IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 Ifi^ 1^ ■^ 1^ Hill 2 2 I.I 1 ■- IIIM •Utau 11:25 11.4 u^ 1.6 rHuiugiajjiuL. Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)873-4503 A /,/ ,* % V f/- t/j H>^ '^ tV ,.v CIHM Microfiche Series (l\/lonographs) ICIVIH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Aft _ Technical -nd Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliogrsphiques 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 change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^ □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculie □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ n Cartes geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents n D Tight bini ing may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure 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 ajouties lors d'une restauration apparais:ent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete f ilmees. □ Additional comments;/ Commentaires supplementaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ci-dessous. 10X L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 9ti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-«tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^ □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolorees, tachetees ' ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detaches QShowthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite inegale de I'impression □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de l'en-t£te provient: □ Title page of issue Page de titre de la □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la I j Masthead/ livraison livraison Generique (periodiques) de la livraison j— . It A IBX 22X 26 X 30X - J 12X 16X 20X 24 X 28 X 1?* Th4t copy filmed hare has baan raproducad thanks to tha ganarosity of: Special Collections Division University of British Columbia Library Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality poasibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Original copias in printad papar covars ara fl^tmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad jr illustratad impras- sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All othor original copias ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a r^rintad or illustratad impras- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad imprassion. Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol "«^ (maaning "CON- TINUED"!, or tha symbol V (maaning "END"). whichavar appiias. Maps, platas. charts, ate. may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framas as raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha mathod: L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grAce A la gAnArositA da: Special Collections Division University of British Columbia Library Las imagas suivantes ont iti reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at da la nattat« da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformit* av*rc las conditions du contrat de filmaga. Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura en papiar ast imprimie sont film«s en commencant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la derniAre paga qui comporta una emp^einte d impression ou d'illustration, soit par !e second plat, aalon la cas. Tous las autres exemplaires originaux sont film«s an commanpant par la pramiAra paga qui ccmporta une empreinte d'imprasaion ou d'illustration at an terminant par la darniara paga qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un das symbolas suivants apparaftra sur la darnidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: la symbols — ^ signifie 'A SUIVRE" le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent etre fllm*s A des taux da reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document esf trop gransi pour dtre raproduit an un soul cliche, il est film* d partir de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut 9n bas, an pranant la nombre d'imagas n^cassaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrant la mAthode. 22t 1 2 3 4 5 6 IS!Sl'M?SSTi ^'^^ c fi 0/ c I a 0^ S QUEBEC: PETER SINCLAIR, JOHN STREET. 1869. a p »■ W^^ifSy^m n (( 1^ (*• , . ^ * - ^ ^-^t • I .^ ^C;. "^A A REVIEW OF THE (( ADDEESS OF THE LAY ASSOCIATION TO THI faitg of i\t §mm d f nek." IN A LETTER FROM A CHURCHMAN IN TOWN TO A CHURCHMAN IN THE COUNTRY. "If any tonn seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God."— 1 Cor., xl, 16. "Let nothing be done Without the Bishop, in matters pertaining to the Church."— S. Ignatius' Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, cap. yiii. IgitaHw, was ordained Bishop of Antioch, within thirtyirix years of our Lord's death, by th« ApostUt themselves. ♦i,^-"ii'^"; 2 Cor. T. 80; 1 Cor. iv. 1; St. Matthew, xxvm. 19, 20. ' • . people that their pastors aro seeking to usurp authority over them and to deprive them of their rights, is something \vhich ough not to commend itself, at first sight, to the goodwill and confidence of Christian people. Whether this be not a fair account of the object of the "Lay Association," or at least of the means they take to attain their object, you may judge from the following extracts from their own pamphlet The Bishop, nt the request of the Clergy, in the summer of 18o7, appointed six laymen to act as a committee, with six clergymen, to draft a form of constitution for the Synod, This was done to save time, that a form of constitution might be ready to bo submitted to the Synod for consideration at its first meeting, and that the Clergy and Lay delegates might not be at the expense and trouble of coming together to do nothing more than appoint a committee, and so go home again In this say the Zay Associaiion (Appendix, p. 2), the Clergy while yielding a semblance of respect for Lay rights, violated them; and what they did on that occasion was " unprece- dented, unconstitutional, and contrary to law." At tho meet- ing of the 24th June, the conduct of the Clergy -resembled too closely those unseemly contest, for the maintenance of usurped authorUy ^hich stain the earlier pages of the history of the Church ' (Appendix, p. 4) ; conduct which "aroused andjustified feelings (on the part of the Laity) which have been since still further outraged." "The disorder," of that meeting, "was excited," as ,i, Lay Association "believes," hy the tone and bearing o{ ,hose (the Clergy) to whom the Church IS wont to look for patterns of forbearance and de- corum. (Appendix, p. 5.) The "policy" of the Bishop, &c., 18 stated to have been up to that time carefully concealed, until the second resolution of the prepared series developed thedesiffno{ transferring to a few lay delegates associated with the Clergy the functions which the law had confided only to the Church at large." (Appendix, p. 3.) The subsequent steps taken by the Bishop, which resulted in the Amending Act, are stigmatized (Appendix, p. 6) as " a specimen of eccle- siastical diplomacy, an example of the exercise of party zeal, but httle calculated to foster the confidence of the people in their rulers, or to win for the persona of those who exercise 1 6 adininifltrntivo power iu the Church (he respect which their office should at least (»ic/) deserve." The Aoiociation declares (Appendix, p. G) that tho Bishop's actioa on this occasion " it is impossible to forget and difficult to forgive." They describe the Amending Act (3rd Ees., Appendix, p. 8) as an " insi- dious" plot against the rights of the Laity, and " well calcu- lated to retard the prosperity of the Church, and perhaps permanently impair its best interests." (4th Res., Appendix, p. 8.) They declare that the BiU " revokes and curtails the powers of the Church" (Appendix, p. 13) ; that the B-'shop's "interposition" was "uncalled for," and the "influence" which "prevailed " to carry tho Bill was " sinister." These extracts are all taken, it is true, from tho Seport in the Appendis. But that violent and unscrupulous "docu- ment," for which some excuse might otherwise, perhaps, have been charitably found, as a not unnatural outbreak of the dis- appointment and irritation of a party defeated in their (as they thought them) so well concerted schemes, ia now, after three months of calm reflection, adopted and endorsed by the Lau Association, The Address itself, however, though less violent in expres- sion, IS, m Its spirit at least, aa bitter as the Report. Its aim IS plamly to make a breach between the Clergy and the Laitv I need but refer you to the insinuation (on the 8th page) that II the question" that lay delegates ought to be communicants, " 18 mooted to exalt the sacramental power of the Clergy "' (whatever that means); and to the contemptuous manner in which the whole body of the Clergy are spoken of (p. 20) as the mere creatures of the Bishop, whose "votes" he can at any time " command." I say, then, that on the very face of it this Association wears an aspect which ought to excite the alarm and arouse the bus- picions of all sincere Christians. Love and peace and unity are the marks by which our Lord would have us to be distin- guished-that we may all be one in Him, as He and the Father are One. The ministry was given for the very purpose of buUdmg up the Church into this unity and love. (Eph. iv. 11, 16.) Those must be very grave faults in the Ministera of Christ which can justify any man, or body of men, in systemati- cally exciting against them, in the people to whom they minister, distrust, contempt and hatred.* Here, then, is perhaps the proper place to enquire, are these serious charges ogainsl the Bishop and Clergy well 'ounded ? Have they been and are they still engaged in a con8i)iracy to deprive the Laity of their liberties and to usurp power to themselves P And are the members of ihe Lay Association in reality united together to defend the invaded rights and liberties of their brethren ? The very audacity, my friend, with which these groundless charges are alleged, makes it difficult to refute them. The simple truth is, that the opposite of all this is the fact. The Clergy have, all through this struggle, been contending for and maintaining the rights of the whole body of the Laity, which a party of disloyal Churchmen in the city were attempting to usurp, and finaUy to deprive them of. The Laity have hitherto had no share in the general govern- ment of the Church in these Colonies, nor, indeed, have the Clergy. The object of the Synod is to give them both a share in that government, an equal and co-ordinate share. ' With whom did the Synod movement originate ? Not with the lay Association, but with the Bishops. And who pushed it on streuuously ? Not the Lay Association, but the Cleri/i/. Did the Laity ever s'jek this power for themselves ? Did they ever complain of their exclusion ? Did they ever heartily join in the movement, and warmly help it on? No, emphatically, no ! This is power which they neither sought nor desired, but which has been literally thrust upon them. The Bishops and the Clergy have had to urge and press this matter upon their brethren year after year, until, through their exertions, seconded by a few zealous laymen, the end was accomplished. Does this look like a wish to usurp power over the Laity, and rob them of their rights ? » The London Eecord, in a late article against the attempt to revive the Confessional in England, says: "At any rate, let not any xvho love Pro- testant Truth, whether Clergy or Laity, be carried by over zeal into i?id?ning the breach between ministers and people. That is the result ■which Satan wishes to bring about." H: 8 Consider next the meeting of the 24th June, and the history of the two Acts of Parliament. To entrust "the framing of constitutions and making of regulations" for the Church to a mass meeting of the Church people of a diocese like this was a proposal rather too extravagant and too novel* to have been for a moment entertained, much less conceived, by our Legislature. The Bill was drawn up for, and adopted by, the Synod of Toronto, composed of Bishop, Clergy, and lay delegates,"^ and was mtended to remove all doubt as to the legality of what they were doing. Would they have tried to remove those doubts \j makmg all their proceedings absolutely iUegal ? To suppose this involves an absurdity. A flaw, however, was