The Lambeth Conferences. the Solution for Pan-Anglican Organization 9780231894999

Table of contents :
Preface
Table of Contents
Prologue
I. The Framework of the Anglican Communion in 1867
II. The Necessity for Pan-Anglican Organization, 1850–1867
III. The Inauguration of Pan-Anglican Organization: The Lambeth Conference of 1867
IV. The Development of Pan-Anglican Organization as Shown through the Lambeth Conference of 1878
V. The Further Development of Pan-Anglican Organization as Evidenced in the Later Lambeth Conferences: 1888, 1897, 1908, 1920, 1930
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

S T U D I E S IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS A N D PUBLIC LAW Edited by the FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

N U M B E R 488

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCES THE SOLUTION FOR PAN-ANGLICAN ORGANIZATION BV

WILLIAM REDMOND CURTIS

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The Solution for Pan^Anglican

Organization

BY

W I L L I A M REDMOND CURTIS, Ph.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OK GENERAL NEW YORK

NEW COLUMBIA

HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY

YORK

UNIVERSITY

LONDON : P . S . K I N G & SON,

1942

PRESS

LTD.

COPYRIGHT,

1942

BY

COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

PRINTED IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S OF

AMERICA

Co My Deceased Father, THOMAS COOK

CURTIS,

A Devout Member of the Anglican Communion.

PREFACE THE author's approach to the history of the Lambeth Conferences was that of a student of British constitutional and imperial history. He was led to a study of the Anglican Communion by his preceding interest in the secular development of the British Commonwealth of Nations. As originally planned it was proposed to deal with all the conferences that have been held to date. Upon investigation, however, it became apparent that an adequate treatment of the subject as a whole, involving as it would a comprehensive history of the Anglican Communion since 1850, must await the future. Therefore, it was decided to confine this monograph to the antecedents of Pan-Anglican organization and the work of the firsí. two conferences, which set and established the precedent for the future meetings of a like nature. One difficulty, and a most serious one, which faced the author was the impossibility of obtaining access to the debates of any of the conferences after the first. There has never been any official publication of the debates of the conferences. From the outset it was decided that such publication would be inexpedient. An account of the debates of the first conference was, however, published unofficially in the Guardian under unusual and unexplainable circumstances, as described in Chapter I V below. Throughout the preparation of this study the author received helpful advice from R. L. Schuyler, Professor of British History at Columbia University. He wishes also to express his gratitude to Carlton J. H. Hayes, Seth Low Professor of History at Columbia University, and to William Walker Rockwell, Librarian at the Union Theological Seminary, who read the manuscript and made several invaluable suggestions. He takes the opportunity of recording his indebtedness to the Rev. William W . Manross, who, thanks to his knowledge of Anglican ecclesiastical history, made valuable suggestions which have improved the study at many points. W R C NEW

YORK

CITY,

1941

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE

7

PROLOGUE

IL

CHAPTER

I

The Framework of the Anglican Communion in 1867 CHAPTER

17

II

The Necessity for Pan-Anglican Organization, 1850-1867 CHAPTER

78

III

The Inauguration of Pan-Anglican Organization: The Lambeth Conference of 1867 . . CHAPTER

IV

The Development of Pan-Anglican Organization as Shown through the Lambeth Conference of 1878 CHAPTER The

125

200

V

Further Development of Pan-Anglican Organization as Evidenced in the Later Lambeth Conferences: 1888, 1897, 1908, 1920, 1930 283

BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

INDEX

343

9

PROLOGUE THE British Commonwealth of Nations is something new under the sun, but its organization was paralleled almost a generation earlier by that of the Anglican Communion. T h e first Lambeth Conference w a s held twenty years before the first

Colonial

Conference ; the

autonomy

of

the

national

churches within the Communion suggests the position of the self-governing dominions in the British Commonwealth; there are similarities between the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the crown. T h e Anglican Communion is as typically British as the Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, it is hoped that this study of its organization may have value f o r students of politics as well as for those whose concern is with the organization of religion. The most obvious and visible sign of union within the Anglican Communion is the organization known as the Lambeth Conferences. T h e y have become a recognized institution of the Communion. These decennial conferences of the Anglican Episcopate under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury began in 1867. T h e first conference was an experiment of

unprecedented character

in Anglican

ecclesiastical

procedure. It was deemed enough of a success to warrant repetition in 1878. W i t h that repetition the gathering began to lose its novel character, and the conference of 1878 arranged for a third conference to be held ten years later. This third meeting resulted in a fourth conference in 1897. Another conference was held in 1908; the. World W a r caused postponement of a sixth until 1920. There was a conference in 1930 and preparations were in progress for an eighth conference at Lambeth in 1940 when the second W o r l d W a r

interrupted

them. II

12

PROLOGUE

None of these gatherings has been at the insistence or on the initiative of the church in England—the parent and senior member of the Communion. All of them have been called, however, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first conference was the outcome of a movement for closer unity within the Communion which originated not in the church in E n g land but in the churches in North America. The first official steps toward convening it were initiated by the church in Canada. They were in the form of a proposal for the convening of a " national synod " of the Anglican Episcopate, at the invitation and under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a means of enabling the other members of the Anglican Communion to have " a share in the deliberations for the welfare of the church." The Archbishop of Canterbury acceded to the proposal in principle. W i t h the concurrence of the Convocation of Canterbury, but in the face of vigorous disapproval both of the Convocation of Y o r k and of prominent English prelates and clergy, he convened the Lambeth Conference of 1867. The second conference likewise resulted from a movement in the churches in North America requesting the Archbishop of Canterbury to convene a second Lambeth Conference. In response to that request, the Archbishop, with the concurrence of both the Convocations of Canterbury and Y o r k , convened the conference of 1878. It was virtually agreed at that gathering that the third conference which was to be held at Lambeth, ten years later, should also be at the invitation and under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The result was that the conferences of 1888 and 1897 were at his invitation and met under his presidency just as the first two had done. These arrangements were put on a permanent basis by the conference of 1897, for the second of its formal resolutions states " that whereas the Lambeth Conferences have been called into existence by the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we desire that similar conferences should be held,

PROLOGUE

13

at intervals of about ten years, on the invitation of the Archbishop, if he be willing to give it." T h e precedents so set and established have been followed in all the conferences since 1897. T h e Lambeth Conferences are, in strict accuracy, exactly what the term conference implies. They are not ecclesiastical synods or church councils, but meetings of the primates, metropolitans and bishops of the Church of England and the churches in communion with her for the purpose of discussing common questions and problems of church policy and organization. T h i s means that the Lambeth Conferences have no legislative or judicial powers and that their conclusions and resolutions are, at the most, advisory, and have only moral force within the Communion. The discussions, conclusions, and resolutions mirror the concern and vision of the Anglican prelates for the welfare of the church and her mission in the world, for, although the first two conferences concerned themselves with purely ecclesiastical problems, all the later ones have had much to say about the moral, social, political and economic well-being of mankind. The deliberative and advisory character of the Lambeth Conferences is largely the result of the constitution and organization of the Anglican Communion. This branch of Christendom grew out of the national Church of England following the sixteenth century repudiation of the centralized ecclesiastical authority of the Roman See. Throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, the Church of England was largely concerned with the defense of her rights and liberties, and in spreading her fellowship and sway over the world, even as the British government was. The expansion of the Church of England in this fashion gave birth to the Anglican Communion, an ecclesiastical counterpart of the British Empire. The Anglican Communion is an association of national episcopal churches, provinces, and dioceses historically associated with the British Isles. T h i s association is based, upon the principle of regional autonomy, as

14

PROLOGUE

these churches, provinces, and dioceses are autonomous in their government, and are held together only by spiritual bonds of faith and doctrine, and common liturgical tradition. B e f o r e the middle of the nineteenth century there had been no need f o r the creation of an instrument to serve as the mouthpiece of the Anglican Communion, f o r there was little realization of corporate unity throughout the Communion. The last half of the nineteenth century saw a marked change in English political consciousness. These were the years of developing imperial vision, " the white man's burden " and the evolution of the British Commonwealth of Nations. During this period the Church of England developed on this same pattern, even slightly earlier than the political institutions. A s a result, her concern, of necessity, became world-wide ; her attitude, catholic ; her problem the administration and coordination of those liberties from which she had evolved. F o r these purposes the Lambeth Conferences have been the logical instrument. A s compared with the organization of the Roman Catholic Church they are the epitome of impotence. Without the authority of a synod, not claiming to be PanAnglican Synods, or church councils, and leaving the national episcopal churches, provinces and dioceses with complete autonomy, they have yet spoken f o r the Anglican Communion, even as the Imperial Conferences have spoken f o r the British Commonwealth of Nations. In speaking f o r the Anglican Communion they have made pronouncements that are Catholic according to the Anglican definition of Catholicity. The declaration of such Catholic principles is clearly seen in the " Lambeth Quadrilateral " of 1888. More liberal than the earlier declaration of 1878, it has been the basis f o r all the negotiations of the Anglican Communion in the matter of Christian intercommunion since 1888. T h e change in attitude, with respect to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, in terms of a growing sense of moral responsibility in world affairs, shows the same trend and is another evidence of the develop-

PROLOGUE

15

ment within the Communion. These factors account for the widening programs of all the conferences after 1878 to include consideration of the relations of the Anglican

Communion

with other forces, institutions and Christian denominations, and with the moral, social, economic and political welfare of mankind. For these reasons the study of the origins and early growth of the Lambeth Conferences is of moment to an understanding of the Anglican technique in institutional development, as the Lambeth Conferences are a typically English method of treating problems of organization and show clearly the workings of the Anglo-Saxon tradition in ecclesiastical matters.

CHAPTER I T H E FRAMEWORK OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION IN 1867 THE deliberative and advisory character of the Lambeth Conferences and their functioning as Pan-Anglican organization can best be made clear by a survey both of the framework of the Anglican Communion and of religious thought and belief in 1867, the year of the first conference. The Anglican Communion in 1867 was an association consisting of three varied groups of ecclesiastical communities. These groups differed from each other in their relation to the English Church. The first comprised the national episcopal churches in the British Isles and in the United States—the United Church of England and Ireland, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The secònd group was a far-flung collection of colonial churches in the British colonies. The third was an equally far-flung, but a numerically smaller, collection of missionary dioceses and districts in the British and American dependencies and spheres of influence. Since these communities enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy, the structure had little trace of unity and every mark of local variety. A t the same time the structure was also a corporate entity, because each of these communities was a f filiated in some distinct way with the United Church of England and Ireland, or rather, in strict accuracy, with the English branch of that church. The successful reconciliation of autonomy and unity in this fashion gave a duality of character to the Anglican Communion which was in striking contrast to the Roman Communion. The United Church of England and Ireland was the nucleus of the Anglican Communion in 1867, because it was the legal establishment in England at the time. This entity had come into existence and had become the legal establishment in 1800 17

l8

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

t h r o u g h the passage by the British P a r l i a m e n t of the Irish A c t o f U n i o n bringing about the political union of Ireland and G r e a t Britain. T h a t act stipulated, inter alia, that the Church o f E n g l a n d w a s to be united with the C h u r c h of Ireland " into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called ' T h e

United

C h u r c h of E n g l a n d and Ireland ' " , 1 T h u s , the Church of E n g land w a s supplanted by the United C h u r c h as the establishment in England. But in 1867 the United C h u r c h in E n g l a n d was spoken of by churchmen as the English Church, and w a s considered the parent and senior member o f the A n g l i c a n C o m munion. T h i s meant that the position of the other ecclesiastical communities in the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n w a s dependent upon their affiliation with that branch of the U n i t e d Church. Their position w a s also determined by the degree of autonomy that they enjoyed, since the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n w a s not a stationary entity, even in 1867. O n the contrary, it w a s still in the process of development towards the goal of a worldwide association, not merely of autonomous national episcopal churches a m o n g peoples historically connected with E n g l a n d , but also of other churches whose faith is grounded in the doctrines and ideals f o r which the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d has a l w a y s stood. In consequence the position of the other national episcopal churches was, therefore, considered to be one of parity with the English C h u r c h (although the latter was viewed as prima inter

pares,

because of her seniority). T h e y e n j o y e d complete autonomy, and were, at the same time, in " full communion " with the E n g l i s h Church, as " mother " church. B y the same token, the status

of

churches,

the

colonial

churches

while the missionary

was

that

dioceses

of

and

" daughter " districts

were

simply outposts of the churches which had created them. T h e A n g l i c a n Communion, constituted in this fashion, depended upon a community of faith as the n e x u s to unite these varied groups of ecclesiastical communities into a corporate entity. T h i s community of faith is based upon and springs f r o m 1 40 Geo. Ill, c. 38, s. v.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

I9

the claim to Catholicity. The claim to Catholicity rests upon the belief that the continuity of the Church of England in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was not disrupted by the separation f r o m the Roman See and the repudiation of papal authority in the sixteenth century. B y subscribing to this belief the Church of England, and the other constituent members of the Anglican Communion hold that they are, both individually and collectively, branches of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They also hold that their episcopate, doctrinal beliefs, liturgy and organization are C a t h o l i c , because they are grounded in and patterned after those of the primitive and undivided church of the early centuries of the Christian era. T h e foundation of this spiritual bond of union in 1867 was a number of ingenious and flexible arrangements which had been made during the course of the expansion of the Church of England following the revolt against centralized ecclesiastical authority in the sixteenth century. Some of these arrangements had resulted in the establishing of unbroken series of the episcopate in the churches in Ireland, Scotland, the United States, and in the British colonies and dependencies. This unbroken series of the episcopate had been established through the consecration of bishops f o r these churches by English bishops or by bishops who had themselves been consecrated by English prelates. The separation of the English Church f r o m the Roman See and the repudiation of centralized ecclesiastical authority had emancipated the episcopate f r o m papal control and had also subordinated it to the English crown. Ecclesiastics attached to Anglican principles and recognizing the supremacy of the crown in matters ecclesiastical by taking the oath prescribed by the Act of Supremacy were nominated by the English crown to fill the sees in England as fast as they became vacant. 2 The royal 2 The first Act of Supremacy was enacted by the English Parliament in 1534. This statute, 26 Hen. VIII, c. I, declared that "the k i n g . . . his heirs and successors, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia..." It was re-

20

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

nominees were prohibited by an act of Parliament from procuring any papal bulls or palls, and from taking the oath of fealty to the pope. The same act also provided that such prelates, after being nominated by the crown, were to be elected by the dean and cathedral chapter under congé d'élire (a license to elect, accompanied by a " letter missive " naming the person to be elected), issued under Letters Patent by the crown. They were then to be confirmed and consecrated by the archbishop of the province in which their sees were located, assisted by " any other two bishops within this realm ". If the prelate in question was an archbishop, the crown was to signify his election to " one archbishop and two other bishops, or else to four bishops within this realm ". The archbishop and the two bishops, after confirming the election, were then to consecrate the archbishop-elect. The prelates so elected and consecrated were to sue out their temporalities from the crown and were to take the oath of homage by subscribing to the formula embodied in the Act of Supremacy.8 Another act of Parliament authorized a similar procedure for the nomination and consecration of suffragan bishops. This act stipulated that bishops were to present two persons to the crown. The crown was to select one of them and present him under royal Letters Patent to either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York, whichever was metropolitan of the see in which the person was to serve as the suffragan. Such suffragans were then to be consecrated by the archbishop pealed by ι and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8, but was revived in substance by the Elizabethan Act of Supremacy. The Elizabethan Act of Supremacy, ι Eliz., c. I, declared " that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness' dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal ; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm." Since 1559 every member of the ministry of the Church of England has been required by law to subscribe to this formula as recognition of the supremacy of the crown in the ecclesiastical sphere. 3 25 Hen. V I I I , c. 20.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

21

in question, aided by two other suffragan bishops.4 Besides these statutes, the English Parliament also passed an act prohibiting the convening of synods without the royal assent.® These statutes were enacted during the reign of Henry V I I I . But the archbishops and bishops of the royal nomination still had their consecrations solemnized according to the preReformation rites, because a reformed ordinal had not yet been compiled. Further changes were made during the reign of Edward V I . A m o n g them was the compilation of a reformed ordinal, whose use was made mandatory by the A c t of Uniformity of 1552.' A l l these arrangements were rendered null and void in the opening years of Mary's reign because Parliament repealed " all the statutes, articles, and provisions made against the see apostolic of Rome, since the twentieth year of K i n g Henry VIII 'V The Henrician acts authorizing the nomination of archbishops and bishops and their election by the dean and cathedral chapter under congé d'élire, and the nomination and consecration of suffragans, were revived by the Elizabethan A c t of Supremacy, 15 59. 8 That statute has been the law in England since its enactment, so the consecration of English bishops has followed this procedure throughout the centuries since Elizabeth. T h e same statute also revived the Henrician act prohibiting the convening of synods without the royal assent. T h e use of the reformed ordinal was revived and made mandatory by the Elizabethan A c t of Uniformity of 1559.® This statute has continued to be the law in England since its enactment, so that ordinal has been used at the consecration of every English bishop ever since. 4 Ibid., c. 14. 5 Ibid., c. 19. 6 s and 6 Ed. V I , c. 1. 7 ι and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8. 8 ι Eliz., c. I. 9 Ibid., c. 2.

