success); here, surely, is work enough to employ such a body, and objects of sufficient importance to render its existence desirable. On the part of the objectors, however, one main reason, I feel no doubt, arises from the fear of any attempts at enforcing a greater uniformity on certain doctrines; and, although my opinion may on this point be the strongest argument with the majority for not reviving Convocation, yet I cannot in fairness withhold it. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that there have long been two views taken of the Seventeenth Article of our Church, which, for convenience' sake, I shall call the Arminian and Calvinistic interpretations. I admit that these terms are not strictly applicable, but they denote a sufficient approximation to what I mean. Whilst there is a very great uniformity of opinion on all the leading doctrines of the Gospel among the Clergy, on this and kindred points, a portion,-I believe a very small portion,-adopt the Calvinistic view; and as such views are almost sure to produce a very striking effect on the style and topics of the pulpit, this difference of opinion is thereby brought more prominently forward, and even assumes the appearance of being much greater than it is in reality, in these days when Preaching has become (as many think) far too prominent a part of the public service. Perhaps it would be wrong to require a minute uniformity on these points; but still, I apprehend, there can be no doubt that preachers ought to be restrained from holding forth the dogmas of Calvinism in their more harsh and revolting forms, of which from time to time we find instances in our pulpits, and of which the metropolis at this present time can produce one egregious example. It would be harsh, indeed, to make any rules on the subject which should be retrospective; but there could be no hardship in imposing some restraints on future candidates for holy orders. Some persons may think that such a plan would be injudicious, as it is desirable to have the pale of the Church as wide as possible; but, in truth, these differences are a real source of weakness; they defeat the very end of a rightly ordered Church, which is to hold up a uniform standard of doctrine; they afford endless causes of mutual jealousy and dislike among the Clergy, and give to Infidels and Dissenters an occasion of attack. In the recent controversies on the question of an Establishment, the Church has been ably defended, on the ground of her holding up a uniform and consistent standard of religion among the ever-varying changes and wild opinions of contending sects. It is marvellous with what frequency the retort has been made, that there is as much diversity in the Church as among the Dissenters: no doubt this retort is unfair, inasmuch as it relates to points not necessarily fundamental, and even in these points is not true to the extent assumed. The injury, however, inflicted on the Church by this overindulgence of perhaps one or two hundred preachers is far greater than she could sustain (to put the matter on no higher ground) by the loss of the few hearers who would always hanker after the strong doctrines of Geneva. The example of the Church of Rome in suppressing Jansenism, and of the Wesleyan Methodists in taking a bold stand on the anti-Calvinistic side, show how soon and easily the first inconveniences may be got over, and the benefits of that peace and internal harmony which result from having got rid of these, which, if not the most important, are the most troublesome and interminable of controversies. I am

convinced that this leaving of what may be called the Calvinistic controversy open, is the most fruitful cause of the internal differences and jealousies within the Church itself, and the main source of its weakness towards them that are without."

The necessity, then, of some public body within the Church for the above purposes, and the numerous other ends (all essential to her due efficiency) which can be adequately secured only by these means, is surely sufficiently apparent; but the question presents itself, Whether Convocation be the best means of effecting these ends? Whether it be the public body wanted to watch over and legislate for the Church? Convocation, be it remembered, is simply the representative of one province only, that of Canterbury; it was in its origin, almost, if not entirely, political, having been assembled for the mere taxation of the Clergy; and if it, by degrees, acquired the privilege of legislating for the Church, it was rather by an assumption of its own, or by sufferance of others, than by any valid right; add to all which, the extremely undefined relations of the two Houses to each other, and the sure results of frequent collisions. It truly would be unfair to imagine that the same feuds and animosities by which the Convocations were torn, from the Revolution of 1688 to the time of their final desuetude, would again prevail, as they were then the results of the peculiar circumstances of the times; and strange, indeed, would it have been, if the feelings with which the whole of society was deeply agitated should not have found their way thither. The General Assembly of the Scotch has at different times exhibited far more ferment, and been the scene of far greater and more outrageous proceedings, than ever were exhibited within the two Houses of Convocation; and yet experience shows that time, and the progress of events, have sobered it down into a very peaceable and useful body. A revived Convocation would doubtless exhibit the same features of improvement; but still, from what has been said, it may well be doubted whether the semi-political body of Convocation constitutes such an assembly for the internal management of the Church, as the times demand. I fear not; and that we must look for a remedy to existing defects and inconveniences in a body of a character more purely and simply ecclesiastical; such, for instance, as a General Synod of the whole United Church of England and Ireland.