discovered in the Act. The frst meet- ing, it was alleged, would not be legal if the Laity were there by representation. It must be a mass meeting of the Laity, but need only be a proformd meeting, to comply with the letter of the Act. No hint was breathed, till the day came, that it was to be considered a meeting empowered to draw up a Con- stitution for the Synod. The Bishop sufl^ered himself to be prevaUed upon. He issued his circular calling such a meeting for certaia specified purposes. These vfQve, first, to adopt the Act; and secondly, to provide for the i-epresentation of the Laity in all future meetings of the Synod. Notice was given accordingly, by reading this circular, or the substance of it. in every church and chapel in the Diocese, as well as by advertise- ment m the newspapers of Quebec. The resolutions! prepared by the Committee of Clergymen and Laymen who had drawn up the form of constitution, and proposed at the meeting stmply embodied the circular ,■ and yet it is said that "no an- nouncement or disclosure was made of the intended policy" « • English Legislatures and Englishmen Uve precedents. Perhaps some learned member of the ABsociation will furnish us with a few precedents or even one nngle example in the history of the Christian Church of the whole Laity of a Diocese coming together to legislate for the Church, t See "Proceedings of the Synod of Toronto in 1856," pp. n, 18, 19, X The proposed resolutions were those which had a :-hort time before been adopted hj the first meetiiig of the Synod of Cl.o Diocese of Huron See the Bishop of Quebec's " Letter," of the Slst August, 1858, p 6 •4' the history framing of burch to a • this was a ive been for iegislature. Synod of tateSyf and y of what lOve those 3gal ? To first meet- rere there ;he Laity, the letter le, that it up a Con- self to be 1 meeting adopt the m of the 'as given ! of it, in idvertise- prepared d drawn meeting, 'uo an- 3licy" ! aps some recedents. ih, of the irch. 18, 19. 16 before f Jiuron. .6. Till that moment, certainly, the party who have since formed themselves into the Lai/ Association had " afforded no notice" of their " proposed proceedings." Though everything " had been (to use their own language, which most exactly describes their own line of action) prepared in private for the occasion, — there had been no announcement or disclosure of their con- templated policy, until" Mr. Jeffrey Hale's amendment '• de- veloped the design of transferring" to themselves the most important function of the Synod, a function upon the right discharge of which, according to their own shewing, " etebt- THINO depends" (p. 23), that of drawing up and adopting a Constitution. Their plans had c inly been admirably laid . under the guidance of some muccer mind. All, from the highest to the lowest, had been well drilled in the parts they were severally to act,— some to argue lucidly and learnedly, and some to shout lustily and to abuse vociferously. A Com- mittee to be ballotted for had been selected, and their names,* —most of them extreme party men,— printed on ballotting tickets, and distributed secretly among the adherents of the party in the meeting. That Committee was to draft the Con- stitution, and report to an adjourned mass meeting in Quebec, by which it was to be adopted, and so finalli/ and unalterably fixed. Every man with the least reflection must have seen, by a glance at that meeting, that a large majority of any adjourned meeting in Quebec would be composed of the blind and excited adherents of that party. The Clergy saw this. Thay clearly perceived that if they consented to what was proposed, they would be betraying the rights of their flocks, and that the liberties and privileges of the Laity of the whole Church would be gone for ever ;— they would, at best, be but helping to * Here are the names, that the Church may judge whether Rhe could entrust with confidence to them the drawing up of her Constitution : Six Clergymen— The Lord Bishop (a mere clergyman, and to have no more voice in the drawing up and adopting of the Constitution than any clergy- man or layman) ; Rev. Dr. Percy, Rev. Dr. Hellmuth, Rev. Mr. Sewell, Rev. Mr. Thompson nf StAcetead, Rev. Mr. Reid. Six Laymen— Mr. Jeffrey Hale, Lieut.-Col. Fitzgerald, Mr. Christian Wurtele, Mr. Andrew Stuart, Mr. Bucbanan, Mr. Soolt. 10 iirst. It 18 the estimate of tlift T^^, a • .• ^/^J'""" at trines, discipline and formularies «rp flT • ™'*^°* ^oc- ought to be handed down TZlr^ '^''T''"'" ^'"^'^ under Providence, uprj^h T ^^ ^'"^'^^^^^^ "'' ''"""'' upon, may eive tn ],L=.n^ • ^'^®' '^^ °°^^ called deputies of the whole Lait^ of tl!! fr ^' ^'''^ *^^ Tlio ri ., V ^ ^'^ *"® Diocese, to themselvflB rhe Clergy, therefore, not so much in dpf«nl ;°^'"selve8. bearing whiob uuLT. ^ . " """"^-.-co-duct and credit,-gros8ly and cruelly misrepresented-* ^ • I cannot avoid eollini, an-oJoi -»(,„.;,, ■ .u ^ ~ " n There is evidently but one way in which the whole Laity of a Diocese like this can meet in Synod, and that is by repre- sentatives. The Diocese extends from Stanstead, 150 miles above Quebec, to Gaspe, 500 miles below it. The means of access to the place of meeting, select it where you will, are, from most of our missions, tedious, and from aU expensive. The mass of our Laity, as well as our Clergy, are poor. They are, on the lowest computation, 25,000 in number. To say to the whole church-people of such a Diocese as this, " you must all come together," is practically to disfranchise the greatest part of the Diocese, and to give over the powers of the Synod into the hands of those few who live in and near the place of meeting. It was evident, after the meeting of the '24th June, that this was the only way in which the Act, thus interpreted, could work. The Legislature saw this at once, and, notwith- standing all the influence* which was brought to bear upon them, common sense prevailed ; and an Act was passed, unani- mously in the Upper House, and by a vote of seoenty-two to seven in the Lower, every Churchman in the Home voting for it, which secures to the Laity of the whole Diocese those rights of which the members of the Lay Association so strenuously and perseveringly sought to deprive them. Now, my dear friend, who, in the name of everything that is reasonable, were most sincerely concerned to vindicate the rights of the Laity ? Was it the Lay Association, who, under the shallow pretence of giving to every single Churchman in the Diocese an actual share in the framing of the Constitution, sought to shut out the Laity in all other parts of tlie Diocese, and to keep the whole power in this matter, on which " every- thing connected with the well-being and efficiency of the by Mr. Jelirey Hale, in a speech at Quebec last summer, aud shortly after publicly contradicted in a letter to the Quebec Mercury by the clergyman in question, — the learned and eloquent Dr. Falloon, of Melbourne. This statement, coming as it does after Dr. F's. own public explanation, must be considered as intentionally insulting and injurious to Dr. Falloon, — not personally, but as one of the Clergy, with a vieAV to set them all wrong with their flocks. * And the praises of the Lay AxxnciaHon. See Resolution I, and Petition ; Appendix, pp. 9, 10. I cannot help thinking that this 1st Reso- lution was intended to be (what it certainly would be if the Legislature merited the praise) most severely sarcastic. U: 1 1 I f I ll> ! 12 Church will depend," in their own hands? O. „■» ■* . rather the Bishop and Clerg,, who, alt Jh MlTf tirdrr:r;rtrtr ^r"""™"'- Church-peonleilfhTn themselves, but to all the laws flThe Churl 7"'"°.'^^^^ *^« ""-king of laws tor the Church and managing her affairs ? ^ Ji-utting apart, then, aU other considerations „n^ • 7 looking at these facts, is this an As aTioTwortht 7tt confidence of the L'lifv ? Ti.„ * 1 worttiy ot the on enr minds (Address „ f L f ^T' ""'" '» ■'"P'»'» an '^^^,^P*-;7^«^. ^J^^y hoped to prevent the passing of the s:t^.r£!er:^,i£££ OuT' ""'Z'' T"''^ ' *'^' ""'^'^^^ *he amended Iw .?"^^^^ «'o«W a/^ay, u in a minority. They sav thev' have no inducement to over-reach thp T ,;f^ p\T^ "^ ^ Whv thpn rl.-rl fi, * / ; "^'^y ''f the country." S of the A ^^.l'^ '' ^° '' ^ ^'' "^^ fr^^^d, it is not L nghts of the Laity they are'concemed to secure. These are men the leaders among them at least, to some of whom certal pcuhar views in religion are dearer than life, and these they wiU have adopted, at all costs and hazards; others of them seek the gratification of their own private or family piout consequence. No ! they have now exposed themselves com- plelely and if the Laity of the Diocese put confidence in thi now. aU I can say is, « Populus vult dec^pi. et declpiat;:.' ' " II. I have detained you long over this first point, but it is one L. \ \t ^'"'^ ^"iportant points on which the Za. oeptemoer 6tb, and the report of the speeches then made. 13 1. The first ia "the qualifications of the Lay delegates" The Lay Association object to the rule that Lav delegates should be communicants. The reasoning of the Lay Associa- tion under this head, if not convincing, is at least novel. After describing this ru;e as "a needless and dangerous interference with the elective franchise of the people," (p. 7), they go on to say : " The idea has nevertheless more than once been seriously proposed, to limit eligibility to the office of a delegate to com- municants." This is, certainly, an extraordinary way of speaking of a qualification which is the rule in every Diocesan ^^«o^ in the British Colonies;* which, moreover, is the rule m several of the Diocesan Conventions of the American Churchf and is being gradually, year after year, adopted by them all J and which was adopted, in 1856, as the rule of the Genebal ComrENTioN of the whole American Church ! It certainly Is true that " it has been more than once seriously proposed to limit the office of delegates to communicants," but is it the whole truth ? The iMy Association tells us (p. 7) what "the motive for the proposal may be presumed to be." The motive which urges and must always prevail with Christians to establish this rule, is surely very simple, and such as a plain man can easily under- stand, lb is this : that a Christian, who is living in the open breach of his Saviour's dying command, and in the wilful neglect of the highest means of grace, cannot be fit to legijlat© for the well-being of that Saviour's Church. But the Lay Association proceed to say : « It is difficult to discover why, out of the whole catalogue of the doctrines. * That is, in Huron, Toronto, Nova Scotia, Adelaide, Melbourne, Cap* Town, New Zealand, Christ Church, and Tasmania. t It is the absolute rule in Ohio, Viiginia, (the two most noted «Low Church" Dioceses in the American Church,) and Vermont It IB "recommended to the Churches" of South Carolina; and a Canon unammously adopted, of the Diocese of New York, declares that "the' welfare and prosperity of the Church require, and it ia in itself proper and right, that no Lay delegate should be sent to this Convention but such as are communicants of the Chufch." Thcro may be other instances — these are those in which I have -oacertaiaed the rule to exist See Hoff^ man, p. 191. ,1 14 moral requirements, sacramental and ceremonial observances of the Church, one in particular should be selected as the only stepping stone to Sjnodical honours." This passage, my dear friend, is so extraordinary, and I may add instructive, that I must ask you to pause over it for a few moments. Ordinary men only attain a clear knowledge of the more recondite priaciples of things after they are already found out to their hand, by Ion- and painful study and laborious thought; it requires creative gemus to strike off so brilliant a discovery as this with a cur- sory flourish of the pen. These great facts, however, we must m justice allow, are not so uncommon among distinguished eclesiastical agitators of our age and country. The Hon. Col. Vereker astonished the religious world three or four years a-^o' and even took Exeter Hall by surprise, by publicly declaring and maintainmg manfully that the Church of England held iut one Sacrament, It remained for the Lay Association of Quebec to discover in her system «o whole catalogue oi sacra- mental observances" ! May