a question of duty; and those who take opposite sides in the argument are like the two knights who, looking at a shield from adverse points of view, declared, the one that it was gold, the other that it was silver. They who recollect the legend will re member that both were, in equal measure, right and wrong. So in the question of the independency of the Church with regard to the Parliament: it has a negative and an affirmative condition-it is so far dependent that laws made by the clergy, in their assemblies, have no power to bind the laity, unless confirmed by the Parliament, in which case, it is the act of the Parliament, not of the clergy, which gives them force and validity. "The King's power of assent (says Hooker) is a power derived to him from the whole body of the realm; the religious duty of Kings is the weightiest part of their sovereignty.' 16 On the other hand, the Parliament, as we have already observed, can compel the clergy to nothing that is contrary to the law of God. The independency, therefore, be it right or be it wrong and it must be remembered that we are only speaking as to the fact is not more than that enjoyed by society generally. So ciety is so far, and only so far, independent of the Legislature, that the latter cannot compel obedience to an immoral law, should it think proper to pass one: they might legalize the commission of vice, but no human being would be bound by their law.

Notwithstanding this, the bishop, with good intentions, which we are willing to recognize, maintained, or rather intimated, that the Church was sufficient in herself for her own protection, for the exercise of her own authority, for the support of her own dignity, for the punishment of those among her ordained sons who may infringe the laws they had sworn to observe, or despise the ordinances they had vowed to keep. To this we answer, "Would it were so;" and, we may further add, "It ought to be so." But is this fact? Do our readers remember that painful case which affected a clergyman in the diocese of Peterborough, and which for a few months of the past year made our ecclesiastical laws the scandal of Christendom? Had the Church been efficient to punish, would that great offender have escaped? Had she been powerful to undo, would she have retained among her ministering servants one who had so sinned, and was so little ashamed? Or, let us ask, would she, in Mr. Oakeley's case, one of the most disgraceful that ever occurred in the annals of the Church-would she have hesitated to expel that gifted but treacherous son from her bosom, had the power been within her to compel the expulsion? It may be answered, that the Church has vindicated herself by placing the offender before an eccle

siastical tribunal. But in that reply we observe that the very circumstance noted in it is a proof of the despondency, not of the liberty, of the Church. The ecclesiastical tribunals exist but by sanction of Parliament, and a man in the Court of Arches is at the bar, not of the Church, but of the State. In cases like that of Mr. Oakeley she ought to hold the power which the Bishop of Exeter declares she possesses the power, in certain circumstances, of acting independently. Undoubtedly, in cases like that of Mr. Ward, and his friend of St. Margaret's where the one sneeringly and sarcastically exclaims, that had the Church of England been a pure Church she never would have admitted so worthless a person as himself to minister within her sanctuary; in such a case, we say, as this, but still more in that of Mr. Qakeley, who unblushingly pronounces that, while he administers in that sanctuary, his faith is with another ministration: yes, in such cases as these, the heads of the Church. ought to hold the power of prompt action. The Church should of herself be enabled to shake from the skirts of her robe both him who despises and him who denies her.

Who is to give the Church this power, if she have it not? The Legislature. And yet the Bishop of London told Dr. Jarvis, of Connecticut, that he preferred no legislation, on account of the constant fear that it would be wrong! This is the laissez aller sentiment: it would not attempt to heal a wound, for fear of bringing on inflammation!

We have not space for the full particulars of Mr. Oakeley's case: nor indeed is it necessary to detail what is so well known. The offence is matter of notoriety; the apology for it matter of shame. The former has been told in every paper; the latter may be found in Mr. Oakeley's letter to the Bishop of London, A more extraordinary document, one more able, or more vicious, was never offered in excuse for that which admitted of none. The plea is, that a man may honestly remain a minister of the Church of England while he disbelieves three-fourths of her doctrines. It is to us inconceivable and incredible, how a Christian English gentleman could so far forfeit all claims to be so considered, by maintaining that he may justifiably preach one opinion while he holds another. But this perhaps is doing Mr. Oakeley wrong. His point is that he, a minister of the Protestant Church, is undeserving reproach, seeing that though he believes in every article of the Popish faith, he does not endeavour (publicly) to force the same belief on his hearers ! He acknowledges the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; but he thinks there is little harm in that, provided he refrain from mentioning the subject to his hearers; he puts faith in a hundred

other things which he is sworn to denounce; and fancies that by keeping silence upon them he also keeps his oath! Observe, that every member of his congregation is perfectly well aware of the opinions held by their pastor; he does not impress his opinions upon them, but he has inspired them with a notion that whatever sentiments he adopts, they are sound, and necessary to salvation. They adopt the same without open profession. And when we enter the doors of St. Margaret's Chapel, we fancy the entire congregation rising and confidentially whispering in our ears-"We are all papists here, but we do not exactly wish it to be known!" And what else can they be who read the epistles of their minister, telling them that Popery is founded on divine right; and who listen to the discourses of their minister, wherein they are not told anything to the contrary? This may be the spirit of Romanism- we are very sure that it is not that of Christianity.

