Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

sionaries of the society, and nearly half of its foreign expenditure. The native churches in West Africa were gaining strength and taking upon themselves more and more the responsibilities of pastoral and missionary work. The spiritual and philanthropic work of the Freretown mission, in East Africa, had been carried on with unceasing energy. Reports were also made of the mission at Uganda, of the missions at Jerusalem, Jaffa, Gaza, Nablus, and the Hauran, in Palestine, of stations in Persia, and the other older and extensive missions of the society.

The one hundred and eightieth annual meet ing of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was held May 12th, the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding. The income of the society during 1880 had been £138,288, against £131,674 in 1879. Five hundred and eighty-six ministers had been employed during the year: 157 in Asia, 121 in Africa, 54 in Australia and the Pacific, 253 in America and the West Indies, and one in Europe. There were also in connection with the society 1,242 catechists and lay teachers, mostly natives in heathen countries, and about 250 students in colleges abroad, who were in training for the work of the ministry in the lands of their birth.

The Convocation of Canterbury met for the dispatch of business, February 8th. The archbishop presented to the Upper House the subject of the addresses which had been sent to him for and against greater liberty in ritual. A resolution was passed in the Upper House requesting the archbishop to take steps with a view to obtaining from the crown a letter of business committing to convocation the work of providing for a fuller representation of the parochial clergy in the Lower House; the Lower House, however, declined to concur in this action. A resolution was passed in the Upper House approving of the scope of the bill which had been introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. E. Stanhope, to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the sale and exchange of benefices. A report having been presented from the Lower House on the recommendations of a committee which had been appointed "on the relations of church and state," suggesting that greater authority should be given to convocation, the Upper House requested the archbishop to move for a royal commission to consider the subjects of clerical discipline and of courts of first instance and of appeal in ecclesiastical causes. An articulus cleri was adopted by the Lower House and sent up to the Upper House, asking that body, in view of the uncertainties that were thought to surround some recent interpretations of ecclesiastical law, and of the peculiar character of the parishes and the congregations placed in similar religious circumstances, to discountenance as much as possible legal proceedings in such matters. In making this request, the resolution said:

The Lower House feels that this forbearance must be conditioned by limitations.

The Upper House adopted a resolution declaring that

Litigation in matters of ritual is to be deprecated and deplored, and if possible to be avoided. This House also declares that authority to settle differences in such matters is inherent in the episcopal office, as witpreface of the Book of Common Prayer; and while nessed by ancient practice, and as referred to in the this House entertains the hope that the clergy, as in duty bound, will, in conjunction with the laity, support the legitimate authority, it also expresses its confidence that this authority will be exercised by the bishops of this province in their respective dioceses, with the earnest endeavor to compose such differences without litigation, and at the same time to maintain order, decency, purity of doctrine, and edification in Divine worship.

The convocation met again May 17th. The committee which had been appointed in 1870 for the revision of the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures reported that the revision of the New Testament had been completed, and presented the volume containing the same. The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol spoke upon the character and extent of the labors of the committee, after which thanks were recorded to those members of the body who were not appointed by convocation. A resolution was adopted in the Upper House for the appointment of a joint committee of both Houses, to inquire into the remedies provided by law for neglect of duty by the clergy. The special attention of the parliamentary committee was asked by the Lower House for the Charity Trusts Bill. A resolution was adopted as an articulus cleri deprecating any further relaxation of the oath of allegiance required from persons seeking admission into Parliament. The Bishop of Llandaff stated that a committee had been appointed by the Welsh bishops and clergy to consider the expediency of undertaking a revised version of the New Testament in the Welsh language.

The convocation met again July 19th. The alleged neglect of baptism, and a proposition for the constitution of a Board of Missions, were discussed in the Upper House, and projects for giving religious instruction to seamen, and for securing the simultaneous bringing forward of church questions in church conferences and synods, in the Lower House. The Bishops of Lincoln, Exeter, and Truro were requested to consider what measures could with propriety be taken to secure the release of the Rev. S. F. Green, who was in prison for contumacy in resisting an order of the court, commanding him to desist from certain practices in ritual which had been declared unlawful.

