^1^- ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // 1.0 Itt liii U 1.1 1*0 25 2.2 2.0 I L25 iu 1I& 6" ^ fV ^ ^ 4^ ^ ^ <^ ^. .fK 'r > BY FRANCIS FULFORD, D.D., LOBD BMHOP OF MONTUAL. 9uiIUl|<)f at tl^e xetpntit of ffft CIrrss ontr ftatts fteitnt on MONTREAL : nUNTKD BT JOHN LOVELL, AT HIS STEAM-FRINTINO KSTABLISHMKMT, ST. NICHOLAS STREET. 1852. >.■' V t ■ 1 A CHARGE, *•. fti. tu. ^ Mt Reverend Brethren, The Primary Viaitation of the Bishop of a new Diocese mark» an important epoch in our < ^clesiastical annals ; and I doubt not that we all have looked forward to this occasion of our assembling together with no small degree of interest and anxiouH expectation. May the Spirit of Wisdom from above, and the Spirit of Love and of Strength rest upon us all, and overrule our purposes and deliberations, now and always, to the glory of God, the edification of the Church, and the salvation of our own souls. It is my wish, in the first place, to direct your attention to the real position, which, as members of the United Church of England and Ireland, we occupy in this Diocese. While spiritually we are identified with the Church in the mother-country, — emanating from her, using the same liturgy, subscribing the same articles, blessed with the same apostolic ministry, visibly forming part of the same ecclesiastical body, and claiming as our own all her mighty champions, confessors, and martyrs — yet in a political sense, and as regards temporalities, and everything that is under- stood by a legal establishment, or as conferring special privileges above other religious communities, we are in a totally dissimilar situation. Whether it ever was contemplated in these respects to carry out the theory of the Church of England in Canada, certainly it never has been practically effected ; politically con- sidered, we exist but as one of many religious bodies, consisting of such persons as may voluntarily declare themselves to be members of our Church ; and who thus associate together because they are agreed upon certain principles and doctrines, according to which they believe it to have been from the beginning the rule of the Church to serve and worship God. The abstract truth of any religious principles or doctrines in no way depends on the r / \ I . #1^' . degree of countenance which they may receive from the autho- rities of the State, nor can there be the slightest advantage or wisdom, but quite the reverse, in putting forward claims of the nature above mentioned, which we cannot fully substantiate, and which, circumstanced as we are here, if they \%ere to be granted to us to-day, it must be absolutely absurd for\us to expect to maintain. ' But while we have been held to be identical with thjj Church in England, this practical and essential difference in our political and legal position has never been provided for ; and the conse- quence has been, that we have lost the administrative power provid- ed for the Church by its legal establishment at home, and none has been supplied, adapted to our condition here. We seem to have been deprived of the ecclesiastical law of England, and have not been provided with any recognized and effectual means of self- government for those, who associate themselves together as members of our communion in Canada. The only alternative has been to seek a remedy in the discretionary exercise of Episcopal rule and superintendence ; an alternative, which is A