I be permitted, with great deference and submission, to suggest to the gentlemen of the Lay Association, whether the reason "why, out of the whole catalogue of sacramental observances," the Holy Eucharist is selected as the qualification " for so important a trust," may not perhaps be this : That as all " members of the Church of England " are baptized in their infancy, the only Sacrament remaining in which Lay dele-mtes can partake is the Holy Eucharist ! ° But, seriously, my dear friend, are the Lai, Association in earnest, or are they gravely jesting with us, in writing in this slashmg, haphazard sort of way ? What does it mean ? "Difficult to discover why, out of the whole catalogue of doctrines, moral requirements, sacramental and ceremonial observances, the Holy Eucharist should be selected as the test of eligibility" for Lay delegates! This is mere nonsense. Ihe Holy Eucharist is not a doctrine, neither is it a moral requirement, nor yet a ceremonial observance. It never was m "the catalogue " of these things, and cannot, therefore, ba "selected out" of it. It is one of the two great Sacraments which Chnst has ordained in Hia Church. And one purpose Jrvances of 3 the only e, my dear ive, that I linary men iaciples of I, by long 3 creative itli a cur- , we must iuguished Jon. Col. f^eara ago, declaring land held nation of of sacra- bmission, whether ramental lification That, as I in their lelegates 'ation in : in this ? ogue of emonial ihe test insense. k moral ^er was fore, te aments )urpose ( 15 for which it is instituted, and has always been used among Christians, is "to be a badge and token of Christian men's profession," "to put a visible difference between those who belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world." And yet the Lay Association tells us "it is diflleult to dis- cover why it sliould be selected " for this purpose ! It may be diflScult for the Lay Association to discover this,— for their powers of discovery are, wq must acknowledge, not to be measured by ordinary rules ; but to plain, sensible people, I apprehend there will appear no such difficulty. The Association speak of the Eucharist as being made " the stepping-stone to Synodical honours." This irreverence is worthy of grave rebuke. Synodical honours are a very small matter in the eyes of the Church. Obedience to tho laws of Christ, and common consistency before men, are things much more important. They assert tbat it is made " the sole test of eligibility to this importan*^ office," as if to require this excluded all consideration of other tests of fitness. This would be just as much as to say that, lecause all candidates for parliamentary honours must take the oath of allegiance, therefore the different constituencies are precluded from choosing fit and proper per- sons, and are obliged to take any one who should choose to take the oath of allegiance ! The cases are precisely similar. The Church at large has a right to demand the guarantee that all who are to join in making her laws and carrying on her government shall be full members of her communion. It is not desired to limit the choice of particular parishes or cures, any further than to require that none shall be sent to the Church's Synod who are not mfull membership with her. 'V/'ithin these limits the choice is uncontrolled. And, with a sincere regard to piety, what other course than this can the Church pursue ? The Lay Association speik of this rule as an act of " partial legislation in the wide and delicate question of personal Church discipline." But this is plainly a misapprehension. The whole question cf Church discipline turns, not upon the point whether members of the Church shall be required to be com- 16 inrnknnts-^that point Jesus Chriat himself decided for all ages when He said, Do this,^hat upon this, viz : the conditions upon which persons shall be admitted to, or the offences for which they shall be excluded from, the Holy Table. To say that none shall be Lay delegates but communieants, is not to enter on any delicate question of Church discipline • it is simply to take the discipline of the Church as it is. It does not interfere with the terms, right or wrong, on which members are admitted to the Communion ; but requires that from those thus pledged as full members of the Church the persons must be chosen who are to share in the solemn deliberations of the oynod. I do not deny that if " the godly and wholesome discipline of the Church were restored, which were much to be desired," (tnough this, in my humble opinion, is much too large and grave a question for any single Diocesan Synod to entertain,) there would be a better guarantee of the fitness of communi- cants for this office ; but what we say is, that under our cir- cumstauces, it is the best, and, uader any circumstances, the o»7y guarantee the Church at large can have of the soundness m fuith and practice of her members. Yes, this is the reason why it is and ought to be selected; because it is the sacrament* and, as such, the constantly renewed oath of allegiance to Christ and His Church, emphati- cally" the badge and token of Christian men's profession;" (Article XXV.) and, above "all the catalogue of doctrines, moral requirements and ceremonial observances," it is selected because it includes them all, requiring, as the qualification for receiving it, "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," and binding the recipient by the most awtul of all 8anctions,-the Body and Blood of Christ.-to universal holiness of heari; and life, and thus being itself, as ^ishop Jeremy Taylor says, "an epitome of the Christian Or oath, as the Latin sacramentum means. So Pliny, a paean Governor, gmng an account of the Christians to the Emperor Trajan says : They bound themselves (in their assembUes) by an oath [sacramento] not to commit any Wickedness," «To take the sacrament upon a thing" is a phrase among the common people to this day. r I 17 Even in these dava of Lit f1ia^;r.K„« at. TT I /-I . ^ discipline, the approach to tli« ™CTr„'°T''"' '■"""" ''^'- -8-°' «'= »• wormy, -"o man can be a comniuniMnf- ;<* fi,„ l i he o.„, ,-,th„ut „proaol,,j„in hi,„,elf, unle,, he «,c into ' gm% and loyally attachoil to hsr svsteni Tt i. fr f T best p,„.ge the Ch.rch oa. have'IfThe 1 L ptt"', t doc r„,al 3oun „o,s, and the loyal attachment ef e "e .'bet And though th,3 lal pledge may be after «ll „„ 7 , ? .«, of m„e.. yet ainc^ it i/tt'^ll'^tiZ tZ Douud to use it • aoporrUno. <■« +1. 1 , iJ'uuuuic, wc are .by ., delegates ^^htt t ^11:::^;: "^i^zrh' Swe^:p„:°:i:ra:r--'":' .o:t:t'r Za'ehefbrfi t'o'r.r.,"'""', "''° '"'"'''"^ exeommnnieate Chur h of CM,,? 7 T ' m7 "'"'" °f '■'gi'latora fa the „7 . 1 How should the Church deem it ritht to en ru. the power and privilege of legislating for tlr who " SkVlVorWht*"''' ?™ *^ --judged (Can* r„7r„.ted U^T °°™ '"" ° """""»«-' i3 to be .ntr„.ted w,t„ tho nurture of e™ a Christian fafant ? But this test of membership i, not conaned to the Church of 18 Pi England. Among all tho Protestant denominations (except the Quakers, who reject both the Sacraments altogether,) there in not one which recognizes any persons as members of the Church, or as havinr/ a right to vote on any Church question except the communicanta. Hence, I remember, that when last year the Diocesan Convention of Massachusetts voted against the necessity of this qualification in its delegates, they were twitted by a dissenting newspi per with having decreed, that " personal piety was not required in a legislator of the Epis- copal Church !" The Lay Association bids us " remember, that conscientioua scruples of various kinds deter some consistent members of the Church from approaching the sacramental table," and that a man " may be a moral and conscientious Churchman," and yet not a communicant. In answer to this it is sufficient simply to deny that such men are either conscientious or consixtent members of a Church which peremptorily requires, as an elementary principle, all her members to be communicants. But they urge further, " May not this very tenderness of con- science which actuates them [i.e., to refuse tocome to the Lord's Supper] itself supply the strongest possible security, if accept- ing the functions of a delegate, that they will faithfully and conscientiously discharge them ?" Now, my dear friend, I confess to you that whenever I hear men of a certain party s^e&Vmg oi tenderness of conscience, I always instinctively put myself upon my guard. Dr. South's well known rule at once recurs to me, « When you hear a Puritan speaking of con- science, rest assured that he has a design upon your pocket, and that the word conscience is used only as an instrument to pick it." " What a rattle and noise (says he) has this word conscience made ! How many battles has it fought ! How many Churches has it robbed, ruined, and reformed to ashes I How many laws has it trampled upon, dispensed with, and ad- dressed against ! And, in a word, how many governments has it overturned ! Such is the mischievous force of a plausible word, applied to a detestable thing." And what sort of a conscience that was which he here calla a desteatable thing he explains in another passage, where he 19 8«y«. "I cannot find (amon. the gifts of the Spirit) the .ift of accounting tendernesx of conscience against law L a in. A and tendc^ess of conscience according to In 7a cr " . 't' prosecuted almoBt to death." Ye8 mv dZ f I aT ^' the old Puritan plea of a ^.«./..;: L^J'ttT ness of conscience which once "laiH TnT'^ . , ^ ^'""'"" n.o«t p.n.itivel, reforlTh ur U ^ ^.^ ' ''r ^^^^ 'f to do it again. It is not that true tenderne ' of con ' which makes it quick and exact to snv out Th ^ '°"'"'"'^"' your,, a to reform ; to disclThaTis o': l^Z To fulfil It ; but by it they mean a weak, ignorant and ill inf a consd e, ,^ ,^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ a'disa Ittttrh to be done and even when it does see this in some nfeasure always finds insurmountable obstacles in the way of dschn;. ujg .t No, my riend, "this tenderness of consLnce '' v lil" blinds a man to h,s duty of obeying his Saviour's comm d while ,t puffs h.m up with spiritual pride, as if he were therp for a better man than his neighbour, is c;rtainlynr 1 fic- tion m the eyes of any sensible man for any office of tru t or mportence It is rather too much to ask us to believe tht it •aupphes the ^est possil^ie secnrit, for a faithful and consel? tious discharge of duty." i^onscien- I do not deny that there are some good men. worthy to be communicants and really prizing that'holy pri ilege who .et are kept back by " conscientious scruples ;" but hos'e sc ui simply amount to this.-that they, in'thdr mista e anZt leading humility, judge themselves morally unfit for so heavenly a feast. These, however, are men who would with equal humility, shrink back from so great a work as lllf It: Th h" !'.^ '''-'' '' Christ-ftheyarrthe very men who would heartily and zealously support the rule in questrn and resist any infraction of it. It is better, in any cTse h^J the Church should be deprived of the wisdom and Vxperien^ of many such men as these, than the last fragment wh hi! ia/J .'