as well as civil, will have frequent occasion to be new-regulated and put in order. Now, though by this alliance of church and state no new regulations can be made for church government, but by the state's authority, yet still there is reason that the Church should be previously consulted, which we must suppose well skilled, (as in her proper business,) to form and digest new regulations before they come be fore the consideration of the civil legislature. Acting otherwise is changing this, which is a federate alliance, into an incorporate union."

I am well aware of the reasons which are usually given for the dissolution of Convocation. Its own turbulence; the continual disputes which were carried on between the two Houses; these, together with the extreme anxiety of the King and his ministers that the Church should not ruin herself by internal divisions, are the causes which ostensibly led to that effect. Now, granting that the Convocations which sat during the last years of Queen Anne, and the first of King George, were as turbulent and pugnacious as they are represented to have been, does their turbulence furnish any sufficient reason why the privilege of holding Synods should be for ever taken away from the Church of England? The last years of Queen Anne, and the first of King George, were distinguished by an extraordinary degree of turbulence in every public body. In the English Parliament, the Houses of Lords and of Commons were at open war, whilst the Scottish Parliament, as long as it lasted, was little better than a hotbed of faction. But because Parliament was somewhat divided against itself, would this have furnished the sovereign with sufficient grounds for dispensing with the service of Parliaments in all time coming? or would the people of England submit to be deprived of that legislative assembly? The heats and animosities which prevailed in Convocations, therefore, immediately previous to the virtual annihilation of the body, supply no kind of argument why Convocations should not be restored to life after a short dissolution. As appears from the constant subject of these quarrels, the dissensions between the two Houses arose from not having had their respective rights and privileges defined with sufficient accuracy; nor was any

other measure required to allay these. dissensions for ever, except an accurate understanding on that head. This, no doubt, would have been obtained in time; exactly as the two Houses of Parliament have arrived at length, and that too only of late, at tolerably correct notions touching their respective privileges; so that it cannot be doubted, that Synods, convened and meeting on proper principles, would have proved the reverse of pernicious to the state, or fruitless to the church. So at least thought Hooker, no bad authority on these matters, who characterizes religious councils or synods as "a thing whereof God's own blessed spirit was the author; a thing practised by the holy apostles themselves; a thing always afterwards observed, and kept throughout the world; a thing never otherwise than most highly esteemed of, till pride, ambition, and tyranny began, by factious and vile endeavours, to abuse that divine invention, unto the furtherance of wicked purposes. But, as the first authority of civil courts and parliaments is not therefore to be abolished, because sometimes there is cunning used to frame them, according to the private intentions of men over-potent in the commonwealth, so the grievous abuse which hath been of councils should rather cause men to study how so gracious a thing may again be reduced to that first perfection, than in regard of stains and blemishes sithens growing, to be held for ever in extreme disgrace."

There is, indeed, an argument, which I have sometimes heard urged against the existence of any synodical body in the Church of England, and which, as it carries great weight with the few professed high-churchmen of which our ecclesiastical society can still boast, deserves to be noticed. It is this-The Church of England being purely Episcopal in its constitution, supports a distinct order of officers, whose peculiar business it is to direct and govern the society; but as long as Convocations lasted, much, if not the whole governing power, was assumed by the inferior clergy, in direct violation of the rights of the Episcopals. Now, not to repeat the quotation just extracted from Hooker, I would ask the divines who thus argue, whether the Church of Christ was not Episcopal in the days of the Apostles ?-whether

it was not Episcopal during the reign of Constantine?-whether the Popish Church is not as completely Episcopal as our own?-and whether one and all of these Churches, if we may express ourselves so, have not admitted, and do not admit, the authority and usefulness of General Councils? Perhaps the Lower House of Convocation may have taken too much upon itself in many instances; this is by no means improbable; but to say that the Pres byters of an Episcopal Church have no right to interfere at all in the management of ecclesiastical affairs, is surely not warranted by history, or by com

mon sense.

