v^ V*" \^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 10 
 
 l^|2^ 121 
 
 !.l 
 
 lis 
 
 14.0 
 
 12.0 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 i.25 1 1.4 III 1.6 
 
 
 «« 
 
 6" 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 V 
 
 PhotQgrei{^c 
 
 Sderices 
 Corporaiion 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STREIT 
 
 WIBSTIR.N.Y. MStO 
 
 ( 71* ) 872-4503 
 
 
 '^ 
 

 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institu" Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 the Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Featuies of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the Images in the 
 reproduction or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 rry Coloured covers/ 
 
 I M Couverture de couleur 
 
 j~~7J Covers damaged/ 
 
 1^ I Couverture endommagde 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie 
 
 n 
 
 
 n 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Plan(?hes et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Bound wfth other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause rhadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reiiure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intArieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 !l se peut que ceftoines pages blanches ajouttes 
 tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte, 
 mais, lorsque ceia Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas iX6 filmAes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de set exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 una image reproduite, ou qu3 peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mAthode normale d9 filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagAes 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages rastaurdes et/ou pelliuul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, ctained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 r~~j Showthrough/ 
 I ^\ Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 D 
 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partiaily obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, eic, have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible imaga/ 
 Les pages totalei>'nont ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t* filmies A nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 The 
 tol 
 
 Th< 
 pot 
 oft 
 filn 
 
 on 
 
 be] 
 thfl 
 sio 
 oth 
 fira 
 sio 
 or 
 
 Th( 
 sh: 
 TIf 
 wh 
 
 Ml 
 dif 
 ent 
 bei 
 rig 
 rec 
 mc 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-deseous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 
 
 
 »x 
 
 
 
 
 aox 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X teX 20X 
 
 
 
 
 a4x 
 
 
 
 
 2BX 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Pubiic 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice A la 
 g4nArositA de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with » printed or illustrated imores- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 4tA reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires 
 originaux sont f ilmte en commen9ant par la 
 premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols ▼ signifie "FIN ". 
 
 Les cartes, pisnches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmte A des taux de reduction diff Arents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir 
 de I'angle supArieur gauche, de geuche d droite. 
 et de haut en bas, en prenent le nombre 
 d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
(i ■ » 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 L-.' 
 
 1 
 
J. 
 
 
 
 EPISCOPAL 
 
 * ^ 
 
 -' u-^ 
 
 ■'A Letter.:? 
 
 -TO THK — 
 
 Ven. k 
 
 EN. /IRCHDEACO 
 
 N Wh 
 
 ITAKER 
 
 ,/Vl./L, 
 
 Prolocutor of the Provincial Synod of Canada, 
 
 — BY- 
 
 John Travers Lewis, d.d,,ll.d. 
 
 S f% OP ONTARIO, 
 
 JBemy an answer to "A Study in Ecclesiastical Polity, 
 
 ,. 5? 
 
 vA 
 
 ^^~ ; '< 
 
 — BY^ 
 
 S- DAWSON, Esq., Delegate to the Prouinoial Synod, 
 from the Diocesan Synod of Montreal 
 
 PRINTED BY A. 8 WOODBURN, EIOIN STREET. 
 
 187 7. 
 
 t 
 
' 
 
 IJ^ \ 
 
 >'.V 
 
 EPISCOPAI. ELECTIONS. 
 
 A Letter 
 
 —TO THE — 
 
 Yen. Archdeacon Whitaker, M. A 
 
 Prolocutor of the Prroincial Synod of Canada, 
 
 —BY— 
 
 John Tr avers Lewis, d.d.,ll.d. 
 
 BISHOP OF ONTARIO^ 
 
 Bemg am. answer to "A Study in EcoLKsiAsnoAL Polity," 
 
 -BY— 
 
 S. DAWSON, Esq., Delegate to the Provincial Synod, 
 from the Diocesan Synod of Montreal, 
 
 PRINTFO BY A. S. WOODBpRN, llXinf STREHf 
 
 1' 
 
IHIillPiiMl 
 
EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS. 
 
 My dear Prolckjittor, 
 
 Congratulations have been heaped upon tlie hite Provincial 
 Synod, on account of the good f<ieling which animated its 
 niembere, and the readiness with which they adopted the Canon 
 on the " Consecration of a Bishop." This harmony and the 
 solution of a difficulty have been attributed to two causes. 
 First. — The suggestion of Chancellor Bethune whereby a Canon 
 on the " Consecration of a Bishop " was substituted for a Canon 
 on the "Confirmation and Consecration of Bishops," and 
 Secondly. — To the influence excercised by a pamphlet on 
 " Episcopal Elections," written by Mr. S. Dawson, and circulated 
 so short a time before the meeting of the Synod as to preclude 
 the possibility of a reply in pamphlet form. As I was the 
 author of the Canon on " Confirmation and Consecration" which 
 was adopted by the House of Bishops, and moreover was the 
 mover of the present Canon, I wish for the sake of consistency 
 to explain that I was in no way influenced by Mr. Dawson's 
 argument, nor by any supposed super:' ority of Chancellor 
 Bethune's Canon, but by an earnest wish to avoid what seemed 
 likely to be an acrimonious debate. The Chancellor's Canon 
 is good so far as it goes, but I do not accept it as an equivalent 
 for a Canon of " Confii-mation of a Bisliop." Mr. Dawson's 
 pamphlet may have had some influence with members of the 
 Synod, but certainly not with me, and I purpose devoting the 
 following pages to an exposition of some Fallacies contained 
 in it. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, referring to the Canon on " Conflnnation of a 
 Bishop," says, " And here it is well to note, that what is really 
 claimed, imder cover of the proposed Canon, is a new elective 
 in the House of Bishops, over the Diocesan Synod." We have 
 here an unpleasant insinuation and a misstatement. Mr. 
 Dawson ought to know, that what was claimed was a right of 
 veto to be exercised by a Majority of the House of Bishops, in 
 the case of a Diocesan election. A veto power and an elective 
 
 t 
 
power tiro widely different. The Senate of the United States 
 can veto an appointment made ])y the President, yet they eannot 
 he said to elect Amhassadors. A Bishop has a veto in a 
 Diocesan Synod, hut it would be an ahuse of language to say 
 that he elects its officers. King John, in his Charter of freedom 
 of Episcopal elections, ut Uh^'ce dnt eUetiones^ provides that 
 after an election has been perforaied, his assent should be 
 required, ^st celeh'atmn eleetionem noster requiratur assenmis, 
 yet neither he nor his successors can be said to have elected 
 Bishops under the Charter*. A veto power may be used un- 
 fairly by a man or a body of men resolving to veto every namie 
 submitted for approval till his or their candidate be reached, 
 and of this we had something very like an instance in the case 
 of the election of a Metropolitan, when the Synod of Montreal 
 vetoed name after name ; but such an abuse of a veto power 
 coidd not by possibility occur under a Canon of Confirmation. 
 Perhaps some members of the Provincial Synod may have been 
 prejudiced against the Canon by Mr. Dawson's way of putting 
 the matter : " A new election in the House of Bishops, over the 
 Diocesan Synod." I thought that in case a new election was 
 made necessary by a veto of the House of Bishops, the new 
 election would be held in the Diocesan Synod, and not in the 
 House of Bishops. Indeed there seems to be a jprvmd, facie 
 ground for giving the House of Bishops this veto. If by our 
 Diocesan Legislation, one Bishop may veto a resolution of a 
 Discesan Synod, why may not a majority of the House of 
 Bishops veto a resolution of that same Synod on an Episcopal 
 election, a resolution carried too at a time when the Synod 
 is without one of its constituent parts— the Bishop, and 
 when the composition of the House of Bishops itself is 
 greatly concerned. Common sense suggests that a case may 
 arise when a revising power external to a Diocesan Synod 
 might be most desireable. Suppose the case of a Priest elected 
 a Bishop by a majority of one vote. Suppose again that the one 
 vote is his own, (this case has really occuiTed). Add to this the 
 supposition that the Bishop elect has been under grave suspicion 
 of holding heretical doctrine, though nothing has been proved 
 by direct evidence against him. Further suppose that on 
 
 * Stu1>lM, Select Charters, p. 219. 
 
investigation it be discovered that tlie beBt and mobt learned men 
 in the Synod wore in the minority, and I think we liave a caae 
 in which the veto of tlie House of Bishops would be fairly 
 permissible. 
 
 But besides putting the whole case unfairly, Mr. Dawson 
 endeavouis to fasten a name (rather odious in church matters) 
 on the promotere of the Canon on Confirmation. They are '• the 
 innovating party." The chai'ge, however, of being innovatoi-s 
 can not be applied in an offensive sense, unless we were trying 
 to change some venerable and long-established usage. The elec- 
 tion of Bishops in Canada is a usage about twenty years old. 
 In the year 1857 the Diocese of Toronto enacted a Canon regu- 
 lating an Episcopal election, but from the circumstances of the 
 case, they could not complete the Canon in accordance with the 
 wishes of many, because our Provincial System was not then in 
 existence — there was no House of Bighops. The charge of 
 inn(yvatmg is therefore an unworthy taunt throwni at men who 
 desire to add a safeguard to the existing Canons of Diocesan 
 elections by providing that the Com-provincial Bishops shall 
 have a voice in the election of one of their own body. We 
 must recollect, however, that similar charges of innovation were 
 flung at the Reformers of the Anglican Church, who all the 
 while believed tliemselves to be renovatoi-s, not innovator. 
 
