Sancroft was raised to this perilous dignity at an hour of peculiar difficulty; when the reigning Monarch was deeply, and as it has since appeared, justly suspected of attachment to the superstitions of the Romish communion; and the presumptive heir to the crown was known to be a bigoted member of that corrupt Church. It has been incontrovertibly proved, that Charles II. was at this time, not only himself in secret a member of the Romish Church, but that he was actually engaged in a plan to establish that religion in his kingdom. It is true, that the whole of the immediate and pressing danger was not then fully known; and that the fears of the nation were more excited by the open apostacy of James, than by the more concealed, and perhaps less sincere predilections of his royal brother. Charles had probably little serious intention of carrying the nefarious design into effect, for which he consented to become the pensioned hireling of a foreign despot. His primary, perhaps his only object was the acquisition of those sums which were necessary for the support of his guilty pleasures, and to maintain the herd of flatterers and profligates by whom he was surrounded. But the Duke of York was in earnest in the cause he had undertaken; and he was sure of the connivance and secret countenance, if not of the open and active assistance of the King. Few situations could be less enviable than that of the primate; who had to maintain his ground, and support the cause of the Church, against the example of a licentious court on the one hand, which threatened to sweep away the very semblance of religion; and the indefatigable hostility of the popish emissaries on the other, who were striving to build up their own bloody and intolerant superstition on its ruins. One of the first undertakings in which Archbishop Sancroft engaged after his elevation, shewed, that discouraging as were the prospects around him, he was not inclined to be an inactive observer of the measures of the court; though, perhaps, it exhibited his Christian zeal in a more conspicuous light than his knowledge of human nature. His anx ious desire to avert the evils, both civil and religious, likely to be entailed on the nation by the Duke's devoted attachment to the. Romish faith, induced him to make an attempt at his conversion. And having gained the King's permission, who suggested, that the aged Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Morley, would be a proper person to be associated with him on the occasion, he solicited and obtained from the Duke the favour of an audience for the purpose. Dr. D'Oyly now proceeds to relate several instances of the zealous atten tion to the various duties of his high station, which the Archbishop seems uniformly to have displayed. He was anxiously desirous to prevent the intrusion of improper persons into holy orders; and to provide, as far as the circumstances of the Church permitted it, that all who officiated in her sacred ministry should be possessed of revenues sufficient, at least, for their decent maintenance. With these views, he issued judicious directions to his Suffragans, respecting testimonials to be granted to candidates for holy orders; and, in a letter addressed to the Bishop of London in 1680, to be by him communicated to the other Bishops, he earnestly recommended an immediate and effectual compliance with the act of the 29th Charles II. c. 8, by which it was enacted, that "Under all renewals of leases of rectories or impropriate tithes, where an augmented sum should be assigned for the maintenance of the minister, such augmentation should be perpetual.” The measure which he thus pressed on others, he carefully pursued himself; and his biographer has recorded six instances, in which benefices in the gift of the See of Canterbury were augmented by the liberality of the Archbishop. Nor was he wanting in vigour and firmness, when it became necessary to enforce the discipline of the Church. A remarkable example of this is mentioned by the author, in the suspension of Dr. Thomas Wood, Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, from his Episcopal functions, on account of his neglect of his diocess, and other misdemeanors. "About the end of the year 1684, a communication was made to the Archbishop from Dr. Covel, then resident at the Hague, as chaplain to the Princess of Orange, at the suggestion and instigation of some persons there, recommending an attempt at the formation of a public league for the defence of the Protestant cause. Nothing more is known respecting the particulars of the plan, or the characters and motives of the persons who were forward in moving it, than is unfolded in the letter of the Archbishop to Dr. Covel, and Dr. Covel's reply. The Archbishop's letter exhibits a striking proof of that cautious wisdom, and sagacious insight into human characters, for which he was so singularly distinguished; and Dr. Covel's reply clearly shows, that the view which the Archbishop took of the motives which led to the communication was perfectly just." The Archbishop's letter will be read with considerable interest. It shows, that he had not been an inattentive observer of the