In the decrees of a general council, I recognise a quasi infallibility. Such an assembly as would answer to that glorious name, The true Church of England by Representation, has a power over my conduct and my conscience that is hardly surpassed by scripture itself.

Now, therefore, having given to that kind of authority so much weight,-more weight, I imagine, than most of my brethren would allow to it, let me go on to shew that, in the present question, it cannot be employed successfully.

Councils of later date, and local origin, will not, of course, be cited as good authority. But it will be said, "that objection does not apply to the earlier ones." I answer, on this question more strongly than to the others. For then they seem to speak of the still pagan dances; of tragedies performed by heathen actors for the support of heathenism; and of the dithyrambic ode, for staying to hear which, the talented but eccentric Apollinaris fell into disgrace. If the mere sound of a name is to mislead us, and if we build our opinions upon such a quicksand, there will be found, alas! in the present age quite enough erudition to sneer at our mistake, and to involve in that sneer the soundness of our theology.

In conclusion; let me observe that these pleadings for clerical separation from the meetings of general society lead us, or appear to lead us, in a direction which their advocates have neither expected nor intended. I know of no arguments against the modern ball-room which would not be of equal or greater force against the marriage of a clergyman. I remain, Sir, yours truly, ANGLO-CAMBRensis.

CLERICAL ATTENDANCE AT BALLS.

SIR,-AS" Clericus Juvenis" (No. lxxiv. p. 165,) has requested the opinion of any of your general readers on the subject of clergymen attending at balls, permit one of the humblest of that class to express an opinion, that it is one of those points on which the abuse alone deserves the censure it has so unsparingly met with from some quarters.

In many parts of the country, the local charitable institutions depend in no small degree upon the support they receive from the profits of their annual ball. Nor would it be of equal benefit to such institutions were the clergy on these occasions to remit a donation to the charity amounting to the profit that arises from their personal appearance. For it must be recollected that if the neighbouring clergy were excluded, (and around country towns they often form a considerable portion of those who would be likely to attend on such occasions,) this would in many instances exclude also their families, and perhaps many others who they now persuade to join them, and thus it might happen that these meetings would gradually dwindle away, to the great loss of the charities dependent on them.

It may be said that the attendance on charity balls forms a pecuBut if the verdict be given on the attendance of clergy

liar case.

men at balls as an abstract question, it will be difficult to make an exception in their favour, unless it be on the principle of doing evit that good may come.

Of the attendance of clergy, as stated by "C. J.," in fancy dresses, but one opinion can, I should think, be entertained; nor can I look upon it complimentary to a clergyman that on such occasions he is admitted in a dress wholly unsuited to the scene around him, because that dress is the badge of his sacred profession.

It is, of course, to a moderate-a very moderate-attendance at balls that this defence is intended to apply. If, from their frequency, they take up too much time, or occupy too much thought, or, by the lateness of the hour to which they are continued, they destroy the morning hours and unfit the mind for the more important duties proper to such time, it is not, I imagine, the clergy alone who thus abuse their time, but every soul of man may be included in a like censure, who professes to think that the days of our present life are given us for a higher object.

Under one other restriction are the observations just made intended to be understood. I mean, that a clergyman does not by so doing suffer in the estimation of his flock. A practice innocent in itself cannot be innocently indulged in at such a cost. If the utility of a clergyman in his parish be in the smallest degree impaired; if he knows or imagines that by this or any other practice he is alienating the hearts of any of his flock either from himself personally or from that church of which he is the minister, he is surely solemnly bound to abandon it, upon the double apostolic precept of having a regard for the conscientious scruples of his brethren, and of giving no offence that the ministry be not blamed.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. N.

INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE EASTERN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND.

MY DEAR SIR,-Though Euthymius Zigabenus is a writer well known to scholars, his "Panoplia Dogmatica," in many respects the most valuable of his works, is, I believe, an exceedingly rare book. The only printed edition of the original text appeared at Tergovist, in Wallachia, in the year 1710, (ἐν τῇ ̔Αγιωτάτῃ Μητροπόλει τῇ ἐν τῷ τῆς Ουγγροβλαχίας Τεργοβύστῳ, Εν ἔτει ἀπὸ Θεογονίας χιλιοστῷ Επτακοσιοστῷ Δεκάτῳ, Κατα Μήνα Μάϊον,) and very few copies seem to have

