IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 il.25 2.5 2.2 1^ I.I I.-* 1!^ 1.8 1.4 % '^ ^ / > /^ ^-v^ ? Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 ^^ V ,v \\ V c^ >5i '%^ !^\'^ i- & 6 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde I I 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) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure 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 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; The toth L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les ddtails de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu^s c^dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur D D D n This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence The poss of th filmi Origi begii the I sion, othe first sion, or ill |~n Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M fiim^es A nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The I shall TINL whic Map) diffei entiri begir right requi meth 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X V 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X aire ddtails ues du t modifier ger une ) filmage ides The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada 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 endinn on the last page with a printed or Illustrate., irrpres- 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. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grAce d la g4n6roslt6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduces avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant par le premier plat et en termlnant soit par la dernlAre page qui comports une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires origlnaux sont film6s en comment ant par la premldre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles sulvants apparaTtra sur la dernldre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »> signifle "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifle "FIN". re 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 d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cllch6, 11 est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'Images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants lllustrent la mdthode. y errata td to nt ie pel u re, 9on d n 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^^^^ H^H 4*.- A. LETTER TO THE RT; REV. DR. BINNEf BISHOP OF NOVA SCOTIA;- qpSTAINlNO OBSEEVATIONS ON THE ORIGIN OP THE SYNODICAL MOVEMENT, AND A DEFENCE OF THE POSITION AND ACTION OF ITS OPPONENTS. BY THE REY. JAMES ROBERTSON, L.L.D. Boctor of Wilmot. ■#» HALIFAX, N. S. PRINTED BY JAM^ BO WIS & SONS. 1866. mrSSSS^SS^Si^S^mSmiSiii ,S,-"V.-.' .> .*;S9»t.v ■/•v'^ A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF NOYA SCOTIA. tf ■'*-' '?^-.>: mk'y Kt. Rev. Sir, — Iv the charges, which the following extract from your letter to me of the 22nd January last, conveys :igninst my Parish, were confined to the limits of a pri- vate correspondence, I would not have considered them deserving of any special notice. But several of my Reverend Brethren, whose assertion I cannot doubt, have assured me that at sundry times and in divers places, you have been in the habit of indulging in certain utter- ances against Wilmot, which as represented to me are highly derogatory to our position, and offensively so to our character as members of the Church of Enuland in this Province. I have moreover been assured that the cause of such damaging remarks is to be found in our opposition to the Synodical movement, and in our indif- ference to the interests of the Diocesan Church Society ; ;ind that while other Parishes of more wealth and importance, entertaining similar views regarding the Synod, were passed over in silence, we have been singled out from the rest and honoured with special observations, which to say the least appear to have been characterised rather for their asperity than their justice. Tho reason of such distinction it is perhaps difficult to surmise, unless it may be supposed that in thus dealing with us you have acted on the well known principle that it is easy to pass over and trample the fence under foot where it is lowest. 1 . ( rJ ' J Although I cannot perceive how the Synod or the Diocesan Church Society, being voluntary associations, can affect our position as members of a Church Avhich existed before either, yet I think it due to my Parish and myself to publish this letter, in order to make the refutation of an unfounded calumny as well known as its assertion and reiteration, and to justify the attitude in which v>^e arc placed before our fellow-churchmen. The serious charges in question are substantially com- prehended in the extract from your letter, to which allusion is made above, and which reads as follows : — " I have to remind you that Wilmot is, in a gi'eat mea- sure, separated from the body of the Church in this Province inasmuch as it repudiates the authority of the Synod, and virtually that of the Bishop. There was room for a charita- ble construction of their conduct, in this respect, when first the Synod was constituted, and the actual position of the Church in a colony was not understood by the multitude. But the objections then raised have since been refuted by the highest authorities" "and those who continue to oppose, because they objected when our position was not understood, and had not been authoritatively defined, as it has now been, are without excuse, while they persist in putting obstacles in the way of the free action and full development of the Cimrch, to which they profess to adhere." These are serious charges, and challenge much and earnest consideration on account of the source from which they emanate. It is presumed that in all fairness they are applicable to all clergymen and congregations who have professed, and acted on their dissent from the Synodical movement ; and, that my poor Parish of Wil- mot may be classed in the same catagory with other congregations which honourably share with us the same views and sentiments. It will be my endeavour in the following pages to enquire with all the minuteness at my command into the nature and character of such charges, and if possible to discover the true soiu'ce from which our present divided lent and from Iness lions the ^il- ther lame to the to Ided l! • position has really proceeded. In this enquiry I wish to avoid any expression or course of argument that might seem discourteous to yourself or derogatory to the functions, which are inalienable from your sacred office. At the same time I am bound, on account of the overwhelming interests which are involved in this question, to permit no feeling or sentiment of that description to interfere with the correct and faithtid statement of the truth, as it successively presents itself to my mind, €uther in the perusal of the records of tlie past, or in specific deductions from the course of the discussion. I will begin with the well understood fact, that the ecclesiastical laws of England are inoperative in this Province, and that we are neither restricted on the one hand, nor bound on the other by those enactments. Hence we are left to the guidance and protection of such laws and statutes as may have emanated from the generosity of Colonial Legislation. These we assume to be amply sufficient for the protection of our persons and property as members of a religious organization. More than this — more power, more indulgence, or greater immunities than those which are accorded to other denominations, we do not possess and can scarcely expect in a Province where all particn»ate in an equal share of religious toleration and Chrisi.av: liberty. But this general legislation, embracing only a few well known constitutional principles cannot apply to the internal regulation and management of each separate religious community. Some rules or laws of a more minute and extended character appear to be necessary to supply an admitted exigency. Where then are we to look for guidance ? How are we to supply the deficiency which is universally felt in the absence of legal enactments for the control and management of the internal aifairs and measures of our special religious community ? You imagine that this condition of cir- 6 rumstances is fully met by a Diocesan Synod. You think that a body of