but by no means let any be suppressed. Let Manchester have its bishop-but let not Bangor or St. Asaph be injured.

We object, too, to such proceedings altogether. In our opinion, there is a doubt whether any ecclesiastical commission, unless duly appointed by synodical authority, should venture upon such a course; whether all matters relative to the division of dioceses should not be arranged in convocation, or by a commission authorised by the synod. After the arrangements are completed the sanction of the civil legislature might indeed be obtained, since some questions of detail might need to be adjusted in Parliament.

It is said, sometimes, that it is inexpedient to increase the number of bishops in the House of Lords. But where is the inexpediency? Is the Church represented in that assembly by too large a body? Suppose the number were increased by one half, where would be the evil? How many lay peers have been added to the number during the last century, while the lords spiritual are not more numerous than they were at the Reformation! Before that period the mitred abbots were lords of Parliament; but with the suppression of the religious houses these offices were abolished, and the consequence was that the number of spiritual lords was very materially diminished. This fact is lost sight of by those who are unwilling to see a larger number of bishops sitting in the Imperial Parliament. In this respect the Church is in a far worse condition than she was prior to the Reformation and as every reign produces an augmentation of the numbers of the temporal lords, why, as the population increases, and it becomes desirable to divide extensive dioceses, should not new bishops be appointed, with seats in the same house? Why should the Church be stationary in this matter, while no complaint is ever uttered at the creation of new temporal peerages.

The proceedings of the last two or three months, however, have shown that the country is against the proposal of the commissioners. A feeling has been awakened, which will, we are convinced, prevent the proposed arrangement from being carried into effect. Meetings have been convened, petitions have been signed, and the voice of the Church has been so raised against the measure that the result cannot be doubtful. At the same time we would urge upon our readers the necessity of not relaxing in their exertions, lest it should be supposed that the country is becoming indifferent on the subject. No one can doubt that the commissioners are, and were, anxious for the good of the Church. They have no desire to carry their plans into operation against the declared wishes of the Churcli; and we con

ceive, that as far as it is possible for the Church to make known her feelings, they have been made known on this subject. THE "RECORD" AND 66 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUARTERLY."

We certainly never intended to quarrel with the Record ; but the proceedings of that paper, since our last number was published, render it absolutely necessary for us to defend ourselves from a false and most unfounded charge. It will be recollected that, in our last number, we assigned several reasons, which, as we thought, were quite sufficient to remove any cause of complaint, on the part of the Scottish clergy, respecting her Majesty's non-attendance on the worship of the Church of Scotland during her visit to that country. We stated that her Majesty was a member of the Church of England; that she was cordially attached to its worship and discipline; and that, consequently, she could not consistently attend Presbyterian worship in Scotland; and that the Scottish people ought not even to wish to abridge that liberty in her Majesty's case which they claim as their own birthright. In support of our argument we pointed out some of the differences between the two Churches in matters of discipline and government, showing that the Church of England asserted a threefold order in the ministry, while the Church of Scotland repudiated such a doctrine. And then we added that the Scottish clergy were required to subscribe to the covenant which pledged them to endeavour to extirpate prelacy.

Some days after our last number was published, there appeared a very short letter in the Record, bearing the signature, A Scottish Clergyman. The writer said that an ignorant writer in the Church of England Quarterly Review had asserted that the Scottish clergy subscribed the solemn league and covenant. This sapient individual, however, took special care not to make any attempt at disproving our statement; but he added, that it was amusing-evidently wishing to imply that the assertion was false, though he was too cunning to say so openly. Of this gentleman, we will only say, that his own ignorance is far greater than that which he attributed to us on this subject, and moreover, that it is far less excusable, inasmuch as he is a minister of the Scottish establishment. However, we have nothing to do with the writer of the letter; nor should we have condescended to notice the subject, but for a subsequent remark of the editor of the Record. That gentleman, in reply to one of his correspondents, stated, that it would have been as correct for the Church of England Quarterly to have said that the Scot

tish clergy subscribed the doctrine of purgatory, as that they subscribed the solemn league and covenant.

This is a serious charge against us, and cannot be permitted to pass without notice. It is, in short, charging us with falsehood. Now, were the charge substantiated, we should be quite ready to confess our error; for we hold it to be the duty of every man, making a profession of the Gospel, to make it a matter of conscience to correct any mis-statement which he may have made. We hold, that in such circumstances, he is bound to pursue the open and straightforward path of truth, regardless of consequences. This is our opinion, and we trust that we shall always be prepared to act upon it.

What, then, are the facts of the case? Is the positive assertion of the Record true? and are we guilty of circulating a falsehood? Really, the matter is a very serious one; and the Record or ourselves must be highy culpable. In our own justification, therefore, a statement of our case is necessary, in order that our readers may decide whether we or the Record are the guilty parties; for we contend that one or the other must be guilty. We wish it however to be understood, that in anything which we may advance, we do not cast any reflections on the Scottish clergy. We are about to speak of the system, not of the men.

