obligation to all who feel that amidst the manifold defects of the Reformation, it still vindicated mighty principles, and asserted necessary truths to all who are grateful for the blessing of a knowledge of the holy Scriptures, of an unmutilated sacrament, of emancipation from a system of practical idolatry and polytheism-to all such, we would appeal in confidence on the duty of the Church to do more than merely provide for the spiritual wants of her own actual adherents. She has an office to discharge to them "that are without;" she has to afford to the benighted multitudes around her the opportunity at least of hearing the truth; and imperfect as may be her success in many cases, she has " a testimony to deliver," which she is bound to carry into every district of the land however remote; and which would be checked and impeded if the numbers of her ministers were reduced.

It may be very convenient to politicians to discourage "proselytism," and to express dissatisfaction at the conduct of those of the clergy who are assiduous in endeavouring to extend the doctrines of the Gospel amongst the Romanists of Ireland. But the Irish no less than the English Church is essentially and on principle, a proselyting Church. The clergy are bound by their vows at ordination to "be ready with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word;" and the canons of the Church of Ireland contain the following provision.

"Every minister being a preacher, and having any Popish recusant or recusants in his parish (and thought fit by the Bishop of the diocese), shall labour diligently with them from time to time, thereby to reclaim them from their errors. And if he be no preacher, or not such a preacher, then he shall procure (if he can possibly) some that are preachers so qualified, to take pains with them for that purpose. If he can procure none, then he shall inform the Bishop of the diocese thereof, who shall not only appoint some neighbour preacher or preachers adjoining to take that labour upon them, but himself also (as his important affairs will permit him) shall use his best endeavour, by instruction, persuasion, and all good means he can devise, to reclaim both them and all others within his diocese so affected."

This canon reminds us of a very important branch of the subject now before us. We allude to the remarks which have been made on the episcopate of the Irish Church. It has been said on the authority of Lord Grey (and we believe that Mr. Senior might be quoted in support of the same view) that four bishops would be perfectly sufficient for the spiritual wants of the Church in Ireland. The argument on which this position is based is as follows. Suppose the Irish bishops reduced to four,

66

there would still be a smaller number of persons and benefices under the charge of each than in England; each Irish bishop would then have 250,000 persons, and 364 benefices." In England each bishopric has on an average a population of 500,000 members of the Church, and 423 parishes. Doubtless this argument bears a plausible appearance: it has even been said that the diocese of Lincoln alone contains, or did till recently contain, as many parishes as the whole of Ireland; and if so, it is rather singular that it has not been contended that one bishop would be sufficient for the Irish Church. Indeed, on this principle it might be easily demonstrated that the English episcopate might be extensively reduced. The diocese of London, under the arrangements of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, will comprise two millions of people. Since then the whole population of England and Wales is sixteen millions, including dissenters; it is evident, on this principle, that eight bishops would be more than sufficient for the spiritual superintendence of the Church of England, and that eighteen sees may be suppressed. We wonder that so conclusive an argument should have escaped the penetration of those who are so zealous in their endeavours to reduce bishoprics, and to prevent the institution of additional sees. The Welsh dioceses of course have not the slightest chance, in the face of such overwhelming facts. Lord Stanley will, we are sure, gladly avail himself of so efficient a mode of repelling the claims of the Church for an increased episcopate. By the way, are we to connect the refusal to erect additional sees in England, with an intention to suppress sees in Ireland? Would the concession of the one, be a difficulty in the way of the other?

But let us take another case, and see the operation of this principle. The sees of Lincoln and Norwich contain, or did very recently contain, nearly as many benefices respectively as there are in the whole of Ireland. Under the arrangements of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners they will each comprise about 1000 benefices. May it not be argued from this, that eleven bishops would be sufficient for the English Church, and that fifteen bishoprics may be suppressed with perfect safety?

Now we really do not see how such a mode of reasoning could be answered by those who argue that the Irish episcopate should be reduced to four or three dioceses, because such an arrangement could equalize its duties with those of the English episcopate. If the principle be adopted, that the larger dioceses are to form the model to which the remainder of the Church is to be brought up, we cannot conceive on what view the existing numbers of the English hierarchy can be defended. Our Church reformers are really not aware of the strength of their own position: they do

not see that, according to their arguments, one bishop would be quite sufficient for Ireland, and eight for England! And this certainly would be a considerable step towards abolishing episcopacy and Christianity altogether.

We trust that we have shown sufficiently the absurdity and the danger of assuming that the largest existing bishoprics may be regarded as models, to which all other bishoprics may be conformed; or that the average amount of clergy and population in the dioceses of one country is to be considered as a rule which must be strictly adhered to elsewhere. In the colonial dioceses this rule has been perpetually broken through. We find from the "Colonial Church Atlas" that the diocese of Nova Scotia contains 50 clergy, Quebec contains 60, Toronto 91, New Brunswick 30, Newfoundland 26, Jamaica 80, Barbadoes 52, Antigua 25, Guiana 23, Calcutta 79, Madras 78, Ceylon 22, Bombay 30, Australia 46, Tasmania 21, New Zealand 18. Doubtless the number of clergy in these dioceses is very small when compared with the English dioceses; but every one would see in a moment the absurdity and the impropriety of depriving them of their existing amount of episcopal superintendence. It is true for instance, that the dioceses of Toronto, Montreal, Fredericton, and Nova Scotia, if united and placed under one bishop, would not contain more than 260 clergy; whereas an English diocese contains from 400 to 1000. And again, the several dioceses of India combined do not comprise much more than 200 clergy altogether. Still no one would venture to contend that merely because the number of clergy in those dioceses is small, and the numbers of churchmen far from large, the bishoprics ought to be suppressed'. It is at once seen, that there are other considerations which must be taken into account-that the territorial extent of dioceses is a very important element in the calculation.

