IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /. f / iT A't ^ ///// & 1.0 I.I II 2.0 UUi. 1.8 L25 ■ 1.4 lllll 1.6 V] ^ /: 4W ,^- /^ '^' o/^^ vV CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly c^hange the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normals de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Din" n Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes D D D D Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression D D D Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dtd film^es. □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel suppiementaire I I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6td filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J ] 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g^n^rositd de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University 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. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. 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 a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenqant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 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 dtre fiimds i des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE X CONSOLIDATION OF THE CHURCH IN CANADA A PLEA FOR A GENERAL SYNOD WITH LEGISLATIVE. POWERS, FROM THE NORTH WEST. A LETTER TO THE RIGHT REV. ^otb ^i^Kop of ^niavio^ BY THE BISHOP OF QU'APPELLE, ASSINIBOIA, N. W. T. \T) Ur?ior>, Strepc^tl?. Price— Five Cents. J. P. Clougher, Publisher, Toronto. ' I QirAppdlc, N. W. T. Right Rev. Father i\ God, and Dear Brother, I have read with much interest your Address to the Synod of your Diocese concernini;- the Winnipeg" Confer- ence on the Consolidation of the Church in British North t America. , As that part of your Address has been published by itself in pamphlet form, I presume that you desire it to be considered as addressed not merely to your own Diocese but to the Church in Canada generally. And the g'reat impor- tance of the subject, and tlie scheme you sugg'est, instead of that put forth by the Wmnipeg" Conference, certainly fully justifies such a step. I trust, therefore, that you will not think that I am pre- suming- if I venture to address you publicly with a few re- marks on your comments on the scheme put forth by that Conference. I feel, indeed, that it may seem somewhat presumptuous in me to do so, when 1 remember the length of time that you have been a Bishop in this country, and the prominence of the position that you so worthly occupy, and my own very short service and my comparatively insig^ni- ficant position. Nevertheless I feel that the question is one of such very grave importance to the future of our Church in this contry that all personal considerations should be put aside. And 1 trust that the deep interest that I have felt in the question ever since I came to the country, and the fact that I am forced to regard it, in my distant and comparatively isolated sphere oi work, from an altogether different point of view from which it is, per- haps, possible for you, from the centre of the Church life in the country, to look upon it, and because I fear that your great influence and authority may throug"h this Ad- dress, be the means of postponing for a long period, if not of altogether thawarting hopes that seemed nearer being realized than could have been thought possible a few years ago, may be a sufficient excuse for any presumption there may be in my action. As I read your Address I could not help feeling that your main argument against the Winnipeg scheme was based on an entire misapprehension (pardon me for so saying) of the real object and purpose of a General Synod as therein proposed. m\3 You say (paj^e 2) "The objecl ot crcatiiii,'- the Confer- ence was to consohdate, that is to unify, tlie isolated Pro- vinces in the Dominion, and to prevent the possibility of tJieir dyiftiui:; asunder in the eonrse of time, not only i)i minor prnetiees, but in fuiidnmentnl truth '\; and again, near the end of your address (page 7) you recur to, and emphasize these latter words, as your chief idea with re- gard to the proposed General Synod, " Bearing in mind that the main, indeed tJie only, [the italics here, and above are mine] raison d'etre for the existence of a General Syn- od is as a precaution against a possible conflictmg legisla- tion by Provinces, it seems to me etc. etc". I wondered for some time from what document it was that you were quot- ing the words placed in inverted commas, and which seemed to you sufficient to prove that this was the "main, indeed the only reason for the existence of a General Synod. " I had no recollection of any such words put forth in any resolution or official document of the Confer- ence. I should certainly have felt it my duty most strong- ly to protest against them had they been put forth in any way by the Conference. On reading over the ^''Record of the Proeeedi)ii(s,'' however, I find that these words are quoted from the speech of the Bishop of Toronto (as Chair- man of the Committee of the Synod of the Provinces of