22

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Finally, with the readjustment in the organization of the English Church made necessary by the breach with Rome, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the senior prelate in England, became the titular head of the church in England and later of the Anglican Communion. The changes with respect to the episcopate, authorized by acts of Parliament, were not completely consummated until the latter part of the sixteenth, and, in some cases, the early part of the seventeenth century. W i t h their consummation the episcopate of the English Church became a truly Anglican one, in the sense that it rested on and possessed two qualities which it has retained ever since—independence of Rome and subordination to the authority of the British crown. T h e Anglican contention is that these changes did not invalidate the orders of the ministry of the Church of England. The Reformation period is conceded to have been one of flux for the English Church and her episcopate. It is pointed out that many of the English prelates who were consecrated by the pre-Reformation rites shifted their position by taking the oath of supremacy to the English crown, and that some of them assisted at the consecration of the prelates of royal nomination. In consequence it is claimed that the transformation with respect to the English episcopate of the sixteenth and the early part of the seventeenth century did not disrupt its continuity in that of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because the line of succession remained intact, and so has been continued and perpetuated to the present day. The methods introduced to effect these changes were, it is claimed, a return to the practices that had obtained in England before the Norman Conquest and the papal " usurpation " of the twelfth century. Such practices were, it is asserted, those of the primitive and undivided church of the first four centuries of the Christian era. T h u s the Church of England established the unbroken series of the episcopate in the churches in Ireland, Scotland, the United States, and in the British colonies and dependencies not only to transmit the episcopal succession to

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

23

these churches, but to perpetuate and continue the same throughout the Anglican Communion to 1867, and to the present day. The establishing of the unbroken series of the episcopate in the church in Ireland took place in the sixteenth century during the course of, and in conjunction with, the Reformation in Ireland. In 1535, George Browne, a royal favorite and a man attached to the principles of the Reformation, was appointed by Henry V I I I to the archiépiscopal See of Dublin. He was then elected to the see by the dean and chapter of Christ Church, Dublin, and was consecrated and invested with the pall and the other archiépiscopal insignia in London by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas Cranmer), assisted by the Bishops of Rochester and Salisbury as suffragans. Although Browne was never recognized as the Archbishop of Dublin by the papacy, it has been the Anglican contention that his consecration was a valid one. It is said that it was solemnized in accordance with the pre-Reformation rites and that it was performed by the canonically correct number of prelates, who had received their bulls and palls from the papacy and who had, in turn, been consecrated by bishops appointed by the pope. In 1552 Hugh Goodacre was appointed by the English crown to the archiépiscopal See of Armagh. Archbishop Browne, assisted by the Bishops of Connor and of Kildare as suffragans, transmitted the episcopal succession to Goodacre by performing the consecration, solemnizing it with the reformed ordinal. Hugh Goodacre died shortly after his consecration, and Archbishop Browne was deprived by Mary in 1555. A second line of succession was, of necessity, established with the consecration of Hugh Curwin as Archbishop of Dublin. Curwin was appointed to that see by a license (i. e., congé d'élire), issued by Philip and Mary to the dean and chapter of Christ Church, Dublin. Then he was consecrated in 1555 at St. Paul's, London, by the Bishops of London, Ely, and Rochester. The consecration was recognized as valid by the papacy. However, as Curwin shifted his position upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth to

THE

24

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the throne, by taking the oath of supremacy, he continued to be the Archbishop of Dublin until 1567. In that year he was translated to O x f o r d , England. B e f o r e this he, assisted by " other bishops " , transmitted the episcopal succession to A d a m L o f t u s , who had been appointed to the See of A r m a g h by Queen Elizabeth in 1562, that see having again become the primatial one during the reign of M a r y . L o f t u s was translated to the See of Dublin in 1567. O n his translation to the See of Dublin, he, assisted by the Bishops of Meath and Kildare, conveyed the episcopal succession to T h o m a s Lancaster, who had been appointed as his successor in the primacy and the See of A r m a g h by Queen Elizabeth. These consecrations, according to Anglican

contentions,

established

the

unbroken

series of the episcopate which has been uninterruptedly continued and perpetuated in the church in Ireland to the present day. 1 0 T h e establishing of the unbroken series of the episcopate through the English line of bishops in the other branches of the Anglican Communion took place after the changes in the episcopate of the English Church had been consummated. In the last analysis it was simply a matter of extending the episcopate of the English Church to the other branches of the Communion. Eventually the majority of the English bishops obtained their episcopal orders f r o m the Archbishop of Canterbury, because the Henrician procedure

for the nomination,

election, and consecration of archbishops, bishops and

suf-

f r a g a n s was mandatory by the Elizabethan A c t of Supremacy. Finally these consecrations were solemnized in accordance with the reformed rites, because the use of the reformed ordinal was mandatory by the Elizabethan A c t of

Uniformity.

T h e unbroken series of the episcopate was established in the Episcopal Church in Scotland in 1661. In that year at W e s t minster A b b e y in London the Bishops of London, Worcester, l O M a n t , Richard, History of the Church of Ireland, Vol. I, pp. 111-112, 177-178, 215, 217, 237-238, 269, 270. W a r e , James, History of the Bishops of the Kingdom of Ireland, pp. 94-9S, 348, 352, 353-

ANGLICAN COMMUNION IN 1 8 6 7

25

Carlisle, and Llandaff participated in the consecration of James Sharp as Primate and Archbishop of St. Andrews, Andrew Fairfowl as Archbishop of Glasgow, Robert Leighton as Bishop of Dunblane, and John Hamilton as Bishop of Galloway. These consecrations are recognized as valid by the Episcopal Church in Scotland. In consequence they were the channel by which the unbroken series of the episcopate was established in that church, because all the Scottish bishops since then have been the lineal successors of the bishops resulting from these consecrations. 11 The unbroken series of the episcopate was established in the church in the United States in the later part of the eighteenth century. The initial step was taken when Samuel Seabury, Bishop-elect of Connecticut, was consecrated in 1784 at Aberdeen, Scotland, by Robert Kilgour, Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus, and Arthur Petrie, Bishop of Ross and Moray, assisted by John Skinner, Bishop Coadjutor of Aberdeen. Further steps followed. In 1787, William White, Bishop-elect of Pennsylvania, and Samuel Provoost, Bishop-elect of N e w Y o r k , were consecrated at Lambeth Palace by John Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and William Markham, Archbishop of Y o r k , assisted by the Bishops of Bath and Wells and of Peterborough. In 1790, James Madison, Bishop-elect of V i r ginia, was consecrated in Lambeth Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Bishops of London and Rochester. T w o years later all four American prelates joined in solemnizing the consecration of the Right Reverend John Claggett as Bishop of Maryland. T h i s consecration, the first to be solemnized in the United States, brought about the fusion of the sources of episcopal orders in the American episcopate. In so doing, it established the unbroken series of the episcopate which has been continued and perpetuated in the church in the United States ever since. Beginning with Bishop Claggett, all 11 Lawson, John Parker, The Episcopal Church of Scotland, Vol. I, pp. 676-701.

THE

26

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the A m e r i c a n bishops have been the lineal successors of Bishops Seabury, W h i t e , P r o v o o s t and Madison. 1 2 T h e establishing of the unbroken series of the episcopate in the churches in the British colonies and dependencies w a s done through the issuance of Letters Patent by the crown. These documents had played a part in bringing these churches into being because they were the instruments by which the dioceses and provinces comprising them had been created. In addition the Letters Patent, in every case, contained provisions authorizing the appointment of bishops by the c r o w n for these dioceses and provinces, and stipulations requiring the prelates so appointed to be consecrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury, assisted by at least t w o other English bishops. 13 W i t h the establishing of the unbroken series of the episcopate in this manner throughout the other branches of the A n g l i c a n Communion,

their episcopates

were

joined

to that

of

the

E n g l i s h Church. It was, therefore, an important bond of union in 1867 because every one of the A n g l i c a n bishops had received his orders immediately or mediately through the E n g l i s h line of bishops. Others of the arrangements f o r m i n g the foundation upon which the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n rested in 1867 had provided f o r the dissemination and the subsequent adoption, but not without modification in some instances, by the other constituent members of the Communion both of the acknowledged A n g l i can stardards of faith and worship, as contained respectively in the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Quicunque (commonly

called the Athanasian

Creed),

the

Vult

Thirty-Nine

Articles of Religion, and the B o o k of C o m m o n P r a y e r , and of the polity of the English Church. T h r o u g h the arrangements in the former category the other communities then constituting 12 M a n r o s s , W i l l i a m W i l s o n , A History

of the American

pp. 193-194, 198, 201. P e r r y , G. G., History

of the Church

Episcopal

Church,

of England,

pp.

617-618, 620, 623.

13 C l a r k e , H e n r y L o w t h e r , Constitutional Church Government in the Beyond the Seas and in Other Parts of the Anglican Communion.

Dominions

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

2"]

the A n g l i c a n Communion had been brought into virtual agreement with the English C h u r c h in the matter of faith and doctrine, and liturgy, and were " in full and visible communion " with

the

latter, as the parent and

senior

member

of

the

Communion. 1 4 THE

P O L I T Y OF T H E A N G L I C A N

COMMUNION

IN

1867

T h e common polity of the A n g l i c a n Communion was in itself another peculiar bond of union a m o n g the ecclesiastical communities which comprised it in 1867. T h e organization

was

synodical, and was, according to A n g l i c a n principles of ecclesiastical organization, grounded in and patterned a f t e r that of the primitive church. It had a t w o - f o l d character : there w a s of necessity much local autonomy as well as a corporate unity based on the acceptance of primitive faith and doctrine, because the make-up of the A n g l i c a n Communion w a s believed to be, in large measure, the counterpart of the primitive church. These t w o qualities were responsible f o r a great deal of superficial diversity

as to the specific f o r m of

that

polity

throughout the Communion. T h i s w a s not unnatural because the Communion allows a modicum of latitude in both the matter of

faith and worship, a s uniformity in these matters is

insisted upon only in essentials. There w a s yet another reason f o r the superficial diversity in f o r m of that polity throughout the Communion. T h i s was the fact that all the communities comprising the C o m m u n i o n had come into being in different w a y s and at different times and that their status in the regions in which they were located w a s not the same in any instance. 14 For the methods used to disseminate and to adopt these standards of belief throughout the Anglican Communion, see Mant, op. cit., pp. 184, 192195. 199. 203-205, 258, 491. Ball, J. T., The Reformed Church of Ireland, 1537-1886, pp. 34, 36, 40, 56, 118, 149 ( f o r the church in Ireland). L a w s o n , op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 190, 340 ( f o r the church in Scotland). Manross, op. cit., pp. 1-137. Perry, op. cit., pp. 602-614, 617-627 ( f o r the church in A m e r i c a ) . Pascoe, C. F., Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G., 1701-IQOO. Stock, Eugene, The History of the Church Missionary Society, Its Environment, Its Men, and Its Work, Vols. I, II, III (for the churches in the British colonies and dependencies).

