This would be a proportion of 6 to 1 nearly, instead of 4 to 1, the present proportion of rating land of easy cultivation and tithe (strong clay land is rated at 3 to 1), exclusive of tithe free land, 510 acres. This proportion of 6 to 1 is now strengthened by the altered case of commuted tithe. It is now the same as Joddrell's, a corn-rent, on which there cannot be any profit; and no person would give the nominal value for it; and no person would rent land unless there was a profit attached to it; therefore, to make the assessment on both properties equal, they must have equal allowances granted to them, whether pecuniary or personal; the farmer must deduct tenant's rates and taxes and for his personal services, reducing the value of the land to a clear rent to the landlord. And the incumbent must deduct the same rates and taxes, and his personal services, on the legal stipend of a minister, to perform the ecclesiastical duties, according to the population or value of the benefice, reducing the rentcharge to its net value to let. I am, &c. JOHN AUSTIN,

Rector of Pulborough.

ON THE CATECHISM PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY FOR
PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.

SIR,-Allow me to draw the attention of your readers to the explanation of the word "catholic," which appears in a catechism lately published under the sanction of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

It is numbered 161, and is entitled "A Short and Familiar Exposition of the Church Catechism, Confirmed by Scripture Proofs, by way of Question and Answer, for the Use of Children." Section 7 commences with the question

Q. What do you mean by believing in the holy catholic church?

A. I mean to profess my belief, that there is, and ever will be, to the end of the world, a holy spiritual church of Christ, of which he is the head and Saviour.

Q. Of whom does this catholic church consist?

A. Not of any one nation or profession of Christians only, but of all, in every nation, and of every profession, who truly believe in, love, and follow Christ Jesus. Q. How do you prove this?

A. 1 Cor. i. 2. "The church of God, which is at Corinth, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Rev. vii. 9. “After this I beheld, and lo! a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands."

Now, Sir, without denying that there is a holy spiritual church of Christ, which embraces all who truly believe in, love, and follow Christ Jesus, still we certainly do not in the creed profess our belief in such an invisible society, but in that visible congregation of faithful men in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered."

So far from this word "catholic" signifying that every denomination of Christians are included in the one holy church, Bishop Pearson adduces numerous authorities to prove that it "is often added in opposition to heretics and schismatics, expressing a particular church continuing in the true faith with the rest of the church of God," (Exposi

tion to the Creed,) and as he had previously observed, "the word catholic being inserted by the church, must necessarily be interpreted by the sense which the most ancient fathers had of it." I believe all our elder divines bear the same testimony, and such is the persuasion of a celebrated modern writer, who is not in the habit of making assertions that can be easily disproved :-" When we adopt and daily repeat the creed of the early Christians, we are surely bound to ascertain, not only the meaning of their words, but the precise sense in which they were used, and in which those holy fathers intended that we should receive them. By this test, then, we are prepared to abide; and we may, without presumption, challenge the opponents of our interpretation to point out one instance in which the term catholic is applied by the ancients in the indefinite and indiscriminate manner for which they contend. They will invariably find it used for a purpose directly opposed to that which they profess; they will find it used, to speak logically, as a word of the second intention, to distinguish the one true and apostolic church—the church which was established at Jerusalem by the preaching of St. Peter, and existing through all ages the same, by the succession of its bishops-from the various sects, heresies, and schisms, which even then brought scandal upon the name of Christians."-Dr. Hook's Sermon at the Consecration of Bishop Luscombe.

Assuming, then, the correctness of this definition, how are we to account for the explanation given of the term "catholic church" in the catechism before us? The answers are not only false, but the very term employed by the church to teach an important truth is so interpreted as to express a denial of that truth. Is this attributable to ignorance, carelessness, or design? Surely, if we instruct the children of our poor in the apostle's creed at all, we should give them its true meaning, and not teach them error on the authority of this sacred record of primitive truth. I am, yours faithfully,

A MEMBER OF THE S. P. C. K.

ON THE EPHESINE TITLE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN.

