IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

'/j

1.0 !:»

I.I

1.25

2.8

u Vii

2.5
22

1.8

14 II 1.6

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

T
t(

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.

r~^ Coloured covers/

Iv I Couverture de couleur

D
D
D

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

□ Coloured maps/
Cartes gdographiques en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

D
D
D

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'ii lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxei
Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes

I — I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
I I Pages detached/

I I Showthrough/

Transparence

I I Quality of print varies/

Quality indgale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire

□ Only edition available/
Seule 6dition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fa9on d
obtenir la meiileure image possible.

Additional comments:/

'■■ ^mmentaires suppl^mentaires;

ryi This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Iv I Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

ils

lifier

age

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:

izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University

Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont film^s en commengant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commengant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporto une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —^(meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifi^ "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
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est i'i\m6 6 partir
de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite.
etde haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.

rata

elure,
6

32X

7?^.vc^/(A/^ Wd^ , /3 3

EEMARKS

ON A CANON PROPOSED BY

THE MOST REVEREND

THl: LORD BISHOP OF FREDERICTON,

IN THE MONTH OF JUNE,
A. D. 1879.

SAINT JOHN, N. B.
J. k A. McMillan, steam book and job printers.

98 & 100 Prince AA'illiam Street.
1879.

■f

>^-- vUSi

. . 4.-1 pi}i. "...^ i.^^ j|i fpiyi^iiiiiiii I . HPiiip^ v^ "^ — ^^^f^fPTr^pW-l^pp^l 1 "iVf^l * •■ "/ 'W'MJ^r

T'f

PlsfiQ^ $i}i)d}ufatr

EEMARKS

ON A CANON PROPOSED BY

THE MOST REVEREND

fHE LORD BISHOP OF FREDERICTON,

IN THE MONTH OF JUNE,
A. D. 1879.

SAINT JOHN, N. B.
J, & A. McMillan, steam book and job printers.

98 A 100 Prince William Street.

' ,..,.. 1879. ■ ■''■;-'/■ ,.

A very general interest has been awakened by the recent proposal,
by the Lord Bishop of the Diocese, of a Canon for the appointment
and election of a Bishop Coadjutor. The sudden termination of the
meeting of the Synod at Fredericton in July, rendered it impossible
for the opponents of the measure to answer fully, at that time, the
statements of its supporters. And it appears but right that both
sides of the question should be fairly stated, and an opportunity
thus given for full consideration, before the approaching Special
Meeting of the Synod takes place.

August, 1879.

Cbptea oj this Pamphlet may be had on application to the Publishers.

k , ■'"

■t •■ /■>

V' .-■,-',

REMARKS.

Without the authority of an Act of Incorporation, the greater
number of the Clergy of the Diocese of Fredericton, with Lay
Delegates from most of the Parishes, adopted in July, 1867, a
Synodical Constitution.

At the meetiag at which this took place, a Committee waa ap-
pointed " to consider all questions connected with the

" powers to be given to the Synod and to prepare such

" measures to be submitted for approval at the next meeting . . .
" as in their opinion may be required."

In July, 1868, this Committee accordingly submitted their Re-
port, recommending, among other matters, a Canon for the election
of a Bishop on the occurrence of a vacancy in the See.

Their Report was adopted, and the Canon agreed to.

In 1871 the entire Diocese united in the Synod under the Act
of Incorporation then obtained, and adopted most of the measures
passed at the preceding Synodical meetings ; and, among others, the
Canon above referred to, the text of which is as follows :

CANON: OF THE ELECTION OF A BISHOP.

(Adopted 7th July, 1871.)

Whereas it is desirable to provide for the succession of the Episcopate in
the Diocese of Fredericton, and whereas in accordance with the ancient usa^rM
of the Church, the election should be made by the Synod of the Diocese, the
forbi of election shall be as follows : —

1. The Archdeacon, or if there be no Archdeacon, the Commissary of the
late Bishop, or if there be no Archdeacon or Commissary, or if they shall
refuse, or shall neglect for thirty days or more after a vacancy in the See
shall have occurred to act, then an^ three Rural Deans in Priest's orders
within the Diocese for the time being, shall summon a special meeting of
the Diocesan Synod for the election of a Bishop, to be held not less than
sixty nor more than ninety days after such vacancy shall have occurred, mt
which meeting no other business but such election shall be proceeded with.

