require other verbs to express intentions, or speculations, &c. These are supplied by " shall, will, may," &c. Our future tenses, as they relate to prospective action, necessarily use a contemplative or speculative term to express it: thus, "will" and "shall" are not imperfect verbs, as termed by Murray and the old grammarians, but a perfect, philosophical mode of expressing determination and intention, which, of course, must relate to future, to contemplated action.

All the other auxiliaries are of the same nature. They are verbs having reference to contemplated action, whether past or future, and may therefore be termed "contemplative" or "speculative verbs. "Could, would, and should," are represented as the "imperfect, that is, the " past tense of can, will, and shall;" and "might as the "imperfect of "may."

66

I deny that we have any such thing as an "imperfect tense; that, which we call imperfect, is as perfect and definite a tense as any we have in our language. Nor, were it otherwise, have "could, would, or should," anything to do with the past of the future, or contemplated actions, to which “ "can, will, and shall," are intended to be applied; nor would it be possible that it should.

...

"Can" implies power; "could," conditional power; "would "and "should are the conditionals of will" and "shall; might " of "may;" but certainly not their "imperfects," or "past tenses.'

79 66

On the two little words, "will" and "shall,' volumes have been written, as if every portion of grammar must be mystified.

Their significations appear to me very simple. "Will" expresses determination.

But the determination and intention are of the speaker, not of the spoken to, or the spoken of. Hence "will," though expressive of determination in the first person, merely expresses an opinion of what may be the determination of another, when applied to the second or third. So, "shall," expressing only intention in the first person, becomes imperative in relation to the second and third; because it expresses the intention of the speaker, in reference to the spoken to, or the spoken of; consequently, implying the power and the will to enforce it.

I am weary of all the absurdity that has been written on these two little simple words; and even Murray is deficient in giving us the "why" and the "wherefore" of their application.

I have represented "could, would," &c., as the conditionals of "can, will," &c. ; but this does not prevent conditions being annexed to the latter. To the former, however, they are essential, either expressed or understood; to the latter, they are not.

The potential mood, I believe, I have already disposed of.

The subjunctive mood has no existence in English. That which we call such is the indicative, with the conditional prefix of "if."

It is true we say, "If I be, if thou be, if he be," instead of "If I am, if thou art, if he is; " but this is to get rid of the impertinences of the changes in the singular of the indicative-a barbarism that it is high time to get rid of. There is no more reason that the verb shoull differ in the several persons of the singular, than in those of the plural. We use the nouus, or pronouns, so called, invariably with all our persons, and the alteration of the verb is not only absurd, but highly inconvenient, and has entailed very unnecessary rules on our language.

While, however, the impertinence continues, it will be as good grammar to say, "If I am," &c., as "If I be," &c. ; but when we get rid of the impertinence

of our variations in the present of the indicative, the anomaly will cease of itself.

"

66

In Latin, the noun is embodied in the variation of the verb, and therefore it is proper. "Amo" expresses ego am," the "am" being that portion of amo" that expresses the sentiment; but, in English, verbs should have nothing to do with " person, nor number" either, any more than with sex. "An adverb," says Murray, "is a Part of Speech joined to a verb, an adjective, or another adverb, to express some quality or circumstance respecting it: as, He reads well; a truly good man; he writes very correctly."

This, indeed, tells what the adverb does, but does not tell us why it does so; and unless the pupil be instructed in the cause, it is of little importance that his memory be burdened with the effect.

I have defined the adverb to be "a word which qualifies the verb;" that is, which qualifies whatever is representative of action, circumstance, or possession; anything embraced by the verbs to do, to be, to have. Thus, the adverb not only qualifies the action, but the attribute, and degree of the attribute conferred by it. Thus," He reads well," represents the adverb, well, as immediately qualifying the verb, or action. "He reads very well," represents the adverb, very, as qualifying the attribute of the adverb, well, by extending it. In the phrase, "He is a truly good man," the adverb, truly, qualifies the adjective, good, as referring to the existence of the quality of goodness, as a reality, not a pretence; and in that of "He has a very benevolent aspect, the adverb extends the asserted possession of benevolence of aspect; in both cases, transferring the adverb to the quality, or adjective, from the verb, which, however, is the power that transfers it.

“Prepositions," says Murray, "serve to connect words with one another, and to show the relation between them."

