is not fellowship; the "credenda" make not Churchmen without the "agenda." And of these "agenda" the chief must proceed from the Church, not the individual. No man can by his own act become a member of the visible spiritual body of Christ, any more than he can by his own private declaration become naturalized into the visible temporal polity of the state.

If German Protestants, therefore, desire to be admitted to communion by Bishop Alexander, they must come, not as a body, but as individuals; not asserting an independent collective existence, but desiring to be adopted by and incorporated into the Church. Their previous baptism he must ascertain to be sufficient; their present doctrines to be, not of this or that form, but in themselves the doctrines of the Church. He must then upon their desire confirm them, as by Canon 60 he is bound to do; and having, by these several acts of the Church wherein he is Bishop, separated and taken them out from their former fellowship, he may admit them to the blessed Eucharist; and in that privilege retain them as long as by doctrines, morals, and liturgical conformity, they remain steadfast in their profession.

In like manner, if any German or other Protestants desire clergy of his ordination to be placed over them, the persons to be ordained to this charge must submit to all the conditions above mentioned-must be convinced that they are called according to "the order of the United Church of England and Ireland"-must be examined in the 39 Articles, and subscribe them-must acknowledge the Queen's supremacy

*Of course any Bishop may sanction, and any Candidate for Orders may bind himself by, subscription to any other formularies which may be thought compatible with the 39 Articles; and the greater the latitude allowed, the more light will be thrown upon the "vexata quæstio" of the meaning of these Articles. Those who are forward in charging the Clergy at home with dishonesty for entertaining a Catholic interpretation of the Articles, and yet are disposed to admit the Augsburg Confession at Jerusalem, will do well to consider what this confession implies: 1. As to the distinction between the popular practices and the tenets of the "probati scriptores" of the Church of Rome; 2. As to Baptism; 3. As to the Eucharist; 4. As to Private Confession; 5. As to Absolution; 6. As to Corporeal Discipline; 7. As to the Power of Bishops. To which other

must promise to use no other liturgy than that of the Church of England, and that they will "give their faithful diligence alway "so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the "discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, accord"ing to the commandments of God; so that they may teach "the people committed to their care and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same." Lastly, they must swear canonical obedience to the Bishop, and other ecclesiastical superiors; that is, obedience according to those Canons (amongst others) which I have above mentioned.

Clergy thus ordained can evidently be set over Protestant communities only in order to bring them into the Church, and of course can admit none to the Holy Communion, except when so brought in.

Here then we attain another point in our review. Before Bishop Alexander's consecration, the Prussian Protestants were not in communion with us: his consecration did not make them become so; can his subsequent acts? If those acts be in accordance with the rules above laid down, it is plain that the German Evangelical Church at Jerusalem must either be conformed to and absorbed in the Church of England, or, if it remains distinct with its own liturgy and confession, it will stand beside the Church of England, as it is proposed it should beside the Latin and Greek Churches, in as dignified a position, perhaps, as any of the three, but in communion with none.

But you will say, surely my view must be mistaken; surely the King of Prussia and others must have been aware of these difficulties; certainly there must be some way out of them.

Let us consider, then, what this way can be. And, first, as to the Act of Parliament under which the consecration was allowed. You have seen, above, the terms in which it was explained to the House of Lords by the Primate, as a Bill

points might perhaps be added also worthy of their attention. How any man can deny a real presence connected with the elements in the Eucharist, and yet allow Article X. of the Augsburg Confession, I do not understand.

for the better Regulation of the Congregations of English persons settled in foreign countries. The clergy there have hitherto been governed by the Bishop of London, according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England.* The necessarily defective administration of this system appears from the Archbishop's speech in Parliament, to have required the presence of a Bishop, to enforce and complete it; and, accordingly, there is a clause, which, with the intervention of the Crown, authorizes Bishop Alexander to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over ministers of British congregations of the United Church of England and Ireland abroad. Up to this point can either the intention of the legislature, as evidenced by the grounds on which the bill was proposed to it, or the words of the Act of Parliament itself, be construed to set aside any portion of that doctrine or discipline which the bill was mainly designed to support? There are powers in the act, which, in other cases than that of a British subject being consecrated under it, dispense with certain parts of the consecration service; but what further directions are there as to the conduct of a Bishop so consecrated, in respect to ordinations by him, or other matters affecting communion with him?