SIR, Your correspondent "Aokiμаσтhs," (Dec., p. 678,) has made me answerable for more than I ever took upon myself, when he says that I have accused of "rank heresy" those who reject the phrase "Mother of God" as applied to the Virgin Mary. I have done nothing of the kind; I made use of no such term; I only protested against an accusation of "plain popery" made against those who do not reject it. I grant that the English phrase is not a precise equivalent for OɛOTÓKOS— I should therefore scruple to use it before an unlearned person, without explanation: I am content, in ordinary discourse, to use in preference the scriptural phrase, "the Mother of our Lord." I do not, however, see that, to an unlearned person, the phrase would convey the notion stated by your correspondent; it is too metaphysical to occur to many; the objection rather is, as Alexander Knox said of it, that it is a kind of solecism.

If your correspondent will look at the passage which I defended, in the unmutilated editions of Nelson's Festivals, he will see that that good man has explained the English title as a representative of OEOTÓKOÇ Or Deipara, and as equivalent to the scriptural appellation, Luke, i. 43. How such a passage could have been struck out by a committee of theologians, without a disregard to the language of the primitive church, and a spirit of compromise which does them no honour, I confess I do not see. See Nelson's Festivals, on the Annunciation; and British Critic, No XLV. p. 135.

I am, Sir, yours, &c., THE AUTHOR OF THAT CRITIQUE.

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

SIR,-What you can have found in my letters to call for the observations contained in your note upon them,-the one written in reply to a flippant anonymous attack (however indirect) upon an important work, which claims the support of all who wish well to the interests of true religion, the other civilly requesting the insertion of the former, and intimating that it ought in fairness to be inserted at the earliest opportunity, I leave to your readers to judge.*

On the greater part of that note, and on your discovery, in the writer of the first letter, of a mar-prelate, delicately conveying a hint that if the bishops stand in the way they may expect to have their shins kicked, and the corollary about the letter being likely to injure the cause of the Association, any remark on my part would be superfluous, as the letters and the note are before your readers. +

But as you have volunteered (somewhat awkwardly, I think, after the hint in the former part of your note about people interfering be

[The Editor conceives it to be obviously absurd, and not civil, that anybody who did not even give a name, or pretend that the matter concerned or reflected on him, should affect to claim a right of reply, and assume the tone of a disappointed and unfairly treated person, because his letter was not inserted at the first possible moment. On this principle, anybody may write whatever he pleases about anything which he finds in the Magazine; "it ought" to be inserted at the earliest opportunity, and if it is not, the Editor's honesty is to be impugned. Is this civil?]

+[Certainly; nothing can alter the words ;-" 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." Such an argumentum ad hominem in any anonymous letter might lead wiser men than the Editor to suspect that it came from some one of those who do suppose that episcopacy stands in the way of their propagating what they consider as pure religion; and who, it is feared, would not be sorry to see it put down. The words are almost identical with those of the manifesto just put forth by the dissenters, which will be found among Church Matters in this number. One of the fundamental resolutions tells us, that state establishments "create serious impediments to the propagation of the gospel." The Editor has not the least wish to attach to the words any meaning which the writer may disavow, The question, however, is not what was meant, but what might be naturally understood, by a reader who had nothing but internal evidence to guide him.]

tween others) to defend the presbyter and reply to my remarks, and have, as it appears to me, altogether misstated the matter in that reply, I must trouble you once more. The obvious meaning of the "Presbyter's" letter is this: This work is not under the immediate superintendence of a bishop, and therefore it is quite irregular; and therefore we of the church of England, and consequently the clergymen who cordially recommend it, ought not to support it. The objection to the name is merely an indirect way of intimating this, as is evident from the whole letter. Now, far be it from me to doubt any man's right to make the observation if he thinks fit, or in the way he thinks fit. But he cannot be surprised if the reply is suited to the way in which he has shaped his own remarks. The substance of my answer is this: I adduce examples from the primitive church in defence of the work, and ask for a better distinctive appellation, if one is to be found, to distinguish it from the labours of presbyterians, independents, &c., than episcopal; and add what, notwithstanding the offensive interpretation that has been given to it, I will now repeat, that he who objects to support such a work under such circumstances, on the ground of its not being consistent with the discipline of an episcopal church to do so, seems to me to take the best means of bringing dishonour upon episcopacy, and (to use his own phrase) "throwing ridicule upon the subject." You are quite mistaken, however, if you suppose that I am any friend to irregularity. Far from it. Quite as far, I believe, as any of those who talk the loudest against it. If, indeed, the persons to whom M. Gourrier proposes to minister were within the diocese, or in any way within the jurisdiction of an orthodox bishop, the case would be altogether different; but, as far as I am aware, no protestant bishop claims them as belonging to his diocese. And as it respects M. Gourrier himself, there are, I suppose, but few bishops who would undertake to take under their immediate superintendence and control a work to be carried on beyond the bounds of their own dioceses, and by the subjects of another country. In short, the case is a peculiar one, and must be treated as such. M. Gourrier's appeal has been briefly this: Give me means and authority to enable me to minister the word and sacraments to my countrymen, and I pledge myself to keep close to the doctrine and practice of the church of England. And besides this pledge, the church to be erected is to be vested in the hands of trustees, to secure its permanent occupation by an episcopally-ordained minister, ministering according to the doctrine and rites of the church of England. By rejecting such