 Mr. Dawson assails the argument from the custom of 
 antiquity and especially that from the 4tli Canon of the Nicene 
 Council. He argues that the Canons ojf that Council are inap- 
 plicable and obsolete, and that "general Councils may err." 
 I have no wish to claim infallibility, or perpetual applicability 
 for a Canon of a general Council, but as an English churchman 
 I must defer to its authority. I regard the 4th Canon of Nicoea 
 as a testimony to the practise of the Primitive Church. There 
 is no justification for the Anglican Reformation but the appeal 
 to the Primitive Church, and to the New Testiment which owes 
 its Canonicity and consequent Authority, to its acceptance and 
 endorsement by the same Church and age that gave us the 
 Creeds. An appeal to the Primitive Church is the raison 
 cPkre of the present Church of England. Whenever an 
 apology was demanded for the English Reformation, the 
 
 f IB 
 
 m 
 
aiiHwer alike from Convocation ami Parliament was — an appeal 
 to the Primitive Church. Convocation spoke for tlie Spiritual- 
 ity of tlic nation, and the 139th Canon says of it, "Whosoever 
 shall liereafter aitirm that the sacred Synod of this Nation, in 
 the name of Christ and by the King's authority awsembled, is 
 not the tnie Church of England by representation, let him be 
 excommunicated." But Convocation says in the preface to the 
 fii-st Prayer Book of Edward VI. : — 
 
 " Here you have an order for prayer (as touching the 
 reading of the Holy Scriptures) much agreeable to the mind 
 and jiuii^ose of the old Fatliers." The Convention of A.D. 
 1571, which ordered 8ub8crij)tion to the 30 articles, decreed that 
 nothing should be taught as an Article of Faith, "excc])t what 
 is supported by Scripture and Catholic tradition." The 
 " Apology " of Bishop Jewell may well be considered as an 
 authorized manifesto of the principles of the Refonnation, and 
 it is based wholly on the fact that the Reformation was a return 
 t^ the order of the Primitive Church. He says ; " Hog to/men 
 imum nonpossunt dicerey nos vel a verho Di% vel ah ApoatoUs 
 Chri8t% vel aprimiti/vd Ecdeaid descivisse" In harmony with 
 this teaching, we find the thirtieth Canon of the Church of 
 England aiiiiniing "tliat it was not the pui-pose of the Clmrch 
 of England to forsake or reject the churches of Italy, France, 
 Spain and Gennany, in all things that they held and practised, and 
 only departed from them in those particular points wherein they 
 were fallen, both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and 
 from the Apostolical Churches which were their first founders." 
 So completely is the cause of the Anglican Reformation identi- 
 fied with this principle that the Puritan historian Neal is obliged 
 to say that, " the English Reformers wished to depart no further 
 from the Church of Rome, than she did from the Primitive 
 Church." But I need not adduce further proof ; sufiice it to 
 say, that the Church, in the preface " Concerning the Service," 
 justifies her litual by an appeal to the " godly and decent order 
 of the ancient Fathers," in the Commination Service regrets the 
 absence of the " Godly Discipline " of the Primitive Church, 
 in her Ordination Service refers for proof of a threefold 
 Ministry "to Holy Scripture and to ancient authors," and in her 
 24th article appeals to the Primitive Church to justify public 
 
prayer in the langnap^e undergtood by the people ; all going to 
 prcve tiie accuracy of the answer made by Queen Elizabeth to 
 the Roman Catholic Princes, " that there was no new faith 
 propagated in England, no religion set up but that which was 
 commanded by our Saviour, practised by the Primitive Church, 
 and unanimously approved by the Fathers of the best antiquity." 
 From this grand basis of tnith there is, thank God, no proba- 
 bility of our being removed, since the Lambeth Conference, 
 consisting of 78 bishops of tlie Anglican Church, solenmly 
 resolved and recorded their convictions that unity will be most 
 effectually promoted by maintaining the Faith in its purity and 
 integrity — as taught in the Holy Scriptures, held by the 
 Primitive Church, summed up in the Creeds and affirmed by 
 the undisputed General Councils."* 
 
 The Legislation of Parliament was based on similar princi- 
 ples. The Act of Unifonnity (1552) which authorized the 
 second Prayer J^ook of Ed. VI, declares of the first Book that 
 it was a " Godly (>rder," agreeable to the Word of God and the 
 Primitive Church, and the word Primitive is defined by an Act 
 passed in the fii*st year of Ed. VI, c. I, to mean " the space of 
 500 yeai-s and more after Christ's ascension." The Act touch- 
 ing Heresy in the reign of Elizabeth provides that " nothing 
 shall be adjudged to be heresie but only such as have heretofore 
 been determined ordered or adjudged to be heresie by the 
 authority of the Canonical Script i. s, or by the first fowr 
 General Councils, or any of them ;" i..id the Act of Unifonnity 
 of Charles II, says of the order of Common Prayer in use in the 
 reign of Elizabeth, that " It was agreeable to the Word of God 
 and usage of the Primitive Church." The 4th Canon of Niccjea 
 therefore challenges the respect of English Churchmen. That 
 Canon is as follows, but I take the liberty of translating it some- 
 what differently from Mr. Dawson : " A Bishop ought indeed to 
 be constituted by all the Bishops in the Province. But if this 
 be difficult either by reason of urgent necessity, or the length of 
 the way, when three by all means have met together, the absent 
 also giving their suffrage and testifying their assent by letter, 
 then let the election be made, but the ratification must be 
 allowed to the Metropolitan in each Province." It serves no 
 
 * extract team a Charge of the Bishop of Ontario, 1872. 
 
 I 
 
8 
 
 
 purpose to say tha*^^ because some of the Canons of the Council 
 seem obsolete. aU ai*e so. The Canon in question is neither 
 obsolete nor inapplicable, siace Mr. Dawson's own witness, 
 Dean Stanley says of it, " This Canon is still observed through- 
 out the greater part of Christendom." The main point then is 
 the interpretation of the Canon. Mr. Dawson asserts that 
 the Canon is "a Canon of Ordination and not of election," 
 and he quotes Barrcw's reference to Pope Celestine's dictum^ 
 " Let not a Bishop l)e given to the miwilling, let the consent of 
 the clergy and people and order be required to constitute 
 a choice," NuUus invitis detur Episcopus, clen^ pUhis et 
 wdinis consenmts ad desiderium reqidrahiry Ep. II, 6. Mr. 
 Dawson says on the authority of Phillimore, &c., that "order" 
 is not intended to n)*»'aithe Episcopal order, but that it refers to 
 Lay Officials. This seems to me '^ery doubtful. Celestine 
 wrote, A.D. 428, and in order to get at his meaning, let us be 
 giiided by an nlmost contanporanea expositio of his language. 
 The 4th Council of Carthage (A.D. 401) has a Canon which, 
 according to Bingham, " comprises the whole practice of the 
 Church in relation to this matter." It decrees that the ordina- 
 tion of a Bishop should always be by the consent of four parties, 
 the Clergy, the Laity, the Provincial Bishops and the Metropoli- 
 tan, oum coiwensu clericorum et laicsmm et conventu pro- 
 vincice episcopmni'm -fiaxwieque Dwtropolitani vet a/netoritat6 
 vd pi'CBsentid ordinetur episccpits. 1 suppose theref oi j that 
 " the order" of Celestine means the Episcopal order, but even 
 should this be denied, Celestine's authority goes no fai-ther 
 than to assert, what is not denied, that Bishops were elected by 
 Clergy an J Laity. Neither Celestine nor BaiTow pi-oves tliat the 
 Nicene Canon was one of orduiation as distinguished from elec- 
 tion, nor do they assert that the Provincial Bishops had no share 
 in an Eplocopal election. The quotation from Pope Leo will 
 not serve Mr. Dawson's argument in the least. It is bb follows > 
 "When there is an election of a Bishop, let him be pi-ef erred 
 who has the uniaiimous consent of the clergy and people, so that 
 if the votes be divided by parties, let him by the judgment of 
 the Metix>politan be preferred whose merits and interests are 
 greatest," oiim ergo de sum^ui mcerdode dectione tractahit^i/r^ 
 ilU ommhiM prc^miatvr gu4m deri pldnsgue consensus coneor- 
 
 m\ 
 
9 
 
 dltar postularit ; ipj, ut al In uliain forte peraonH'ni partlmn «e 
 vota tlim^enmt, MetropoliUmi jwlimo in altv^' praferatur qui 
 majorihus et studiis jwmtur et meHtis. I ask how does 
 this quotation from Pope Leo prove tliat the Canon of Nicoea 
 is one of ordination only ? Leo goes on to say, " Let t)iere 
 certainly be expected (or waited for) the wishes of the citizens, 
 the testimonies of tlie people ; let there l)e soug^ht for, the will 
 of liononrable men, the election of the Clergy. He who is to 
 preside over all, should he cliosen by all." Expectarentur certe 
 vota elviuin^ testimonia popvlontm : gu(erentur honoratoruin 
 arhitrium, eleatio elencormn. Qui ptwj'utnnts est omnihus, ah 
 omnihus elujatur. Ep. ad Vien. 89. This language pre- 
 cludes all idea of foniiai voting. They who had to Wd,it for» 
 and expect and seek for such qualiii cations, could l)e none others 
 than the Metropolitan and Provincial Bishops. Leo says, that 
 one uniUiimously elected should ])e preferred. So we should 
 imagine he ought to be, ])ut preferred to whom, and by 
 whom ? Is it not plain that there was a power outside that 
 of the ordinary elector which could give this preference 1 We 
 see also that the Metropolitan was not bound to ordain him who 
 had most votes, unless he had also greatest merits. But when 
 votes were divided, who could decide on the question of merit but 
 the assembled Bishops ? At all events, what has the language of 
 Leo to do with proving the Nieene Canon one of ordination 
 only? 
 
 Mr. Dawson adduces Bingham and Stanley " with tlie great 
 majority of Canonists," as holding the vieW that the Nieene Canon 
 is one of ordination and not of election. A contemporaneous ex- 
 position of the Canon is however worth a dozen modem ones. 
 The Second Council of Aries (A.D. 326) just one year after the 
 passing of the Nieene Canon, enacted as follows : " Let no Bishop 
 without the permission of the Metropolitan, nor the Metmpolitan 
 without three Comprovincial Bishops presume to ordain a Bishop, 
 80 however that the o*her Comprovincials may be warned by let- 
 ters to signify their consent by their answers. But if any differ- 
 ence should arise between parties, let the Metropolitan agree with 
 the ;najority in the election." NuUm episcopus sine Mel/ropo- 
 litani permisa^j 7if.G Metropolitcmvs sine trihts episcopis Cam- 
 provineialihits presutrM ejoiscopum ordvnari; ita ut alii Com* 
 
 
10 
 
 provimialc^ epixtolw ad'imme<mtiir at ne atto responso vmwcnxism 
 Hifjnijicent. Quod si mtev partem alujim nata fuent flvhHatht^ 
 majori nwnero MetropolitminH in eUetione cemsentiat. — MA(iD. 
 Cent., Vol. II, p. YO-I. It is quite clear from this Canon that the 
 Metropolitan had to ohtain the consent of a majority of the Pro" 
 vincial Bishops hefore he conld consecrate. It is 8tran«ye that 
 the Fourth Nicene Canon slionld be thonght a Canon of Conse- 
 cration merely, when the Fatliers who enacted it explain their 
 own meaning, in their pastoral letter to the Bishops of Egypt. 
 The Canon was aimed at Meletius, and they say regarding the 
 Bishops ordained by him, that the Council had detennined, " that 
 they sliould have no power at all of electing whom they please, 
 or of proposing names of those to be elected ;" nullum omnino 
 potestcitem habeant »uos eligendi qui ipsis placeant, ant noniina 
 eligendorum edendi. They go on to say, " But if it should hap- 
 pen that some of those who ai-e in the Church, (that is, ordained 
 by Meletius) should die, they are to succeed to the office of the 
 deceased, who have been lately assumed, if they appear wortliy, 
 and the people choose them, and the BishojD of Alexandria should 
 agree and cmiji/t'my Modo digni appareant, et poptdus eligat^ 
 ae EpiMCopuH Alexmidrice una adstijndetnr et cmifrmat. This 
 passage, says the learned civilian. Valesius, " evidently refere to 
 the Bishops who were ordained by Meletius as well as to the 
 Pi'esbyters and Deacons. For if it only ref ei*8 to tlie promotion of 
 one Presbyter to the vacant place of another, why did the Nicene 
 Fathers use so much caution ? Why did they make so many and 
 such important preliminai'y requisitions ? Why so much solici- 
 tude in regard to. the advancement of a Presbyter m.erely ? Un- 
 questionably, the words of the Council have a more immediate 
 view to Bisliops in the election of whom the suffrages of the 
 people were necessary, and also a confirmation of their choice by 
 the Bishop of Alexandria as the Metropolitan of .Egypt." From 
 all this it is evident that the Nicene Fathers had in view election 
 fU3 well as Consecration when they enacted their 4th Canon. 
 
 I shall now consider Mr. Dawson's argument from the 
 Primitive Church. He says, "It seems strange then th^t so 
 little stress was laid upon thQ election of Matthias, in the 
 diequssiou at last meeting of Synod. The passage m so 
 
 cl^ar, 
 
11 
 
 and the tiJinslutioR so exact, that no knowledge of Greek, or of 
 Canon Law is reqmred to nndei-stand it. They (the disciples 
 generally, not the apostles) appointed two ; they gave forth their 
 lots, ifec." I can well understand why no stress was laid upon 
 the election of St. Matthias. It was an election referred partly 
 to a human, and partly to a Divine direction. The Church in 
 its capacity as a spiritual corporation was not as yet founded. 
 The Holy Ghost had not yet been given. I consider, therefore, 
 that such an election is no precedent for times subsequent to 
 Pentecost. Moreover, I cannot agree with Mr. Dawson in 
 considering "the passage clear or the translation exact." He 
 has no authority for asserting tiiat " they^ the disciples generally, 
 not the apostles, appointed two." There were about one 
 himdred and twenty persons, men and wonwn present, and the 
 whole question resolves itself into this : to whom did St. Peter 
 address himself ? To the hundred and twenty, or to the ten 
 Apostles i Surely he could not in addressing a hundred and 
 twenty men and women, say truthfully, " He was numbered with 
 ?/*, and had obtained a part of this Ministry," that is, the 
 Apostolic Ministry. Was Judas then numbered with all the 
 Brethren present, as a partaker with them of that Apostolic 
 function 'i Or with St. Peter only, and the other ten Apostles 
 in the midst of whom he spake 'i Certainly, this latter sense is 
 the utmost the words can bear when he says, " He was numbered 
 with us" and consequently, they were his Apostolic Brethren 
 only to whom he addressed them. St. Peter seems to have 
 restricted the choice of the ten Apostles to some one of the 
 disciples present, pointing at them, as it were, by that uatutal 
 expression, " out of these pei*sons that have accompanied with 
 us." I caimot help thinking that, notwithstanding Mr. Dawson's 
 statement, that "the translation is exact," the unwarranted 
 insertion of the particle " ami'' in St. Peter's address, has had a 
 great deal to do with the usual misconception of the passage. 
 Whai St. Peter did say was, " Men, Brethren," that is. Men who 
 are my Brethren, and not, " Men and Brethren." The former 
 mode of address emphasizes his speech as one to the Apostles. 
 But Mr. Dawson to the contrary, the learned Grotius draws this 
 conclusion from the v^hole narrative, " It is a wonder to me how 
 some men have persuaded themselves that Matthias was chosen 
 
12 
 
 by the people to his Apostolic charge, for in St. Luke I find no 
 trace of it." Beza too, when writing of the popular right to 
 vote, says, that the " case of Matthias is nothing to the purpose," 
 (nihil ad rem facit.)\ Mr. Dawson appeals to various authori- 
 ties, such as Hook, Barrow, Bums, Gladstone, <fec., to prove what 
 is not denied, that Bishops were elected by Clergy and Laity. 
 His mode of argument is an ignoratio elenohi. What he had to 
 prove was, that Bishops were elected by Clergy and Laity alone, 
 without any reference to, and irrespective of a veto by Provincial 
 Bishops. What he strives to prove is, that they were elected by 
 Clergy and Laity. A thousand years hence, it will be possible to 
 refer to many treatises, and to cite great authorities to prove that 
 in the Episcopal Church of the United States, in the present day, 
 Bishops were elected by Clergy and Laity ; but that will not prove 
 that the House of Bishops had nothing to say in the matter. The 
 right of the Bishops to confinn or veto an election is wholly un- 
 touched by the fact that Clergy and Laity are said to have elected 
 a Bishop. Not one of the authorities appealed to by Mr. Dawson, 
 asserts that the Provincial Bishops had no veto on a Diocesan elec- 
 tion . It is quite possible to cite such historians as Hallam to prove 
 Mr. Dawson's assertion. Hallam says, " according to the primi- 
 tive cust*^ of the Church, an Episcopal vacancy was filled up 
 by election of the Clergy and people belonging to the city or 
 Diocese." So far Hallam agrees with Mr. Dawson, but let us 
 finish the quotation, " the subject of their choice however, after 
 the establishment of the federate or provincial system, was to be 
 approved or rejected by the Metropolitan and his suffragans, and 
 if approved, he was consecrated by them."* Gibbon too, 
 would serve Mr. Dawson in proof that Bishops were elected by 
 Clergy and Laity, yet he says, " The authority of the Provincial 
 Bishops who were assembled in the vacant church to consecrate 
 the choice of the people, was interposed to moderate their 
 passions, and to correct their mistakes. The Bishops could 
 refuse to ordain an unworthy candidate, and the rage of contend- 
 ing factions sometimes accepted their impartial mediation."** 
 
 Lord Chancellor King in his celebrated "Enquiry," 
 in which he strives to show the identity of Presbyter and 
 
 fSIater'H draft of ;he Primitivo Ghiirrh. p. 13S. 
 •* Gibbon, vol. 2, p, 281. 
 
 ♦Haltom. Vol. 2, p. 17fl. 
 
13 
 
 Bishop in the Primitive Church, candidly says, " Whomsoever 
 the people had thus elected a Bishop, they presented to their 
 neighbouring Bishops for their approbation and consent, least 
 the people through ignorance or affection should choose an uniit 
 or unable man for that sacred office, it being supposed that a 
 Synod of Bishops might be wiser judges in the case. A Bishop 
 thus elected cmd confirmed^ is to have his ordination." Mr. 
 Dawson's pamphlet affords also an instance of what Whateley 
 calls the " Fallacy of References," a fallacy which he says, " is 
 particularly common in popular theological works. It is of 
 course a circumstance which adds great weight to any assertion, 
 that it should seem to be supported by many passage! of 
 Scripture, or of the Fathers and other ancient writers, whose 
 works are not in many peoples' hands. Now when a writer can 
 find few or none of those that distinctly and decidedly favour 
 his opinion, he may at least find many which may be considered 
 capable of being so understood, or which in some way or other 
 reraotely relate to the subject ; but if these texts were 'userted 
 at length, it would be at once perceived, how little they bear on 
 the question.":!: It is from passages such as Whateley describes, 
 that Mr. Dawson draws his startling conclusion that in Episcopal 
 elections, " the dominating influence of the Clergy and people 
 may be traced through the whole. It is they alone who are 
 concerned in elections, and before the Canon of Nicoea, A.D. 
 325, there is no trace even in ordinations of the assembly of 
 the Bishops and Metropolitan upon such occasions." Surely 
 Mr. Dawscn nmst have overlooked the Cyprianic age. Seventy 
 years before the Nicene Council, an African Synod, held under 
 St. Cyprian, speaks of the mode of election then prevailing as 
 " a Divine tradition and an Ape »*olic observance." What that 
 mode was we know from the 8y nodical £pistle.§ The Council 
 who wrote it had good reason to know ^hat was or .was hot 
 an Apostolic observance, as they met together about 150 years 
 after the death of St. John. They say, " That a people obedient 
 to the precepts of our Lord and fearing God, ought to separate 
 themselves from a Prelate that is a smner, and should not mingle 
 with the sacrifices of a Sacriligious Bishop ; seeing that they 
 chiefly had the power either of choosing worthy Bishops or 
 
 X l/)gic, p. 286. S Ep. 6T, p. ITl 
 
 S 
 
miimmmmmmfi 
 
 u 
 
 refusing unworthy ones." Mr. Dawson quotes so much of the 
 Epistle, and in so doing gives an example of the " fallacy of 
 references." Why did he not go on with the quotation and 
 inform us that. the Council adds "The practice received from 
 Divine tradition and Apostolic observance must be diligently 
 upheld and kept, which, is also kept by us and by almost all 
 the provinces, namely, that to the due solemnization of ordina- 
 tions (elections), all the neighbouring Bishops of the same 
 province should meet together among the people for whom a 
 Prelate is ordained (elected), and the Bishop should be chosen jn 
 the presence of the people who know most fully the lives of each, 
 and are thoroughly acquainted with the character of every one 
 from his conversation. This too we see was done among you in the 
 ordination (election) of our colleague Sabinus, so that by the 
 suffrage (goodwill) of the whole Brotherhood, and by the judg- 
 ment of the Bishops who had met together in their presence, 
 and who had written to you concerning hira, the Episcopate was 
 conferred upon him." Proper guod tUUgenter de traditions 
 Di/i)ind et Apostolicd observatione servandum est et tensndum 
 guod wimd nos guoqiie^ et fere per universas provinclas tenctur, 
 utadordiiiationes recte celetramlas ad eainplehem oui prmpositus 
 ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provi/iioice proximi guique 
 con/veniunt, et Episcopus diligatur, pUbe presente^ gncn singu- 
 lorum vitam plenissime novit et unius Gujtcsgue cLctum de 
 ejm conversatlone perspexit^ ut de universal f'atemitatis 
 suffragloy et de Episcopory/rn gul in prcBs&ntid convenercmt 
 guique de co ad vos literas facerant-^judicio^ EpisGopatiis ei 
 deferetur. This Epistle entirely refutes Mr. Dawson's assertion 
 that before the Council of Nicoea " there is no trace, even in 
 ordinations of the assembly of the Bishops." Indeed thn epistle 
 not only disproves his assertion, but fails to prove that the 
 people had any formal vote at all. For, let us consider the 
 emergency that called forth this Pastoral. Basilides, a Spanish 
 Bishop having committed idolatry was deposed, and Sabinus 
 chosen in his stead. Afterwards Basilides obtained from 
 Stephen, Bishop of Rome, an ackuowlegement of his right to 
 the See, and the Roman Bishop endeavoured to procure his 
 restoration. In this dilemma, tlie Spaniards were forced to 
 apply to the African Bishops for advise as to what should be 
 
15 
 
 done between tlie contending chiinis of IJaisilidew and Saluniis. 
 JJearing tliis in mind let us give tlie reply of the African Synod. 
 After assigr.ing reasons why the people Hhould oppose Basilides 
 and snpport Sahinns, they add, "Kor let the people Hatter 
 themselves that they can be free from contagion of guilt if they 
 communicate with a Bishop that is a sinner, and lend their 
 consent to the unlawful and unjust Episcopate of their Bisliop." 
 Nee sihi pUhf< hlmidiatur guasl imrnunif* estte a contagio delicti 
 jmmit cum, mcei'dote jyeccatore eonwmmicans^ et ad injufttum 
 atque ilUeitimi Proq)odti md Ejmcopatum^ conMnmmi suum 
 commodcms. Is it not evident that the African Synod only 
 meant that the faithful laity ought to separate themselves from 
 a sacriligious Bishop because they had the power of making a 
 choice between worthy and unworthy ones ? Here was no caf^e 
 of a vacancy in a See . It was simply a question between the 
 claims of two rival Bishops, and the Epistle merely declares that 
 the people ought to withdrawn from the communion of a bad 
 Bishop because they had the power to do so. The mode of an 
 election is not touched upon till after quoting the precedents of 
 Eliezar, Matthias and the seven Deacons, the Pastoral goes on as 
 already cited to give the Divine and Apogtolic method. How 
 far we are to admit the participation oi the Laity depends on the 
 meaning of the phrase, plehe presents. Mr. Dawson seems to 
 think that it is a technical term signifying not only admission 
 to the sight of a transaction, but official particijmtion in it. The 
 learned Bingham however, who argues for the right of the Laity 
 to elect Bishops by popular votes, has not adduced this Synodical 
 letter in support of his argument ; and no wonder. Surely 
 when the Epistle explains itself and the meaning of plehe 
 preaente, we have no need to conjecture a different one. The 
 people were to be present who knew and were acquainted with 
 the character of each candidate to give testimony and assent or 
 dissent. This will appear to be the i eaning of the yvov^'S, plehe pre- 
 sents, if we compare them with their context in other passagesi In 
 this same Epistle, the Synod after adducing tlie precedent of the 
 Apostles calling together the whole multitude of the disciples 
 for the election of the Deacons, go on to give the reason why 
 the Apostles so acted— to give testimony of worthiness, " that 
 no one who was unworthy should creep into the ministry of the 
 
 
 '^1 
 
16 
 
 altar, or to priestly position." Ne yuu ml alkirut mmutt'nmri 
 vel ad aaeerdotalein loeum ohre^yeret. Again, in anotlier passage, 
 we have the same object of the peoples' presence plainly set 
 forth. " That a Bishop be chosen utider the eyes of aU^ the people 
 being present, and that he be proved worthy and fit by public 
 judgment and testimony — that ordinations should not be made 
 unless with the knowledge of the people standing hy, so that the 
 people being present, the crimes of the bad be detected, or the 
 merits of the good be proclaimed, and there be a just and laM'f ul 
 ordination (election)." Ut sacerdos plebe presente, sah omnium 
 oeidis deligatur et digmM atque idoneua ptiUico Jiidieio com- 
 probetur, non nisi sub popvli assistentis consdentid Ji^n 
 oportere ordinationes, ut plebe presente, vel dategantur malorum 
 (yrimiina vel bonorum merita pt'cedicentu/r, et sit ordinatio justa 
 et legit ma qtm onrnitmi suffragio et judioio fuerit examinata 
 It seems as plain as words can make it, that the object in requir- 
 ing the presence of the people was simply to ensure testimony 
 or approval. If other proof were wanting to show the meaning 
 of plebe presente, we have it in the following passage from 
 Origin, a contemporary of St. Cyprian. He says, "In the 
 ordination (election) of a Bishop, the presence of the people is 
 necessary that all may know assuredly that he who of all the 
 people is the most excellent, the most learned, the most holy, 
 most eminent for all virtue, is the person chosen to the Priest- 
 hood (Episcopate), and this is done,, th£ people standing by, that 
 there be no room left for after-retractions or scruples." ^e- 
 quiratur enim in ordina/ndo sacerdote et prcesentia popuU ut 
 sdo/nt omnes et certi sint quia qui sanctior, qui in omni 
 virtuts eminentior Hie eUgitur ad sacerdotiimi, et hoc adsta/nte 
 popvlo ne qua post modum retractatio cuiqu^m, ne quis 
 scrupyhis resideret.* Nor should it be forgotten that the 
 precedents of Matthias and Eliezar adduced by the Synod in 
 justification of requiring the presence of the people, restrict the 
 peoples' part to testimony and interest, unless we are prepared 
 to prove that Eliezar and Matthias were elected by popular vote. 
 Mrl Dawson's argument therefore, so far from proving that 
 clergy and people were alone concerned in elections, does not so 
 much as prove that the latter had a formal vote at all. But 
 
 * Oii|bi ii^ltev. 1.4 
 
17 
 
 before citing other proofs of interference in elections by Bishops, 
 I would draw attention to tlie fact that immense confusion of 
 ideas has arisen from giving to words used hy the Fathere, such 
 as mifft'cKjium (sutlrage), and ordinatio (ordination), the modern 
 meaning attached to tlieni. Lord Bacon truly says, "Men 
 imagine that their minds have the command of language, but it 
 often happens that language bears rule over their minds." Wo 
 are so accustomed to assc nate he word si tf rage with vote and 
 ballot, that we assume that mfi'dglum implies both in primitive 
 times. This is as imreasonable as if we took the suffrages in the 
 Litany to mean votes. In the Cyprianie age we find the word 
 constantly used to describe the peoj^le's part in an election, but 
 it meant nothii \^ more than acclamation, plaudits and good will. 
 St. Gyprian says that Cornelius .was elected Bishop of Home 
 " by the judgment of God and the suffrage of Clergy and Laity." 
 De Dei judlclo et deri ac plebis s affray to ordinato.^ Here the 
 word is applied to the share the clergy and people took in the 
 election, but surely if as St. Cyprian says, and as wtis generally 
 believed, Cornelius had been designated by Grod, by some • 
 miracidous manifestation of Ilis will, the election could not 
 afterwards have been referred to popular voting. Elsewhere St. 
 Cyprian alluding to this same event, says, " Cornelius was made 
 Bishop by the testimmiy of almost all the clergy and the 
 suffrage of the i)eople who were present."t (Jnce more, in an 
 epistle to Cornelius himself, he says " Let them both know and 
 undei*stand that when a Bishop has been once made and 
 approved by the testimmiy and judgment of his colleagues and 
 of the people, another can by no means be appointed." Et 
 agnoscant et intelligent episcopo semel facto et collegarum ao 
 plehis testhnonio et judlcio comprohato, alium eonstitid nulla 
 Dwdo posse. In these quotations the words suffrage, testimony 
 and judgment are used so indiscriminately, that it is evident the 
 word suffragium had no technical meaning such as recording 
 a vote. 
 
 The tenn suffragium is applied also to God's part in an elec- 
 tion when He indicated His choice by some special interposition. 
 St. Cyprian says, " When divine suffrages preceed, human testi- 
 monies are not to be waited for.":{: Sed dicpectanda non stmt 
 
 ■ Ep. 68, p. 177. 
 
 t Ep. 5.'), p 104. 
 
 X Ep. 38, p. 74. 
 
I 
 
 
 C, S' 
 
 18 
 
 tistiiiionia humana^ cum pvecedunt dlelna s}tfr(i(fla. lie ap- 
 plies the term to exprewB the iniportiinity witli which tlic Jewn 
 clamored for our Lord's crucifixion, "• Importuning vvitli violent 
 and pertinacious suffrages." Sv^'rci^lis ly'tolentiM ct 2>ertinaclbus 
 fimjitaiites.'^ He uses it to express the joy of the people at the 
 death of (Toliath, " they leaped forth into a suffrage of praise8,"f 
 and many more such instances may he cited to show that all that 
 is meant by suffrage is the coTicurrence and good will of 
 the people. 
 
 Again, in primitive times the ordination of a Bishop and 
 his election meant the same thing, except that ordination meant 
 sometimes the whole transaction of election, conlirmation and 
 consecration. In those days the Bishops had to make wearisome 
 journeys to the city or diocese that wanted a Bishop, and for the 
 most part a Bishop was consecrated by them immediately after his 
 election, not, however, without the consent in writing of a 
 majority of the Provincial Bishops. I cannot agi'ee with Mr. 
 Dawson when he says, "The consent of the absent Bishops 
 could not refer to the person of the candidate, but tc the em- 
 powering of the Bishops present to act for all ; for the reason of 
 the Canon, as Van Espen shew^s was to prevent secret ordina- 
 tions." But the consent of a majority was essential to an 
 ordination w^hich was e(j[uivalent to an election. Van Espen says, 
 '* The Metropolitan together with the Comprovincial Bishops, 
 after having made an examination into the fonn of the election 
 and concerning the pei*8on elected, proceeds to the ordination or 
 consecration, if he found the election canonical, and the person 
 elected jit.'''' Si personam electani idoneam reperisset.X Thus 
 Mr. Dawson's own witness. Van Espen, refutes the assertion that 
 " the consent of the Bishops could not refer to the pereon of the 
 candidate," and I would submit for Mr. Dawson's consideration 
 whether he be quite accurate in stating that Van Espen shows 
 that the reason of the Canon was to prevent secret ordinations. 
 Xle simply tells us that such was the opinion of Innocent I., 
 but gives us no opinion of his owai. He adds moreover that the 
 4th Canon of Nicoea " could not be considered one of ordination 
 or consecration only, because the consent of the absent Bishops 
 could add nothing to the form of consecration, but would have 
 
 * De Vanitcte, p, Ifl. t D« Zclo, p. 228 X Vnn Espen, p. 107. 
 
19 
 
 foroo in approving an election or nomination." Ordination and 
 election continued to be almost convertible terms into Medi(eval 
 times. In the extracts from the laws i»f the Anglo-Saxons, th6 
 electi<m of their kings wan called his ordination. In A.D. 787, 
 a Council or Witenagemot enacted, "We enact that in tlie 
 ordiiuition of kings, no one permit the assent of bad men to 
 prevail, Imt that kings be elected by the Bishops and Eldei-s of 
 the i)(!t>ple." SauMmus ut in ordinatione reyum nullm 
 pcpmittat ^>/*aiv>;*ww prawalere aHi<enmm f*ed reijea legitime a 
 naeerc/otibufi et senioribun popult eliijantur.* 
 
 But I nmst now attend to Mr. Dawson's statement that, 
 " In elections or even in ordlnaticms, there is no trace before the 
 Council of Nicfjea of the assembly of the Bishops and Metro- 
 politan." Before that date, he say "The Clergy and Laity 
 alone were concerned in elections." The earliest account wc 
 have of the manner of appointing Bishops is to be found in 
 St. Clement's letterf to the Corinthians. He was a "fellow 
 labourer with St. Paul," and thus wrote, " The Apostles preac'i- 
 iuty through countries and cities, constituted their tirst fruits, 
 (having proved them through the Spirit) Bishops and Deacons 
 of those who should afterwards believe." It ueed not be said 
 that at this period, neither Clergy nor Laity had anything to do 
 with Episcopal elections, as both nomination and consecration 
 rested with the Apostles. Moreover in the 36th Apostolic 
 Canon we find it j^rovided, " that if any one. ordained Bishop 
 should not be received, not according to bis own desire, but by 
 reason" of the malice of the people, let him remain a Bishop, but 
 let the Clergy of the city be excommunicated because they were 
 not (l)etter) iustructoi's of such a disobedient people." This 
 Canon cannot be later than the middle of the third century, and 
 is probably much older, and it is clear (as Johnson remarks) 
 "that the nomination of the Bishop was not in the people in 
 this age, for how can it be conceived that a Bishop should not be 
 received by the Diocese that had elected him?" But if the 
 nomination was not in the people, with whom did it rest ? It 
 may be said that this Canon has no fixed date and is therefore 
 unreliable, but it happens that we have a Canon of a Council 
 whose 4ate is known, very similar to the Apostolic Canon— the 
 
 ♦ Stubbs Select Charters, p. 7«. t P«tre8 Apost, Vol, I., y. 144, 
 
I 
 
 lil' 
 
 m 
 
 7T- 
 
 A 1. 
 
 20 
 
 IRtli Canon of tlio (^onnc-il of Anovra, A.D. 314. twontvone 
 years bofore that of Nit'<i'a. " If any hLMn«jj creatod l>isli<n)H, and 
 not received l)y that Parish (Diocese) to wliicli they were 
 nominated, dioose to proceed to otlier J'arinheH, and nne violence 
 a^ainHt the nettled (BisliopH), and move seditions against thenh 
 let them he suspended from Conununion." Again, the 18th 
 Canon of the Comicil of Antioch, A.D. 341, ju'ovides, " If any 
 Bishop being ordained go not to tlie Parish for whicli he was 
 ordained, not throngh his own fault, but either through the re- 
 fusal of the people, or for any other cause that arises not from 
 hin»self, let him partake of the honor and ofHce." It is tnie 
 this Canon was made seventeen yeare after the Council of 
 i\icani, but Bishop Beveridge has made it clear that the Canons 
 of this C\)uncil were drawn up in studied imitation of the 
 Apostolic Canons, and are therefore declaratory of long existing 
 usages. Tt seems then, that it was no unconunon thing for a 
 Diocese to refuse the Bishop appointed over them. Who, then, 
 appointed him ? Not the people surely, nor the clergy either 
 who were to he exconmnicated for not having taught the people 
 better. There can be no solution of the question but hy admit- 
 ting that he was appointed by the Bishops as provided for by 
 the 4tli Canon of Niccea, subject always to the fundamental 
 maxim that a Bishop should not be given to an unv/illing peo])le. 
 Bearing in mind that the Council of Antioch is hut a testimony 
 S to very early, even to Apostolic usage, let me draw attention 
 i.0 its 16th Canon : It provides that, '• If a Bishop without a 
 See, throwing himself upon a vacant Church, usurp the throne 
 without a full Synod, he be rejected even though the whole 
 people on whom he has int7'uded choose him^ that is a perfect 
 Synod at which the Metropolitan also is present." The 19th 
 Canon provides, " Let not a Bishop be ordained (elected) without 
 a Synod, and the presence of the Metropolitan, but when he is 
 present, it is better by all means, that all his fellow ministers in 
 the Province be with him, and it is meet that the Metropolitan 
 summon them by letter, and if all come so much better, but if 
 this be difficult, the majority at least by all means ought to be 
 present, or give their consent by lettei-s, and so let the election 
 be made with either the presence or the suffrage of the 
 majority." These Canons prove that even If " the whole people 
 
21 
 
 olioosc a BislunV tlieir clioioo was invii'id without tlic coiiBtMit 
 of the Uinhops, jiiul thus wo Hud tlio c.xplauatiou of tlie rtth 
 (.\uion of Nieo^a. I have sliowu that St. C-ypriau had received 
 " an ApoHtolic olwervance" tluit in alujoKt all the Provincen, 
 when a Sec was vacant, tlie neighhouriu^ ninliops used to uu»et 
 and eU'ct a l*>isho]), ^Vr/y*^ jnrsenta. This evidence was given hy 
 a Bisl'op some 125 years l)v?fore the Council of Nictea, and he 
 tells us nuu'eover that he had heen ordained with the consent of 
 his fellow Bishops, cmksnhsuti ro-ejmctf^/orum^ and that Cornelius, 
 I'ishop of RomO; luid been ordained (elected) Bishop hy sixteen 
 co-r>ishops. Yet Mr. Dawson says that, " that before the Council 
 of Niccea there is no trace, even in ordinations of the assembly 
 of the J^ishops on such occasions." Surely, sixteen was a large 
 nuni\)er to assemble at a time when pei-secution was raging, and 
 the Roman Clergy could write to St. ('yprian, "that the grant of 
 a Bishop M'as witidield from us by God," and that in this crisis, 
 "tliey were obliged to consult with some of the Bishops who are 
 near to us and witliin reach, and some whom the heat of the 
 pei-secution had driven out from other provinces."* Again, tlie 
 Council of Laodicooa held (according to Dr. Pusey) before the 
 Council of Nicoia, provides in the 12th Canon. "That the 
 Bishops Icng approved both in the word of faith and the dispen- 
 sation of the right doctrine, be constituted to the ecclesiastical 
 government, by the judgment of the metropolitan and neigh- 
 bouring Bishops." And, as if to prevent any misunderstanding, 
 the following (13th) Canon says, " That the multitude be not 
 permitted to make the elections of those who are about to be 
 appointed to the Priesthood (Episcopate)." It would be difficult 
 to reconcile these provisions of the venerable Council that gives 
 us the first list of the Canonical Books of Scripture, with Mr. 
 Dawson's assertion that Clergy and Laity alone were concerned 
 in elections before the Council of Nico3a. 
 
 We have the incidental testimony of the Emperor Alex- 
 iuider Severus, A.D. 235, nearly a century before the Nicene 
 Canon, to the method adopted by the Christians of publishing 
 or propounding the names of those who were to be ordained 
 Bishops. His Historian Lampridius says, "When he wished to 
 ' give rulers to provinces, or to ordain procurators, he published 
 
 * Bp. SO. 
 
«*r 
 
 22 
 
 i' 
 
 
 B' 
 
 their names, exhorting the people, that if any liad a crime to 
 urge he might ' ake it evident by proof ; and lie said that it was 
 a bad thing when Christians and Jews did this in propounding 
 priests (Bishops) who were to be ordained, the same course 
 siiould not be pursued in the case of rulei-s of provinces."* 
 Here we have a practical exi)lanation of the t^>itlmfmium plehis ; 
 the Bishops proposed names, but to Jlo so they musi; have been 
 present at th:? election. Let me now cite the testimony of 
 another Empsror as to the traditional usage. Auxentius, Bishop 
 of Milan, being dead A.D. 374, the Emperor Yalentinian called 
 a Synod of Bishops, and after an address to them on the serious 
 nature of the work in hand, said, " Consult now together, jmd 
 elect a« Bishop of +his Church a man to whose authority we may 
 submit oureelves, and Avhose rebukes we mav endure without 
 hesitation." The Synod decided to give the nomination to the 
 Emperor who declined the responsibility in these words, " It in 
 your business, and it is meet that you on whom God has con- 
 ferred grace, should take chaj'ge of this matter, I deci 'e that it 
 is too great for my powers, and foreign to ray office." Vestrwni 
 est negotium, ae vohis id quihus gratiam suam Deus GontuUt 
 curare convenit. Ego vero id et viribus meis rnajus et ah officio 
 meo alienum judico.\ The Emperor was not so foolish as to 
 inteii^vet the 4th Nicoean Canon enacted only 49 years previously, 
 as a Canon of Consecration only, or he would not have lold the 
 Bishops tl.' at the election was their business. The Bishops, pro- 
 ceeded to consult together, but meanwhile the populace partly 
 orthodox and partly Arian nished to the church, and a riot 
 ensued. Ambrose, prefect of tlie city, hastened to restore order. 
 A child cried out, " Ambrose for Bishop." Ail united in acclam- 
 mations, and the Synod sanctioned his nomination, no doubt on 
 tlie principle that a unanimous election was a divine one. 
 Ambrose resisted on the ground that there was no precedent for 
 making an unbaptized layman a Bishop, but he was at length 
 consecrated. Qut:m resistebam ne ordinarer. Sed non valuit 
 prescriptio ta)idem. ^ 
 
 Next in importance to tlie testimony of St Cyprian, is tliat 
 of Jerome. He says, " One (presbyter) was elected as a remedy 
 against schism, lest each one attaching parties to liimself should 
 
 ' Lamp. Vita Aloz. Sev. c. 46, p. 997. t Magd. Cent, Tom., 3 p. 1147. t Uh. 10, Ep. 82. 
 
23 
 
 rend the Church of Christ. For at Alexandria from the time of 
 St. Mark the Evangelist to tliat of the Bishops Heracles and 
 Dionysius, tlie presbyters always styled one elected from them- 
 selves, and placed in a higher rank— a Bishop, in the same way 
 as if an anny shonld make an Imperator, or Disacons select one 
 of themselves whom they knew to be industrious, and call him 
 Archdeacori.'- Quod autempostea unus eUctus est, in schimiatw 
 7^emedium factum est ; ne unus guisque ad se ti^ahens Oht'isti 
 ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandria} a Marco Bvangelista 
 usque ad IleraGlem. et JJionysiuvi Episcopos, Presbyteri semper 
 unam ex se electum In exeelsiori grada coUocatum, Episcopum 
 ncmiinabant ; quomodo si ex<;rGitus Imperatorem fadat, aut 
 diacmii eligant de se quern industrium> noverint, et Arch- 
 diaeonum voeent* This passage has been explained to mean, 
 that in the great See of Alexandria, Presbyters alone had the 
 right of electing their Bishops. But how could St. Cyprian, an 
 African Bishop, have said chat a totally different mode of elec- 
 tion had come down to him as a "Divine tradition and an 
 Apostolic observance," if Alexandria the greatest of African 
 Dioceses had ouite another ApostoHc observance? This diffi- 
 culty alone should make us be careful whether we understand 
 Jerome aright , I concei ve that we have in this celebrated 
 passage another instance of the power of words over ideas. The 
 misconception of the true meaning has arisen from translating 
 nomlnahant, they nominated. But to "nominate one elected" is 
 unmeanir g. Jerome is speaking of the title not the election of 
 Bishops. He says, that ever since St. Mark's time, the Pres- 
 l)yters called the man elected (not by them) but from them, (he 
 does not say by whom)— a Bishop, in the same way as an army 
 may make an Emperor, or Deacons call one elected out of their 
 munber an Archdeacon. Imperator was strictly speaking a title 
 given by tlie anny and senate to a successful general. Jerome 
 elsewhere uses Ihe word nominavit in this sense. In his com- 
 mentary 01 the 60th ciiap. Isaiah, he says, "In which the 
 majesty of Holy Scripture is to be admired, because he called 
 {nmninavit) the future princes of the church, Bishops." In quo 
 scripturm sanctm admiranda majestas quod jjrincipes futuros 
 Eccksitn Ejmcopos nominavit. Jerome could not possibly 
 
 * Jeromp, Ej*. 86. 
 
 ! , 
 
24 
 
 mean by nomiiiavit, elucted, but simply, styled or called the 
 otticers of the chiirGh — Bishops. But in cider to understand 
 Jerome's meaning, let us take an illustration of an ejection— that 
 of St. Athanasius to this very See of Alexandria. It took place 
 the year after the Council of Nicoea. Jerome was born five 
 years after this election, and must have known all about it, as it 
 led to such wonderful results. The Arians, y^ho expelled St. 
 Athanasius from his See, objected to his election, on the ground 
 that the people had not been consulted. The Bishops accord- 
 ingly met in Synod, wrote a letter to all the Bishops of the 
 Catholic Cliurch, and with great vehemence denied the existence 
 of the alleged defect. " Because, cay they, tht; whole multitude 
 and the whole people of the Catholic Church, as if with one 
 mind and body asseml)led, with shouts and vociferations demand- 
 ed that Athanasius be given as Bishop to the Church."* Quod 
 omnis mulfitudo omnisf/ue pqpulus Catkolicm ecclesice tanijuam. 
 ex una anima et corpore congregat% clamorihus et vociferationi- 
 htts jjostularent Athanasium ecclesim Episcopum dari. They 
 go on to say, f" That the people implored of Christ m public 
 prayer that their request might be granted, and conjaied us many 
 days and nights, that wr should accede to their wishes and 
 in the meantime would not depart from the Church, nor 
 allow us the possibility of departing." Idque publicis votis a 
 Christo eivpetisse, nonque ut faceverm.is per multos dies ao 
 noctes Jurejicrando obte^tatos fuissej cum interea nee ipsi ah 
 Ecelesid discederent^ nee nobis discedendi facultatem permit- 
 terent This expulsion of St. Athanasius and the election in his 
 stead of Giegory, at Antioch, led to the calling of a Synod at 
 Rome b^ Tope Julius. In a letter written to the leaders of the 
 Arian party at Antioch, he says, " Where is the ecclesiastical 
 Canon or Apostolic tradition of this kindj that when the Church 
 Is at p^flco and the Bishops in agreement mth Athanasius, 
 Bishop of Alexandria, yon should send Gregory a foreigner and 
 a stranger, neitlier baptized at Alexandria, nor known to the 
 people, nor denianded l)y the Presbyters, and make him Bishop 
 in Antioch V Julius here incidejJtaliy teiis us what in his 
 opinion constituted a Canonical election at Alexandria, viz., the 
 
 * The Egyntiiu? BisIiupH might have <k-feiuled St. Athaiuisiua lietter by a/flrmiiig that St. 
 MarK liad given the right of election to tlie Presbyteri, had any such riglit existed, 
 t Miifd. Cent Tom. 2, p. 1021). 
 
25 
 
 person should be "known to the people,'^ j?lehi cognitnm," asked 
 for hy tlie Prtisbytcrs," Preshyteris jjostulatum, and "not a 
 foreigner," no/i jjemjrmnm. This tallies with Jerome's account 
 wL^ says that the Bishop was elected from the Presbyters, ex se 
 that is, not a foreigner. It by no means follows from there 
 being no mention made by Julius of the Bishops, that they had 
 no share in the transaction, as we have already seen tliat they 
 met at Alexandria and took the chief part in the election. We 
 have another testimony to the niutie of an election in this great 
 See, in a letter of Peter the successor of St Athanasius, and 
 expelled by the Arians in favor of Lucius. Of the latter he 
 writes,^ " No convention of orthodox Bishops had appointed hi- a, 
 nor the suffrages of the true Clergy, nor the rcfjuest of th« 
 people, as ordered by ecclesiastical decrees." JVon hunc con- 
 stduerat conventtifi orthodoxorum Eplscoporuni^ non verorum 
 clericorum sufragla, non pomili jyosmkitlo^ qiiemoflmodum 
 ecGledastlds juhetur mnctionlhm .'^ Still further, fNazianzeu 
 says of this election of St. Athanasius, " that it was after an 
 Apostolic and spiritual manner that he was carried to the throne 
 of St. Mark." I have dwelt at length on the election of St. 
 Athanasius because Alexandria was one of the greatest Sees of 
 antiquity, and because St. Athanasius was himself present as a 
 Deacon at the Council of Nica3a, and must have known whether 
 liis own election was Canonical, or in other words, whether the 
 4:th Canon was simply one of Consecration, and gave the Bishops 
 neither vote nor veto in the election. 
 
 I shall adduce another instance to show that seventy-five 
 years before the Council of Nicosa, Bishops " were concerned 
 in elections," and that the Metropolitan was present. Gregory 
 Kyssen tells us that a delegation was sent to Gregory of 
 Neo-csesarea, by the City of Cumana, to ask him to establish a 
 Bishopric there. He consented to visit Cumana ft /the purpose. 
 After some days spent in preparations, the election took place. 
 The chief laymen were all busy in bringing forward such as 
 they deemed to be pre-eminent for birth or eloquence, and 
 presented their several candidates with commendations from 
 each on behalf of the object of his choice. The laymen were 
 greatly divided in opinion, and Gregory would iiccept none of 
 
 * Magil. Cent. Tom. 2, p. 1302. t Orat 21, ou Atlmnanius i>. 877. ' 
 
26 
 
 in 
 
 ,Md n(Utu« pfoj/oM'd. One of tlioK' pruni'iit feeling insulted 
 l)ucaiii>(e tlic JJisliopti would acpej)t nom- of tJieir caiidiMtite^, and 
 bucansc Gregory paid no attention to the interest taUen in the 
 nominees, tanutinglv recommended him to select Alexander the 
 cliareoal-hnrncr. (Gregory took the sneering layman at liis woril, 
 and Jiaving made eiujniries int(» the man's (Oiaracter and life. 
 ordere<l him t<» l»e decently arrayed in a snif of Ins own 
 M.>reg«»ry\-) i"oi,(,'s. for his coiis^'crutioii. Wliilr rids wji.h Kcing 
 'flonL'. Mregory guvc rlirin nil a Icctnrc on rin- sin of jndging 
 actM.trding to ilu' a|i|»eiir!Uici'. and on A Ic.vandi'r !H'ini»- Itroiight 
 l»ai-l\. ♦•onsvcratcd liini."'" 'Ild^ i> i>nt a snintuary of rlie grapliir 
 sct'iie desci'ilK'd hy (Iregory Nysscji, and it snpplies another 
 refutation «»f Mr. IJnwson's statement, '' That tlie Clergy and 
 Laitv almie were concerned in election:*, and before the Canon 
 of Nicica, tiiere is no trace, even in ordinations of the assemblv 
 of the Ih'shops and Metropolitan npcni sncli occasions," 
 
 It appears that in the days of St. And>rose, it rested greatly 
 with the ISfetri >politan, whether a ]>arti<»nlai' candidate was appoint- 
 ed to a See oi' not. St. Andn-ose. after liis alhision t(» those who, 
 foUowing the opinion of Simon, honglit with memey the grace 
 of the Holy Kpiscopate, goes on to say, " V;>n may see in the 
 Clmrch everywhere those whom not merit, hut moncA', carried 
 forward into the f>rder of Episcopacy — a ti'itling and nntanght 
 people who admitted among them such a J^iMcst." ft was, there- 
 fore, no unconimon thing to iind the liaity in the 4th Century 
 so carelcBB and ignorant as (jUietJy tt) accept I5ish<i])s appointed 
 as folloM's. " If yon ask them faithfully who made them I^riests, 
 thev will strai'ditwav answei* and 8aA% ' I wafi l.'itelv ordaijied bv 
 the Archbishop, and I gave him a hundred shillings that I 
 nn'ght deserve to c>btain the grace of the Episcopate ; if I had 
 not gi^en them, 1 should not be to-day a Bishop. I gave the 
 gold aiul r got the ih'shopric.' {^Seotanfi^s Shnonw sentsntkira^ 
 Kpiwo^mtm^ (jratiam ^>^'» f^??**/.s^ roeinerunt et videani in eccteela 
 pafi.mn (ji^ofs lum mfvita .sw/ iwminiw ad Ajri-senj/atu^ oi'dincni 
 pr(Wi',i'( runt j iiygfiofm lyopulirm A hidooUdn ^ptt talent isihi 
 aHrhf'Vviit aaofrdotpm. — Quox .si jx'/'runctari JiUhlltei' veJl^, (luis 
 e')H ■prififecent sarprdoten^ num et d'u'.unt^ nh archiepLsrojJu ^ani 
 nu].H',r E})'wcopnti ordhmtus, centamqfie t^olidOfS dedl nt episco- 
 
 'Vitft Gr«gor Thaumntnrjii, \\ 2sr.-pi. 
 