66

You will say there is a clause which enables him also to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over "such other Protestant congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves "under his authority." But I would fain know, whether every English Bishop has not the same power over every Protestant congregation which is willing to place itself under him; and yet does this dispense with the use of the liturgy and other terms of communion? And observe, that the same

spiritual jurisdiction," which, under the act, is to be in force over English clergy, is to be exerted over these Protestant congregations. And so, if they do not submit to the canonical enforcement of that which is the rule of duty and authority

*The strict enforcement of the discipline and ritual of the English Church in English congregations abroad, in opposition to local Protestantism, was the main purpose for which Archbishop Laud established this foreign jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. See Heylin's Life of Laud, pp. 218, 219, 259, 260. If the Jerusalem Bishopric is designed as a substitute of the Bishop of London's jurisdiction in the East, the inference is obvious.

to an English Bishop, in regard to his clergy, he has no authority, under this act, to exercise jurisdiction over them at all.

It may be said, indeed, that, though not in his communion, he may exercise spiritual jurisdiction over them; nor am I prepared to say, that a Catholic Bishop has not some jurisdiction or other over every soul in his diocese, Christian and Pagan; nor again, that spiritual jurisdiction may not be exercised in tithes, and such like matters, over separatists; but in the language of this act spiritual jurisdiction means jurisdiction in things purely spiritual, and in this sense it can no otherwise be exercised over persons not in communion, than by declaring them formally excommunicate. But this question is rendered unnecessary by the authoritative declaration, that these Protestant congregations are to be admitted to the communion of Bishop Alexander's Church.*

But then you will ask, what was the case with the Amecan Bishops? There was no change of doctrine and discipline provided for in the act relating to them,† from which this act is copied, and yet we know that they have made changes in their church polity. The answer is plain, and has been already given it was ascertained, when they were consecrated, that both the individuals and the communions continued to profess the principles of the Church of England, from which they had been derived, and of which they had

* Supra, p. 7.

[In the "Ecclesiastical Legal Guide," a work of which (on account of the miscellaneous information which it contains) it is much to be regretted that only one volume has been published, there is a Form of Letters of Orders under the Act 24 Geo. 3, c. 35, from which it appears that Deacons and Priests, ordained for America, did in fact subscribe the 39 Articles and the 3 Articles of Canon 36, and took the Oath of Supremacy, being the conditions of Ordination which the Act had not dispensed with.-See Ecclesiastical Legal Guide, pp. 1-13.]

It will be observed, that in the first American Act the Liturgy was directly referred to; and in considering what are the principles of the Church of England, no safe judgment can be formed which does not in part rest upon that Liturgy. This will be evident to any one who considers how much of doctrine there is in the prayers, how much of essential discipline in the rubrics, of the Book of Common Prayer and Rites and Ceremonies. That all Churches which are in communion must of necessity use the same Liturgy, I am far from contending; nay, I do not say that, under lawful authority,

till recently formed part, and so the Episcopal succession was granted to them;-but how? why, as to independent churches, answerable only to God and their own consciences for their future course, with no grant of jurisdiction over English clergy, and with an absolute exclusion of their orders from our Church. That the trust thus reposed has not been misplaced, is a cause of thankfulness to Almighty God, and the temporary separation which we have endured renders our partial re-union with them the more precious; but whether we may or may not approve the alterations which they have made in their liturgy and constitution, it appears certain, that of the terms of communion, such as I have above described them, they have in substance dispensed with none.

But Bishop Alexander's case, as I have already shown, is very different. He is a suffragan of Canterbury, not independent; a Bishop of the Church of England, not of America or Prussia; and, as the Act of Parliament has implied no dispensation (but the contrary), and as none arises from necessity in the particulars I have mentioned, none can be presumed.

Some other argument must therefore be provided, or my position holds good.

Well, then, the Queen perhaps can dispense with ecclesiastical laws, indeed, it is said so in some of the books. To which I reply, that if any minister of the Crown should be disposed to recommend so hazardous a step,—first, he should consider, that the coronation oath of the sovereign is not in its terms against Popery (as some seem to think), or against any thing else, but in support of the Established Church of England and Ireland; and that its "doctrines, worship, discipline and government as by law established," are specially to be maintained by her.*

Second, if there be no impediment in conscience,—and I cite the oath merely as a general precept in conscience,—he

different congregations within the same Church may not be allowed different uses. But, first, there must be lawful authority for such distinctions; and, second, they ought not to be such as to violate unity of doctrine.

*I am not here concerned with the case of the Church of Scotland; that stands apart, and is also protected by positive, not negative, obligations of the Crown.