your correspondent "R. B." lays, and deservedly, so much stress. In conclusion, allow me to thank him for his kind expressions concerning myself, and for his watchfulness that no sentiment should pass under cover of verse which would not bear examination in prose.

December 30, 1835.

Believe me, &c. RICHARD C. TRENCH.

ON CLERICAL SPORTING."

SIR, AS some of the clergy, who allow themselves sporting in its various kinds, are sometimes apt to regard their brethren who abstain from such indulgences as over scrupulous, nay, even as unsound and puritanical, I hope you will admit the following extracts, from the decisions of the spiritual rulers of the church upon the subject in former ages, by which it will appear that the abstaining party are at least walking according to rule, and that the onus justificandi, if any, rests with the others. My object in this is not presumptuously to seek to abridge the liberty of the latter, if they think they possess it, but to strengthen the hands, and remove a stumbling-block from the way of the former; who have, according to the judgment of the wise of other ages, chosen "a more excellent way :"OBSERVER.

S. Ambrose, Homily in Lent, A. D. 380.

"Can you count that man to fast, brethren, who, at break of day, does not watch for the church, or seek the holy places, of the Blessed Martyrs, but rises and assembles his serving lads, arranges his nets, brings out his dogs, and scours the green woods? Taking, I say, his serving lads with him, who otherwise would, perchance, have hastened to church; and thus accumulates other men's sins upon his own pleasures, not considering that he is guilty both of his own offence, and of the ruin of his servants."

Council of Agde, a.d. 506, (55); and of Epon, A.d. 517, (4).

It is not lawful for a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, to have dogs, or hawks, or such like, for hunting. But if any of these persons shall be often occupied in this amusement, if he be a bishop, let him be suspended from communion for three months; if a presbyter, for two; if a deacon, from his office.

English Canons in King Edgar's reign, A.D. 960.

64.-Let no priest be a hunter, a hawker, or drinker, but attend to his books, as becomes his order.

IV.-Council of Lateran, A.D. 1215.

Can. 15.-We forbid hunting and hawking to all the clergy; wherefore, let them not presume to keep hounds or hawks.

Council of Nantes, A.D. 1264.

Can. 3.-Since we find no sacred hunter, we charge the prelates to be careful to punish clerical hunters, and especially presbyters and monks, from whom the scandal is the greater.

Council of Trent, A.D. 1563.

Sessio 24, c. 12.-Let them, moreover, use fitting clothing, both in and out of church; and let them abstain from unlawful huntings, hawkings, dancings, taverns, and plays.

Council of London, 1529; and again, 1557.

We order that if any ordained or beneficed clergyman shall openly lead about hounds, or hawks, he is, ipso facto, suspended from the celebration of divine offices for the space of one month.

In the Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws. Henry VIII., Edward VI. Concerning the Church, &c. c. 4.-Of presbyters, "Let them not be drinkers, dice players, hawkers, or hunters.

DEFENSOR.

MR. BLANCO WHITE.

DEAR SIR,-In the number of the "British Critic" just published I have seen, with a feeling not to be described, a picture of the present religious state of the gentleman above-named. Many considerations restrain me from speaking of that most admonitory individual. The fittest accompaniment for any, and for every, thought of him and his proceedings, is humble, silent prayer for grace to keep one's-self "steadfast in the confession of a true faith."

Perhaps, however, (if the question be not already disposed of,) you will not refuse admittance to a suggestion materially affecting (as it seems to me) the credit of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, namely, that it should not for an hour longer consent to circulate the tract (No. 252) entitled, "The Poor Man's Preservative against Popery." If it were held to be the best or most persuasive antidote to that dangerous delusion ever penned, it would still be unworthy of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge to borrow its assistance, as professing to be written by one "now a clergyman of the church of England."

This hint is not thrown out with any feeling of asperity against the writer of the tract, but simply on the ground that it is positively disingenuous to circulate, as against popery, the arguments of one who now evidently holds the discipline and doctrine of the church of England to be still more objectionable. Besides which, the probability of the case (almost amounting in my judgment to a moral certainty) is, that the writer of the "Preservative," if his life be much longer spared, will surely end with a return to the anodynes of that communion which he has dealt with so undutifully, but which will in these days be only so much the more glad to welcome a repentant child home again on that very account.

