rightly informs his clergy that they must not deceive themselves into supposing that the differences in our Church can be resolved altogether into questions of ceremonial. They go far deeper, as men are beginning to see; and the Bishop of London is not the first to discover that the issue now lies in a smaller compass than it did; for it is, whether those who are called Priests in the Church of England are what they are called.

"On this matter I must be explicit. First, then, let us not forget, in approaching such questions, that nothing can exceed the solemnity of the words in which it has been thought proper, in the Church of England, to confer the full rights of the office of the Presbyter. Also, let us not forget that these words of ordination have always, in our Church, been interpreted by a large and influential body-by many, indeed, of our most honoured divines-as conferring the right, derived from CHRIST Himself, not only to administer His Holy Sacraments and preach His Holy Word in the congregation, but also to speak of pardon with authority in CHRIST's Name in the Church's service in a way in which other men cannot speak, for the comfort of distressed souls. We have no right, my rev. brethren, to forget that such has been the language of some of our best divines, whether we ourselves— using, as we are fully entitled, our individual liberty-assent to it or no. I do not say that the statements which we meet with in these divines on this subject of the Presbyter's office applied, for example, especially to Absolution, are very definite or clear. I do not mean that from the very first you will not find powerful objections made in our Church to such statements, as tending, when scrutinised by the light of a rigid logic, to foster notions of priestly power which are untenable and untrue. The learned and pious men who have advanced these high claims for the ministerial office, pleading that their views are the natural and obvious explanation of certain expressions in our formularies, have, it is certain, been satisfied to leave the matter in some degree of vagueness, contending, perhaps, after all, when we sift their statements, only for this undoubted truth-that as CHRIST has appointed the ministry of His Church, so it is in all its offices, not merely in its preaching and in its sacraments, a ministry of consolation, capable of distilling the balm of comfort in CHRIST'S Name into repentant souls through every reverent word it speaks while fulfilling its pastoral mission. Now, the claim of such authority as attaching to the Presbyter's office, though, as I say, good men in the Church have often thought that it was exaggerated by those who put it forward; and though there have, accordingly, always been two schools amongst us, one upholding it, the other pointing out that there is danger in making much of it-the claim, I say, of such authority for Presbyters of the Church of England has hitherto been usually expressed with guarded moderation, even by those who thought most highly of it. Isolated passages may be adduced from our great divines upholding the Priest's absolving power; but any dangerous application of such passages is guarded against by the whole tenour of those more moderate sentiments which we find breathing through the works quoted when we view them as a whole." -Pp. 41-43.

Thus, as his Lordship is dead set against any "mimicry of cathedrals" by parish churches, so is he determined that parish Priests shall not fall into the absurd mistake of supposing they have spiritual power as well as Bishops. The very name of the second Order, as used by the Church of England, so rankles and cankers the heart of that party to which the Bishop belongs, that he will not use it except for the purpose of making it the tonic note of a sneer. Presbyter" is a word nowhere to be found in the formularies of the Church of England; and though, as all know, its legitimate meaning is identical with "Priest," yet it has been so abused since the invention of Presbyterianism in the seventeenth century, that it is more frequently understood by ordinary readers as indicating the distinction between those who claim spiritual and supernatural power, as the Priests of the Church of England, and those who do not, as the Presbyters of the Scotch Establishment. The Bishop of London is trying to foist this word upon the Church of England. To be consistent, he had better call himself a superintendent, after the terminology of John Knox.

The passage we have quoted can only be characterised as an attempt to evade the plain common sense meaning of our Ordinal and other portions of the Prayer Book.