2. The person who shall be chosen by the votes, taken by ballot, of at least
two-thirds of the clergy and two-thirds of the lay delegates present at such
meeting, or some adjournment thereof^ shdl be deemed elected to the office of
Bishop of this Diocese. And this election shall not be vitiated by the ab-
sence of any of the parties summoned, or by the fiEiilure of any parish to elect
a lay representative.

3. Any question as to the validity of the election to the vacant See shall be
submitted, prior to the consecration of the person elected, to the MetropoUtai^
of the See of Fredericton for the time being, whose decision shall be finaL

"T-

4. The Synoil may at such meeting, by a like majority of clergy and lay
delegates iis hereinbefore mentioned, delegate to the Metropolitan of the See
of Fredericton for tiie time being, the ,..iwer of choosing a Bishop for the
vacant See; and such choice shall thereupon be final.

5. The choice of the Syncxl, or the delegation of its choice, shall be notified
in writing to the Metropolitan of the See of Fredericton for the time being
by the Chairman of the meeting and Secretary of the Synod, immediately after
its decision.

6. The following declaration shall be made before the Metropolitan or some
person duly appointed by him, by the Bishop elect, bef're his consecration, or,
if already consecrated, before exercising any Episcopal functions in this Dio-
cese : " I, N., chosen bishop of the See of Fredericton, do promise that 1 will
teach and maintain the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England : and
I also do declare that I consent to be bound by all the Kulea and liegulationB >
which have heretofore been made, or which may from time to time be made ■
by the Synod of the Diocese of Fredericton ; and in consideration of being I
appointed Bishop of the said See of Fredericton, I hereby undertake imme- ' ' 4«'
diately to resign the said appointment, together with all the rights and
emoluments appertaining thereto, if sentence requiring such resignation
should at any time be passed upon me, after due examination had, by the •
tribunal acknowledged or appointed by the Synod of the said Diocese for the
trial of a Bishop ; saving all rights of appeal allowed by said Synod."

7. The above declaration in writing, signed by the Bishop elect, or a certi-
fied copy thereof, -shall be filed with the Secretary of the Synod.

In order that the provisions of the existing law may be compared
with those of the Canon for the appointment of a Bishop Coadjutor,
recently submitted by the Lord Bishop, attention is also requested
to the terms of this proposed Canon, which is as follows : —

CANON FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND ELECTION OF A
BISHOP COADJUTOR.

1. Whenever at the request of the Bishop of the Diocese, or — if the Bishop )
ehould be mentally incapacitated — then wnenever without such request the
Synod shall by resolution declare it to be advisable that a Bishop Coadjutor
for the Diocese should be appointed, the election of such Coadjutor shall,
either at the meeting of the Synod at which such resolution shall be passed,
or at a special meeting to be called for that purpose, be proceeded with in the
nianner hereinafter provided.

2. The Bishop shall submit to the Synod the name or names of one or '
more persons in Holy Orders in the Church of England and Ireland in Canada, "
or in some Church in full communion therewith, for election as such Bishop '^
Coadjutor.

3. Upon such nomination being made by the Bishop, the Synod shall pro- '
ceed to the election of a Bishop Coadjutor. ;"'

4. Such election shall be by ballot, and the votes of at least two-thirds of '
the Clergy, and two-thirds of the Lay Delegates present, shall be required to f
elect such Coadjutor. '^

5. Should the Synod fail to elect on such nomination, the Bishop may make^ "''
a furUier nomination, and so from time to time ; and the election upon any^ "*
such further nomination shall be proceeded with as hereinbefore provided.

6. Should the Bishop decline to make further nomination in any such case, '*
the proceedings for the election of a Bishop Coadjutor shall cease. ' /'

7. Should the Bishop at any time become so incapacitated by mental infirm-'^
ity as to be unable to discharge the duties of his office, the Synod may, if if'^
see fit, proceed to the election of a Bishop Coadjutor in like manner as in, thjQ ^
case of a vacancy in the See. ,,■,•,1 . /li! .i, 'u 'i ,"''.

&. When any person is duly elected Biishop Coadjutor, it shall b« th6 dltr^t'^
of *he Bishop, or of the Synod, forthwith to notify the Metropolitan of sucn '^

I*lr l»JIII

election, in order thnt tlie consecration of sucli Coadjutor may be proceeded
with as in tlio case of I'isliopH of Sees in the Province of Canada.

