«On Consular stations the patronage is vested in the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who need not be, and often is not, himself a member of the Church of England; an arrangement which custom and official courtesy have hitherto so far modified, that the wishes of the British residents are generally consulted in every new appointment, and that the Bishop of London is referred to, and HIS LICENCE MADE A CONDITION of eligibility to the office ». Ibid. p. 20.

11. Perhaps the clearest and most decisive recent recognition of the Bishop of London's jurisdiction over Foreign Chaplains, appointed under the Consular Act (6 Geo: IV cap. 87), has been furnished by Her Majesty's present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Palmerston himself. It forms the XV.th of certain printed « Regulations for the Management of British Church Affairs at Foreign Ports and Places: made and issued by Her Majesty, through one of Her Principal Secretaries of State, under the Authority of the Act 6 Geo: IV. Cap. 87». These are signed « PALMERSTON and were promulged by the Consul in

Madeira in March, 1840.

༥

« CLERGYMEN OF CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO OBEY BISHOP OF LONDON.

XV. All Chaplains belonging to the Church of England who are appointed under the Act, are, at the request of the Secretary of State, licensed by the Bishop of London. Such Chaplains are to consult the Bishop of London in all spiritual matters, AND ARE TO OBEY HIS ORDERS THEREUPON ".

12. The history of the present controversy in Madeira,

down to a still more recent period, supplies the strongest evidence to the same effect, from the acts of Mr. Brown himself and his supporters. Not only did the latter formally recognize the Bishop of London's jurisdiction, by twice in the year 1845 appealing by letter to his judgment as Ordinary, but Mr. Brown himself has more than once within the last few months applied to the Bishop for his licence or approval, WHICH HAVE BEEN REFUSED. Indeed neither Mr. Brown, nor his supporters, Mess Surtees, Gibbs, Temple, Muir, Penfold, Park, &c., nor Lord Palmerston his patron, seem ever to have thought of questioning or casting off the Bishop's jurisdiction, till it happened to oppose their views or wishes.

13. I am indebted to a friend, of not less accurate than extensive reading, for the following remarks.

<< An incidental proof that all British Chaplaincies abroad have long been considered subject, in Spiritual matters, to the Bishop of London for the time being, is to be met with in the Memoirs of the Revd C. SIMEON, by the Revd W. Carus, 2d Ed. pp. 479-483 It appears that Mr. Simeon went to Amsterdam, with the view of furthering the objects of the London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, and there made arrangements for reopening the English Church, in which Service had scarcely been performed for seven years, and which the English Government had refused to purchase. He accordingly commenced the Service; and on the 18 th June. 1818, delivered a Sermon, which he caused to be printed, and a copy of which he thought of presenting, as he himself writes, to the Bishop of London, IN WHOSE DIOCESE it was delivered'. He adds, that he has a further reason for presenting the Sermon to him,

because it is to his Lordship that he must apply for the Queen Anne's Bounty, which, he understands has, from the beginning, been given to that Church': and he entreats Bishop Burgess, to whom he is writing, to represent the matter to the Bishop of London, and to gain for them his countenance and support'. Mr. Simeon entertained a deep sense of the obedience due from a Clergyman to his Bishop. His own Diocesan, who, he knew, regarded his views with no friendly eye, he acknowledges, under Divine Providence, his immediate superior in the Church, to whom he owes all possible deference and respect' (p. 276): and, on a particular occasion, he advises a brother-clergyman to address his Diocesan to this effect: that you regret exceedingly the having occasioned any uneasiness to his Lordship, and hope to show by your future conduct that, whilst it is your first wish and desire to approve yourself to God, you are most unfeignedly desirous of giving satisfaction to him, appointed over you in the Lord' (p. 384) ».

14. Both the NECESSITY and FACT of direct and actual subordination to Episcopal Authority in the person of some one Bishop, have thus been established, by the general voice of the Church in ancient times, and that of the English Church in later ages. Delegation from the Bishop has been proved to be ESSENTIAL to sound and assured regular Communion with the Church Catholick, and that of England in particular. It has also been proved, that the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, so far as was necessary for the fulfilment of this condition, has been actually thus extended abroad, and recognized, both by CHURCH and STATE, for upwards of 200 years, down to the present time. It is therefore vain to argue from the imperfections and irregularities, which in a foreign country,

under such circumstances, must necessarily occur in practice against the principle and fact of such a jurisdiction. All, it is imagined, will be ready to confess, that the greater the difficulty of supporting, and carrying it out into its full details, by civil laws and enactments, the greater in honour and in foro conscientice is the obligation upon every real member of the Church of England to obey it in its plain and simple exercise (*).

It is greatly understating the matter, to say, that the obligation on all true members of the English Church abroad, in places not otherwise Episcopally settled, to hold themselves under the Bishop of London's Jurisdiction in all spiritual matters, rests on similar grounds, morally and conscientiously, with the duty of obedience by all British subjects in Foreign Ports and Places » to the Sovereign of England in all civil matters, and with the necessity of their observance of the Acts of Parliament, which have been passed at different periods for their regulation and protection.

It betrays indeed a somewhat singular estimate or appreciation of the force of moral and social, not to say of Evangelical obligations, to argue, with respect to a jurisdiction thus proved to have been recognized and acted on so long by Church and State, and which, moreover, must be acknowledged to be absolutely required, or implied in every

(*) « They (i. e. our obligations) bind us as ministers of the Church of England: within our own cures, and in other places, at home or abroad, where the Anglican Church has jurisdiction.» And, in a note appended to this passage, it is stated : « Chaplaincies on the Continent are, of course, included. »>

ROBERTSON'S « How Shall we Conform to the Liturgy; » 2.d Ed. pp. 289, 290.

possible case, by the laws and constitution of the Church and Realm of England in particular, and to be demanded by the very principles and fundamental structure of the Church Catholick universally, - since it is most absurd to call a religious society Episcopal, which is not actually governed by a Bishop,- that the impossibility of supporting or enforcing such control, by legal penalties, in a foreign State or Diocese, supersedes the duty of observance; and that the difficulty of carrying into full exercise all parts of Episcopal control, or jurisdiction, releases from obedience to any, and authorizes members of the Church abroad, to throw off even such dependence on the Bishop, as by the voice of the whole Church has been proved to be essential for the preservation of any sound and safe (*) communion with the Church; such as that which is maintained by the Bishop of London's Licence, or sanction, to the nominees of the State, or Civil Patron, in the first instance, on appointments to a Foreign Chaplaincy. To say nothing of the total forgetfulness, which such reasoning displays, of the state of the Church in early ages, amongst hostile governments and people (**), it is obviously this sort of ar

(*) Esse vero in Ecclesia, et non salubriter in ea esse nec illis, nec Catholico cuiquam prodesse potest». CRAKANTH. Defens. cap. XVI.

(**) It is certain that in those times, the authority and jurisdiction of Bishops, and the obligations of Christians to obey them, were entirely independent of the support or sanction of the Civil Powers. Christians had not then thought of obeying their Bishops so far only as it might be agreeable to the wishes or enactments of a persecuting Government or Ruler. Nor had they arrived at the notable discovery of a Bishop's Licence to administer Christ's Sacraments, and preach His Gospel, becoming void, or dropping», at the withdrawal of the temporal favour or appointment, or even at the opposition, of the State.