Canada) at the opening of the Conference. But, surely, the purpose of what is proposed to be done by a great Conference like that assembled at Winnipeg should not be judged by the mere words of any one person, however im- portant may have been the position which he may have had to occupy thereat, but rather by the resolutions and official acts of the Conference itself. To my mind, how- ever, even the words of the Bishop of Toronto, when taken with their context, do not at all bear the meaning that you have placed upon them. He said " The object of the Conference was that they might devise some scheme of union. * * ■■'- He expressed the profoundest conviction of every member of the Church of England in the scatter- ed Diocese of the importance of the Church in Canada being able on all great moral and religious questions to give 'One deeided, unanimous voice''. xA.nd then he added(as the ex- pression of his opinion). " When the Church was seper- ated, into isolated provinces, with nothing to bind them together, there was a possibility of their drifting asunder in the course of time, not merely in minor practices, but I in fundamental truth." This seems to me very widely dif- ferent from sayini^, or even jmplyini>-, that the " main, in- deed the only" reason for the existence of the General Synod, was, even in the opinion of the speaker, "to prevent the posibility of the isolated Provinces driftin*,^ asunder." The main object was evidently thou^i^ht to be to unify for the purpose of beint^ able to ^nve "one unanimous, decided voice in all great moral and relijii^ious questions." The prevention of the possibility of driftiui;- asunder was an advantaije of certainly threat importance that would pro- bably be one of the results of that unification. But what- ever may be the true interpretation of the words of the Bish- op of Toronto, the purpose of acts done by the Conference should be judged, as I have said, by the w^ords of the Con- ference itself. And the resolutions there passed most cer- tainly prove that the object of the consolidation into one duly organized body was of far wider scope than the mere prevention of a possible drifting asunder. The real object, far from being only, as you say, a precaution against con- flicting legislation, was, rather, to give the Church A pow- er OF INITIATING, AND CARRYING ON UNITED ACTION, in all matters that concern her temporal i.nd spiritual welfare as owQ Body in our one Dominion, — a power that the Church does not possess now. A glance at the objects proposed to be within the scope of action of the General Synod will show I think sufficiently that this was the chief object for which it is desired to create such a body. Resolution 5 says— "The General Synod shall have power to deal with all matters affecting in any way the general interest and well being of the Church within its jurisdiction. ''' * * The fallowmg or such like objects may be suggested as properly coming within the jurisdiction of the General Synod : — a. — Matters of doctrine, worship and discipline. b. — All agencies employed in the carrying on of the Church work. c. — The missionary and educational work of the Church. d.^The adjustment of relations between Dioceses in res- pect to widows and orphans of Clergy and super- anuation funds. e. — Regulations of transeterence of Clergy from one Diocese to another. I (y f. -Education and trainiiij^- of candidates for Holy Orders. ^. — Constitution and powers of an Appelate Tribunal. h.— -The erection, di\ision or re-arranj^-ement o\' Provin- ces." I am quite at a loss to understand how any one, who has read the above list, which is the official declaration of oi" the Conference at Winnipei^, oi' the objects which mij^-ht properly come withm the jurisdiction of the (ieneral Synod, could possibly imai^ine tluit the sole object for the creation o\' such a body was to prevent disruption, or how any one could suppose that the creation of a Appelate Tribunal, as you propose, would satisfy those who desire the consolidatian of the Church, when the creation of such a tribunal is mentioned in that resolution as one but only one out of about a dozen objects oi' such a General vSynod. What we desire, if I may venture to speak for a mo- ment in the name of those who desire the creation of a General Synod, is that there should be a body properly re- presentini;- the Church o\' Knij;"land — (may 1 not say rather the Church Catholic of Canadji, for that is what we are) — throug^hout the whole of this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Paciiic, able to speak with authority in the name of the Church not of the Province of Eastern Canada alone, but of Ruperts Land, and of the Diocese of British Columbia, in all matters of Dominion leg^islation that may touch upon ecclesiastical or moral relationships, and able also to act whether in any internal legislation that may be required, or in practical works of utility, ' in all matters that aflfect the welfare of the whole body. f Why should we be the only religious body in the Domin- I ion that cannot do this? You say that it " cannot be said ji that the [present] Provincial