Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

to the subversion of ecclesiastic charges the right reverend prela chair at the meeting, with ir vince of his venerable brother, sickle into another man's hai intimates, that the Society which it had no right. I viction, that the formation ciation at Bath would be render that city a hot-L As Archdeacon, the name of his diocesa names of the rect of nineteen-twent risdiction, the against the for The tend

of the whol deacon, wa Bath Mis

unauthori

so irregu

and dur soler

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

bers > that

y are atvinistic, or an, or Me: to the Engthe Christian Establishment,

unong mankind. The Society

the East, conducted se Church." When ter missionary instiours of its own,

v zefinite name deTssionary Society for was gradually, and alcituted. Thus the faest Buildings' Society, se longer and less conveThe Society for promoting meeting in Bartlett's BuildDurch Missionary Society Naddon, furmed for a lawful aiming to be established by Mit à fue respect to constibut preferring no claims, as C. Countenance or patronage. In call within the province of ec

eat, its members conscien

and usages of the those of voluntary om of the church has others, to the decision of

and feeling, they claim, as Protestants, the right of being ir own. In effect, every volunconducted by members of our ts, in these respects, precisely on the unds. No institution of this nature

s, or can claim, any ecclesiastical juris11. Such a jurisdiction could be conferred it only by a direct grant from the Legislare, which no existing Society in our church, However highly respectable, and whether incorporated by charter or not, has received.

Such being the nature of the Church Missionary Society, and such the object of the meeting, it is not very easy to discover in what manner the Archdeacon had acquired the jurisdiction which he claimed over it, or what was that official title by which he felt himself warranted to reprove and inveigh against its proceedings. The lawful jurisdiction of an Archdeacon of the church; the visitatorial authority by which he is empowered to inspect the state of the churches, and "the sufficiency and ability" of the parochial clergy; the judicial functions by which he takes cognizance of scandalous or notorious immorality-in which re

by members of that church, and by members of that church only. It merely imports that the individuals who compose the Society are attached, not to the Lutheran, or Calvinistic, or Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Moravian, or Methodist religious communities, but to the English Establishment; and that it is the Christian religion, as taught by that Establishment, which they wish to diffuse among mankind. For many years, the title was, "The Society for Missions to Africa and the East, conducted by Members of the Established Church." When the rise and progress of other missionary institutions, and the extending labours of its own, made a shorter and more definite name desirable, The Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East, was gradually, and almost imperceptibly substituted. Thus the familiar title, The Bartlett's Buildings' Society, is sometimes used for the longer and less convenient appellation, The Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, meeting in Bartlett's Buildings. In short, the Church Missionary Society is a voluntary association, formed for a lawful object, but not pretending to be established by law-conducted with a due respect to constituted authorities, but preferring no claims, as of right, to their countenance or patronage. In all points which fall within the province of ecclesiastical enactment, its members conscien

tiously submit to the canons and usages of the church in matters, like those of voluntary charity, which the wisdom of the church has left, with a thousand others, to the decision of private conscience and feeling, they claim, as Britons and as Protestants, the right of being guided by their own. In effect, every voluntary society conducted by members of our church, rests, in these respects, precisely on the same grounds. No institution of this nature possesses, or can claim, any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Such a jurisdiction could be conferred on it only by a direct grant from the Legislature, which no existing Society in our church, however highly respectable, and whether incorporated by charter or not, has received.

Such being the nature of the Church Missionary Society, and such the object of the meeting, it is not very easy to discover in what manner the Archdeacon had acquired the jurisdiction which he claimed over it, or what was that official title by which he felt himself warranted to reprove and inveigh against its proceedings. The lawful jurisdiction of an Archdeacon of the church; the visitatorial authority by which he is empowered to inspect the state of the churches, and "the sufficiency and ability" of the parochial clergy; the judicial functions by which he takes cognizance of scandalous or notorious immorality-in which re

spects he is figuratively called the Bishop's Eye -all these rights and powers he possesses without dispute. But it is not apparent how any of these, or all of them together, should entitle him "officially" to force his denunciations on such an assembly as has been described-an assembly pretending to no ecclesiastical commission or character-not a meeting of the clergy in visitation, nor a chapter of the canons of a cathedral, nor, strictly speaking, a religious meeting of any kind-but simply a voluntary association of benevolent persons met to form a charitable institution, under the protection of the laws of the land. If this meeting acted irregularly, it was amenable, not to the Archdeacon of Bath, but to the civil power.

The peculiarity of the case, however, is, that the meeting was held under the sanction of the civil power; the Guildhall having been expressly granted for the purpose by the mayor of the city and yet it was under such circumstances that the Archdeacon of Bath entered, with the avowed purpose of compelling the assembly to hear his vehement censures; thus claiming, without even a plausible argument, and exercising in a manner which in fact bordered on a breach of the peace, a right which, had it been peremptorily resisted, he would certainly have had no legal means of enforcing.

« AnteriorContinua »