lively oracles of God;" the interpretation of which, is one chief function of the clergy, who are "the ministers and witnesses of the word." The oracle is delivered when a peculiar juncture of human events, or character of human opinion, points out the proper interpretation of the oracle, which then speaks with an authority that puts to silence all human reasoning; as when our Lord answers to the silent thoughts of the people-(Mark, ii. 8,) καὶ εὐθέως ἐπιγνοὺς ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὕτως διαλογίζονται ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς.

The two greatest masters of moral wisdom known to the world concur in giving this character of scripture. The sentence of Butler (chap. iii., part 2, of the Analogy) is-" And possibly it might be intended that events, as they come to pass, should open, and ascertain the meaning of several parts of scripture." Lord Bacon thus speaks "We must remember, that to God, the author of the scriptures, those two things lie open which are concealed from men-the secrets of the heart, and the successions of time. Therefore, as the dictates of scripture are directed to the heart, and include the vicissitudes of ages, along with an eternal and certain foreknowledge of all heresies, contradictions, and the mutable states of the church, as well in general as in particular, these scriptures are not to be interpreted barely according to the obvious sense of the place, or with regard to the occasion upon which the words were spoken, or precisely by the context, or the principal scope of the passage; but upon a knowledge of their containing not only in gross, or collectively, but distributively, in particular words and clauses, numberless rivulets and veins of doctrine, for watering all the parts of the church, and all the minds of the faithful." It is obvious that this character can appear only in the original language of scripture. The sentence où yàp σεσоpioμévois púðars ἐξακολουθήσαντες ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν καὶ παρουσίαν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μeyaλELÓTηtos”—2 Pet. i. 16-seems an utterance of the divine oracle against the opinion now rife in Germany, of the historical parts of revelation being merely mythical forms. Leooptoμevoi μvoor are fictions of what is considered to be truth, but not intended to deceive the mythi with which the writings of Plato are filled are fictitious representations in resemblances (images) of those truths which he had previously stricken out dialectically, and never intended to be understood literally. In distinguishing between the just and literal interpretations of these mythi, Plato justly uses the image of the horny and ivory gates, afterwards employed by Virgil-" cornea, quâ veris facilis datur exitus umbris,—to which mythi does the apostle refer? Zeσopioμévoι μúo can have no other sense and the words directly cross the path of the German philosophers. If "cunningly devised" mean skilfully conceived, according to the original sense of "cunning" or conning and as device is used, (Acts, xvii. 29,) "graven by art and man's device," (év0vμhσews àropwov)-then the passage is correctly rendered; but never hitherto were the apostles suspected of propounding mythi as their gospel. Until now, therefore, was the answer reserved to such a charge, and the language of the apostle finally becomes applicable. Our Lord's parables have something the

character of μvoo, as "local habitatives" to some general truth; but there is no possibility of confusing them with the historical parts of scripture, over the whole of which it is the tendency of the German theory to extend the character of mythi; in direct contradiction of which theory comes the sentence of the apostle, admonishing our too highly philosophical neighbours, apt to strain their faculties to too high a pitch, not to think too highly, un vπeрopovεiv, too acutely, in too sharp a key, above the tone of the common sense, åλλà opovɛiv, but to think eis rò owopovɛiv, to sobermindedness. (Rom. xii. 3.) I am, Mr. Editor, yours,

I. H. B.

THE TITHE BILL.

SIR,-Notwithstanding the more favourable principle which you say is laid down for working the Tithe Bill, will you allow me to ask, can a clergyman who believes that tithe, for the maintenance of religion, originated in the wisdom of Almighty God; that tithe in England is an offering to God, grounded on this divine institution, a property devoted to God for that same purpose; and that no property, for which it can be commuted, is equally secure, equally recoverable, if by any revolution or ruinous commotion it has been alienated; can any clergyman, who knows or believes these things, be instrumental in the abolition of tithe?

Can any clergyman hope that by the proposed commutation painful disputes with his flock will be prevented, and harmony maintained, when the bill is so contrived that the recovery of the rent-charge, in lieu of tithe, being by distress upon the tenant, shall increase the evil, shall be more vexatious, more liable to the imputation of inhumanity ? Let the clergy, the ministers of God, put in trust by him, consider. Let the people-let the possessors of land-let those who derive from its produce, by God's blessing, their daily bread, consider. Let them consider what has been said of old.-(See Malachi, iii. 2-10; Haggai, i. 5-10; Joel, ii. 12-14.) G. D.*

IMPORTANT ERRATUM IN THE "RECORD" NEWSPAPER.