We conclude our scattered notices with recommending all parties to read often and meditate deeply the Pastoral Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It bears wise allusions to the past-advice for the present-and promises for the future. We await the fulfillment of the latter with confidence; for their fulfilment will, as we read them, secure the rubrics from misinterpretation, and the articles from misapprehension. It is there-fore, and from the well-grounded hope that the bulwarks of the Church of England will be generally strengthened, that measures will be taken to eject traitors from within, and disarm the foes that are without; it is, we say, from these considerations that we have refrained from insisting on any specific suggestions of We have only presumed to raise a humble but honest cry for the inviolability of the union of Church and State. Heaven will bless no measure that goes to break that sacred bond.

our own.

In the mean time, we recommend, alike to clergymen and civilians, the highly important volume named last in the list of works at the head of this paper. To those interested—and who now is not?-in the laws affecting the Church in her connection with the State, and indeed as affecting the Church in every possible position in which she may be placed, or circumstance that may befal her, it is one of the most extensively useful productions that ever was printed. It is a legal work of easy reference to the lawyer, of practical utility to the clergyman, and not only forms a complete and practical guide for the latter, but it is an indispensable volume to those who require to know, and who desire to be told intelligibly, the statute law of the kingdom as connected with the matters of which it treats. These matters

embrace the consideration of persons ecclesiastical; of their property and the provisions recognized by law for their support; of things ecclesiastical, and the legal provisions made for their maintenance; of benefices; of the duties of a clergyman in connection with his holy office; and of his duties in intercourse with his parishioners. These are only portions of the main trunk from which issue ramifications so numerous that we have not space to name them. Their study will be useful to all who are inclined to undertake a study as necessary as it is interesting; and they afford information of that sort which it has been hitherto difficult to acquire at least with the ease by which it may be attained here. The book stands perhaps in curious juxtaposition with some of its companions; but we have experienced its advantages in connection with them nevertheless. We recommend it, then, to one and all; and to one and all we further recommend, in the present, and indeed in every position of Church matters, the study of that beautiful maxim of St. Augustine, by which we may all profit largely :

"In necessariis unitas; in dubiis libertas; in omnibus charitas."

Notices of Books.

1. Bokhara: its Amir and its People. Translated from the Russian of KHANIKOFF, by the Baron CLEMENT A. DE BODE. Madden. 1845.

2. Travels in Luristan and Arabistan. By the Baron C. A. de BODE. 2 vols. Madden & Co. 1845.

THE first of these works derives its chief interest from the heroic undertaking of Dr. Wolfe-an attempt only the more heroic, when his age and bodily infirmities are taken into the account to ascertain the fate of Stodhard and Conolly; but which only an ardent temperament could have entertained, either in reference to the fate of the parties, or to the likelihood of a single individual bringing off the parties if surviving, or himself escaping from such a country and such a people. We rejoice that Dr. Wolfe has escaped, and sincerely hope that the same enthusiasm which led to the undertaking will not only buoy him up under the disappointment of his too sanguine expectations, but quickly restore his health, shattered by what he has undergone in the cause of humanity-though he has no other reward than the consciousness of having meant to act the part of the good Samaritan.

The worthy Russian's narrative is a very meagre affair-only tolerable because it treats of a country concerning the present

VOL. XVII.-K K

condition of which we know scarcely anything. Khanikoff talks as loftily in his preface as heart can wish, and raises grand expectations; but the volume itself does very little towards fulfilling these expectations: and, indeed, he himself tells us that some of the vaunted requisites are out of the question on the present occasion, and some of the materials collected are reserved for another opportunity. The requisite information he states to be of a threefold nature: 1. That derived from personal observation; 2. From inquiries; 3. From written documents, official as well as private. Of the first of these sources we shall say a few words immediately. Of the second, he proceeds to tell us, that, from apathy and innate indolence of character, the natives observe nothing and impart nothing-so that the traveller would enquire in vain. And "the third source (says the 'worthy Russ), is so exceedingly poor, in respect to Bokhara, that it is almost useless to allude to it." So that, after all, we have to fall back upon the personal observations of the author as our only information.

Khanikoff may be, perhaps, well enough for a Russian, and above par in his own country; but he does not make much figure in comparison with the travellers from other countries who have given an account of such regions as Bokhara-compared, for instance, with Burnes or Elphinston; and we confess that the lofty pretensions of the first few paragraphs in the preface led us to expect some new information concerning regions where conquest seems to have been cradled from the earliest ages; and whence-under the various names of Scythians, Parthians, and Tartars-nations of conquerors have, at so many epochs, rushed forth to terrify and scourge mankind; and where, at Samarcand, Timur, one of the last of them, had his abode when at rest.

Khanikoff has merely the eye of a merchant: he sees little beyond the bazaar, and the fields or gardens by which it is supplied with native produce, and the routes and conveyances by which articles of commerce find their way, Prices, and the various weights and measures, are given with much detail; as also the mode of cultivating the land, and the various kinds of grain, fruits, and vegetables. Nine chapters of the book are taken up with these minutia of the "industry and commerce of Bokhara;" presenting no topics of general interest, and very little special or peculiar.

The administration and learning, if such it can be called, in Bokhara, form the best part of the book, and some of the information under these heads is new and interesting-as relics of a machinery belonging to a more civilized state of society than