than needfulness of uniformity in the public services of the Church. What is done in a church, everybody can understand; though, in some cases, very happily, the world is not so retentive of what is said. Nor is this all; the poor are quick enough at observation; and what a very unreal system that must seem to plain people, which is susceptible of varieties, even in visible ministrations, which are scarcely short of contradictions; and, not knowing which was right, or which wrong, measuring truth only by the majority, what wonder were it that unlettered people, especially under the subtle suggestions of dissenting tracts, teachers, and the gossip of the wash-tub, and the chandler's shop, suspected, that what, in point of fact, was nothing more than compliance with the rubric, was some dark machination of Popery and Methodism combined, which defied detection only by its subtle and mysterious nature?

This, then, was the condition of those clergymen who made some count of their oaths, and thought the directions of the Prayer-Book binding personally on them; and so sought to fulfil such their obligations plainly and honestly. Laughed at and disparaged by all that was base and unmanly; uncheered, nay, almost discouraged by ominous silence in quarters where they might, but did not, claim and demand recognition and support; posted, paragraphed, and abused; stared at, sneered at, scoffed at; deserted by those who can back a cause, only just as long as the sun shines, and the trim ship sails over summer seas; from the nature of their teaching, and from their scorn of common artifices, unpopular; reduced by one unmanly trick or other to the very scantiest minority; without union, without mutual counsel among themselves; with scarce a friendly greeting from those above, with few sympathetic welcomes from those around, and with few consolations from the faithful obedience of those below them, (alienated, as such too often were, by treachery and misreport from those who should have known, and did know, better); there was, we believe, but the most insignificant minority in the diocese of London, who followed the rule of the Church. Besides the cathedrals, there might have been six or eight churches in London, and some more in a few rural parishes, where the daily office was read; and in three or four, the offertory and prayer for the Church Militant; and this was all. Of course, we mention no names; but a by-stander could see what, and how sharp, a trial this must have been for men's constancy, honesty, and consistency. It is well that none gave way, they have now their reward; they stood out like black isolated rocks, wave-beaten and alone, none helping his neighbour, but each having more than enough to do singly to hold his own, and to beat back each his own crest of threatening billows; their very places seemed to be known but by the seething and troubled breakers

surrounding them; it might be too much to claim for them a share in any thing like an Apostle's cross, but there were not only "perils by the heathen," but "perils in the city-perils among false brethren," which they had silently to endure.

We suppose that this was much the state of things throughout the country; we know what it was in the diocese of London; indeed, from causes which we have hinted, it was worse there than elsewhere. Neglect was more general: obedience, therefore, more marked and noticeable; and, thanks to the "Record," the "Morning Herald," the "Standard," and other disreputable newspapers, more noticed and vilified. But a minority, very insignificant in numbers, may be very formidable either in resolution, or by the intrinsic merits of their cause: and so it was in this case. If the thing were to be judged by its merits, and not by factious clamour and ignorant popular tumult, there no longer remained a doubt which way it must be decided. It is not a question of ought, but of fact. Does the Prayer-Book say that such and such things are to be done? Because if so, it is entirely wide of the mark to go into the reason of all this; the only question is, is it there? A fact is not a questionable thing; we may lay aside the whole discussion; " eyes or no eyes, is the only dilemma. It is not whether the Prayer-Book is or is not, as people say, Popish. What does it say? The question of obedience to the Prayer-Book was an after-thought, and so is all the dishonest talk of tacit relinquishment of forms and services being equal, in foro conscientiæ, to a legal abrogation; at first the dispute ranged on a much shorter base-line. It was subsequently that some ingenious person discovered that "clerical consent not to do a thing, with the general assent of congregations, and the tacit permission of diocesans given to such omissions," justified the principle of omitting of course, anything, even the three Creeds; for, in common fairness, no limitation could narrow a principle so broad and sweeping. But, before it came to this, it took some time to discover what the Prayer-Book contained -what it really said and ordered-how it was to be read-and here it was that the bishops spoke out; and they could do so only in one way, especially the Bishop of London.

