tion. A question was raised, whether any thing but States could be received; it was not hastily disposed of, but referred to a Committee, and in their deliberate report the General Convention concurred, admitting as a diocese the Territory of Michigan as then bounded. Now, let it be remarked in passing, that the General Convention were not ignorant of the fact, that large territories like that of Michigan were commonly divided by Congress, in due time, into one or more States; and this was one reason why the subject of receiving a territory as a diocese was referred to a Committee. The General Convention here, then, though not directly fixing boun. daries to a diocese, spoke a language as plain touching Territories, as they had before, by their practice, spoken concerning States.

But this is not all. The diocese of Michigan (included within the old boundaries of the territory) was represented in the General Convention of 1835, and assisted in making a canon whereby infant dioceses might apply to the bishops to elect a Bishop for them.

Under this canon, the diocese of Michigan (still included within the old territorial limits, for no part had then been cut off) applied as a diocese to the Bishops to appoint a prelate for them. Green Bay, Navarino, and Winnebago must be considered as among the applicants, for they were part of the diocese when the application was made; and in point of fact the clergy of some of them, perhaps of all, if all had clergy, gave their assent to the application.

Under the canon, what had the Bishops a right to do? To elect for a diocese. What diocese did the Church then know but the whole of the old Territory of Michigan? What act has the Church done since to show that she now knows any other diocese of Michi. gan but the old territory? We have, on the one hand, her positive act recognizing certain boundaries; on the other hand no act at all. Her Bishops too, have, in electing Dr. McCoskry, recognised the boundaries of the diocese as being those of the old territory; for if they did not elect him for Green Bay, Navarino, and Winnebago, as well as for the rest of the parishes; then they acted illegally; they have no right to elect for part of a diocese, and at the time the application was made to them, it cannot be pretended that these three parishes were not in the diocese, for no division had then been made of the territory.

Two facts, therefore, appear to us to be conclusive in this matter. The first is, that the General Convention saw fit in 1832 to receive the large territory of Michigan as a diocese, and must therefore be presumed to have considered the consequences of its probable future division into States. She therefore fixed the diocesan boundaries as far as she could without express legislation, and she has never done any act since to alter them.

The second fact is, that the territory of Wisconsin, or that portion of it containing the three parishes, was part of the diocese which asked the Bishops to elect; and as they have no right to elect but for a whole diocese, they elected Dr. McCoskry as Bishop over

these three parishes, together with all others in the old territory of Michigan, or his election is altogether illegal.

The argument used by Bishop McCoskry in his address, that we make the Church subject to the caprice of the civil power by permitting it to fix the boundaries of our dioceses; and that a Bishop may be shorn of his jurisdiction by a legislation in which the Church as such has no voice, is to our minds unanswerable. It is not met by showing that the legislation of the State is not made with any purpose of affecting the Church, and that very little injury is likely to happen. The question is not one of purpose, but of effect. Establish the position that the legislation of the State shall, of course, fix the boundaries of dioceses, and though it may not be abused for centuries, yet whenever the day comes in which it is the interest or policy of the States to abuse it, a long list of precedents quietly acquiesced in will render resistance unavailing. The direct interference of the civil power with the boundaries of dioceses, grows out of the mutual relations between Church and State created by an establishment. The State professes at least to pay, by protection and endowment, for the privilege of intermeddling; but with us, where no such relations exist, where, as we religiously believe, the Church, instead of receiving support from the State, renders support to it, we think it would be unwise to allow an indirect interference with our ecclesiastical affairs on the part of a body bound to the Church by no tie of affection and no sense of responsibility.

The case of Michigan is one in which, as it appears to us, the interposition of the General Convention is necessary to change the boundaries of the diocese.

OHIO.

We know of nothing, at this moment, of peculiar interest to the Church at large in this most important of our western dioceses. We need not say to our readers that it has at its head a Bishop watchful over its interests, judicious to perceive them, and able to sustain them. The diocese is, of course, making progress.

Kenyon College, to the value and importance of which our humble testimony is given in our remarks upon Illinois, appears to be in a prosperous condition. This is, in our opinion, owing in no small degree to the zeal and influence of the present Bishop, which enabled him by personal effort to raise, in the commencement of his episcopate, a large sum of money to relieve the college from existing difficulties.

The commencement of the college has just been held, and from the accounts which have reached us, the performances of the graduates must have been such as to commend the institution to the favourable regard of all who call themselves Episcopalians. We doubt not that Kenyon College is destined to prove, in the wide-spread re

gions of our western country, one of the strongest buttresses of the Church.

In the theological department, we perceive that the young gentle. men who have completed the full course of ecclesiastical study prescribed by the Church, and been admitted to orders, have received the degree of Bachelor in Divinity. This is the first instance, so far as we know, in which the degree has been conferred upon any of the clergy in our Church. We are inclined to believe it is the first instance in the United States in which the degree has been conferred at all.

ILLINOIS.

