will certainly furnish the staple of many harangues against the Church, and the "iniquitous tyranny of prelacy," in the meetinghouses, and in the literary organs of Dissenters, yet we believe that good will arise from the publication of this " Mirror of a Bishop." In olden times it would certainly have been better to have written such a work in Latin, "ad Clerum," and so have sent it forth for the use of those whom it chiefly concerns; but the reading of Latin, we fear, is not so common an employment now among the Clergy of any Order, as to make us believe that the contents of the book would, in this way, arrive at the minds and consciences of those for whom it is designed. However, we think that while the perusal of this work cannot fail to awaken a sad consciousness of an ill-performed and deep responsibility on the hearts of some personages both lay and clerics, many of them will arise from it with renewed earnestness and a resolution more thoroughly and efficiently to fulfil the high duties of their station therefore we desire for it an extensive reading among the Clergy, and we do not envy their state of mind who only seek in it piquant stories about the shortcomings of their superiors, or who can make themselves acquainted with the ill circumstances therein detailed, and under which the Church is labouring, without stedfastly intending to "strengthen the things that remain," and to find rest for their souls, not by idle complaints of a temporary evil system, not by reviling and forsaking the Mother that bare them, for Rome or the meeting-house, but by seeing and asking for the "old paths," where is the "good way" and walking therein.

In the progress of his subject, the author has brought forward and discussed some of the most important questions that have agitated the Church in our time, and we purpose to make a few observations upon them. But we must first record our strong objection to one or two expressions. The term "working Clergy" is an uncharitable, invidious term; and except in one case, it is an untrue designation. There is a small number of Clergy indeed who having no parochial or other ecclesiastical duties, live in their own private houses, and on their own estates, as other men of property do, and their only visible clerical connection with the Church, consists in perhaps the use of clerical looking garments and of the abbreviated Rev. before their names. All other Clergy are the Incumbents and Curates of the various dignities, perferments, and parishes of the Church, and as it is true, (though now fashionable to say the contrary,) that every such man has his duty of some kind annexed to his office and income, they are all "working Clergy" together, though they may and do work in different spheres and different ways. The Bishop, and Archdeacon, the Dean, and the Canon, the Rector, and the Curate, are all really as much "working Clergy" as the monarch and his nobles and the commonalty of all fortunes, have and do more or less, their several duties to GoD

and man. We believe that if the old charters and deeds of foundation and endowment were examined, it could be found that "the old way and the good way," was to annex a church duty to every church dignity and income; and the best and only honest way, (we are not afraid of the ecclesiastical commission,) is not to seize the income, but to revive and insist upon the duty, and so effectually to abolish what have been called sinecures; of which we are persuaded that there is not really such a thing in the Church. Another very serious blot in the book, against which we simply enter our protest, is the designation of opinions and of persons who are supposed to hold them by party names.

There are many most important questions started in the book, which imperatively demand very accurate replies; for instance, with reference to dissent, why does the Church suffer the mass of the people in the dense populations of manufacturing towns, to be withdrawn from her folds? We candidly avow that in our judgment these people are more to be pitied than blamed; ignorant prejudice first produced such secession, in the next generation it became hereditary, and now there is little remedy for this fearful state of things. Public catechising is gone, and its general restoration is rather greatly to be hoped and prayed for, than much to be expected; while our sermons do not generally teach the distinctive doctrines of the Church either as regards her discipline and constitution, or the highest mysteries of the faith.