Since Episcopacy was first established, the peculiar duty of a bishop appears to consist in superintending the general conduct of the clergy of his diocese; in seeing that the laws and canons of the church be strictly obeyed; in taking care that no person be ad mitted into holy orders who is unsound in the faith, or holds opinions at variance with the authority of that church of which he is the guardian; but the bishops have no right to determine, of their own authority, what shall, or what shall not, be the duty of the Church. The English bishops, for example, could not take away a single article from the thirtynine, at present subscribed by themselves and the clergy, nor add a single canon to those by which the Church is governed. If, however, any change is to be effected in the peculiar creed, or peculiar laws, of a church, it must be done, not by one order of churchmen, but by the Church at large. The Church, however, like all numerous bodies, can only act by its delegates; nor am I disposed to deny, that, in such cases, not only the inferior clergy, but the laity themselves, have a right to be represented. That the laity were admitted, even under the Saxon government, and for some time after, into Ecclesiastical Synods, is a matter of historical notoriety; nor can I, though as warmly attached to Episcopacy as any member of an Episcopalian Church, see the smallest objection to the arrangement.

Still less is the objection to synodical assemblies valid, which depends upon the right assumed by these bodies, of holding even the bishops themselves responsible for their conduct and opinions. There are, indeed, certain

points, on which a canonically consecrated bishop neither is nor can be called to an account by any human power. Thus, with the bishops, and with them only, does it rest, to confer holy orders, to grant licences to preach, and to assign to each spiritual person within their jurisdiction the peculiar province in which he is to labour; and for the exercise of this power they are answerable to no man; but there are other matters again, on which they both are, and must be, accountable to the society of which they are officers. Hence a bishop is just as liable to ecclesiastical censure for the promulgation of heretical opinions, as any other member of the priesthood; whilst the Church has surely a right to reprove even a bishop, if he abandon his diocese, and so neglect his duty. If it be urged, that in the archbishops of provinces is vested the right of superintending the conduct of their suffragans, the difficulty is only pushed a little farther off; it is not destroyed; for to whom but to the Church, in a collective capacity, are the archbishops responsible?

It is needless to carry my general argument farther, for the purpose of overthrowing every little objection which may be raised to the operations of a Synod in the Church of England. My purpose will be better served, if I point out at once what the consequences of its abolition have been, and how completely that act has reduced our Church from the condition of a federate ally, to that of a mere slave, or dependant upon the state.

What would the Kirk of Scotland say, were the Imperial Parliament, without deigning to consult the General Assembly, to pass an act, declaring those orders conferred in the Scottish Church upon persons who had not attained to a certain age, should be" thereby null and void in law, as if they had never been given?" What would the Kirk of Scotland say, were the Imperial Parliament, without deigning to consult the General Assembly, to pass an act, declaring, that all persons ordained by an English or American Presbytery, in strict communion with the Scottish Church, "were incapable not only of holding preferment, but of officiating in any church or chapel within the kingdom of Scotland, by virtue of these orders?" I am much mistaken in the spirit

which pervades your respectable esta blishment, if she would not tell the British Parliament, that, in passing such acts, it had assumed to itself a degree of authority which no merely civil government is capable of exercising; for that it is no more in the power of the civil government to take away orders, after they had been once conferred, than to convey the spiritual character, and to confer holy orders. I am much mistaken in the spirit which pervades your respectable establishment, if she would not tell the British Parliament, that it belongs no more to it to determine what is, and what is not, the canonical age for receiving orders, than it belongs to the General Assembly to decide, whether the assessed taxes shall be continued or with drawn from the people of Scotland. With respect to the act prohibiting all foreign-ordained clergymen from officiating in an established place of worship, the Church of Scotland would, I suspect, reply, that as the Parliament had no share in conferring the sacred character, and is not authorized to judge whether that character has been canonically conferred, or otherwise, so it is not for it to determine any limits, within which the person ordained shall be incapable of exercising his holy functions. From a share in the national preferment, the Parliament has, indeed, a right to exclude whom it will; and it may farther require, that a licence be procured from a civil magistrate, before any stranger shall officiate in one of the national churches; but for Parliament to declare such stranger incapable of officiating by virtue of his foreign order, and so to require that he shall be ordained again, if he persist in his desire of officiating in Scotland, is to take upon itself a degree of spiritual authority, to which it neither is, nor can be entitled.

