hearing of the house, and unanimously approved.[5]

[5] "Hæc omnia suprascripta ter lecta sunt in domo inferiori convocationis in frequenti synodo cleri, et unanimi consensu comprobata. Ita testor,

"JOHANNES OVERALL, Prolocutor.

"April 16. 1606."

The whole of this passage, the editor informs us, "is in the handwriting of Overall."—P. 272.

In the year 1844, a new edition of this document was issued to the subscribers to the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Some care and labour appear to have been bestowed in editing it. The name of the editor is not given: the preface does not even bear his initials. Consequently, the Committee, whose names are before the public, and to whom, as the subscribers are informed in the Rules of the Society, "the whole management of the fund subscribed is entrusted,"[6] have taken on themselves the entire and sole responsibility of this edition, and are the only parties in any way answerable to the subscribers, for the manner in which it has been prepared for publication.

[6] The fifth rule is as follows:—

"5. That the whole management of the fund subscribed be entrusted to a Committee, consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four subscribers, who shall fill up all vacancies that may occur in their own body."

How that has been done the following observations may help to determine.

In the second part of the work this passage occurs (book ii. chap. vii.):—

"In these times it may well be granted that there was no need of any other bishops but the Apostles, and likewise that then their churches or particular congregations in every city were advised and directed touching points of religion in manner and form aforesaid by the common and joint advice of their priests or ministers. In which respect, the same persons, who then were named priests or ministers, were also in a general sense called bishops. Howbeit this course dured not long, either concerning their said common direction, or their names of bishops so attributed unto them; but was shortly after ordered far otherwise, by a common decree of the Apostles, to be observed in all such cities where particular churches were planted, or, as one speaketh, in toto orbe 'throughout the world.'"

This passage will be found at p. 136. of the edition in the Anglo-Catholic Library, and at the foot of the page is the reference given by the Convocation to the words "in toto orbe."

"Jerome in Ep. ad Tit. cap. i. [See note O.]"

The words within brackets direct us to one of the notes which the editor has added at the end of the volume; where, at p. 281., the following is found:

"Note O., p. 136.

"Jerome in Ep. ad Tit. c. i. [The editor has failed in discovering the passage here alluded to, although the Benedictine and several earlier editions have been consulted.]"

Without waiting for an opportunity of referring to the Benedictine, or any of the earlier editions, to which the writer has not access at the present moment, it is sufficient to observe, that the passage in question occurs in St. Jerome's Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, and may be found in Vallarsius's edition, tom. vii. col. 694.

One would be glad to content oneself with this note, but the interests of literature and theology demand something more; and if the anonymous editor should feel pained by the following remarks, the writer can only say that he has not the slightest suspicion who the editor of this volume is, and that it is to the Committee (most especially in such a case as this, where they have allowed the editor to withhold his name,) the Subscribers—not to say the Church of England—will look for such a work being brought out in a proper manner.

To confess that a passage, which the Convocation of 1603 have referred to in this off-hand manner, is not to be found in the works of Jerome, is strange enough: but the confession assumes a new character, as regards both the editor and the Committee, when one reflects for an instant on the particular passage which the editor thus candidly informs us, he "has failed in discovering."

It is not at all too much to say, that no one could be even moderately acquainted with the Presbyterian controversy, and the arguments in defence of Episcopacy, without being so familiar with this passage as to recognise it at first sight. It is, indeed, one of the chief testimonies which the Presbyterians urged in proof of the antiquity of their discipline,—as Bishop Pearson says: "Locus Hieronymi, quem pro fundo habent novatores;" and, as such, it has been discussed by almost every divine of eminence, who has undertaken to defend the constitution of the English church.

To multiply references is needless. But, without attempting to exhaust even the resources of a small and very incomplete private collection, it will suffice to say, that Henry Dodwell has examined it in his additions to Pearson. (De Success. prim. Romæ Episcop., Diss. I. cap. ix.) Bishop Bilson discusses it, and refers to it again and again (Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, "Epistle to the Reader," p. 5.; ch. xi. pp. 217. 268.; ch. xii. pp. 284. 289. 307.; edit. Oxford, 1842). Hooker quotes and explains it (book vii. ch. v. 7.; vol. iii. p. 162.; Oxford, 1845). It is the subject of an entire section of Jeremy Taylor's Episcopacy asserted (sect. xxi.). And to enumerate no more, it is fully discussed by Archbishop Potter, in his Discourse on Church Government (chap. iv.).

These facts will, it is trusted, exempt the writer from the charge of minute and carping criticism. The Convocation of 1603, indeed, merely allude to the passage as one with which every English divine would be familiar and most unquestionably no one could have been a stranger to it, who was acquainted with the subject which the Convocation were discussing.

It is surely then but reasonable to feel surprised, that a document so important, and drawn up by men of such eminence, should have been confided to an editor who had never heard of the passage, and knew not where to find it: in a word, to an editor, who, by his own acknowledgment (and his candour is deserving of respect), is a stranger to one of the principal subjects of the volume he was employed to edit.

The Committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library are not persons who require to be informed, that something more is demanded in an editor, than industry in hunting out references, and transcribing scraps of Latin. Nor could this passage have presented an instant's difficulty to some whose names have stood on the list of the Committee from the commencement of the undertaking. But this is the very thing which the Subscribers have a right to complain of. They expected that the editors employed should have the benefit of co-operation and consultation with the Committee. They had a right to expect this. The Subscribers cannot be expected