\u"'' '^'^"P'"^ ^'^^^''^ ^« *h"« contemptu usly dashed to the ground, and the most positive law of hi Divine Head trampled under foot. But the Lay Association urges again that the " adoptioa of I M i «!: Iliijl'^' ao the aacramontal q-»aUflcation for Lay delegates would, in this country, in some c;, •« so cireumHcribo the choice of tlio people as virtually to doatroy it," and that it would be an " inconve- nient" enactment ! Tho rule, 1 daresay, may work inconve- niently for the purposes of tho La;/ Association, but, for the former argument, it is a libel upon tho Church,-it is contrary to all experieuco to doubt that the most devout and intelUfjent of her Laity are and always will be communicants ; for obe- dience to God is the truest piety, and piety is the truest wisdom. To compare this rule-a rule universally established as I may say, in the Church of God, in this and every age-to the "odious and demoralizing Test and Corpr)ration Acts," is worthy of tho fairness and scrupulous honesty ir the use of arguments which so strongly characterize the pamphlet of the Lay Association. The Test and Corporation Acts disqualified all but communicants of the Established Church for Parlia- ment and all other public offices of trust and emolument in the kmgdom. Thoy thu. held out a strong temptation to ambitious men among Koman Catholics and Dissenters (as well as among ungodly persons in the Church herself, among inlidels, &o.) to be guilty of the profanity of receiving the Holy Communion m the Church, in violation of their conscience. We may readily grant these Acts to have been odious and demoralizing But how IS the rule requiring Lay delegates to be communi- cants a revival of the Test and Corporation Acts? It is scarcely supposable that worldly and bad men would become regular communicants merely to attain the poor honor of being Lay delegates. But if we can suppose suni' a case, there still remains this dilemma : that those worldly and b^<' ,; en who had influence enough to get themselves i - u \ a*., openly profaning the Sacrament to gratify their ambition, would much more readily obtain their election if there were no test at all. If this test would not exclude them, then the absence of all tests would certainly admit them. It is an unalterable law of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, that ev.: y member of His Church should be a constant communi- •- .nt. And because some unworthy persons are found among 21 those cotnmiinicantB, this cannot make it any the less our aacred duty to require that all who aro entrusted with the high and holy work of legislating for and otherwise governing that Church should not be living in open violation of the most sac^cd of iicr laws. We are told (foot-note, |,. 9) that in two instances in the American Churcli, in the Dioceses of Now York and Punt.syl- van.a, ..ftbrts to introduce the rule requiring dch^gatcs to he c.i...nuu.ica..ts were "made and negatived." But the Lat/ As^octation ror,^ot to M\ us that the same page of Ilotr.nan (p. 1 Jl-2) from which they quote two of the paragraphs in that Joot-uote, supplies the information that, in the Diocese of New itork, "a proposition to that eflect" was aJophd in IHiS though not confirmed in 1819; and,-what is even of more importance, as shewing the sense of that great Diocese upon the pnuciph at issue.-that one of the Cmous of that Diocese, adopted m 1802, is tliis : " That in the opinion of this Conven- tion the welfare and prosperity of the Church require, and it IB in Itself proper and riglit, that no Lay delegates should bo aent to this Convention but such as are communicants of the Church, and have been so for at least one year previous to their appointment; and that it is recommended to the parishes to adopt this principle." They do not mention that it would almost to a certainty have been carried in 1858, if tlio Ilishop had not interposed his judgment, to which those excellent Churchmen at once deferred. They quote for us a part of what the Dishop of New York said on that occasion, when he was speaklll^ of a case which in no way resembles our« ; but would It not have been more to the purpose to inform us what that eminent man, on the same occasion, said ou^ht to be done, if tlieir case were what ours is ? Here are his words : " The desirnbleMoss in the abstract of having the body of Lay dele- gates composed of communicants would, I suppose, be admitted by all. Indeed I believe things are tending to that result in this Diocese, as fa, ! as circumstances will at all permit." It 18 only " the attempt to enkrve it all at once, by a new rule, which changes the practice which has prevailed in thu Pioccso from the first," which be deprecates. f.'\ 22 m h.d What do the La^ Association mean by suppresaiag the facts of the case in this wholesale way ? This pamphlet is put forth by the Lai/ Association to help you churchmen in the country to " form your opinions and principles" (p. 23) on these important subjects. To this end they profess to supply you with reliable " information" (p. 4) on the various points they treat of, and they invite you (p. 22) to give them your " serious and prayerful reflection." Is it consistent with these professions to suppress every fact that makes against the views they advocate ; to say that it had been " more than once seriously proposed to require delegates to be communicants," when in every Diocesan bynodin our Colonies this is the established rule ; to quote from a work a passage telling you of two cases in the American Church in which motions to adopt this rule were lost, and to omit the informa- tion which the same page of that work supplies, not only that Lay delegates must be communicants, in several Dioceses of that Church, but also that in one of the two Dioceses they quote, it has been, since 1802, the solemn and deliberate sense of the Convention that Lay delegates ought by riglit to be commu- nicants ; and to make no reference to the all-important fact, that the deliberate judgment of the whole American Church on this point was most emphatically declared, when, in 1853, it was adopted, and in 185U by an overwhelming vote* confirmed, a» an amendment to the Constitution of the General Convention that all delegates must be communicants ? What good end can this suppression of truth serve ? Is this the best way to help you to form your opinions and principles on this subject ? Tou see, then, my friend, that in the American, as well as in the British Colonial Church, it has been something more than " seriously proposed to limit eligibility to the office of a delegate to communicants." But were it otherwise, our case is not parallel to that of the American Church. American churchmen, in such cases as those quoted in the foot-note, page 9, are striving tj throw out an old and long-established practice which the conscience * See Journal of General Convention for 1856, pp. 64 & 67. ig the facts ion to help )inion8 and ro thia end ion" (p. 4) you (p. 22) on." I3 it Y fact that it had been !gate3 to be lur Colonies a passage h in which be informa- t onljr that Diocesea of oceses they •ate sense of be eoinmu- ut tact, that irch on this S53, it was >nfirmed, a» !^onveution t good end est way to lis subject ? IS well as in more than f a delegate that of the h cases as y to throw conscience 7. 23 of the Church more and more disapproves of. We are about to lay down a right principle at t ,e outset, in which we are followiug the "prevailing precedents" of the American Church as well as of every one of our own Diocesan Synods through- out the Empire. It is one thing to repeal a long-established even though faulty custom, when by doing so peremptorily jou would " cast out " of the Synod, and probably tempt to for- sake the Church altogether, several exemplary members ; but It IS quite another thing to lay down a right principle at the begmning, whidi cannot possibly oftend or drive away any. Let us be content with copying the excellences, -let us avoid the failings of the American Church, those errors whicii we see her now, though with pain and difficulty, gradually but firmly undoing. III. I pass by the third point considered in tlie Address (pp. 10, 11),— which I do not think of much importance,— merely begging you to notice how, in quoting from the " Minutes of a Conference of the British North American Bishops," the eentence, that the Bishops "considered it desirable that the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity in each Dioceso should meet together m Synod at such times and in such manner as may be agreedr they quietly drop out the Bishop, and assume that the agreement spoken Of is to be between the Clergy and Laity, the Bishop having no voice in the matter. This was scarcely' what the Bishops meant, and it seems hardly fair to exclude them from any share in an agreement which they themselves were the first to propose, and which is to be on their part all surrender, and on ours all gain. It is quite true (and note these words well) that " the Synod once dissembled will become the supreme authority in the Church in all matters affecting Itself." (Address, p. H.) But the Association ignores the fact that "the Synod" is composed of "the Bishop the Clergy, and the Laity," and that nothing can become '• a pro- visjon of the Constitution" which is not "consented to" bv each of these three orders. ■ vj. M^ .H:i ■ 24 IV. With the conclusion the Z^y Association cornea to as to theiv fourth point, the "vote bv orders" T Z , qunrrel, but I a. sorr, to hav^ to e^l^Iain of t Tir d..ngenuousness in stating the facts of thicase here'l h I We already noticed more than once, '-'hey describl* "ll) the vote 6, osiers (which I freely acknowledge they e ph L very h ly) as a wholeson.e usage, conservative of The S. 0/ />e aer,, and Laity alike, obtaining nniversaliy in tt Diocesan and General Convc.tions of the sister Church in T Un.ted States, and transcribed fron. her excelLt t ," ^ recent organ.zations of the Colonial Church." This I suF r to pass ; but when they go on to sav • " Tf ;. ,V ^ • , precede,, i. e,.e „,„.J, 'aj^ Jeu^ 7 riX ^f they musl liave kno^n, md ought to hive slZl nT,l lait,a„dCWg,vo.e„, two o,de„, X » thej »" ," "o ! Clergy and no Laity present ? '« wert only Eut if the mother Church of England furnishes no prece- ^^s tor the vote by orders, she furnishes analogies, an/lZ ana og.es all go to establish the principle involved in the e ^3-rder^ ^ constitutional * llie "recent public document," by the^x^^i^T^rolTHrT ~. T ion quotes (p. 1 ,) o„e would searcel/conjeoZ; To b Zr ' T""' Ga.c'tte m 1858 into « an English author" (p ofn - ,! fL l! » IJied defects of .Lo Ame.^ ? to as to I have no the same e which I e* (p. 11) 7 explain the riyhts Hy in the 'ch in the )dels into 1 1 suffer V without Ireland," tiiat the Church" \ seat or ould the ere only preee- id those he vote tutional A ixoeia- » Jieport CO wliich Quebec writer " iiithor of >posu, as icUt and ;u, Lord tLe only 11(1 some ig titles* luei'icaa 25 privilege. So far as English precedents go, Church Legisla- tion, properly so called, is con/fned to the Clergy, in "their Synods, and the Laity have no direct voice in the matter. But then, to balance this. Synods, Diocesan and Provincial, of the Church of England, are prohibited from making Canons without the consent of the Crown. Even with that consent such Canons do not bind the Laity without the ratification of Parliament, which was originally in reality, and is still in theory, the Laity of the Church by representation.* Hoo/cer (viii. § G, 8,) lays it down as a right, inherent in both Clergy and Laity, " that no ecclesiastical law be made in a Christian Commonwealth without consent as well of tlie Laity as of the Clergy. Eor of this thing «o wmw doubteth, namely, that in all societies, companies and corporations, what severally each shall be bound unto, it must be with all their assents ratified. As the Laity should not binder the Clergy's jurisdiction, so neither is it reason that the Laity's rights should be abrid'^ed by the Clergy." '^ I have now reached the point which is confessedly the most im^ovtani o{ a\\— the question as to the Bishop's right to a voice in the decisions of the Synod. Here the Lay Association evidently have laid out all their strength to fortify the view they advocate. Besides passing reference to the subject all through the pamphlet, ten out of twenty-two pages (consider- ing the foot-notes more than half of the Address) are devoted to this point. They have certainly put their arguments very cleverly,— as strongly and well, I suppose, as arguments on that side can be put. And knowing how much easier it is to argue i)o/;«/flr/j/ on their side of this weighty point than on the rif?ht side,— since they have prejudices and passions to appeal to, which we have not, and which we certainly should not try to arouse if we could,— I enter upon the discussion with much apprehension of not doing full justice to the subject, * See Bums' Eoolesinsticul Law, "Synods," and comp.iro Hoffman on Ameiieun Cliurcli Law, p. 184. t 26 but at the same time with that confidence which a thornn.l, persuas,oa of having the righl always in.pi..es ''' thi^Pa^'lf'r- '''.';/"'" '"^' after reading over carefully this part of their Address, is the absence of any fair and SSrfflh"'^ "^"-"^ '' ''' ''-'^^^ ^^^' 7 Clear statement of the question. This tiie Laity of the Din -a eerta.