APPENDIX.

THERE are a few things contained in the original "Enquiry," and in certain anonymous pamphlets by the same author, which seem to call for a miscellaneous notice. That which first invites our attention is, an assertion made by our author, upon the first page of the pamphlet entitled, "Remarks on Mr. Wisner's first Lecture upon the subject of Episcopacy and Presbytery." It is as follows: "Again, it was stated that the Queen was the head of the church of England.' This is true only in part. The Queen, together with the government, is the head of the political and temporal affairs only of the church; just so far as its connection with the state makes it necessary, and no farther. Neither the Queen or the Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters, no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the church." It is a matter of great surprise that the Rev. Author, in the face of an intelligent community like ours, should make such assertions as these. No wonder that he refused to append his name to the pamphlet in which they are contained. Can any one, at all acquainted with English law and English history, pretend, with our author, that "neither the Queen or the Parliament have any authority in spiritual mattersno control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the church?" Let us see what Sir Wm. Blackstone, in his commentary upon English law, says upon this subject: "The King," says he, Book I., chap. vii., "is lastly considered by the laws of England as the head and supreme

governor of the national church. To enter into the reasons upon which this prerogative is founded, is matter rather of divinity than of law. I shall therefore only observe, that by statute 26 Henry VIII., chap. i.-reciting that the King's majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the church of England, and so had been recognized by the clergy of the kingdom, (in their convocation)—it is enacted that the King shall be reputed the only supreme head in earth of the church of England, and shall have annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title thereof, as all jurisdictions, authorities, commodities, to the said dignity of the supreme head of the church appertaining. And another statute to the same purport, made 1 Elizabeth, c. i.: In virtue of this authority, the King convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates, and dissolves all ecclesiastical synods or convocations.' Again: "So that the statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xix., which restrains the convocation from making or putting in execution any canons repugnant to the King's prerogative, or the laws, customs, and statutes of the realm, was merely declaratory of the old common law; that part of it only being new which makes the King's royal assent actually necessary to the validity of every canon." Once more: "From this prerogative also of being the head of the church, arises the King's right of nomination to vacant bishopricks, and certain other ecclesiastical preferments, which will more properly be considered when we come to treat of the clergy. I shall only here observe that this is now done in consequence of the statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xx. As head of the church, the King is likewise the dernier resort in all ecclesiastical causes; an appeal lying ultimately to him, in chancery, from the sentence of every ecclesiastical judge; which right was restored to the crown by statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xix.,-as will be more fully shown hereafter." From all of which we learn that the King, as supreme

head of the English church, possesses the following preroga

tives:

1. He convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates, and dissolves all ecclesiastical synods or convocations.

2. No ecclesiastical or canon law can be enacted by the constituted authorities of the church, without his royal as

sent.

3. He has a right to nominate to vacant bishopricks.

4. He is likewise the dernier resort in all ecclesiastical causes-an appeal lying ultimately to him, in chancery, from the sentence of every ecclesiastical judge. And yet our author is bold to assert, that "neither the Queen or Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters; no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the church." Has he forgotten the "act of conformity," which drenched England with the blood of her very best citizens, and exiled our Puritan fathers to the wilds of America?

We leave our author to settle this matter with Judge Blackstone, and with every English historian who has ever written upon the subject. There are two other prerogatives to which we would refer the reader, in order that he may judge how entirely the King (or Queen) is the supreme ecclesiastical head of the church.

1. The King receives all resignations of archbishops; they are made to him alone. Blackstone says, Book I., c.

xi,

"All resignations must be made to some superior. Therefore a bishop must resign to his metropolitan; but the archbishop can resign to none but the King himself."

2. English bishops cannot be appointed and consecrated without a license from the King. Blackstone says, Book I., c. xi, "But, by statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xx., the ancient right of nomination was, in effect, restored to the crown; it being enacted, that, at every avoidance of a bishoprick, the King may send the dean and chapter his usual license

to proceed to an election; which is always to be accompanied with a letter missive from the King, containing the name of the person he would have them elect; and if the dean and chapter delay their election above twelve days, the nomination shall devolve to the King, who may, by letters patent, appoint such persons as he pleases. This election, or nomination, if it be of a bishop, must be signified by the King's letters patent to the archbishop of the province; if it be an archbishop, the other archbishop and two bishops, .or to four bishops; requiring them to confirm, invest, and consecrate the person so elected, which they are bound to perform immediately, without any application to the see of Rome." That the King appoints the bishops is also evident from the following quotation taken from an English work, entitled, "Book of Denominations," page 395: “In the church of England we have two archbishops. The name is as antichristian as the thing. What are the duties of the Those sustaining it have

office it is difficult to ascertain. no functions distinct from the bishops, nor does it appear that they have any jurisdiction over them. They do not appoint them; the King does: and they cannot remove them. They cannot, without the King's concurrence, call them together in convocation. Their sole use, therefore, seems to be to rear their mitred fronts in courts and purli ments, to vote in the train of ministers, to rule their wide and opulent dominions, count their enormous revenues, and dispose of good livings to sons, brothers, nephews, cousins, relations, and dependents without end, as their own interest or the interest of ministers, reserved by special agreement, may dictate." Does our author know that, after these provinces were separated from the British crown and had become a republic, Bishops White, Provost, and Madison, were consecrated by English bishops, u ider a royal license, in accordance with an act of parliament especially enacted to meet such cases? It is entitled, "An act to empower the

archbishop of Canterbury or the archbishop of York, for the time being, to consecrate to the office of bishop, persons being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions."

THE ACT.

Whereas, by the laws of this realm, no person can be consecrated to the office of a Bishop without the King's license for his election to that office, and the royal mandate under the great seal for his confirmation and consecration; and whereas, every person who shall be consecrated to the said office is required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and also the oath of due obedience to the Archbishop; and whereas, there are divers persons, subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, inhabiting and residing within the said countries, who profess the public worship of Almighty God according to the principles of the Church of England, and who, in order to provide a regular succession of ministers for the service of their Church, are desirous of having certain of the subjects cr citizens of those countries consecrated Bishops according to the form of consecration in the Church of England; Be it enacted, by the King's most excellent majesty, and by and with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York, for the time being, together with such other Bishops as they shall call to their assistance, to consecrate persons being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, Bishops, for the purpose aforesaid, without the King's license for their election, or the royal mandate under the great seal for their confirmation and consecration, and with