28

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

T h e two-fold character of this polity and the superficial diversity of its form in the various branches of the Communion made the organization of the Communion an extremely elastic one. Indeed it was this elasticity that has made it possible f o r the Lambeth Conferences to be incorporated into and become a recognized part of the organization of the Communion and also to develop into the Pan-Anglican organization. It is to be noted that the movement of establishing synodical government in the churches in the self-governing colonies of the empire had begun about 1850 and was in full swing by 1867. In consequence they were passing through the incipient stage of development into mature national churches. The establishing of synodical government in these churches entailed a loosening of the ties that held them to the mother church in England. This brought the need for a closer organization of the Communion into increasing prominence and so opened the w a y for the convening of the Lambeth Conference of 1867. Finally it is to be noted further that not only the Lambeth Conferences of 1867 and 1878, but all the later ones as well, have had much to say about the organization of the Anglican Communion. These points can be made clear and appreciated only through a survey of the organization in the various branches of the Anglican Communion, and this survey must, of necessity, be an historical one in so far as the churches in the colonies are concerned. THE

O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF T H E C H U R C H OF E N G L A N D IN

1867

T h e polity of the Church of England in 1867 was synodical. England in that year consisted of the two provinces of Canterbury and Y o r k . Territorially the former was the larger of the two, because it embraced central and southern England and the whole of Wales, while the latter included northern England only. The Province of Canterbury was comprised of twenty-one dioceses and the Province of Y o r k numbered seven

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

2Ç

dioceses. F o r purposes of administration each diocese was divided into archdeaconries. Each archdeaconry was, in turn, divided into rural deaneries, and the rural deaneries were, in turn, subdivided into parishes. T h e episcopate was the chief organ of administration, for the church in England had continued to maintain the three traditional orders o f clergy: bishops, priests and deacons. Each order of the clergy had duties to perform in the spheres of administration to which they were attached. Both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as Primate of All England and Primate of England respectively, through the exercise o f archiépiscopal and metropolitical jurisdiction, were the administrative heads of their separate Provinces of Canterbury and York. Their duties were largely supervisory since both provinces were comprised of dioceses, which were, in turn, headed by the diocesan bishops, who, even though they were the administrative heads of their respective dioceses, were, as provincial officials, the episcopal subordinates of their archbishops, and, as such, were called suffragans of the archbishop. The dioceses, besides being integral parts of either the Province of Canterbury or York, were also distinct spheres of administration. T h e position of the bishops in these spheres of administration was comparable to that o f the archbishops in the provinces. They were the administrative heads who enjoyed episcopal jurisdiction in their respective sees. Their duties, too, were largely supervisory. Like the archbishops, the diocesan bishops, in most cases, had one or more episcopal subordinates, also known as suffragan bishops, to whom were delegated the power of episcopal jurisdiction or orders (within limits) over a certain part o f the diocese in question. Sometimes there were assistant bishops, who were often retired colonial bishops. These prelates, however, had no definite territorial jurisdiction assigned to them, but relieved the diocesan of some of his work in the diocese. Another important officiai connected with the administration of the diocese was the archdeacon. Immediately subordinate to the diocesan bishop, the

¿O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

archdeacon had the superintendence of the rural deans in his archdeaconry. In addition, it was his duty to inspect the churches in his archdeaconry with a view to seeing that their " fabric " was in good repair. It was also his duty to hold annual visitations to the clergy and churchwardens, to induct newly appointed clergy into the temporalities of their livings, to admit churchwardens into office and to receive their presentments on retirement from office, and to present candidates to the diocesan bishop at their ordinations. The rural deans were the heads of the rural deaneries in the sense that they exercised a general supervision over the parishes within their deaneries. They did not possess any actual powers of jurisdiction, but they periodically summoned the clergy of their deaneries to the " ruridecanal chapter," the clergy and representatives of the laity to the " ruridecanal conferences," and kept their bishops informed of what went on in their deaneries. T h e parish priests, variously designated rectors, vicars, and perpetual curates, were the administrators of the parishes— the lowest spheres of administration in the English Church. In some parishes the local priest had deacons as aids. The duties of the latter were not administrative. Their function, as defined in the ordinal, was " to assist the Priest in divine service, and specially when he ministered the Holy Communion, and to help him in the distribution thereof, and to read Holy Scriptures and Homilies in the church; and to instruct the youth in the catechism ; in the absence of the priest to baptize infants, and to preach, if he be admitted thereto by the bishop . . ., to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish, to intimate their estates, names and places where they dwell, unto the curate, that by his exhortations they may be relieved with the alms of the parishioners, or other." 15 15 Book of Common Prayer, According to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland : The Form and Manner of Making Deacons. Pollard, C. F., Ecclesia Anglicana, p. 112.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

3I

Then there were the English cathedral churches, with their own staffs of administrative officiais—the cathedral chapter. The cathedral chapter was comprised of the dean, residentiary honorary and minor canons, and prebendaries. These officials were not subject directly to the bishop in respect to their offices, as were the other clergy of the diocese. The dean, not the bishop, was the " ordinary " of the cathedral in question, in the sense that the dean had immediate jurisdiction, and was not subject to the authority or interference of the bishop, with respect to the arrangement and conduct of the cathedral services, in questions relating to the " fabric " of the cathedrals, and other matters of the same nature. There are two types of English cathedrals—those of the New Foundation and those of the Old Foundation. The cathedrals of the New Foundation were the cathedrals that had had a monastic body attached to them in pre-Reformation days (i. e., Canterbury, Durham, Winchester, Rochester, Norwich, Worcester, Carlisle, Ely, Gloucester, Chester, Peterborough, Oxford, and Westminster Abbey). In cathedrals of this type the dean represented the quondam abbot and, like the latter, enjoyed absolute power. In the cathedrals of the Old Foundation—cathedrals which were not originally monastic (i. e., St. Paul's, York, Lincoln, Lichfield, Hereford, Wells, Salisbury, Exeter, Chichester, St. David's, Llandaff, and St. Asaph)—the dean, in relation to the rest of the chapter, did not enjoy absolute power, and was, in consequence, little more than primus inter pares. In addition to administering the cathedral, arranging and conducting the services, and dealing with questions relating to the " fabric " of the cathedral, the dean and the chapter had a function to perform in the creation of new bishops, as it was their duty to " elect " under the congé d'élire issued by the crown, the person named in the royal license (the " letter missive " ) , attached to the congé d'élire. There was, thus, a very definite, carefully articulated organization in the Church of England. Functions of each office were

32

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

established by traditional usage. The canon law of England had grown in the same soil as the common law ; the constitution of the church, like that of the state, was moulded by immemorial custom, and worked well for the same reason. It was based on the consent and cooperation of all her members in the state to which God had called them. The parish priests were aided in the administration of their respective parishes by the churchwardens and the " select " vestry. The function of the former was that of caring for the church property and the poor. The " select " vestry was the parochial " council " in the sense that it was a body comprised of laity whose function was largely deliberative and legislative, because it collaborated with the priest in the initiation, conduct and development of church work within the parish. The " ruridecanal chapters " and " ruridecanal conferences," as deliberative and legislative bodies, were the " councils " of the rural deaneries. Their powers and duties were somewhat similar to those of the parish vestry as they cooperated with the rural deans in the governance and management of the rural deaneries. The diocesan bishops were aided in the administration of their dioceses by deliberative and legislative bodies that were known as diocesan conferences in some dioceses, and as diocesan synods in others. These bodies consisted of three authorities: the bishop, a chamber of clergy, and a chamber of laity, with the chamber of laity always outnumbering the clergy. Depending upon the matter under consideration, the two chambers sat together or separately. When they sat together a majority vote determined the question at issue; but when they sat separately the assent of all three authorities was required. The bishop was the presiding officer of the chamber of the clergy as well as of the conference or synod when it sat as a unicameral body. The convocations were the deliberative and legislative bodies for the Provinces of Canterbury and York, and for the church

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

l867

33

herself. Both the Convocation of Canterbury and that of York were bicameral bodies : the Upper House, presided over by the Archbishop, consisted of the diocesan bishops of the province, and the Lower House, presided over by an elected official, the Prolocutor, consisted of the deans of the cathedrals, the archdeacons, and the proctors—the latter being the elected representatives of the various classes of the clergy of the province. These synods were summoned by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, respectively, at the bidding of the crown, whenever Parliament was summoned, and they were discharged when Parliament was dissolved. In effect, the convocations, besides being the legislative and deliberative body of the English Church, were the spiritual Parliament of the realm, since they were called upon, in their writs of summons, " to treat upon arduous and weighty matters, which shall concern the state and welfare, public good and defence of this kingdom and the subjects thereof, to be then and there seriously laid before them, and to give their good counsel and assistance on the said affairs, and to consent to such things as shall happen to be wholesomely ordered and appointed by their common advisement, for the honour of God, and the good of the church." 18 In addition to being the " voice of the church ", the convocations have the power to enact " canons " provided that the royal consent has first been obtained, but such canons must be further ratified by the crown before they are legally effective. Canons drawn up in conformity with these stipulations are incorporated into the formularies of the church and are rules and regulations binding as law upon the clergy and the church. A system of graduated courts, dealing with cases involving discipline and other ecclesiastical causes, was the judicial branch of the church's organization. The lowest of these courts was the archdeacon's court. Presided over by an official af>pointed by the archdeacon, that court concerned itself mainly 16 Pollard, op. cit., p. iao.

34

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

with the admission of churchwardens into their office, to inquiry into the condition o f the churches within the archdeaconry, and into the conduct of the clergy and laity. T h e archdeacon also had judicial powers, as he had jurisdiction to deal with parish clerks and to suspend and remove them from office, although such jurisdiction was rarely used by him. Cases tried in the archdeacon's court could be and were appealed to the next superior court—the consistory court of the diocesan bishop. T h e latter court was usually, but not necessarily, presided over by the vicar-general of the diocese, in his capacity as " official principal " of the consistory court. When presiding over the consistory court, he did so as the chancellor o f the diocese, since he held both o f these offices. The consistory court, besides being the court o f appeal for the archdeacon's court, had original jurisdiction in the matter of issuing of faculties, which were licences to alter the " fabric " or fittings of a church, or to introduce new ornaments in connection with the services of the church in the dioceses. At the same time the consistory court had the power to take disciplinary measures against clergymen, either for immorality or for breaches against the laws of the church. Decisions handed down in the consistory courts could be appealed to the archbishop's courts—the Court of Arches in the Province of Canterbury and the Chancery Court in the Province of York. These two courts were presided over by the archbishop's legal adviser, the provincial " vicar-general." In addition to being the courts of appeals for the consistory courts, the Court of Arches and the Chancery Court, in actual practice, were the courts of appeal for the lower courts as well, because it was possible for the parties in a cause to carry their case directly to these provincial courts, without going first to the consistory courts. Decisions handed down in the Court of Arches and the Chancery Court could be appealed to the Judicial Committee o f the Privy Council—which is the final court of appeal in

ANGLICAN ecclesiastical causes.

17

COMMUNION

IN

1867

35

T h e Judicial Committee of the P r i v y

Council had become the final court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes in 1 8 3 3 . In 1 8 4 0 Parliament passed the Church Discipline A c t ( 3 and 4 Vict., c. 8 6 ) giving bishops the power, on complaint or

mero motu,

to issue a commission of inquiry

in any case of misdemeanor imputed to a clergyman, and to impose penalties by consent. If the party accused did not appear or denied the truth of the articles charged against him, the bishop w a s to hear the cause with three assessors and give sentence, such sentence to be good in law, or send the case to the provincial court of appeal. Finally, the act provided that appeal was granted f r o m the bishop to the provincial court of appeal, or direct to the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council, if the case had been heard in the first instance by the provincial court. In addition to these courts and procedure for handling ecclesiastical causes, the Convocations of Canterbury and Y o r k were bodies with judicial powers, in the sense that they had the power and authority to condemn heretical books and utterances. Finally, there was the " Court of Confirmation " , which w a s held for the purpose of confirming the election of new bishops. 18 17 The Judicial Committee had become the final court of appeal in 1833. Up to 1832 the final court of appeal had been the Court of Delegates which had been created in 1534 by the statute 25 Hen. V I I I , c. 19. The Court of Delegates had continued to exist, except during the reign of Mary, until 1832. In that year it was abolished by Act of Parliament (2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 92) and the Privy Council was substituted for it as the final court of appeal. This latter arrangement remained in force until the following year. By statute 3 and 4 Will. IV, c. 41 of 1833 the Privy Council was supplanted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal in ecclesiastical causes. The statute authorizing this change also stipulated that bishops and the archbishops should sit with the lay members of the committee, but that they were to be present not as judges, but as assessors. By the Church Discipline Act of 1840 (3 and 4 Vict., c. 86) the status of the ecclesiastical members of the Judicial Committee was further altered as that act provided that no archbishop or bishop must be present when the Judicial Committee heard appeals from the archbishop's court for the correction of clerks, and that these prelates were to sit as judges, instead of assessors, in cases coming under the Church Disciplne Act. All these arrangements were still in force in 1867. 18 Pollard, op. cit., pp. 111-125.

36

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Such then w a s the organization of the English Church in 1867—the parent and the nucleus of the Anglican Communion. Since 1867 this organization has continued to remain virtually the same, although there have, of course, been some minor changes and additions, the most important of the latter being the formation of the National Assembly in 1920. T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF T H E C H U R C H I N I R E L A N D I N

1867

In 1867 Ireland, like England, consisted of two provinces, Armagh and Dublin. For a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes both provinces were divided into ten dioceses, which were, in turn, divided into parishes, as the English dioceses were. 18 The See of A r m a g h was the primatial one, its archbishop had the title of Primate of A l l Ireland. He administered the Province of Armagh in that capacity while the Archbishop of Dublin, as Primate of Ireland, was the archiépiscopal head of the Province of Dublin. T h e religious duties of these Irish prelates were similar to those of the English archbishops. Like the latter they too were the administrative heads of the archiépiscopal sees and were aided by their diocesan bishops in their capacity as suffragans. The Irish diocesan bishops were the heads of their respective sees, just as the English diocesans were. But the Irish bishops had no colonial bishops to aid them in the administration of their dioceses, and there were also very few, if any, cases where there were bishops serving as suffragans to the diocesan bishops as there were in England. In addition, there were only a few Irish dioceses that were subdivided into rural deaneries, for the office of rural dean had disappeared in Ireland, as it once had in England, although it had been revived in all the English dioceses by 1867. A corresponding revival, but on a much smaller scale, had taken place in Ireland, as several of the Irish bishops had made ap19 3 and 4 Will. I V , c. 37 : " T h e Church Temporalities Act." T h i s statute, enacted by the British Parliament in 1833, effected the last reorganization and consolidation of the provinces and dioceses in Ireland prior to 1867. It fixed their numbers to those cited above by reducing the then number of the former from four to two, and of the latter from eighteen to ten.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

37

pointments to revive the office as an aid in the administration of their dioceses. T h e office of archdeacon was part of the diocesan organization, although the duties of the archdeacons in Ireland differed slightly from those of the same office in England. Finally, there were the priests, vicars, rectors, curates, who were the ecclesiastical and administrative heads of the Irish parishes. Their duties were the same as those of the parish priests in England. Like the English priests they too were aided by churchwardens and a " select " vestry, besides being assisted in their ecclesiastical duties by deacons and subdeacons in several instances. There were cathedrals or churches designated as cathedrals in all the Irish dioceses. They, too, were supposed to be administered by cathedral chapters, which in Ireland, in addition to the deans, residentiary, minor and honorary canons, and prebendaries, included another official, the precentor. However, due to the plight of the church in Ireland, there were only one or two cathedrals that had a full and complete chapter in residence. The duties of the cathedral chapters in Ireland were similar to those in England in so far as the administration of the cathedral was concerned, and their position in relation to the diocesan bishop was identical with that in England. But the cathedral chapters in Ireland had no hand in the creation of new bishops because of the difference in method of creating Irish bishops. The church in Ireland also had archdeacon's, diocesan and provincial courts, with final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council, for the handling of cases involving ecclesiastical causes. T h e arrangements making the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council the final court of appeal, and the arrangements relating to ecclesiastical causes embodied in the Church Discipline Act of 1840, were as binding on the church in Ireland as they were in England because of the union of the two churches authorized by the Irish A c t of Union of 1800.

