surrender. We too claim Divine right, and maintain, that the Kings and great ones of the earth must acknowledge this Divine right, that they may save their souls alive. Eut where do we make it reside? We may be wrong in our belief here. If so, prove that we are, and we will abandon it. But, at least, confess that our position is an intelligible, consistent one, one on which it is possible to act. For we see in every Bishop a successor of the Apostles; we believe that, as such, he can by ordination impart spiritual powers, such as can be conveyed in no other way; that every lawful Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, is therefore to be received in his appointed place, as Christ's accredited Ambassador; and that, through this Ministry, of His own appointment, is His Headship over the Church kept up,- - His sway exercised as the Anointed King. This Ministry may or may not be admitted into the service of the State. If it be, great advantages will arise to the State, great difficulties to the Church. But these latter are not insurmountable; and if the Church find herself in alliance with the State, she is bound, out of reverence to the guidance of Providence, out of patriotism, out of good will to mankind, not to abandon so important a position, but to attempt to surmount them. Accordingly, the following is the state of matters in which we find ourselves. Our practice may or may not be too Erastian, but our principles are any thing but Erastian. Spiritual power and temporal power are each placed in its proper seat, though it may be that the latter is too much, the former too little exercised. But we have them both. We know where to look for either. When we view the Church as an estate of the Realm', we see that she must be subject to the laws of the Realm, that, as the pos sessor of property, she must consent to have such property recognized and protected on the common grounds and conditions whereby all property is recognized and protected. Further, viewing her as an Established Church, she must be considered as having found her will and wishes sufficiently at one with those of the State, as that they may act in unison, and so enable the King to be, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within his dominions, supreme'. For this is one great root of error-the confusing spiritual power with spiritual jurisdiction. The former is all spiritual, and can ordinarily be exercised by none but those to whom it has been solemnly conveyed. The latter, which restrains and regulates the former, requires, in order to its validity, the consent of the heads of the Church; but, while the Church is established, it must be exercised in conformity with the laws and principles of the Realm, and is therefore subject, during that arrangement, to the supervision of the highest person thereof. This is our notion of the Royal Supremacy over the Church of England. The Sovereign pretends not to spiritual power (Art. XXXVII), nor to be the original fountain of spiritual jurisdiction. But he regulates the latter, while he and those in whom it is vested are on a good understanding, because, while the laws of the Church are also the laws of the land, he, as being at the head of the one, must of necessity be at the head of the other also, inasmuch as though there may be two fountains, there cannot well be two co-ordinate exercises of authority upon the same matters. With us, then, we maintain, that whether or not the one encroach too much on the other in practice, the theory of temporal and spiritual power is good. Purely spiritual acts are performed by spiritual persons. Mixed acts, such as those of jurisdiction, involving civil consequences, are performed with consent of Church and State. The Priest ministers at the Altar in virtue of his Episcopal ordination: that is altogether spiritual. He ministers statedly at that particular Altar, and exercises authority over that particular parish, in virtue, for the most part, of Mission given him by his Bishop (donatives are admitted to be anomalies in our Ecclesiastical constitution). In this latter the State interposes to protect one qualified to be pastor of a parish from being hindered by the tyranny of the Bishop. The action of Quare impedit, to which the latter is liable if he refuse to institute, may, and we imagine does, too much fetter his power in practice, but in itself it is but a necessary result from the union of Church and State. Now, who does not see that our theory of Christ's Headship, and the seat of Divine right and Spiritual power, will support us well, in the event of a rupture with the State, in the event of her attempting to enforce something which the Priesthood dares not obey? We shall know exactly on what to retreat; our position (we are not talking of its other merits) will be an altogether intelligible and consistent one; our principle (be it right or be it wrong) will be found such as we can follow out: no pushing it to its necessary consequences will land us either in absurday or impracticability. We shall yield all lawful obedience to civil Rulers; we shall, in spiritual things, follow the guidance of those who sit on the visible thrones of Christ's Kingdom, whether taken into the service of the State or not. >> Christian Remember. Lond. 1841. Vol. I. pp. 212, 213. E. 1. Otherwise the solemn question at the Consecration of Bishops, Will you be faithful in Ordaining, Sen ling, or Laying hands upon others', resolves itself into a vain tautology. 2. When even the Crown itself appoints or presents a Clergyman of the Church of England to any regularly constituted Benefice, or Living, with Cure of souls, within the Realm, the presentee still cannot legally take possession of, or exercise his functions in the same, until he be instituted (1. e. «sent ») by the Bishop, in this manner: « The presentation to be tendered to the Bishop, and left with him to be considered. The Orders of Deacon and Priest to be exhibited to the Bishop, according to the 39.th Canon. Testimonials of his former good life and behaviour, according to the 39. Canon (*); and if he come out of another Diocese, then a testimonial from the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocese or place from whence he comes. » Clergyman's Assistant, Oxf. 1822, pp. 493, 494. ) Canon 39. «No Bishop shall institute any to a Benefice, who hath been ordained by any other Bishop, except he first show unto him his Letters of Orders, and bring him a sufficient testimony of his former good life and behaviour, if the Bishop shall require it; and lastly, shall appear, upen due examination, to be worthy of his ministry.» Also, «By the 1 Elizabeth, c. 1, and 1 William, e. 8. s. 5, Every person who shall be promoted or collated to any spiritual or ecclesiastical benefice, promotion, dignity, office, or ministry, before he shall take upon him to receive, use, exercise, supply, or occupy the same, shall take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, before such persons as shall have authority to admit him. Also the person to be instituted shall take the oath of Canonical obedience in like manner. Which oath is as followeth I, A B. do swear that I will perform truc and canonical obedience to the Bishop of C. and his successors, in all things lawful and honest, so help me God. » : Hook's Church Dict. 4.th Ed. Lond. 1844. p. 426. «By the 13 Elizabeth, c. 12, ..... it is enacted, that no person shall be admitted to any benefice with cure, except he shall first have subscribed the said (39) Articles in presence of the Ordinary. » Ibid. p. 427. And then THE BISHOP ALONE institutes the person nominated or presented to him by the patron of the benefice or living, in the following form: <<WE admit you the said to the, within our diocese and jurisdiction ed to us by - . . . . . to which you are present the true and undoubted patron thereof in full right (as it is asserted). Aud WE do duly and ca nonically institute you in and to the said-of-, and invest you with all and singular the rights, members, and |