son has yet done so, and the 1st of July is so near at hand, will you allow me to propose the following inquiries?

1. Suppose two persons, whose banns have been published before the board of guardians, to apply to the clergyman of their parish to marry them; (1) Could he legally refuse their request? (2.) Would it proper for him to do so?

be

2. Suppose any persons to have been married by dissenters, Wesleyans, primitive methodists, (ranters), or to have been united by law, (I will not say married,) without any religious service, and after a time to present themselves at the Lord's supper in their parish church; how is the minister to act?

3. Suppose a clergyman to have occasion to doubt (as, in a few years, there is but too much reason to fear he will have cause to doubt) that a person has received Christian* baptism, and that person is brought to him for interment according to the rites of the church, how is he to proceed ?+

On these subjects, Sir, many of us might have our own private opinion; but who is there that considers the importance of these points in themselves, and the wide extent to which they are likely to influence the church, but must greatly desire to be guided by something more than his own private judgment,-by some uniform authorized course, according to which we might act under such difficulties? May we look for such from our superiors?

16th May, 1837.

I am, &c. W. S. D.

ALTAR AND SACRIFICE.

SIR,-It is with deep concern I perceive, in some of your correspondents, a departure from the language and sentiments of our church upon the subject of the eucharist. They affect much the use of the words "altar" and "sacrifice;" terms which can nowhere be found in our prayer books, as applicable to the table and the bread and wine used in the celebration of the Lord's supper. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that they were studiously and purposely avoided by

still if persons have complied with it, and if they are so united that their union cannot be any more dissolved than an ordinary marriage can now, should the church act the stern part of refusing them the rites of religion? There is some difficulty, however, in answering the question without knowing whether W. S. D. supposes the case of churchmen choosing to be married in any of these improper ways, (a supposition, unhappily, not at all absurd, with our present lax notions as to church communion,) or if speaking of persons who dissented when they married. The cases are obviously different; and whatever the course adopted in the instance of the churchman might be, very serious remonstrance would clearly be called for. No. 3 does not appear to be different from cases constantly occurring now.-ED. • See Private Baptism of Infants" With what matter," &c. · words," &c.

"With what

+ For some time past, the methodists in the neighbourhood of the writer have been accustomed to baptize children, church the women, administer the Lord's supper to the sick, as well as in their chapels, and to bury their dead in some of their chapel-yards. Are these, and similar things, likely to occur less frequently as the new Acts come into operation?

the compilers of our liturgy. Are these persons aware that, at the Reformation, when the present order of our liturgy and articles of religion was settled, our church plainly and pointedly expressed herself on these points? I am desirous of submitting to their study and consideration, a passage in Strype's "Annals of the Reformation," in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign; chap. xii., page 165. He acquaints us that certain injunctions were put forth by her, among which she ordered the removal of altars out of churches, and the setting of tables in their places. She was excited to this by the divines, who were then employed in convocation, in settling the Reformation. They drew up, and presented to the queen, certain reasons, "why it was not convenient that the communion should be administered at the altar." Strype has given these reasons verbatim, as he found them in an authentic manuscript; and surely the perusal of them must convince every one that our reformers, at least, thought that altars and sacrifices were but badges of popery. The reasons given are these:

First "The form of a table is more agreeable to Christ's example, who instituted the sacrament of his body and blood at a table, and not at an altar.”

Secondly-"The form of an altar was convenient for the Old Testament, to be a figure of Christ's bloody sacrifice on the cross; but in the time of the New Testainent, Christ is not to be sacrificed, but his body and blood spiritually to be eaten and drunken in the ministration of the Lord's supper. For representation whereof, the form of a table is more convenient than an altar."

Thirdly" The Holy Ghost, in the New Testament, speaking of the Lord's supper, doth make mention of a table, (1 Cor. 10,) mensa Domini-the table of the Lord; but in no place nameth it an altar."

