ships of Chittim, shall turn his fury against the holy land; 36, An impious tyranny set up; 40, Events that shall take place in the latter times. The Edinburg follows 1611. 1856: 21, The rise of a vile person to power; 30, His impious conduct; 40, His fall.

Jonah i, 4. 1611: He is bewrayed by a tempest. Blayney: He is overtaken by a tempest and discovered. Edinburg: The ship is overtaken by a tempest. 1856: He is overtaken by a tempest.

Every reader who compares the headings of these different editions with each other, and with that of 1611, must admit the following results:

1. So far from uniformly following the original edition, Blayney and the Edinburg not only vary from it, but evidently intended to correct and improve it. Consequently they did not regard its headings as settled by authority, and unalterable, except by the same or equivalent authority.

2. They often vary from each other; and this proves that they recognized the right of altering what had been previously in use. Therefore, in this respect, they did not regard any edition as a standard not to be varied from.

3. Some of the older headings were of such a kind as to require alteration, and those substituted in the edition of 1856, are manifest improvements.

The marginal readings appended to the text in the original edition, are retained in that of 1856, See those of Num. xxiv, 20, and Isa. xl, 9, before stated. A few others have been added; as, for example, "Gr. The passover," in Acts xii, 4, where the text has "Easter."

I have said nothing respecting the references to other texts. In the early editions, these are very few. Later ones have multiplied them, beyond all reasonable bounds, adding in some cases, to those of its original edition, more than a hundred on a single chapter. I do not allude merely to Canne's celebrated reference Bible, but to editions, some of Oxford, generally received by the Church of England. Many, on the other hand, omit them all. Of course, they were never regarded as authoritative.

Had the author of the Article in the Church Review stated in the most decided terms his opinion of the inexpediency, and even impropriety of introducing alterations from any supposed authorized standard, I would not have troubled him or the Church with the publication of my own contrary opinion, since I freely grant the right of private judgment on all such matters, and the public expression of it. But when he makes the

introduction of such alterations an occasion of exposing to obloquy a most respectable body of men, a solemn sense of duty compels me to speak and to repel the charge. This I have now done. When I consider how carefully these abused headings were prepared, how they particularly avoid deciding what is uncertain, how conscientiously they appear to have been made with a single eye to truth; I must say, that I regard such unsupported attacks as those which have now been considered, as deserving of rebuke. It seems to be a case to which the divine precept applies, "Be ye angry, and sin not." Eph. iv, 26.

SAM'L H. TURNER,

GEN. THEOL. SEMINARY, November, 1856.

ART. VI. THE LATE GENERAL CONVENTION.

Journal of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, 1856. Together with the Constitution and Canons.

UNUSUAL pains were taken by the Secular and Religious press to spread before the Church full and accurate reports of the proceedings and debates of the late General Convention. All who desired information in regard to what was said and done, enjoyed the amplest means for securing it. This fact renders unnecessary, at this time and in these pages, any formal recapitulation or elaborate resumé of the proceedings. In what we have to say, we shall go upon the presumption that our readers are duly informed as to the details. Our object, then, is not to narrate or to compile, but so to study the more important topics and forms of legislation, as to catch and put on record, for the inspection of after years, a just impression of the prevailing temper and dominant purpose of the Triennial General Convention of 1856. For history tells us that such bodies survive longer in their power for good or evil, through the tone and spirit of their conferences, discussions, and enactments, than through any special results which they may originate by the processes of formal legislation.

It will not, we think, be deemed an extravagant pretension, if we claim for a Quarterly some peculiar advantages in an attempt of this character. While conceding to our Weeklies all those qualities which make them effective and influential-such as enterprise, promptness, and a certain quick and nimble facility in dealing with affairs as they rise-qualities finding expression in paragraphs and leaders, written currente calamo, and embodying, sometimes, of necessity, judgments and criticisms essentially extemporaneous; yet we may claim for an organ like this, the very great advantage of securing for the subjects it treats a graver handling, more mature convictions, and, on the whole, conclusions more truthful and impartial. This advantage may not always appear in these pages, but it enters largely into the public estimate of our resources and responsibilities.

