"in which resides now" (prophetically wrote Mr. Lewis, in 1847) "the supreme jurisdiction of the Anglican Church.' "And here," he adds, "we find the king judging the causes of Bishops, possessed of the same powers, and invested with the same jurisdiction, which once were considered to be the inalienable prerogatives of the supreme Pontiff himself."

How true are his words, has been since that time proved by fact. It is in strict conformity then with the principles which the English Church laid down for her future guidance at the time of the Reformation, that Mr. Gorham should have appealed from the Bishop and Archbishop to the Queen as supreme; and therefore, while we fully admit the heretical nature of the decision actually given, we say that in our opinion, so far from being an act of injustice or oppression, we view in it the legitimate action of those Erastian principles which are bound up with the very existence-(for we cannot say "the life")-of the Church of the Reformers. Neither his Lordship of Exeter, nor the respectable but visionary gentlemen who compose "Church Unions," have then any right to complain: they have only to sift their own principles to the bottom, and push them on to their legitimate conclusions, and they will be freed from their troubles. They will find that, to be consistent, they must either abandon what they hold to be God's sacred truth, or sooner or later quit their position in a Church so fully and so formally committed to what they know, and confess themselves to be, a fatal and Erastian heresy. For ourselves, we can only say that we deeply sympathize, (as what Catholic must not?) in the glowing and indignant language of Mr. Allies, in his "See of St. Peter," and we cordially recommend it to the careful attention of our Anglican readers, and of all whom it may concern. Let those who can put their trust in such a Church and such an Episcopate," (as that of the Establishment,) "those who can feel their souls safe in such a system, work in it, think for it, write for it, pray for it." Let them do so, we never could. And this because every thinking mind must repudiate either that supremacy "(of the Crown,)" or every notion of the Church," as the one divinely-constituted society, to which the

66

66

66

* See Preface, p. viii. also p. 150.

possession of the truth is guaranteed, and which (alone) has a continuous mission from our Lord. The Royal Supremacy and the Church of God, are two ideas absolutely irreconcileable and contradictory."

ART. II.-Acts of the Synod of Exeter, holden in the Chapter-House of the Cathedral Church of Exeter, on June 25th, 26th, and 27th, 1851. (By Authority.) Murray, Albemarle Street.

E confess that we were not surprised, considering

potts carries out those opinions which he embraces, when some six months ago he informed the world that he was determined to hold a Synod of "Her Majesty's clergy within his diocese, in order to satisfy the minds of himself, and of the more ardent of his followers, and to exonerate the Anglican Church from the Erastianism of the State Supremacy, and the heresy of the Gorham decision. We say that we heard this without surprise; for his Lordship is by no means one of the ordinary run of Anglican prelates: he is not content with living on an easy life in his palace, glad to escape from the strife which rages between his "inferior clergy," and to close his ears to their doubts and anxieties. He is not a person who is willing, for the sake of peace, either in his own diocese, or in the Establishment at large, to allow things to take their course, satisfied if the system in which his lot is cast will only "last out his own time. Far from it: strange as it sounds to Catholic ears, he firmly believes (what we are sure that no other one of his twenty-seven English brethren believes,) that the Anglican Church is, not merely a Catholic Church, but the Church Catholic in England; he labours under a strong delusion that he is himself as really and truly as S. Leo, S. Augustine, or S. Thomas of Canterbury, a Bishop in the Church of God, and that by consequence he has sacred duties to perform, as in the sight of God-duties which he must not, and dare not, set aside for any earthly considerations. The rest of the Anglican Episcopate, though

they agree in scarcely anything besides, at all events are at one in confessing the deplorable and almost hopeless condition of their Establishment, and show not only their real belief in their soi-disant divine office, but also their power of united action, by doing-nothing. But the Bishop of Exeter not only admits the difficulties which surround the Establishment, but really sets himself to work, as he imagines, to remedy them, in spite of the supineness of his brethren, and the frowns of the minister of the day.

