knowledge of the requisite measure to be given and to spreadtime for discussion, for consideration, for conviction, and then, time for action. And this measure of the See Bishoprick, first started, and advocated in this Review, in the fall of 1857, has gone as far as we expected it would have gone by this time,or farther. In the October Number of that year, we brought it before our readers, a body of the most intelligent, most influential and most conservative, of the Clergy and Laity of the Church over the whole extent of the Union; and from them we have met approval and appreciation. The Article, in its principles, was read and acceded to by our subscribers, as far as we could judge, very generally, indeed, almost universally; but with them the question has been, 'how can it be brought about?' This is the question we calculate now to answer.

Now the measure, having gone so far, our readers will be glad to find that it has gone farther. In the Journal of the General Convention of the Church for 1859, held at Richmond, Va., will be found on page 120, this record.

Mr. H. D. Evans presented a proposed Canon 'Of (the title of) Bishopricks in the case of the division of Dioceses'-and on his motion, it was laid over to the next General Convention and ordered to be printed in the Journal. (See page 376.)

On page 376, in the Appendix M, occurs the Canon.

Canon of the title of Bishopricks, in case of the division of Dioceses, proposed by Mr. H. D. Evans.*-Whereas, our venerable Mother, the Church of England, has always professed the highest respect for the Doctrines, Discipline, and Practice of the Primitive Church of the first four centuries, as also this Church has done. Whereas, also, through that whole Church in the earliest ages, as well as our Mother Church, and indeed all Churches of Apostolical descent over the whole world, at the present time, the usage has prevailed and does prevail, (with some small exceptions,) that Bishopricks should take their titles from Cities,' not countries, as of Jerusalem, not of Palestine,' ,''of Ephesus,' not 'of Ionia,'' of Canterbury,' not

6

Of course, our readers will understand, that the bringing forward of this Canon by no means pledges the distinguished Canonist to advocacy, or even to approval. So much, in justice to him is due, from the fact of his name occurring in connection with the Canon.

'of Kent' and, Whereas, this Church unwittingly adopted a different custom at its first reception of the Episcopacy; in order to correct this anomaly and to bring us back to the universal usage, this Church, in General Convention assembled, enacts-That, in case of all division of Dioceses from this time henceforth, the Bishopricks into which they are divided shall be called, each of them, by the title of the largest City within its limits."

Our readers will see that this is really the question of See Bishopricks, and that it has thus been brought in a preparatory way before the highest legislation of the Church. They can see also in it the way and means whereby, legally and constitutionally, the changes may be brought about. In the Canon itself the principle is asserted, the facts that support it alleged, and it is enacted as a remedy for the present anomalous state of the Episcopate. And, upon looking at the future and continuous action of such a Canon, and considering the progress of the Church to be such as it has been of late, then no doubt the Church, by its means, must be finally brought back completely and entirely to the Primitive Episcopate.

We admit that it would be just as well that the Canon should ultimately pass in this form without any preamble.

"Canon of the Title of Bishopricks in case of the division of Dioceses."

"In case of the division of any Diocese, each of the Dioceses which result from division shall be called by the title of the largest City within its limits."

But in the case of the introduction of a new principle, new we mean in the legislation of this Church, it is just as well that the grounds and reasons of the enactment should be stated, so that the reader may have before him the whole idea, brought forth in all its relations distinctly, and that also he may see by what provisions possible objections and obstacles may be avoided, and the measure be made to inosculate with the previous body of legislation. For these reasons we lay before our readers a Canon, partly the same with that printed upon the General Convention Journal, and moreover looking to our providing for these adaptations. It is as easy to meet objections

and to show how they may be obviated in this form, as in that of discussion, and besides, it keeps the whole subject well together, although we must say, that, in the second shape given, the principle would be quite as efficient.

"Canon-of the Title of Bishopricks in case of the division of Dioceses.

"Whereas, our venerable Mother, the Church of England, has always professed the highest respect for the Doctrine, Discipline and Practice of the Primitive Church of the first four Centuries, as also this Church has done:

"Whereas, also, through that whole Church, in the earliest ages, as through our Mother Church, and indeed all Churches of Apostolic descent at the present time, the usage has prevailed and does now prevail, (with some small exceptions,) that Bishopricks should take their titles from 'Cities,' not 'countries,' as 'of Jerusalem,' not 'of Palestine,' ' of Ephesus,' not ' of Ionia,' 'of Canterbury,' not 'of Kent:

"And, Whereas, this Church has unwittingly adopted a different custom at the first reception of the Episcopacy, therefore, in order to correct this anomaly, and bring us back to the universal usage, this Church, in General Convention, enacts:

"SEC. 1. That, in case of all division of Dioceses, from this time henceforth, the Bishopricks into which they are divided shall be called, each of them, by the title of the largest City within its limits.

