resulted finally the prince of the patriarchs' or the Roman pontiff."-(Mosheim, i. pp. 178-179.)

THIRD CENTURY.-"The face of things began now to change in the Christian church. The ancient method of ecclesiastical government seemed, in general, still to subsist, while, at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and degenerated towards the form of a religious monarchy. For the bishops aspired to higher degrees of authority and power than they had formerly possessed; and not only violated the rights of the people, but also made gradual encroachments upon the privileges of the presbyters. And that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice, and an appearance of reason, they published new doctrines concerning the nature of the church, and of the episcopal dignity, which, however, were in general so obscure, that they themselves seem to have understood them as little as those to whom they were delivered. One of the principal authors of this change in the government of the church, was Cyprian, who pleaded for the power of the bishops with more zeal and vehemence than had ever been hitherto employed in that cause, though not with an unshaken constancy and perseverance; for, in difficult and perilous times, necessity sometimes obliged him to yield, and to submit several things to the judgment and authority of the church."-(Mosheim, v. i. pp. 265, 266.)

FOURTH CENTURY.-"The rights and privileges of the several ecclesiastical orders were gradually changed and diminished, from the time that the church began to be torn by divisions. The bishops, whose opulence and authority were considerably increased since the reign of Constantine, began to introduce, gradually, innovations into the forms of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the ancient government of the church. Their first step was an entire exclusion of the people from all part in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs; and afterwards they by degrees divested even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive. authority, that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition, or oppose their proceedings; and principally, that they might either engross to themselves, or distribute as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues of the church. Hence it came to pass, that, at the conclusion of this century, there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the church."-(Mosheim, v. i. p. 348.)

FIFTH CENTURY.-In the preceding century, the fourth, in consequence of the union of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, various gradations of episcopal authority had been introduced, the ascending order of which was as follows:-" Bishops, archbishops,

metropolitans, exarchs, patriarchs. Of these last there were four, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, of which the patriarch of Rome enjoyed a primacy of rank, but not of authority, until he met with a formidable rival in the patriarch of Constantinople, which city being now the seat of empire, it was the policy of the government, aided by the bishops of the see, to raise the influence of the city by extending that of the patriarch. Hence, however, arose a long series of disgraceful and ruinous contentions between those who should have been the chief shepherds and pastors of Christ's flock, not ambitious rulers lording over the heritage of God."-(See Mosheim, v. i. pp. 349–356.)

"The patriarch of Constantinople distinguished himself in those odious contests. Elated with the favour and proximity of the imperial court, he cast a haughty eye on all sides, where any objects were to be found on which he might exercise his lordly ambition. On the one hand, he reduced under his jurisdiction, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, as prelates only of the second order, and, on the other, he invaded the diocese of the Roman pontiff, and spoiled him of several provinces. . . . But the latter contended with vigour and obstinacy, and, in his turn, gave a deadly wound to the usurped supremacy of the Byzantine patriarch. The attentive inquirer into the affairs of the church, from this period, will find, in the events now mentioned, the principal source of those most scandalous and deplorable dissensions, which divided first the eastern church into various sects, and afterwards separated it entirely from that of the west. He will find that those ignominious schisms flowed chiefly from the unchristian contentions for dominion and supremacy, which reigned among those who set themselves up for the fathers and defenders of the church." -(Mosheim, v. ii. p. 28.)

The diligent observer of passing events in our own time, will not fail to have called to mind circumstances strikingly parallel with those we have marked above in italics, and will feel a natural alarm at the thought of the consummation there disclosed, and to which such circumstances must of necessity tend.

That Tractarianism, commencing as it did in political jealousy, (See our April No. p. 243.) has a direct tendency to the revival in this kingdom of a civil and spiritual despotism, is more than hinted at by its writers. Dr. Pusey, writing to the Bishop of Oxford, says; "We would revive what circumstances connected with the sin of 1688 have thrown into a partial oblivion." p. 182. That which is here styled the sin of 1688, being neither more nor less than the glorious revolution of that æra, by which Popery was finally ejected from our high places; and the bill of rights, the charter

of our civil and religious liberty, and the safe union of church and state insured to us. So Mr. Williams, in his tracts "on Reserve," designates the same event as "that rebellion," (p. 50,) and speaks of "independence, maintenance of national rights and privileges, resistance against arbitrary powers, . . . as the very opposite to the peculiar tenets of the Gospel." (p. 84.) He also alludes to "the great loss of Christian principles, which our Church sustained at the rebellion of 1688." (p. 77.) These are sufficiently plain indications, not only of the Romeward tendency of the Tractsystem, but of its subjugating and tyrannical designs also, and fully proves that those who aim at spiritual despotism, must of necessity effect with it the destruction of all civil rights and liberty; since, according to their showing, the maintenance of these are not recognized by the principles of the Gospel. In fact, would they speak out honestly, they would not only renew ecclesiastical supremacy, but they would revive also, absolutism in the crown, and an unlimited obedience in the people. Now if there be one peculiarity of the English people more remarkable than another, it is the jealousy with which they detect and resent any, the slightest, encroachments upon their constitutional rights and liberties; and this at once proves the high value and worth of these, and forms a chief safeguard and support. It is this very jealousy, which, seeing any attempt at an invasion of rights, however distant, immediately takes and sounds the alarm, calls attention to it, and checks it with such timely energy as to nip its growth in the bud, and thereby ward off the lamentable effects of violent rebellion and revolution, which otherwise might ensue. Now that which is so useful to the body politic, should, in its own proper manner and degree, be no less so in ecclesiastical matters; and thus, without failing aught of due reverence, respect, and obedience to the constituted authorities in the Church, those over whom such authorities are set, may, and ought to watch their exercise of power, with the discrimination taught by nature's dramatist

Wear your eye thus, not jealous, nor secure.

