and that he replied he had made the quotation, to shew Mr. Henry's candour in speaking favourably of a religious body to which he did not belong. If, he said, he had stated the objections to independency, he must have replied to them, which would have led him into too long a discussion. It would appear, however, that Mr. Williams only thinks it necessary to adduce evidence of Mr. Henry's candour, when, in doing so, something in favour of "the independents" is to be brought forward; as I find in another of the diaries (which I understand was lent to Mr. Williams when he was preparing his book), the following passage:-" If all that hath been said and written to prove prelacy antichristian, and the common prayer unlawful, had been to persuade bishops to study, and doe the duty of church rulers, in preaching and feeding the flock according to the word; and to perswade people to bee serious, and inward, and spiritual in the use of formes, it had been better with the church of God in England." But this exemplification of Mr. Henry's candour, in bearing his testimony against the unchristian abuse so profusely poured upon bishops and the liturgy, being in favour of the church of England, and not of "the independents," was unsuitable to Mr. Williams's purpose, and he has therefore not deemed it advisable to notice it.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully, A CHURCHMAN,

TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS.

SIR,-As you were so kind as to give a favourable notice of a pamphlet which I lately published on the "Translation of Bishops," will you allow me, through the medium of your magazine, to add a few words on a point which, when I wrote that pamphlet, I did not think it necessary to insist on, and, in fact, did not notice. I believe, however, that much misapprehension exists as to the frequency of translation; and I have particularly wished to add something on that point since I saw the Appendix to the Master of the Temple's sermon on the "Right of the Clergy to a Certain and Sufficient Maintenance." He says, "That it is expedient both to persevere in the system of perpetual translations, and to have sees in their present state of extreme inequality as to revenues, is what I suppose few would be anxious to maintain."-p. 31. Such an expression, from such a quarter, would naturally lead those who are unacquainted with facts, to imagine that translation was an every-day occurrence, and that our bishops were translated at least half-a-dozen times on an average. It seems to me, therefore, very desirable, that the real state of the case should be known; and, though I will not vouch for the perfect accuracy of the following statement, yet I believe that it is correct, and that it will present a view of the matter which many of your readers would not expect. I will only premise that, by translation, I mean the removal from one bishopric to another, this being, for our present purpose, the proper sense of the term, as I know not that any one has ever suggested that our archbishops should not be selected from our bishops. This (which obviously makes no great difference) being understood, I believe the

case stands thus:-that, of the present bench, twelve have not been translated at all, thirteen have been once translated, and one only has been translated twice; and (notwithstanding that in consequence of the decease of prelates there have been ten consecrations during the last seven years) yet the average time during which the present possessors have held the sees which they now occupy, is eight years and eight months.

To speak, however, of a longer period, and of prelates not living, and therefore affording a fairer and more certain average :-since the Restoration, in the year 1660, there have been, I believe, (exclusive of the present bench,) 242 bishops,-of whom 148 were never translated, 71 were once translated, 22 twice, and 1 only three times. The average time during which they held the episcopal office, was pretty accurately seventeen-and-a-half years; and the average period during which each individual held a particular see, is much the same whether we include or exclude those bishops who were never translated, being in the former case rather more than ten years and seven months; and, in the latter, rather more than ten years and one month.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, IOTA.

ON PETITIONS FOR PREFERMENT FROM PARISHES.

DEAR SIR,-It has happened to me lately to hear of several instances in which, when a benefice was vacant, the inhabitants of the parish have petitioned the patron to confer it on the curate; and, in some cases, I believe, the application has been successful.

Now, creditable as such things are to the clergy, and amiable as are the feelings which prompt the petitioners, still it is a practice which calls for animadversion on the part of those who are afraid of ecclesiastical experiments, especially experiments of a popular cast. Censure, indeed, would be out of place, either as against the parishes which offer, or the pastors who accept, such a compliment. Yet, who that will consider can fail to perceive that, with the very best intentions towards the church, they are doing what virtually tends to disturb and endanger its whole system?

The way to judge of the tendency of this, or of any other practice, is to suppose it generally adopted, and see what would be the result. Imagine it, then, a common and usual thing, as soon as ever a vacancy occurred, for the parishioners to begin communicating and contriving whom they should recommend to the patron for it. Either such recommendations would be successful or they would not. First, suppose them generally attended to; the result evidently is no less grave than this-that patrons virtually will lose their right. This may be expedient or unadvisable; but at any rate it is a grave and serious change, and ought not to be urged without grave and serious thought, and previous calculation of its consequences. Nay, whatever the probable results, there is something in the virtual destruction of an acknowledged right which startles all honest and sober men. The

benefits to be purchased by such a step had need be very important in themselves, and clearly unattainable by other means.