system has proved a failure." For m}' part I cannot say that feam by any means content i with the position that our Church occupies in this country in comparison with the other relig"ious bodies. When we take into account its spiritual claims, and the prestige of its position in the old country, and the wealth which it was able to draw upon there, it ought to occupy the fore- most position amongst religious bodies instead of being fourth in numbers in relation to the population. I am not presumptions enough to venture to attempt to assign any cause of this miserable position (as I must call it) that we occupy, but still I cannot help feeling that the isolation of the various parts of our Church, and the inipossibihty o( united action under our present conditions, has had some- thinj^- to do witli our \veai<ness. The Roman sciiism (I call it so advisedly for thouj^'h it may have existed in this country before our Church, by its novel terms of communion, and its subjection to a toreii^n Bishop, contrary to all ancient Canons o( the Catholic Church, it has created a schism in the Catholic Church,) has the power oi^ a united body, and as we all know uses it with tremendous effect as a political eiii^'-ine for the further- ance oi' its own ends. The Presbyterians, and the Method- ists, also each act as one united body throui^'-hout the Do- minion, and they are able therefore to throw their force into places where, from time to tune, it seems to be most needed for the future welfare of the body. Perhaps we in these distant rei^-ions feel the loss oi' this want of cohesion and united action, in the practical work- ing of the Church, more than it is possible for any one living in the older and more settled parts of Canada, to do. Let me illustrate my meaning by a few examaplesof what I consider would be the benefit of the consolidation of the Church with a central power of action, in practical matters. The evangelization of our large heathen population and all that naturally belongs to it, it seems to me, ought cer- tainly to be regarded as the responsibility of the Church of this country at large, and ought not to be thrown upon individual Dioceses. The consequence of our present sys- tem is that the responsibility for this work falls heaviest just on those Dioceses that are least able to do much for themselves. Of course I am not now speaking of the purely Missionary jurisdictions that are supported entirely for such work, but of Diocese like this, Ruperts Land, Calgary and New Westminster, that have to struggle to keep up the ministrations of religion amongst our own people, and yet have the largest heathen population, whom the Church ought to endeavour to evangelize. Ought not this, and the establishment of schools for the Indians, to be considered a work for which the whole Church is res- ponsible ? It never can be till the Oneness of our Church is more fully realized, and till there is a central organtza- tion. Again, the Clergy are the executive officers of the Church, and not merely of this or that Diocese. Why should such funds as those for their superanuation, and for 8 their widows and orphans he confined to individal Di- ocese ? V^^ry evidently such funds would he made more solid and heneficiai in proportion to the extension o( their cunstituency, while it seems a hardship without excuse that Clergy workinj;- in small Dioceses, where it is im- possible to orj^-anizc such funds, should be deprived of their benefit. But, important as such matters of or<^anization are for the well-beinj^ of the Church, I think that there are other questions for the settlement of which it is still more vitally important that the Church should be able to speak and to leg^islate as one body. I mean such questions as are com- prised in those suggested first by the Conference as "pro- perly coming within the jurisdiction of the General Synod," viz: " Matters of doctrine, worship and discipline." Take the Marriage Laws. It seems to me no less than a grievous scandal and a great hardship to the members of our Church that in one country there should be diver- sity of practice allowable on this most important subject — e.g., that in one Diocese there should be stringent regula- tions as to the necessity of the observance of the Table of Affinity, and as to the re-marriage of divorced persons, while in another even Clergymen should be allowed to marry a deceased wife's sister. Take again the question of the restoration of a godly discipline for Clergy and Laity. There is nothing our Church needs more for her welfare, I believe, than such a return to more primitive practice in this matter, as was effected in other things at the Reformation. But it must be done by the whole Church of the country not by frag- ments thereof. It is worse than useless to attempt it in one Dio :ese if there is laxity in other parts of the same Church. But further, the time is fast approaching, I believe, when the Church in this country, as in other colonies of our empire, will have to exercise its rights and preroga- tives, and therefore responsibilities, as an independent branch of the Catholic