But, to be seen in its full force, it should be placed in immediate conjunction with p. 56 of the Charge, which is as follows:

"But, moreover, there is a good deal of confusion in men's minds as to the questions at issue between the advocates and opponents of Confession, which it is well to clear up. We who disapprove any approach to the introduction into the Church of England of the Confessional, as it is technically called, of course do not forget the injunctions of our Prayer Book, which call upon us all to make public confession of our sins daily, as we approach to receive comfort from hearing the declaration, which the minister is authorised by the rules of the Church to pronounce, of GOD's willingness to pardon and absolve all those that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His holy Gospel. Neither do we shut our eyes to the fact that, previously to their receiving the Holy Communion, those persons-who, having tried, find that they cannot by self-examination and confession to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life and endeavours after reconciliation with those whom they have offended, attain to a full trust in God's mercy, and quiet their own consciences, but require further comfort or counsel-are exhorted to seek the aid of some discreet and learned minister of God's Word, that they may open their grief, and, having the comfort of being distinctly assured of GOD's willingness to pardon them, may receive ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of their consciences and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.

"Neither again do we forget further, that the pastor who visits any member of his flock labouring under dangerous sickness, if he finds the sick man to be troubled in conscience with any weighty matter, is directed to move him to make special confession of his sins, that thus opening

his heart, he may, if he seems truly penitent, have the consolation of hearing from his pastor's mouth before he dies, that GOD of His great mercy in JESUS CHRIST is ready to pardon him; and be assured that, great as his sins are, he is not excluded from the benefit of dying in communion with that Church which is CHRIST's Body! We are forgetful of none of these points. The passages which treat of Confession and Absolution in our Prayer Book speak, I believe, in this language of the comfort which is in store for the repentant sinner's soul, when either publicly in the congregation, or alone before GOD, or calling in the aid of his spiritual adviser, he confesses his sin, and begs GOD for pardon and reconciliation."-Pp. 56-58.

His Lordship "believes" that this is the language of the Prayer Book. His Lordship ought really to be better informed. That Book speaks in quite different language from this, as any honest Englishman will say who can read what it contains. Instead of the roundabout phrase "having the comfort of being distinctly assured of God's willingness to pardon them," the Prayer Book says "distinctly" " receive the benefit of absolution :" and instead of the Priest being directed to leave the sick man with the cold assurance that GOD "is ready to pardon him," he is directed to say, "by His "our LORD JESUS CHRIST'S-"authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins." Is there any rational and honest man that will aver the Bishop's gloss is fairly in keeping with the original text? We are sure there is not, and we decline to waste words on showing, by further argument, how false is the impression conveyed in the Bishop's Charge of what the Church says respecting the power of her priesthood. Instead of doing so, we shall simply refer to a work noticed some months ago in these pages, Mr. Fisher's "Liturgical Purity our Rightful Inheritance." There an acute barrister, belonging himself to the Low Church party, has shown, beyond all confutation, that the formularies of the Church of England distinctly countenance the claims of priestly power made by Tractarians; and that the honest course for men to pursue who think as the Bishop of London professes to think, and yet wish to remain in their positions, is to strive for the expurgation of the Prayer Book, and not to evade the consequences following on its plain and really unmistakeable language.

But all through the Charge there is an evident aversion on the Bishop's part to that second order of the ministry out of which he so lately took his flight. If his Lordship ever publishes a volume of definitions, we shall expect to find something like the following, perhaps in the form of question and answer. "Q. What is a Priest? Ans. A Priest is a Presbyter; i.e., a troublesome necessity of social life, altogether devoid of authority, spiritual or temporal, but intended to act as a social police, by precept and example. Q. What are the obligations of a Presbyter? Ans. (1) To give