SIR,-After reading what you say in the "Notices to Correspondents" in your last Number respecting the "Record" newspaper, I fear the name of that journal at the head of my letter may make you lay it down at once without further attention. But though I fully admit that "there is no use in pursuing any controversy with such a paper," where matters of "argument" are concerned, yet the case is somewhat different as regards matters of fact; and although it may be perfectly true that "the good or bad opinion" of that journal is a

* "G. D." is requested to observe, that not one single word in favour of the prin ciple of the Tithe Bill was said in this Magazine, either in the last Number or any other. Quite the contrary. But does he not wish facts to be stated?-ED.

VOL. XI.-Jan. 1837.

H

point about which "every respectable man is quite indifferent," still its assertions will mislead some who are now sufficiently disgusted with its tone and temper to feel no confidence in its decisions. I am informed, that the "Record" of Thursday, the 1st of Dec., speaks of "the grave solemnity of the writers in the Magazine inculcating on the country the essential elements of the creed of that apostate community, and now at length seriously arguing for the propriety of protestant ministers and people partaking of the sacrifice of mass; and this in the face of the authoritative declaration of their own church, that it is a blasphemous fable,' and with the knowledge of the fact, that rather than submit to the idolatrous deceit, the founders of our church were prepared to give their bodies to the stake, and some of them actually perished in the flames." This passage, I am assured, is copied "word for word" from the "Record."

Now I humbly conjecture, that, by an error of the press," FOR" has been here put instead of " AGAINST;" for I do not recollect or find any article to which the remark can apply, except it be No. V. of the "Tracts against Popery," in the "British Magazine" for May last, in which it was maintained that "protestants cannot conscientiously be present at the celebration of mass." "The grave solemnity" of a writer," seriously arguing against the propriety of protestants partaking of the sacrifice of mass, and this in the face of the authoritative declaration of" his "own church that it is a blasphemous fable," might well shock the high protestant feeling of that avowed champion of "our church," and its "founders." The English church had " authoritatively declared" the mass to be " a blasphemous fable." What, then, it would naturally be asked, are we to think of a professed member of that church who should go about gravely, in a long "Determination" of three closely-printed pages, to shew that "every one who" is present at the celebration of mass "violates the integrity of an honest conscience, and sins in more than one respect?" For, "first," says the writer, "he sins against himself in wounding his own conscience by an unlawful and impious hypocrisy. . . Secondly, he sins against the brethren, especially the weaker ones, for he puts a stumbling-block in their way. Nor can it be denied," the writer argues, "that a scandal is created by such an act, especially to the weaker brethren; for a scandal means only any impropriety of conduct or of language which gives an occasion of falling to another," &c. "An impropriety of conduct!"-a protestant seriously arguing "AGAINST the propriety of protestants partaking of the sacrifice of mass!" This, it would seem, was what scandalized the editor of the "Record." The printer did not enter into the argument, and thinking that what the writer complained of must be the "arguing for the propriety of" that which the church had condemned, ventured on a conjectural emendation, and read "FOR" instead of "AGAINST.” But I trust I have sufficiently shewn how the emendation arose ; therefore, lege meo periculo "AGAINST." I am not aware whether there has been an erratum in any subsequent number of the "Record;" if there has, perhaps it has been as unintelligible, or seemed as unimportant, to the readers of that paper, as was a certain erratum in

which, for "baptismal service," they were bidden to read "catechism;" in which case the question at stake was whether those who deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration are to have the consolation of knowing that the passages in the baptismal office did not come from the pen of our reformers, but were inserted in the time of James I., or whether this assertion of the "Record" had been indeed made with more positiveness of language than acquaintance with historical fact.

But though I throw upon the printer the blame of the gross misstatement of which the "Record" has thus unhappily become guilty, I cannot quite acquit the editor of all blame in the matter. For since at the head of the tract in question stand (within brackets indeed, but in italics) the words "Bishop Davenant's Seventh Determination," he ought not to have spoken of the writers in the Magazine now at length seriously arguing in this way. Still further, since the tract stands in the department of "Original Papers," and not. in that of "Correspondence," he might this time safely have made the editor of the magazine responsible for it; and then, not "the writers in the Magazine" only, but the Magazine itself would have had the credit-though it does not indeed happen to use the term "blasphemous fable" of considering the mass as "awful idolatry," "impiety," "superstition," one of "the dregs of papistry," one of its "pernicious errors," its "offensive deeds," &c. &c. But by the same rule, I suppose, that the "Record" "will," as you say, "without hesitation, pick out any letter" in the Correspondence department, "and charge the conductors of the Magazine with holding the opinions of the writers of it," they will, in like manner, deny to the Magazine the credit of any declarations which are not in that department. At all events, however, since the tract in question is full of the term "idolatry," in relation to the sacrifice of the mass, the "Record" need not have spoken of "the idolatrous deceit" in the emphatic way it does, as though the argument taken in that paper were in glaring contrast with such a representation of the mass.

