and think it lawful to rebel again and destroy as many families more, to shake off that yoak."

Again, Mr. Jenkins in his Conscientious Questions concerning Submission to the then Present Power, 1651, asks, whether" the stupendious providences of God, manifested in the destruction of the late king and his adherents in so many pitcht battles, and in the nation's universal forsaking of Charles Stuart, God hath not as plainly removed the government from Charles Stuart, and bestowed it on others, as ever he removed and bestowed any government, by any providence, in any age? And whether a refusal to yield obedience and subjection to this present government, be not a refusal to acquiesce in the wise and righ teous providence of God, and a dat breach of the fifth Commandment?" (See his Petition.) And now I cannot but wonder why Mr. Baxter should move this question, Who that juncto of presbyters was? &c. unless he took as much pleasure and glory, as others do shame and sorrow in the repetition. It is a sad observation which some have made, That not one of the regicides manifested his repentance for that impious act, for which they were executed The Lord give all guilty persons more grace.

:

Mr. Bagshaw says, that "Mr. Baxter was guilty of stirring up and fomenting the war as as any one whatsoever." p. 1. And my Lord of Worcester says, that "he had done what he could to make this king odious to his people." p. 2. Of his answer, and that "he sowed the seeds of schisme and sedition, and blew the trumpet of rebellion among them at Kidderminster. p. 4. And adds, I myself have heard him at a conference in the Savoy, maintaining such a position, as was destructive to the legislative power, both in God and mau, and produced the assertion under his hand; and when Mr. Baxter reported, that

the bishop had defamed him, to prevent that report, the bishop collected some of his political theses, or maxims of government, the repetition of a few whereof will be too many. He tells us, "the war was begun in their streets, before the king and parliament had any armies." p.457 of H. Commonwealth. He confesseth that " he was one that blew the coales of our unhappy divisions;" and that, "if he had been for the king, he had incur. red the danger of condemnation.” H. Commonwealth. p. 485.

And

should I do otherwise, I should be guilty of treason, or disloyalty against the sovereign power of the land." He holds that the soveraignty is divided between king and parliament, and that "the king invading the other part, they may lawfully defend their own by war, and the subject lawfully assist them; yea though the power of the militia be expressly given to the king; the law supposing that the militia is given to the king against enemies, not against the commonwealth:" Thes. 358. he saith, (its true) that "now that the parliament hath declared, where the soveraign power is, he should acknowledge it, and submit to it," where he supposeth that the king oweth his soveraignty to the parliament; and if they should again challenge it to themselves, he would rather obey them than the king. Bishop of Worcester's Letter, p. 8, 9. And this appears clearly by what followeth, p. 486. that " 'having often searched into his heart, whether he did lawfully engage in the war or not, and lawfully incourage so many thousands to it (the issue was he could not see that he was mistaken in the main cause, dares he repent of it, nor forbear doing the same if it were to do again in the same state of things, (though the power of the militia be given to the king.) He tells us, indeed, (says the bishop) that "if he could be convinced that he had

nor

sinned in this matter, that he would as gladly make a publick recantation, as he would eat or drink;" which, seeing that he hath not yet done, it is evident he is still of the same mind, and consequently would upon the same occasion do the same things, viz. fight and encourage as many thousands as he could to fight against the king, for anything that calls itself, or which he is pleased to call a full and free parliament: As likewise that he would own and submit to any usurper of the soveraignty, as set up by God, although he came to it by the murder of his master, and by trampling upon the parliament. Lastly, that he would hinder as much as possibly he could, the restoring of the rightful heir to the crown: And now whether a man of this judgment, and of these affections, ought to be permitted to preach or no, let any man but himself judge. And may we not reasonably think, that those men did approve of that hellish fact, who did post factum, tell the world of his tyranny, and mal-administration of government, and inclination to Popery and applauded the grand regicide, as one that did piously, prudently, and faithfully to his immortal honor exercise the govern

ment.

