the case, numerous congregations of English residents and travellers have sprung up, which, not having any practical relations with the local Church, are under the care of our own clergy, and conform, or profess to conform, to the doctrine and discipline of our Church. This, then, is a state of things which may fairly lead us to desire, and properly influence the Eastern Bishops to grant us, a national Church jurisdiction within their territories. The examples collected by Thomassinus* show that even within the Roman Communion the distinction of tongues and of National Church-usages are sometimes held to warrant several episcopal jurisdictions within the same territory. In America, as we shall see, the members of the Church which is in communion with our own, are considered subject by Church-membership, and not merely by local relations, to their proper ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The same is evident in Scotland, and in all other places (including, it would seem, Syria itself,) in which, from the miserable disunions of these days, distinct communions are to be found. The principles of such a system may also be traced to instances which are without any excuse, such as may be urged in the present divided state of the Church. I allude to the practice of exemptions in general, and more especially to those granted to monastic orders, by means of which, in the latter case, a distinct spiritual family, as it were, having its own laws and its own liturgical peculiarities, was diffused throughout the Church; and being freed from the ordinary control of Diocesans, was knit together and governed, immediately, by its own provincials, and ultimately by the general (resident, perhaps, in a distant country) of the whole order. It seems, therefore, as I have said, to be not unreasonable, nor yet unprecedented, that a peculiar or exempt jurisdiction in favour of our National Church, should be allowed us by the Eastern Bishops within their jurisdiction. And if, from special circumstances, those Bishops should not be in a position to make any formal declaration upon the subject, we may perhaps construe their silence in our favour, and act upon the presump

* V. et N. Eccl. Disciplina, P. 1, lib. i. c. 29, ed. 1787. Cf. Bullam Pii IV. in Bullario Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, vol. i. p. 8, ed. 1829.

tion of their consent. But if this be our excuse, (and it is the only one which I can see,) for intruding an English Bishop upon Syria, we are bound by every ecclesiastical consideration to act fairly upon the grounds of it, and to make our religious colony in the East in very deed and truth what it pretends to be, that is, an English National Church-an extension of our own doctrine and discipline,—not a new communion which we would fain establish abroad, because neither law nor conscience will allow us to do so at home. Above all are we bound not to insult those Bishops through whose sufferance our Church there is to exist, by pretending to recognize and participate in their Catholicity, and at the same time by professing religious identity with Calvinism or Lutheranism, both of which they have by name* condemned and rejected.

Assuming, then, that the peculiar circumstances of our tongue and communion in the East, and the implied assent of the local Bishops, have given us, ecclesiastically speaking, the same right to erect a formal Bishopric of the Anglican Church there, as we should have if there were no other Church already in legitimate possession,-let us see what other obstacle impedes such a measure.

The civil divisions of territory, however generally convenient, cannot in themselves be taken, either in principle or fact, to supply the necessary divisions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

If temporal governments insist upon temporal limits being observed by the Church, she may be compelled to submit; but where this impediment does not exist, her action becomes as universal as the Commission which she has from Christ; and this extends to "all nations."

I do not, indeed, mean to deny that writers upon national law, and some of the propounders of the principles of our Reformation, assert that no foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever can be rightfully exercised within an independent state; but I suppose that the latter authorities would not in

* Synod of Jerusalem in 1675. Harduin, t. xi. p. 383, &c. [There is some very important matter bearing upon this part of the question in Mr. Palmer's Aids to Reflection, &c.]

clude heathen countries within this rule; and, at any rate, I presume from what is stated in the Prussian document above cited, and from the general understanding which exists, that the Turkish government is at least as acquiescent* in the erection of this Bishopric as the Eastern Church.

We arrive, therefore, wholly unembarrassed by exterior considerations, at these final questions:-1st. Whether there is any authority in our Church which can formally extend it beyond the dominions of the crown? 2nd. Whether in this case such an authority has been exercised, and to what purpose?