* It was printed for gratuitous distribution at the expense of Athanasius, Metropolitau of Drystra; who says in a dedicatory epistle-"'Av0'ov oic meρ plàs εἰρήκειν κινούμενος, τὴν δυνατὴν τέως κατεθέμην σπουδὴν ὅπως τύποις ἐκδοθὲν τουτὶ τὸ πολυωφελέστατον πόνημα, πρόικα τοῖς ὀρθοδοξίας τροφίμους διαδοθῇ εἰς ἀσφάλειαν μὲν καὶ αποτροπὴν τῆς τῶν αἱρέσεων λύμης, εἰς μνημόσυ. νον δὲ τῆς ἐμῆς ταπεινότητος, καὶ τῷ κοινῷ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πληρώματι ἡ Παντευχία τῆς τῶν εὐαγῶν τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς Ἐκκλησίας Πατέρων διδασκαλίας χορηγηθῇ."

found their way to the west of Europe. The copy which was used by Fabricius (Bibl. Græc. vol. vii. p. 461,) had been given to his friend Mich. Eneman, in the East, by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. It is not in the Bodleian, nor in the British Museum; and the only copy I ever saw was in the king's library at Paris, till a few months ago I purchased one from a bookseller in London. My good fortune in meeting with so rare a work would be more interesting to the members of certain clubs, which have now passed their heyday, than to the readers of the British Magazine. And I am not quite sure that a Greek ecclesiastical book, of no great age, would be recognised by the initiated as a legitimate object of bibliomania. I do not, however, write to you to boast of my success, but to communicate what I am disposed to think a curious and important fact.

The fly-leaf of the book in question exhibits the following inscription, written by the same hand in Greek and Latin:~

“Τοῦτο το βιβλίον, ὡς καὶ ἕτερα ἔτι τεσσαρα, τοῖς τῆς Βριταννικῆς ἐκκλησίας καθολικοῖς λείψασι, εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ὠφέλειαν καὶ χρῆσιν, εὐνοὶ κῶς διαπέμψαντες ἐδωρήσαντο παναγιώτατοι οἱ κύριοι, ὁ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως πατριάρχης κυρ Ἱερεμίας, ὁ ̓Αλεξανδρείας πατριάρχης κυρ Σαμουὴλ, ὁ Αντιοχείας πατριάρχης κυρ ̓Αθανάσιος, ὁ τῆς Ἱεροσαλήμ πατριάρχης κυρ Χρύσανθος. ἐν ἔτει αψκβ'."

"Librum hunc una cum aliis quatuor, ut Catholicis Britannicarum Ecclesiarum reliquiis communiter inservirent, ex summa benevolentia dono miserunt Reverendissimi Domini, D. Jeremias Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, D. Samuel Patriarcha Alexandrinus, D. Athanasius Patriarcha Antiochenus, D. Chrysanthus Patriarcha Hierosolymitanus. Ao. Salutis MDCCXXII.”

A present of books from the patriarchs of the East to the "Catholics" of Britain, indicates the existence of a kind of intercourse with which I was not at all acquainted. It is the Roman catholics who are plainly intended; and it appears from Le Quien (Oriens Christ.) that the donors were the Greek, not the titular, patriarchs. After all, however, it was most probably nothing more than an occasional act of civility. The influence which the French exercised in the Levant at the beginning of the last century is well known. It is not unlikely that they were concerned in procuring this mark of oriental sympathy for the British Romanists. If any of your readers are in possession of any further information upon the subject, I hope they will communicate it. At all events, the fact I have noticed will not be unacceptable to such as feel interested about the history of the Roman catholics of England. The foreign relations of that body, and the support and countenance which it has received from abroad, are subjects of no small importance in our modern ecclesiastical history.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly,

D.

ON CHURCH RATES.-MR. PERCEVAL IN REPLY TO MR. GOODE.

SIR, AS I had not contemplated that any one would maintain that a court can have power to compel a tax to be made, the payment of

