'candidates for holy orders' are the words, with which the prayer of this petition is concluded. Now, my lords, I believe that since the Church has existed, no temporal authority, either before or since the reformation, has ever interfered with the bishops of this country, as to their mode of examination for holy orders. Since then I have already shewn, that consistently with the constitution of the established Church, your lordships could not interfere even with an examination for a curate's license, it follows à fortiori that the prayer of the petition cannot be granted, as it equally effects the examinations for holy orders. I can come therefore to no other conclusion, than that this petition ought not to be received, let the allegations of it be what they may." P. 5.

But the bishop does not leave the question here; he proceeds to put the issue of it upon the allegations alone, and his reasoning under this head is not less conclusive than the passage that has already been extracted. Having asserted and shewn that there is only one possible motive which he can have in the proposal of his questions, namely, to ascertain, from the answers to them, whether the religious opinions of the person examined accord with the doctrines of the established Church, and having proved that the petitioner could not be ignorant of this motive, his lordship proceeds to confute the allegations which he has enumerated.

"Such my lords, are the allegations on which the prayer of this petition is founded.

And if they contained one particle of truth, it would be the duty, not of your lordships, but of the convocation to interfere. It would be the duty of the convocation to compel a Bishop, who could be so regardless of his most solemn obligations, to return to the standard, which he had thus disgracefully forsaken. But, my lords, I have not forsaken the standard of the Established Church. My offence consists in my unwearied endeavours to prevent its being forsaken. Those endeavours have been successful: or your lordships would never have heard of this petition.

But, my lords, I must not merely deny the charges: I must confute them. And first, I will reply to the charge of requiring subscription," subscription" (as the pe titioner says)" to the entire document,"

which document, as he further says, contains a new standardoffaith. Now the document, as he calls it,consists of a string of questions; and subscription to questions would be so absurd, that no man in his sober senses could require it. The name of the person examined can be affixed only to his answers. If therefore the signing of his name to his own answers is a subscription to a new standard of faith, it is at the utmost only a subscription to his own standard of faith. But, my lords, the signature to those answers is required for a very different, a very obvious, and a very common purpose. It is required merely as an acknowledg ment on the part of the person examined, that the answers, which are sent to me, are really his answers. And this signature which neither is, nor can be, required for any other purpose, than merely to authenticate the answers, is represented by the petitioner, as subscription to a document setting forth a new standard of faith. Really my lords, I could not have supposed, that so gross a perversion of the truth could ever have found its way into a petition to the House of Lords.

I will now consider what proof the petitioner can bring, that my standard of doctrine really is a new, a private, and an arbitrary standard. He bestows indeed these titles, and very liberally bestows them, on my examination questions: but the calling of a thing either by this or by that name does not determine its real character, unless it be rightly so called. And my lords, I am really at a loss to comprehend, how a string of questions can be considered as a standard at all. They afford indeed a test of doctrine, inasmuch as the answers to them are tried, but tried by no other standard than the standard set forth by the authority of the church. It is such a perversion of terms to give the name of standard to mere questions, that the charge preferred by the petitioner, if it can be established at all can be established only by a consideration of the an

swers.

Even if the questions lead to the answers, nay, my lords, if it be true that the questions imply the answers, it will still be the answers, and not the questions, which must be made the subjects of trial. After all then the matter at issue comes simply to this. Do I try the answers to my questions by the old and established standard, the liturgy and articles: or do I try them by some new, some private, some arbitrary standard? My lords, if no credit is to be given to my own solemn declaration, that I acknowledge no other standard of faith, than the standard of the Established Church, a standard which I

