at Oxford to the need of more competent editors for those books which proceed from the Clarendon press. The republication of slovenly edited and often useless books, only reflects disgrace upon the University. We hope that these Notes on Strype, will not only lead to the cancelling of the present stock, and the publication of a new edition of the valuable work of Strype, but-and in this we only re-echo the wish of others that the researches of Dr. Maitland may be made use of, and that under his superintendence we may have a trustworthy reprint of the annalist of the Reformation. The epithets painstaking and accurate have sometimes been applied to Strype. Painstaking he certainly was, but it is no imputation to his industry and honesty to say, that in his numerous volumes there are too many proofs of inaccuracy, which it is due to him and to ourselves that we should endeavour to remove. His works are absolutely necessary; but after these and other Notes, which Dr. Maitland has printed, it is surely impossible for the authorities at Oxford to offer for sale any more copies of the present edition.

We are thankful to see some signs of at least a desire for improvement on the part of the delegates of the press; but the publication of books however valuable, which any bookseller would as a matter of trade employ his capital in, does not fulfil the trust which is reposed in the delegates of so well endowed a press as that at Oxford. We look for something more than this. A new edition of Wilkins' Concilia is needed, and not a reprint merely. In the archives of our capitular bodies, and on the shelves of our libraries are several constitutions of English bishops, which have not been printed either in Lyndwood, or in Wilkins; and these, and such like materials, should largely enhance the value of any new edition. Again, we might naturally expect an Anglia Sacra based on, but greatly enlarged from Wharton's work, to be edited by some scholar who has the stores of the Bodleian Library within reach, and knows how to use that and similar literary storehouses. But we have no room to particularise all that the delegates of the press might and should do, if there were anything in their body beyond dialectic skill in using the potential mood. Such proof of their vitality might perchance awaken even the dormant powers of some fellow of Lincoln College, first to ascertain the existence of, and to publish the long desired Theological Dictionary of Gascoigne.

Two Tracts on Marriage, (Friendly Words, and Our Certificate: Wertheim,) and two Addresses to Women after Childbirth, (A Few Words, and A Sequel to a Few Words: Masters,) though proceeding from different sources, may be conveniently described by the same terms-as well-meant. We cannot say more on their behalf.

Prayer: a Lesson from the Flower Garden, (Mozleys,) is a slender amplification of the text of S. James, "The husbandman waiteth."

We have received the first Number of The Hurst Johnian. (Masters, and Parker.) It strikes us as being just what a boy's periodical ought to be; and we are glad to observe it is not so local as to be devoid of interest in any school. The paper on Church Politics is excellent. We are unable to award much praise to Mr. FoWLE's Short Lectures from the Bible. (Mozleys.) Nor can we admit that a mere

dry sketch of Bible history is the right kind of teaching preparatory to Confirmation. What is really needed is exact doctrinal instruction, (which we regret to notice Mr. Fowle has not yet himself acquired,) and close personal testing of the conscience, of which this little book gives nothing.

When we say that Miss YONGE's Christmas Mummers, (Mozleys,) is a good Boys' Book, we mean to assign it very high praise. It is an amusing story, well told; but as far removed from moralising as the most light-hearted reader could desire.

We welcome with pleasure the publication, in a separate volume, of Bishop ARMSTRONG's much-valued Essays on Church Penitentiaries. (J. W. Parker.) They will serve, we trust, to stir up many who are still indifferent to a subject so deeply affecting the interests of society; and their touching appeals will come with renewed power, now that the voice which spoke them can be heard no more.

Emily, the Nursemaid; or with Goodwill doing Service, (by the Author of "Stories on the Catechism," (Mozley,) edited by the Rev. W. JACKSON,) is an admirable little tale, precisely the thing that is required for young girls at the critical period of leaving school. The author has a peculiar talent for writing in a manner suitable to persons of that class, and at the present time they are really the books we most need. We are extremely glad to see that it is only the first of a series, to be continued monthly.

We have before us several volumes of Sermons, by Clergymen of great respectability. If we could say anything in their favour, we would gladly do so; but as we cannot, it is best to be silent.