Such are the advantages which the Church of Scotland enjoys, by possessing an Assembly or Synod, capable of defending its undeniable rights. Let us look next how the Church of England stands in these respects. From the period when Convocation ceased to act, the Church of England ceased to enjoy any of the rights which are enjoyed by every other spiritual society under heaven. She could no longer correct abuses, revise canons, institute new regulations, or take any other step for the reformation of her general con

stitution. But into every society abuses will creep; there is no constituted body which requires not occasionally to be new-modelled; whilst the very passage of time is continually creating new relations, for which some provision must be made. How, then, has the English Church conducted herself? Why, she has sat still, whilst the civil Parliament has enacted, of its own authority, canon after canon, and displayed all the powers of a regular religious council.

There are few of your readers who can be ignorant, that the Episcopal Churches of Scotland, and of the United States of America, agree in every essential point, both of faith and of constitution, with the established Church of England. All three are governed by bishops, all three subscribe the thirty-nine articles, and all three use the Book of Common Prayer in the celebration of public worship. The consequence is, that the Episcopal churches of Scotland and America readily admit the validity of English orders-as the Church of England was wont, till within little more than twenty years ago, to admit the validity of theirs.

The Scottish Episcopalians having been strenuous Jacobites, fell as such, under the hatred of that Whig administration, which abolished the authority of the English Convocation; they were of course prosecuted, and their places of worship shut up. But as time passed, and political animosities became softened down, the persecutions to which they had been subjected were gradually omitted; till, finally, in the year 1792, a bill was carried through both Houses of Parliament, and received the Royal assent, by which they were legally delivered from all farther molestation. Annexed to that bill, however, is a clause, which proves how completely the spiritual rights of the Church were by this time forgotten; and how little "the divine right of Episcopacy, and, to the valid administration of the Sacraments, the necessity of Episcopal orders, derived by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles," was esteemed.

In the clause just referred to, it is declared, "That no person exercising the function, or assuming the office and character, of a pastor or minister of any order, in the Episcopalian com

munion of Scotland, shall be capable of taking any benefice, curacy, or other spiritual promotion, within that part of Great Britain, called England, the dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, or of officiating in any church or chapel within the same, where the liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established, is used; unless he shall have been lawfully ordained by some bishop of the Church of England or Ireland." Let me direct the attention of your readers somewhat closely to this en

actment.

Had the Imperial Parliament contented itself by declaring, that no person ordained by a Scottish bishop shall be capable of holding preferment, or even a curacy, within the realm of England, no fault could have been found with it. The temporalities of the Church confessedly come from the state; in one part as much under the state's management, as is any other species of property, whether personal or corporate, in the kingdom. Nay, more; had the Parliament prohibited every person so ordained from officiating in England, until he should have received a licence so to do, from competent authority, even this, though savouring a little of Erastianism, would not have been pushing the matter to its full extent. "The power," says Hales," of ecclesiastical order, is not derived from the Crown; neither is it conceived so to be; but so much as is not superstitious, is derived from Christ. Hence it is, that the powers of order are not in themselves, nor, as to the efficacy of them, confined to any diocese or precinct.' But" the determination of the exercise of those powers of order to time, place, person, manner of performance, is derived from the crown.' Hales is no very high churchman, we all know; but perhaps he is the better authority for our purpose, on that account. But the Parliament went far beyond this, when it declared in positive terms, that no clergyman of the Episcopal communion of Scotland should be capable of officiating in an English church, unless' ordained by an English or Irish bishop.

There is a direct interference with the spiritual character of the priesthood; a positive declaration by the civil government of Great Britain; that orders conferred by a Scottish biVOL. XVII.

shop, though perfectly valid on the south side of the Tweed, and authorising him who holds them to perform every sacred function, cease to be orders at all, as soon as that river is crossed. If the Scottish priest be desirous of reading prayers in an English church, he must persuade some English bishop to ordain him anew. Would such a bill have passed, had Convocation been in operative exist ence?

To do them justice, the English bishops opposed with all their might the progress of the bill just alluded to. They pointed out, and especially Bishop Horsley, that the passing of such an act was not only destructive of the spiritual character of the priesthood, but was tantamount to a complete denial of what had hitherto been the law of England, both civil and ecclesiastical,—that holy orders, whereever conferred by a canonically consecrated bishop, are unquestionably valid all over the world. But what could the bishops do? They no longer spoke as the church; they were but twenty-seven peers of Parliament; so the bill passed into a law, in spite of their opposition, and still holds good throughout the empire.

