whole Christian scheme. Nor can he reasonably doubt the production of a similar impression, in the minds of those, who will give unbiassed and attentive consideration to the facts."-Vol. i. p. 398.

We think it useless to detain our readers much longer on the examination of this work; we are glad, however, that we are enabled to say, that in the tenth Section, which contains the "Analogy of Mahometanism and Popery," there are many excellent passages. He says most just and most forcible things both against the one and the other. He seems to have a full view of them, as two concurrent apostacies rising at the same time, and likely to fall at the same period; and the only wonder is, by what process of reasoning in his mind he could ever have come to the conclusion, that one of these apostacies should ever be the means of spreading truth over the earth.

There are some extraordinary sentiments about the crusades, and some sections on the civilizing and improving influences of Mahometanism, which would lead one to suppose, that Mr. Forster thought that the improvement of arts, sciences and manufactures upon this earth, was one of God's great ends to be attained by religion. Were we to admit all that Mr. Forster says of the influences of Mahometanism in this respect, still what has that to say to its being the means of finally establishing the truths of Christ in the world? He might as well tell us of the arts, the sciences, the classic literature of ancient Greece or Rome, and from thence insist that their mythology might be considered as an efficient means of establishing the Gospel of Christ over the world. When shall the offence cease of that cross which was to the civilized Greeks foolishness, as well as to the Jews a stumbling block?

But our author who, throughout his work, betrays a parental fondness for his own conceptions by many tedious summaries and recapitulations, has a concluding chapter in which he seems to delight in gathering together, and collecting into one group all that is radically objectionable in his work-all that in his view appears to exalt Mahometanism, and in ours to depress the religion of Jesus Christ. He speaks in (p. 365, vol. 2.) of "the Mahometan superstition as a middle term between truth and error, between Christianity and Paganism." In the same page he speaks of " a high state of national culture and civilization being essential to Christianity, striking root and becoming permanently established among any people." (p. 368.) He speaks of "the unsuitableness of the Gospel scheme, in its immediate application to the condition and capabilities of uncivilized nations." ""

According to him the Gospel of Christ needs the preceding and auxiliary influences of Mahometan superstition in order to make it effectual to the conversion of nations, and the consequent salvation of souls. Is this the language of one that, with the apostle believes it to be the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth it? Does this accord with the declarations of him who says that in the word of the Gospel, "there is neither Greek nor Jew, cir

cumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, but Christ is all and in all."

He admits indeed, that Islamism has hitherto surpassed all forms of Paganism in its bigoted resistance to the propagation of the Gospel; but this only furnishes a parallel (for our author loves parallelism) with the Jews; and as we have the authority of God's word, that the Jews shall be converted and made instruments in the divine hand for spreading the kingdom of Messiah; so we have Mr. Forster's word, if we think that authority, that the Mahometans shall be converted likewise, and be the means of spreading divine truth over the world.

We cannot help expressing our disappointment and grief at the character of this book. We cannot help saying, that we could wish Mr. Forster's nine years had been better employed-that the learning and talent displayed in these volumes had been directed to other and more useful pursuits, and that the respectable prelate to whom he says they were submitted, had interposed to prevent the publication of a work which, however creditable to the industry, ingenuity, and research of the author, contains statements and opinions at variance with all the views we have been accustomed to maintain with respect to God's covenanted promises.

Authentic Report of the Discussion held in Downpatrick, in April, 1828, between the Clergymen of the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Priests.8vo, pp. 326,

(Continued from vol. viii, page 446.)

We make no apology for the length of this extract from Leslie. His work is in the hands of but few; nor can we recommend it in toto; but on this point he is clear and convincing: ånd it is one, we fear, on which much misapprehension exists among the members of our Church, and on which, we know, much misrepresentation prevails among her enemies of every description. The inherent rights and duties of the episcopacy, which each member of the body possesses in common (in solido, as we believe Cyprian expresses it,) in virtue of the Saviour's appointment, are too often confounded with the authority and jurisdiction (not to speak of the temporalities) which particular members of the body possess in particular districts, by human appointment. According to the views recognized by our Church, the former of these have at all times been conferred by the ordination or consecration of those who have been previously bishops, and this jure divino. The person so ordained becomes in this manner a bishop generally-not the bishop of any particular district; though it is not usual to confer on a person the rank and order of a bishop, unless he have a station assigned him, by those who have the power to assign it, in which he may exercise his functions. It would clearly be wrong to confer the order without such a station; and in this country the bishops

are properly prohibited by law from doing it. But, with respect to the authority and jurisdiction which bishops possess over particular dioceses, our Church holds, that it is conferred not in one uniform manner, not jure divino, but jure humano-sometimes from one source and in one manner, at other times from another source and in a different manner, according to the regulations of the supreme legislative power in each place, if that shall think proper to interfere. In some places the appointment of the bishop of a diocese has been made by election of the lay-members of the same church-in others, of the clergy of that church, or of the clergy of the diocese generally. In other cases, the bishops of the province or kingdom have elected to the vacant see; in other cases, a metropolitan bishop has nominated; and in others, the chief civil magistrate, or some other lay patron. It is needless to discuss which of these modes of appointment is the most expedient. It is sufficient to say, that none can claim a preference, jure divino, and that the mode which still prevails in any country, must, as we have said, depend on the legislature of that country, either proscribing it or permitting it.

