of the article, respecting the Homilies. What I entertained as a strong persuasion his Lordship, by a comparative view of the two articles, has made matter of certainty."- Knox, p. 5.

"The strongest argument brought forward by the Bishop of Limerick, is that founded upon the deliberate change made in the Articles as first formed by Cranmer, when mention is made of the Homilies: an argument which appears to me quite rresistible, whether we regard its application to the Article on justification, or to the 35th Article."-Elrington, p. 16.

Art. Edw. v'. 1552.
Homiliæ.

Homiliæ nuper Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ per injunctiones regias traditæ atque commendatæ, piæ sunt atque salutares, doctrinamque ab omnibus amplectendam continent: quare populo diligenter, expedite, clareque recitandæ sunt.

Art. ELIZAB. 1562. 35 Art.
De Homiliis.

Tomus secundus Homiliarium, quarum singulos titulos huic articulo subjunximus, continet piam et salutarem doctrinam, et his temporibus necessariam, non minus quam prior Tomus Homiliarum, quæ editæ sunt tempore Edwardi sexti; itaque eas in Ecclesiis per ministros diligenter, et clare, ut a populo intelligi possint, recitandas esse judicavimus.

"The alterations here, are most significant: they must have been intended as corrections, and certainly very important ones, of the earlier document. In the Articles of Edward, the royal injunctions, by which the Homilies were delivered and commended to the Church, are studiously put forward; in the Articles of Elizabeth, the expression merely is," which were set forth in the time of Edward the sixth ;" no mention of “royal injunctions,” none, of “commendation to the English Church." In the Articles of Edward, the whole Homilies, collectively and at large, are styled "godly and wholesome;" in the Articles of Elizabeth, it is only said, that they "contain a godly and wholesome doctrine." In the Articles of Edward, it is pronounced, that they contain a doctrine to be embraced by all ;" in the Articles of Elizabeth, this ascription of universal authority is wholly omitted; while, on the other hand, the following limitation, not to be found in Edward's Articles, is inserted in these of Elizabeth, (not, we may be sure, without a weighty reason,)—" and necessary for these times." On these variations, it were superfluous to enlarge: they mark, as clearly as human words can mark, that while the Elizabethan Reformers thought highly (and to think justly, they must have thought no otherwise than highly) of the two Books of Homilies,—they thought less highly of them conjointly, than their predecessors did of the first book singly. In general, the alterations detract from the authority before ascribed to these formularies: and the added clause, in particular, would seem to intimate, that a change of circumstances was foreseen; a change which might supersede the necessity of using the Homilies as a substitute for the preaching of able licensed ministers. For why talk of these times as involving a necessity, if other times were not contemplated, when the necessity might cease?"-Jebb, p. 10.

We must confess to a selfish purpose, in part, in prefixing to this argument the very respectable testimonia auctorum with which we have introduced it. We think they must effectually silence any of our readers, who, agreeing pretty nearly with us in their estimate of its value, might be inclined, if we did not secure ourselves in this way, to accuse us of overstrained courtesy, in the very detailed examination of it, which we shall find it necessary to give. When we intimate that we set but little value on this argument, we ought perhaps add, that we are as bad judges

of reasoning of this description, as very strong prejudices against it can make us. We learned a good while since, in some indirect way (for we never read enough of the good Jesuit's ponderous tomes to come fairly by the knowledge) that Gregorius de Valentía infers from St. Peter's speaking of abominable idolatries, that there must be under the Gospel some idolatries which are not abominable. This and a few such notable examples have had more effect perhaps in forming and confirming our prejudices against such reasonings as seem to rely upon false emphasis and artificial contrasts, than any enlarged general considerations of their dangerous consequences :-certain it is these prejudices are very strong, and which is perhaps unjust, apt to be called into action without much examination by such prodigality of italic type as the above argument exhibits:-it naturally excites apprehension, as the great instrument in giving undue prominence and relief to such casual and unimportant variations as these reasonings are chiefly occupied with; calling in rather unfairly the aid of the senses to beguile the understanding into assigning to trivial and accidental omissions or additions, an importance to which they have no claim, by giving them an apparent emphasis to which they have as little. We do not dispute its value in enabling a writer to express with greater exactness his own meaning-but we always look upon it with suspicion, when used very profusely in exhibiting (for the purposes of argument) another's.