Churchmen, comprising th(; differ- ent orders of the clergy, and representatives of tlu^ laity; having legal authority to make special enactments, to (tontrol the refractory, to guide the hesitating, and to ])unish the offending ; at the same time exercising if necessary judicial power, is an arrangement, Avhich will <'nsure the free action and full development of our (/hur^h system. Here, Rt. Rev. Sir, we differ. Whatever agree- ment may have hitherto occurred in our views, r(>gard- ing the present unpromising position of our poor Church, is here interrupted by a clear and distinct divergence of opinion. Let it be clearly understood that I do not, and cannot, place any reliance on human laws, either for the eradication of evil or for the promotion of God's work in the hearts of his people. Neither can I con- ceive that any measure, or means, or institution, which needs threatening or compulsion for its successful appli- ( ation, can be conducive to the good of the Church or beneficial as an element of Church government. Much rather, therefore, would I fall back on those scriptural principles, which all our Church divines acknowledge to be the true and solid foundation of pro- tcstant episcopacy. I would search out and adopt for our guidance in every possible emergency those broad and distinctive characteristics of our venerable system, which have in ancient times defended it from extinction amidst the fearful onslaughts of persecution, which enabled it to survive the convulsions of civil strife in modern days, and which still mark it out above its fel- lows as the beauty of holiness and the joy of the whole earth. These I would adopt as a general rule of guid- ance, leaving it to the discretion and wisdom of our chief pastor to render their application effective in every instance which demanded his attention ; so that all things might " be done decently and in order." In this letter T will endeavour to state and illustrate two of those leading; characteristics to which referciico has just been made, and which bear with sint^^ilar apti- tude on various points, M'liich are prominently cxhil)itcd in the Synodical movement. First. — I will adduce convincint;- proof that the clergy of a diocese are entith'd, in their collective capacity, to a voice in the "general direction of diocesan transactions. Secondly. — I will prove by rofer(>ncc to the practice of the primitive Church, and to the customs and rules of modern protestant episcopacy, that a bishop of that com- munion can only exercise a limited authority — that he is restricted from the exercise of a sole powc^r. As my leadinjif arguments are chiefly dependent on these two ]irinciples, it will he necessary to establish their validity with a considerable degrc'c of care and minuteness. And I indulge the hope that you will not deem it an irksome task to favour me with your earnest attention throughout the necessary details of the refer- ences and discussions. I. That the clergy in their collective capacity are en- titled to a voice in the general direction of diocesan transactions may be proved by reference to Scripture. In the first council of the Church on record, Acts xv., which was convened for the express purpose of decid- ing the question of circumcision before baptism, tlu; ministers of the second order were associated with the apostles, who were of the first order, in the discussion and adjudication of that important matter. " The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter" (vcr. 6). Again (ver. 22), "Then it pleased the apostles and elders," with the concurrence of the whole Church, " to send chosen men of their own company." Here the apostles and elders seem to have conducted the discussion and pronounced the decision. Their decree was, moreover, of divine obligation. '^ It jeemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," ver, 28, 8 May it not be inferred from these worth that bishops and pastors arc more assured of th(^ Divine presence and direction, when convened together in Christ's name, than th(3y could possibly feel each by himself in an isolated position; unless indeed it be assumed that (iod inspires one particular person with righteousness and holiness, forsaking others who are equally <;ndowed with the out- ward appearance of the same desirable qualities { Here, then, is an instance, a Scriptural instance of a Council or Synod, where the different orders of apostles and elders met for the consideration and decision of a most important question. The apostles doubtlessly were sufficiently inspired, and clothed with sufficient authority to decide the matter themselves, and to give advice to the Christians of Antioch, without any refer- ence 'whatever to the opinion of the elders. But they refrained from assuming so onerous a responsibility with- out the assistance and co-operation of their fellow- labourers in the ministry of the word. Hence, we may infer, I think, without straining any terms or expressions, that the second order of ministers — presbyters or elders — possessed some inestimable right or privilege, which is not specifically defined in the sacred narrative, to hold a place in the council and to take part in its delibera- tions. Now if these " things be written for our learning," we surely ought to receive this instance of an Apostoli- cal Synod or Council as a certain example for our guidance. At all events as the question, which was then decided, seemed the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian fold without being subjected to the rite of circumcision, there seemed to be no immediate occasion for subsequent meetings of the same council. It is therefore the only one we read of in the sacred records. But, as in the course of time points of doctrine and order began to give rise to different views and opinions among believers, Councils or Synods were convened in variousi placos for the purpose of dlscovcrinL^ and rocom- mt'ri(linL( suItal)lo measures for the promotion of peace and edifieation In the household of faith. In th(! age which immediately succeeded that of the apostl(>s, we find hut very few vaj^ue and incompl(>t(! marks of the times and occasions of convcming Councils. Frotn the death of St. John to the end of the second century the records, which have descended to the present time, arc (^xceedini^ly limited, and convey only an incomplete view of the practice and discipline of the early Church durini^ that adverse period. 15ut from the fragments which the ancient Church historian, Eusehius, has pre- served, we may readily infer that many councils were held, and that the preshyters as well as the hishops gave their attendance and their voices on call these occasions. — Cap. xvi., liih. 5. Here, however, it is necessary to discriminate. As the boundaries of the Church became extended, and its influence gradually diffused, it was necessary that Councils and Synods should also be in their operation and authority co-extensive with the progress of the Christian faith. Hence we meet with different kinds of councils. General Councils were composed of the most learned and eminent men, whom the Church produced from every part of the world. Their members were commonly though not always confined to the episcopal order. Provincial Councils or Synods were assembled from a less extent of territory, and appear to have been composed, like the Apostolical Council at Jerusalem, of bishops and pastors in their order. Of this character was the Synod held at Alexandria in the year 230, also that held at Bostra, in Arabia, in 243, according to Eusebius, Lib. vi., C. 33. In 252, Fabian, Bishop of Antioch, called a Pro- vincial Synod of bishops and priests, who condemned Novatian for heresy. In all these the second ord'^ of clergy appear to have been fully represented, and to have been entrusted with an important share of the re- w f 10 spcmsibility of discussing and adjudicating- questions, which nearly affected the peace and prosperity of tlie Church at hirge. A third species of council was the Diocesan Synod, which was always comi)osed of the bishop and his cli^rgy. Our accounts of such conventions in the third century, arc full and satisfactory, and convey a very clear and >vcll defined idea of the internal (>cononiy of Churcli government during that period. 'J'he works of Cyjnian, Bishop of Carthage, about the middle of the third cen- tury, are still extant, and shed a flood of light on the ecclesiastical matters which occupied his attention. He tells us himself (Epist. xliii., &c.) that he held seven Synods within the space of six years, from !25()-;25t), and that in all these " he determined to do nothing without the acivice of his clergy, and the consent of the people." Epist. xiv. Now mark this distinction. The people might hear and approve, but did not advise. In the words of Archbishop Potter : " For though it was an ancient custom for such of the people as were willing to come, to have free access to the councils and assemblies of the clergy, there is no example of their giving definitive voices there. And when their advice or consent was asked, this was understood to be done, that things might be carried on with unanimity, ;nid not because their concurrence was believed necessary to giv(^ authority to anything that was decreed." Ch. Gov't, p. 316. These Diocesan Synods or Councils were of very frequent occurrence in all ages of the Church. In his Chronology of History, Sir Harris Nicholas enumerates 1583 councils of all descriptioiis, of which any account or record has been preserved by ecclesiasti- cal historians. These cover a period of 1400 years, from the assembling of the Council of Pargamos in A.D. 152, to the middle session of the Council of Tn^nt iii 1554. Of these seventeen were General Synods, em- bracing episcopal delegates from all parts of the Christian t mmmm 11 questions, rity of thv an Synod, his c'lcro-y. a century, clear and )f ( 'hurc}. f Cyj)rian, 'hircl con- lit on the ion. Uc Ad S(>v('n ) nothinif ^nt of tlic stinction. )t advise, houi^h it as were icils and of theii- I' advice )e done, ••nid not ■ to give ^ov't, p. of verN" J^ichoJas ' Avhicli esiasfi- vears, nA.D. •cut ill Is, em- iristian world. The r(Mnaining loOfi were eitlu'r Provincial or Diocesan Synods, where bishops and clergy met accord- ing to their resjicctive orders, and determined such questions as came before them, liut in no instance, in so far as 1 can discover, were the laity admitt(>d to ad- vise or to vote in those assemblies. This privih^ge ap- pears to have been entirely confined to the bishops and clergy. But protestant episcopacy seeks for precedents and examples, not in the Church(^s of Rome or Constantinople, but in the purest ages of anti(j[uity, before; })liilosopliical subtleties and human fancies began to sa]) the founda- tion of the faith once dc^livc^red to the saints. In these modern days, and on this side of the Atlantic, vvc look to the i^racticc and discipline of the English Keformers, in the same manner and with thc^ same feelings of rever- ence, with which those great mvn viewed the faith and organization of the early Christian Church. On turning to this source of reference th(ni wo find t^^at the ancient customs in their general outline, con- stituted the pattern to which ecclesiastical proceedings were rendered conformable, and that the distinction between the clergy and laity in convocation or national Synod was rigidly observed. As a proof of this fact it may be stated that in the v(^ry first convocation held ui England after the renunciation of the Pojie's supremacy, the secretary, Thomas Cromwell, ajipeared as Vicar- General in ])lace of the King, lien. VIII. , and took precedence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. On this unusual and unprecedented occurrence, Bishop Godwin, in his annals, p. i>i), makes the following remark : "• For an ignorant layman to preside^ in a Synod of the most learned bishops that ever were in England, was but a disgrace and a scandalous sight." In the convocation which met in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, it was ordered and passed that no act of importance in doctrine or discipline should 12 of power and authority To'lH 1 "■1 ™l»rt»t share ^vell-being and prosperityof the r / "'^^'l,''«i-'Otcd the After tJ,e access on of th„ p"^™^'' Church. "leetuigs of convocation becai,.!"^"''-'"" Q"''""' the In truth, except on -son e ";;!£''"'"' '■""' "«""'"• theor functions appear to have L ""''>' emorsencies, of Parliaments ani the supervision of :i'''""'t'' ^y -'» mont. An act of this descrb Z' ""'"''"• Sovern- to constitute a High ConS ^P ''"T'''' ""^ Q"oen of ecclesiastical jurisdictir to K-'u' ^"Z "''' <'^««-'0 to be referred the man„,l!l . ""* "^ course were •natters relating to Sch"' ""'^ adjudication oJ2 «emed to be no occasion /"''i'?""™'- Hence there and clergymen from a "par" ^f^ ^"^*" ^-C purpose of considering and di5 •' ^"'^'^"'^ ^°' the ^ere so easily and co.fvenlntfv , "^' ^'"""^'^ ^^^ich "e"t court, legally cons itu edtr Z"" "'^ " P"-""*- D»r,ng the Queen's rei.^n the P ■''^■T' P-^-Po^c Canterbury and York met ?e„et >""«'»' %nods of part m the general co„"™l T, I ^f"^ '""'^ "■> '•'«tive ^ut I do not find that tho e tVo bod ' '"''"'^' "»««-'■ busmess under one roof, or Jeltol .f '•"" '™"«acted of a national Synod r,, tv, .together in the capacity that the convoS of clntoir "^ J«»«« I- - 'r^a^ for the government of tL Chirr "^ 141 canons by Bishop Bancroft out of the f;-^^"'? """''^ oollected synodal acts of previous ri„s'"T^' '"J^"«''™« and s.nce the reign of Queen An„^'^ Suffice it to say Jhat Penod Its functions wer: d„rta,t 2 '" " ^^^"^ '«'=«"' ormant , not apparently from ~JlL-:.mt:.^ "^mmv-mf 1 of the Lower » 4{^1. This 3ody, distinct portant share 1 aftbctcd the Church. Queen, the i and regular, emergencies, sdcd by acts !ular govern- d the Queen the exercise course were nation of all ^ence there her bishops Jom for the ;ters which a perma- purpose. Synods of i^ an active al matters, transacted e capacity we read il canons collected tions and ons form of 1663, and pro- say that ry recent itly from any want of a resuscitating power, but from the general condition of the country, and from the peculiar tone of religious sentiment, which pervaded and influenced every rank and class of society in the nation throughout the eighteenth century. When it last assembled, in 1714,* it consisted of all the bishops who formed the upper house, of all deans and archdeacons, of one proctor for every chapter and two for the clergy of every diocese, in all 143 clergymen, who constituted the lower house. No layman was eligible to perform any part of its func- tions. Even the very messengers were in orders. ^ Of Diocesan Synods I do not find one instance since the Reformation, except the futile attempt which the Bishop of Exeter made some years ago to convoke a Synod in his diocese, for the purpose of deciding the question of baptismal regeneration ! The severe reproof which some of the secular peers administered to him in their place in Parliament, and the general sentiment of the nation at large, in reference to such matters, have hitherto prevented his lordship from repeating the ex- periment, and may possibly have had the effect of deter- ring others from following so useless and pernicious an example. In fact such Synods are, by 25 Hen. VIII., illegal, unless convened by Royal authority. Now from the foregoing observations, showing the practice and constitution of Synods, or ecclesiastical councils in the early ages of the Church, as also their nature and character as recognized in the Reformed Church of England, I think that I am justified in de- ducing the following important facts or inferences : 1 . That at all Synods and Councils of a Provincial or Diocesan character the clergy of the second order were present : — 2. That on all occasions they assisted in the decision and adjudication of important questions, which deeply concerned the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Salmon's Chronology of Events, 355. Ill fi u o. And that, tliercfore, the clergy of a Biocese are entitled, in their collective capacity, to a voice in the general direction of important Diocesan transactions. A further inference from the same ])remises may here be noted, — an inference which every candid mind will readily admit, — and which may he; considered in the light of a eoroUary. It is — that the laity were not per- mitted to enjoy the privilege of voting, either in ancient or modern church assemblies, on c|U(\stions of an eccle- siastical character. Indeed in the Synods or convoca- tions of the Church of England, tlie opinions or views of laymen do not seem to