Gambar halaman

with power, in connection with them, to organize a General Educational Society." The nineteenth anniversary of the Evangelical Knowlelge Society was likewise held in New York in October. The annual report set forth that the new works published by the society amounted to 2,497 pages. The treasurer's report announced that the receipts for the past year amounted to $40,998.32, and the expenditures to $39,596.31, leaving a balance of $1,402.01.

The Church of England continued to be greatly agitated by the case of Dr. Colenso, who, in the latter months of the year 1865, returned to his diocese of Natal. The Bishop of Capetown, as Metropolitan of the Anglican Church in North Africa, had offered to Colenso to have the sentence of deposition, which had been passed upon him by a synod of the South African bishops in 1865, revised either by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or by the bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland, or by such bishops of the Anglican communion throughout the British empire as could be assembled in London for the hearing of his case. As Colenso refused to avail himself of this of fer, the metropolitan issued a formal sentence of excommunication, reading as follows:

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, We, Robert, by Divine permission, Metropolitan of the Church in the province of Capetown, in accordance with the decision of the bishops of the province, in synod assembled, do hereby, it being our office and our grief to do so, by the authority of Christ committed unto us, pass upon John William Colenso, D. D., the sentence of the greater excommunication, thereby separating him from the communion of the Church of Carist so long as he shall obstinately and impenitently persist in his heresy, and claim to exercise the office of a bishop within the province of Capetown. And we do hereby make known to the faithful in Christ that, being thus excluded from all commu

nion with the Church, he is, according to our Lord's command, and in conformity with the provisions of the Thirty-third of the Articles of Religion, "to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as a heathen man and publican." (Matt. xviii. 17, 18.) Given under our hand and seal this 16th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1865.


The Metropolitan of Capetown notified the Anglican bishops of Great Britain, the British colonies, and the United States of this step. In England some of the bishops disapproved of the measure, while, as far as is known, those of the British colonies and the United States were unanimous in sanctioning it. From the senior bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States the following reply was received:

BURLINGTON, VT., May 4, 1966. To the Most Reverend Robert Gray, D. D., Lord Bishop of Capetown, and Metropolitan : the greater excommunication formally pronounced by you on John William Colenso, D. D., late Bishop of Natal, and addressed to me as the senior bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, has been received and placed on record.

MY DEAR LORD BISHOP: Your official statement of

On my own part, this painful and afflicting work of discipline is perfectly approved, as an act of solemn and imperative duty to the Church of God, and to

her divine Head and Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. And I cannot doubt that it is equally approved by all my brethren, whose sympathy and confidence in the firmness and fidelity of your whole course were so unanimously declared in the resolution passed at our last General Convention.

With my earnest prayer that the Holy Spirit of grace and consolation may guide and prosper all your arduous labors, and mercifully overrule this strange and mournful defection to the greater glory of the Redeemer, and the confirmation of His Church's absolute faith in the sacred Scriptures as the unerring Word of God, I remain, my dear Lord Bishop, with high regard, your friend and brother in Christ, [L. S.] JOHN H. HOPKINS,

Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States.

At the session of the convocation of Canterbury, which began on May 1, 1866, the Archbishop of Canterbury announced that he had received letters from the Bishop of Capetown and the Dean of Maritzburg, asking in substance the following questions: 1. Whether the Church of England hold communion with Dr. Colenso, and the heretical church which he is seeking to establish at Natal, or whether it is in communion with the orthodox bishops who, in synod, declared him to be ipso facto excommunicated, 2. Whether the acceptance of a new bishop on the part of the diocese of Natal, while BishopColenso still retains the letters-patent of the crown, would, in any way, sever the diocese from the mother Church of England. 3. Supposing the reply to the last question to be that they would not in any way be severed, what are the proper steps for the diocese to take to obtain a new bishop? The discussion of these questions showed that the bishops were any thing but agreed. The Bishop of Oxford wished all the three questions to be answered in a manly and hearty manner, while the Bishops of St. Asaph, Llandaff, St. Davids, Lincoln, Ely, and Peterborough, were opposed to immediate action. In the session, beginning June 26th, the discussion of the case was resumed. The Bishop of Oxford moved to reply, in answer to the first question submitted to the convocation, that the Church did not hold communion with Dr. Colenso, and that it did hold communion with the orthodox bishops of South Africa. A majority of the bishops were, however, opposed to committing themselves on the first part of the resolution, and by five against four votes adopted an amendment, declaring that they held communion with the Bishop of Capetown, and those bishops who with him declared Dr. Colenso to be ipso facto excommunicated. The lower house gave to this amendment a unanimous consent. In reply to the second question, the Bishop of Oxford moved the following declaration: "That as it has been decided, on appeal to the highest judicial court in this kingdom, on the one hand, that the Church in the province of Natal, in communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, is in the eye of the law a mere voluntary association; and, on the other hand, as the letters-patent do not profess to confer spiritual power, and have been declared by the court to convey no episcopal jurisdic

