426 Etymology of the Term Friers. then the believers in these additions cannot chuse but be by-gots, or bigots. So, On the other hand, all lexicographers seem unanimous in deducing the word fryar, fryer, or frier, from the French frere, or the Latin frater, a brother. If all mankind (for all are or ought to be brethren,) or at least all fraternities of men, whether good or bad, might as properly be called friers as the monks and jesuits of papal Rome. Besides, in this case, whence could the English word have acquired its sharp-sounding i or y? This, indeed, does not seem very satisfactory; let us, then, try whether we cannot produce something more so, for which purpose I shall quote the following particulars from Wordsworth's Account of the Martyrdom of Thomas Bilney; of whom Bishop Latimer was the convert, disciple, and great admirer. This holy man was beset and pestered by the whole tribe, or rather all the tribes, of friers-black, austin, white, and grey, (Wordsw. Biog. v. ii. p. 39;) which, by the bye, is one sort more than Milton reckons, when he talks of "eremites, and friars, black, white, and grey, with all their trumpery." When condemned, "he was degraded by the suffragan, with the assistance of all the friers," (p. 46.) We are told also, that one who was a friend of his, yet, being the sheriff, was constrained," tho' sorie,' to take him into custody, thro' dread of the chancellour and the friers,” (Ib.) And when at last he was tied to the stake, and the fire kindling, these same friers pressed about him, saying, "O, Master Bilney, the people be persuaded that we be the causers of your death, and it is like they will withdraw their charitable aims, except you declare your charity to us, and discharge us of the matter." Here, then, we have two such striking portraits so strongly contrasted, that I cannot pass them by unnoticed: po This was Sir Thomas More, a good and learned man; though his learning had unfortunately failed to teach him that pery, and not Christianity, was the new fangled religion. Yet the royal Elizabeth knew this in the same age; for, a few years afterwards, she said to the popish priests, "Whereas you hit us and our subjects in the teeth, that the Romish church first planted the Catholic faith within our realm, the records and chronicles of our realm testify the contrary; and your own Romish idolatry maketh you liars, &c." (Strype's Hist. of Ref. p. 148; and Prot. Adv. vol. ii. p. 173.) Observe the tick of the present day is, always to call popery Christianity, and to try to pass it off as such. [Dec. 1, on the one hand, the friers, profaning the name of charity, exulting in their inhuman triumph, and yet anxious, not because the innocent blood of this good man would assuredly be laid to their charge, but because they should not be able to cheat their poor deluded followers so easily as they had done; on the other band, the meek but constant martyr, while in the very act of "giving his body to be burned," evincing therewith such a godlike "charity," that he even placidly uttered the following words" I pray you, good people, be never the worse to these men for my sake!!" Surely, then, we need seck no further for a suitable derivation of the word in question. We have here the friers, the fire to fry withal, and the victim who, like many others, was actually fried alive. Here it strikes me that, having made a sort of promise in my first note to say something further respecting the occasional importance and utility of errors of the press, it will be proper, before I proceed, to discharge that obligation. In wiser times than the present, popery was currently styled "the grand apos tacy," and the learned know that this is the very name applied to it in scripture; whereas it styles itself apostolical, though all the apostles died several centuries before its institution. Now, in 1626, Archbishop Usher and the Irish bishops signed a protestation beginning thus: "The religion of the papists is supersti tious and idolatrous; their faith ant doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church, in respect of both, apostatical." So far ali is clear and consistent. But on its being quoted into a truly excellent and well-timed work, (The Protestant Advocate, vol. i. p. 329,) it was thus metamorphosed by an erratum, “in respect of both apostolical!!" Might it not, then, be useful to take the hint, and wherever we see that church styled apos tolical, to look upon it as an error of the press for apostatical " Were we to notice the improper use of compound words, our task would to endless. To give an instance or two ~~ The Re-formation is a term that may means; yet, if critically examined, it is serve well enough for what it generally highly improper. When we consider * The bishops of Rome did indeed at an early period take precedency amongst the prelates, but it was only on account of their see's being the world's metropolis. The origin of the fiction about St. Peter's being bishop of Rome, is demonstrably shewn is Kipling's answer to Troy, p. 33. 