„l, had a right to expect from those 'aim ng^L" ta k of giving them "information" on the subject. The -4..«c.«.e„. however, does not take this course. They give to be r,ght, wmcli we claim to be inherent in the office of b' shop pi wS, f T ^7T' '' "'^'"^ "S"-^^* i*- Thus, a comln [ "'""^' ""P^'^J^diced churchman of good common sense, becomes an awful phantom, loomin. mvste ri'oft ''''"^''•/? -'''' '-'-' -^ ^^-^^^ ^vit^te ; V " th *r""^;"^ ^-\-^^'-- Here are the terms in thX ^i ^^^T?" ^^'^^^^^ "^Sative upon any measure of eynod earned by whate^.r separate majorities of both its ^lr\"; "'^''^"tocrat.c authority, such a, that of the ^,«- 1^^ .0/ /?.,.•«" (p. 20),-and "to hold it essential to t e Ep copate is at once to uneonsecra^e upwards of thirtv P k ^ of t e American Church." It is "a needless ;xperi- «.ent - « an untried invention, at variance with the consHtu •ona. principles, prevailing precedents, and successful e"rl enc« of the most perfectly organized Protestant Ep co" Cburc bin the world." It " invests the Bi.liop with the Zer ^!^f"^;^^V^eee,ln,s of the Synod." J-entru ts-Hm jthunconfronedauthorit.j.'' It is a '< prerogative frau^]^ wouidTH •/ '' """"" I^""-^'-'"-"^ power that would clothe Its possessor with an accumulation of prerogatives wouMt?"""-" a whole to a scriptural E,Z,J IZ By this clever, but. I must think, rather dishonest expedi- «ut, the nght claimed for our Bishops grows to be some'l^^ I thorough r carefully 7 fair and issue, any the Dio- iniing the >ct. The ey give to 3f Bi.shop, what that Thus, a i at once of good J inyste- 'ith every terms in Episcojxil easure of both its the Em- il to the rty Pre- I experi- -oiistitu- experi- 'piscopal le power ts" him fraught II as to ■er that Jffatives e, than "Mdence xpedi- lething 27 terrible and dreadful beyond description,— a power, like that of the beast in Daniel, only for evil— suited, and but too likely to " devour and break in pieces, and to stamp the residue with his feet." But what are the facts of the case ? The Bishops are actually the autocratic and irresponsible governors of the Church, They have all the power they can desire. Thia power they are now seeking to share with the Clergy and Laity. They need not do so even now. The law does not compel them to call their Synods together ; it permits them to retaiu things just as they are. For an irresponsible governor to call together a body of men subject to him, for the purpose of divestuig himself of power and committing it to them, is at least not the most obvious way of seeking " autocratic autho- rity" and uncontrolled power" ! And what share do the Bishops propose to give the Clergy and Laity in the administration of the affairs of the Church ? An equal and co-ordinate share with themselves. They call in the aid of the Clergy and Laity, and agree that, without the consent of both, nothing shall be enacted, nothing carried into eflect by the Synod. But in reality they give up .<. great deal more than this, because the body of the Clergy and Laity in a Synod must always have a vastly preponderating influence. Nearly every measure brought before the Synod will be origi- nated, discussed, and passed by them ; while nothing can be enacted or done without them. Thia ia to give the Bishop " uncontrolled power." But this does not satisfy the Lay Association. The Bishop must, in the Synod, abandon all his prerogatives. It is not enough that he consents to do nothing without the Clergy and Laity, unless he further consents that they may decide and do anything and everything without him. Nay, more, he must now promise to agree to everything they enact, and even to carry it into effect, no matter how strongly he may be, in his judgment or conscience opposed to it. This, however, is simply to abandon Episcopacy. And it is plain that if the Bishops do not retain the right of having a voice in the decisions of the Synod,— if they consent to give i T li H':^ I ! i.:| 28 up their right of concurrence in what is done,-then, so far as the Sjnod IS concerned and can effect it, they cea,e to he B^shops and become mere Chairmen of Presbyterian Assemblies. It ,s no , my dear friend, it is not a question of increasing or d.mm,sh.ng the Bishop's power. The true issue is, nishopl or no Mops : shall .. cease to be Episcopalians ? For ift the Synod, the solemn council of the Church, when she is met m the name of God to consult and take action for the well- bemg of the whole body, you permit any and every measure von air 'f "f-'^'^''''^"""^' *''° ^^^^^°P'« ---^. then yon take away from hnn. so far as ti.e Synod's action extends, an h.s Lp.copal functions. If the Presbyters and the people can carry any and every measure in .he face of the Bishop's sobmn refusal to concur in what is done, and then compd h m and b ,Z Tl "*° ''■^'=' ""-^^""^ «^' ^^''-^^ he disa proves. whch he refuses hB assent, then the Church is governed in reahty not by Bishops, but by Presbyters and Lavmen Henceforth we must define the Word « Bishop" thus : « What duty It >s to see, under the direction of a Committee of Pres- byters and Laymen, that the decisions of the Presbvters and Lay delegates in their Synods are carried into effect.'"' Let me remind yon that this is nothing more than what is dut.^ctly cla.nea^^ the Lay Association in their Address. They say (p U) and say truly, that "the Synod, once assembled, wdl become the sulbeme AUTnoniTY in 'the Church ^n all matters affectiny itself r But " tbe Synod," according to them, IS m reality the Clergy and L..y delegates,-tho Bishop being merely the President of the Synod, and his con- cuvrence being quite unnecessary to the passin,- of any and every measure. So that,-.KT the Chuhch Peop.e oe THE Diocese MAHK ir WE..,-what the Lay Association claim and wish to establish is this: that the Synod on assembled the 8t;PaE.E AUTHonrxx ix the ChuLh, in all niatt.rs aftectnig the Synod, shall be. «o. the Bishop, but the Presbyters and Lay delegaces ! Here 1 might s op and rest my argument. For if to give 29 up this point be so far an abandoning of Ej)iscopacy, no more words are needed. Tlie Anglican Church has contended too long, and suft'ered too much, in defence of the sacred rights of Bishops tamely to abandon them now. Slie knows what British Christians. — she knows what universal Christendom, in every period of its history, owes to Christian Bishops. To them the Christian faith was committed in the beginning to be kept and handed on, and to them, under God, it is owing that that Faitli is now in the world in all its original purity. The government of the Church by Bishops, we believe, was ordained by her Divine Head, and established by His Apostles. TFe are not prepared to (jive it up. But it is not the mere name of Bishops we desii-e. We want no shams in the Church of God : no empty, meaningless forms ; no solemn mockery of investing our Bisliops, at their consecration, with an authority which they ought not to possess, and which they are never to exercise. No ! if we are to be churchmen, let us be so in reality. If our Church is to be governed by Bishops, let us leave them some function of government. They have given up all they can and all they ought. Let us imitate the noble example of the churchmen of Nova Scotia, and of Huron, and rally round our Bishops and call upon them to stand up for the Divine Constitution of the Church like men, and say to them, " Even if you were willing to betray the sacred rights committed to your trust, ice daie not, cannot, will not permit it I AVe will still maintain un- broken that golden principle of unity Avhich binds us to the Church of the Apostles and Martyrs, and binds the whole Church in one : Let nothino be done without the Bishop." This, then, my dear friend, is tJie true issue between the Church and the Lay Association. And when it is once made clear that it is so, — that it is not a question of giving more or less power to our Bisliops, but of abandoning (so far as the Synod is concerned) or retaining Episcopacy, — I am sure that enough is said to satisfy auy honest Churchman. But to strengthen the case, let us proceed to examine the arguments of the Lay Association one by one. Their first 80 point in tlu> argument from authority; and thin they .lispose .■tlUhegroato.t ea... I„ tho Amorioan Church ■' are upwards oUh.rty organized Diocese, in .Inch the Hishops are ch.thcd w.th no nuch prerogative '• the .„ail and u o gre..ve D.ocese o Vern,ont (.., Appendix A ^ being tl Ji . tary except.ou ., the prevailing rule. " No other precedent «ay t ey) has been produced, except that it has bee v7ry recen.ly yielded.. a «.,««„ewly.fbnneu Coh>uial Synods vvi h untried Constitutions." -->/uous, vsith AVhy does the Associaiion adopt this extraordinary mode of Bpoak.ng ^ Why Bay ..,.. Colonial Synods ? Were they not a.-are t at ,nto the Constitution of..,, .. ,f ,,, ^^.^^ S.^ . o -s the pr,nc.plo is u.Lroduced that " „o act of the Synod Blwdl be va d w.thout the concurrent assent of the Bilp the oldest ot them only dating back to 1852. But then it must be ren.embered that these Synods were all professedly formed .n mntat.on of the Diocesan Conventions of the Amencan Church; and that, with the Constitutions of thoso thu-ty D.oceses before them, every one of our Colonial Synods, after the fullest consideration, deliberately dissented from thenMu tins po.nt. This fact is of great importance. The Anghcau Church. i„ nearly every part of tho IJritish domuuons* has weighed, judged and condemned these Ameri- can precedents. If we could consent (which God forbid !) to repud.ae tins principle, we should be opposing ourselves to the dehberatejudg.nentuud solemn enactments of the whole Anglican Church. The precedent of the American Church, on which they so much rely, I wd] consider presently. Rut, meantime, mlUf^e. P^^^^^^^fe^^cmp^^^ of that Church, of a • That is in the Dioceses of Toronto, m^^^i^~^i^^^^'i^ZZ^r^ Adela .Je MelbouPue, Nova Soo.i.. Capo Town. New Zealand cS n. evuy D.ocesan Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church. See Hoffman Dioeman Si/rind, in wJiifh thin rh/hf, irhrn rlalmrdhi/ Hip Bishop, teas itfli/irra/rli/ rrpndiatrd .'' This, let it bo roiiiLMnbered, and notliing Jc8H, would bo n parallel to what they arc proposing wo sboiild do in tbia Dioceso. Tlio Lai/ Association my», "No otlior precedent," for tbc principle at isaue, "has been produced," except those of Ver- mont and our " newly-formed Colonial Synods." If they mean precedents in tbe ease of Synoils formed in all points upon tbe same model as our own, it is true, but notbing to tho purpose, because no otber such Synods, besides those in tho American Cbureb, and in our own Colonies, bavo ever been held. Tbe I^aity were never admitted to deliberato and vote in any Sy!iods of tbe Cbristian Ciuireii* until they were admitted by tlie American Church. But if they mean that there are no precedents in tbo case of Diocesan Synods, constituted as they wei-o up to that time, they show themselves strangely ignorant of tbe controversy in w l-ich they assume the place of teachers. Diocesan Synods,— composed of the Bishop and bis Clergy, —have been held in every part of the Christiau Church, from a very early age, uud in tho English Church in particular, constantly before, and several times since tho Relbrmatioa. These Synods were required, by the Canons of the Church, to be held every year ; and the principle on which they delibe- rated was this, that "nothing should be done without the con- sent of tho Bishop.-' " Diocesan Synods," says Bishop Keu- l|i • See thu .Tiiiplest prooof of this in Suicer's Tbesauius, s. v. SiWSos— where lie dcscribi's four ^orts of Couucils held iu anuiciit times, all ccuu- posed of Jlinhopit. Jeremy Taylor an Episcopacy, sect, xli., headed " Bishopt only did vote in Councils, and neither Presbyters nor people. Jvhn Jofinion's Clergy mnn's Vade Mecum, Vol. II., containing the Canons of the ancient Church, Pref, iii. 1, '.', who agrees with Taylor, and adds,— " Timt it is the particular privilege of English Priests, to have a right to sit as constituent members in Provincial Synods, and are oAvned iu nil conclusive Acts to have a negative on the Bishops." Abp. Potter, Church Government, cap. v. of making Canons (p 288 Philadel. Ed. 1824.) i i -m ■i i li !. 82 hiaownCJerffv and with /J..; /• ^, ^'^nt to convene and rog„l..