59

Many causes combined to render his Lordship's Charge one of surpassing interest, not only to his own clergy and laity, but to the whole English Church. And this not so much on account of the importance necessarily to be attached to the opinion of one so valued for his own sake-for his learning-for his almost intuitive speed of thought-for his singular power in disentangling all questions from foreign and extraneous matter-for, we say it with all respect, that almost perfection of common sense which so significantly distinguishes this, in many ways, most remarkable prelate; but, from another series of facts, this particular

Charge was waited for with no common feelings throughout the country. More or less the tone of the Metropolitan Church must be communicated to almost every village; the beatings of "that mighty heart" are felt through every dependency of the empire; and the St. Laurence and the Ganges are not without sympathy with those few, yet weighty, words, which were first heard on October 10, 1842, in the choir of St. Paul's. The scene itself was very striking; the attendance of the laity was unusually large; and we shall never forget that solemn thrill which passed over every face, and, we doubt not, through every heart, when, in the very first sentence the Bishop of London, himself not unconscious of deep feeling, at once entered into those great questions, of importance unparalleled since the days of Luther. We thought that even the bishop's clear and beautiful voice shook as the momentous subject at the very last moment seemed, it may be, to rise in all its difficulty and vastness even before his unshrinking mind.

We are not about to enter into a review of what his Lordship said on that occasion; but it was eminently characteristic of the place in which it was delivered. We could not help tracingor fancying that we traced-a close analogy between St. Paul's and its Bishop's charge. Both are thoroughly and essentially Anglican: every thing is clear, light, lofty, plain, intelligible, decisive; we know all about it, its history, its purpose, its design to meet certain exigencies, with not enough of ornament and splendour to detract from the effect of the whole, but with sufficient vastness to be deeply impressive. From the consummate skill of the artist is seen the complete result of one mind, with the one end, and all the means subordinate, distinctly mapped and planned; the conception and execution are essentially uniform; if nothing of symmetry seems wanting, nothing unessential, as we say, is lavished; it holds well together; it is compact, firm, well-built, and groups well; it is the perfection of the post-Reformation principle, as generally understood. Of course we fail to meet, either in the cathedral or in the charge, the old mysteries of our more ancient fanes,-the gradual evolvement of different ages of the church,-the transition from rudeness to elaborate art,-the graceful charms of what seems, and perhaps only seems, to be constructed rather to display the lavish and prodigal resources of that life-giving and kindling skill which adapts every rich variety of the material world to the one great, and all comprehending, and expanding purpose of the one heavenly kingdom; the "awful perspective" of clustering shafts, -the hoar antiquity of silent chapels, the dim holy splendours, half viewed and half concealed, lost, as it were, in the distance of time, we know not how ancient, the shrines of saints remembered but in the courts of heaven,-the memories of those everlasting truths which realize rather the great Catholic com

munion of saints, of every age and every clime,-the reverence which is of the past, and universal, rather than of the present, and local and national: these are the things which as we fail to meet in the modern cathedral of St. Paul's, so we were not to expect them in that which the church seems so aptly to symbolize the Bishop's Charge of 1842.