Our case, then, is a very simple one. There is a volume containing "The Confession of Faith," "The Catechism," and other documents of the Scottish Church: and this volume bears the following title-"The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture proofs at large; together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge (contained in the Holy Scriptures, and held forth in the said Confessions and Catechisms), and practical use thereof; Covenants; National and Solemn League; Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to duties; Directions for Public and Family Worship; Form of Church Government, &c.; OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; with the Acts of Assembly and Parliament relative to, and approbative of, the same." Such is the title at length. Now one of the documents in the volume is "The Solemn League and Covenant," which pledges all who receive it to endeavour to extirpate episcopacy or prelacy. What then is the obvious inference from the title-page of this volume? Will any honest man be prepared to join with the Record in thinking that we might as well have charged the Scottish clergy with subscribing to the doctrine of purgatory? In our opinion, the very fact stated in the title, that the documents are of public

authority in the Church, is sufficient to disprove the assertion of the Record. At all events, the title would lead any Englishman to suppose that the clergy of the Scottish Church pledge themselves to the principles of the volume.

But what will our readers think of the Record's veracity, after reading the following extract. In one of the documents contained in the said volume we read (and the only excuse for the Record is, that the editor was ignorant of the contents of the volume in question) as follows:

"He that is to be ordained, being either nominated by the people or otherwise commended to the Presbytery for any place, must address himself to the Presbytery, and bring with him a testimonial of HIS

TAKING THE COVENANT OF THE THREE KINGDOMS."

Now, we ask, whether, with this volume before us, bearing a title on which it is declared, that the various documents are of public authority in the Church of Scotland, and containing the clause which we have just quoted, we were or were not justified in putting forth the statement, that the Scottish clergy subscribed the covenant? This is the question. Our opinion is that our statement was correct. Do the Scottish clergy, or do they not, subscribe to the views contained in the book in question? But we may advance a step further. If it be a fact that this volume is of public authority in the Church, even though the Scottish clergy do not formally set their hands to it, our position is made good; and we do not believe that the Record will deny the authority of the book. As long as the covenant remains in the volume, whether the clergy actually sign it or not, there is a virtual recognition of it by every minister in the Scottish Church. Our readers will however see, that by this book they are required to take the covenant.

Such is our case, and we call upon the Record to confess the falsehood of its charge against us. Should this justice be denied us, we shall not hesitate to characterize the charge as malicious and false. The editor, when he wrote the obnoxious sentence, may have believed that he was stating the truth. Be it so. He must now see that he acted in ignorance of the question. What then is the course which common courtesy, to say nothing of the requirements of the Gospel, marks out? Is it not thisto confess his error? To allow that he has made a false charge against us, who gave him no cause of offence whatever? It will not be sufficient to say, that he was led astray by the Scottish Clergyman (of whom we will only say further, that if his ignorance on other subjects equals that which he has displayed respecting his own public records, it is profound indeed), for having made a charge he is himself responsible.

We wish it to be understood, that in the preceding remarks it was far from our intention to make reflections on the Scottish clergy we never intended, even in our last number, to do more than adduce the fact of the recognition of the covenant, as a reason for silence, on the part of the Scottish people, respecting our gracious Queen. In the first instance the Record itself approved of the course taken by her Majesty; but in a short time a confession of error in judgment was put forth. In this case the greatest alacrity was evinced to retract its statements. This confession, too, of error in judgment, appears to have been elicited by the letter of an individual, and that individual a clergyman, who has boldly and unblushingly pronounced his own Church to be Dissent on the other side of the Tweed. His letter to the Record leaves us to infer that he is a man totally regardless of oaths and pledges. He has sworn that episcopacy is the primitive system-that there always have been bishops, priests, and deacons in Christ's Church. And yet he calls Episcopal Government Dissent in Scotland, simply because presbytery is established by Act of Parliament. Such a man is a Dissenter in the Church in which he ministers; and for his own sake, as well as for the sake of the people committed to his care, the sooner he quits her communion the better. It is dishonest to eat the bread of the Church, and yet cast contempt upon her ordinances. Such a man should be located in a country in which Popery is established. Would he then talk of Episcopal Dissenters? or would he require Churchmen to conform to Popery? The truth is, that the first Dissenters in England were those who separated from the Anglican Church, not because it was established by Act of Parliament, for they had no objection to an Established Church, but because it retained the primitive discipline which they repudiated. The Record and its supporters make Dissent to consist in separation from an Established Church; so that were even Popery established by law, those who refused to comply would on their principle be regarded as Dissenters. Now, in our opinion, those clergymen who hold the views of the correspondent of the Record on this subject have departed from their ordination vows, which pledged them to the fact that bishops, priests, and deacons have always existed in Christ's Church for how is it possible for any Anglican Churchman to allow, that truth in England is falsehood in Scotland; or that Dissent in England is not equally Dissent in Scotland. We regard Dissent as a separation from the Apostolic and Catholic Church, a branch of which every clergyman has declared the Church of England to be; while Dissent, in the Record's acceptation of the term, is a thing dependent on an Act of Par