of them, like that which the Bishop condemned as a disqualification for Holy Orders.' The Bishop's last effort to stem the tide of progress that was surging all around him was his opposition to singing hymns in the churches. Some of the modern hymns are described as abounding in 'blasphemy and vulgarity,' but the avowed object was to carry out the spirit of the Act of Uniformity, and this could not be done if the clergy were allowed to introduce any hymn books at their pleasure. These new hymns might be the means of undermining the Church's doctrines. As we have an authorised version of the Bible so should we have an authorised version of the Psalms. The metrical version in the Prayer Book had indeed no authority beyond that of the King's Printer, but for the sake of uniformity and soundness in the faith, we should all cling to it. This was the last plea for Tate and Brady, Sternhold and Hopkins. Bishop Marsh deserved to be celebrated in He was probably in Hannah More's mind when she verse. wrote of one who 'Feared 'twould show a falling state Henry Bathurst, Bishop of Norwich, continued the succession of liberal bishops. Though descended from a Nonjuring family, and in fact the son of a Non-juror, he early renounced the principles of his ancestors and ardently promoted all measures for political and religious freedom. He rejoiced in the progress of toleration' and expressed his belief that Roman Catholics were now more tolerant, and Dissenters less acrimonious than they had been in past times. He defended the Evangelical clergy as men whose enthusiasm consisted only in zeal in performing the duties of their calling. He supported and defended the Bible Society in the face of remonstrances from the clergy of his diocese. He was ready to share in every undertaking for the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. Though inalienably attached to the Church of England, he was willing even to renounce that if it stood in the way of his working with his fellow-Christians. The end to be gained was of more importance than the means to be used. To the cry of the Church in danger, he answered that there was danger, but it was from those who raised the cry. Some thought the Church of England of more importance than Christianity itself, but the outward fabric was not worth maintaining if charity, the guardian angel of the inner fabric was gone. Bishop Bathurst was one of the early promoters of the National Society, but he wished it to be national in reality and not merely in name, and to undertake the education of all without reference to Creed. He was the first of modern bishops to disregard Episcopal routine, and refused to be guided by rigid legality. He ordained candidates from Scotch. Universities as being of equal standing with those from Oxford or Cambridge. He even ordained without titles; one of those who were so ordained was Graham the poet of the Sabbath, another was Charles Sumner afterwards Bishop of Winchester. Thomas Burgess, Bishop successively of Llandaff and St David's was also one of the first Episcopal supporters of the Bible Society. He was ardent for Chillingworth's rule, 'The Bible and the Bible alone,' and this with the utmost loyalty to the Prayer Book in its proper place. He advanced if he did not originate an argument against the supremacy of St Peter in the variation of the gender between the two Greek words which mean rock in the text, 'Thou art Peter1 and on this rock 2 I will build my Church.' The foundation was then not the man Peter but the confession he had just made that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. The Bishop had also a theory that the Church of Rome was founded by St Paul and not by St Peter. In the Epistle to the Romans St Paul spoke of imparting to them a spiritual gift. The Church was really founded when this gift was imparted. Not only did St Paul found the Roman Church, he also founded that of Britain which was entirely independent of the Church of Rome. From this it follows that the Papal Church in England was an intrusion of a later date. The Reformation, therefore, only re-established principles which had been violated by the Bishops of Rome. The successor of Barrington in the See of Durham, was William Van Mildert.1 He had succeeded Marsh in the See of Llandaff in 1819. In 1802-1805 he was Boyle Lecturer. His subject was a history of infidelity with a refutation.2 The argumentative part was not new. The language in which the thesis was expressed showed the attitude of the Lecturer. It was 'that infidelity, in all its forms, from Paganism in the early times to the philosophical, metaphysical sceptical unbelief of the present day, is not an unintentional error, but the wilful corruption of known truths, and therefore an undoubted sin.' According to this the unbeliever is not a sincere person with difficulties in the way of belief, but simply a perverse sinner. Van Mildert was Bampton Lecturer in 1814. His subject was the interpretation of Scripture. The first qualification of the interpreter was the moral one. The Bible was its own interpreter where there was the right disposition to understand. It was supreme as the rule of faith, above all dictates of the Church, of reason or even of spiritual illumination. But great deference was to be given to the opinions of the Fathers. Some of them were conversant with the Apostles. The claims of the later Fathers are diminished by distance of time; yet even they had advantages for understanding the Scriptures which we have not. The extraordinary gifts to the Church were not yet withdrawn. We have not these gifts, but we have reason which is not so depraved but that we can distinguish what is of faith and what can be discovered by the natural intellect. The 'diversities of gifts' having ceased, there is now no authorised interpretation of Scripture. The amount of credenda to be deduced from the Scriptures on these principles of interpretation was a question to be considered. Some had reduced all articles of faith to one— 1 B. 1765, d. 1836. 