have challenged any available consideration. Having I trust made this point clear and intelligible. I will now with your leave proceed to illustrate and fortify the second proposition which I selected for dis- cussion, and which may thus be enunciated : II. That a protestant Bishop, according to the funda- mental principles of his own Church, can only exercise a limited authority, being in various ways restricted from using a sole power. To those who know how the episcopal power in England is protected on the one hand, and restricted on the other, by a vast amount of national legislation, this proposition will be self-evident. There the path of episcopal procedure is extremely narrow ; and a Bisho]) requires to be in constant communication with profes- sional legal advisers to keep him in the strict path of legality. On this side of the Atlantic, however, much more latitude of action may be assumed and practised without trenching on the doubtful boundaries of certain (mactments. It will be my purpose in the following remarks to prove that, even here, there are limits beyond which episcopal authority cannot be either fairly or constitutionally exercised, and that these limits are necessarily suggested by the fundamental prmciples of protestant episcopacy. I^ioccse are voice in the nsac'tions. i'^o.s may here id niiiid will '5(^1-0(1 in the t^'t'ro not j)cr- ip^ in aiiciont of an cccle- ■^ or convoca- ons or views iny available intelligible, Jfistrate and c'ted for dis- the funda- '"ly exercise s restricted 1 power in estricted on i^ation, this If' path of f} a Bishop _ith profes- fct path of ver, much t practised of certain followiniJf 'iro limits he either it^sf limits principles I 15 In the whole range of Christian antiquity, I cannot recall a single instance where a Bishop acted on his own authority regarding any matter which concerned the interest of the Church in his Diocese. The early believers were probably guided, in all cases, where collision of individual views or vain disputations occa- sioned doubt or hesitation, by the well known precept of our Saviour, Matt, xviii. 15 — 20, a precept which effectually precluded the exercise of a sole power or authority by any one person, be he apostle or disciple, within the borders of the new kingdom. "Tell it unto the Church" — is a command which necessitates an appeal to many, not to one for justice, judgment, and peace. And the assurance is given that, when the Church came together to discuss and determine differ- ences among th(nr members, Christ himself by his spirit should be there in the midst of them. Conformable to these injunctions was the practice of the early believers. During the first three centuries, I believe there is not an instance on record to justify the opinion that any of the first Bishops exercised in cases of discipline a sole power. In truth the general charac- ter of their proceedings, and the tone of Christian sentiment, which animated and pervaded every portion of the household of faith during the early struggles of the Church, all point in quite an opposite direction. The utmost tenderness and consideration, the most expansive charity and loving-kindness appear to have characterised all the dealings of these men one with another. So fully conscious was Dr. Cava of the reality and force of those truths that he becomes im- pressively eloquent when depicting the beneficial influ- ence and charm of such virtues. See Prim, (^hristi. Part III. Cap. I. & II. "Even Bishops and Pastors were so powerfully actuated by all the Christian graces, that they were temperate and moderate in all things ; esteeming each other better than themselves for their i' • If Hi i'' I ., i I i I « 16 Master's sake " It ■ " '<^^"('arance unn],7 / "^ nocks, oroaf ; >.'»,^'l■ '«' '<> the S ^0" .ment in the land. '"™"-^"»ent of true reiiUt ^-h-ch'^T^ntcd r-" °^ ''■'^ ^--^-^^^e of this , y rt.ucrt the vcrv f,'-^^ /• ,. ^ "" ^^^^ sole iiou-«^ fi rt'v." ""' ™"'^« oae^Kn!,tr,r;''"-'^'-'-"!'n. nrst ten years of Queen Pi; 'V , . *'''°™frs- For r(,l ™- with 4u.ar u\:s -rtL:^"^'' -^ I L ■:'^tm^msmm-^' 17 |Jiat such men Wo of power It, amidst the the various flocks, great "lanifested, felt by any •cercising on 'hich niig-ht rcn. er and less solo po^ver. ^■t'J(a con- cessive pri- '^' but also ft'rence to ^uch pro- ne poAver nission to I unmiti- became iporal, in ive their her sel- England -ent and the lie. <^^%ious Jiower t ahen- OT the as not 3f the joiced con- eraUv of the reformed liturgy. But soon jealousies began to arise, and to exhibit themselves in various ways, and in different quarters. C(mtroversies arose on every side ; the most learned and eminent men of the age took part in those discussions ; gradually the lines of demarcation became more distinct, until at length the opponents and supporters of the reformed episcopacy wero fairly ar- ranged into two separate and different bodies. Although the rubrics of the prayer book impliedly repudiated the exercise of the sole power in the ordina- tion offices, by ordering that more than one bishop should be present at the consecration service, and that priests present should assist the bishop in the ordination of ministers, yet the declaimers against the sole power were determined not to be satisfied. A pamphlet full of bitterness and asperity was published anonymously under the title of " An Admonition to Bishops." This was answered by Archbishop Whitgift in 1573, with great power and clearness. He disclaims all intention and wish to exercise a sole power in the Church. " We give no greater authority to either archbishop or bishop, than the consul or prtetor had among the liomans ; or a master and president in a college, who have not and cannot have the sole authority of government lodged in their persons." The archbishop's answer is a medium sized old octavo volume, and the foregoing words are found on page 396. Still the controversy continued. It was sustained on the presbyterian side by Travers and Cartwright, and on the side of the establishment by Hooker, Downham, Morton and Field. Then came the Baxters, the Owens, the Hendersons and the Reynolds, uttering invectives and objurgations against the episcopal establishment, and gathering after them an immense following from all ranks and classes of society. ITie results are matters of history. The throne was overturned ; the establishment trampled in the dust. Now the supporters of the epis- 'V I 4'- 4 li 18 l^opacy tJu-oughout the wholo of fV ^^•oycrsy deny the assumption of I ' ^'; '' ^•^^^'^"^'^1 ^on- Pi-otostant bishops. Mr CMN ''^ ''^' ^''^''^'^ ^^Y the ouicral, thus speaks in his Dn, Vhiircli party in -' y what is essential a„f nt'estrv-' v''' "'"' '""-'l" "> t no more but this • an «nT- / ° "' "'•' »lwll find "■nmcut sanctity and suffieien^yToT"' 1 "'"•■ ""^ "f *e chiu-ehes within a cemfn^; -■"''' ""' ™™ °f «« ^™-l.n,g him with autrori;,o^t !,?'/' "'' ''""'•'-' ^'"l .''"t.rej.„)ated and bounded bvT "*'"'"'' '""l '"•/./<,■„,■„, J°'»'"g to him a convenfont n^^' ?'' ""-'"-'od by ^ But ,t ,s needless to mZ,Tl- °/ 3««'»t""ts." -^ JiiKon Basiboon, both deny an^' V'.'""'^'"' !•' 'n his of a sole or arbitrary autS ° repudiate the excreise '•e%ious character aL'£Sl" ^"T ^f'"'"-!. The «e set forth and dtu led "^ ''^''"^'' "'^-^t^ Echard's introduction to the JesL d^'^ ,'" Archdeacon "i the Enghsh Eeyolutions " ^ ^''^"""^ "History J-ii those times of ^^- •* ' tention was f" '^^^^'''^^'^ t'™^''""' "^« eon- vvas to obtain the ascendency in Ch/Y"' °' '^^ ^'"fe "Pcotn-ely of all other corsidet».- 'l' ""'^ ''''"to. irre- -hatcver party triumphed fc the","' "^'f^°--«. And ?■' one of their mosUmpo, tat 'T *"•'■"" """^ulered ■"■nthcr ess fortunate Zls ^"'"^'^ "" I'""'* and . It would be tedious Rt H c- ;"«'ovant to the matt'efunder dfs'cr' "'°"'" ''^ bought different phases which the t '''f'^^sion to fallow the -^«.mod i„ Scotland Itt^i,fr'"«.''