in form-for two, no new body of canons has been framed. Meantime the national habits and modes of thought have been changed. Spiritual destitution has fearfully increased. Schisms have been extended and legalized. The Ecclesiastical features of Parliament have been well nigh done away. The Church of Ireland has become united to that of England. Dependent Churches have sprung up in the colonies. Independent Churches are recognized in Scotland and America. Our Church is called upon to satisfy a thousand new wantsto meet a thousand unforeseen emergencies-to act without the state, yet in dependence on it-to extend herself without means—to maintain herself without authority-to enforce discipline without possessing it-to do all things decently and in order, without having a moment to collect herself, or to learn where she stands, or whither she is being hurried on.

--

And yet, in the midst of these things, the zeal of her members for the most part serves but to add to her confusions. If her canons are obscure, they are still further perplexed by some isolated and hasty act of parliament, which raises as many difficulties as it quells. If funds are wanting to spread her doctrine, societies are formed to thwart her discipline. Every thing is done piecemeal, uncertainly, inconsistently; no man respects his neighbour's handywork, because every man thinks his own principles as good as the other's, and has a right to think so as long as there is no authority above them both.

A Church legislature alone can hold out even a prospect of doing what is required; a Church legislature alone, it seems, is what no steady efforts are made by churchmen to obtain.

This scheme of Protestant union, however, is one which, if I mistake not, must force attention to the corporate powers of the Church in a way which nothing can withstand. Without legislative sanction of some kind, it is certain, as I conceive, that it cannot be honestly, that it cannot be safely, persevered in. While, if this sanction be sought from Parliament without the previous consent of a Synod, it will be an infringement of the rights of the Church, such as has not been attempted since Parliament resisted King William in a like design in 1689. Nay, it will be worse than the attempt then made to

the precise degree in which Parliament is, by its altered constitution, less fitted to deal with questions of doctrine and church communion now than it was then.

If Mr. Maurice then desires that his principles of union should be adopted by the Church, let him first labour to procure for the Church an opportunity to consider them. They are principles, whether true or false, which can be relied on only in the making of laws, not in determining the question of obedience to laws already made. And if he should think this delay hard to be borne, let him remember how many evils, not negative only, but positive, the Church from the same cause is already forced to endure; let him remember also that the reasonings which appear to him conclusive, are to others wholly insufficient-that the object, which to him seems desirable, is by others deemed dangerous, if not fatal— that those who thus differ from him have the same stake in the Church of England as himself—have the same right to be thought sincere in their love for her; and lastly, that on their side stand the established usages, which all are bound to obey; on his, only a theory which any man who pleases may dispute.

That both time and care will, indeed, be needed to effect that, without which neither this nor any other question can be fully entertained and decided by the Church, there can be little doubt. But though there may have been cause for urgent haste in placing a bishop at Jerusalem, where is the emergency which requires him immediately to become involved with German Protestantism? He may be the Bishop of the Anglican Church in the East-her ambassador to the Oriental Churches-the converter of what Jews and Pagans he can bring under the influence of his ministry, without trenching upon the jurisdiction of others—while the question of a Protestant union, as it is altogether distinct from those objects in its nature, may be likewise distinguished in practice, and reserved for the decision of a competent tribunal.

That delay should in this respect prove fatal to the proposed union, can only be feared by its supporters on account of their own doubts of the soundness of their scheme. If they are well persuaded that the principles of the Church of

England and the feelings of her members do really warrant it-that the German people do truly desire it—that technical objections are the only impediment-every day will add strength to their cause, and render it more ripe for a favourable decision. And surely a matter which has been delayed so long may well bear a little more suspense. Bodies which for three centuries have been separated, and for more than one have quietly slumbered upon a scheme for union, may now afford to consider leisurely how that union shall be effected.