Now, that any Church, which has the power of erecting new Bishoprics or other ecclesiastical jurisdictions within its own limits, has a similar power of establishing dependent parishes or sees in foreign countries, (no external impediment being opposed), seems by the common law of the Church, as well as in history, to be incontestable. How, indeed, except by these means could Christianity be propagated? With regard to primitive and ancient usage, I suppose no one will raise any question. Of the view which the present Roman Church takes nothing need be said, for it seems to rest, in part at least, upon a foundation which our Church does not and cannot pretend to; I mean the Pope's claim to supreme jurisdiction as Bishop of the whole world. The American Church, however, seems to furnish an example more in point; for in 1838 a Canon was made, authorizing the consecration of Bishops, (1.) for states and territories not organized as dioceses; (2.) for any place or places out of the territory of the United States, which the House of Bishops may designate. And though "conformity with the Constitution and Canons of the Church, and such regulations and instructions not inconsistent therewith, as the House of Bishops may prescribe," and jurisdiction over the Clergy, are directly expressed only as to the former class, it is upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the Church extends "in right, though not in form, to all persons belonging to it within the United States ;" and this implies an ccclesiastical obligation, which, in some cases, must exceed the collective bounds of those states within which the

* [This appears to be more doubtful now than when this Letter was first published.]

Church is organized, though not of course the territorial limits of the whole federal government. And, moreover, the Missionary Bishops of both these classes are entitled to a seat in the House of Bishops, are eligible to organized dioceses within the states, and are bound to report to each General Convention, and at least annually to the Board of Missions, "the state of the Church in the said states and territories, and place or places out of the territory of the United States ;" and thus canonical dependence and responsibility are plainly implied in either case.

And

Again, in 1641 the foreign Scots Kirk of Campvere was "joined to the Kirk of Scotland as a member thereof." in 1704 the General Assembly "again enacted and authorized,” inter alia, that Church's "observing of that order in the outward worship of God, and exercise of discipline, as is received in Scotland by law and practice."*

And, to come more directly to our point, the Bishop of London, as already noticed, has long exercised, under the authority of the Privy Council, a jurisdiction over English congregations abroad. And injunctions have been issued to such congregations to conform to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England.† English chaplaincies, too, have, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, been established in our foreign consulates, and the clergy appointed to them are (I am informed) licensed by the English Bishop above named.

Further, that the ecclesiastical law of England does not reject such a principle in the case of our communions abroad, seems to be evidenced by the fact that marriages between

* Abridgment of Acts of the General Assembly, p. 103. See also what is stated at p. 473, of the Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland. + Heylin's Life of Laud, 259-61.

"What is the law of marriages in all foreign establishments settled in "countries professing a religion essentially different?-in the English factories "at Lisbon, &c., and in the East, Smyrna, Aleppo, and others? In all of "which (some of these establishments existing by authority under treaties, "and others under indulgence and toleration,) marriages are regulated by the "law of the original country, to which they are still considered to belong. "An English resident at St. Petersburgh does not look to the ritual of the

D

members of our Church, solemnized in foreign states, not according to the laws of those states, but according to the rites of the Church of England, have a valid recognition given to them in our Spiritual Courts.

And lastly, when the British crown asserts the right of planting civil governments in desert or thinly peopled countries, upon what principle is this but one strictly analogous to that of Church extension into unoccupied ground? the former being the enlargement of a kingdom of this world—the latter, of the dominions of Heaven. And when it is further asserted, that, simultaneously with the temporal, the spiritual supremacy of the crown extends into such countries, does not this lead us even beyond analogical inference? At any rate, I think this much clear, that those who deny the right of the supreme authority of the English Church to extend her branches into heathen or unoccupied territory, beyond the dominions of the Crown, or into any other, with the requisite local consent, have the burden of proof upon themselves. But I have already suggested reasons why in respect of our own communion Palestine may, perhaps, be considered open to us. The first question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative.

As to the second, there is not much more difficulty. Whatever may be the proper rights of the Bishops of a province in erecting new suffragan sees, it is incontestable that either the Crown alone, or the Crown empowered by Parliament, has since the Reformation exercised this prerogative within the British dominions. It is by the Crown alone that many of our colonial Bishoprics have been erected; by the Crown, with the authority of Parliament, that others in the colonies, and several in England, have been founded.

Now, in the erection of Bishop Alexander's see, the act of the Crown has been sanctioned by Parliament in the clause which enabled her Majesty to license the consecration, and to assign limits to which the jurisdiction shall attach. The Primate of the Church of England also concurred in the mea

"Greek Church, but to the rubric of the Church of England, when he con"tracts a marriage with an English woman," &c. Per Lord Stowell, in Ruding v. Smith, 2 Hagg. Rep. 385.