a German traveller finds-(we quote Dr. ABEKEN,) "a regular congregation of upwards of sixty persons," "consisting of Germans, English, and Jews," and a well arranged College, with "five inmates, part of them young men, a part more advanced in age," to whose credit it should be mentioned that "in half a year, they have acquired an admirable knowledge of Greek."

Besides this, there may be in a circumscribed space, comprehended within the very extensive limits assigned by the Royal Letters to the Anglican Bishop at Jerusalem, some four or five Missionaries, one of whom, at least, is actively engaged in promoting schism among the members of the Oriental Churches.

Will any one pretend that, under these circumstances, there is an absolute and indispensable necessity for a new Bishop to be appointed? or that a simple Presbyter, of very moderate activity and energy, or at most an Archdeacon of the Diocese of Gibraltar, would not be fully competent to superintend this not very numerous flock, aided by a triennial visitation of the Bishop? In fact, the part of the jurisdiction most likely to require the exercise of Episcopal functions is Egypt, which is obviously much more accessible from Malta than from Palestine.

Even supposing that what Dr. ABEKEN tells us is true, viz., that if these sixty "Germans, English, and Jews," at Jerusalem, " had not been united in the person of the Bishop, it never would have been done" (why not it is beyond us to divine); still it may reasonably be doubted whether the cause of Christianity in general, and our own Church in particular, would have suffered materially by their continuing distinct. Certain we are that the advantages of such an union would nothing like counterbalance the mischiefs that this unhappy measure has produced at home.

If, however, our spiritual Rulers are so far pledged to the scheme that they cannot now in common honesty retreat; if, as was understood, the King of Prussia is to have the alternate nomination, so that the present appointment is in his hands, we earnestly pray that his choice may fall upon one who will at least do justice to our Church in the eyes of the native Christians. We cannot, indeed, hope for a Bishop who would be altogether acceptable to sound churchmen--we question whether such an one could be prevailed on to accept the appointment; but we do most strongly protest against the continuance of such irregularities as have heretofore existed; we deprecate all sympathy with that heretical Nazarene leaven of which Jerusalem has become the centre; but, above all, we denounce such schismatical proceedings as we have already noticed, which, we have reason to fear, have not been discountenanced as they should have been by one anxious to carry out in their full meaning the instructions of the Metropolitan, and to redeem the pledge solemnly given by His Grace to the Rulers of the Oriental Churches.English Churchman, Dec. 24th, 1845.

SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION.

The Venerable Archdeacon MANNING, at a recent Meeting of "The Society for Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates in Populous Places," stated some very strong facts as to the enormous disparity between the number of clergymen employed, and the present state of our increasing population. The Rev. gentleman showed by statistics that there are at present about 12,000 clergymen engaged in active duties for nearly 18 millions of people, so that there is a deficiency of at least 6,400 spiritual instructors to afford a moderate degree of religious instruction to the nation. In London and its suburbs there is a population of 1,646,400 under the spiritual care of 221 clergy-leaving in the metropolis alone the enormous number of 1,425,000 people unprovided with spiritual aid, and requiring for their care upwards of 1,400 clergy in addition to the ecclesiastical force of the metropolis.-English Churchman, Dec. 24th, 1845.

THE EXERTIONS OF THE COLONIES IN THEIR OWN BEHALF.

The reports for the last two years will have made you acquainted with what has been done in the North American Dioceses, by the establishment of Church Societies. Associations of a like kind, intended to meet the various wants of the Church, have also been organised in the several West Indian Dioceses, from which remittances have been recently made to the Society at home. Very large contributions are raised in Australia and Van Dieman's Land, while in New Zealand, grants from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel are made only on condition of their being met by an equal amount in the Colony.

These facts will serve to show that we are not sending our contributions to an ungrateful people, and will encourage us to proceed, by proving that the Colonies will be ready, as soon as they are able, to supply their own wants.

The same, with the necessary limitations, may be said of the Missions to the Heathen in India. In that district of the South of India, especially where such abundant blessing has been vouchsafed to the labours of the Missionaries whom it is the Society's privilege to maintain, not only have liberal contributions been offered by the resident Europeans, but the natives themselves have given out of their poverty for the erection of their own simple prayer-houses. Out of 1007. collected at Edeyenkoody, 45l. were from the native Christians and Catechumens; and 551. were contributed by the natives of Mukupury, near Nazareth, for a church in their own village. And although the total amount which is raised in India for the support of Missions is little compared with what might be expected,-little, doubtless, compared with what will hereafter be offered in this great cause,-still it is satisfactory to find that there has been a large increase of late in every one of the Presidencies.