1 1814.] Inquiry concerning Sir Lewis Dives. wao it was that formed religion, an attempt to re-form it must be impious blasphemy; yet the bishops of Rome, from a misinterpretation of one single passage, pretend to be invested with a power of revising and correcting,-of increasing or diminishing,-in short, of new-modelling or re-forming the sacred code, as may best suit the purposes of their own ambition; so that they, and not we, should be called reformers. But it may be said, that papal additions want reforming: no such thing: false hood is incapable of correction, or amelioration-it should be rejected in toto. Luther, therefore, re-formed nothing; he only detected and put away all that was adscititious, or popish, in the then-prevailing system, retaining and re-establishing whatever was genuine Christianity. This, then, should have been called a restoration, or renovation, rather than a re-formation. Again: Many worthy and amiable persons have been led by a spurious liberality, to look for a re-conciliation of two such systems. But when were they ever conciliated? How can you re-unite what never was united? It would be easy indeed to jumble together into one government the professors of a true and of a false religion; and so long as the latter could conceal their raptures, they would maintain a semblance of the most perfect conciliation ;-but that persons of real sense, and even eloquence in other matters, like Mr. Canning, &c. should think of working a miracle, i. e. of effecting a permanent union between two such (not ir-re-concilable, but) utterly unconcili able principles, is really unaccountable. What has been incidentally said above leads me to attempt an explanation of the old popular custom of calling the nine 427 of diamonds the curse of Scotland. The many wise-heads that have set themselves to work to explain this, have left it, I apprebend, much the same as they found it-inscrutable nonsense. When, however, my readers recollect that this card is entitled pope, and when they are informed that there is great reason to suppose that the original saying was, not curse of Scotland, but curse of Ireland, then a very satisfactory meaning will break in upon them at once. Whenever that superstition, to which its crimes and sufferings, and its internal feuds, are principally attributable, shall be done away, and that it will be done away at no very distant period, Faber, and all our best commentators give us reason to hope,— then will the little Erin, the emerald island, from its soil, climate, &c. become one of the happiest, one of the most delightful spots upon the face of the whole earth. (To be concluded in our next.) INQUIRY CONCERNING SIR LEWIS DIVES. To the Editor of the New Monthly Magazine. AS your pages are occasionally occupied with biography, I should feel obliged by any of your correspondents communicating, through your medium, such notices of Sir Lewis Dives, as are not to be met with in Clarendon, Whitelock, or Rushworth; particularly some account of his second escape, in the night of the 28th January, 1648, from Whitehall-if any portrait of him be existing, and where he was buried. The family of Dives held the manor of Bromham, in Bedfordshire, for at least two centuries, ending about the year 1707. A copy of the registers of burials kept in that parish, relating to this family, would be esteemed a favour. With Mr. Canning, I fear, St. Paul must pass for a monopolizer, because he has =proved that there can be but one true faith. For when, pending the India business, the Lord Mayor of Dublin 5rought to Parliament one petition for the extensions, and another against the Catholic question, "Here's a man," said Mr. C. "that is come up against a monopoly of trade, and in favour of London, Nov. 14, 1814. MONOPOLY OF RELIGION!!" What a pity it is that wit and wisdom should so seldom go together! But pray, Mr. G. is not your =client, the pope, as much a monopolizer in an untrue, as St. Paul can be in a true religion? The difference is, that the pope supports his faith by persecutions, and then calls himself "holiness!" whereas, St. Paul, for having once been a persecutor, declared himself the greatest of sinners." Sir Lewis Dives, the subject of this inquiry, was a most active soldier and royalist during the great rebellion, and was half brother of George Lord Digby, secretary of State to Charles the First. I am, &c. On the DRAMA. HENRICUS. To the Editor of the New Monthly Magazine. SIR, I WAS pleased to observe in the last number of your well-conducted miscellany, (which I can assure you is fast rising in the public estimation,) that you had devoted more space than usual to 423 Drama-Mr. Mackinnon on the New Testament. the drama. I have no doubt, from the increasing celebrity of your magazine, that it will be many years hence referred to as a mirror to reflect the manners and customs of times past; and as the motto "Spectas et tu spectabere" is very applicable to a theatre, I trust you will devote even more of your columns to similar observations. An account of new actors, and a short detail and critique of new pieces favourably received, would be highly acceptable, as they are evident proofs of the taste of