°"-I controversy »¥ct ,fr briefly touch „^'',^;™fe^ /" no part of the Christim Z ,^ ^"'"^""'i I'oints. between episcopacy and pSvT •''''' *" 'Controversy ™°^e keenness and'^acnZny fc' i""? T'"'' "" -^'h "7 tnan m Scotland. It ap. J I ional con- '1' hy the sc'oms to party in fi'-' Apos- ' 'ibstract <''>iisi'der i;ill find man of •G of a]I 'SO, and itcd by 11 King 1 in his ■ The parchs oacon istory con- strife irre- And ered and ight the ?rsy ent rsy ith ip- 19 pears to havv) acquired an intensity of feeling in propor- tion to tlie eontracted sphere of its operations. On the presbyterian side were ranged Knox, the ISFelvilles, Gillt'spie, lliitherford, Cahlerwood, Dr. Rule, and a host of minor lights. This party obtained vast popularity by classifying prcdacy and popery in the same category. And all the worst features of the llomish, were indus- triously attributed to protestant cpiseopacy. Among these objectionable attribut(!s, the sole power or authority., sujjposed to be exercised by the bishop to the prejudice and destruction of the national liberty, was brought for- ward and illustrated with mueh prominency. On the episcopal side we find the names of William Cowper^ the learned 15ishop of Galloway, Peter Hay, gentleman, Archbishop Spots wood, Bishop Lindesay, Dr. Forbes, of Corse, Dr. Maxwell, of Ross, Archdeacon I^ogie, of Aberdeen, Bishop Honyman, of Orkney, and Dr. Bur- net, before he left Glasgow. All these, without excep- tion, in their refutation of the prcsbyterian allegations, renounce the exercise of a sole power, and point out very elearly the chief distinction between popery and reformed episcopaey. Bishop Forbes, of Corse, ex- presses himself on this point in these majestic sentences : *' Quando antem supremum in hierarehia ecclesiastica locum episcopis vindicamus, contra injustam usurpationer/k" Romani Pontificis, non cxcludimus piesbyteros ab eccle- siie gubernatione ; nee episcopo in sua diocesi potestatem tribuimus aulokratoriken, neque authoritatcm iJcsjwfikcn, vel absolutam aliquam concedimus monarchiam ; Nam accedimus judicis eatholica} antiquitatisqurecum episcopo in regeuda ecclesia conjuugit presbyterium." Or, " When we claim the supreme place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy for bishops, against the unjust usurpation of the Roman Pontiff, we do not exclude presbyters from the govern- ment of the Church ; nor do we accord to a bishop in his own diocese a sole-judging power, a despotic authority, or any absolute sovereignty. For we acquiesce in the 2 20 i i 11 - ; m judgment of catholic antiquity, Avliich joins the; presby- tery with the bishop in reguUitiiig or governing the Church." — In.structiones llistorico — Theologiciu Lib. xvi., cap. i., 1^ 12. The Htate of religion and religioiis controversy was such in the early part of the reign of Charles I., that the ministers of that sovereign imagined that differences might be allayed and peace promoted in the Church by a plan of amalgamation. It Avas thought that by a few unimportant concessions on both sides a common plat- form might be established on which the episcopalian and presbyterian elements would find room enough to work in harmony for the benefit of the nation at large. Royal instructions were consequently issued for conven- ing an assembly at Glasgow in 1()38, at which the bishops were summoned to be present. Advantage, however, was taken of the popular feeling against epis- copacy, and circumstances were so arranged as to make it' impossible for the bishops to appear in the Synod without compromising their feelings of self-respect as well as their personal safety, lliey strongly protested against the measures M'hich had been adopted for their annoyance and humiliation, and left the assembly to its Ate. ^ The second exception in their protest is as follows : " Because the assembly consists of great numbers of the laity, who are allowed a decisive vote no less than the clergy ; whereas such persons are legally disabled from acting under such a character." This protest is signed by six bishops, namely : those of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Gralloway, lloss, and Brechin. — Collier ii.. 784. The unexpected result which a*:tended these proceed- ings dissipated every hope of amalgamating and fusing together the episcopalian and presbyterian principles of Church government, and of combining their nuitual excellencies for the good of the whole nation. And ac- i 2\ »'nini( the i("i3 Lib. vcrsy was l.\ that iff'orciices lurch hy hy a fmv ion plat- tiliiin and to work it larw. convon- *iich the vantai^e, 1st epis- to make ' Synod 'pc^ct as rotcsted >r their y to its ollows : I of the an the :1 from signed ilSgOU', ier ii., oceed- f using les of lutual id ac- cordingly the attempt, in so iar as I can discovir, has never since been renewed. You will excuse, I trust, these references to historical events, and concede tlic; well understood fact, that for the divine and the statesman the voice ot* history is the voic!! of wisdom ; that in this manner the pri;8ent gen(^r- ation is instruct(nl by the experiimee of the past, and that the historical page presents to lis the footsteps of Divine Providence treading among the nations of the earth. Now, T think I may claim to have proved in the fore- going observations the second jnopositlon which I have above enunciated, namely : that a jn'otestant bishop cannot, according to the principles of his own Church, exercise a sole pov.(;r or authority in matters pertaining to discipline. 'J'he ])ractice of antiquity, the. constitution and laws of the Church of England, and the uniform discipline of the E})Isco])al Church in Scotland, tend to eoniirm and establish this important position. 'J'he next thing to which I shall beg leave to call your attention, is the manner in which these two ac- knowledged principles of episcopacy, namely : the right of presbyters to be consulted in all impoi'tant matters healing on Church discipline, and the limited character of protestant ejnscopal authority, have been overlooked and disregarded by you in the initiatory measures which you were pleased to adopt for the formation of the Diocesan Synod of Nova Scotia. On the 10th of August, 1854, as I find by my journal, I received a notice from you, dated the 4th of the same month, enjoining me to call meetings of my congrega- tions for the purpose of electing two lay delegates, whom, with myself, you requested to attend at Halifax on the 11th of October following, in order to consider the expe- diency of constituting a Diocesan Assembly or Synod for this Diocese. I confess to you that on reading this order my emotions were of the most painful charaLter. I I 1 '•I t 22 I fc'It at onre tli.it a rtulc liaiul luul swcjif across \\w fair but IVa^ilc fonn of our youtlil'ul Zioii ; tluit a (Icspcrato violciuc had hen u ollcrcd to hrr well Itah.iuTd or^ani/a- tiou ; and that \\vr principles and expcricuco had been alike sli<;htcd and overlooked. This ^.Inj^vdar .md uuprcccdcntt d order involves in- fructiouH of a most t*eriou« eharaiter ai-iiini-t the right>* and ]:rivile^e« of your clergy and the disciplin of the Church of our affections, 1. ]^y assuming to yourself the i^o/c authority of com- manding the attendance of the hiity, you deprive d your clergy of that privilege of voting with you on all matter!* of discipline", M'hie-h the custemi e)f anti([uity and the present constitution of the moth'.T Church establish as our rightful inheritane'c. Without one-e c«nsultin<>: u» in our collective capacity, you resolved by your OAvn mere motion to introduce a most startlin;'' chamje inte> our organized system, llave Ave not a right to com])lain that Ave have thus been surreptitiously detrae.ded of our professie)nal immunities, and at your bielding actually made instrumental in the process of our oAvn degrada- tion. What rendered the process doubly oflensivo was the fact, Avhich, no doubt, Avas nuant by you to have its due effect, — the fact that there Ave-re at the meeting tuo hiy- men for every clergyman. Consequently if any Rev.- brother attempted to assert the right and privih'gc under discussion, ho would at once have been outvoted. Sup- posing that the Lt. -Governor of this Province, or any other Lt. -Governor similarly situated, had ordered on his own mere motion the different sections of the country to elect at once tico members to attenel the session of the Legislative Council for every one of the present mem- bers ; and supposing further, that he should preside at the first meeting in person, to see that the votes of the ncAV comers Avere duly recorded — Avhat Avould be the effect V n the legitimate members of that body, or what il vcvmt.iMmmmm ■V' ■ ■"iinie " ■os.s t\w fuiv [ cl( spciatc '»ii<^I been our vol^(■,s in- ''!