peers, in the recent debates on the subject of an increase in the episcopate, relates to seats in the House of Lords. There is an unwillingness to see any bishops excluded from the House of Lords, and an objection is felt to the Bishop of Salisbury's plan as bringing bishops into the House of Lords at a too advanced period of life. On the subject of this plan we have already freely expressed an opinion. It seems to us, that there are advantages as well as disadvantages connected with it. But we would here throw out a suggestion, which might possibly tend to meet the difficulties of the case. Why should not the representative system be applied to the new sees about to be created in England, as it has been to the Irish sees, or to the Scottish peerage? What occurs to us is this-let the existing sees in England retain their immemorial privilege of parliamentary seats; and let four of the new bishops sit in parliament, either by rotation, as in the case of the Irish bishops; or by election, as in the case of the Scottish peers. From the present feeling of political parties we should think that no objection of any importance would be made to the creation of four additional spiritual peers, provided it was judged by the government really necessary for the efficiency of the measure of extending the episcopate. If four spiritual peerages were created, we should greatly prefer the system of election to that of mere rotation, because it would secure for the Church the most efficient representation.

We now pass on from the probable extension of the English episcopate, to the cheering and gratifying subject of the Colonial episcopate. The thanks of the Church are eminently due to the eminent prelates who conceived, and who have so ably and efficiently managed the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund, from which such striking results have arisen. Ten or twelve new bishoprics have already, within a few years, been the consequence of this admirable measure; and the impulse which the cause of the Church has thus received throughout the Colonies, and even in England, is incalculable. We must not withhold the expression of our opinion, that the success which has attended these measures is to be attributed very much to the judicious selection of the prelates who have been appointed to the new sees-men of truly apostolical zeal, of the highest attainments, and the most devoted piety.

But there is one more topic connected with the increase of the episcopate which affords us at least as much gratification as either of those on which we have briefly touched. We allude to the effort which is being made for the restoration of some of the suppressed sees of Ireland. This is, indeed, a measure of justice which has been long withheld. We shall never cease to condemn the suppression of the Irish sees as an act of oppression,

and of the most criminal indifference to the interests of religion. It was a blow dealt at the Established Church in Ireland, and therefore in England. It was a weak and unprincipled concession to the wishes of the enemies of the Church-intended merely for the gratification of Romanism,—and put forward under the pretence of finding means for repairing churches, on the abolition of the church-rates. What should we think, if the ministry were to abolish the church-rates in England, and then extinguish half the bishoprics, in order to apply their incomes to make up the deficiency? If bishops are any essential part of the Church,—if their ministrations are of any value,—it is plain that the Church loses spiritually by any diminution in their number, as it would lose by a diminution in the number of its priests. And this blow was struck against the defenceless Church of Ireland at a time when its efficiency was daily becoming greater. Under that most cruel blow-the injustice and evil of which will never be forgotten -the Church of Ireland has, amidst the severest discouragements, steadily advanced in zeal and in efficiency. But its episcopate is wholly inadequate to its wants. The great extent of the Irish dioceses renders them unmanageable. The number of the bishops is so diminished, that, allowing for the absence of some from ill health or old age, there must be and is very great difficulty in visiting the churches, confirming, or discharging the other ordinary duties. Most earnestly do we wish success to the Archbishop of Dublin's bill, now before the House of Lords, empowering the Crown to restore any of the suppressed sees which it may judge advisable to revive. We feel assured, that even if the measure should not be carried at once, it cannot be very long delayed. Let the Church in England and Ireland petition in support of the measure, if necessary; and we sincerely trust, that the eminent prelate who has so laudably brought forward the subject will not cease his exertions until justice is obtained for the Irish Church. If the attempt should fail at this moment, we trust and hope that it will be renewed again and again. We have before us most cheering examples of what may be effected by patience and perseverance under the most trying circumstances. Twice has the voice of the Church succeeded in saving bishoprics which had been doomed to extinction. The see of Sodor and Man, and the Welsh sees, ought to encourage the Church of Ireland to persevere in seeking the restoration of her hierarchy. And we must here be permitted to observe, that the revenues of the Irish sees seem to have been providentially preserved to so great an extent, that there would be, at this moment, no difficulty in finding incomes for the support of the Irish episcopate in its full integrity of numbers. About 70,000l. per annum has been left to the

episcopate in Ireland; and this ought to maintain, with ease and comfort, the twenty-two bishops, of whom the Irish hierarchy properly and rightfully consists. We can never recognize the law which has suppressed ten bishoprics, except as an act of the most odious oppression, and the most extreme injustice and iniquity. Every one who has the interests of the Church at heart, and who is anxious to maintain her cause against the aggressions of Romanism and dissent, and the indifference of statesmen, is bound to use his efforts for the removal of an enactment which was the severest blow to the Church in this empire which has occurred since its foundation, and which could only have become law at a period when the national mind was in a temporary delirium of reform and of revolution.

