succession of Bishops as a test to distinguish the Church from communities in a state of separation from it. Our Church has, accordingly, never recognized them as Churches, any more than the Dissenters of England, or the Presbyterians of Scotland. The Lutherans and Calvinists of Germany absolutely repudiate, as a superstition, what our Church holds to be essential to constitute a person in Holy Orders. How then can we recognize their ministers as more than mere laymen? And how can a Church exist without persons validly commissioned to preach and administer the sacraments? But it is unquestionable that the Greek Church and the other Eastern Churches look upon the Lutherans and Calvinists as mere heretical bodies and not as Churches. And yet this singular document treats them all, both in Europe and Asia, equally as Churches which are to be brought together by the new Bishopric of Jerusalem. It treats their "imperfections and "errors" as not essential, though "serious," and seems to flatter them all by a sort of recognition and the offer of alliance against Rome. The Greek Church, however, is distinctly called orthodox. "He" (the new Bishop) "will establish and maintain, as far as in him lies, relations of Christian charity with other Churches represented at Jerusalem, and in particular with the orthodox Greek Church. "Clerical members of the orthodox Greek Church will be received into the" (proposed) College only with the express permission of their spiritual superiors."* Here the orthodoxy of the Greek Church is distinctly acknowledged, and the new Anglican Church in Jerusalem is of course placed on the footing of the recognition of that orthodoxy. But why is the Greek Church designated as orthodox? That Church differs from the Church of Rome chiefly on three points of doctrine: 1st, the Papal Supremacy; 2nd, the Worship of Images; and 3rd, the Procession of the Third Person of the Trinity. As to the first, it is true our Church concurs with them. As to the second, though they reject the worship of images, they admit that of pictures. Where is the difference in principle between the two practices? The Church of England rejects both equally. The Greek Church differs from the Church of England on that point. With regard to the third, the Church of England holds the same doctrine as the Roman Church, and is diametrically opposed to the Greek Church, How then can the Church of England recognize the Greek Church as orthodox? How can an Anglican Bishopric be established in the East, on the footing of entering into relations with the Greek Church as an orthodox Church? But it is utterly impossible for the Greek Church to communicate with the Church of England, unless either they or we alter our doctrines very materially. Either we must alter the creed or they must conform to it as to the Procession. They differ from us in many other points of doctrine, and if they are orthodox we must be heterodox where we differ from them. As for their discipline and ceremonial, they differ from us even more than those of the Church of Rome. If they are right we are wrong. But the document which we are examining certainly implies that there is no important difference between the Anglican Church and the Greek Church, since the

* Statement of Proceedings, &c., pp. 7, 8.

Greek Church is treated as orthodox, and as one with which the Church of England can at once enter into relations, admitting its clerical members into an Ecclesiastical Anglican College without requiring anything more than the consent of their spiritual superiors.

These notions of a connexion with the Greek Church are evidently premature if not visionary. The idea floating in the minds of those who invented them evidently is, that if our Church could ally itself with the Greeek Church we should present a strong front against the Church of Rome. But the whole scheme is evidently unsound. It is grounded on a delusion. Its advocates assume that we can meet the Greek Church on the principles of a common orthodoxy. But very little consideration suffices to show that this cannot be that we are heretics in their eyes, and that they cannot be orthodox in ours. Moreover, this idea is of a somewhat too politic character. It savours of hostility to Rome more than of love for Catholicity. It looks more like the artful combinations of a diplomatist than the sound and strictly conscientious measures of a Churchman.

These considerations show the unsoundness, and consequently the danger, of the new Anglican Bishopric at Jerusalem. They demonstrate that the objects for which that institution was established include a mass of inconsistencies and visionary notions. But this will still further appear from two other instruments; that is, the Royal licence for the consecration of Bishop Alexander and the Primate's letter commendatory. The former of these instruments is a warrant under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet. It recites among other things, that by the Stat. 5 Vic., cap. 6, it is enacted, that the Bishop or Bishops to be consecrated under its provisions may exercise within such limits as may be from time to time assigned in any foreign country by the Queen, spiritual jurisdiction over the ministers of British congregations of the United Church of England and Ireland, and over such other Protestant congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves under his or their authority. And the Warrant concludes with these words: and we are graciously pleased to assign Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia as the limit within which the said Michael Solomon Alexander may exercise spiritual jurisdiction, pursuant to the said Act, subject nevertheless to such alterations in their limit as we from time to time may assign.”