(' lights " of the y of com- iyvas the ' ifs clue fico lay^ y Rev, under Sup- er any red on ountry of the inein- ide at of the •c the what 23 would coustltuf ional jurists say? I faury 1 poreeivo their asfouish-d ionlis and cloui^atcd faces. His cxcel- U'ncy would luiv« rii-^eiL 41). h a storm about his head as would ^iv( JitPi paiuful recollecfious for the rest of his life. And yit Nueh direct violence offered fhe eon- stitutiou of file i'r.>viuw, in the rase supposed, raiuiot and does not surpass in the measure of its arl)itrary des- potism tiie aet of Avronjjjful oppression with which you iultiated the Synodical moveuient. We had just as good a right as yourself to he cousulted about that great change in our disei})liue, which contemi)lates the lulmis- missiou aud voting of the laitv, in our ('hur h asscuihlies. And when you ov(>rlooked this important step at the first origin of your Synodical project, you depri\ed us of our rights, despi;?ed our privileges, and cast disre.sj)ect ^ and dishonour on our order. You connnitted a grievous wrong, which you can neither recall nor redress. 2. Again, you have transgressed that principle of our Church which denies to any of its bishops a sole power or authority. It has been alreiidy proved that the arbi- trary extent of authority was repudiated by the ancient Church as well as by protest/int episcopacy. It does, not exist in Great J^ritain. Supposing the Archbishop of Canterbury assumed, without consulting any of his brethrcui, the sole responsibility of issuing to the clergy of his province an order similar to that which we nveivod in August, 1854, what may we suppose would be the effect .'' Such an illegal and unconstitutional mandate would bo nnivers illy disregarded, and it is very probable that his Grace would receive more than a severe repri- mand for his pains. And yet, in this poor Province;, so far remov(>d from the centre of government, you feel no hesitation, it a]>pears, in doing violence to the well un- derstood principles of our Church, simply, I ])resume, because you are not restrained by law. At all c^vents you have con\ inced some of your clergy that no portion of the external order of our Zion is exempt from the I 24 m \ danger of chnni'o and innovation wlionovor it may s(MMn good to you to alter the presrnt airo' nirnt. 'I'he exorcise of the sole authority in each i..jil all of these* particulars will leave the whole n s])())islhility with you. 3. Further, the admission of the laity in the propor- tion of two to one into our deliherative nieetinu's t)r visita- tions for the purj)ose of votinj;-, is an iuno\ation as startling as it is non-episcopal. Episcopacy, in th(> pro- testant acceptation of the term, has }>assed through many severe ordeals, both in th(^ ancic^nt and the latter ages, and has not unfrequ(>ntly be(^n thought to he hut ill-fitted as a system to present truth to the m orld, or to preserve it intact from error. Yet I believe none of the most strenuous advocates aud su])pt)rt(^rs of that system ever contemplated the possibility of impi'oving its general usefulness, or of insuring its int(\grity by any proposal to open its portals more widely for the admis- sion of lay influence in its deliberative assemblit^s. Even the Eong Parliament, when they pc^titioned the King, Chas. E (in November, 1648, at Carisbrook, just two months before his execution), for certain modifications in the Book of Common Vi'«^yt'i*» and in the chaiacter or privileges of the established Church — even that dominant body did not venture so far in their demands as to ask for the admission of the laity into the Synods or convo- cations of the establishment. Whatcner may have been their views regarding the application of episcopacy to the condition of the nation, as a means of religious and moral improvement, yet they seem never to have thought of developing its practical utility by the sacrifice of ai.y principle or axiom of its theoretical construction. 'I'he anci<; nt theory of the "^vhole system was still sacrc^d in their eyes ; although we, who only read of the animus which guided their movements, might have inferred from concurrent circumstances that their demands Mould 'have been more unreasonable, if not directly subversive >of the whole venerable fabric. 25 1^^ '/'ho J^ii you. propor- >i" visi ta- ll ioji Jjy M'o j>ro- lllJ'OllirJi t' JaftcT 'x' I)ut 'I. or to lODo of of that >n)vii]nr hy any JKven Khlir^ St tn^o '«itions tcr or >inant ask 311 vo- bcon •y to and ii.i^ht Tho 1 in mis rod Mid ive But it now appears that an innovation, from uhicb even tho opponi^nts of episcopacy shrunk in times of national trouljk; and disaster, is nroposc^d and practised in times of i)cacc and national [prosperity by its i'riends, supporters and administrators ; and all this on the single plea of developing our system I Developing our systeia indeed ! It looks much more like changing or abolish- ing it. What would be the effect of a similar development if applied by the sole jK)wer of the presi".« of control ti^'-l'" ^'"'"''' "'"'nrs onfov «l«>nur to it. exte, ion to ^""^ ,r't^-r^ ' n-u! ' , -ho f ? asscmWio.,Io„lyi^3°"tonT '°"'''''^'' "»'' <1<>1 it." to of beauty anrl intes^ritv n .,y.-l^-'"*^" ■'^■■■me -, three distin,, ;I,t™i f;, J"'""-' "f Joarned «'U1 known and venerahlo T "nMrtiire f™,,, ■'^ ; KM '" i^ui^jr sacred offloo K , '. . '"^'^ ^'^'f' insMiar- presence or consent on ." m' .''^ '"""*""' "'''hout the r jenptural and ,vell hala ced ™; ''""^''-^''rinnism tlat fathers estaWished i„ the m„ 1''''''''''^ '''"■"'' "" ^""e- •»«'°"- It M-ould be unbeeomt' ■"'''"'>' "' ""> ^"fol pilose consequences cannot n^ u ^ '"'^ contention ^= *■ - '- rS,i^ i ■ '^0 pro- '•- "^ <^'njoy faf;t the nlity the ^'^i- and ^litatfon above, earned »ni our f^» are your s'par- their " our ^lafed niti've or in icully you that oi'e- 'for- hito >ath nee ? is rto )n, "d. of et 27 forward as much as shall lie in you, qnietncss, love, and peace among all num." And what is worse than all you have destroyed the beauty and integrity of our beloved Church. I am fully sensible of the unfavourable character of these charges, and of the sinister light in aa hich they place your proceedings before the episcopal public of this Provinc(\ But b(^ pleased to remember that in this as in many other ciises you are the aggressor. You told me that my Parish *' is in a great measure separated from the body of the Church in this Province, inasmuch as it repudiates the authority of the Synod." 'J'he cor- rectness of this imputation I positively deny. AVc are not separated from the body of the Church. AVe are exactly, in point of doctrine and discipline, where we were thirty-five years ago. Thus much I can most solemnly testify. And if any separation has unfortu- nately taken place in the matter you are not only responsible for this evil, but also the actual perpetrator of it. You have gone aside from following the; princi- ples of our pure apostolic system. In former times — in the days for instance of Chrys- ostom — you would have been subject to deposition for this delinquency, and left to offer the best justification in your power for so flagrant an attempt to produce schism in the body of Christ. Against the course of argument which has been pursued in the foregoing remarks, and which is based on the fundamental principles of our Church, no case of expediency ought for a moment to be admitted. For any reason or argument that might be adduced for altering or chanmng our foundation might be converted by ingenious subtlety, into a cause for abolishing our system altogether, as being wholly inapplicable tc the circumstances and inevitable condition of colonial society. You surely are not prepared for this contingency. Or am I wrong in supposing that this could not have been the object of your mission across the Atlantic ? 28 •t Hi . .1 'i HtMico I conceive that the arguments which are stated in your *' llL'inarks on Diocesan Synods," and which more or less bear on their very surface the marks of cxnjdiencv, can have Httlo or no weiijht in d.