About the same time appeared the letter to Dr. Elrington, by a member of the Tract Committee; this letter is usually attributed to Mr. Knox, and we shall for convenience sake take the liberty of speaking of it as his.*

Mr. Knox's defence of the Tract Committee, is so closely interwoven with his views of the authority of the Homilies, that reserving as we mean to do this question for a future opportunity, we shall have little occasion to notice his pamphlet further in our present Number. We may say, however, in general, that it is written with his usual neatness of style, and exhibits every where the kindly and amiable disposition, for which that ingenious accomplished gentleman is known to be distinguished.

To this followed the able letter of Mr. Graves, (son of the Dean) who, adopting his father's views of the import of the declarations in the articles and directions in the rubric, supports them with great acuteness and force. He enters too, very largely into a refutation of the arguments of the Bishop of Limerick, and subjoins an appendix, intended as a reply, to those furnished in addition by the last mentioned pamphlet. In both parts of his work, beside the less important merits before noticed, we find great reason to admire the zeal of the Rev. Author, the cordiality of his feelings, and in the main the soundness of his views. But we must add, that we mark in both with regret, more severity of style than we think suitable to the subject, or than we like to see employed by a minister upon any subject. More too, we should say, than is becoming in addressing persons on various obvious grounds, entitled to much courtesy and forbearance. Many excuses suggest themselves, of a kind too not discreditable to his feelings. But we had rather that they were not required by Mr. Graves.

Our readers will see by our list, that a reply to this pamphlet appeared, but not from the quarter from which it might be expected. We shall let Dr. Elrington himself satisfy any curiosity, which he supposes that the change of combatants may excite.

* Perhaps, we owe some apology to Mr. Knox for this liberty. We never would attempt to penetrate an incognito, where there was any appearance of a serious wish to maintain it. But we are inclined to believe there was no such wish in the present case, and Dr. Elrington, who must be supposed to be acquainted with the sentiments of the Author on this subject, speaks of him as well known. By the way, as we are on the subject of apologies, do we owe one to the Bishop of Limerick, for our notice of a letter which the following strange passage would seem to intimate, was not intended for the public:-"If this letter is to be read by others than him, to whom it is addressed; more especially if it should happen to be printed" p. 29. Swift throws one of his pieces of serious badinage into the form of a letter, as far, that is, as regards the commencement and the complimentary farewell at the end; the entire intermediate part, which is pretty long, being perfectly didactic, and subjoins the postscript, "pray burn this when it comes to hand." We are aware how very different a person the Bishop is, and dare not suspect him of bantering, or we should suppose that the passage quoted was an arch allusion of the same kind, to some of the prevailing affectations in the letters (through the press) of the present day. Taking it seriously, and occurring as it does, in a letter as plainly intended for publication, as any that has for a long time fallen under our notice, we really do not know what to make of it.

"To those who have read Mr. Graves's letter, the answer must be obvious. The Bishop of Limerick could not descend to a controversy, in which, however, he may have been treated with great plainness,' he certainly has not been treated with great respect.' On this subject, I am unwilling to dwell, because I have heard, with sincere regret, that the writer has been obliged from ill health to leave this country; and in such a situation, I should be sorry indeed, to say any thing that would wound his feelings, or those of his afflicted relatives. I shall, therefore, only briefly state, that I conceive the Bishop of Limerick cannot answer Mr. Graves's letter; and, when the cause of truth required a reply to it, I felt that the duty devolved upon me, engaged as I had been in the original discussion as a member of the Tract Committee, and as I afterwards was by having addressed to him the published letters, both of the Bishop and his anonymous friend. No task can be undertaken with more reluctance, and none of my readers can feel more regret than I do, that the cause could not be left to its first champion."-Elrington, p. 5.

