might do well to consider the value of such a precedent in other hands, and in an opposite direction, and the probable effects of it upon the minds of English churchmen.

And, thirdly, he had better have it ascertained carefully, whether, since the Act 1 W. & M. s. 2, c. 2, and others, the Crown has any such power at all, and, if any, what are its bounds.

The observance, if I mistake not, of these three preliminaries (particularly of the third), will tend to impede further proceedings in this direction.*

We are driven then to what I conceive to be the last, and far the most difficult view of all. Bishop Alexander may be a Bishop of the Church of England, but he is going out of England, and so he may do as he pleases.

Now let us consider this position, first, as a matter of conscience; next, as a matter of law; and (though I am far from thinking that in a question of such extent and novelty, and with such slight preparation, I can do more than suggest principles for others to examine and work out,) let us then see whether practical consequences, favourable to the general view which I am maintaining, may not be established, whichever way we decide the immediate point of Bishop Alexander's obligations.

First, then, Bishop Alexander has bound himself in conscience to allow "that the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies;" that "every particular or national Church "hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority;" and that "whoever, through his private judgment, willingly "and purposely doth openly break the traditions and cere"monies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word "of God, and be ordained and approved by common autho

[The difficulties here raised do not by any means exhaust the question of the Royal Prerogative in dispensations; but until circumstances require it, the public may well be spared discussion upon this head, as well as upon the powers of the Archbishop of Canterbury under the Act 25 Hen. 8, c. 21, an act which, besides being inapplicable to the case before us, is one of the worst monuments of the Reformation.]

† Article 20.

"error.

rity, ought to be rebuked openly, &c."* Now it will be observed, that every one of the conditions of Communion and Ordination which I have set out above are essentially laws of the Church of England, the Canons and Rubrics from which they are derived having all been formally enacted or sanctioned by "the sacred Synod of this nation, in the name of "Christ, and by the King's authority assembled;"† which if any one shall affirm not to be "the true Church of England "by representation, let him be excommunicated, and not "restored until he repent and publicly revoke that his wicked Further than this, Bishop Alexander, in subscribing as Deacon and Priest "ex animo" to the second of the articles enjoined by Canon 36, after pledging himself to the belief" that the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering " of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing "contrary to the word of God, and that it may lawfully so "be used," promised "that he himself would use the form in "the said book prescribed, in public prayer and administra❝tion of the sacraments, and none other." Thus adopting in a still more direct and exclusive manner the rubrics above mentioned, which are an essential part of the form prescribed for baptism, the holy communion, and other rites of the Church. Lastly, when Bishop Alexander was consecrated, he declared himself persuaded that he was truly called " ac"cording to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this realm." He promised to exercise discipline, "within "his diocese according to such authority as he has by God's "word, and as to him should be committed by the ordinance "of this realm." He promised also to be "faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others." And lastly, he in a solemn vow, as " chosen Bishop of the Church "and See" to which he is appointed, did "profess and pro"mise due reverence and obedience to the Archbishop and "Metropolitical Church of Canterbury, and to their succes"sors"-And thus bound himself, as fully as any bishop in England, by due or canonical obedience, (that is, not absolute obedience, but obedience according to the Canons of the Church) to the Metropolitical See.

From all which I conclude, that if Bishop Alexander does not abjure the Church of England as his particular or provincial Church-does not revoke his promises as to the Book of Common Prayer, the discipline of his diocese, and his charge in conferring orders-and does not renounce his canonical obedience to the Metropolitan,-then, wherever his diocese may be, he cannot "willingly and purposely" and for the sake of an ulterior object not sanctioned by the Church, (for I do not speak of mere negligence, such as may often be found in England);-he cannot, I say, deliberately and upon his own judgment, or that of any who have not undoubted legislative or dispensing authority in the Church, set aside the rules of Communion and Ordination above defined, without doing that which the Canonists would call the sin of perjury, and which, considering the special responsibility of a Bishop, I, for my own part, do not know how to qualify by any lighter name.