Such are the views of the members of our church respecting the jus divinum of bishops in their orders, and their jus humanum in their diocesan authority and jurisdiction; but to these are opposed the views of the Romanists. These maintain at least those who are attached to the court of Rome maintain (for there are different opinions entertained by others)--that the bishop of Rome possesses, jure divino, the nomination to all vacant bishopricks; and that others can only exercise it in virtue of his concession. This was resolutely denied by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. who insistedthe latter (or rather his ministers) in particular-that the right of nomination belonged to the sovereign of the country, or to those unto whom he (not the Pope) should concede it. It was a jus humanum, and, as such, vested in the supreme civil magistracy. To establish this contested claim, the king insisted that the bishops should surrender their episcopal authority and jurisdiction-not their orders to him, as the source from whence it flowed; that Cranmer, for example, should admit that, though he was a bishop of Christ's church, jure divino, by episcopal consecration; he was archbishop of Canterbury, jure humano, by the king's authority. This admission was made by all the English and Irish bishops at that time, and has since, except during the reign of Mary, been constantly recognized. It is true, that we

any such appointments of bishops to dioc
pleasure, as there were in the reign of Ed
there are not. We question if, unde
appointments could have been expedi
whatever reasons for them may hav
none can exist now. If the judge
crown, as it is on all hands admi
enjoy their posts quamdiu se ben

son should the bishops be so too. But though we consider such appointments as highly inexpedient, and therefore, in a matter of such moment, improper, we cannot admit that the fact of their having been once made is any proof of the rights of the church having been surrendered. The appointment resting with the crown may be made, either for life (good behaviour being presumed) or for a limited number of years, (as our colonial bishops are appointed now,) or until a specified contingency, or during pleasure. If made in any of the last-mentioned manners, the emeritus, or deprived bishop, will remain a bishop generally, though without a diocese in which he may act as such, and without the authority and jurisdiction which are generally annexed to the order of a bishop. Such was the late Bishop of Nova Scotia, who died in England, we believe in the last year. But such instances do not often occur, and when they do occur they attract little observation; and this is one reason why the distinction between the order and the station of a bishop is so frequently overlooked, while in the case of the inferior clergy it is observed by every one. Another reason, and perhaps a more powerful one, is, that, in the case of a bishop, the office and station have but one name--in the case of the inferior clergy they have distinct names. We say that such a person is a presbyter, or that he is in priest's orders, and no one thinks that we thereby ascribe to him any station, in which he may perform the duties of a presbyter. It is true, that he cannot be ordained a presbyter, without having been nominated to some station; but having been ordained, he may cease to hold that station, and we often meet with presbyters who have no station in the church whatever. If, however, he have a station, it has a distinct name; we do not say, he is presbyter of A,' but 'he is Curate of A,' or 'Rector of B,' or 'Dean of C.' Now, in the case of a bishop, the distinction between order and station is exactly the same; but because there is but one name for the two, it is very generally disregarded. We say, that a person is a bishop, and is the Bishop of D; our only mode of distinguishing between the two things is by annexing to the word bishop, when used to express jurisdiction, the title which expresses the temporal rank which is, in this country, attached to the jurisdiction. Thus, we say, 'Dr. Mant is a bishop'-' he is the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.'

own church were to consecrate a presbyter a bishop, of their own motion, without his being appointed by competent authority to a diocese, he would unquestionably be a bishop: they would be subject to punishment for having consecrated him; but the consecration would be valid, and he would be to all intents and purposes a bishop, without, however, having any authority or jurisdiction as such. He would be in the situation in which we admit the Romish bishops to be; he would be a bishop, but not the bishop of any diocese. They are bishops-heretical ones, indeed; but as the ancient church admitted the Arian, Nestorian, and Donatist bishops to have valid orders, so we admit them to be validly consecrated bishops; but we deny that they possess any jurisdiction as bishops in this country;-out of it, they may have sees, if the Pope has them at his disposal-we care not whether he has or not. But here, we are decided in maintaining, he has none to give; and if any one attempt to exercise the jurisdiction of a bishop, in virtue of his pretended gift, he is liable to punishment; nay, by a late act, if he even assume the name of it, he subjects himself to a penalty. Dr. Doyle is a bishop: if it be necessary to describe him more particularly, he is the Romish Bishop AT Carlow;' but he is not a bishop (with any qualification or without one) of Kildare and Leighlin, or of any diocese in Ireland.

The king's supremacy is another subject on which much misrepresentation has prevailed, as well among the Dissenters, who affect to deny any supremacy, as among the Romanists, who claim it for the Pope. The king, they say, is "the head" of the Church by law established; and they then insist, that this title shall be explained, as they may choose to understand it; that is, in an obnoxious sense, which it was never intended to convey. To this unfair proceeding, Mr. Cumming replies as follows:

“The king is not now, even by name, the Head of the Church. The statute by which Henry VIII. was recognised by this title was repealed in the reign of Mary, and the title was never since restored. Owing to the prejudices which designing men excited in the minds of the people, by an improper use of the term, that of 'chief governor' was substituted in its place in the reign of Elizabeth. Our opponents (Mr. Cumming proceeds) should have known this, for since the strength of their objection lies in the sound of a word, they ought to speak correctly.”—p. 72.

lt

To many of our readers, we dare say, this information, which we have ascertained to be correct, will be new. The king is constantly spoken of by Romanists and Dissenters as the head of the English Church at this day. Yet that title was never borne except by three sovereigns-of which three only one was a Protestant. was granted by parliament to the king, in the reign of Henry VIII. borne by him and his son Edward, and his daughter Mary, until the acts passed for restoring the spiritual jurisdiction to the Pope; and it has never been re-granted-it is not a title which now be longs to the king. He is chief governor,' but not 'head.' We do not think, indeed, that more was meant by the latter title than

་