there was not one organized Church or diocese throughout its world-wide dimensions." The altered aspect of things, brought about by the friendly co-operation of our civil and ecclesiastical rulers, must have a sensible effect in our foreign dependencieswe have already reaped no little benefit from this extended organization of our Church-and should the measure of advantage which it affords be estimated according to a Scriptural standard; and our national character, as exhibited through the medium of a religious establishment, stand out in its fair proportions before the eyes of the heathen, we may confidently, with God's blessing, anticipate a speedy crowning of our Christian labours for their conversion to the faith. On these grounds, we both "do rejoice and will rejoice" in the concurrent movements which mark our times. Still we are not without grave fears that trial may await us in connection with the very point to which we have now a second time adverted with a real and unfeigned interest-we mean, the colonial Episcopate and the various measures connected with it. We can at present but briefly note the nature and grounds of those fears. Should necessity require, however, we may from time to time enlarge these hints, unless an abler pen take up the subject. At the same time, we would earnestly hope to be spared the task of animadversion, and that it may please God so to unite all who are labouring in the common field of missionary enterprise, that they may be truly of one heart and of one mind, striving together "for the furtherance of the gospel.

Briefly then,-

1. Many of the advocates of the colonial Episcopate appear to us to attach to it an undue and dangerous importanee. We cannot, with Mr. Hawkins, regard this one movement, viewed abstractedly, as "the most important in the Church of England since the era of the Reformation." We do not think with Archdeacons Manning, Grant, and others, that "the principle of our missions is in the Episcopate of the Church," otherwise than it has all along been recognised to be by all sober Catholic Churchmen: nor can we, with unqualified eulogy, speak of it as the first-named Archdeacon did the other day at the Mansion House, a little contradicting, we must think, one of his favourite positions" that whatever has been done, or is likely to be done, in the way of Christianizing our colonies upon any lasting principle, has been, and will be, the work of the Church alone. . . . . That neither worldly interest, nor Christian civilization, nor enlightened policy, have ever excited the British Government to attempt the systematic extension of Christianity in the colonies of this empire: nor to base the social and political order of our foreign dependencies on

any surer foundation than that of secular measures and experiments." Language like this appears to us unmeasured, and a little inconsistent with the passage which we quote from the document, No. 2, on our list.

I listened," said the Archdeacon, "with great joy to the high political philosophy which fell from the noble lord who preceded me, remembering as I do, that he stands before you this day clothed with the responsibilities of a representative of this great commercial city, and also that to his hands, in time past, has been entrusted the administration of our colonial empire. I listened with delight, when I heard him lay down, with statesman-like precision, that emigration and colonization are two things distinct; that even the heathen understood the sacredness of colonies. It is the law of nature that organised life shall reproduce the germ of its own organization-trees that are mature do not return to propagate their original wildness. It is not enough that we send forth the arts of life, and the order of the civil state, if we fail to consecrate them by the charities of home and the sanctities of religion. I never doubted that such were the deep convictions of that noble lord; for I do not need to be reminded that it was during the time when the destinies of our colonial Empire were committed to his trust, that the great scheme for making the colonial Episcopate co-extensive with the British Empire was conceived and put in action. That wise and necessary scheme, which is the charter of our missions, the radical principle of perpetuity to the Churches planted by us abroad, met, I believe I may affirm, with the full sanction of the noble lord. Sharing at that time the authority of the imperial government, and the counsels of her Majesty, whose public servant he then was, he gave to that undertaking his entire assent and support."(pp. 24, 25.)

Whatever may be the relative claims of Church and State in this matter-admitting that the institution of a colonial Episcopate was a "wise and necessary measure," -we must yet question, whether it is to be regarded as "the charter of our missions, the radical principle of perpetuity to the Churches planted by us abroad:" nor can we feel so confident as the Bishop of London appears to have done when this great measure was mooted, that the Church of England by thus bestirring herself. . . . "will in due time cause the reformed Episcopal Church to be recognised, by all the nations of the earth, as the stronghold of pure religion, and the legitimate dispenser of its means of grace and will be a chosen instrument in the hands of God for purifying and restoring the other branches of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and of connecting them with herself, as members of the same mystical body, in the way of truth, in the unity of the Spirit, and in the bond of peace." We heartily pray that it may be so, and that our beloved mother may prove the healer of the Church, as well as of the nations. But we know how often episcopacy has failed. Alas, it may fail again. We must have other "charters," other principles of perpetuity" than this: and we know not whether this full tide of Episcopal prosperity has not come full soon enough to try our utmost humility, faith, and dependence. A

66

6

somewhat careful perusal of various documents has satisfied us, that the American Episcopal Church could ill have borne the possession of her full powers at an earlier period than she obtained them if even now it be not a doubtful experiment, how far she may exercise them with the wisdom and moderation which her position requires. "In the language of an ancient ecclesiastical maxim," remarks the Bishop of New Jersey, "they (the Bishops) are the Church. The Church is in the Bishop.' Its power is in his hands. Its interests are in his heart. He is its chief Missionary." "Look to the long-continued destitution of the Church, of that Episcopacy, which is her living head of union with Christ the channel in which the grace has been transmitted, through the hands of the Apostles, which lends their virtue to her sacraments, and gives to penitent and faithful hearts assurance of acceptance and salvation through the purchase of the blessed cross: apart from which, (i. e. Episcopacy) it could have no connection with the Apostles, and could claim no promise made to them." Such are the principles of an American bishop in a Sermon on "the office of the bishop," and explaining more particularly what is meant by a MISSIONARY BISHOP,' who, "by promoting the unity, does of necessity, promote the increase and prosperity of the Church." "The Church of England," says the defunct British Critic, " must confess to have taken the suggestion of her missionary bishops from her transatlantic daughter." However this may be, we sincerely hope that the originators of the Colonial Episcopate, have not adopted the principles of Dr. Doane in regard to the "bishop's office," though we cannot doubt that they are the very principles which a large section of its advocates and eulogists cherish as of the very essence of Christian unity. Thus Dr. Hook, in his History of the Church in America-" As Christ was sent by the Father, so Christ sent the Apostles; as the Apostles were sent by Christ, so they sent the first Bishops; as the first Bishops were sent by the Apostles, so the first Bishops sent the second race of Bishops; the second, the third, and so down to our present Bishops, who can all of them thus trace back their spiritual descent from the Apostles. And as the apostles, acting under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, delegated a portion of their powers to inferior ministers, so the Bishops commissioned the Priests and Deacons to act under them. It is thus that the Episcopal clergy prove that they are sent by Christ, the first sender ;-that they have authority to minister in Christ's name: and that they belong to that body of men to whom in these ministrations, Christ promised, "Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Thus St.