By means precisely similar, namely, by the force of an act of the civil legislature, the clergy of the United States, whose Episcopacy was derived directly from the Church of England, are excluded from discharging any clerical office within the realm. Against this enactment no dissenting voice was raised; indeed, the bishops appear to have grown, by degrees, so fully aware of the helpless condition of the Church, that they now permit the Parliament to regulate her affairs as it may see best, without any attention being paid to obsolete opinions.

As the measures already described bore reference rather to the foreign relations, if we may so speak, than to the internal affairs of the church, it may, perhaps, be imagined, that no great injury has been committed by this adoption. Now, not to dwell upon the fact, that those very measures place the Church of England in the light of an excommunicated body, excommunicated too by the authority of the civil power, I proceed to point out to your readers some of the enactments, which completely justify you Presbyterians in the opinion

D

which you hold of our utter enslavement, or rather absorption into the

state.

The reader of ecclesiastical history must have noted, that during every period, and in every Church, as well during the usurpation of Popery, as since the Reformation, some particular age has been determined by canon, previous to which no layman shall be admitted into holy orders. In the reformed Church of England and Ireland, a dispensing power was wont to be vested in the archbishops of provinces, by the exercise of which young men might be admitted into the orders of priest and deacon, before they had attained the age specified in the canons. In the sister kingdom it appears, that the power thus vested in the archbishops was so frequently and so grossly abused, that even the very highest churchmen admitted that it ought to be withdrawn. But where was the body capable of withdrawing it? This was an arrangement purely spiritual, affecting only the spiritual interests of the Church, and hence could be entered into only by a spiritual Assembly or Synod. The days of synod-holding had, however, long gone by; so the Imperial Parliament took the matter into its own hands, and managed it to its own perfect satisfaction.

In the year 1804, a bill to regulate the ages of persons to be admitted into holy orders was introduced into Parliament, and passed into a law. In that law there is a clause which enacts, "That in case any person shall, from and after the passing of this act, be admitted a deacon, before he has attained the age of three-and-twenty years complete, or a priest, before he has attained the age of four-and-twenty years complete, such admission shall be merely void in law, as if it had never been made, and the person so admitted shall be incapable of holding, and disabled from taking, any ecclesiastical preferment whatever, in virtue of such his admission."

Far be it from me to question the right of the state to determine who shall, and who shall not, enjoy its preferment; but can any act of the civil power annul an ordination? If so, if it be true, that the British Parliament has the power of rendering null and void, as if they had never been given, orders conferred, perhaps by mistake,

or misinformation of an English bishop, one day before the person ordained had completed his twentythird or twenty-fourth year, wherein consists the spiritual authority of the bishops, or the spiritual character of the priesthood? May not the power which is acknowledged to be competent to the annihilation of that spiritual character, claim, with the most perfect consistency, the sole right to confer it on whomsoever it will, without the interposition of any bishop at all? We speak with regret of the decaying zeal both of our clergy and laity, and look back with a sigh to the period when our church was esteemed divine in her constitution; can we wonder that different opinions are now held of her?

The very great importance of my subject will, I trust, stand as an excuse, if I pursue it a little farther. All contest, if contest that may be called, which consisted on the one side of continual aggressions, on the other of quiet and sneaking submission, was now at an end, and the Church of England had become as complete a tool of the state, as Hobbes, or any other admirer of an absolute dependance of religion upon law, should desire. The Parliament, accordingly, proceeded to legislate in spiritual affairs with the very same nonchalance as if it had been enacting laws for a colony, whilst the Church was satisfied to receive its legislation with the most passive indifference. Hence, act after act has passed, each more conclusive than the other, that the idea of a spiritual character being inherent in the clergy otherwise than at the option of the state, is now pretty well exploded; and that the bishops, whatever they may themselves affirm of their authority, derived by unbroken succession from the Apostles, are mere civil servants. It is true, that by sufferance, they still enjoy the nominal power of making laymen priests; but what then? these priests are priests or no priests, according as the state determines; they may be priests here, and only laymen elsewhere; nay, the state has full power to unmake them all, exactly as it may cashier a sheriff, or supersede a constable.

So lately as the year 1819, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with the Bishop of London, or any other bishop appointed by them, were au