under proper safeguards, and receive a pension out of the benefice. At present this is impossible from the simony law, and I would suggest the appointment of a committee to take it into consideration. The practice with respect to advowsons and presentations, sad as it is, is beyond our reach. The real evil lies higher than the Bishop of Lincoln has said. The sale of advowsons, as separate from the property to which the advowson is appurtenant, is the real seat of the evil. We cannot object to the owner of the soil being the person to nominate to the Bishop the ordained man who is to serve in that place. But the power of appointing, simply as a matter of buying and selling, is a very different thing, and from it has sprung all the evil of our present system. I cannot myself separate the buying of a presentation and the buying of an advowson for presentation which is not appurtenant to the land; it often happens that conscientious men come to me and ask my advice on this matter. I have said, "I cannot censure any one who does it, because many conscientious men do it; but, if you ask my opinion, I must say I could not do it myself."

The PRESIDENT-I agree entirely with what has been said by my right rev. brother who has just sat down. I think a relaxation of the law, as it is now understood, would be of great advantage. The Act of Elizabeth, which prevents a clergyman taking an annuity for the remainder of his life, is one of those acts which do a great deal of harm. These are matters which require consideration, and I shall be glad to see a committee appointed.

The BISHOP OF LINCOLN-I shall be happy to move the appointment of a committee to consider generally the law of simony, but that is a much wider subject than that embraced in the petition. I entirely agree with the remarks of my right rev. brother the Bishop of Oxford. My own feeling is so decidedly against giving money for any spiritual office, that I have tendered similar advice which, in more than one instance, has been acted upon. I now beg to move that a committee be appointed to consider and report, on a future occasion, on the present law of simony, and any improvements which may be introduced therein.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.

The motion was put and agreed to, and the following right rev. prelates were nominated members of the committee:-The Bishops of London, Winchester, Oxford, Lichfield, Llandaff, Lincoln, and Salisbury.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT.

MR. DYKE (Registrar-General) read the articulus cleri which had been brought up by the Prolocutor from the Lower House:

This house is of opinion, that since this act is felt by a very large number of the clergy materially to have altered the law of the Church, and to press hardly upon them, it ought to be amended. This house, also, fully recognising the supreme power of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for all estates of men within the realm, is of opinion that when changes in the law are proposed which would affect the doctrines of the Articles of the Church, or the duties required of the clergy, it is desirable that the advice of the clergy should be sought before the enactment of such changes.

Divorce Act. S

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-As far as the first clause goes, my opinion is in conformity with that of the Lower House, that the law of the Church has been changed absolutely without any consent of the spiritualty. It is the first time in the history of England that this has happened, and I do not wonder at the Lower House noting it as a thing greatly to be deprecated, and very grievous to those who desire to see the union between Church and State maintained inviolate. The Church must maintain the law and doctrines of the Church as she has received them, not from man but from God; and if their union is to continue, the law of the Church must be held inviolate by the State. The Church not being the creation of the State, but existing before the State-the Church being the same which was persecuted by the pagan Roman Emperor, and which is fostered and favoured by our beloved Christian Sovereign-the Church being_the same Church resting on the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Head, the Corner-stone, cannot in its doctrines be changed by any external power. The course which the State has taken in this instance is really the same as if it undertook to alter an Article of the Creed. That being the case, I cannot lament that the representatives of the clergy of this province, constituting so large a portion of the clergy of England, should have adopted, by an unanimous vote, this articulus cleri, begging us to consider the proceeding as one fraught with consequences full of danger to Christ's Church in this land, and to God's ordinance of sovereignty in this land. I believe that the measure does press hardly on the consciences of men, and that it ought to be amended; but how far this house can help its amendment, it is more difficult to see.

The BISHOP OF LONDON-There seems some doubt as to whether this articulus cleri was adopted unanimously or not. The Prolocutor was not able to say so.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-I was told by one whom I know as an accurate person, that there was a division on the wording of it— whether the word "violated" or the word "altered," or some such question, should be adopted; but that point having been settled, the articulus itself was carried without even a show of hands.

