the Puritans, who objected to the Homilies being publicly read in Churches, maintains that "the thirty-fifth article confirms the authority of the Homilies; inasmuch, as what is godly and wholesome doctrine at one time, cannot in another be ungodly and unhealthful, as if faith did follow fashions, and truth did alter with the times." At the Hampton Court Conference in 1603, Archbishop Bancroft, wished that preaching should give way to the Homilies, "which speak the sense of the Church." Bishop Horsley, so late as 1790, regarded the Homilies as in a degree authoritative documents of our Church, in which opinion the Monthly Reviewers of the same year seemed to coincide. It may be argued, if the subscribers of the Articles do not declare their unfeigned assent, that the doctrines of the Homilies is now "godly, and wholesome, and necessary;" why do they now subscribe that Article? Do they declare, that the Homilies were "wholesome and necessary," when the Articles were drawn up; because, if so, the burthen of subscription would be aggravated, and not lightened? As this reasoning would apply to all the other Articles, it may be said, that they are not declaratory of our present Church doctrine, that the subscribers of them are only required to believe, that the doctrine which they promulge was the doctrine of the Church two centuries ago.

In opposition to this mass of opinion, we find Professor Hey maintaining, that the Homilies possess no authority whatever, they being only a mechanical way of spreading established doctrines, and that when preaching became no longer dangerous, the obligation to use them ceased. Names of great literary repute are brought forward by the Professor, as expressing corresponding sentiments. The Bishop of Limerick, in his letter to Dr. Elrington, adduces others on the same side, whilst his Lordship affords it the weight of his own sanction.

Such being the state of opinion on the subject, I shall content myself with a single observation; that the words of the Rubric after the Nicene Creed, shew that the Homilies were designed to be of perpetual use in the Church until superseded by others, viz. -then shall follow the Sermon, OR one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by authority. One thing, however, is beyond doubt, that the two books of Homilies, no less than Jewel's Apology, and the Catechismus Brevis, constitute a most essential part of the ground-work of our thirty-nine Articles.

As connected with the subject in hand, I am desirous to say a few words relative to the first four general Councils. But having disposed of the question to which they have given rise, I shall no longer trespass on your attention.

That these alone, of all the Councils which were ever held, possess an unimpeachable character and a perfect conformity to Holy Writ, is evident from the high estimation in which they were held by the Church of England, in the early part of Queen Elizabeth's

§ CHURCH HISTORY, Book ix. p. 75.

reign-an estimation, that need not admit of abatement in the present day, as they might, if necessary, be deemed safe guides in the interpretation of the truths of Christianity. In the first enactment of that Queen, cap. 2, sec. 36, (Statutes of the Realm,) we accordingly find her power limited, as she could only determine what may be heresy by the authority of canonical scripture, or by the FIRST FOUR GENERAL COUNCILS. Since, therefore, they are referred to in no other public document relating to the Reformation, and as this Statute has fallen into disuse, the authority, which belonged to those Councils ceased together with it.

I now beg leave to subscribe myself, your's, &c. Glasnevin, March 13, 1826.

G.

THE EARLY FATHERS.

TO THE EDditor of tHE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. DEAR SIR-Having concluded without due references, and too abruptly, a former letter on the Early Fathers, which you were so good as to insert in your Number of the Examiner for January last, I beg leave now to subjoin a few words, which may supply

the defect.

The passages of Augustine's works to which I alluded were, 1. Tract 84 in Johan. 2. Serm. 17, in Verb. Apostoli Pauli. 3. Liber de curâ pro mortuis gerendá, Cap. xvi.

In referring to the third, I used the word "invocation" inadvertently. Augustine does not intimate that in his time the practice of direct invocation prevailed, but he inquired how the deceased martyrs could understand the wants and necessities of the living, so as to assist and benefit them.

Augustine, however, goes very far in the second passage, when he affirms, that the discipline of the Church in his day directed, that when the names of Saints were recited in the Eucharistical ceremony, it was not that the martyrs should be prayed for, but that they should pray for those that worshipped. It may be difficult to discover to what churches he refers, but this observation may be made that, if after his time the Greek Liturgies of the East, and the Roman Sacramentarium of the West, exhibit no such idea as he produces; that discipline with which he was acquainted, subsisted within a very small space indeed.

An examination of these parts of Augustine's work is the more necessary, when we find the Bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition, sect. iv. appealing to the first and second, and appearing to allude to the third, and then drawing a conclusion, by no means warranted, that all "antiquity” have judged prayers to the Saints to be profitable.

If, after due inquiry, it appear that the notion of subordinate intercession arose about Augustine's time, and the innovation was

too easily received by him as a stated practise; every discreet observer must apply to his writings, that honest remark which he used respecting Cyprian-when he said, *"we do no wrong to Cyprian in distinguishing his epistles from the canonical authority of the Divine Scripture. I examine them by the canonical scriptures, and whatever in them is agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I receive with applause, and what is not agreeable to it with bis good leave I reject-wherever Cyprian appears to differ from Scripture I receive it not, though he be above all my praises."

That the mind of this Early Father, in many respects so estimable, and whose powers prevailed so for repressing pelagianism and refuting paganism, should be beguiled to a notion hostile to the mediatorship of the one Head and Lord, may be equally lamented and wondered at, especially when he elsewhere speaks so well of that Mediator. (See De Civ. Dei. B. xi. chap. 2.)— No doubt his Christian education at Milan, where reverence so extravagant was paid to martyrs contributed to the effect. (See Confess. B. ix. chap. 7.)

