if the fact is as you have stated it-namely, that the bishops of the church in convocation (where nothing can pass without their consent) have no authority to regulate divine service. I will, on the contrary, contend that the fact is otherwise, and that the bishops of our church have not surrendered, nor does the crown of this kingdom possess, such authority as you would ascribe to it. On what grounds, then, do I rest the denial of your assumed fact?

I. On the recognition of the right which the bishops of the church of England have to exercise discipline upon the foot of divine, as well as human, authority, which is to be found in the first book of consecration of Edward VI., and hath ever since continued part of the form of consecration, and by consequence hath been confirmed by parliament four several times-viz., by the act of Edward the Sixth, and in three several acts of uniformity."-Gibson, Codex, Vol. I. p. 17.

decisions on a particular question, where it may be doubtful what the principle involved is.* Into discussions of this kind, therefore, the Editor is unwilling to enter. As to convocation, "Alpha" and the Editor differ too much in their value for it for any good to come of their discussing its merits. Its nature, its origin, its assumptions, its whole history, are subjects far too wide for this place; and without such considerations being fully embraced, it is of no use to speak of it at all. That it had (usurped is a hard word, but we may say) assumed many powers in matters spiritual to which it had no right, he is aware, and had thus gained prescriptive rights, and he has said so repeatedly. That popes and cardinals may have assented to all this, as they have to a thousand other things most improperly, may be quite true, also. That the crown has now the power of commissioning convocation to deal with the articles and liturgy may also be very true. But how does all this alter the question? Does all this make it one whit more true, that convocation in England was ever intended to deal with such things, or was originally framed

*There can be no doubt that every church established by law sacrifices something of its freedom. The Romanists talk so loudly of the independence of their church, that foolish people believe them, and submit to their taunts; whereas there is plentiful documentary proof (in a huge report from foreign ministers, printed by order of parliament in 1816, or 1817, with a valuable appendix) that in every country of Europe it is more in subjection, and on vital points too, than our church. The sound churchman must always be jealous on the subject; but when he knows that principles are safe, he will submit to much which he might wish otherwise, There are many things in our church of which one may so speak, but on which the most truly conscientious men are contented to look, not with approbation, but with patience. They who remain as ministers of the church of England give their clear, though their tacit, assent to this position. Take, as an example of all that is said here in the text and note, the proceedings of the crown at the last act of uniformity. Suppose the case, that the liturgy of an established church is to be revised, or altered. First, it may be difficult to say where the power to call for a revision is to be lodged, although a good churchman would think and wish that all should originate with the church. Then comes the next question, who are to do the work. Some probably would say, convocation, others, with the Editor, would say, a true provincial synod (not one where presbyters may stop the bishops' proceedings, and oppose them at every step) according to old notions. But all this being so, we find that the crown actually did assume the power to call for revision, and appoint the revisors; and that the first revisors appointed were not a public or ecclesiastical body, although it is true that their appointment had no effect. Now the churchman may say, that he does not like such proceedings, but that as in the actual case, the liturgy was one already long received in the church, as the alterations were, for the most part, comparatively trifling, as, in point of fact, the bishops did, both collectively and individually, (in their dioceses,) assent to them, as the period when the crown assumed the power was one of extreme confusion, when the church was only beginning to recover from the great rebellion, had been without an ecclesiastical head for a long time, and with many bishoprics vacant, some things might be tolerated quietly which might, if pushed as precedents, be of doubtful propriety, or, in some men's minds, of dangerous consequence.

II. On the express assertion in an act of parliament passed the year after the clergy submission-i. e., 24 Henry VIII., commonly called the statute of appeals.

"The body spiritual" (as distinguished from the temporal) hath power, when any cause of the law divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, that it was declared, interpreted, and shewed by that part of the body politick called the spiritualty, now being usually called the English church, which always hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, that both for knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of number, it hath been always thought, and is also at this hour sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices and duties, as to their powers spiritual doth appertain. -Gibson, p. 18.

or used for such purposes? Does it make it more true that such a provincial council, where presbyters have such powers, is after the mind or model of the primitive church? Does it make it more true, that there were not provincial councils in England of a very different kind, and to a very late period? If not, if every pope before the Reformation, and every king since, had heaped every imaginable power on convocation; still it is not by constitution or origin that body to which the primitive church, or the ancient church of England, would have attributed, as of right, the power of dealing with liturgy and articles; and this is all which the Editor said. Indeed, as things are, he believes that he does not well comprehend the views of the sturdy advocates for convocation. body for considering spiritual questions; if they mean that at any time subsequent to If they mean that it was originally framed as a its formation there was any agreement, on part of the church, to make it the proper body for dealing with spirituals; if they mean that provincial councils of bishops only, for considering spiritual matters, did not last till a late period, he wishes that some of them would, not in a letter of three or four pages, but in a book embodying documents, prove this, and end the controversy. At present, he knows that convocation occasionally dealt with spirituals, with heresies for example, and so did the universities, and parliament, and commissions appointed by various authorities. But its only right, as far as at present appears, to deal with articles and liturgy, is that given it by the crown since the Reformation; i. e., in other words, this right comes from the prerogative. At all events, it cannot, as all allow, be exercised without leave from the crown; and though the crown may act harshly or improperly in not allowing the body to proceed to business, it does not seem that it acts illegally even according to the advocates of convocation. If so, is this body one to be so much valued? It would seem that in their ardour its advocates forget that this monstrous fetter is part of the new constitution, by which alone it possesses the right of dealing with articles, &c. As to convocation itself, he would, if it was to be reassembled and act, submit to this, as to much besides (so that " Alpha" may be assured of his conducting himself as a dutiful and obedient churchman); but, with "Alpha's" leave, and certainly with all respect for the bishops, he must say, that he should think it a very doubtful blessing indeed. From bad seed he faithfully believes you will always have a bad harvest; and believing that the constitution of convocation is very ill fitted for dealing with spirituals, he has read with very deep pain indeed, but without the least surprise, the history to be found in common books of its proceedings (after that of 1662) down to the time it ceased to meet for business. It is a most melancholy exhibition, (odious as Burnet was, and much as one is inclined to side with any who opposed him), but just such an exhibition as the nature of the body is calculated to promote and cherish. For that reason, if it pleases God that a deliberative assembly should again be called into action, to guide the proceedings of the church of England, he fervently hopes that its constitution may be very different from that of convocation.

With respect to the act for the change of style, the Editor will not consume the reader's time on it. liament is made without sufficient attention being paid to it to prevent gross abIf we are to reason on the supposition that a grave act of parsurdity, of course nothing can be said, for on that hypothesis anything may be sup

If" Alpha" likes to say that presbyters have no business to canvass any church questions at all, that is intelligible. do discuss, why may not one discuss this question, whether convocation is a good But considering all that the highest churchmen or bad thing? Why is this particularly forbidden?

III. Upon the explicit statement of King Edward VI., in his letter to Bonner, that

"The Common Prayer Book was not only agreed to by the unanimous consent of both houses of parliament, but that it was settled by the like assent of the bishops in the same parliament, and of all other learned men of this realm in their synods and convocations provincial."-Collier, Eccles Hist. ii. 276.

IV. Upon the royal declaration, prefixed to the articles of the church of England

"That we are supreme governor of the church of England, and that if any difference arise about the external policy concerning the injunctions, canons, and other constitutions, whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do, and we approving their said ordinances and constitutions: providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land."

posed. But if not, is it possible to believe (even if there is any verbal carelessness)* that the parliament meant to sanction any service for November 5, but that which, when their enactment was made, had been in use about fifty years, to the exclusion of the older one mentioned in the former calendar?

One word, and only one word more. It is still unsettled who really revised the service for the fifth of November after the revision of 1662. But be they who they may, is it not true that (with the single exception, as far as we know, of Mr. Johnson) ever since that revision, all the bishops, and all the clergy of both provinces, have, as far as tacit acquiescence can prove the thing, accepted it? Is this to go for nothing? Does it go for nothing towards proving a consent on part of the church, that no one of its rulers, and only one of its ministers, for a century and a half, have urged any objection to it? Did they feel it to be positively objectionable, and were they too careless or cowardly to reject it, or to remonstrate? If not-if they (whether they altogether liked it or not) made no remonstrance against it, again it is asked, is all this to go for nothing? Is it still free and open to every one to say, "All this I set wholly aside, and stand on what I think my right, to reject that which such a crowd of prelates and clergy have received and acquiesced in"? The Editor does not presume to say, whatever he may think, that there is no right, for this is a question of law; but he certainly thinks, as matter of private opinion, as he took the liberty of saying at first, that the principle of this proceeding is a dangerous one for the church.

The Editor now anxiously desires to take leave of this subject. He begs most earnestly to apologize to the reader for having been obliged to say so much of himself-a thing most odious to him, as he again sincerely and unfeignedly declares. The best apology perhaps which he can make is, of course, that it shall be long before he exposes the reader to a similar infliction, by taking the liberty of giving an opinion on anything beyond a dry matter of fact. "Alpha" will, he hopes, give him some credit for passing over in silence the reproofs, rebukes, challenges, and personal appeals in the letter. He does so in a spirit of unabated regard and respect for the writer. It is a matter of sincere regret to him that they differ at all. when he cannot find reason for altering his opinion, he can but say so; and, as he hopes, in a kindly spirit.-En.

But

P. S. The Editor feels assured that a generous nature like "Alpha's" will feel regret, very shortly, at the very harsh insinuation made in the letter, that they who dislike convocation seem as if they would prefer "Lord Melbourne's Church Commission" as the organ of the church. Alpha" will feel still greater regret at finding (and this is the only reason why reference is made to his remark) that in this kind of attack he coincides with an anonymous writer in the "Church of England

* Of course, even in the careful legislation of a century ago, as legislators were always human, there would be mistakes, verbal inaccuracies, and (therefore) verbal inconsistencies. But that is a very different thing from such total and shameful carelessness as would make all legislation a jest. Of course, as to this clause, church authority were, in all probability, consulted. Very likely ecclesiastical lawyers drew the clause. But, at all events, there were twenty-six bishops in the House of Lords before whom this act passed. Were they all wholly careless, or wholly dull?

From all these I come to this conclusion, that the authority which Christ left with the apostles and bishops of his church, to regulate spiritual causes and divine offices, has neither been surrendered by the bishops of the church of England, nor is it possessed by the crown; but, on the contrary, is recognised and confirmed to be in the bishops, by the customs, laws, and statutes of this land; and that the only difference between the present state of things and that which existed before the Reformation is, that whereas formerly the bishop exercised this authority independently of the crown, and dependently upon the pope, they now exercise it dependently upon the crown, but independently of the pope. Consequently, that the authority of their synodical regulations (at least over the clergy, which will suffice for the present purpose), when made by the permission of the crown, and ratified by the same, is unimpaired and unimpeached.

And so Bishop Gibson argues, speaking of the statute of limitations: "Though it was provided by a statute in the 25th Henry VIII. that no constitution should be thenceforth enacted or promulged without the king's royal assent and licence, yet did not that statute alter the ecclesiastical legislature in other respects, but on the contrary, supposed the legal and ancient authority of the church in that point. Although, therefore, this statute is a recognition and affirmance of the legislative power of the church, yet may not the authority of canons and constitutions be solely founded upon it, as some of the books of common law do; since the ancient ecclesiastical power was not thereby extinguished or laid aside, but only subjected to greater restraints than it had been before."-Gibson, p. 28.

And that it may not be supposed that they are ecclesiastics only who contend for the authority of the ecclesiastical legislature in convocation, I subjoin the opinions of some of the most eminent judges of the courts of common law, to the same purpose.

Lord Coke, in the case of Sir Richard Vernon, said, "That a convocation hath power to make constitutions for ecclesiastical things and

Gazette," who deals out coarse insinuations as to the Editor's betraying the clergy, because he does not like convocation; and coarser threats, as to opposing this Magazine by another. A la bonne heure. This gentleman gravely maintains that, for six hundred years, convocation has been the only accredited organ of the church in spiritual matters! To argue the historical part of the question with one who has thus read history, would obviously be hopeless; and certainly no appeal will (or indeed need) be made to the justice or good feelings of a person capable of writing as he has done. The only judgment of any value which can be passed on this, or any other work, or its author, must be passed by persons of a very different mind and temper. The letter is altogether too coarse and personal for further notice.