9. Tlie Dishop Coadjutor elect shall, before his consecration, make and
fiubscrilie licfon* the Metropolitan, or some other person appointed by him,
the followins: <leclaratir>n : — "I, A. li., elected Hishop Coadjutor of the Dio-
cese of Fredcricton, do promise that I will teacli and maintain the doctrine
and discipline of the (Church of Kngland. And I do also declare that I wm-
sent to be bound by all the rules and rej^ulations which have been made, or
which may hereafter be made by the Synod of tiie said Diocese; and I iioreby
agree immediately to ri'sij^n the said office of Coadjutor, together with all the
rights and emoluments appertaining thereto, if sentence requiring such reHig-
nation shall at any time be psusscd upon me, after due cxanunation and trial
had by the Tribunal appointed by the Synod of the Diocese for the trial of a
Bishop, saving all right of appeal allowed by the said Synod."

10. The said declaration, or a certified copy thereof, shall be forthwith filed
with the Secretary of tiie Synod.

11. The Bishop Coadjutor shall perform such Diocesan duties, and exerciflo
such p]piscopal functions, as the Bishop may iissign to him; or, in case of the
mental incajjacity of the Bishop, such functions aa the Bishop himself might
have exercised but for such incapacity.

12. Should any difference arise between the Bishop and his Coadjutor rela-
tive to their respective rights and duties, it shall be referred to, and decided
by, the House of Bishops of the Province of Canada.

13. The Bishop Coadjutor, when duly consecrated, shall have the rirht of
succession to the Sec of Fredericton, and shall succeed to the same imme-
diately upon its becoming vacant, and shall be installed as sucii according to
the Canons of the Province of Canada.

14. The Bishop Coadjutor shall have a seat in the Diocesan Synod, and the
same right of voting therein as any Priest of the Diocese sitting in such

p:ffect of the proposed canon. '',"'"

""' ' It will readily be seen, by a comparison of the present and proposed
laws, that while by the Canon of 1871, the right of nomination, as
well as that of voting in the election of the next Bishop of the
Diocese, is now vested in the Clergy and representatives of the Laitj
assembled in Synod, a principle which, as stated in the preamble of
that Canon, is "in accordance with the ancient usages of the
Church," by the proposed Canon this right of nomination would
be taken from them, and vested solely in the Bishop.

''' It may be said, with reference to this change, that the proposed
Canon deals only with the election of a Bishop Coadjutor or As-
sistant, but, as ite thirteenth section gives the Coadjutor elected the
absolute right of succession to the See of Fredericton immediately
upon its thereafter becoming vacant, it is evident that the Canon in
reality provides for the election of the next Bishop of the Diocese.
The question therefore which the Clergy and Laity have now to de-
cide is, whether or not it is either necessary or desirable that they
should relinquish the right of nomination of a person to be their
future Bishop, secured to them by the Canon of 1871, and accept

instead the limited privilege of voting merely upon such name or
names as may be submitted to them.

' As to the possible necessity for the appointment of a Coadjutor,
there can be but little diversity of opinion, the Bishop having stated
that he may shortly feel the need of an Assistant, in order that the
work of the Diocese may be effectually carried on. Admitting this
possibility, it becomes necessary to consider, Ist, the mode of ap-
pointment of a Bishop Coadjutor ; 2nd, the rights and privileges he
18 to possess; and 3rd, the provision for his support.

THE MODE OF APPOINTMENT.

The 2nd Section of the proposed Canon provides that the Bishop
shall have the sole right of nominating candidates for the Coad-
jutorship. As the Bishop, in common with each Clerical and Lay
member of the Synod, has full liberty to act in all matters which
may come before that body, it is evident that this provision does not
directly give him any new power. It, however, increases his present
power, by taking from the Clergy and Laity the right of joint
nomfnation, which, as members of the Synod, they would otherwise
possess. And it may be fairly asked, what sufficient reasons are
there for thus taking from those, who are so largely interested in the
choice, such a reasonable privilege as that of sharing this right of
nomination.

