PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
TITTC.O.885
.3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
24
Colony, there will be a rapid and large secession from the Church which was only in union and in full communion with the Church of England to the Church of England itself, which even in those distant colonies would receive and foster her brethren as part and parcel of her own peculiar flock.
The effect, therefore, of these decisions is, as it appears to me, that, though they have established that the Letters-Patent cannot create new ecclesi- astical tribunals, or introduce into the colonies any of the ecclesiastical tribunals which subsist in this country, they have also established that every exercise of ecclesiastical authority, and every act of any member of the Church in such colony, profess- ing to be a part of the Church of England, must, in matters spiritual, be governed by the laws of the Church of England, and must be tried by the application of those laws. This is strongly illus- trated by Dr. Warren's case, which is sometimes misunderstood; the Court refused to examine into the propriety of the decision of the Conference in that case, for this reason-what they did was to ascertain that, by the rules and ordinances of the Wesleyan body, every minister agreed to be bound by the decision of the Conference, and having ascertained this, the Court inquired no further. In Long v. Bishop of Cape Town,f the Court also inquired whether, according to the rules and ordinances of the Church of England, Mr. Long had agreed to attend, and be bound by the assembly summoned by the Bishop of Cape Town, and the Court held that he had not.
It is the more important that the real status and condition of the Colonial Churches should be constantly present to the mind, because, as it appears to me, erroneous notions prevail to a great extent on this subject. Some persons seem to imagine that they were founded and endowed in order that the association in each Colony should form a separate and independent Church. So far has this been carried that it seems to be supposed that, if the members of such Colonial Church, or a majority of them, should so think fit, they might, if dis-
• Grindwood's Compendium.
† 1 Moo. P. C. (N. S.) 411.
17
25
satisfied with the person whom the Crown had appointed to be their Bishop, withdraw from his superintendence and clect a Bishop for themselves.
That any number of persons, if they so pleased, might, though holding the doctrines of the Church of England, reject, either wholly or in part, the discipline and government of the Church, though they preserved still the creed, faith, and doctrines
of the Church of England, is unquestionable. Such
an association might elect their own Bishop; they might divide the district in which they reside into sees, and elect a Bishop for each; they might parcel the district out into parishes and appoint a minister
to officiate in each parish: all this they might do, and all this would be perfectly legal, and all this would be binding on the men.bers of the association who assented to it as it is now in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, which is not, and by the Act of Union is prohibited from being, a part of the Church of England, and in which the Crown is prohibited from appointing or nominating any Bishop. If dissensions arose amongst the members of such a Church, they must have recourse to the civil tribu- nals; but when they did so the question would be tried by their own rules and ordinances, which would have to be proved by evidence in the usual manner. But this association would not be a branch of the Church of England, although it might call itself in union and full communion with it. By the law of the Church of England, the Sovereign is the head of the Church; and in substance (for the congé délire is nothing more than a form) no Bishop can be lawfully nominated or appointed except by the Sovereign, nor, as I apprehend, could any person be legally consecrated a Bishop of such Church unless by the command of the Sovereign. If the members of the Inns of Court were to present one of their preachers to the Archbishop of Canterbury, saying that they had elected him Bishop of the Inus of Court, and prayed that he might be consecrated, although the most reverend Prelate might, feel dis- posed to accede to such prayer, 1 apprehend that he could not lawfully do so, and that upon application a prohibition would issue from the Court of Queen's Bench to prevent such a consecration. So, in like manner, the members of the Church in Natal might elect a divine and call him Bishop of Natal, or invest
II