เ

1. "That this Meeting of the E. C. U. observes with satisfaction that the recent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of the Rev. Arthur Tooth (in which all the Judges present were agreed) entirely confirms from a legal point of view the position taken by the E. c. U. in regard to the P. W. R. Act, and the Judge appointed under its provisions; as the Lord Chief Justice laid down, with the entire concurrence of the other Judges, that The Statute created a new jurisdiction; and that it is not as Dean of the Arches that the Judge exercises this jurisdiction,' but that his jurisdiction is the creation of the Statute,' and that his Office is an entirely new Office, and one with which no former Dean of the Arches had anything to do;' and, further, in regard to the Bishops, that the former jurisdiction of the Bishop-i.e., as it existed before the Act-is taken away; and that a new jurisdiction and authority is vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury."

2. "That, inasmuch as the principles above stated, and thus affirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench, were the very principles on which the E. C. U. took its stand in regard to the P. W. R. Act, and on which it has grounded its support of those Clergymen and Congregations who have felt it their duty to ignore all proceedings taken against them under the provisions of that Act, the recent judgment affords a strong justification of the course hitherto taken by the E. C. U., and strengthens the Union in continuing to maintain that course in the future."

NOTICE.

General Reports of Branch Meetings and of other interesting work are unavoidably crowded out this month,

CLERICAL AND TUTORIAL REGISTRY. The Register is published on the 20th of each month, and is a safe medium for obtaining Curates and Curacies, or Tutors and Tutorships.

The fee to Members is 2s. 6d. for six months (with or without entry); to Non. Members 4s. for entry, and a further fee of 58. on obtaining their requirement through the medium of the Register. THOMAS H. WILSON, Secretary Clerical Register. CONFIRMATION MEMORIAL WINDOW TO BISHOP WILBERFORCE IN ST. MARY'S, SOUTHAMPTON. Miss Lucy Phillimore desires to acknowledge with best thanks for the above-Banbury, 15.; Newport, Isle of Wight, 2s. 6d. ; E. S. Nicholson, 2s. 6d.; London, N.W., 15.; A. L., 2s. 6d. ; Rev. C. J. Corfe, £1; Miss M. Gill, 5s. £198 has been received, and £263 is still required. Further offerings will be gladly received by Miss L. Phillimore, 5, Arlington-street, St. James's, S.W.

THE INCREASE OF THE UNION.

(To the Editor of the "Church Union Gazette.") SIR,-In one of your late issues there appeared a letter from a gentleman inviting the members of the Union to make an effort to raise the numbers of the Union to 20,000 before the close of the year. The appeal seems to me to be untimely, as few persons would care to pay the year's subscription for some two months' membership.* Let the effort be postponed to the commencement of the coming year and then we shall have some chance of succeeding. Now, I think, and I

*No one is required to do so. Those who join in November or December are always informed that the Subscriptions which they pay on election will be credited for next year,

The President then delivered his Annual Address, which we are glad to be able to give almost in extenso.