In the Diocese of Calcutta, the subscriptions have increased more than five-fold within a few years; and the Secretary of the Madras Committee reports, without specifying the amount raised in preceding years, a very considerable improvement. But the augmentation of annual contributions has been by far the most remarkable in the Diocese of Bombay; where (exclusive of a legacy of 1007.) the amount raised in the year 1844, was 1,115. And besides this, a single Chaplain has raised among his own congregation, 4007. of annual subscriptions for the establishment of a new Mission. These, surely, are grounds of encouragement.

Another sign of good, and of the permanent nature of the Society's labour, is the almost universal establishment of Colleges for the education of a native Clergy. Such Collegiate institutions exist at the present moment in the Dioceses of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Toronto, Newfoundland, Fredericton, Barbados, Calcutta, and New Zealand; and others are about to be founded. These are the nurseries of the future Clergy; and even at present they are furnishing a large portion of the Candidates for Holy Orders. Thus the Society has not for nearly three years been called upon to send out any Missionary to Canada or Nova Scotia. The Bishop of Fredericton had no sooner arrived in his lately erected Diocese, than he had applications from ten Candidates for Holy Orders; and he now says distinctly, that there is no occasion for more Clergymen being sent from England.

Even in India, by far the greater part of the missionaries on the Society's list have been ordained in that country; ten out of twelve in the Diocese of Calcutta-nineteen out of twenty-two in the Diocese of Madras; so that, in point of fact, the Society is relieved from a very large portion of its responsibility in recommending missionary candidates, and may, ere long, perhaps be discharged of this responsibility altogether.- Extracted from the Circular of the Secretary to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

61

THE ANGLICAN BISHOPRIC OF JERUSALEM.

THE Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem is vacant by the decease of the Right Rev. Dr. Alexander; and the rulers of our Church have now offered to them a favourable, and we must add, a valuable opportunity of reconsidering the whole subject of the erection of that See. We assert that it is a subject greatly requiring reconsideration, for several reasons. In the first place, the erection of the See of Jerusalem was professedly intended as an attempt to bring our Church, if not to communion, at least to intimate relations, not only with the Greek Church, but with what have been rather vaguely described as the "Eastern Churches," and with the Lutheran body existing in Prussia. Secondly, the erection of a Bishopric out of the jurisdiction of the Church and State of England, is an act so grave, so important, and so surrounded with difficulties, that it required most mature, and full, and learned discussion before it could be entertained with prudence. The mere suggestion of these two branches of the subject suffices to show that it is the greatest that the Church of England has had to determine upon since the settlement of the Thirty-nine Articles and Prayer-book. The first, that of opening relations with foreign Churches, differing greatly from us as well as among themselves, and some of them condemned by synods before the separation of the East and West; opens a field of inquiry so vast and perplexing, that its difficulty and importance can scarcely be over-estimated. But we maintain positively and advisedly, that the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem was erected without sufficient deliberation, and without the sanction of any authority sufficiently weighty, and that the whole subject requires reconsideration by a synod of the English Church.

We find in a statement, bearing on the face of it the words, PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY, an account of the proceedings relating to the establishment of the Bishopric in Jerusalem, which fully bears out what we have just asserted. That document first recites the effect of Stat. 5 Vic. cap. 6, empowering the Archbishops of Canterbury and York assisted by other Bishops, to consecrate British subjects or the subjects or citizens of any foreign kingdom or state, to be Bishops in any foreign country, and within certain limits, to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over the ministers of such British congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves under the authority of such Bishops. It then proceeds as

: "The Archbishop of Canterbury having first consulted the Bishops who attended the Convocation in August last, has exercised the power so vested in him, by consecrating the Rev. Michael Solomon Alexander, a Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, to reside at Jerusalem and to perform the duties hereinafter specified."

This statement may have conveyed (we do not say that it was so intended) the impression, that the arrangement had the sanction of the Upper House of Convocation. This however was not so. Why the No. II. FEBRUARY, 1846.

F

But

Convocation was mentioned at all we know not, but the fact was, that the Archbishop consulted only those Bishops who remained in town after the Convocation had been held. What Bishops these were we are not informed, but our readers know that the business of Convocation is only to present a formal address and then adjourn sine die, and that therefore very few prelates attend. Our readers are also aware, that the Convocation is the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury only, and that it follows that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not consult the Prelates of the Province of York on this important occasion. why was not this matter submitted to the Upper House of Convocation? Why was not notice given to all the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury to attend in that house? Why was not this matter submitted to both Houses of Convocation? Why were not all the Bishops of both Provinces summoned to deliberate thereon? Why were the Bishops of Ireland excluded from all share in the determination of a matter affecting the United Church of England and Ireland? The importance of the matter demanded determination by a full synod, there was no lack of time, there was, in fact, no excuse for the omission of any precaution which could contribute to the full and mature discussion of this great affair.