It has been attempted by Government to supply the place of such a body by the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. I suppose the notoriety of the fact that this Commission has failed to conciliate the good opinion either of the Clergy or Laity, or indeed of any great party or section in the State, will be a sufficient reason for alluding to it, without the least disrespect to the exalted individuals who compose it. The truth is, the fault is not theirs; in the existing state of things, no ameliorations in our ecclesiastical system can be carried into effect, with any prospect of general satisfaction, unless after mature deliberation and free approval by the great body of the Church herself, fairly assembled by some means or other for the purpose. The secret and irresponsible proceedings of a Commission, appointed, as such a body must be, by the influence of Government, will always be looked on with distrust and suspicion, their motives arraigned, and their decisions misunderstood and misrepresented, however exalted the character, and unexceptionable

in themselves may be the recommendations, of the individuals composing it. All these points are fully borne out by what has already occurred, and ought to convince our civil and ecclesiastical rulers that the same publicity and responsibility which are thought so essential to the due administration of the State are equally essential for that of the Church.

I would not, then, by any means deem a General Synod complete, if it included only the Clergy; the laity should possess a fair share of the representation of the Church. By the existing practice of Convocation, laymen are admitted as Proctors in the Lower House; and in the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the House of Deputies consists of the representatives of the laity as well as of those sent by the Clergy; and supposing the office of churchwardens somewhat differently constituted, and rendered more dignified and strictly ecclesiastical in its character, the election of deputies on behalf of the laity of the Church of England might with great propriety be consigned to them. As the results of the Ecclesiastical Commission show that it would be extremely injudicious for the Bishops alone to act without the counsel and concurrence of the Clergy; so, in the present state of society, it would be impossible for any assembly of the Church to command the public veneration, and attain that share of salutary influence which might enable it to legislate with due effect, if the Clergy alone were to bear the whole burden of the work. The form of such a General Synod, and the relations of the House of Deputies (lay and clerical) to the other House of Bishops might be so ordered, that the dignity and divine rights of the Episcopal College in the government of the Church should be preserved inviolate; the right of initiating measures, or at least of a veto, being lodged with the latter, so that the Lower House should stand merely in the relation of a Council to them, but by no means possess an equal and co-ordinate right of legislation (a very weighty argument often urged against Convocation, as too much derogating from Episcopacy as of divine institution); whilst the Royal prerogative might be sufficiently secured by the power of a veto on all measures, previously to their obtaining the public authority of canons. I am unable to say whether, even at present, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as metropolitan, has not a right to assemble such a General Synod, without waiting for any further authority; at any rate, the legislation necessary to remove any legal impediments to it, if any such really do exist, would seem far less difficult than such a revival of Convocation, and such alterations in its constitution, as the exigencies of the case demand. That each Bishop in his own diocese has the power of summoning a Diocesan Synod on his own single authority is indisputable ; for the saintly Wilson (during the middle of the last century) actually summoned such a Synod for the diocese of Sodor and Man, and used it for the purposes of enforcing a judicious system of ecclesiastical discipline.

Among the numerous ameliorations of our ecclesiastical system which have been proposed, the condition of our country market-towns has been totally overlooked; and yet I know no part of that system which needs more attention, or where improvement might be more easily effected. And when we consider the vast importance of these towns, from the influence which they possess over the legislature, by their frequent

possession of the right of sending members to Parliament; their central situation in the respect of the surrounding country; and their present state, that they are generally the very hot-beds of Radicalism and Dissent; the necessity of some attempt at their improvement, both religious, moral, and political, will be at once evident. And moreover, when we think of the state of our crowded manufacturing districts, and the very distant prospect of ever penetrating their dense and festering masses with that light of civilization and Christianity, in total disregard of which they have been too long permitted to grow up,-a destitution which even the voluntary system, with all its boastings, has not remedied,—and the comparative ease with which the defects of our social and ecclesiastical system may be remedied in the market-towns situated in the midst of the agricultural parts of the country, and in some sort a counterpoise to the dangers which may arise from the state of the manufacturing districts be thereby raised up these seem certainly strong motives for no longer confining our attention solely to the latter. The good which is easy of attainment ought not to be entirely sacrificed to gigantic plans of vast difficulty, and of very uncertain success.

