for applying his remedies by the horoscope, constructed by him for his patient.

The lapse of two centuries did not produce any change in the superstitious belief in the occult influences of the heavenly bodies; and therefore with the certainty of that almanac, which still bears the name of an old astrologer, Vincent Wing, and tells us in our own time what parts of the human body will be affected in each successive day of the week throughout the year, we find a physician of the period of Queen Elizabeth informing his patient, that on Friday and Saturday the planetary influence would affect his heart, and on Sunday, Mon. day, and Tuesday reign in his stomach; when remedies would be in vain, opposed to the domination of what Chaucer calls magic natural,the uncontrollable secret influence of the spheres; but that on the Wednesday seven night, and from that time forward for fifteen or sixteen days, the administration of medicine would be passing good.* Thus the physician found himself circumscribed in his healing efforts by the stars, and constrained to wait for their propitious aspect, as patiently as the mariner who brings his ship to anchor, expecting the next spring tide to carry her over the shoals which oppose her passage to the destined port.

By degrees the science of medicine emancipated herself from the dominion of the stars; but over the fortunes of private individuals even to the present time with some they still hold mysterious sway. It may also be observed that the Pharmacopoeia of ancient apothecaries and chemists formerly exhibited the most extraordinary drugs. Mummy," the crumbling dust of Egypt's swathed kings; tincture of sculls; oil of bricks and of flints; aurum potabile, " preserving life, in med'cine potable,"

* See Letter of Dr. Simon Trippe to Mr. George More, dated Winchester, Sep. 18, 1581, in Loseley MSS. p. 264.

† See Obituary in Gentleman's Mag. for Jan. 1843, p. 100.

We have seen among the stores of an old wine cellar in Devonshire, a bottle containing a liquid, in which leaves of

and hundreds of other strange ingredients were employed by the old professors of chemistry and the healing art. The irregular nostrums of quacks and non-medical prescribers also abounded. I have been lately much amused by a paper which I found printed in a modern publication § from the original in Her Majesty's State Paper Office, in which Lord Audley, under the medical nomme de guerre, John of Audley, prescribes for Mr. William Cecil, afterwards the great Lord Burghley, then one of Queen Mary's Secretaries of State. I modernize the orthography.

"Good Mr. Cecil,

"Be of good comfort and pluck up a lusty merry heart, and then shall you overcome all diseases; and because it pleased my good Lord Admiral lately to praise my physic, I have written to you such medicines as I wrote unto him, which I have in my book of my wife's hand, proved upon herself and me both, and if Í can get any thing that may do you any good, you may be well assured it shall be a joy to me to get it for you.

"A good medicine for weakness or consumption;

"Take a sow-pig of nine days old, and slay him, and quarter him, and put him in a stillat, with a handfull of spearmint, a handfull of red fennel, a handfull of liverwort, half a handfull of red neap,|| a handfull of clarge, and nine dates, clean picked and pared, and a handfull of great raisins, and pick out the stones, and a quarter of an ounce of mace, and two sticks of good cinnamon bruised in a mortar, and distill it with a soft fire, and put it in a glass, and set it in the sun nine days, and drink nine spoonfuls of it at once when you list. "A compost:

"Item.Take a porpin, otherwise called an English hedge-hog, and quarter him in pieces, and put the said beast in a still with these ingredients. Item, a quart of red wine, a pint of rose water, a cinnaquarter of a pound of sugar mon, and two great raisins

that you be aggrieved with, I pray you "If there be any manner of disease send me some knowledge thereof, and I doubt not but to send you a proved re

gold were floating, glittering like golden fishes in a glass vase. The compound had a strong taste of aniseed. Was this the aurum potabile ?

§ Tytler's Edward VI. &c. Nepe in orig. Qy. what?

medy. Written in haste at Greenwich, the 9th of May, by your true hearty friend,-John of Audelay." To the right worshipfull Mr. Cecil, this Letter be delivered with spede."

[Endorsed," 9th May, 1553."]

The subject of this communication might be further illustrated by numerous extracts from old MSS. and printed books relating to physic and astrology; enough, however, has been said in annotation of the little inedited MS. volume from the stores at Loseley. Yours, &c. A. J. K.