tion, it is the judgment of this house that the assent, if they so will.” The Bishop of Grahamsacceptance of a new bishop does not impair the town wrote “ to express bis general concurconnection or alter the relations existing be- rence in the views as to the election of a bishop tween the members of the Church in the prov- contained in the metropolitan's letter to the ince of Natal and the Church of England, dean.” The discussions extended over two provided : 1. That the bishop be canonically days. The final result was that the clergy consecrated according to the use of the Church present were evenly divided, seven voting for of England. 2. That there be no invasion of the election of the Rev. William Butler, Vicar the title of the Bishop of Natal conveyed by her of Wantage (of the diocese of Oxford), as bishop, majesty's letters-patent.”

and seven voting against such election, holding As regards the third question (the proper such a course to be illegal, and opposed to the ineasures to be taken to secure the election of advice of the convocation. Dean Green gave his a new bishop), the Bishop of Oxford proposed casting vote in favor of the election. Twentythat the House of Bishops should recommend: 1. eight laymen also voted for it. The dean then That an instrument should be prepared declara- pronounced that the Rev. William Butler had tory of the doctrine and discipline of the Church been duly elected. The congregation of St. of South Africa, which every priest and deacon John's Church, Pinetown, held a meeting, repuappointed to any oflite should be required to diated this election, ejected their incumbent, the subscribe. 2. That a godly and well-learned Rev. James Walton, for the part he had taken man should be chosen, with the consent of the in it, and then called upon Dr. Colenso to apcommunicants of the Church, to be the bishop. point a new minister. On October 30th, a meet3. That the person so selected should be pre- ing of the supporters of Dr. Colenso was also sented for consecration either to the Archbishop held at the cathedral, to protest against the elecof Canterbury or to the bishops of the Church tion, at which about 200 persons were present. in South Africa, as miglit be hereafter deemed A protest, the adoption of which was moved by most advisable. The Bishops of London, St. the Colonial Secretary, and seconded by the Davids, and others declared themselves opposed Secretary for Native Affairs, was unanimously to the appointment of a new bishop, but after agreed to. The protest declared that the clergy being submitted to some verbal alterations, the and laity concerned in the election had, by that first resolution of the Bishop of Oxford was act of legislation, renounced the queen's supremcarried by six to four. The second resolution acy, and forfeited their membership of the was also agreed to. The lower bouse assented Church of England. Dr. Colenso, on bis part, to both resolutions. Notwithstanding these contended that all persons taking part in conven: proceedings against him, Colenso continued to ticles or private meetings to consult on any perform his episcopal functions in his diocese. matter or course impeaching the doctrine of Of the seventeen clergymen of the diocese, only the Church of England or of the Book of Comone sided with him; but, on the other hand, mon Prayer, or of any part of the government or the secular authorities of the colony gave hiin discipline now established in the Church of all the support that was in their power. Colenso England, were ipso fucto excommunicated, in also obtained, in October, a decision in his terms of the 75th canon of the Church, and favor by the Master of the Rolls (Lord Romilly), that Dean Green and his supporters were who decided that the trustees of the Colonial therefore excommunicated by their own act Bishopric's Fund were obliged to pay to Dr. Co- in electing a bishop without her majesty's lenso the arrears of his salary which they had anthority. The English Government instructed deemed themselves authorized to cut off. But the ofiicers of the crown in the colony to obabout the same time when this decision was serve a strict neutrality in the controversy. rendered, the majority of the clergy and laity Another controversy in the Church of Engof Natal took the last step for a complete sev- land, which, during the past year, obtained a erance of their ecclesiastical connection with great importance, was that of the ritnalistic Colenso. On October 25th a meeting was held changes in the worship of the Church. A numof the clergy of the diocese of Natal, to con- ber of clergymen had for some time past introsider the replies sent out by the English con- duced into their churches practices for which vocation to the queries forwarded through the they claimed both the authority of the Anglican inetropolitan, in 1865, from the Church in Natal, Church of former centuries and of the ancient and, in accordance with the advice tendered, Christian Church, but which by another party to elect a bishop for the vacant see. Fourteen were viewed as "a deviation from law and clergymen and about fifty communicants were long-established usage, and as disturbing the present. The two clerical supporters of Colenso peace and impairing the efficiency of the were present, but not allowed to vote. A letter Church, and as disquieting the minds of many was read from the Bishop of Capetown, urging devout members of the Anglican communion.' them to elect a new bishop, and, as regards the Some of the opponents of "ritualism” were mode of election, giving this advice: "The of opinion that the Book of Common Prayer, clergy elect; communicants assent. They alone in its present form, gave some encouragement have to do with the matter. All communicants to ritualists, and they desired the appointhave a right, I apprehend, according to the cus- ment of a commission by the Government " for toms of the primitive Church, to express their the revision of the Liturgy.” To this scheme