Church in matters of Ritual, if not of Doctrine. Is it right, is it a justifiable or worthy policy that we who have the right and the power to act with the inde- pendence that the Catholic Church has always regarded as Inherent in national Churches, and therefore also have the responsibility of refusing to act, should for ever be con- t I 1 1 I 1 tent to wait upon the action of the Cliurch at iiomc, which is cramped and i)ound by its Ic^rd connection with the secu- hir power in the State, wliicli owinj,' to tiie secular lejjfishi- tion of tlie last hundred years has j;ot into a miserable concHtion of confusion ? I most fully and heartily agree with what you say — that " Tltc day for Ln/orcin^ yii^id iiiiifonnily is past and <ronf/' What our Church most f^Teatly needs is some freedom from the rif^id bonds of the Act of Uniformity — some power of adaptability to the varied circumstances of our people — an official recognition of the fact that a service that is best adapted for the worship of Almighty God in c the Cathedral Church of a city hke Kingston, is not of necessity the best adapted to the require- ments of a service amongst the wild tribes of our North American Indians. And yet this is undoubtedly the condition under which we have volutarily bound our- selves at the present moment. I may be told that practi- cally the Clergy do adapt themselves to circumstances and use other Forms than those prescribed in the Prayer Book when needed, as e.g. in Mission Services. But this does not alter the fact that it is really illcij;al for them to do so, for they are obliged to make a solemn declaration at their Ordination in conformity with the Act of Uniformity that in public prayer "they will use the form in the said book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority." We need relaxation from a strict Uniformity that is not applicable to our case— but such relaxation should be by anthorily ot the Church, and not a mere license for any Clergyman to do what he may consider right in his own eyes contrary to law. But whether the time has yet come for exercisinf^ our right and responsibilities in the enlargement of our Ritual Law, may be a legitimate question. It cannot, however, be reasonably doubted, I think, that the time must come before long when the timid policy of inaction will be no longer possible, — and when the Church will be obliged, whether she likes it or not, to act for herself. Woe be to her if when that time comes she is still unprepared for such action, and has to set herself in order suddenly — for that special purpose, and in a time perhaps of excited feel- ing- I have the fullest faith in the Divine guidance in the lO Councils of the Church. But I confess that I think that the greater the number of Dioceses that are represented in such Councils, and the larger the area from which they are gathered together, the more free they are likely to be from party and local bias and prejudice, and the more open to the influences of that Divine guidance, which while it leads all compels none. I notice that you object ist that there is '*;/o precedent for a threefold grade of vSynod in a National Church — that " it is an iiiovation of a most serious kind — that it does not harmonize with the practice of the Primitive Church," and (2) that " co-existence of Provincial Synods with a General one, practically means the abolition of the for- mer." Let me say a few words about the second objec- tion first. You may perhaps l)e aware that previous to, and at, the Conference at Winnipeg I did all I could to urge the establishment of a General Syned iitsfcnd of our our present Provincial Synods, i. e., practically to make the whole of Canada one Province. I did so, because while most earnestly desiring the consolidation of the Church throughout the whole of the Dominion I did not see the utility of a third Synod between the National and the Dio- cesan, and because I consider that "too much legislation is as bad as too little." I fully appreciated, however, the very strong objection felt by many to doing away with Provin- ces that had been already created, although, personally, I may have considered this more a sentimental than a prac- tical objection ; and, moreover, it was evident that the majority of this Province would not consent to the creation of a General Synod, except on the condition that the Provincial system was retained. When, in the issue, all matters that I considered as of at all any importance were given over "as properly coming within the jurisdiction of the General Synod," I thought that all I had really con- tended for was granted, and that if those who desired the retention of the present Provincial system were content with the minor duties left to those Synods and the ratifi- cation of the Acts of the General Synod, it would be a mere matter of sentiment on my part any longer to express even an objection. There is, undoubtedly, real distinct work still left for the Provincial Synods. The only ques- tion is whether it is of such a character as to make it worth while to maintain the machinery. However, those who advocate the present