and so with Simeon in the temple, embracing Christ, depart in peace. To the which peace Christ bring both you and me, and all our loving brethren that love God in the unity of faith, by such ways as shall please him, to his glory." Trusting that the above extracts may not be considered unworthy of notice in these self-seeking, and ultra-protestant days, I remain yours, PRESBYTER, ON THE GREEK ARTICLE. SIR,-When I wrote the remarks on the Greek Article, I had not seen the last edition of Middleton, and was not aware of Krüger's rule. On referring to that edition, I found that I had already marked several of the passages there brought forward. As a clear classification of examples is of great advantage, in questions of this kind, I shall here endeavour to state the different kinds of that connexion, which was made the third condition in the proposed rule. It takes place 1. When the subjects are such as are not necessarily connected in the mind, yet, in the case in question, are actually considered collectively, as forming a class, or united under one aggregate notion. Plato, Theaet. p. 186, ed. Serr. Σ. τί οὖν δὴ ἐκείνῳ ἀποδίδως ὄνομα τῷ ὁρᾷν, ἀκούειν, ὀσφραίνεσθαι, ψύχεσθαι, θερμαίνεσθαι; Θ. αἰσθάνεσθαι ἔγωγε. . . . . Σ. σύμπαν ἆρ ̓ αὐτὸ καλεῖς αἴσθησιν; I have given this passage at length, because none has occurred to me which so strikingly illustrates the principle of the rule. Thucyd. 2. 50. τὰ γὰρ ὄρνεα καὶ τετράποδα, ὅσα ἀνθρώπων ἄπτεται. . . Here τὰ ὀ. καὶ τ. 6. form a class animals of prey. Isocr. Pan. 42, τῶν μύθων ἤδιστα συνδιατρίβομεν τοῖς Τρωικοῖς καὶ Περσικοῖς. 2. When they are such as we may be naturally led to consider in union, and are actually so considered in the case in question, being usually opposites. Plato, Theaet. p. 171. περὶ τὰ ὑγιεινὰ καὶ νοσώδη. Id. p. 184. τῷ τὰ λευκὰ καὶ μέλανα ὁρᾷ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τῷ τὰ ὀξέα καὶ βαρέα ἀκούει ; Arist. Rhet. 1. 2. 21. ὁ τοῦ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον τύπος. Id. 1. 10. 1. + περὶ τῆς κατηγορίας καὶ ἀπολογίας. 3. When they are so mutually dependent on each other, as not to admit of separate consideration; or, in other words, are necessarily connected in the mind. Plato, Theaet. p. 182. μεταξὺ τοῦ ποιοῦντός τε καὶ πάσχοντος. Id. Goreg. p. 460. τοὺς τοῦ ἀρτίου καὶ περιττοῦ (λόγους). Id. Phaedr. p. 263. βλάβη τέ ἐστι τῷ ἐρωμένῳ καὶ ἐρῶντι. 4. When either identity, or sameness of effect, is predicated of the subjects. Arist. Rhet. 1. 2. 17. τὸ γὰρ τέκμαρ καὶ πέρας ταὐτόν ἐστι, κατὰ τὴν ἀρχαίαν γλώτταν. τόν. Thucyd. 2. 49. ἐν τῷ ὁμοίῳ καθειστήκει τό τε πλέον καὶ ἔλασσον που Id. 1. 141. * τὴν γαρ αὐτὴν δύναται δούλωσιν ἥ τε μεγίστη καὶ ἐλαχίστη δικαίωσις. 5. When the words have, to a certain extent, a kindred meaning. τῷ δεδιέναι ἄρα καὶ δέει ἀνδρεῖοί εἰσι πάντες. ἀλλήλων δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀρετή. Plato, Phaed. p. 68. ἡ τῆς πόλεως ῥώμη τε καὶ ἀρετή. τὴν βεβαίωσιν καὶ πεῖραν τῆς γνώμης. ed. Spencer. ἀνατρέπων τὰς ψευδομαρτυρίας καὶ The omission and subsequent insertion of the article in the passage, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 19πάντα μὲν ἡγεῖτο θεοὺς εἰδέναι τά τε λεγόμενα καὶ πραττόμενα, καὶ τὰ σιγῇ βουλευόμενα—are strongly in favour of the rule : τὰ λ. καὶ π. are, together, " overt acts,” whether by word or deed ; and a marked distinction is made between them and τὰ σ. β., "secret thoughts." The passage, Arist. Rhet. 1. 1. 7—ὁ δ ̓ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστής need not be viewed as an exception to the Bishop's first rules, when we consider that attributives, compatible in themselves, may, as in the present case, be rendered incompatible by the context: it is, in fact, a good example of the proposed rule; for the Ecclesiast and Dicast are, in respect to a circumstance in which they resemble each other, (n περὶ παρόντων καὶ ἀφωρισμένων κρίνουσι) placed together, in contradistinc tion to the Nomothete.+ All the passages adduced in the last edition appear to me reducible to the rule, except τὰς μαχητικὰς καὶ τὰς αὐλητικὰς καὶ ἐριστικὰς, which cannot be considered as adverse to it, on account of the uncertainty of the reading. It seems that the Greek writers did sometimes designedly include under one article words, some of which were incongruous with it in number and gender. I will now consider the usage of St. Luke with respect to the rule. The following passages are clearly in accordance with the rule :Luke, iii. 1. Φιλίππου τετραρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνί. είδος χώρας. ν. 17. ἐκ πάσης κώμης τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ Ἰουδαίας. vi. 35. αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς. xiv. 21. ἔξελθε ταχέως εἰς τὰς πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας τῆς πόλεως, καὶ τοὺς πτωχοὺς καὶ ἀναπήρους καὶ χωλοὺς εἰσάγαγε ὧδε. κίν. 23. ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμούς. For these examples I am indebted to the last edition of Middleton. [Where several of the others here cited are also adduced.