The BISHOP OF SALISBURY-I do not regret that the clergy in Convocation have expressed their feelings in this way. On the contrary,

I am deeply thankful that they have thus come forward to state the grievances of the Church. I look upon the act of last year as a most fatal thing for the Church. The same power might proceed to enact a new Article of the Creed. Unless we resist these encroachments on God's book, it is hopeless for us to expect that God will bless the ministrations of the Church. I rejoice to find that the clergy are protesting against the tyrannical act of last year, for the State has no right to make a law contradictory to the truth of God, and contradictory to the teaching of our Church.

The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER-Whilst I admit that the alteration which has taken place is oppressive to the Church, and that the clergy have strong ground of complaint, I cannot but regret the form in which this representation has been sent up here. I think it is

D

Divorce Act.

a dangerous thing for the Lower House of Convocation to say, that, on matters of this kind, Parliament is to consult them before legislation takes place. Had the Lower House confined itself to the first part of the representation, we should probably have agreed with it. The BISHOP OF OXFORD-My remarks applied only to the first part.

The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER-I think the course adopted by the Lower House is likely to prejudice their case. Convocation is not the representative, in the mind of the public, of the Church, and you can hardly expect Parliament to do what they ask; and, even if it were the representative of the Church, still I think it imprudent of them, in the present state of things, to bring these matters before the public in such a way, assuming that no act with reference to the Church is to pass without their sanction. I must protest against

the second clause.

The BISHOP OF LONDON-I cannot allow the subject to drop without saying that I am quite unable to enter into the feelings expressed by my right rev. brother the Bishop of Salisbury. I think it rather a serious matter, either in the Upper or the Lower House, to make use of expressions casting an aspersion on the acts of the Legislature of the country. I am glad to sit as a member of this House of Convocation, but I do not consider that in that capacity I am at all justified in passing a censure on the acts of the supreme Legislature. If any mean to say that the Convocation of Canterbury is to have the consideration of all matters which are related to the Church, as marriage, for instance, is, this seems to me to be an assumption on the part of the Houses of Convocation which is perfectly untenable. I do not think the feelings of the great mass of the members of this national Church at all join in such a sentiment. If it be said this is a hardship pressing on the consciences of individual clergymen, the reply is, there is nothing to compel them to violate their consciences, because they need not marry divorced people unless they choose to do

So.

It is said they are obliged to permit these marriages to be celebrated in their churches. No doubt that is so. But then the serious question arises whether the church belongs to the clergymen or to the parish. I think we ought to endeavour to soothe down any irritation which exists, and I regret the strong expressions which have been used on this occasion. A great deal of harm may be done if the impression goes abroad that the two Houses of Convocation are assuming such an attitude. I believe the jealousy which was entertained respecting Convocation has been in a great measure dispelled, but I am afraid that jealousy will revive if matters are debated in this

manner.

The BISHOP OF SALISBURY-I admit that it is our special duty to view with calmness and guardedness any measures that are brought before us, and if I had made use of these expressions for the first time, I might have felt a desire to withdraw them. But I have used them with the utmost deliberation. I have made the same remarks over and over again in Parliament, and also to my clergy, and instead of withdrawing them, I venture to repeat them. My opinion is, that

Divorce Act. S Parliament, in passing the Divorce Bill, did that which would equally justify them in making a new Article of the Creed. Whatever may be the true interpretation of Scripture, there can be no question as to the teaching of the Church on the subject. It was said that the change would not affect more than some half-dozen cases, but almost 400 marriages have been dissolved, and the clergy may be called upon to marry persons who are already married. Now, I should advise my clergy to run all risks rather than to marry one of these people. The law of the Church of England on this subject was fully recognised by Lord Wensleydale and other eminent lawyers, that marriage is indissoluble; but Parliament has changed that law, and now the law of the State is at variance with the law of the Church. I am extremely glad that the other house has expressed its opinion on this matter.

