power to prevent any ecclesiastical differences; or, in other words, it only substitutes the king in place of the pope, with regard to temporalities, and the external economy of the church." This is pretty well; and we might leave this strange admission to its natural operation upon the minds of our readers; but as the little distinction between inter sacra and in sacris happens to have no existence except in the ingenious brain of its author, we may just refer to facts, and let history, as briefly as possible, tell her own tale. Two important documents are preserved in the Common Prayer Book. One, the royal declaration prefixed to the articles, and which has been several times confirmed, and remains to this day a standing evidence of the nature of the authority which the king claims as supreme governor of the Church of England, which extends not only to temporalities, the injunctions, canons, and other constitutions, but it assumes the prerogative of determining what is the true doctrine of the church, in what sense the articles shall be subscribed by the clergy, what they shall and what they shall not preach; and that the bishops and clergy shall not meet in convocation, except under sanction of the broad seal; and that whatever they may draw up in the form of doctrine, or for the purpose of discipline, is a mere nullity, without the royal assent. The second document is of a date so recent as 1761, in the reign of George the Third; in which his Majesty expresses it as his royal will and pleasure, that the four forms of prayer and service, made for the fifth of November, the thirtieth of January, the twenty-ninth of May, and the twenty-fifth of October, be incorporated with the book of Common Prayer, and used yearly on the said days in all cathedral and collegiate churches and chapels, in all chapels of colleges and halls within both the universities, and of the colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all parish churches and chapels throughout the kingdom.

The king's mandate, in fact, is the alpha and omega of every thing in the Church of England; nothing can be entered upon without his licence first humbly sought, nor concluded without his approbation. To Queen Elizabeth the Church of England owes its existence-it was literally her creation: her fiat called it into being in " opposition to all the bishops, to the whole convocation, and to both the universities; that is, in one word, in opposition to the whole body of the clergy of the kingdom," as may be seen in Fuller and Heylin. James the First, as the head of the church, certainly in this instance not "in sacris," issued a proclamation enjoining, "that after divine service, (on the sabbath,) the people should not be disturbed or discouraged from their lawful recreations of dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May-games, Whitsuntide ales, morris dances, and setting up of Maypoles." An edict of another kind from the same authority, proves that it is not to temporal affairs alone that the lay sovereign of the church confines his legislation; for James went beyond the "inter sacra," when he declared " that no preacher, of what title soever, under the degree of a bishop or dean at the least, do from henceforth presume to preach in any popular auditory, the deep points of predestination, election, reprobation, or of the universality, efficacy, resisti bility, or irresistibility of God's grace, but leave these things rather to be handled by learned men, and that moderately and modestly, by

VOL. XVI.-N.S.

D D

way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doctrines; being fitter for the schools than for simple auditories." Charles the Second issued a mandate as the head and supreme governor of the church, addressed to the university of Cambridge, of a singular nature, from which it appears that the indolent practice of reading sermons was an innovation upon the long-established habit of the clergy, up to the time of Charles the First. Passing over innumerable instances of the exercise of the royal prerogative, both “inter sacra” and “in sacris," we may just mention en passant, that the impotence of both houses of convocation, when formerly allowed to meet, and to act, was such, that they could not even censure with effect, the erroneous opinions of a member of their own body. A woman, who then sat on the throne, was of a different opinion from all the clergy of the land, and her opinion prevailed. They thought Whiston a heretic; good Queen Anne, of blessed memory, was of a different judgment, and Whiston remained unrebuked. «To this we may add a fact, notorious in the present day, that if a single occasional and temporary collect be wanted, or a fast or thanksgiving day for the use of the parish priests, the college of archbishops and bishops have not a right to make it without an order from the king.” It is not contended that his Majesty is invested with a clerical character, and that, in an ecclesiastical sense, he officiates,—this would render his supremacy in the church establishment less objectionable; but that a layman should control all the ecclesiastics of a spiritual hierarchy, and determine all the matters of doctrine and discipline which they are to believe and observe, is one of the strangest abuses of Reformation that has perhaps ever occurred in the history of human affairs.' pp. 390 93.