But, secondly, one may venture to doubt whether any general benefit would arise from the general adoption of this practice. The parishioners, having had actual experience of the curate, may indeed judge of his positive fitness for the cure, but they can seldom know any thing at all of the comparative worthiness of the person whom the patron would nominate. It is moreover undeniable, that they are quite as likely to be swayed by undue motives as the ordinary sort of patrons can be. The capriciousness of popular liking and dislike is proverbial. And those inhabitants of any parish who, by station and education, may be supposed exempt from such influences, may and do easily find quieter and more orderly ways of bearing testimony to their pastor's worth.

Thirdly, it is a very material question, whether the independence of the clergy-a paramount object with all who love sound doctrine and Christian usefulness-would not be brought into great jeopardy. Popularity in any case is tempting enough-why enhance the temptation and the danger, by making it the only way to temporal comfort and competency? Even in those few cases where a man would rise superior to this, he could not by any means act as freely as if no such practice were known to exist. Where in his conscience he thought it right, as every pastor must often think it right, to modify his own views for the accommodation and conciliation of his parishioners, a person of really independent mind would feel more or less embarrassed by the consciousness of the motive to which his condescension might be imputed; and it is not perhaps easy to calculate how many desirable arrangements would be thus impeded, and how much kindly feeling choked and suppressed. Again, suppose a case in which the interference of the parishioners has been successful, and the appointment of the curate has taken place. The very next year, perhaps, some difference of opinion arises, and he finds himself conscientiously opposed to the very persons who had done most towards procuring him his situation. Is it not very desirable, if possible, to avoid an arrangement which must necessarily bring the clergy much more frequently than at present into perplexities of this kind-perplexities the more grievous and annoying, in proportion as a man has a stronger sense of duty on the one hand, and gratitude on the other?

Fourthly, let the effect on the people's edification be considered, of which there will be no difficulty in judging, since public experiment is made at least every Sunday in all the chapels, episcopal, independent, and of every denomination in which the "voluntary system" is acted on. Is it not found that the result is just contrary to what the divine Herbert thought desirable, when he wrote down among his Christian maxims

"Judge not the preacher, for he is thy judge"?

Let us now take the other alternative, and suppose, what most commonly happens at present, that such recommendations as we are speaking of fail in their immediate object: here is first an unnecessary VOL. VI.-July, 1834.

discomfort inflicted on the person who succeeds to the cure, one more difficulty added to the many which beset a pastor, in our days especially, in his efforts to establish himself thoroughly among his people. Again, though the right of patronage is not even virtually interfered with, the dangerous incitement to popular acts on the side of the curate, and to a critical, unedifying attendance on the side of the parishioners-these two great evils remain much as in the former

case.

And in both cases the thing itself is against the analogy of church orders, which would submit the conduct of priests and deacons to the censure, not of the populace of their town or village, but of the bishops and pastors of the church. It is also fearfully and directly opposed to that delicacy of feeling and demeanour which is required for the right improvement of the high and holy relation subsisting, by our Lord's own ordinance, between a Christian pastor and his flock.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit it to my brethren of the clergy, that we ought with all thankfulness to decline such well-meant but injudicious compliments, except perhaps in very rare and hard cases: welcoming the affection with all our hearts, but quietly explaining to our people that we cannot indulge it in this instance, without doing harm, on the whole, to our sacred charge.

I am, dear Sir, your obliged and faithful servant,

AN UNBENEFICED CLERGYMAN.

VINDICATION OF THE EARLY PARISIAN GREEK PRESS.

(Continued from vol. v. p. 701.)