the public, as well as, in many instances, of the manners of the times, which may be more improved than you are aware of by the judicious approbation or censure of a work so generally esteemed, and read, as yours now is. I am confident many of the pieces that of late years have disgraced our theatres, would never have been tolerated by the public Lad a work like yours, of independent principles and respectability, been on the alert to offer its judicious remarks, especially as it is well known that the newspapers are not the vehicles through which we can expect candid criticisms; for with them, as well as with Monsieur Talleyrand, « beaucoup d'argent has a wonderful effect. It enables them to hide failings, and magnify abilities, while the want of it increases the one, and totally hides the other; to prove which, more than one actor of first rate abilities can assure you, he bas seen in the newspapers a critique on a character he was to have performed the night before, but was prevented by illness, or the sudden altera-, tion of the piece to be acted, which in telligence, unfortunately for the respectability and candour of the papers in question, did not reach their offices in time. This anecdote, on which you may rely, will, I have no doubt, influence you to accede to my wishes. I am, Sir, &c. Southampton, Nov. 8, 1814. T. Q. VINDICATION of the CONSISTENCY and HAVING lately heard it urged by several that the writings of the New Testament, and the accounts contained therein, which are intended to relate the same circumstances, not only differ from * One reason for which is, that many newspaper editors are allowed free admissions to the theatres ; no doubt as a bribe 19 silence their disapprobation of men and measures, as well as to increase puffing. Dec. 1, each other, but also that the language in many places is found to be inconsistent with those rules, and that elegance which it all times nath excited our admiration for the classic authors: it may not be a subject unworthy of inquiry if we should investigate these assertions, and endeavour to prove that this censure on the writers and style of the New Testament arises either from the neglect of due consideration, or from ignorance. There are, indeed, many whose whole time is devoted to the selecting detached parts of scripture, and comparing them with others which relate the same circumstance; and it these, on being examined, are not found to agree perfectly with each other, they then imagine that a discovery is made which tends to take away the veracity of the account given; as for instance, if we should take that which is given of the two thieves crucified on each side of our Saviour, the one according to St. Matthew, the other according to St. Luke:-" oi de magamy ρευομενοι ἐβλασφημουν αυτόν, κινῶντες τὰς κεφα λὰς αὐτῶν. Τὸ δ' αυτὸ καὶ οἱ λες αὶ οἱ συςαυρα aur, veidov air." St. Matt. xxvii. 39, 44—— Εις δὲ τῶν κρεμασθέντων κακέργει έβλασφήμει αὐτὸν λέγων· Ει σὺ εἰ ὁ Χριστὸς πᾶσαν σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμας. Αποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ετερος ἐπιτίμα aura, Xéyov, de poon où TOV DENY "OT! BY Tỹ autê xginals es; Kaiheets mév dinaíws" "ağıa yaş,"ur ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμβάνομεν· ωτος δε εδεν εστοποι "gas." St. Luke, xxii. 39, &c. From these two portions such reasoners infer, that, as St. Matthew's account is so different from that of St. Luke, it may be difficult to discover which of these is the true one. Now he who consider this an inconsistency (if inconsistency it may be called) evidently shews his g norance, for there are many passages in the sacred writings where a similar mode of expression is adopted, as the plural being frequently used for the singular number; for example, γαρ οι ζητώντες την ψυχὴν τα παιδια,” St. Matt, ii. 20- They are dead who seek the young child's life." This, though the plural, is an expression which can only be applied to a singular meaning; for by the they is siguified "Herod," he being the person who wished to take away the life of Christ. “ ιδόντες δὲ α μαθηταὶ αὐτῷ, ἠγανάκτησαν, λέγωντες· εἰς τό a `urn, St.' Matt. xxvi. 8. Though Ayres, we can prove from a parallel passage, that only one person spoke, in μαθητῶν αὐτῷ, Ιέδας Σιμωνος Ισκαριώτης, ο μελε St. John, xii, 4, ắc. “ Arya si BĐ TÂY επράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχεῖς λων αὐτόν παραδιδοναι· Διατί τέτο τὸ μύρον ἐκ Let us take one example from the 1814.] Mr. Mackinnon on the N. Testament-Garden Crocus. writings of St. Paul, where the plural can only be applied to a singular meaning, as in his epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 11, ver. 37, " enginσav” relating to the death of Isaiah, executed by Manasses, who ordered him to be sawn asunder with a wooden saw. 429 Hero dotus and Thucidydes have the same; Ta A similar mode of expression is found in a classic writer, who was a Beotian, 775 ñv ręɛïç xepanμal," Hesiod. Theog. 321. If repetition is objected to as "van d uveri peñadov naì peähkov,” Philip, Chap. 1, verse 9. The same sort of repetition may be found in Xenoph. Cxas Let us now consider the accuracy of T xal The STE." Cyrop. 