am among the number of those who consider "huntings, hawkings, dancings, taverns, and plays" unbecoming the clerical order, inconsistent with their sacred engagements, and at variance with the high and holy calling wherewith they are called.

But even taking lower ground, and supposing, for one moment, that the practices, which even the council of Trent denounced, were not evil, or at least were of a doubtful nature; yet, surely, something is due to public opinion, and it would be no very costly sacrifice to make to the church we love, if, in this hour of her difficulty and peril, her ministers were to lay aside pastimes which cause many of her most devoted friends to mourn, and the great body of her enemies to triumph. Most thankful shall I be if the attention which this subject excites among your readers cause any of our clergy to lay aside the recreations referred to, which are denounced by the large body of thoughtful people among ourselves, and are not tolerated in any other Christian community, and to expend the time and money which they have unprofitably consumed on more holy and more useful purposes. AMICUS ECCLESIÆ.

DR. MURRAY.

SIR,-Your article upon CHURCH MATTERS, in the Number for February 1836, contains the following sentence with reference to Dr. Murray's use of the words "a Christian bishop," as applied to Bishop Monk:-" Will Dr. Murray honestly and openly say, that he believes any protestant bishop to be a bishop at all?" Sir, Dr. Murray will not honestly or openly say any such thing-he cannot ; and I will shew him why in a very few words. Bishop Doyle decides the question for Dr. Murray, in his evidence before the House of Lords, on the 21st March, 1835 :—

"Do the Roman catholic hierarchy of Ireland acknowledge the ordination in the protestant establishment to be carried on in an uninterrupted succession, as in the church of Rome?—The ordination of bishops is one thing, and their mission, or spiritual jurisdiction, is another thing. We have some doubt with regard to the validity of ordination of English bishops of the establishment. That doubt does not arise from the manner of ordination, but it arises with regard to the valid ordination of one of the archbishops of Canterbury-I believe, Matthew Parker. It is a matter of fact, about which we cannot be well acquainted, and therefore a doubt remains on our minds. Then as to the mission which a bishop, when validly ordained, has, or has not. We do think that no bishop, outside the pale of the Roman catholic church, has this due mission."

What will Dr. Murray say to this? Why does he apply a title which he does not acknowledge? Upon the same principle as that

This assertion is quite incorrect, in point of fact. Of course, the prevalence of a practice is no defence of it.-ED.

by which he calls the Bishop of Gloucester to account for the use of language which, in the very same letter, he admits himself to be "persuaded that nothing in this world could have induced the bishop to utter." Effect is to be produced in the one instance by consenting, Kрiσεws Kapi, to charge a man with an imputation, in spite of his own self-conviction in that man's favour; and in another, by according to him, ad captandum, a title which he believes in his conscience that no bishop, "outside the pale of the Roman-catholic church," has a right to.

I subjoin, for more general purposes, the data upon which the doubt of the Romish church concerning our episcopacy is grounded, from the same evidence :

"The doubt you have stated respecting the English church rests upon a doubt, whether there was a direct succession?—Yes, whether the person who undertook to consecrate Dr. Parker really was a bishop or not.

"Whether there is not a link wanting in the episcopal succession? -Yes; but we distinguish the succession of order from the succession of spiritual order, or mission. The succession of order we would recognise, were it not for this doubt; but the succession of mission, or spiritual jurisdiction, in an ecclesiastical view, cannot be admitted by us, without denying the unity of the catholic church."

Possibly one of your correspondents may have the means of communicating some information as to the state of the case in the consecration of Dr. Parker, who succeeded Reginald Pole in the archbishopric; the succession whereto stands thus:-Thos. Cranmer 1533. Reginald Pole, 1556. Matt. Parker, 1559. *

W. F. P.

LAMARTINE'S PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND.

SIR,-Having, from those specimens of M. De Lamartine's "Devotional Poems" which have appeared in the "British Magazine," been led to form a favourable opinion of that author's religious opinions and feelings, I was much disappointed on meeting with the following most objectionable paragraph in his "Pilgrimage to the Holy Land:"

"Altogether the era of the prophets, considered historically, is one of the least intelligible eras of the life of this fugitive people. One perceives, however, and particularly in the epoch of Elijah, the key to the extraordinary organization of the community of prophets; they were evidently a holy and lettered class, always opposed to kings; the consecrated tribunes of the people, exciting or appeasing them with their songs, their parables, or their menaces; forming factions in Israel, as the press and popular oratory does among us; struggling against each other, first with the weapon of their words, and next with lapidation and the sword; exterminating

The doubt refers to the old Nag's Head story; which, however, Dr. Doyle surely did not believe. Dr. Lingard has given it up." W. F. P." will find the subject fully discussed in Mason's Vindicia, or Le Courayer. It was very well stated, shortly, in the Witness, an able paper, published at Sheffield, a few weeks ago.-ED.

each other off the face of the earth, as Elijah exterminated hundreds; then falling themselves, in turn, and making place for other dominators of the people."-Vol. i. p. 369, 2nd edit.