Our next question is that of external or coercive obligation; and here we may be met at the outset by the maxim,* "Extra territorium jus dicenti impunè non paretur,” which in its application implies a denial that the laws of the English Church can be externally binding upon her members when in foreign countries. Now, it seems to be admitted as a general rule, that both civil and ecclesiastical offences are of local jurisdiction, and, moreover, that unless † by the "comity of nations," showing itself in express or tacit consent, no foreign laws can by any state be recognized in justice. Moreover, as regards religious ordinances, it is denied that even ambassadors by the law of nations have a right to the open exercise of their national worship; and though this has in some instances been secured to British factories by express treaty, I have been informed that in many cases our Chapels abroad, even those attached to a mission or consulate, still exist only by toleration; and therefore the question, whether the civil or ecclesiastical tribunals of a foreign state would in any such case apply the laws of the English Church to the regu

*Digest, lib. 2, tit. 1.

+ Story's Conflict of Laws, pp. 30, 35, et seq.
Vattel, 1. iv. c. vii. s. 104.

lation of her clergy, is one which would depend altogether upon their own discretion.

For the punishment of clergy at home in respect of ecclesiastical offences committed abroad, perhaps something more might be said; for if they have not become subject (subditi) in an ecclesiastical sense to any foreign jurisdiction, there being no such jurisdiction which takes cognizance of them, it may be argued that their subjection at ordination by canonical obedience to an English Bishop, ought, (from mere defect of justice otherwise,) to overcome the territorial difficulty. And perhaps something might be found in law to assist this view. Or, at any rate, the discretion of English Bishops in admitting to a higher order persons who have been abroad, in licensing them within their own dioceses, and in requiring, if they please, "sufficient testimony of their former good life and behaviour,”* when they claim institution to benefices, might furnish a useful check upon the inferior clergy.

But whatever may be concluded as to the question of extra-territorial jurisdiction, I am far from resting my answers to objections against Bishop Alexander's responsibility, solely upon this ground. The following considerations will, I hope, show that another and more certain decision may be come to.

As an ecclesiastical question, the erection of a See at Jerusalem is, at the outset, open to very serious objections. For it is both a primitive rule, and that of the canon law as it is received by our Church, that one Bishop should not intrude into the Diocese of another. Every Bishop has, de jure communi, under the legitimate authority of his superiors, the whole discipline of the clergy, and the whole cure of souls in his Diocese. If another Bishop desires to exercise acts of jurisdiction within it, he must do so by permission of the

* See Canon 39. This may be illustrated from the instance of Scotland, where the policy of the crown had introduced Clergy of English ordination, who refused obedience to the Scotch Bishops, and thus maintained a state of schism which is not yet altogether done away. Some time previous to the year 1818 a clergyman of English ordination, who had had a Chapel at Aberdeen, being presented to a living in the Diocese of York, was required to bring testimonials from the Scotch Bishop, which he accordingly procured. See Skinner's Annals, p. 425.

Diocesan.* Nor does it seem that even the conversion of Jews or heathens is an object which will support an exception to this rule. This, as well as all other spiritual superintendence, belongs to the Diocesan; and if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to intrude another Bishop, or the Bishop of Winchester were to thrust priests and deacons into the Diocese of London, for the conversion of the Jews or Mahommedans resident within it, I apprehend that a remedy would soon be found.

If, therefore, it be not denied that there is an Orthodox Church at Jerusalem, having legitimate Bishops, (and this seems now to be generally allowed), it follows, from our own principles, that our clergy ought to submit to those Bishops, and that Bishop Alexander ought not to intrude himself upon them.

There are, however, circumstances the force of which I am disposed to admit, and which may justify a less exact adherence to this principle in the case of the Eastern Church. Were we to send English Bishops into Scotland or America, we should be plainly without excuse, because the Communion between the Churches, and the use of a common language, make the residence of English clergy, and the formation of Anglican congregations, in those countries wholly unnecessary. But in the East the case is different: communion with the native Church, (whether rightly or wrongly I do not say,) has been suspended, and cannot easily be restored; its language, too, is different from ours; and thus, from the necessity of

* By acts of jurisdiction are meant ordination, consecration of Churches, correction of ecclesiastical offences, and the like. For forms used in England in grants of this kind from one Bishop to another, see Oughton, vol. ii. It would be much more satisfactory if a commission of "Vicar General for the English" could be obtained by Bishop Alexander from the local Diocesans. See one of the cases in Thomassinus, as after cited. [The learned writer of "Tract 42, published under the superintendence of the Catholic Institute of Great Britain," objects to several points in the arguments which I have used on this branch of the subject, vide pp. 53, 54. In reply I have only to say, that if the oriental Bishops will recognise our Catholicity, and assent to the exercise of Bishop Alexander's jurisdiction, it seems to me that all questions between us and them, (and these are the only questions which I have here to consider,) are sufficiently provided for.]