MR. URBAN,

IN the Review of Archbishop Usher's valuable Body of Divinity, (Nov. 1841) a passage is quoted from that work as affording an early instance of the term historical faith. It also occurs in Mede, (a contemporary of Usher's, but who died earlier) and will be found in his sermon on Matt. xi. 28, 29, the thirty-first of his printed discourses." Saving faith, though it begins with what is usually called his torical faith, yet stays not there." When Mede says, "What is usually called historical faith," it is obvious that the phrase was already common, and its origin must be sought further back. In the "Christian Divinity: of Wollebius, b. 1. c. 29, the same term occurs in the enumeration of different kinds of faith; and though I cannot give the exact date of the original work, the following brief notice of the author, in the Dictionnaire Historique, intimates the period. "WOLLEB (JEAN) en Latin Wollebius, théologien protestant, né à Bâle en 1536, fut premier pasteur de cette ville, professeur d'écriture-sainte, et mourut en 1626. On a de lui, un Compendium theologiæ, estimé, et traduit en Anglais avec des notes par A. Ross; plusieurs dissertations théologiques intéressantes."* The Compendium of Wollebius was one of the Systems of Theology used by Milton. (See Gent. Mag. Oct. 1840, p. 352, note.)

*Ross, who translated the Compendium (1656), was the author whom Butler has celebrated in Hudibras for his voluminousness, in saying,

There was an ancient sage philosopher
Who had read Alexander Ross over.

By whom the term "historical faith" was first employed it would be hazardous to conjecture, but the idea occurs in Melancthon. "Alia est fidei definitio, cum de sola notitia historiæ dicitur, qualis est in impiis, quæ est nosse historiam et ei assentiri. Hæc non est integra fides, sed mutila, quia non assentitur promissioni divinæ ad se pertinenti." This passage occurs in an appendix to Melancthon's Loci Communes, entitled "Definitiones multarum appellationum, quarum in ecclesia usus est, tradita a Philippo Melancthone Sorgæ et Wittebergæ, anno 1552 et 1553.' (L. C. vol. ii. p. 256, ed. 1828, Erlangæ.)

2. The foregoing quotation from Melancthon induces me to trespass further on your indulgence concerning another expression, and as you have lately admitted a long note on the term attrition, from another correspondent, I may do so with the less hesitation.

There exists a sensitiveness in the minds of many theologians, and of private serious-minded individuals, respecting the use of the word conversion, when applied otherwise than to heathens. Much acrimony has been excited on both sides; and perhaps the best way of advancing the question towards a close, will be to examine it philologically, by adducing authorities for the use of the term.

Melancthon, in his chapter De pœnitentia, (vol. ii. p. 4.) observes, "Nunc de nomine dicam; nolo rixari de vo cabulo ; voco pœnitentiam, ut in ecclesia loquimur, conversionem ad Deum." He speaks as if the phrase were in general use, ut in ecclesia loquimur ; how it fell out of use is a question more easily raised than answered, and my object is to find authorities for it.

Our translators of the Bible have employed the word in the same sense at Psalm li. 13, "and sinners shall be converted unto Thee.' So has Usher when he speaks of "those truly converted to the Lord," (B. of Div. p. 234); and though the passage is taken out of Cartwright, as the assiduous editor, Dr. H. Robinson, has ascertained, the learned prelate has made it his own by adopting it. Izaak Walton, who was too good a churchman to use unauthorised language on religious subjects, says, in his Elegy on Donne, "I am his convert ;" and asks,

addressing the contemporary generation,

Did he confirm thy age'd? convert thy youth?

Jeremy Taylor, in his Holy Living (chap. ii. sect. 4, Acts or Offices of Humility), has this sentence: "He remembers that his old sins, before his conversion, were greater in the nature of the thing, or in certain circumstances, than the sins of other men." (Works, 8vo. edit. vol. iv. p. 91.) With many minds the authority of Taylor will have particular weight.

To these instances may be added that of Dr. Brady and Nahum Tate, the joint authors of the New Version of the Psalms. In Psalm Ixxx. verse 19, they have thus paraphrased the sentence, "Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts," &c.

Do thou convert us, Lord; do thou

The brightness of thy face display: And all the ills we suffer now,

Like scatter'd clouds, shall pass away.

Bishop Horne, in his commentary on the fifty-first Psalm, verse 13, takes the same view of the term; and, as that work was published in 1776, it brings these instances nearly down to the end of the last century. The latest which need be noticed is the article Conversion in Robinson's Theological Dictionary (1816), a work sufficiently known and recommended to make it citeable. He says, "Conversion is a change from one state to another, or from a wicked to a holy life."

