represented? Who make the decrees before alluded to? This representation must differ in different Churches. In our Church the Convocation is the representative power.

Next, we are asked with an air of triumph, "Who is to decide whether or not she may have so expounded one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another?" We answer, Every man qualified by education for the decision. "But to talk of a right of private judgment, where there is no qualification to judge, is outrageously absurd. We might as well maintain the right of a new-born infant to stand alone."* Every man, who, having examined for himself, concludes that his salvability is doubtful in the Church of England, is not only free, but bound, to desert her. But to take on trust from dissenting teachers, can surely be no more PRIVATE judgment, than to take on trust from the teachers of the national communion. Private judgment consists in the very circumstance, that it is the decision of AN INDIVIDUAL on evidence and argument which he understands; and not only so, but on all the evidence, and all the argument producible on the question. Any other judgment must be necessarily partial; and it will either be the judgment of a Church or congregation; or, if private, it will not be the private judgment of him who acquiesces in it.

We think we have fairly "satisfied" the Dissenters on these matters, and we take the present opportunity of renewing our "call."

A page further, Mr. Hanbury exposes his weakness as a disputant even more palpably. His whole Preface is so erratic, that it is difficult to extract more from it than that he is bitterly hostile to the Church. What use he intends to be made of the following anecdote, we know not, but we transcribe it, that our readers may have an opportunity of seeing what Mr. Hanbury considers argument. Our editor has condescended to borrow the precious fragment from the Kent Herald, a journal which is the disgrace of the intelligent, high-minded, and religious county, which it affects to represent.

On Tuesday evening, August 14, 1827, his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, with his suite, arrived at Canterbury, in order to hold a confirmation. When (on the following day) we saw the assembly of dignitaries of the Church, with their numerous followers, congregated in the spacious and noble building called the Chapter-house, in their full costume, our minds reverted to our Catholic ancestors, and we thought there was little difference between the pageantry of this day and the trumpery of our ruder forefathers.-Vol. I. p. xxxiv.

It is certainly a grave point of accusation against our Church, that the printer of the Kent Herald should think there was "little difference" between her sober ceremonies, and the buffooneries of Rome : of course, Mr. Hanbury coincides in his opinion. But what then?

* Christian Remembrancer, Vol. XI. p. 232.

Granting all to be true-allowing that the modest proportion of decent ornament which distinguishes the outward presence of the Church, is any thing but what it is; allowing that there is "little difference between the simple-hooded surplice, and the gorgeous dalmatic, the glittering pall, with all the accompaniments of acolytes, crosses, tapers, pyxes, banners, censers

"White, black, and grey, with all their trumpery ;"

allowing, we say, this to be the case, (which is allowing much when people have their eyes and their faculties,) what follows? that on this account we should leave the Church? If for these things our reformers bled and burned, we must regard them with contemptuous pity, instead of reverential admiration. Will Mr. Hanbury contend that the use of a surplice, or the colour of a hood, is reason sufficient to justify violation of ecclesiastical and Christian unity? The more educated part of the Dissenters are, we are sure, ashamed of these absurdities.

Mr. Hanbury unblushingly applies the old vulgar epithet of "Parliamentary" to our Church, as though this accusation had not been repelled abundantly, even in our own treatise, which he affects to have read. To that we have nothing to add, as we are sure that to that he has said nothing.

Such is the general character of Mr. Hanbury's Preface. His Notes are, as may be expected, somewhat sparingly scattered; with all his desire to subvert his author's reasoning, he dares not venture upon any very elaborate process

"The rays of Bethlehem blind his dusky eyn;"

yet he tells us that they are arguments meriting the most serious consideration of every candid and impartial inquirer after truth.” We will take a few at random.

Hooker, discussing the avidity with which the common people seek sermons, while they hear homilies with apathy and inattention, partly accounts for the circumstance, by ascribing it to "a custom which men have to let those things carelessly pass by their ears, which they have oftentimes heard before, or know they may hear again, whensoever it pleaseth themselves."* On this, our Editor's annotation is, "A POWERFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST BOOKS OF COMMON PRAYER! Powerful indeed! and that Hooker should have overlooked what was reserved for the acumen of Mr. Hanbury! As our author has not developed his argument for the benefit of tardier intellects, we do not presume to divine what Hooker failed in detecting. Yet we would ask Mr. Hanbury, what protects the Lord's Prayer, or indeed the Bible in general, from the violence of this "powerful argument?"

*Book V. § 22.

For these the people "have oftentimes heard before, and know they may hear again whensoever it pleaseth themselves."

But the subject of forms of prayer appears to have called forth some of Mr. Hanbury's choicest "arguments, meriting the most serious consideration." In Vol. II. p. 91, we have this select piece of ratiocination :

If the Lord's Prayer be a form, and to be used literally and prescriptively, rather than as St. Matthew says "after this manner;" and that, too, notwithstanding the variation between his copy of the Prayer and St. Luke's; it is just as authoritatively necessary for us to confine ourselves to that Prayer only, and also to St. Luke's copy of it introduced with our Saviour's command, "When ye pray, say." But what is most particularly to be noticed in this matter is, that he gave his disciples no form when he so solemnly and deliberately instructed them, John xvi. 24.

Mr. Hanbury, like his great prototype, Towgood, has here had the ingenuity to condense, in a very short sentence, a very large proportion of confusion and mistake.