He said: Since our last Anniversary Churchmen may be said to have had a somewhat rough time of it. They survive, however, to tell the tale, and have but a trifling list of killed and wounded to report. I am inclined to think that the skirmishes of the past year have been very serviceable to us, not only as a means of bringing us face to face with the practical "feel issues which are in question, but also as enabling us to the enemy," as soldiers say, and thus to learn the actual conditions of a battle which promises to be a decisive one. Previous to the disturbances which took place last spring, we were, I think, getting slightly languid, for want of some practical test by which to gange the actual effect of the Public Worship Regulation Act. We had been sanguine enough to hope that mature reflection would have enabled the Bishops to recognise the gravity of the error they were led into by the Some of us knew overbearing Erastianism of the Primate. from their own lips, that the influence which had been brought to bear upon them by the personal pressure of Arch. bishop Tait had taken them by surprise and blinded their judgment. It is a sad thing to contemplate this subserviency, in matters so vitally affecting the well-being of the Church of which they are the sworn officers, in those who are never weary of challenging our confidence and of inviting our submission. It is with real pain that I should have to record such things; but I state what no well-informed person will venture to deny. My friends, in regard to the conduct of the Bishops as a body in this matter-and, I regret to add, in regard to their attitude towards those who may be truly said to have been engaged in the work of reconstituting the Discipline and reviving the true Doctrine of the Church of England ever since the issue of the first number of the Tracts for the Times-I say, in regard to the conduct of the Bishops in these historical issues, I fear that the severe words of John Henry Newman, when speaking of the part taken by the Bishops in the troubles following upon the condemnation of Arianism at Nicæa, are applicable to our own experiences of Episcopal leadership. Dr. Newman says: "The Episcopate did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council, and the Laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic Truth, and the Bishops were not." Dr. Newman goes on to say that "the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy." I know that some of the clergy are distressed in their minds by the alternatives which seem to be pressed upon them by the course of recent legislation, and especially by the acceptance of such legislation by their Bishops. At the risk of being charged with rashness, I must endeavour to clear the way a little for a right appreciation of a position which at first sight may appear untenable. I have heard Prists say," How can it be maintained that the Clergy of an established Church are at liberty to hesitate to obey the declared law of the land, to say nothing of the obedience they owe to their Bishops?" It seems strange to me, as a simple layman, to hear such questions asked in perfect good faith and sincerity. The inquiry appears to indicate a defect in the power of differentiating scarcely to be looked for in those who must be presumed to have studied the exact science of theology-a science abounding in what a novice might call "fine-spun distinctions," but which the theologian knows well are the very ramparts of the citadel of Catholic truth. The difference of a vowel is the difference between vital truth and damnable error; and the misapplication of a term, or even of a metaphor, may involve an error which has engaged the resources of Councils for its refutation. To put the matter before us shortly, I may say that the misgivings to which I have referred are in some cases to be attributed to sluggish reasoning rather than to painful conviction. I would ask just these questions; Did our Lord offer an

unqualified obedience to the Jewish Hierarchy which He bade His disciples acknowledge as occupying Moses's seat? Did His Apostles, after the Ascension, show a similar obedi ence, or even submit to the command of the civil magistrates when enforced to crush the infant Church whilst yet in its cradle ? If such unrestrained, unqualified obedience was not exhibited in these transcendent examples, we perceive at once an indication of conditions which limit the claims of earthly tribunals. We live in times when the successors of those Apostles whose feet were made fast in the stocks, and whose backs were beaten with rods, as the consequence of disposition to expose themselves to the same contingencies. their refusal to compromise their Divine mission, show no effects of a conflict with irregularly exercised authority, in It is true that a few months ago we witnessed the penal the case of one who accepted imprisonment rather than compromise the Church's interests; but then he was but a humble Priest, untrammelled with the silken bonds of a Spiritual Peer of Parliament greatly fearing Disestablishment. Again, I will ask those who, well instructed from their youth in manuals explaining the exceeding gloriousness of the Reformation, delight to dwell upon England's emancipation from Papal tyranny and Papal corruption, how that event would have been consummated had filial obedience been shown to the "godly monitions" of that Bishop to whom the Clergy of that day had repeatedly and solemnly professed their dutiful allegiance, not to mention the Canonical obedience which they owed undoubtedly to the English Prelates under whose jurisdiction they ministered? What, again, will they say to the heroic example of the seven Bishops who suffered imprisonment rather than betray the interests of the Church of England? Or, in political history, how can a theory of unqualified obedience to the powers that be be reconciled with that patriotic uprising against an overstrained authority which has made the name of Hampden a household word in every English home? It is well in these days of vacillation to recall the attitude of those seven Bishops to whom I have referred. Before his Sovereign, who was beside himself with fury, did the saintly Ken make the appeal, "I hope your Majesty will grant to us that liberty of conscience which you grant to all mankind." And again did this noble prelate tell his Sovereign, James II., "We have two duties to perform, our duty to God and our duty to your Majesty." In vain was the appeal made. The seven Bishops were sent to the Tower; but we learn from contemporary history that the bonds which bound them drew together in one not only the Clergy throughout the land, thus acting as an incenwho said, "Rather let us continue to lie under the penal statutes tive rather than as a warning, but even the Nonconformists, than separate ourselves from these noble Confessors." So much as regards the principle underlying the general duty of obedience in things Spiritual and civil.