It is difficult, indeed, when one recollects what the church of Rome has done in past times by agents under the garb of Geneva,* not to adopt "Anti-recorder's" conjecture, that the writers in the "Record" are papists in disguise, trying to set churchmen against one another. Without supposing the conductors of that paper to be papists, we may suppose that the lucubrations of some of their correspondents are sometimes worked up into the leading articles; and among these correspondents it is impossible not to suspect that there are papists secretly at work who are making the conductors of the "Record" their unsuspecting tools. Let me refer to a passage in Birch's "Life of Tillotson," which I have just fallen upon :

"The king (James II.) having withdrawn himself from Rochester into France, on the 23rd of Dec., . . . and the Prince of Orange being settled in the palace at St. James's, the dean was desired to preach before him there on Sunday, the 6th of January, 1688-9; and the convention, which met on the 22nd of that month,

*Let me refer to the Appendix to Mr. Crossthwaite's two Sermons for a collection of valuable and interesting documents on this point.

having appointed Thursday, the 31st, for a day of public thanksgiving to Almighty God, in the cities of London and Westminster, and ten miles distant, for having made his Highness the Prince of Orange the glorious instrument of the great deliverance of this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power, he preached a sermon upon that occasion at Lincoln's-Inn chapel, which he published soon after...... In this sermon, having recapitulated the several judgments inflicted upon the nation from the earliest times, and represented the greatness of their late deliverance, he concludes with an advice suitable to his own temper, recommending clemency and moderation. . . . Another of his advices was to be for once so wise as not to forfeit the fruits of this deliverance, or to deprive themselves of the benefit and advantages of it by breaches and divisions among them. . . . He appears in this sermon persuaded of the papists having been concerned in the fire of London; observing, that there was too much reason to believe that the enemy did this-that perpetual and implacable enemy of the peace and happiness of our nation. And this persuasion of his is mentioned by Bishop Burnet, who adds, that the dean related to him a circumstance, which made the papists' employing such a crazed person as Hubert, a Frenchman of that religion, in such a service, the more credible. Mr.. Langhorn, the popish counsellor-at-law, who for many years passed for a protestant, but was afterwards executed for the popish plot, was despatching a half-witted man to manage elections in Kent before the restoration. Mr. Tillotson being present, and observing what a sort of a man he was, asked Mr. Langhorn how he could employ him in such services. His answer was, that it was a maxim with him, in dangerous services, to employ none but half witted men, if they could be but secret and obey orders; for if they should change their minds, and turn informers instead of agents, it would be easy to discredit them, and to carry off the weight of any discoveries they could make, by shewing that they were madmen, and so not like to be trusted in critical things."

There is, at all events, a great deal of secrecy about the "Record;" and should any awkward discoveries at any time be made, it certainly would not be difficult for popish agents to convince men that the conductors of that paper were not men of very sound judgment, or "like to be trusted in critical things."

There seems, however, to be strong internal evidence that the passage in question comes from a papist. For, first, he speaks of " the authoritative declaration" of the church in the 31st article quite in the way in which a papist would appeal to a decision of the Council of Trent. The church had declared the sacrifice of the mass a "blasphemous fable;" and the writer in the "Record" evidently considers it as nothing less than flying " in the face of" that authority for a member of that church to employ any other expression, though equally strong, nay, stronger, (for the church does not call the sacrifice of the mass idolatry," &c., but says, that "the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,") or to take up any argument on the subject other than the church's" authoritative declaration," even though that argument should rest throughout on the hypothesis that protestants consider the mass to be "awful idolatry," and "abhor" its "impiety," nay, that "the mind of a well-informed protestant at once declares that the mass of the papists is not an expiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, but a sacrilegious violation of the sacrifice once offered through Christ." Secondly, it is not in the manner of a church-of-England man to speak of " the reformers" of our church as its "founders." Can a single writer of our church be produced since the days of its reformation who has so designated them? Thirdly, the reference