which when made it has no power to enforce, I concluded, not unnaturally (I think), that when Mr. Goode admitted that "previous to the act of 1813 the ecclesiastical court was the only proper place in which to sue a recusant for the payment of church rates, and still remains so for sums above ten pounds," he had, unconsciously perhaps, but really, given up in strictness of speech the whole point for which he was contending-namely, that "the liability of a parish to church rates is a common-law liability;" because, as I stated in my last, "an obligation which can only be enforced in the ecclesiastical courts cannot be called a civil or common-law obligation," according to the strict acceptation of the term. This position of mine he admits to be " very true," nay, so plain a truism, that he smiles at me for thinking it necessary to lay it down; but thinks it "not to the point," because of the distinction which he contends ought to be made between "the enforcement of the payment of a rate actually made, and the enforcement of the obligation lying upon the parishioners to make a rate." While therefore he admits, if I understand him aright, that the obligation to pay a rate when made is not, strictly speaking, a common-law obligation, seeing that previous to 1813 it could only be sued in the ecclesiastical courts, he stoutly maintains, that the obligation to make a rate is a common-law obligation, and can be enforced, if necessary, in the temporal courts. As our legal practice admits, I believe, of many anomalies, it is no matter of moment to urge against his position its apparently anomalous character. Let us proceed, therefore, to inquire on what it rests. These are his words:

"The obligation in question-viz., that parishioners should keep in repair a certain part of their parish church-is maintained to be, in the strict sense of the terms, a common-law obligation, and that on two grounds-first, on the ground of immemorial custom; and, secondly, because it has been repeatedly said to be so by the common-law judges, and therefore, of course, one that can be enforced by the common-law courts; i. e., one that comes within the authority and power of those courts, if they consider their interference necessary."

The last clause, which I have put in italics, strikes me as very remarkable. There are, unquestionably, some offences practically of a mixed character, as being punishable by the laws both of the church and of the state as distinct from the church, in which he who is aggrieved may have his remedy either in the temporal courts or in the ecclesiastical, But that, in any such case, it is competent for the judge of the temporal court to refuse a man redress because he does not think his interference necessary, because, forsooth, the man might sue the offending party in the ecclesiastical courts, may be sound doctrine, but seems new to me. The case of tithes comes very much to the point; in default of payment of tithes, remedy may be had either in the ecclesiastical courts or in the exchequer. Was it ever known that the chief baron of the exchequer refused to take cognizance of a case of tithes until it had been first tried in the ecclesiastical courts? It may be so, but I never heard of it.

But, waiving this consideration, let us examine the grounds Mr. Goode adduces in support of his position, that the temporal courts have power at common law to compel the repairs of the parish church.

He appeals to two: first, the ground of immemorial custom; secondly, the repeated affirmations of the common-law judges to that effect. Let us take them in order. First, the ground of immemorial custom ; the only evidence which will avail to establish a customary or commonlaw power in the temporal courts to enforce the repairs of the parish church, must be, evidence of those courts having frequently exercised that power. The immemorial custom of the ecclesiastical officers enforcing such repairs by ecclesiastical law in the ecclesiastical courts, is wholly beside the mark. Now, I will not require Mr. Goode to search musty records to prove any such custom to be immemorial on the part of the temporal courts; I will simply ask him to adduce one single instance, in the whole history of our nation, up to the present hour, of the temporal courts having ever exercised the power he ascribes to them; and I pledge myself openly, if he can adduce any such instance, I will at once give up the case, and acknowledge myself to have been in error. At present I know of none. If none can be adduced, then I submit that that cannot be properly termed a common-law obligation which the courts of common law have never enforced, nor that a common-law power which the courts of common law have never exercised.

In the absence of such reasonable evidence as I have required of him, I will maintain that the first ground on which he rests his position-namely, that of immemorial custom-completely fails under him,

Secondly, the other ground on which he rests his position, that the temporal courts have power at common law to compel the repairs of the parish church, is, the repeated assertions of the common-law judges to that effect. Now here I will submit, that it is not the mere saying or assertion of a judge that proves a thing to be law, although if his opinion be uncontradicted by other judges it affords a strong probability that it is law. Nothing can establish it to be law but the enforcement of it, either without appeal, or with confirmation if appealed against. The mere dictum of a judge, however eminent, is not sufficient, without practice. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of practice and custom which I have required under the first head, any accumulation of testimony of opinion under the second head will still leave room for doubt and discussion, and will not fully establish the law. But as the opinions of any of the judges of the common-law courts on the point are entitled to very great deference, and will probably contribute much to influence any practice which may hereafter be adopted, it is very desirable that we should have as full a collection as possible of the sayings of the common-law judges on the point at issue.

Now Mr. Goode tells us, that the instances he cited in the same number form "not a few of these that might be adduced;" and it is very possible that, among those which have not been as yet brought forward, some may be found stronger and more to the purpose than those which he has given. If any such can be found, he will perhaps present them to us in another letter, when we shall be able to consider them. But as we are not bound to assume the existence of that which does not appear, I will content myself at present with examinVOL. XIV.-Sept. 1838. 2 Q