Faith, by Professor Rogers, London, 1852, p. 392.:

"They are now at college, and have imbibed in different degrees that curious theory which professedly recognises Christianity (as consigned to the New Testament) as a truly divine revelation, yet asserts that it is intermingled with a large amount of error and absurdity, and tells each man to eliminate the divine 'element' for himself. According to this theory, the problem of eliciting revealed truth may be said to be indeterminate, the value of the unknown varies through all degrees of magnitude; it is equal to any thing, equal to every thing, equal to nothing, equal to infinity."

Theological Essays, by F. D. Maurice, Cambridge, 1853, p. 89.:

"Let us look, therefore, courageously at the popular dogma, that there are certain great ideas floating in the vast ocean of traditions which the old world exhibits to us, that the gospel appropriated some of these, and that we are to detect them and eliminate them from its own traditions."

But for the fact that such writers have given the weight of their names to so unparalleled a blunder, it would seem almost childish to occupy the columns of a literary periodical with exposing it. It is, however, somewhat singular that it should be principally men of classical attainments who perpetrate it. In my under-graduate days at Cambridge, the proneness of "classical men" to commit the blunder in question was proverbial.

In conclusion, then, let it be remembered that the word "eliminate" obtained general currency from the circumstance of its being originally admitted into mathematical works. In such works elimination signifies the process of causing a function to disappear from an equation, the solution of which would be embarrassed by its presence there. In other writings the word "elimination" has but one correct signification, viz. "the extrusion of that which is superfluous or irrelevant." As an example of this legitimate use of the word, I will quote from Sir William Hamilton's accurate, witty, and learned article on "Logic," published in the Edinburgh Review, April, 1833:

"The preparatory step of the discussion was, therefore, an elimination of these less precise and appropriate significations, which, as they could at best only afford a remote genus and difference, were wholly incompetent for the purpose of a definition."

C. Mansfield Ingleby.

Birmingham.

CRANMER'S BIBLE.

Queries which I have heard at various times lead me to think that a Note on this interesting volume may be acceptable to many readers who possess or have access to it; and especially to those whose copies may be (as too many are) imperfect at the beginning and end. Under this impression I send you an extract from the late Mr. Lea Wilson's catalogue of his unrivalled Collection of English Bibles. As very few copies of this curious and beautiful work were printed, and not one, I believe, has been sold, it is probable that few of your readers are aware of the criteria which that gentleman's ingenuity and industry have furnished for distinguishing between the

various editions which are known under the title of The Great Bible, or Cranmer's Bible. He begins his description of the edition of April, 1539, thus:

"As this volume is commonly called the First Edition of Cranmer's or the Great Bible, I class it with the Six following; although in fact the Archbishop had nothing whatever to do with either the translation or publication. It was put forth entirely by Thomas Lord Cromwell, vide Herbert's Ames, p. 1550. vol. iii., who employed Coverdale to revise the existing translations. The first wherein Cranmer took any part is the large folio of April 1540, the text of which differs from this edition materially. The pages of this volume and of the four next following begin and end alike; and the general appearance of the whole five is so very similar that at first sight, one may be mistaken for another by those ignorant of the fact that they are all separate and distinct impressions: the whole of the titles, of which there are five in each Book, and every leaf of kalendar, prologue, text, and tables being entirely recomposed, and varying throughout in orthography, &c. The desire to make perfect copies out of several imperfect, has also caused extreme confusion, by uniting portions of different editions without due regard to their identity. These remarks apply equally to the editions of Nov. 1540, and Nov. 1541, of which, in like manner, each page begins and ends with the same words. Although the distinctive marks are very numerous, yet being chiefly typographical ornaments or arrangement, it is impossible to give here sufficient guides to ensure the integrity of each volume."—Page 12.

On the next page but one is added:

"The following lines of the forty-first chapter of Job differ in composition in all the seven volumes, and for the purpose of distinguishing the edition I have given them to each."

No. 1. April, 1539.

No mā is so cruell, that is able to stere him up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuē me anything afore hande, that I maye rewarde him agayne? All thynges un-

No. 2. April, 1540.

No man is so cruell, y^t is able to stere hī up. *Who is able to stāde before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thyng afore hāde, y^e I maye rewarde him agayne? All thynges

No. 3. July, 1540.

No man is so cruell, y^t is able to stere hym up. *who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thynge aforehande, that I maye rewarde him agayne?

No. 4. May, 1541.

No man is so cruell, that is hable to styrre hym up. *Who is hable to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geue me any thing aforehande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne? All thyn-

No. 5. December, 1541.

No mā is so cruel, that is able to styrre hym up. *Who is hable to stand before me? Or ‡who hathe gyuen me anye thynge afore hande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne?

No. 6. November, 1540.

No man is so cruell that is able to styr hym up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath geuen me any thynge afore hande, that I maye re-

No. 7. November, 1541.

No man is so cruell that is hable to styrre hym up. *Who is able to stande before me? Or ‡who hath gyuen me any thyng afore hande, that I maye rewarde hym agayne? All

I believe the foregoing to be an exact copy of Mr. Wilson's catalogue, but, of course, I cannot be responsible for the accuracy of his transcripts. Perhaps none but those who were admitted to his library ever had an opportunity of comparing together all those editions; and nobody would have done it with more care and fidelity than himself.

S. R. M.

SOVEREIGNS DINING AND SUPPING IN PUBLIC.

In some observations which I made upon two or three pictures in Hampton Court Palace, in Vol. viii., p. 538., I specified two worthy of notice on the above subject, and which are the first instances of such ceremony I have met with. It has been supposed to have been a foreign custom but I do not find any traces of