characters of those, with whom his elevated station had obliged him, now for six years, in a certain degree to associate; and it proves that he was well aware of the utter hopelessness of any such project, under existing circumstances, as he was urged to recommend. The following anecdote, which he relates of himself in this letter, may be amusing to our readers; and it affords an instance, that the Archbishop was by no means deficient in that readiness and self-command which it is so requisite for persons in high stations to possess. "And now, upon this occasion, let me tell you an adventure which befel me some years since. There came to dine with me a foreign ambassador from one of the northern crowns, who, after dinner, threw this blunt and abrupt question at me; 'Why do you not persuade the King to put himself at the head of the Protestant league against France?' I answered him, as was meet, with questions: and why do not you, in order hereto, persuade your King, from whom it should begin, forthwith to adjust all differences with his neighbouring kings? They are brethren of the same confession, worship, and discipline; nearest neighbours, yet most deadly, implacable enemies, that omit no occasion on either side of ruining and destroying one another. Since, therefore, you have put me on the why not; why do not they appoint the best and wisest men of both kingdoms, a committee de finibus requirendis, in the first place; and, in the next, to arbitrate all things in question between them; and, in fine, to establish a firm, holy, and inviolable league, offensive and defensive, betwixt them and their kingdoms for ever? And, this being done, why should they not put over to the other side, and persuade into this blessed harmony, which one would think should not be difficult, those mighty princes on the opposite shore, with the rest all over Germany? And when you see such a body of a league prepared, it will be more seasonable to inquire, and more easy to find, who shall be the head. The ambassador answered not my question, nor was I any further troubled with his." The prospects of the friends of the Church of England, at the commencement of the new reign, were gloomy and discouraging. When then the king, contrary to all expectation, in his first speech to the Privy Council, expressed in strong and unequivocal terms his gracious intentions of favouring and supporting the established religion, the heads of the Church hastened to return their humble thanks for his Majesty's goodness; feeling it doubtless to be their interest, as well as their duty, to place the royal promises publicly upon record, and thus, as far as was in their power, ensure their fulfilment. But, whatever may have been the satisfaction excited by the unlooked for declarations of James, in favour of the Church, it was soon removed by his actions. The tendency of these could not be mistaken; and when he was seen surrounded by Popish counsellors, and pursuing measures which, while they raised the hopes, and awakened the arrogance of the Roman Catholic priesthood, foreboded approaching and speedy ruin to the Protestant establishment, the eyes of all reflecting men were opened; and the clergy, as it became them, were the first to see, and seeing, boldly to repel the danger. The eager ness with which the Papists endeavour ed to propagate their tenets, was met by a corresponding activity on their part; and while the press teemed with learned and judicious treatises, in which the great principles of the Reformation were ably defended; the errors of the Roman Catholic faith were so clearly pointed out from the pulpit, as to oppose powerful obstacles to the advance ment of the King's designs. The steady and spirited refusal of the clergy to read the declaration for liberty of conscience, the temperate but effectual resistance made by the bishops, their imprisonment, trial, and final triumph, are related at some length: and Dr.D'Oyly, by introducing from manuscripts of the archbishop's, various details of the circumstances which took place during the audience granted to the bishops by the King, and when they were subsequently under examination before the Council, has made this, perhaps, the most interesting portion of his volumes. The events which followed are well known. The King, blinded by his bigotry, and hurried on by the impetuosity of his temper, could neither perceive, nor stop to inquire into the probable consequences of further outraging the feelings of the nation, which were so strongly interested in favour of the petitioning prelates. The archbishop, and the rest of his brethren who had subscribed the petition, were summoned before the Privy Council; and, after an examination, in which the temper and firmness of the prelates appear to have occasioned great perplexity to their accusers, they were committed to the tower; where their imprisonment was cheered by the reflection that they had conscientiously discharged their duty; and alleviated by the universal sympa thy of the nation, and the attentions of 64 persons of all ranks, who, from the highest to the lowest, flocked thither in crowds, to proffer their services, to condole with them in