upon his note on 1 John, v. 7, tending, I think, to satisfy his exceptions to the argument against the authenticity of that celebrated I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant,

passage.

W. FITZGERALD.

REVIEW OF MR. GRINFIELD'S ESSAY.

MR. EDITOR. In a note, p. 555 of your last number, you* express an opinion, that Heb. i. 1, should be applied exclusively to the Father, as the first person of the blessed Trinity. Without wishing to express any opinion on the merits of Mr. Grinfield's work, I trust you will allow me to state my reasons for humbly venturing to differ from you, in the exclusive application of a text which has always appeared to me to relate to the whole and undivided godhead.

And first, if we adopt this interpretation, we must give up the favourite sentiment of Bishop Bull and the primitive fathers, that the visible appearances of Jehovah under the old covenant, even the manifestations of Christ, "præludia et figuræ futura incarnationis." But, without going to the whole extent of this primitive sentiment, I think that most orthodox Christians will admit, that some of these appearances are ascribed in the New Testament more especially to the Son; and that, consequently, it would be extremely dangerous to limit such a general expression to any one person of the Trinity.

But this reasoning will appear with still greater effect, if we consider that by this interpretation we shall exclude the Holy Spirit from that especial agency which is ascribed to him in directing and superintending the hearts and hands of Moses and the prophets. "The prophecy came not in the old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."-2 Peter, i. 21. The practical tendency and importance of these observations will apologize for the liberty of addressing you -I am yours, &c.

AN ADMIRER OF BISHOP BULL. P.S.-I was surprised to find Mr. Grinfield dwelling so much on the text, "God created all things by Jesus Christ."-Ephes. iii. 9. He ought to have remembered, that the clause dià 'Inσov Xourou is wanting in the best MSS., and is accordingly given up by Mill and Griesbach as an interpolation; yet it is right to state, that it is admitted by Knapp, and stands in the text of his admirable editions.

The reviewer of Mr. Grinfield's work begs to thank the "Admirer of Bishop Bull" for his good intentions, in reference to the passage of

The Editor begs to assure "an Admirer of Bishop Bull," that he is not reviewergeneral of all works noticed in this Magazine. Every care is taken to put books into the hands of persons well qualified to review them; and if the Editor has time to read with sufficient care any new works of value, he occasionally takes the liberty of expres sing his opinion of their merits;-but this is all. The review in question was not written by him; and, as will appear from a passage given in the text above, the Reviewer in question will defend his own note.-ED.

the Epistle to the Hebrews. The following citations from Theophylact and Bishop Bull will probably shew that the reviewer has advanced no new opinion in supposing the subject of the sentence in Heb. i. 3. to be, specially, God the Father.

Theophylact's words are theseἘπειδὴ δὲ αἴτιος ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἐικότως καὶ τῶν ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ γενομένων, διὰ τοῦτο φησι, δι οὗ. Ὁ πατὴρ γὰρ δοκεῖ ποιεῖν, ὁ τὸν ποιήσαντα Υἱὸν γεννήσας.

Again, if the "admirer of Bishop Bull" will look at Bishop Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, p. 135 (Dr. Burton's edition), he will find this passage:Jam per ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς, in Epistol ad Hebræos, i. 3. divinam illam Filii naturam et majestatem, qua ante sæcula una cum Deo Patre extitit, qua secula ipse condidit qua denique universam hanc mundi compagem vi sua omnipotenti etiamnum sustentat gubernatque significari, talpa cæcior est qui non videt. So that, in Bishop Bull's own opinion, the auroũ of verse 3 applies (as the reviewer thinks it must of course) to the Father, and it must be left to the "Admirer of Bishop Bull" to shew how he can separate the person to whom avrou applies, from the nominative to the verb ἔθηκεν.

These brief citations will, it is hoped, be sufficient to defend a mere suggestion that one of the passages brought forward to overturn facts asserted in the creed, the catechism, and the liturgy, was not only inconclusive, but rather contrary to the views of the author.

There was, however, no intention of dogmatizing on a matter of interpretation, as will be evident from the words used.

PLURALITIES BILL.

