They are issued from the American press in a handsome octavo, which, we regret to say, is disfigured by an execrable lithograph of General Lafayette, totally dissimilar to any portraits, old or young, which have ever previously fallen under our notice, and with neither features or expression like those of "the Nation's Guest" as we remember to have seen him in 1825. We defer any review of this work until the appearance of another of the volumes. We trust then to bestow that extended attention upon it which the high importance of the events it commemorates demands. At present, we have space only for a few words descriptive of its design, which, however, will sufficiently recommend it to the American people.

It is edited, and the copyright entered in this country, by President Duer of Columbia College. The task could not have been entrusted to more efficient hands. In his Advertisement, he states that "it was the desire of the late General Lafayette that this edition of his Memoirs and Correspondence should be considered as a legacy to the American people." He indicates, also, why the present edition is more valuable to us than that published in Paris or London; for in this are inserted some letters, containing details of the American Revolution, which will not appear in the others. They were written originally in English by Lafayette, and are given exactly as they came from his pen. These letters are placed in an Appendix at the close of the volume, and are thus distinguished from those in the regular correspondence, most of which is translated from the French.

George Washington Lafayette, the son, whom our readers will recollect as having accompanied his father on his last triumphal tour through his adopted country, introduces the work with these words:"Respectfully to collect and scrupulously to arrange the manuscripts of which an irreparable misfortune has rendered them depositories, have been for the family of General Lafayette the accomplishment of a sacred duty. To publish those manuscripts without any commentary, and place them, unaltered, in the hands of the friends of Liberty, is a pious and solemn homage which his children now offer with confidence to his memory." The present_volume is accompanied by an account of Lafayette's First Voyage and First Campaign in America, in Memoirs written by himself until the year 1780-Fragments, extracted from various manuscripts, describing his Departure for America, First Interview with General Washington, and similarly interesting eventsand his Correspondence.

ART. XII.-CHURCH AFFAIRS.

1.—VIEW OF THE DIOCESES.

In the present number we carry into effect a part of the original design in the establishment of this journal, by placing before our readers a brief and comprehensive view of the condition of the Church in the several dioceses. Our object is not so much to present particular details, as it is to gather for ourselves, from an examination of all the facts which may reach us, a general result, and to place that upon our pages.

1

Where questions of interest to the whole Church, involving the correct interpretation of principles of constitutional or canon law, arise in any diocese, we shall freely discuss them, endeavouring to aid in fixing principles, without regard to their application to persons. The action of a diocese on any subject important either to itself alone or to the whole Church, will be considered with reference to its policy and bearing upon the common interests of our communion.

MAINE.

We are not aware of any matters of particular interest in this diocese at present.

NEW-HAMPSHIRE.

This diocese contains six clergymen, over as many parishes. Its last convention was held in June of the present year, when important changes were made in the "Episcopal Missionary Society," and in the "Protestant Episcopal Sunday School Union" of the diocese.

As to the first, it was determined "that the Convention is the most proper Missionary Society or board," and, as such, "ought to take the special supervision and control of the concerns" of the Missionary Society.

A board of five members is appointed by the Convention an executive committee to attend to the subject of missions.

The Convention was also declared to be the proper body for the encouragement and support of Sunday Schools within the diocese. A committee of three was appointed to watch over the interests of the schools; and the system of instruction recommended by the General Union, from time to time, is that which is to be pursued.

VERMONT.

Under its very active and industrious bishop, this diocese is, we believe, in a condition as good as it has ever heretofore enjoyed. The great cause of education is one in which its diocesan is warmly engaged, and when time shall have further carried him on in his progress, we shall call attention to his plans and some of his views.

For the present, it is enough to say that we rejoice to find any of our bishops alive to the great importance of educating as Episcopalians the young men of our communion.

Another subject, however, of much general interest, must furnish at this time the theme of our remarks on this diocese, though the action of the Convention upon it took place more than a year ago. We allude to the new constitution and canons adopted in May 1836. The preamble to the constitution sets forth the necessity of fully exhibiting "those important constitutional principles which distinguish the Protestant Episcopal Church;" it is therefore with some regret we find ourselves constrained to notice what we deem at variance with some of our principles.

The third article on the subject of the ministry, recognizing the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, proceeds to state that priests or presbyters are bound to counsel and advise the Bishop; and that he "does not act in any important matter without consulting with a portion of them, elected for that purpose by the rest, and called the Standing Committee or Council of Advice." The doctrine here advanced is, that Standing Committees, which are peculiar to our Church, had their origin in nothing more than an intention to furnish, as a substitute for the presbyters, who in ancient times were invited by the Bishop to advise him, a smaller body of the same order, selected for that purpose only. This, we know, was an opinion expressed by the present Bishop of Vermont before he attained to the mitre, Now, we have no hesitation in saying that Standing Committees originated in no such intention, and that to consider them as a mere "council of advice," is to leave the Bishop in all cases perfectly free to follow their counsel or not as he pleases; in other words, is to make them a mere cypher in our ecclesiastical economy.

It is certainly true, that in early times bishops were in the habit of consulting their presbyters, but it does not thence follow that the present Standing Committees furnish a substitute for those presby

ters.

In some of the dioceses, nay, in most of them, a part of the Standing Committee have always been laymen; and this fact seems scarcely to be consistent with a theory which makes the body a substitute for presbyters. But the history of our legislation on the subject of Standing Committees is conclusive on the point.