Fourthly "The old writers also do use the name of a table; for Augustine oftentimes calleth it 'mensam Domini,' the Lord's table. And in the canons of the Nicene Council, it is diverse times called Divina mensa. And Chrysostom says, 'Baptismus unus est, et mensa una;' that is, there is one baptism, and one table. (Tract. 26, in Johan. Hom. 18, in 2 Cor.) And although the same writers do sometimes term it altar, yet are they to be expounded to speak abusivè et impropriè, For like as they expound themselves, when they term the Lord's supper a sacrifice, that they mean by this word sacrifice, 'recordationem sacrificii'—i. e., the remembrance of a sacrifice; or, 'similitudinem sacrificii—i.e., the likeness of a sacrifice, and not properly a sacrifice. So the same reason enforceth us to think, that when they term it an altar, they mean a representation, or remembrance, of the altar of the cross, and not the form of a material altar of stone. And when they name it a table, they express the form then commonly in the church used according to Christ's example." Fifthly-"Furthermore, an altar hath relation to a sacrifice, for they be correlatives. So that, of necessity, if we allow an altar, we must grant a sacrifice: like as if there be a father, there is also a son; and if there be a master, there is also a servant. Whereupon diverse of the learned adversaries themselves have spoken of late, that there is no reason to take away the sacrifice of the mass, and to leave the altar standing, seeing the one was ordained for the other."

Sixthly" Moreover, if the communion be administered at an altar, the godly prayers spoken by the ministers cannot be heard by the people, especially in great churches; and so the people should receive no fruit of this part of English service; for it was all one to be in Latin, and to be in English not heard, not understood of the people." And then is added the judgment on these points, of foreign divines— viz., Bucer, Martyr, Calvin, &c. &c. &c. Also, the testimony of many of the martyrs in Queen Mary's reign.

The above quotation from Strype contains many remarkable passages, which I hope you will submit to the consideration of some of your correspondents, who seem to entertain opinions which, in some

measure, militate against these "reasons" of our pious reformers. They will remember that these are the reasons of men who assisted in arranging our liturgy in its present form, in settling the thirty-nine articles, and in passing the act of uniformity. No change of importance has since taken place in these particulars, if we except indeed the replacing the table, to the original position of the altar. They will perceive that these pious and learned men were careful to settle the church according to the word and the practice of Christ and his apostles, and that they would not allow even the name of a thing in the worship of God, which appeared to deviate from this rule. Surely, then, it becomes not us, who profess to receive the forms of religion from them, to talk of altars and sacrifices, which I fear bespeaks a leaning towards the spirit of the Romish superstition. If we admit of a sacrifice in the eucharist, how slight a step further is it, to acknowledge transubstantiation? I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

T. G.

ON THE GREEK ARTICLE.

SIR,-The now universally-acknowledged importance of my subject makes it superfluous to use any further introduction than simply to state, that the edition of Bishop Middleton's work to which I refer is that by Mr. Rose, 1833; and that I mean to designate the bishop's own remarks by the letter M., and those by his editor by R.

Arist. Rhet. i.—ὁ δ ̓ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστὴς ἤδη περὶ παρόντων καὶ ȧowρioμévwv кpívovo" the fact, that the sentence is explaining how the ecclesiast and dicast differ, prevent any possibility of the two words being referred to the same person." (R., p. xxix.) I do not perfectly agree with this explanation, though I am sure that the principle of it is very reasonable. It is true that the general object of the passage from which these words are taken is to point out the difference between these two functionaries; but, in this particular part of it, they are considered in regard to something which they have in common. We have, I think, an instance of the same thing, in the case of these same words, near the beginning of the Third Book of the Politics : ὁ δ ̓ ἀύριστος, οἷον ὁ δικαστὴς καὶ ἐκκλησιαστής and, a little lower down, ἀνώνυμον γὰρ ΤΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ἐπὶ δικαστοῦ καὶ ἐκκλησιαστοῦ, τί δεῖ ταυτ ἄμφω καλεῖν. So, in book i., we meet: ἐν δὲ τοῖς βαρβάροις τὸ θῆλυ καὶ δοῦλον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν· but, a little lower down, φύσει μέν οὖν dispioraι rò Oñλv kaì TO dovλov. The same principle will, perhaps, διώρισται θῆλυ apply to Eurip. Οrest. 903: όμοιον γὰρ τὸ χρῆμα γίγνεται Τῷ τοὺς λoyous λÉYOνTI Kai riμwμévą. But here, very probably, medicina fit mortuo. An instance of the legitimate application of R.'s remark occurs in Plato de Republ. p. 472, (edit. Ficin.) Tǹv de Tou ȧvaykałov καὶ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ὅσον διαφέρει τῷ ὄντι, κ. τ. λ. And, in Mr. Winstanley's text, Proverbs, xxiv. 21: φοβοῦ τὸν Θέον, διέ, καὶ βασιλέα· καὶ μηθ' ΕΤΕΡΩι αὐτῶν ἀπειθήσῃς. Indeed, that gentleman would have found a much more pertinent example in the beginning of Plato's Third Republic : τοὺς Θεοὺς τε τιμήσουσι καὶ γονέας, κ. τ. λ.