acknowledge, because it accords with holy Scripture; and if that solemn declaration derives no support from the express references to the Liturgy and Articles, cotained in every chapter, under which those questions are arranged, it was incumbent on the petitioner to produce some example, in which the answers to my questions really had been tried by some new, some private, some arbitrary standard. If such examples crist, they are very easily found. My examination questions are not answered in a corner. I do not give them to be answered in my presence, and then pocket the paper, without giving the person examined an opportunity of making a transcript. No, my lords, the questions are always sent to the persons to be examined, who give the answers at their leisure. If, on the receipt of the answers, I find any, which are at variance with the doctrines of the church, I never reject without previous remonstrance. I shew in what manner the answer differs from the doctrine of the Liturgy and Articles; I have sometimes succeeded in recalling persons to the standard, which they had unadvisedly forsaken: and those only have been finally rejected who have persevered in answers, which were irreconcileable with the doctrines of the church, as expressed in its Liturgy and Articles, according to their literal and grammatical meaning. My conduct therefore towards the persons examined has always been so open and undisguised, that if the charge preferred by the petitioner were true, a proof of it might easily be given. No proof has been given, and under such circumstances the absence of proof shews the impossibility of proof. I will not retort on the petitioner and say, that by his endeavours to excite suspicion as to my standard of doctrine, he has only excited suspicion in regard to his own: but this, my lords, I will confidently say, that I have never in a single instance departed from the standard of the Established Church. And if I have never employed any other standard, than that which is set forth by the authority of the Church, the remaining charge, that I have set up a standard, which supersedes the Liturgy and Articles falls of itself to the ground.

My lords, I have now shewn, that the three principal allegations, the allegations on which the prayer of the petition depends, namely, that I employ a new standard of faith, that I require subscription to this new standard of faith, and that this new standard supersedes the Liturgy and Articles, are allegations utterly devoid of truth." P. 17.

His lordship then adverts to what the complainant had called a private interpretation of the articles, and observes that,

"If the petitioner, by his objections to private interpretation, would exclude examination in the Liturgy and Articles; if he means, that Bishops should be satisfied with subscription to the Liturgy and Articles, and never venture to ask any questions about the meaning of them, he argues in opposition to the right, which he had previously admitted. He forgets also, that the canons require both subscription and examination And, my lords if candi

dates for holy orders are not examined, and closely examined, as to their religious opinions. if amidst the prevailing irregularity of doctrine, subscription to the Liturgy and Articles is made the sole criterion, by which a Bishop shall judge of sound doctrine, a similar, though not the same effect, will be produced in this country, which has been already produced in some parts of Switzerland, where there are clergy, who subscribe to the creed of Calvin, and preach the doctrines of Socinus." P. 24.

The conclusion acquaints us with the effects that the questions have produced.

"As this prayer is concluded in so solemn a manner, as might induce your lordships to conclude, that by the granting of this prayer, the whole body of clergy in my diocese, as well as candidates for holy orders, would be relieved from a grievous burden, I will briefly state to your lordships the amount of the evil, (if it be an evil,) which has been hitherto produced by these questions. During the whole time that I have used these questions, the number of persons, who have been refused ordination in consequence of their answers to them, amounts to one. The number of curates, who have been refused a license in consequence of their answers to these questions, amounts to one also. The number of curates, who have been refused a license, because they refused to answer at -all, amounts to two; namely, the intended curate of Blatherwick, and a person who came into my diocese about the same time, for the purpose of becoming curate of Burton Latimer. But as the right of examination, which these two persons contested, is now acknowledged by the petitioner himself, the refusal to license them can no longer be considered as a grievance. There remains then one curate, and one

candidate for orders.

And this is the mighty grievance for which the house of

lords is to be set in motion.

"It is true that these questions may, in

one respect, have tended to the exclusion of

more. They may have prevented applications, as well for ordination, as for licenses; because wherever an irregularity of doctrine exists, these questions seldom

fail to detect it. But herein lies their utility; a utility, which is proved by the very clamour, that has been raised against them. For though they are disliked by the petitioner, and by others who think like himself, I can confidently assert, that they are approved by the great body of my clergy; approved, my lords, because they are a check on fanaticism, from which the Church, in this country, has more to apprehend, than from any danger, that now besets it.

"My lords, I will conclude by adverting to the two principal points, on which I have shewn, that the fate of this petition must rest. I have shewn in the first place, that the prayer of it could not be granted by your lordships, consistently with the constitution of the Established Church, whatever were the allegations on which it were founded. And I have shewn in the second place, that even if the issue of it be put on the allegations, the allegations, on which the prayer of the petition entirely depends, are entirely destitute of truth." P. 26.