As an argumentum ad hominem, the objection to the supremacy of a royal layman may have some force; but we are not of opinion that the case would be altered for the better, if the throne were occupied by a royal priest or prelate—a bishop of Osnaburg for instance. The distinction between clergy and laity, upon which the objection rests, has no foundation in either Scripture or reason; and we must, therefore, as consistent Congregationalists, allow that a lay head is just as competent to officiate, both in sacris and inter sacra, as a sacerdotal head,—that a Lord High Commissioner is as proper a president of a synod as a reverend Moderator,—that a king may be as good a theologian as a pope. Our objection, as Dissenters, against the assumed royal headship, rests upon that amalgamation of things civil and sacred, that secularization of Christian institutions, and that usurpation of the prerogatives of the Only Master and Lord of the Church, which are involved in the very constitution of a politico-ecclesiastical establishment. We deny the legitimacy of the authority assumed; but, if it is to exist any where, it is most safely deposited in the hands of the civil magistrate.

Art. VI. A History of British Fishes. By William Yarrell, F.L.S. 8vo., Woodcuts. Part I., Price 2s. 6d. London, 1835.

WE ought to have noticed this interesting and well executed work long ago; and even now, though we take it for granted that the work has gone steadily forward, our acquaintance with it is limited to the first Number. Judging, then, from this single specimen, we are disposed to give high praise to an undertaking so truly meritorious in all its departments, both useful and ornamental. Mr. Yarrell is evidently a man of original research; he writes well; and his mode of exhibiting scientific distinctions is clear and definite. The following extract is both interesting in its details, and instructive as describing peculiarities not commonly observed.

'The Great Weever generally measures about twelve inches in length, but has been known to attain seventeen inches: its food is the fry of other fishes, and its flesh is excellent. It swims very near the bottom, is sometimes taken in deep water by the trawl-net, and occasionally with a baited hook attached to deep-sea lines. When caught, it should be handled with great caution. "I have known," says Mr. Crouch, "three men wounded successively in the hand by the same fish, and the consequences have been in a few minutes felt as high as the shoulder. Smart friction with oil soon restores the part to health;" but such is the degree of danger, or apprehension of it rather, arising from wounds inflicted by the spines of the Weevers, that our own fishermen almost invariably cut off the first dorsal fin, and both opercular spines, before they bring them on shore: the French have a police regulation by which their fishermen are directed to cut off the spines before they expose the fish for sale; and in Spain there is a positive law by which fishermen incur a penalty if they bring to market any fish whose spines give a bad wound, without taking them off.

• That the Great Weever prefers deep water, that it lives constantly near the bottom, that it is tenacious of life when caught, and that its flesh is excellent, are four points that have been already noticed; but this subject, in reference to fishes generally, may be farther illustrated. It may be considered as a law, that those fish that swim near the surface of the water have a high standard of respiration, a low degree of muscular irritability, great necessity for oxygen, die soonalmost immediately, when taken out of water, and have flesh prone to rapid decomposition. On the contrary, those fish that live near the bottom of the water have a low standard of respiration, a high degree of muscular irritability, and less necessity for oxygen; they sustain life long after they are taken out of the water, and their flesh remains good for several days. The carp, the tench, the various flat fish, and the eel, are seen gaping and writhing on the stalls of the fishmongers for hours in succession; but no one sees any symptom of motion in the mackerel, the salmon, the trout, or the herring, unless

present at the capture. These four last-named, and many others of the same habits, to be eaten in the greatest perfection, should be prepared for table the same day they are caught; but the turbot, delicate as it is, may be kept till the second day with advantage, and even longer, without injury; and fishmongers generally are well aware of the circumstance, that fish from deep water have the muscle more dense in structure—in their language, more firm to the touch,-that they are of finer flavour, and will keep longer, than fish drawn from shallow water.' pp. 21-23.