P.S.-Since the above pages were written, we observe with regret, though without the slightest surprise, that the Archbishop of Dublin's bill for the restoration of the suppressed bishoprics in Ireland has been thrown out, after a vigorous opposition by the present government. It must, of course, take some time before the question can be fairly considered in parliament, and years may elapse before justice will be done to the Church. We would only say to the friends of the Irish Church as an establishment, that if they wish to maintain its property and its civil rights, the best course they can pursue is to interest the Church of England in its cause, by showing their determination not to sit down tamely and feebly in submission to the measure of 1833, which despoiled their Church of its highest privileges. Let the Church of Ireland show to the Church of England that it truly values the episcopate,-not for the sake of its revenues or its temporal dignities, but as an apostolical institution, and a means of spiritual blessings and privileges,-and the Irish Church will find in England a sympathy and a support which does not at present sufficiently exist. Let the clergy and the laity of Ireland urge again and again on parliament the restoration of their bishoprics, and they will be able to preserve their parishes. The Church of England will join them in the struggle for their rights, when they show that they are prepared to assert and maintain them, without flinching from the contest. Let them take as their model the admirable and judicious conduct of the Earl of Powis and the Church of North Wales, and their success will be certain at no distant period.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS,

ETC.

1. Hare on Unity. 2. Sermons by Baker, Sulivan, Kennaway, Exton. 3. Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences. 4. Macleane's Unity of God's Moral Law. 5. Thom's Dialogues on Universal Salvation. 6. Plummer on the Common Prayer. 7. Bishop Mant's Feriæ Anniversariæ. 8. Sandford's Vindication of the Church of England. 9. Lives of the Saints, edited by Bennett-Hook's Ecclesiastical Biography. 10. Simeon's Life, by Carus. 11. The Commonitory of Vincentius. 12. Burgh's Hebrew Grammar. 13. The Pilgrimage, by Wildenhahn. 14. The Unseen World. 15. Starkey's Theoria-The Book of Poetry. 16. A Wreath of Lilies-Tales for the Young-Book of Fable. 17. Year of Consolation, by Mrs. Butler. 18. Meadows on China. 19. Journal of a Residence in Portugal and Spain. 20. Tales of Adventure. 21. Select Poetry, by Farr. 22. History of the French Revolution. 23. Birds of Jamaica, by Gosse. 24. Edge's Vision of Peace. 25. Miscellaneous.

1.-The Means of Unity: a Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Lewes; delivered at the Ordinary Visitation in 1842 with Notes, &c. By JULIUS CHARLES HARE, M.A. London: Parker. 1847.

:

THIS volume is composed of a charge, delivered so much as five years ago, occupying 45 pages, and of notes, extending, in small type, over no fewer than 121 pages. The subjects treated of in the charge and in the notes are most various, ranging from orthodoxy, heresy, and unity in doctrine, down to missionary and educational effects, rural chapters and convocation, Dr. Pusey and Martin Luther, the Jerusalem bishopric and illegitimate births.

The Archdeacon of Lewes does, indeed, at p. 23, utter a few words which may be good-naturedly construed into something like an apology for speaking on these subjects; and, from his commencing lamentations over the absence of any episcopal charge to his brethren, in consequence of the proximate deaths of two prelates, it might be imagined that, in charging as he does, he is only yielding a reluctant obedience to duties which have devolved, by the force of circumstances, upon him—the oculus episcopi in those parts. However, Mr. Hare's former charges prove that such a supposition would be most erroneous; and the error we complain of has become so general, that we feel bound to notice it as a

66

199

modern abuse; an usurpation of the right and duty of the first order of the ministry. We have some little acquaintance with the canon law, and we are much mistaken if there be a single sentence which can fairly give countenance to the usurpation in question. On the contrary, "vestiendi altaris' sacrificii necessaria"-"solicitudo parochiarum"-" reparandis dioecesanis basilicis " ornamenta vel res basilicarum parochiarum "de (clerorum) conversatione, sive honore et restauratione ecclesiarum, sive doctrina ecclesiasticorum "-" delinquentium rationem redditurus;"-these, and such as these, are the points into which archdeacons are to inquire; and if to kindred subjects they would confine their charges, there would be less chance of so much of their own and of their brethren's time being annually wasted. On subjects connected with the temporalities of the Church, on which the clergy, as a body, are generally ignorant, an archdeacon would speak with authority, and be listened to with respect. The present Bishop of Oxford, when Archdeacon of Surrey, set an example in this respect, which we could heartily desire to see more generally followed.

Having entered this protest, in limine, against archidiaconal charges of a doctrinal kind generally, we may advert to the intrinsic merits of that immediately before us and here we must own to being agreeably disappointed. Generally speaking, we are no lovers of Archdeacon Hare's writings; and we find some things on which we disagree with him in these pages; still, he comes before us so completely in the character of a peace-maker; there is so much kindness of heart and good feeling displayed throughout, that, though it carries him to some lengths at times, we cannot help being favourably impressed with his production. An extract or two will show its tone.

"Above all, there are religious journals, and that strange anomaly and nuisance, religious newspapers, a sort of vermin springing up in the stagnant mud of the press, which live almost by fostering and inflaming animosities. . . . . Not one person in a hundred, among those who speak with the greatest confidence and heat on the theological disputes of the day, will ever pretend that he has attentively and candidly examined a single one of the more elaborate works, against which he is in the habit of inveying (sic). But our favourite magazine or newspaper supplies us, every now and then, with an extract, which, standing by itself, seems to offend against our views of the Gospel; while railing, with more or less of salt, more or less of venom in it, is served up daily and weekly and monthly and quarterly, as a substitute for argument.'

1 25 dist. c. 1. Perlectis.

2 c. Ut Archidiaconus, 1. X. de offic. Archid. Vide etiam canon. Card. Othon. apud Gibson, p. 967.