[The tone in which another name was asked for will hardly allow the question to be thus referred to, as if the writer had really admitted that a more proper name might be given; and why should the Editor, even if he had considered the writer seriously desirous to obtain a better name, have published the opinion of an anonymous correspondent, that if one were found M. Gourrier would "be happy to use it"?-ED.]

[Exactly. And therefore the question is, should it not have a peculiar name? Is its peculiarity expressed by calling it episcopal, or does its peculiarity render that name in any degree less proper? These, it is apprehended, are really the questions. -ED.]

appeals (and I intentionally use the plural number) we should be losing the fairest opportunity of promoting the cause of religion in France, and of laying a foundation likely to lead to a permanent superstructure.*

That the object of the " Presbyter's" letter is to all appearance such as I have supposed, you yourself in one place allow, for you state that his note seems to charge the subscribers to M. Gourrier's work "with encouraging an irregular proceeding;" but with strange inconsistency, when you come to remark on the authorities quoted from Athanasius and Epiphanius, which you allow may bear upon "the lawfulness or expediency of the thing," you tell us that they are "altogether irrelevant," because "the name" was "the matter brought into question."† If, however, I have mistaken the object of your correspondent's letter, and the question is a strife about words, and nothing more, I willingly leave it to others to contend about. I will only say that, in my humble judgment, the church proposed to be built may very properly be called episcopal, because it is to be occupied by a minister whose ministrations are authorized by episcopal orders, or " devoted to the sole use of an episcopally-ordained minister." You reply, "So might an arm-chair be, but that would not make it an episcopal chair." I cannot pretend to answer this argument, as it is quite beyond my comprehension. Will you have the kindness to say what would make a chair "episcopal?" Your illustration, from the supposed case of a minister in a newly-discovered island, I willingly accept; and beg to ask whether, supposing episcopalians, presbyterians, and independents, had each a building for divine worship in such an island, those places of worship would not properly go under the names of episcopal, presbyterian, and independent, to shew the discipline recognised and adopted, as far as circumstances might allow,

[Surely, if anything so extensive is contemplated, it is the more necessary to put the matter on a right foundation, and understand it thoroughly at first.—ED.]

[The Editor did not say that the references were "altogether irrelevant," but particularly abstained from giving any opinion on that point. Having previously stated the question in these words, "Why do you call the church episcopal when it is not under the jurisdiction of a bishop?" he afterwards said, " 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." So they are; nor does "Another Presbyter" pretend to shew that they afford any precedent for the name, or bear on that question at all. If he likes to say that they do bear on that question, well and good; but let him not garble the Editor's words, and then charge him with inconsistency. He repeats, that he avoided giving any opinion-at least, he thought he had done so as to the relevancy of these references; and he cannot imagine how any such thing can be gathered from the sentence just quoted. Surely they "allow" nothing; and only say what might have been expressed in more words thus: "Whether the references do, or do not, bear upon the question of the lawfulness or expediency of the thing; and whether, if they do bear upon that question, they are for or against such lawfulness or expediency has nothing to do with the present question, because, even if they should be thought to sanction the forming such a church, they offer no precedent for naming it' episcopal'"]

[Most willingly-its being placed under, and appropriated to, a bishop." Another Presbyter" expresses himself as if he had really never heard of an episcopal chair." Does he know why certain churches are called cathedrals?—ED.]