Μ. 32. The use of the article, Acts, xi. 13, απήγγειλέ τε ἡμῖν, πῶς εἶδε ΤΟΝ ἄγγελον, κ. τ. λ. (which is the first time that Peter mentions an angel at all) seems not to be accounted for on any of these principles. Perhaps it was an inadvertence in St. Luke, who was thinking of his own former narration of the same occurrence, and was thus led incautiously to introduce a mark of renewed mention. Your ingenious correspondent, "X.," will perhaps be able to give us a more satisfactory explanation.

M., chap. iii. § 7. It would be a curious inquiry to examine the lapses into which critics have fallen from inattention to this rule. There is no single canon, I believe, against which they offend more frequently. I will give one instance from Dr. Farmer, (on the Gospel Demoniacs,) for the sake of some circumstances connected with it which may be worth remarking in the case of a writer who has obtained a very unmerited character for candour and fairness. In a note on page 18 of his work, he explains άyyɛλoç σarav to mean "an angel adversary," not a messenger of Satan; because this latter would require us to read ἄγγελος ΤΟΥ σατᾶν. We hardly need the help of M.'s rule to shew the futility of this, since it is palpably absurd to suppose that the apostle would use a strange foreign word to denote, in Greek, so simple an epithet. What I wish the reader to observe is, that he here confesses that oarav can only mean the devil: yet, when he comes to explain Luke, xi. 18, he treats 'O Zaravãs, with the article, precisely in the same way, as merely denoting an opponent. But this is not all. The Jews, he tells us, called all demons (i.e., ghosts, according to him,) Satans; for "Samael is called by them the prince of Satans." Here, you see, Samael is a demon, not the devil; yet, at p. 37, you will find him quoting Bochart and Selden to prove that the Jews did not call the devil Beelzebub, because their names for him were Asmodeus and SAMAEL.

M., p. 54. What is the reason that, in this reciprocating proposition, οἱ μὲν γὰρ τἀγαθὸν ἡδονὴν λέγουσιν· οἱ δ ̓ ἐξ ἐναντίας κομιδῇ φαῦλον, Arist. Ethic. Niomach. lib. x. c. 1, ǹdovǹv is without the article? In cap. ii. we have Εύδοξος μεν οὖν ΤΗΝ ἡδονὴν τἀγαθὸν ᾤετο εἶναι,

κ. τ. λ.

M., P 88. Hermann, I believe, has since explained the phrase— ἡγεῖσθαι τοὺς Θεοὺς (Eur. Hec. 781)—to mean τοὺς Θεοὺς, οὓς ἡ πόλις voμiča. M., p. 100. Ordinals, however, sometimes belong to a whole class. Here, when the individuals composing the class are spoken of together in the plural number as a class, the article is indispensable; when one individual or a number of them are spoken of, not as the whole class, but as belonging to it, the article is omitted. Thus, rà πρῶτα στοιχεῖα is the first elements; πρῶτον στοιχεῖον, any one of them ; but rò ρTOV OTOXETOV, the first of the letters or elements. In the celebrated passage of Clemens Alexandrinus, about which Dr. Wall has lately said so much in his egregious work upon the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, that father tells us that a certain species of writing is, διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική. (Str. v.) Here he is speaking of the whole class, and рúrwv is a mere tautological epithet. The phrase is not an uncommon one, yet it has given the commentators no

