"^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) .«^!^ Z ^ I! 1.0 I.I i u ■UUb 11:25 i 1.4 iJ4 I^lli4 Photograpliic .Sciences Corporation 23 WfST MAM STMIT WnSTIR,N.V. 14SM (716) •72^503 ^. <^>^ '^ ^^m«!ntaires: L'instStut a microfilm* la mallleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At* poasible de se procurer. I,es details de cet exemplaire qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda r ormaia de filmage aont indlquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pag is de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagtes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAes et/ou pellicultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pay[es d6colortes. tacheti^s ou piqutos Pages detached/ Pages dttachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materif Comprend du matiriai supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibie |~~1 Pages damaged/ r~n Pages restored and/or laminated/ rry Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ rrr' showthrough/ r~n Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscMred by errata slips, tissues, etc., hove been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont At* filmtes A nouveau de fapon h obtenir la meiiieure image possible. Tl P' o fi O b( th si oi fii si oi Tl sh Tl w M di er be re This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-de&sous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 71 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank* to the generosity of: Nova Scotia Public Archives L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce h la gAnirositA do: Nova Scotia Public Archives The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on th«> last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustratod impres- sion, and onding on the )ast page with a printed or illustrated impression. Tho last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appl!es. Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compto tenu de la condition et de la nettet« de l'exemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec lea conditions du contrat de fllmage. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est im^ rimte sont filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une ompreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par !a dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon lo cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUiVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as requirod. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre film6s £ des taux de reduction diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atra reproduit en un seul clichA, il est fllmA A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en pronant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 »!i«l! Hit;: ;!) liiiii i:?! iiii III |iSii;ii:ri rtj; !:;;;? «•; ■fnii i6 SYNODS J > THE BISHOP OF GRAHAMSTOWN AND THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 1 is «UUI it ll!| HALIFAX, N. S. PRINTED BY JAMES BOWES & SONS, HOLLIS STREET, 1868. A 1 8 \Syy '^pt- . f' M we i »-t«, *4**'4 **»..# -^ 1 THE BISHOP OF GRAHAMSTOWN AND THE COLONIAL CHURCH. It has been truly stated of the reports published by the Lambeth CoDference, that they contain a complete scheme for the organisation of the Colonial Church, without the in- terference of parliament. It was, indeed, for this purpose especially that many of us came from the ends of the earth, at the express desire of our clergy and laity, that hy common counsels and united action we might either form or strengthen those bonds of Church fellowship and order which hitherto we have possessed either imperfectly or not at all. These we could not expect— even if we desired— rthat the State would establish, and determine their conditions and limits, since in our colonies it emphatically disclaims all relations with our Church except such as it holds towards other religi- ous bodies, and bids us, through the highest judicial tribunal in the realm, to consider ourselves "in no better, but in no worse position " than members of the Church of Rome or of the Wesleyan community. The organisation, however, which these reports propose for the Colonial Church is no novelty. Synods have now for some time been in operation in many colonial dioceses, and in some provinces. The ecclesiaatical tribunals which are recommended are already in existence in many colonies. Several bishops in Canada and New Zealand have been elected by their dioceses. Declarations of submission to synods are used very generally, wherever the authority of these assemblies depends on a consensual compact. All that the reports attempt is to consolidate and harmonise that which hitherto has been partial or disconnected. The scheme of government which has been thus sketched out has been assailed, on one side, as giving a position and office to the laity which does not belong to them according to the order of the Church ; on the other, it is represented as a bold attempt to establish a vast system of ecclesiastical »;ut;-l^ despotism. Such conflictiug charges might, perhaps, be left to neutralise one another, and i is not my purpose to defend the reports from the various objections that may be made against their details. Those, indeed, who view the whole scheme with suspicion as a conspiracy against the liberties of clergy or laity, are so ingenious in detecting evidences of this, that it is impossible to anticipate or follow their objections. When, for example, an ex-M.]