in another world,) in allusion to the the article of the Creed asserts; for TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL likewise be proved by particular texts MAGAZINE. RESPECTED FRIEND, I hand for thy perusal and approba- of scripture; as Psalm xvi. verse 10. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." A question still remains to be considered: For what reason was this clause introduced into the Creed? As it stands in the Creed of our Church, it has not the least On looking over the Magazine for last reference to the doctrine of purgatory: month, my attention was seriously the Church of England rejects that arrested, by an inquiry from "A tenet as unwarrantable, in her twentySearcher," on a sentence in the Apos- second Article. It was probably intles' Creed, which has often been a serted for the confirmation of the death subject of contemplation with myself, of Christ, in opposition to those who although I have never examined any asserted that he did not really die, but author, nor heard but one explanation, was merely in a trance or deliquium, which was from an eminent minister through his crucifixion. The descent of the Church establishment, who con- of Christ into hell, might therefore be sidered the words, "He descended considered as proper to be inserted into Hell," an incorrect translation in the Creed, as a confirmation of his from the Hebrew Testament. The death. Bishop Pearson observes, conscientious motive that influenced "We have already shewn the submy unknown friend in refusing to read stance of this article to consist in this; that, or any other part of the Church that the soul of Christ really separated Liturgy in which he could not fully from his body by death, did truly pass believe, exactly coincides with my into the place below, where the souls own judgment, that we should in all of men departed were; and I concases avoid every thing likely to de-ceive the end for which he did so was, lude our minds, or introduce it into an erroneous belief. Having reviewed this subject very closely, I feel desirous to lay before "A Searcher" a short account that has (since reading his lines) fallen under my notice: thinking they might be satisfactorily received, I feel reluctant to withhold them. "He descended in Hell." By the word hell in this place, is not to be understood the seat of the devil and his angels, commonly called by that name; but the place of separate souls. We are told it is a Saxon word, which was formerly used in this sense; the natural and original signification of it is " an unseen or covered place." In the English Bible, although the term is so frequently used to signify the place of the damned, that it generally conveys that idea to the minds of uninformed people; yet there are many passages in which it only signifies the invisible world, or state of the dead: for instance, Rev. i. verse 18. "I am he that liveth, and was dead." That our Lord went into the invisible region of departed spirits, is that which | that he might undergo the condition of The Perhaps I may be allowed to add: In | the prophecies of the Messiah it is thus expressed, "An honourable sepulchre was provided for him, and there his sacred body 'rested in hope;' in the mean time, his disembodied spirit took its abode in that place of separation assigned to the souls of departed spirits, generally called hades or hell, awaiting the resurrection, and fully assured he should not long remain there. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.' What amazing condescension is here! to what a state of humiliation did our Saviour stoop! Let us not be unwilling to follow Him to the grave. Jesus Christ rose again from the dead: other parts of the Old Testament, beside the Psalm before us, predicted this event; and our Lord himself, repeatedly declared, that thus only could the scriptures be fulfilled. He also fixed the precise period, the third day; thus we are taught to expect a general resurrection both of the just and unjust.”—A London Clergyman. Bristol, 8th month, 14th, 1819. TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL SIR, Guernsey, 23d August, 1819. In reply to your worthy correspondent relative to Christ's descent into Hell, as contained" in what is denominated the Apostles' Creed, as well as that of St. Athanasius," I beg to observe, that whatever scruples he might feel in repeating this part of the Creed, the doctrine is clearly and explicitly avowed by our Church in her Articles, vide Article 3d. "As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that he went down into hell;" and in the Declaration of King Charles the First, concerning the Articles of the Church of England, it is said, "That the Articles of the Church of England do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to God's word, which we do therefore ratify and confirm; requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles." And again, "No man shall either print or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it, in the plain and full meaning thereof, and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense:" It follows then, that the belief of Christ's having descended into hell, is as much the doctrine of our Church as the belief of his having died and being buried. And it is presumed to be the doctrine of other churches also, it being very common for popular dissenting ministers to declare from the pulpit, that the doctrines taught by them are exactly conformable to the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England: and in the Declaration of King Charles the First, above cited, it is said, that 66 Men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them; which is an argument, that none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established." If the authority of the Church, (of which your correspondent says I have the honour to be a member,") and the concurring testimony of those who dissent from her communion, will not prove conclusive in removing his doubts upon this subject, additional information from any of your worthy correspondents, will not only be acceptable to him, but will also particularly