their sufferings, to express their gratitude and admiration, and to exhort them to firm perseverance in the course they had so nobly begun." After an interval of seven days, the bishops having pleaded not guilty to the information before the judges in the court of King's Bench, and been admitted to enter into their own personal recognizances, to appear on the day of trial, were liberated; and on the 29th of June, three weeks from the date of their commitment, they were brought to trial, and acquitted. From the con gratulatory letters received by the archbishop, on this happy result of the persecution which he had so firmly endured, Dr. D'Oyly has given several inter esting extracts. The following may, perhaps, be thought particularly worthy of notice, as it proves the interest which the Presbyterians of Scotland took in the stand made by the English bishops against the encroachments of Popery. "May it please your Grace, "It will doubtless be strange news to hear that the bishops of England are in great veneration among the Presbyterians of Scotland; and I am glad that reason has retained so much of its old empire amongst men. But I hope it will be no news to your Grace, to hear that no man was more concerned in the safety of your consciences and persons than, may it please your Grace, your Grace's most humble servant, GEO. MACKENZIE.' "Nothing indeed," continues Dr. D'Oyly," could exceed the enthusiastic reverence and admiration with which the seven prelates were at this time viewed by the whole nation. They were hailed as the great champions of the li berties of their country. Their portraits were seen in every shop, and eagerly bought up; medals were struck to commemorate the great occasion of their trial and deliverance; they were com pared to the seven golden candlesticks, and were called the seven stars of the Protestant Church. Every thing con spired to show how strongly the public feeling was now excited by the intemperate and illegal measures of James, and gave no doubtful presage of the im portant change which was at hand. "It is scarcely possible to conceive a more imprudent or impolitic measure than this of bringing the bishops to a public trial. It contributed, there can be little doubt, more than any other single event, to produce the revolution that ensued, by inflaming to an extraor dinary degree the ferment in the public mind against the arbitrary proceedings of James. The personal virtues and unoffending demeanour of the prelates, the respectful terms in which their petition was drawn up, viewed in comparison with the harshness and indignity with which they were treated, contribut ed no less than the popularity of the cause itself, to excite most strongly the public feeling in their favour. Even had the court party succeeded in procuring the conviction of the bishops,they would undoubtedly have lost more by the increased ferment in the public mind,than they would have gained by the triumph of success. But, as the matter really ended, covering the promoters of the prosecution with disappointment, and affording the warmest exultation to the accused, it gave confidence and boldness to the opponents of the government measures, and carried the tide of popular feeling with them, in a manner which could not afterwards he resist ed." (To be continued.) For the Christian Journal. Christian Unity. PERHAPS no doctrine of our religion is less understood than that of unity. Some persons who claim to themselves the character of Christians, when explaining such passages of Scripture as this, "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," confine unity to belief in the Christian religion, and obedience to the moral law; rejecting almost every thing in the Church, considered as an external and visible society. * Others go a step farther, and add to the requisites just named, the principle, that the Church on earth is a visible society, comprising all those who possess a living faith in Christ, have received the ordinance of baptism, partake of the sacrament, and have attached themselves to the ministry of some particular pastor; but consider it a matter of indifference where the pastor procured his ministerial character. Others go still farther, and consider it neces The Quakers. †The Independents and Congregation. aliets, sary to belong to a Church where the ministry is obtained by regular succession; but esteem it a consideration of but little moment whether the princi ple of the ministry is parity or imparity. Others again add to these quali fications, the doctrine that imparity is the proper constitution of the ministry, that the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are of apostolical appointment, and that we have no good reason for deviating from their practice. And, lastly, the Church of Rome adds to all these the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, with a vast number of other doctrines and rites. Now, among such various and discordant opinions, there must be error some where. They cannot all be right, for they are each one hostile to all the others. It is absurd to pretend that we can all be in unity where our belief is so materially differ ent. How can the