But if, on the other hand, there be reason to believe that this project, when fully considered, would prove neither accordant with our principles, nor acceptable to the great body of the Church ;--That it would be equally distasteful to the German protestants as a community;-That it is in fact only a private design of a few English prelates, and of a Monarch, whose personal qualities I unfeignedly respect, but of whom it is no treason to say, that, though he may command the persons and the property of his subjects, he can neither control nor represent their religious feelings and belief;—That the Germans do not care for what we have to give, while they deem it bigotry in us to set so high a value upon it ;-That we, on the other hand, have cause to fear that in joining with them we should take into our bosom a mass of varying principles, amidst which so-called Reason is still waging a doubtful war with the first elements of the faith;-That we should be perilling our own Catholicity, by making a venture where no duty calls us, by coming forward to aid those who are not sensible that they need our help, and at any rate will make no sacrifice to obtain it ;—if, I say, delay be likely to convert the general ignorance which now attends this question into convictions such as these; to present to us the danger of secessions from amongst ourselves; the probability of the merger of the "Anglican Church," now a distinctive body in the eyes of all Christendom, in the general tide of Protestantism, and thus of the destruction of that system which promises more than any other to supply in God's good time the means of union to all,-to make us sensible that the proposed scheme is most likely to mar what its promoters most desire it should effect -to lose us our own position without raising that of other

Protestants-to alienate the Greeks, by making light of what they think most holy-to strengthen the worst claims of the Papacy, by withdrawing the contrast afforded in the best features of Anglicanism, and thus making men think that there is no Catholicity where Rome is not;-surely if a few months' or years' delay can even be suspected of leading to such results as these, that delay becomes not expedient only, but a matter of paramount duty, such as none who love the Church, or even acknowledge her existence, can dare to oppose,

At any rate, whatever may be the fancied inconveniences of the course which I urge, they are nothing compared to the injustice of the other; and I, for one at least, having been baptized into the Church of England as she is now constituted, am entitled to demand, that, before her condition is changed, the only authority in which I acknowledge a capacity to judge-that is, a free synod of the clergy of this realmshall assure me that I am suffering no loss.

MAY 13, 1842.

J. R. H.

Since the foregoing pages were in type, the "Journal of the General Convention, 1841," of the Church in the United States of America, has been put into my hands. The following extracts bear so directly upon the subject of my argument, that I am glad to have the opportunity of submitting them to my readers, in further illustration of what I have already stated as to the proceedings of that Church. (Letter, p. 32.)

"HOUSE OF BISHOPS.

Friday, Oct. 15, 1841. "Resolved, That the House of Bishops will, on Saturday, the 16th of October, at one o'clock, P. M., nominate to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, a suitable person to be a Missionary Bishop of this Church, to exercise Episcopal functions in the Republic of Texas, and in such other place or places, out of the territory of the United States, as the House of Bishops may designate."

66 Saturday, Oct. 16.

"The hour appointed having arrived, on motion the House proceeded to the nomination, by ballot, of a Missionary Bishop for Texas; when, after spending some time in silent prayer, several ballotings were had, and no election having been made, on motion of Bishop M'Ilvaine, seconded by Bishop Meade, it was resolved to postpone the election.

"The hour appointed having arrived, the House proceeded to the nomination, by ballot, of a Missionary Bishop for Maryland Colony, in Liberia, and other parts of Western Africa, when it appeared that the Rev. John A. Vaughan, D.D., of New York, was duly elected. Information was accordingly sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.

"On motion of Bishop M'Ilvaine, seconded by Bishop M'Coskry:

Resolved, That the motion for postponement, in relation to a Missionary Bishop for Texas, be reconsidered.

"On motion of Bishop M'Ilvaine, seconded by Bishop Brownell :

"Resolved, To rescind the resolution for postponing the nomination of a Missionary Bishop for Texas.

"The House then proceeded to ballot, when, after several ballotings, the Rev. Nicholas H. Cobbs, of Virginia, was duly elected to be nominated to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, as Missionary Bishop for Texas.

"HOUSE OF DEPUTIES.

"Oct. 16, 1841.

A message from the House of Bishops was read, informing this House that they nominated the Rev. John A. Vaughan, D. D., of New York, a Missionary Bishop, to exercise Episcopal functions in the Maryland Colony at Liberia, on the western coast of Africa, and in such other place or places, out of the territory of the United States, as the House of Bishops may designate.