The first portion of this proposition is unworthy of our great grammarian; the second approaches more nearly to the truth, but wants precision.

Prepositions I have defined to be, words which express the nature of the relation, not between words indifferently, but the nature of the relation between the verb and the noun; between the action and its object.

To the artificial rules for ascertaining a preposition, I would not lend myself. If the nature of the word is not comprehended, the application of the rules were

useless.

"A conjunction," says Murray, "is a part of speech that is chiefly used to connect sentences; so as, out of two or more sentences, to make but one; it sometimes connects only words; as, thou and he are happy, because ye are good; two and three are five."

The study of language, as a science, would seem to have made very little progress in Murray's time, notwithstanding all the learned nonsense written on the subject, when so unphilosophical a definition of the conjunction could be given, by so judicious a grammarian.

A conjunction is a word, as I have before defined, which expresses the nature of the relation; not between one word and another only, or indifferently; but the nature of the relation between one noun and another noun, in reference to a common verb; or, the nature of the relation between one verb and another verb, in reference to a common noun: thus, Thomas and William proceed to the Continent to-morrow. Thomas separates from William at Paris, and proceeds to Italy; but William returns to England, via Belgium.

I need not point out the union of the two nouns, in the one action of proceeding in the first example; it is obvious. In the first portion of the second example,

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE CONVINCEMENT
OF JOSEPH MILTHORPE,
(Continued from page 73.)

T. WORTHINGTON (THE ROMISH PRIEST) TO J. MILLTHORPE, DEAR SIR,-On my return home I found a letter, or writing, from you, which I had, and yet have, great difficulty to read, and greater difficulty to find out in it any plausible sort of an answer or reply to what I wrote to you; without it may be esteemed an answer, to say a great deal of something, though little or nothing to the purpose. As, for example, when you say, "I wish thou wouldest tell me who was the Eunuch's godfather and godmother." Now, were your curiosity satisfied as to this particular, would this be of any use or purpose to you? No more than if I should desire of you to tell me whether Philip and the Eunuch saluted each other with their hats or caps on or off. And, since the salutation happened prior to the baptism, I hope you will first oblige me with an authentic account thereof; and then, when you have cleared the matter, I will endeavour to seek out for an answer to satisfy your curiosity.

By this ingenious query of yours, I perceive you have a mind to be a little upon the merry pipe, and not altogether so seriously to give or desire instruction as I could wish for; and, therefore, am of opinion, that I may spend my time much better otherwise, than in taking notice and answering this or the like, which you may look upon as speaking the simplicity of the gospel as also some harsh expressions against the mysteries of our religion, which I did not expect from you, and for which you might rather have made an apology, than for your change of language, to a single person as I am, and treating me with thou, thee, thine, which, although it is not usual to one another in our language, yet, since it is what we speak to almighty God, and his only Son Jesus Christ, I cannot but look upon it as an honour you do me, which I cannot pretend to. But this, by the by. To proceed.

I shall desire, moreover, at present, to be excused from taking particular notice of your many queries out of the Apocalypse; because, although I could give you the sentiments of the holy forefathers upon that mysterious book, yet, since the knowledge thereof, with regard to many of your questions, would not contribute much to our present purpose, and, therefore, seem to have been calculated rather to divert our attention from the chief points under our consideration,

than for our instruction, I shall take the liberty to pass them over in silence. And, as to your sixth query, "How to hear Christ," &c.; if, with attention, you will please to consider my late letter, I hope you may find some satisfaction as to that particular; where I have introduced Jesus Christ himself speaking to his apostles, "He that hears you, hears me;" and again, "He that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.

You may, perhaps, remember, when you were a member of this Catholic church, how, when her disputants happened to be engaged in controversy, they were wont deservedly to complain of their adversaries for running from one point to another, and another, &c., in order to divert our attention from prosecuting and bringing the chief points in question to a final conclusion, and so become instructive.

I shall, therefore, with this view, confine myself at present to these three more principal points, viz.:— 1st. Your revelation, upon which, I suppose, all the rest does, in some measure, depend.

2d. The Catholic church, its authority, &c.
3d. Baptism in the element of water.

These points I have pitched upon, as seeming to me most proper, because of them having been more especially treated in my late letter, as points of the greatest moment. It seems most conducing to our instruction to prosecute the same, and endeavour farther to illustrate those matters, by taking notice of whatever I can pick out of yours, that may seem like any sort of an answer, or argument, or objection, against what I had there advanced and asserted.