?. professes to give a searching analysis of the scheme, and in trenchant style — much ap- plauded by those who have never troubled themselves to study the original documents — declares it a firmly compacted system of tyranny unprecedented in the history of the world, except in the Church of Rome, it almost staggers our belief in our own intentions. We begin to fear, at least, lest, inadver- tently, we have called into being some ecclesiastical monster. It is £^ relief to find, however, that this searching analysis is a series of most singular rais-st£^tements, either expressly contradicted by the very language of the reports, or the mere oflPspring of the writer's lively imagination : such as that " it appears to be left to the bishop to suggest how many laymen, or how few" should attend a synod ; that " any clergyman whom the bishop rejects will be excluded from the synod ;" that *' two bishops may decide the faith and fate of the third;*' that " in the case of a clergyman the bishop sits alone on his tribun£^l ;" that on the provincial tribunal of appeal the cler- gyman " will find his owxi bishop seated beside two other bishops," &c. It really comforts one to find that the writer must so utterly despise sober matters of fact in order to prove his case. And when evfjn the Times newspaper is driven to the argument, in its cpudemnation of the proposed central tribunal, that " a.s seven are to form a quorum, and there is nothing said to the contrary, it follows inevitably that five American and two Scotch bishops might pronounce an irre- versible sentence against an English clergyman without the presence of a single English bishop " which is about as rea-^ sonable and logical as to argue that because there are Irish and Scotch enough to make a house in parliament, therefore an English question might be settled without the presence of a single Englishman ; and when it boldly affirms that '* it is no mitigation, but rather an aggravation of the case," that ^he plan " depends for its adoption on the free will of the Colouia would I cannot My I to answ attentio my obse My onl to the this sch to expr giving be furtl do nott < stating underst am tha' ment, n tism, I of such prejudi< ; The 1 ; far the form of The otl disciplii cial fun sin due < Un the 3ontinu I. T >ased c faccordi the gee , Ifth mgore ; alterati ^d Chi i^ut no |ife is i -fluited M.*.r^»i •♦Kti^ o IS, be left to defend be made le whole berties of s of this, yections. earching ciuoh ap- j to study d system 1, except if in our inadver- naonster. ilysis is xpressly he mere that " it laymen, srgyman synod ;" 3 third;" e on his the cler- '^o other e writer to prove riven to central there is hat five an irre- ont the as rea-^ •e Irish lerefore lence of t '* it is I," that of the Colonial Churches, and that having adopted it any Churcii would be equally free to withdraw from it ;" such arguments cannot fail to soothe one's apprehensions. My purpose, I have said, in the following remarks, is not ito answer these or other objections to the scheme, but to call attention to some general principles which have come under : my observation during my experience of Colonial Church life. My only scruple in doing so is lest, from my oflScial relation to the two committees which prepared the reports containing this scheme of government, I should be thought in any degree to express the opinions of others besides myself, or to be giving an official exposition of these reports. Nothing could be further than this from the true state of the case. But I do not think that such a consideration ought to deter me from ? stating my own views, if I can contribute anything to a right understanding of these important questions. Persuaded as I am that the proposed scheme is one of constitutional govern- ment, necessary alike to perserve order and to prevent despo- tism, I am very desirous that those who feel the importance of such government should not regard our present action with prejudice. The scheme sketched out in these reports is two-fold. By far the most important branch of it is that which defines the form of government, the actual constitution of the Church. The other, which deals with the tribunals for the exercise of discipline, is dependent on the former, as all exercise of judi- cial functions must be subordinate to legislation, and must, fin due course, be of the same