Everybody knows that the Bishop of London's Charge consists of two parts; and this division we must, in our remarks, follow :-opinions on things doctrinal, and directions on things ritual. We say opinions, because it seems certain that his Lordship would be the very last person in the world to maintain the "ex cathedra” and decisive nature of the doctrinal views propounded by any single bishop. And the time must now have arrived for meeting this question fairly: the true resolution of which seems to be, that an individual bishop's decisions on points of faith are authoritative only in so far as they harmonize with the teaching of the Church Catholic. In this, as in all other theological questions, the single doctor must yield to the universal Voice: when in accord with the harmony of "the faith once delivered to the saints," his statements of doctrine go to swell the everlasting testimony of the witnesses; when in opposition to the received faith, he is of no authority whatever. So that episcopal charges, and the authority of which they are possessed, present themselves to a Catholic mind, and to the mere shallow Protestantism of the day, under very different aspects; yet, as far as their respective principles go, neither party gains much by the expressed opinions of single bishops. To the Catholic the recorded opinion of any one Bishop is superfluous as authority; it is comforting, of course, and a matter of thankfulness, to find individuals, and especially Bishops, one with the Catholic body; but any independent testimony is of value rather from the light which each reflects as derived from the Church than by reason of the illumination thrown by it on the Church; in a word the Bishop is of the Church, under it, and from it; not the Church of the Bishop, and from him. And so also with the PsiloProtestant; the poor pretence of extraordinary submission and deference to the individual Bishop which a certain party among us is now making, must go for nothing on their own principles. When men adopt unlimited private judgment and supposed personal illumination as the sole measure of doctrinal truth, which they do, and then reject the testimony of primitive antiquity or of an oecumenical council, what shallow hypocrisy is it to talk of submitting to their Bishop-reverencing their Bishop-listening to their Bishop?* Yes; they listen to him as long as he is with

* An egregious instance of this occurs in an advertisement now before us:"The Voice of the Anglican Church'-declarations of the Bishops on Oxford Tract doctrines. With an introduction, by the Rev. H. Hughes." It is not because it is the Voice of the Anglican Church-supposing that all the Bishops had uno ore con

them; and then claim great credit for it: but did we ever happen to remember the Record recommending-Dr. Hampden say-to reverence the Bishop of Oxford, because that prelate had pointedly condemned the Professor's heresy?

No; either way the individual Bishop's sentence is not considered final on matters of doctrine: the Catholic requires something more; i. e. the concordant Voice of the Church; and therefore to him it is simply deficient, though it must be acknowledged a step towards a final decision, the Bishop being one at least of the court of appeal; and, in this sense, could the opinions of all Christian Bishops be gathered even singly, taken in the aggregate they would go towards making up the ultimate sense of the Church, though they could not then amount to this, being deficient in the formal "gathering together in His name," and consequently being deprived of deliberation before the Holy Spirit: and the Protestant, again, is, from his principle of individual judgment, precluded from summoning a Bishop into court at all, or resting anything on his testimony. It is out of all keeping-nay, it is hypocrisy for men to quote this or that Bishop as settling a question, when, unless it suits them, they would not yield a hair's breadth to the authority of every branch of Christ's Church in every age and every country under heaven; much less to a single name. On the other hand, we maintain that the injunction of a single Bishop on points of order and discipline, and in ritual observances, does stand on much higher ground. Not that even here proprio vigore his recommendations can supersede the Prayer-Book-the Bishop is, as of the Church, so of its ritual, and not the ritual of the Bishop. On disputed questions, and matters of interpretation, the Ordinary seems to have the privilege of explaining, though not of dispensation, in any case. Yet, on the whole, we frankly admit, that an individual Bishop's authority in ritual things is much higher than on doctrinal.

And here let us mark the noticeable and flagrant ignorance of Church principles which some among us have displayed with respect to the late Episcopal charges. Where they happen to suit low views they are lauded beyond the skies; they are claimed as decisive; as settling the question; as pronouncing what is "the doctrine of the Church;" but this, as we have already said, only when it suits a certain purpose; and just at the very point upon which these documents are, singly, worth only that value which we attach to the speculations and published opinions of any other learned and holy Doctor: but, on the

demned "Tractarianism"-that Mr. Hughes gets up his collection, but because it is supposed to countenance his own notions. If we could prove that "the Voice" were the other way, what would Mr. Hughes care for it then? Would he obey? Nay, would he, upon his own principles yield to a general council? Because, if not, it is lishonest to make a merit of obeying the Bishops: dishonest in such as Mr. Hughes.