38

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Finally, the A c t of Union, in joining the church in Ireland with the church in England, closed the door to the convening of anything resembling a convocation for the former, and thus that agency of organization was absent in 1867, although, with that exception, the organization of the church in Ireland was substantially the same as that of the church in England. 2 0 THE

ORGANIZATION

OF T H E

EPISCOPAL

S C O T L A N D IN

CHURCH

IN

1867

T h e organization of the Episcopal Church in Scotland differed in form from that of the churches in England and Ireland because the church in Scotland w a s not an established one in 1867. In that year it consisted of six episcopal, but no archiépiscopal sees, so its titular head was not an archbishop, but a bishop. T h i s prelate, called the Primus, was chosen by a majority of the members of the Episcopal College (i. e., the body of Scottish bishops) from among themselves, and held the office at the pleasure of that college. Since he had the style, but not the functions, of a metropolitan, his powers were limited. H e had no other privilege among the bishops but the " right of convocating and presiding " over the General Synod, and over special meetings of the bishops called at his discretion for advice on matters relating to the church, and the Episcopal Synod. A s an administrative official, his duties were largely supervisory, because he was, in strict accuracy, simply primus inter pares so far as his relationship to the other bishops was concerned. In consequence, the two synods and the special meetings of the bishops were the organs of administration. T h e General Synod was the legislative and deliberative body for the church. This body was bicameral. The Upper House consisted of bishops and was presided over by the Primus. T h e lower house was composed of deans, the Pantonian Professor of Theology, ex officio, and representatives or delegates of the clergy, one such delegate being chosen by and from the incumbents of each diocese. This chamber was presided over 20 Mant, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 765-792.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

39

by a Preses or Prolocutor, elected by the chamber from its own members. The General Synod was convened by the Primus, but the time for holding it was left to the determination of a numerical majority of the bishops. The principal function of the General Synod was the enacting and making of canons and rules for the order and discipline of the church, but such canons and rules had to have the consent and approbation of both chambers to be valid. Other questions were considered by both chambers, acting in their legislative and deliberative capacity. If they happened to be equally divided on any question, the Primus in the upper chamber, and the Prolocutor in the lower, cast the deciding vote. The special meetings of the bishops, which were apart from those of the General Synod, were an auxiliary agency in the administration of the church, because they considered specific matters that were not within the scope of the normal jurisdiction of the General Synod. Such meetings were usually, but not always, called by the Primus. W h e n called by him, the matter for consideration was also announced by him at the time that he called the meeting. If the majority of the bishops dissented or judged the reasons for calling the meetings insufficient, or the time and place improper, the proposal to hold such meetings could be either wholly set aside, or the time and place could be altered to suit their wishes. T h e bishops themselves could call these special meetings, but only if the Primus should refuse to call them, when proposed by the majority of bishops. This contingency has never arisen, but if and when it does, the bishops not only have the authority to meet, but they can act in the matter concerned without the Primus. T h e Episcopal Synod was one of the judicial agencies of the church, because its function was " to receive appeals f r o m either clergy or laity against the sentence of their own immediate ecclesiastical superior." This body as the final court of appeal in such causes was composed of bishops only. It met

40

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

annually and was called by the Primus. But the time and place of meeting was determined by the majority of the bishops, and no such synod was adjudged to be canonical unless three bishops at least were present. The conditions under which, and the procedure by which, the Episcopal Synod became the final court of appeal in these causes were laid down in a canon dealing with these matters. According to that canon, in any differences that might arise, or did arise between a pastor and the members of his flock, which could not be amicably settled, the matter in dispute had to be carried in the first instance to the " ordinary " (i. e., the bishop of the diocese). The ordinary then had to render a decision. If either party thought itself aggrieved by his decision, the case could then be appealed by letter or petition to a synod of the bishops (i. e., the Episcopal Synod). No such case could be carried before the Episcopal Synod until the ordinary's decision had first been given, and no appeal against his decision would be admissible, unless the contending parties solemnly promised to accept the sentence of a majority of the bishops present as final and conclusive. In the case of any dispute between a deacon and his bishop, or a presbyter and his bishop (the congregation in which the deacon or presbyter officiated in no way participating therein), the said deacon or presbyter appealed directly to the Episcopal College (Episcopal Synod), but only on the condition that he, as the appellant, had to give his solemn promise to receive the sentence of a majority of the bishops canonically assembled as final and conclusive. Accusations against bishops were only received if they proceeded from " three or more respectable persons," who were lay or clerical members of the church. Such accusations were lodged before the Primus, or in the case of the Primus being accused, before the next senior bishop. The accused prelate was to be cited to appear before the Primus or the next senior bishop to plead his cause. If he did not obey the summons, he was to be cited a second time in the

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

4I

name and by the authority of the Episcopal College. I f he was then guilty of contempt in not appearing, the Episcopal College was to pronounce such sentence against him as they thought fit, and that sentence was to be the final and conclusive one. These agencies were the organization of the church as a whole. But the dioceses were also distinct spheres of administration. The diocesan bishop and the dean, who was appointed by him, were ostensibly the chief administrative officials. Their duties were almost entirely supervisory, so the actual administration of the diocese was done by the diocesan synods. These synods, which were held annually, met at such time and place as the ordinary, or as the dean empowered by him, should appoint. As the body having jurisdiction over the business of the diocese, the diocesan synod consisted of the bishop, the dean and the clergy, the bishop being the presiding officer. Its functions were deliberative and legislative, because it not only had the authority to discuss and take action on matters relating to the diocese, but it could also suggest and pass rules for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. Such rules, if they were approved by the bishop, and were not inconsistent with the constitutions and canons of the church, had the force of law within the diocese in question. In some dioceses the diocesan bishops had assistants. Such assistants were known as coadjutors and were similar to the assistants of the English diocesan bishops. They were eligible to sit in the diocesan synods and to attend the Episcopal and General Synods of the church. They could give their opinions and advice on any matters under consideration in any of these bodies, but they had no vote except in the absence of their respective diocesan bishops. Finally, there were the parishes—the lowest spheres of administration. They were administered by the lower clergy— i. e., the presbyters, as they were called in Scotland. The presbyters were aided in their work by deacons, churchwardens, and vestries—the duties of the latter being similar to those in England and Ireland.

42

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

In several of the Scottish sees there were cathedrals. They had their own staffs of officials—deans and canons, whose duties as administrative officers were comparable, in a large degree, with English and Irish cathedral chapters. The church had a different procedure f o r the selection and election of bishops from that in England and Ireland. The appointment of prelates to the Scottish sees was beyond the prerogative of the English crown, because the church in Scotland was not an established one. O n the voidance of a see, the dean, at the instance of the Primus, summoned the clerical and lay electors to choose a bishop for the see in question. T h e person chosen, as the bishop-elect, was then presented to the Episcopal Synod for confirmation and to the Primus for consecration. In 1867 the Scottish Church used the English ordinal, so the prelates consecrated by the Primus took the oath of allegiance acknowledging the supremacy of the English crown, as the English bishops did at their consecration. 21 T h i s was the way in which the church in Scotland was organized and governed in 1867. Since 1867 this organization has continued virtually the same, and these arrangements, with some minor changes and additions, are still in force. T H E P O L I T Y OF T H E C H U R C H I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S I N

1867

The polity of the church in the United States was also synodical in 1867. Like the other ecclesiastical communities of the Anglican Communion, the church in the United States had divided the territory over which it exercised jurisdiction into smaller areas for the purposes of administration. In 1867 these administrative spheres consisted only of dioceses, missionary districts, and parishes—the difference between the first two being that the missionary district was not financially self-supporting. Some thought had been given to the matter of uniting these spheres into ecclesiastical provinces because the dioceses of New Y o r k and Pennsylvania had memorialized General 21 Lawson, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 389-392, 480, 546-575 (Canons of 1838).

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

43

Convention in 1865. However, this had not been translated into action by 1867. T h e dioceses coincided, in the main, with political divisions. The parishes were located in the villages, towns, and smaller cities of the United States. T h e larger cities had several parishes, but where that situation existed none of the parishes in question had definite boundaries. Dioceses as an aggregate of parishes had been erected within the states, and, to a large degree, followed state lines. B u t the larger and more thickly populated states had, in several instances, been subdivided to form two or more dioceses. In addition, the larger cities, like N e w Y o r k , were chosen as seats of bishops, although the boundaries of such dioceses were not, in most cases, conterminous with those of the cities in question. T h e majority of the missionary districts were located in the territories of the United States, although there were t w o that had been set up respectively in China and Liberia by 1867. Since the episcopate contained no archbishops, the titular head of the church in the United States w a s a bishop having the title of Presiding Bishop. T h e Presiding Bishop w a s the senior prelate of the church, yet his position with respect to the other members of the episcopate was simply that of primus inter pares. His tenure of office w a s for life, although he could resign because of old age or illness. T h e duties and position of the Presiding Bishop in the church in the United States are somewhat similar to, but not identical with, those of the Primus of the church in Scotland, because the position of the two churches in their respective countries are somewhat alike. W i t h the restriction of the functions of the Presiding Bishop to these supervisory duties, the General Convention is the chief organ of administration; it is, moreover, the deliberative and legislative body of the whole church. T h i s body has met triennially since its inception in 1 7 8 9 — w i t h the last meeting before 1867, in 1865. According to the constitution and canons, the General Convention meets on the first Wednesday in

44

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

October in whatever place the General Convention appoints. T h e General Convention is bicameral—the upper house, known as the House of Bishops, being comprised of the bishops of the church exercising episcopal jurisdiction within the territorial confines of the United States. T h e lower house, called the House of Clerical and L a y Deputies, is comprised of an equal number of clergymen and laymen. T h e Presiding Bishop is the president of the House of Bishops, while the House of Clerical and L a y Deputies elects a presiding officer from its own members. T h e principal function of the General Convention, as the deliberative and legislative organ of the church, is to enact canons and to legislate in other matters relating to the church and its welfare. Although all proposed legislation was considered by both houses, such legislation could originate in either house in 1867, and was neither valid nor binding unless it received a majority vote from the three orders represented in the General Convention, voting as orders. Besides enacting canons and other legislation for the church, the General Convention considers reports submitted by the diocesan bishops as well as financial reports. The dioceses are administered in much the same fashion because they have a great deal of independence, even though they are subject to any legislation enacted by General Convention. T h e diocesan bishop is the principal administrator. In some cases he was aided by an " assistant " bishop, for the term " coadjutor " bishop had not yet come into use. H e is general assistant to the diocesan bishop, usually or very often with the understanding that he will be the diocesan's successor. H e is assigned either to a special area of the diocese by the diocesan to exercise jurisdiction there, or to special duties, but the assignments in either case do not constitute a fixed jurisdiction. A l l these prelates are supervisors for the diocesan convention, the deliberative and legislative organ of the diocese. This assembly meets annually—with time and place being determined by the convention itself. It is presided over by the bishop of the diocese, and is comprised of the clergy of the diocese and

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

45

an equal number of lay delegates chosen by the parishes. Its functions are similar to those of the General Convention, in that it makes canons which have the force of law within the diocese, if they do not conflict with the canons of the General Convention. Finally, the diocesan convention elects its own bishops. The diocesan bishop has the assistance of a standing committee. The standing committee, a separate body consisting of clergy and laity, is an advisory board to the bishop in the dioceses and missionary districts having bishops. It was the ecclesiastical authority (i. e., the executive, legislative, and judicial agency) in the dioceses and missionary districts where there were no bishops—a state of affairs existing in several of the dioceses and missionary districts in 1867. The parishes were administered like the other parishes throughout the Anglican Communion. The parish priests, even though they were aided in some instances by assistants who were also priests, were the administrators of their parishes. They were aided in the work of administering the parish by wardens, trustees, and the local parish vestries. The church had no graduated or permanently constituted courts for dealing with ecclesiastical causes in 1867. There were, nevertheless, agencies that had jurisdiction in such causes. The canons then in force listed and defined the offences for which bishops, clergy and laity might be tried and punished, and stipulated the sentences that could be meted out for the perpetration of those offences. A bishop was tried in a court specially constituted for the cause in question. This trial court, which was comprised of bishops only, was created from a panel of bishops, selected from a list of all the bishops who were entitled to seats in the House of Bishops of the General Convention. Decision was final but there was provision for reopening the case should new testimony be produced. Such a new trial was heard by another set of bishops from the same panel. Causes involving a clergyman or a layman were brought before the bishop of the diocese or missionary district in which

46

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the accused resided, or, if there was no bishop, before the standing committee of such diocese or missionary district. In 1867 there were no courts f o r the appeal or review of these causes. The church has now provided for trial courts for bishops, presbyters and deacons, as well as courts of review. It has also established an ultimate (i. e., final) court of appeal f o r bishops, but the trial of a presbyter can be appealed only to the provincial court of the province in which he resides at the time of the trial. This, then, was the way in which the church in the United States was constituted in 1867, and these were the agencies that it used to govern itself. Since then, in addition to creating a system of courts, the church has created a National Council. The Presiding Bishop now holds office for six years, and has sole supervision of all the missionary work of the church. Provision has also been made and carried out by which the dioceses and other ecclesiastical spheres of administration have been united in eight provinces, and synods have been created to administer them. So the church in America is now fully organized on the provincial basis. 22 T H E P O L I T Y OF T H E C H U R C H E S I N T H E C O L O N I E S I N

1867

The polity of the churches in the colonies in 1867 had been evolved, in the main, since 1850, although the foundations had been laid before that date. Anglican Christianity had, of course, been planted in the British overseas possessions and spheres of influence by the politico-ecclesiastical expansion of England with the Church of England, beginning early in the seventeenth century. These ecclesiastical communities had been established by missionaries (chaplains) of the English Church. They retained their missionary character and status until the episcopate 22 Digest of the Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Adopted in the General Conventions of 1859, 1862, 1865 and 1868. Together with the Constitution. Huntington, William Reed, Theology's Eminent Domain, Chapter I V , How the Episcopal Church is Organized, pp. 99-114. Manross, op. cit., pp. 3 2 1 , 351.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

47

was extended to them. A s has already been shown, this was done through the issuance of Letters Patent by the crown. The same Letters Patent were the agency by which these missionary ecclesiastical communities were organized first into dioceses and later into provinces. A t the same time these documents were the instruments which bound these ecclesiastical communities to the church in England. They specifically stipulated that the diocese or dioceses created by them were extra-territorial dioceses of the Province of Canterbury, and that the bishops appointed to those dioceses had to take an oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury—thus becoming his suffragans like the other bishops of the province. T h e Letters Patent gave the bishop to whom they were issued the power to impose admonition, suspension, deprivation, or any other punishment allowable by English ecclesiastical law in ecclesiastical causes. But the aggrieved person could appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was to have the final decision and determine the appeal. T h e first of these Letters Patent were issued in 1787. O n A u g u s t 9 of that year the British crown issued Letters Patent to Charles Inglis designating him Bishop of N o v a Scotia and its " dependencies " for life. O n A u g u s t 12 he w a s consecrated by Archbishop John Moore of Canterbury, assisted by Bishops John Thomas of Rochester and Beilly Porteus of Chester. O n August 13 additional Letters Patent were issued to him, conferring upon him spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be held during the king's pleasure in Quebec, N e w Brunswick, and Newfoundland, " which are not yet divided into dioceses or bishop's sees." 28 B y these arrangements went the distinction to Bishop Charles Inglis and to N o v a Scotia and its " de23 Harris, Reginald V., Charles Inglis, Missionary, Loyalist, Bishop, 1734-1816, p. 74. The " dependencies " of N o v a Scotia were presumed to be N e w Brunswick, Prince E d w a r d Island (then called St. John's I s l a n d ) , the Canadas, and Newfoundland. Neither of the Letters Patent issued to Bishop Charles Inglis mentions Bermuda, according to Harris. H o w e v e r , it w a s added in 1825 to the jurisdiction of Bishop John Inglis, Bishop Charles Inglis' son.

48

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

pendencies " of becoming the first Anglican bishop and diocese outside the British Isles and also the first Anglican colonial bishop and diocese in the British Empire.