One reason given by his Lordship was, that after thirty-four years
experience, it would be easier for him, than for the Clergy or Lay
Delegates, to decide as to the requirements of the Diocese, and the
qualifications which it is necessary that a Coadjutor should possess.
Whatever force there may be in this reason, it is obviously an
insufficient one for ignoring the Clergy and Laity in the matter of
appointment altogether ; and yet this argument, if really sound, and
pursued to its legitimate conclusion, would have led the Synod, in
1871, when framing the Canon on election, to leave the right of appoint-
ing his successor to the Bishop himself, instead of vesting the right
of choice in the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese. Any proposition,
however, for confining the appointment to the Bishop would cer-
tainly then have been rejected ; and, even admitting that a Bishop's
experience in the Diocese would necessarily assist his judgment in
the selection of a Coadjutor, it does not, by any means, follow that
he would be the only competent judge. Surely the Clergy, at any
rate, might also fairly claim to join in the selection. Might not
some of their number be as well qualified by age and experience for
judging as even the Bishop himself? Might they not even during

their association with him in the work of the Church, have noticed
errors in judgment that did not appear in that light to him?
And in the selection of his assistant or successor they might well
wish to be free to nominate a person who, in their opinion, would
avoid such errors in the future.

Another reason given by the Bishop for claiming the sole right of
nomination is that the Coadjutor is to be his asuistant. While this
fact would certainly give the Bishop a sufficient reason for claiming
a voice in the matter, it may surely be argued that the Clergy and
Laity have a still stronger reason for claiming an equal right, on the
ground that the person selected is to be their Bishop, whether granted
the right of succession or not.

Another reason given is that the Bishop intends to contribute
largely towards the support of the Coadjutor, but, as will be shown
later on, this generous offer cannot well be accepted in any case, and
this argument, therefore, falls to the ground.

As another reason it has been pleaded that the case is analogous
to that of a Rector choosing his Curate, in which case the right of
appointment rests with him.

If these cases really were analogous, the Bishop should possess the
right of election or appointment, as well as of nomination, or, in
other words, should have power to appoint his Coadjutor without
even consulting the Synod — a power which his Lordship would,
evidently, be unwilling to ask for, seeing that in his address at
Fredericton he is reported to have disclaimed any desire to " lessen
the rights and prerogatives of the Synod." But it is manifestly unfair
to speak of a person who is to perform the responsible duties of a
Bishop Coadjutor as a mere Curate, or to compare his office with
that of a Rector's assistant in parochial work ; and besides, the
argument entirely ignores the 13th Section of the Canon which
provides that the person elected is to have the absolute right of
succession to the See. And who ever heard of a Curate " Cum jure
successionis ? "

Another argument which has been advanced in favor of the pro-
posed Canon is that used by the Bishop in his address at Fredericton,
when he said that his chief object in asking for the sole right of
nomination was in order thereby to avoid the party strife and bad
feeling which, judging from the experience of elections elsewhere,
would probably ensue if the right of nomination were left with the
Synod. A careful consideration of the matter will, however, shew
that his Lordship's laudable object would be far more likely to be
defeated than gained if the Synod were to grant his request. To

illustrate this, the case of the election of Bishop Oxenden to the See
of Montreal may be referred to. In the year 1865 a Canon had
been passed by tl.e Provincial Synod, and accepted by the Diocesan
Synod of Montreal giving up the right of nomination to the House
of Bishops, and reserving to the Synod of Montreal only the right
of election, — a course somewhat similar to that defined by the Canon
at present under consideration. On the decease of Bishop Fulford
in 1868, proceedings were at once taken under the Canon of 1865 to
appoint his successor. Names were again and again submitted by
the House of Bishops, which the Diocesan Synod refused to accept.
Unable to put forward their own candidates, a violent party spirit
was aroused among the Clergy and Lay delegates, as great or greater
than any oth(!r system could possibly have produced ; the result
being a resort to the very course which the Bishop of Fredericton
has expressed himself as most anxious to avoid, viz, the acceptance
of a compromise candidate, found in the person of Bishop Oxenden,
who, after a brief residence in Canada, has since resigned his Epis-
copal charge, and returned to England.

As soon as possible after this election, the Provincial Synod
repealed the objectionable Canon of 1865, and the Diocesan Synod
of Montreal, being thus left free to act, have recently selected
almost without debate, and are now working happily under a Bishop m^

whom in 186(S they would have been glad to accept, but whose l^k *

name at that time they were unable to bring forward for choice,
owing to their having previously given up the right of nomination
by the Canon referred to. - , . . i ,, ,i

The experience ot* the Diocese of Montreal in this case goes far to
shew that a speedy and satisfactory result can better be attained
by leaving the Synod free to make its own nominations than by any
other course.

In this connection, reference has been made to the recent election
of a Bishop in the Diocese of Toronto, in which case, while the
power of nomination was in the Synod, difficulty was experienced
for a time in arriving at a decision. There, however, the difficulty
arose from the fact that the wishes of the Clergy and Laity were
antagonistic, which it is evident might happen under any circum-
etances ; and this difficulty was finally settled in a satisfactory man-
ner, and a harmonious conclusion arrived at. ;iis\- .^I .f /> i <ii] Vii.