We have a further sense of dissatisfaction in reading an argument conducted in this way, from a disagreeable impression which we never can controul, namely that if the same ingenuity had been employed in managing the type somewhat differently, a directly opposite conclusion might have been obtained from the same materials with equal facility and certainty. In the case before us we feel satisfied that we ourselves, not possessing a tithe of his Lordship's ingenuity, and absolutely without any practice whatever, could, upon reasonable notice, produce a typographical prolusion after the manner of the above; which (without being half so good) should just as effectually serve to bewilder all unsophisticated readers. We would not only engage in this way to render it highly probable to all such, that the Homilies rose considerably in estimation in the ten years that intervened between the composition of the articles compared; but if we chose to go further, and consider the in Ecclesiis et per Ministros clause, there are not a few of our readers who, we are sure, would spend from morn to noon, from noon to dewy eve over our tractate, and rise at length, much disposed to think there was a good deal in what we said of the change from “quare" to "itaque"-somewhat inclined to doubt whether there were in Edward's days either Churches or Ministers in the land-and quite convinced that if there were, the writers of his articles were very indifferent about having Homilies read in the one or by the other. This mode, however, of shewing the real value of the Bishop of Limerick's argument would probably not be understood by some of those for whom we write, and not relished by others; so that we are obliged to forego the temptation (which requires more self denial than we shall get credit for), and settle the matter in a different and more regular way.

Among the advantages of the style of reasoning with which wer have to do is this considerable one-that each step is rather exhibited in an uncertain way to the eye by the pictorial system to which we have alluded, than distinctly expressed. And thus the large class of readers, of whom Bishop Butler speaks, who are anxious to learn what is said upon every subject, but careless to know what is proved, are often led to give credit for a great deal more than an author, if writing in a way which obliged him to express himself distinctly, could ever think of claiming. Thus, the very first contrast between the articles upon which Bishop Jebb dwells, has been, we doubt not, received by loose thinkers of this description, as proving something to the point at issue. And yet certainly they or the writer would be somewhat embarrassed, if called on to state the exact amount that it contributes to the side which it is meant to support. It is said "that in the Articles of Edward, the Royal injunctions by which the Homilies were delivered and commended to the Church, are studiously put forward; in the Article of Elizabeth the expression merely iswhich were set forth in the time of Edward VI.'-no mention of Royal injunctions' none of commendation to the English Church'Now all this is very true, (save the fault is in the 'ort "studiously,") but we may ask of what consequence is the omission? Is it desired that we should infer from it, that the writers of Elizabeth's Article intended, in this way to express their belief that the book of Homilies had not been commended by the King's injunctions to the Church of England; or, to imply any doubts that it had been- or to intimate their opinion that it ought not to have been so commended? Every one, his Lordship included, would feel that it would be about as reasonable to found any one of these inferences upon the omission pointed out, as to collect from the same writers, omission of the title of King before the name of that "marvellous boy," that they questioned the validity of his claim to the throne. And perhaps if led to consider the matter in this way, they might begin to think with us that the one omission is nearly of the same importance as the other. For if it warrant none of the inferences that we have mentioned, what of any consequence in the case can it warrant? Why, yes, it may be replied, it warrants all that Bishop Jebb is concerned to infer from it-it shews that this book was held in much lower estimation by the “Elizabethan Reformers," than by "their Edwardian predecessors," by whom the mention of it was so much more respectfully introduced. We cannot stop to say all that we would wish, and that we ought to say upon a mode of reasoning, which appears to us fraught with such pernicious consequences; but we may pause to ask, and we do so with all proper respect, can it be regarded safe to give, from such high authority, such a direction to the minds of enquirers after the force of Church obligations? The framers of our Articles name a book in a way which leaves no doubt as to the book intended—they say of the contents of this book something-no matter whatbut something at least direct and explicit, and oblige all candidates for orders to subscribe to this declaration. Now are these

to be informed, and from so high a source of information, that they are not to rest here, or to ascertain the extent of the obligation under which they lie, by the plain meaning of what they are obliged solemnly to assent to, but that they are to go on to discover how the reformers felt towards this book, as a mode of fixing the meaning of what they have in such simple and express terms said of it-and that they are to make this discovery in a way so artificial, so indirect, and so insecure as is here adopted. We do deliberately repeat, that we consider this mode of fixing the force of Church obligations pregnant with consequences the most pernicious-and rather than that such a system of interpretation should generally establish itself, would we see an abolition of all subscriptions, and all obligations, and every man left to do and say what seemed right in his own eyes. We would regard the anarchy likely to ensue, as a far less evil than the defilement of conscience to which such subtleties would infallibly lead.