In the present state of things, there is a question which is daily becoming of increasing importance to the clergy of the Church of England, and it is this:-To what extent are they bound, not merely according to the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of our Church polity, and the statutes of the realm, but in foro conscientiæ, to observe and faithfully keep the vow pledged at their ordination, that they "will reverently obey their ordinary, and other chief ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over them; following with a glad mind and will their

godly admonitions, and submitting themselves to their godly judg ments?" It is obvious, that, under some circumstances, this might be so interpreted, as to engender in the clergy a spirit of subserviency, and even meanness, utterly inconsistent with the high and solemn charge they have, as "ambassadors in Christ's stead," rendering them the mere agents of other's wills, and even whims, as is the servile condition of the Roman Catholic priesthood, under the sway of their dominant hierarchy. Or it may be understood and exercised by the bishops and clergy in a free and liberal spirit, so that the first shall not attempt to enforce any unconstitutional requirements upon the clergy, nor the last be unwilling to yield a glad and ready obedience to all injunctions in strict agreement, not merely with the letter, but the spirit, of our constitutions, canons, and statutes ecclesiastical.

We believe that of late years there have been very considerable efforts made to increase the power of the bishops. The Tractarian heresy laid its foundation, with great subtlety, in a system of adulation addressed to the hierarchy as the successors of the Apostles, and as having a right therefore to such extravagant power and authority, that every thing was to be laid prostrate at the feet of the bishops. They professed that "a bishop's lightest word, ex cathedrá, is heavy," that it was not for such as they were to "introduce discussion before his Lordship," it was their's to "feel more lively pleasure in submitting to his Lordship's expressed judgment, than in the widest circulation of their volumes." But for all this subserviency, while it suited their purpose, and as long as they could keep the bishops as they thought in their favour, by wholesale flattery, no sooner did any episcopal trumpet sound the alarm against them, and denounce their system as it deserved, than they were forward to question, to cavil at, and to refute their judgments, and modestly to assure their diocesans that they were so dull of comprehension, that they had misconceived and unrighteously condemned the truths they had been propounding. Nevertheless, though they have liked not the descent upon their own backs of the rod they had with their own hands elevated so high, they have effected in a great degree their object. They have called into prominence more epis copal authority than had been exercised for many years previously; and they have encouraged amongst some of the clergy a more subservient acquiescence in the desires of the bishops, than seems properly to comport with the maintenance of the just rights and powers of the clergy themselves. The principle avowed by some, and those even from whom better things might have been expected, is, that they should conform to the wishes of the bishop as much as possible, so long as these wishes should be confined to things in

different; and we have known this carried to such an extent, that where certain bishops have not approved of particular societies, some of their clergy who had hitherto supported them, have withdrawn from them, deferring to the private opinion of the bishop for the time being. Now, with all due submission to, and reverence for, episcopacy, we conceive that this is an inconsistency of conduct at once unworthy of the presbytery, who should judge, not according to the appearance of things, but righteous judgment; and injurious also to the bishops themselves, who are thus in danger of being "exalted above measure" by vain flattery.

The working of the ecclesiastical commission is daily strengthening the authority of the bishops, in a way which hereafter may prove anything but advantageous to the church at large. They are accumulating in their own hands all the patronage created by the suppression of cathedral dignities, and the working clergy must thus learn to look mainly to them for the bestowment of benefices. The Church Building Society endeavours to effect the same object, and in this, and similar ways, the power of the bishops is largely increasing. In fact this has been felt to be such an evil, and such a hindrance in the erection of new churches, that in the recent measure of church extension introduced into parliament by Sir Robert Peel, the minister has maintained a popular voice in the appointment of pastors, and has conceded to persons willing to endow, either wholly or in part, parochial districts, the patronage of the preferments they thus constitute. In this way the fears we have referred to are in some degree met and allayed. For in what we have written above respecting the recent increase of episcopal power, we have advanced not our own sentiments merely, but those of a very staunch high churchman, the incumbent of a provincial parish of some consideration, and one who watches the course and progress of events very narrowly; and with all his fayour towards high-churchism,—and he is in some respects extraordinarily high, he has not hesitated to express his fear for the liberty of the clergy, should bishops be hereafter made, disposed to carry out the principles which have been advocated for them, and to erect a dominion upon the foundation which the Tract-writers chiefly have been instrumental in laying.

We conceive, indeed, that already we have seen some approaches to an excessive claim of jurisdiction, and it is, therefore, because we are more in fear for the future than for the present, that we would take up the consideration of one or two cases of recent occurrence, and thus consider practically the matter we have in hand. The first to which we will advert, shall be the recommendations of the Bishop of London in his last Charge, subsequently in some