A CHARGE,

&c.

REVEREND BRETHREN,

ALMOST every triennial address which I have hitherto delivered has begun with remarking upon the dangers and troubles in which the National Church was involved, and which often threatened either its entire overthrow as an Establishment incorporated with the State, or the loss of some of its dearest and most useful privileges. It is, however, with some satisfaction that I call to mind the tone of hope and even of confidence I have ventured constantly to maintain in the midst of these formidable convulsions. Founded on a rock as the visible Church of Christ we know to be, and secure of Divine protection against all the malice and all the subtlety of the adversary, I do not for a moment doubt, that while the branch of it here established continues true to its

the spirit of true discipline into the Church, instead of maintaining the deadness of the letter.

You will not, I know, regard me, when expressing these sentiments, as one who would make light of rules, or who would, without good reason and for the sake of furthering the end of all rules, sanction a departure from them. But I think the jealousy of power, which in this country leads us to provide by written laws, even in the minutest matters, instead of vesting discretion in the functionary who has to administer them, however salutary it may be in civil affairs, and for the sake of securing our political liberties may be a sacrifice not unworthy of its object, yet often is, I cannot conceal from my own mind, even in matters of Civil concern, a grievous sacrifice both of practical expediency and of substantial justice; and in Ecclesiastical affairs it operates perniciously against the sacred interests of the Church, making them subordinate to its temporal interests, and depriving its highest authorities of that paternal control, which its divine Founder, for the furtherance of the Gospel and the increase of His kingdom, lodged in their hands.

These reflections lead me to consider the other great legislative measure affecting the Church, which, since our last meeting, has been brought before Parliament, and after much discussion has received the sanction of the upper House-the Bill for more

effectually enforcing Church Discipline. That this measure, if it had passed into a law, would have been an improvement upon the existing state of things, I have no doubt. Yet I cannot regard it as a misfortune that it still remains an unfinished work; for it raises the hope that when resumed it will receive some material amendments, and be freed from those objections which excited strong opposition even among the Clergy; and these amendments are now more likely to be introduced, than if it had once been placed on our statute book as the law of the land.

That the Bill was framed without a due consideration of the nature of the Episcopal office in the primitive Church, I think cannot be denied. The extent of the Episcopal jurisdiction in the early ages, as well as the mode of its administration, may be matter of dispute; but that a Bishop was recognized as the Censor and Controller of the Clergy in all that relates to moral conduct and the offices of the Church within his Diocese, cannot be questioned by any who admit (and who is there, acquainted with Ecclesiastical History, that does not admit) the establishment of this form of Church Government from the beginning. Any law therefore which entirely annulled this authority, and placed it in other hands, would be so far declaratory against the genuine character of the Church. The authority itself indeed, given by the Divine Founder, human laws cannot abrogate. It remains entire, whatever the rulers

of this world may say, or whatever the licentiousness of professed Christians may incline them to do. By them it was not given, and by them it cannot be taken away.

"The breath of worldly men cannot depose

The deputy elected by the Lord."

But it surely is inconsistent for a State which takes the Church into alliance with it thus to undermine one of the vital parts of its constitution. It is a virtual renunciation of its essence, while it pretends to venerate and support its form.

It was therefore a material improvement which during its progress the Bill received, when a power was given to Bishops to hear and determine suits against spiritual persons without public proceedings, provided the defendant were willing to submit to their arbitration; and when the Bishop was empowered, after hearing the cause, to prohibit the accused person, if he thought fit, from officiating or residing on his preferment, and to provide by sequestration for the due service of the Church.

In a great majority of cases I have no doubt that the Clergy would willingly have submitted to this tribunal. Every conscientious man, every one mindful of his Ordination vows, every one possessed of a just sense of the constitution of the Church of Christ, would not only submit, but would gladly embrace

the opportunity of having his conduct, as a Clergyman, investigated by his spiritual governor, instead of exposing both himself and the cause of the Church to the world at large in a public court. But the misfortune is, that this feeling would operate less powerfully in proportion to the defendant's real unworthiness. The worse the case the less effective would the proposed remedy be: and in the case of a hardened offender, lost to all sense of shame and regard for character, who should refuse the Bishop's arbitration, the power of suspending him even from ecclesiastical functions would be wholly taken away, unless the Bishop chose to appear himself as a suitor in the Court of Arches, content to bear all the risk and all the delay which the practice of that Court requires. Nor could the slightest interruption be given for months, perhaps for years, to the ministrations of such a person, whose conduct gave scandal to the whole neighbourhood, inflicted pain on every religious mind, and was destructive of all spiritual benefit within his own parish. That such instances are rare is no answer to the objection. We know they are rare, and to none are they more offensive, when they do occur, than to the body of Clergy themselves; who would gladly see the means given. of removing such men from the sacred office which they profane and disgrace. In this department more especially, "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." I verily believe, therefore, that' the Clergy themselves desire to see the spiritual