Subsequently, other Letters Patent were issued in 1815, 1824, 1836, 1841, and 1847, constituting the dioceses of Calcutta (conterminous with the territories governed by the British East India Company), Barbados (comprising Barbados and the W i n d w a r d Islands), Jamaica, Australia (comprising the colonies of N e w South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania), New Zealand, and Cape T o w n as the first Anglican bishoprics in India, the W e s t Indies, Australia, New Zealand, and South A f r i c a , respectively. These dioceses were of such vast size that re-organization became necessary with the passing of time. T h e result was that new Letters Patent were issued, providing for the founding of additional dioceses in these regions. In some cases, the additional sees were created by dividing pre-existing dioceses; in others new dioceses were founded. In both cases the Letters Patent creating the additional sees stipulated that they should be united into provinces, wherever that was possible, and designated one of the newly constituted dioceses to be the metropolitical see of the province in question. A t the same time, the Letters Patent stipulated that the bishop appointed for that see should exercise " metropolitical jurisdiction ", in the province in which his see was situated. By these arrangements the other bishops of the province became the suffragans of the bishop having metropolitical jurisdiction, even though the latter was to be " subject to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and subordinate to the archiépiscopal see of the Province of Canterbury." N o settled policy was followed in the creation of these additional dioceses. In India, Australia, New Zealand, and South A f r i c a it was done solely by reconstituting and dividing the original dioceses. In British North America it was effected both by founding new dioceses and by a further subdivision of

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

49

some of the newly created sees. In the W e s t Indies it was entirely a matter of founding new ones. 24 T h e process thus begun was continued. T h e result was that by 1867 there were four dioceses in India: Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Ceylon. These dioceses had been united to form the Province o f Calcutta, the diocese of Calcutta being its metropolitical see.25 By that same year there were eight dioceses in Australia : Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle, Perth, Brisbane, Goulburn, and Tasmania. But they had not been united to form a province. However, they were, with the exception of the diocese of Tasmania, under the jurisdiction of the See of Sydney, its bishop having been designated Metropolitan of Australia, by Letters Patent issued in ι854. 2β In New Zealand there were six dioceses in 1867: N e w Zealand, Christchurch, Wellington, Waiapu, Nelson and Melanesia. They formed the Province of New Zealand because they had been united, prior to 1867, by being placed under the jurisdiction of the diocese of New Zealand, the metropolitical see of the province.27 A n ecclesiastical province had been formed in South A f r i c a by 1867. It consisted of the five dioceses of Cape T o w n , the metropolitical see, Grahamstown, Natal, St. Helena, and the missionary bishopric of Bloemfontein. 28 In British North America, the following dioceses were founded after the creation of Nova Scotia in 1787 and prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1867: Quebec, Toronto (formed out of Quebec), Newfoundland (including Newfoundland, the Bermudas, and Labrador north of Blanc Sablón), Fredericton, Rupertsland, Montreal, Huron (formed out of T o r o n t o ) , Columbia, and Ontario. O f these the dioceses of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Fredericton, Montreal and Rupertsland, with Montreal as the metropolitical see, 24 Clarke, op. cit., pp. 75, 168, 206, 259, 320, 418. 2 5 C h a t t e r t o n , E y r e , History et seq.

26 Clarke, op. cit., pp. 83, 95. 77 Ibid.,

p. 171.

2S Ibid.,

p. 323.

of the Church

of England

in India,

p. 155

50

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

were united to f o r m the Province of Canada in i860. I t is interesting to note that the creation of the ecclesiastical P r o v i n c e of Canada preceded the creation of the Dominion of C a n a d a by the British N o r t h A m e r i c a A c t of 1867. T h e other dioceses listed above were separate dioceses in 1867 because they were not subject to the metropolitical see of Montreal. 2 " In the W e s t Indies three new dioceses were founded prior to

1867—these

being British Guiana, A n t i g u a (comprising A n t i g u a , Barbuda, Dominica, Montserrat, St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla, V i r g i n Island with the foreign islands of Saba, St. Barts, St. Eustatius, and St. M a r t i n s ) , and Nassau (comprising the Bahamas, T u r k s and Caicos Islands). T h e y and the dioceses of Barbados and Jamaica continued as separate, independent dioceses and were not incorporated into an ecclesiastical province until

several

years a f t e r the Lambeth Conference of 1867. 30 T h e union of the dioceses into provinces in British N o r t h America, South A f r i c a , N e w Zealand, and India was a phase in the development of the Anglican religious establishments in these regions. T h e result w a s that they were evolving

into

colonial churches, and were becoming entities by the time of the first Lambeth Conference. T h e transformation in the nature and constitution of these ecclesiastical communities was occasioned and conditioned by political changes that were taking place at the same time in the same regions. T h e transformation resulting f r o m the political changes brought a demand f o r the establishment of self-government in the colonies of the British Empire. T h e

British

government began to s a t i s f y the demand by granting self-govemment to the British N o r t h A m e r i c a n colonies, N e w Zealand, Australia, and Cape Colony about the middle of the nineteenth century. T h e demand f o r civil self-government in the colonies gave rise to a similar demand f o r the establishment of ecclesiastical self-government, 29 Ibid., pp. 206, 2n. 30 Ibid., p. 259.

i. e., synodical government,

in the

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

5I

churches in the colonies. Nor was this demand ignored by the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in England; it was the ecclesiastical counterpart of the demand for colonial civil selfgovernment. The bishops in India, British North America, New Zealand, Australia, and South A f r i c a called meetings, from time to time, of the clergy and laity of their respective dioceses to deliberate on matters relating to the church. Such meetings were purely consultative in character and were not synods in the strict sense of the word, because they did not have the authority to draw up constitutions or canons or to legislate for the diocese in question. Furthermore, the colonial bishops did not have the power to convene synods. They were restricted in that respect by the provisions of their Letters Patent, as well as by the fact that they were also extra-territorial comprovincial bishops of the Province of Canterbury. In consequence, they were subject to the Act of Supremacy, the act 25 Hen. V I I I , c. 19, prohibiting the convening of synods without royal assent, and to all the other English ecclesiastical laws that were binding on the episcopate of the church in England. These meetings were, however, the forerunners of synods in the strict sense of the word. The colonial bishops began to view the provisions in their Letters Patent and in the ecclesiastical laws regarding the Royal Supremacy and the convening of synods with increased disapproval. Believing those provisions to be impediments to the proper exercise of their episcopal functions, the colonial bishops gave thought to reform. First they sought for a ruling from the crown ecclesiastical lawyers on the question as to whether the provisions of the statute 25 Hen. V I I I , c. 19, prohibiting the convening of synods without the royal assent, applied to them and whether that act had the force of law for the churches in the colonies. The crown lawyers were very guarded and vague in their answer to that question, for there were no precedents to form the basis of an opinion. In the main, they gave the impression that the statute did not

52

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

apply to the churches in the colonies, but they guardedly dropped the hint that even if it did the authorities would, in all probability, be disposed not to enforce it against the colonial bishops. Such opinions offered no real solution of the difficulties standing in the way of organizing the churches in the colonies on a synodical basis, so the colonial bishops went further. Bishop George Augustus Selwyn of New Zealand paved the way for the establishment of that form of government in the churches in the colonies by meeting with the clergy of his diocese in 1844 and 1847. These gatherings framed rules for the general management of the church in the diocese. They were not synods, although they were designated as such, because the rules that they framed, even though they did deal with the general management of the church, were not formally canons. But they were the harbingers of future action, first steps toward constitutional church (i. e., synodical) government in the churches in the colonies. The necessity for further synodical organization in the churches in the colonies grew constantly more obvious. The status of these churches was not the same in all the colonies. In many of them they were the legal establishment. This brought them under the jurisdiction of the state and made their temporalities subject to civil legislation. Both the British and colonial governments had enacted and were enacting legislation that was detrimental to the liberties of these churches. In 1849 Bishop Selwyn consulted William E. Gladstone for advice with respect to the steps that the churches in the colonies should take to alleviate the situation and to get around the difficulties in the way of establishing synodical government. Gladstone, who had latterly been colonial secretary and an ardent champion of self-government for both the colonies and the churches in the colonies, strongly advised the church in New Zealand, and all the churches in the other colonies, " to organize themselves on the basis of voluntary consensual com-

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

53

pact, since that was the basis on which the Church of Christ had rested from the first." 31 The churches in the Australasian dioceses were the first to act on that advice. T h e Bishops of Sydney, Tasmania, Melbourne, Adelaide, and N e w Zealand met in conference at Sydney in 1850 for the purpose of registering their view in the matter of church organization. A f t e r a month's deliberation the conference issued a set of resolutions affirming the necessity of provincial and diocesan synods, of the power to subdivide dioceses, and of the election of bishops without interference on the part of the secular power. T h e y recommended the inclusion of the laity in such synods to consult and decide with the clergy all questions affecting the temporalities of the church, and that none but communicants should be members of such synods. In addition, they recommended that discipline over the bishops should be exercised by the synods of each province, over the clergy by each diocesan synod, and over the laity by private admonition or by refusing the Holy Communion, with excommunication in the last resort. 32 Having thus decided to establish synods, the Australasian bishops immediately opened communication with the church in England, and during the next two or three years there was frequent communication between the church in Australasia and the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject. The church in Canada took a similar course of action. In 1851 Bishop John Strachan of Toronto formed a synod for his diocese, consisting of himself and delegates representing the clergy and laity. T h e other bishops in Canada immediately followed his example and began to set up synods in their respective dioceses. T h e attention of the Canadian bishops was next directed to the matter of establishing a provincial synod, since the Dioceses of 31 J a c o b s , H e n r y , New Zealand—Containing Christchurch, Dunedin, Nelson, Waiapu, Wellington and Melanesia,

Auckland, p. 171.

32 Clarke, op. cit., pp. 83-84, 96-105, for the minutes of this conference. T u c k e r , H e n r y W . , Life and Episcopate of George Bishop of New Zealand, V o l . I , p. 350 et seq.

Augustus

Selwyn,

D.D.,

54

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the success of the diocesan synods seemed to warrant the establishment of a provincial synod to be presided over by a metropolitan. W i t h that end in view, the Bishops of Quebec, Toronto, Fredericton, Montreal, and Newfoundland met in conference at Quebec late in 1851. A f t e r a week's deliberation they passed resolutions in favor of diocesan synods and on the desirability of forming a council of bishops, clergy and laity to meet under a provincial metropolitan, " with power to frame such rules and regulations as might be deemed expedient for the better conduct of the church's ecclesiastical affairs." ω T h e matter was referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury. T h e legal impediments made the proposal for synodical government premature. Notwithstanding this the Archbishop introduced a bill in the House of Lords in 1853 f ° r permitting members of the Church of England in the dominions beyond the seas to manage, under restrictions, their own ecclesiastical affairs. 34 The bill passed the House of Lords, but was rejected by the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it so expressed the mind of the church in England that it encouraged the colonial bishops to pursue their efforts with renewed vigor. The rejection of the Archbishop's bill by the House of Commons made it clear that nothing could be expected from the Imperial Parliament. There were, however, two other courses of action open to the churches in the colonies : application to the local colonial legislatures for enabling acts to manage their own affairs or organizing synods on the basis of consensual compact without any sanction or authority from the state. T h e church in Canada decided on the first of these courses of action and applied to the Canadian legislature for an enabling act. By an act of the Canadian legislature, passed in 1857, the church of Canada was given power to meet in synod, a provincial synod was authorized as well as diocesan synods, 33 Ibid., pp. 211-216, for the minutes and resolutions of the conference. 34 Ibid., pp. 225-226, for a copy of this act.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

l8 67

55

and power was conferred to appoint a metropolitan.** It is significant that this act created a form of church unity among the Canadian dioceses that did not yet exist among the civil colonial governments. The Queen was asked to make the appointment of the metropolitan. In i860 Letters Patent were issued to Bishop Francis Fulford of Montreal, conferring upon him powers and authorities as metropolitan, and in the following year the first provincial synod for the newly constituted Province of Canada was held in Montreal. That synod was bicameral. It was patterned after the General Convention of the church in the United States, instead of the Convocations of Y o r k and Canterbury, as the upper chamber was comprised entirely of bishops, while the lower chamber was comprised of representatives of the laity as well as of the clergy. This synod meets triennially like the General Convention of the church in the United States. The Canadian provincial synod proceeded to draw up a code of rules and regulations which, serving as the constitution for the province, outlined the powers and matters that are within the jurisdiction of the synod, as the administrative agency of the province. These rules and regulations, amended from time to time, have remained in force ever since.89 The Canadian dioceses not specifically listed as subject to the metropolitical See of Montreal, were, of course, neither in the Province of Canada, nor under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Montreal, metropolitan of that province. This left them free to proceed with the formation of diocesan synods individually, and all had diocesan synods before the Lambeth Conference of 1867. The process thus begun has continued since 1867. New dioceses have been formed by subdivision, and have been consolidated into provinces as soon as circum35 Vernon, Charles William, The Old Church in the New Dominion, pp. 125-127. Langtry, John, History of the Church in Eastern Canada and Newfoundland, pp. 184-185. Clarke, op. cit., pp. 225-226, for a copy of the act passed by the Canadian legislature. 36 Clarke, op. cit., pp. 226-227.

56

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

stances have permitted. The Province of Rupertsland, consisting of Rupertsland, Moosonee, Athabaska, and Saskatchewan was formed by 1874; its first provincial synod met at Winnipeg in 1875. The Province of Ontario, conterminous with the civil province of Ontario, and consisting of the dioceses of Toronto, Huron, Ontario, Algoma, Niagara, and Ottawa was formed in 1912, with the title of " The Provincial Synod of Ontario." T h e Province of British Columbia, consisting of the dioceses of British Columbia, Caledonia, New Westminster, Kootney and Cariboo, was formed in 1918. Paralleling the formation of these new provinces, the church in Canada proceeded further with uniting and consolidating the various branches of the church in British North America by forming a general synod to be the administrative agency for the church in its entirety in Canada. It proceeded to select a bishop as the head of the United Canadian Church who was to be " Primate of all Canada, and Metropolitan of his own Province, and Archbishop of the See over which he presides." 87 Thus the steps taken between 1850 and 1867 marked the beginning of a process that has resulted in the church in Canada becoming a full-fledged national episcopal church of the Anglican Communion. In Australia some of the dioceses used the same policy as the church in Canada in establishing synodical government; others resorted to the policy of organizing on the basis of consensual compact without any sanction or authority from the state. A f t e r the Archbishop of Canterbury's bill had failed to pass in the British House of Commons in 1853, the diocese of Melbourne decided to act as if that bill had passed. The Bishop of Melbourne, with the assistance of the chief justice of Victoria, obtained from the colonial parliament the Victorian Church Constitution A c t of 1854. This bill received royal assent in 1856. The act made it possible for the dioceses in Victoria to establish synodical government by granting to the 37 Ibid., pp. 228-258.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

