on this passage observes, as a canon, καὶ ἔτος προφητείας νόμος, τὸ πολλὰ πολλάκις λέγεσθαι μὲν ἐπ' ἄλλων, πληρᾶσθαι δὲ ἐφ' ἑτέρων. Those who are desirous of examining the difference between the Greek Testament, the Septuagint, and the Hebrew, must have recourse to Ludovicus Cappellus, Heinsius, and others.

Cyril and Jerome both considered this quotation to have been of a typical nature, and it is certain that St. Matthew does not so much allege it as a prophecy, as a coincidence between the histories of Moses and our Saviour. The full import of the words was doubtless accomplished in Christ; yet, critically speaking, va Angwin is mph i. e. in confirmation of what has been said, &c.—a form of allegation used by the Jews when they did not quote the sacred text, verbo temùs, but according to its purport and application. It is likewise called; i. e. for the greater elucidation of the

subject.

The same observation is valid with respect to the two remaining quotations. Justin Martyr (in Tryph. p. 304.) having cited the words of Jeremiah concerning Rachel, says, did ev τὴν φωνὴν ἡ ἔμελλεν ἀκέεσθαι ἀπὸ Ῥαμᾶ, τετέστιν ἀπὸ τῆς ̓Αραβιάς (ἔστι γὰρ καὶ μέχρι τῷ νῦν τόπος καλέμενος ἐν ̓Αραβίᾳ Ῥαμᾶ) κλαυθ μὸς ἔμελλεν τὸν τόπον καταλαμβάνειν, ὅπε Ραχήλ, ἡ γυνὴ Ἰακωβ τῶ ἐπικλήσθεντος Ἰσραὴλ, τῇ ἁγία πατριάρχε, τεθάπται, τυτέστι, τὴν Βηθλεέμ, κλαισσῶν τῶν γυναικῶν τὰ τέκνα τὰ ἴδια τὰ ἀνῃρημένα, καὶ μὴ παράκλησιν έχεσῶν ἐπὶ τῶ συμβεβηκότι αὐταῖς. Some have endeavoured to refer the prophet's allusion to Ramah Ephraim, others to Ramah Lehi; the locality is, however, accurately determined by its connection with Rachel and Bethlehem. Nebuzaradan, general to Nebuchadnezzar's forces, kept the captive Jews chained in Ramah, until he could take them to Babylon, which city Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 12.) informs us, was distant from Jerusalem, oтadies Teoσagánovтa. Rachel's sepulchre was in the vicinity, and the place belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, but after the incorporation of the tribe into Judah, it was considered as a part of the latter, whence rà ténva dutñs will rightly be applied to the united tribe. The whole passage is a fine hyperbole, and in the best style of the Jewish prophets. The Zohar (in Ex. f. iii. c. 12.) quotes a tradition of Rachel weeping for her children, and the Messiah endeavouring to console her, whilst she refused consolation; to this St. Matthew may have, in some degree, alluded, pointing out its true application.

The fear of Archelaus was not ungrounded; for it was a

Cf. Jer. xl. 1.

כי טוב לנו להיות בלא מלך ממלוך עלינו : common Jewish proverb ארכילאוס

"it were better for us to be without a king, than that Archelaus should reign over us." The allegation* or Nalagaios ὅτι Ναζωραίος xanσETα, is not a quotation of any particular prophecy, but a summary of several, introduced in the Hebrew style, which we have described. Possibly it referred to those which denominated the Messiah "THE BRANCH," as we find both

and Dy used in passages predicated of him. Isaiah xi. 1. and Jeremiah xxxi. 6. (where his disciples are certainly called ) may have been amongst the number. Some have imagined, from his ascetic life, to have been applied to him, in the Old Testament; others argue, that he is likewise mentioned as

. However, there can be no difficulty in the passage, for the paronomastic style of the East will authorize and 13, however predicated of him, to be referred to the city, and his Gentile name. Said Ibn Batric says, in his Annals,

فخاف ان يسكن في بيت لحم من اجل ارشيللوس فسكن بالناصرة فكذلك سمي الناصري

"And he feared to dwell at Bethlehem on account of Archelaus, and therefore dwelt in Nazareth; whence He was called a Nazarene.”

