.^' 
 
 c 
 
 «^^
 
 :m 

 
 /^ 
 
 en tl)c present 30isquictutit in tlje 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE CLERGY AND LAITV OF THE DIOCESE OF 
 LINCOLN. 
 
 BY 
 
 CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 RIVINGTONS, 
 
 IVA TE R LOO PL A C E, LO A' D O jV, 
 
 iDxforti auti d'amlnitictr. 
 
 MIJCCCLXX.XI.
 
 A LETTEE 
 
 To the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese. 
 
 Mr DEAR Sirs, 
 
 The prevalence of uneasiness consequent on 
 recent events, and the widespread apprehension of 
 dangers arising from them, have led me to believe 
 that you may be looking for some communication 
 from me with a view to our mutual counsel and 
 guidance on matters which deeply concern us, 
 whether as Members or Ministers of the ChurcL ; 
 and the Address which I have just received from 
 more than two hundred of the Clergy of the 
 Diocese confirms me in this belief. 
 
 After careful consideration I have resolved to 
 cast my remarks upon them into the form of an 
 historical inquiry, to be followed by some practical 
 applications ; as most favourable to that calmness 
 of mind, and fairness of temper, which are requisite 
 for a profitable discussion of this subject, and also 
 as supplying that knowledge of facts, without 
 which we might probably be in danger of being 
 misled, and perhaps of misleading others. 
 The questions before us are these : — 
 By whom is Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical causes 
 A 2
 
 4 On the pix sent Disquietude in the Church. 
 
 to be exercised ; according to wliat laws ; and i n 
 wliat manner ? 
 
 We are agreed tliat all Authority, Ecclesiastical 
 as well as Temporal, is from God, and from God 
 alone ; and that resistance to lawful authority in 
 any command that is not contrary to God's law, 
 is resistance to God from Whom all Authority is 
 derived.^ 
 
 But if human Authority commands what is 
 plainly repugnant to God's law, it is not to be 
 obeyed, because all men are under a prior para- 
 mount obligation to obey God. We must obey men 
 for the sake of God, but must not disobey God for 
 the sake of men. 
 
 We are also of one mind, that in the Realm of 
 England the Sovereign is Supreme, under God, 
 over all persons, and in all causes, Ecclesiastical 
 as well as Civil, within her dominions.^ 
 
 But our inquiry is : — 
 
 By what Judges is this Supremacy to be exer- 
 cised in Ecclesiastical matters ? 
 
 Our own greatest divines, such as Richard 
 Hooker and Bishop Andrewes, have appealed to a 
 passage in Holy Scripture as affording authorita- 
 tive direction on this subject.^ 
 
 * Eom. xiii, 1 — 4. 1 Pet. ii. 13. ^ Art. xxxvii. 
 
 ' See Mr. Keble's edition of Hooker, vol. iii. pp. 145 — 148. 
 Oxford, 1836, and Bp. Andrewes, Tortura Torti, p. 381. Hooker, 
 as we know from George Cranmer's notes on the Sixth Book, 
 argued the question in that book, which being against lay 
 eldership, was destroyed in part, if not in whole, by Puritan 
 hands after liis death.
 
 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 5 
 
 Tbej refer to the act of the good king Jehosha- 
 phat, appointing Judges to decide controversies 
 both in Spiritual and Temporal matters. It is 
 there recorded that the king set a civil ruler, 
 Zebadiah, to preside over the Court in " the king's 
 matters," and appointed Amariah the High Priest 
 to occupy the chief place, with the Levites, "in all 
 matters of the Lord."* 
 
 In the times of our Lord's ministry the state of 
 the Jewish Church was so corrupt, that instead of 
 one High Priest for life in hereditary succession, 
 according to God's appointment, we find two 
 High Priests, Annas and Caiaphas, in one and the 
 same year,' and we know that the Jewish High 
 Priests were appointed and removed from their 
 office by the Heathen Power of Rome. 
 
 But still our blessed Lord and His Apostles 
 after Him seem to have acknowledged them as 
 having hierarchical authority, and they are called 
 High Priests in Holy Scripture.*^ 
 
 St. Paul, with exemplary charity and wisdom, 
 reproached and corrected himself for giving an 
 opprobrious name to one of those sacerdotal 
 intruders who had been placed in the spiritual 
 office of High Priest and Judge by the Heathen 
 Power of Rome. " Brethren," he said, " I wist 
 
 * 2 Cliron . xix. 1 1 . Hooker supposed tliat tliis was a restoration 
 of the tribunal described in Deut. xvii. 8 — 12. 
 
 * Luke ii. 36. 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 23. John xi. 49; xviii. 13—28. Acts iv. 6 ; 
 xxiii. 2, 5.
 
 6 On tJie p7'esent Disquietude in the CJmrch. 
 
 not tliat lie was the Higli Priest : for it is written, 
 Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy 
 people" (Exod. xxii. 28. Acts xxiii. 5). 
 
 Our blessed Lord also regards the Pharisees, 
 who were not necessarily Priests, as sitting in 
 Moses' seat, and as entitled to obedience, so far 
 as they commanded what was in accordance with 
 the Divine Law/ 
 
 In the earlier ages of Christianity, while the 
 Roman Empire was still heathen, the most re- 
 markable case of Royal Supremacy exercised in an 
 Epclesiastical matter, was that of the Emperor 
 Aurelian. 
 
 You will remember that Paul of Samosata, 
 Bishop of Antioch, was twice condemned by 
 Synods of the Church in that city for his heretical 
 denial of Christ's Divinity, and that he was 
 deposed by the Bishops of the Council, and that 
 another Bishop, Domnus, was appointed in his 
 place. However, by the favour of Queen Zenobia 
 of Palmyra, Paul was maintained in his See and 
 in the possession of the Episcopal residence. 
 
 In A.D. 272 Zenobia was defeated by the Emperor 
 Aurelian, to whom, being in possession of Antioch, 
 the Bishops appealed, not however that he should 
 be a judge of the Christian faith, but in order 
 that, judging according to the laws of the Church, 
 he should assign the property of the See to the 
 Bishop who was recognized as such by the 
 
 Church. 
 
 ' Matt, xxiii. 2, 3.
 
 On the present Disqiiietude in the Chnrch. 7 
 
 The Emperor received the appeal, and confirmed 
 the decree of the Council. He deprived Paul of 
 his Episcopal See and Palace, and established the 
 orthodox Bishop in his place. 
 
 Here is an example ol" Royal Supremacy invoked 
 by Catholic Bishops of a non-established Church, 
 in an Ecclesiastical matter ; and an instance of a 
 heathen power exercising sovereign jurisdiction 
 in it. 
 
 This precedent is suggestive ; but I pass on to 
 observe that the next case of importance is one 
 which occurred under a Christian Emperor, 
 Constantino. 
 
 I need not narrate to you the origin of the 
 Donatistic Schism. Suffice it to say, that there 
 were two rival Bishops as candidates for the see 
 of Carthage, each with a large party of adherents. 
 To which of the two, Csecilian or Majorinus, was 
 canonical obedience due ? An appeal was made 
 to the Emperor Constantino to settle this ques- 
 tion. He referred it, in the first instance, to 
 Bishops appointed by himself to take cognizance 
 of the cause at Rome; but when the Donatists 
 were not satisfied with their decision, which was 
 in favour of Caecilian, Constantino summoned a 
 Council of Bishops at Aries in the year 314, which 
 also decided in favour of Ca3cilian. And when 
 they were discontented with that determination, 
 the Emperor appointed iElian, the Proconsul of 
 Africa, as his Commissary, or Delegate, to adjudi- 
 cate in the matter. Csecilian pleaded before the
 
 8 On the present Disquietude in the ChurcJi. 
 
 Proconsul, and establisbed his claim ; and the 
 Proconsul confirmed the decree of the Council of 
 Aries. ^ 
 
 S. Augustine, who relates these circumstances, 
 remarks, that Constantine himself took cognizance 
 of the cause in person, though reluctantly, after 
 the Council of Aries ; and that his first desire had 
 been to have it settled by Episcopal Judges, first 
 at Rome, and next at Aries. ^ 
 
 We shall presently see how the great Bishop of 
 Hippo, S. Augustine himself, acted under similar 
 circumstances. 
 
 Constantius, the son and successor of Con- 
 stantine, favoured Arianism, and persecuted the 
 Church, and expelled from their sees Catholic 
 Bishops, such as Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. 
 Then it Avas that the valiant Confessor of the 
 true Faith, S. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, uttered 
 that brave protest, in which he exhorted the 
 Emperor Constantius to require the governors of 
 his provinces to abstain from deahng with Eccle- 
 siastical causes.^ S. Hilary knew well that it is 
 the duty of Sovereigns to judge according to the 
 laws, and not to be judges of the laws ; and he also 
 knew well that the Delegates of Constantius the 
 Arian would pronounce judgment against the Law 
 
 * This is the order of events as related by S. Augustine, 
 Epist. 162 and 166. 
 
 ' In on est ausus de causa Episcopi judicare ; earn discutien- 
 dam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit. Augustine, Epist. 166. 
 
 ^ S. Hilary ad Constantium, i. 1.
 
 On the present Disqiuetude in the Cluireh. 9 
 
 of the Christian Church and against the true Faith, 
 which had been solemnly established by the 
 Church in the days of Constantino at the great 
 Council of Nicaaa. S. Hilary therefore remon- 
 strated against^ the exercise of any Ecclesiastical 
 Jurisdiction by such Judges as these. 
 
 This also was the case with tliat other 
 Champion of the Faith, S. Ambrose, Bishop of 
 Milan. When the Emperor, Yalentinian the 
 yoimgcr, at the instigation of his Mother Justina, 
 the partisan of Auxentius the Arian Bishop, 
 whom she had set up in opposition to Ambrose, 
 required the Bishop of Milan to surrender some 
 of the Churches of Milan to the Arians, and pro- 
 pounded the heretical formula of Rimini in oppo- 
 sition to the Nicene Creed, and in the year 386 
 summoned S. Ambrose to appear and plead his 
 cause against Auxentius in the Imperial Con- 
 sistory, S. Ambrose declined to obey. 
 