The Convocation of York met April 26th and 27th. A motion was offered by the Bishop of Manchester to the effect that, in view of the doubtfulness attaching to the interpretation of the rubric relating to ornaments of the church and of ministers, as it now stands, and of the frequent litigation that has ensued, the rubric should be expunged, to establish a clear and

[blocks in formation]

The Archbishop of Canterbury moved in the House of Lords, March 7th, the resolution which had been approved by the Convocation of Canterbury, for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the constitution and working of the ecclesiastical courts as created or modified under the Reformation Statutes of the 24th and 25th of King Henry VIII, and any subsequent acts, and the resolution was adopted without a division.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, with the advice and consent of the bishops of both provinces, published a letter in September in answer to a memorial which had been presented to the convocation in May, concerning what further steps could be taken toward grappling with infidelity and indifference to religion, and particularly suggesting the extension, with some modifications, of the plan for employing lay agents in directly spiritual work which had already been partially introduced in a few dioceses. After reviewing what had been accomplished so far by the employment of lay agents, the archbishop recommended that in every diocese laymen should offer themselves to the parochial clergy for the distinct work of readers; that the clergy should widely make known their desire to receive the co-operation of such laymen; and that when suitable men had come forward and been approved, they should receive a formal commission from the bishop, solemnized by an appropriate religious service. Such lay readers, the archbishop advised, should occupy a definite office, distinct alike from that of the ordinary lay helpers, and from that of women engaged in similar work.

The annual conference and annual meeting of the Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control were held May 11th. Mr. H. R. Ellington presided. The executive committee, in its report, congratulated the friends of the society on the revival of public interest in domestic questions, which would be certain to prove advantageous to the cause of disestablishment. Three quarters of a million copies of publications had been circulated, and about three hundred and fifty meetings had been held, during the year. Some advantage had been and would be taken of the interest shown by the farmers in the question of tithes. The passage of the Burials Act and its successful working were referred to in congratulatory terms. Resolutions were adopted

in respect to the death of Mr. Miall, the founder and chief promoter of the society, and a resolution was passed to the effect that-

While the Council will gladly support measures which will put an end to the traffic in church livings in the Church of England, it feels bound to oppose proposals which provide for the perpetuation of the traffic under whatever conditions, believing that the corrupt and illegal practices disclosed before the Royal Commissioners will not cease until the right to appoint to benefices ceases to be treated as property ca pable of being sold or bequeathed. And the Council cellor should have brought in the Augmentation of expresses great surprise that the present Lord ChanBenefices Act Amendment Bill, which aims at increasing the value of crown livings for the express purpose of making them salable, and of thereby conVerting public into private patronage.

At a private conference of persons interested in the work of the Church Defense Association held March 28th, the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding, a resolution was passed declaring

That in view of the strenuous and persistent efforts now being made to prejudice the public mind against the national Church, it is indispensable that a correFronding effort be made on the part of all who are attached to her, without distinction of religious or political party, to take such steps as may be needful for putting distinctly before the country the truth as regards the work, history, and position of the Church of England.

Efforts to add to the funds of the association were also resolved upon, in pursuance of which the Archbishop of Canterbury shortly afterward addressed a letter to the clergy directing their attention to the objects and operations of the Liberation Society, and the necessity of giving increased support to measures for counteracting them.

The twenty-first annual Church Congress was held at Newcastle-on-Tyne, beginning October 4th. The Bishop of Durham presided. The question of ritual was discussed under the topic of "The Limits within which Variations of Ritual may be permitted," by the Dean of Durham, Archdeacon Bardsley, Earl Nelson, the Dean of Chester, the Rev. Berdmore Compton, and the Rev. P. G. Medd. The question of "the Ecclesiastical Courts; the Principles on which they should be constituted, and the Methods by which their Decisions can be made more effectual," was considered by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Fremantle, Dr. H. Cowie (Chancellor of the diocese), the Hon. C. L. Wood, Sir W. Worseley, and others. Other subjects which engaged the attention of the Congress were: "The Relation of the Church of England to Churches in Communion with her in (a) Scotland, (b) Ireland, (c) America and the Colonies"; "The Duty of the Church in Respect to the Prevalence of Secularism and Spiritualism"; "The Organization and Development of Lay Work in Connection with the Church, that of Men and that of Women"; "The Connection between Church and State, what we gain by it and what we lose by it"; "The Adaptation of the Parochial System and of Public Worship to the Require

ments of Towns and Rural Districts"; "The Responsibility of the Church as regards the Opium-Trade with China"; "The Relation of the Church to the Social Movements of the Age, with Special Reference to Trades-Unions and Co-operation, and to the Local Administration of the License Laws"; "The Principles of the English Reformation as bearing on Questions of the Present Day"; "The Temperance Work of the Church, especially in Relation to its Parochial Organization"; "The Proper Attitude of the Church toward the Question of Sunday Observance"; "The Claims of the Revised Version of the New Testament to General Acceptance"; "Modes in which Religious Life and Thought may be influenced by Architecture, Painting, Sculpture, and Music"; and questions relating to the diocese of Durham, and the Elementary Education Act.

