6

6

pastor? Bishop Sherlock's words to Dr. Doddridge, in a letter of May 11, 1751, bearing upon the introduction of Episcopacy into North America, are, Sure I am that the care' (of the Episcopal Church in the then New England by the Bishop of London) is improperly lodged for a Bishop to live at one end of the world, and his Church at another, must make the office very uncomfortable to the Bishop, and, in a great measure, useless to the people.'

66

Admitting that we are, as indeed we claim to be, in connexion with the Anglican Church, a Bishop, within an easily accessible distance, is a necessity to us. If in any part of the world there existed a body of Episcopalians inaccessible to the periodical visits of a Bishop, it would be essential that such community should possess its own chief pastor. One such flock, in order to a sustained existence, would require this; still more the many congregations scattered throughout South America.

"On this continent, exclusive of British Guiana, there are 241—on the West Coast there are 9—clergymen of the Anglican Church, each one of whom, amidst opposing elements, exists as a centre of influence, in great part, however, inoperative, by the absence of that organization of the Church, by the presence of which alone she can occupy whatever openings may from time to time occur, and by which alone she can faithfully and consistently discharge her sacred mission. Two places comparatively near us might now have been receiving the ministrations of clergymen of our Church, if we had had amongst us a Bishop, gifted with an Apostle's spirit, to send men to occupy them for Jesus Christ's sake. Moreover, the indirect influence of our Church on those amongst whom we reside would be greatly increased by the presence and work of a Bishop. Now to the world we present a feeble, struggling body, wanting a vital element; and the astonishment is, not that we are thus weak and comparatively powerless, but that, in our maimed state, we maintain ourselves at all." 2 A meeting of the Anglican congregation at Valparaiso has been held, we learn, since the issue of the chaplain's letter, at which it was resolved to memorialize the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, and-for the present-to take steps to procure the occasional services of any Bishop en route to or from his diocese. The other congregations on the West Coast have been invited to co-operate.

ON THE MUTUAL RELATION OF DIOCESAN AND PROVINCIAL SYNODS.

BY THE BISHOP OF GRAHAMSTOWN.

[THE following exposition of Report I. of the Lambeth Conference is taken from a letter by Bishop Cotterill to the Anglo-African, in reply to a writer in England, who had complained "that the recommendations of

1 Or rather were.

The number is now over 30.

2 Dr. Dennett also states in this letter: "The pastor of the German Church here established is empowered to confirm, and members of our own Communion are, not to my surprise, being prepared for Confirmation at his hands."

the Lambeth Report leave to the Diocesan Synod nothing but the shadow and semblance of authority, and would transfer all real Church government to the Provincial." "No one," says the Bishop, "would object more strongly than I should to such a result." After pointing out the mutual relation and several functions of Diocesan and Provincial Synods in the Primitive Catholic Church and in the present English, he proceeds :-]

"It is necessary, whilst we give due weight both to the precedents of the early Church and to the system of the English Church, to follow these, not by servile imitation, but by applying the principles to our circumstances. It is evident that the extent of our Colonial dioceses, the difficulties of communication, the differences of the circumstances in which the several dioceses of a province are placed, the danger of excessive centralization, which would be a far greater evil here than in England, or in the Primitive Church, in which the dioceses were small and numerousall these things indicate that each diocese must have a share in the actual legislation of the Church, which has never been allowed it under the English system. And, indeed, in the development of the federal system of the Church throughout the world, the extent and nature of the federation has been very much determined by the political relations of the different countries, which can never be neglected without serious injury to the Church itself. In England, the dioceses, being all part of a country under the same laws, and with the same civil institutions, have little or no independent action. In the United States the federal union of the dioceses is very closely assimilated to that of the States. In the Colonial Church we must make allowances for different civil and political relations; and these, as well as the other circumstances I have mentioned, would make the entire subordination of the dioceses to the provinces which exist in the Church of England very inexpedient, if not impossible. Our federation must resemble much more nearly that of our brethren in the United States.

