APPENDIX II.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.

BELIEVING, as I do, that this measure, if carried in any form which it has yet assumed, will be destructive of the Church of England, not as an establishment, but in its true character as a sound branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I have felt it my duty to oppose it to the utmost. During two Sessions that opposition has been successful. The measure, however, will again be brought forward in the next Session; and will be carried, unless, with God's blessing, the strong and united expression of the judgment of the great body of the Clergy shall avail to prevent it. The majority of the Bishops assented to the principle of the measure at a meeting held before Easter last, and most of them felt themselves concluded by that assent, with regard to the Bill of last year. Several of them, however, were much dissatisfied with it, and, by their votes in the Committee, testified their wish that the Bill had been based on a different principle. It may reasonably, therefore, be hoped that they will not all consider themselves bound to resume their support of the measure, if it be again brought forward, as it is threatened, in substantially the same form.

But, whatever be the decision of the Bishops, there is little reason to hope that the lay Lords, who may regard the measure as they would any ordinary measure of Law Reform, will oppose the Bill, unless they find that the general sense of the Clergy differs from that of the great majority of the Bishops as already declared. The adoption or rejection of the Bill must, therefore, it is most probable, rest with the Clergy; and on them I venture to call for the decision.

For taking this course, I doubt not that I shall be called an agitator. Be it so I have lived long enough not to be much moved by hard words; and I would rather be proclaimed an agitator, in every newspaper and every society in England, than be told by the still small voice within me that I am a traitor to the Church of Christ. Such a traitor I should be, if, thinking of this measure as I do, I were to falter in my course of strenuous resistance to it. In saying this, I presume not to judge others; and I grieve for the necessity which is on me, to make this disclaimer. Those who do not see in this measure the evils which I think I clearly see in it, are not traitors in supporting it; and, if there be any of these, (which I do not believe) who think the measure necessary for the real good of the Church, they would be traitors to that Church if they did not support it.

I now lay before my own Clergy, and before any other Clergy, who shall do this Charge so much honour as to read it, the following documents :

1. A Protest which I entered on the books of the House of Lords, when that House decided in favour of the principle of the late Bill, by sending it to a Committee.

2. A Correspondence between the Bishop of London and myself, which, in my opinion, affords an additional reason for the Clergy's exercising their judgment on the matter.

Respecting the Protest, as it is applicable to the " Amended" Bill, there are one or two points, on which it may be right that I should say a few words.

The fourth reason of the Protest (that the Bill, in its original state, subjected the Archbishop and Province of York to the jurisdiction of a judge appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury) does not apply to the "Amended" Bill, in which the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York is made independent of the See of Canterbury.

I rejoice at this amendment, which, so far as it goes, maintains the Constitution of the Church; but, I am sorry to say, this was not the reason for which it was made: the real reason was, that the Archbishop of York, in announcing to the Committee a Petition against the Bill from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of York, declared his intention of opposing the Bill, if the jurisdiction of his Court were destroyed. An assurance

H

was immediately given, that this part of the Bill should be modified to meet his Grace's wishes. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court at York was not only preserved, but very greatly enlarged for to it was given original and sole jurisdiction in every Diocese of the Province, except that of Man.

On so important a concession being made to him, the Archbishop of York became a supporter of the Bill; and no more was seen or heard of the Petition, which he had announcedwhether because the Petitioners had prayed only for their own relief from the operation of the Bill, without testifying any concern for any general principle, has never been stated.

Be this as it may, it is manifest that the alteration, thus introduced, affected the general character of the Bill most materially. Hitherto, the ostensible reason for urging its adoption had been the necessity of remedying the great evil which was alleged to exist at present,-" of Causes of Correction of Clerks being tried before a Tribunal without adequate experience, and without an adequate Bar." But this reason cannot any longer be gravely insisted on; for it is notorious, that in neither of these particulars (nor, so far as I have heard, in any other) does the Court at York excel the Court at Exeter, or at Chester, or at several which might be named. Indeed, by a Return made to the House of Lords, it appears that in the last ten years, while there had been heard, and adjudged, without appeal, four Causes in the Consistorial Court of Chester, not one Cause had been brought by appeal or letters of request to the Court at York from any Diocese in the whole Province; and only one original Suit had been there instituted; which solitary Suit had not been heard nor prosecuted: yet, if this Bill had become a Law, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chester, and of every other within the Province, would have been swallowed up by that of York, on the pretence of its being necessary to give to the whole Province the benefit of the superior experience, and superior Bar, of that Court!

