united, really and cordially united, with whoever is united to Jesus Christ, Why should we separate and draw off from those to whom the Lord draws near? I have not a doubt that were this spiritual union established, external divisions would gradually diminish. Who would not desire to see extinguished the spirit of sect and of party, and to see established in its place a peaceful and holy union among all the Christians of England? But we must force nothing. We must seek first of all unity of spirit; then, perhaps, unity of confession and action. As to unity of incorporation, I do not think it should be sought with impatience, or by human means; but why should we not conclude that the Lord himself will give it to his people, according to his promise (John x). Let us more and more allow the barriers which separate us to fall,-Dissenters, their ancient prejudices, and the ministers of the Established Church, those doctrines which stop the union of Christians, and which, like apostolical succession, and the necessity of episcopal ordination, are unknown to the Articles of your religion.

I can assure you, my lord, that one of the most agreeable remembrances that I carry with me from England is, that of having tasted the first fruits of this precious union. I have found myself as a brother in the midst of all denominations. Some of the most esteemed men in your Church have recalled to mind that three centuries ago Christians from the Continent-the Bucers and the Peter Martyrs, had received a cordial welcome in the Church of England, and without allowing themselves to be arrested by the new ideas, have shown themselves faithful to the ancient principles of the Anglican Church. It is true that Bucers and Peter Martyrs have taught in your universities, whilst I have

not even thought of such an honour, of which I am too unworthy. But I shall ever recollect with gratitude that I have been welcomed with affection by Englishmen of every Christian denomination, and I carry with me the sweet remembrance of having been seated at the hospitable table of Independents and of Presbyterians, of Baptist Noel and of Bickersteth, of the Dean of Westminster and of the Bishop of London. Let us hope, my lord, that one day, and soon, we shall be all, by grace, seated at one table, where for admission it will not be asked, "Are you of Calvin, or of Brown, or of Wesley, or of Luther, or of Cranmer?" but "Are you of Christ ?"

A third property which appears to me wanting in your Church is autonomy, or self-government. This quality is an essential one for every Christian Church, and is a fundamental one in every human society. There is no society which does not govern itself by itself, its representatives, its delegates. A society which should be governed by another society would scarcely deserve the name; in any case it would be enslaved and not a free society. I have no doubt upon the principle in general; the self-government of the Church is to me a fixed principle. But in so far as regards the application of this principle to your Church, the moment when its application should be made, the manner in which it should be realized, then I feel the need of speaking with reserve and discretion, and of submitting my views to men more enlightened than myself, and to you, my lord, in particular. I do not hesitate to say that this subject is of the highest importance, that it merits the attention of your bishops, your presbyters, your laity; of the ministry of your Queen, and of your parliament; but, I repeat it, I put

far from me all absolute dogmatism, and I content myself with humbly submitting my views.

Everywhere the Church of Rome is agitating, and its hierarchy shews new vigour. On the European Continent, in America, in India, in Otaheite, in China —but nowhere, perhaps, more than in England, prayers are instituted for your conversion, and the Romanists cry aloud, “Let us but gain England, and the Reformation is gone."

The same movement took place at the end of the 16th and in the 17th century, by the same power of the Jesuits. The result was the almost complete destruction of Protestantism in France, and important successes in other countries. The papacy has now for some time flattered herself that she will destroy Protestantism in England. Mr. Ranke, in his history of the Popes, has sketched some of the phases of this restoration of Catholicism. The Church fell off. My lord, we must be on our guard so to act that a new 17th century come not to afflict the friends of the Gospel.

In this new contest of the nineteenth century, the Church of England has to sustain the rudest conflict. But if this Church has no government of its own, it is surely placed in the most unfavourable circumstances. It is like a ship exposed to the storms of the ocean without pilot and without helm.

To leave the Church of England without a government of its own, in the circumstances in which we are placed, is not to do it justice; it is to place it in a position of inferiority, and to deliver it up to imminent dangers. And more than this, I see indeed in England episcopal churches, a certain number of dioceses in juxta-position, but I cannot see there a Church of England forming one single body.

The Catholic emancipation of 1829 renders a change necessary in the government of the Church of England. I am not speaking either for or against. I take it as a fact. Roman Catholics sit in parliament, dissenters the same. The parliament is no longer fitted to be the court before which the interests of the Church should be debated.

What! the Protestant Church governed by a council in which many sit who are devoted to the Pope! The celebrated O'Connell and his partisans, legislators for the Reformed Church! Our Reformers would have recoiled from such a thought; and I cannot think that any Protestant can resign himself easily to such a state of things. It is as absurd, it is even more absurd, for the Protestant Church to be governed by a body partly composed of Roman Catholics, than it would be for the state of Great Britain to be governed by a body partly composed of Frenchmen and of Prussians.

Until 1829, self-government-this law essential to every society-existed, though perhaps imperfectly, in the Church of England. In truth the parliament was a part of the Church; and it is only in this quality that it had the right to govern it. But can one now say that the parliament of England is of the Anglican Church? Certainly not. It cannot then govern the Anglican Church. The immediate consequence of the act of 1829 should have been the creation of a new government of the Church. It is virtually contained in the emancipation; it could have been only delayed. The corollary should now be disengaged from the theorem. But if this were an advantage for the Church, it were possibly a still greater advantage for the government and for Parliament.

The Roman Catholic emancipation is not an isolated

fact, it is the commencement of a long series of facts; it is also the beginning of a new order of things. The government is no longer exclusively Protestant, the Roman Catholics are admitted into the interests of the nation, the government must think of them. I do not think, my lord, that one can impute to your ministry this change. New times bring new combinations; the ministry follows the march of the age, it does not precede it. We must be just towards all, and particularly towards men in power. But how will your government be able to combine its quality of head of the Protestant Church, with its new duties towards Roman Catholics and Dissenters? It is, I think, impossible. The line which it adopts must produce a constant irritation in one party of the nation. If the parliament were to be re-elected now, the Maynooth bill might change the majority of the House of Commons, and so even overthrow the ministry. The government, with these complicated interests, will continually have difficulties and enemies, and will see itself, at a moment when least expected, compelled to retire. Its situation must be simplified, and I think that its situation would be considerably simplified were an ecclesiastical government created distinct from the civil government. This would take away from the ministry a burden and thorns, which they ought not to regret. The difficulties have already been great, but from year to year they will increase.

Parliament, too, would be relieved. It loves not religious discussions-it is ill at ease when they occur; they are, so to speak, impossible. What sort of a government for a society is that which cannot discuss the interests of that society? Can there be a more triking contradiction? One of the leading statesmen