To shew the uncertainty of the mode adopted, even for the immediate purpose for which it is designed, it would be only necessary to compare the next Articles, in which nearly the same variation occurs, in mentioning a book for which every one acquainted with the history of the times knows, that the divines who framed Elizabeth's Articles must have intended to secure all its original respectability and authority-the book for the Consecration of Bishops. Or the same purpose would be still better effected, by referring to the paper given in our Number for April, p. 298. The reverence of the writers of that document for the book of Homilies, appears pretty unequivocally by their making it the summary of the doctrines of the Church of England, and offering to defend its orthodoxy at peril of their lives; and yet writing of the book after the King's "departing," they simply speak of it as "set forth in the most innocent King Edward's days"-" no mention of Royal injunctions, none of commendation to the English Church." This may serve to shew what a certain measure of the opinions of the writers concerning the book of Homilies,is furnished by the omission or insertion of such phrases.

The next point is, if possible, a still more lively example of the same style. It appears by a comparison of the Articles that in Edward's the whole Homilies collectively and at large, are styled godly and pious; while in Elizabeth's this character is confined to the doctrines which they contain. Now we think it can hardly be doubted, that if these modes of expression had changed places, the conclusion intended to be inferred here would have been at least with equal confidence derived from the comparison;and certainly, as appears to us, with something more of a shew of reason. For had this approbation been at first given expressly to the doctrines, and afterwards bestowed upon the book, who does not see the opportunity this would have afforded for introducing the theory to which we before referred-that the praise was intended for the general tendency and practical uses of the book, but that it furnished no evidence of the Church's approbation or adoption of the doctrines which it contained, and soforth. All which seems in the present circumstances excluded. In fact of

what precisely the actual change can be made the ground-work, passes our poor comprehension.

Lastly, it is said that, in a way too marked to be undesigned, for the character given in Edward's Article of the doctrine contained in the Homilies; another and a far lower one has been inserted in Elizabeth's that while in the former the doctrine of the Homilies is pronounced to be embraced by all, in the latter it is only styled necessary for these times. Even were we to admit this to be the real state of the case-that the Divines of Elizabeth's time chose this lower character of the Homilies deliberately and of set purpose, in preference to the higher one given by their "Edwardian predecessors”—how ill would this support all that has been attempted to be built upon it! The change, however deliberate, could not rob the Homilies of the praise already as deliberately bestowed upon them; and if the doctrines contained in them be godly and wholesome, it is not easy to see how the additional circumstance of their being necessary for the times in which the Articles were written, conclusively shews them to be without any application in the present times. The most that could, with any fairness be concluded from such a clause is, that it intimated the possibility of the arrival of a period at which the doctrines spoken of should be less (or, if you will, not at all) necessary. To take advantage of it, it should be shewn that this period had arrived; and even then we should have something to say against the very large conclusion, that the authority of this book is not merely lessened, but annihilated—this, however, we may reserve, until that is done which has not as yet been attempted.

But this account, upon the assumption of which we have been proceeding, does not appear to us a fair one. And we would desire our readers to look back at these two Articles as given above, and then to consider the following attempt to give another view of the matter:-the arrangement of the sentence in Edward's Article forestals for the book the epithets "godly and wholesome," and leaves the writers to choose one for the doctrine contained in it: they select" ab omnibus amplectendam," which, however it may sound, is really in such a case not more than of equivalent force with the former. The writers of Elizabeth's Article confining their approbation to the doctrine contained in the Homilies, are at liberty to call it “piam atque salutarem”—they do so—and it can hardly be matter of much surprise that they do not subjoin the epithet" ab omnibus amplectendam," which could add but little if any thing to the force of those already used, even if they did not to employ any other. Bishop Jebb reasons about the change as if it were said in the one Article of the doctrine that it was to be embraced by all men, and in the other merely that it was necessary for these times; whereas it appears that the one set of writers call it “ab omnibus amplectendam," and the others style it "piam atque salutarem; et his temporibus necessariam." And certainly our skill in the equilibration of epithets, is not sufficient to enable us to assign the difference in weight between two such characters. What determined the writers to the omission of ab omnibus amplectendam, and to the insertion of his temporibus necessariam, (not in VOL. IV. 3 L