There is a manifest difference between such a case and one wherein
the Synod, although perhaps almost unanimous in its desire to elect
a certain candidate, is unable to do so from having previously sur-
rendered its right of nomination. The issue in the one case is

between two parties in the Synod, and can be settled by that body
itself, whereas in the other it is between the Synod, on the one side,
and the Bishop, over whom it of course has no control, on th^ other.

It must surely then be admitted that when the appointment of a
Coadjutor is made, it is best that the privilege of joint nomination
should be given to the three constituent parts of the representative
body of the Church, viz : the Bishop, the Clergy, and the Laity.
All are interested in the appointment ; each has his peculiar fitness
forjudging as to the names to be brought forward; and each posses-
ses the power of negativing the nomination of the other or others if
distasteful from personal reasons or otherwise.

And by following this course, and allowing full freedom of
thought and expression, the best means will be taken to render the
election acceptable generally to those who are to be affected by it ;
a result which will certainly commend itself as most desirable to all
those, who, regardless of party considerations, desire to see a contin-
uance of haruKmy in the Church.

The Bishop's nomination must of necessity carry great weight
and influence in the Synod, and his legitimate influence would
be increased rather than diminished, if the Synod possessed perfect
freedom of action and were not limited solely to the alternative of
u, accepting or rejecting the Bishop's nominee.

iX ' It has been argued that granting the right of nomination in any

way to the Clergy and Laity might result in the election of a person
whom, for special reasons, the Bishop could not accept as his Coad-
jutor. It is however a sufficient answer to this argument that while
it is V jry improbable that two-tliirds of the Clergy and Laity would
knowingly unite in the selection of such a person ; still, even in this
contingency, the Bishop could exercise the right of veto which was
purposely granted to him as a protection and safeguard in any
emergency.

And would not the person ultimately selected be more fully
assured that he was the choice of the Diocese, if nominated freely by
the Synod, than if he were merely the nominee of the Bishop, ap-
. proved by a majority vote of the other Orders.

There is also another argument of great weight against granting
the sole right of nomination to the Bishop. It is past denial that
the Church of England contains men of various schools of thought,
high, low, and broad in their views, all of whom claim equal rights
in the government of the Chnrch, and are alike interested in its
welfare. .uaii^, uni^ 'i-jii::xi Yrij'^- fjsri

Now is it not fair to suppose that a Bishop, in nominating a Co-

adjutor, would be likely to select candidates from the school to which
he himself belongs ? and would it not be manifestly unfair to mem-
bers of the Synod who might think differently, thus to deprive them
of the opportunity of nominating persons with whose theological
views they would be more in sympathy ?

If the plan of granting joint right of nomination to all parties
were adopted, candidates from each school of thought might be
brought forward, and then, after election, the minority would feel
that every reasonable opportunity had been afforded them for elect-
ing the person of their choice, and they would consequently more
cheerfully acquiesce in the result, if adverse to their views.

But even could it for a moment be considered wise to grant the
sole right of nomination to the Bishop, two objectionable features in
the mode of nomination proposed still remain. The second section of
the proposed Canon gives the Bishop the right of submitting to the
the Synod merely one name if he sees fit, while the sixth section allows
him the power to decline making further nominations at any time
when he may think proper. The objections to these extraordinary
provisions are so apparent that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them.
When the right of submitting but one name is given to the Bishop, and
he may also at any time termir ate the proceedings for election, it is
scarcely worth while to dignify what remains to the Clergy and Lay
delegates by the name of choice. It is a bare right of disapproval,
and one which it would be a most delicate task to exercise if the
name submitted were that of a Clergyman known to be strongly
desired by the Bishop, however much the Clergy and Lay delegates
might feel doubtful as to the wisdom of accepting him.

The second matter for consideration is

THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH IT IS PRO-
POSED THE COADJUTOR SHALL POSSESS.

Under this head it is desired to draw attention to the 13th section
of the proposed Canon, which provides that the Bishop Coadjutor
shall have " the right of succession to the See of Fredericton, and
shall succeed to the same immediately upon its becoming vacant."

As previously stated, it is quite evident from this that under the
plea of electing a Coadjutor or Assistant to the present Bishop — a
proposal to which, standing by itself, probably no Churchman would
object — the Canon, if put in operation, will virtually guide the elec-
tion of the next Bishop of the Diocese. i».