Now if we compare the territorial extent of English dioceses with that of Irish dioceses, it will be found that the latter are more laborious spheres of duty than the former. The area of the English and Welsh dioceses on an average is 2230 square miles, that of the Irish is 2666. There is thus more difficulty, both on the part of the clergy and of the bishops, in meeting for the various duties which bring them together, such as ordinations, visitations, confirmations, &c., than in England.

1 So far is this from being the case, that the episcopate ought, as every one knows, to be largely augmented in those countries. We have now before us a very affecting appeal for the Church in Northern India, which states facts of the most painful nature in reference to the wants of the Church in that country; and urges the necessity of appointing a bishop for Northern India. We hope to lay this appeal before our readers.

But we have been thus far arguing on the mere fact, that the English dioceses have a certain population and a certain number of clergy. We have wholly left out of sight the question, whether the average duties of the English bishoprics are such as to render them models for the rest of the united Church? Now it so happens, that it is admitted by all the most competent judges that the English dioceses are at present very much too extensive; that in consequence of the extent of these dioceses, the whole system of the Church is very imperfectly carried out; that confirmations are not administered so frequently as would be desirable; that the great body of the clergy are personally unknown to the bishops; that the practice of local and parochial visitation and inspection, on which the efficiency of the Church obviously depends to no inconsiderable extent, has been almost wholly disused; that the pastoral relation of the bishops to the laity of their dioceses has been almost forgotten; that in consequence, the discipline of the Church has been relaxed, and the efficiency of the episcopal office, in every way, has been impaired. It is, we say, generally admitted, that the English episcopate needs to be largely augmented. There are, indeed, differences of opinion as to the particular mode in which this is to be accomplished; some being of opinion that it would be unadvisable to appoint additional bishops without seats in Parliament; others being of opinion that it would be still more unadvisable to add largely to the number of spiritual peers; some contending for suffragans, and others for diocesan bishops; but the Church of England, as a body, is, we believe, quite agreed that an augmentation, and an extensive augmentation, to the episcopate in England, is desirable and necessary. It has been contended-and the reasoning on which the argument is based has not been refuted—that the English episcopate requires to be raised from twenty-six to seventy or one hundred. We tell the advocates of this great cause, that the preservation, and even increase of the episcopate in Ireland, is essential to the success of the efforts which are making, and will be made, to increase the means of episcopal superintendence in England. Let the Irish bishoprics be reduced to the condition of the existing English sees, and it will instantly be made an argument against an augmentation of the English sees. It will be said, "We have just brought the Irish bishoprics to the dimensions of the English. Would you now have us proclaim our own mistake by reducing the English sees to the dimensions of the former Irish sees?" It is clear,

therefore, that the question of the extension of the episcopate in England depends vitally on the preservation of the Irish sees. The two causes stand or fall together.

We presume that those persons who are so very anxious to reduce the episcopate of the Irish Church to the English scale, will be prepared to act on the same principle in case the Romish hierarchy of Ireland is to be paid by the State. That hierarchy at present consists of 28 members we believe, who govern about 3000 priests, or about 100 each on an average. By applying the English scale to this hierarchy it will be seen, that three bishops would be amply sufficient for the Roman Catholic Communion in Ireland. Would the advocates of reduction in the episcopate of Ireland be prepared to insist on a similar mode of dealing with the Roman Catholic Church in case of its being endowed by the State; and if not, what is to be said of their justice and impartiality?

But to revert to the point which led to these remarks on the episcopate in Ireland; it is clear that there is a gross misapprehension of the nature of the episcopal office, when it is assumed that the duties of bishops, in regard to the population of a country, are to be measured by the numerical amount of the actual members of the Church. The canon to which we have above referred, assign to bishops duties which are amply sufficient to give them full occupation if their dioceses were doubled or trebled in number. It directs them to take the management of the work of conversion and proselytism upon them; to be the centre of communications on this important subject; to use their own "best endeavours, by instruction, persuasion, and all good means they can devise, to reclaim all persons within their dioceses" who may be popishly affected. It may be very well for politicians to smile at such injunctions in the present day; but we trust that Churchmen-and to such we address ourselves— will recognize, in directions like these, the genuine spirit of Christianity itself; the bold, and uncompromising, and most truly charitable faith and devotion of the true Church of Christ. Bishops, who have promised at their consecration to be "ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word, and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same"-bishops who are bound, as "pastors of the Church," "diligently to preach God's Word;" to "instruct the people committed to their charge" out of the Holy Scriptures; to "teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers"-such bishops, if they will act up to the spirit of their vows, and of the rules which the Church has laid down for their direction from Holy Scripture, are bound to labour, not only for the welfare of their own clergy and people, but for the conversion of those who are not of their communion;