^cidinj' this important question. You there state, page 7, " Synods are part of the constitution of the Church, and were regularly held in the early ages." In this one sentence there is an amount of sophistry, which dero- gates much from its weight and application to our pre- sent condition. From reading it we are expected or rathor led to infer that the ancient Svnods, which con- stitutionally characterized the episcopal system, were of the same nature and composition, were convened for the same objects and at the same regular intervals as the Svnod of Nova Scotia. This much is not said. ft' It is merely implied, and, by the most subtle species of sophistry, is left to produce an incorrect impression on the niind of the reader. That the ancient Synods form a precedent or pattern for that of Nova Scotia is a most transparent tallacy. All meetings of this character of which wc road in the primitive (Jhurch historians, were convened for some specific object, to settle doubts about some points of doctrine, or to judge and decide on some case of hereti- cal teaching. The Nova Scotia Synod meets regularly every two years for the supervision of the general affairs of the Diocese. The ancient Synods met to decide on the reception of lapsed penitents and the rejection of the hesitating and the doubtful. That of this Province meets for the purpose of " adapting our- selves to the circumstances of a new country, and of this progressive age." The ancient Synods in their deliber- ative capacity were composed of only bishops and presbyters. That of Nova Scotia contains twice as many laymen, bearing votes, as there are clergy. Now, Rt. Rev. Sir, I have made diligent enquiry into this question, and consider myself in a position to ■'%( qn se nr vhich are ^"<^'i," and J^(- marks fl.^cidin P-J.^L' 7, "■^'h, and this one |i(>h doro- our pre- •(^f'tod or »'Hi con- ^vcro of ^nod for "1 Nervals ot said. >i^fi-s of 5sion on pattorn fallacy. ' in the 1' sonic ints of heretf- ruiarjy ■en oral iPt to d the lat of : our- fthis iber- and as uiry 1 to 29 challonu^o you publicly to brmj^ forward one instance from the early records of the Ch'irch to prove that a meetlnsjf or meetings similar in every respect to the Nova Scotia Synod, — having the same obj(?cts in view, composed of the same classes of ])ersons, ever assemhletl or were called together in primitive times. In so far as I am aware you cannot find one. Indeed you (;on(;ede as much in the notes at p. 4 of your pamphlet. The quotations from Collier and Burns on the same page seem to be decisive on this point. For neither of these high authorities makes mention of the presence of the laity. And your remark at the foot of p. 4 convinces me that you have not up to this moment fully reahzed the immeasurabk^ difference, which the absence or pre- sence of the laity in our deliberative assemblies, is cal- culated to efft;ct, in the nature and character of our apostolical Church. You there state in the most cursory manner. " In the Synods as they are now restored, the laity have a voice, hut I presume the propriety of this addition to the original constitution is generally admitted." No, Rt. Rev. Sir, It is not generally admitted At all events there are many in the western section of your Diocese Avho will oppose it to the last, as a dangerous innovation. Indeed I do not know a better exc^mpllfi- cation of Dr. Newman's doctrine of development as illustrated In one of the " Tracts for the Times." The argument of ''general admission," is a Roman Catholic doctrine, and Is put forAvard as a cause for changing or adding to the fundamental truths of our holy faith. It ought not, therefore, , to find any place in reformed theology. And if our Church system, *' In consequence of our peculiar position as an unestahlished bran.-h of a Church established in England," admits of fundamental chimges on the mere motion and sole judgmc>nt of any of its Bishops, then it may be assumed as an Incontro- vertible fact, that it is not, and cannot be adapted to 30 ir 1 i " the circnmstanccs of this progressive age." If you change \t, you may aholish it ; or rather you admit the fact, that others may change it and alter it, so that our chihiren of the fourth generation cannot find in it any trace or mark of our reformed episcopacy. But surely no sound Churchman will admit that a principle which may ultimately lead to the total sub- version of our ecclesiastical system, can be sound or beneficial under any circumstances. It is the peculiar excellence of reformed episcopacy that it has not only restored the doctrine suid discipline of the first and purest ages of the Gospel, but has also rc^taincd them in their full integrity for upwards of three hundred years ; whilst other denominations have during the same period introduced many modifications and changes in both. It has been reserved for the synodical movement and its supporters to make the first inroad upon the symmetry of our scriptural order, to lay unholy hands upon the ark of our covenant, and to despoil it of its beauty forever. I can find no example in early Christian literature to justify your assertion that such synods as you are attempting to force upon us *' are part of the constitution of the Church, and were regularly held in the early ages." If in these words vou refer to the xxxvii. of the Apostolical Canons,* in which it is enjoined that a synod of bishops be held twice a year, then I must say that the reference is extremely disingenuous ; inasmuch as the object of such synods was to examine articles of faith, and to remove causes of controversy. N(>ither presbyter nor layman had any decisive voice in those synods. Or again, if you refer to the Canons of Theodore the 4th, Archbishop of Canterbury in 673, which enjoin, like those of apostolic origin, that "a synod be assembled twice in the year,"f or to tho>/. of Archbp. * B<^verolre's Canons. Vol. I., p. 25. f Johnson's Canons. Vol. I., Anno G73. Laj an^ on I eq) uu lo^ al< «yl I 31 If you M>nit the (that our \n ft any period th. It «nd its ninetry on the beauty 'lire to >u are tution early vii. of hat a 5t say much les of ither hose s of 673, ^nod bbp. Lanfraur, which wel'c adopted at Winchester in 1071, and which established a synod in every diocese to meet once a year, I must repeat that the nference here is equally ina])j)licable, and display^^ an equal d.gree of unfairness. From such synods the hiity were scrupu- lously excluded. The object of their nu>etiuy; was altogethc;r dilti-rent from that which the Nova Scotia synod proposes to subserve. And if it were otherwise, I question much whether the English synods oi' the mode of condactinsf them before the Reformation ou<>ht to be aduiittcd as an example to us who hold to a reformed episcopacy. Some years ago a gentleman of the name of Ward Avas expelled from the University of Oxford because amoui' other stranhnid. 2. That no reliyicvis despotism can be exercised in any colony of the JJritish Knipire, because of !< tters- patent from the Queen : ami 3. That the vohmtary priii('ij)le must be admitted and recognized as a fundamental axiom in our Church system. lender these circumstances, \vhat is tlie M'isc st course to pursue '{ Say you : give us compulsory laws, — jrivo us a synod to whose views "the courts of law vill mve effect with reference to its members ;" and then you seem to imagine that all things would work together for good to our Church. Here; we differ fofo culo. 'J'ho present crisis in our transitive state calls loiully for the assertion and recognition of those ancient distinctive principles which have charactrrized pure and scri])tural episcopacy throughout all ag< s. (.'are should be taken that the religious and pur(>ly ecclesiastical elements should be cultivated and M-ell understood. Let us fall back upon these simple and immovable pri]uii)les wlujn other guide's are inoperative or withdrawn. 1-et us cherish the rciigious sentiment as the pearl of great price, the distinguishing feature of our system. Let all exterior arrangement Ix; made subservient to the promo- tion and inculcation of this leading object. And more especially let us avoid the folly of proclaiming to the world, as vou seem to delight to do, that our reformed episcopacy is Inadequate to the teaching of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, without the sanction of human, laws. The very course which you are pursuing, the exhibition with which you favored the public in the Council Chamber in 18G3, prove to the world at large that you have no faith In the grace of consecration, — that vou do not rely with implicit confidence on the Saviour's promise, and that you imagine our system and our teaching to be incomplete as a means of salvation. 