publication until a year after the appearance of the passages before mentioned, it may yet be looked upon as a disclaimer, by the editor, of participation in the sentiments of his correspondents; to such an extent, at least, as would nearly amount to an entire relinquishment of the question at issue between protestants and Roman catholics; but that is all."

And that is all!" The editor of the "Record," be it remembered, had spoken of the "writers in the Magazine as inculcating on the country the essential elements of the creed of that apostate community (the Roman), and now, at length, (the words are important, though "W. C." omits them,) seriously arguing for the propriety of protestant ministers and people partaking of the sacrifice of the mass." "Now, at length," it seems, by "W. C.'s" shewing, "the conductors of the British Magazine" are "seriously arguing AGAINST the propriety" of any such participation. I wish I could still offer the charitable supposition that there has been an error of the press the editor of the "Record," by assigning to "W. C." the task of furnishing a reply to my letter, seems to admit that the FOR was written intentionally. I can only say I am very sorry for it. Whatever charges he chose to ground upon the "Correspondence" of May (read March) and July, 1835, he ought, at least, to have read (as we must hope he had not) this "original paper," inserted in May, 1836, " a year after the appearance of the passages before mentioned," and, at least, not to have talked about what the writers of the Magazine were doing "now, at length."

But to go back for a moment to that correspondence. The extract from the British Magazine for May (March), 1835, is from a letter signed "Alpha," written in answer to "A Scottish Catholic Deacon," who had asked-"If the Roman church be catholic, why did we, at the Reformation, break off from her communion? To break off from the communion of any branch of the catholic church is to be guilty of schism. If she is catholic now, she was so then; and we, by separating, decatholized ourselves," &c. His answer was, that he was "not aware that our church ever did break off from the communion of the continental churches which adhere to the bishop of Rome. The separation was not our act, but theirs. . . . . Nor does the church of England," he went on to say, "forbid her members to communicate in the churches of those countries where the authorized pastors adhere to the Roman ("Alpha" did not vitiate his own argument by saying, as "W. C." makes him say, "Roman catholic") communion. And if we do not," &c. There was no question here about " protestant ministers and people," nor about taking part in the sacrifice of the mass generally, as one would have supposed from the statement of the "Record." The only question was, whether members of the church of England ought to refuse to communicate "in the churches of those countries where the authorized pastors adhere to the Roman communion." But " Alpha " was answered by "A Scottish Catholic Priest," in the Magazine for

June, 1835. He expressed himself "sorry to be obliged completely to dissent from 'Alpha.' It appears to him, he says, that a church which gives the communion but in one kind," decatholizes herself, and therefore renders communion with her a schismatical act." Nay, he goes on to say, that he does not even admit "that there is a valid consecration in the Roman communion." While "Alpha" and the "Scottish Catholic Deacon" and "Priest" were thus contending, the Editor of the Magazine seems to have kept deep and ominous silence. One of the letters which he thus introduced must have been in direct opposition to his own opinions on this point, on which the church of England, as "Alpha" remarked, had not given her judgment. Such conduct may be very unusual in the conductors of political and religious journals; it may be very unjustifiable: still there seems no reason why the editor should be made responsible for one side of such a correspondence rather than the other. Why is he to be responsible for what "Alpha" says in May (March) and July, and no notice to be taken of what " Alpha's" antagonist says in June?

But now to proceed to "Alpha's" second letter, the real meaning of which will be the clearer for being taken in connexion with what had gone before; and, also, if the passage, from which "W. C." had made extracts, it seems, were given complete. "As to the second point," he says, "whether the withholding the cup in the eucharist so far decatholizes the church of Rome, that (even if the bishops of Spain or Italy would admit us to communion without requiring any assent to the Roman peculiarities) [the italics are in the original,] we should be schismatical in partaking of it; it seems to me, I confess, hard to affirm it. Surely, the whole responsibility of that division of the division of the mystery' (as Gelasius calls it,) must rest with the priest who withholds the cup, and cannot be imputable to those who are willing to receive both parts at his hands if he will give them; I suppose that," &c., [as in the "Record."] The question, then, between "Alpha" and his correspondent had been simply this-whether we were guilty of" schism" in our separation from Rome? which led to the question, whether, as a matter of fact we had separated; whether, supposing they would admit us to communion in countries which acknowledge the Roman see, our church forbids us to communicate with them; and whether, therefore, we ought, under such circumstances, "when we are in those countries,' to refuse so to do? "Alpha" thought we ought not: his opponent, on the other hand, thought it would be a "schismatical" act. This "Alpha" disputed: he did "not see how the truth of scripture, or the rules of the church, require us to account a person so acting a schismatic.'" And, in a postscript, he appealed to "the 30th Article, 1603," from which he drew the inference, that " as the administration of the bread in the eucharist (as far as it goes) is right, our church would not require us to forbear receiving it at the hands of the clergy of the churches of Italy and Spain, &c., provided we were not understood thereby to assent to their departures from primitive and scriptural antiquity." And these are the passages on the strength of which the editor of the "Record" represents "the writers in the Magazine" as "now, at length, seriously arguing for the propriety of VOL. XI.-April, 1837.

31

protestant ministers and people partaking of the sacrifice of the mass!"

With regard to the remainder of the letter which you did me the honour to insert in your January number, and its "truly sagacious conjecture," somewhat awkwardly introduced, and the extracts from Bird's (read Birch's) "Life of Tillotson," and from Lord Clarendon, by which it was attempted to be supported, perhaps you will permit me to add a word or two, when there is more hope of your having a page at liberty to admit it. The story of " Mr. Corr, the Scottish man," will be found to be specially recommended, in the time of the Commonwealth, to the attention of protestants by no less a name than WILLIAM PRYNNE, to whom " W. C." and the editor of the "Record" will perhaps lend an ear, which would be in vain addressed by Dear Mr. Editor, your humble servant,

February 24th, 1837.

N. N.

CHURCH RATES IN SCOTLAND.

SIR,-I hope you will excuse my correcting an error which appears in your March Number. Under the head of "Church Rates" there is an article in which the following sentence occurs:-"Some of the delegates came from Scotland, where there are no church-rates; and it is certainly difficult to say what those who do not pay rates can have to do with abolishing them." When I first saw it stated in the newspapers that there were no church-rates in Scotland, I was much surprised; because, when I spent some time in that country, a few years since, I understood that not only the church, but the manse, also, was repaired by rate upon the heritors. When, however, I found the statement repeated in various publications, I determined to ascertain the fact, and for that purpose wrote to a Scotch friend, the M.P. under whose frank you will receive this. His answer, which I received to-day, is, "The heritors build and keep in repair by rate. We shall have a bother now, if yours pass."

If you can spare room for a few more lines, I should much wish to occupy them by a quotation from Bacon's Abridgment upon the point which Dr. Lushington has declared (in the judgment you have given in a preceding article) to be most important and difficult-viz., whether, by law, the churchwardens are entitled, and whether an ecclesiastical court can compel them, to make a rate, against the regulation of the vestry, by their own authority. Bacon, after mentioning that "the churchwardens have no power to make a rate themselves, exclusively of the parishioners," distinctly says, "But if the churchwardens give the parishioners due notice that they intend to meet for that purpose, and the parishioners refuse to come, or, being assembled, refuse to make any rate, they may make one without their concurrence; for as they are liable to be punished in the ecclesiastical court for not repairing the church, it would be unreasonable that they should suffer by the wilfulness and obstinacy of others." I suspect that the dissenters are aware of this; for their usual practice is not to refuse a