„ tW di.ipliue of lE" l ^'S^ff ''-^'"!'^. eii.lcJ 1,1 fomier ages,- say, Jii.lm H„n- / " "S""' Ml negative ,b, «,e-„ir;)';t "::";/:,:"l"<"" roniiea ^ee,e.:2:i;:.,^tr:i;s;;;r;j f °- Cnmmer. In tl,i"a «-^,.i, ■• """-"/ ^y Ar.i. bishop .» ou,. pur„o,e, ie is o'rca™:,! °raS.r:it: « ;"'°*" Canons of the Cliurcli "Tl,nf fi a '"''^ ^'*'' ^11 lormer Bishops, rtliich are Pnnnll. • . independence of LL^!!r.!!!j^!!^l^^^^^^^^ P'-vpal supre. • Kennefs Ecclesiastical Synods VoThToTTTTTI ~ man, p. isi and 132. The poeitiou ofr ' V ''^' "'''"""-"^ '" ^^off- Bishop Gibson. CW., unde;^;^:^?^:^-^^'''^-"- ^^^^ noma. Jackson, in the re gn Sllef I telL" ' h""'' ""^ '^ '''■ ^- with joy of heart the Synods o t ' D I ",'•?"' " ^^ --emernbcred •'i-orks la Mason. iLr4i;t::r;%tt:'?'"^'*;r '^° account of a Diocesan Synod hold hv i -^"t^ , ' '^'^^^ ^ f"" length -i.h the Canons passed on ^ o !„' TnL '''''; " ''''' *"=«''- ccsan Synod of Exeter, held in 185Mn oU Tf^ ''^"' '" '^' ^^^''^ opinion on the Law p^int^ c 1 e J "with "fhe S '' "'^ «'^>^«P. -^"so t..o.gh nnwillingly, by'the Law Offi ers oth Crown"!"": 7"'"^''' recoga.ed rule (Pastoral Letter of 9th Apr 1 ,85?7i; 3?.! ! '^ "» » lution can be deemed an act of the Svnn/ 1- u , ^' '^ *•"»* "" '"^so- currence." See also the Tl d bS jlt . ?' "" °'^'^''P'« «- confirmed hy the Bishop of T^ onto n^ [ ' i^'^S^n.cnt, quoted and 1806. See^ProccedinJs!; S^^'lSo ;. if "^^ "^^^^^^ ^'^'^ ^^-'^ °^ (i I S3 macy and tlic supremacy of clistinguiabed but ambitious laymen, began to be encroached upon, and were finally de\ied and usurped by the Bishop of Home. "\Vo may take up Jliahop Jewell's and Hooker's form of challenge, and say to the La\j Association, We require you to bring any one sxifficient sentence out of Ilohj Scripture, or any Catholic Doctor, or Father, or Council, or any one example in the whole Christian Church, for a thousand years from the beginning, whereby it may plainly be proved that the Bishop, in his Synod, or out of his Synod, ought not to have the rijht, and we will yield up the cause. These, then, are our precedents for the principle that nothing should be enacted in a Diocesan Synod without the consent of the Bishop, — not the constitution of " Vermont, and of some recently formed Colonial Synod," alone, but the Laws and prac- tice of the whole Christian Church from the beginning, in every country of the tcorld, and especially ofouroion Anglican Church, both in ancient and modern times ; while tbe single precedent that can be cited by our opponents is the omission of this rule in the Diocesan Constitutions of the American Church. But, my dear friend, the case of the American Church is one of our strongest points ; for, when fairly examined, it makes far more for us than, even when unfairly represented, it makes against us. Those who are so fond of bringing up this pre- cedent on all occasions do not seem to have carefully studied the history of that Church. The subject is a large one, and most deeply interesting. To treat it fully would i-equire a volume, but time and space permit only a very brief outline. Look then, first, at the circumstances of that Church at the time of its organization. After being planted in those Colonies since the year 1696, the English branch of tbe Church still remained at the time of che Eevolution without a single Bishop. Unceasing and zealous efforts had been made by the greatest and best men in the Church, to obtain the consent of the British Government to the appointment of Bishops, or even of one Bishop, for America. " Letters and memorials from the Colonies supply, ybr a wlmle century, a connected chain of such expostulations, yet still the mother country was deaf to their entreaties. At home they were re-echoed from many quarters. \iP rnrrirtl nut whon tliev roincido with tlu> wishes niiil rnii- victioiis of fho ri'Nt. The result is not n "ih-ndeiiiiif; in(hieiiee," but the heniity nnil strength "of a liouse at unity witii itself." The Mi^oriiition «innfo and adopt the spiitimcnt of that " grave and experienced Knglish author" they delight to refer to, ulio says, (p I!),) " It would he (juite ns well to do without the seni- hlnncp of legislation, as to he ealled upon to legislate within the limits which the existence of the vffo would assign to the Church's represontatives." If these words mean anything, they mean this, that the eiiaetments of a Diocesan Synod, in which the Bishop has a voice, would he (piite as well disi)ensed with, and that the only Church legislation worth having, is that which is carried on without, or against the lUshop's consent. Is this the language of genuine, loyal Chnrchnicn,— are these the sentiments of true-hearted members of a Church governed by Di8ho])s ? ' The l)est answer to this charge, of a " deadening, jjaralysing influence," would he furnished by a full liistory of the acts and proceedings of one (^olonial Diocesan Synod, during the last seven years. Let me give you, as n sample of that history, and as illustrations of the "deadening influence exerted on the Clergy and Laity by the the known possession of the veto by the Bishop," — two incidents which occurred at the two meet- ings of the Synod of Ton iito, last year. The first arose from a motion, "that the Synod do take into consideration the propriety of reviving (he Diaconate, as a per. manent order, in this Diocese." After (I think) the mover and seconder had spoken, the Bishop rose, and said that he thought it a point not within the province of the Synod, and in which ho himself could not ac. as the law of the Church then stood. Nevertheless, the de^ ..ce went on ; the motion was spoken to, and most earnestly, by a great number of the most eminent cle- rical and lay members ; and the result was, that the Bishop, at the close of the debate, said that " he could not but be deeply impressed by all he had heard ; and this much he would say, that if in any parish or mission, the Clergyman and Lay dele- gates should recommend any person to be ordained a permanent Deacon, he (the Bishop) would take the matter into his most 40 siTinus ('onsidcrntion." TIuh is mitl.cnlic, l.oing fiiriiUlu..! I,y a IxTNon prcMciit on flu- orca«i(in. The sccon.l incipient ocniriv.l at KinKstcii. and tlic acn.mit.of It IS taken rprhntim I'rom a I.d.r I ncivnl Cnnn a (Vici.d at the time, "Dr. HovcH's motion on tlie division of tlic S.-rviccs, .nado a great lu-at-tl.e HiHl,..,, stHnigly ol.jertinK to it-«. ,'., \m f.ovvcr to rn.ive in (lie nnitt.T, and reCerrinn it to tlie I'rc.vineial Synod. Yet tlio dini-nHMon was ample— not ono person, lay or elerienl, deeidcdly opposing it, but Mr. . Many answered amply- Dr. llevan, Iiistorieally and minutely accomitiuf:; for tlieir amalgamation; [Hon. iMr.J ram.Ton, slnnving its unnn-aning- ncss; [Rural Dean] Hlake, and Hon. Mr. I'atton, sliowing the iniscl.ief of it, in wasting the ('lergyman'sstrength, and eontract- nig the field of his lnl)OHrH,tothe injury of the destitute population. In fact, cvt-ry eoneeivahle topic was handled with a skill that sur- prised me. The Arehdnaccm of Kingston s|»oke strongly for the motion. Dr. O'Meara reminded the Uishnp that he had his Lordship's permission for such division, as the Litany, &c., were longer in Ojibway than in Knglisli, &c." Now, here is a case in point,- h Diocesan Synod, in which nothing can be carried .uthout the Bishop's consent; the Hishop'8 "predilections" and views one way, and the wholp tfis- nmion just the other way.— the eflFect l)eing, at least in one case, that of hringing the Hisliop over to the views of the Synod ; mid yet that Uishop was a man, than whom few have been more re- viled as arbitrary and despotic,— the intrepid and self-reliant,— and I will add. as the judgment of that Church he has loved and serv, ,1 so well, and now in his old age, of his once bitter ^nemifs,*— the ffreat and ffood Brsuov of Toronto. Nothing is more una-hnonsly agreed upon by ancient Chris- tian authors, nothing more constantly urged by our modem defenders of Episcopacy, than this, that the Bishop is appointed the head of each Diocese, to be to it the centre of vnitij, just <\s the father is the centre of unity to his houseliold, and the Pastor to the Parish. The Synod is the Diocese by representation, and ' 1 1 - Sec tbo great praise given Lim by Winiam Lyon MoKenzie, and endorsed by the Montreal Witnesn, Ist January, 1869. D 60 should present a picture to the world, of the unity and love of the Church. How can it be this, except there be agreement ? And how can there be agreement where the head is set aside, and everything is done without him, or even against his judg- ment and consent ? If* the known possession by the Bishop," of his power, as head and governor of the Diocese, tend to pro- duce unity, quietness, and peace, and love, out of the Synod, why should it not have the same effect within it ? Quietness, peace, and love, are better than excitement, bitter debates, heart- burnings, and party strifes. Let us not for a moment think of abandoning that sacred headship which was given to the Church in each Diocese by our Master, to this very end, — "that we all may come, in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect man." 7. But the Lay Association once more object, that " the Episcopal chair is already surrounded with an immense and varied if not alarming amount of official, moral, and material influence." "A concentration of power which is unknown to the Hierarchy of the United Church of England and Ireland ; is also without precedent in the United States ; and which it is believed, finds no parallel in the Church of Rome ; and that it is neither necessary nor safe for the Church that this should be increased and consummated by adding to it, besides a presid- ing influence in the Synod, a veto upon all its transactions. The reference to the Church of Rome, here found, is singu- larly out of place. The independence of Bishops has never been the policy of Papal Rome. For some ages before the Re- formation the Popish Schoolmen and Canonists had been endeavouring to destroy the distinction between the two orders of Bishops and Presbyters. "These," says Dr. Burnet,* "are the very dregs of Popery ; the Schoolmen raising the Priests for the sake of transubstantiation, and the Canonists pulling the Bishops lower for the sake of the Pope's supremacy.^' In the degradation of Bishops and the usurpation of their rights. * See a full account of this in Bumet'a History of Reformation, Vol. I., page 366 ; and in Bramhall's works. See also Hoffman, p. 210 ; Priteh- ard's Life of Hincmar, Bp. of Rheims; and Neander'a Church Historv vol. Vl. -' 51 :l as in so many other points, Puritanism and Popery are found to be essentially one. This is a point well worthy of a little further illustration. Burnet says of the Canonists, "That they looked on the de- clarmg Episcopal authority to be of divine right, as a blow that would be fatal to the Court of Rome; and, therefore, they did after this at Trent use all possible endeavours to hinder any such decisions." Let the learned and candid Father Paul* be Burnet's Commentator. He tells us, pp. 603-4, that Pius IV wrote to his legates at Trent, 1562, "Concerning the articles of the Institution, * * * to make the Institutions of Bishops absolutely dejure divino, was a false opinioa and erroneous * * And for a resolution he wrote, that either the words dejure dimno should be omitted, or they should be used in that form which he sent, in which it was said that Christ did institute Bishops to be created by the Pope, who may distribute to them what and how much authority pleaseth it to give them for the benefit of the Church, having absolute power to restrain and amputy that which is given, as it seemeth good unto him." The Lay Association, it would seem, are. with respect to themselves. oMhe same opinion, and claim the same prerogatives with Pius The Council of Cardinals at Rome, who prepared every mat- ter for the legates at Trent, wrote to them respecting this point : Ihat the article of the Institution of Bishops seemed diflScult and of great consequence, and therefore that they should pro- cure that it should be remitted likewise {i. e, to the Pope) • which in case they could not do, yet they should inviolabll observe not to suffer a determination to pass, that it