57

bishops power to organize synods and by recognizing their right so to do. The diocese of Melbourne immediately availed itself of the power granted under that act by proceeding to frame a constitution providing for the formation of a diocesan synod, to consist of the bishop and representatives of the laity as well as of the clergy. The diocese of Tasmania followed the policy of the diocese of Melbourne, applying to the colonial legislature for an act similar to the Victorian one. Such an act was obtained in 1858. The diocese of Tasmania proceeded immediately to the formation of a diocesan synod. The diocese of Adelaide decided to organize on the basis of consensual compact. A constitution was drawn up in 1855 without any sanction or authority from the state. It made provision for a diocesan synod to consist of the bishop and representatives of the clergy and laity. The synod held its first meeting in 1856. The formation of the synod in the diocese of Adelaide was the forerunner of a movement to establish synodical government in the dioceses of Sydney, Newcastle, and Goulburn in New South Wales. A f t e r considerable negotiation, and at the insistence of the Bishop of Newcastle, the three dioceses agreed to convene a provincial conference, even though that course of action did not meet the approval of the dioceses of Sydney and Goulburn. Their disapproval sprang from the belief that synods could be established only with the consent of the New South Wales legislature, because their chancellors still clung to the straw of episcopal authority by Letters Patent, despite the fact that there were precedents being established by the disputes in South A f r i c a which proved the worthlessness of those documents. The Bishop of Newcastle, although of the opinion that the church in New South Wales was free to meet in synod without any enabling bill from the New South Wales legislature, reluctantly waived this opinion in deference to his metropolitan, the Bishop of Sydney. Nevertheless, he was adamant in his belief that the dioceses should act in unison, and that provincial

58

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

action should precede diocesan action in the matter of establishing synodical government. While these views were being advanced the three bishops called conferences of their clergy for aid and advice on the matters under consideration. These diocesan conferences set the stage for the eventual creation of diocesan synods on the consensual compact basis, but the latter were not created until after the provincial conference of 1866. The convening of the provincial conference was the last step to be taken in the matter of establishing synodical government in Australia prior to the Lambeth Conference of 1867. The provincial conference of 1866 was the precursor both of provincial synods and of the general synod which was formed for the church in Australia as a whole in 1872. The church in Australia, like the other branches of the Anglican Communion, has proceeded to organize itself on a provincial basis since 1867, with the formation of the Provinces of New South Wales in 1884, Victoria in 1905, Queensland in 1905, and Western Australia in 1914. These provinces are conterminous with the civil colonies. The church in Australia has designated the dioceses situated in the capital cities of the civil colonies as archiépiscopal and metropolitical sees, and has taken the necessary steps to confer the title of archbishop upon the incumbents of these sees. In consequence, the church in Australia through this process has joined the family of mature national episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion. It has preserved its union with the church in England, since it has stipulated that the English Book of Common Prayer and the other formularies of the English Church shall be the formularies of the church in Australia and that it will make no alterations in them, even pronouncing that it will accept without comment or qualification any modification in them made by the church in England. Finally, the General Synod is only allowed to make rules and regulations for the church

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

59

that are binding if acceptable to the diocesan synods, so the Australian General Synod, as such, does not have the same powers as the general synods in the United States and Canada.** The church in New Zealand decided to organize itself on the basis of consensual compact. A t the same time a movement was begun for the formation of a General Synod f o r all the dioceses in N e w Zealand. The formation of the General Synod entailed the drawing up of a constitution. T h i s constitution was agreed to at a general conference of bishops, clergy, and laity, which was assembled in Auckland in June, 1 8 5 7 . T w o years later the first General Synod was convened by Bishop Selwyn and met at Wellington. This General Synod, like the other synods of the church in the colonies, consisted of the bishops and representatives of the clergy and laity. It became the governing body for the church in New Zealand. T h e constitution which created it stipulates that it shall meet every third year, beginning with the year 1859. Under this authorization the General Synod has met triennially ever since that date. Thus, before the convening of the Lambeth Conference of 1867, the church in New Zealand, through the adoption of the constitution of 1 8 5 7 , was organized on a provincial as well as diocesan basis, and has continued on that basis to the present day. Since 1 8 6 7 new dioceses have been formed out of existing ones ; the Bishop of Christchurch has become the primate of the church in N e w Zealand, that see having been constituted an archiépiscopal one in the early part of the present century. With this change, along with the creation of the General S y n o d , the process of becoming a mature national episcopal church was completed, and the church of New Zealand joined the 3S Ibid., pp. 90, 91, 106-167. Micklem, Philip Α., Principles of Church Organization—With Special Reference to the Church of England in Australia, pp. 110-144. Giles, R. Α., The Constitutional History of the Australian Church, PP· 75"'94- Boodle, Richard George, The Life and Labours of the Right Reverend William Tyrell, D.D.—First Bishop of Newcastle, New South Wales, pp. 197-218, 254-259·

6o

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

ranks of the other national episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion." T h e church in South A f r i c a resorted to the principle of consensual compact to establish both diocesan and provincial synodical government. The establishing of this f o r m of government was largely the work of Bishop Robert G r a y of Cape T o w n . A w a r e that some of the dioceses in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand had organized themselves on the principle of consensual compact, and having knowledge of Gladstone's advice regarding the organization of the churches in the colonies, Bishop Gray decided to follow that principle in his own diocese. Having made that decision, he proceeded to f o r m a synod consisting of himself and representatives of the clergy and laity in 1857. This synod drew up a constitution, which provided f o r the creation of an ecclesiastical court for the diocese, f o r measures f o r the appointment of future bishops f o r the diocese, and drew up a set of rules and regulations, as well as a formula that had to be subscribed to by all the clergy of the diocese. The constitution stipulated that the synod should meet triennially, the time and place being left to the determination of the synod. These arrangements have continued since 1 8 5 7 , and the synod has met every three years since then. 40 In the year following the formation of the synod in the diocese of Cape T o w n , Bishop John William Colenso of Natal directed his attention to the creation of machinery for the governance of his diocese. That prelate was a liberal churchman. Instead of forming a synod, he summoned a diocesan conference of clergy and laity, because that type of assembly conformed to his ideas of ecclesiastical organization and church government. This assembly, or " church council " as it was called, was presided over by the bishop. It ran counter to the 39 Jacobs, op. cit., pp. 224-421. C l a r k e , op. cit., pp. 176, 177, 178, 189-195. 40 Gray, Charles, Life of Robert Gray, Bishop of Cape Town, pp. 410-418. W i r groan, A u g u s t u s T . , The History of the English and People in South Africa, pp. 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 .

V o l . I, Church

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

6l

synodical precedent, because the clergy and laity voted in one body instead of by orders. The recourse to this unchurchly " church council " was vehemently protested by several of the clergy of the diocese, but Bishop Colenso persisted in his refusal to sanction the formation of a synod, so no diocesan synod was formed in Natal until long a f t e r the Lambeth Conference of 1867. 4 1 The diocese of Grahamstown followed the example of the diocese of Cape T o w n by forming a diocesan synod in i860. This synod drew up a constitution which outlined the government f o r the diocese. 42 Synodical action was deferred in the diocese of St. Helena, because it was situated in a crown colony, and in Bloemfontein, because it was a missionary diocese, even though it was in the Orange R i v e r Colony. Nevertheless, the bishops of both dioceses called meetings of their clergy and laity f r o m time to time before 1867. Such meetings were only consultative, and did not have the right or authority to draw up constitutions or canons f o r their dioceses. But, as elsewhere, they were the seeds of future synodical action. This, then, w a s the situation with regard to the establishment of diocesan synodical government in the Province of South A f r i c a at the time of the L a m beth Conference of 1867. A t the same time steps were taken toward provincial synodical action. The initial step was taken in 1 8 6 1 . In that year Bishop Gray had astounded the secular authorities in England by consecrating Bishop C. F . Mackenzie as a missionary bishop of the English Church, in Cape T o w n Cathedral. The consecration had been effected in the face of legal d i f ficulties which seemed to make it impossible f o r Gray to perf o r m the ceremony. Immediately thereafter, he held an episcopal synod with the two suffragans who had assisted in the 41 Cox, George W., The Life of John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, Vol. I, pp. 101, 105-107. Wirgman, op. cit., pp. 173-174. 42Wirgman, op. cit., p. 173.

Ó2

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

consecration for the purpose of giving ecclesiastical approval to his action. The holding of the extraordinary episcopal synod was followed by the summoning of a provincial synod in 1864. That synod was summoned to confirm the proceedings of the metropolitical provincial court of the preceding year in the trial of Bishop Colenso—which had grown out of a controversy that was then raging between him and Bishop Gray. A s no further action was taken prior to 1867, synodical government in South A f r i c a was still in the process of evolution at the time of the Lambeth Conference in that y e a r . " The establishment of such government in the Province of South A f r i c a was completed in 1870. A provincial synod held in that year tentatively adopted a draft constitution and canons introduced by Bishop Gray and his advisors. This constitution and code of canons were formally confirmed by the provincial synod in 1876.** Although amended from time to time, they have been in force in the Province of South A f r i c a since their adoption in 1870. They made the provincial synod the legislative agency for the province and stipulated that the time and place for its meeting should be determned by the synod itself. The constitution made provision for the creation of provincial and diocesan tribunals for the trial of bishops, clergy, and laity in ecclesiastical causes, as well as providing for the election of bishops, and for the creation of new dioceses. Other provincial synods have been held from time to time since 1876. They have enacted legislation by which the church in South A f r i c a has become a mature national episcopal church. Following the example of the churches in the other British colonies, the church in South A f r i c a made the diocese of Cape Town an archiépiscopal see in 1897, with the result that the primus of the church has been an archbishop since that date. With the creation of the provincial synod, and an episcopal synod, in contó Gray, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 470, Vol. II, p. 144. Wirgman, op. cit., pp. I75-I;6, 205. 44 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 466, 480, 483, 486, 487-489. Wirgman, op. cit., pp. 222-230.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

63

junction with the creation of the office of archbishop as the primatial one, the process of becoming a mature episcopal church was completed, and the church in South A f r i c a joined the ranks of the national episcopal churches of the Anglican Communion. 45 The establishment of synodical government in the churches in India, the West Indies, and in the other colonies of the British Empire was not to be begun until after the Lambeth Conference of 1867, as these colonies were not yet self-governing colonies and the Church of England was still the established church in them. Nevertheless, the bishops of the several dioceses in these colonies did call meetings of their clergy for consultative purposes. Such meetings were, as elsewhere, the seeds of future synodical action and were the forerunners of the establishment of synodical government in those dioceses. 44 All the ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses in the colonies in 1867 were the counterpart of the provinces and dioceses in England, because they were colonial branches of the Church of England. The dioceses in the colonies were also subdivided into archdeaconries, rural deaneries, and parishes. The ministry was identical with that in England, in that it also was comprised of bishops, chancéllors, deans, archdeacons, priests, and deacons. In consequence, the various spheres of administration in the colonies were run in the same manner as those in E n g land. This relation remained fairly constant until after the colonies were granted self-government. Such, then, was the framework of the Anglican Communion in 1867. The foregoing survey, in explaining the way in which the Anglican Communion was bound together, serves to show the stage that it had reached in its evolution and development as a worldwide association of autonomous national episcopal 45 Clarke, op. cit., pp. 343-39'· 46 Chatterton, op. cit., pp. 125, 127, 147, 162, 163, 179, 208, 226. Caldecott, Alfred, The Church in the West Indies, pp. 89, 105, 139, 153.

64

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

churches. In so doing, it indicates that the devices which bound all these ecclesiastical communities with the Church o f England had made the creation of such an agency as the L a m beth Conferences and its incorporation into the organization of the Anglican Communion unnecessary prior to 1850. Letters Patent, the oath of canonical obedience to Canterbury, crown appointments, a common episcopate, and common standards of faith and worship, held the Communion together. The beginnings of the establishment of synodical government in the churches in the self-governing British colonies in the years immediately following that date inaugurated the process of granting autonomy to those churches. The process, although still in its infancy in 1867, had progressed far enough to usher in a gradual alteration in the relationship of the churches in the colonies to the church in England. A s these churches developed toward autonomy it became necessary to clarify and redefine their relation to the church in England. In this way the very structure and constitution of the Anglican Communion in 1867 was so altered as to make necessary such an innovation as the Lambeth Conference of that year. R E L I G I O U S T H O U G H T A N D B E L I E F IN T H E C O M M U N I O N IN

ANGLICAN

1867

Something must also be said about religious thought and belief in the Communion in 1867. However, since the conditions throughout the Communion were a reflection to some extent of the state of affairs as they then obtained in England in these particulars it will suffice to limit the scope of the consideration of them to the church in England. A t the time the state of religion was one of flux, because then, as now, there was no homogeneity of religious belief and thought either in the church in England or in the other churches of the Communion. A l l of them were divided into groups composed of bishops, clergy, and laity which represented many shades of religious thought. The existence of such groups was a condi-

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

65

tion not peculiar to the time, because there have always been groups of a similar nature within the Anglican Church. The result has been that they and their beliefs have exerted an influence on both the deliberations and recommendations (as contained in the resolutions and committee reports) of all the Lambeth Conferences. In England and in Europe there were forces of a scientific character which were coloring the religious thought of the day. They accentuated the differences of the various groups in the English Church, not only because they were reflected, in varying degrees, in the tenets of those groups, but also because opinion was divided on the influence that these forces were then exerting on religious thought. The groups within the English Church fell into three broad categories : the high church Anglo-Catholic ; the Evangelical ; and the Broad Church group. Of these the high church AngloCatholic was the most conservative, and was, in fact, the conservative group of the church of that day. Its basic tenets were Tractarian, because the Tractarians were then the dominant element in that group. These tenets were predicated upon and revolved around the belief that the Anglican Church was continuous in spirit and doctrine with the primitive and undivided church of the patristic age. But the ecclesiastical organization of the church of that age had assumed a highly complex form. Notwithstanding this the high church Anglo-Catholics of the mid-nineteenth century in England, and elsewhere throughout the Anglican Communion, based their tenets with respect to the theory of the church on the assumption that that form, and that form alone, was the one intended for the church by the Founder of Christianity. The result was that their theory of the church was episcopal, and that the essence of that theory was the doctrine of apostolic succession, and of the three-fold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. Their beliefs with regard to the sacraments were coordinated with their theory of the church. The sacraments were held to be the principal means of grace, because they were divinely ordained by Christ, but they would

66

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

lose their efficacy, unless those who administered them could trace their ministerial commission through an unbroken descent from Christ himself. Since the emphasis upon external continuity through episcopal succession made that doctrine the essence of mid-nineteenth century Anglo-Catholicism, episcopacy was held up as not merely of the " well being " (i. e., the "bene esse") of the church, but as something without which there could be no church at all. Without the sacraments, there was no sure means of grace; without the duly commissioned minister there could be no valid sacraments; without bishops tracing their descent through the Apostles to Christ, there could be no duly commissioned minister. The high church Anglo-Catholics also held to the belief that the church, as the accredited organ for the transmission of divine truth, was, in addition, an extension of the Incarnation, and that it was, in consequence, the channel through which the living Christ works His age-long work of redemption. The latter view grew out of the growing importance that the high church Anglo-Catholic attached to the sacraments, and in particular to the Eucharist. The result was that the accredited minister became the agency through which the faithful received the Body and Blood of Christ, and so made Christ's life available for the believer. This idea was based on the belief that the sacraments are His life; that He is in them; and that the acts of the minister are His acts. It was also based on the belief that the church was His Body in no metaphorical sense, and that in its organization, the life, once incarnate in human form, was still incarnate, since the faithful in Holy Writ are called " the body of Christ ". Such then were some of the principal tenets of the highchurch Anglo-Catholic group on the eve of the Lambeth Conference of 1867. Numerically they were a minority group. Their views, although looked upon with disfavor by both the Evangelicals and Broad Churchmen, exerted an influence far beyond their numbers and had their effect upon the life of the

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

67

church at the time. They created a sense of corporate responsibility, and made membership in the church mean something real. Through their efforts synodical action was revived in the church. Royal licenses were issued in 1852 and 1861 authorizing the Convocations of Canterbury and York to resume active business after nearly a century and a half of silence. The efforts of some Anglo-Catholics were responsible for the growth of ritualism in the Church of England. Despite much controversy over the revival of rites and ceremonies, which had been abolished in the sixteenth century, this did much to elevate worship in the church. Finally they were instrumental in bringing about the growth of sisterhoods, and the official work of women in tending the sick and fallen.47 The Evangelicals and the Broad Churchmen were the Protestant minded groups of the church. They laid little stress on the thought of the Anglican Church as a " branch " o f the Church Catholic. Questions of external organization, such as the necessity of episcopacy, were regarded by most of them as of secondary importance. They felt that episcopacy was not of the esse of the church, but merely of its bene esse; that churches without bishops might be true churches, though government by bishops was the best of all systems. They pointed out that the Anglo-Catholics had not gone back to Christ, but to the fourth century when the church had a much more highly developed organization than at the time of the birth of Christianity. They alleged that there was no evidence whatever that Christ had taught that any special form of ecclesiastical organization was essential. According to them the church had been left to develop its own structure as need and occasion had demanded. They freely admitted that there had been a rapid growth of the episcopal form of government, but they asserted with even greater vehemence that episcopacy had come into being in different areas of the church at different times, and 47 Storr, Vernon F., The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1860, pp. 255-272. Sockman, Ralph W., The Revival of the Conventual Life in the Church of England in the Nineteenth Century.