Let me now say a few words upon the nature and extent of the obedience which our Spiritual Superiors can rightly claim from their Clergy. When I was called upon to address you a few months ago with special reference to the Resolutions passed in London at a Special General Meeting of the English limits of the Royal Supremacy in its relations to the Church Church Union, I took occasion to point out the nature and of this country. I will not go over that ground again, but will merely remind you of that eloquent and exhaustive statesubject, and quoted by me on that occasion, clearly showing ment recently republished by Mr. Gladstone affecting this how completely the actual practice prevailing in this regard is not only alien to, but completely subversive of, the constitutional rights of the Church as self-legislating within her Christian Sovereign acting on his or her own individual province, under the restraints and limitations exercised by a responsibility as Supreme Governor, and not as the helpless instrument of a Minister appointed through a Parliamentary majority. The rights of the Parish Priest in this country are very definite and are easily ascertained. As part of the Catholic system they are of course identical with those of all

Catholic communities; but in this country, amidst all draw. backs, they are even more highly protected. The status and rights of a Parish Priest commence from his Institution to his Benefice. The power of Institution to a Benefice resides with the Bishop alone. The power of Suspension or Inhibition resides in the Bishop, exercising his power not proprio motu, but with the forms prescribed by Church law, and with the safeguard of a properly-constituted Court. In ancient times the Bishop was never separated from his Presbyters in his disciplinary acts. The number of these co-assessors was regulated by the ecclesiastical rank of the accused party. Nothing was known of the arbitrary Inhibitions of which we now occasionally hear. Still less was known of a lay Judge daring to suspend a priest à sacris with or without the com. plicity of the Diocesan. For a thorough understanding of this, and of many points full of interest to those who are at this time striving to ascertain their true relations to their Bishop, I recommend a careful reference to the great Dutch Canonist, Van Espen. With the sketch just given fresh in your minds, just think of what is passing before our eyes in this connection, and accepted by some as the most natural thing possible. A Priest is accused by spies imported into a parish, and who might be known to be such by the Bishop if he considered it material to enquire. This Priest has the alternative of submitting himself to the decision of his Bishop apon the points raised, or of meeting his accusers with consent of the Bishop in a Court of Law composed of laymen, profoundly ignorant of the laws Ecclesiastical and notoriously biassed, not to say pledged to a decision by precedent, against the accused Priest. If he accepts the former alternative, as being most in harmony with those feelings of reverence towards his Diocesan which may be said to date from the day of his Ordination, one of two things happens: either the Bishop sides with the Priest's accusers and thus throws him over, or he endeavours to protect his Priest against an organized system of oppression. It matters little, as regards consequences to the accused Priest, which of these courses is pursued, unless there should happen to be a flaw in the proceedings, such as was the case in those lately taken against Mr. Carter, of Clewer. Should the Bishop, acting upon the lines of Bishop Mackarness, detect this flaw and be disposed to avail himself of it, the proceedings may fall through. But should there be no such technical flaw, though the Bishop should in his Episcopal discretion be desirous of shielding his persecuted Priest and of preserving to his parish the benefit of a devoted ministry, in this case he is simply power. less. It is true that he may veto the prosecution upon giving his reasons in writing within a specified time; but mark this: unless he can show that the facts alleged do not fall within the purview of the Public Worship Regulation Act, a mandamus may issue from the Court of Queen's Bench compelling the Bishop to take proceedings. This is certainly the case, and disposes of the dream of those who would fain see a remnant of Episcopal initiative in the clause of the Act in question.