Now, perhaps, we would do more wisely in letting all this pass; for though in matters more properly pertaining to our craft, we hold ourselves to enjoy the infallibility proper to Reviewers, we do not approach a case of etiquette with the same pleasant confidence in our strength. In fact, we may acknowledge, that however awful we be in our critical chair, we are in our private capacity too humble ever to have had good means of acquiring skill in this mystery, in the only way in which we believe it can be attained;-having ourselves no pretensions to extra-respect, and but little intercourse with those who have. Besides, it may be said, that we have no right to interfere with any man's estimate of his own dignity, or the devices which he may employ to secure it; and we assuredly have no disposition to quarrel with any cause, that gives us the pleasure of hearing Dr. Elrington upon an important subject, even when we are obliged to withhold our assent to all that he says. Notwithstanding all these good reasons for silence, we feel obliged to say, that though we certainly are not in that class of Dr. Elrington's readers, who violently regret this change of champions, we as certainly cannot discover the necessity for the change. In fact, we think, that this proceeding of his Lordship, exhibits rather too exacting a spirit; and we are sure, that it shews too much sensitiveness for the author of a controversial pamphlet. Before a man of high station descends into the arena of controversy, he should so far, at least, have counted the cost, as to be prepared for the want of much of that cautious courtesy, to which his more ordinary habits of intercourse may have inured him. Some deficiencies of this kind in Mr. Graves's Pamphlet, were noticed by us in speaking of it, and it is this notice that obliges us to enlarge now on what otherwise we should be little disposed to meddle with; but the licenses of controversy are so large, that a man who is believed to have outstepped them, must be regarded as guilty of some breach of fairness, or at least, some flagrant violation of decorum. Nothing less could, we think, justify the Bishop in closing so decidedly and suddenly a correspondence-more especially a public correspondence. And we could not by our silence, suffer Mr. Graves to lie under the un- . deserved imputation, which his Lordship's retirement from the field so intelligibly implies.

Dr. Elrington's pamphlet is written with characteristic manliness and vigour; but he does not so much address himself to add to the arguments of his correspondents, as to free them from some misconceptions into which he considers Mr. Graves to have fallen.His task is very well performed for the most part, but we shall have more occasion to refer to this pamphlet in a succeeding Number, for with the arguments about which he employs himself, we shall in the present have little to do.

We come at last to our own remarks upon the discussion—and it is from no desire of multiplying needlessly our differences with the Bishop of Limerick, that in adopting his Lordship's statement of the subjects for consideration, we take the liberty of inverting in our remarks, the order in which he has treated them. We do so partly from motives of convenience, as we can very easily bring to a close in this Number what we have to say on the second head, while the first would probably occupy more space than we can now spare. Besides, as Dr. and Mr. Graves, argue from the authority stamped upon the book of Homilies in the articles, against the proceedings of the Tract Committee; and the Bishop of Limerick seems to regard the overthrow of that authority, as necessary to the defence of the resolution; we are not sorry to be led in this way to a change, which shews how much we differ from all in our views of the connection of these subjects.

It was not at all necessary to the defence of the Tract Committee to impeach the authority of the Homilies, nor was it sufficient for Mr. Graves's purpose to have succeeded in establishing that authority. Our assent to the doctrines of the Homilies may be expressed in the most distinct language, and subscribed with legal formality; nay, (it may be added ex abundanti) we may be straitly bound in the same documents to teach these doctrines to all without exception, and yet may be at entire liberty to employ in the discharge of this office the book in question, or any other conscientiously deemed by us better fitted to effect the end proposed; while on the other hand, the Church may be altogether silent about the book, and not call upon us for any declarations concerning it—and yet, from its own nature, we may appear guilty of gross dereliction of duty, in not giving it (when the matter is fairly brought before us) all the circulation in every way which our exertions can secure to it. The subjects are in fact, so slightly connected, that while we agree with Mr. Graves, and are ready to adopt much that he says upon the first, we are compelled to dissent in a good measure from his view of the second. And concurring with the Bishop of Limerick, concerning this latter, we neither find it necessary, nor do we feel at all inclined to justity ourselves by his reasonings, or his conclusion on the former.

Before we deliver our opinion fully, however, upon the subject, we are anxious that our readers should clearly understand the true state of the case. They should remember how entirely Mr. Knox's letter to Mr. Wilson, cleared the Tract Committee from the imputation attempted to be fixed on them in the appendix to the Commissioner's Report. That while the act of excluding the book

of Homilies from their premium list, neither expressed nor implied any censure upon it-and still less any opinion unfavourable to its orthodoxy, it is directly proved by the letter referred to, that the grounds of its exclusion had no connection whatever with objections to its doctrines. That the true grounds were the controversial character of the work, and more especially the asperity of tone employed in stigmatizing and exposing Romish errors. And this too, as it would appear, without any opinion given by the Committee as to the general fitness of employing such language upon such subjects-but merely as to its probable effects in the very peculiar circumstances of the case for which they were called on to provide. And their decision was finally made, upon a consideration of those circumstances of the very tender age of the persons obtaining catechetical premiums-of the divided state of the country, and even the considerable intermixture of Roman Catholics in their Schools. Their decision may have been right or wrong, judicious or imprudent, but to speak of it as a violation of the obligations under which they lie, by the declarations exacted in the articles concerning the Homilies, appears to us singularly rash and weak. These declarations, however they be interpreted, (and we trust, we shall not be found among those who attempt to weaken their force) cannot be made to describe the Homilies as equally fit for all purposes, or for the same purposes under all circumstances or that in their very legitimate use as vehicles of religious instruction of institutions in godly and wholesome doctrine, they may not from the accidents of time and place, be liable to produce with their good effects, some also that are to be deprecated, and that it should not be allowable to consider, whether the same advantages might not be secured free from the ill effects apprehended. Any one of those positions is too absurd for serious refutation, and yet something like all this must be maintained, by those who hold that the Committee had no discretion in the case.