2 The title was 'An Historical View of the Rise and Progress of Infidelity, with a Refutation of its Principles and Reasonings.' 3 The title was 'An Enquiry into the General Principles of that Jesus is the Messiah. Some defined them as the fundamentals on which all Christians were agreed, while others reckoned nothing essential to faith, which had not a practical tendency. The Lecturer defined the credenda as the articles. commonly received as orthodox with 'a due estimation of the Church's sacraments and the Church's priesthood' for these were ' interwoven into the very substance of Christianity and inseparable from its general design.' The orthodox doctrines with the Church and sacraments' had been held in all ages of the Church. Some objected that the Church was once Arian, to which the answer was, that the hierarchy only became Arian under the compulsion of the civil power. In his Charge of 1821, Van Mildert, as Bishop of Llandaff, lamented the increase of Methodist and Dissenting meetings. He lamented also the progress of infidelity and in some places of Unitarianism, a phase of Christianity 'hardly stopping short of disbelief in revealed religion.' But the real and great enemy of the Church was fanaticism, that is the preaching of the followers of Wesley and Whitfield. This was the thorn in the flesh, the torment of the orthodox and decorous bishops and clergy. It is not clear that Van Mildert distinguished between the theologies of the different sects, even of the Methodists. To 'the wandering schismatic,' he ascribed the doctrine of salvation without man's co-operation, but simply by an absolute decree. The Bishop was essentially a prudent Churchman, his progress never exceeding that of the whole ecclesiastical body. He lamented the 'spurious liberality of sentiment which regards each persuasion with an equal degree of complacency,' and he opposed all such measures as those to which belonged what was called 'Catholic Emancipation,' for the Roman Catholic religion was idolatry and superstition. Edward Maltby succeeded Van Mildert in the See of Durham. He was a pupil of Dr Parr and was strong in Greek. He appeared as a theological writer early in the century. After the manner of Paley he pursued the argument from undesigned coincidences.1 He did not propose a formal proof, but only undertook to set forth such considerations as made Christianity credible, and the books on which it rested Church in England was an intrusion of a later date. The Reformation, therefore, only re-established principles which had been violated by the Bishops of Rome. The successor of Barrington in the See of Durham, was William Van Mildert. He had succeeded Marsh in the See of Llandaff in 1819. In 1802-1805 he was Boyle Lecturer. His subject was a history of infidelity with a refutation. The argumentative part was not new. The language in which the thesis was expressed showed the attitude of the Lecturer. was 'that infidelity, in all its forms, .from Paganism in the early times to the philosophical, metaphysical sceptical unbelief of the present day, is not an unintentional error, but the wilful corruption of known truths, and therefore an undoubted sin.' According to this the unbeliever is not a sincere person with difficulties in the way of belief, but simply a perverse sinner. Van Mildert was Bampton Lecturer in 1814. His subject was the interpretation of Scripture. The first qualification of the interpreter was the moral one. The Bible was its own interpreter where there was the right disposition to understand. It was supreme as the rule of faith, above all dictates of the Church, of reason or even of spiritual illumination. But great deference was to be given to the opinions of the Fathers. Some of them were conversant with the Apostles. The claims of the later Fathers are diminished by distance of time; yet even they had advantages for understanding the Scriptures which we have not. The extraordinary gifts to the Church were not yet withdrawn. We have not these gifts, but we have reason which is not so depraved but that we can distinguish what is of faith and what can be discovered by the natural intellect. The 'diversities of gifts' having ceased, there is now no authorised interpretation of Scripture. The amount of credenda to be deduced from the Scriptures on these principles of interpretation was a question to be considered. Some had reduced all articles of faith to one 1 B. 1765, d. 1836. 2 The title was 'An Historical View of the Rise and Progress of Infidelity, with a Refutation of its Principles and Reasonings.' The title was 'An Enquiry into the General Principles of |