These towns generally possess very desirable means for promoting the social and religious good of the people, such as endowed schools, hospitals, various charitable institutions, and large and magnificent churches, which are even yet not outgrown by the increasing numbers of the population. Yet, whilst the importance of such places demands that the Church should be placed in a state of the greatest efficiency in them, the miserable endowment of the Cure prevents all fair possibility of so desirable an event. The larger incomes attached to the livings in rural parishes naturally attract the greatest talent and efficiency where they are comparatively of less value, and condemns the most important places, from the poverty of the income to the services of a single Clergyman, whose labours, from the overwhelming demands upon them, cannot but be less efficient than desirable, if not even completely inadequate; and the means of doing good resulting from a fair income, and the respect which in our state of society usually attends on external appearances and the decencies of life, are withheld from the man whose situation most imperatively needs them.

EXTRACTS FROM BISHOP DANIEL WILSON'S CHARGE, Delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Bombay, in December, 1835.

In this archdeaconry, the first topic which forces itself on our attention, is the inadequate number of Clergy for our widely scattered and increasing christian population. Of the fifteen chaplains allowed us by the Honourable Company, ten or eleven only are in the field of labour. These are stationed, as you are aware, at the places of greatest moment. . . . . . This is well but how desolate are the numerous other places, where our christian brethren are equally found, and in some of them in almost equal numbers! Why are seven or eight stations to be destitute of the ordinances of religion? to say nothing of eight or nine smaller places, where from ten to twenty Christians dwell;-nothing of

The

the Indian navy, where two hundred and fifty of our brethren are found; -nor of Aurungabad, in the Nizam's territories, where nearly a hundred are stationed. But wherefore, I ask, is it that these six or seven hundred civil and military servants of the Honourable Company, or rather this thousand,- for such is the probable amount, including the Indo-Britons, employed as draftsmen, writers, and assistants under various names, are unprovided with spiritual succour? What have they done to incur this interdiction, whilst they are sacrificing equally with others their time, and labour, and health, and family comforts, and their very lives, for the service of India? The truth is, that instead of fifteen, we require at least twenty-five chaplains for this residency, so as to allow twenty on an average to be present for duty. . . . importance of providing the civil and military servants of the Honourable Company and their christian dependents, however subdivided, with the means of religious and moral comfort and instruction, is more than I can express. We are apt to think of their numbers abstractedly, and compare them with those at home. But the difference is immense. A flock of twenty or thirty in India is often of more relative value than one of ten or twenty times the number in England. At home, parishes adjoin each other. A christian population sustains christian habits. The eyes of parents and friends are on the principles and conduct of the young. Out of a considerable congregation, not more than one or two individuals, perhaps, are ever called to public stations. These are gradually trained to them in their own country, without any extraordinary exposure to temptation; thousands, in more or less elevated public situations, being close at hand. There is no necessary solitude, no banishment, and no hazard of disease and death, beyond that which is common to man. But in India, our flocks, however numerically small, are chiefly composed of those who are to be public characters; commissioners, magistrates, collectors, judges, political agents, residents at foreign courts,-persons whose principles and conduct immediately affect thousands and millions of the native population. They come out in early life. They are prematurely removed from the control of parents and friends. They are thrown suddenly and before their religious principles and habits are fixed, into circumstances of the greatest temptation. All around tends to seduce them into indifference, sensuality, and secret unbelief. They are alone. They are banished. They have none to advise or check them. They are exposed under a tropical sun to sudden sickness and death. To place such bodies of men in excommunication, as it were, from the christian fold; to abandon them to the influence of Oriental society; to render impossible the due observation of the Sabbath, and attendance on the public worship of God; to leave them without a single minister of religion to call them to repentance and salvation, and inculcate christian holiness during life; or to hold up a crucified Redeemer to the eye of penitence at the invasion of disease, and the instant menaces of death, all this is to fail in our first duties towards those dependent on us; it is to dig up the foundations of conscience and the fear of God, on which all the most effectual motives of duty repose; it is to expose them to the certain peril of dishonouring the christian name, and discharging most imperfectly their civil and military obligations.-(Pp. 4-8.)