glory of the land, we may trace it to this, that her church, whilst it may hold the soundness of faith, has lost much of the warmth and fervour of her zeal, and being less in contact with her people, is far less effective than she was in communicating a holy influence to the population. The immensely increased density of the people in the large towns, has so vastly outstripped the means of religious instruction, that a great proportion of the inhabitants are entirely without the influence of the church. They are brought up depraved, disaffected, discontented, unhappy; and they add to the mass of vice, misery, and danger in the state.

We may learn, then, the value of the church to the state, either by looking at the blessings it confers when it operates with a holy influence on the people, or the vice and misery that follow when that influence is not exerted. If we turn our eyes to our own country, we find immorality, vice, crime, misery, wretchedness, and every thing degrading and affecting to man; and how has the country been with regard to the influence of a pure and holy church? It has had, indeed, the name, the skeleton of a church, pure in her faith and sound in her creed. But this church, from many causes, has been ineffective; the mass of the people have been under the influence of a church erroneous in her doctrines, lax in her morality, and vicious in her practice; and there exists not in the world a greater proof than Ireland, of the fatal effects of a false church. The church of Rome has had undisturbed possession of the greater part of Ireland. She has had her priests in every quarter of the land; she has come into the closest contact with the people; and she cannot show one spot that bears the mark of moral cultureshe cannot show one retired glen, one secluded island, in which she has had sway without let or hindrance, which she can point out as blessed by her influence. There are many spots in Ireland, where the Protestant church has had but a partial influence, yet she has blessed that spot; she has given to individuals religious elevation and spiritual comfort; she has given to the mass a moral character; and a visible improvement has set its seal to the value of a Gospel ministry; but the prevalence of the Romish church is marked by barrenness, and not by fertilityby noxious weeds, and not by the growth of plants good for the use of man. Wherever she has been, there is an awful, a depressing blast. From this view of things, and still more if we look up higher, we shall see every reason to feel the deepest interest in all that concerns the church, and it will not appear extraordinary that many persons should feel alive to whatever affects her existence or prosperity.

These times, which appear big with the fate of nations, seem not less pregnant with important changes to the church. That changes in many respects might be improvement, no man can possibly deny. That changes devised and brought about by ungodly, vicious, and as to the church, ignorant men, may be

injurious, none could doubt. It is reasonable, then, that there should be much anxiety on the minds of those who value a well regulated and effective church-who consider its operating power an instrument of much good, and its absence or inefficiency a sure source of much evil. It is a time, then, for the friends of the church to be instant in prayer to the Lord, for his protection and his blessing; and it is a time for them in dependance upon Divine aid, to exert themselves in every way for her good. There is one subject which has pressed itself much upon my mind in connection with the correction and improvement of the church, and as a means likely to increase her piety and add to her efficiency; and that is, the revival of Convocations, or Synods, in which the church shall again appear in a collective united form. I consider the revival of such a church council, or synod, or convocation, or by whatever name it might be called, necessary as a means to give life, energy, unity to the church, even if no change was meditated in her constitution and form. It is, I conceive, necessary for the effective working of the machine as it is, but it is still more absolutely essential for the legal and constitutional bringing about of any change in the church. Changes, either for the better or worse, may be effected by the arbitrary power of acts of Parliament; but according to the unvarying precedent of former times, no change in doctrine or discipline can be effected constitutionally in the church, unless discussed, approved, and adopted by that church, assembled in a synod, or convocation. I consider this a very important subject, involving the well-being and fundamental principles of the church, and I could indeed wish much to see the attention of those men drawn to it, who would be capable of giving it the weight it deserves.

In order to set the matter in its just light, I would endeavour to show, that until the beginning of the last century, it has always been the practice of the churches in England and Ireland, to assemble in synods and convocations, and that no change has ever been made in the doctrine or discipline, without the church having deliberately agreed upon these changes in their convocation or synod.

In considering the history of church assemblies in these countries, it is necessary to observe, that they have been by all writers on the subject divided into two classes-those connected with the Parliament, and those unconnected with it. The one may be called Parliament convocations, the other provincial synods. Between them there was originally this important distinction:-the Parliament convocation was always called together by the king's writ, as the Parliament itself; the provincial synod was assembled originally by the archbishop of the province.-(Vide "Wake's State of the Church," p. 26.) The former was originally designed for civil purposes; the latter was principally held for the spiritual needs and affairs of the church. We have accounts of these assemblies of the church in the

oldest times of British History. We are informed of them in the Saxon times, and in the Norman times. We find the archbishops assembling them in their provinces, and upon ecclesiastical affairs, by their own authority, until the 25th of Henry VIII., when after a submission on the part of the clergy, an act was passed which forbid the assembling any convocation or synod except by summons from the king, and forbid the convocation or synod, when assembled, from treating of any canon or law except by license from the king. Whatever opinion we may form of this act-whether we consider it an usurpation on the part of the king of unconstitutional power over the church, or only a re-assumption of that original right which all kings possessed over their ecclesiastical as well as their lay subjects, that right by which the emperors called the first general councilsin whatever way, I say, this act is considered, it was intended to regulate, and not to put an end to convocations and synods. From the time of the passing of that act, assemblies of the church were continually called, and deliberated, and agreed upon every change which took place in the discipline and doctrine of

the church.