"SEC. 2. This City shall be entitled, Ecclesiastically, the Bishop's "See" of that Diocese.

"SEC. 3. The full title thus shall be 'Bishop,' or Bishoprick of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of (City named) in (State named.)

"SEC. 4. But whereas the present titles have in them a certain Ecclesiastical value, these need not be changed in any way until division has taken place. Yet, this shall be no impedi ment to the Bishop and Convention assuming and settling the largest City as a See. Bishop of Virginia,' for instance; 'see Richmond.'

"SEC. 5. And, before the General Convention, the name of the State shall be mentioned in this way. If there be only

one Bishop, he shall be cited in the way above mentioned, in the last section. If more than one, they shall be cited and enumerated in this way, 'the Bishops of, (name State,) enumerating them as 'Bishop of,' (name City,) Bishop of,' (name City,) until the list is exhausted.

"SEC. 6. And, as this Canon concerns only the Titles of Dioceses, it shall not be taken in any way to interfere with or control the principles upon which the Church authorizes and empowers the division of the present existing Dioceses. These shall be settled by the provision made for them in the Constitution and Canons of the Church."

ers.

Upon looking over these provisions, it will be seen, that there is very little difficulty in the way of the change. Naturally and easily, one system can be made to glide into the other. The present Bishops need not resign their titles and take othUnder the present arrangement, they are the Bishops of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. Let a division take place in any of these States, and the 'Bishops of Ohio' will stand upon the Journal as a general title of the Bishop of Cincinnati, the Bishop of Cleveland, &c. The Bishops of New York, for those of New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, &c. The Bishops of Pennsylvania, for those of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, &c. So that the present titles in the General Convention need not in any way be disturbed. The only anomaly being, some of the present Bishops may take a See, and others may refuse to do so; a case which is very tolerable, and after all, must come to an end sooner or later.

Another remark we would make is this. There is nothing in our Constitution and Canons, with which this interferes. 'The thing then can be done without any difficulty, in any way. There is therefore absolutely no obstacle to the measure being at once taken up and carried through. The titles of the present Bishops, it is seen, are actually no inconvenience.

Another remark we would make, of considerable importance. There is no impediment in any way to the same movement in any one of our State Conventions. The Diocese in the State of Ohio, of Texas, or of Wisconsin, may pass a Canon to that effect. Or any Diocese may make it a part, legally, of its Con

stitution, "that, should a division of that Diocese at any time take place, the Dioceses that result from the division shall take their title from the largest City existing in each of them ;" and there is nothing whatever in the Constitution or Canons of the General Church to impede such action. Of course, it would be preferable for the General Convention to enact the principle, but the State Conventions have, clearly and plainly, the power of doing it; that is to say, there is no legal or Constitutional impediment to their doing so, within their own limits. And it is well that the advocates of any given measure should know, that there are several ways by which the work can be effected.

Now, having discussed the subject to the full, having shown its desirableness, and next its feasibility, we proceed to sum up the whole as it is before our mind.

There is such a thing in existence as the Holy Catholic Church. This, in Europe, owing to the alliance of Church and State, has been confused, entangled, disturbed, to such a degree, that men have not known whether to give their affiance in a Church without a Religion, or a Religion without a Church; to Rome, or to Dissent. The Church in Western Europe, with one exception, the Anglican Church, from which we are descended, is corrupt, divorced from the Written Word of God, careless of morality, the supporter of Despotism, the hater of Freedom, of Constitutional liberty, of self-govern

ment.

Again, Lutheranism and Calvinism, the two forms of the Continental Reform, having the Bible in their hand, have, considering them as establishments, no Church; they have no tradition, no Creeds, no Doctrine. The English nation, alone of State Establishments, retains both a Church and a Religion.

Here then, in this New World, we have, by the Providence of God, the representatives of all these. Look abroad over the sects and you see Religion without a Church. You see the individual man, in very many cases, with intense earnestness of purpose, real internal faith, real zeal, but no objective Creed,

*Arch-Bishop Magee.