passive obedience to his Bishop, however whimsical: (2) Not to offend the public. Q. What is a Bishop? Ans. (1) A Lord; (2) a public servant; (3) an overseer of Presbyters; i.e., a superintendent set over naughty big children like Pusey, Keble, Liddell, Stuart, Upton Richards, and others, who are old enough to know better,' but 'claim for themselves priestly rights,' and require to be kept in order by the rod of a Rugby Taidaywyós." Our readers may stare, but if they will turn to p. 53 of the Charge, they will find the actual words which we have printed in italics; and we think they will have no doubt, as we have none, that this vulgar piece of nurserymaid vituperation is really aimed at men of the stamp we have referred to, who teach and practise those Christian doctrines and usages which are so specially the writer's aversion. "Old enough to know better," forsooth! Yes, they are old enough to know better than their rebuker. Some are old enough to have sufficient knowledge of theology and history to furnish them with arguments against ten such opponents; and others are old enough to know more, by experience of the necessities of pastoral work, in a twelvemonth, than the whole career of a schoolmaster and Dean can furnish. Such phrases might come without much offensiveness from the lips of some of our very aged Prelates, though we do not believe there are any who would use them; but coming whence they do, they are only another symptom of that overweening elation at accession to high power and position, which blinds men to the fact that those in lower positions may yet be deserving of respect. The air of Aberdeen does not offer great advantages for educating Bishop Suther in the courtesies of life; but we should have thought the subduing and refining tone of London would have rubbed off this Scotch brusquerie, or at least have polished it over. We trust, however, that some of these Priests "who are old enough to know better" will yet be young enough to resist illegitimate encroachments upon their rights with energy. It is notorious that, at the time of the Visitation, the Bishop spoke to some of the High Church Clergy with a harshness and severity which quite belied the unctuous professions of fairness printed in the Charge. But if any of them were to come under his Lordship's lash, we are not sorry that Mr. Liddell or Mr. Stuart should be the individuals, as they are both of them able and willing to maintain their ground, and have each a good following of "men and women of eccentric tastes amongst the upper classes," to back them in case of necessity.

In conclusion, we wish to draw our readers' attention to the general unfairness of this Charge towards the High Church movement, and the work accomplished by its means.

There is, throughout the Charge, a studied suppression of all reference to the true origin of the great progress made in building churches and in other good works effected during the episcopate of Bishop Blomfield. If Bishop Tait were really the man he pro

fesses to be, resolved to give credit wherever credit is due to all parties in the Church, why is it that he altogether ignores the fact that it is the "high" party who have originated nearly all Church progress, and who have led the way for other sections of the Church in what they themselves have not effected. Bishop Tait speaks with justice of the church building during his predecessor's episcopate as a magnificent work. Let his lordship know, if he does not know (as he ought) already, that the whole of that church building movement, as well as the supply of additional curates by the society formed for that purpose, took its origin from a series of papers of Dr. Pusey's, printed in the British Magazine. It was by Dr. Pusey that the suggestion for a Metropolitan Churches Fund was originally made, and it was almost entirely by the exertions of High Churchmen that the suggestion has been carried out. While Low Churchmen were meeting in Exeter Hall, and declaiming against the principles of their Church, their much maligned brethren were building up the houses of GOD in the land; such energetic men as Mr. Cotton at Bethnal Green, or Colonel Short and Sir William Page Wood at Westminster, doing work of which the Bishop may well be proud, but for which he should at least give them and their coadjutors credit. The impression conveyed, in fact, by the whole tenour of the Charge is that the High Church are so altogether engrossed by "excessive floral decorations," "bowings, and genuflexions," and "candles lighted in the open day," that they have neither time nor inclination for solid work. Let the Bishop look around him, and seeing what has been done in his diocese, ask who has done it, and we cannot but think he will feel regret, if not shame, at such a suppressio veri. The Church Building Society, and most private Church Building also, has been the work of those whose sympathies were almost wholly on the side which the Bishop opposes; the Educational movement beginning in 1839 was due to, and is still, in its present condition, dependent on the exertions of High Churchmen; the whole penitentiary system has originated with the same party, as also has the unpretending but most useful institution of trained nurses at home and on foreign service; the Diocesan Mission, of which the Bishop thinks so highly, is but treading in the steps of S. Barnabas'—the whole work of which has been of that character-of S. George's in the East, which was originated by the S. Barnabas' clergy, and of Mr. Nugee's Mission College; as the services at S. Paul's are following those originated by High Churchmen at Westminster Abbey; and every one knows, to mention no more, what a large amount of influence for good has been accomplished by such churches as S. Andrew's, Wells Street; S. Mary's, Crown Street; All Saints; S. Matthias; S. Bartholomew's; and others of the same school, by good preaching, long before these services were thought of. Yet one only of these practical undertakings gains any notice from the Bishop in