—ED.] + “X.” will excuse the Editor for saying that this remark is not quite clear. That is to say, his defence of the example seems to rest on two different (? inconsistent) grounds, if the Editor understands his remark rightly. In the first clause he contends that the example does not offend against the rule, because the Ecclesiast and Dicast are clearly incompatible. That is one ground of defence. The other is, that the Ecclesiast and Dicast are, in fact, considered collectively as a class opposed to the Nomothete. The Editor heartily hopes that " X." will pursue an inquiry for which he seems so thoroughly competent. Such scholarship, alas! is rare, and becoming more so daily ; less regarded, of course, in such an age, and therefore in such an age less cultivated. But it is not the less precious on that account. So far from such an inquiry being unimportant, it is of very high importance.-ED. Acts, i. 8. ἐν πάσῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ Σαμαρείᾳ. See also viii. 1, ix. 31. – i. 13. οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες ὅ τε Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος . . . See xiii. 1. i. 25. λαβεῖν τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης καὶ ἀποστολῆς. iii. 11. κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην. See iv. 1 iv. 18. παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν. vii. 6. ἐν τῷ ἀκούειν αὐτοὺς καὶ βλέπειν. χίν. 5. ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων. — χίν. 21. ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν καὶ Ικόνιον καὶ ̓Αντιοχεία. See also xv. 3, 23, and 41; xvii. 1; xix. 21; xxvii. 5. With respect to the terms, Φαρισαῖοι, Σαδδουκαίοι, γραμματεῖς, ἀρχιερεῖς, ἄρχοντες, νομικοί, several of which so frequently occur toge ther, the usage varies; the relation which exists between them appearing to allow, but not to require, the omission of the article. The same is the case where the apostles and elders, and Paul and Barnabas, are mentioned together. In Luke, i. 58, ἤκουσαν οἱ περίοικοι καὶ οἱ συγγενεῖς αὐτῆς, the second article is requisite on account of αὐτῆς, which depends on συγγ. only. See also viii. 24; xi. 42; and Acts, vi. 4. In Luke, xi. 39, τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος, the article before πίνακος appears unnecessary. It should be remarked that, in Acts, xiii. 2, ἀφορίσατε δή μοι τόν τε Βαρνάβαν καὶ τὸν Σαῦλον, the second article is doubtful.* In Acts, xvii. 14, ὑπέμενον δὲ ὅ τε Σίλας καὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος, the article is properly repeated; because Silas and Timothy are not strictly joint agents ; but, at v. 15, we have λαβόντες ἐντολὴν πρὸς τὸν Σίλαν καὶ Τιμόθεον, where the second article is omitted, because a single charge is addressed to them jointly. I hope on another occasion to examine the usage of St. Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament. We surely ought not to regard as unimportant any question which tends to fix with precision the relation which this language bears to the standards of Greek purity. Χ. "WRETCHLESSNESS." SIR,-I have often been struck by the word "wretchlessness" towards the close of the seventeenth article of our church, and never felt satisfied with respect either to its orthography or its derivation. The sentence in which it occurs speaks of the abusers of the doctrine as exposed to a "most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation."+ How the English word came to be spelt * Marked by Griesbach, τόν. + The Latin is, I believe, uniformly: unde illos diabolus pertrudit vel in des perationem, vel in æque perniciosam impurissimæ vitæ securitatem. as it now is I do not exactly know; it is a deviation from the orthography of the first and early editions of the articles. There it is uniformly spelt without the w at the beginning, and with ch instead of tch or ck. The legitimate spelling, it now seems to be generally agreed, is recklessness; and in this mode I had myself acquiesced. And yet the supposition cast an apparent reflection upon the accuracy of our forefathers, who were not unwise or inaccurate men. Still I should have felt no hesitation, had I not casually found in the German New Testament what I suppose to be the real original of the word in question. It occurs in Eph. iv., 18, 19; but I should previously observe, that the compilers of our articles seem to have had this passage of scripture especially in view, when they penned the passage under consideration. In our English version it runs thus-the Gentiles are spoken of "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God," &c., "who, being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Now the word in the German translation for those in italics is ruchlos, and I suppose it to be Luther's translation. The word ruchlos is synonymous with gottlos, from which is derived our word godless, the meaning of which is evident. Now I suppose this word, or the substantive form of it, ruchlosigkeit, to be