character. In the Church as |in the State it would be impossible for arbitrary judges to ^continue under a constitutional government. I. The government proposed for the Colonial Church is ibased on the great principle that nothing shall be done except according to fixed rules, which rules shall be determined by the general consent of those whom they affect. ^ If the ecclesiastical law of England either had force proprio vigore in our colonies, or were at all applicable, without great alterations and additions, to our unestablished and unendow- fid Churches, it would no doubt save us much difficulty. iBut no one who has had any experience of Colonial Church pife is ignorant, that these laws are, as a whole, entirely un- -fluited for the altered condition of the Church, and that in 1* (l Htteniptiiig to adapt them to our rirciimstaiu'es botli blsliops and clergy are continually meeting with difliculties, and otlten arriving at very diiferent concluaiona. To leave the civil courts to decide for ua ii each case how far English laws are applicable to us — whicl would be the case unless we should form some definite compact — would be to abandon us to uncertainties, would create endless confusion, and lead to interminable disputes. It woul . make it necessary for the bishops to retain in their own hands, as far as possible, those arbitrary powers which the English law gives a bishop over licensed curates, instead of placing their clergy in the position of incumbents. The question, then, is, how we shall adapt the laws and usages of the English Church to ourselves so as neither to depart from fundamental principles, nor yet apply them without consulting the interests of all concerned. It is difficult to conceive any other method of doing this than that already partially adopted, of synods in which bishops, clergy and laity have a voice and bear a part. The force of the decisions of these synods must be deter- mined by mutual agreement. But I think it important to observe that the exact amount of this authority by no means represents the real power of this mode of government. A government by representative assemblies, in which all classes in the Church have a voice, cannot be a government of bare unsupported authority. The bishop who meets his clergy and laity in synod gives up any claim to an arbitrary irres- ponsible authority, in order that he may possess the real power — far greater, no doubt, but a just and reasonable power — of influencing the minds of others by reason and argument. The mere fact that questions are in these assem- blies argued out in public, and that men of differing opinions can express their opinions freely, of itself makes it impossible that any arbitrary measure should be enforced. In the scheme suggested in the report on synods even objectors, who take the trouble to examine it, allow that the lay representatives, at least, are to be freely elected by mem- bers of the Church. This is, in fact, as any one who knows the Colonial Church is aware, the first essential to the success of synodical action. They suspect, however, a conspiracy against the clergy in the recommendation that " the clerical members of the synod should be those clergy who are recog- nised that d that t being powei not bi clerg duce Sor at Ca Synoc ing »> sover rectly as giv mand undut from quite and 1 synod He S8 "Tl exerei withoi so met }^ood bishoi and g( potisn Looki const! ting tl it cerl their the E to tha Britis i powei i eal as ; the e] not SI ! True, type( Ii bisliops and often the civil I Ifiwa are we should Ion us to d lead to ry for the ible, those shop over e position mil adapt Ives so as yet apply ed. It is than that ps, clergy be deter- )ortant to no means ment. A all classes it of bare his clergy ary irres- 5 the real easonable jason and se assem- l opinions mpossible lods even V that the by mem- ho knows tie success onspiracy f e clerical I are recog- nised by the bij^hop. ii('(M)nlin;.' (o th»' rules of iho Church in that diocese, as being under his jurisdiction." They turget that the rules of the Church in the diocese are those which, being made by consent of all, limit tiic exercise ot the bishop's power; that the recommendation, therefore, is that i* sliould not be left to the bishop's own judgment to deturmme what clergy should attend the synod ; that he should neither intro- duce nor exclude any except according to fixed rules. Some remarks by an organ of the Dutch Reformed Cliurcli at Cape Town, on an address made by me to my Diocesan Synod last July, {»i'e so pertinent that I quote them, as show- ing what those who are outside our communion think of government by synods. The writer does not, I think, cor- rectly represent the effect of synods when he describes them as giving the governing power to the lairy through the com- mand of the purse ; for such organization tends to correct undue influences of this nature, which otherwise must result from the voluntary system. Some