on the ground that the charge had been already investigated and found invalid. He says

"The Rubric following the call upon the people, states the object of the call to be, that the person objected to shall be found clear of the crime charged upon him, before he be ordained. If, then, this has been previously done-if the charge has already been laid before the bishop and examined by him, and the party found clear of it, it is obviously a case not contemplated by the Rubric. The object of the Rubric has been gained. The party has been found clear of the charge: there is no law to meet the case, but the holy common law of order, reverence, and silence, in public worship. The rising to bring a charge, of which the accused has already been found clear, is a violation of this law, unsanctioned by any other: else the solemnities of this peculiarly hallowed portion of our ritual would be in danger of perpetual interruption, by the repetition of charges over and over again examined, and proved to be unfounded."

The obvious reply to this is, that the party had not been found clear of the charge in any way that could be satisfactory to the Church at large; but only by a secret tribunal, whose proceedings were conducted so as to screen the bishop almost from the possibility of being called to account for what he did, the evidence not being so taken as to be producible against him in any decisive way. A solemn trial and examination of the candidate, so that the evidence might be placed on record, was all that was desired. There was no denial of the bishop's power, ultimately to ordain him if he so thought fit. But an examination of such a nature was wanting, to place the Bishop in his right position of responsibility to the Church, for the views of those whom he admitted to holy orders. And when a decided charge of heresy or grievous error has been brought against a candidate for so sacred an office, surely, no care or pains can be misplaced in certifying the Church that its bishops may be depended upon for preserving its ministry pure. What satisfaction is it to the Church at large, for a bishop who commends the principles of No. 90, to say that he finds no fault with a young man who professes them? If the bishop believes such principles to be sound Church principles, let him not endeavour to shroud his proceedings, performed in conformity with these principles, under the veil of secresy, and endeavour to keep from the Church the evidence of his having ordained those who profess such doctrines. And to these principles the bishop has publicly pledged himself, by going out of his way in his address to his Convention, actually to record his approbation of a newspaper, called "The Churchman," (khown to be edited under his auspices,) whose support of the principles of Tractarianism, especially No. 90, has been of the most offensively violent description.

The Bishop, like all the rest of the Tractarians, who make religion consist in the implicit reception of what the clergy deliver, instead of a hearty and heaven-taught belief in the Gospel, the result of private judgement and conviction, is very angry at the idea of religious controversies being brought before the people. Has he yet to learn, that

when the pastors of the flock are running in contrary directions, and, therefore, of necessity, some of them, on one side or the other, endeavouring to lead the sheep into deadly pastures fatal to their wellbeing and even to their life, it behoves all who are interested in the welfare of the flock, to raise a warning voice, to guard them against the dangers to which they are exposed? Whatever may be the impediments with which the people have to contend, in forming a just conclusion, the exercise of private judgement in the matter is as much forced upon them by the circumstances of the case, as if in a case of illness two opposite modes of treatment were prescribed by two physicians. There is a patient dying; one physician prescribes nothing but water, another prescribes a generous diet. What is the dying man to do? Is he to be debarred making the best use he can of his own judgement in the matter, because he is not a physician? Moreover, the canons of his own Church give, as we have seen, to the "clergy and laity" of a diocese, the right to present their bishop to the General Convention on matters of doctrine, which necessarily implies the right and duty of private judgement concerning "religious controversies," ay, even against their bishop.

When, therefore, the Bishop, tacitly and somewhat covertly identifying, in his argument, the "laity" with the "world," to make his argument sound better, exhorts his "diocese" " always to frown upon the bringing of controversies or differences on sacred subjects before the world through mediums and in ways whose principal operation may be expected to involve their exposure to the scoffs and jests of unrenewed hearts, the insolence of the ignorant, and the blasphemies and impieties of the profane;" and to be " jealous of unnecessarily exposing the things of God to that carnal mind which is radically incapable of spiritual discernment;" he seems to us wholly to misapprehend the case, and to be very sadly misleading those whom he is addressing, by wandering altogether from the subject. A bishop unfaithful to his trust, is not to be allowed to proceed unimpeded in his course, because worldly-minded men take advantage of the controversies and divisions of the Church to deride the truth.