In the convocation in 1534, the question was debated, "Whe ther the Bishop of Rome had any jurisdiction given him by God in the Holy Scriptures in this realm of England, any more than any other foreign bishop?" In the further progress of the Reformation, we find that the convocation appointed a committee in the year 1537, to compose a book which was called "The Godly and Pious Institutions of a Christian Man." Also, in the year 1540, a committee of bishops and divines was appointed by King Henry VIII., at the petition of the convocation, to revise the rituals and offices of the church. And what was done by this committee for reforming the offices, was reconsidered by the convocation itself two or three years afterwards, i. e. in Feb.

1542-3.

In the year 1547, 1st of King Edward VI., December 2d., the convocation declared their opinion, "nullo reclamante," that the Communion ought to be administered to all persons under both kinds. Whereupon an act of Parliament was made, ordering the Communion to be so administered; and then a committee of bishops, and other learned divines, was appointed to compose an uniform order of Communion, according to the rules of Scripture, and the use of the Primitive church. Thus was our excellent liturgy compiled by martyrs and confessors, together with divers other learned bishops and divines, and being revised and approved by the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of both the provinces of Canterbury and York, was then confirmed by the king and parliament.-Mant's Introduction to the Common Prayer.

I need not spend time in proving the well known fact of the part the convocation had in every subsequent alteration and improvement, in drawing up the articles and canons of the church.

Suffice it to say, that when at the beginning of the reign of Charles II., the whole liturgy was brought to the state in which it now stands, it was unanimously subscribed by both houses of convocation of both provinces, on Friday, December 20, 1661; and being brought to the House of Lords the March following, both Houses very readily passed an act for its establishment, and the Earl of Clarendon, then Chancellor of England, was ordered to return the thanks of the lords to the bishops and clergy of both provinces, for the great care and industry shown in the revise of it.

I shall not dwell longer upon this part of my subject, than to remark, that there is introduced into the preamble of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., an acknowledgment of the previous consent of the convocation.

"Whereas the king's majesty granted his commission under the great seal of England, to several bishops and other divines, to revise the Book of Common Prayer, &c.; and afterwards the convocations of both the provinces of Canterbury and York being by his majesty called and assembled, (and now sitting,) his majesty hath been pleased to authorize and require the president of the said convocation, and others the bishops and clergy of the same, to revise the said Book of Common Prayer, &c.; and that after mature deliberation, they should make such additions and alterations in the said books respectively, as to them should seem meet and convenient; and should exhibit and present the same to his majesty in writing, for his further allowance or confirmation; since which time, upon full and mature deliberation, they the said presidents, bishops, and clergy of both provinces, have accordingly reviewed the said books, and have made some alterations, &c., and have exhibited and presented the same unto his majesty in writing, in one book entitled The Book of Common Prayer.'

If we had no other authority, this one act of Parliament would suffice to establish the practice and the right of the church to deliberate and give her decision before any change shall be made in any thing affecting her doctrine or her discipline. And if at this or any other future time, any such change shall be made in the church, without the previous sanction of the convocation, it will be an unconstitutional variance from the uniform practice of former times, and an arbitrary violation of the acknowledged rights of the church. It will be an arbitrary, tyrannical assumption of power, by a set of persons who are equally devoid of authority to justify them, as they are without moral or spiritual qualifications to suit them to the task.

There is not, perhaps, extant, an accurate history of the proceedings of the church in Ireland, in the way of synods or councils, so that it would be possible to state in detail the circumstances under which they were held; but there is sufficient evidence in history to prove, that the ancient Irish church was always in the habit of assembling in synods for all purposes of

ecclesiastical government. When it became connected with the Church of Rome, still were synods and councils held, and all matters of importance were then and there transacted. After the Reformed Church was established in the country, there is ample evidence of the frequent meetings of the convocation, wherein was settled most important points connected with the doctrine and discipline of the church. For example, I may instance the convocation in A. D. 1615, in which the Irish articles were agreed upon. Another convocation, about 1635, in which, without repealing the Irish articles, the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were received. I may adduce another remarkable convocation, in which the independence of the Irish church was studiously maintained. Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, proposed that the canons of the Church of England, should be received as the canons of the Church of Ireland; but on the motion of Primate Usher, it was concluded, that the Church of Ireland should not be tied to that book, but that such canons should be selected out of the same, and such others added thereunto, as the present convocation should judge fit, for the government of the Church. Which was accordingly performed; as any man may see that will take the pains to compare the two books of the English and Irish canons together.

There is full ground then for asserting, that in the Irish, as well as the English Church, every thing of importance relating to doctrine and discipline, was discussed and settled in synods or convocations.

Even in ordinary times, when there is no peculiar crisis of the church, it would be her just right to be allowed to assemble in' convocation; but in these times of change and meditated reform, it is a right which she has peculiar reason to claim. The act of 25th Henry VIII., which took from the archbishop the right of summoning a synod or convocation, ex mero motu,” altered the convening power, and placed it in the crown, but by no means destroyed the right of the church to meet. It no more follows, that because a convocation cannot assemble under existing laws without the summons of the king, that therefore the right of assembling is extinguished, than it follows, that because a parliament cannot assemble but by the king's writ, that therefore the people have no right to be represented in parliament. In the last case, it only follows that a duty lies upon the king to summon a parliament; so in the former case, a duty lies upon the king, when circumstances require it, to call together a convocation or synod. Upon this subject I would quote the opinion of one who must be considered very unexceptionable authority on the subject, both from his high station and learning, his intimate acquaintance with the subject, and from his having taken the side of the king's prerogative in summon, ing, or not summoning a convocation at any time that he thought fit, in opposition to Atterbury, afterwards Bishop of Rochester, who maintained that the king was obliged to summon the con