We will try and throw ourselves back, as far as possible, into the feelings with which we first heard of the coming Diocesan Synod. His Pastoral letter had informed us that he intended to hold it in his own cathedral city, during the month of June. It had been pronounced "not unlawful" (which we supposed meant "lawful,") by Lord John Russell and the Solicitor General, in their places in the House of Commons; and thence we argued that, in spite of all possible obstacles, which refractory clergymen seemed inclined to throw in the way, it would probably come off." But when we remembered that the English Church itself cannot meet in a Provincial Synod, without leave of the Crown, and when met cannot enact a single Canon for its own guidance without a further Royal assent: we were naturally led to ask, of what practical good this Diocesan Synod could possibly be to those Anglicans who feel aggrieved at the recent decision of the judicial committee? If it were likely to have any real practical effect towards maintaining the independence of the Establishment, we argued (and rightly too, we believe,) that Her Majesty's government would never permit it to assemble. When assembled, too, we knew that it could not and did not intend to enact a single canon; thus much we had learned from his Lordship's "Pastoral letter. What then was it intended to do? And with all our thought and enquiry we at last found out that it was mainly intended to re-affirm, if possible, a truth which was ruled and settled once for all at Constantinople, nearly 1,500 years ago, and which every clergyman of the Diocese of Exeter outwardly professes to believe every Sunday, at the least, of his life. And why all this? We were told it was, because that Catholic truth, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins," had been declared by the highest Court of Appeal to be an open question in

the Establishment, as in fact it always had been for some 300 years.

Still we could not help asking, "What will have been gained by the Anglican Church when this doctrine has been re-affirmed by the Synod of Exeter? Mr. Gorham himself, and all other clergymen of his own way of thinking, will go on subscribing the form of words in the Nicene creed without hesitation, and then the Bishop," we felt, "will be only just where he was before. He will have tacked, it is true, but he will have made no way on his tack. If Dr. Philpotts intended his Synod (provided it should assent to his view,) to be regarded as a protest on the part of the whole English Church, against the recent heretical decision, how could he possibly fail to see that, on the old principle "Exceptio probat regulam," it would be to thinking minds but an additional proof that the Establishment, as a body, so far from renouncing that decision, welcomes and applauds it? Surely, if one diocese alone, out of twenty-eight protests against it, by a considerable majority, or even unanimously, what will that be," we naturally asked, "but a plain proof that the rest accept it?" We thought, therefore, from the very first, that little or no gain could arise from the meditated step, which Her Majesty's ministers would have been very quick to pronounce unlawful, if they thought that it would tend to forward the Bishop's peculiar views, or have any practical effect beyond that of weakening, and perhaps of breaking up, the party with which he has generally acted. “But of this," we thought and said, "we shall be better able to judge, when we learn at what decision the Synod actually arrives." Such, we say, were our musings on the subject five months ago. Time has gone on, and has revealed to us that we were not mistaken in our surmises. June came, and with it the Synod; its proceedings were solemn and orderly, just as those of a real Synod; and, to judge from the way in which High-Church Anglicans speak and write, everything was most satisfactory to the Bishop and his party. The Guardian, Morning Chronicle, and English Churchman, all speak in tones of triumphant exultation. Of the Archdeacons and cathedral clergy, a very fair proportion were present; and each Rural Deanery being invited to send up two delegates as representatives of the "Bucolic" clergy-for so Sidney Smith styled the parochial ministers-only two deaneries were sufficiently unduti

66

ful or uncourteous to say "no" to their Bishop's summons. Two also of the "representatives chosen, were absent; but upon the whole Her Majesty's clergy in the diocese of Exeter, seem to have been fairly represented, the entire number present being 111, out of, we believe, about 800. The results of their proceedings, too, seem to have been tolerably unanimous; the declaration as to the divine grace given to infants in Holy Baptism, as well as that which pronounces the appointment of a Catholic Bishop of Plymouth,"schismatical and void," being both carried without a dissentient voice; a third declaration of the Synod, professing "hearty and unalterable attachment to the Anglican Church, and " thankfully acknowledging its ministry by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to have descended to them by unbroken (?) succession from the Holy Apostles," being passed with only five dissentients. We will not weary our readers with detailing all the discussion which followed upon "Church" Education, Training Schools, School Inspectors, &c.; we will not draw for their amusement (though we could with ease) the picture of an aged minister of the Establishment, rising up in the spirit of most perfect evnoéia to confess his own blindness, and deeply lamenting that he had ever allowed the prac tice of public catechising to fall into disuse,-a piece of carelesness and folly to which he did not scruple to attribute the growth of dissent in his parish. We think that for the good old gentleman's comfort we could prove, if space permitted us, that after all it is not himself but the system of his "Church" that is in fault: but we must pass on to notice another point. The establishment of agricultural colleges in rural districts on the principles of celibacy and religious self-denial and devotion, was negatived by the Exeter Synod, as we might expect, on the ground that, first, such institutions would occasion an unnatural and unjustifiable severance of domestic duties; (what is this in plain English but, "we can't do without our wives and families?") secondly, that the requisite qualifications would rarely be found in individuals willing to undertake "the office;" (what is this but "we confess that we have not got the true Missionary Spirit?") and lastly, because "if not so superintended, such institutions would tend only to aggravate the evils which they are designed to obviate." (And what does this mean, but "we are afraid of trying the experiment for fear of risking a