The question immediately suggests itself, what effect can a British Act of Parliament have out of the British Empire? And how can the Queen's Warrant be of any validity in "Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia"? The most fundamental principles of international law establish, that out of the British dominions both are utterly void and nugatory. They could grant no civil or temporal jurisdiction whatever in foreign countries even over British subjects, except under a treaty with those foreign countries. But the Act of Parliament and the Warrant do not profess to do this. No: they profess to do something still more extraordinary. They profess to assign a spiritual jurisdiction. The statute enacts, that the Bishop or Bishops may exercise within the limits to be assigned by the Crown, spiritual jurisdiction; and the Crown assigns "Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia" as the limits within

which Dr. Alexander is to exercise spiritual jurisdiction pursuant to the Act.

The Act gives the Bishop, who by consecration alone must be a mere vacant Prelate, that spiritual jurisdiction which the canonists call missio; and the Crown, by virtue of the Act, assigns to him a spiritual territory, and that spiritual territory is in foreign and independent countries. What is this but an assumption by the Parliament and Crown of England of a sort of Papal prerogative ?

The most superficial knowledge of Ecclesiastical law suffices to show that consecration does not give spiritual jurisdiction, but only a capacity to receive it. Spiritual jurisdiction must proceed from a spiritual superior capable of giving mission. It cannot be granted by the civil power. The civil power can only add the legal sanction, and that within its temporal territory to the canonical spiritual jurisdiction. And yet the British Parliament and Crown have arrogated to themselves the power of granting and assigning spiritual jurisdiction over "Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia"? It is plain that a Bishop, deriving his mission from the temporal power alone, has no valid canonical jurisdiction whatever, and is a mere intruder in the territory of other Prelates.

We really think that when this scheme of an Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem was undertaken, some sound and prudent canonist should (if such a person could be found willing to accept such a task) have been called in to devise a way of avoiding these monstrous blots and incongruities. But let us proceed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Letter Commendatory. It is as follows:-

"To the Right Rev. our Brothers in CHRIST the Prelates and Bishops of the Ancient and Apostolic Churches in Syria, and the countries adjacent, greeting in the LORD: We, William, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, most earnest commend to your brotherly love, the Right Rev. Michael Solomon Alexander, Dr. in Divinity, whom we, being well assured of his learning and piety, have consecrated to the office of a Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, according to the ordinances of our holy and Apostolic Church; and having obtained the consent of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, have sent to Jerusalem, with authority to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over the Clergy and congregations of our Church, which are now or may hereafter be established in the countries above mentioned. And in order to prevent any misunderstanding in regard to this our purpose, we think it right to make known to you, that we have charged the said Bishop, our brother, not to intermeddle in any way with the jurisdiction of the Prelates or other Ecclesiastical Dignitaries bearing rule in the Churches of the East; but to show them due reverence and honour to be ready on all occasions and by all means in his power, to promote a mutual interchange of respect, courtesy, and kindness. We have good reason to believe that our brother is willing, and will feel himself in conscience bound to follow these our instructions; and we beseech you, in the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, to receive him as a brother, and to assist him as opportunity may offer with your good offices.

and

"We trust that your Holinesses will accept this communication as a testimony of our respect and affection, and of our hearty desire to renew that amicable intercourse with the ancient Churches of the East, which has been

suspended for ages, and which, if restored, may have the effect, with the blessing of GOD, of putting an end to divisions, which have brought the most grievous calamities on the Church of CHRIST.

"In this hope, and with sentiments of the highest respect for your Holinesses, we have affixed our Archiepiscopal Seal to this Letter," &c.

The first question that arises on the face of the document is this: what are the Ancient Eastern Churches to whom the letter is directed? The Greek Church is one: but what are the others? Are they the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Monophysites or Jacobites? The Nestorians were condemned in 431, by the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus; the Eutychians by that of Chalcedon, in 451; and they all differ from the Church of England respecting the Second Person of the Trinity. Our readers are aware that the delivery of a letter such as this is, according to the ancient Ecclesiastical practice, a very strong act of communion. The letter cannot therefore, we presume, be supposed to include those communities among the Ancient Eastern Churches to which it is directed. But even the Greek Church differs from the Church of England almost as much as the Church of Rome does; and, indeed, on the doctrine of the Procession, the Greek Church differs from the Church of England, and the Church of England agrees with that of Rome. We are therefore at a loss how to discover by what test we are to judge what those Ancient Churches of the East are to which the letter is directed, besides the Greek Church. This is a point which has never been explained, and it remains enveloped in profound obscurity.

