and sentiments of Nestorius are left an open question. And in the same way, points of resemblance between the Nestorian and English Communions are discovered with amazing ingenuity.
The second is, that while the schismatical interference of Rome with the Orthodox Eastern Church cannot be too strongly reprobated, the case is widely different in her dealings with the Nestorians. If the Eastern Church makes no efforts among them, why is Rome, any more than ourselves, to be debarred from that duty?
It is to be hoped, however, that English Churchmen will at length awake to the necessity of having an ecclesiastical agent accredited to the East by the synodal voice of the English Church herself. If the following volumes shall in any respect tend to such a result, they will have done yeoman's service both to the Nestorians and to ourselves.
J. M. N.
February 12, 1852.