7th. The the statement of facts. In many parts neuter gender being put for the mascuof sacred scripture there are circum-line Toy Lava St. Math. 12, 41. stances which are not exactly related in the same manner by all the evangelists, as in the account that is given by them of the appearance of the an gel at the sepulchre, seen after the resurrection of our Saviour. St. Matthew and St. Mark say, αγγελος γὰρ Κυρία" St. Math. Chap. 28, ver. 2. "Fidov veavis madhuevos év Tois değiors” St. Mark, Chap. 16, ver. 5. In these two passages only one is mentioned, while in the gospels according to St. Luke and St. John, "xal 18 duó "ardees" St. Luke, Chap. 24, ver. 4, "xai dewgeï dvó ayyixes" St. John, Chap. 20, ver. 12. two are spoken of. If authenticity is objected on account of the discrepancies between the several gospels, "I know not," says a writer on the evidences of the Christian religion," more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding than to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety." Though in this case variations present themselves, yet these are in no wise absolute or final contradictions, nor can they be deemed sufficient in any manner to shake the credibility of the main fact. "There are many particulars, and some of them not of small importance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities, which, as we should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish wars, Lardner, Part I. vol. II. p. 735." Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have each of them written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the rest, and the same things in a different manner, yet no objection is thence taken to the respective credit of their histories. a Now that the language of the New Testament is deficient of that elegance which we find in those writings esteemed as specimens of perfection is altogether an assertion which requires proof, and which we shall endeavour to refute. "Kai την Ιωσεφ, και η μητης αὐτῷ θαυμάζοντες.” Luke, Chap. 2, ver. 33; here is put for av by a syncope of the Beotians. NEW MONTHLY MAG.-No. 11. J. MACKINNON. Bloxholme, Nov. 1, 1814. The GARDEN CROCUS. To the Editor of the New Monthly Mugazine. SIR, CAN any of your readers inform me whether the root of the common garden crocus is capable of being applied to any useful purpose? Having the other day observed that mice are very fond of them, I ventured to taste one, and found it very like the Spanish chesnut in flavour; but I thought superior, as it was dryer. The middle, which had shot out a little, left a flavour in the mouth like a ripe French bean, but the outside was excellent. Bushels might easily be raised in every garden. I am, &c. Nov. 1814. SI A GARDENER. ROYAL ANECDOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE PRIVATE HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN DURING THE PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED YEARS. NUMBER IX. Variis locis dispersa, in unum fasciculum redegi. DR. BEATTIE. THIS worthy and ingenious writer, in his diary, as published by Sir William Forbes, gives the following account of his introduction to their majesties:"Tuesday, 24th August, 1778, set out for Dr. Majendie's, at Kew Green. The doctor told me, that he had not seen the king yesterday, but had left a note in writing, to intimate that I was to be at his house to-day; and that one of the king's pages had come to him this morning to say, that his majesty would see ne a little after twelve.' At twelve the doctor and I went to the king's house at Kew. We had been only a few minutes in the hall when the king and queen came in from an airing; and as they passed through the hall, the king called me by name, and asked how long it was since I came from town. I answered him, about an hour, I shall see you,' says he, in a little while.' The doctor and I waited a considerable time, for the king was busy, and then we were called into a large room, furnished as a library, where the king was walking about, and We were the queen sitting in a chair. received in the most gracious manner possible by both their majesties. I had the honour of a conversation with them, nobody else being present but Dr. Majendie, for upwards of an hour, on a great variety of topics, in which both the king and queen jomed, with a degree of cheerfulness, affability, and ease, that was to me surprising, and soon dissipated the embarrassment which I felt at the beginning of the conference. They both complimented me in the highest terms on my essay, which they said was a book they always kept by them; and the king said he had one copy of it at Kew, and another in town, and immediately went and took it down from a shelf. I found it was the second edition. 'I never stole a book but one,' said his majesty, and that was yours,' (speaking to me:) I stole it from the queen, to give it to Lord Hertford to read. He had heard that the sale of Hume's Essays had failed since my book was published; and I told him what Mr. Strahan had told me in He had even regard to that matter. |