was dejure dtmno." No modem anti-episcopal sect could show a more determined hostility to the divine institution of Bishops and a more anxious desire to curtail their prerogatives, than has the Papacy ever since the full development of its own policy of self- aggrandisement. Laynez, the General of the Jesuits, admon- ished the Trentine fathers to "take heed, lest by making the • la his inyaluabie Hiatory of the Council of Trent, translated by Sir N. Brent. Lend., 1670. ' 62 institution of Bishops dejure divino, they do not take away the hierarchy," ». c. the Papacy. And Father Paul in a few words gives us a sufficient impression of how the papal party felt on the whole question. " The legates," he says, '• made wonderful factious and interests to quell this opinion." It ia well known who among Protestants follow the same course now. As in the Pilgrim's Progress we find the two giants, Pope and Pagan, arrayed against Christianity, so have they been against Bishops, its chief representatives. Father Paul and Burnet have told us of giant Pope's doings ; Jeremy Taylor, in the first sentence of his Treatise on £}iiscopacy, sums up giant Pagan's : " In all those accursed machinations, which the device and artifice of hell hath invented for the supplanting of the Church, • inimicus homo,' tliat old juperseminator of heresies and crude mischiefs, hath endeavoured to be curiously eompeti' dious, and, with Tarquin's device, " putare summa papaverum." And, therefore, in the three ages of martyrs, it v/as a ruled case in that Burgundian forge, ' qui prior erat dignitate, prior traheb atur ad martyrium.' The priests, but, to be sure the bishopsi must pay for all, — ' ToUe impios. Polycarpus requiratur.' Away with these peddling persecutions ; aiivrjv Trpos t^v piCav, ' lay the axe at the root of the tree.' Both Pope and Pagan knew 'Ecclesia in ejiiscopo,' that if Bishops are destroyed or degraded so is the Church. This is a point at which the Papist, Pagan, and Puritan embrace. But to return, — let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the Bishop has all this power, how is this to be iiicreased and consummated by Synodical action ? If power were what the Bishops wanted, one would think they would have let Synods alone, for so far as the Synod's province extends they can do nothing without the concurrence of the other two orders. To divest themselves of power is certainly a novel way of *' in- creasing and consummating " it 1 The Lay Association have given a long catalogue of the pre- rogatives, powers, and influence of the present Bishop of Quebec. Into questions personal to this venerable Prelate, I must decline to follow the Lay Association. This part of their argument, however calculated to excite prejudiced feeling on the 68 'm< great question at issue, is, both in temper and expression, un- worthy of Christian gentlemen. It is a pitiful spectacle to see, as we do here and in the Report v/h\ch the Association endorses (p. .3), aa a faithful " narration of the past," an organized body of Christian laymen thus buifeting the cheek of their own aged and in every sense right reverend Father in God. Let us, my friend, turn away and leave them, in this, to the judgment of their own consciences, and,— as our Bishop may well be content to leave his conduct to the verdict of the faithful laity of the Diocese and of posterity.* The legislation of the Synod will be ruled, not by such personal considerations as these, but by the sacred i)rinciples of eternal truth, arul the unvarying laws of the Universal Church of Christ. Thip rr,,,, h however,— passing by all consideration of these Bupr - ources of influence which are accidental to our present Bi i ], M will not belong to his successors in the See,— I may notice that every one of these points will come up, sooner or later, for discussion and legislation in the Synod. And what- ever action the Synod takes with respect to the examination of candidates for orders,— the granting or withdrawing of licenses to the Clergy.— with respect to questions of patronage, our dependence upon and connexion with the Propagation Society, which is diminishing every year, and must end,— and the sup- port of the Clergy, will and must be a defining, controlling, regulating, or restricting of that which is now, in the hands of the Bishop, an unlimited and uncontrolled power. 8. One more argument the Amciation throws into a foot- note (p. 21). They instance a " notice," given at the last meet- ing of the Synod of the Diocese of Nova Scotia, " of a motion to abolish the Bishop's veto," as a proof that what they arc pleased to call "the experiment of the veto is aLeady furnishing matter for discontent and agitation in the Church." The true value of this notice of motion may be seen in the similar attempt made in the Diocese of Toronto, " to abolish the Bishop's veto," in June last. Persons may give notices of motion just as they may •« rail up spirits from the vasty deep ;" * See Appendix B. 3 > \>[ m 54 ut will the motions pass when they do make them ? This is 4uite another matter. It is very easy for persons opposed to this principle, for the sake of keeping alive excitement on the subject, or from whatever motives, to give notices of motions to erase it from the Constitution. Such a notice of motion was given in the Synod of Toronto in 1857, but when it came to the motion itself in 1858 it was negatived without discussion, by probably the most emphatic vote ever given in that Synod. After so severe a rebuke, such notice of motion will not be given in tJiat Dioceae again for a long time to come. If the history of the Synod of Nova Scotia were known this * notice of motion" would produce no surprise. A certain number of the Clergy with their flocks have refused from the first to join the Synod at all, and used all their influence against the so-called veto. But it was carried, and (I am assured by those who know,) will still be maintained by the almost unani- mous voice of the Synod. The loud talk of the Church Wit- ness, and the notice of motion, may sound important to us at a distance, but they attract no attention and produce no effect in the Synod of that prosperous Diocese. In another foot-note (p. 22) they quote the Lord Bishop of Huron, as saying, that "he thought that, after two years deli- beration, he would be acting against every right, were he not to accede to the repeated request of the majority of the Synod." I am afraid this authority will not help the Zay Association. If the Lord Bishop of Huron thought such a power, so vested in the Bishop, — as the Lay Association does, — " unscriptural," "dangerous to the Bishop, and to the independence of the Church," certain to "exert a deadening influence upon the vitality of the Synod, and a power " which makes the attempt to legislate a fsrce, and discussion worse than useless,"— surely he would have said, that " if this rule were estabhshed, it would be against his will, and he would never use it." But, with all due deference, I am sure that, in some cases, his Lordship would not think and do as he is reported to have said. If the Clergy and Lay delegates were to seek to enact something which the Bishop in his conscience thought to be wrong, or. in his judgment, clearly and seriously injurious to the Church, 1 1 55 and, refusing his consent to it, they were to unite in proposing It again; would he, in that case, "accede to their request?" Impossible! No conscientious good man could do so. But such cases,-cases which, in the nature of things, can occur hut seldom,— being excepted, what his Lordship said, is no more than what was said by the truly venerable, and as truly vene- rated Bishop of Toronto, in his short but memorable speech, on the motion to repeal this very rule, in his Synod, last year ; and what would be said by every Bishop, under the same circum- stances ? f ' Is It to be supposed that I would set myself against the united wishes of the Clergy and Laity of my Synod ?" I have now finished my review of this pamphlet of the Lay Association. I have gone carefully, and, I think I may say, patiently, through their arguments against the two great prin- ciples at issue, and examined those principles. "V^Hiether that examination has resulted in a complete and satisfactory refuta- tion of the objections alleged, you must judge. One thing I think I have sufficiently proved ; thct the Lay Association are not worthy of the confidence of the Church. They claim to be the assertors of the rights and liberties of the Laity. They prove their claim by a most determined effort to cut off the great body of the Laity from all possibility of exercising those liberties and rights. They claim to be the impartial instructors of their brethren in the country, and to give them reliable "information," such as may help them to form their "principles and opinions," on points of the last and most sacred moment. They prove their claim by suppressing facts witiiin their knowledge, and which had a direct and all-important bearing on the subject in hand, denying others of equal weight,— it is to be hoped, through igno- rance,~and colouring, or unfairly stating, those they do bring forward. Their mode of dealing with plain facts, while professing to give information, needs explanation. One of two things must be true. They are either very dishonest men, or very ill-inrormed. In either case, they are not worthy of the confidence of the Church. I have shown that the course they would have us take, with 66 referenca to the right of the Bishop to a distinct and concurrent voice in the decisions of the Synod, is, under the whole circum- stances of the case, without a single precedent in the history of the Christian Church ; and that it is, on the contrary, in direct violation of her laws, and opposition to her universal practice. I have e amined the precedents of the American Church, and have shown that, so far as they bear upon our case, they are entirely on our side. All their objections lo the rule resening to the B'shop his right, have been seen to rest upon the supposition,— put forward again and again to endless forms,— that the Bishop would thus have absolute and uncontrolled power. I have shown that this is a gross and transparent fallacy ; and that, with this right secured to him, the Bishop's power is so thoroughly controlled and limited, that he can do nothing,^so far as the Synodical action extends,— without the consent and concurrenoe of each of the other two orders. And I have, I think, made it .;iear, that to give up this prin- ciple, is, in so far, to abandon Episcopacy, and to pull down the Bishops, the overseers of the Church, from those thrones of rule and judgement on which the Holy Ghost has set them. Seeing, then, that the Zai/ Association and their principles are so little to be relied upon ; and that, in favour of the princi- ples we advocate, we have reason, scripture, and so great a right of authority as the laws and practice of the Universal Church let us, my friend, let all loyal Churchmen, unite together in an immoveable resolution t,) establish those principles in the consti- tution of our Synod. The Lmj Association, finally, append a draft of a constitution, which " proposes to endow the Episcopate with a certain reserv- ing power." This, no doubt, is very generous of the Associa- tion. But I, for one, as a true member of the Church of Eugland, and the Catholic Church of Christ, am as strongly opposed to endowing the Bishops of the Church with powers not entrusted to them by its Founder, as I am to taking away those sacred rights He committed to their charge. I will be no party to the introduction of changes into the constitution or system of the Church. Such as we have received her, let us transmit her. 57 unchanged,-with her brightness undimmed, her glory unsullied, her bulwarks of strenghth and defence unshaken,— to our chil- dren, t' Christian Bishops never have had such a power as we claim, they ought not to have it now. But if, in all time hitherto, the rights for which we contend have been held by .Christian Bishops, let us beware how we rashly stretch forth our hands to pull them down from the seats of rule on which Christ has set them. In God's holy name, let us, through evil report and good report, rally round them, and maintaTn them in their