of his remarks also are quite inapplicable in many colonial dioceses, in which clergy and laity of all schools of opinion heartily co-operate with synodical action ; but, as a whole, nothing can be more just. He says : *'Tho notion of an Episcopalian Church managing its own affairs, exercising discipline, just like a body of Wesleyans or Presbyterians without being hampered by tlie traditions of English practice, is something so foreign to the English way of thinking that earnest and good Christians look at it with suspicion. As soon as a Colonial bishop or synod talks of independent action in matters of discipline and government, people take the alarm, and fancy that priestly des- potism is forging fetters for the Protestant liberties of the laity. Looking at the matter from an elevated point of view — that of the constitution of the Church on New Testament principles, and forget- ting the Erastian and Latitudinarian practice of the English Church, it certainly seems strange that earnest Christians should be afraid of their Church being self-governed. In the United States of America the Episcopal Church occupies a position similar, we should think, to that in which it is by the course of events to be placed in the British colonics. In America svnods work well : the laitv have the power of making their voice very distinctly heard in the ecclesiasti- cal assemblies. There is as little danger of sj)iritual despotism in the episcopal as in other churches of that country; and w)iy should not such be the case also in South Africa and the other colonies ? True, the clergy in this country do generally represent a peculiar type of Churchraanship, as they are almost all of the High Church party. But li*t synod;* uiice coiue to tlu* possi'Ssioii of iiii uiiqueH- tioncHi dtaiidiiiK. and let the luity heartily shure in tlieir prucccdings and it will he ibund that thoy will j^TJidually ah.vorh the true govern- intj power, whieh at present really rests wiin the hiahop. The laity will have the coinnjand of tlu* purse, and. just as little as the clergy in the synoil of the Duteh liefornjed Church are able to carry u.eas- ures contrary to the convictions or leanings of the lay elders pres- ent, so little will c'erical domination be able to lord it over the laity in the English synods. But then the Evangelical party must not keep aloof as it is now doing from synodical action. It ought to leave the unfortunate position it has taken up, and boldly throw itself into the movement, trusting to the force of the popular or lay element." in the Church and its synod for a safegjiard against ex- treujc High Church measures." The real danger in government by synods is that which more or less attends all government by representative assem- blies — the danger lest a majority should domineer over a minority. The principle of this form of government that the will of the lesser part should yield to that of the greater, is doubtless sound and good ; there can be no law and order except on such conditions. But it is a se/ious evil when a majority, perhaps acting under temporary excitement, or, at all events, partial and unsympathising, forces measures against the wishes, or principles, or even the prejudices of a minority ; and this danger exists especially in small commu- nities, such as our colonial dioceses are. If it v/ere not, indeed, for this danger, our present attempt to extend the organisation would be less necessary. But the safeguards against this evil are many. First of all, free public discus- sion, by means of vvhich alone a minority with anything rea- sonable to say for itself can always restrain arbitrary action. Public opinion in the colonies is as powerful in its little sphere as in England, in some respects more so, for it affects finance more directly. Again, the constitution of the synod is calculated to check the evil. It is possible, of course, but not very probable, that a majority of the laity would agree with a majority of the clergy in oppressing a minority. The necessity for the bishop concurring, which follows from the government of the Church being a constitutional mon- archy, and not republican, also affords a protection to a mi- nority. Generally, there are much the same causes in ope- ration on a small scale to prevent a bishop from withholding his concurrence as there are to prevent a constitutional Sove- 1 ( i reign if in I measi weigh its CXI differt are fa No dc tion, 1 rative these ing th unitin, And i provir inces I it sure schem The tion o the Ei class menda sistent of the Coloni thoritj revolu such a of sue tary a there ; confesi of inc [trench seems, fhave r ^are aci f with c %egard .:'X3;t.t;.: uiiques- ccGiiings Kovern- riie laity 10 clergy ry n.eas- ers pres- the laity nust not ought to lly throw ar or lay ainst ex- it which 5 assera- over a ent that greater, id order when a it, or, at leasures ces of a coramu- sre not, end the eguards ; diseas- ing rea- ' action. its little t aiFects e synod rse, but i agree linority. vs from il raon- ,0 a mi- in ope- holding \\ Sove- reign Irom refusing to assent to an act ot parliament. But if in any diocese there is a minority whose objections to a measure do not appear to a bishop to have been sufficiently weighed, he may with reason and justice defer his consent to I its execution. As far as possible these synods balance the ■ different forces vind interests in our dioceses, and when they are fairly worked prevent our action from being one-sided. No doubt, partly from the small extent of the sphere of ac- tion, and partly from the mode of government being compa- ratively new, exceptions are to be expected. But how are / these to be avoided except by enlarging the sphere — correct- i ing the action of a single diocese by that of several dioceses } uniting together in what is ecclesiastically called a province V I And if it is possible to extend the sphere yet farther, and to J provide against idiosyncrasies (so to speak) of single prov- inces by the united action of the v aole Anglican communion, it surely cannot be cpnsidered a priori an objection to the , scheme. ! The proposal in the report, as to the possible unitid ac- tion of the various provinces of the Colonial Church with ; the Established Church of England, is no doubt open to a . class of objections which do not lie against its other recom- I mendations. Some have objected to the report as not con- i|sistent with itf.^f in not proceeding to recommend a synod I of the whole Anglican communion similar to those in the j Colonial Churcfe ; others again, who can understand no au- jthority in the Church outside acts of parliament, regard as I revolutionary even the modest suggestion of a congress, with I such authority as " might be derived from the moral weight I of such united counsels and judgments, and from the volun- |tary acceptance of its conclusions by any of the churches ithere represented." There would be, however, it must be |confessed, great difticulty in the admixture in such a council |of incongruous elements. Those who are themselves en- itrenched in a secure legal position, and bound to a fixed ilegal system, can hardly appreciate the trials, or even, it iseems, understand the position, of others whose churches ihave no relation to the State. On the pther hand, those who aare accustomed to the free action of unestablished Churches, fwith difficulty realize the standing point of those who must fregard every Church question in its relation to the State, 10 The only method by which the difiiculty can be solved is that suggested in the report, ot leaving it perfectly free to all Churches that may be represented in such a council to ac- cept or to refuse its conclusions as they may be able or dis- posed. The immense practical value of united counsels will not be diminished by its liberty. But further, the practical difficulty of bringing clergy and laity from all parts of the British empire complicates the question, and makes it almost necessary that they should be present only as consultees, since it is very improbable that a sufficient nr.mber would attend to represent adequately the clergy and laity of the whole Anglican communion. The power of such a congress, as compared, for example, with that of the late Conference, must be derived,, both from the publicity of its debates and proceedings, and from its decisions being formed after the opinions of its clericil and lay members had been freely ex- pressed. II. The judicial system proposed for the Colonial Church is framed upon the principle, distinctly marked out for that Church, when not est^iblished by law, in the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Cour cil in the case " Long V. Bishop of Capetown." " Where any religious or other lawful association has not only agreed on the terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the rules of tlie association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what shall be the consequences of such violation ; then the decision of such trlbunSl will be binding when it has acted within the scope of its authority, has observed such forms as the rules require — if any forms be prescribed — and, if not, has proceeded in a manner ccisonant with the principles of justice. '* Such tribunals, however, ' are not, in any sense, courts ; they derve no authority from the Crown ; they have no power of their own to enforce their sent-^nces ; the> must apply for that purpose to the Courts established by law; and such Courts will give effect to their decision, as they give effect to the decisions of arbitrators, whose jurisdiction rrsts entirely upon the agreement of the parties.'" It is not my purpose to discuss ihe recommendations of the reports as to the tribunals necessary for the unestablished Churches in the colonies. It is isufficient to observe ihnt they leave the constitution of all diocesan and provincial tribunals to the synods, in