First, therefore, with regard to your revelation. I do not find that you allege any satisfactory account as to what sort of revelation, whether sensible, imaginary, or intellectual; as I desired to be informed, that I might the better know how to give my sentiments thereof.. Nor do I find the least proof that it proceeded from an angel of light; but rather, by what I can gather, from an angel of darkness, when rightly compared with the marks I mentioned, out of the holy forefathers and spiritualists, to discern the one from the other.

All I can gather is, that although you humbly acknowledge that your revelation was not, indeed, more solemn than was Paul's, but, on the contrary, in a much less degree; yet you dare not deny but it was a measure of the same power which you felt that struck him down.

It is, I presume, your profound humility to give out your measure to have been in a much less degree than that of St. Paul's. For I cannot well conceive how your revelation could be so very inferior, since, otherwise, how was it possible, that you all of a sudden, in so short a time, should come (without recourse to the Catholic church of all ages) and arrive at so extensive a knowledge of things the most difficult to discern.

1st. What books are sacred Scripture? For example, the Apocalypse, out of which you put so many questions. For that great wit and doctor of the church, St. Augustine, who was favoured with singular illuminations, does ingeniously confess and affirm (Contra Ep. Fundamenti, c. 5), "I, for myself, would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic church moved me."

2d. Which is the best translation of holy Scripture? As, for instance, with regard to mystery, which you so positively assert to be preferable to sacrament: which word, since I find you are not averse to, I shall make use of, to comply with the language of the Catholic church; and with her assert, that there are seven sacraments, properly so called. The first whereof is baptism, whereby we become Christians; of which more hereafter. Now, concerning translation, I find

"as

that great linguist and doctor of the church, and famous translator of holy Scriptures, St. Hierome, who had spent his days in the study of them, judged it a very difficult task to translate them. I am of opinion, that it is no less difficult a matter to determine which translation is preferable, especially by one who is not practised, or rather ignorant of the languages. 3d. Which is the true genuine sense of holy Scriptures, which abounds in various senses, as the literal, the allegorical, the tropological, or moral, and the anagogical, “which," as St. Gregory observes, "transcends all other sciences in its manner of speech or elocution, because in one and the same speech, whilst it relates the fact, it discloses a mystery?" And, moreover, as St. Augustine observes, "It is not inconvenient that, according to the literal sense in one word of the Scripture, there be many senses;" when, therefore, a sentence of holy Scripture is to be taken in the literal, when spiritual sense, when literal, when metaphorical and figurative, is a matter of the greatest difficulty, as the holy forefathers and doctors of the church all acknowledge; and St. Peter-2 Pe. iii. 16 -expresses, thus speaking of St. Paul's epistles, "In the which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own peraition.'

What a surprising revelation must yours, therefore,

in this regard. We find there an account, how they, as men, travelled from country to country, and, indeed, traversed the world, insomuch that the apostle, at Rom. x., applies to them those words of the royal prophet, Ps. xviii. 5, “Into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth, and unto the ends of the whole world the words of them." These words were vocal; heard by the sense of hearing, and from such as were sent, as St. Paul takes notice in the same chapter, x. 14, 15. Now their practice, as to baptism, we may gather out of the Acts of the Apostles, that they were baptized in elementary water, as they were wont to do in Christ's lifetime. St. Peter required of every one to be baptized, to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, Acts ii. 38, 41, " They that received his Word were baptized, and there were added that day," to the visible church, "three thousand souls.' As, likewise, Acts iv. 4, were added five thousand; and, Acts v., was more increased; and, Acts vi. 1, 7, more again.