Neither the Bishop nor any of those who spoke in favor of the
Canon at Fredericton seem to have claimed that this section was

desirable or wise, but simply that it would be found to be necessary
because, they argued, a suitable person to fill the position could not
be obtained unless this right were conceded to him.

There is probably no doubt that it would he difficult to obtain, in
choosing a Ccidjutor, bdch a person as the Diocese would desire to
have for its next Bishop, unless the '•ight of succession were given,
— but when his Lordship stated this, he might have gone still far-
ther, and said that probably it would be very difficult to persuade
such a person to accept the position of Coadjutor or Assistant at all.
For it must be remembered that the position of Coadjutor is only an
inferior one, and that the person elected would be limited by Section
11 to the performance of such Diocesan duties and the exercise of
such Episcopal functions as the Bishop may assign to him.

And is it likely that a Clergyman of high standing in the Church
would accept such an inferior position either with or without the
right of succession to the See ? Surely it may fairly be argued that
the Diocese would be likely to secure the services of a more compe-
tent person when it had a suitable position to offer him. And if so,
it would be decidedly better to appoint the Coadjuto- to hold office
only during the lifetime of the present Bishop, whom he is to assist,
and to leave the Synod free to elect the next Bishop when the See
is vacant. If during the interval the Coadjutor proves himself to
be competent for the higher position, it cannot be doubted that the
Synod would then elect him to the office. And on the other hand,
should it be evident that he was not competent or suitable, the
Diocese would then be free to choose some one else to fill the
position.

It is quite possible for a person to be able to perform the duties
assigned to him as Coadjutor satisfactorily, and yet lack the ad-
ministrative ability necessary and desirable in a Bishop ; and the
most prudent course certainly is for the Synod to postpone commit-
ting itself until it becomes positively necessary to do so.

In such an all-important matter as this, every caution should be
exercised, and neither a regard for the Bishop nor the wish to make
the position of Coadjutor as desirable as possible, should be allowed
to interfere with a calm consideration of the future interests of
the Church. At any rate the right of succession might be withheld
until the Synod was thoroughly convinced by actual trial that it
was impossible to obtain a suitable Coadjutor without it. And if it
be ultimately found that in order to secure the services of a man of
standing this right has to be granted, it will become all the more

necessary that tlie important power of nomination should be left
freely with the Synod, as hn.^ been already claimed. <_ «'•.' .'• ' < "••'

, ; ;, THE PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF THE

BISHOP COADJUTOR. i

The endowment of the See of Frcdericton consists of the follow-
ing items :

1st. Prior to the establishment of the Sec a fund was raised by
subscription in New Brunswick amounting to about $12,500, of
which $12,000 was invested in a Bond of the Rector, Church War-
dens and Vestry of Trinity Church, St. John, at 5 per cent, interest,
producing a revenue of $600 per annum. The remaining $500 was
placed in the hands of the Bishop to be vested in Trustees on behalf
of the Diocese, and will produce at 6 per cent, interest, a revenue of
$30 per annum. , ■ .

2nd. Beyond the foregoing, tlie See is entirely dependent upon
" The Colonial Bishoprics Fund." . , • , . •

Whether this fund is —

(a.) A Special Fund for the Diocese of Fredericton, available for
the Bishop and his successors for ever :

(h.) A General Fund, from the income of which grants are made
to Colonial Bishops, which will of necessity be continued to the Dio-
cese of Frcdericton among others, or ' " ' • • I •'
•'■ (c.) A General Fund from which such grants may be made at
the option of the Trustees or otherwise, the income from which may

terminate with the life of the present Bishop of Fredericton

appears to be uncertain and unknown. At the late meeting in Fred-
ericton, the Bishop when appealed to, stated his inability to explain
the exact conditions of the Fund, and undertook to obtain at once the
required information. It is manifestly most important that it should
be secured. For in the event even of a vacancy in the See it would
be useless to ask any Clergyman of standing to take the Bishopric
with a yearly income of but $630, unless indeed he had large
private means of his own, and an election under such circumstances
would hand over the Diocese, not exactly to the highest bidder, but
certainly to some one whose private means formed a part of his
qualifications. It is to be hoped that the Colonial Bishoprics Fund
will be found to be definitely charged with affixed and permanent
provision for the present and future Bishops of Fredericton. If not,
or if the continuance of the grant be in any way optional or uncer-
tain, the sooner the present local endowment is increased the better.

I ,U«l"«"^^piF^W»»Wl»«W

At the late meeting in Frcdericton the Bishop stated his entire
official income to be about S5000, and generously offered out of this
to contribute $2500 towards the support of a Coadjutor. Now while
the Bishop deserves every credit for this handsome offer, it requires
but little reflection to see that it should not be accepted by the Dio-
cese. Should the Synod by resolution declare it to be advisable or
necessary that a Coadjutor Bishop be appointed, or for any cause
whatever proceed to such a choice, surely his support should be pro-
vided for by the Diocese, and for many reasons. In the first place,
when, after thirty-four years of labour in the Diocese, the Bishop
asks for an assistant in his old age, how ungrateful it would b: for
the Synod to answer, " Yes, you may have an assistant, if you will
pay him yourself." Surely Churchmen throughout the Diocese
would not feel satisfied that they had done their duty in respondirg
in such a manner as this to the Bishop's request.

And again, looking at the matter from a purely financial stand-
point, it would be better for the Diocese to assume the responsibility
of supporting the Bishop Coadjutor rather than accept the plan pro-
posed. It is well known that the Bishop in years past has given
away a very large part of his income in encouraging parochial work
of all kinds throughout the Diocese. But if his Lordship has to
contribute so largely towards the support of a Coadjt tor, the differ-
ent Parishes will not only lose his generous contributions (as he has
already intimated would be the case), but indirectly also the stimu-
lus given to local effort by his example, which has in time past
largely encouraged and assisted so many. What then would be the
result of an acceptance of this generous offer from the Bishop?
With haif his salary paid to a Coadjutor, and therefore no longer
able to take the lead in subscriptions for Diocesan or parochial
work, the Bishop would be reduced to a mere living. And
would this be a fitting close for the long Episcopate of the first
Bishop of Fredericton? Even already his Lordship has had to
announce that if his offer is accepted he will be compelled to with-
draw his promised subscription towards the Fredericton Divinity
Chair. Surely Churchmen throughout the Diocese will not be will-
ing to place their Bishop in such a position as this.

If a Coadjutor Bishop be required, the people to whom his services
are to be given should support him. For years past the Diocese
has been striving to become self-supporting in its parochial work,
and it has prospered in the effort. To accept a Bishop Coadjutor
on the terms now proposed would be returning towards a position of
dependence, not a step in advance, but a retrogression.

'^^"•T^i^ll^iMlli

mil ■.■H.vip

And besides all this, would not the position of the Coadjutor be
improved if his support were properly provided by the Diocese,
rather than if he were dependent merely upon the Bishop, whom he
is to assist ?

ANCIENT USAGES.

Efforts have been made by some of the advocates of the pro-
posed Canon to show that its principles are supported by ancient
precedent. It may be remarked, in passlag, that the Bishop, in his
address at Fredericton, did not rest any part ot his argument on thia
basis, and, while precedents are certainly deserving of respect, no
one will pretend that they are to be blindly followed without
reference to the altered circumstances of the present day. It may
be better, however, to refer briefly to some of tha authorities on the
subject.

A rule generally observed ii the Church was that in one city
there should be but one Bishop, though it was large enough to admit
of many Presbyters. (Bingham Eccles. Ant. 1, 150.) The Council
of Nice (xi. D. 325) repeats and confirms this ancient rule in the
Eighth Canon."— (lb., 1, 153.)

To this rule Coadjutors were an exception. — (lb., 1, 157.) The
first on record occurred before the Nicene Council, when Narcissus,
Bishop of Jerusalem, was disabled by reason of his great age, being
a hundred and twenty years old (A. D. 237), and Alexander was
made his Coadjutor. Subsequently such cases became more com-
mon, but continued exceptional until at least the time of the great
St. Augustine (A. D. 391), who was ordained^Bishop of Hippo while
Valerius was living, and sat with him for some time as his Coad-
jutor ; and who, we are told, " was of opinion that his own ordination
was not regular, when afterwards he came to know the Nicene
Canon."— (lb., 1, 157-160.)

And as the exceptional cases of Coadjutors became more common,
80 the right of choice or appointment appears to have been taken,
from the Clergy and Laity ^ the Diocesan Bishops assumed tho
power of appointing their Coadjutors, and in some instances, even
by their testaments, their successors in their Sees, (lb., 1, 157-
160, Milman's Latin Christianity, 2, 41, note C), and finally the
Civil power intervened, and the right of choice by Clergy uid
people was lost altogether. >! ! r -

It appears, then — , > '^' -

1st. That in the early Church the office of Bishop Coadjutor waa

1ft

purely exceptional, was established by degrees only, and was
opposed to a Canon of the First Greneral Council.

2nd. That, as the cifBce became more common, and the' Bishop of
the Diocese assumed the right of appointment, the earlier rule,
giving the choice of their Bishop to the Clergy and Laity, was in-
fringed ; and finally their right of election was entirely destroyed
and lost.

Apparently, in anticipation of the opposition which was certain
to develop itself to the terms of the proposed Canon, it has been
suggested to make its adoption exceptional, and to give the power
of nominating a Coadjutor, with right of succession, only to the
present Bishop of Fredericton, and it is worthy of note that his
Lordship himself stated, at the late meeting in Fredericton, his
willingness that the Canon should be thus amended. It may fairlj
be asked, why is this ? Surely if its provisions are proper and
unobjectionable, there need not; be any hesitation as to its perman-
ency. But is there not in the very remark referred to a virtual
admission that the Canon, as proposed, is not what it ought to be ?

And is not the answer to the above suggestion to be found in the
history of the past ? The present case would form a precedent,
and the exception become eventually the rule. If the right be given
to one Bishop, how, without invidious distinction, can it be denied
to his successor ; and so, step by step, the present rights of Clergy
and Laity would be impaired until, as actually occurred in the
middle ages, they were entirely destroyed.

CONCLUSION.

It has hitherto been the practice of the Synod to avoid passing
important measures without full and sufficient notice having been
previously given. Indeed, the 16th section of the Constitution pro-
vides that any proposition for its alteration must be introduced in
writing, and lie over till the next meeting of the Synod for adoption.
It would seem as though this would have been the proper way to
proceed in regard to the proposed Canon, seeing that its passage
involves a surrender by the Clergy and Laity of such valued and
important rights. For like reasons, it was thought by many that
the adoption of the Canon, at the late meeting in Fredericton, would
have been hasty and unwise, and this more especially because the
various congregations throughout the Diocese were unaware, until
almost the last moment, that the introduction at that meeting of
such a measure was even contemplated.

. I imi f ■^^■■■Mvi

Owing to (he discovery that the mcetinj^ referred to had not been
legally called, no business was transacted, and the consideration of
the Canon was, in consequence, postponed until a special meeting of
the Synod should be convened for that purpose, the time suggested
being the eighth of October next.

Some opportunity is, therefore, now afforded for Churchmen
generally throughout the Diocese to consider the Canon ; and it is
to be hoped that they will, without unnecessary delay, give their
attention to the matter. .. ". ; ,.i

To any one who carefully studies its provisions', it muse be evident
that the proposed Canon would virtually take ill real powe as
to the selection of the future Bishops of the Diocese, from the Clergy
and Laity, and transfer it to the Bishop for the time being, to be
exercised at his own discretion. For by the Canon, in its present
form, the Bishop alone has the right of nomination. He may send
down but one name at a time, if he sees fit. And if his nominee
is not forthwith accepted, he can at once decline to make any fur-
ther nominations whatever, and thus leave the Synod in the anoma-
lous position of having met to appoint a Coadjutor, who is also to
be the future Bishop of the Diocese, without having the power to
carry their wishes into effect. •■ . , j i.:m

Practically, then, if the right of succession to the See is granted,
■the power of selecting his own successor will be given to tlie Bishop oi
the Diocese.

Such a complete surrender by the Clergy and Laity of their
rights and privileges cannot surely be expected. Neither is it
desirable or prudent that such absolute power should be vested
in any one person, even though that person be the Bishop of the
Diocese. Surely the Clergy and Laity will refuse thus easily to part
with the rights which are secured to them by the Constitution of
the Synod and the Canon of 1871 ; and by their refusal, while not
in any way impairing the Bishop's just rights, retain for themselves
perfect freedom of action, and also avoid the possibility of such an
objectionable contest as might arise under the proposed Canon,
should the Bishop's nomination not be in accordance with the wishes
of the Synod.

biUO?*saoitvii^imU atp/iit!jatK.'*inl r-fiJ ]f:,(u<;{f:) iyM'U^ n.u.iqohn .oHi
Dili &UiRt>'^<l X'^'*'^^*'!'''-'' ''''^'^•^^^•* ^*'''*' .■'-^'^"*' ^"'^' '.'^•'''^ ""'"'^ ''■■^^^'^