And it is impossible to forget that these remarks, so redolent of a spirit of peace, and deprecatory of controversy, are made by one who has joined a party whose avowed object it is to subvert the Protestantism of their Church, and whose game manifestly lies in stilling the alarm excited by some of their declarations, and stealing on silently, stealthily, and unsuspectedly, until they have obtained full and complete possession of the public mind. The Bishop's address shows that he has learned his lesson well: it has all the oratorical piety, subtle calmness, and humble arrogance of a genuine disciple of Rome; it breathes the true spirit of one who will make an exhibition of his humility, by washing the feet of the poor disciple, while he is trampling upon the necks of kings and emperors; and style himself "Servus servorum Dei," while he is arrogating to himself dominion over all.

Considering the nature of the case, it is impossible to conceive more inoffensive and temperate resolutions than the two that were proposed

in the Convention by Judge Oakley and Mr. Duer. The first went to affirm, that doubt existed as to the meaning of the Rubric in the Ordination Service, and requested the delegates to obtain from the next General Convention an authoritative interpretation of it; the second expressed a desire, that a proposal for some modification in the mode and extent of the examination of candidates for the ministry should be sent up to the General Convention.

The speech of Mr. Duer, in support of these resolutions, places the matter in so clear and strong a light, that we are tempted to give the following extracts from it :

"It should never be forgotten, that, from whatever source the powers of the bishop may be derived, they depend for their beneficial exercise upon the confidence, the affections, and the support of the laity. I fully agree that there is no responsibility on the part of the bishop in the exercise of his spiritual functions to the public at large. I admit that with no propriety can he ever be arraigned at that bar; but there is a plain and direct responsibility to his own Church and to its members a responsibility from which he cannot escape, from which he cannot desire to be released, but which he should at all times and in all cases be prepared and enabled to meet. To enable him to meet this responsibility, and thus to retain the confidence and support of the laity, it is essential that, especially in the discharge of the highest functions of his office, he should be protected against any possible misrepresentation of his conduct and motives. When he has ordained a candidate, to whom serious impediment or crime has been objected, and the propriety of his course is questioned, he should be enabled to vindicate his conduct by showing distinctly and fully the grounds on which he had acted; and I know of no means by which this can be effected, by which the necessary protection can be given to him, except by requiring that the examination of every suspected candidate shall be conducted in the mode that this resolution, if adopted, would sanction. There are even higher considerations that should influence our decision. The course of proceeding that this resolution recommends, may be essential to the protection and safety of the Church itself-essential to its protection against the possible abuse of its spiritual powers by an unfaithful bishop-a bishop unfaithful to her doctrines and to his own trust. stating a hypothetical case, I protest against any application of my remarks to existing circumstances. I am not stating what has happened, or is likely to happen, but what may happen. It is possible, then, that a bishop may arise (in the Church of England, in former days, such bishops have existed) whose own mind shall be deeply infected with the very errors against which, as a Church, we have protested-a bishop whose predominant desire it shall be, by gradually effacing the lines of distinction, to draw us into a close and intimate alliance with, and finally into the actual embraces of the Church from which we have separated. It is evident that such a bishop, far from seeking to exclude the candidates whose entrance into the Church we dread, and are anxious to prevent, would be diligent in his efforts to discover and encourage them; he would seek them out, form, instruct,