the Archbishop of Canterbury declared his determined opposition, and Earl Russell (in reply to Lord Ebury, February 12th) stated that the Government, "anxious to promote peace and good-will, and not to open the way to discord," had, after communicating with the Archbishop of Canterbury, declined to propose the forming of a commission. The friends of "church ornaments" had accordingly (February 3d) presented a memorial to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 36,008 communicants, of whom 24,133 were laymen, and 2,970 clergy of the Church of England, against any alterations being made in the Book of Common Prayer respecting the "ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof;" and the mode and manner of performing divine service "according to the use of the Church of England."

The archbishop, in his reply, while repeating his declaration that he would never consent to any alteration in any part of the Book of Common Prayer without the full concurrence of convocation, at the same time declared his decided opposition to many of the ritualistic innovations. The lower house of convocation, at its session in February, after a long and animated discussion, agreed to the following resolution: "That this house, recognizing the evils which may arise from an excess of ritualism, deprecates, nevertheless, any attempt to avert those possible evils by the introduction of changes in the prayer book; that in coming to these resolutions the house by no means intends to express approval of any alteration from church order not included in the expression 'excess of ritualism.' That this resolution (the first paragraph) be communicated to their lordships of the upper house, with a humble request that they take the subject into their consideration, and adopt such measures as they shall see fit, in conjunction with the house, for clearing the doubts and allaying the anxiety that exists upon it." The bishops, in return, desired the lower house to appoint a committee of inquiry. The report of this committee was made by its chairman, Dr. Goodwin, Dean of Ely, in July. The report gives a history of the ritualistic usages which the party tries to introduce, and deprecates any attempt at a judicial settlement of the question of ritualism, urging moderation on both sides. The report of the committee was adopted by a vote of 38

to 9.

The monastery of the “English Order of St. Benedict," at Norwich, was dissolved in consequence of the long absence of its founder, the Rev. Mr. Lyne ("Father Ignatius"), and from want of support. Mr. Lyne, toward the close of the year, received an appointment as a curate in the diocese of London. A monastery of the "Third Order of St. Benedict" was still in existence at the close of the year, at Bristol. The efforts for bringing on a closer union between the Anglican churches on the one hand, and other religious denominations possessed of an apostolical succession on the other,


were actively pursued. The societies chiefly instrumental in pursuing these efforts on the part of the Anglican churches are the "English Church Union," the " Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom," and the "Eastern Church Association." The latter confined its efforts to the Eastern Churches, while the two former have a more general tendency, and in particular keep in view the establishment of closer relations with the Roman Catholic Church. An interesting correspondence between a number of Anglican clergymen and Cardinal Patrizi took place in the latter months of the year 1865, but was only made public in 1866. The letter of the Anglican clergymen (written in Latin) was signed by 198 "deans, canons, parish priests, and other priests," and addressed to "the Most Eminent and Reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Cardinal Patrizi." As regards the relation of the Anglican Church to that of Rome, the writers say: "Whatever may have been less perfect in the faith of the flock, in Divine worship and in ecclesiastical discipline, we have improved beyond our hope; and, not to be forgetful of other things, we have shown an amount of good-will toward the venerable Church of Rome, which has rendered us suspected in the eyes of some." The cardinal, in his reply, which is dated November 8, 1865, salutes the writers as "Worthy and Very Dear Sirs," and he assures them that their letter has inspired the "sacred congregation with a most pleasing hope." But he declines to admit their claims to the name "Catholic," and describes their condition as an "inherited state of separation." He concludes with the hope that they will "no longer hesitate to throw themselves into the bosom of that Church which, from the Apostolic See through the succession of its bishops, while heretics have barked in vain, has attained the pinnacle." The views of Dr. Pusey, concerning a union between the Churches of England and Rome (see ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA for 1865, p. 26), were supported by the "English Church Union," of which society Dr. Pusey has become a member. At a discussion on the subject, Dr. Pusey stated that as the basis of such a union he proposed "the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Thirty-nine Articles, both documents being properly explained." As regards the movements for a closer intercommunion between the Eastern and the Anglican Churches, the Convocation of Canterbury was requested by the Russo-Greek committee of the lower house, for an enlargement of their powers. They were appointed originally "to communicate with the committee appointed at the general convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States as to intercommunion with the Russo-Greek Church, and to communicate the result to convocation." They now requested permission to consider the question of "intercommunion with the Oriental churches generally;" and the request was granted. The "Eastern Church Association"