The General Convention is composed of two Houses-the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. The House of Bishops consists of all the Bishops, Diocesan and 36

VOL. IX.-NO. IV.

Missionary. Its sessions are strictly private, allowing the presence neither of reporters nor spectators. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies consists of four clergymen and four laymen, chosen by each Diocese; numbering, all told, about two hundred and forty members. The sessions of this House, in token of its more popular character, are public. The course of legislation resembles that pursued in our Federal Congress. Both Houses must consent in order that any act may become a law; hence, each has an absolute veto upon the other. Whenever demanded by the deputies of any one Diocese, the vote on any question pending must be taken by orders; and to secure an effective majority, both orders must concur. The lay element, therefore, is practically just as potent as the clerical. Many analogies might be pointed out between this Body and the National Congress-so many, indeed, as to lead some to suppose that our spiritual fathers modeled, so far as practicable, the one after the other. It is well known that some of the guiding, controlling intellects in the formation of the one acted as advisers, at least, in the formation of the other. But to whatever extent, be it more or less, it was consciously attempted to conform the Supreme Legislative Body of this Communion to the Federal Legislature; there was one illustrious and memorable assembly which its framers had largely in their minds. We refer to the first Christian Council ever heldthe Council of Jerusalem, over which the Apostle James presided-whose members, as Scripture declares, consisted of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. Our fathers accordingly established a Council composed of Bishops, Presbyters, and Laymen.

It has been sometimes objected to the Episcopal Church that its government and discipline are too centralizing in their tendencies, that Bishops wield too much power, that their sphere of influence is dangerously large, and therefore that the very genius of the Church estranges it from the popular voice. The Protestant Episcopal Church is representative-republican; but not democratic. It is so in the sense that our civil organization is. Politically we are a republic, not a democracy. There are two ends which all proper Church government must keep in view: viz, efficiency of collective action and protection of the individual-in other words-thorough organization and security of private liberty. Now the first can be had only by a certain amount of centralization; the second can be had only by a corresponding amount of diffused power. The Church has happily provided for the accomplishment of both these ends by centralizing in the prerogatives of Bishops, and by diffusing in the franchises of the laity. In doing so, she has had a wise

reference in all cases to the quality and degree of power so conferred. Without dwelling upon this point, we may safely assert that notwithstanding the authority vested in Bishops and Presbyters, no communion in the land has given the laity so much substantial and practical power as our own. For ample proof of the fact we need not go beyond the constitution of this the highest Council of the Church. The power thus granted to the laity is, in all its bearings, so influential as to demand the fullest guarantees that it will be safely exercised. The last and surest of these has, at length, been provided by an amendment to the Constitution enacted by the late General Convention, which requires every Lay delegate to the Convention to be a communicant, and not merely, as heretofore, a baptized member of the Church. This provision, so just in itself and so effectually protective of the Church against intrusions into her Councils of enemies under the guise of friends, will quiet the apprehensions of many of our brethren of the Mother Church, who have often expressed a well-founded surprise that we should grant to the Laity so much legislative power, without furnishing any adequate safeguards against its abuse by indifferentists and unbelievers.

The powers of the General Convention may be briefly defined. They are simply those which, by common consent, it is supposed can be more advantageously exercised by such a central body than by the several Dioceses. It has hitherto been the rule to interfere as little as possible with matters that could be better cared for by the several Diocesan Conventions; and to look to the General Convention only for such legislation as the whole Church alone was competent to enact and enforce. Thus each Diocese has its own local missions, its own provisions for Christian education, its own mode of regulating the affairs of Parishes, its own Annual Conventions; while to the General Triennial Council belongs the care of Foreign and Domestic Missions, of the Prayer-Book, as containing the Church's devotional system; and, briefly, of all the essentials and most of the accidents of doctrine, discipline, and worship.

Up to a certain point there is considerable similarity between General and Diocesan rights, powers, and functions in the Church, and Federal and State-rights and powers in our political system. But, after all, it is only a partial likenessone which, when introduced as an argument for or against proposed changes in our Constitution, is productive of serious falfacies. For, in the formation of our Ecclesiastical system and of the Constitution which defines its powers, there was no such process as that witnessed in the formation of our national union. There was no covenanted cession of rights, no formal transfer