Provincial system say that it is, \ 1 1 and I, at least am content. I do not think that " it means the abolition" of the Provincial system, but it docs nicaji that the General Synod shall have the power of tak- ing in hand much that, so far as I am avvare, the Provin- cial Synods have never, or but very imperfectly, attempt- ed to touch. Moreover, I would point out that as the re- presentation to the General Synod is to be direct from the Diocese, the present "Provinces of Canada" could, under the Winnipeg scheme, if it so desired, resolve to discontinue its Synod. As the scheme formulated at \\'innipeg does not make it obligatory on the Dioceses at present independent to form themselves into a Province, so neither can it be thought to oblige Eastern Canada to continue its Provincial system. All that our Province could insist upon is that our Province should not be dis- membered, but that luc should still be allowed to exercise those privileges and duties which by the terms of the Con- stitution approved were reserved for Provincial Synods. The only real difficulty arising out of the Constitution as proposed, if the " Province of Canada" was desolved, would be the question ot the "Primacy." I^ut this I can- not doubt could be somehow arranged by the General Synod. I only urge it as worthy of consideration, that // the majority in the Provincial Synod of Canada con- sider that there is no necessity for three grades of Synods, there is nothing in the proposed Constitution of the Gen- eral Synod — or in any Resolution passed at Winnipeg — ■ that could compel them to maintain the existance of that Synod, as long as they did not interfere with the existence of ours. The first objection to which I have alluded is undoubt- edly a very strong one, at all events to my mind, if it can be really sustained. I have the very strongest feeling that we ought to en- <leavour to the utmost to act in accordance with the *' Practices of the Primitive Church," an appeal to which you justly remark " is the basis and justification of the English Reformation," and that what "does not harmon- ise" therewith ought to be avoided. But is it really the fact that this gradation of Synods is so altogether out of " //rtr/z/o/zj'" with the practice of the Primitive Church? That we cannot find anything exactly similar to it I fully admit. But that does not prove that it is out of harmony with the then practice. It seems to me that beyond Dio- 12 ceses and General Councils of the Bishop^ and Presbyters of the whole CJnircli, which may be said to have Apostolic authority, all other divisions of the Church such as Pro- vinces, Patriarchates, Exarchates were simply ecclesias- tical adaptations and divisions of the Church's system for the better organization of the Church as the need arose, and usually the outward organization of the Church fol- lowed the civil divisions of the country. The civil divis- ion of this country is certainly quite different to anything that existed in the Primitive times of the Church. I do not, therefore think that we are doing anything out of liarnioiiy with the Primitive Church if we adapt the exter- nal organization of our Church to the modern requirements of our country so as to be able to act more as a united body, especially in our unfortunate inability to have the benefit ol Patriarchal, or General, Councils. With re- gard to the precedent of England our Metropolitan well remarked in his Address to his Synod last year, "As to the statement that such a superior General Synod is un- precedented, it is quite true that National Synods of the Church of England corresponding in a measure to our proposed General Synod were only called irregularly and on comparatively rare occasions, but the times are different. It is more easy now to bring together such a body, and the holding of it is agreeable to the spirit of the age. But the principles of the General Synod is to be seen in < Na- tion Synods^and ive have hut to carry it out. It will ; jba- bly not be long before there will be some kind of Naiional Synod meeting regularly in England, but without elimi- nating the Provincial Convocations. The last great speech of Archbishop Magee, addressed to the Convocation of York, advocated such a measure." It seems to me, indeed, that there is a departure far more out of harmony with the practice of the Primitive Church, " an appeal to which is the basis and justification of the English Reformation," than any re-adjustment of the grades of Synods possibly could be, and that is in the constitution of onr Synods. The admission of the Laity into Councils that are empowered to deal with questions of Doctrine and Ritual is certainly an "innovation" en- tirely out of harmony wMth the practices of the Primitive Church, and one which may well cause the most serious ap- prehension as to its results. The late Rev. James Way- land Joyce, one of the highest authorites on matters con- 13 nected with the Councils of the Church, once wrote to me " such a solecism in Church g"overnment was unknown till more than 1700 years after Christ." If for no other reason the perils of such an innovation