tism; and I believe also that the separate work of the COMFORTER, at baptism and at confirmation, is plainly shewn in this particular passage, which the Warden seems to have alleged in order to overthrow the belief in his work at our baptism.

The reply to the Warden's allegation of the second passage (chapter x.) is equally plain, though different. The case of the household of Cornelius is without parallel, and is no more to be used as an argument for the separation of the gift of the HOLY GHOST from baptism, than is the pentecostal gift to the apostles. It was the commencement of an entirely new dispensation, wholly unexpected by St. Peter himself. It seemed good, therefore, in the counsels of ALMIGHTY GOD, to signalize the admission of the Gentiles into the church by a special effusion of his SPIRIT. But so far was this effusion from being the ordinary gift of the HOLY GHOST, that it is expressly said, that the disciples knew that it was poured out upon the converts, "for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify GOD." They had therefore, for the purpose of evangelizing their brethren, received one gift of the HOLY GHOST-that of tongues. St. Peter, well knowing that no extraordinary gift was to supersede the obligation of the holy sacrament of the new birth, immediately argues, that as these Gentiles had received the testimony of the SPIRIT to their conversion, by being endued with a gift, it was now lawful ("can any man forbid?") that they should be made Christians in baptism, without any further inquiry or confession of faith.

And now, after all the consideration which I have been able to give to the Warden's account of baptism, I am at a loss to know, from his shewing, how the catholic doctrine of the gift of the HOLY GHOST in that sacrament has been affected by ecclesiastical tradition. I am also at a loss to know how "the question, "what is the nature of that spiritual gift which we believe to be conferred in baptism?' can "be differently answered according to men's different temperaments," if those men are members of the church of England. Her statements in reply to such a question, if put, are quite clear; and they do not rest upon ecclesiastical tradition, (although, of course, they are in complete harmony with it,) but on holy scripture. And I believe I am not misrepresenting the Warden in saying, that he does not argue against the catholic doctrine as being traditional, but simply as being, to him, not credible. And I cordially hope that he has overstated his own meaning. I reserve what I have to offer on the necessity of tradition for the reception by the church of the usage of infant baptism, till my next letter, in which I hope to bring my notice of the Warden's book to a close. I submit to your readers' notice, in reference to the Warden's account of baptism, the following quotation, as given in Bingham (book xii. chap. iii. sec. 6), from the writer known as Eusebius Emissenus, who lived in the fifth century; and with it I will end my present letter.

"That which imposition of hands now gives to every one, in confirming neophytes, the same did the descent of the HOLY GHOST then confer on all believers. But because we have said, that imposition of hands and confirmation confers something on him that is born again and regenerated in CHRIST, perhaps some one will be

ready to think with himself and say, what can the ministry of confirmation profit me after the mystery of baptism? If after the font we want the addition of a new office, then we have not received all that was necessary from the font. It is not so, beloved; for if you observe, in the military life, when the emperor has chosen any one to be a soldier, he does not only set his mark or character upon him, but furnishes him with competent arms for fighting. So it is in a baptized person-the benediction is his armour. Thou hast made him a soldier; give him also the weapons of warfare. What doth it profit, though a father confer a great estate upon his child, if he do not also provide him a tutor? Now, the HOLY GHOST is the Keeper, and COMFORTER, and Tutor, to them who are regenerated in CHRIST Therefore the HOLY GHOST, which descends with His Saving Presence on the waters of baptism, there gives us the plenitude of perfection to make us innocent; but in confirmation HE gives us an augmentation of grace......In baptism we are born again to life, but after baptism we are confirmed to fight. In baptism we are washed, but after baptism we are strengthened."

......

Your most faithful servant,

D. P.

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN PARIS, FOR CELEBRATING THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE FRENCH

LANGUAGE.

SIR,-Your correspondent, who signs himself "A Presbyter of the Church of England," has felt called upon to animadvert upon the intended erection of a church in Paris, for the use of the AngloGallicans and native French, under the above designation, on the following ground:-"As episcopacy without a bishop is something like lucus a non lucendo,' and only calculated to throw ridicule upon the subject, I am anxious to know under what bishop the proposed church and its minister are intended to be placed?"

I will give him a question in reply. When the church was overrun with Arians, and the illustrious Athanasius, when returning from exile, ordained ministers on his way, in places out of his own diocese, where he had no power, and which he would probably never see again, (Socr. ii. 24,) "under what bishop" were these churches and their ministers placed? And before he replies, it may be worth his while to weigh also the following words of Epiphanius, when speaking of his ordination of Paulinianus, in the diocese of John of Jerusalem"Ob Dei timorem hoc sumus facere compulsi; maxime cum nulla sit diversitas in sacerdotio Dei et ubi utilitati ecclesiæ providetur. Nam et si singuli ecclesiarum episcopi habent sub se ecclesias, quibus curam videntur impendere, et nemo super alienam mensuram extenditur, tamen præponitur omnibus charitas Christi in qua nulla simulatio est; nec considerandum quid factum sit, sed quo tempore et quo modo et in quibus et quare factum sit." Epist. ad Johann. Hierosol. (Ed. Petav. tom. ii. p. 312.)