A judgment on the appeal of Mr. Mackonochie, a clergyman under censure for ritualism, against a decision of the Court of Arches, depriving him of his office, was given in the House of Lords, April 6th. The substantial question in the case, which had been argued a few weeks before, was whether Lord Penzance had power, as Dean of Arches, to pronounce a sentence suspending Mr. Mackonochie, ab officio et beneficio, for disobedience to a previous monition. The sentence of the Court of Arches had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and their lordships now affirmed the decision of that court, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.

The fourth meeting of the General Synod of the Irish Episcopal Church was held in April. The Representative Body reported a summary of its work during the past ten years. The Body had now in its hands a capital of £7,500,000, of which £3,000,000 would be left after all claims and annuities were fully discharged, for the future re-endowment of the Church. Of this amount about £1,500,000 had been derived directly from the composition of annuities, and about £2,000,000 from voluntary contributions made to church funds during the last eleven years. About £130,000 a year was provided by way of parochial endowment, which, with parochial assessments amounting to £136,000, would provide about £266,000 for clerical sustentation. About £12,901 per annum would be secured for episcopal sustentation, and £25,000 would be set apart as the nucleus of a fund to provide for aged ministers. Glebehouses would be provided for 935 out of 1,140 parishes, at a cost of £543,000. A resolution was adopted looking to the revival of the bishopric of Clogher, which has been for a long time amalgamated with the primacy of Armagh.

The British Government having determined to discontinue the ecclesiastical subsidies which had hitherto been paid out of the colonial revenues to the Church of England in Ceylon, requested the Bishop of Colombo to take steps to have a trust body elected for the Church of

England, to which the property and interests held by the Church might be transferred, and to have provision made for the future maintenance of the churches which had hitherto enjoyed the governmental endowments. The bishop called a representative assembly, to consist of all the presbyters of the diocese and two laymen for each presbyter, elected by the congregations, to meet on the 5th of July. On the meeting of the synod, differences arose respecting the apportionment of delegates, the representatives of the Church Missionary Society claiming that it should have been made according to the number of members in the churches, and complaining that, according to the actual allotment, their churches with six thousand members had only thirty-four delegates, while the other churches in the island, with only seven thousand members, were allowed seventy delegates. A motion was made to assert the incompetency of the Assembly to deal with the questions before it, as it was not a fully representative body. This being ruled out of order, the representatives of the churches of the Church Missionary Society withdrew in a body. Four trustees were chosen to take care, under the control of a Central Board of Finance, of all the property to be transferred by the crown; and provision was made for the election of a bishop in case a vacancy in the office should occur before the Constitution of the Church is settled. A committee to consist of clergymen of all the shades of theological thought, and one layman to be selected by each clergyman, was agreed to by both sides, to which should be referred the question of the organization of the synod.

ANGLICAN RITUALISTIC CONTROVERSY. The controversy concerning the ritual, and with it the collateral question of the jurisdiction of civil courts over ecclesiastical affairs, engaged attention in the Church of England above all other subjects. These questions, or points connected with them, were the subjects of numerous memorials to the bishops, archbishops, convocation, and officers of the Government, of many addresses and letters by bishops, of public meetings, and of important discussions in the convocations.

The Archbishop of Canterbury having invited those of the clergy who felt dissatisfied or alarmed at the present circumstances of the Church to state what they desired in the way of remedy, the Dean of St. Paul's and about three thousand clergymen and others addressed to him a memorial, as follows:

First of all, and especially, we would respectfully express our desire for a distinctly avowed policy of toleration and forbearance on the part of our ecclesiastical superiors in dealing with questions of ritual. justice and by the best interests of religion. For jusSuch a policy appears to us to be demanded alike by tice would seem to require that unless a rigid observance of the rubrical law of the Church, or of recent parties within her pale, it should no longer be exacted interpretations of it, be equally exacted from all the from one party alone, and under circumstances which often increase the difficulty of complying with the

demand. And, having regard to the uncertainties which have been widely thought to surround some recent interpretations of ecclesiastical laws, as well as to the equitable claims of congregations placed in the most dissimilar religious circumstances, we can not but think that the recognized toleration of even wide diversities of ceremonial is alone consistent with the interests of true religion, and with the well-being of the English Church at the present time. The immediate need of our Church is, in our opinion, a tolerant recognition of divergent ritual practice; but we feel bound to submit to your Grace that our present troubles are likely to recur unless the courts by which ecclesiastical causes are decided in the first instance, and on appeal, can be so constructed as to secure the conscientious obedience of clergymen who believe the constitution of the Church of Christ to be of divine appointment, and who protest against the state's encroachment upon rights assured to the Church of England by solemn acts of Parliament. We do not presume to enter into details upon a subject confessedly surrounded with great difficulties, but content ourselves with expressing an earnest hope that it may receive the attention of your Grace and of the bishops of the Church of England.