The BISHOP OF LINCOLN-If the discussion were to stop here, it might appear that we had misunderstood the intentions of the Lower House with respect to the articulus cleri now before us. I apprehend the difficulty which they feel is this-that whereas by the law of the Church, as it still exists, marriage is held indissoluble, and by the law of the land it is made dissoluble, they are acting under two different laws, and their conscience is offended in having to obey one law and to disobey the other. That is an intelligible view, and an evil of which they have a right to complain. But I can hardly think it was intended by those who drew up the paper, to express in anything like such strong terms an opinion respecting the law of divorce. The Legislature has altered the law so as to make a legal provision for carrying out divorce in a certain number of cases, in accordance with the permission given by our Lord himself, but they have not done this so as to alter the law of the Church. To say that they have acted in the same way as if they had taken upon themselves to alter the Articles, is a position which I think cannot be maintained.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-It is most important that we should not unjustly condemn any article that has been adopted by the other house, and I think my right rev. brother who has just spoken has given a satisfactory explanation as to the first point. Now with regard to the second point. The clergy say that while they fully recognise the supreme power of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for all within the realm, they are of opinion that when changes of the law are proposed which would affect the doctrines or Articles of the Church, or the duties required of the clergy, it is desirable that the advice of the clergy should be sought before the enactment of such changes. That is a very modified form of asserting this position. We should all say that the Houses of Parliament are not competent to alter the doctrines of the Church. Suppose, for example, that a proposition were made to strike out the doctrine of the Eternal Godhead of the Son of God, I apprehend there would not be two opinions that Parliament is incompetent to do anything of the kind. When there is an alliance between two contracting parties, no change can be made by one without the consent of the other. The statement of the

Divorce Act. Lower House amounts to this-that the doctrine, or that which involves the doctrine, of the Church of England cannot rightly be changed but by both the contracting parties, the spiritualty and the laity, and therefore on all such points it is desirable that both the contracting parties should be consulted.

The BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER-They certainly do not claim the right of being a legislative body. They recognise the power of the Imperial Parliament, but still they propose that on every Church matter-doctrine, article, or duty-(and I can hardly imagine a case that would not come under one of these heads)—they should be consulted as a Convocation.

SPECIAL FORMS OF PRAYER.

The PROLOCUTOR (accompanied by his Assessors) attended and presented an address, asking the concurrence of the Upper House in the address of the Lower House on the subject of Special Forms of Prayer. He also announced that the Lower House had appointed a Committee on Dilapidations.

The Prolocutor and his Assessors having retired,

The BISHOP OF OXFORD said-I beg to move that your lordships do agree to the address of the Lower House.

The BISHOP OF LONDON-We have only just rejected an address of a similar character.

The BISHOP OF OXFORD-But we now stand in a different position. It was urged before that the proposal was rash and dangerous, and that the mind of the Church was not prepared for it. But so far from that being the case, we are requested, by an unanimous vote of the other house-including the Deans of England, appointed by the Crown, the Archdeacons of England, appointed by the Bishops, and the Proctors, appointed by the Chapters and the clergy-to join with them in their address. I think it will be difficult for us to reject such a request from the Lower House, and say you had better postpone the subject. I believe we should assume a dangerous position in the face of the Church, were we to refuse to join in such an address, when it is presented to us by the unanimous decision of the house.

The BISHOP OF WINCHESTER-I think we can scarcely be called upon at this moment to agree to an address which is substantially the same as that which we have just rejected, and which is open to all the same grave objections, and I cannot imagine that my right rev. brother will seriously call upon those who differ from him in opinion to stultify themselves in such a manner. However much I may regret the seeming incivility of not adopting the address, I cannot so far make others the keeper of my conscience and opinions, as to turn round in the course of a quarter of an hour, and take an opposite course. I beg to move an amendment, that the address be laid upon the table for further consideration.

The BISHOP OF LONDON-I second the amendment.

The BISHOP OF LINCOLN-I am rather thankful that we have this fair and reasonable opportunity of reconsidering the subject, because the dangers to be apprehended from the movement have all been in