Received into union with the Church in the United States but two years ago, the diocese of Illinois cannot reasonably be expected to furnish much matter for this portion of our review. What she does furnish, however, is encouraging. She was received with a Bishop at her head; and all who know that bishop, are well aware that he is not an idle man. He has now six clergymen to aid him, and is crying aloud for more. We trust he may speedily find them. There is one point on which bishop Chase has, ever since he entered the Episcopate, manifested the deepest solicitude, and in the appreciation of the ultimate benefit of which he has in our view exhibited a wise forethought. He was our first western Bishop. He saw al. most in its infancy that magnificent region of our land, and he anticipated its future greatness. He determined to plant the Church there, and he saw that, to do this, he must provide the means of education. Kenyon College, in Ohio, was the consequence of his foresight and his efforts. Now, whatever may be thought of one of the Bishop's measures, we mean that of personally soliciting donations in England for his college, it must still be confessed that the Church owes him a debt of gratitude for his unwearied labours in the great cause of Episcopal education in the West. The same cause has claimed his attention and commanded his zealous labours in his new diocese. We freely confess that we are of the number of those who disapprove of solicitations abroad to help the Church here; and therefore we disapprove of the Bishop's last visit to England to ask aid for Illinois; but we honour him for his motives, and bear willing testimony to his laborious and unwearied zeal in the great cause to which he has consecrated himself, of promoting the Church, by providing for education in the West. If he lives, it will not be a very distant period in which we shall see the foundations of an Episcopal college in Illinois.

There is another subject connected with this diocese, which has been brought to the notice of our communion by more than one of the weekly periodical publications of the Church. The Board of Missions, at its annual meeting in 1836, made an appropriation of $1000 to bishop Chase. At the annual meeting in 1837 a proposition was made to continue the appropriation for another year. The

subject was very fully discussed, and in the spirit of great personal kindness to the Bishop. Not an individual spoke of him but in terms of regard; all admitted his extensive labours, and his fair claims up. on the Church. But the point to be settled by the Board was not one of mere discretion, nor yet one to be determined by the impulse of affection. They considered themselves as trustees, to whom had been solemnly confided the contributions of the Church for a specific object; they had accepted the trust with a full knowledge of its na. ture and its conditions, as set forth in a written charter, the Constitution of the Society. The question was distinctly put, whether the Bishop was a missionary of the Society, or could be so considered; for there were those who, could they so have viewed him, would have gladly continued the appropriation. But it was obviously inconsistent with the dignity and the rights of his office so to consider him. It was not becoming to require of one of the Bishops of the Church to receive an appointment to a field of labour in or over his own diocese from the Domestic Committee; it was not decent to demand of a Bishop a quarterly report of his doings to be made to a Board of presbyters and laymen; it was not proper that a Bishop should receive instructions from the Committee; and, in one word, it was wrong in principle that he should in any manner be subjected to their control. It was plain, therefore, that the Bishop was not a missionary of the Society. What, then, remained for the Board to do? To have continued the appropriation, would have been to make it a gratuity: but the Constitution did not allow the board thus to dispose of its funds. It had, therefore, no alternative but to say, "we have not the power to make this grant;" and though said with almost entire unanimity, and, in fact, said by many of the old personal friends of the good Bishop, it was said with equal regret by all; for glad would that Board have been had the constitution allowed them, in special cases of this kind, to consult their discretion: the appropriation would then have been made unanimously. But as the matter stood, as well might the Board have made an appropriation to the Bishop to purchase furniture for his house, or supply the loss of a horse, as to pay the salary of an agent to look after his farm. The Board of Missions could not consider themselves as trustees, virtually to furnish an Episcopal fund for infant dioceses. The precedent, once established, they could not have refused a similar application from every diocese, too feeble to support adequately its Bishop. The case was just one which brought the Board to meet the struggle between the strong inclinations of sympathy, of personal affection on the one hand, and the higher claims of a solemn responsibility which they had assumed for the Church, on the other. We are convinced the Board did right; and most happy shall we be if the constitution may be so modified as to permit the Board hereaf ter, in special cases of service rendered to the missionary cause, to make a special appropriation in their discretion. We are very sure

that Bishop Chase would not then be overlooked by the Board of Missions.

The Bishop sent to the Domestic Committee a draft to replace the $1000 received by him the last year. The Committee very properly returned it, informing the Bishop that the Board had legislated for the future only, and given them no instructions as to the past.

KENTUCKY.

Of this diocese we would there were nothing to be said. We turn to it with feelings of sorrow; for at the very moment in which we are writing, we cannot but remember that its Bishop is on his trial upon a presentment by his Convention. It is the first instance of the presentment of a Bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States; and God grant that it may be the last.

It is not our purpose to enter into the merits of the dispute between the accusers and the accused. Manifold considerations of duty and of delicacy alike forbid us to prejudge the case. We leave

its issue in the hands of the three Right Reverend Fathers who compose the court, relying, as we do most confidently, upon their piety and sound judgment. We cannot imitate the example of one of the weekly papers of the Church, and pronounce an opinion favourable to either side; nor will we invoke the prayers of the truly pious for either accusers or accused exclusively. Rather would we invite all who love the Church to pray for the peace of the whole Church, to pray that justice may be administered, let the result be what it may to the individuals concerned.

There are some points, however, connected with this trial, which demand notice at our hands; they concern principles, not persons. Kentucky affords a memorable instance of the danger and inconvenience which result from a neglect, on the part of a diocesan Convention, of providing for the regular trial of its Bishop. By the present Constitution of the Church at large, it belongs to the several dioceses to legislate on this matter, and but three or four have any canon on the subject. In Kentucky, in the absence of all law of her own, it was first proposed, and agreed to between the parties, that the trial should be held according to the canons of Pennsyl. vania. It may well admit of question whether, under such an agree. ment, any trial could have been had, the issue of which would have been binding. We know that some of the Bishops, who were named as members of the court, entertained doubts so serious, that they probably would have refused to act. But at the special Convention of the diocese, held early in August last, canons were passed, and under them we understand the trial proceeds. At the last General Convention it was proposed to establish an uniform mode of trial in all the dioceses, and bishops were included in the provisions of the contemplated law: the canon came down to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies just at the close of the session, when there was not time to act upon it. We trust it will form an early subject