Having thus endeavoured to place shortly before you, by way of contrast, the true relations existing between the Bishop and his Clergy, according to Church law and Church tradition, and the actual condition of these relations under the Public Worship Regulation Act, the question remains-What is the escape from this condition of things? You may say, "Such is the law, how can we escape from its operation ?" My friends, I will just say this much: When I had to take part in an important discussion at the Freemasons' Tavern, nearly nine years ago, in which this question came to the front, I was careful to remember that, being a layman, and therefore outside the difficulty, it was a delicate matter to advocate a policy which might compromise those who followed it. But a good deal has happened since then," to use Lord Beaconsfield's phrase, and I cannot shut my eyes to the extreme gravity of the crisis we are passing through. If a stand is ever to be made, it must, as it appears to me, be made now.

The Church in this country is reeling under the effects of the Public Worship Regulation Act, and these effects are being intensified by the infatuation of men like Bishops Ellicott and Baring. As regards the rest of the Bench, there is on the whole an unmistakeable inclination to moderate rather than to extreme measures. If this were all, it would seem to follow that a middle policy would be appropriate in the Clergy at this particular juncture. But a recent occurrence seems to completely preclude any compromise at the present moment. I am deeply pained to have to remind you that a handful of Priests, few indeed of much personal mark, yet not without influence in some quarters, have done their best to promote a double policy just at the moment when a continuance of united action was of pre-eminent importance. Great advantage has hitherto accrued from the united front which has been maintained by the various shades of thought which prevail among Catholic revivalists. This unity of policy has served to checkmate those who thought to divide and govern. I believe that in the main this unity of policy still subsists, and will continue to subsist. But an attempt has been made to make terms (vain delusion!) with the common foe. A kind of manifesto has been lately issued by those to whom I have referred advocating submission to the Ridsdale judgment upon grounds too grotesque for calm consideration. These grounds are threefold: The first too are untrue, and the third, if true, is irrelevant. The first plea is that the Ridsdale judgment allows the Eastward position, which it does not. This position is only permitted on the expressed understanding that it does not interfere with the view of the Manual Acts, a condition which must depend upon the structural plan of the Chancel. It may be legal in one church and not in another. The second averment is that the judgment confirms the principle of a distinctive Eucharistic Dress. This is also unsupported by fact. A distinctive Dress-yes; a distinctive Eucharistic Dress-no. The Chasuble and not the Cope is the distinctive Eucharistic Dress, and this is in terms forbidden. Thirdly, we are encouraged to believe that the judgment recognizes the full right of the Church of England to the legitimatemark the word legitimate-use of Religious Art in her Churches. This use is sanctioned neither in a greater nor a less degree than before the delivery of the judgment. It is not surprising to find that no names of note among those to whom we look for counsel are to be found as alleging such supreme nonsense. These remarkable dicta are followed by a congratulation that successive judgments have left members of the Church of England free to hold and teach her entire Doctrine, which is true; and a supplement may be added, that she is also free to hold and teach the most pernicious heresy, as far as these successive judgments are concerned. different was the document drawn up shortly after in the shape of a petition to the Queen. It is a manly statement, well worthy of such subscribers as Lord Devon, Pusey, Liddon, Carter, Berdmore Compton, our own esteemed President, and some 41,200 others. Now, I think that the immediate effect of this manifesto should be to fortify all others in a firmness of attitude more accentuated in character than might otherwise have been thought necessary. We have to purge our. selves from all complicity with what I must term a shabby departure from the basis understood to have been agreed on at the Oxford meeting, where, it is well known, concessions were asked from the more advanced section upon the avowed determination of the moderates to stand out for four out of the six points. This is our trial time, and our conduct under it will determine our future, perhaps, indefinitely. Suffering may ensue to some, but this cannot be thought to be a strange thing to any who realise that the history of the Church of Christ, like other history, repeats itself under similarly recurring conditions. I believe that the firmer our attitude the shorter will be the crisis. Let there be no resignations, involving a transference to others of the burden deemed too heavy to be borne. It is not possible for Churchmen to reconcile the Catholic system with Privy Council

Very