When the "Presbyter" will supply M. Gourrier with a word more accurately descriptive of a church to be devoted to the sole use of an episcopally-ordained minister, according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England, than "episcopal," he will, I have no doubt, be happy to use it.

The Presbyter" seems anxious for the honour of episcopacy. Let

him above all things take heed, then, that he leads no one to suppose that it can present any impediment to the free propagation of pure religion. It appears to me, I confess, that were the plan and the objection to it weighed in "the divine balance," to ascertain which was best "calculated to throw ridicule upon the subject" of episcopacy, it would not be difficult to foretel the result.* I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ANOTHER PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. London, Oct. 3, 1838.

* The Editor (or rather, as he cannot always use the name without a risk of leading readers to ascribe statements of fact or opinion to a wrong person, he will say, the friend who, in the Editor's necessary absence from London, acts as his deputy with regard to the Magazine, and who, after this explanation, will, for the sake of convenience, resume the name,) received this letter on the 6th Oct.; as it was not inserted in the number of which a considerable part was then in type, and much more pledged, it was on the 7th Nov. followed by another letter, in the following terms:

SIR, I just write a line to intimate my hope that you will be able to find room for my brief reply to a "Presbyter of the English Church" on the subject of the contemplated church at Paris, sent Oct. the third, in your number for December. I confess I was rather disappointed at not seeing it in the number for this month, because the letter of the "Presbyter" is in fact an indirect attack upon the association formed in aid of the plan, and particularly the clergymen who have recommended it, who are pointedly asked for an explanation; and a reply to such a letter should, I think, be in fairness inserted at the earliest opportunity.

I have not given my name, merely because I believe it to be a good rule in general to reply to anonymous writers anonymously. Your obedient servant, ANOTHER PRESBYTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

Nov. 6.

The Editor has not the least idea who the writer is; but, from the tone of the two letters, he is led to suppose it is somebody who is not accustomed to neglect, and who is perhaps entitled to claim more prompt and submissive attention than, in this case, he has received. He therefore inserts both letters, but in so doing feels it necessary to add one or two remarks.

There is no pretence for talking about " fairness," and representing the letter as a reply to an attack. If any attack was made, it was, as he says himself, upon the association and the clergymen who recommended it; and certainly, if the association or any of the clergymen in question had viewed it in that light, and thought fit to make a reply, any communication from them would have been immediately attended to; but the writer of the anonymous letter did not pretend to have any authority from the association, or any connexion with it; and if he were to see all the letters which the editors of periodical works receive from people anonymously interfering in what is not their own business, he would not wonder that such letters do not command respect. "Another Presbyter" talks of replying to anonymous authors anonymously; but he is quite wrong if he supposes that the "Presbyter" was anonymous to the Editor. His name is familiar to all readers of the British Magazine; and the Editor, though not personally acquainted with him, knew when he received the letter that it came from a clergyman of high respectability; one whose published works do not lead to an impression that he is disposed to make indirect attacks, or that he is peculiarly characterized by unwillingness to avow, or incapacity to maintain, his opinions. The question which he proposed seemed a very fair one, though it certainly had not occurred to the Editor when he gave a subscription to Mr. Gourrier's church; and, having done so, he inserted the "Presbyter's" note with something like a feeling of unwillingness to suppress what might seem to charge him with encouraging an irregular proceeding, and with a kind of hope that somebody would find a better answer than he could think of. In his opinion, however, the letter of "Another Presbyter" is no answer at all. A " Presbyter" says, Why do you call the projected church episcopal, when it is not under the jurisdiction of

ON THE TITLE "MOTHER OF GOD."

SIR,-I have repeatedly seen it asserted of late, in quarters to which I have been accustomed to look for sound theology, that to reject the phrase "Mother of God," as applied to the Virgin Mary, is rank heresy; being the very error for which Nestorius was condemned by the general council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. I especially refer to the statements in the " British Critic," No. XLV., p. 135, and No. XLVIII., p. 489; also to the letter signed "D. P.," in the November number of the "British Magazine," p. 520. The subject is one which can scarcely be discussed without irreverence; but as the following remarks proceed from no spirit of profane speculation, I venture to hope that they may be candidly considered.

If the words "Mother of God" be the exact English equivalent of the term OɛOTÓKoç, then a rejection of those words is justly branded as heresy; OεOTÓKоs being the term employed by the Ephesine fathers technically to convey their doctrine, and their doctrine being universally acknowledged as true by the catholic church.