 When the Burials' Bill was before Parhament 
 in 1873, your attention was called ^ to the language 
 addressed by S. Ambrose to the Emperor, in 
 answer to his claim for the use of Churches of 
 God for the Arians, '' My liege lord, it is not 
 lawful for me to give up a Church to thee; a 
 Church, which has been dedicated to God, caunot 
 be surrendered by a Priest;" and when he was 
 convened by the nobles, who said that the Em- 
 peror acted in virtue of his Royal Prerogative, as 
 master of all, he replied, *' If the Emperor asks 
 ' Twelve Addresses, 1873, p. 250.
 
 lo On the present Disquietude in the Church. 
 
 me for what is mine to give, my money, my land, 
 even my life, I will give it. Bnt a Cliurcli does 
 not belong to me, but to God, and I cannot 
 smTender it." ^ 
 
 In a similar spirit he declined to plead in the 
 Consistory of the Emperor. The Emperor, who 
 was young, and had not been baptized, had already 
 by his acts disqualified himself for being a Judge. 
 He had set himself above and against the Laws of 
 the Church, as declared in the General Council of 
 Nicsea. He was endeavouring to supplant the 
 Mcene Creed, which had lately been confirmed 
 by another General Council, that of Constanti- 
 nople ; and to enforce an Arian Symbol, that of 
 Eimini, in its place, and to supersede a Catholic 
 Bishop by an heretical usurper, Auxentius. S. 
 Ambrose, after consulting with his brother 
 Bishops, declared that he could not recognize 
 such a tribunal as that ; he would have been 
 untrue to Christ and His Church if he had done 
 so.^ Christian Princes and Rulers are not set in 
 authority to be Judges of the Faith, but to judge 
 for the Faith; and when they contravene the Faith 
 and encourage heresy, they forfeit their judicial 
 authority in Ecclesiastical matters, which is 
 derived from the God of Truth. 
 
 ^ S. Ambrose, Epist. xx. and xxi. 
 
 ^ The case of Valentinian the younger and S. Ambrose is 
 very fully and ably dealt with by Bji. Bilson on Christian 
 Subjection, Part i. pp. 236—243 (Lond. 1856) ; and by Dean 
 Field on the Church, pp. 680, 681 (Oxford, 1635).
 
 On the present Disquietude in the ChurcJi. 1 1 
 
 S. Ambrose, by liis preacliing at Milan, 
 won over to the Christian faith a person who 
 became one of the greatest Christian Bishops — 
 S. Augustine. 
 
 The genius, piety, and learning of S. Augustine, 
 his courage and zeal, guided by wisdom, tempered 
 by charity, and sanctified by grace for the defence 
 of the true Faith, and for the advancement of the 
 Divine glory, were blessed not only to his own 
 age, but to succeeding generations ; and his 
 example in dealing with difficult questions of 
 doctrine and discipline in times of trial for the 
 Church, may be commended to the imitation of all. 
 
 The controversy between the Donatists and 
 the Catholics, which had harassed the African 
 Church in the days of Constantino, assumed larger 
 proportions in those of Honorius, the son of 
 Theodosius the Great. 
 
 The principal champion of the Church at that 
 time was S. Augustine. 
 
 Let me invite you to consider what course was 
 then pursued by S. Augustine and the Catholic 
 Bishops associated with him. 
 
 With this view let me quote the narratives 
 given of their proceedings by two learned and 
 accurate Church Historians, both of them Roman 
 Catholics, and zealous for the honour and rights of 
 the Christian Church. 
 
 One of them — the erudite and candid Tillemont 
 — writes,^ " S. Augustine was the person who 
 
 ^ Mcmoires pour servir a I'llistoirc Ecclesiastique. Tome
 
 12 On the present Disqiiietiide in the Chu7rh. 
 
 undertook and accomplished a work so beneficial 
 to the Church ; and the other Bishops united their 
 efforts with his. Tliey sent envoys to the Emperor 
 Honorius with the request that he would summon 
 the Bishops of both sides to meet at Carthage, 
 where each party should choose its own represen- 
 tatives, to debate the controverted questions at a 
 Conference. The Emperor gladly acceded to the 
 request, and proved by his acts that he was 
 sincere in declaring that the maintenance of the 
 Catholic faith, and the restoration of peace, and 
 the advancement of the Divine glory, were his 
 main designs; and he complied with the desire 
 more readily because the Donatists concurred 
 in it. 
 
 The Emperor addressed a rescript to Flavius 
 Marcellinus, one of his principal Commissioners 
 in Africa, and appointed him as his Delegate to 
 preside at the Conference. Marcellinus was a 
 Catholic, distinguished by prudence and dili- 
 gence, moderation and equity, which were 
 evinced by his management of the Conference. 
 S. Augustine eulogizes Marcellinus for his love of 
 Holy Scripture, for his fervent piety, his holi- 
 ness of life, his charity, probity, mildness, and 
 affability.^ Indeed, on account of his zeal for the 
 truth, and of his sufferings even unto death in a 
 
 xiii. pp. 500—503, and pp. 612—619 (Ed. Paris, 1702). The 
 original authorities in the writings of S. Augustine and others 
 are cited fully by Tillemont and Fleury. 
 « Tillemont, torn. xiii. pp. 501, 502, 554.
 
 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 13 
 
 good cause, he is revered as a Martyr by the 
 Church. 
 
 This Conference of the Bishops met in the 
 summer of a.d. 411, and after three days' patient 
 hearing of the cause, Marcellinus dehvereS an 
 elaborate judgment in favour of the Cathohcs, 
 which was pubhshed on June 2Gth — eighteen days 
 after the opening of the Conference. 
 
 Such, says Tillemont, was the conchision of that 
 celebrated Assembly, which the African Church 
 had desired for eight years, and which was one of 
 the principal benefits that accrued to it from the 
 Episcopate of S. Augustine.^ 
 
 The Abbe Fleury in his Ecclesiastical History ^ 
 writes in similar terms : — '^ The deputies of the 
 Council of Carthage obtained a rescript from the 
 Emperor Honorius, summoning the Donatists to 
 meet them in conference. This was the expedient 
 which the Catholic Bishops, and principally S. 
 Augustine, desired as most efficacious for dispelling 
 popular delusions." 
 
 Fleury describes fully the proceedings of the 
 Conference, and says that the Acts of the Confer- 
 ence were read annually in the Church of Carthage 
 and Hippo, and other Churches of Africa ; and as 
 they were found too prolix for the purpose, S. 
 Augustine undertook to abridge them in order to 
 render them more acceptable to the pubHc. 
 
 ' P. 551. 
 
 8 Fleury, Hist. EccL, tome iii. pp. 30G— 332 (Ed. Lruxolles, 
 1713).
 
 14 On the present Disquietude in the CJiurch. 
 
 This Conference healed the Donatistic Schism, 
 and manyDonatist Bishops and their congregations 
 returned to the Unity of the Church.^ 
 
 In order that we may have clear notions on the 
 questions discussed in that Conference, let me add 
 the words of a celebrated jurist, Hugo Grotius,^ 
 upon it : — 
 
 " Marcellinus exercised his judicial functions as 
 commissary of the Emperors, Honorius and Theo- 
 dosius. The Imperial Edict recited that the 
 question to be determined was one that concerned 
 the truth of Religion ; and Marcellinus, the pre- 
 siding Judge, said to the Donatists, ' The allegations 
 against you are that you are chargeable with 
 heresy and schism.' Indeed the cause hinged upon 
 these articles : ' What is the Catholic Church ? 
 What are its true characteristics ? What is a just 
 cause of separation ? And are heretics to be re- 
 baptized ? The Emperor was not requested by 
 the Donatists, but by the Catholics, to take cog- 
 nizance of these questions." 
 
 We are thus brought to the second decade of 
 the fifth century ; and we may pass from it 
 without delay to the sixteenth. 
 
 You would not desire to trace the course of 
 events from the first attempts of the Roman See 
 to draw Appeals to itself in Ecclesiastical matters, 
 even in the days of S. Augustine, who resisted 
 
 ^ Fleiiry, ibid., pp. 334, 335. 
 
 ^ De Imperio Potestatum summaruni circa sacra ; in Grotii 
 Opera, torn. iii. p. 236 (Ed. Lend., 1679).
 
 On the present Disqtiietnde in the Chnrch. 15 
 
 sucli an endeavour of Pope Zosimus (a.d. 418) in 
 the cause of Apiarius. 
 
 Our forefathers struggled manfully against those 
 attempts in the " Constitutions of Clarendon,'* 
 A.D. 11G4, and in the ''Magna Cliarta," and in 
 various Statutes against Aj)peaJs to Rome, especially 
 in the year 1532. 
 
 None of us would desire to revive the time when 
 a Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grrossetete, was forced 
 to appeal to the Pope at Lyons, in order to settle 
 a question between the Chapter of Lincoln and 
 himself; and w4ien the same Pope attempted to 
 force his nephew an Italian boy, Frederick of 
 Lavagna, into a Canonry of Lincoln Cathedral. 
 
 They who wish to trace the history of such 
 Appeals in England may find it in Bishop Gibson's 
 Codex Juris Anglicani (p. 83, Ed. Oxford, 17G1). 
 As to the evils of such an Appellate Jurisdiction 
 in Ecclesiastical matters, some of them may be seen 
 in the learned Church History of one of our former 
 Precentors, Dr. John Inett ; ^ and the remedies 
 applied to them are well stated in the excellent 
 ^lanual of English Church History by one of our 
 own representatives in Convocation, Canon 
 Perry.' 
 
 In the year 1532 the English Parliament 
 
 2 Vol. ii. pp. 2S1, 376 (Oxford, 1710), wlio .says that "by 
 allowing to the court of Rome the last resort in Causes Ecclo- 
 siastical, the kings of England liad stripped themselves of the 
 better half of tlic supremacy whicli God had given them." 
 
 ' P. 80 (Lond., 1878).
 
 1 6 On the p7'e sent Disquietude in the CJiurch. 
 
 passed an Act entitled, " No Appeal shall be used 
 but witliin this Realm" (24 Henr. VIII. c. 12). 
 
 It declared that the king was furnished with 
 full power to administer justice in all cases 
 finally, in causes Spiritual by Judges of the 
 Spiritualty, sufficient and meet for that end ; and 
 in causes Temporal by Temporal Judges. 
 