The dull and dear series of Oxford and Cambridge Essays, (J. W. Parker,) is announced to terminate with the issue of the present year. The article on Hymnology, (by Mr. PEARSON, of Oriel,) is as good as could be expected from a source which, from the first, has been entirely devoid of geniality and imagination. With regard to the essay on Oxford Reform, we will only say, that if the Commissioners wished to puff their own performance, it would have been more modest to have found some less interested person to do it than their secretary.

Rejoicing, as we do, in the increase of sound dogmatic statements of Catholic truth, in whatever form appearing, we welcome with much pleasure a sermon, entitled Christ our Passover, (Masters,) preached by one of the clergy of Hemel Hempstead. It is a high subject, worthily handled.

The Fountain for Uncleanness, (Painter,) is the first of a series of tracts which we are promised. It is an earnest exhortation to the use of private confession; but it would have been better, we think, not to have seemed to imply, (as the title of the tract does,) that it is in this way, exclusively, that the Prophet's words are fulfilled.

The sixth and concluding volume of S. Augustine's Exposition on the Psalms, (English translation,) in the Library of the Fathers, (J. H. Parker,) we are glad to announce is at length published.

THE SIX BISHOPS' PASTORAL.

1. Supplement to the Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal. Edinburgh. May 20, 1858.

2. What position does the Episcopal College hold legally in the Church? By a Presbyter. Edinburgh: Lendrum. 1858. 3. A Modest Reply to the Rev. W. G. Shaw's pamphlet. By a Presbyter. Edinburgh: Lendrum. London: Masters. 1858. 4. Remarks on the Primary Charge of the Right Rev. the Bishop of Brechin. By a Presbyter of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Edinburgh Grant and Son. London: Rivingtons. 1858.

:

SINCE our last number was in type the Edinburgh Synod has sat, determined, and dissolved, and is now a matter of history. While we are thankful that it has not condemned Bishop Forbes, we grieve to say that it has done as much mischief as it could without proceeding to that extremity: it has issued a Pastoral, which enjoins on the clergy to teach a doctrine of the Eucharist, which we have no hesitation in saying is compatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith. How far this may become a standard of appeal for the future we are at present unable to say: probably no one really knows; but that it will be appealed to by a certain party in controversies with blighting effect, we can have no doubt. The only point, besides that of the acquittal of Bishop Forbes, for which we can express ourselves thankful is, that the threatened prohibition against non-recipients assisting at the Sacrifice, has been quietly dropped.

The point that strikes us first is the discreditable manner in which the whole thing has been conducted. The Six Bishops shrank from the responsibility of condemning one of their brethren, by a formal act, but contrived to censure him by a side wind. They declare that "in the teaching of this Charge" (the Bishop of Brechin's) "they trace a tendency to undermine the great foundations on which our Formularies rest." That "those views in the extent in which he has defined and urged them, are unsound, erroneous, and calculated to lead, if not resolutely opposed, into graver error." They are convinced "that neither of these conclusions" (viz., Supreme Adoration, and the identity of the Sacrifice of the Altar with that of the Cross) "is to be found in Holy Scripture, or has been declared therefrom by the Church;" yet they say, "The case may not amount to a direct call for a formal presentment of the Bishop, as liable to Judicial penalties." Now mark whether the conclusion follows from the premisses. If it be true that the Bishop of Brechin's teaching tends to " undermine the great foundations on which our Formularies rest," that his views VOL. XX.-JULY, 1858. 2 P

are unsound and erroneous," that his conclusions are not "to be found in Scripture," or "declared therefrom by the Church," we ask, was there ever a case that called for " a formal presentment of the Bishop" more strongly than this? We fear we must say that the truth is that the Bishops durst not proceed to try Bishop Forbes, but that they wanted to produce all the effect of such a condemnation on the mind of the Church, without committing themselves to the act. But is it true that no presentment had been made against the Bishop? Perhaps in the strictest legal sense it may be, but the morality of the statement will not bear investigation; for the Bishop of Glasgow did bring certain formal charges against the Bishop, which were only withdrawn on the day that the Synod sat. We believe that the history of the business is this: it was fully intended at the first to proceed against the Bishop, but about one third of the Presbyters of the Scottish Church, including three Deans, drew up and signed an address to the Bishops, imploring them to pause, lest they should rend the Church in two: we believe it was this document, signed so much more largely than the Bishops expected, (joined with certain legal opinions which had been taken) that led them to abandon judicial proceedings, and to content themselves with a Pastoral.