These observations have been submitted to you, not only for doing away an obscurity, but on account of the importance of the subject. If we should have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, and if every exertion should be used, and earnest prayer ascend to the throne of Grace for their deliverance, what subject is there which should rather draw forth our feelings and supplications than an evil, to avert which from a church, St. Paul thus writes to them-" I would that ye knew what great conflict (¿λɩkov aywva) I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh." Col. ii. 1. I am, dear Sir, your's, &c.

March 9, 1826.

QUERE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

MR. EDITOR-Burnet in the exposition of the articles of our Church says, "she declares, she receives the four first general Councils as authority." Perhaps some of your learned correspondents would have the goodness to inform me, where she recognises them; it would be a great satisfaction to me, a country clergyman to know, especially as it is the modern mode to diminish the number of the acknowledged formularies of our Church.

CLERICUS.

• See Lardner, vol. v. page 106.

REVIEW.

A Dissertation on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel the Prophet.-By the Rev. John Stonard, D. D. Rector of Aldingham, Lancashire.-London, Revingtons, 1825.

WERE we inclined to comply with the popular custom of Reviewers, we should first detail the different interpretations which have been given of Daniel's Seventy Weeks, and conclude with a new one of our own. We shall, however, revert to the old custom of reviewing the book, and not the subject; for we think our readers would rather learn Dr. Stonard's opinion, than be put in possession of our reasons for thinking him and every one else in the wrong.

When our author applied himself to this subject, his first step was to settle the true reading, and the correct translation of Daniel ix. 24-27; and thus he was led closely to examine the text and the translation adopted by Blaney and Faber. The manner in which he has conducted this investigation proves him a sound and temperate biblical scholar. He has examined the authority on which each of the proposed, and sometimes contradictory, emendations rest, and has shewn that they are not justified by that decisive evidence on which alone we can legitimately correct our printed Hebrew text. When an interpreter of sacred Scripture assumes the office of emendatory critic, and when the object of his emendation is to render the text more susceptible of the peculiar interpretation for which he contends, we very naturally receive his alterations, whether they affect the original text or the received version, with great jealousy, and subject them to a close scrutiny. It is positively incumbent on every expounder of Scripture explicitly to state his reasons for having adopted a new reading or a new translation, in every case where such reading or translation forms the basis of a theological exposition. So firmly indeed do we hold this opinion, that we have laid aside the reasoning of more than one modern expositor, because so indispensable a duty was neglected.

In the present state of biblical literature, we consider conjectural emendations of the Hebrew text altogether inadmissible; for although the printed reading may have originated from a blunder in transcribing the particular MS. to which the text can be traced, it is utterly inconceivable that all the transcribers of all the MSS. unconnected with it should have fallen into the same mistake. Innumerable MSS. have been collated. If the proposed reading be found in any of them, it ceases to be conjectural; if it be found in none of them, that is positive proof in favour of the received text, and that however transcribers may have blundered elsewhere, in that particular word or letter, they have made no mistake in the passage in question. This deliverance from conjectural criticism we regard as a most valuable result from the labours of Kennicott and De Rossi; and we wish all future im

provers of our bible to consider, that though when MSS. or printed bibles differ from each other in letters of similar form or sound, we may reasonably suppose one of them mistaken for the other, Yet such conclusion does by no means follow in every instance where all MSS. differ from what it may be convenient for them to consider as the true reading. While Dr. S. rejects all the important alterations contended for by Blaney and Faber, he admits these that are well supported by MSS. and versions, and which do not materially alter the sense.

The following translation forms the basis of his interpretation; and we observe with pleasure, that he deviates but little from our authorised version.

24." Seventy weeks are the determined period upon thy people and thy holy city, to put a stop to the transgression, and to seal the sin offerings, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal the vision and prophet, and to anoint a holy of holies.25. Know, therefore, and understand, from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah shall be leader, shall be seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks shall it be rebuilt, the street and the lane, but the time shall 26. be with straightness. And after the sixty-and two-weeks, Messiah shall be cut off, and no one shall be on his side; and He shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the leader that cometh; and his end shall be with an inundation, for until the end shall be the war, the determined judgment of desola27. tions. Yet will he confirm the covenant unto many one week; but in the midst of the week he will cause sacrifice and meat offering to cease; afterwards upon the border of abominations shall be the desolator, and that until he shall be consumed, and the determined judgment shall have been poured upon the desolated."

Our author lays down fifteen preliminary positions, from which we extract such as are essential to his argument.

"III.-The term of seventy weeks begins with the complete restoration of Jeru salem and the Jewish polity, and ends with the dissolution of the same.

"VII.—The term of seven weeks, mentioned verse 25, is separate from, and prior to the term of seventy weeks, and concludes at the point where the other com

mences.

“ VIII.—Either the seven and the sixty-two weeks must be separated according to the last position, and the former be considered prior to the commencement of the latter, and of the term of seventy weeks; or the end of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity must follow within one week after the cutting off of Messiah.

"IX. --The leader that shall come (verse 26) is a different person from Messiah the Prince, (verse 25.)

"X.-The 27th verse is not progressive in he prophetic history of the seventy weeks, but merely supplementary thereto.

"XI.—The week in the supplementary verse is not the last week of the term of seventy weeks, nor yet a week superadded to them, but comprehended among

them.

"XII.—The use of that particular week is to announce that Messiah, after shewing himself as a leader will really act as such for a certain term, and reign to the benefit of his peculiar people, the Jews.