This extract may perhaps draw the attention of Christian heads of families to the dangerous tendency of a publication which, besides. containing, in other places, many false religious sentiments, would, in the passage quoted, make out the prophets of Israel to have been nothing more than the Hunts and Cobbetts-the Humes and Roebucks and O'Connells of Jewish antiquity.

G.

MR. DOWLING.

SIR,-When I quoted Mr. Dowling, in my letter to Mr. Maitland, as saying of Milner, that "at the time he wrote, and for many years after, there was no one in this country who could have written such a history better than he did," I thought the language too plain to be misunderstood; and felt myself authorized to state, that the verdict thus given placed Milner "at the head of his class, as having done that which no one else could have executed better."

Mr. Dowling does me now the favour to say, that I am quite welcome to his " verdict," but that I must take it with his "own interpretation." If this interpretation had accompanied the verdict, there would have been reason for requiring them to be taken together. But how could I know Mr. Dowling's sense of the passage, except from its plain grammatical import? And I hope it will be acknowledged that I have neither changed his words, nor put any force upon their meaning.

It appears, however, to me, that, instead of interpreting, Mr. D. wishes to set aside his verdict; and that, under cover of explaining it, he literally explains it away. "A man is not (he says) the less ignorant, because he happens to be ignorant in company.' Certainly not; but when that company includes the ecclesiastical scholars of the whole nation, during half of the last century, and many years of the present, it can scarcely be denied that Mr. Dowling, by saying "no one could have written such a history" better than Milner did, places himself in the dilemma of having libelled the literary capacity of the age, or of having ascribed to Milner higher praise than his friends had ever claimed for him.

Mr. Dowling interprets his verdict thus: "I said, that it was 'the best apology for Milner,' that he did but partake of the common ignorance of ecclesiastical subjects." This is not what the writer really said, but what he now wishes he had said. His exact words are those which I have given above; and it is only necessary to glance at the verdict and the interpretation, in order to judge how far it was possible for me to have elicited the new meaning out of the old words.

In further explanation of his "verdict" on Milner, Mr. D. adds, "It certainly is something to his credit, that he knew more of this branch of literature than a number of men who were in other respects vastly his superiors." This comment, like the former, looks small

enough by the side of the text-"No one in this country could have written such a history better than he did." Yet, with all this softening down of previous testimony, more is said for Milner than the witness desires to say; and the evidence is, in some respects, the more valuable, because of the reluctance with which it is given. I need nothing beyond Mr. Dowling's own illustration to prove the point. "A man may know more about the structure of the human body than all the rest of the people in the parish, and yet be very little qualified to write a treatise on anatomy." Very true; but to make the cases parallel, instead of "parish," read "kingdom," and take the period from the middle of the last century to nearly the present time; and then I should feel no difficulty in contending, that the best anatomist in England, during that term, could not be a weak man; and if he wrote at all, would not have produced an utterly useless and worthless treatise on anatomy. The application of the argument is easily made. I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,

JOHN KING,*

To the Rev, H. J. Rose.

SIR,-Not wishing to take up any unnecessary room in the "British Magazine,” I proceed immediately to notice, as briefly as I can, the two points in my recently published letter to Mr. Maitland, on which you have animadverted.

With regard to the first; when I said the whole controversy sprung out of Mr. Maitland's work, I had no intention to insinuate either "that no one but Mr. Maitland has thought ill of Milner," or "that the subsequent charges against Milner have been made on Mr. Maitland's sole authority." It never even occurred to me, that my words were liable to such an interpretation; if it had, I would have taken care to express myself with more precision. I assure you, I never had the slightest doubt that your own opinion of Milner was formed independently of all authority; and that, whether right or wrong, it was the result of your own reading. I would, with great pleasure, retract anything I have ever written, which should leave a contrary impression on the reader's mind; but I cannot, even now, when you have directed my attention to the subject, imagine that my words have any such meaning. Surely, it is one thing to suppose that a given controversy sprung from some particular work, and quite another to suppose that the mover in this controversy had derived his own information on the subject from that work. If you (for instance) had made use of that work, and of it only, in a controversy, I cannot think there would be any impropriety in maintaining that the controversy sprung from it. This is precisely the case now between us. I found nothing in the way of evidence referred to by you, except the volume of "Facts and Documents;" and therefore I inferred that the controversy sprung from this volume. Had I said that the controversy "turned" or 'hinged" upon it, I suppose all ambiguity would have been prevented, and the purpose for which I make use of the fact would have been quite as well answered.