The legality of this Pastoral was disputed by Bishop Forbes on very strong grounds, and defended in the Pastoral on grounds equally weak. The Bishops feeling the difficulty of their positions, and knowing that their proceedings were irregular, made a feint to justify them by an appeal to canon law, ancient as well as modern. In a note they refer to three Ancient Canons; and three of the present Scottish Code. But first they declare (had the Bishops a lurking suspicion that their appeal to antiquity would not stand investigation ?) that they do it "by a right essentially inherent in a Provincial Episcopate ;" i. e., a right before and above all precedent and canon. There is something portentous in this assumption, a sort of stet pro ratione voluntas : what may it not justify? what amount of power may not be assumed and exercised under this supposed right? We believe that the explanation lies here: in the disastrous times of the last century, after the Church had been disestablished by law, the Bishops attempted to govern the Church as a College: they gave up Diocesan Episcopacy, and governed only in their collective capacity: it seems certain traditions of this plan still obtain; accordingly there is no proper Provincial Synod of the Church, including the Order of Presbyters, meeting periodically: there are only Annual Diocesan Synods, and this Episcopal one: the Bishops, then, have assumed that all right and power centre in themselves sitting in synod alone. But, as the Bishop of Brechin pointed out, "the Episcopal Synod may be said to be the creation of the Canons of 1838;" by these Canons the old system, whether of the College or

otherwise, was swept away, and a new constitution with regularly defined powers created.

"These powers," continues the Bishop of Brechin in his protest, are very carefully defined. It is declared in the first instance, that 'Episcopal Synods shall receive appeals from either clergy or laity against the sentence of their own immediate superiors.' It is declared in the second place, that if a Bishop being regularly accused shall refuse to answer the accusation, he shall be cited again in the name and on the authority of the Episcopal College, and if he be then guilty of contempt in not appearing, let the College pronounce against him such sentence as they think fit, that he be not a gainer by declining justice.' It is declared in the third place, that, for the purpose of providing for the clergy and laity of this Church being furnished with an accurate view of its state and condition from time to time,' the Bishops, 'when assembled in the Annual Episcopal Synod, shall, if they deem it necessary, issue a Pastoral Letter, containing an account of all the circumstances and occurrences, adverse as well as prosperous, which they think it may be for the benefit of the Church to be generally known.' It is declared in the last place, that no 'Bishop shall be translated from one diocese to another; that no person shall be consecrated Bishop, and that no coadjutor or assistant Bishop shall be appointed, without the sanction of a Majority of the Episcopal College.'

"These are all the powers entrusted to the Episcopal Synod. Nor can it claim to itself any larger authority as inherent in its constitution; for, if it had possessed any such authority, there could have been no need to confer by special Canon the very limited powers which have now been recapitulated."

From this it is perfectly clear, that the Episcopal Synod is a peculiar body, most useful for ordinary purposes, when all things go on smoothly in the Church; but it is not a Provincial Synod, nor a national one, neither is it, as a writer in the Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal (generally supposed to be the Bishop of S. Andrew's,) would maintain it to be, from the fact that it confirms the election of Bishops, in loco Metropolitani.

The matter is well put by the writer of the tract (No. 2 in our list), "What Position does the Episcopal College hold legally in the Church?"

"The novel claim (to be a Provincial Synod) is, however, beset with even greater difficulties than the former one, as very few words will suffice to show. For, 1st, a Provincial Synod, as distinct from a national one, implies the existence of a territorial division within a given nation, else, if co-extensive with the nation, the Provincial Synod merges into the national one; and thus (a.) we find existing-first the General or National Synod, constituted by a Divine law, and challenging our obedience on that ground solely; and both of these occupying an equal extent of territory.

2ndly. I find it maintained by Bingham (B. II, c. xix.)—in which