* Chrysostom (ὁμιλιθ) says, καὶ ποῖος προφήτης τᾶτο ἐιπε, μὴ περιεργάζε, μηδὲ πολυπραγμόνει· πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν προφητικῶν ἠφάνισται βιβλίων, καὶ ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας τῶν παραλειπομένων ἴδοι τὶς ἄν· ῥᾴθυμοι γὰρ ὄντες, καὶ εἰς ἀσέβειαν συνεχῶς ἐμπίπτοντες, τὰ μὲν ἤφίεσαν ἀπολλῦσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀυτοὶ κατέκαιον καὶ κατέκοπτον ; in proof of which he adduces the discovery of the law in the time of the kings. But, without resorting to his conjectures, the passage will bear the explanation which we have given.

DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT

RELATIVE TO THE CHURCH.

THE second title of our work is "Ecclesiastical Record," and it is as a record, that we notice Debates in Parliament relative to the Church. We cannot be early enough in our reports of proceedings in the two Houses, nor can we give sufficient room to the subject, to make an article to which our readers shall turn with any thing like that impatient interest which is felt in the perusal of the daily and weekly Journals, while occurrences are yet recent. But we do hope to furnish a few pages of useful reference, to which persons may turn with satisfaction, as to a faithful register, for an account of the leading arguments advanced by different debaters, of the opinions of the supporters and opponents of a motion, and of its result, when questions in connection with religion have been agitated in Parliament.

With this view of what we have called, in our Prospectus, the third division of our work, we reserved the debate in the House of Lords which took place last year, on the Bill to confer elective franchise on the Roman Catholics of England, for the present Number, that the report of it might accompany that of the great collateral question, relative to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which has occupied so much attention during the present Session.

HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, May 24, 1824.

BILL TO CONFER ELECTIVE FRANCHISE, &c. ON THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND.

The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Bills for placing the English Roman Catholics on a par with the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The object of the two Bills, which he had introduced, was to place the Catholic inhabitants of our country on the same footing all over the empire. The first point he proposed was to give the Catholics of England the elective franchise, and considering the amount of property, as a qualification for practising political privileges, it must be allowed that the English Catholics were entitled to this favour. As far as property was concerned, the force of influence belonged to them in a considerable degree; and lately it had been seen on several occasions, that Catholic gentlemen had come forward to propose persons who were to be Representatives, and then retired without giving their vote. Another effect of the measure would be, to enable Catholics to hold civil offices; but, under the head of civil offices, it would have no greater effect than to open to them all offices in the revenue, and entitle them to act in the commission of the peace. Such

was the extent to which the legislature had already gone in the case of the Irish Roman Catholics. With respect to situations in the revenue, he could conceive nothing more absurd than the distinctions now subsisting between the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the two countries, between which there was a constant and daily intercourse in trade. While on one side of the water the Catholic could occupy the very highest situations connected with commerce, he was disqualified on the other side from filling the lowest, and rendered incapable' even of issuing a permit. With respect to their admission to the commission of the peace, he could not understand upon what ground the slightest inconvenience was to be apprehended in this comparatively tranquil and undisturbed country, from having a limited number of justices of peace, chosen from the Catholic body, without requiring those oaths from them, which were still administered, though there was some doubt as to their legality in the minds of many. He could not understand why there should be any objection to this, when, in a Catholic country, disturbed by religious dissentions, the experiment had been already tried, and the persons, so appointed, were found to execute their important functions to the great benefit of the community.

The noble marquis proceeded to say that he had still to allude to one provision in the bills, which had no parallel in the act affecting Ireland. He alluded to the office of earl marshal of England, which was one of the many honours granted to the illustrious house of Howard, and asked if any danger could arise to the constitution of the country from the personal exercise of this office by the duke of Norfolk. It now remained for their lordships to consider whether there still existed any objection to admitting the English Roman Catholics to the enjoyment of these rights, and whether they would not be justified in establishing that uniformity, which it was the genius of the constitution to encourage.

Lord Colchester said, that in proceeding to state the grounds upon which he was prepared to vote against the two bills, he should reverse the order in which the noble marquis had detailed their several objects. And first with respect to the office now executed by the deputy of a noble lord, he thought it rather matter for a separate bill *, as it was altogether of a personal nature. As for the admission of Catholics to offices in the revenue, he disapproved of it for this reason, that it would place the Catholic dissenters in a better situation than the Protestant dissenters. The admitting them to exercise functions of justices of the peace would work too great a change in the character of our institutions, and he never could agree to give them any power in the criminal jurisdiction of the country. He should also object to admitting them to a share in the elective franchise, for that was political power as far as it went. It was not the number of the Catholics that the noble lord professed to fear, but the known and fixed principles of the Church of Rome. He gave them credit for perfect sincerity in the maintenance of those principles-they were the same yesterday, to-day, and to-morrow. The example of the last fifty years afforded abundant proof of the existence and operation of the same tenets. Considering the encroaching spirit of the Church of Rome, as manifested at all periods of its history, he felt that he should best discharge his duty by voting as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

The Earl of Westmoreland supported the measure.