Here it must be confessed the Clergy are alone to blame: it is they who have neglected to catechize the young and build them up in a well established faith: it is they who too commonly have set the Gospel before their flocks in a cold, meagre, subjective form, which neither warms the heart, nor compels the assent of the understanding. And this is also the answer to another most important inquiry, "Why has not the Church realized that engaging picture of primitive piety, in many rural districts, where the allegiance to her authority remains undisturbed, which is faithfully represented in the lives of the Saints of old?" The author says, "the answer is to be found in reviewing the history of the Episcopate." To this we demur. It is not altogether true. It is the fault of Priests and people, who seem to have tacitly and gradually agreed together to drop everything, both in doctrine and practice, which seems to be at all at variance with a low popular standard. The Clergy in their parishes have forgotten the lesson of Ezekiel ii., and the people "love to have it so." It is easy to say that the discrepancy between the Church Calendar, and her Rubrics, and her Canons, and the practice of Priests and people, is the fault of the Bishops; but it is not. This discrepancy has been gradually, imperceptibly advancing, in places where the Bishops had no reason to think that anything was going wrong; for the churchwardens made no presentments, the laity made no com

plaints, the Clergy seemed well satisfied, the Archdeacon published his annual congratulations, the Rural Deans, "the Bishop's spectacles," (as the Archdeacons are his "eyes,") repeated them. How then could the Bishops realize the truth until the matter came to light publicly and at once in all its startling circumstances. The Bishops, the "overseers," cannot be in every place. Moreover, Deacons and Priests have their vows, undertaken at the solemn season of ordination, no less than the Bishops. But because the Clergy are placed now in this painful dilemma, either that they must quarrel with their people in following the plain rules of duty, or "only remain at peace with their people by a sacrifice of conscience," (p. 224,) and because the point of debate, as the author truly says, is "no longer what the Church orders, but what the people will allow," (p. 222,) it does seem to us that the Bishops are called upon by all possible means to strengthen the hands of those who are labouring to stem the stream of corruption and impiety, and to inculcate at the same time more reverent habits, and a more heartfelt interior religion.

Bishops, we feel persuaded, must act in this direction. There is deep in the heart of the Church of England, each one quietly in his vocation serving GOD, a far greater number of true and earnesthearted men and women whose voices, like their Divine Master's, do neither strive nor cry, than persons are aware of; and when the day of assault comes, if ever it is to come, their unanimously indignant "Nolumus Ecclesiæ fidem mutari," will, we trust, utterly confound and silence the world, religious (so called) and irreligious.

The author of Speculum Episcopi seems to have an idea that the great duty of Bishops is to be preaching sermons: now we think that the great office of a Bishop, when he comes into a parish church for Divine Service, is to celebrate the Holy Communion, and so mark the honour to the parish by a greater solemnity of the Divine Offices, and by enlarging for the occasion the privileges of the faithful. And here we must record our hearty aversion to the modern practice of consecrating churches without the celebration of the Holy Eucharist by the Bishop himself.

Surely such an omission can only be made in ignorance of the positive language of Ecclesiastical Law. Thus one of the Sections in Gratian's Decretum* is headed "Ecclesiarum Consecratio absque Missâ fieri non debet," and begins "Omnes Basilicæ cum Missâ debent semper consecrari;" to which the Gloss adds "Dicunt quidam quòd Missa est de substantiâ Consecrationis." In Bishop Andrewes', in Laud's, and the Form put forth by the Convocation of 1715, the celebration of the Eucharist formed an essential part of the Consecration. The Bishop of Oxford, we are glad to see, has now restored the Communion Office to the edition of the Con

* De Cons. Dist. 1.

secration Service, which, as Archdeacon of Surrey, he published without it. We trust that in this he may be acting for all his Right Reverend Brethren.