As to your second point, I am not sure that I perfectly understand what you mean

to assert.

In your letter to the "Christian Observer" you spoke of Mr. Maitland as being both "ready" and "able to go fully into this matter;" and spoke of it in such a way as to leave no doubt that you were entirely in his confidence. You then proceeded immediately to warn Mr. Scott, "from referring to what you had already by you, that a very few weeks of study would ensure a harvest of strange errors in facts in Milner," &c. Now, certainly did not suppose that, in these consecutive sentences, you were speaking of two distinct classes of objections, issuing from different quarters, against Milner; but that, all along, you referred to something which Mr. Maitland was preparing, and the substance of which he had submitted to your inspection. This I know was Mr. Scott's opinion, when he read your letter; and I have never yet met with a reader who thought otherwise. What makes it difficult for me to understand your present explanation is, that if Mr. Maitland's second letter to you

301

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

The Analogy of Faith; or, an Attempt to shew God's Methods of Grace with the Church of Christ, as set forth in the Experience of David. By the Rev. J. T. Holloway, D.D. London: Hatchards. 1836. 8vo. DR. HOLLOWAY will not, it is hoped, be offended, if it is said, that a work like his makes one think that the present attention to the

does not contain the threatened harvest of accusations, that harvest has either prematurely perished, or remains yet to be reaped. Of such an alarming fact I had not the faintest conception, till I saw your letter.

You acknowledge these points to be of no "great consequence in themselves." Whether they are, or are not, I can sacrifice them without reluctance, if my view of them is erroneous. The charge against me, of conducting the controversy in an “unusual spirit," is too vague to be met by explanation, though, perhaps, it might justify or excuse a retort. But I neither desire to judge, nor fear to be judged by those who are committed to the opposite side of the controversy from myself. more impartial tribunal than either you or I can erect, must decide between us. I make no objection to your pointing out any inaccuracies, great or small, in my pamphlets. I have been as careful as I could to avoid, but I never pretended to be free from them. I am, Rev. Sir, yours respectfully,

Answer to the foregoing Letter.

JOHN KING.

A

SIR,-In reply to your letter, I have only to observe, that I hardly think the ob servant reader will allow you to escape, as you appear to wish, from your own statements. I gave an opinion on Milner; some months afterwards I read a book by Mr. Maitland, containing much stronger remarks than mine. It had been published, I think, two or three years. When I was attacked, not for speaking without authorities, but for speaking wrongly and injuriously of Milner, my answer was-It is no new thing for Milner to be thus spoken of; why did you not attack Mr. Maitland two years ago?

You now state this to the public, as if Mr. Maitland was my authority, and as if I had adduced him as such. The public, at least, will know that I never produced him as authority, but for a different purpose; and that I never expressed or evinced the slightest intention of appealing to authorities. Allow me then to say, that it appears to me hardly likely to answer even your own object, to endeavour to make a person say for one purpose what he has obviously said for another.

With respect to the second matter, you leave wholly out of the question your own former statement. You said, that I had seen Mr. Maitland's pamphlet; and I answered most truly, not only that it was not written at the time, but that it was not even thought of. Although a detailed proof of Milner's inaccuracy was necessary, Mr. Maitland had not, till long after that period, decided either the part of Milner which he should take, or the mode which he should pursue. I charged you then with making a very unwarranted statement, in saying that I had seen what did not exist for some months after the time alluded to. Your only answer is, that you cannot then understand a particular expression in my letter; that is to say, you cannot understand how I could have in my portfolio many notes on Milner, whether of my own or other people's, at that moment; how I could say, that in a very few weeks I could bring forward plenty more, and yet, how I could not have seen a pamphlet which was not written. What the difficulty is I really am at a loss to know. To the sneer which you make at the loss of the possible collection of details, I shall not reply. I am satisfied that you have already quite enough details to answer, without my troubling myself to increase their number. I can assure you that I claim no sort of respect, or regard, either for judgment or powers; and yet I venture to think, that adding to the list of Mr. Milner's inaccuracies would not be a hopeless task even for I am, your faithful servant, H. J. ROSE. 2 R

me.

VOL. IX.-March, 1836.