In the future discussion of the matter, this pretence must, I apprehend, be abandoned, and some other must be made to take its place. But no other (so far as I recollect) has been ever suggested, except that which dropped from the Lord Chancellor in the debate on the third reading, namely,

that, incorrigibly bad as he deemed the Bill to be, "as amended by the Select Committee," yet he should vote for it, because it was necessary that some Bill for the Correction of the Clergy should pass (and he despaired of any other), in order that larger measures of Reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts should not be impeded by the obstacles which are at present placed in their way, by the existence of a Bishop's Court, for the enforcement of discipline over the Clergy.

Now, if the Clergy of England deem so highly of the principle of centralization, which is the great favourite with many of the Metropolitan lawgivers of the day, as to be willing to sacrifice to it that episcopal jurisdiction, which (whatever be thought of its sacredness) must be admitted by all to have existed in the Church from the time of the Apostles,-they will not give themselves or the Legislature any further trouble in the matter. But if they think, as I avow myself to think, that the Constitution of our National Church, as a sound branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, is involved in the issue, they will exert all their energies, and adopt every fit and becoming expedient, for the purpose of defeating the Bill of last year, if it be revived in the next Session.

In making this appeal to the Clergy at large, I frankly avow my wish, that those Bishops who support the Bill would adopt the same course. One of them has done so, and I honour him for doing it. To the arguments which he has adduced, I shall now venture to address a few observations. He says of the Bill, that "it leaves untouched any personal authority which the Bishop derives from a Divine source, as far as the same can be exercised, or is even possessed, at present; that we can still in private, and in the spirit of friendliness, give advice and warning, or administer reproof and remonstrance :—or, if such advice and reproof be unheeded, we can have recourse to threats of publicity and exposure, and of ulterior measures, of which the rueful consequence may be set plainly and intelligibly before the offending party."* It is added, that "this power is indispensable to, and inseparable from, the Episcopal Office; and this remains entire."

In other words, by the Bill as it stands, a Bishop will not be

* Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Hereford, in July and August, 1839, p. 16.

deprived of the power of doing any of those things, which every other subject of Her Majesty-certainly every other member of Christ's Church-may do likewise. If there be a single particular of those enumerated, (and I cite them as they are enumerated)—if there be, I say, any one particular of the power here stated to be "indispensable to, and inseparable from, the Episcopal Office," which the parish-beadle has not a right to perform, as well as the Bishop,—I am at a loss to perceive what that particular is.

But the respected writer proceeds, he cannot deem public judicial power essential to his office." On the publicity of the exercise of the power I say nothing, because it is not the point in discussion; but on the judicial power itself, that it is “inherent in the office of a Bishop," I appeal to an authority, which both he and every one of the Clergy have repeatedly acknowledged, and will not now deny, to be agreeable to God's Word, the book of consecrating Bishops, and of ordering Priests and Deacons. In examining the Bishop, previous to his consecration, the Archbishop solemnly asks him—“ Will you, such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous, within your Diocese, correct and punish, according to such authority as you have by God's Word, and as to you shall be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm?"—Answer: “ I will so do, by the help of God."

Now, whatever may be said of that which is "committed to us by the Ordinance of this Realm," it will hardly be denied, that the " Authority which we have by God's Word" is "essential to our office," and as little will it be denied, that the authority to "correct and to punish the unquiet, disobedient, and criminous, within our Dioceses," is "judicial." If it be not, it must be arbitrary: an alternative, which I am sure my Right Rev. Brother will not adopt.

66

66

He goes further:-" Even assuming," says he, "the judi"cial power to be, as claimed, inherent in the Episcopal Office, that power may, by consent, be delegated to another," (in this I fully agree with him,) " and therefore, by analogy of "custom, to the Dean of the Arches." Though I do not pretend to understand what is here meant by "analogy of custom," I yet entirely agree with him, that there is nothing, so far as I know,