The

article is distinguished by a candour and moderation which disputants would do well to imitate on either side of the question.

To these authorities I may add the similar use of the term in our Second Book of Homilies. In the first part of the "Sermon of Repentance," the authors define that act to be "a *returning again of the whole man unto God, from whom we be fallen away by sin;" and in the opening sentence of the second part, "the conversion or turning again of the whole man unto God, from whom we go away by sin;" while in the third part repentance is described as including a full conversion to God, in a new life to glorify his name, and to live orderly and

* The edition of 1563 reads turning.

charitably, to the comfort of our neighbour, in all righteousness, and to live soberly and modestly to ourselves, by using abstinence and temperance in word and deed, in mortifying our earthly members here upon earth." This use of the expression appears conclusive as to its recognition by our Reformers.

The sensitiveness which many persons feel as to the use of this word, except in the case of heathens, arises from a fear lest the importance of the sacrament of baptism should be lessened,

-a feeling which deserves respect. On the other hand, those who contend for the general use of the word, are actuated by a desire to preserve, unimpaired, a great practical truth, the necessity of turning to God from sin in its various forms, or from a mere worldly life, and this feeling should also be respected. Both views, however, are perfectly compatible, when distinctly understood. The word convert, like its synonym turn, denotes theologically any kind of change, whether in the way of covenant, heart, or practice. As such it is applicable either to Heathens on their becoming Christians, or to Christian-born persons on their entering on a state of mind consistent with the name. There is a parallel case of the twofold use of language in St. Paul's epistles. Writing to the Galatians on the nature of the Christian covenant, in distinction from Judaism, he says, "As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ,” (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε, iii. 27.) But when enforcing practical holiness on the Romans, he says, without fearing the risk of contradiction, "put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,” (ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ιησοῦν Xploròv, xiii. 14.) the meaning of which appears in the next clause," and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof." De Brais, in his paraphrase of the latter epistle, includes both ideas:-"Vos igitur in perpetua Evanglii luce versantes, quique Christum induistis in baptismo, nunquam sanctitatis ejus habitus deponere debetis." (Analysis Paraphrastica Epistolæ ad Romanos, Salmurii, 1670, 4to.) The author was professor of theology at Saumur.

3. In the Review of the second part of Froude's Remains, in your number

for November, 1842, an analysis is given of his argument on "the Miracle of the Eucharist." As the reviewer has only analysed the argument, without positively adopting it, I trust my remarks are not obtrusive. To me, Mr. Urban, it appears, that Mr. Froude, in following out his argument, has lost sight of the text. His argument is, that the body of Christ, into which the elements are presumed to be changed (on the hypothesis of a miracle being wrought), is not a natural, but a spiritual body, and that we know not in how many places it may exist at once. But this is fallacious. When our Lord says, "this is my body which is given for you," he means the body which was crucified; and when "". my blood, which is shed for you," the blood which was poured out on the cross, and no celestial ichor. (ixop, Iliad E. 340.) This is further obvious from the words of Hebrews ii. 14. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death," &c. The body and blood which he took were not spiritual but natural; the same suffered on the cross; and to them does the text refer, whether literally understood or figuratively. The foundation, then, of Mr. Froude's reasoning, by which he tries to get rid of the evidence of the senses (which are opposed to the idea of the miracle), being unsound, his superstructure cannot stand.

4. Will any of your correspondents, who has studied chronology, have the goodness to investigate a date, about which writers differ? Heeren places the battle of Sagra (See Cic. de Nat. Deorum, ii. c. 2, and Justin, xx. c. 3, where, however, the place is not mentioned) probablement vers l'an 600 (Manuel de l'Histoire Ancienne, Thurot's French Translation, p. 180, art. CROTONA), but M. Poirson after 494. (Precis de l'Histoire Ancienne, 1828, p. 203.) Sir Walter Scott, who mentions the imaginary appearance of Castor and Pollux at the battle of Lake Regillus, takes no notice of this similar Greek tradition in his Demonology. (p. 11.)

Yours, &c. CYDWELI.