might be recoj^-nised from the simple fact that the Laity as a body have receiv- ed no special training- or education in theology or even eccletiastical history and practice. What would be thought if it was proposed to submit the laws under which Doctors or Lawyers act in their several professions to a mixed body of Physicians and Laymen, or Lawyers and Laymen, with an equal power of deciding what was the right course of procedure ? But, further than this, the Christian Church has from the first held thiit to certain persons within that Church is given authority, by virtue of a Commission received from Christ Himself, to teach and instruct and to be " Stewards" of His Mysteries. Is it not an utter inversion of that " principle," and a most dangerous experiment, to say the least, to submit ques- tions that involve what that teaching shall be and th e manner in which it shall be expressed outwardly to the eye in acts of worship, to those whom the Clergy on all other occasions are commissioned to teach ? It is, I confess, my fervent hope that before it becomes necessary to submit any such questions to the General Synod the Laymen of our Church may have been so edu- cated in Church Truth and Primitive Practices, that they may gladly recognize the wisdom and the rightfulness o( leaving such questions to be decided by a Synod constitut- ed in the manner of the early Synods of the Church, and be content with sanctioning what might be done thereat with their approval in accordance with what we read of the first Council held at Jerusalem. (Acts xv. ) But if this is, under present circumstance, impossible, I should be willing to concede even this fundamental de- parture from harmony with Primitive Practices, rather than that the Church should be altogether debarred from independent action as the Church of this country, which action I believe to be so necessary for her vitality and growth. For, I can believe that God can and will over- rule even such a change in the gevernment of His Church for good, sooner than I can believe that He will bless con- tentment with inaction. You allege some minor objections such as — 14 (a) That "the Dioscesan Synods will have to bear the weiy^ht of expense incurred by the siiperincumbentSvnods. " (b) That " the proposed Representation of Dioceses in the General Synod is according- to the Clerical population." With rei^ard to a it is evident that any burden or ex- pense must fall on the individual members of the Church and the Diocesan Synod seems to be the only means avail- able of reaching- the individual members. With reg-ard to h there was very considerable difference of opinion about the representation of Dioceses, and after a prolong-ed de- b;ite the decision arrived at seemed to the majority to be the most practical, if not the best. It seemed absurd that such a Diocese as Mackenzie River, or Mt)Osonee with only 3 or 4 Clerg-y should have, even nominally, the same representation as, say Toronto or Ontario. Perhaps one g;reat cause of this difficulty is the creation of Dioceses in our Church where it would seem more appropriate to have "Missionary Jurisdictions." Anyhow such a matter as this can easily be adjusted by the General Svnod when it meets. No one can suppose that the General Synod after it has once met will consider itself bound for- ever by the sugg-estions of the Winnipeg" Conference. Its first duty, I imagine, would be to consider any amend- ments in its Constitution that may have been proposed by various Diocesan and Provincial Synods that, while agree- ing to the g^eneral principle of a General Synod and to the proposals of the Winnipeg- Conference as a' suflicient basis for the first meeting-, have signified their desire for cer- tain alterations. Knowing- how much you have at heart the true welfare of the Church in this country I have ventured to put before you this plea for the need of a General Synod able to ini- tiate and to carry on work for the whole of the Church in the Dominion, and not merely to be a Court of Appeal, as it appears to one in the comparatively isolated position of thit great North West, in the humble but earnest hope that even yet you may see your way for the sake of the scattered brethren, even If there is no need in Ontario, to withdraw the powerful influence of your opposition to a scheme that drawing us all closer together will, I am sure, be productive of much good to our Church — to its weakest parts of course chiefly, but in a reactive measure also to the strongest, for it is a fundamental law of the Christian X brotherhood that one member cannot suffer or be weak, without the whole body feehnpfthe baneful effects. Believe me, Ever yours sincerely in our Lord ADELBERT, Bishop of Ou'Appelle. PS. — I hope that no one will be so frif^litetied at wliat I have said about the Laity votin<4 on questions of Doctrine and Kitual, in the General Synod, as to prefer not to have a General Synod to the risk of the Laity not beinj^ allowed to takethe fullest share in it when It is once created. What I have said is clearly onlv my own private opinion on the matter — though I certainly do feel very strongly the peril of the i>inovation for which we are indebted to the precedent set by the Church in the United States. It is obvious, however, that the Constitution of the General Synod as now proposed, and submitted by the Conference at Winnipeg, gives to tlie Laity a perfectly free and equal voice in all niattcis, ami that, therefore, if that Constitution is approved, the withdrawal of (Questions of Doctrine and Ritual from them could only be effected by their own action, when they liad be- come convinced tliat it was contrary to the primitive !