which nothing can be decided except by the commoQ consent of bishops, clergy, and laity. It is difficult to conceive how any more liberal provision could be made. The tclergyr exist againsi Jprehen fon the which ,gyman should cairied lis the practic ithe Ch lof the t Times I form o ihowevi l.questic ■ eral pr to perc have o •^-glai j-establii |to be c !fias to d ^Counci f which fthroug I T^® tastical much formin , either ^centra] t' aggr %f the ' ,affecte DO WO] The -these Xiamelj ma ed IS that •ee to all cil to ac- )le or «?is- iDsels will I practical rts of the it almost ousultees, t>er would ity of the congress, )nference, bates and after the freely ex- Eil Church t for that ent of the le " Long ,8 not only L 8, tribunal bn violated quences of be binding erved such nd, if not, of justice, urts ; they er of their purpose to e effect to irbitrators, 5 parties.'" ons of the stablished ih&t they tribunals ept by the is difficult le made. 11 The really difficult question, especially in the trial of a Iclergyraan, is whether any tribunal of this nature should exist out of the colonies. In the case of oivlinary offences jagainst morality or church order, the universal feeling, I ap- Jprehend, would be that such matters should be disposed of f on the spot. But in cases of doctrine, and of discipline in which doctrine is invohed, would it serve to protect the cler- gyman himself and the interests of the whole Church i^ there should be some central tribunal to which appeals could be cafried? This tribunal would have to determine — not what |is the faith of the Church — but whether such teaching or f practice is or is not permissible according to the standards of ■the Church. This is exactly what the Judicial Committee fof the Privy Council professes to decide, and, although, the J Times condemns it as worthy of the Inquisition, no other I form of decision would be so favorable to the accused. If, Ihowever, there is to be a tribunal for appeal in spiritual ^questions, it cannot differ in its nature from those in the sev- teral provinces. No one who has considered the subject fails to perceive that it is in the nature of things impossible to , ihave one final court of appeal for the Established Church of f ^"^gland and for the unestablished Colonial Churches ; in un- lestablished Churches there can be no " ecclesiastical causes" Ito be disposed of by ecclesiastical courts, and all questions as to doctrine and discipline \a them come before the Privy f Council only as tboy are indirectly involved in civil causes, I which are brought to England on appea] after filtration ■through the civil courts of the colony. The report of the Lambeth committee on a central ecclesi- astical tribunal for the Colonial Churches itself indicates how [much difference of opinion exists as to the expediency of forming such a tribunal. But if any one sees objections either to the existence or to the proposed constitution of the .central tribunal, it is surely some "mitigation," and not an ;>» aggravation " of the case, that it must wait for the consent of the Colonial Churches to call it into life, so far as they are affected. If they refuse to co-operate, at all events they are no worse off than they were already. There is a question which it was not the province of ihese reports to discuss, but which underlies the whole, .namely, What is the relation between these ecclesiastical 12 t'ribiiilals and the civil courts both in England and in the colonies ? It is impossible, indeed, to answer this question more lucidly than is done in the judgment of the Privy Coun- cil quoted above. Still it remains to be determiaed what would be regarded as the scope of authority of such tribunals^ This the court of law will decidte, and it cannot be supposed that any declaration or contract that could be introduced into the organii^ation of the Church could, or ought to, prevent the courts from examining this point, and also whether the tribunal " has proceeded ui a manner consonant with the principles of justice." The declaration recommended in the Lambeth report,* which is a modification of that which is already tisp'l in New Zealand, certainly in no way interferes with this. As to the cases in which a bishop might legally enforce such a declaration, and those in which he would be debarred, a dispatch, dated Feb. 4, 1864, by the late Duke of Newcastle when Secretary of State for the Colonies, gave the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this subject for the guidance of colonial bishops, and nothing has since occurred to affect the principles there laid down, with which the recommendation of the report on this subject is entirely in agreement. H. GRAHAMSTOWN. .,. ... :■ ■ 'Hiiiii-Hir ♦ In the declaration recommended for clergymen, "the 'tribunal,' appointed by the synods of the aforesaid province and diocese," is an obvious misprint for ' tribunals.' s'!''.'; I ■r:!r?i-^: •MV, !(»!f;i siiiSi ■I 4 K " Jf! •• ; f. " t