quence was, that, in 1792, when the penal statutes were repealed, the number of Episcopal clergymen throughout broad Scotland was reduced to about seventy. And so thoroughly had the Church been. paralysed that, from 1792 down to 1838, the number of her clergy remained stationary, whilst that of her laity was greatly diminished. In many of the rural districts, it might be said, the sheep were left without a shepherd, and when the elder generation, who continued stedfast, were called to their rest, those who succeeded them, having rarely had an opportunity of joining in the Church's services, gradually fell away. Multitudes thus became Presbyterians, not from any preference or real love for that system,-far less from any dislike to the Church of their fathers; but simply because their churches were gone and their pastors silenced. During that dark period, the words of the Psalmist might have been taken up by the Scottish Episcopalians : "Thus have they burnt up all the houses of God in the land: there is not one prophet more; no, not one is there among us, that understandeth any more."

In 1838, however, the Church was once more roused into action. The Scottish Episcopal Church Society was canonically established,the objects of which are thus defined,—

"To provide a fund for aged and infirm clergymen, or salaries for their assistants, and general aid for congregations struggling with pecuniary difficulties; to assist candidates for the ministry in completing their theological studies; to provide Episcopal schoolmasters, books, and tracts for the poor; lastly, to assist in the formation or enlargement of Diocesan libraries, and in building churches, parsonages, and schools."

The result has surpassed all reasonable expectations. There are now 150 regularly established congregations in place of seventy; ninety schools, where, at the time of the institution of the Society, there were only four or five,—the Church having thus, in less than thirty years, more than doubled the number of her clergy and congregations, and her schools by sixteen or twenty for one,—thus clearly indicating that there is not such inherent spirit of hostility to Episcopacy among the Scotch as some of the more zealous advocates of Presbyterianism would have us to believe. to the conclusion that, were proper means taken for bringing the true principles of the Episcopal Church before the members of the Establishment, and of showing them that those Notes of a true Church—which all who implicitly receive the inspired Word as their rule of faith must recognise are clearly and deeply imprinted on that Church, which, through a sort of hereditary prejudice, they have for generations looked upon as Popish and unworthy of their least regard, they would,

On the contrary, it leads

in numberless instances, we are persuaded, be led by their national respect for "the Bible" to go fairly and soberly into the questions,“What led our forefathers to form such an unfavourable opinion of a Church which claims to exist solely by its adherence, in all things, to Scriptural rule and Apostolic usage; and which is now recognised as an independent, integral branch of the Church Catholic? And what would the result be, were we— -the Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland-to betake ourselves, in good earnest, to the breaking down of that barrier, which now obviously stands between us and intercommunion with the great Anglican Patriarchate?”

We believe that the marrow of an answer to the first of these questions might be gathered from one or two brief excerpts of Bishop Guthrie of Dunkeld's "Memoirs of the Church of Scotland, from 1560 to 1649: "

"It had been King James's custom, when a bishopric fell void, to appoint the Archbishop of St. Andrews to convene the rest and name three or four well qualified, so that there could not be an error in the choice, and then, out of that list, that King pitched upon one whom he preferred, whereby it came to pass that, during his time, most able men were advanced. . . . But Charles followed another way, and, without consultation had with the Bishops, preferred men by moyen (interest) at court. . . . Among these late Bishops, whom King Charles preferred, none were generally esteemed gifted for the office. Thus the young Bishops, not having been beholden to the old Bishops for their preferment, for that cause they depended not upon them, but kept a fellowship among themselves apart, and happening to gain an intimacy with the Archbishop of Canterbury, caused him to procure from the King power to himself to prescribe things to the old Bishops which they did not well relish. . . Discontent daily increased among the ministry, because of the Bishops too much slighting them. Yet was not this to be imputed to the old Bishops, who were prudent and humble men . . but it was the fault only of the younger Bishops, who indeed carried themselves so loftily that ministers signified little in their reckoning.”1

Thus, it was the worthless character and haughty bearing of these ill-chosen Bishops, rather than their office, which naturally, and, it must be admitted, not unreasonably, irritated the Scottish nation against Episcopacy, and alienated its affection from the Church. Add to this, the opposition of the barons to its re-establishment. These, in num

berless instances, had, at the Reformation in 1560, seized on the estates of the bishoprics and monastic institutions, and they were now afraid lest they should be called on to relinquish their possessions. Knox himself was not blind to the rapacity of the nobles, nor to the firmness with which they grasped their gains. We read that—

1 Memoirs of the Church of Scotland from 1560-1649, pp. 13–15.

"From his bed of sickness, amid the desolated shrines of St. Andrews, he wrote to the General Assembly, which met at Stirling, in the autumn of 1591, adjuring his brethren that with uprightness and strength in God they withstand the merciless devourers of the patrimonie of the Kirk.' 'Gif men will spoyll,' said he, let them do it to their owne perell and condemnatione; but communicat ye not with their sins, of what estate that ever they be, neither be consent nor yet be silence, but with publick protestatione make this knowne unto the world, that ye are innocent of sic robberie, quhilk will, or it be lang, provock God's vengeance upon the committers thereof."1

(To be continued.)

Correspondence, Documents, &c.

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE.

Documents published by Authority.2

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES APPOINTED BY THE CONFERENCE.

I.

Report of the Committee appointed under Resolution V. by the Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion, held at Lambeth Palace, September 24-27th, 1867.3

THE subject of the functions and relations of the several Synods on which the Committee is appointed to report appears to them to be necessarily connected with questions as to the constitution of these bodies. The following Report, therefore, embraces the whole subject of Synods. In discussing it, your Committee deem it necessary to deal with the question in the abstract, without reference to existing laws and usages in the several branches of the Anglican Communion, and to lay down general principles, the adoption or application of which must depend on circumstances, such, for example, as the laws which any Church may have inherited or already established.

I. In the organization of Synodal order for the government of the

1 Booke of the Universall Kirke, pp. 128, 129.

2 We are permitted thus early to transfer to our pages the contents of the official publication just issued by Messrs. Rivingtons, entitled " 'Meeting of Adjourned Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion," &c.

3 Resolution IV.-" That, in the opinion of this Conference, unity in faith and discipline will be best maintained among the several branches of the Anglican Communion by due and canonical subordination of the Synods of the several branches to the higher authority of a Synod or Synods above them."

Resolution V." That a Committee of seven members (with power to add to their number, and to obtain the assistance of men learned in ecclesiastical and canon law) be appointed to inquire into and report upon the subject of the relations and functions of such Synods, and that such Report be forwarded to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, with a request that, if possible, it may be communicated to any adjourned meeting of this Conference."

Church, the Diocesan Synod appears to be the primary and simplest form of such organization.

By the Diocesan Synod the co-operation of all members of the body is obtained in Church action; and that acceptance of Church rules is secured, which, in the absence of other law, usage, or enactment, gives to these rules the force of laws " binding on those who, expressly or by implication, have consented to them."1

For this reason, wherever the Church is not established by law, it is, in the judgment of your Committee, essential to order and good government that the Diocese should be organized by a Synod.

Your Committee consider that it is not at variance with the ancient principles of the Church, that both Clergy and Laity should attend the Diocesan Synod, and that it is expedient that the Synod should consist of the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese, with Representatives of the Laity.

The constitution of the Diocesan Synod may be determined either by rules for that branch of the Church established by the Synod of the Province, or by general consent in the Diocese itself, its rules being sanctioned afterwards by the Provincial Synod.

Your Committee, however, recommend that the following general rules should be adopted: viz. that the Bishop, Clergy, and Laity should sit together, the Bishop presiding; that votes should be taken by orders, whenever demanded; and that the concurrent assent of Bishop, Clergy, and Laity should be necessary to the validity of all acts of the Synod.

They consider that the Clerical members of the Synod should be those Clergy who are recognised by the Bishop, according to the rules of the Church in that Diocese, as being under his jurisdiction. Whether in large Dioceses, when the Clergy are very numerous, they might appear by representation, is a difficult question, and on which your Committee are not prepared to express an opinion.

The Lay Representatives in the Synod ought, in the judgment of your Committee, to be Male Communicants of at least one year's standing in the Diocese, and of the full age of twenty-one. It should be required that the electors should be Members of the Church in that Diocese, and belong to the parish in which they claim to vote. It appears desirable that the regular meetings of the Synod should be fixed and periodical; but that the right of convening special meetings whenever they may be required should be reserved to the Bishop.

The office of the Diocesan Synod is, generally, to make regulations, not repugnant to those of higher Synods, for the order and good government of the Church within the Diocese, and to promulgate the decisions of the Provincial Synod.

II.-The Provincial Synod-or, as it is called in New Zealand and Scotland, the General Synod, and in the United States the General Convention is formed, whenever it does not exist already by law and usage, through the voluntary association of Dioceses for united legislation and common action. The Provincial Synod not only provides a method for security amongst the Dioceses which are thus associated, but also

1 "Judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in case of Long v. Bishop of Capetown." (1 Moore, P. C. C. N.S. 461.)

forms the link between these Dioceses and other Churches of the Anglican Communion.

Without questioning the right of the Bishops of any Province to meet in Synod by themselves, and without affirming that the presence of others is essential to a Provincial Synod, your Committee recommend that, whenever no law or usage to the contrary already exists, it should consist of the Bishops of the Province, and of Representatives both of the Clergy and of the Laity in each Diocese.

Your Committee need not define the method in which a Provincial Synod may be first constituted, but they assume that its constitution and rules will be determined by the concurrence of the several Dioceses duly represented.

Your Committee consider that it must be left to each Province to decide whether, and under what circumstances, the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity in a Provincial Synod should sit and discuss questions in the same chamber or separately; but, in the judgment of the Committee, the votes should in either case be taken by orders; and the concurrent assent of Bishops, Clergy, and Laity should be necessary for any legislative action, wherever the Clergy and Laity form part of the constitution of a Provincial Synod; such powers and functions not involving legislation being reserved as belong to the Bishops by virtue of their office.

The number, qualification, and mode of election of the Clerical and Lay Representatives from each Diocese must be determined by the Synods in the several Provinces.

It is the office of the Provincial Synod, generally, to exercise, within the limits of the Province, powers in regard to Provincial questions similar to those which the Diocesan Synod exercises within the Diocese in regard to Diocesan questions.

As to the relation between these two Synods, your Committee are of opinion that the Diocese is bound to accept positive enactments of a Provincial Synod in which it is duly represented, and that no Diocesan regulations have force, if contrary to the decisions of a higher Synod; but that, in order to prevent any collision or misunderstanding, the spheres of action of the several Synods should be defined on the following principle: viz. That the Provincial Synod should deal with questions of common interest to the whole Province, and with those which affect the communion of the Dioceses with one another and with the rest of the Church; whilst the Diocesan Synod should be left free to dispose of matters of local interest, and to manage the affairs of the Diocese.

From this principle your Committee draw the following conclusions

1. All alterations in the Services of the Church, required by circumstances in the Province, should be made or authorized by the Provincial Synod, and not merely by the Diocesan.

2. The rule of discipline for the Clergy of the Province should be framed by the Provincial Synod.

3. Rules for the trial of Clergy should be made by the Provincial Synod; but, in default of such action on the part of that Synod, the Diocesan Synod should establish provisional rules for this purpose.

The