only point of amendment intended was to give the permission to Congress to levy duties on exports. This has been done heretofore, but the period has expired within which the constitution permitted it. The vote stood 22 to 19. All the provinces were represented in proportion to their representation in Congress. Among other reforms aimed at is a reorganization of the common-school system. A commission was, in 1866, engaged in examining the various systems in the world, with reference to thorough and radical reforms. It was regarded as likely that the school system of the United States would be adopted.

The estimate for the wool-clip for the year 1866 is one hundred millions of pounds. The export duty on wool, hides, bones, tallow, etc., produces about three millions of silver dollars per annum. This tax is designed chiefly to pay interest and for the reduction of the public debt. As the amount of exports doubles every four years, this export duty must soon lift the nation out of debt.

The government imitated the policy of that of the United States in issuing treasury notes, bearing interest, for payment of government dues, and to be received in payment of customhouse duties. They represent silver dollars, and are of the denominations of $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100.

Immigration for 1865 to the Argentine Confederation foots up to two thousand five hundred and forty. This does not include those who came by steamer, neither does it except those who left the country for foreign parts, of whom there have been many. The greatest progress immigration has made is in the province of Santa Fé, where the first colonial settlements began ten years ago, and where now over five hundred and fifty foreign families are settled. In the Gran Chaco a California colony has been established, which is doing very well, and already has a great many acres in grain. The Argentine Government look upon this colony as one of great hope and promise.

In consequence of the foreign immigration, Protestant churches and schools are being established in a number of places. The most numerous Protestant body in the country is the Protestant Episcopal Church. From the latest report of the superintendent of the Methodist mission, Rev. Dr. Goodfellow, dated October 10, 1866, we gather the following intelligence: In the city of Buenos Ayres the Methodist congregation has 92 members, 44 probationers; total, 136; 90 scholars in Sunday-school, and 19 officers and teachers. In Buenos Ayres circuit there are 6 regular preaching-places, and 1 occasional, with 11 members and 9 probation ers. In Rosario the Sunday school has about 20 scholars, and the day school 40. The settlement of Californians on the border of the Indian territory would soon be visited by a missionary. Esperanza has a Protestant population of 500 souls, mostly Germans. The government has agreed to aid the Protestant school with $25 Bolivian

currency per month, about $20 silver. Sán Carlos has about 300 Protestant persons, and the Methodist mission has a church, school, and parsonage. In Villa de Urquiza there are about 200 Protestants, mostly German, with a school taught by the Methodist missionary. In Cordova a Sunday-school has been established.

ARKANSAS. The government of the State of Arkansas continued during the year as it had been organized in 1864, with the exception of the resignation of the Lieutenant-Governor. An election was held, on the first Monday of August, for the choice of an Auditor, Treasurer, Supreme Court Judges, and members of the Legislature. The total vote given for Auditor was 34,407, which was divided among three candidates as follows: Miller, Union, 15,241; Fagan, Union, 12,690; Berry, Republican, 6,476. Cunningham was chosen Treasurer; and Clendenin and Walker, Judges of the Supreme Court. Twenty-five Union members were chosen to the Senate, and seventy-nine members to the House, of whom five were Republicans. All persons were allowed to vote who were free white male citizens of the United States, and had attained the age of twentyone years, and had been citizens of the State during the last previous six months, without taking a test oath or any other preliminary oath whatever. The Legislature had attempted to require a test oath to be taken by all voters in the State, as a prerequisite to their right to exercise the elective franchise Under this authority Governor Murphy in his first proclamations stated that no one could be allowed to vote until he had taken the oath. But in December, 1865, the Supreme Court of the State declared the law to be unconstitutional, and all oaths were abandoned.

