works which we did in holiness of heart, are propositions of entirely different and indeed entirely opposite meanings; the former proposition being confessedly fatal to the System of Mr. Knox and the Romanists, while the latter proposition either supports it or at least does not condemn it.

With all the aid derived from Mr. Newman's ingenuity, I must freely confess; that, in respect to purport, and thence in respect to bearing upon Mr. Knox's System, I have not sufficient skill to perceive any difference, between the proposition which Clement ought to have written, and the proposition which Clement actually has written. Upon my own apprehension, the two propositions strike, as alike setting forth the self-same point of doctrine, and thence as alike condemning the Scheme of Mr. Knox and the Tridentines.

But let us, in all fairness, see how Mr. Newman makes out his case.

Clement, it appears, changes his tense from the present at the beginning of the clause, to the first aorist at the latter end of it. We ARE not justified through works which we DID in holiness of heart.

This change of tense, according to Mr. Newman, totally alters the whole bearing and import of the passage.

Had Clement written homogenously, either We ARE not justified through works which we DO in holiness of heart, or We WERE not justified through works which we DID in holiness of heart: then he might be fairly thought to condemn Mr. Knox and the Romanists.

But, since, varying the tense, he has only written We ARE not justified through works which we DID in holiness of heart: the statement assumes quite a new character; and the System of Mr. Knox and the Tridentines stands approved and established, or at least not censured and condemned, by the testimony of Clement.

:

All this is very odd and I must confess it to be a piece of oracular mystification, which entirely transcends my own phraseological comprehension.

(3.) But, apparently, Mr. Newman would build somewhat upon a grammatical error of translation which he alleges against me.

The aorist KaTeipyaσáμela I had rendered, We have done : so that, in my version of the clause, I exhibit Clement as saying We are not justified through works which WE HAVE DONE in holiness heart.

But Mr. Newman says, that I have acted grammatically wrong in thus translating the aorist, inasmuch as I ought to have rendered it, We did a version which would correctly have exhibited Clement as saying, We are not justified through works which we DID in holiness of heart. p. 436.

He means, I suppose, to intimate, that I concocted my own false translation, for the purpose of producing something which might seem to condemn Mr. Knox; even as the dog in the ballad, to gain his private ends (a meet Beds év unxavñ), most dishonestly went mad, and bit the man: whereas, If I had translated correctly, Clement would have been either favourable to, or at least not condemnatory of the Scheme of that gentleman.

I fear I must own that I comprehend the force of this argument just as little as I comprehended the force of its predecessor. Whatever may be its grammatical cogency, it stands out, in point of phraseological reasoning, as another remarkable specimen of what I have ventured to call oracular mystification.

My proof, or at any rate my attempted proof, rested neither upon Do nor upon DID nor yet upon HAVE DONE: it rested purely and entirely upon the CHARACTER of the works, which Clement himself defines to be Works performed in HOLINESS of heart. Let the tenses run as they may, still the office of Justification is denied by Clement to those precise works, which are invested with that same office of Justification by Mr. Knox and the Romanists. This both was and is quite sufficient for my purpose, whether I am right or wrong in the grammatical rendering of a Greek aorist.

But, after all, though I deem it not of the slightest consequence to the real question, have I erred in my translation of the aorist κατειργασάμεθα ?

For many years, my attention has been turned to pursuits widely different from the discussion of grammatical questions: yet my recollection of ancient studies is not so much dimmed by increasing age and proportionable remoteness, as to prevent

my full conviction, that Mr. Newman has been somewhat too hasty in thus putting me under the ban of the Greek Empire.

I am quite ready, with all due humility, to say, Utinam essem bonus grammaticus: but still my own view of the present matter is this.

The Greek aorists, according to the requisition of the context, may be indifferently rendered into English, either by the perfect past, or by the imperfect past. Thus, abstractedly, the aorist in question, kateιpyaσáμeba to wit, may be translated either WE DID or WE HAVE DONE: that is to say, when viewed in a purely insulated condition, it may be rendered into English, either by the imperfect preterite or by the perfect preterite.

In this matter, I take it stands the broad general matter of grammar. But, if we descend from general to particular, from a broad question of grammar to its specific application in a single case; we must then call in the necessity of the context to aid us in our weighty consultation, as to the proper rendering of the tense.

Now, precisely in such a mode and on such a principle, did I deal with the aorist kateιpyaσáμela as employed by Clement. The very turn of the passage shewed, that I should produce most execrable and unidiomatic English, if I rendered the aorist in question, WE DID. Therefore, the passage evidently requiring such a version, I rendered the aorist, we have done.

For this atrocity, Mr. Newman calls me to account, as a manifest transgressor against grammar; intimating very plainly, that the aorist Kateιpyacáμeða is incapable of being rendered as I have rendered it: for, unless he meant thus to intimate, I am at a loss to comprehend either the object or the cogency of his having written; We DID, not HAVE DONE, as Mr. Faber translates. Clearly, Mr. Newman, either writes absolute inconsecutive nonsense, or else maintains that Kateιpyaoáμela is incapable of being rendered, WE have done.

Here, then, we are grammatically at issue. Mr. Newman declares, that I am in the wrong: while I myself am sturdily positive that I am in the right.

To establish my opinion, I had, with some trouble and much edifying pertinacity, prepared a long list of passages: wherein, unless indeed we be determined to write what is called Dog

English, the aorists can only be rendered by HAVE or HATH in the perfect past. But, really, on looking over my list as committed bodily to paper, it presented such a whimsical aspect of solemn trifling and grave pedantry, that, stirred up by it (as I was) to laughter myself, I had not nerve sufficient to run the risque of exciting in my readers, at my own proper expence, a still more irrepressible cachination. I remembered the fate of a classical brother-craft: and prudently committed my valuable labours to the flames.

Ασβεστος δ ̓ ἄρ ̓ ἐνῶρτο γέλως μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν,

Ως ἴδον Ηφαιστον διὰ δώματα ποιπνύοντα.

When I translated the very easy Greek of the place in Clement which contains this strangely contested κατειργασάμεθα, Ι certainly never thought of consulting the version either of Abp. Wake or of my friend Mr. Chevallier, though each version stood invitingly ready upon my shelves. But the criticism of Mr. Newman moved my curiosity to examine how the word had been translated by these two several scholars. The result was precisely, what, from the common-sense of the passage, I had inevitably anticipated. Like myself, they both of them render the aorist kaтeιpyaσ áμela, WE HAVE DONE: nor, in truth, is it capable here of being rendered otherwise.

The same curiosity, for in good sooth it was sheer curiosity, led me to submit the case to a friend of mine, who deservedly ranks as one of the first Greek scholars of the day. I do not think it either necessary or adviseable to exhibit the whole of the facetiously energetic reply of this well-booted Achèan: its conclusion alone will be quite sufficient. Nothing, says he, can be more clear, than that old Lincoln is right, and young Oriel is wrong.

(4.) Mr. Newman, however, has not yet done with this. singularly pregnant case.

The omission of the article before Clement's epywv indicates, he thinks, naturally, though he does not say necessarily, that the holy Father is speaking of an hypothetical, not a real case. p. 436.

Be it so, if Mr. Newman particularly wishes it: and what then? When the matter, agreeably to his suggestion, is put hypothetically, it will run simply as follows.

Let us SUPPOSE that we do works in holiness of heart: still, even on that SUPPOSITION, we should not be justified through such works.

Thus runs the matter, when put hypothetically: and where, I should be glad to know, is the difference in the doctrinal position, whether the matter be put as exhibiting a real case, or whether it be put as propounding an hypothetical case? Under each aspect alike, so far as I can see, the office of justifying is expressly denied to works, either actually done, or possibly about to be done, in holiness of heart.

We have here, I regret to say, another specimen of my excellent friends inveterate love of mystification.

(5.) Mr. Newman's last resource is an attempt to lower the force of Clement's phraseology, In holiness of heart: for, notwithstanding his previous evolutions, he is far too sagacious not to perceive, that this expression is really the SOLE hinge upon which the whole question turns.

The phrase IN HOLINESS OF HEART, says he is scarcely more than an adverb meaning, PIOUSLY, HOLILY. p. 436.

So be it, I reply. But how is Mr. Newman's case mended by such an expedient? Is there any theological difference, between Works done in HOLINESS OF HEART, and Works done HOLILY? Even the scholastic subtilty of my ingenious friend will be puzzled, I think, to point out the difference: unless, indeed, among other doctrinal paradoxes, he be prepared to maintain in mood and form; that A man may do a work HOLILY, while yet he possesses no HOLINESS OF HEART.

What Mr. Newman can mean by quoting St. Paul, as authorising and illustrating his attempt to lower and dilute the decisive phraseology of Clement, I am unable to divine.

Not from WORKS THAT ARE in righteousnESS, which we have done, says the great Apostle; but, according to his own mercy, he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. iii. 5.

Clement, very probably, had this passage in his mind's eye, when he wrote the doctrinal statement now under consideration. At all events, the two places are closely parallel: and the statement of Clement may well be viewed as an authoritative explanation of the language employed by his illustrious friend