If it were said that the difference between bishops² of the old school and of the new consists chiefly in the fact that the former wore wigs⁴ and that the latter have ceased to do so, the definition would be true enough if it were followed out, not literally⁵, but with a liberal construction. In former days the wig³ and apron⁶, of themselves, almost sufficed; but now, these outer things having been, to so great an extent, laid aside, other things, much more difficult of acquirement, are needed. There was, however, such an odour of pious⁷ decorum round the episcopal wig, that we cannot but regret its departure; and then, again, so much of awe⁸ has gone, now that the wig is abandoned! We who can remember the bishops in their full panoply{17} can hardly understand how a bishop¹ of these times can be a bishop at all to his subject parsons. And that veneration⁹ which arose from outer circumstances used to be so peculiarly the perquisite¹⁰ of the bench of bishops, that men of the laity¹¹, thinking over it all, are at a loss to conceive why appendages¹² so valuable should have been abandoned thus recklessly. Even aprons¹³ are not worn as aprons were worn of yore,—but in a shorn degree, showing too plainly that the reverend wearer is half ashamed of the

分享到：