The effect of this manly statement was such as might naturally be ex. pected; only three peers assented to the motion made by Lord King, for receiving Mr. Neville's petition, and even they did not venture to divide the house upon the question. The Bishop's right to examine has been unequivocally admitted: and the mode of examination has been left, as the Canons of the Church wisely ordain, to the discretion of each individual Prelate, It is not necessary that difference of opinion should cease to exist respecting the exercise of that discretion in 'particular cases-nor do we believe that a temperate and respectful expression of such differences can ever prove injurious to the Church or to the Beuch. But if every clergyman who may happen to dislike the decisions of his diocesan, were to pro. ceed, as Mr. Neville, and his curate

Mr. Green have proceeded, the very appearance of episcopal jurisdiction in the Church of England would be taken away, and the clergy would be governed by orators, newspaper editors, and rev'ewers. Let us be thankful that the recent decision of the House of Lords has at least de

layed the arrival of so grievous a calamity; and let us hope that it

will also tend to undeceive the mis

taken men who look forward to such an event as a blessing rather than a

curse.

That such are the sentiments of Mr. Neville we do not venture to affirm but that they ought to be his sentiments if he has any regard to consistency, is as certain, and as demonstrable as any fact of the kind can be. Bishop Marsh has referred in his speech to Mr. Neville's printed case; and we shall take the liberty of making some remarks upon its nature and contents. It contains, under the title of " Official Correspondence" the letters which passed between Mr. Green, (the curate nominated by Mr. Neville) and the Bishop, and also the letters between Mr. Neville and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Extracts from the Canons significantly italicised are prefixed to the whole. Notes explanatory, .controversial, and criminatory, are appended with no sparing hand; and the conclusion consists of a comment extending to ten or a dozen pages, in which Mr. Neville recapitulates and enforces the arguments of his curate, and contends that a Bishop has no right to examine a curate coming from another diocese, with the usual testimonials. This is Mr. Neville's Case. It was never published; it was never advertised; it was never sold-But it was carried about in the pockets of pious Members of Parliament, and distributed as exparte statements usually are.

These steps were probably adopted out of delicacy to the Bishop of Peterborough; but they also secured the following advantages-The ex

istence of such a book was only known to the writers on one side of the question; the others had no opportunity of being convinced by its reasoning, or even of sifting its various materials and separating the grain from the chaff. In our own case at least, we can safely affirm that the existence of such a document was never heard of until it was mentioned by the Bishop in the House of Lords; and the copy now on our table came from one of those pious pockets of which the cargoes are not often consigued to the Christian Remembrancer.

But to return to the contents of the pamphlet. On Mr. Green's epistles, we shall not dwell long, because we presume that they were written by the advice and direction of his friends; and their fate has convinced him, by this time, that neither he nor his friends are infallible. But his correspondence is deserving of very serious blame. He was the first to introduce the phrase, standard of doctrine, and when the Bishop quotes these words, and proceeds to argue upon his application; Mr. Green turns round, and says, that Bisop Marsh admits that his questions are intended as a standard. Nothing can be more unfair than the whole argument which is built upon this assumption. Again, Mr. Green in his first letter, very explicitly aud uneqivocally refuses to be examined. No inan who reads his epistle can doubt that this was his meaning: and he had been occupied nearly a fortnight in coming to the determination. In his second letter, however, he denies that he has formed or expressed such a resolution, and declares himself resolved to answer (p. 28) "as soon as the authority by which such examination is required shall be made clear to his apprehension." The Bishop, of course refers to the 48th canon, of which the words are so comprehensive, that no one need mistake their meaning, and the reply, in the same words as those al

ready cited, asserts that Mr. Green is, and ever has been most willing to be examined, as soon as the canon is clear to his apprehension. The words of this obscure law are, "No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any place without examination, &c. &c." It seems to us, that the Bishop might have assigned more reasons than one for refusing to license a curate with such a very limited apprehension.But on this subject we should wish to touch lightly, as the apprehension of Mr. Neville was as obtuse as that of Mr. Green; and the former as well as the latter could not manage to conceive that any person and any place were words that applied to a gentleman who came from Yorkshire, and went into Northamptonshire.