68

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

that " full communion " had existed between local churches which were episcopally ordained and churches which were not. In general they were less interested in doctrine as such than were the Anglo-Catholics, because their Biblicism and their tendencies towards subjectivism made them nearly as indifferent to formal theology as to polity. Hence it was easy for many of the later Evangelicals to slide into liberalism. Nevertheless they did emphasize certain doctrines, because they considered them as vital both to the Christian community and to religion as they conceived it. The emphasis on these points arose f r o m the fact that they conceived religion as something almost entirely subjective, as a right relation of the individual soul to God which was to be brought about, not so much through the aid which the worship and system of an ordered society might provide, as through the free, interior action of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of the individual man. The theology of the Evangelicals was based entirely on the belief in the Bible as the authoritative W o r d of God. F o r them the Bible was not simply the record of a divine revelation. The very page was sacred. It was not only the W o r d , it was the W o r d s of God. The Evangelical views in the matter of doctrine were equally as f a r removed f r o m the Anglo-Catholic position as their views on the church and church organization. Stated broadly their doctrinal views were fundamentally Protestant, in that they consisted of belief in a personal union with Christ in the Trinity ; the fallen condition of man ; Christ's atonement for sin ; salvation by faith, not by works ; and regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Soteriology occupied the central place in the Evangelical teaching, which taught Christ a s the crucified Saviour of sinful man, on the belief that the depravity of man was the ground for and the occasion of Christ's redemptive work. In the matter of sin the Evangelicals taught a doctrine of substitution. According to that doctrine it was Christ, instead of men, who

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

69

bore the punishment which sin deserves. T h e death of Christ was regarded as effecting a change in God's attitude towards man. The appeasement of God's wrath against man, by the sacrifice on the cross, showed to them the divinely appointed plan of salvation. In consequence the Atonement was far more important for them. It was o f objective importance. It was an act of God which had meaning not only for man, but for God Himself in His relation to a sinful humanity. It was the divine remedy for the ruin wrought by sin; the plan devised by God to supplement the original plan o f creation, which, owing to human wilfullness and depravity, was in danger of failing in its purpose. Great importance was attached by the Evangelicals to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as well as to the doctrine of justification by faith. T h e latter was defined as an unquestioning acceptance o f the saving power of Christ's death upon the cross. Justification by faith was not, according to them, in any way opposed to good works, save where the question was one of the grounds of man's acceptance with God. A t the same time they held that, although good works had no merit in themselves to procure salvation, they were the necessary outcome of a living faith. Finally they held that the doom o f eternal punishment awaited the unrepentant sinner who neglected Christ's offer of pardon, because they universally accepted the doctrine, that life is a probation and that at death every soul passes into an eternity o f weal or woe. These beliefs sum up the essence of the Evangelical creed at the time of the first Lambeth Conference. Like the Anglo-Catholics, the Evangelicals were a minority group at that time. Their influence within the church was by no means negligible, because they were religious reformers instead of theologians, as many high-church AngloCatholics were. 48 T h e Broad Churchmen, as the liberal group in the church, included many persons of political influence. They were not a 48 Storr, op. cit., pp. 65-70.

70

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

g r o u p in the same sense that the high-church A n g l o - C a t h o l i c s and Evangelicals were, because they championed n o closely defined system o f doctrine. T h e i r strength lay in the appeal of their views to the large body of laymen w h o , while not actively interested in the church, maintained a nominal affiliation with it. O n e element within this g r o u p w a s the liberals w h o were comparable to the eighteenth century latitudinarians. T h a t element w a s united b y common ties, such as their sympathy with movements of r e f o r m , whether in church or state, their opposition to T r a c t a r i a n i s m , and their advocacy of free inquiry in theology. T h e i r v i e w s on church organization and Christian belief were closer to those of the Evangelicals than of the A n g l o - C a t h o l i c s , because of their opposition to Tractarianism. T h e m a j o r i t y of them were theologians w h o had little or no use f o r o r t h o d o x y , but they were ardent believers in Christianity in its traditional form. 4 9 T h e s e theologians were men of prominence in the church. T h e y had been and were exerting an increasing influence within the church both by their advocacy of free inquiry in theology and by their writings in that field. Finally mention must be made of the existence of a large g r o u p of place holders, w h o w e r e high-church in their zeal for ecclesiastical prerogatives, but were scarcely more sympathetic to active T r a c t a r i a n i s m than they were to Evangelicalism or liberalism. T h e y had little positive influence. N e g a t i v e l y they were of

considerable

importance,

because their v i e w s

were

critical, although not constructive. T h e tenets of all these g r o u p s were influenced in some w a y by scientific forces w h i c h w e r e then coloring E n g l i s h religious thought. T h e s e forces were the modern historical movement and a g r o w i n g b o d y of human k n o w l e d g e , particularly in the realm of g e o l o g y , biology, and physics. T h e birth o f the modern historical method had taken place in F r a n c e and Italy during the seventeenth century. B y the nineteenth century it had been fashioned in G e r m a n y into a p o w e r f u l instrument of critical research. Its development had a most important effect upon 49 Ibid., p. 94.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

71

Christian theology. It brought about the science of Biblical criticism. The formulation of that science resulted in a gradual revision of Biblical history. A t the same time the Biblical critics also directed their attention to a restatement of certain doctrines so that theology would be able to accommodate itself both to the growing body of human knowledge and to the needs of the day and age. Believing that those objectives could be attained only by releasing theology from certain obsolete traditions, these critics advanced ideas which challenged, or at least tended to modify, the previously accepted conceptions of revelation, inspiration, miracles, and other fundamentals of the Christian faith. This eventually led to a new interpretation of the Scriptures because broader views on those matters gradually won their way to acceptance.80 The clash of opinion did not concern the rights of textual criticism. From the sixteenth century on the Protestant theologians, both in the British Isles and on the continent, had appealed to the New Testament in Greek, and not, as did the Roman Catholics, to the New Testament in the Latin version of St. Jerome, as the standard by which theological controversies should be decided. The Greek manuscripts, however, varied in their readings. Protestant scholars were compelled not merely to seek the evidence of fresh manuscripts, but, through comparison of manuscripts, to try to ascertain the precise wording of the original text of the New Testament, to which Protestant creeds pointed as final authority. The science of Biblical criticism arose in Germany during the latter part of the eighteenth century. A s the movement developed, the ideas of the German critical theologians slowly found their way to England. The result was that England also experienced a wave of Biblical criticism beginning about 1825, which had far-reaching consequences because it was instru50 Briggs, Charles Augustus, History of the Study of Theology, Vol. II, pp. 184-192. Nash, Henry S., A History of the Higher Criticism of the Mew Testament, pp. 100-134.

72

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

mental in bringing about a gradual reconstruction of theology in that country. T h e Noetics, a group of liberal Broad Churchmen connected in one way or another with Oriel College, O x f o r d , led in this movement. Thinkers like Samuel Taylor Coleridge ( 1 7 7 2 1834), Herbert Marsh (1758-1838), Thomas Arnold (17951842), Julius Hare (1789-1855), Connop Thirlwall (17891875), also joined the Noetics to effect the revision of Biblical history and Biblical interpretation. Their labors, however, were largely speculative. They, like their German contemporaries, were being influenced in their views by the philosophers of the eighteenth century such as Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), and Immanuel Kant ( 1 7 2 4 - 1 8 0 4 ) ; also by thinkers of the early nineteenth century : Johann Gottlieb Fichte ( 1 7 6 2 - 1 8 1 4 ) , Georg Wilhelm Hegel ( 1 7 7 0 - 1 8 3 1 ) , Auguste Comte (1798-1857), and others." T h e movement entered a new phase with the publication of Leben Jesu by David Freidrich Strauss in 1835. This work produced an immense sensation both in Germany and England, and created a new epoch in the treatment of the rise of Christianity. It assailed the traditional and orthodox views of the Gospel narratives and even the rationalistic treatment of them. The mythical theory of Strauss asserted that the Christ of the Gospels, excepting for the most meagre outline of personal history, was the unintentional creation of the early Christian Messianic expectation. Applied to the Gospel narratives by Strauss with merciless rigor, the mythical theory broke down, because it was based upon fatal defects, positive and negative. He held a narrow theory as to the miraculous, and a still narrower one as to the relation of the divine to the human. H e had no true idea of the nature of historical tradition and his critique of the Gospel history had not been preceded by the necessary critique of the structure of the Gospels themselves. 52 5 1 S t o r r , op. cit., pp. 92, 94, 112, 165, 166, 183-185, 189-195, 203-204, 209, 210, 217, 218, 338-340. 52 Ibid.,

pp. 199, 216-226. N a s h , op.

C h e s t e r C h a r l t o n , The Search

cit.,

for the Real

pp.

Jesus,

122-125, 149-150. p p . 58-68.

McCoun,

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

73

Though it represented the high-water mark of the purely speculative movement in German theology, the Leben Jesu had a profound effect upon the development of theology in England. Translated from the German by George Eliot in 1846, it first brought home to the average educated Englishman that radical criticism in Germany was attacking the fundamentals of the faith, and so threatening traditional theology. The period inaugurated by the publication of the Leben Jesu was taken up mainly with the following out of the paths trodden by the earlier German and English theologians, because, despite conservative opposition, criticism both of the Old and New Testament continued in full activity. With regard to the Old Testament the problem of the sources, composition, and historicity of the Pentateuch occupied the forefront of investigation. The application of the idea of development to the religious history of Israel was carried on throughout the period. As a result of the advance of criticism, the concepts of revelation and inspiration were re-examined. In consequence strict views of inspiration gradually gave way to broader ones, based upon the need for distinguishing between the spiritual message of the Bible and the temporal or local forms in which that message was cast. Merely because a book was listed in the Canon of Scriptures, (the official table of contents of the Bible) was no proof that it was divine. It was put in the canon because men recognized its spiritual worth. Notwithstanding this, the vital question in the dispute was whether inspiration implied the existence of a specific divine communication from without, in whatever way that might be interpreted, or whether the facts could be explained by reference to the native genius of the Hebrew for religion, a genius which of course ultimately owed its being to God. In the matter of New Testament criticism, progress was made in the study of the Synoptic Gospels as it became more clearly recognized that Mark, not Mathew, was the earliest of the narratives, and was the source whence Luke and Mathew

74

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

drew much o f their material. Despite this progress, the chief problem before the critic during the y e a r s subsequent to 1835 w a s to determine the historicity of the sources, and to discover trustworthy material out of which could be constructed a picture of the primitive church and its Founder. In this respect it w a s a period of detailed investigation, with history being called in to check the earlier flights of speculation. A t the same time, as in the case of the O l d Testament, the conflict raged over the meaning and place o f the supernatural. T h e conflict centered around the questions as to whether miracles had occurred and over the possibility of them. T h e r e were those w h o denied a priori that any violation of a law of nature could take place. T h e r e were others w h o stoutly defended miracles. In general each critic's attitude was determined by the presuppositions with which he came to the inquiry. But a broad survey of the dispute shows that the upholders of miracle were put increasingly on the defensive. T h e area of the miraculous steadily contracted because there w a s a g r o w i n g recognition o f

an

idealized element in the Gospel story. 68 T h e clash of opinion was further complicated by the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century scientific developments. T h i s w a s made manifest with the publication of the of Geology

Principles

( 1 8 3 0 - 1 8 3 3 ) by S i r Charles Lyell. T h e revolution

in g e o l o g y effected by this w o r k led to attenuations of doctrine of

the

inspiration, because the views expressed therein

were in conflict with the Mosaic cosmogony. T h e conflict was carried still further by the publication of Origin

of Species

Charles

Darwin's

in 1859. T h i s latter w o r k produced an im-

mense sensation, f o r the ideas embodied in it not only brought the doctrine of evolution into prominence, but also set the stage f o r its acceptance as true science. T h e w o r k w a s viewed w i t h consternation by the orthodox because it ran counter to and threatened the destruction of traditional o r t h o d o x theology. It 53 Storr, op. cit., pp. 177-198. Hunt, John, Religious Thought in England in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 93-98, 111-113, 187-198. McGiffert, Arthur C., The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas, pp. 35-44.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

75

was therefore severely attacked by them. Their hostility to it was brought forward in a debate in which the orthodox Bishop Samuel Wilberforce of Oxford and Professor Thomas Henry Huxley were the principals. The former was no match for the latter. In consequence the orthodox were compelled to give ground because Wilberforce's failure to destroy the Darwinian theory by theological weapons damaged the current theology more than the theory. In so doing it opened the way to a still further reconstruction of theology along the lines espoused by the liberals." Finally mention must be made of the rise of Positivism and the influx of Positivist ideas into England. Positivism was a many-sided scheme for the social regeneration of the human race which was based upon the systems of ideas expounded by Auguste Comte in the Cours de philosophie positive ( 18301842), Système de politique positive ( 1 8 5 1 - 1 8 5 4 ) , and the Catéchisme positiviste ( 1 8 5 2 ) . On the religious side it made provision for the substitution of a Religion of Humanity for revealed religion in which God was to be replaced by Humanity, personified as a Great Being and a Great Goddess. This radical scheme was offered as a compromise settlement of the conflicts of the day, and especially of the one between religion and science. In short the Religion of Humanity aimed to settle that conflict, because it was a religion alleged to be scientific in that its fundamental purpose purported to be the betterment of mankind. For that very reason it was alleged that the Religion of Humanity afforded an opportunity for science to become religious by concentrating its energies upon human welfare too." Positivism appeared in England in the middle of the nineteenth century. Its pioneers were men who had been reared in 54 White, Andrew D., A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II, pp. 311-313, 334-341. Cornish, F. Warre, A History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part II, p. 224. 55 McGce, John Edwin, A Crusade for Humanity, The History of Organized Positivism in England, pp. 3-29, 42.

