arrows bright, he consulted D', he looked into the liver." Juvenal thus describes the Lares graciles ubi parva coronas Accipiunt fragili simulachra nitentia cera. Hic nostrum placabo Jovem, Laribusque paternis Thura dabo, atque omnes viola jactabo colores. Sat. XII. 87. And Horace, Od. B. 3. O. 23, gives to the Lares another property, viz. that of rendering fruitful their fields and herds, and prospering all their undertakings; and with this sense agree the Arabic and Æthiopic. Arabic,, bonis commodisque vitæ affluxit, vel iis fruitus et lætatus fuit. Eth. T&&, abundare. እሷ፡ያተርፍወ Luke xv. 17. እክል∶u abundant pane. Whatever, therefore, was the use made of the Roman Lares, we may reasonably suppose the same to have been made of the Teraphim of Laban; and that, in fact, they were the same kind of idols. Neither can I find that the were intended to represent an image of Jehovah, for Jacob afterwards, in Gen. xxxv. 4, calls them -, all the strange, or foreign, or unknown gods. See all the places where Teraphim are mentioned-Gen. xxxi., Zach. x., Ezek. xxi., Hosea iii., Judges xvii. xviii., 2 Kings xxiii., 1 Sam. xv. xix. The Penates seem to correspond with the D', Seraphim, and probably the '7, Cherubim and here I cannot help observing, that the most satisfactory meaning of numberless words in the Old Testament seems to be preserved in the Sanscrit as well as the Arabic language;--e. g. Seraphim; Sans. HTT best, and T to protect,Ar., nobilitate ac gloria vicit, denoting them to be powerful and glorious protectors. Cherubim; Sans., beautiful, and as; a particle of assimilation, denoting, perhaps, their similitude to the Seraphim. Consult the following texts:-for Seraphim, Isaiah vi. compared with Rev. iv.; for Cherubim, Gen. iii., Exod. xxv. xxxvi., 1 Kings vi., Ezek. x., 2 Sam. xxii. may I shall, however, be much gratified if any of your correspondents BURNING OF HERETICS. LE STEPHANAIS (a French paper published at St. Etienne) of the 8th ult. contains a long account of a sermon then recently preached by a young ecclesiastic, in defence of the Inquisition, the establishment of which in France he strongly recommended, advocating the justice and legality of burning heretics on grounds somewhat differing from the majority of its old defenders, who for the most part represent it as a dispensation of mercy to the soul of the individual at the expense of his body. The line of argument followed on the present occasion was, that "as the civil law punishes with death the assassin who merely kills the body, a still greater punishment, if possible, should be awarded to him who murders the soul." What a piece of work is man when fanaticism once lays hold of him! number, for that purpose. But supposing the Hebrew word had been in the singular number, it could not then have been rendered in apposition; the sense of the passage would prevent it. Now I wish to know whether the Hebrew idiom would have prevented eth being here used as a preposition, if the Hebrew word had been in the singular number instead of the plural (brother instead of brethren.) If the author might still have used eth in that case, and not have been obliged to substitute some other word or letter for a preposition, this appears to me an authority in support of rendering eth as a preposition in the case in question. If it be not considered so, I should like to know why not. Is there any passage, independent of that in question, where a person is said to have gotten or received or obtained any thing from another, where eth is used as a preposition before the person from whom the thing is obtained? This seems important to be ascertained for the supporters of either rendering. If there be any such passage, it will be an authority in favour of the received rendering of the passage in question. As to Ish never being used for a male child, it does not appear to me to be important whether it be so used or not in other places. It is admitted, by the reference to Gen. vii. 2, that it is used simply to designate the sex; why might not Eve have used it in this sense? It is not important to render it as signifying an adult, in order to support the supposition, that Eve referred to the promised Seed, whether she thought that promised seed would be of a divine nature or otherwise. I have gotten a man (a man-child), the Jehovah, would be perfect sense. Neither does the criticism on kana appear to me of much moment; for Eve is not understood by any, I believe, as saying, whether as thanksgiving or otherwise, I have brought forth a man from the Lord. She had brought forth a male child, and she says, I have gotten or obtained a man from the Lord, in conformity with the language of the 127th Psalm, "Lo, children and the fruit of the womb, are an heritage and gift that cometh of the Lord." I do not see that any thing hinges on this. The main question is, whether eth, as it here stands, can be used as a preposition. Assuming, from the authorities before-mentioned, that it may be so construed, it is an objection against it being rendered otherwise, as I have already noticed, that it requires us to suppose a revelation from God which is not recorded. Here, however, I should notice that G. H. in his concluding observations, seems to regard the record of this saying of Eve's as a record of a revelation having been made to her, that the promised Seed should be Jehovah. If the passage could not possibly be rendered otherwise than as G. H. advocates, perhaps it might be so regarded; but if it may, if the language will bear, that it be rendered otherwise, it cannot be so argued. And I would observe, that, at all events, this mode of recording a revelation of so much importance is without a parallel. We are in other cases expressly informed that the revelation is from God; in the present