I conclude this with the words

of a worthy person, who printed a View of the Life and Reign of King Charles the First, even when the faction was in power, p. 94. The Presbyterians carried on the tragedy from the beginning to the end; from the bringing in the Scotts to the begining of the war; from thence till they brought him prisoner to Holmby House, and then quarrelled with the Independents for taking the work out of their hands, and robbing them of the long expected fruit of their plots and practices. The Independents confessed they had put Charles Stuart to death, but that the king had been murthered long before by the Presbyterians, who had deprived him of his crown, sword, and scepter; of his sword, by wresting from him the militia; of his scepter, divesting him of his power of calling parliaments; they deprived him of his natural liberty, as a man of the society of his wife and children, and attendance of servants, and of all those comforts which might make his life valuable; so that there was nothing left for the Independents to do, but to put an end to those calamities, into which this miserable man had been so accursedly plunged by the Presbyterians. And so much for the juncto of presbyters that dethron'd the king."

ton. 1821.

Official Correspondence between the Lord Bishop of Peterborough and the Rev. T. Green; and also between His Grace the Archbishop

of Canterbury, the Rev. W. Neville, &c. &c. Printed for the Rector of Blatherwick. 1821. WHEN the remarks we have al ready published on the Bishop of Peterborough's Questions were drawn up, it was not imagined that we should be called upon to return to the subject. And nothing has hitherto appeared in the journals or pamphlets of his lordship's adver saries, which could have required

us to change our opinion. They have persevered in their career of gross unfairness, and illiberality, and have pressed the Remembrancer into their service with an alacrity and candour that cannot fail to be duly appretiated. The motive, therefore, which induces us to revert to this controversy, is not a sense of the necessity of reinforcing our arguments upon the legal or theological parts of the question, but a desire of setting our readers right upon a point, on which we were ourselves in error, and on which we may have contributed to mislead them likewise. Having spoken our opinions freely respecting the inexpediency of his lordship's questions, we are bound in common justice to confess to him and to the public, that one of the main arguments upon which those opinions rested was the result of misapprehension, and is manifestly invalid. We are bound also by the same ties to let the bishop speak for himself upon a subject, which has been so incorrectly and inadequately reported in the newspapers, which has been intentionally perplexed by his various opponents, and on which, it has not proved impossible to make unintentional mistakes. On this account we shall extract the leading passages in his lordship's speech, and they will naturally lead to some remarks upon the "official correspondence" of Mr. Neville, and upon that opposition to his diocesan, of which Mr. Neville must be considered as the head.

In our number for February last, p. 119, we referred to the case in which the Bishop of Peterborough's questions were proposed to candidates for orders, and said, "If these questions are intended to embrace the whole examination, they are objectionable not from their extent, but from their deficiency." And although this sentence commenced with a qualifying if, we proceeded to argue upon the supposition which it expressed, in a manner which plainly shewed our belief in its ac

curacy. That belief did not rest upon the authority of his lordship's adversaries; though they insinuated, if they did not assert, that the fact was such as we assumed it to be. But we were induced to adopt the error by the terms of a note in the Bishop of Peterborough's primary charge. (Charge p. 24. Christian Remembrancer p. 41.) We can now readily perceive, that this note was only intended to apply to the subject under consideration in the text; and that consequently the words, "The examination as well for a curate's license as for holy orders, I generally make by proposing certain questions relating to the principal doctrines of the Church," had no reference whatsoever to the ordinary inquiries into the qualifications of a candidate for orders. We heartily thank his lordship for his very satisfactory explanation upon the subject; and we trust, that he will accept our insertion of it here, as the best apology and amends for a mistake at which certainly he had reason to be surprised. His remarks are introduced in the shape of a note to his speech in the House of Lords, and are drawn up in the following words.

"Very incorrect statements have been made on this subject, even where it might not have been expected, that the Bishop of Peterborough would have met with unfair treatment. On the mere supposition, that the answering of those questions forms the whole examination of candidates for holy

orders, the Bishop of Peterborough has been represented as deficient and superficial in his mode of examination, and of directing the chief attention of young men to polemical divinity. The translator of Michaelis, and the author of Theological Lectures embracing the whole body of

divinity, of which the lectures on the criti

cism, the interpretation and the authenticity of the Bible have been already published, did not anticipate the charge of attempting to narrow the views of young divines, or to circumscribe theological learning within the limits of controversial divinity. The examination questions are proposed in the first instance, because if it shall appear from the answers to them, that the doctrines, maintained by the canditate, are contrary to the doctrines of the

Liar mode." Now, my lords, my mode of examination is a very common mode; an examination by question and answer. I propose certain questions, as well to curates, as to candidates for holy orders, that from the answers to those questions, I may learn the religions opinions of the former before I licence them; and the reli gious opinions of the latter, before I ordain them. And, my lords, it is very necessary that a bishop should obtain this knowledge. But then the questions-the questions, which 1 employ for this purpose, whether they are too searching for those who dislike them, or whatever else may be the cause, are questions, which, according to the petitioner, ought not to be endured. He prays your lordships to take them into your 66 grave consideration," and to afford such relief to those who are affected by them, as to your lordships' wisdom may seen good.

"The case therefore now submitted to your lordships is a case of pure theology. For the questions, which the petitioner submits to your grave consideration, relate entirely to the doctrines contained in the Liturgy and Articles. Now, my lords, an inquiry into subjects of this discription, is an inquiry, which I believe your lordships' house has never instituted on any former occasion. The Liturgy and Articles derive indeed their authority, as standards of faith, from acts of parliament, which require subscription to them. But if it were deemed expedient to revise the Liturgy and Articles, the revision would be referred either to the convocation, or to commissioners specially appointed by the crown. For an inquiry into the truth or falsehood of religious doctrines is not the proper business of either house of parliament: though it would be presumptuons to say, what they shall, or shall not do.

"Let us suppose then, that the said theological inquiry were instituted in your lordships' house, and let us further suppose, that the inquiry ended in this result, that it would be very desirable to make an alteration in regard to the said questions, I apprehend, my lords, even in this case, that your lordships' house could not, consistently with the constitution of the established Church, interfere for the purpose of correcting them,; and if not for the purpose of correcting them, much less for the entire removal of them. My lords, I will state the grounds of this opinion.

"The 48th canon, which requires an examination of curates before they are licensed, has prescribed no mode of examination whatever. It has left, there

REMEMBRANCER, No. 32.

fore, the mode of examination to the discussion of the bishop: and, my lords, it has wisely done so. For in every diocese, the bishop is most likely to be acquainted with the peculiar wants of his diocese ; most likely to understand, and best able to judge of irregularities either in doctrine or in discipline, to which his diocese may be exposed; best able, therefore, to determine what kind of examinations will most effectually check them. The exa mination required for a curate's licence, is required for the purpose of ascertaining, whether his doctrine is "sound doctrine;" the expression used in a curate's license. Now the mode of examination, which is best adapted to such a purpose, is unquestion ably that which is best calculated to detect deviations from sound doctrine. And this is the object of my examination questions. These questions, my lords, are well adapted to the present wants of my diocese: they operate as a check on some partially prevailing irregularities; and in the use of these questions I exercise, I believe very usefully exercise, the discretion entrusted to me by the 48th canon.

"But let us suppose for the sake of argnment, that these questions are objectionable. My lords, I make this supposition merely for the sake of argument. For the very same questions, which I now use, I have used almost ever since I have been a bishop; and though they have been wellconsidered by very sound divines, I have never heard any objection to them, till a clamour was excited against them about ten months ago, by a few persons in the diocese of Peterborough. But even on the supposition, that they are objectionable, (which however I confidently deny,) I again ask your lordships, whether it would be consistent with the constitution of the established Church to grant the prayer of this petition. The canons are laws for the bishops and clergy, which having passed the two houses of convocation, were ratified by the royal assent. If therefore the 48th canou shall be so altered, as to remove the discretionary power which it now leaves to the bishops, the alteration must be made by the same authority, which made the cauon itself. And surely, my lords, as long as that canon remains in force, you will not endeavour to deprive a bishop of that discretionary power, which he exercises by virtue of that canon,

"But, my lords, the prayer of this petition is not confined to examinations for a curate's license. It goes much further. The petitioner prays also the interference of your lordships in the examination of candidates for holy orders. The words 3 Q