Our

The word in Matthew is ourws, thus; and though there is no absolute incorrectness in our translation, still, if we give this word its simplest and most usual meaning, and compare it with the positive language of St. Luke, no doubt can remain that a form of prayer was given by our Lord.* It was doubtless given by him in the national language of Judea; and it has come down to us in different forms, because it has been preserved in independent translations. Common Prayer may be translated into the same language by different hands. In such case there would, no doubt, be verbal deviations: but it would not hence follow that the Church of England employed no form. But Mr. Hanbury has discovered that "it is just as authoritatively necessary for us to confine ourselves to that prayer only." Indeed! where is it written, "When ye pray, say THIS ONLY ?""But," says Mr. H., "what is most particularly to be noticed in this matter is, that Christ gave his disciples no form when he so solemnly and deliberately instructed them, John xvi. 24." Now, an ordinary reasoner, comparing the two cases, and finding that both were "solemn and deliberate instruction," would naturally conclude that formal and extemporaneous prayers were alike lawful, and one formal prayer imperative. But no! Mr. Hanbury towers above the conclusions of every-day mortals. His argument is, that as Christ did not command a form of prayer on one occasion, he thereby evacuated all inferences to be drawn from his previous positive injunction. Such reasoning, obviously, would go to the subversion of the whole Bible.

In Vol. II. p. 255, the battered argument of Towgood against sponsors is re-stated as if never refuted; in p. 279, the blunders of

* See "Trollope's Analecta Theologica," in loc.

the same author about confirmation, so entirely exposed in our XIth Volume,* are given in his own words! and in Vol. III. p. 310, Towgood is again quoted to prove that the crown can impose articles on the Church. Can any proceeding be more disingenuous in a writer who professes to have read our refutation?

In Book VII. § 6, Hooker observes, "Titus and Timothy having received episcopal power, as apostolical ambassadors or legates, the one in Greece [query, Crete ?], the other in Ephesus, they both did, by virtue thereof, likewise ordain, throughout all Churches, deacons and presbyters within the circuits allotted unto them." On this passage, Mr. Hanbury remarks:

When, and where in any Church? Though the Epistle to Titus, and also the First Epistle to Timothy, are supposed to have been written about A. D. 56, no trace is found of any ordination by either of those "ambassadors," notwithstanding that the sacred writings extend to A. D. 95 or 96; and that all the Evangelists [Gospels] and Epistles, except the 1 and 2 Thess. Gal. and the 1 Cor. were, on the supposition of Dr. Lardner, written subsequently.— Vol. III. p. 116.

What a triumphant argument! Does not Mr. Hanbury perceive that the fact, and not the circumstances of time and place, is the gist of Hooker's allegation? Now, the fact is clear enough from the Epistles. Timothy is warned to "lay hands suddenly on no man ;”† from which, it must surely be inferred, that imposition of hands was his office; and that this imposition must have been ordination, Mr. Hanbury, we suppose, will not dispute. With regard to Titus, the language of St. Paul is express : "FOR THIS CAUSE left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the ministers that are wanting, and ORDAIN ELDERS (πpeσßuτépovs) in every city, aS I HAD APPOINTed THEE."I

In Vol. III. p. 211, among much vulgar abuse of the Church on the subject of preferment (the interference of lay patronage, and the laws against simony never considered), we are informed by Mr. Hanbury, that a Clergyman, at his induction, solemnly asserts in the face of his congregation, that he is set over them by the Holy Ghost. We shall feel favoured, if Mr. Hanbury will communicate when and where this has been done, and account for the total silence of Burn on this subject, who professes to rehearse all that the incumbent shall say on such occasions.§

Such are some of Mr. Hanbury's claims on the members of the Church of England for his restoration of their Colossus. The rags and rubbish, however, with which the immortal work is disfigured, leave its solidity unimpaired, and its symmetry unconcealed. With

*P. 564.

Tit. i. 5.

† 1 Tim. v. 22.

§ Eccl. Law. Art. Benefice.

whatever intention edited, the editor has our thanks. Hooker will still be reverenced, as highly as ever, by Churchmen; and Dissenters, whose prejudices hitherto kept them from enjoying the light of his "incomparable" writings,* will be conciliated by a nonconforming editor, who, whatever may be his opinion of his own argument, may find himself mistaken in his calculations, when the more candid of his own persuasion weigh him against Hooker in the balance of reflection.

It is but justice to add, that the public are under worthier obligations than these to Mr. Hanbury. The great object of our editor in publishing, what perhaps he would call a self-refuting edition of Hooker, would be to procure access to the shelves of churchmen; but to this object his Notes would be incompetent. His edition must boast some independent superiority to others, which might prove an introduction to his polemics. And accordingly, it possesses much that is curious and valuable. The "Christian Letter to Mr. Hooker," published originally in 1599, and never reprinted, appears in different portions of the Notes. This Mr. Hanbury calls the first publication of the Doctrinal Puritans; perhaps it would have been more correct to say the first extant. Dr. Covel's "Just and Temperate Defence " of the Ecclesiastical Polity is wholly reprinted; the letter of Hooker to Lord Burghley is added to his other works; and the peculiarities of the author and of his age, which some editors had most unjustifiably softened, in homage to ears of fastidious days, again give their freshness and characteristic vigour to this noble monument of genius and piety.

All this is well. Deep indeed is the rancour concealed beneath the open and smiling title-page; but it will more than defeat its own object. The diligent student of Hooker will be amply prepared to encounter doughtier champions than Mr. Hanbury. We therefore wish the work an extensive circulation : we would rather have Hooker studied than Mr. Hanbury's malice compensated as it deserves. An age which, with pretensions larger than those of any of its predecessors, is immeasurably behind that of Hooker in theological and ecclesiastical learning, would do well to unlearn a little of its petulance and wilfulness at the feet of the meek, eloquent, profound, and elevated writer of the "Ecclesiastical Polity."

Mr. Hanbury has also prefixed a life of Thomas Cartwright, the puritan controversialist, who figures so considerably in Walton's Life of Hooker. Of this we shall say little; the merits of his cause are slightly influenced by his history. We know Mr. Hanbury will think it any thing but an ill compliment to say that his biographical powers