It was during this season of cano nical hallucination that Mr. Neville addressed two letters to the Primate, and his Grace replied in the following words. "There can be no doubt that the right to examine a clergyman seeking admission to a cure whether beneficial or stipendiary, belongs to the Bishop of the Diocese, in which such cure is located. This right is so obvious, that I trust you have satisfied yourself respecting it long before this time; so that no inconvenience may have arisen from my delay in answering your letters." The date is August 7th, 1820, and the date is important because it was six months after this, viz. in the beginning of 1821, that the official correspondence was printed, in which Mr. Neville reasserts his inability to comprehend the meaning of the 48th canon. For he tells us P. 45. that "the question properly under consideration is simply whe ther the 48th cannon authorises a Bishop to re-examine before he license a curate in full orders under the circumstances detailed in the preceding pages." And he endeavours to establish the negative of this cautiously worded question by arguments of which the invalidity

is now universally admitted, and which we may consequently save ourselves the trouble of exposing. But the conduct of Mr. Neville is of more importance than his reasoning, and we request the reader's at tention to a short statement on this subject.

Mr. Neville had appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury against the Bishop of Peterborough's interpretation of the 48th canon, and his Grace had replied that the said interpretation was undoubtedly and obviously correct. And here we must do Mr. Green the justice to say, that he appears to have taken no farther part in the transaction. If there was any grievance in the business, he, rather than Mr. Neville was the sufferer. But he did not petition the House of Lords, he did not print and distribute official correspondence. We take it for granted therefore that his apprehension was cleared by the Archbishop's reply; and that although he had been licensed in the diocese of York, he perceived that he was, nevertheless, a Curate or Minister of the Church. This discovery would convince him that he had no cause of complaint against the Bishop, and the conviction has been tacitly expressed by a prudent and respectful silence. Not so his Rector that should have been. Mr. Neville treats his Metropolitan with as little ceremony as his Ordi. nary, and sits down to write a case with the simple purpose of proving that a right which had been pronounced undoubted and obvious by the Archbishop of Canterbury, did not in fact exist. This case was ready for distribution when Parlia ment commenced its sittings, and was intended to convince the noble members of the House of Lords that the Archbishop and Bishop had misinterpreted the canon, and that Curates coming from another diocese could not legally be examined. Yet when Mr. Neville after considerable delay presents his petition to the house, he admits the very

point which he had denied with so much earnestness, and says that the right of examination "is not intended to be denied," and that he only objects" to the nature of Bishop Marsh's peculiar mode." Speech. P. 7.

With respect to the cause of this sudden attack, the uninitiated and unenlightened can only guess: but we venture to suggest the following solution of the riddle. The " Official Correspondence," having been printed, and dicussed in evangelicopolitical circles, it fell into the hands of some individual, who had a quicker apprehension than Mr. Green, and who consequently perceived that it would be impossible to upset the plain words of the canons, and the unvaried interpretation of the ecclesiastical lawyers, by the refinements introduced by Mr. Neville. That gentleman, therefore, was persuaded to admit the right of examination; and confine himself to complaining of the nature of the Bishop of Peterborough's mode. But he forgot that his "Correspondence," was already in circulation; and that the zeal of pious friends might induce them to persevere in the distribution of it. This event, as we should have expected, did actually occur, and Mr. Neville the pamphleteer, and Mr. Neville, the petitioner, appeared at the bar of the House of Lords, in direct opposition to each other. To compose the fend was the task allotted to Lord King; and his lordship also undertook the office of marshalling the combined troops and leading them to the charge. The gallantry which he displayed cannot be too much commended. But what are we to say of his fitness for his high post, or of the discretion of the persons by whom he was selected and appointed to it, when we hear that he confounded the Questions proposed to Curates with the ordinary Visitation Questions exhibited toChurchwardens, and pronounced a solemn lecture upon the impropriety