 It therefore prohibited Appeals to Rome, and 
 enacted that in Ecclesiastical Causes an Appeal 
 should lie from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, or 
 his Commissary, and thence to the Archbishop, 
 whose sentence should be final. But in all causes 
 concerning the king the Appeal should be to the 
 Uppe?- House of Convocation^ 
 
 But in the next year this course of procedure 
 was altered. By the Statute then passed (25 
 Henr. VIII. c. 19) the Parliament, preserving the 
 course of Appeal laid down in the foregoing 
 Statute, from the Court of the Archdeacon to the 
 Bishop, and from the Bishop to the Archbishop 
 in the Court of Arches, and recognizing the prin- 
 ciple enunciated in that former Statute that all 
 coercive jurisdiction, ^^ested in persons spiritual as 
 well as temporal, is from the King, under God, 
 proceeded to make the following change, and 
 enacted that an Appeal should lie finally from the 
 Archhishop in his Court of Arches, to the King in 
 his Court of Chancery, and that in every such 
 Appeal a commission should be directed under the 
 great seal to such persons as should he named hy 
 ' 24 Henr. YIII. c. 12. Ep. Giljsoii's Codex, p. 83.
 
 On the present Disquiettide in tJie Chnreh. 17 
 
 the Klnrfs Highness, his Heirs, and Successors ; 
 and that the persons " so named or appointed 
 should have full power and authority to hear and 
 determine such Appeal ^ ^ 
 
 The Court of Final Appeal constituted by this 
 Statute was commonly called the " Court of 
 Delegates.'*^ 
 
 It continued to exist and act as such for nearly 
 three hundred years. 
 
 A proposal was indeed made in the Reformatio 
 Legum'^ framed under King Edward VI. by Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer and other Reformers, to establish 
 another Court of Final Appeal, and to substitute 
 for the Court of Delegates either the Convocation 
 or Synod of the Province, or three or four Bishops 
 nominated by the Crown. 
 
 But this proposal fell to the ground. 
 
 Consequently the " Gourt of Del eg at es^^ as esta- 
 bhshed in 1533 as the Court of Final Appeal in 
 Ecclesiastical matters, is to be regarded as repre- 
 senting the " Eeformation Settlement " of a final 
 Tribunal in Ecclesiastical Causes. 
 
 You will bear in mind that I am not offering 
 opinions, but am only stating facts ; and what I 
 would now observe is that in the three centuries 
 which elapsed from the formation of the Court of 
 Delegates as the Final Court of Appeal, some 
 of the greatest Divines of the Church of England 
 wrote concerning the Royal Supremacy, and on 
 
 '' 25 Henr. VIII. c. 19, in Bp. Gibson's Codex, p. 1037. 
 • Ilef. Legum, p. 142. 
 
 B
 
 1 8 On the pi^esent Disquietude zji tJic CJmrch. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercised by it in ilia^- 
 Court, and defended tlie one and the other on 
 grounds Scriptural and Catholic. 
 
 Let me invite you to examine the eighth chapter 
 of the eighth book of Richard Hooker's work on 
 Ecclesiastical Polity. 
 
 He refers to the Gourt of Delegates in the 
 following words : — " When in any part of the 
 Church errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, 
 contempts, enormities are grown, which men in 
 their several Jurisdictions either do not or cannot 
 help, whatsoever any spiritual Authority or Power 
 (such as Legates from the see of Rome did some- 
 times exercise) have done, or might heretofore 
 have done for the remedy of those evils in lawful 
 sort (that is to say, without the violation of the 
 Law of God, or nature, in the deed done), so much 
 in every degree our Laws have fully granted that 
 the King for ever may do, not only in setting eccle- 
 siastical synods on work, but by Commissioners, 
 few or many, who having the King's Letters 
 Patent, may in virtue thereof execute the premises 
 as agents in the right not only of their own 
 peculiar and ordinary, but of his super-eminent, 
 power." 
 
 " In spiritual causes a lay person may be no 
 ordinary (i.e. he may not exercise ordinary juris- 
 diction appertaining to Bishops in sacred things), 
 but a Commissionary Judge there is no let he may 
 be." " That kind of appeal the English Laws do 
 approve from the Judge of any particular Court
 
 On the present Disqjiictiide in the Chureh. 19 
 
 unto the King, as tlie only supreme Governor on 
 earth, who, by Ms Delegates, may give a final de- 
 finitive sentence, from which no further appeal 
 may be made." 
 
 " It may not be convenient " (he says) " to the 
 King to sit and give sentence in sjnritual Courts " 
 (he calls the Court of Delegates by that name), 
 " where causes Ecclesiastical are usually debated, 
 but this can be no bar to that force and efficacy 
 which the sovereim Power of Kings hath over 
 those very Consistories, and for which we hold with- 
 out any exception that all Courts are the hincfsy 
 
 This assertion, '' all Courts are the King's," 
 and derive their coercive jurisdiction from the 
 Crow^n, is repeated by one of our greatest 
 Episcopal Jurists, Bishop Stillingfleet, in his 
 " Ecclesiastical Cases " (ii. 99, 203). 
 
 '* We see it necessary" (says Hooker) "to put a 
 difference between that orc^mar^ Jurisdiction which 
 belongeth to the Clergy alone, and that Corn- 
 missionary jurisdiction wherein others are for just 
 considerations appointed to join with them, as 
 also between both these jurisdictions and a third, 
 whereby the King hath a transcendent authority, 
 and that in all causes, over hoth.'^ 
 
 We may sum up his argument as follows : — 
 
 1. All authority is from God. 
 
 2. All coercive'^ jurlscUctlou, in all Courts, 
 
 ' I.e. 7iot the authority to preach, minister sacraments, ordain, 
 confirm children, «S:c., which is given by Christ and Christ 
 alone ; hut authority to enforce laws, ecclesiastical as well as 
 
 r. 2
 
 20 On the present Disquietude in the Chirrch. 
 
 whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, is from the Sove- 
 reign Ruler under God. 
 
 3. A Court constituted to exercise external 
 jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, 
 may be called a. Bpiriiual Court, even though some 
 laymen may sit in it, as they did in the Court of 
 Delegates. 
 
 4. Such a Court may have a coercive jitris- 
 diction in things spiritual, although it has been 
 constituted by Parliament as the Court of Dele- 
 gates " was by 25 Henr. YIII. c. 19. 
 
 5. But such a Court does not derive its autho- 
 rity from Parliament, but from the Crown, which 
 is the source of all external coercive jurisdiction 
 under God. " All courts," (says Hooker) " with- 
 out exception, are the King's;" and "all Laws, 
 enforcing pains and penalties, are, as Bishop San- 
 derson has shown,^ strictly speaking 'the King's 
 Laws,' as every statute shows in its enacting 
 clause : ' Be it enacted by the King^s most excellent 
 Majesty, by and with the advice and consent " of 
 both houses of Parliament.' 
 
 The English Parliament in the Statute ot 
 Appeals did not give jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical 
 
 civil, by penalties. And so Bishop Sanderson in his work on 
 Episcopacy (Lond., 1673), pp. 26 — 35. The Ministerial Power 
 of preaching the Word and ministering the Sacraments is from 
 heaven and of God. The judiciary or coercive power of 
 Bishops in giving sentence inforo exteriori in matters Eccle- 
 siastical is from the Crown, which under God is the fountain 
 of external jurisdiction whether spiritual or temporal. 
 
 * Bp. Sanderson, Lectures on Human Law, Lect. vii., sect. 
 7—10.
 
 On the presmt Disqtnetude m the Church, 21 
 
 matters to the Crown; but Parliament in that 
 Statute, being a Law enacted by the Crow itself 
 with the advice of Parhament, altered the channel 
 in which the Jurisdiction, which appertains to the 
 Crown, was to flow. 
 
 Such were the principles on which the " Befor- 
 mation Settlement'' as to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 was defended by Richard Hooker and by Bishop 
 Andrewes in his Answer to Cardinal Bellarmine, 
 and by Archbishop Laud in the Declaration which 
 he wrote in the King's name, and which is prefixed 
 to the Thirty-nine Articles in our Prayer Book. 
 Such were the principles which were maintained 
 by our greatest divines, such as Archbishop 
 Bramhall, Bishop Sanderson, Bishop Pearson, 
 Bishop Bull, Bishop Stillingfleet, and Bishop 
 Butler. 
 
 They believed those principles to be grounded 
 on Holy Scripture, and to be in accordance with 
 the judgment of the ancient Cathohc Church, and 
 to be the best safeguards, under God, against the 
 usurpations of Romanism on the one side, and of 
 the Genevan discipline on the other. 
 
 The Court of Delegates was abolished in the 
 year 1832, and its Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical 
 matters was transferred, first to the entire Prlvu 
 Council, and in the next year to the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council; and in 1840, in 
 certain causes, to a mixed Tribunal consisting of 
 the Judicial Committee and Prelates who were
 
 2 2 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 
 
 Privy Counsellors. Another alteration ^ was 
 made by tlie " Appellate Jurisdiction Act " in 
 ]8765 whicli provided for the making ''of rules 
 for the attendance on the hearing of Ecclesiastical 
 cases as assessors of the Judicial Committee of 
 such number of the Archhishops and Blshoj)s of 
 the Church of England as might be determined by 
 such rules." 
 
 Let us nov^ return to the year 1850. 
 
 An attempt was made by one of the greatest 
 of our English Bishops, Bishop Blomfield, on 
 June 3rd, 1850, in the House of Lords, to amend 
 the Court of Final Appeal by transferring its 
 jurisdiction from the Judicial Gommittee to the 
 Bench of Bishops. 
 
 Though the Bill introduced by him received the 
 support of the Earl of Derby, and of many other 
 powerful advocates, it was rejected by a majority 
 of 84 against 5L 
 
 This proposal will engage our attention when 
 we come to consider the remedies proposed for 
 present evils. 
 
 On the 7th of August, 1874, was passed the 
 *' Public Worship Eegulation Act." 
 
 One of the main objections to that measure, as it 
 seems to me, and as was stated by me in the course 
 of debates upon it in the House of Lords,' was that 
 
 « 39 and 40 Vict., c. 59, s. 14. 
 
 ^ May I be allowed to refer, for a report of this, to my "Miscel- 
 lanies Literary and Eeligious," vol. iii. pp. 124 — 141, where some 
 remarks are offered on the true principles of Parliamentary legis-
 
 On the present Disquietude in the Chitrch. 
 
 23 
 
 it was introduced and carried through Parhament 
 without, and indeed against, the advice of the 
 Church in her Convocations. 
 
 Of its special provisions I will say more pre- 
 sently. 
 
 And now, my reverend and lay brethren, let us 
 consider the question. What is to be done ? 
 
 1. Let us not look for ideal perfection. Let us 
 remember that the condition of the Church on 
 earth is, ever has been, and ever will be (and 
 much more as we approach nearer to the end of 
 the world) a very imperfect one. Let us not 
 mistake the Church Militant on earth for the 
 Church Triumphant in heaven. Let us not ex- 
 pect here what can only be enjoyed hereafter. 
 
 Let us look back on past ages of the Church's 
 history which we have been reviewing. Consider, 
 for example, the condition of the Church as to 
 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and its exercise as 
 exemphfied in the forty best years of the life of 
 Athanasius. " The heart of Constantine stolen 
 from him; Constantius, Constantine's successor, 
 his scourge and torment by all the ways that 
 malice armed with Sovereign Authority could 
 devise and use. Under Juhan no rest given 
 him ; and in the days of Valentinian as little. 
 His Judges the self-same men by whom his 
 accusers were suborned " ^ Even Hosius, the 
 
 lation on Ecclesiastical matters, "vvitli special reference to the 
 precedent of 1689. * Hooker, v., xlii.
 
 24 On the present Disquietude in the Church, 
 
 framer of tlie Niceiie Creed, renounced it. Here- 
 tical symbols, sucli as that of Rimini, were imposed 
 in its place. Bishops, once his friends, turned 
 from him and became his enemies. But he was 
 not dismayed ; he remained firm and calm. 
 " Throughout that long tragedy nothing was ob- 
 served in Athanasius, other than such as it well 
 became a wise man to do, and a righteous man 
 to suffer." And God rewarded his constancy, 
 wisdom, and charity, by restoring him to his see, 
 and by settling and establishing for ever that true 
 faith in Christ for which he contended valiantly 
 and suffered patiently. So will it be with those 
 who imitate his example. 
 
 2. Next, while we look at evils steadily, let us 
 not exaggerate them. Let us try to overcome evil 
 with good. While we mistrust ourselves, let us 
 look up with faith to God, and consider His 
 gracious attributes, in making all things minis- 
 terial for good to them that love and obey Him 
 and in eliciting the greatest good from what 
 may appear to be the worst evils. 
 
 Pardon some personal reminiscences here. I re- 
 member well being present in the Court of Final 
 Appeal at the delivery of the celebrated Gorham 
 judgment by the Judicial Committee in the spring 
 of 1850. One of the most formidable enemies of 
 the Church of England, an eminent Ecclesiastic of 
 the Church of Rome, was in the audience ; and 
 the exultation of him and his friends in the hope 
 of a large secession from the Church of England
 
 On tJie present Disquiettide in the Church. 25 
 
 in consequence of that judgment, and their recep- 
 tion into the Church of Rome, was not greater 
 than the distress and consternation of some of the 
 best friends of our own Church. 
 
 Deep indeed was the sorrow caused by that 
 judgment ; but it has pleased God to overrule it 
 for good. I recollect hearing then the remark 
 of a wise and faithful layman of the Church of 
 England — the late Mr. Joshua Watson. He said 
 soon after it : '* Depend upon it, the outspoken 
 protest of one such bishop as Bishop Blomfield 
 against that judgment will do more good to the 
 Church than the judgment will do harm." Bishop 
 Blomfield's action at that time, his speech in the 
 House of Lords soon after it, in introducing the 
 Bill to which I have referred, supported as he was 
 in his strictures on the constitution of the Judi- 
 cial Committee as an Ecclesiastical Court, by 
 the Earl of Derby, Bishop Kaye,^ Bishop Wilber- 
 force, and others were so damamno^ to its moral 
 influence, that the mischief done by its decisions 
 was greatly neutralized. 
 
 Besides this, the Clergy were thus excited to 
 consider more carefully their own teaching on the 
 Sacrament of Baptism. 
 
 The Gorham judgment gave us^ favourable 
 
 ' In his Charge of 1852. 
 
 * The publication of the author's Occasional Sermons preached 
 in Westminster Abbey on these and other subjects of the day, 
 and continued for many years, dated from that Judgment in 
 1850.
 
 2 6 Oil the present Disquietude in the ChttrcJi. 
 
 opportunities of preaching on that doctrine, and 
 on Church communion, and on Secessions from it. 
 
 What Origen and other Ancient Christian 
 Fathers, especially S. Augustine, said of the 
 effects of divers heresies, that they, by stimu- 
 lating careful inquiry, had led, under God's good 
 providence, to the clearer manifestation and 
 firmer establishment of the Truth ; ^ and, what 
 S. Augustine specially remarked concerning the 
 Donatistic controversy, that it was overruled 
 to be the means of settling men's minds in the 
 right doctrine on the Sacrament of Baptism^ has 
 been signally exemplified in our own age in Eng- 
 land. We owe it, under God, to the Gorham 
 controversy, that the opinions of the Clergy and 
 Laity of the Church of England on that Sacra- 
 ment are, for the most part, much clearer and 
 much sounder at the present time than they were 
 thirty years ago. 
 
 3. While also we do not shut our eyes to our 
 errors and abuses, and while we endeavour, with 
 God's help, to correct and remove them, patiently, 
 charitably and wisely, let us not forget our mani- 
 fold blessings, and let u» thank God for them. 
 
 Many now speak in impatient and indignant 
 language on our bondage to the State, as if we 
 were the slaves and vassals of an Erastian tyranny. 
 But let me respectfully and earnestly entreat them 
 
 ** Origen, Homil, 9 in Num. S. Augustine, De Civ. Dei 
 xvi. 2. 
 
 " S. Aug. in Ps. 54.
 
 On the present Disqztiet^ide in the Church. 27 
 
 to ask themselves tliis question — Is there any 
 Communion in Christendom in which they would 
 enjoy more true liberty than in the Church of 
 England ? Would they find it in the Church of 
 Rome, which would bend all men under the iron 
 yoke of subjection to one man whom she terms 
 infalHble ; and which has thus involved herself 
 in a perpetual necessity of erring; and which 
 imposes anti-scriptural and anti-catholic dogmas 
 as terms of communion ? Would you find more 
 freedom in \\iq Greek Church, which is reduced 
 to intellectual and spiritual and social degrada- 
 tion ? Would you exchange your lot for that of 
 those in the disestabhshed Church of Ireland or 
 Scotland, or in the non-established Churches of 
 America or the Colonies, or in any Protestant 
 Communions at home or abroad ? 
 
 Is there any Christian doctrine which you, my 
 reverend brethren, are not fi^ee to preach? Is 
 there any Christian Sacrament which you are not 
 free to administer ? Is there any Christian Creed, 
 whole and unadulterated, which you are not free 
 to use in your Churches ? Are you not fi^e to 
 visit the sick and dying in your parishes, to teach 
 in your Schools, and, if you will, to evangelize 
 the Heathen ? Have you not the true Canon of 
 Holy Scripture in your mother tongue? Have 
 you not, in your own Christian Ministry, a sacred 
 Commission and Apostolic lineage, derived by a 
 continuous succession of eighteen centuries from 
 the hand of Christ ?
 
 28 On the present Disquietude in the Chttrch. 
 
 If we have all these inestimable blessings, 
 which the rest of Christendom might well envy us, 
 let us not murmur against God, and tempt Him 
 for our ingratitude to withdraw them from us. 
 
 Let us not, indeed, obey any command which is 
 plainly contrary to the Divine Law, but let us not 
 tempt the Lord our God by casting ourselves 
 down from the pinnacle of the temple, in the vain 
 hope that He will work a miracle to save us from 
 the consequences of our own act. 
 
 If it pleases the Civil Powers to spoil us of our 
 goods, to take away from us our Churches and 
 our Parsonages, be it so ; the sin of sacrilege will 
 be theirs, and the glory of suffering for God will 
 be ours ; but let us not rush recklessly into Dis- 
 establishment, which would involve us in the 
 guilt not only of pauperizing our successors, but 
 also of paganizing our people, especially in such 
 a Diocese as this. 
 
 4. The severe penalties which some of our 
 brethren of the Clergy are now suffering for what 
 are commonly called ritualistic excesses, and for 
 non-compliance with judicial sentences which 
 restrain them, will, it is to be hoped, have the good 
 effect of leading some among us to examine our- 
 selves whether we may not be chargeable with 
 ritualistic defects ; and of thus diffusing not only a 
 spirit of charitable forbearance and mutual tolera- 
 tion among us, but also of producing more dili- 
 gence, and zeal and vitality in our practice, and 
 more conformity to the laws of the Church.
 
 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 29 
 
 Let us not be angry with some of our brethren 
 if they exceed in some degree what we ourselves 
 do, and what we have been accustomed to regard 
 as the limit of Clerical liberty and Ecclesiastical 
 order and law. 
 
 Perhaps our views of such Hberty, order, and 
 law may not be quite correct. And let me sug- 
 gest, that perhaps our time might be better spent 
 in examining whether we may not be chargeable 
 on our side with falling short of the law. Are we 
 to vent our indignation on zeal, and have none left 
 for lukewarmness ? Are we to be angry with our 
 brethren who afford their people access to frequent 
 communion, and allow them to have the privilege 
 of worshipping God on the holy days of the Church, 
 and on every day of the year, and give them the 
 benefit of the whole Book of Common Prayer 
 freely and fully, and who faithfully comply with 
 its requirements, and perhaps outrun some of 
 them (which I do not advise any one to do, or 
 commend any one for doing), and are we to have 
 no reproaches for ourselves, if we rarely open our 
 Churches from one Sunday to another, and if we 
 are content with infrequent communions, and do 
 not obey the laws of the Church in her appoint- 
 ment of Saints' Days and Holy Days, or omit the 
 Athanasian Creed, and if we deprive our people of 
 what she has provided for them in her Prayer 
 Book, and which she commands us to supply ? In 
 a word, let us all agree in a hearty resolve to be 
 kind, fair, and charitabk^ to one another; to Hve
 
 ;o 
 
 On the present Disqitietiide in the CJmrch. 
 
 as brethren, and to have nothing to do with those 
 unhappy disputes which waste the time and energy 
 of the Church, and hinder her from doing her 
 proper work ; and let us determine to obey loyally 
 the laws of the Church ; and neither to fall short 
 of them on one side, nor exceed them on the other ; 
 to be in peace with one another, and to join 
 toa*ether in an earnest endeavour to maintain and 
 advance the true Faith, and in resisting the assaults 
 of Infidelity, Secularism, and Superstition ; and in 
 missionary work for saving the souls of semi-pagan 
 multitudes in our vast cities, and in delivering 
 heathen nations, especially in our Colonies and 
 foreign dependencies, from darkness and the 
 shadow of death into the glorious liberty of the 
 children of God. 
 
 Here is work enough for us all. 
 
 But to speak now of remedies. 
 
 In order to apply them rightly we must under- 
 stand the nature of the disorder. 
 
 First, then, as to the Gourt of Final Appeal. 
 
 It is alleged by some good men that it derives 
 its authority fro7n Parliament, that it is a ''State 
 Coiirt,'^ and not a " Gourt of the Church,'' and 
 that it ought not to take cognizance of spiritual 
 matters ; and that we ought to abolish it, and 
 to return to what is called the '' Reformation 
 Settlement " in the decision of such causes 
 Ecclesiastical. 
 
 The fundamental fallacy in such allegations is
 
 On the present Disquietude iii the CJntrch. 3 i 
 
 tins, that they assume that, because Parhament 
 has directed the manner in tuhich a certain Autho - 
 rity — namely that of the Royal Supremacy — is to 
 he exercised, therefore Parliament is the source from 
 which that authority floivs. 
 
 I had thought that this fallacy had been so 
 triumphantly exposed and refuted more than two 
 centuries ago, by the author of the Preface to our 
 Book of Common Prayer, Bishop Sanderson, in 
 his admirable Lectures on Conscience and Law,' 
 that we should have heard no more about it. 
 
 But as it is now very rife, in pamphlets, public 
 speeches, even in sermons, let me be permitted 
 with all deference to ask — Does the Queen derive 
 her authority from Parliament, because Parliament 
 by certain Statutes (as the Act of Settlement) has 
 appointed, with the Crown's assent, that the 
 authority which she derives from God shall flow in 
 a certain channel, namely in a Protestant line of 
 succession ? Does a Member of Parliament derive 
 his authority from the constituents who elect 
 him ? If so, they would have a right to dismiss 
 him. No; he derives his authority from the 
 English Constitution, and originally from God. 
 Does the Head of a College, where that office is 
 elective, derive his authority, as such, from the 
 Fellows who choose him ? No ; he derives it 
 from the Statutes, and from the Founder of the 
 College, and ultimately from God. In such cases 
 as these the electors designate the person by whom 
 ' See Lecture vii. sections 18 — 20.
 
 32 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 
 
 tlie authority is to be exercised, but tliej do not 
 give the authority which is exercised by him. 
 
 Similarly coercive Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by 
 whomsover it may be exercised, is in England 
 derived from the Sovereign, who is supreme over 
 all persons, and in all causes, and it is ultimately 
 from God, the original Fountain and Wellspring 
 of all authority. 
 
 The authority exercised in Ecclesiastical matters 
 by the Judicial Committee is derived from the 
 Crown as Supreme under God. Parliament has, 
 as it were, made the channel in which the autho- 
 rity is to flow ; but Parliament is no more the 
 source of that authority than a Roman aque- 
 duct is the fountain of the water which flows 
 through it to the city of Rome from the Alban 
 hills. 
 
 As for the " Reformation Settlement, ^^ as it is 
 called, the action of Parliament was, as we have 
 seen, precisely the same at that time as it is now ; 
 Parliament enacted the '' Statute of Appeals " in 
 A.D. 1533, which regulated the manner in which 
 the Royal Supremacy was to be exercised in 
 Ecclesiastical causes ; namely by the Court of 
 Delegates, which our best Divines do not hesitate 
 to call a Spiritual Court, not because it consisted 
 of spiritual persons (for this was not the case), but 
 as having authority in spiritual causes. And 
 this " Statute of Appeals " remained in force, 
 as we have also seen, for three centuries ; and, 
 as has been already shown, this mode of Parlia-
 
 On tJic present Disquiehtde in the Church. 
 
 jj 
 
 mentary action was defended by all our greatest 
 divines, such as Richard Hooker, and Bishop 
 Andrewes, and others during that time. 
 
 If the " Judicial Committee of Privy Council " 
 is to be condemned as a '' State-made Court, con- 
 sisting of State-made Judges, ^^ the same con- 
 demnation must be pronounced on " The Court 
 of Delegates," which was our Court of Final 
 Appeal from the Reformation to our own age. 
 
 They, therefore, who appeal to the '' Reforma- 
 tion Settlement " ought to acquiesce in this 
 Parliamentary actiou ; but if they condemn this 
 Parliamentary action, they have no right to 
 invoke the '' Reformation Settlement." 
 
 The fact is, if the Judicial Committee had 
 nothing to fear but the censure of those who 
 seem to misapprehend the matter, and call it a 
 " State Court," a '' Secular Court created by 
 Parliament for taking cognizance of Spiritual 
 causes which ought to be judged only by spiritual 
 persons, " it need not be very uneasy. 
 
 But letting these things go, which will not have 
 much weight with judicious men, who have studied 
 the principles of Divine and Human Law, and the 
 origin of authority, and the writings of our best 
 divines, and the history of the Church Catholic, 
 and of the Church of England, let us now pass 
 on to consider whether there are not other 
 more valid reasons which induced such eminent 
 persons as the Earl of Derby, Bishop Blomfield, 
 Bishop Kayo, and Bishop Wilberforce, to except 
 
 c
 
 34 On the present Disquietude in the Church. 
 
 against tliat Court, and to engage in a public 
 effort to supersede it. 
 
 The fact of its being a Committee of tlie Privy 
 Council seems unfavourable to its salutary action 
 in Ecclesiastical Causes. 
 
 The Court of Delegates was preferable to it. 
 Courts and Laws are of little avail unless the 
 Judges who administer the Laws in these Courts are 
 wisely chosen by the Supreme Authority for their 
 special qualifications to do the work assigned to 
 them in the best way. 
 
 "Thou shalt provide" (said God to Moses ^) 
 " out of all the people able men, such as fear God, 
 men of truth, hating covetousness ; and place 
 such over them, and let them judge the people." 
 
 Under the " Statute of Appeals " a Sovereign, 
 guided by good advice might, and probably did, 
 c hoose such men to sit and judge as Delegates in 
 any Ecclesiastical cause, as were best qualified for 
 the purpose, by learning, wisdom, integrity, 
 justice, firmness and moderation, and above all by 
 the true faith, fear, and love of God. 
 
 Such a person was the provincial governor of 
 Africa, Marcellinus, whom, as we have seen, the 
 Emperor Honorius appointed to act as his Delegate 
 and Commissioner in the cause of the Donatists, 
 and before whom S. Augustine, and the Catholic 
 Bishops with him, pleaded the cause of the Church, 
 and who, by his wisdom and piety and charity, ap- 
 peased a controversy which had long distracted it. 
 * Exod. xviii. 21.
 
 On tJie pi'esent Disquietude in the Church. 35 
 
 The Court of Delegates stands in favourable 
 contrast, therefore, to the Judicial Committee ; and 
 it is remarkable that more distress has been pro- 
 duced in the Churcli by the action of the latter in 
 not quite fiftj years, than by tliat of the former in 
 three hundred. It is no fault of those who have 
 been members of the Judicial Committee that they 
 have not gained the respect and confidence of the 
 Church. The fault is in the constitution of the 
 Court. 
 
 The Judges of that Court are Privy Councillors 
 who have not been appointed to that high position 
 in the State for any special fitness to determine 
 Ecclesiastical Causes by their learning in Eccle- 
 siastical Law, and by their skill in Theological 
 Learning. 
 
 Some of them might be even like the Judges 
 chosen by the Emperor Yalentinian the younger ^ 
 who did not believe the doctrine of the Church 
 concerning our Lord's divinity, and before whom 
 S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, refused to plead in 
 a cause of religion. They mght be like those 
 provincial delegates of the Arian Emperor Con- 
 stantius, whose judicial cognizance in matters of 
 doctrine was deprecated by S. Hilary, Bishop of 
 Poictiers. 
 
 It was for this reason that our forefathers 
 wisely provided in the 127tli Canon of the Church 
 of England in 1604 (on the " Quality of Jiuhjcs 
 Ecclesiastical) that no one "should exercise any 
 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except he were learned 
 
 c 2
 
 36 On the prese7tt Disquietude in the Chtirch. 
 
 in Givil and Ecclesiastical Laiv, as likewise luell 
 affected and zealously hent on religion, toucliing 
 wliose life and manners no evil example is liad " 
 (in the Latin Canon it is, in jure canonico eruditus, 
 '' religioni studiose deditus, de cujus vita et morihus 
 nullus sinister sermo audiatur,^') and every such 
 Judge, before he exercised any such jurisdiction 
 must take an oath affirming the King's supreme 
 authority in Ecclesiastical causes ('' supremam 
 regis auctoritatem in Gausis Ecclesiasticis^^), in the 
 presence of the Bishop or in open Court, and also 
 subscribe the Thirty -nine Articles of Religion of 
 the Church of England, agreed upon in the Con- 
 vocation of 1562. 
 
 Accordingly on the 26th of June, 1879, the 
 Lower House of Convocation adopted a Resolution 
 that the '' Judges in the Court of Final Appeal in 
 Ecclesiastical Causes should as far as possible 
 possess the qualifications laid down for certain 
 Ecclesiastical Judges in the 127th Canon." ^ 
 
 This was a wise Resolution. 
 
 Again, as to the mode in which judgment is 
 given by that Court in such causes. 
 
 It is not, I hope, presumptuous to say that the 
 words ^'Judicial Committee of Privy Council" 
 
 • Chronicle of Convocation for 1879, pp. 187--190. The 
 Eeport of the Committee of the Lower House of Convocation, 
 on " The Relations of Church and State," presented June 23, 
 1879, is one of many valuable documents of the kind which 
 may supply a sufficient answer to the question, " What is the 
 use of Convocation 1 "
 
 On the present Disquietndc in the Chnrch. ^i 
 
 acting as a Court of Final Appeal in Ecclesiastical 
 Causes involve a contradiction in terms. 
 
 The words " Privy Council" {'' a secretioribus 
 consiliis "), implying j^n^ac?/ and secrecy, are very 
 appropriate so far as they describe the functions 
 of those who are advanced to the high honour of 
 being advisers of the Crown, and who, as such, 
 are jjledged to secrecy. 
 
 You may remember that a former Bishop of 
 Lincoln, Dr. John Williams, was sent to prison, 
 and was condemned to pay a heavy fine, for 
 alleged misdemeanours, and particularly because, 
 being a Privy Councillor, he had " revealed the 
 King's secrets.'' 
 
 A rule was laid down by the Privy Council on 
 Pebruary 20, 1627, prohibiting smy publication of 
 different opinions held by different members of 
 the Council. 
 
 But such things as these are not good and 
 seemly for Courts of Justice. There is an incon- 
 sistency here. The essence of a Privy Council 
 is secrecy; the essence of a Court of Justice is 
 publicity. 
 
 The Judicial Committee of Privy Council 
 seems to feel this contradiction. Strictly speak- 
 ing, it is not a Court of Justice at all. It does 
 not profess to be so ; it never delivers a judgment. 
 All that it does is to act as a part of her Majesty's 
 Privy Council, and in that capacity to advise her 
 Majesty; but this advice has no validity what- 
 ever till the Report of it is read to her Majesty
 
 8 On the pi'esent Disqidehide in the Church. 
 
 in Council, and receives the approval of the 
 Crown/ 
 
 The consequence of this is, that the Judicial 
 Committee of Privy Council fails to fulfil a pri- 
 mary condition of a Court of Justice. The 
 public has a right to know — the Church has a 
 right to know — in Ecclesiastical causes, — not what 
 a Committee of the Privy Council, as a body, 
 advises the Crown to do, but what each Judge in 
 the Court determines in such causes, and on what 
 grounds he bases his judgment. 
 
 Even in that most arbitrary of all Courts — now 
 abolished — the Star Chamber, this was done. 
 Secrecy was not imposed on the judges. We 
 possess speeches — delivered and printed by them- 
 selves — of Archbishop Laud and Bishop Andrewes, 
 on Ecclesiastical Causes that came before them in 
 that court. ^ 
 
 We have tried secret voting by ballot in Parlia- 
 mentary Elections ; the result of the experiment 
 is not such as to encourage its application to 
 Courts of Justice. 
 
 ^ Take the case of the Eidsdale Judgment, "The Report from 
 the Judicial Committee/' was dated on May 12, 1877, and came 
 before her Majesty on the 14th May following; and "her 
 Majesty, having taken the said Eeport into consideration, w^as 
 pleased, by and with the advice of her Privy Council, to approve 
 thereof, and to order that the same may be duly observed." — 
 (Signed) C. L. Peel. 
 
 ^ See Archbishop Laud's speech in the case of Bastwick, 
 delivered in the Star Chamber, June 14, 1637; and the speech 
 of Bishop Andrewes in the Star Chamber in Traske's case, 
 1G19, and in the Countess of Shrewsbury's case, p. 79 (Ed. 1629.)
 
 On the present Disqnietude in tJie ChircJi. 39 
 
 There appears, tlierefore, to be good reason for 
 the resolution of the Lower House of Convoca- 
 tion, on June 26, 1879, that " in the Court of 
 Final Appeal in Ecclesiastical Causes, the judgments 
 of the several Judges constituting the Court should 
 be delivered severally and seriatim.^^ 
 
 One more remark on this topic. 
 
 In the present state of political parties, and in 
 the intermixture of Ecclesiastical questions with 
 civil, there is some danger lest high political 
 Functionaries, sitting as Judges on Ecclesiastical 
 questions, should be exposed to the temptation of 
 being — unconsciously — swayed by considerations 
 of political expediency — especially if they do not 
 act publicly and on their own personal responsibi- 
 lity, in framing their judgments on Ecclesiastical 
 Causes ; and that those judgments should be 
 warped and biassed by considerations of State 
 policy, to the prejudice of the interests of justice, 
 and the welfare of the Church. 
 
 On the whole, then, we may, I think, agree 
 with those who are of opinion that there is sufi&- 
 cient reason for an endeavour to amend the Con- 
 stitution of the Court of Final Appeal, and to 
 revise the mode in which the jurisdiction of the 
 Crown in Ecclesiastical Causes is now exercised 
 by its means. 
 
 It was proposed, as we have seen, by Bishop 
 Blomfield, in 1850, that the functions which that 
 Court discharges should be transferred to the 
 Episcopal Bench.
 
 40 On the pj'esent Disquietude in the CJinrch. 
 
 Even at the present time, by tlie Statute of 
 Appeals, the final appeal lies, in cases concerning 
 the Crown, to the Bishops in the Upper House of 
 Convocation. This proposal has recently re- 
 ceived the sanction of some honoured names. It 
 has not however commended itself to others who 
 are entitled to speak on the subject. Our friend 
 Prebendary Joyce, who is a high authority on 
 synodical matters, does not think that this pro- 
 posal would be "at all satisfactory," ^ and he 
 would prefer a joint committee of the Convoca- 
 tions of both Provinces. 
 
 But after all, in matters like these we must not 
 so much consider what would be absolutely best, 
 as what would be best in what is possible. 
 
 If the House of Lords in 1850 rejected by a 
 considerable majority such a proposal, urged by 
 powerful advocates like the Earl of Derby and 
 Bishop Blomfield, and others, it would probably be 
 of little use to press it upon both Houses of 
 Parliament at the present time. 
 
 But the resolutions of the Lower House of Con- 
 vocation, which have been specified above, are so 
 fair and reasonable, that under favourable circum- 
 stances it is to be hoped they might receive the 
 attention which they deserve. 
 
 Let us now pass on to the " Public Worship 
 Eegulation Act " of 1874 (37 and 38 Yict. cap. 85). 
 
 « Preb. Joyce, " Ecclesia Vindicata," p. 191 (London, 1862).
 
 On the present Disqrtietude in the Chureh. 41 
 
 That such a measure should have been pro- 
 ceeded with independently of, and in opposition 
 to, the judgment of the Clergy in Convocation, 
 was, as has been already said, to be regretted. 
 
 It was also a mistake, I venture to think — espe- 
 cially under such circumstances — to make a 
 change in the constitution of our ancient Provin- 
 cial Courts. 
 
 But I cannot agree with those who allege that 
 the Judge who now sits in the Court of Arches, as 
 remodelled by that Statute, derives his autliority 
 from Parliament, 
 
 The fallacy of such an allegation has already 
 been pointed out. 
 
 What Parliament really did was this. It 
 declared in ivhat way Jurisdiction is to be exer- 
 cised by the Judge, appointed by the two Arch- 
 bishops, and deriving his authority from the 
 Archbishops, who, as far as that authority is 
 coercive, and has to do with the infliction of pains 
 and penalties, receive their jurisdiction from the 
 Crown, as Supreme under God (as Hooker, Arch- 
 bishop Bramhall, Bishop Andrewes, and Bishop 
 Sanderson have clearly shown) ; for which rea- 
 son, says Hooker (in words more fully quoted 
 above), we hold that '' without exception all 
 Courts are the King's." " The truth is," says 
 Archbishop Bramhall* (one of the most clear- 
 sighted and vigorous-minded of our divines), 
 "all Ecclesiastical Courts, and all Ecclesiastical 
 * Works, vol. i. p. 170.
 
 42 On the p7'e sent Disquietttde in the Church. 
 
 coercive Jurisdiction, are from Sovereign Princes 
 (I except always that Jurisdiction wliicli is purely 
 spiritual and an essential part of the ' Power ^ of 
 the Keys'); and they exercise that power by 
 themselves, or by their delegates, in all Eccle- 
 siastical Causes." 
 
 It is, therefore, not correct to say, that Parlia- 
 ment has professed to give sjnritual authority to 
 the Judge in that Court ; and that, since Parlia- 
 ment cannot be a source of spiritual authority 
 (which I fully allow), the Judge appointed by the 
 Archbishops to preside in that Court has no juris- 
 diction in causes spiritual and ecclesiastical. 
 
 Again, it has been said by some that Parliament 
 might as well pretend to declare who is to be 
 Bishop of a Diocese, as to determine who is to be 
 a Judge in an Ecclesiastical Court. 
 
 Such an allegation as this, involving a strange 
 confusion between the power of Order (which is 
 sacred and from Christ alone) and the power of 
 external coercive jurisdiction, which is from the 
 Crown, needs only to be mentioned to be exploded 
 by those who have any knowledge of Theology and 
 Ecclesiastical law. 
 
 But there are other objections to the Act which 
 deserve consideration. 
 
 These have been stated by the Bishop of Ely, 
 
 ' I.e. the exercise of the Spiritual power — conferred at Ordi- 
 nation — in administering the Sacraments, and for the remission 
 of sins, and in absolution of Penitents.
 
 On the present Disquietude in the Chiurh. 43 
 
 in Ills recent reply to some of liis Clergy, and 
 by some speakers in tlie Lower House of Convo- 
 cation on June 26tli and 27th, in the year 1879, 
 and by a distinguished and generous layman, 
 the Eight Hon. J. G. Hubbard, M.P., and by 
 others. 
 
 The Act disables the MetropoHtan of either 
 Province from appointing a Judge in his own 
 Provincial Court without the consent of the 
 Metropolitan of the other Province ; and it reduces 
 the Judo^es of the two Provincial Courts to one 
 Judge; and in case the two Archbishops do not 
 agree, the appointment of this one Judge lapses to 
 the Crown.* 
 
 As to this last point, it has been urged by a 
 high authority, that it is "essential to the office of 
 such a Judge that he should have the power of 
 excommunication, which can only be conveyed by 
 spirihtal delegation." 
 
 But the Church of England is strongly opposed 
 to the exercise of any such power of excommu- 
 nication by any official apj)ointed by a Bishop 
 (Canons of 1585, Cardwell, 144; Canons of 1640, 
 Cardw^ell, 410). The words in Canon 122 are to 
 be explained, from the Latin version, and Bishop 
 Gibson says (Codex, 1049) " Excommunication is 
 to be pronounced by none but the Bishop, or other 
 person in hohj orders. 
 
 But to return. The Act provides in its 7th sec- 
 tion that the two Archbishops may concurrently 
 ' See section 7 of the Act,
 
 44 On the present Disq^tictude in the Church. 
 
 appoint a Judge of their two Provincial Courts ; 
 and then it proceeds to declare that the Judge, 
 so appointed by the two Archbishops, shall, at the 
 next avoidance in the offices of the judges then 
 existing in their two Provincial Courts, become 
 ilie judge in one Court ; in which the two Courts 
 and their Jurisdiction are, by a process of fusion, 
 to coalesce and to be merged. 
 
 The Act then goes on to describe the mode in 
 which the proceedings before this composite Court 
 are to be regulated. 
 
 This was an organic change in these ancient 
 Provincial Courts, and it is one that is much to 
 be regretted. 
 
 It has been alleged by an excellent layman, that 
 the present Dean of Arches has no spiritual 
 authority, for the following reasons ; because — 
 
 1. On the resignation of that office by Sir 
 Robert Phillimore, he did not receive a special 
 appointment to it from the Aoxhbishop, and that 
 consequently he is only a Judge ajopointed hy 
 Parliament, which cannot give spiritual autlio- 
 rity ; and 
 
 2. Because he has never qualified himself for 
 that office by taking the Oath which (as we have 
 seen above) is prescribed for Ecclesiastical Judges 
 by the 127th Canon. 
 
 Now I do not pretend to say that it would not 
 have been better that these objections should have 
 been obviated ; but they certainly have not the 
 force which they are supposed by some to possess.
 
 On the p7'esent Disquietude in the Chu7%h. 
 
 45 
 
 For, as to tlie first objection ; it is to bo remem- 
 bered that the present Judge of the Court of 
 Arches was apjjointed hy the Archbishop (acting 
 with his brother Primate) to he a Judge of his 
 Provincial Court of Arches, under the distinct 
 understanding that he was to succeed to the office 
 of Dean of Arches (under section 7 of the Act) 
 on the next avoidance of that office ; and therefore 
 he was virtually appointed, not by Parliament, 
 but by the Archbishoj) to that office. 
 
 Let me illustrate this statement by an example. 
 
 Many alterations in the territorial areas of our 
 Dioceses were made, under Parliamentary statutes, 
 at the Reformation, and have been made, in 
 accordance with statutory enactments, in the 
 present century (6 and 7 Will. IV. c. 77). 
 
 Suppose, now, a Bishop to be elected, confirmed, 
 and consecrated to a Diocese, under a Parliamen- 
 tary provision that on the demise of another 
 Bishop of a contiguous Diocese, he shall take the 
 Episcopal oversight of some additional territory — 
 say another county — which belonged to the 
 deceased Bishop's Diocese ; he does not require 
 any new election, confirmation, or consecration, 
 to enable him to take the oversight of that 
 county ; nor does he derive his Episcopal juris- 
 diction over that county /ro?n Parliament which 
 enacted that statute, but he derives it from his 
 original election, confirmation, and consecration 
 to his office of Bishop. 
 
 In like manner, the present Dean of Arches does
 
 46 On the present Disqitietude in the Church. 
 
 not derive liis jurisdiction from Parliament, but 
 from the Arclibisliop, and through him from Grod, 
 Who is the Sonrce of all authority. 
 
 As to the Oath prescribed by the 127th Canon, 
 it would, in my opinion, have been far better that 
 the Canon should have been complied with, and 
 the Oath have been taken. 
 
 But I fear it would go very hard with many 
 of us. Bishops and Clergy, if non-observance of a 
 Canon were supposed to vitiate our ministrations. 
 
 Take an example of this. 
 
 All Bishops, Deans, and Canons are required by 
 a Canon (Canon 24) to luear Copes when they 
 minister the Holy Communion in their Cathedral 
 Churches ; and they (who are specially obliged to 
 observe the Canons) ought certainly to do so ; but 
 they would be surprised to hear that the validity 
 of the Sacrament administered by them was 
 vitiated by their non-observance of the Canon 
 which requires them to wear Copes when they 
 minister it. 
 
 Let it be remembered also that the Judge was 
 appointed to his office under the Act (Sect. 7) 
 with the express condition, that he should, on 
 admission to it, sign a declaration (provided by a 
 Schedule in the Act) that he is a Member of the 
 Church of England; and if he ceases to be a 
 member of it, his office is to become vacant. 
 
 With regard to submission to the decisions of 
 the Court thus constituted, it seems to me that if
 
 Oil the present D isqtiietude in the CJiurch. 47 
 
 a person — after careful consideration, and after 
 seeking for tlie advice of tliose who are best quali- 
 fied to guide Lirn, especially of his own Bishop, 
 to whom he has promised obedience in all things 
 lawful and honest— and to whom the Church 
 commands him to submit — is firmly convinced in 
 his own conscience that he cannot recognize the 
 authority of that Court, and that he would be 
 acting against the Law of God if he were to obey 
 its decrees, he must, of course, follow the dictates 
 of his conscience, and submit to the penalties 
 consequent on his act; and we may, and must, 
 feel sympathy with him in his sufferings for what, 
 in his opinion, is a righteous cause. 
 
 But after the best consideration of the matter, 
 I do not think that in so doing he could be said to 
 have taken sujfficient care to inform and regulate 
 Ms conscience. 
 
 If he is not absolutely certain that he is right 
 in withholding his recognition and obedience, but 
 is in doubt abont the matter, it is quite certain, 
 on all sound principles for the government^ of 
 the human Conscience, that it is his duty to God 
 to obey the authority in question. As is well said 
 by S. Augustine, there are many things, wliich it 
 may not be expedient for others to command, in 
 
 ^ See Bishop Sanderson on Conscience, Lect. v. sect. 7, sect. 
 22, and Sermon iv. sect. 29 ; Works, ii. p. 135. The whole of 
 that sermon on Kom. xiv. 23 may be respectfully and earnestly 
 commended to careful consideration on the question before us 
 at this time.
 
 48 On the present Disquietttde in the Church. 
 
 Avliicli nevertheless it is riglit for us to obey.^ And 
 it is a good rule of conduct, tliat, in all matters of 
 doubt, the balance is always to ^ be inclined in 
 favour of Authority and Law. 
 
 While, therefore, I should earnestly deprecate 
 litigation, especially with such possible conse- 
 quences as imprisonment, let me add in all 
 Christian affection, that what Richard Hooker said 
 (in the preface of his great work) to the Puritans 
 of his day, who, in ritual matters, would not wear 
 a Surplice, nor do other things ordered by Bishops 
 and " State Courts," as they are called, may be now 
 paraphrased, and applied to some good men who 
 plead the dictates of their conscience as a reason for 
 doing what Bishops and Courts forbid them to do. 
 
 His words, slightly modified, are as follows : — 
 '* We do not wish any men to do anything which 
 in their hearts they are persuaded they ought not 
 to do. But men ought to be fully persuaded in 
 their hearts, that, in controverted causes of this 
 kind, the will of God is, that they should do what 
 the sentence of judicial and final decision has 
 determined; yea, though it seems in their own 
 private opinion to swerve from what is right. 
 For if God be not the Author of confusion but 
 of peace, then God cannot be the Author of our 
 refusal — but of our willingness — to submit to the 
 definitive sentence, without which it is almost 
 impossible to avoid confusion and to attain peace. 
 ' S. Augustine c. Taust. Manich. xxii. 75.
 
 On the present Disqnietiide in the Chureh. 49 
 
 It is better in God's sight that sometimes 
 an erroneous definition should prevail, till the 
 authority, perceiving its oversight, should correct 
 and reverse it, than that peace should be banished 
 from the Church, and that strifes should not come 
 to an end. When a definitive sentence has been 
 given, this is sufficient for a reasonable man to 
 build the duty of obedience upon, whatsoever his 
 own opinion might have been before, concerning 
 the matter in question. So full of wilfulness and 
 self -liking is our nature, especially when we are 
 flattered by eager partisans that we are heroes 
 
 and martyrs in maintaining our own opinions 
 
 which are also theirs— and in suffering for those 
 opinions, in opposition to the authority of our 
 Spiritual Guides and Governors, as well as of a 
 Court Ecclesiastical, that there is little hope that 
 strifes will end, and peace be restored, unless we 
 reform our consciences, and bring them into 
 dutiful submission to those who are over us in the 
 Lord. 
 
 But in speaking thus, I do not mean to deny 
 that it would be expedient that the jurisdiction of 
 the old Provincial Courts should bo restored, and 
 be kept distinct from that of the recently created 
 Court ; and this appears to have been the opinion 
 of the Clergy of this Province in Convocation.^ 
 
 As to our Diocesan Courts, it has been alleged 
 that the Act has destroyed them. This is not 
 ' Chron. of Convocation, June 27, 1879, p. 231. 
 
 D
 
 50 On the pi^e sent Disquietttde in tJie CJiurch. 
 
 quite fair. It would have been well if the Act 
 had restored them ; but let us look at the facts. 
 
 The Act (in Sect. 5) declares that " save as is 
 therein provided, nothing in it shall be construed 
 to affect or repeal any existing Ecclesiastical 
 Jurisdiction," i.e. in Diocesan Courts : and (in 
 Sect. 9) a Bishop may hear any cause under it 
 in " such manner as he shall think fit," i.e. in 
 Ms Diocesan Gouri^ in cases where both parties 
 signify that they are willing to abide by his 
 decision. 
 
 In this respect the '' Public Worship Regulation 
 Act" is more favourable to the Diocesan Courts 
 than the '' Church Discipline Act " of 1840, which 
 ignored the Diocesan Courts altogether. 
 
 One more general remark, on the present posi- 
 tion of the Church, and I will bring this letter to 
 a close. The Church of England in her Convoca- 
 tion possesses ample powers (which she has exer- 
 cised on two occasions not long ago) of declaring 
 the true faith, in matters of doctrine ; and of 
 clearing herself from all complicity in erroneous 
 judgments of Ecclesiastical Courts, by pronouncing 
 Synodical sentence of censure and condemnation 
 on heretical writings. 
 
 With regard to matters of Ritual the Church of 
 England has recently enjoyed full liberty and 
 encouragement from the Crown, in Letters of 
 Business ; which were extended over seven years, 
 and which empowered the Bishops and Clergy in
 
 On the present Disqtnettidc in the C/mrch. 5 i 
 
 Convocation to explain and amend the Rubrics in 
 the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 If any of these Rubrics still remain ambiguous, 
 the fault is certainly not in the Civil Power, but it 
 is in ourselves. 
 
 Let me now submit to you, in conclusion, what 
 seems to be the most important consideration of all. 
 The amendments suggested above are not in 
 our own power. They would require the inter- 
 vention of Parliament. And it may admit of a 
 doubt, whether the Legislature would be disposed 
 at the present tim^ to engage in a discussion on 
 Ecclesiastical Law; and whether it would be 
 wise to invite it to do so. 
 
 But there is another more effectual remedy 
 in our own hands. 
 
 We are indebted to the '' Pubhc Worship Regu- 
 lation Act " for having vested a large and liberal 
 amount of discretionary power in the Bishops, 
 for stopping litigation under the Act.^ 
 
 We have also to thank the Bishop of Oxford 
 for vindicating a similar power to the Diocesan, in 
 proceedings under the " Church Discipline Act." 
 The question therefore to be considered, is this : 
 Why should iliere he any litigation at all in 
 such matters as these, which have recently not 
 only caused an expenditure of vast sums of money, 
 that might have been profitably devoted to works 
 of piety and charity, but have also wasted the 
 ' Sect. 9. 
 D 2
 
 52 On the present Discjuietude in the ChurcJi. 
 
 time, disturbed tlie peace, distracted tlie energies, 
 impaired tlie efficiency, and even imperilled the 
 safety of the Church of England as a national 
 establishment of Religion ? 
 
 Why should not such questions as these be set- 
 tled peaceably in our own Dioceses, without going 
 out of them, and resorting to Courts of Law ? 
 
 I would not, of course, propose that a Bishop 
 should exercise the discretionary power, with 
 which he is invested by Law, in any arbitrary 
 manner, according to his own personal preposses- 
 sions or private prejudices, or even on his own 
 deliberately formed opinions. But what we may 
 well ask is. Why should not a Bishop, having 
 summoned (if need be, and if requested so to 
 do) a Synod of his Clergy, and also a Diocesan 
 Conference of Clergy and Laity, be authorized by 
 them to exercise this discretionary power in con- 
 junction with a Council of Clergy and Laity, duly 
 appointed by the Diocese, speaking by that Synod 
 and Conference, for the avoidance of strife and 
 for the peaceable solution and settlement of all 
 such questions as these ? 
 
 Happily for us in this Diocese we have been 
 mercifully preserved from strife on such matters. 
 But some others have not been so fortunate ; and 
 we are all members one of another ; what con- 
 cerns one Diocese concerns all; it affects the 
 general peace and safety of the Church ; and it 
 demands the attention of all. 
 
 You know my opinion on these ritual matters. 
 Li the year 1874, when " letters of business " were
 
 On the present Disquiettide in the Church. 53 
 
 granted by the Crown to Convocation for revising 
 the rubrics, I moved in the Upper House that 
 the Ornaments of the Minister in the First Book 
 of Edward the Vlth should be specified and recited 
 in a Rubric, and that those Ornaments should be 
 allowed to be used by the Clergy, but not be 
 imposed upon any of them.^ 
 
 This proposal was repeated by me in Convoca- 
 tion on July 4, 1879 (Chron. of Conv., p. 204). 
 
 You have also heard my opinion in charges 
 delivered to you in 1876 ^ and in 1879 ^ to the 
 effect that those Ornaments are legal, but not 
 obligatory upon any. 
 
 But whatever the private opinion of a Bishop 
 may be in this matter, he could not (as being 
 charged with the administration of law, as inter- 
 preted by our Ecclesiastical Courts) do otherwise 
 than deprecate, discourage, and disallow the use 
 of those Ornaments, in cases where a complaint of 
 their use were laid before him. 
 
 But for my own part, let me candidly confess 
 it, I should greatly prefer a liberal Toleration 
 in such matters as these, under proper restraints 
 and safeguards, which might be provided by the 
 deliberative counsel and friendly co-operation of 
 the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese. If such a 
 toleration were not found to be feasible, then there 
 can be little doubt, that the Clergy of a Diocese 
 
 ^ See the reports of the proceedings in the Chronicle of 
 Convocation for 1874, July 7th, pp. 316—322. 
 ^ Diocesan Addresses, 1876, pp. 10 — 14. 
 * Ten Addresses, 1879, pp. 55 — 63.
 
 54 Oil tJie present Disquietiuic in the ChurcJi. 
 
 would, for the sake of peace, sacrifice their own pri- 
 vate opinions, and would conform their own prac- 
 tice to such regulations as were made by the united 
 action of their own brethren, chosen by themselves, 
 and joined with the Laity of the Diocese. 
 
 The persuasive moral influence of such united 
 Diocesan action as this would, I am sure, be much 
 more powerful than any coercive stringency of 
 Law Courts, which sometimes provoke opposition 
 by rigour. 
 
 If this happy consummation were accomplished 
 (which may God of His infinite mercy grant), if 
 peace were restored among ourselves; if, so to 
 speak, the Temple of our Ecclesiastical Janus 
 (which has too long been open) were shut by our 
 own hands, then an Augustan age of Concord, in 
 the best sense of the term, would dawn upon the 
 Church of England ; and she would be enabled 
 to achieve spiritual conquests, at home and abroad, 
 such as would surpass in glory the noblest 
 triumphs of the Csesars, and would endure for 
 many generations, when earthly Empires have 
 passed away, and as would have their reward in 
 eternity. 
 
 I am, my dear friends. 
 
 Your faithful brother 
 
 and servant in the Lord, 
 
 C. LINCOLN, 
 
 EisEHOLME, Lincoln, 
 Jan. 19, 1881. 
 
 GlLBEllT AND BIVINGION, PRINTUKS, ST. JOHN's SQUARE, LONDON.
 
 A NEW EDITION OF 
 
 THE HOLY BIBLE. 
 
 With Introductions and Notes by 
 CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D., 
 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 In the Authorized Version, with Introduction, Notes, and 
 
 Index. 
 
 In Parts. 
 
 
 
 Ill Volumes. 
 
 
 PART £ 
 
 s. d. 
 
 VOL 
 
 £ 
 
 s. d. 
 
 I. Genesis and Exodus, o 
 
 14 
 
 I. 
 
 The Pentateuch . . i 
 
 5 
 
 II. Leviticus, Numbers, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deuteronomy . . o 
 
 12 
 
 II. 
 
 Joshua to Samuel . . 
 
 15 
 
 III. Joshua Judges, Ruth o 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 IV. Books of Samuel . . o 
 
 7 
 
 IIL 
 
 Kings to Esther . . 
 
 15 
 
 V. Kings, Chronicles, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ezra, Nehemiah, 
 
 
 IV. 
 
 Job to Song of Solo- 
 
 
 Esther . . . . o 
 
 IS 
 
 
 mon I 
 
 •? 
 
 VI. Book of Job . . .0 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 VII. Psalms 
 
 II 
 
 V. 
 
 Isaiah to Ezekiel . . i 
 
 ^ 
 
 VIII. Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
 
 
 
 
 J ^ 
 
 tes. Song of Solo- 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 Daniel, Minor Pro- 
 
 
 mon 
 
 9 
 
 
 phets, and Index . 
 
 15 
 
 IX. Isaiah 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 X. Jeremiah, Lamenta- 
 
 
 
 
 
 tions, Ezekiel . . 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 XL Daniel 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 XII. Minor Prophets . . 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 Index 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 .^6" 
 
 6 
 
 
 (fi 
 
 
 
 THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 With Introductions, Notes, and Index. 
 By CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D., 
 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 /;/ Parts 
 
 \ In Volumes. 
 
 PART £ S. d. VOL. 
 
 I. Gospels o 16 o I. Gospels and Acts of 
 
 II. Acts of the Apostles . o S o i the Apostles. . . i 
 
 C ^- <^- 
 
 III. St. Paul's Epistles .130 
 
 IV. General Epistles, Apo- 
 
 calypse, Index . . o 16 o 
 
 II. Epistles, Apocalypse, 
 
 and Index . -117 o 
 
 .^3_3_o 
 
 ;^3 o o 
 Any Part, or any Volume'^ may be had separately. 
 
 RIVINGTONS : LONDON, OXFORD, & CAMBRIDGE.
 
 PUBLICATIONS BY CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D, 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 OCCASIONAL SERMONS PREACHED IN WEST- 
 MINSTER ABBEY. Seven Volumes, 1850— 1859. 
 
 THE HOLY YEAR; or, Original Hymns, for Sundays, 
 Holy Days, and Daily Use. Fifth Edition, large tyfc, price is. ; smaller 
 type, dd. With tunes, edited by W. H. Monk, 4J-. 6^, 
 
 THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS ; or, Manual of Instruction 
 on the Church Universal, and on the Anglican Church, Tenth Edition, 
 IS. 6d. 
 
 S. HIPPOLYTUS AND HIS AGE, from the newly-dis- 
 covered " Philosophumena." Second Edition, greatly enlarged, 1880. 2>s. 6d. 
 
 THEOCRITUS, Codicum MSS. ope recensitus et emendatus. 
 
 Second Edition, 1877. ']s. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE OF RICHARD BENTLEY, D.D. 
 
 2 vols. £2 2S. 
 
 MEMOIRS OF WILLIAM WORDSWORTH. 2 vols. 
 30J. 
 
 GREECE, Historical, Pictorial, and Descriptive. Fifth Edi- 
 tion. £1 2>s. 
 
 ATHENS AND ATTICA; Journal' of a Residence there. 
 Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 8j. dd. 
 
 A DIARY IN FRANCE; concerning Education and the 
 Church. Second Edition. <^s. 6d. 
 
 NOTES AT PARIS. A Sequel to the above, 4^. 
 
 TOUR IN ITALY ; with reference to the Prospects of Reli- 
 gion there. Second Edition. 2 vols. 15^. 
 
 TWELVE ADDRESSES AT THE VISITATION OF 
 THE DIOCESE OF LINCOLN in 1873. 2s. 6d 
 
 ETHICA ET SPIRITUALIA. Extracts from the Fathers. 
 New Edition, enlarged. \s. 6d. 1877. 
 
 DIOCESAN ADDRESSES AT THE VISITATION IN 
 
 1876. 2s. 6d. 
 
 TEN ADDRESSES AT THE VISITATION IN 1879. 
 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 BISHOP SANDERSON'S LECTURES ON CONSCIENCE 
 AND HUMAN LAW, in an English Translation, with a Preface. 
 Zs. 6d. 1877. 
 
 MISCELLANIES, LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS. 
 
 RIVINGTONS, 3, W^ATERLOO Place, London ; and at 
 Oxford and Cambridge.
 
 *.^t I-