The Legislature assembled at Little Rock, on November 5th. It was the first session, in which all parts of the State were represented, that had been held since the reorganization in 1864. Its acts were confined almost entirely to local interests. It accepted the lands donated by Congress for agricultural colleges; located an institution for the blind at Arkadelphia, with an appropriation for its support; and previous to its recess, near the close of the year, inaugurated measures for the remission of taxes for the years from 1861 to 1865; to rebuild the court-houses and jails burned down; to repeal the stay law; to define the rights of persons of color; to provide for the support of wounded and disabled soldiers, and the indigent children of deceased soldiers, whether in the Northern or Southern service; to provide for the payment of debts in instalments; to bestow civil rights on mulattoes and negroes, except the right of intermarrying with whites, of voting, serving on juries, mingling in public schools with whites, and doing militia duty; to regulate the labor system; to encourage immigration, etc., etc. In the House, on November 16th, a resolution was offered, setting forth that President Johnson was entitled to and would receive the support

and gratitude of the people of Arkansas, in pursuing the policy exhibited in his official acts, and standing between the citizens and the unholy legislation of radical majorities. A motion to lay on the table was lost-yeas, 17; nays, 55. It was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

On December 8th the following resolution was offered:

which would embrace many of our best and wisest citizens, must, of necessity, be rejected by the people of Arkansas.

That this General Assembly, and the people of the State of Arkansas, tender our gratitude to General Jefferson Davis, for the noble and patriotic manner in which he conducted the affairs of our government, while President of the Confederacy; and that we assure him of our most earnest and heart-felt sympathy while with unexampled fortitude he endures in Northern prisons unparalleled suffering as a martyr to liberty; and that although we may strive to forget the wrongs unjustly heaped upon him, yet his name is and ever shall be enshrined in every true South-When ern heart. May he outlive his persecution, to comfort his family, honor his country, and adorn the world!

The committee say that they have particularly remarked one peculiar feature in the first section of the proposed amendment; that is, the portion which declares, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." "This is almost identical in language with the fifth amendment to the Constitution, and if this proobject designed, what assurance have we, that a vision already in existence will not secure the similar one will not be disregarded." They decline to recommend it on the further grounds that it imposes new and additional obligations on the people not contemplated or intended the general amnesty was proclaimed, on May 29, 1865. They say: The people of Arkansas have accepted and performed all the conditions of the surrender and general amnesty, and with wonderful unanimity have accepted the results of the war, and according to all law are entitled to all their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to be restored to mitted in good faith, with an earnest desire to the Union as before the war. They have submake the United States a common country, to be cherished in our hearts and defended by our

[ocr errors]

It was referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

On December 10th the following was offered, and referred to the same committee:

Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, That to calm the troubled waters of our political atmosphere, we ratify the Constitutional Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as recommended by his excellency Governor Murphy.

The views of the Legislature on various public questions were expressed in the reports of committees, and the debates. On December 10th the Committee on Federal Relations in the Senate reported the following resolution relative to the Constitutional Amendment proposed by Congress:

Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas declines to ratify the amendment, adding article fourteen to the Constitution of the United States, as proposed by joint resolution of Congress.

The reasons urged by the committee in support of their recommendation were as follows:

1. It is not known, nor can it be, to the State of Arkansas, that the proposed amendment was ever acted upon by a Congress of such a character as is provided for by the Constitution, inasmuch as nearly cne-third of the States were refused representation in the Congress which acted upon this amendment. 2. This proposed amendment was never submitted to the President for his sanction, as it should have been, according to the very letter of that Constitution under which Congress exists, and which it has sought

to amend.

3. The great and enormous power sought to be conferred on Congress by the amendment, by giving to that body authority to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of the first article of said amendment, would, in effect, take from the States ail control over their local and domestic concerns, and virtually abolish the States.

4. The second section seems, to the committee, an effort to force negro suffrage upon the States; and whether intended or not, it leaves the power to bring this about, whether the States consent or not; and the committee are of the opinion that every State Legislature should shrink from ever permitting the possibility of such a calamity.

5. The third section, as an act of disfranchisement


"We cannot tell what may be in store for this State. She and others may be forced to take this amendment, and even harsher terms; but as valuable as restoration may be, the people of Arkansas can never agree to purchase it at such a sacrifice of principle, dignity, and self-respect as is demanded in the adoption of this proposed amendment. We had better bear our troubles, trials, and deprivations, and even wrongs, in dignified silence, than commit an act of disgrace, if not annihilation, such as would result from the adoption of this amendment by the Legislature."

No action was taken by the Legislature relative to the passage of this amendment previous to the recess at the close of the year. But a commission, to be sent to Washington, was provided for, which was to consist of the President of the Senate and three members of that body, seven members of the House, and three citizens, not members of the Legislature, to be appointed by Governor Murphy. The Governor declined to appoint. The object of the commission was to confer with the Federal Government respecting their mutual relations. This commission was in part induced by the assembling in convention at Fort Smith of citizens calling themselves "Loyalists," who addressed a memorial to Congress for the removal of the existing State government, by the passage of an "enabling act," authorizing them to form a new State government.

On November 23d the following resolution was offered in the House, and passed unanimously. Subsequently it was concurred in by the Senate:

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »