p ^, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 ■UUL. 7 p^ r >> cf-^' ^? W ^ ^^ j^ 'V^ > f> *^^ p C) / Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRFET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 fl^^ i CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituto for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whicheve'' applies. L'exempiaire filni6 f ut reproduit grAce A la gAn6rosit6 da: Harold Camiibeil Vaughan IMemorial Library Acadia University Les images suivantes ont Att reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettett de l'exempiaire film4, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e 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 exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniftre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols -~^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". 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, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cMch^ i\ est filmA A partir de Tangle supArieur gouche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'imcges nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 /y THE REPORTS ' i tt/r,fH ^j> PRESKNTED TO THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE PROVED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND OPPOSED BOTH TO THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, AND TO TUK SAFETY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. IN FOUR LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, BY AN Ex-M.P, \ \ HALIFAX, N. S. PRlJ^fED BY ^AMES BOWES & SONS, HOLLIS ST 1868. / / Thb following letters are published for the information of the members anc^ adherents of the Church of EIngland. It will bo in the recollection of many members of the Church, that a Com^ mittce was appointed by the Pan- Anglican Conference to prepare a general scbeQie for the government of the Colonial Dioceses. That Committee drew up a plan, which they reported to the Conference, and which is examined and* reviewed by an Ex-M. P., and now published in pamphlet form. Of the scheme thus proposed for the governDient of the Colonial Churchos, it is i IN1T10DUCTI0I7. I TRDST tlmt the matter (contained in these Letters will engage the attention of Members of Parh'ament, and of the advisers of the Crown. For, however imperfectly the (luestion is treated here, it is one which concerns the rights both of tlu* English Laity, the Clergy, and the pre- rogative of the Queen. The real question is this, Are we to keep the Church of England as she was established at the Reformation, with definite Articles, and a set- tled order of Service, a Church protected, yet restrained by Statute, in which the Clergy have freehold rights to their Cures, indefeasible so long as they obey the law ; and the Laity can depend on the truth of the doc- trines, and the regularity of the service prescribed ? Or are we to set up another Church, which Iiolds its endowments by Statute, but which may change its Articles and its services at the pleasure of the Bishop ; and when the Laity are aggrieved, or the Clergy wronged, there is no redress, but in appeal to a Court, in which he, the Bishop, sits sole J udge, both of faith and law ? This question has been raised with great imprudence by those who organized the Lambeth Confereuce, and prepared the Reports which were submitted to it in December last. That it was in the highest degree un- «!onstitutioMal to raise this question before such an assembly will appear, if we bear in mind that American and Scotch Bishops, who are outside our Constitution, sat and voted as members, and that these strangers, along with Colonial Bishops, formed an overwhelming majority of the Assembly. The characteristics of C». lonial Bishops I have touched upon in one of these letters; for, though anxiously desiring to avoid personal- ities, 1 must not omit that which is essential to my argument. Every one will see, that in an assembly composed of a large body of men of inferior gifts, but very extreme opinions, nothing is more easy, than for one or two dexterous speakers to lead them (where there is no restraint of publicity, for the public press is excluded) to any conclusions that favour Episcopal authority. It is not surprising, therefore, that the wis- dom and moderation which characterized many members of the Lambeth Conference were overborne, as we know they were, by those violent Reso- lutions and unconstitutional Reports, which are now before the world. So it always will be. Those who desire the counsels of moderation must keep within the limits of Constitutional law, and avoid a promiscuous gathering, which is as imprudent as it is illegal. It is, however, time that those who value the Constitution of our Church and the Queen's Prerogative, should look about them, and inter- pose. For the proceedings of the leaders of the Lambeth Conference 6 have gone during the Inst ycnr to great Icngtha. One of these, iIk; Bishop of Capetown, has within tlio hist foi tnight tried to defy the Quecn'."» authority, and the laws of the Renhii, hy a boUl attempt to consecrate in England a Bishop whom the Queen did not nominate. In this att(;mpt he has been assisted by a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury, \v
ncouvaf?e8 uh to resort to yon, when we feel in doubt or anxiety respect- ing the prospects of our Church. In laying before you what I appre- hend to be n general sentiment of Lay-Churchmen, I am sure I shall obtain from your Grace a patient hearing. Your Grace has seen from the various organs of public opinion that the Conference at Lambeth, known as the Pan-Anglican Synod, has beeo noticed by the Laity^ and not favourably. 1 ask leave to lay before you flome of the grounck of dissatisfaction. Had your Grace's view, as announced in your original circular, been acted upon, had the Conference btjen confined to expressions of brotherly sympathy, the luity would have regarded with interest such a meeting of th« Bishops of the Anglican Communion, The Bishop of St. I)avid's, indeed, with his usual acuteness, pointed out in a letter addressed to your Grace, the hazards to which such a meeticg was exposed ; but, presided over by your Grace, and restrained by your wisdom, such a Conference might have passed without any haz- ar should be read in connec- tion with Resolutions 9 and 10. They announce a scheme of Sacerdotal Government which I cannot say is unprecedented. It prevails at Rome, and has been tried in England, but always with consequent es, which leave an impressive warning. The scheme, as far as we can discover it, from the Resolutions which shadow it forth, is this . Every s-'spantto Church Avithin our Colonial Empire is ti> be governed by an Episcopn! Synod. The different Synods in the larger Colonies are to be placed *' in due and canonical subordination to the higher nutiu>rity of a Synod or Synods above them," (Resolution 4) ; and we may infer, (though this is not stated), that these various Metropolitan Synods, arc to bo ruled by the Central or Pan-Anglican Synod of I^ndon. What the powers and functions of such Synods are to be, we are un- able yet to state, because they are to be defined in a Report from the Committee named by the Conference, "which I see by the newspapers is about to present its Report to your Grace. But that their powers are va.st. include every question of doctrine and of discipline, the choice of the Bishop, the position of every Clergyman in a Colony, and the regula- tion of Missions and Missionaries, may be clearly gathered from Reso- lutions 10, 11, 12. Further, these Synods are to have the largest pow- ers of passing laws to regulate the Colonial Churches, and are to form the Judicial Tribunal, before which every question of doctrine and dis- cipline is to be brought. This appears from Resolutions H, 9, and 10. In the construction of this vast Hierarchy, in conferring upon Bishops these large and undefined powers, the persons employed are, a Commit- tee of ten Bishops (whether English, Scotch, or American, we are not told), (Resolutions 5 and 9,) " along with all the Colonial Bishops" (Resolution 9.) I do not say that this Hierarchical government — this superseding of our present Judicial tribunals, and subjecting the Clergy and Laity to a tribunal of Ecclesiastics — this substitution of Canon Law for English Laws, — this surrender of the Freehold Rights which at present guard an English Clergyman whenever he holds a Benefice — this handing him over to Laws passed by Bishops, and to a tribunal of Bishops to inter- pret these Laws, — I do not say that this is unprecedented. It is the practice of the Roman States, it prevails wherever the Church of Rome H^Hl is not restrained by National Law, it prevnilod for a time in En{?1and, until it was found intolerable, and was supproflHcd. It was exhibited in tiu? Star Chamber under Charles the First, (though oven thou with cer- tain ntiodifications) ; but I would ask your Grace whether such a syst^^m can bo safely offered now by a Conference of Uishops to the English peo- I)lo within the Knglinh Colonies. I apprehend that our Colonists carry with them, and in no small measure, the traditions and feolingH which they have imbibed at home, — the dislike of arbitrary power, tiic love of Kngli.sh froiMloni, the rcveroncc for the Laws passed by I'arliumont and administered by Secular Judges, tho dread of arbitrary power in any shape, and viot the least when laws emanate from Priests, and arc admin- istered by Priests. Does your (Jraco believe that this scheme will be accepted by our Colonies as a remedy for their difficulties, or commend itself to tho peo- ple of England as an expedient which they can approve ? Will it not rather bo regarded as a renewal of tho perilous attempt, which in an evil day Archbishop Laud made, with issues to the Church and the Nation, which it is superfluous to recall? Your Grace will not wonder that, with such convictions, wo should ;!ntreat you to cancel tho Resolutions of the Pan-Anglican Synod, and to leave the Committee of Bishops to resume their regular and important duties, and to commit to Parliament, as heretofore, tho task of passing the laws which are to bind the Clergy and Laity of o'u* Church, whether in our Colonies or at home. I have the 'lonour to be, my Lord Archbishop, Your Grace's most obedient Servant, An Ex-M.P. To I lis Grace The Archbinhop of Canterbury. THE REPORTS PRESENTED TO THE ADJOURNED CON- FERENCE AT LAMBETH. London, December 30, 1867. My Lokd Auchbisiiop, — The Conference of Bishops have now given to tho public tho Re- ports, which they received from their Committees on the 10th of Decem- ber last ; these are, I fear, not calculated to remove the apprehensions which in my last letter I ventured to express to your Grace. These Reports contain a scheme of Government for the Colonial Church, which appears to me complete, and not without precedents. But the complete- ness and the precedents offer matter for grave consideration. Thus much may be said in favour of the Episcopal Conference, that, whereas our Government has declined to lay before Parliament any scheme for the administration of the Colonial Church, it was not unnatu- ral that a Conference of Bishops should endeavour to supply what was mm 10 flupposed to be lacking in order to keep the Church in the Colonies iden- tical with the Church in England, and pound in the faith. How far this is likely to be accomplished by tha Reports now published, we shaii per- ceive when we have examined their chief provisions. I. The Government of the Colonial Church, if these Reports and their scheme should ever acquire the force of law, will be as follows ; First : in each Colonial Diocese the government will be vested in a Synod, composed of three orders, the Bishop, the clergy, and certain lay- men. Hoio many laymen or how few appears to be left to the Bishop tn suggest. Any clergyman, whovx the Bishop rejects (Adjourned Conference, p. 6), will he excluded from the Synod; but when the Clergy and Laity meet, tither separately or together, they can pass nothing without the Bishop'n consent : he is much more powerful than cur Sovereign, for hii> veto is ah- solute. Second : in each Province, which will combine several Dioceses, the government is vested in a Provincial Synod, and this Synod consists also of three orders ; in one the Bishops sit apart, the other orders are, the Clergy (either all or rei resentative clergymen), and the Laity, I'ep- resented by one Layman from each Diocese. On the deuisionti of the Clergy and Laity, even if unanimous, the Bishops, like the Council of Ten at Venice, have an absolute veto. ' Thitd : the jurisdiction o^ those Synods, as it. affects the position of any one Bishop, or the position ot a Clergyman, is this : A. Every Bishop, before he is consecrated, and every clergyman, be- fore he is ordained or instituted to a living, mufit make a Declaration, that he ^'•consents to be hound by all tha Rules (Adjourned Conference, pp. 25—6) '• a,nd Regulations which Lave heretofore been made, or which *' may from time to time he made, by the Dioctsan and Provincial Synods," and he takes his living with all its emoluments subject to the sentence of the tribunal of his Bishop, and binds himself to resign his living if sen- tence is pronounced against him. B. The tribunals are two : in the case of an accused Bishop, the tri- bunal is one on which three Bishops sit as judges, or, (where there are but three Bishops in the Province) two Bishops may decide the faith and fate of the third. In the case of a Clergyman, the Bishop sits alone on his tribunal ; and his sentence takes effect at once, suspending or depos- ing the Clergyman, leaving him a right of appeal to the Provincial Tri- bunal ; on winch he will find his own Bishop seated beside two other Bishops. C. The tribunal, thus narrow in its choice of judges, and summary in its judgment, is freed from those embarrassments which equity and cau- tion have imposed on our judges in our Courts of Law. The Bishops may tpks evidence in whatever manner they pleaflo : they may frame or change the rules of procedure according to their pleasure. But whatever laxity there is on points which concern justice, the scheme is stringent on the points which secure elfiv.acy. For every member of the Church must consent to its constitution, and " therefore its rules will have the force of laws : " (p. 4) and though aa appeal to the Civil Court is not ban^id in 11 words, " sufficient, provision shall be made by the declaration of submis- sion, that the sentence of the spiritual tribunals may be eftcitivc." (I>. 21.) D. There is, indeed, for the pauperized clergyman, or the deposed Bishop, a right of appeal from a distant colony to a tribunal in London. But on this tribunal, the appellant will find Bishops alone, seated as judges, with no precedents to guide, and no rules of evidence to restrain them, nor procedure to follow, nor an independent Bar to check an arbi- trary Bench (p. 17) ; and this tribunal will start into being so soon as ten Bishops from Scotland, or from the Colonies, or the United States, are found bold enough to sit on it. (p. IG.) II. This is the scheme of government proposed by Committees of Bishops for the Colonial Church ; and the scheme is framed so as to in- close in its iron net all who call themselves members of the Church of England. The Layman must not act as Churchwarden, or 3it in the Synod, unless he has declared his submission to this scheme. The Gov- ernment Chaplain must not act till he has a licence from the Bishop ; the Missionary must not begin his mission until he has submitted to this absolute authority, (p. 33.) Nor can any Clergyman hope to escape this by flight : he may leave the colony, but the grasp of the Bishop follows him. He musi seek a p..3sport from his Bishop (p. 33) ; and without such passport uo Bishop in any diocese throughout the wide world can venture to receive him. The system, which I have thus traced in its outlines is vigorous and bold : it shewi; a distinct aim aud a masterly hand. I have seen noth- ing so finished in the history of civil or military authoi'ity. In states which enjoy a despotic government. We have murmured at our Courts Mar- tial, as too much unrestrained by law : but these Episcopal Courts are far more free in their action, and more full in their powers. Nor is the scheme without precedents. It is borrowed from one of the wisest and most effective Governments, that of the Church of Rome. Framed by the subtlest intellects, perfected by long experience, it secures, what is sought, arbitrary and irresponsible power. Your Grace may study it in full operation now in Italy, Ireland, and France. In Italy the power of the Bishop over the priest is complete, and the power of the Roman tri- bunal is absolute over Bishop and Priest. Cardinal Patrizzi, with whom some of our clergy have corresponded, can inform your Grace of the ease and effectiveness of its working. But if your Grace desires a closer in- spection of the scheme, I recommend a study of the Romish Church in Ireland, Avhere every priest depends upon his Bishop to suspend, remove, or depose him ; and the case of Mr. Morrissy, ivhioh is published, will shew your Grace what are the results of an appeal by an obstinate priest from the sentence of his Bishop in the province to the judgment of the tribunal of Bishops at Rome. The appeal only insures his ruin. The effects of the system on the Romish Church in France have been traced in some graphic remarks of one of your Grace's suffragans, the Bishop of Oxford, who has successfully challenged contradiction to his statement. He has iaformed us how many priests, ruined by the harsh 12 senteuces of their Bishops, have to seek refuge ani aliment on the cab- stands of Paris. If your Grace should think that the Bishop of Oxford has coloured the case, you will find it confirmed by two modern French works which, though in the form of fiction, represent real facts, " Le maudit par I'Abbe de " and " Le Cure de Campagne." The scheme, therefore, of the Lambeth Episcopal Committees may be described as adroit and effective. How far it is applicable to Eng- land, or can be reconciled with our insular traditions and prejudices I do not presume to say. How far it will tend to preserve the uuity and in- tegrity of the Church of England your Grace will be better able to judge \vl; n I have presented to you some illustration of its practical working. i have the honor to be, My Lord Archbishop, Your Grace's obedient servant, Ex-M.P. SPIRITUAL TRIBUNALS PRODUCING DIVERSITY OF FAITH IN THE COLONIES. London, January 18, 1868. My Lord Archbishop, — The object of the scheme embodied in the Reports to the Conference Is to secure " unity in matters of faith, and uniformity in matters of dis- cipline, where doctrines may be involved." (P. 13, Adjourned Confer- ence.) To attain this the Committees recommend a Spiritual tribunal in London, to which questions of doctrine may be carried from the Spir- itu'il Tribunals of the Colonial Church, (pp. 12, 13.) But this object, undoubtedly important, is frustrated by the provisions of these Reports. For if your Grace will turn to pp. 13, 14, and 15, you will find that the Spiritual Tribunal in England, which alone can secure unity, is made powerless by the following provisions : Ist. That where there are Colo- nial Courts, these shall supersede and exclude the Tribunal. 2nd. That unless the Colonial Churches have consented to the constitution of the Tribunal, it shall have no power. 3rd. It shall not take cognizance of a case unless it " shall have been referred to it." 4th. The Colonial Churches are not only '' free to accept or decline the .appeal," but they may " withdraw afterwards their acceptance of the Tribunal if they so desit '." Let us lest the working of the scheme in two cases, one of whi- li is already m operation, the other is at least supposable. 7 We shall take first the difficulty which has suggested the remedy ; the state of the South African Church. That Church is represented by a prominent Bishop of decided opinions. What his theological views are, he has taken some pains to tell us. He, with his colleague. Bishop Twells, went last month to the English Church Union to declare their -confidence in that body. With the exception of the Bishop of Salisbury, \s and, with some reserve, of the Bishop of Oxford, nc Bisiiop on the Eng* lish or Irish Bench has expressed a favourable opinion of that notorious faction. They are the avowed abettors, of the practices which all the Bishops, without one exception, have condemned, and which your Grace, as president of the Ritual Commission, is now engaged in repressing. Yet to this body Bishop Gray went to pour out his heart, and Bishop Twells avowed himself an attached member of the Union. Bishop Gray, further, took occasion to pass an eulogy on the Rev. Mr. Butler, " The rev. gentleman was perfectly qualified for tlie office of Bishop, though he thought that his signing the declaration ot the twenty-one Clergymen on the Eucharist was, in his peculiar circumstances, indiscreet." That dc» claration, as your Grace will remember, Avas presented to you, last May, by twenty-one priests, who renewed those views of the Eucharist, which, in the case of Archdeacon Denison, your Grace's predecessor and his Court at Bath condemned as heretical ; which have been characterized by the Bishop of St. David s, " as engrafting not only the outward cei*e- monial, but the essential idea of the Roman mass on the Anglican Com' niunion Office," (Charge, p. 116,) and which have been succinctly de- scribed by the Bishop of London as " false doctrine on the nature of the Holy Eucharist." (Charge, p. 11.) Yet Mr. Butler, one of these tweu- ty-one schismatical Priests, Bishop Gray declares to be " highly qualified for the episcopate ;" and we cannot doubt, therefore, on what sort of per- son the choice of himself and his colleagues will fall ; a priest, not differ- ing in theology from Mr. Butler, but more cautious in revealing it, till he has reached the Bench. With such a Synod of Bishops, holding the creed of Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison, there can be no doubt what dogmas the Synod of South Africa will propound as of authority on their clergy. Suppose, then, this case to occur : a clergyman in the South African Church, who holds the Protestant doctrines of the Reformed Church of England, and believes the views of Bps. Gray and Twells to be, in the the language of the Bishop of St. David's, not distinguishable from the dogmas of the Church of Rome, is brought before the tribunal of South Africa, sentenced, and if firm, deposed. He appeals to the spiritual tri- bunal of London, on which your Grace may sit as President ; and your Grace, bound by your convictions and constrained by the Articles of your Church, will declare, as your predecessor did, Bishop Gray's views to be heretical, and those of the Presbyter to be sound : how long, I ask your Grace, would the Bishops of South Africa* accept the judgment of the ♦ The Bishop of Capetown has illustrated the correctness of my argument even more quickly than I had expected. S© long as the Archbishop of Canterbury con- curred with hirn and seemed to approve his proceedings in the nomination and consecration of a Bishop for Natal, then all went on smoothly, and Dr. Gray was loud in the Primate's praise ; but no sooner did the Archbishop demur to an infrac- tion of the Canons and a breach of the law, than the Bishop of Capetown writes to him to fling off his jurisdiction, and to tell him that he and the South African Church will follow their own pleasure, and will oonsecrs'te a new Bishop of Natal, all laws and canons notwithstanding. I 14 tribunal of London, and submit to its jurisdiction ? Would they not in- stantly use the power which these Reports give them, declare your con- clusions false, and renounce your authority ? So, in place of unity, there will arise diversity of faith ; and, in place of a united church, a schism. This is one result of the Reports, and it is imminent. II. Let me ask your Grace's attention to another. Bishop Selwyn has vacated the Metropolitan See of New Zealand. In South Africa Bishop Colenso occupies an unenviable position. Suppose the Crown resolves to close the scandal and remove Dr. Colenso to another hemi- sphere, and that he steps into the vacant post of the Metropolitan See of New Zealand, and draws around him other bishops of like views with himself. The Provincial Synod of New Zealand will in that case reflect the opinions of Dr. Colenso ; and its spiritual tribunal will give forth his judgment. Before this tribunal a clergyman may be brought, who believes in the Pentateuch, and thinks that it is not the same inspiration which moved Moses and Homer. Charged with rebelling against his Bishop, his mis- conduct is visited by deposition, and he appeals to the London tribunal. No man can doubt what sentence these judges would pass upon him ; here again the two churches are at issue, and the hope of unity is gone. Ill But this opens another chapter in these notable Reports. Not only is the scheme powerless for unity, but it is remarkable for its injus- tice. Observe its provisions. In P2ngl^"d, by our law, founded on the plainest equity, when a party appeals from an inferior court, his sentence is suspended till his appeal is decided. He has appealed to another tri- bunal, and that tribunal, as it reviews, may reverse his sentence. But that rule is set aside by these Reports, which follow the practice of the Roman inquisition. The moment a mhu is adjudged guilty by the first tribunal, his sentence takes effect. There is a naivete in this injustice which well deserves a record, " Sufficient provision should be made by " the declaration of submission, that the sentence of the spiritual tribu- *' nals may be effective." (pp. 21-24.) " During the appeal the sentencr, of the Provincial Tribunal should con- tinue in force, so far as it affects the present exercise of spiritual func- tions by the accused." (p. 14.) So that a clergyman who holds the Protestant doctrines of our Re- formed Ch.i'ch, accepted for three centuries by every English Bishop from Archbishop Cranmer to Archbishop Sumner, who refuses the Ro- mnnistic views of Bishop Gray or the rationalism of Bishop Colenso, will instantly be deposed by the tribunals of South Africa or New Zealand, and sent, a ruined man, to carry on if he can, his appeal. This is a re- finement of injustice reached only by the Inquisition of Rome. If by the help of friends he is enabled to prosecute his appeal to Eng- land, he will be told on his return to the colony (not acquitted only, but praised) that the Provincial Synod has renounced the jurisdiction of the Anglican tribunal, and that its sentence is null. True, and it deserves remark, the South African Church may per- chance continue in connection with the London tribunal, which is to start 15 iini sure your Gni,.» .„ li ^ .'''*'■ B"' unon «M;i" "erosies abn/t 1. ask your Gnpf>'« o*»„ /"T^t-t or these Reijorrsi T„t ^ P"it. ''■on of the South Si p1 V''"^' °"'3' vary ,•• bv !nh ?^,''^'^"««t.on sub- " ffow the South AflT n '"'',''' *'^° ^^^^^. Th^ !'">*'*" '."^ for a ;,or. scandal notv eStin/'' r^'^P'^ '"«3^ ^^ dehVered f?om " ""•" *''^" «'«n<^. '*rr-m t« '^*"*""'ii m that Church we irp .>ii , ^ "® mainta ned " Th», sained the same notoietvh^^^^ '" '^''''^O' ^ritZ\ofd1 ^Tl^iyen of both are plain fn*{ ' °*'' ^^^^ caused a Dubl 7,! ^ , '' ^^^^^ hare deration. And the lift. %'"'^ ""^^^'^^ o^ ourTr^lir*^?^- , ^he offences the Conference onlvtf- ^''^ ®^«°" ^^uly says ig tt ' '"."^' °'^«'' «dul- unfair: for if th! ^ p n^''^^ ''"^ ««andal to the Cn!. •!.^^*'''^' ^ff^nco. If Bishop Sel":LttT/'"'^ ^.''"^^'^'^ 'tanlfrZ?' "^^^ ««^'°" ^- f eate? scandaUhould fi^^^^^^ Bishop Gray lAf ''^''. ?P^««»' fn our Church's Tdl. """.""^^ *he Conference wJ L.^ •" T^ *''»* the special;, .ar^rthitgl^^^^^ '5 thet:;,-: ^r ^O.^f^^ which is most contairiniS A ^°'"® •' ""^^ wisely for ^hJ J- "' ^''"''ch tutions on marSS ' ^l""' '' ^ad, but a^ue du 1"'"'" '^ ^<>^^t the air, clinTto oS "' '""'■^'^ ^'''' reaches all a^e^/ .""^^ ""'^^ «^»«ti- «Jajs. The Ll?/^'''/P''««ni- m\ ive is ,gh the ivt, ind kave of tune de- kbop ■man Irial. London, February 3, 1868. My Lord Archbishop, — While it has appeared from the preceding argument that the objec- tions to bishops presiding on a judicial tribunal, which is to decide the doctrines and fortunes of the clergy, are thus clear and cogent, there are reasons why such an experiment is especially unsuitable to the case of our colonies. For your Grace has doubtless observed, that the increase in the number of colonial bishops makes it more difficult to find qualified persons to undertake the office. Clergymen, actively engaged here, are unwilling to abandon a sphere of usefulness for one which is distant and doubtful. Hence the Crown and the heads of the Church are every day more straitened in their choice, and are compelled to select clergymen, who, holding extreme views, think that the post of a bishop will give them opportunities of propagating these ; or the choice falls on inferior men, attracted by a post which raises them out of their obscurity into tu)- tice^ and gratifies them by rank, and opportunities of display. Thus we have seen persons, whose names we never heard of, not hnoton beyond the narrow circle of some obscure parish, or suburban district, raised to be bishops, and itinerating through England to £Aunt their dignity with cross and crozier, and to take part in the Romish rites which now scandalize the Church. I do not allude to the notoriety, which attended a recent consecration of a bishop, and which surprised 18 ami afflicted your Grace. I take the plea which Bishop Jenner (now Bishop of Dunc(lin) has put forward for himself, as hia qualification for the office of bishop. Ho boasts that he is faithful to Ritualistic observ- ance. In other words, a clergyman iu your Grace's diocese, enjoined by yourself and your predecessor to abstain from these unseemly prac- tices, affirms that ho has defied your authority, has violated the order of his church, and that, in the free of law aud decorum, he coutiuues the practices which all the bishops have condcmued. Can it be argued that such clergymen (and the letter of Mr. Macroric shews that this is the modern colonial type), when raised to the Colonial Episcopate, are to decide at their pleasure the faith and fortunes of our elergy ? or that the English laity would send their sons to incumbencies abroad, where Bishops Gray and Jenaer, with Bishops Tozcr and Twells are to interpret the Articles and declare the laws of our church? Such a system, reprehensible in our colouies, and producing extreme scandals there, would be unjustifiable even in England, where the posts of bishops have been hitherto filled, wc rejoice to think, by men of high repute. On this point let me submit to your Grace a few illustrations. I. But first let me deal with a question which is collateral, but which, in consequence of a recent decision, disturbs the minds of earnest church- men. Some of our clergy, loyal and attacheil to our church, have been led, by a recent judgment of the Final Court of Appeal, to question whether the Queen's Supremacy, and the Jurisdiction which is connected with it, are desirable and safe. This is far too wide a question for these h. 3ty remarks. Those who seek information will find it iu the learned Charge of the Archdeacon of London. But there is one remark which I may venture to present to candid minds. The supremacy of the Eng- lish Crown over the Church of England, is a mode of securing to the English people their right to the possession of a church of fixed order and definite truth. It secures to the clergy a freehold right to discharge their office of ministering to the people, safely, so long as they conform to the order of the Church ; and it secures to the laity their right to have a rational service reformed from Roman ceremonies, and pure doctrine opposed to Roman error. In the case of questions arising between any of these parties, the Crown secures to the disputants, after they have escaped from the hideous labyrinth of the Ecclesiastical Courts, a judi- cial tribunal, on which the three highest dignitaries of the Church sit alongside of judges, the most impartial that can be found in England, who, after a long life passed in the practice of their profession, bring the mellowness of ar ^ and the maturity of experience to guide them in their decisions. No doubt there may be lapses iu the judgment of this or any tribunal ; but such cases can be corrected by a more careful choice of the judges, and time is sure to redress the infirmities or the blunders of a brief generation. The evil of our judicial system lies in a direction the opposite to that to which the fears of the clergy point. It is the process in the Courts below, complicated by the Canon law, by the prejudice, and, I regret to tl is tr til II pr ofl tio sol to the wo * * 19 '^^'■y, by the interests of h', i ""l'-»» tl.c^ "'°,^'f 7 "f C«po.ow'„ o^ ™tc^^^^^^^^^^ "■« from nno .7'Port8 of Bishop Solwvn ti • "^^,^S'ons, nud now siff- (1 . '"= >voiiui bo, o «uppos; then , fat ?h'"° ;""«^'-"t.on. "'''^' ^'>" '"« «««« offers, ff , "" at Snhsbury, be callecl nn 7 "^ summoned before tho R;.i f isloM that <.v«,;, i"^ "mcliester, or (o (li„ Rr.! V '""sorts to 'rne, is rink hZ"!"" P™?'"""'*'' O" B sh„„ '^'"P.,"' I-oodo"- He to don ; and I believe there ia not a lawyer of any mark, nor a judge of any repute, who would not say that the finding was juat. Does your Grace think that such a conflict between throe Episcopal tribunals would conduce to the peace or order of the Church of England ? Bad enough that an English bishop should propound Romish heresies in a cumbrous charge ; a thousand fold worse, if he coerced his faithful clergy to subscribe to these unfounded dogmas. I take another illustration, and I take this, not from different dioceses, but from one diocese ; I select a bishop, whom all will admit to be well accfuaiutod with the law and qualified by his ability, wneu unbiassed, to decide it fairly. This at least is a case fairly selected. Your Grace may remember nine years ago that a church scandal oc- curred in Berkshire, which at the time was much talked of. A clergy- man in that ounty, well known by his writings for extreme Romaniz- ing opinions, had a Curate as zealous, and rather more indiscreet than himself Mr. Gresloy, having long advocated the Confessiona!, the Cu- rate brought it into practice, and he applied the nostrum in the most pre- posterous case imaginable, under circumstances so absurd and yet so gross as to occasion a general excitement. The clergy took it up as a reproach to their profession, and the laity as an insult. The Bishop of Oxford, interposing, as was indeed unavoidable, in a case which had scandalized his diocese, wrote an elaborate epistle, designed apparently to cloak the culprits, and smother the charge. But the clergy were not to be satisfied, and the public could not be silenced. The local newspa- pers, and the London press rung with the story ; and at length, coerced by public opinion, admonished (if I mistake not) by legal warning, the Bishop of Oxford at length named commissioners, and put the offender on his trial. So vehement was the public voice against the offensive practice of auricular confession (the wealth, yet the opprobrium of Rome) that the Bishop of Oxford finally pronounced his sentence in the following words : — " I hold that the Church of England discountenances '^ any attempt on the part of her clergy to introduce a system, of habitual " confession, in order to carry out such a system, to require men and '■'■ women to submit themselves to the questioning and examination of the " priest." Nothing could be more explicit than this declaration ; all that was wanted was that the bishop's practice should be consistent with his pro- fession. But this consistency was wanting. For when another case arose in a diocese, with which by residence and property the Bishop of Oxfprd is connected — a case of all others the most objectionable, because there the practice of auricular confession was applied to boys of tender years by masters who can compel attendance ; in that case, which at- tracted attention at the University of Oxford in 1862, was enquired into foy the late i^ishop of Rochester, and by him strongly condemned, was noticed in the last words of Bishop Lonsdale, who denounced it firmly ; yet of these schpols, and their opprobrious practices, the Bishop of Ox- ford stood fprward as the champion, and remains to this day their zeal- ous but iacons^stept defender. 21 I take from this samo diocoso another, it shall bo my last, illustration. Suffer me to say to your Qraco, that, when the English laity give their most precious gift, tho hearts and lives of their sous, to the service of the Church of P3ngland, they are certainly not attracted by tho hopes of lu- cre, or by the expectation of rank and ease. Hard work is the lot of tho English pastor, and very scanty gains. He may support tho Church — the Church does not sustain him. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland pays her clergy better ; tho Free Church of Scotland gives her ministers a larger iucome. The attraction we feel to the Church of England is this : that, guarded by our courts, surrounded by our laws, a pastor may teach and lead his dock calmly, surely, into the green pastures of truth by its still waters, no man forbidding him, none making him afraid ! What would be his lot if he was subject to tho will of his Diocesan, held his faith according to the Bishop's fancy, and might be stopped or re- moved at his pleasure. Would any man of independent mind accept such a position ? Would any thoughtful father give his son to such a bond- age ? To receive the law from the bishop's fancy, to take the faith of the Church of England from his interpretation, would indeed bo the se- verest bondage, that of the sojil. How such a system would act, let mo illustrate by the same diocese and the same able, certainly not impartial, Diocesan. A clergyman in Berks opens his letters on a morning in 1859, and finds a long despatch from his bishop, addressed to the arch- deacons ; so addressed, he perceives that it is of great importance and pressing exigency. He reads there words which make a great impres- sion on him : — " I utterly disapprove all attempts to introduce any such '^ unusual Ritualistic developments. I hold it to be ray duty to hold " firmly, and without compromise, the distinctive doctrines of our own " Reformed Church, a7id the solemn and expressive Ritual^ which is so " closely connected with them. You know that, to the utmost oi iT'V " power, I discourage all diminution and all excess of her sober rule. " You well know that I have a jealous dread of every Romanizing tend- " ency, and that I have not the slightest sympathv with those who wish " to restore among us such a Ritual as Mr. Purchas describes. For that, " in my opinion, such attempts both breed on the one side, m some weak " minds a longing first for the gorgeous Ritual, and then for the corrupt " doctrines of Rome." The same clergyman s'arts for Reading on a wintry morning of De- cember, 1866, to hear, as he hopes, the same glowing language from his eloquent Diocesan ; what is his surprise to leurn from the bishop's charge (p. 8), that " a great development of Ritual amongs ns is by no means to be dreaded :" that (p. 52) " the rigid clasp of an unalterable Ritual may fatally repress zeal, generate formality, or nourish superstition :" that " in the normal condition, therefore, of the Church, Ritual must be and ought to be elastic, and subject to variation :" that " where new churches (p. 49) have been built with a view to the practice in them of a legal Ritual higher than the comra'^ i, &c , I should greatly regret any sudden and violent changes enforceu upon them in the direction of a lower ceremonial^ in order to maintain a frozen uniformity." That the SIS ) practices which in 1851 (lie hialiop had Hti^^miitizcd as ^' chitdinh iVivuli- ties," wrro now "cravings f(»r a more cxproasivo syinboliHui in wornliip," " a reaction a^^ainst the chiUncsH, in which puritanism has Ion;; been dy- iunf out," '" a link of connection with the richer ceremonial of antiquity." Your Grace Avill hardly wonder that we rejoice, that where the opin- ions of a bishop arc so variable, and his views exposed to such ;;usts of chanpje, our ch-r^ry should prefer to hold fast by the standards of the Church, and to n-st on (lu^ Irceliold ri^^lits which the State; has given them. Sale, so Ion;; as they conforuj t<> the Church's order, they may smih; at the infirmities or lapses of their bishop ; and, while they respect his lawful authority, they fetl that the strong arm of tlu! law surrounds them both, and that, if a wrong is done or threatened, they can appeal t>) courts, which, in tiic hands of intrepid _,tidtresi. will aswrt and clear their rights. No, n)y Lord Archbishop ; if the scheme of the Jiambeth Conference ever passes from a project into a fact, it will present a plan of sacerdotal government and judicature, with which the Homnn Slates are familiar, bMt which is unknown to Knglaiul. It may be tried on in Knglish colonies ; I am sure it will not be long endured. If attempted in England it will overthrow the Queen" supre- macy and the constitution of our courts; but it will do something more, for it will iipset the C!hurcii of England. And those who value the Church as the most important, I hope the most lasting, of our institu- tions, will unite in opposing a scheme so contrary to the laws and liber- ties of the realm, and to the sah^ty both of Church and State. -I have the honour to be. My Lord Archbishop, Your Grace's obedient servant, / . An Kx-M.P. V .« M •^ \ M V ^