The archbishop replied to the memorial by republishing a letter which he had previously addressed to Canon Wilkinson, in which he said:

It is a peculiarity of the present troubles that the clergymen who have fallen under the penalties of the law, in a way we all much regret, have come under the authority of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York, as the result of their having positively refused to conform to the admonition of their bishops; and, indeed, so far as I know, no case of prosecution for ritual has (at least for many years past) been allowed to proceed in the case of any clergyman who was willing to comply with such admonition. It certainly may fairly be taken to show that there must be some exceptional difficulty in present arrangements when clergymen of otherwise unimpeachable character think it their duty to run the risk of having their usefulness in their parishes rudely interrupted by the authority of the law rather than yield to those set over them in the Lord that degree of willing obedience which seems to most men to be enjoined alike by the traditions of their Church and the written words of the prayer-book (in the preface, "Concerning the service of the Church"), as well as by their promise of canonical obedience. I am quite sure I may undertake for my brethren of the Episcopate that we are ready very carefully to consider at the present juncture the grounds which appear to have led to so

strange a result.

The archbishop alluded to a petition embodying the views of the memorialists, which had been presented to convocation in 1877, referred to a committee, and reported upon by the same in 1879, and promised to call the attention of convocation to the report and the subject as soon as the forms of that body would allow. A memorial signed by several dignitaries of the Church, among whom were Bishops Perry and Ryan, and the Deans of Exeter, Carlisle, Ripon, Chester, Gloucester, Peterborough, and Canterbury, was afterward presented to the archbishop, opposing the memorial of the Dean of St. Paul's and others. The signers of this address said:

We have no desire to narrow the comprehensiveness of the national Church, or to abridge that reasonable liberty which has always been conceded to churchmen in matters non-essential. We are, however, firmly convinced that neither in public prayer nor in admin

istration of the sacraments ought there to be granted any toleration of the use of vestments and symbols avowedly introduced as exponents of doctrines which we believe to be unscriptural, or which had been declared to be not in accordance with the plain intention of the articles and formularies of the Church of England. We therefore respectfully but firmly entreat your Grace to give no countenance to any attempt to procure toleration for ritual practices, which for more than three hundred years, and until a very recent date, were almost unknown to the Church of England, and which, when submitted to the highest courts, have been declared to be contrary to the laws of the Church of the realm.

The archbishop, presenting the matter of these memorials before the Convocation of Canterbury, at its meeting February 8th, remarked that there seemed to be a certain indefiniteness about those addresses which asked for a greater amount of liberty in the matter of ritual, and it seemed to have been overlooked that, while there was an innocent liberty, there was a liberty which degenerated into license. He had no reason, however, to believe that those who had asked this had any desire for the use in the Church of England of any form of the Roman Catholic communion which might be identified with the profession of Roman Catholic customs. The bishops in their dioceses, under whose jurisdiction these matters came, would not, he supposed, be disposed to interfere with lawful ornamental ritual not contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Church of England; and he also supposed that the law was now so interpreted that great discretion was shown to be left to their lordships as to whether or not prosecutions or suits against clergy in ritual matters should proceed; so that now the bishops could refuse to sanction a mere vexatious attempt to interfere with a worship which approved itself to the parishioners, and was not contrary to law. He did not think that any more than this should be claimed, and it could not be expected that there would be any legislation in the direction of legalizing those things which the Reformation had abolished. The convocation suggested a reference of the subject to a royal commission, and advised that authority be given to the bishops to settle difficulties that might arise, and that they exercise such authority discreetly and kindly.

A memorial signed by nearly twenty-four thousand laymen was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, April 2d, entering the solemn and emphatic protest of the memorialists against the toleration, within the Church of England, of any doctrines or practices favoring the restoration of the Roman Catholic mass or any colorable imitation thereof, any reintroduction of the confessional, or any assumption of sacerdotal pretensions on the part of the clergy in the ministration of the Word and sacraments.

