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