May I presume to take the present opportunity of offering a farther general word of caution upon the hazards of a course too much adopted, and with seeming eagerness? I mean the instant welcoming of all deserters (if I may so express it without offence, for perspicuity's sake,) into the orthodox camp. Converts must either be sincere or not; they must act either from deliberate conviction or merely from impulse. In the former case, they surely would themselves prefer a reasonable probationary term as privates in their new ranks; in the latter, the consequence of thrusting them at once into stations of eminence is but too plain beforehand. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, January 11, 1836.

R. B.

EVENING LECTURES, KESWICK.

SIR, Among the " Events of the Month" in your January number, I find that "the officiating minister at Crosthwaite church has determined, to suit the infirmities of many of his hearers at Keswick, to deliver a lecture every Sunday evening at the town-hall in Keswick. He has been induced to this course by the distance of the church

from Keswick, which is more than a mile, for such a journey must be a severe task to the aged and infirm in the dark."

Having a reverence for the catholic church and its ordinances, I cannot refrain from sending to the good people of Keswick an extract from a letter of a bishop (who was almost a native of their country, and who lived within sight of it,) to a clergyman who had it in contemplation to have an evening lecture. Bishop Wilson says

"Your scheme, as you call it, if suffered to take place, would be attended with more evil consequences than I have now time to mention or, I hope, than you have thought of; otherwise you would sure have consulted your bishop before you would have suffered it so much as to have been spoken of. I will not run headlong into your schemes, which would in a great measure set aside the express duties of catechizing, bound upon us by laws, rubricks, and canons; which if performed, as they should be, with seriousness and pains in explaining the several parts of the catechism, would be of more use to the souls both of the learned and ignorant, than the very best sermon out of the pulpit. This, I say,—after a serious, plain, and practical sermon in the morning, will answer all the ends of instruction without an afternoon sermon."Wilson's Works, vol. i. p. 174.

I hope that even yet" to think of Bishop Wilson with veneration is only to agree with all the Christian world," and I therefore send the above extract with the greater confidence. If a layman might speak of the clergy, I would say that there is a very great want of respect for ecclesiastical discipline among them. I particularly mean as far as acting without episcopal authority, and that it prevails most in the north of England and in that part of Wales where the clergy have not had academic educations. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

MILES.

MR. KING.

SIR,-I am led to trouble you from having this day seen the pamphlet in which Mr. King, of Hull, renews his defence of Milner's Church History against the "strictures" and "notes" of my learned friend, Mr. Maitland.

For any one who thinks with Mr. Maitland to interfere in a controversy in which he is a champion, would be, to say the least, a piece of gratuitous pugnacity. And, accordingly, when a few months ago I published a tract on "the Opinions of the Paulicians," I endeavoured expressly to guard against the impression that my "remarks had been put together with a reference to the recent controversy about the literary value of Milner's History." I may therefore, I trust, fairly say that I did not thrust myself into this controversy. It is not my wish to do so now. The few observations with which I now trouble you will merely regard myself.

On pp. 27, 28, of Mr. King's letter to Mr. Maitland we find the following passage :

:

"Those who knew what Milner was, and what his History had effected, might be allowed to plead-Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it. But to such a plea we have your definitive reply; The design was as noble as the execution was feeble and defective.' And yet, Sir, from that day to the present, no one has arisen to give effect to this magnificent design. In your judgment, however, it would have been better

unattempted than done as it has been done by Milner! Will any one else subscribe to that judgment? Your friend,-I do not say your panegyrist,-Mr. Dowling, whose tract on the Paulicians is highly commended in the British Magazine,' says, 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.' Have any of Milner's friends challenged for him so high a meed of praise? Suppose the History defective, yet if it was the best that any writer of his age or country could produce, he is placed at once, by the verdict of one of your most able friends, at the head of his class, as having done that which no one else could have executed better."

As Mr. King deems it necessary thus publicly to call upon me, I can of course have no objection to reply. He is quite welcome to my" verdict," such as it is, but he must be good enough to take it with my own interpretation. I have no hesitation, then, in declaring my opinion that Milner's book is not only useless, but pernicious. Useless, as furnishing, in proportion to its bulk, very little useful or authentic information; and pernicious, not only as abounding in false views of church history, but as preventing inquiring persons from betaking themselves to works of a higher character. How Mr. King could suppose that the observation I made, in the note to which he has referred, contained anything expressive of approbation of Milner as a historian, or opposed to the view which Mr. Maitland takes of his merits in that capacity, I cannot possibly conceive. A man is not the less ignorant because he happens to be ignorant in company. What I asserted was what no one denies,-namely, that in the latter half of the last century there was among our divines a general, and I suppose I may say a shameful, ignorance of church history. I said that it was "the best apology for Milner" that he did but partake of the common ignorance of ecclesiastical subjects. And 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. But it is a very different thing to say that a man is the least incompetent among a number of incompetent persons, and to say that he is a competent person. 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.