But, if OEOTÓKоs be not exactly represented in our language by "Mother of God," as its equivalent, then, to reject the latter phrase may or may not be heresy; but if it be, it is so for some other reason than the adoption or confirmation of OEOTÓKOS by the council of Ephesus.

Are the two expressions, then, precisely synonymous? I plead guilty to some degree of hesitation on this point. "Mother of God" to my apprehension conveys more than is signified properly or necessarily by OEOTÓKOS. It seems to imply not simply parturition, but generation or derivation of substance. And as I unfeignedly believe, in the words of the Athanasian Creed, that "our Lord Jesus Christ,

Θεοτόκος.

any bishop? and " Another Presbyter" replies, Because it is" to be devoted to the sole use of an episcopally-ordained minister." Why, so might an arm-chair be, but that would not make it an episcopal chair. Surely it cannot be maintained that if an episcopally-ordained minister were to settle, and gather a congregation, in some newly discovered island, there would on that account be an episcopal church there, while neither the minister nor the people recognised the jurisdiction or superintendence of any bishop, in any way whatever. Of the references to Athanasius and Epiphanius nothing need be said; for however they may bear upon the lawfulness or expediency of the thing, they are altogether irrelevant as it respects the name, which was the matter brought into question.

The Editor feels it right to add another remark, repeating that he has not the most remote idea who "Another Presbyter" may be, and expressing his sincere wish not to give him any just ground of offence. There is something in the latter part of the first letter which, if the positive assertion of the signature did not forbid such a suspicion, might lead clergymen of the church of England to suspect that "Another Presbyter" might be a presbyter of another church. There is something so much in the Home Mission, the M'Ghee and Mar-prelate, way in the suggestion, that, if the honour of episcopacy is to be maintained, it must be by shewing that it cannot interfere with good men doing good, according to their own good pleasure, so-in the hint delicately conveyed, that if the bishops stand in the way they may expect to have their shins kicked-that if it could be considered as speaking the feelings of the association, or of any person whose advocacy they would blame the Editor for saving them from, it would do their cause more harm than could have been done by the unanswered letter of the "Presbyter."

the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world," I cannot, without scruple, subscribe to the use of a term which seems to imply that very "confusion of substance" which the creed disallows.

OεOTÓKOÇ, it is true, may be strained to the same meaning. Schleusner supplies examples in which TIKTE is used in the sense of gigno and of concipio; but such is not its usual, nor its proper, much less its necessary, meaning; and there is reason to believe that it was not that which the Ephesine fathers attached to it, in whose time a distinction between OɛOTÓKOs and Oɛou μýrηo was observed, which can scarcely be other than that which has presented itself to me. Bishop Pearson, who, as the "British Critic" says, "has traced the origin and progress of the name with consummate learning," states that, "although OεOTÓKOS may be extended [mark the word] to signify as much as the mother of God, because TiKTE doth sometimes denote as much as yɛvvậy, and therefore it hath been translated Dei genetrix as well as Deipara; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin OεOTÓKOS did not call her μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the Latins translating Θεοτόκος Dei genetrix, and the Greeks translating Dei genetrix Oɛov μýrnp, they both at last called her plainly the mother of God. The first which the Greeks observed to style her so was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim, Patriarch of Theopolis.

*

It is therefore certain that first in the Greek church they termed the Blessed Virgin Oɛorókos, and the Latins from them Dei genetrix and Mater Dei, and the Greeks from them again μýrηp Oεov, upon the authority of Leo, not taking notice of other Latins who styled her so before him."-On the Creed, Art. III., Born of the Virgin Mary, note.

Why this reserve on the part of the more ancient Greeks, if the two phrases were precisely synonymous? Why this care to note the first writer who employed unrηp Oɛov, unless it were reckoned a novelty at least, probably an indiscretion, in going beyond the wellconsidered language of the church catholic?

Bishop Pearson himself is apparently actuated by a similar feeling. He gives, indeed, in his text, both titles as applied to the Virgin, but to the Ephesine term he adds a brief explanation; and the other, though he does not call it "plain popery," he ascribes not to the catholic church, but to the Latin. "Wherefore, from these three, a true conception, nutrition, and parturition, we must acknowledge that the Blessed Virgin was truly and properly the mother of our Saviour. And so is she frequently styled the mother of Jesus in the language of the evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly, the mother of her Lord,' as also by the general consent of the church (because he which was born of her was God) the Deipara; which being a compound title begun in the Greek church was resolved into its parts by the Latins, and so the Virgin was plainly named the mother of God." "D. P.," holding the two titles to be equivalent to each other, asserts that "the direct and undeniable consequence of stating that the Blessed Virgin is not ОEOTÓKoç, the mother of God, is, that her son was not God." I wonder that" D. P." did not perceive how easily it