34 Witliout the intorvontlon of human U^ufislation. The inferences which are thus deducibh^ from your ticti(ms, and which are clearly perceived by shn^vd men of other denominations, are highly detrimental to the suc- cessful progress of our Church ; inasmu li as an argu- ment is thus placed in the hands of those who do not love our Zion, against its spiritual character and its scriptural eihciency as a means of grace and salvation. It does not become me as a presbyter to prescribe or point out to you as my bishop any line of duty or course of action. But, if 1 might suggest anything that would seem worthy of your attention, I would say : Let the Bishop go more frequently and more unreservedly among his people ; let him hold promiscuous meetings of clergy and laitv in different sections of his diocese ; let Cluirch matters be fully and fairly discussed at such reunions ; let opinions be expressed and advice given ; and let all be done with the sole object of building up our Zion in faith, unity and love, to the glory of God and the salva^ tion of souls — let all this he done with brotherly kind- ness and charity, without vote or controv^usy, and I will venture to predict that in a iew years more good, more peace, more prosperity will be experienced than could be produced by one hundred synods. For we as a peo- ple are extremely jealous of any measures or men that may threaten in the remotest degree to restrict our Christian liberty. But we reverence and love those who anxiously and diligently instruct us in the ways of truth and godliness. Whilst such modes of proceeding are in perfect accord- ance with all the details of the episcopal system, and are also more promising in their results, I cannot really per- ceive the absolute necessity of a legal assembly for regu- lating the affairs of our communion. And what, after all, has the Church Assembly or Synod as yet effected for the good of our holy cause ? What case has it decided, what mission has it opened, 35 it jo h ? wViiit nu'iisurc of pcatc, ])roi>r<'ss or ])rosp('iity has It ac- (•<)rnj)H,sli((l ! It has now hccii in oju-ration twelve years, and in so far as nsei'nl results are concerned it inav • * he eonij^ared to a very expensive estahlishnient, without any ohject to suhserve. Indeed, I will venture to say that if it had all the provincial and imperial sanctions which have hccn challeni^ed for it, its functions would still nmiain in a manner dormant ; at least in so far as its provisions mii»ht apply to the ''oH'endinj^ clergy." For it is a certain fact that in this i)rovInce an ottending (denivinan would he condemned hefore he canu! undi-r the coi,nii/aiice of the Synod ; and no vote or w hitew asli- iuijj of that hody would ai>ain render him acceptahle to his ])(H)})le. Eri^o eni hono f You tell me that the niission of \V ilmot will he ch)sed after my removal. W^hetlu'r a future rector will suc- ceed me in this parish, wheinncr it may ph as(> the Divine J^rovidenco to terndnate iny connection with it, will depend (;ntirely on the corporation, w no, you n»ay he well assured, will iealouslv "vvatc-h over the t^xercise of (?very right and privilege which the ])rovincial statute accords to th(n)i. I earnestly hope that your \ aticinations as to the nature of our i'uture prospects may not he r(>- alized. 1 pray most sincerely that when the hand w hich pens these words shall have heen mouhh ring in its kin- dred dust, God will rais(> up some denoted minister of His word and sacraments to serve and teach in the truth the people of this p;irish. And I trust that the day is far distant when C.'hurchmen in Nova Scotia w ill })ermit a self-supporting mission to rem ran \acant. . In a few years* the parish of Wilmot in all proha})ility will look to 110 source heyond its own hordcrs for support to its rector ; that support even at this time pioniising to he such as would at no very distant dav satisfy the wants of a man of moderate views and expectations. The argument on which you insist in order to huluce us to contribute more lib(u*ally towards the funds of the S 36 Dioccsiiii Cliiirch Society, will produce iii this parish an effect the very rt^verse of that n\ hich you wish and in- tend. For charital)le contrihutionH are not generally demanded untU'r the contingency of any kind of threat. And if we yielded to such an argument in the remotest degr{>e, we sliould be in the condition of a subject peo- ple\ acknoMledi;;ing your rijifht to tax us at your own will and jdeasure, — a privilejre or rii^ht whic h I am very sure the Churchmen of the dioet^se will not accord to any bishop, much less to one not elected by tlumiselves. However, I exceediui^dy rei(rt>t that you have forc('d us into a position which has tin; apjM>arance of beini;- in some respects anta«roiiiKtic to that Society whose j)raise is in all the churches ; because I claim to ha\c bi'cn, of all the den'vmen in IJritish North America, the vrv first to sui^gest and advocate the establishment of Diocesan Church Societies. And I nijoice exceedingly that und(>r Divine Providence they have been every- where ])roductive of so much good to the interests of the Church and the cause of ndigious truth. May they long- be instrumental in promoting and upholding the know- ledges that maketh wise unto salvation ! Yet, b(^ pleased to remember that this parish sohimnly protested against the Synod, — a proti^st which you refused to receive, although presented by me, tlie rector. Vou now tell us that the Synod is established, and we infer that all the missionary work of the Church must now and henceforth be under the direction of or in con- nection with synodi; al ej)iscopacy. Can you in reason or justice ask us authoritatively to contribute to the; pro- motion of a system against which wc have protested .'' Or can you deny that in withholding further contribu- tions M^e are acting in perfect consistency with the posi- tion into which we are forced i 1 use the word forced deliberately. For this parish has to complain that up to this hour we have not received words of encouragement or kindly advice from our -^^tt AV-liJ iJy;..^ .:.-' ^'.11^^^ '37 })is| '"V- V"ura,lc|,.,.,,,.^j^^ us at IM^ 1 ^ "' ''" oniiir'r.if...... .1 oil ''■'"W;.a"<.m,,lv„f »,•';;,,•;!'''''' ""^''"ty to fin,] « on visits rul "ichiti ^vhich vctnv.,] ,} 12 • >^(o](lint CMC l)()\vf>r nf vvuw, II f'^^' "'tact tic sm'.Mf 1 "'^^ Jihvavs '"partial obi foi-mahl, And I iUVC to th r ■':. '/^"' .'I'- 1™. „n ,,:'•'"'"' ' <^ «pint of U'tiO 11 IS ITiO] o any ■(' con- «'.^':. "'-'-•««,..„,. {'■•,:":'.'•''' ';'-'»-i-.s:,} ii vol I pn\i]i riii- ''•^",- "f your i.|,.,,,J.' ';':.'■ 'S"'"'<1 H,,. „,,i ^^f'^ should' ho r '' b •/''^'>: '^pondiny in trod yonr 'Pft'tcd and prcsbvt '*^"'8" anion«-st ciicro](.,s on th '^■<' anxious that th ]>r(-s( incd. Y icy ifs and CSC on arc criaii f us 'PiscoiKicv: th ^^;s.;pcrcroo,uo,^ ,,,,,, Piscopal prcsl)vt( "" ^yish to prcs(-Vv(. of 'danism oi- <;ss^ivef;^:^r!.^"^i-.H^:'-^-:-^^^ 'P» and to con \'ort -o-cc^xiMi novel tcs/« r.^ u , '"'^s^^ s view of 3S the case, therefore, you are the very last man in Nova Scotia who has a right to chalk'iige their position, or to question their orthodoxy. Well and truly may they a})ply to you that scriptural saying : " Cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou s('(> clearly to pull the mote out of thy brother's eye." Now I would, in conclusion, submit it to any man of ordinary comprehension, either in or out of onr commu- nion, to decide whethei' your course of action or that of my parishioners is the more; conformable to that systerri of faith and discipline whicth are placed in the kee])ing of our Church, and whose Great Head is the same yester- day, to-day and forever ? The com])osition of this letter, be assured, lias Ixhmi to nu! an irksome task, uhich 1 und(>rtook with great reluctance. But I felt that its publication had become a mattt^r of necessity, in order to vindicate th(^ present position of my ])arish before my reverend brethren and the churchmen ot the dioc(^s(? at large. And 1 remain, Right Revd. Sir. Yours faithfullv, i Jl J. R. ■^ NoTK. — The worko which have been consulted in the compoRition of the foregoiuf^ letter are these: Beverepc'« Apostolical CanouK. 2 vols, (olio, Gr. I't Lat., Oxou. Wu'i; Kusebius Pamphilus, So