same relation, as the external index of some mysteriously agitated machinery to the internal spring? Is it not "the quarrel of God's Covenant," of GOD's Holy Scriptures? May not all that is wretched in the sister-island be traced to the desperate efforts, made by the apostate Church of Rome, (after having been foiled in argument whilst opposing the free distribution of the Bible,) in order to subvert the Protestant religion, that is, the true religion of the WRITTEN WORD, by means of popular violence, and bloodshed? May not, likewise, the false liberality of religious indifference, and the pliant semi-infidelity, which for some years past have been fearfully propagated among all classes, even the lowest, as well as the false zeal of the idolatrous apostasy,-be all ascribed in effect to this one gratuitous assumption, that the BIBLE is not the really inspired, or not the only inspired WORD of THE LIVING GOD? Must not the spreading insubordination to lawful human, authority, and the national abuses of the Gospel in our times, be all referred to a similar cause? And are not the worldly-mindedness under a Christian name, and the self-exalting delusions of the age, instances virtually of the same kind of unbelief? What then is the part that you yourself are taking in this great conflict of principles? Under whose banners are you enlisted?

Let me, farther, as a minister of Christ, entreat you to put these questions to your own bosom. Is not man ruined by sin? Is not creation marred by the sins of angels and of men? Did not GOD send into this world HIS SON JESUS CHRIST, by whom "all things were created," in order that, taking from creation human nature into union with himself in his own divine person, He might ultimately deliver creation at large from bondage; might provide by his own sufferings and glory, and by the agency of his SPIRIT, for restoring all who truly and penitently believe in HIM, to communion with GoD, and at length to heavenly happiness; and might finally shut up all the ungodly and impenitent "in their own place?" Have you, then, as yet, heartily applied to the SAVIOUR for spiritual renovation? -May both of us, the reader and the writer, be made to feel that without this restoration to communion with GOD, by the mediation of CHRIST, though we be ever so zealous for the externals of his Church, we shall be still enemies to her spirit; but that, on the contrary, in thus returning to GOD, we shall uphold, however obscure our lot, her best interests, in this disordered world; and when the Son of MAN shall come in his glory, we shall be numbered with the blessed company of all his faithful people, whom he shall

then "present unto himself a glorious Church,' "not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing," a holy Church without blemish," eternal in the heavens.

66

APPENDIX.

No. I. Page 9.

THE surrender of the Clergy's right to tax themselves is viewed in different lights by different writers.

"In this reign," (that of Charles II.,) "the Clergy were not so kindly dealt with by the court," and were taxed by Parliament. "This new method was so concerted, as to appear a plausible accommodation at the time, between the ministers of state and chief members of the House of Commons on the one side, and the governing prelates on the other; there was a proviso made that might enable the clergy to reassume their ancient privilege of taxing themselves, if they should find it more convenient for them."-Kennett's Case of Impropriations, p. 301. "The rule of subsidies being so high on the Clergy, they had submitted to be taxed by the House of Commons ever since the year 1665, though no memorials are left to inform us how that matter was consented to so generally, that no opposition of any sort was made to it."-Burnett's Own Life and Times, vol. ii. p. 281. 281. Fol. 1734.

"It was the Clergy," (says Warburton,) "that freely gave up to the Legislature their ancient practice of taxing

M

themselves; in which they acted with the greatest justice as well as generosity."-Alliance, 3rd Ed. p. 169.

I shall take the liberty of introducing here several miscellaneous particulars relative to the rights and privileges of Convocation.

*

In proof of what has been asserted above respecting the connexion of Ecclesiastical Commissions with Convocation, the following facts from Atterbury (Rights, &c. p. 183-206) are not contradicted by Wake. The Commission in 1533, for reviewing the canons, was subsequent to proceedings in the Convocation, so was the order for translating the Bible in 1536;+ the Commissions in 1537 and 1540, for the Institution and Necessary Erudition of a Christian man, and in 1540 for the rituals, had the authority of Convocation; ‡ that in 1539, for the articles of religion was preparatory to their being considered by Convocation; § that in 1542, for committing the translation of the Bible to the universities, had its consent; those in 1548 and 1551,¶ for the church offices, were proposed, and their acts confirmed, by the Convocation; that in 1550 for the

* See the Last Form of the Submission of the Clergy, Rights, &c. Appendix, No. VI. (d).

+ Hist. of Reformation, vol. i. p. 187. Ed. 1715. Folio. See the words of the Petition in Rights, &c. P. 184.

Hist. of Ref., (in which appear several inaccuracies on many of these points) vol. i. p. 234. See also Heylin's Misc. Tracts, p. 549, 569, and Remains of the Register of the First Convocation of Edward VI, as quoted by Atterbury.

§ See Preamble to 31 Hen. VIII, respecting the Six Articles.

|| See Minutes of the Convocation of 1542, as quoted by Atterbury.

¶ Hist. of Ref. vol. ii. p. 45. See also, as quoted by Atterbury,