66

77

tioned difficulties, has manifested to you so many places of Scripture, that are to be understood in a quite contrary sense than the Catholic church in all ages, and you yourself, for some years, did understand and practise! To exemplify in some few of the many :— 1st. With regard to baptism. That these words, John iii. 5, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," does not import the necessity of elementary water. Whereas, the apostle, at Eph. v. 26, mentions the church sanctified, cleansed in the laver of water; and it is most evident that Christ himself, or at least his disciples, in his lifetime, did baptize in elementary water; otherwise, how could the disciples of John be moved with zeal, and the Pharisees? John iii. 22-26; iv. 2. After Christ's death and resurrection, a little before his ascension, he gives this command to his disciples, Mat. xxviii. 19, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And St. Mark, xvi. 16, is added the promise of grace, "He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved. You are for spiritual baptism-very well; but how will you arrive at it if you contemn and neglect the method, allotted by Christ himself, in the aforesaid orders, "Going," &c.? When they were sent with these orders, how were they to put them in execution? Undoubtedly, by doing and acting something in a way proper to mankind. Surely they were not to go in spirit only, like angels; but as men, compounded of soul and body. Accordingly, they were to teach after a human manner, by vocal and sensible words; and they were to baptize, which is, properly speaking, to wash in elementary water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Thus were they to go, to teach, to baptize, as men co-operating with the Holy Ghost; without whose concurrence, all that a man can say or do will be of no efficacy. It is true, the Holy Ghost can, without such methods, confer spiritual baptism, and teach us all truth. But this is not the ordinary way allotted by Christ; otherwise, to what end had the disciples this commission, "Going," &c.?

That the disciples understood Christ's orders after this manner, evidently appears from the account we have, in holy Scripture, of their behaviour and practice

66

Now the necessity of baptism does evidently appear from our blessed Saviour's command, Mat. xxviii. 19; and John iii. 5, above cited. And the Eunuch, who was so humble as to say, ver. 31, "How can I" understand what I read in Scripture, "unless some man shew me?" who, from Philip's evangelizing to him Jesus, did, ver. 37, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, would be so humble also as to follow the direction of his Master, not only sent to teach, but to baptize; not in a type of Christ's baptism, but in Christ's own baptism; quite different from all other baptisms made use of by the Jews, and even that of St. John the Baptist (as appears, Acts xviii. 24, and xix. 56, of which, more hereafter), since this of Christ's, though in elementary water, was in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; or, which comes to the same, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But to proceed in the practice of the disciples. Was not Saul, Acts ix. 18, and xxii. 17, baptized by Ananias? and undoubtedly in the same manner as St. Paul did afterwards baptize, which was, as you admit, with elementary water; as we shall take notice of hereafter.

As, likewise, what can St. Peter mean but elementary water, when, Acts x., with regard to Cornelius and the Gentiles, who had received the Holy Ghost, he said, ver. 48, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Ver. 49, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." This command seems to import neces sity; not only complaisance.

Moreover, I find St. Paul, Acts xvi. 15, to have baptized Lydia and her house; and ver. 33, the keeper of the prison and his house; Acts xviii. 8, Crispus, the prince of the synagogue, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians. But you imagine that St. Paul saw early the insignificancy; nay, clearly saw the prejudice of it; which gave him occasion to thank God that he had baptized so few (with water). No; the reason St. Paul had to give thanks, evidently

66

appears from the tenor of his letter to the Corinthians, which was, ver. 14, Lest any man say that in my name you were baptized." This is the reason, and the only reason he gives, and he surely knew best his own reason. And gives them hereby to understand, that baptism, though given by different persons, was all in the name of Jesus Christ; who alone was crucified for them, and from whom the virtue of baptism received its value, and not from the worthiness of the ministers; and, consequently, it was wrong in them to take occasion, from the difference of ministers, to form a kind of schism. But, that St. Paul gave thanks because he said baptism was insignificant and prejudicial, as you imagine he did, and, therefore, to be left off, as a Jewish ceremony, like circumcision, &c., as you mention in another place, consider but the conduct of St. Paul, and you may easily perceive that he was of a contrary sentiment; looking upon the baptism of Jesus Christ to be very different from that of John's, or any other of the Jews, and requisite to such as had received John's, though both were in elementary water. And, therefore, at Ephesus, Acts xix. 4, 5, he baptized such as had been baptized in John's baptism, in the name of our Lord Jesus. And, ver. 6, being an apostle, afterwards conferred upon them what we call the sacrament of confirmation, by imposition of hands (as Peter and John to the Samaritans, Acts viii. 17), whereby the Holy Ghost came upon them in a more special manner, and more ample degree; which I here mention, because you seem to ridicule the imposition of the hands of a bishop, who, in dignity, succeeds to the apostles, and, therefore, bishops have the like authority, as instruments of Jesus Christ, in whose name is conferred the Holy Ghost; so that the efficacy hereof does not depend upon the sanctity of the instrument having to spare a measure of the Holy Ghost-a very gross conception and imagination of yours, which you seem to require in a so called bishop; yet I hope you will not apply to the apostles, when they practised imposition of hands, as if they did it because they had a measure of the Holy Ghost to spare.