(• vs and prac- tices of the Church that they should have jurisdiction in such mat- ters. No one could reason.'bly object to this. 1 give two quotations to fortify what I have said on this subject. " Matters of Doctrine were always exclusively decided or attest- ed by those whom the Appostles left to succeed to such portion of their office, us uninspired men could discharge — the Bishops of the Universal Church." " The Laity were present as witnesses, not even as Jury, much less as Judge." " The amount of evidence that Bishops alone had a definite voice in Synods, is, throughout the his- tory of the Church, in proportion to the details in which the account of those Synods is given." — Dr. Pusey Cunncils ofthc Chnncli, Preface p. XIII. pp. 88.34. " As to the great Constitutional question that the Laity have no ricr/it at all to vote in Synods properly so called is a conclusion which comes out to my mind only the more plainly the more one examines what is alleged the other way."— -Rev. J. Keble's Letters p. 298. On the other hand, the following words of the Rev. J. Keble are well worthy of consideration by those who fear lest the admission of the Laity to an equal vote in our Synods, should almost forfeit our Catholic position. '* Surely it is not a question which directly touches the faith. The voice of the Laity, in one form or another, has al- i6 M^OB been a most essential part of the voice of the whole Church.. ^gP in the most vital case of fundament Doctrine, the Church diffusive, in which the Laity are included, has a kind of veto, as I understand it, on the decision of a General Council. That decision does not become Ecumenical, until it has been accepted by the Holy Church throughout all the world. Now, if they have a negative voice, it is not, /)r/;»a/rtf/f, essential at what stage in the discussion that voice is permitted to be heard. If may be a matter to be regulated according to times and seasons," — Letters p. 297. N. B. — The above letter was written and intended to be publish- ed some three months ugo. Now that I have declared my intention to resign this See it may be thought that I have lost my right to speak in this matter. But though I may have lost my right, the deep interest that I shall always feel in the Church of Canada will, I trust, plead my excuse for still allowing what I had written to be published. ^ A., Q. June 16th, 1892. m i Qu'Appdlc, N. \V. T. Right Rev. Father i\ God, and Dear Brother. I have read with much interest your Address to the Synod of your Diocese concerniiii^ the Winnipeg' Confer- ence on the ConsoHdation of the Church in British North America. As that part of your Address has been pubHshed by itself in pamphlet form, I presume that you desire it to be considered as addressed not merely to your own Diocese but to the Church in Canada generally. And the g'reat impor- tance o'l the subject, and the scheme you suggest, instead of that put forth by the Wmnipeg Conference, certainly fully justifies such a step. I trust, therefore, that you will not think that 1 am pre- suming if I venture to address you publicly with a few re- marks on your comments on the scheme put forth by that Conference. I feel, indeed, that it may seem somewhat presumptuous in me to do so, when I remember the length of time that you have been a Bishop in this country, and the prominence of the position that you so worthly occupy, and my own very short service and my comparatively insigni- ficant position. Nevertheless I feel that the question is one of such very g^rave UTiportance to the future of our Church in this contry that all personal considerations should be put aside. And 1 trust that the deep interest that I have felt in the question ever since I came to the country, and the fact that I am forced to regard it, in my distant and comparatively isolated sphere of work, from an altogether different point of view from which it is, per- haps, possible for you, from the centre of the Church life in the country, to look upon it, and because I fear that your great influence and authority may through this Ad- dress, be the means of postponing for a long period, if not of altogether thawarting hopes that seemed nearer being realized than could have been thought possible a few years ago, may be a sufficient excuse for any presumption there may be in my action. As I read your Address I could not help feeling that your main argument against the Winnipeg scheme was based on an entire misapprehension (pardon me for so saying) of the real object and purpose of a General Synod as therein proposed. 3^5 I 3