oblige A CONSTANT READER. Criticisms on Grammar. TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL MAGAZINE. SIR, I have perused with interest, the criticisms of your correspondent A. B. col. 419 and 420 of your valuable work, and would beg leave to say, that whilst with him I cheerfully subscribe to the general merits of Lindley Murray's justly celebrated English Grammar, I must, with him, dissent from it in certain particulars. A. B. observes, that this phraseology " the cause of my not receiving it," is, according to Murray, (notes and observations under Rule 14. Syntax,) incorrect, and ought to be "the cause of my not receiving of it ;" and conceives, that how much soever the additional of may improve the grammatical accuracy of the sentence, it adds nothing to its harmony. In this opinion I so far concur, as to dispute its adding either to one or the other, unless it be made appear that the active participle is, because of the possessive pronoun which precedes it, purely a noun, and does not at all par ticipate the properties of a verb. The action implied by it, however, evidently gives it these properties; and, that such should be the case, is agreeable to Mr. Murray's own definition of the participle, and his examples of its use, as quoted by A. B. parsing, and given more satisfaction to his readers in general. His merely classing the former (the conjunctive) with adjective pronouns, and his observing that the variations of mine from my, thine from thy, &c. “ are, in fact, the possessive case of the personal pronoun;" after calling my, thy, &c. possessive pronouns, are not, at all, a clear description of this case of the pronoun. Myself, thyself, &c. would have been properly called compound pronouns, (applicable, as well as the absolute possessives mine, thine, &c. both to the nominative and the objective cases,) as consisting of the pronouns my, thy, &c. and the substantive pronoun self, as "I did it myself," "I did it in my own person, and not by the agency of another." But Mr. Murray does not appear to be so confident of the accuracy of his observation, as to pronounce it unobjectionable, for he qualifies it by admitting that his substitution of the possessive noun (6 Tyro's,' " instead of the possessive pronoun "their," to make the rule more clear, (a distinction, in my opinion, without any radical difference,) causes the construction to sound rather harshly, and therefore says, "it would, in general, be better to use some other form, as the rule's being observed, its being neglected;" from which, I was glad to see the citicisms of then, naturally follows (passively) its A. B. on this subject, because I had being received by me; (actively) my hav-myself considered it with some attening received it, or my receiving it; and (negatively) my not receiving it. If these remarks be correct, the of does not improve the grammatical accuracy; neither can that which forms no constituent part belong to harmony. Mr. M. contends for the correctness of other modes of expression, in different parts of his grammar, which he admits are not always the most eligible, on account of their unpleasant sound; thus, himself denying their melody, as he does also of those which are questionable in their accuracy, and, consequently, in their harmony. Quere— Can that which is correctly adapted to its use, be strictly ineligible to it? It is allowed that many things are lawful, which are not expedient; but these, I think, are two very different axioms. I also materially disagree with Mr. M. in what he calls the best position of the genitive case, page 171, one of the references he gives in the observation above referred to. Whilst upon this subject, I would observe, that I do not think the two kinds of possessive pronouns are either fully described, or properly designated by Mr. Murray. Had he made some such distinction between them as this," Of the possessive pronouns the following, viz. my, thy, his, her, our, your, their, are conjunctive, as applicable to the nominative case; and mine, thine, his, hers, ours, yours, theirs, are absolute, as applicable to the objective case," he had prevented much uncertainty to the student in tion: there are, however, many other I am, with great respect, Sir, London-Road, West-Derby, ON MODESTY. Ir may be thought an immodest commencement to assert, that this is a virtue, not less valuable than rare and uncommon. But as my notions of Modesty widely differ from that false delicacy which actuates the conduct and movements of the generality of mankind, I feel no hesitation in hazarding the proposition. Indeed, a very cursory view of men and manners is sufficient to convince us, that the virtues of our ancestors are very faintly reflected in the persons of their descendants, and none more so than that of Modesty. In our days, the decline of life is too frequently marked with a total disregard of its injunctions; and the juvenile part of the community are making great progress in their endeavour to extirpate this (in their eyes) unnecessary accompani ment. How ridiculous the stern and Reply to Critical Inquiries, &c. TO THE EDITOR OF THE IMPERIAL SIR, On lately perusing your valuable Miscellany, col. 419, I was attracted by the title, "Inquiries respecting some minute particulars of the English language;" and on cursorily perusing those Inquiries, I strongly suspected that your correspondent A. B. had mistaken Lindley Murray in some of his remarks. I therefore referred to that gentleman, and found that in his Notes and Observations under Rule 14, Syntax, he states, that participles are sometimes governed by the Article; for the present participle, with the definite article the before it, becomes a substantive, and must have the preposition of after it." The sentence referred to by A. B. as coming under this note, is "the cause of my not receiving it." But, Sir, what definite article in this sentence comes before the participle, in the way point self- opiniated importance of the former! how disgusting the pride, ignorance and impertinence of the latter! Persons who barely comply with the prescribed forms of decency and decorum, conceive