*It appears by the evidence, that these amounted to nearly half the scholars in the Association Schools. Upon this last in particular, Mr. Knox has the following strong passage:

"The Committee feel, moreover, that it would have been peculiarly unpardonable in the Association, after taking measures for mingling together, in their schools, the youth of both religions, to introduce into those very assemblages of their own formation, the most infallible elements of malignant discord. To trust to the discretion of such young persons as might give prompt answers at catechetical examinations, for the safe use they would make of those edged tools of controversy, would have been the height of absurdity. The precocity which might often obtain such a premium, would too naturally excite its possessor to quote its most pungent passages for the annoyance of his Roman Catholic school-fellows; and thus the proposed means of peaceful and kindly habits would become a seed-plot of the foulest weeds, which a misconducted education could produce. If the Committee had not foreseen these consequences, where would have been their wisdom?-If they had foreseen them, and not endeavoured to avert them, where would have been their humanity or their regard for the truth, honor and consistency of the Association?p. 24, 25.

To which may be added from Bishop Jebb:

"Let any one suppose a child of our establishment, to have received as a premium, a copy of the Homilies; let us suppose that child, (as might, and as probably must, happen,) to shew the book to a Roman Catholic school-fellow; let them jointly open the book at any one of the innumerable passages, in which the Church o Rome is characterized, and let us figure to ourselves the consequences."--p. 31,

VOL. IV.

2 F

We are diffuse upon this point, that our readers who dissent from the conclusion of the Committee, may see the measures by which they should regulate their disapprobation-and we think, that when, in addition, the arguments by which their decision was fixed are fairly weighed, the sentence against them cannot be very severe, even from those who continue decided in their dissent. But we are aware, that our readers have a right to expect our opinion explicitly upon this act of the Committee, and we have no disposition to withhold it. We think that the grounds that we have stated, abundantly sufficient to justify the act, and that in excluding the book of the Homilies from their premium list, (while they shewed their desire to give it in another way extensive circulation, by retaining it on their list of cheap books) the Committee and the Association were guided by just views of the circumstances, for which they were called on to provide, and exercised a sound discretion. Mr. Graves, it is true, attempts (p. 65.) to combat the argument derived from the state of the country, and even makes use of that fact to support the opposite conclusion. We wish that we could

do more than refer to the passage which contains a true and very lively picture of the dangers to which the faith of the poor of this country is exposed, and a very animated and eloquent denunciation of the spurious liberality by which these dangers would be fearfully aggravated. We concur very cordially in his apprehensions, and not less in his deprecation of any compromise of the spiritual interests entrusted to us, on views of carnal policy. But his application of the whole to the case before us, though we give him full credit for its skilfulness, is, we are persuaded, unsound. We cannot suppose the Tract Committee or the Association blind to the perils that surround the Protestant youth of this country; we will not believe without very clear proof, that they are disposed from any considerations to shrink from the faithful discharge of the duties which such circumstances impose upon them. But the question is, not whether the children of the Protestant poor are in danger, and whether strenuous and unceasing exertions should be made to preserve them, but about a particular mode of effecting this objectand if we can be satisfied that we cannot provide them with defensive armour, without at the same time putting into their hands keen weapons of offence-into hands little likely to wield them with much forbearance or discretion- -our reluctance to adopt the mode for which Mr. Graves contends, will have an end.

It will be seen by those who have read the pamphlets to which we have referred, that while we have carefully confined ourselves, (as we intimated very early in this article we should,) to the consideration of the decision of the Tract Committee, we have kept out of view, much that appears even upon this head in the reasonings of Bishop Jebb, and Mr. Knox. We hope this will not be considered unfair. We do not think it has been for the most part injurious to the Authors, and we are sure that their cause has not suffered at all by it. In fact, the matter was placed on a very satisfactory footing by Mr. Knox's first letter, to which we have so often referred, and we wished to leave it so. The endeavour "to guard a title which was good before," had, as we thought, the