In

and ordain them, as the suitable and necessary agents to accomplish his designs. It is evident that a bishop, thus acting, might, in the course of a few years, introduce into the Church a body of clergymen hating the very doctrines they are commissioned to teach; and labouring, not to explain and enforce, but to subvert and corrupt that purity of the faith in which we have gloried. Will it be said, that a bishop, thus acting, would render himself liable to be impeached, deposed, degraded? True; but in this country no accused party can be punished until he is convicted, nor convicted unless upon adequate proof. By what evidence would you establish the charge? How would you prove that the real sentiments of a single candidate were known to the bishop when he ordained him? The candidate would have produced the usual testimonials, and to obtain them would have practised that dissimulation and reserve that it would be a part of the system to inculcate. The preparatory examinations, what are they in themselves? And under whose supervision, and by whose selected agents, would they have been conducted? No, sir; if the bishop, in deciding on the admission of candidates, is to act secretly, and, of course, irresponsibly; if suspected candidates are not to be subjected to a close and rigid examination, conducted by those who preferred the charge; if what occurs at such examinations is not to be carefully recorded, and the record carefully preserved; a bishop might pursue the treacherous course I have described for a series of years-I do not say without exciting suspicion and alarm, but without exposing himself to the hazard of punishment. He would disregard your fears and your convictions, and, deriding your efforts to displace him, would continue to be your bishop. Against such perils it would be idle to rely on the securities we now have; they would be weak, feeble, wholly inadequate. I have already spoken of the testimonials and preparatory examinations. The only apparent security is the required subscription of the candidates to our articles of religion; but what security is that subscription against those who believe in the innocence of mental reservation? What security against those who have been taught to interpret the Articles in a sense that robs them wholly of their Protestant character, and renders them easy to be reconciled with the most obnoxious doctrines and practices of Rome? Under such a bishop there would be no difficulty in finding candidates of the necessary pliability of conscience. Rome herself, acting upon the system that in other countries she is known to have pursued, would supply them. She would send her own emissaries into your Church, and not only permit, but command them to become its ministers. Far from considering their subscription to your articles as a crime, she would encourage and reward it as an act of pious obedience: the end to be attained would sanctify the means. In the present state of the Church, viewing the actual progress of certain doctrines, and the multitude and zeal of those who have embraced them-remembering the caution with which these doctrines were first promulgated, and the lengths to which their authors have now boldly advanced, it cannot be said with truth, that the dangers of which I have spoken are so remote

and improbable, that it would be useless to adopt measures of precaution. A Romanist bishop in a Protestant Church is no longer an improbable event." (Pp. 23-26.)

"In this age and in this country you must not attempt to blindfold those whom you wish to conduct. If you would lead the laity, the laity must know where you are going. If you would govern their conduct, you must gain their confidence by convincing their reason. If you claim from them an implicit faith, the claim is sure to be rejected; and those who, properly instructed, would have been glad to follow, will be prompt to abandon you." (P. 30.)

"The resolution imposes no restriction on the ultimate decision of the bishop; and that which it imposes on his previous action, does not at all differ in its character or principle from those that now exist. In one sense, the spiritual powers of the bishop to ordain cannot be limited; he may ordain whom he pleases; but his power to ordain those who are to be received as ministers of the Church is necessarily subject to such regulations as the Church may impose. To deny this, is to subvert the whole constitution of the Church-is to demolish the edifice, in order to build the prerogative of the bishop upon its ruins: it is to make each bishop the pope of his diocese." (Pp. 30, 31.)

After adverting to the way in which No. 90 has been condemned in England, he observes-"Yet it is this Tract, thus rejected and stigmatised by the fathers of our Church-for, although its members are separated by the ocean, the Church is one-it is this Tract, upon which such decisive marks of reprobation have been fixed by those who, from their learning, their experience, their piety, and their stations, have the strongest claims on our esteem and reverence, that "The Churchman,' a journal published under the supervision of our bishop, and by him urged on our continued support, has chosen to recommend in terms of unqualified praise." (P. 34, note.)

We freely confess that we have entered more fully into the particulars of this case, than we should have felt disposed to do, had it been a case affecting only the American Church. But we cannot but see in it a forcible illustration of the dangers to which we are exposed in this country. Here, in fact, is the seat of the disease, which has been communicated from hence to the American Church. The Tractarians here are indefatigable in their efforts for the advancement of their cause; and, for the purpose of enabling them to remain in our Church while the process of "reappropriating" the Papal tenets and superstitions thrown off at the Reformation is being carried on (the advantage of presence in the camp during their correspondence with the enemy being fully appreciated), they have been compelled to resort to those practices of mental reserve, equivocation, subterfuge, evasion, economy," and "phenacism," which render creeds and confessions almost useless for the preservation of a Church's purity in the faith, and introduce that lax morality, as it respects promises and declarations, that tends to dissolve the very foundations of society, by taking away all