The public attention was kept fixed upon the ritualistic controversy by the proceedings in the courts in cases of ritual, by the fact of the imprisonment of clergymen who had been adjudged guilty of contumacy in violating the

law of ritual and in disregarding the inhibitions of the courts, by the protests of the friends of the imprisoned clergymen against their imprisonment, by agitations for their release, and by appeals to the public, the bishops, and the civil officers, in their behalf. The Rev. T. P. Dale, of St. Vedast's, London, and the Rev. W. R. Enraght, of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, had been imprisoned in 1880 for disregarding monitions which had been served upon them by the Court of Arches, ordering them to relinquish certain practices which had been declared illegal by the Privy Council. They both refused to submit to the decree of the court, declaring that they could not do so without violation of conscience. Mr. Dale took an appeal, and was released pending the hearing of the appeal, promising as a condition of his freedom that he would not conduct services in his church, nor even attend the church on Sunday. A release was offered to Mr. Enraght on the same conditions, but he refused to accept it, on the ground that to do so would involve his obedience to the inhibition of Lord Penzance, a condition under which he would not rest for a longer or a shorter period, for it was the very ground of the contention. The Bishop of Worcester was requested in January to take some steps to induce Mr. Enraght to amend his conduct or resign his appointment as an alternative to the bishop's taking a decided course to uphold the authority of the Ecclesiastical Court. The bishop replied that he could see no reason to hope for such an end to the troubles as his correspondent desired. The vicar had publicly declared his rejection of all direction or control or advice from the bishop, and the latter was not aware of any power vested in a bishop by which he could uphold the authority of the Ecclesiastical Court. Mr. Enraght was released from jail on account of the detection of an error in the manner in which the writ against him had been dealt with in the temporal court. Another order for his imprisonment was subsequently asked for, but he having taken an appeal to the House of Lords, judgment on the application was postponed. The appeal of Mr. Dale was dismissed; but that clergyman having accepted an incumbency outside of London, no further proceedings were had against him.

The case of the Rev. S. F. Green, of Miles Platting, Manchester, attracted more interest than any other, and was the incident to which the agitations of the year most directly related. Ritualistic practices were already observed in his church when he took charge of it, and he introduced others, with the approval of his patron and a majority of the congregation. A prosecution was instituted against him at the instance of the Church Association; he was tried in the Court of Arches, inhibited, and assessed in costs. He refusing to pay the costs or obey the inhibition, a bailiff was lodged in his house. Afterward, on the 9th of March, a writ de contumace was issued against him, and

VOL. XXI.-2 A

he was imprisoned in Lancaster Castle. Application for a writ of habeas corpus with a view to his discharge was refused by the Court of Queen's Bench, April 6th. An appeal was taken to the House of Lords and was dismissed, while the judgment of the Court of Arches was sustained.

Mr. Green's case was taken up by the English Church Union, which represented that the penalties to which he was subjected were inflicted upon him because he obeyed his conscience. It was said on behalf of the courts and the Church authorities that he could be released at any time upon his simply promising to obey the writ of inhibition and to desist from unlawful practices. The case was brought directly before the Convocation of Canterbury at its session in July, when, an articulus cleri having been adopted by the Lower House, asking the bishops to consider what measures could be taken with propriety to secure the release of Mr. Green, the archbishop said that Mr. Green was in prison for refusing to obey the law, and he did not see how such a case could injure the Church.

Mr. Green's counsel, Mr. Phillimore, published a statement in August respecting his client's position, representing that the court for contempt of which he was punished was one that had been set up by Parliament only, without the approval of the clergy in convocation, and in the absence of any body through which the laity could make themselves heard — a wholly secular, in no way spiritual authority, an authority of a kind which he could not conscientiously allow to control him in the exercise of a purely spiritual function. To comply with the terms named as the conditions on which he could be released, would be to give up his office and cease from ministering, at the command of this secular authority-a thing he could no more do than the ancient martyrs could abjure their religion to avoid death. The Archbishop of York wrote to Mr. Green in August, suggesting to him as a way in which he might obtain his release and perhaps save future deplorable embarrassment without making or causing any sacrifice of principles on either side, that he might write to his bishop and express his readiness to abide by his superior's advice in the matters about which the suit had arisen; adding that

It might be that the advice given would be such that your undertaking to act upon it would give the court an opportunity of relieving you from your present position, and that a clergyman could never reproach himself for having done that which his very ordination vows made a duty.

Mr. Green replied that to act as the archbishop suggested would be to adopt precisely the course which he had rejected, he believed on good grounds, two years before, and the reasons now were as ten to one why he should not do so. To surrender in the way his Grace suggested

Would be simply to surrender the Prayer-Book.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »