« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Church of England, instead of disappearing, seemed to be magnified. Then, across the Atlantic, anxious as he should be to unite with the three million persons who belonged to the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, still, as a Christian man who desired the diffusion of the Lord's word, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that there were some thirty million persons, speaking, too, the English tongue, and who were Christians, but not members of any Episcopal Church, with whom union might be sought. On the Continent of Europe, their forefathers had coöperated with vast numbers of persons who were now, from one circumstance or another, more or less estranged. The Swedish and Danish Churches were examples of these. And, if he could not understand why no union was sought with these churches, still less could he understand why the great church of Luther, to which England owed so much, was to be considered as less connected with England than it was considered possible for the English Church to be connected with the Eastern Church. He should be very sorry to have it supposed that, while the Church of England desired to coöperate with Christians of the far East, she was neglectful of her more intimate relations with her fellowChristians of the West. The resolution of the Bishop of Winchester was adopted. His grace the President was requested by resolution to appoint a joint committee of both Houses “to consider what steps can be taken toward making provision for clergymen who, from age and infirmity, are desirous of resigning their benefices, and retiring from the active duties of the ministry.” In the course of the debate on this resolution, the statement was made that the number of benefices in England and Wales was 13,000, and the number of clergymen, of all degrees, was 23,000. Estimating the number of clergymen having no cure of souls, as masters of schools, etc., at 2,000, there were left 21,000 clergymen proper, beneficed and unbeneficed; showing that 7,000 clergymen, or one-third of the whole, were unbeneficed. In the Lower' House, the report of the committee on “The Law of Burials” was made. It suggested an outline of the procedure to be adopted in case Parliament should pass a law declaring the churchyards open for interment without religious services, or with services other than that of the Church of England. The Convocation of Canterbury met again May 9th. A petition, numerously signed, was presented in the Upper House, asking that their lordships would take such measures as they deemed best to attest the soundness of the agreement or scheme of concord arrived at at the Bonn Conference in August, 1875, and, if possible, to promote further friendly relations and closer intercommunion with the Orthodox Churches of the East. The archbishop stated that he had received a letter from the presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, asking that, in the event
of a gathering of bishops from all parts of the world, this subject should be brought before them. He had also received a letter from the Bishop of Pittsburg, suggesting that commendatory letters be given to emigrants to the United States, introducing them to the pastors of Episcopal churches in the towns where they might settle. By this means many would be prevented being drawn away from the influences of their church. The principal subject considered was that of providing a service of burial for those who died unbaptized. The Lower House adopted a resolution that it was not advisable to provide for such cases by any rubric in the Book of Common Prayer, but suggested that a service of consolation and instruction for the friends of the deceased might be used immediately after the interment, the service being selected from the Holy Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer. Both Houses finally agreed to a resolution providing that in the cases of persons who die unbaptized or excommunicate, or in the commission of any grievous crime, “it shall be lawful for the minister, at the request or with the consent of the kindred or friends of the deceased, to permit the corpse to be committed to the grave in the churchyard or chapel-yard of the parish without any services,” and that “in such cases the incumbent may permit the use at the grave of such hymns as may be approved by him.” A petition was received from 14,000 working-men, asking for liberty for the clergy to conduct the services of the church without obedience to the Privy Council. A committee was provided for to inquire into the law authorizing clergymen to repel persons from the Holy Communion on the ground of their holding false doctrines or leading immoral lives, and to report if any further legislation was necessary. A committee was also appointed to inquire into and report upon the ancient rites and ceremonies appertaining to the Christian burial of the dead, and the discipline attached to the use of them. The Convocation of Canterbury met for the third time during the year, July 18th. The Lower House adopted a resolution to have the synodical declaration respecting the import of the “damnatory clauses” of the Athanasian Creed, which was passed at a previous session of the Convocation, appended to that creed in the Prayer Book. The following rubric in reference to the communion service was adopted: “When there is a communion a pause shall here be made, during which those who desire may withdraw, and the communicants may be conveniently placed for receiving the communion.” It was left to the discretion of the minister whether the pause should be made before the offertory services or after the prayer for the Church militant. In the Lower House a resolution was passed in reference to the burial service, providing that “it shall be lawful for the minister, at the request or with the consent of the kindred or friends of the deceased, to permit the corpse to be committed to the grave in the churchyard of the parish without hymn, anthem, or address of any kind.” The Upper House had voted that hymns should be permitted at the grave. A conference of the two houses was held, with a view to the adjustment of the difference between them on this point, but without success. A gravamen was signed by members of both houses deploring the barbarities alleged to have been exercised by the Mohammedans toward the Christians in Bulgaria, and the asserted sale of Christian children into slavery, and praying “that effectual steps will be taken by the Government, in conjunction with the Porte and others, to prevent, as far as possible, such grievous scandal and offense to Christendom and the civilized world.” The Committee on Intemperance presented a supplementary report to the effect that the time had come when Parliament might properly be urged to take into consideration the further regulation of the traffic in intoxicating drinks, and suggesting that new legislation ought to embrace some or all of the following points: The extinction of grocers' excise licenses; the gradual suppression of houses for the sale of beer to be consumed on the premises; the gradual reduction of the number of public-houses until a limit shall have been reached which shall correspond to the wants of a temperate population; a large restriction of hours for Sunday traffic, together with some measure for country places for earlier closing at night and earlier opening in the "...# and the admission of the principle of local control so far as to give the inhabitants of any locality some voice in the question of granting new licenses, of reducing the number of houses, of Sunday closing, of earlier or later opening, and of earlier closing on weekdays. The Convocation of York met in York Cathedral, February 15th. It considered the fourth report of the Ritual Commission. The Upper House rejected the addition to the Athanasian Creed in the form of a synodical declaration which had been agreed to in 1874 by the Convocation of Canterbury and the Lower House of the Convocation of York. (For the text of this declaration, see the ANNUAL Cyclop. EDIA for 1874.) At the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, January 19th, a special court was constituted for the hearing of an appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury, in the case of Jenkins vs. the Rev. Flavel Smith Cook, rector of Christ Church, Clifton. In this case the question was raised whether a parishioner could be legally refused the Holy Communion because he did not believe in the personality of Satan and evil spirits, and the doctrine of eternal punishment. Mr. Jenkins had several years before compiled a book of selections from the Bible for devotional uses, from which were omitted all allusions to the doctrines of the existence of the devil and eternal punishment. On July 5, 1874, Mr. Cook preached a sermon on “Rationalism,” to which Mr. Jenkins took exceptions, and against which he
wrote the minister a letter of protest. Mr. Cook then gave Mr. Jenkins warning that he would consider a depraver of the Book of Common Prayer a hinderer and slanderer of God's word, and “open and notorious evil liver,” and would refuse to administer the communion to him. Mr. Jenkins, after having been refused the communion several times, brought suit against Mr. Cook in the ecclesiastical courts. The lower courts sustained the vicar, and Mr. Jenkins appealed to her Majesty in Privy Council. The judgment of the latter court was given February 15th, and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. Their lordships held that the evidence did not sustain the allegation that the appellant entertained the doctrines attributed to him, and expressly declared that they did not mean to decide that those doctrines were otherwise than inconsistent with the formularies of the Church of England.
The only cause, they said, which will warrant a minister under the rubric in repelling a parishioner from the Holy Communion is that he is an “open and notorious evil liver,” who thereby gives offense to the congregation; and the only cause which will warrant his repulsion under the 27th canon is that he is a “common and notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer.” It became necessary, therefore, to consider whether the appellant came under both or either of these descriptions. . As to the first, there was absolutely no evidence whatever that the appellant was an evil liver, much less an open and notorious evil liver. The term “evil liver,” according to the natural use of the words, was limited to moral conduct, and the distinction between conduct and belief was clearly recognized in the canons, especially in the contrast between the 109th and 110th. As to the charge against the app. of being a depraver of the Book of Common
rayer, this was founded on the fact of his having published a book of selections from the Bible for reading at family prayer, from which certain parts were omitted, as was alleged, on the ground of the doctrine which they teach; and it was argued that as some of the parts so omitted were either foun in the Book of Common Prayer or were the support of doctrines found in that book, omission of them was equivalent to rejection, and rejection of them to depravation of the Book of Common Prayer. In none of these propositions nor in their logical connection could their lordships concur. Omission was not rejection, otherwise the lectionary in the Prayer Book would be open to the grave charge. Nor was it possible to establish the charge of depravation upon these omissions, even coupled with the letter written by the appellant to the respondent in justification of them. For even if there were anything in the letter which amounted to a depravation of the Book of Common Prayer, which their lordships did not suggest or think there was, it would be still im...; to hold that the writing of such a letter in answer to one addressed to him by the respondent— in other words, not an open and spontaneous, but a private, friendly, and solicited communication— could make the appellant a “common and notorious depraver of the Book of Common Prayer.” They would therefore advise her Majesty to reverse the sentence of the Dean of Arches, and in remitting the cause to admonish the respondent, the Rev. Flavel Smith Cook, for having without lawful cause refused to deliver to the appellant, or permit the appellant to receive, the elements of the Holy Communion; and further, to monish him to refrain from committing the like effense in future.
In May, 1874, a daughter of the Rev. Henry Keet, a Wesleyan minister at Owston Ferry, county of Lincoln, died, and was buried in the parish churchyard. Mr. Keet ordered a tombstone set up over her grave, to bear an inscription, “In loving memory of Annie Augusta Keet, the younger daughter of the Rev. H. Keet, Wesleyan minister, who died at Owston Ferry, May 11, 1874, aged seven years and nine months. Safe sheltered from the storms of life.” The vicar of the parish forbade the erection of the stone on the ground that in the inscription the term “Rev.” was improperly assumed by Mr. Keet, a person not in the orders of the Church of England, and having therefore no right to bear it. Mr. Keet appealed to the Bishop of Lincoln. The bishop sustained the vicar. Mr. Keet then brought suit in the court of the chancellor of the diocese for a faculty for the erection of the tombstone. The chancellor gave a judgment refusing to issue the faculty, and sustaining the decision of the vicar, that Mr. Keet had no right to use the title Reverend. Mr. Keet then appealed to the Court of Arches. This court reaffirmed the decision of the diocesan court. The case was then carried by appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judgment of this court was delivered by the Lord Chancellor, January 21, 1876. It reversed the decisions of the lower courts, and ordered a faculty issued for the erection of the tombstone. The case was remitted to the Court of Arches. The first proceedings taken under the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, were had in the case of a complaint brought by three parishioners of St. Peter's, Folkestone, against the Rev. C. J. Ridsdale, incumbent of the parish. The complainants charged the defendant with violations of ecclesiastical order in the following points: Using lighted candles on the communion-table during the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion when their use was not necessary for giving light; the mixing of water with the wine for the service of the communion ; the use of wafer bread in the communion; standing during the administration of the communion in the eastward position, with his back to the people; kneeling during the prayer of consecration, and singing the hymn Agnus Dei; walking in processions with ornaments and observances not sanctioned by the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer; wearing illegal vestments, as the chasuble and the alb; the use of the crucifix; the adoption in the church of the representations called the “Stations of the Cross; ” and administering the communion to only one person. Mr. Ridsdale made no defense to any of the charges except that of administering the communion to fewer than three or four persons. In regard to this, he said that he had entered upon the service “without any positive expectation one way or the other.” Lord Penzance gave judgment in the
case, February 26, against the defendant. He decided that the incumbent had offended against the law in officiating in the chasuble and alb; that he had also offended in administering the communion without having assured himself that the number of persons required by the rubric, “four, or three at least,” would participate in it; that the so-called Stations of the Cross, which were described as consisting of fourteen groups of “figures in colored relief, a plastic figure attached to the walls of the church, purporting to represent scenes of our Lord's Passion, and such as are commonly used in Roman Catholic churches,” were decorations forbidden by law; and that the erection of the crucifix, “ or figure of the Saviour on the cross in full relief,” was unlawful. The judgment of the court on the points as to the position at the communion-table, and as to the vestments, was modified by the admission that the decisions of the superior courts on these points were conflicting, and an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might be necessary. An appeal was taken by the defendant to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the four points of the eastward position of the minister at the communion service, the vestments to be worn, the form of bread to be used, and the exhibition of the crucifix in the communion service. The eighteenth annual session of the Church Congress was held at Plymouth, beginning October 3d. The opening sermons were preached by the Bishop of Winchester and the Rev. Canon Miller. The opening address was delivered by the Bishop of Winchester. He spoke of the character of the Congress, as in no sense representing the whole Church, but consisting rather to a disproportionate extent of men of extreme views; of the peculiar dangers to which it was exposed by reason of such men occupying its attention; and of the safeguards against such dangers, which lay in the Congress itself. If they were avoided, the meetings might be made productive of great benefit. Papers were read, and discussions had, during the meetings of the Congress, on the following topics: “The Bonn Conference and the Old Catholic Movement” (Bishop Perry, late of Melbourne, the Dean of Lichfield, and the Rev. Lord Plunkett); “The Formation and Management of Parochial Temperance Societies:” “The Causes and Influences of Unbelief in England ” (Dean Cowie, of Manchester, Archdeacon Reichel, the Rev. G. Greenwood, Dean Lake, of Durham, Archdeacon Denison, the Bishop of Winchester); “Central Africa, in Relation to Mission-Work, the Slave-Trade, and Commerce” (Sir Bartle Frere, the Rev. W. S. Price, Lieutenant Cameron, Arthur Mills, M.P., Archdeacon Badnall, and others); “How to increase the Number and improve the Training of Candidates for Holy Orders” (the Rev. W. S. Smith, Archdeacon Earle, Archdeacon Emery); “The Best Means to be adopted for recovering the Classes alienated from the Church” (Canon Murray, for Canon Ryle, J. G. Talbot, M. P., Lord Forbes, the Rev. T. Hugo, Dean Fremantle, the Rev. J. F. Kitto, Earl Nelson, Mr. Paterson, of Bradford); “Aids to Spiritual Life” (Prebendary Clark, Canon Bell, the Hon. Charles Wood, and others); “The Due Relations of Church and State’” (the Earl of Devon; the Rev. J. Bardsley, on the special topic of “The Court of Final Appeal;” Dr. Phillimore, “The Supremacy of the Sovereign over the Church; ” Arthur Mills, M.P.; the Rev. Bradmore Compton, and others). Papers were also read on “Church-Bells” (in which competitions for prizes and ringings on secular occasions were deprecated), the “Periodical and Daily Press of the Country” (in which ideal journals were delineated by which the Church was to attract all readers toward herself), and “Ministrations to the Sick.” Resolutions were adopted declaring “that the promotion of the reunion of their Nonconformist brethren with the Church is a duty binding on all faithful churchmen,” and commending to hearty sympathy and active support the “Home Reunion Society,” an organization having for its object the promotion of unity without compromise of the faith or constitution of the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury in September, 1876, sent the following letter to the Colonial Bishops, in relation to the calling of a PanAnglican Synod, to meet in 1878:
Right REveREND. Brother: A wish has been expressed by many bishops of the Protestant Episco
al Church in the United States of America, by the
ishops of the Canadian Dominion, and by the West Indian bishops, that a second Conference of our brethren should be held at Lambeth. Before I decide upon the important step of inviting the bishops of our communion throughout the world to i. at Lambeth, I have thought it right, after consultation, with the bishops of England, to give all our brethren an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the expediency of convening such a Conference at this time, and upon the choice of the subjects which ought to engage its attention if it be convened. I therefore beg leave to intimate to you our readiness to hold a Conference at Lambeth in or about the month of July, 1878, if it shall seem expedient after the opinions of all our brethren have been ascertained; and I need scarcely assure you that your advice is earnestly desired, and will be respectfully considered... May I ask for our guidance whether you are willing and are likely to be able to attend the Conference yourself? Those who were present at Lambeth in 1837 thankfully acknowledge that, through the blessing of Almighty God, the bishops of the various branches of the Anglican Communión were drawn together in closer bonds of brotherly love and sympathy. The help and comfort which are due from the branches of Christ's Church to each other are more readily rendered the more fully each is made acquainted with the wants of the rest. In this time of religious activity and increased intercourse between all parts of the world, there is greater need than ever of mutual counsels among the bishops of our widely-extended communion. #. bishops of England, therefore, earnestly ask you to join with them in prayer that we may all be guided to a wise decision on this important matter, and if it should be resolved to hold the Conference, that its delibera
tions may issue in greater peace and strength and energy to the whole Church of Christ., Anxiously awaiting your answer, I remain your faithful brother and servant in Christ, A. C. CANTUAR.
The General Synod of the Irish Church met in Dublin, April 20th. The Rev. Lord Plunket offered a motion directing that an alternative form of the service for the ministration of baptism to infants, shorter than that now in use, be added to the present baptismal formularies. The motion was supported by nearly all the laity, but failed to receive the requisite majority among the clergy. The following declaration on the subject of baptism was inserted in the new preface to the Prayer Book:
In the formularies relating to baptism, we have made no substantial change, though some have desired to alter or omit certain expressions touching which diversities of opinion have prevailed among faithful members of our Church. At the same time, we desire fully to ..". the liberty of expounding these formularies hitherto allowed by the general practice of the Church, affirmed on occasion, by judicial interpretation of law. ...And as concernin those points whereupon such liberty has been allowed, we hereby further declare that no minister of this Church is required to hold or teach any doctrine which has not been clearly determined by the Articles of Religion.
The rubric which required the reading of the Athanasian Creed on certain occasions was removed, but, in connection with this act, a declaration was passed, that in removing the rubric the Church did not withdraw its witness to the truth of the articles of the Christian Faith contained in the creed.
The annual meeting of the Church Missionary Society was held in London, May 2d. The Earl of Chichester presided. The ordinary income of the society for the year, from associations, benefactions, legacies, and other sources, had amounted to £189,457 17s. 1d., the society had also received funds for special objects, sufficient to make the total income £195,116 8s. 1d. The expenditures had been £191,237. The report of missionary operations showed that the society had at present 170 stations, 211 European clergymen, 181 native clergymen, 38 European schoolmasters and lay agents, 11 European women-teachers (exclusive of missionaries' wives), 2,411 native Christian catechists and teachers, and 24,550 communicants. The society had withdrawn from 78 stations, which had been added to parochial establishments in the West Indies, or transferred to the native Church in Sierra Leone, containing 10 native clergy, 4,356 communicants, and 12,866 scholars. New missions had been opened in Persia, and in the Nyanza district, Africa; and the missions in China, Japan, to certain classes of the population in India, on the west coast of Africa, in the transJordanic districts of Palestine, and in the diocese of Saskatchewan, Northwest America, had been extended. At home a conference had been held on missions to Mohammedan people: liberal gifts had been made for the establishment of new missions. The sum of £12,000 had been subscribed toward the establishment of a mission near the Nyanza Lake. The society had determined not to interfere with the American missions to Mohammedan countries, but to confine its operations in those regions to Palestine. A largely-increased number of candidates for the society's college at Islington was reported, and the institution was now quite full. Forty-six candidates had been accepted during the year, of whom eleven were prepared to go forth at once. The one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts was held in London, April 27th. The Archbishop of Canterbury presided. The report stated that the collections and subscriptions during the year had amounted to £125,294, and that 528 missionaries were engaged in various fields of missionary work. Among the speakers was Sir Bartle Frere, who spoke of the impressions which had been made upon him during a recent visit to India. He could give a great amount of encouragement to those who were interested in the spread of Christianity in India, for he had just traveled over parts of that country where, when he first went to India, it would have been dangerous to send a missionary or any white man at all; now, in these districts he had found teachers of all denominations of Christianity, busily employed in spreading the truths of the gospel. No doubt could be entertained of the glorious results which would follow this increase of missionary institutions, for wherever he had traveled in India he had found communities of Christian people living under the aegis of the British Government without exciting any feelings of jealousy or ill-will on the part of the native population. The great safeguard of missionary enterprise was, that there was no compulsion, or any use made of the temporal sword to enforce the observance of the principles of the religion disseminated. He found, everywhere, that the missions were in the most flourishing condition, although the cry was still for more hands to assist in the work. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the appointment of two new bishops in the diocese of Madras, which had been made during the year, and said that steps were being taken with a view to the foundation of other bishoprics, The annual meeting of the South American Missionary Society was held in London, April 24th, the Earl of Shaftesbury presiding. The society is constituted for the purpose of making known the gospel to the inhabitants of South America, and it is conducted in conformity with the doctrine and discipline of the Established Church of England. A mission was founded in Patagonia, in 1844, under Commander Allen Gardiner, R. N., but it did not succeed after the death of its founder. The society was reformed in 1852. The Rev. Al
len W. Gardiner, son of Commander Gardiner, commenced in 1861 a mission at Lota, Chili, to the European population. The report gave accounts of the progress of the work in the Falkland Islands, Tierra del Fuego, Uruguay, Brazil, the Amazon River district, and Chili. An important branch of the work was that which addressed itself to Roman Catholics. ANTONELLI, GIAcomo, cardinal deacon of the title of St. Agatha della Suburra, and subsequently of Santa Maria, in Via Lata (born at Sonnino, States of the Church, April 2, 1806; died at Rome, November 7, 1876). His family was an ancient one in the Romagna, and had produced many |. and historians. He was educated at the Roman Seminary and University, and at twenty-one took the degree of Doctor in the Canon and Civil Law. At twenty-four he passed the examinations and showed the patrimony requisite to enter the Prelature of Justice. After filling minor judicial offices, he was in turn delegate at Orvieto, Viterbo, and Macerata. After the accession of Gregory XVI. he baffled the insurrection in which the subsequent Napoleon III. and his brother took part. Antonelli was then made Secretary-General of the Department of the Interior, and subsequently Minister of the Treasury. He was made cardinal deacon by Pius IX., June 12, 1847, and immediately afterward President of the Consulta of State, and to his death was the masterspirit of the administration of the Pope. He ceased to be minister during the year 1848, being replaced by Mamiani and Rossi. After the fall of the latter, Cardinal Antonelli advised and carried out the flight of the Pope to Gaeta. As minister of Pius IX. he appealed to France, Spain, Austria, and Naples, and represented the Pope at the conference at Gaeta. When the Pope was restored to Rome, after the French conquest of the city, Cardinal Antonelli, as prime-minister, set to work to reform the civil administration, and encourage agriculture and industry. The revolutionary party was, however, active, and an attempt to assassinate the cardinal, in June, 1855, showed how obnoxious he was to them. When, in 1859, revolts began, and Piedmont evidently aimed at seizing the Papal States, the task of Cardinal Antonelli became one of great difficulty. All admit the consummate ability with which as a statesman and a diplomatist he endeavored to avert the blow. When, with the capture of Rome, the last of the ten-poral possessions of the papacy was wrested fictm Pius IX., Cardinal Antonelli remained as Secretary of State to the Pope, but, of course, chiefly engaged in the management of the difficult relations forced upon the Holy See by the new order of things. In these he manifested great ability and skill. His appeals to the various owers for a restoration of the Pope's authority failed to effect the result. He died after a brief illness. Though holding so high a position in the papal court, and a cardinal, he never was ordained a priest, or was named to