case, the revelation is, on the proposed rendering, nothing more than the record of an expression of Eve's,, in which, at least in one part, she is allowed to be in error. It is said, that though she mistook, in applying the term Jehovah to her child, and in conceiving it to be the promised Seed, she might, nevertheless, have had it revealed to her that the promised Seed, whenever born, would be Jehovah. This is certainly possible. But if we are to suppose revelations, may we not, on as good authority, suppose that sufficient would be revealed to her, at the same time, regarding the Jehovah, as to prevent her falling into such a mistake as to conceive a child born in the ordinary course of nature was he? If Moses recorded this expression of Eve's as a record of a revelation from God, it must be supposed it was recorded to guide the faith of his people and of posterity. But in what instance has it done so? If such a revelation as is supposed was made, and this is the record of it, how is it that neither Moses himself, when speaking of the prophet who should rise after him, nor on any other occasion, should refer to it; that it should not be noticed any where by any person in the Old or New Testament? Neither our Lord, nor his apostles, nor the prophets, have appealed to it, though express and clear as to the point of our Lord's divinity. That they have not noticed it, appears to me an argument against any such revelation having been made; at least, against this expression of Eve's being considered as a record of it. It appears to me to be a further objection to the proposed rendering, that Eve is made to suppose her child to be the promised Seed, whilst she is supposed to be aware that the promised Seed was to be of another nature-was to be Jehovah. She may be well supposed, perhaps, to have imagined her child the promised Seed, if no more were revealed to her than is recorded; but how she could suppose it, when she knew the promised Seed should be Jehovah, I am at a loss to conceive. She could hardly have supposed that a child born of herself and Adam was of a nature differing from their own, and superior to it, without an additional revelation assuring her of the fact; and that, it is allowed, she had not. Then, as to the confirmation of the doctrine of our Lord's divinity, afforded by the passage rendered as proposed; it does not appear to me to be such, unless it be established, that it is impossible to render the passage otherwise than as G. H. advocates; but many, of good authority, have rendered it otherwise. With such a difference of opinion, the proposed reading, and confirmation of our Lord's divinity contained in it, can only be considered as resting on conjecture; and it is, in my mind, weakening, rather than strengthening our faith, to extend its foundation on such uncertain ground as that is. On whatever we build our faith, if part of the foundation be shaken, it renders necessarily our belief less fixed and certain, although, in point of fact, enough may remain to support it securely. Enough is revealed to us, we may be sure, for all the ends required of us; enough, assuredly, I think, for the establishing of the doctrine which the proposed construction is urged as a support. Without resorting to the doubtful passage before us, we may find, in the prophecies of the Old Testament, Jehovah expressly applied to our Lord-the promised Seed. And in the New Testament, besides UPON THE POWER OF OFFICIATING MINISTERS TO DIRECT THE MANNER IN WHICH SINGING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN PARISH CHURCHES. We have received several communications from valued correspondents upon the state of the law upon this subject. And as there appears to be different opinions entertained upon the point, we are induced from this circumstance, and also from a consciousness of its importance, to give, at length, the luminous and elaborate judgment of Lord Stowell in the case of Hutchins v. Denziloe, reported in the first volume of Dr. Haggard's Consistory Reports, in which the law upon this subject is fully stated and perspicuously explained. The following is a copy of such parts of the case, taken from the above reports, as relate to the point. "The office of the Judge promoted by HUTCHINS v. DENZILOE and LOVE LAND. "This was a proceeding against the Churchwardens of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, at the promotion of the Rev. John Hutchins, officiating and licensed curate of the said parish, by articles; and the offence was thus stated in the citation: 'More especially for obstructing and prohibiting, by your own pretended power and authority, and declaring your resolution to continue to obstruct and prohibit, the singing or chanting by the parish clerk and children of the ward, and congregation, accompanied by the organ.' "On the part of the Churchwardens, it appears to have been supposed, that, as they paid the organist and managed the children, they were to direct when the organ should or should not play, and when the children should or should not chant. The clergyman had ordered the playing and singing_at certain parts of the service.-The Churchwardens forbad both. "JUDGMENT. "Sir William Scott.