Cyprian in the primitive age concluded: "Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesiâ, et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesiâ non esse:" or, to adopt the words of Mr. Law, the pious author of the Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life,' "If there be no uninterrupted succession, then there are no authorized ministers of Christ; if no such ministers, then no Christian sacraments; if no Christian sacraments, then no Christian covenant, whereof the sacraments are the stated and visible seals." ... These are some of the reasons which in the opinion of the Episcopalian, render the apostolical succession necessary." ... We might multiply similar quotations, but this may suffice as a specimen. Should such be the animating principles of the Colonial episcopate, we shall fear rather than hope: nor less, if such become the governing principles of those who claim the patronage of the Colonial Episcopate, or can in any way influence it-the Colonial Office, or others concerned as managers and trustees in this important scheme. What may be the immediate danger we know not, but we humbly submit that it is much the duty of all, and especially of our Church Missionary committees, to have an eye to this.

2. Much as we rejoice in the organization of the Colonial Church, and the good fruit resulting from it, there have from time to time been disclosures which seem to indicate the positive existence, in some quarters, of not a little which is calculated to excite distrust and apprehension. We shall not repeat the detail, but pending the full explanation which may yet be looked for touching the college of Coburg in the diocese of Toronto, we must say, taking this as a single instance, that we have felt by no means satisfied with the tone of the Bishop of Toronto's journals. We should be happy to think that the following extracts from No. 4 on our list (one of a series entitled "Church in the Colonies,") implied nothing more in regard to the Church's claims than is compatible with the supremacy of our one Head, and the paramount importance of faith in Him as our "ALL AND IN ALL: but we must confess that the administration of church-ordinances, re-baptism of dissenters, confirmation, a ceaseless inculcating of Church-principles, as they are called, with so little recognition of the simple principles of the Gospel in their saving efficacy and blessed fruits, is not enough to conciliate our confidence, or prevent a strong suspicion that here, as in many other instances, it is "the Church" rather than "Christ,”—and if so, what good can Episcopacy do us in the conflict with popery and dissent? how can we hope to make solid and sure progress in uniting the scattered portions of Christ's Church, or in promoting the sound conversion of

blind idolators and impenitent sinners? We would not, however, try the following extracts by too rigid a canon. All we intend to say is, that they are by no means satisfactory; nor can we anticipate the fruit we chiefly desire from the organization of the Church in our colonies, if the journals of our missionary bishops are to be characterized by statements of no higher worth than these. The re-baptizing of dissenters appears to us in almost every case a very questionable measure: and we are happy to say that in this particular we are fortified by the opinion of a living church-authority very prominent in the establishment of the Colonial Episcopate, and by no means unfriendly, we fear, to some of the church-principles the prevalence of which we sincerely deprecate. He would not, however, we are persuaded, give encouragement to the sort of scruples noticed in the following extract. The Bishop of Toronto writes

"The services at Adelaide were, from their number and character, particularly impressive. The Church was consecrated, six adults were baptized previous to their being confirmed, and thirty-one persons were brought up by Mr. Blake for confirmation. Of the six adults, three believed that they had been baptized by dissenting preachers or laymen, but not from any impending necessity, and they had been anxious to be regularly admitted into the Church. They stated that they had reflected long and seriously upon the subject, and though for some time they felt a great unwillingness to state their doubts, and apply for valid baptism, yet the more they thought upon it the more important the question seemed, and the more they were convinced that they were not regularly engrafted into the Church of Christ, and therefore not fully entitled to its covenant privileges. In this perplexity of mind, they had very properly recourse to their clergyman, and after receiving his counsel or instruction, they resolved to await the Bishop's arrival, and solicit him to admit them by baptism into the Church. Under these circumstances of doubt and distrust, I administered to them the sacrament of baptism, under the condition which the rubric has wisely provided: 'If thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee,' &c.-(pp. 28, 29.)

We give our readers another specimen or two of the bishop's journal:

ST. THOMAS.-At St. Thomas every thing was in readiness for the appointed service the people were assembling from the vicinity, and the village seemed to have put on the appearance of Sunday. It is gratifying to state the very prosperous condition in which I found this parish, owing to the zealous and judicious exertions of its exemplary clergyman. The success attendant upon his labours, latterly so very marked and striking, he ascribes, under the Divine blessing, to a more clear and earnest development on his part of the distinctive principles of the Church; the bringing her claims more fully, plainly, and decidedly before his people, as the depository of Divine truth, and the channel of heavenly grace. While he performed his duty conscientiously, with all calmness and zeal, as a minister of Christ, but without bringing forward prominently the government, order, and peculiar excellences of the Church, the necessity of communion with her, by those who expect the privileges and blessings of the Redeemer's sacrifice, matters went on with regularity and smoothness; his people were decent and discreet in their Christian walk, but they seemed scarcely conscious of any difference