The wood-cuts in this number are of exquisite execution: the delicacy, yet freedom and variety of their handling, has not often been equalled in xylographic practice. A liberal supply of vignettes gives opportunity for the insertion of important details in anatomical structure.

Art. VII. North American Review, No. XCII. July 1826. Art. A Visit to Texas, &c.

IN

N our last Number, we took occasion, in reviewing Mr. Latrobe's "Rambler in Mexico", to advert to the affairs of Texas, and to express our anxiety for further intelligence respecting the conflict which is going on in that border country of Mexico and the United States. The new Number of the North American Review has since reached us, in which we find an article upon the subject, comprising so much important information, that we cannot better occupy a few pages, than in giving an abstract of its contents; premising, that every statement relating to Mexico that proceeds from the press of the United States, is to be received with some allowance and suspicion.

In order to appreciate the state of the question, the Reviewer has deemed it proper to go back to the commencement of the revolutionary contest in 1810, and to take a view more particularly of some occurrences in the Interior Provinces of Mexico, of which no authentic account has been given. Up to the close of 1824, the general history of the Mexican Revolution is sufficiently well-known *. At that period, the Constitution of the Federal Republic had been established, Guadalupe Victoria being the first President; and in Jan. 1825, Mr. Canning announced that his Britannic Majesty had come to the resolution of acknowledging the independence of Mexico and Colombia. In the mean time, while Mexico was yet struggling for her inde

* A concise and (we believe) accurate history of the Revolution will be found in the Modern Traveller, Vol. XXV., (Mexico,) down to the date of its publication, 1825.

pendence, Texas had been made the seat of military operations", in which many citizens of the United States co-operated, and not 6 a few sacrificed their lives.

It must not be forgotten,' says the American Reviewer, that these transactions occurred previously to the treaty of 1819 with Spain; at a period when the United States had not given up their pretensions, under the treaty of cession of Louisiana, to the sovereignty of the country, as far as the Rio del Norte. We will not assert that the administration of that day (1812 and 1813) were disposed to step forward and take possession of the country, as soon as it should have been wrested from the dominion of Spain; but thus much we assert as a fact, that William Schaler, afterwards the Consul-general at Algiers, did, after the fall of San Antonio, in the spring of 1813, proceed into the territory, and, under the flag of the United States, assumed and acted in the official character of "agent of the United States near the constituted authorities of New Spain." At that time, the American people and government were wearied with the protracted negotiation with Spain, its interminable delays, and the evident reluctance of the cabinet of Madrid to do justice to the United States; and there was a strong disposition among the people to seize upon that part of the territory which was still in dispute.'

The details of the first abortive attempt to establish the cause of Independence in this territory would but little interest our readers. We shall compress them into as brief a narrative as possible. It appears that a certain Don Bernardo Gutierrez, originally a whitesmith at Revilla, near the Rio Grande, who had taken part in the first rising under Hidalgo in 1810, having made his escape from the vengeance of the Spanish authorities to the United States, succeeded in inducing many Americans to join him in an enterprise having for its object, to create a division on the side of Texas, in favour of Morelos, the patriot leader. Early in 1812, he crossed the Sabine with his little army of volunteers, and taking the Spanish garrisons by surprise, found little difficulty in making himself master of the smaller towns of Salcedo and La Bahia; but San Antonio, the capital, did not surrender till after an engagement with the royalists. In barbarous violation of the terms of capitulation, thirteen prisoners of distinc'tion' were inhumanly butchered in cold blood by the vindictive ruffian, upon which some of the American officers retired in disgust. In the mean time, having learned the auspicious commencement of the enterprise under Gutierrez, a Spanish American refugee named Don Jose Alvarez Toledo, furnished with an authority signed by many of the members of the Cortes, which enabled him to raise some thousands of dollars at Philadelphia, arrived at Nacogdoches, in company with William Shaler, Esq.', and a few followers, among whom was a printer, and established

6