"The first necessity of such a federation, in which the government is conjointly that of the diocese and the province, is obviously (to use the words of Mr. J. S. Mill in reference to such federal government) that the constitutional limits of the authority of each should be precisely and clearly defined.' For this the Lambeth Committee provided, first, by affirming a general principle, which is the key to all the difficulties of the question. They recommend that, in order to prevent any collision or misunderstanding, the spheres of action of the several Synods should be defined on the following principle, viz. that the Provincial Synod should deal with questions of common interest to the whole province, and with those which affect the communion of the dioceses with one another and the rest of the Church; whilst the Diocesan Synod should be left free to dispose of matters of local interest, and to manage the affairs of the diocese.' From this principle the Committee drew certain conclusions, which were the result of a very elaborate comparison of the experience and history of Synodical action in the United States and British Colonies, with those laws of our English system which have to be adapted to our circumstances. The conclusions were the following:

"1. All alterations in the Services of the Church, required by the cir

cumstances in the Province, should be made or authorized by the Provincial Synod, and not merely by the Diocesan.

"2. The rule of discipline for the Clergy of the Province should be framed by the Provincial Synod.

"3. Rules for the trial of Clergy should be made by the Provincial Synod; but, in default of such action on the part of that Synod, the Diocesan Synod should establish provisional rules for this purpose. The Provincial Tribunal of Appeal should be established by the Provincial Synod.

4. In questions relating to patronage, the tenure of Church property, parochial divisions, arrangements, officers, &c. there should be joint action of the Diocese and the Province; the former making such regulations as may be best suited to develop local resources, the latter providing against the admission of any principle inexpedient for the common interests of the Church.

"5. The erection of a new Diocese within the limits of an existing Diocese should proceed by general rules established by the Provincial Synod.

66

6. The question of the election of a Bishop it is unnecessary here to consider, as it is submitted to another Committee.'

"It is, of course, impossible for me here to enter into the details necessary for a complete explanation of these questions: I can only touch briefly on the several points.

66

"1. In regard to the first of these conclusions, it is well known that uniformity in Divine service is considered by the English Church not a merely diocesan matter, but one affecting the whole communion. Different uses existed in different dioceses before the Reformation; but because of the intimate relation between ritual and doctrine, they are no longer permitted. And this principle of the English Church was expressly affirmed by the second of these resolutions, passed at the first session of the Conference, to which I alluded in my first letter. It affirmed, That, in order to the binding of the Churches of our Colonial empire, and the Missionary Churches beyond them, in the closest union with the mother Church, it is necessary that they receive and maintain, without alteration, the standards of faith and doctrine as now in use in that Church. That, nevertheless, each Province should have the right to make such adaptations and additions to the services of the Church as its peculiar circumstances may require; provided, that no change or addition be made inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Book of Common Prayer, and that all such changes be liable to revision by any Synod of the Anglican Communion in which the said Province shall be represented.' It must be observed, however, that, in the Report, a certain opening is left for diocesan action as to the services of the Church, which was the result of much discussion, particularly as regards the adaptation of the Prayer-book to Missionary work. The Report was so worded as to leave it open to a Bishop, with his Synod, to make provisional changes, which, however, would have no binding force, but would be merely allowed until they should be ratified by a Provincial Synod. The joint action of the diocese and the province was considered expedient, in order to prevent any change or addition being

made,' however unintentionally, which should be inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Book of Common Prayer;' and, for the same reason, if at any future period any Synod of the Anglican Communion should be held in which the province should be represented, the Conference considered that it should have the power of revising these changes, and of disallowing any that might seem to have departed in any principle from the original standard.

“2. I can hardly suppose there will be any objection to the second conclusion. The rule or canon' of discipline for the clergy is a subject that our Diocesan Synod has not ventured to handle at present, and yet in the uncertainty which still exists as to the application of ecclesiastical law we much require some definite rule. It would be, in fact, the adaptation to our circumstances of the canons and constitutions which were framed by the English Provincial Synods, and of other ecclesiastical laws, statute and others, so far as they affect the clergy. For example, the English law against clergymen engaging in secular pursuits may be thought to require some relaxation in an unendowed and unestablished Church. But these are matters of common interest to our whole Communion, and ought not to be decided by a single diocese.