place. That the Laity will be found, as they ever have been, loyal to the Church of their Lord, and maintainers of its sacred prin- ciple, I am deeply convinced. I have no fears for them. The true people of the Church have always been conservative of her rights, and are so still. They will come to see that this is a question between responsible and irresponsible headship ; and that when the Bishopo and Clergy are put under the feet of the people,— the truth is, that Bishop, Clergy, and people, are put under the feet of two or three Laymen of wealth, influence, and ambition. The Bishop is responsible for the care of the Church j of this responsibility he cannot divest himself. Those who are ambitiously snatching at those rights, are not, and never can be responsible,— they cannot clothe themselves with responsibilities not entrusted to them. When once they thoroughly understand this, it will be easy for the people to choose between them. Per- haps they will remember some of those so-called Pilgrim Fathers, who fled from England to escape from what they had been persuaded to believe was Episcopal tyranny, "found the little finger of my Lords Brethren," Lay and Clerical, thicker than the loins of " my Lords Bishops." No, my friend, our people may not all thoroughly understand this question, but they are not yet prepared to degrade their Bishops into the mere underlings and ofiicials of a committee of influential Presbyters and Laymen. Their Christian instincts, their own natural good sense, would revolt from so unnatural a proposal. History, my friend, has not been written for nothing, and that history bears witness that Christian Bishops, when free and independent, have ever been the true, as they are the natu- ral guardians, the defenders unto death, of the liberties and li i\ itli 58 rights of the Christian people ; and that when the Pope would lord it over God's heritage, he had first to deny the divine au- thority, and inalienable functions of ail other Christian Bishops, and to destroy their independence. And history bears witness to another fact — that the faithful Laity never deserted a Chris- tian Bishop who stood up manfully in defence of any part of the Church's holy system, her Evangelical truth, or Apostolical order. Who stood by the great Ambrose, when, in defiance of the Eoman Emperor's mandate, and at the peril of his life, he held his Church closed against the Arians, and by their zeal and determination terrified the tyrant into giving up his impious project ? The faithful Laity of Milan. Who stood by Athan- asius, when, in defence of the Catholic faith, he stood against the world, and ever refused, in all his exile, to admit over them any other Bishop? The faithful Laity of Alexandria. Who stood by the seven Bishops, hen they boldly opposed King James, in his attempts to bring Popery I)ack again upon the ruins of the liberties of his country, and by their hearty open support, made the heart of the unhappy King and his minions to quail? The faithful Laity of London. And the faithful Laity of old Quebec, believe me, my friend, will be no whit be- hind them ; and our beloved Bishop, when he sits at the head of his Synod, mil find that a disloyal false-hearted faction is one thing, and the faithful Laity of the Diocese another ; and that when this important principle is brought before them, with one voice they will answer and say, Let nothing be done WITHOUT THE BiSH P. Farewell, my brother, and join with me, at this time of trial, in the saintly Bishop Wilson's petition, in days far worse than these, — a petition which shows how well he knew wherein con- sisted, under God, the strength and safety of the Church :— "Grant that all Bishops and Pastors may be careful to observe the sacred rights committed to their trust : — " That Godly discipline may be restored and countenanced : " That such as are in authority may govern with truth and justice ; and that those whose duty it is to obey, may do it for conscience sake : — " That Christian people may unite and love, as becomes the disciples of Jesus Christ." 59 APPENDIX A. " The small and unprogressive Diocese of Vermont," say the Lay Association, insinuating that the Diocese is " unprogres- sive," because its Bishop has his prerogative secured to him in the Convention. Perhaps some of my readers may be familiar with the learned works of the " English author of grave cha- racter and great experience," anti may remember what he says on this point ; (Letters of Anglicanus, &c., p. 18,) that " a glance at the growth of the Diocese may suggest the thought, that the existance of a Bishop's veto may paralyze the energy of a Church, and make a Diocese very quiet, but very stationary." The accomplished and excellent Bishop of Vermont answered one English Author sufficiently at the time. On that answer I cannot now lay my hand. The following extracts from a letter lately received from a Clergyman of high standing, connected with that Diocese, will be a sufficient answer to these ungenerous assaults : — " The Diocese of Vermont, within the four or five years following the adoption of that Constitution, nearly doubled its number of Clergy and Parishes, Then, owing to the Bishop's losses, and the overthrow of the Institutions at Burlington, together with the constant and severe drain from emigration to the Far West, the Diocese hardly held its own, though with a slight gain in the numbers of its communicants. Latterly it has taken a fresh start, and is now in so vigorous a condition, that, poor as it is, it subscribed, and has paid over $20,000, to establish a Theological Seminary of its own (besides what the Bishop has raised elsewhere^ ; and the number of its communicants has increased 10 per cent since latt June. There Las not been tho slightost connection betweeu that article lu the Constitution, and the depressed state of tho Diocese during a few years. 60 " All our soundest and best •writers ngreo in regard to the Bishop's rigbt- And what is more, even those Low-Chur<>h Dioceses, where they would vote down the proposition as High-Church, do really act on it with extra, ordinary vigor. In Ohio, for instance, on the question of dividing the Diocese, the motion was laid on the table, on the express groiin''. that the Bishop's approval had not been privately asked in advance, whiili is going li great deal further than any ITigh-Ohurchman demands. That a Bishop should esercise a veto, after Leajing the full discussion on both sides, and knowing the vote of both Clergy and Laity, is a very different thing from privately yielding to his whims, without any argument or public applica- tion of his sense of official responsibility. It is like getting a judge to decide a cise in hi« parlor, on ex parte application, without open trial and the hearing of Counsel." APPENDIX B. The slanders circulated, through the press and otherwise, against the Bishop and Clergy of Quebec, are endless. I will select one instance as a specimen of the reckless way in which charges of tin most damaging character are brought by the men of this party, in the public newspapers, against the Bishop, whom, when it serves their purpose, they profess to Tenerate. The Queieo Gazette, the chosen organ of the Lay Associa- tion, undertook (11th Oct., 1858) to review the Bishop's Pasto- ral, of the 3Isc August. In that review the Bishop is charged with several "glaring errors of fact." One of these "glaring errrors of fact " is this. The Editor of the Gazette says :— " We have only time to point to another glaring error of fact in the pamphlet in question. (The Bishop's Pastoral.) It was stated that it was oaly after a meeting had been held in the Court House, and a petition got «p Rgp.inst sny change in the original set, that :i counter-petition was for- warded. Now, it is also a notorious fact, that the counter-petition in ques- ' <1 61 tion, xrns published in a morning con turn pnrary several dajs before the other numerously and influentially signed petition was tuought of or written." Now, here is what the Bishop actually stated (Letter, p. 11):- " It WHS in consequence of the announcement of this meeting, and of the petition with which it was connected, that tl»e counter-petition was pre- pared and forwarded." The Bishop says, " it was in consequence of the announcement of the meeting, and of the petition," that the petition in favor of the Bill was prepared. The Gazette quoted him as saying, "it was only after the meeting had been held hi the Court House, and a petition got tip against any change in the act," that this was done. Thus the Editor of the Gazette makes the Bishop say the direct opposite of what he did say, and that too, with the Bishop's words before him in print! And what are the facts of the case 1 The meeting in question was first announced \n the Gazette of Friday evening, the 2Srd of July, and advertised in the Mer- curif of the 24th. The Gazette of the 23rd adds, that one of the objects of the meeting was " to remonstrate against any changes in the law, and if necessary by Counsel at the bar of the House." "Was not this an announcement of an intention to peti- tion,^ How could the meeting "remonstrate against a change in tha law," except hy petition? How could Counsel be heard at the bar of the House, against a Bill, except in support of a petition ? So, I suppose, every one would understand it. The " announcement," then, " of the meeting, and of the petition," was made on Friday, the 23rd July, and " the counter-petition" was, in consequence, drawn up, signed, and forwarded, on Mon- day, the 26th. Where, then, is the Bishop's •' glaring error of fact" ? Again, the Gazette says :— " It is a notorious fact, that the counter-petition in question was pub- lished in a morning contemporary several days before the other petition was ever thought of or written." But what, again, are the facts 7 The meetinp and petition against the Bill, were announced on the 23rd July. The meeting was held on the 26th. That meet- ing (See Apjjendix to Address of Lay Association, p. 8, ii. Reso- lution.) appointc'l a Cc- littce, "with authority to petition the Legislature:' The "counter-petition" was not published in the Chronicle until Thursday, the 29th. That is to say, the petition in favor of the Bill was not published until three days after the Court House meeting had appointed a Committee, with authority to petition against the Bill. And yet the Gazette says, " It is a notorious fact, that the counter-petition was jjmJ- liahed several dai/a before the other petition wn: ever thought o/r Now, who is guilty of " a glaring error of fact ? " It is a serious matter to bring so grave a charge as this against one whose character for truth and honesty is so precious to the Church as is that of her Bishop's. And the above single speci- men of the accuracy of this party, in stating facts which were lying in print before them, should surely be sufficient to con- vince all reasonable men of the necessity of receiving their state- ments with some degree of caution. \i t Zovell lc country people " to elect them as their delegates ! ! If the Church people in the Country, especially after the manner :>ey have been treated by this party in Quebec do no: scout any such proposals with scorn, they have not the manly independence I give them credit for. They are not such dolts and idiots, as the Lay Association seem to think when they try to lead them by the nose in this way. Our Country missions are quite capable of managing their own affairs, and can find amon;? themselves men of judge ment, intelligence and piety without coming to Quebec to seek for lay delegates among these : ■odest men, who seem to think that the safety of the Church depends upon their presence in the Synod. Doubtless the Country Congregations will resent with proper spirit any such impertinent interfer.-nce. I cannot believe there is a single mission in which the people will consent to render themselves contemptible by such a confession of incompetence as the election of their representatives from among the members of the Lay Association would be. I may be permitted to add, by way of apology for this Pam- phlet appearing at so late a date, that the delay was on the part of the Printer. The MS. was despatched to press on the 16th January. Quebec, 4th March, 1859. ■t'