IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /, O '/j 1.0 !:» I.I 1.25 2.8 u Vii 2.5 22 1.8 14 II 1.6 ^-- 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: 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 6 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 ! ! 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 10 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>'^