“5. Much the same may be said as to the rules for the trial of clergy. In the absence of any Provincial Synod, we have made rules for ourselves; but it would evidently be conducive to unity of discipline if some general method should be adopted by the concurrent action of the several dioceses.

"4. The subject to which the fourth conclusion refers is very comprehensive; so large, indeed, as to give ample scope for the powers of a Diocesan Synod. On these questions most of the time of our Diocesan Synods has been spent, and with regard to them any attempt to enforce exact uniformity of practice might be very injurious. The second clause of the conclusion sufficiently shows that there was no wish to abridge the freedom of diocesan action. If our Diocesan Synod becomes a shadow, because some of its measures are liable to be disallowed, as admitting a 'principle inexpedient for the common interests of the Church,' then the Cape Parliament is a shadow, because its acts are liable to be disallowed by the Imperial Government. It is probable, indeed, in questions that affect the tenure of property, that those dioceses which are within the same civil government will find it expedient, as it has been found in New Zealand, to agree on some common scheme, in order that Acts of the local Legislature may be obtained, as they have been obtained there, to prevent litigation.

"5. That some common rules for the subdivision of dioceses should be made by the Provincial Synod is evident, for two reasons ;-first, because the formation of a new diocese affects the provincial constitution; secondly, because a new diocese may include portions of two original dioceses. It is clearly a matter of common interest that the whole province should be suitably divided. But this does not exclude the action of the Diocesan Synod. On the contrary, the consent of the diocese which is to be subdivided would be the first element in the question. The rule of the General Convention in the United States-which determined the form in which the conclusion was framed-provides that the Diocesan Convocation shall decide which portion shall form the new diocese, the central body having merely the ratification of that which is originated within the diocese.

"6. The Report on the election of Bishops recommends that the election should be by the clergy and laity of the diocese in Synod.

"Under these heads, therefore, abundant scope is left for diocesan action, and there is not the least reason for the jealousy and suspicion which the writer of the letter endeavours to excite. But, besides these, there are what are called in the Report matters of local interest,' and 'the affairs of the diocese,' in regard to which the Synod of the diocese is left perfectly free. Our various Boards, with all the financial, educational, and charitable questions with which they deal, and which have already occupied so much attention in our Synods, will be unaffected by provincial action. And when our organization is once settled, these will become the really important work of our Diocesan Synods. We shall not, I trust, go on for ever spending our energies on organization; it is, after all, but means to an end; and unless it enables us to labour more effectually for the extension of Christ's Kingdom, for teaching the ignorant, supporting the weak, and strengthening our bonds of brotherly communion, our organization, whatever be its form or its authority, will profit us very little."

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SECOND EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIA.

(From the Tasmanian Church News.)

Ir has been announced, by the Metropolitan Bishop of Sydney, that he intends to invite a Conference of Bishops on the occasion of the approaching consecration of Sydney Cathedral. We hear of the announcement with pleasure, if only for this reason-that it indicates a re-assertion of that relationship between the Metropolitan and his suffragans which at one time seemed to be but timidly acknowledged, if it was not practically disowned. A year or two ago, it seemed as if the only "province" which was to be recognised at Sydney was the colony of New South Wales; and a new and very "colonial" sense was to be given to the time-honoured phrase, "a Provincial Synod." The troubles connected with Capetown and Natal were thought to have unsettled all the rights of Metropolitan Bishops; and it was thought better, we suppose, to claim nothing, in order that nothing might be refused. But new courage and hope seem to have revived. It is seen that, though a Metropolitan Bishop be not clothed by the law of the State with "coercive jurisdiction," he can still exercise a real power and influence over those who are willing to acknowledge him for their Metropolitan; and it is remembered that, in the dioceses of Australia and Tasmania, such acknowledgment has always been cheerfully given to the see of Sydney. The same respectful welcome which was given to our present Metropolitan when he visited the dioceses of his own proper "province" in 1860, would, we are persuaded, be rendered to him were he to revisit them now; and the response which was given to his reverend predecessor, by the five Suffragan Bishops who met at Sydney upon his summons in 1850, was surely not more cordial or unanimous than that which may be expected now that Brisbane, Goulburn,