-This is a proceeding by articles against the Churchwardens of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, the nature of which has been fully set forth." "The real question in the case is, whether the fact charged is of a criminal nature? The charge is that of having obstructed a practice approved of by the inhabitants and by the Bishop. These are the material averments, for the statement, that it had been done by the approbation of former Churchwardens, is of little effect, as that could not in this instance operate as a rule to their successors. "The first point is, whether these Churchwardens have a right to interfere in the service of the Church? as if that interference is legal in any case, it is so in the present. To ascertain this, it is proper to consider what are their duties and I conceive, that originally they were confined to the care of the ecclesiastical property of the parish, over which they exercise a discretionary power for specific purposes. In all other respects, it is an office of observation and complaint, but not of control, with respect to divine worship; so it is laid down in Ayliffe, in one of the best dissertations on the duties of Churchwardens, and in the canons of 1571.+ In these it is observed, that Churchwardens are appointed to provide the furniture of the Church, the bread and wine for the holy sacrament, the surplice, and the books necessary for the performance of divine worship, and such as are directed by law; but it is the Minister who has the use. If, indeed, he errs in this respect, it is just matter of complaint, which the Churchwardens are obliged to attend to; but the law would not oblige them to complain, if they had a power in themselves to redress the abuse. "In the service, the Churchwardens have nothing to do, but to collect the alms at the offertory; and they may refuse the admission of strange preachers into the pulpit. For this purpose they are authorized by the canon, but how? When letters of Orders are produced, their authority ceases. * Parergon, p. 170. fc. 5. 1603. c. 50. Again, if the minister introduces any irregularity into the service, they have no authority to interfere, but they may complain to the Ordinary of his conduct. I do not say there may not be cases, where they may be bound to interpose; in such cases, they may repress, and ought to repress, all indecent interruptions of the service by others, and are the most proper persons to repress them, and they desert their duty if they do not. And if a case could be imagined, in which even a preacher himself was guilty of any act grossly offensive, either from natural infirmity or from disorderly habits, I will not say that the Churchwardens, and even private persons, might not interpose to preserve the decorum of public worship. But that is a case of instant and overbearing necessity, and that supersedes all ordinary rules. In cases which fall short of such a singular pressure, and can await the remedy of a proper legal complaint, that is the only proper mode to be pursued by a Churchwarden,-if private and decent application to the minister himself shall have failed in preventing what he deems the repetition of an irregularity. At the same time, it is at his own peril if he makes a public complaint, or even a private complaint, in an offensive manner, of that which is no irregularity at all, and is in truth nothing more than a misinterpretation of his own. I shall pass over a case which has been cited from the State Trials;* as it was one of party heat, that took place in times of party ferment, and is of smaller authority on that account. "I am next to consider whether the Churchwardens, if having authority, have interposed in this case to hinder Trial at Rochester Assizes, July, 1719, before Sir Lyttleton Powys, vol. 10. app. p. 88. fol. ed. In this case, on a collection for charity, in the church of Chislehurst, the Magistrates interfered, and a scene of violence and confusion ensued. They indicted the clergyman at Rochester Assizes for collecting money without authority. The clergyman, in the mean time, instituted proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court of Rochester against the persons who interrupted the offices of the church. an illegal or legal act? And in this branch of the question I dismiss all consideration of expediency, which is in the Ordinary himself alone,-the court judges only of the legality. Has then the Bishop a discretion upon this subject? Those who have undertaken to shew that he has not, must shew a prohibition which restrains it; and in order to establish this, it is said, that though singing part of the Psalms is properly practised in Cathedrals, it is not so in Parish Churches. No law has been adduced to this effect, but modern usage alone has been relied on; and it is said that such has been the practice from the time of the Reformation. This, however, is not supported by any particular statement of fact or authority. "In the primitive churches, the favourite practice of the Christians to sing hymns in alternate verses, is expressly mentioned by Pliny, in one of his epistles to the emperor Trajan.* The Church of Rome afterwards refined upon this practice;-as it was their policy to make their ministers considerable in the eyes of the common people; and one way of effecting that, was by appointing them sole officers in the public service of the church; and difficult music wrs introduced, which no one could execute without a regular education of that species. At the Reformation this was one of the grievances complained of by the laity; and it became the distinguishing mark of the Reformers, to use plain music, in opposition to the complex musical service of the Catholics. The Lutheran Church, to which the Church of England has more conformed in discipline, retained a choral service. The "Affirmabant hanc fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ, vel erroris, quod essent soliti, stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem."-Ep. tit. 10. 97. See the common service of those churches.-The agreement of the Lutheran Churches with the Church of England was set forth in a tract under that title, in 1715; in which it is said, "It might indeed have been shewn further; the agreement of the Lutheran Churches with ours, in the manner of celebrating the public worship,that they agree with us in using a Liturgy, |