THE truth, though concealed with such admirable skill in the statements of Wetsten and Griesbach, was seen as plainly as they themselves saw it, and was published, by Du Pin, in 1701. I can, therefore, by no means agree with Bishop Marsh, when he says, Lect. vi. p. 118, "It is extraordinary that credit was ever attached to the pretensions of the editor [Robert Estienne] on the formation of the text." Du Pin says, "Theodore de Beze aiant conferè encore un plus grand nombre d'exemplaires [having had the collation of a greater number of copies] a aussi remarquè un plus grand nombre de varietez dans ses notes." Dissert. Prelim. sur le N. T. cap. 3, sect. 1, p. 74, French, 102, English. It was acknowledged, in 1689, in the striking distinction that Simon made between the copies printed and written that Stephanus cited, and the different written copies from which he formed the texts of his widelydiffering editions, when he said, "Que Robert Estienne a aussi laissè dans son edition Grecque du N. T., plusieurs leçons qui ne s'accordoient avec aucun des MSS. qu'il produit." N. T. xxix. p. 346, a. Now, any man who was led by these words of Simon to consider what might be the readings of "des MSS. quil ne produit pas"-the "plus grand nombre d'exemplaires," the collation of which, or of many of which, he gave to Beza, might, I think-extraordinary as the right reverend Lecturer considers it" attach credit to the pretensions of the editor," which the "glaring evidence" of the skilful Papist might fail to dispel. The disagreeable truth almost forces itself out, Michaelis ii. 319, when he says, "that Stephens collated only sixteen codices, or, at least, has given no extracts from more than sixteen." In the times to which the Lecture refers, Michaelis's reader might have been led by this to suspect that the learned author was aware of Stephanus having had the collation of

"

MSS. from which “ he has given no extracts;" the existence of which, I think, he would have seen acknowledged by Mr. Porson himself, when he quotes, at p. 56, as incontestible evidence, what Wetsten was pleased so flatly to contradict-" quæ de xxv. plus minus codicibus MSS. tantum non duplicato numero dixerat.” 143, Seml. 370. Yes; Beza having received from Robert the collation of double the number of the MSS. that he selected to furnish marginal readings to his folio, has given extracts from more than sixteen; and the Docti et Prudentes themselves everywhere quote the readings of this "plus grand nombre d'exemplaires"-of codices Stephani, that are not cited in the margin. If there are any, then, in these our enlightened days, whose understandings have not been tampered with, they will see that these "codices Stephanici" might furnish ample authority for the "leçons qui ne s'accordoient avec aucun des MSS., qu'il produit; and whensoever Beza, who had the collation, declares that Stephanus did take his text from some of these MSS., they will believe him rather than the " speculative men" who calmly give him the liemen who can say, "Certe istos codices ad quos provocat Beza, alibi frustra quam in ejus cerebro quæsieris;" when, if you will take the trouble of turning over half-a-score leaves of their works, certe non frustra quæsieris lectiones istorum codicum ad quos provocat Beza. Stephanus had fifteen MSS. only, say the Prolegomena, assuring you that it is all blundering or wilful falsehood to intimate that Beza had the collation of any more MSS. of his to quote from: examine a few leaves of the works themselves of the learned critics, and you will find them quoting the reading of a MS.-perhaps of six or seven MSS out of the "plus grand nombre d'exemplaires"-the "Alii" from which Stephanus "has given us no extracts." Yes, you will find them quoted, and quoted too as "codices Stephani" "apud Bezam." Notwithstanding, then, the horse-laugh of" speculative men," I say, in the words of the prophet, ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein." The moment that a single Alius-one single reading of one single MS. of Stephanus, besides the marked MSS. of the margin, was discovered to be quoted by the Docti et Prudentes,— the moment that a "codex Stephani" was given by themselves, as not coming into either selection for the margin-it required no courage to say, as I did, (Brit. Mag., vol. iii. 428,) cheating there is somewhere, either on the part of Stephanus, by his giving "many readings in his editions which he found in no MS.," when he "made actual profession to the contrary" in such strong terms; or it lies with the critics, when they assert that he did so, if their accusation is " utterly false." And it certainly required no penetration to see that he to whom the world had entrusted the defence of the received text, and the protestant versions, displayed all the incapacity which his two mighty correspondents so perpetually attribute to him, when he was adding to the number of the cited MSS., and was ascribing readings to those opposing documents which could have come only from these "Alii." I cannot, then, retort the words of the right reverend Lecturer, and say, it is extraordinary that any one should have ever been persuaded that no credit ought to be attached to the pretensions of Stephanus on the formation of his text. It could hardly be otherwise. I have indeed shewn that I am sufficiently impressed with the grossness of the belief that such a man as Robert Estienne, after his solemn protestation that his O mirificam did not contain a letter that was not warranted by the royal MSS., should have afterwards given so widely differing a text, without an accession of fresh MS. testimonies (nullo novo testimonio accedente), and that any man whatsoever should be such a felo de se, as Mr. Porson expresses it, that he could possibly have declared, in the margin of his folio edition, more than a hundred times over, that he had falsified his most solemn engagements, by "quoting all his authorities for readings different from his own.' I have shewn that I felt the grossness of supposing that Henry, "paternæ sedulitatis hæres," could have been kept three years searching everywhere" in Italicis," and add nothing to his father's collations; or, as the amended charge stands, that the achieve