the original from which our word recklesness is strictly and properly derived; and that the word recklessness, although in close affinity with the other, is grammatically inaccurate. It will serve to confirm this criticism, and the truth of the reference to Eph. iv. 19, if we examine the version of Wicliff. It will be observed, that the notion of recklessness, whatever the meaning or origin of the word may be, is in the article connected with that of desperation. Now the translation of the passage in question by Wicliff, as Baber's edition has given it, is" whiche dispeyrynge bitooken hemsilfe," &c. If my conjecture be wrong, I can bear to be rectified with great patience; if right, accuracy is of some importance upon important subjects. J. M. PLURALITIES BILL. SIR,-You express surprise at having received scarcely any letters relating to the "Plurality Bill." I apprehend that that circumstance by no means arises from indifference, but rather from a desire among the clergy to leave the matter entirely in the hands of their spiritual rulers. The following observations, drawn up more than a month ago, and withheld under the influence of that feeling, are at your service : I. That part of the Archbishop's Bill which, as far as I have seen, is viewed by the clergy with chief anxiety, is that which asks, from parliament, a power to enforce a second sermon. Not that this is objected to in itself; but it is said, that either the authorities of the church have provided for such a service, or they have not. If they have, parliament has already ratified it, and therefore it may be en forced; but if they have not, parliament is now asked, in point of fact, to add to the rubrics of the liturgy. Waving all question about convocation, as having been set aside as far as the present measures are concerned, by those with whom resides the great responsibility of doing so, it appears that, in the early stages of the reformation, a great many things were arranged by archiepiscopal injunctions; and it further appears that a power was sometimes delegated by parliament to the authorities of the church to establish several important matters. A remarkable instance of the former practice is an injunction of Archbishop Grindall, preserved in Wilkins's "Concilia," requiring the minister not to pause after the litany, but to go on at once to the communion service, which throws more light upon the early practice with respect to the division of the services, and the time and manner of its being altered, than has yet, that I am aware, been produced; and the power confided to Cranmer and his ecclesiastical commission, of putting forth canons, by which his canons, if he had completed them, would have been law, illustrates the other practice, of legislative power being delegated to the church. Would it be possible to make these two precedents available, so that it should be competent to the bishops to enforce any such use of the services set forth by the church, as the archbishops in their respective provinces, or the Archbishop of Canterbury as primate, might "enjoin ;" and, of course, a second sermon, where required. I apprehend that no objection would be felt to this course by the clergy; since the chief part of those even who desire a present session of convocation do not so from any wish to interfere in church government themselves, (the clergy of the lower house being properly no more than assessors of the bishops,) but in order to save a great principle; so that it may be presumed they would be content if that principle were safe. Nor does there seem to be any reason why parliament should be jealous of conceding such an authority as this, which does not amount to a power of making laws, but rather of enunciating how they shall be applied. II. I have a note from Cole's MSS. (Br. Museum, vol. xiii. 135,) of a pension having been reserved to Erasmus by Archbishop Wrangham, out of the rectory of Aldingham in Kent, to which the archbishop presented Richard Maister as incumbent, with the condition of paying the stipulated pension; and there seem to have been many instances of such reservations. No doubt they might be abused; but on the occasion of a great restriction of pluralities, might we not return with advantage, under proper regulations, to such a practice as this? I could point to one instance in which the bishop, though not himself the patron of the vicarage of a large town very poorly endowed, has annexed to that vicarage, during two incumbencies, a neighbouring rectory in his own gift; and this occurs to me as only one of many cases in which it would be far preferable that ecclesiastical patrons Since the above was written, it appears that something like this very precedent is to be introduced into one of the bills, giving power to the ecclesiastical commissioners so promulge some of their proposals, which, so promulged, shall be law, if not at variance with their report. But quære, who is to be judge of this? until this be decided, who shall tell whether it is law or not? And |