Lord Redesdale opposed the bill, and declared that he could not consent to give political power to the Catholics, although he was closely connected with a Catholic family, which had long distinguished itself by its loyalty to the crown; nor would he be deterred from freely expressing his opinions on the subject, by the fact, that his assassination had been openly preached in a Catholic chapel in Dublin. Whoever had observed the recent conduct of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, must see that they were prepared by force to seize the establishment itself. Such a disposition had been openly avowed, and the present bill, though specifically for the relief of the English Catholics, would add something to the power of the Irish Catholics, therefore he should support the amendment of his noble friend.

*This was afterwards made the subject of a separate bill, and passed through the two houses with extraordinary rapidity-in three days through the Lords, and in two days through the Commons. It was finally read and committed in the House of Commons, on Tuesday, June 22, 1824. The non-importance of the office of earl marshal, in regard to political weight and influence, and the necessity that existed for filling it up, without loss of time, were the probable reasons for the success and unprecedented dispatch of the bill.

The Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry observed that he had steadily resisted the Catholic claims to the extent to which they were urged, but the possession of elective franchise did not appear to him to be one of those concessions to them which would be fraught with any danger. He would give the Catholic every power but that of destroying the Protestant Church for the aggrandizement of his own. He thought the present bill safe and expedient.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells remarked, that exclusion of any kind was abstractedly an evil, but in the case of the Roman Catholics it was a necessary evil. Government was for the general good of those who lived under it; if therefore any sect entertained opinions subversive of the social compact of the country, and were prepared to act on such opinions, the legislature was bound to withhold from them that degree of political power, which would enable them to carry their principles into successful operation. How did these observations, the right rev. Prelate asked, apply to the present case? The Roman Catholic Church maintained the ecclesiastical supremacy of their sovereign pontiff. And who can draw the line between temporal and spiritual interference? The reestablishment of the order of Jesuits, shewed not only the unchangeable principles of the popish system, but the increasing influence of those principles: and while the Roman Catholics continue to hold tenets subversive of every Protestant constitution, he should continue to refuse them concessions such as the present Bill was intended to grant. The Lord Chancellor held it to be his bounden duty, in the particular situation in which he was placed, to take care of the supremacy of his sovereign. No person could be a subject of this country, and enjoy the privileges proposed by the bill, without taking the oath of supremacy: but in the measure proposed by the noble marquis, no such provision was made, nor was any such qualification required. It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the pope from temporal power. The Church of England had for the last twenty years been attempted to be taken by storm; it had withstood all these shocks. Let it not now be destroyed by sapping and mining.

The Earl of Liverpool said he should give his concurrence to the present measure. He apprehended from it none of the dangers which he had alluded to in former cases, nay, he even believed that the granting of such privileges to the Catholics of England would strengthen the Protestant Establishment, as a cause of discontent would thus be removed as a reproach, perpetually thrown in their teeth, would be taken away, and as, by conceding these little things, they acquired strength to resist greater encroachments. If it had been adopted without danger in Ireland-if the Catholics there enjoyed the elective franchise, it was at least a reason why the concession should not excite alarm in England. He was not afraid of the Catholic question. He knew the temper of the people of this country: he knew they were attached to their religion, and that the only danger was in adherence to things that were not necessary to its security. There was as much real wisdom in knowing when concessions ought to be made, as in knowing when they ought to be resisted.

The Marquis of Lansdowne made an observation or two in reply.-The house then divided on the first bill

Majority against the bill

To assist those who desire to form a right opinion upon the subject of this very important debate, we would direct their attention to the speech of lord Colchester, and to that of the bishop of Bath and Wells, from which it will be seen, that whatever concessions they may ask of us, none will be granted in return by the Roman Catholics, and that no deviation can ever be expected from the ambitious, intolerant, and inflexible tenets of the Romish Church.