themselves remarkably modest; forgetting that the chief and component parts of this qualification, diffidence and humility, are essentially requisite. How amiable is the youth, who, notwithstanding the possession of superior abilities and education, is diffident of his own opinion, and with modest deference attentively considers the remarks of all; or, even if he is not conspicuously blessed with ability and education, but presumes not more than he possesses, still how praiseworthy is his conduct! Contrast it with the boisterous presumption of arrogance and ignorance, and behold more clearly the inestimable advantages resulting from Modesty! The truly modest feel not less diffident of their own opinion, than fearful of too hastily and inconsiderately contradicting that of another: the delicacy of their own feel-ed out by Murray, so as to be said to goings induces them to be always watchful, lest they should incautiously wound the feelings of others. A sympathetic ardour pervades in the heart, by which they are at all times not only inclined, but willing, to rejoice with the fortunate, compassionate with the distressed, bear with the pragmatical, and envy not the prudish. In short, to use a paradoxical expression, Modesty is not what (in these days) it seems to be. It is not that mummery of expression, that preciseness of form, that stiffness of demeanour, which is so conspicuous in the middle and higher classes of society; neither is it to be discovered in that refined delicacy, which shrinks at the idea of The answer to the last objection will any open personal impropriety, or de- be allowed, I doubt not, on my referviation from established usage, but ring your correspondent to a similar which feels no remorse in privately dip-passage in the Latin tongue; "Ubi ping its envenomed tongue in the cup of slander and detraction. vern that participle? Now the, the only ad Dianæ veneris ite ad dextram." Now Your very obedient Servant, M.S. MR. EDITOR, MOST likely, your antiquarian correspondent Q, may, through the medium of your invaluable Miscellany, be enabled to give the lovers of antiquity and local information, some elucidation of the following brief remark in Blome's Brittannia, as the subject is highly interesting in the ancient history of Liverpool, with which he seems to be well acquainted. BLOME.-"On the west side, upon the said river, (Mersey) is a stately and strong pile of building called the Tower, erected many hundred years ago, by Sir Jo. de Stanley and his lady, who lye enter'd under their alablaster tombs." The interment of Sir John and his lady here, seems to rest entirely on the evidence of this writer: neither Camden, nor Leland, takes any notice of it, or the monuments. Query.-If Q, or any of your correspondents ever met with any account of it in any other writer; or any graphic illustration of the monuments which existed, so late as 1673, when Blome wrote? P. S. Query.-By whom was the carved work in St. Peter's church executed, (between the years 1669, and 1704,) consisting of palms, foliage, doves, &c.; and a pelican, allusive to scripture history? This is well worthy the attention of the admirers of the Arts, and reflects an honour on the name of the artist, which, instead of remaining dubious and forgotten, is deserving of being rescued from obli vion. Yours, &c. Liverpool, Aug. 10, 1819. W. I. R. To contradiction and argument; and, rudely elevated with a consciousness of his own mental superiority, he smiles with a supercilious sneer on the common herd of his "unreflecting fellow creatures;" and too frequently treats them either as unworthy of his attention, or as incapable of comprehending, not merely logical disquisitions, but even simple moral truths. combat with such antagonists, is at once a difficult and an imposing task. If, in point of sterling sense, the advocate for truth be superior to the supporter of error, still that is not sufficient: he must grapple with him pro focis et armis; he must meet him on his own ground; he must refute by the application of incontrovertible truths and first principles; he must not walk around the moat of the capital of Error, but he must scale the wallsremove the sentinels-scour the outworks-enter the citadel, and there, arm to arm, and foot to foot, must fight on till he conquers his enemy, or dies in the combat. But as, in military tactics, the wisdom of the general is developed in the election of the mode of his attack; so it is with the champion for Truth: his learning, and skill, and intellect, are more displayed in the method he pursues, in order to refute and convince, than in the arrangement of his arguments when classed, or in the beauty of his language, the chastity of his style, or the brilliancy of his imagery. By the unskilful management of an army, many a campaign has been rendered nugatory; and by the ill-timed or ill-planned efforts of well-meaning advocates for truth, the cause of truth itself has frequently been put in jeopardy, so that by undue concessions, or weak fered more by its intended friends, and frivolous refutations, it has sufthan by all the malice and raillery of its enemies. Review." The Edipus Romanus; or an attempt to prove, from the principles of reasoning adopted by the Right Hon. Sir William Drummond Mr. Townsend, in the work before in his Edipus Judaicus, that the twelve Casars are the twelve Signs of be at once a learned, judicious, and us, has, however, approved himself to the Zodiac. By the Rev. George skilful opponent to error. He has Townsend, A. M. of Trinity College," met Greek like Greek." He has Cambridge. Hatchard, pp. 147, 8vo. adopted the ex absurdo method of prov ing his argument, and we consider it ERROR never assumes a more danger-justifiable; but he has concealed it ous form, than when it is supported by learning and rank. Surrounded by the bulwarks of education and science, the learned sophist braves the storm of ridicule, or the shafts of No. 7.-VOL. I. 7s. 6d." sufficiently to excite a feeling of attention and interest; and has developed it sufficiently to prevent any misconception or unfair deduction. His argument has reminded us of a 2 T |