The reception of a Bishop by the Clergy and laity of the diocese, is a point upon which better reflection and action are required. We recollect a case where the Vicar of a remote country town did not place his Vicarage at the service of the Bishop, who was coming to confirm in the church, because it was a small and insignificant looking house; and the resident squire did not ask the Bishop to come under his roof, because he was alone at the time, and so he thought he could not adequately entertain the Bishop, and so the Bishop was obliged to robe in the open church. Now this gentleman entertains the highest respect for the Bishop, but he did not do as he should have done, because he had a wrong idea of their relative positions. And where the Bishop is received by the Clergy or laity of a town, on a tour of Visitation, it is generally only a reception of state towards the Bishop as towards any great temporal nobleman, instead of being also a reception of great privilege and happiness towards the house and household. The nobleman or squire receives the Bishop as he would any other personage of consideration; but the feeling ought to be that the Bishop confers a blessing by accepting the hospitality. We will look into a little Speculum of our own, and we discern the Bishop coming to the great house, whose master asks the Bishop's benediction upon him and his as he crosses the threshold, and the Bishop bids peace to the house and to him and his, as children of peace. The Bishop's suite of apartments contain an oratory, properly furnished for devotion; and if there be any sick in the house the Bishop is requested to see and speak to the sick; and if there be children, they are brought before him, and the Bishop is asked by the parents to bless them with hand and word, as the little ones are taught to kneel down for his blessing. Reverence according to the Shunammite's pattern should mark such a reception of a Bishop, and he should not depart thence without leaving a blessing behind him. We heard of a very old Clergyman (we fear it was only on account of his age that he did it, for such things are not done now,) who came out of the Herefordshire hills to see the Bishop of that Diocese, (he was one of the predecessors of Bishop Huntingford,) and as soon as he was shown into the Bishop's presence, the good simpleminded man (beati simplices) reverently kneeled down before him and humbly sought his blessing. The Bishop, to whom such a request and action were quite strange, was much flurried, and knew not what to do or make of his supplicant, the only blessing he knew of being the "professional" blessing (as it is too commonly considered,) in church. We also heard a London shopkeeper, who had lived in Canterbury, most feelingly deplore the withholding of the Archbishop's benediction when he advances up the nave of the

cathedral towards the choir: the old custom (some years discontinued,) being for the Archbishop to bless, with his extended hands, the people who bent down to receive his blessing on each side of him. If some persons slighted it, if some persons thought too much of it, it is a pity the rite was omitted, for the blessing was not lost, if only one "son of peace" received it.*

As a pendant to the narrative at pp. 255-260, the following may be mentioned to show the practical effect of the Bishop's personal Visitation of a neglected church upon one of the persons, oddly enough in Wales, called churchwardens. Soon after his elevation to the throne of S. . . . . his lordship arrived with his Chaplain late one Saturday night, at the hostelry of a remote place deservedly famed for the healthful virtues of its mineral springs, and the wild beauty of its scenery. Before the Bishop retired to rest, he desired the master of the house to send and inform the Clergyman of the parish, that the Bishop was come and intended to preach in the church on the following morning. The announcement of such an event in "the church by the Ford," unheard of at least since the destruction of the Abbey of Strata Florida, directly reached the ears of the terrified churchwarden. He arose from his much disturbed slumbers, and at daylight on Sunday morning he came to the house where the Bishop was, to ask as a particular favour, of an Oxford gentleman who was staying in the same house, and with whom he had made a sporting acquaintance, that he would lend him his gun, to get the church ready for the Bishop, by exterminating a numerous colony of jackdaws long ago established in the church, whose flitting about the church and chattering, commonly furnished a discordant accompaniment to Divine Service. The Oxford man was inexorable, and, instead of his gun, gave the churchwarden a lecture upon the high duties of his office; however the churchwarden procured another gun and hurried into the church, where he immediately vented his annoyance at the Bishop's very superfluous visit to the parish, as he judged it to be, by a murderous battue among the ancient and numerous congregation of birds.

Of the happy effects of episcopal progresses through the remote districts and by-ways of a Diocese, the writer of these observations met with a pleasing instance. Riding through the picturesque country in which stand the curious church with its double tower and its stone altar, and the fine, and now well cared for, remains of the noble castle, which confers by right of possession, as is traditionally said, the title of Baron of its own name upon the Bishops to whom in succession it devolves, the writer entered into conversation with a labouring man who held his horse, while he

See" Bishop Wilson's short and plain Instruction, &c. of the LORD's Supper," Parker's edition, reprinted entire. Oxford, 1845, p. 149, note.