SIR, I beg to offer a few remarks on the Clergy Pluralities and Residence Bill, now waiting for the second reading in the House of Commons. Much of its efficiency will depend upon the limit assigned to the value of such preferment as may be made tenable with other preferment (clauses 3 and 4). My own opinion is, that no one who holds preferment to the amount of 500l. a year, should be allowed to hold any second preferment at all; and that no two benefices should be held by the same incumbent, the churches of which are upwards of six miles distant from each other, measured as in clause 114.

Clause 23.-This clause provides, that by an absence exceeding three, and not exceeding six months, a forfeiture is incurred of onethird part of the annual value of the benefice; an absence of between six and eight months is to be punished by a forfeiture of half; one exceeding eight months by a forfeiture of two-thirds; and a year's absence, by a forfeiture of three-fourths of the annual value. This is a very awkward disposition of the penalties, inasmuch as an absence of ninety-one days is punished with the same severity as one of one hundred and seventy-nine; and so in the other cases. The simpler method would be, to divide the net annual value of the benefice into

twelve parts, and provide that for every month's absence exceeding the three allowed by the act, a month's net value of the benefice should be exacted as the penalty. Thus the punishment of six months' absence would be one-fourth; of nine months' one half; and of twelve months' three-fourths of the said annual value, while the intermediate periods of absence would incur their proportionate penalties.

Clause 28.-Certain persons are exempted by this clause from the penalties of non-residence. These exemptions seem to militate against the whole principle of the bill, inasmuch as those exempted must necessarily be, from their situations, (from the possession of which the exemption arises,) in the receipt of an income far too great for the permission of this indulgence.

Clause 29.-The chaplains of bishops are exempted from residence whilst actually attending in the discharge of their duty in that capacity. To prevent any evasion of this clause, no bishop should be allowed to have more than one chaplain who should avail himself of this exemption at one time. The Archbishop of Canterbury's two chaplains, resident at Lambeth, are of course entitled to it.

Clause 54.-It is not sufficiently provided by this clause, that, in the case of a non-resident incumbent, the usual offices belonging to the glebe-house should be given up, with the house itself, for the occupation of the curate.

Clause 64.-By this clause, a commission is to be issued by the bishop to four beneficed clergymen, to make their report in the case where the duty of a benefice is inadequately performed. This is all very well, only that the said commission should consist of five instead of four members, for the purpose of insuring a majority.

Clause 71.-The fee for a licence, one pound, is very oppressive on a curate, who may, from various causes, such as the death or removal of his incumbent, be called upon to pay it many times. If it must be paid, it should be demanded from the rector, and not the curate.

Clauses 74 and 75.-It should be stated in these clauses, that the stipends therein assigned are over and above any advantage to be derived from the glebe-house of residence.

Clause 86.-It is enacted by this clause, that the bishops shall have power to revoke summarily, and without further process, any licence granted to a curate. I am sure most of your readers will agree with me in the assertion, that too much irresponsible power is here given to the bishop.

No curate should be dismissed till after a full investigation of his case by a commission, such as that provided in clause 64; or, at all events, without the bishop being required to assign in writing his reasons for such dismissal. Without some such provision as this, clause 97 would be doubly oppressive, by which it is enacted that the appellant must give security for costs.

As I have long considered the present system of pluralities and non-residence as one which demands a thorough reformation, as far as one can be practicable, consistent with the highest and most sacred interests of the church, I look forward to the bill now before the House

of Commons, with the joyful anticipation of its affording an increased strength and solidity to the venerable establishment, as a member of which I subscribe myself, yours &c. A LATE CURATE.*

May 8, 1837.

JUSTIN MARTYR.-HUMANITARIANS.

SIR, I agree with the observations of your correspondent "X." in your April number, upon the passage of Justin he adverts to; and certainly with his just remark, that its "historical value depends mainly upon the correct interpretation of what is actually found in the present text." I would, therefore, propose to avoid the bold insertion of the small but significant word " ε," and would read thus, with little or no alteration of the present text, οἷς οὐ συντιθεμαι, οὐδ ̓ ἐαν πλείστοι, &c, "with whom I do not agree, not though very many should," &c.; from which wording it seems to me the meaning your correspondent "X." desires may grammatically be aduced.

May 18th.

Yours, &c.

EPSILON.