It can scarcely admit of dispute, that to send out a Bishop to a foreign country with a letter commendatory addressed in such vague terms was not a prudent act. But however this may be, the Church of England and Ireland ought to have been consulted as to this act of communion with the Eastern Churches, and ought to have had an opportunity of pronouncing what Churches she would acknowledge, recognize, and communicate with. The Church of England and Ireland might have been seriously committed by the presentation of the letter to heretical sects in the East. It has been asserted that this has actually occurred, that the Bishop met with no encouragement from the Greek Church, and that his credentials were received by a Nestorian Bishop. But we will consider this matter without reference to anything but the authentic documents. Now the vagueness of this letter and the importance of its virtual effect, undoubtedly afford strong evidence to show the unsoundness and the danger of the erection of this new Bishopric at Jerusalem.

We must add a few words of criticism as to the accuracy of a statement contained in the letter. In it the Archbishop is made to say, "We, . . . . commend to your brotherly love the Right Rev. M. S. Alexander, ... whom we have consecrated. . . . and having obtained the consent of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, have sent out to Jerusalem with authority to exercise spiritual jurisdiction." The latter allegation is, that the Archbishop of Canterbury has sent Dr. Alexander with authority to exercise spiritual jurisdiction. But we have seen that his mission and jurisdiction were from the Parliament

and Crown of Great Britain, and not from the Archbishop or any other spiritual superior. This is a very serious error, though it has the effect of concealing a blot in Bishop Alexander's title, which, if discovered, would have precluded the possibility of his being received to communion by any of the Eastern Churches. It shows how incongruous and unsound the whole of these proceedings were. It shows that a departure from sound Ecclesiastical principles leads to strange results.

Let us now consider on general grounds the question, what right exists to send a Bishop of our Church to Jerusalem. Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of Ecclesiastical Law, will admit the general rule that no Bishop can lawfully exercise diocesan jurisdiction, or set up his seat, in the diocese of another Bishop. This rule is subject to two exceptions. 1st, When the original diocesan Bishop has fallen into heresy or schism; and 2nd, Where two separate communities, parts of distinct branches of the Church, are locally situated in one place. In all other cases, there cannot be two Bishops within the same spiritual territory. One of them must be an intruder, and a disturber, and an usurper. Let us examine the establishment of the the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem according to this rule and its exceptions.

It cannot be justified on the ground of the first exception. It cannot be urged that the Eastern Bishops at Jerusalem are heretics or schismatics, for Dr. Alexander went out with letters commendatory to them, and the proceedings recognize the Greek Church as orthodox. We must therefore go on to the second exception.

Was there any Anglican Community at Jerusalem? This is nowhere alleged in the documents relating to the erection of the new Bishopric. It may therefore be safely assumed, that there was in the year 1841 no Anglican Community at Jerusalem. But the Statement of Proceedings at p. 4 asserts that, "there is reason to expect that a considerable number of German, as well as English Christians, will be attracted to the Holy Land by the influence of strong religious feelings." Thus the Bishop was sent out on a sort of speculation. He was sent, not to govern a Church already existing, but to wait until a new community had been formed by immigration, for him to preside over. This is evidently irregular, It cannot be right that a Bishop should go into the diocese of another whose orthodoxy and authority he admits, and establish himself there merely for the chance of getting together a new Church. Such a proceeding must have a tendency to multiply divisions and to foment dissensions. The conversion of the Jews is also held out as one of the objects of the new Bishopric, and one of the sources from which the Anglican Church in Jerusalem is to spring. But the conversion of the Jews is unquestionably within the duty and jurisdiction of the Greek Church and the other Eastern Churches, provided they are, as the documents before us assume and admit them to be, orthodox and true Churches. It is their harvest, not ours. How can the Bishop of the "orthodox Greek Church" at Jerusalem admit the right of the Church of England to send a Bishop into his diocese to convert the Jews, and to form a separate Church of Jewish converts and foreigners there? Surely, then, the Statement of Proceedings" is incorrect