27 
 
 paJem (jrathan o(Hif«ijii'i iiinuuxHcia ,* qmt^ x'l mini me <h'tfi.s.H<'mj 
 /iodic <'jnsco2>H)i tifni cf<se)n — atincvi dtdl ei 62)if<covafuJiv ami- 
 j>if/\cvi.y^ I cite tin's passaij^c to pivjvc that the Muti-opolitaii 
 must have been ''coiiceruud in elections," in the days of St. 
 Ambrose, and if it be objected, that lie wrote snl)se(piently to the 
 Nieene (^mneil, I reply that he >vas not describing any i^articu- 
 lar <late, Init the ai»;e ii-enerallv in which he lived. He was born 
 eight yeavs after the (Jonncil, and we may be sure that the 
 venality he condemns, could not have arisen all at once, but pre- 
 vailed before he was born, as no one, whether an individual or 
 a Church ''' rcperite tiupi-^Hinv'as Jit.'"' I scarcely, think that Mr. 
 Dawson could have been so positive that " there is no trace even 
 in ordinations of the presence of the Provincial Bishops, before 
 the (^anon of N^icani," had he duly considered that the Canons 
 of the Council make no claim to originality. They take for 
 granted a code of Ecclesiastical law of long standing. The 
 Fathers of ISHcani merely consolidated the many Provincial 
 Canons enacted long before their lime. For instance, the sixth 
 canon which says, "If two or thrtie ijishops oppose an eh ction, 
 reasonable in itself, and in accordance lolth the Ecclesiastical 
 (kuw)h lot the vote of the majority prevail," supposes sucli a 
 Canon ;us already In force in ^he province's. Moreover, all 
 the provisions of the 0th Canon are prefaced by the words, 
 " Let ancient customs prevail," pointing plainly to the fact that 
 they were a ratilication of laws of such long standing as to be 
 •called, ancient. We have therefore, in the very language of the 
 Nicene Canons, proaf from internal evidence, that Bishops 
 " were concerned i?' elections,"! and that it was an " ancient 
 custom ;" but if so, we !iave something more than a tt'ace of 
 ''their being present even in jrdinutions Ijcfore the Nicene 
 Council." 
 
 It should be remembered that universal ol)edience to the 
 decrees of a general Council was a plant of slow growtli. It 
 depended on the acceptance accorded them by Provincial 
 Synods. In those days it took a long time for the CJanons of 
 a general Council to reach all the provinces, l)ut when they did 
 reach them, the Provincial Synods accepted them (or such of 
 thorn as needed acceptation), in Provincial Canons. Thus the 
 
 * St. Ami), opera ,Tom. I, oap. 6. f Canons 1, 2, 5, », p. 15-U. 
 
28 
 
 
 M 
 
 Provincial Synod of Antioc.li (A.I). .'Ul), adopted as its own 
 and explained the 4tli Canon of Nic(i>a. Tlie lOtli Canon 
 explained the meaning of '\ohe!roto?iia"' in the 4th Canon of 
 Nicola, and shows plainly that the latter Canon is one oi election 
 and not of consecration merely. It provides that a Bishop shall 
 not be elected, without (first) a Synod, (second), the j)resence of 
 of the Metropolitan, (third) the presence of the fellow- 
 ministers of the Metropolitan in the province, to be summoned 
 by letter, or without at least the consent of a majority of those 
 absent, signifying their vote by letters. We should not then be 
 surprised at finding that in many cases the Canons of Councils 
 were broken through ignorance. It was by means of Provincial 
 Synods that the Canons of General Councils were promulged, 
 and oftentimes this took a long time to effect. The great 
 Augustine confessed that when he was consecrated, he disobeyed 
 the Canon of Nicoea, which forbad two Bishops to be in one 
 city. He says, "I was ordained Bishop and sat with him 
 (Valerius) which I did not know was prohibited by the Nicene 
 Council, nor did he himself know it." {EjnsGopus ordinatus 
 suW' et sedi cum illo, quod concUio N^ieamo prohibitum fuisse 
 nesclehmn, neo ipse scielat.)'^' He transgressed too the 23rd 
 Canon of Antioch, which forbids a bishop from appointing his 
 successor, as he designated Eradius to succeed him, with however 
 the consent of the Clergy and people. lT.-> namesake of 
 Canterbury did the same thing, and both were influenced by the 
 fear of a troublous election after their death. So disgraceful 
 were popular proceedings in episcopal elections, that Nazianzen 
 complained that in them, " It was evident who excelled the rest 
 as much as the sun the stars, at least to the purest part of the 
 people, the Clergy and our Nazarites, to whom chieily 0r wholly 
 such choice should be referred, and not to the richest and 
 greatest, and to the mercy and indiscretion of the multitude, 
 yea, even to the basest persons among them."t St. Augustine 
 nominated his own successor for this very reason, because says 
 he, " I know that after the deaths of Bishops, churches are dis- 
 turbed by ambitious or contentious men.". {Seio post ohitua 
 episcoporum per amhitiosos ant contentiosos solei^e ecclesiaa 
 perturba/ri,)X 
 
 E|>. IIQ. 
 
 t BUkou's, {>erp. ^v., p. 448. 
 
 X »p. 110, 
 
29 
 
 But amid all the varietv whieli existed in the election of 
 Bisliops, there was one eleniei.c that ever remained constant — 
 the necessity of procuring the consent of the Provincial Bishops. 
 I do not know of any exception save in the case of an unanimous 
 election. Then inded the consent of the Metropolitan and other 
 Bishops was given even in the case of unhajitized laymen, such 
 as St. Ambrose, Eusehius, etc. It was an established principle 
 that unanimity was at all hazards to be obtained, the blessings of 
 which are summed up by St. Ambrose, "Where there is a 
 demand fi-om all, we ought by no means to doubt that there is 
 the Lord Jesu« the author of good will, the arbiter of prayer 
 the president of the ordination, and the bestower of grace."' 
 OU unnm'mrum postulatio mnqitirit duUtare noft nequaqiimn 
 oportet ihi Dmninum Jeaum et voluntatis anctorem, etpetitionia 
 arlrvtu^m^ et m'dinrotionis prmxulem vel largitorem gratice* 
 He says, also, that when a choice is unanimous, it is Divine. 
 " It is deservedly believed that he is divinely elected whom all 
 have demanded." Merita creditum gnod divino esset electus 
 fuisset quern omnes postulaviftsent.f There are to be found 
 however, exceptions even to this nile, the exceptions proving 
 the presence and the influence of the Provincial Bishops. The 
 election of St, Martin of Tours is a case in point. Sulpicius 
 Severus says, " An incredible multitude not only in that town, 
 but even in neighbouring cities, had come togetiier to offer their 
 suffrages." Incredihilis multitudo iwn solii7n in eo oppido 
 sed etiam in vicinis wUhus ad suffragia ferenda cmivenerat.X 
 But some of the Bishops objected to St. Martin's election, 
 because, " His person was mean and not worthy of the Episcopate, 
 and he was clad in sordid raiment." Adversati mit quod persmia 
 esset Gontempta nee episcopatu digna^ vestique sordida vesti/retur. 
 The people however prevailed and he was consecrated. This 
 di/vuve unanimity was often hard to procure, and " interventors " 
 were employed by the Bishops to bring it about. If the Metro- 
 politan thought that unanimity was improbable, then instead of 
 going to the vacant see, he requested the people to send to him 
 two or three delegates in the name of the wliole, and then the 
 delegates and Metropolitan decided on the Bishop. However, as 
 these exceptions are set forth largely by Bingham, I shall 
 
 • I4b, 10.. Ep. sa. t Ep. ad Vercellencei. J Madg. Cent Vol. 8, 1986. 
 
80 
 
 tlwc'll no loTiiijer on tliein. I fear liidoed that niv letter is already 
 too loll**-, thon|ifli certainly not lon<»' enonijh to make ont my ease 
 as ejfectively as maj be done. jVIy ol>jeet has been to sliow that 
 Ml", Dawson i.s in error in stating that the Canons of Niccea are 
 Canons of eonsccration and not of election, and tliat there is no 
 foundation for his assertion that in ante-Xicene times, the 
 " Clergy and Laity M'ere alone concerned in Episcopal elections." 
 His statement too, that in those days " there is no trac^e, even in 
 ordinations, of the assembly of the Bishops and Metrojjolitan 
 upon siieh oeca8ioP;S," I have been obliged to deny, for the reasons 
 given, though the 23rd (^anon of the Council of Antioch should 
 be a sufKcient reason in itself. " Let the ecclesiastical constitu- 
 tion be observed which enjoins that a Bishop be not made other- 
 wise than with (by) a Synod, and the judgment of the Bishops 
 who have the power of promoting a worthy man after the sleep 
 (death) of him who has ceased from his labours." Sefvetur 
 authn statutimi ecdemasticwni qui contimet 7ion aliterjieri dehere 
 guam cum Syiwdo et judicio Episcopoi'uin qui pont defmicti 
 donnitationem, protestatem habeiit diynum provehendi. In the 
 original Greek the Canon is even stronger than in the Latin 
 translation of Zonaras, and when it is considered that the Canons 
 of this Council (A.D.341) were based upon, and embody the 
 Apostolical Canons, I thing we have a disproof of Mr. Dawson's 
 position. I have nothing to do with his arguments drawn 
 from Modern Canonists, or from Medioeval authorities, all I 
 wish to do is to rescue the House of Bishops, the majority of the 
 Clerical, and almost a majority of the Lay delegates of the 
 Provincial Synod, from the reproach that they are an " iTi/novating 
 party ^"^ who " under cover of the proposed Canon (of Continua- 
 tion) claim a new election in the House of Bishops, over the 
 Diocesan Synod." 
 
 I am very sincerely youre, 
 
 ^ ,.. J. T. ONTARIO. 
 
 The venerable ' 
 
 George WurrAKEE, M.A., 
 
 Archi^eacon of York, 
 
 Provost of Trinity College, and 
 
 Prolocutor of the Provincial Synod. 
 Ottawa, Dec. 1st, 1877, 
 
m-