Yet it appears that the Archbishop consulted only "the Bishops who attended the Convocation in August last," that is to say, those who happened to attend, and who, we are informed, met at Lambeth to dine with the Primate. Is not this strange? Does it not show, either a want of appreciation of the importance and difficulty of the subject, or a very decided resolution to accomplish an object and to avoid all obstacles to its accomplishment? But the Statement of Proceedings" assists us to understand what would otherwise be all but inexplicable. It shows that the establishment of this Bishopric was a matter of diplomatic negociation, and was agreed upon before the Bishops were consulted. The appointment of a Bishop for Jerusalem was proposed by His Majesty the King of Prussia, who made it the subject of a special mission to the Queen of England, and of a particular communication to the Archbishop of Canterbury." Thus it appears that a foreign prince and his minister, both of them Lutherans, were the original proposers of this plan. It was Mr. Bunsen, a Lutheran, who settled the whole matter with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, assisted by Lord Aberdeen, a Presbyterian.

We mean nothing but what is respectful to those persons, and we believe them to have been actuated by laudable motives only, but we advisedly say that never was so important an Ecclesiastical affair settled in a less Ecclesiastical manner. It seems that the King of Prussia offered £15,000 as an endowment of the new Bishopric, and it was thought that the opportunity for establishing that institution was not to be let pass, and that therefore it must be done with as little trouble, or difficulty, or discussion as possible. Some hesitation and even opposition was feared, and therefore the matter was settled summarily. We submit with all respectful deference to the Prelates above referred to, that the proceeding in question was most despotic, and more than Papal. A diplomatic negociation is opened, a sum of money offered by

a foreign state, the Primate and the Bishop of London confer with a foreign minister, and then, after merely consulting a few Prelates accidentally assembled, a measure is determined on and carried into execution, not only surrounded by doubt and difficulty, but which has for its object to bring the English Church into relations with a variety of Churches and communities at variance among themselves, and every one of which differs in important particulars from that Church. It is impossible to feel confidence in anything that is done in so irregular a mode, and with such a total disregard of all the safeguards provided by the constitution of every branch of the Catholic Church against the errors to which its chief rulers must, however good and wise, remain liable. To determine, without the intervention of a synod, on an important measure affecting the spiritual relations and position of the Church, is manifestly contrary to the practice of the first ages, and to the most firmly established principles of Ecclesiastical policy. It is, indeed, obviously objectionable on mere grounds of prudence, to adopt such a measure, except with the sanction of all the wisdom, and learning, and advice, and deliberation that the Church can bring together and command. But the constitutional rules and constant practice of the Church suffice to establish that this great affair was settled in an irregular and an unsafe manner. Let us further examine the "Statement of Proceedings."

That document informs us, that the King of Prussia had in view, not only the great advantages to be derived from its adoption with reference to the conversion of the Jews, but also the spiritual superintendence and care of such of his own subjects as might be disposed to take up their abode in Palestine and to join themselves to the Church so formed at Jerusalem; and in a subsequent page it continues thus: "The immediate objects for which this Bishopric has been founded will appear from the following statement. Its ultimate results cannot be with certainty predicted; but we may reasonably hope, that under the Divine blessing, it may lead the way to an essential unity of discipline, as well as of doctrine, between our own Church and the less perfectly constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe, and that, too, not by way of Rome; while it may be the means of establishing relations of amity between the United Churches of England and Ireland and the ancient Churches of the East, strengthening them against the encroachments of the see of Rome, and preparing the way for their purification in some cases from serious errors, in others, from those imperfections which now materially impede their efficiency as witnesses and dispensers of Gospel truth and grace."

This is a vast scheme, but so vague as to be almost unintelligible. It embraces the Protestant Churches of Europe, and the ancient Eastern Churches, but without anything to show what Churches are intended either in Europe or in Asia, or what sort of relation with them is aimed

at.

But it is matter of notoriety that the Protestant Churches described as less perfectly constituted, have no Orders, not having any Bishops. The question therefore is, with respect to them, whether they are constituted Churches at all. The famous passage of Irenæus, cited by Archbishop Potter in his "Church Government," clearly points to the