The first mention made in the legislation of the Church of a body to be called the Standing Committee, is incidental, and occurs in Canon VI, of July 1789. It has reference to the subject of testimonials to be produced by candidates for orders; and the necessity of subjecting candidates to the ordeal of some certain body of men to pass upon their competency, was the origin of Standing Committees. "Every candidate for holy orders shall be recommended to the Bishop by a Standing Committee of the Convention of the State where he resides," &c. This canon made another necessary, for in some of the States there was no Standing Committee. Where they

existed, they had been established by the dioceses for convenience, and until now were never recognized by the General Convention. The VII Canon of July, 1789, accordingly directed the appointment of such Committees in all the dioceses; but not one word is said about making them councils of advice. In 1808, a revision was made of the whole body of our Church law, and the fourth and twenty-fourth Canons of that year relate to our subject..

By the fourth it is directed that a Standing Committee shall be appointed in every diocese: and by the twenty-fourth, the organization, duties, &c. of the Committee are pointed out; and here, for the first time, too, are they made a council of advice. "In every diocese or state where there is a Bishop, the Standing Committee shall be a council of advice to the Bishop. They shall be summoned on the requisition of the Bishop whenever he shall wish for their advice; and they may meet of their own accord, and agreeably to their own rules, when they may be disposed to advise the Bishop." Before this time no legislation of the Church views them in any other light than that of the proper body to grant testimonials. It will hence be seen, that making the Committee an advisory board, was entirely an after-thought, and never suggested itself at all until nearly twenty years after Standing Committees were formally introduced by law into the Church.

That they are a council of advice, is true; but that they were not, as this article intimates, elected to be nothing else, is equally true; and the danger consists in considering them merely as advisers. They are much more than this; they are an independent body, in some instances co-ordinate with the Bishop, and able, by with. holding their consent, to prevent his action. The terms, "Standing Committee" and "Council of Advice,” are not therefore to be used (as in this article they are) as being synonymous.

In the fifth article of the new constitution we find a settlement of the question on the Episcopal veto. "Every act of legislation requires the concurrence of the Bishop. The clergy and the laity may elect officers, and pass resolutions of advice or recommendation, without a diocesan; but they cannot, without episcopal concurrence, enact, alter, or abrogate any law or canon." To go fully, at present, into the discussion of this subject of the Bishop's veto, would far transcend our limits. We hesitate not, however, here to record our belief (and we hope on some future occasion to show that it is well founded), that, under our Church organization and constitution, no such right of veto exists, and that it was meant that none such should exist; that it is not useless only, but dangerous also; that all the possible good to be derived from it is secured by making the Bishops, as they now are, a co-ordinate branch, an upper house, in the general legislation of the Church; and that, to grant such a veto in the State Conventions, where the Bishop sits and votes as a member on every question, is to make him both a legislative and executive officer, and to turn the great principle (introduced after long

deliberation) of lay representation in our Church into something worse than a farce. Equally strong is our objection to the last ar. ticle, which allows of no change of the constitution without the Bishop's approval. We have settled, as a fixed principle, that the laity, with the presbyters, shall have a voice: allow the veto, and it is a mockery, for they may or may not have it as the Bishop pleases: even the poor privilege is denied them, after the exercise of the veto, of making the law by the vote of a very large majority; aye, even an unanimous vote is not sufficient.

We beg to express here, in the most distinct terms, our deep conviction of the importance of sustaining our Bishops in the full and free exercise of all just authority, and especially in all that belongs to their spiritual functions. Their spiritual office, with its appropri ate spiritual functions, is conferred by Divine commission; and we hold it in all dutiful filial reverence. At the same time it is to be remembered that there are many rights and functions held and exercised by Bishops, not necessarily included in a strict interpreta. tion of their Divine commission, but-conferred by the Church. Besides; it is a fixed and settled thing in the organization of our Church, that even in the exercise of their peculiar and appropriate spiritual functions, the Bishops are to act within certain limits and in certain prescribed modes. Hence a portion of our constitutional and canon law. The same principle is recognized in the English Church. It was in the Primitive Church. There is, and always has been, a distinction between the regular and canonical, and the irre gular and uncanonical exercise of the spiritual and divinely confer red authority of the bishops, as well as of presbyters and deacons. It is therefore no treason in us to question the expediency of giv ing to the Bishops a power not spiritual.

But we have still a further objection to this constitution. In the eighth article the Bishop is made the Judge in all ecclesiastical trials. Nothing but this was wanting to make him absolute; for now all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, is centred in him. He has but to issue his fiat-no man may withstand it. It would be difficult in this constitution to find the analogy, so much talked and boasted of, between our ecclesiastical system and the civil government of the United States.

Passing on from Constitution to Canons, we are sorry to say that we find objections still arising to this specimen of legislation, as an exposition of the fundamental principles of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

In Canon X. we read, "every parochial minister shall be faithful in the observance of the rules and customs of the Church, as the same are set forth by the Bishop." The rules of the Church are its laws, and these certainly may be said to be set forth by the Bishop, if a veto be allowed him on all laws; but it is surely novel to allow of his making customs in the Church. The Church is not a thing of yesterday; its customs have been fixed by the usage of Chris