It may be convenient to add a few particulars, gleaned from carelessly turning over Collier's first volume, the only authority just now accessible. In p. 546 (Archbishop Stratford) we find the archbishop and bishops in council; and, as Collier says, no mention of inferior clergy. A.D. 1343. At p. 553 (Archbishop Islip) we find the archbishop and suffragans making a constitution. A.D. 1351. At p. 627 (Archbishop Arundel) is a very valuable quotation from Lyndwood, and some strong remarks by Collier himself. But the document is in Gibson; and there it is clearly said, that the archbishop, with the bishops, in their council at Oxford, put forth (ediderimus) the decree about heresy at request of the clergy, and afterwards promulged it in a convocation at London, where something further seems to have been done to it. Collier is loose in his language, and uses the word convocation very freely. But still he mentions, pp. 675 and 692, A.D. 1457 and 1487, synods at Lambeth, held for spiritual affairs. The document in Gibson, as shewing perhaps one of the steps by which convocation grew up, is curious: but without a mass of such documents no right notions can be formed; and assertions go for nothing.

persons." And in the case of Bird and Smith, he cited a resolution of both houses upon conference: "That when convocation make canons concerning matters which properly appertain to them, and the king hath confirmed them, they are binding to the whole realm." And in the same case the court resolved, "That the canons of the church, made by convocation and king, bind, in matters ecclesiastical, as much as an act of parliament." But it must be confessed that, in another place, when treating of the extent of authority, Lord Coke expresses himself in a manner apparently at variance with the resolution of the houses of parliament, which he cited in this case; for though he asserts, "That a convocation may make constitutions, by which those of the spiritualty shall be bound, (for this, that they all, or by representation or in person, are present)" he adds, "but not the temporalty."— Gibson, xxviii., xxix.

Vaughan, in the case of Hill and Good, said, " A lawful canon is the law of the kingdom, as well as an act of parliament." And again, The convocation, with the licence and assent of the king under the great seal, may make canons for regulation of the church; and that as well concerning laity as ecclesiastics."-Gibson, ibid.

Lord Hardwicke, pronouncing the judgment of the court of King's Bench, in the case of Middleton and Croft, in which it was ruled that canons made by convocation, and confirmed by the crown, do not bind the laity, (by reason of the civil penalties annexed to excommnunication,) who are unrepresented in it, says, " The crown hath not the full legislative power." It is therefore rightly said [by Holt, C. J.] in 2 Salk. 673, that the king's consent to a canon in re ecclesiasticá makes it a law to bind the clergy, but not the laity."-Burn, Eccl. Law, I. xxxiv.

Is there anything in these authorities to warrant your assertion, that "they who throw themselves back on convocation throw themselves still, in fact, on the royal prerogative, and nothing else?" Or have I not, by this time, advanced enough to prove that, when I claim for convocation right and authority in these matters, (not independent of the crown, for I urged the obligation of the special service of 1662, because it "had received the consent of convocation and the crown, and had therefore, I conceived, the force of ecclesiastical law;" so that what you say about "making the throne nothing in such points" affects not me,) I have not shewn myself ignorant of church history, as you insinuate (page 79), nor of English history? Are these not sufficient to prove that, according to the crown, and the legislature, and the chief judges of the land, "such a body as convocation" both does "possess, and ought to possess, the rights," my "notion of vindicating" which appears to you to be "monstrous"? The legislative authority of convocation (by virtue of which their resolutions on spiritual matters, when confirmed by the crown, become law, binding at least the clergy) is not, it appears by the foregoing extracts, assigned by all writers to the same source. By some it is ascribed to the statute of Henry VIII.; by some to the circumstance of the clergy being represented in convocation; by some to the ancient constitution of the church; and by some to the divine commission given to the