* The editor has no grounds whatever for doubting that this comes from a clergyman; indeed, it is on that belief, and on that ground alone, that it is inserted. Without meaning any disrespect to the writer, it may be fairly said, that there can be no use in printing letters which merely give a writer's opinion on certain details of Acts of Parliament, unsupported by any reasoning; for example, the framers of the bill, on consideration, think one set of penalties most appropriate; Mr. A. thinks these very bad, and his own plan much wiser. And so Mr. B., Mr.C., and Mr. D., and all the letters in the alphabet, may each have their own fancies as to the way in which the clergy may be best fined. The ground, then, for printing this letter, is, that it gives a specimen of the feelings and views of a certain (it is hoped, a small) portion of clergy themselves; their determination, for one must not say their wish, to drive the better educated and higher classes out of the profession if it is possible, and to bring the profession itself down far below the level of all others. No general view of the question is attempted. This gentleman thinks 500l. enough, and so it is to be! What good, or what evil, may come of such enactments, he does not consider for a moment. In his remarks on clause 28, again, he would sweep away all exemptions, and quietly assumes the great value of all the stations named in the clause. Can he prove it? Does he know it? Has he any information on it? Has he considered what good might result from a different proceeding? Has he read Dr. Wordsworth's argu ment on this very point? Again, while the disposition is to load penalties and inflictions on incumbents, and to arm bishops and every one else with power for that purpose, the suspicion and dislike of any exercise of episcopal power of a different kind is another feature well worth remarking. Thus, in clause 29, it is supposed that bishops will connive at their own chaplains breaking the law, and this is to be guarded against by force, while (clause 86) the notion of the bishop being allowed to remove a curate is too horrible to be endured; his power over his diocese, in this respect, is to be superseded by a commission. No discussion of the merits of the bill is here meant; it must be felt by all who read it to be a severe bill, and this gentleman's object is to make it more severe still. It is easy to charge those who object to this with secularity, &c.; but can this gentleman prove that lowering the clergy as a body will increase their power of maintaining the cause committed to them?-EDITOR.

658

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

Introduction to the Second Edition of the Bampton Lectures of the Year 1832. By the Rev. Dr. Hampden. London: Fellowes. 1837.

THERE is no disposition to renew in these pages the melancholy subject of discussion with which the clerical world was occupied in the spring of last year; but a few words must, nevertheless, be said on this pamphlet. Dr. Hampden, it will be remembered, towards the close of those discussions, undertook to do what he should have undertaken at their commencement. He advertized a vindication of the work which had been assailed; it was immediately and justly said, that, however late, he was now doing what was right, and scarcely a word against him was said afterwards. Men were content to wait, but the vindication never came. He reaped the fruit of his advertisement, but he never fulfilled his promise; and now that Dr. H. publishes a second edition of his Lectures, he takes no notice whatever of this promise, but commences his pamphlet with a great many harsh and unkind, not to say unchristian, references,* to the discussions of last year: all that was said against him, it seems, was entirely from prejudice and party; no argument whatever was offered against him. This Dr. Hampden asserts over and over again; and adds, that the public voice has pronounced decidedly on all that was said against him, so far as it admitted an answer; in this very many will agree with Dr. Hampden. They think that the sentence of public opinion has been a decided one, and that his entire silence, after his distinct promise to vindicate his opinions, has gone a long way to confirm it.

After Dr. Hampden's exordium, he spends a great many pages in proving, that stating the same thing in different ways is not denying it, that there is no harm in stating the same thing in various ways, and then, (as so often before,) that doctrines, and statements of doctrines, are not the same thing. Next he spends a great deal more space in proving that there are other facts besides events; that if God has revealed to us the doctrine of our Lord's mediation, it is a fact as much as his birth; that the old philosophy was not inductive; that inductive philosophy is founded on a careful collection and investigation of facts; that the facts in the Bible may be examined on the principles of this philosophy, by which it afterwards appears that Dr. H. means that it is not good philosophy to deduce a large theory from the words of one text, but that we ought, on the principles of the inductive philosophy, to compare text with text; one part of the Bible with another.

Can Dr. Hampden believe that this method of studying the Bible is one to which any one objects, that it is a novelty recommended by him, and that this was one of the grounds for assailing him? Yet, if he does not think so, why waste so much time in explaining the inductive philosophy, and recommending, and apparently defending, a mode

Again, in p. 37, the words all through, and the two in italics, are in the same temper, and will do Dr. Hampden no service.