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 to feel satisfied with the unrevised performance of an anonymous editor. They had a right to expect, in the first place, that the Committee would not engage any one to edit a book until they had ascertained whether he was acquainted with the subject of which it treated. They had a right to expect also, that the Committee would exercise such a real and _bonâ fide_ superintendence and control as should have prevented the possibility of any work, issued with the sanction of their names, containing a confession so strange and so humiliating, and manifesting a degree of editorial incompetency so disappointing to the Subscribers, and so discreditable to the literary and theological character of the country. The names of the gentlemen of the Committee must be regarded as a pledge and guarantee that no such case as this could occur. On the faith of that assurance, and in the hope of receiving valuable editions of our standard theology, as well as with a wish to encourage a most useful undertaking, many persons have given their names and their subscriptions. There is too much reason to think now that this assurance is of less value than could have been anticipated. And when proof so unquestionable is thus forced on one's notice, it can scarcely be thought surprising, that regret and disappointment should be expressed by one who has been, from the beginning,