advocate of imparity, who assigns to the Bishop the sole right of ordaining, of conferring the ministerial commission, be in unity with the friend of parity, who robs the priesthood of its first and highest officer, and reduces the three orders to one? How also can the Pro testant be at unity with the Papist? The Protestant believes that Christ is the Head of the Church, and that the supremacy of the Pope is a false doctrine. The Protestant believes that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation-the Papist says no, but tradition must be added to Scrip ture. The Protestant rejects the doc trine of transubstantiation—the Papist believes it. How again can those who believe that the Church is a visible society, and that a ministry and sacraments are essential to its existence, be at unity with those who reject them, and pretend to spiritualize every ordinance of Christianity? In matters like these, to differ must destroy unity. The external ordinances and rites of religion may be said to be the members of the body of Christ; and if we cut off one of the members, the rest suffer with it; there becomes a schism in the body. Presbyterians and others. † Episcopalians. To ascertain wherein the unity of the Church consists, and wherein it does not; in other words, what doctrines are necessary to be believed, and what rites practised, in order that we may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; and what doctrines we may reject, in what practices we may differ, without destroying unity; must always be the earnest desire of the serious and reflecting mind. To state the truth on these points, is the object of the following remarks. That we are bound to preserve unity, that is, to be in communion with the true Church, must be evident to any one attentively reading the Scriptures. The Church is emphatically styled one. It is said to be the body of Christ. And, says the apostle, "there is one body." Again, "there is one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." From all these expressions, we infer that the true Church is one, and let us remember that these are the arguments which the apostle adduces to show that we should preserve unity; for they immediately follow the command to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."* Again, the apostle tells us, that by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.t Therefore, the Church being one, union and communion with it is a duty. The apostle also exhorts his brethren to avoid divisions and contentions. beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined in the same mind." In another place he tells them, that there should be "no schism in the body." 66 I Wherein then does Christian unity consist? It consists, 1st. In the belief of those doctrines that have been generally received by Christians at all times and in all places. Such are the depravity of human nature, the atonement by Christ, * Ephes. vi. 3. +1 Cor. xii. 13. + 1 Cor. i. 10. his divinity, the existence and agency of the Holy Spirit, justification by faith, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state of rewards and punishments. That these doctrines are believed by almost all those who call themselves Christians, is evident to any one but slightly acquainted with the history of the Christian world. It is likewise evident from this fact, that very many confine the doctrine of unity to these points. The greatest latitudinarians, (with the exception of Socinians, whom I shall not rank with Christians,) those who extend farthest the pale of the Church, insist that belief in these doctrines is essential to constitute us members of Christ's Church. That these doctrines were likewise universally received in the earliest ages of the Church, must be evident to any one acquainted with the history of Christianity. Now, what was received in the three first centuries of the Christian æra, at all times, in all places, and by all persons, semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, it has been demonstrated must be the doctrine of the Church, and therefore essential to its unity. Again, the unity of the Church demands that all its members receive the ordinance of baptism, and that children and infants, as well as adults, be admitted to this holy rite. That baptism is essential to an union with the visible Church of Christ, is a doctrine almost universally admitted by those who lay claim to the Christian character. The doctrine is likewise supported by the universal practice of the Church for many centuries, and by a vast majority of the Christian world at all times. But a difference of opinion has arisen on the propriety of admitting infants to this ordinance. One sect contends, that as infants are not capable of repentance and faith, and as there is no express command in Scripture to baptize them, they ought therefore to be excluded from the ordinance. To this we reply, that as it was the practice of the Jewish Church to admit infants to circumcision, and as there is no express command given by the Apostles, at the time when they were ingrafting the Christian upon the Jewish Church, and abolishing many ceremonies and practices of |