This digression, concerning confirmation, leads me to consider your argument from these words of St. John the Baptist, Mat. iii. 11, "He," Jesus Christ, "shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire," which are not to be understood of elementary fire; and would, therefore, infer that the words of our Saviour, John iii. 5, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," are not to be understood of elementary water. I do not, in the least, doubt, but that great and immediate precursor of our blessed Saviour, St. John Baptist, who yet, John i. 8, "Was not the light, but to give testimony of the light," did justly deserve all those encomiums which you, for a page, give him out of the holy Scriptures; and did very well understand what he said when he spoke those words you mention; as, no doubt, did our blessed Saviour those words which he spoke to Nicodemus. But I very much question, notwithstanding your revelation, whether you understand those sentences better than the apostles, their successors, and the whole visible Catholic church in all the ages of Christianity.

Now, never did I read that they understood St. John's words of common elementary fire, to baptize in; nor did they ever, as I could learn, go about to practise such a thing; whereas, with regard to our blessed Saviour's words, they did understand them of elementary water, and did practise that sort of baptism, as evidently appears from the Acts of the Apostles above cited; and has, ever since that time to this, been so understood and practised by the visible Catholic church, as is most evident from church history. Insomuch that, until a person had actually received bap

tism, after this manner, he was never esteemed to become perfectly a Christian.

So that you may easily perceive they made a great difference between the one and the other; looked upon them in a quite different light. Those words of our Saviour, "Unless a man be born again," by the laver of baptism in the Word, as the apostle expresses it to the Ephesians, v. 26, in order whereunto, Christ sent his disciples with this message, Going, Baptizing them in the name,' they understood of baptism in elementary water, which has its virtue and efficacy from the most precious blood of our Redeemer, who, as the apostle to Titus, iii. 5, "Has saved us by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;" which laver of regeneration is, according to our Saviour's words, Unless a man be born again of water.... And water is, properly speaking, what is made use of to wash and baptize with, and what we properly call the sacrament of baptism, or, by another name, of regeneration, from the effect, and leaves an indelible character, which you will appear with at the great day of judgment, though you may seemingly renounce it at present. By that you were regenerated and born anew; and as our corporeal generation and birth happens but once, so our spiritual regeneration is not to be reiterated; and, therefore, we acknowledge, in our creed, one baptism, according to what the apostle says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism,' at Eph. iv. 5. Yet there are other less properly called baptisms; as that mentioned by St. John Baptist, with regard to Christ, Matt. iii. 11, which is no ways to be understood of the matter of baptism, but either of the immediate effect of the Holy Ghost, or referred to the miracle which appeared on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 3. When the Holy Ghost descended from heaven upon the apostles, in the form of fire, of which, also, Christ our Lord, in another place, foretold, Acts i. 5, "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost after these few days."

This is what the Catholic church looks upon as the sacrament of confirmation, given only by the apostles, and their successors, the bishops; and by them is conferred by imposition of hands, as I took notice of before. Nor is this to be reiterated, since it stamps upon the soul of the receiver an indelible character, with which you must also make your appearance before the great tribunal of Jesus Christ; notwithstanding you are now pleased to set so little value upon it, because it may so happen, that the person who, on this occasion, confers this sacrament by imposition of hands, " may rather want than have to share a measure of the Holy Ghost," which, as I observed before, as regards baptism, is a very gross notion; since, in that sacred function, the ministers in this, as in all other sacraments, personate Christ Jesus himself, who is not in any want, having the fulness of grace, and is pleased thus to communicate it through the sacraments instituted by himself, and graciously accommodated to man's nature, a creature compounded of soul and body, as St. Chrysostom most judiciously observes; and, therefore, requires the help of things sensible, to raise it to the knowledge and acquisition of things spiritual. As the grace of almighty God, communicated to us through the sacraments administered to us by Christ's ministers, whose unworthiness does not hinder the effect, as we may learn from the apostle at 1 Cor. iii. 6-9, "Neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth, but he that gives the increase, God." Thus, as the improbity of the hand which plants does not affect the tree, so neither does the malice of the minister infect the person engrafted into Christ. This, St. Augustine, Tract. in Joh., exemplifies in Judas:-" Judas gave baptism, and after that