I do not exactly understand what Mr. King intends to convey by the terms in which he thinks proper to speak of me. But I should like to inform him, that as it is my cherished privilege to be the "friend" of Mr. Maitland, so I deem it no imputation on my taste or judgment to be styled his "panegyrist." The terms in which I spoke of my respected friend in my "Letter on the Paulicians," were not I trust unbecoming a clergyman, or a man of letters. And I believe I did but express in what I said the general feeling of those who take an interest in ecclesiastical studies.

As I should be sorry to intrude to any length on your pages, which are usually so much better occupied, I will make but one more remark. As Mr. King has deemed it necessary to notice me, I should have been much better satisfied if he had done so with a view to the argument of my pamphlet, than in a way thus purely personal, and which I suppose he means to be sarcastic. And I would desire to address to him the words of the very learned

Dr. James (Appendix to the Reader, prefixed to his " Corruptions of the Fathers,""If that small treatise of mine has been so happy as to light into his hands. . . I would intreat him . . . . . either ingenuously to acknowledge the truth of what I have written, or modestly (according to his wont) to shew the contrary; avoiding unnecessary speeches and convitiatory arguments, which do but ingender strife." I have the honour to be, with great respect, Sir, Your obedient servant,

Gloucester, January 18, 1836.

JOHN GOULTER DOWLING.*

INJUSTICE TOWARD THE CLERGY.

DEAR SIR,-I think there can hardly be any objection on the score of politics, if you shall judge it otherwise worth while to draw attention to the following "leader" in the "Times" newspaper of Saturday,

⚫ This will be a convenient place for a reply to another part of Mr. King's letter. To the Rev. I. King.

Your object You wish to

SIR,-I feel it necessary to notice two points in your letter to Mr. Maitland just published. At page 7, you state that the whole controversy sprung out of Mr. Maitland's work called "Facts and Documents," and in proof of this you state that I adduced no other authority for my assertion as to Milner's powers and views. You establish this point by referring to a letter of mine published in the "Christian Observer," in October, 1834, in which I refer to Mr. Maitland's work, and then add that if you have overturned this work of Mr. Maitland's you have cleared the field of all that I thought decisive of the question in its original form. in making this statement as a controversialist is a very obvious one. shew that no one but Mr. Maitland has thought ill of Milner, or at least that subsequent charges against Milner have been made on Mr. Maitland's sole authority. But really this is a most groundless assertion. I should never be ashamed of speaking on Mr. Maitland's sole authority. But when I spoke of Milner, I had never read Mr. Maitland's work, and had not the pleasure of knowing him. I do not set up myself as any authority, but my opinion of Milner (right or wrong) was formed from my own careful study of parts of his work. I confess my surprise at your referring to what I said in the "Christian Observer,” as if I was there alleging authorities for my assertions, when you must be aware that I was simply expressing my surprise that the few words which I said should be so harshly handled, while a long and regular bill of indictment against Milner by Mr. Maitland had been passed over in silence for two or three years. Thus your fact is without foundation. But, were it true, your proof of it would still be a mere fallacy. The reasoning by which you prove that Mr. Maitland's book was my sole authority,-viz, because I refer to it,-appears, at least, to me to be of as little value as your fact itself. 1 did not think it necessary to adduce authorities; but I could say with truth, that in the course of four days in the autumn of 1834, no less than four men of letters, of very different education and opinions, separately expressed to me exactly the same opinion of Milner's work as I had myself expressed.

In page 8, you state, on the evidence of a few words in the "Christian Observer," (viz., that I had some facts in my possession proving Milner's inaccuracy,) that I had then seen Mr. Maitland's second pamphlet in an unfinished state. Not only had I not seen it then, but I am quite confident that not a word of it was written, that the plan of it was not formed, nor the resolution taken that a second pamphlet should be written. It is not because these matters are of any great consequence in themselves that I notice them. But as you appear to me to be pursuing a controversy in a very unusual spirit, it is really only common justice to shew that you have hazarded assertions devoid of foundation. Surely this is strange in one whose leading topic of invective is the groundless and inaccurate assertions of his adversary. I am, Sir, your faithful servant, II. J. ROSE. 2 A

VOL. IX.-Feb. 1836.