ŵv

small perplexity. I will give one or two examples. The first, which is a remarkable one, is from the Sophist of Plato: rà μèv πрштα, οἷαπερεῖ, στοιχεῖα ἐξ ὧν ἡμεῖς τε συγκείμεθα καὶ τἄλλα. Bentley, quoting this passage, in his "Dissertation on Phalaris," (p. 524,) tells us, out of Diogenes Laertius, (who takes it from Phavorinus,) that Plato was the first to use Toxov in the sense of element of the universe; yet some modern scholars seem to have supposed that this is its proper meaning, and that Clemens' use of it is catachrestic. The second instance is from Sextus Empiricus Pyrrh. Hypol., lib. iii., c. 6: πws ἄρα καὶ γίνεσθαι φασὶ τὰ συγκρίματα ἐκ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων ; The third from Eusebius Dem. Evang. (p. 37,) who speaks of rù πρшτа καὶ ἀσθενῆ στοιχεία. Before this (p. 18), he had talked of τῆς πρώτης OTOXεшWσEWS. The Latins have the same tautology. So Horace : "Ut pueris olim dant crustula blandi doctores elementa velint ut discere prima;" and Quintilian, Inst. Orat., lib. i., c. ii.: « Vix enim se prima elementa ad spem tollere effingendæ, quam summam putant, eloquentiæ audebunt.' S. Basil (adv. Eunom., lib. i.) has these words: ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίαν ὡς οὐδαμοῦ τῆς γραφῆς κειμένην, καὶ πρῶτον στοιχεῖον οὖσαν τῆς βλασφημίας αὐτῶν σιωπᾶσθαι ἄν δικαίως αξίαν εἶναι φήσαιμι. Judging merely from the context, one might doubt whether this meant the first element, or simply a first element. The principle and usage just laid down seem to determine for the latter. M., p. 106. It is worth noting, that, especially in his books against Apion, Josephus' use of rãs and oλoç is very anomalous. See adv. Apion., lib. ii., c. 18, p. 484, edit. Haverc, τὴν ὁλην τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσιν.

....

M., p. 204. We have an instance of this rule of omission in the titles actually prefixed to books, in the first verse of Ecclesiastes, according to the Septuagint: ῥήματα ἐκκλησιαστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυίδ βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ ἐν Ἱερουσαλημ• but of its insertion when the title is quoted, there are some curious omissions in Aristotle's Poetics. Cap i. we have καθάπερ Χαιρήμων ἐποιήσεν Ιπποκένταυρον, κ. τ. λ. There is a still stranger instance cap. iv., because the rule is once observed and twice broken in the same sentence: Ὁ γὰρ Μαργείτης ἀνάλογον ἔχει, ὥσπερ Ἰλιὰς καὶ Ὀδυσσεια πρὸς τὰς Τραγωδίας, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος πρὸς Tas Kapadias. Elsewhere, I believe, in that treatise, the rule is scrupulously observed. So, cap. viii., οἷάν λέγομεν ΤΗΝ ὀδύσσειαν συνέστησεν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ΤΗΝ Ἰλιάδα.

M., p. 206. It has been remarked in an Irish periodical which passes through few hands, that M. has contradicted what he here says, since, upon Luke, iii. 23, he holds that the rou, running through the genealogy, stands for rou vou, which, in verse 38, would give ΤΟΥ [νιοῦ] Θεοῦ : and it has been suggested that Θεός, occurring among a number of proper names, conforms here in this respect also, as it often does in others, to their peculiarities.

SIR,-If you think these remarks worth your inserting I should be inclined, in a second paper, to examine Middleton's account of St. Paul's use of Nóuos and Nóμos, and make some observations VOL. XI.-June, 1837. 4 Q