MR. URBAN,

IT is a remarkable feature of the times that the Aristotelian logic has, within the last ten or fifteen years, experienced a sudden revival. A reaction has taken place from the more ambitious but vague school of modern metaphysics, of which Brown and Stewart were the last great expositors, to the narrower but more demonstrable system which claims Aristotle for its founder. The false claims urged for the Organon by the schoolmen long obscured its real value; but since these have been cleared away its importance as a discipline of the mind has been more or less acquiesced in by recent writers. The only exception of any weight that occurs to me is that of Mr. Hallam in his History of Literature, who speaks disrespectfully of the syllogistic system. But it is no less remarkable that the Edinburgh Reviewer of that work advises the author to revise his decision, and indicates an opinion that Mr. Hallam had not paid sufficient attention to the subject. Whether any alteration has in consequence been made in the new edition I am not aware. In the recently published memoirs and correspondence of Mr. Horner, proof will be found that Mr. Hallam was at least a great admirer of the philosophy of that last of the Scotch schoolmen of modern metaphysics, Dugald Stewart. It is most probably owing to the writings of the latter that this reaction has taken place. Speaking of one of his then recent publications Mr. Horner says, vol. ii. p. 128: "The part I

cared for least is the dissertation upon Aristotle's logic, though it can hardly fail to have some salutary influence upon education in England, provided it provokes anger at Oxford;" so completely did it appear to this accomplished Scotchman a mere slaying of the slain to attack the logic of Aristotle. Every unprejudiced person will allow that something more than anger was produced at Oxford by such attacks. Dr. Whateley was the first to give a popular view of the true system, and to assert its title to be considered a science. The germ of his work, however, is to be found in the pamphlet that preceded it, entitled An Examination of Kett's Logic, a paragraph

The preface to this communication has extended further than I intended. I only wished to insinuate an apology for taking up your attention with such an antiquated puzzle as Achilles and the tortoise, by suggesting that some of your readers might feel an interest in the solution of a problem of which Whateley says that a logical demonstration is impossible.

A curious mistake as to the author of this solution has been committed by Mr. De Quincy, in a brief notice of the life of Coleridge which some years ago he contributed to a contemporary Magazine. His statement is this: On his first introduction to Coleridge, while the author was a very young man, the conversation took a philosophical turn. Among other things, Coleridge remarked that the sophism in this celebrated Greek problem consisted in the sophist assuming the infinite divisibility of space, but dropping out of view the corresponding infinity of time." On this Mr. De Quincy adds, "There was a flash of lightning which illuminated a darkness that had existed for twenty-three centuries."

Now it is strange that Mr. De Quincy, whose studies had lain so much in this direction, should not be aware that exactly the same explanation had been given a hundred years previously, by so well-known a writer as M. Crousaz. It is probable that Coleridge had no intention to be understood as giving the explanation as his own; though, as it occurs in the

*The Examiner examined, or Logic vindicated; addressed to the Junior Students of the University of Oxford, by a Graduate. 1809." This was written by Dr. Copleston. Edit.

same terms in one of the essays of the "Friend," it is possible that this might be a case where the reasoning powers of Coleridge, so vast and subtle, had so absorbed, and assimilated, and made his own what he had read, as at a subsequent period he might not be able to distinguish what he had thought out for himself, from what he had acquired from others. This is an explanation of the charge of plagiarism so often brought against that eminent and, as his friends uniformly testify, single-minded person, at once more charitable, and, I believe, more just, than one that would represent him as pluming himself in borrowed feathers. It is not unknown that a living dignitary of the church, pre-eminently distinguished for his original powers in metaphysical reasoning, has complained of the same defect of memory, viz., in not being certain whether a train of thought was his own, or had been suggested by something he had previously met with in reading or conversation.

The passage of M. Crousaz occurs in his "Art of Thinking.' I copy from the English translation, vol. i. p. 391.

"The sophism of that argument proceeds exactly from hence, that in a comparison which runs upon more or less, two things are compared together, which are the most improper to be compared in that sense, viz. finite with infinite. A part of extension is finite in one sense, for it has on the right hand, for instance, a surface, beyond which it does not reach, and it is likewise terminated by another surface on the left. But between these two extremities, it may be divided into two equal parts, one of which may be divided into two others, and so on. That division may be continued without any end, and in that respect a part of extension is infinite, that is, a last term cannot be assigned to it. The same ought to be said of time. A minute begins and ends. Its beginning follows immediately and without any interruption the end of a foregoing minute, and its end is in like manner followed immediately, and without interruption, by the beginning of the next minute. That minute being thus placed between two terms, is divided into equal lines, one of which is also divided into two others, and a last term cannot be assigned to that division. Time runs continually, and between the beginning and end of each part of it there is a middle."