76

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the Church of England : Richard Congreve, Frederic Harrison, Edward Spencer Beesly and John Henry Bridges. In the face of opposition from the champions of revealed religion they sought to bring about a state of affairs in which religion and science would work hand in hand. They asserted that while existing religious beliefs were unsound in the light of the then scientific knowledge men had great need of the proper kind of religion. At the same time they declared that in the light of the most advanced religious knowledge much of the work of scientists was improperly conceived and misdirected, but that men had great need of the proper kind of science. Finally they insisted that the whole problem could be solved, but only by means of a religion which was scientific and a science which was religious—a science, that is, which had as its raison d'etre the service of humanity.56 These men were men of mark among the English intellectuals of their day. Their attempts to bring about a reconciliation of science and religion helped to bring the conflict between them to the fore, and so did not pass unnoticed, even among the liberals in the Church of England. Positivism was thus instrumental, on that score alone, in exerting an influence upon Biblical criticism and the reconstruction of theology within the English Church. These developments in philosophy and science merged with the historical method of inquiry and placed it on a still more firmly established scientific basis. All these developments were viewed with alarm by the AngloCatholics in England. They threatened the destruction of views which that group held to be fundamental to Christianity. In consequence the Anglo-Catholics vehemently opposed them because they ran counter to their dogmatic conception of theology and Christianity. Neither would the Evangelicals, who subscribed to the views previously described, accept the new ideas of geology, evolu56 Ibid., pp. 44-55, 65-66.

ANGLICAN

COMMUNION

IN

1867

77

tion, and Biblical criticism. They were as much opposed to them as the Anglo-Catholics were, because they saw in them a threat to the infallible Bible which bulked so large in their belief. On the other hand, the Broad Churchmen, and the Evangelicals with liberal views, looked upon these developments with increasing approval and hailed them with growing enthusiasm. Their approval and enthusiasm arose out of their advocacy of free inquiry in theology. That advocacy was based upon the growing opinion that Christianity, if it was to continue to live and develop, ought to accommodate its beliefs and doctrines to the day and age, and modify them in the light of new knowledge. The Evangelicals with liberal tendencies, and the liberal Broad Churchmen, by subscribing to these opinions, threw their support to the furthering of the free inquiry of the Bible, even in face of orthodox opposition. The result was that free inquiry into the Bible continued and the outcome of that inquiry slowly but gradually found increasing favor within the church outside the orthodox ranks. This development was brought into the open in a most emphatic manner by the publication of the Essays and Reviews by seven liberal churchmen in England in i860, and of St.

Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Newly Translated and Explained from the Missionary Point of View, and Parts I and II of The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined by John William Colenso in 1 8 6 1 - 1 8 6 3 . These works precipitated controversy within the church with the result that the state of belief was an unsettled one on the eve of the Lambeth Conference of 1867.

CHAPTER II THE NECESSITY FOR PAN-ANGLICAN ORGANIZATION, 1850-1867 THE necessity for a closer organization of the Anglican Communion was brought into increasing prominence with the development of the Communion between the years 1850 and 1867. Prior to 1850, as has been shown, the only members of the Anglican Communion which were not bound to the British crown and the United Church of England and Ireland by Letters Patent and the oath of canonical obedience were the national episcopal churches in Scotland and the United States. The years subsequent to 1850 saw a loosening of the relations between the churches in the colonies and the parent church because the former were being influenced by their own individual problems and their growing synodical government. There was argument over organization, as legal problems arose in several parts of the empire regarding the status of the churches in the colonies and their relation to the church in England. Moreover these years were replete with argument over faith and doctrine, because there existed no authority to settle such arguments, nor even to set up a standard by which they could be measured. Finally during these same years the Anglican Communion was still isolated, in large degree, from the rest of Christendom, and was on the defensive insofar as its relations with and its attitude towards the Roman Communion were concerned. EARLY

SUGGESTIONS

FOR A N

ANGLICAN

ASSEMBLAGE

OF

THE

EPISCOPATE

The necessity for a closer organization of the Anglican Communion was first recognized in the church in the United States. In accordance with Anglican principles of ecclesiastical organization that church in 1851 brought forward suggestions recommending the creation of machinery for bringing about a closer 78

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

79

union of the constituent members of the Communion. These suggestions were made in connection with the " silver " jubilee celebration of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, founded in 1701, which took place in that year. Shortly before the celebration began, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the Society's president, addressed a circular letter to the bishops of the United States in which he enlisted their participation in it in these words : I venture, also, respectfully to submit whether, in a time of controversy and division, the close communion which binds the Churches of America and England in one would not be strikingly manifested to the world, if every one of their dioceses were to take part in commemorating the foundation of the oldest Missionary Society of the Reformed Church. . . Λ This suggestion was to result in a proposal for a closer organization of the Communion by Bishop John H . Hopkins of Vermont, the Presiding Bishop of the church in the United States. In his letter of reply to the Archbishop he gave utterance to the first suggestion of calling into being of the organization known today as the Lambeth Conferences. 2 W i t h prophetic vision he wrote: It is always a grateful theme to an American Churchman when a Prelate of our revered Mother Church speaks as your Grace has been pleased to do, of the close communion which binds the Churches of America and England. For my own part, I would that it were much closer than it is, and fervently hope that the time may come when we shall prove the reality of that communion in the primitive style, by meeting together in the good old fashion 1 Reports of the Society for the Propagation Parts, 184Ç-1851, Vol. XIII, pp. lxxxiv-lxxxv.

of the Gospel

in

Foreign

2 Pascoe, C. F., Two Hundred Years of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1700-içcu, pp. 82-83. "And although the hope expressed by the Bishop of Vermont was not realized for some years, it should not escape notice that it was the celebration of the Society's Jubilee which occasioned the first suggestion of a Lambeth Conference." The Life of Bishop Hopkins by one of his Sons, p. 292. Church Journal, February 15, 1855, p. 21.

8o

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of Synodical action. H o w natural and reasonable would it seem to be if " in a time of controversy and division " there should be a Council of all the Bishops in communion with your Grace ! And would not such an assemblage exhibit the most solemn and (under God) the most influential aspect of strength and unity,—maintaining the true Gospel of the Apostles' planting, against the bold and false assumption of Rome? It is my firm belief that such a measure would be productive of immense advantage and would exercise a moral influence far beyond that of any secular legislation.3 T h e idea of the Presiding Bishop of the church in the United States was reiterated in the f o l l o w i n g suggestion submitted on behalf of Bishop W i l l i a m W h i t t i n g h a m of Maryland at the final meeting of the Society's silver jubilee : It seems desirable, if possible, that there should ultimately be an arrangement between the Churches : — F o r an assemblage of the Whole Episcopate either absolutely or representatively, in council, for organization as one branch of the Church Catholic.* N o action was taken at the time on either of these suggestions because corporate consciousness had not yet sufficiently permeated throughout the whole of the A n g l i c a n Communion. A n g l i c a n indignation against the R o m a n See for promulgating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception resulted in more suggestions f o r a closer organization of the Communion in 1854. These suggestions were brought f o r w a r d because the need of a united A n g l i c a n front to meet the " new

Roman

doctrine "

Anglo-

was

widely

felt, particularly

among the

Catholics. T h e y were of the opinion that the promulgation of that doctrine by the R o m a n See was an affront to the Anglican Communion and that it ought to be repudiated because it was not Catholic, according to the Anglican definition of Catholicity. Several of the most prominent of the Anglo-Catholics holding 3 Reports of the Society for the Propagation Parts, 1849-1851, Vol. X I I I , pp. xcii-xciii. AColotiial

Church

Chronicle,

of the Gospel

in

Foreign

V o l . V I (July 1852-June 1853), P- 32.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

8l

these views resided in Canada and the United States, so it was not surprising that the suggestions made in 1854 were brought forward by the churches in those countries. The suggestions were made just before the proclamation the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception by the Pope. Bishop Francis Fulford of Montreal, in the following query, suggested a meeting of all Anglican bishops for the sole purpose of repudiating the new Roman dogma : Must it, however, always be the unfulfilled yearning of earnest spirits that the day may come when the whole body of the Reformed Church shall meet together in her corporate character, bearing witness for Catholic truths, and testifying, in some recognized and official manner, both for her own true Catholicity, and for the unity of her members in every quarter of the globe? 8 The Church Journal of New York, too, took cognizance of the new Roman dogma. It proposed the summoning of a " great Council of Canterbury " with the suggestion that The Archbishop of Canterbury invite all the Bishops of the Reformed Church throughout the world to assemble at Canterbury, once more to PROTEST, solemnly, against this new " blasphemous and dangerous deceit " of Rome ; and to re-assert, in the face of the whole world, the ancient faith, pure and undefiled, once for all given to the Saints. . . . If carried out in this spirit, the Great Council of Canterbury would form, not only a more auspicious, but also a more important era in the history of Christianity, than any Council held anywhere in the Catholic Church for more than a thousand years." These proposals resulted in no immediate action either, because corporate consciousness was still not yet sufficiently crystallized within the Anglican Communion to warrant it at 5 Fulford, Francis, D. D. ( L o r d Bishop of M o n t r e a l ) , The Sermon at the Consecration o{ Horatio Potter, D.D. to the Episcopate ( P r e a c h e d by appointment in Trinity Church, N e w York, on Wednesday, N o v e m b e r 22, 1854), p. 20. 6 Church

Journal,

December 7, 1854, p. 356.

82

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the time. Nevertheless, they, along with the suggestions which had been brought forward in 1851, gave birth to the idea of Pan-Anglican organization by recommending some kind of an assemblage of the American Episcopate as a manifestation of the corporate unity of the Communion. They directed attention to the need for such organization and were, therefore, instrumental in disseminating that idea throughout the Communion. That this was so is evidenced by the fact that they were not forgotten when the suggestion of a decade later resulted in the Lambeth Conference of 1867. It remained, however, for argument over faith and doctrine and organization to bring the need for Pan-Anglican organization into such prominence that action could no longer be deferred. These arguments threatened the disruption of the Anglican Communion and so made it increasingly evident that the existing machinery was wholly inadequate to solve the growing problems of the Communion or to preserve its unity. In consequence they were, to a large degree, in the background of the suggestion that resulted in the Lambeth Conference of 1867. These arguments came to a head in the Essays and Reviews and Colenso controversies. T H E ESSAYS AND REVIEWS

CONTROVERSY

The Essays and Reviews controversy arose with the publication in England of a volume with that unpretentious title in i860. It consisted of seven essays by liberal churchmen of the day. They were: ( 1 ) " T h e Education of the World," by Frederick Temple, D.D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen, Head Master of Rugby School, and Chaplain to the Earl of Denbigh; (2) " Bunsen's Biblical Researches," by Rowland Williams, D.D., Vice Principal and Professor of Hebrew, St. David's College, Lampeter, and Vicar of Broad Chalke, W i l t s ; ( 3 ) " On the Study of the Evidence of Christianity," by Baden Powell, M.A., F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of O x f o r d ; ( 4 ) " Séances Historiques de Genève—

PAN-ANGLICAN

The

National

Church,"

ORGANIZATION,

by

Henry

185O-1867

Bristow

Wilson,

83

B.D.,

V i c a r of Great Staughton, H u n t s ; ( 5 ) " O n the Mosaic C o s m o g o n y , " by C . W . Goodwin, M . A . ; ( 6 ) " Tendencies of R e ligious T h o u g h t in England, 1 6 8 8 - 1 7 5 0 , " by M a r k Pattison, B . D . ; ( 7 ) " O n the Interpretation of Scripture," by B e n j a m i n Jowett, M . A . , R e g i u s P r o f e s s o r of Greek in the University of O x f o r d . These men were prominent both in the liberal church g r o u p and in the church itself, because all of them, with the exception of C. W . G o o d w i n , were beneficed clergymen. A s a g r o u p they had little or no use for Christianity in its orthodox form. T h e y did not hold to the idea that the Christian faith as fixed f r o m the first and expressed in the Bible, or as developed in the history of the church, or as formulated in the Bible, the B o o k of

C o m m o n P r a y e r , and the Articles of Religion, w a s the

ultimate expression of Christian belief, and that g o i n g beyond that limit would break the terms o f their contract with the church, and so compel them to leave the communion. Instead they held to the view that truth w a s not laid d o w n once f o r all, but w a s perpetually being discovered; that searchers for truth should make it their object to aim at the correction and enlargement of formulas which had g r o w n too n a r r o w ; that it w a s l a w f u l to construe formulas broadly, and even to ignore those which had become obsolete. 7 T h e y were also staunch advocates of the views of their g r o u p concerning theology and Biblical criticism. T h e y held to the desirability of i n f u s i n g a new spirit in theology f o r the purpose of calling the attention of the church to the necessity of making some theological adjustment to the then g r o w i n g body of scientific knowledge and of introducing to the church certain methods of Biblical and historical research which were already well k n o w n to German theologians. 7 Cornish, F. W a r r e , A History Century, Part II, p. 216.

of the English

Church in the

Nineteenth

84

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The Essays and Reviews was an exposition of these views. The authors asserted that their purpose was to say what they thought " freely within the limits of the Church of England and to promote the free discussion of controversial subjects in theology with regard to which reticence was generally thought to be becoming, " subjects particularly liable to suffer by repetition of conventional language, and from traditional methods of treatment." Their purpose found expression in the titles of the essays and, more particularly, in the views propounded in them. Taken as a whole, the volume contained nothing really new. The views propounded in it had been repeatedly put forth either by the essayists themselves, or by German and English writers on Biblical criticism, and Anglican divines, some of whom were regarded as luminaries of the church. The spirit of the volume was critical, but not constructive. It contained materials for the reconstruction of theology, but it did little in the way of showing how they should be used. It has been pointed out that the authors lacked a clearly defined dogmatic basis and that that lack shows itself on every page. The lack of any such dogmatic basis was caused by the fact that they were enamored of ideology (i. e., that many things in the Bible were not to be taken as facts, but as embodying ideas), and, in consequence, they tended to treat Christianity as a system of ideas, very much in the Hegelian fashion. Finally the temper of some of the essays was distinctively aggressive, and this was one of the principal reasons why the volume gave offense to the orthodox. 8 " The Education of the World " was in substance the expansion of a sermon which the author had preached previously at Oxford, and departed far less than the others from the then current standards of orthodoxy. Its main argument was that in the divine education of humanity, the growth of which was conceived, somewhat in the tradition of Lessing, as analogous 8 Storr, Vernon F., The Development of English Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 1800-1860, pp. 446-447.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

85

to that of a single human being, the chief moral element was to be found in the " identification of the Bible with the voice of conscience." " This principle of private judgment . . . puts conscience between us and the Bible, making conscience the supreme interpreter, whom it may be a duty to enlighten, but whom it can never be a duty to disobey." When conscience, and the Bible differ, the pious Christian immediately concludes that " he has not really understood the Bible; " in other words, " the ultimate judge is neither the letter of the Bible nor the voice of the Church, but the verdict of the individual conscience," the Bible tending " to resolve itself into enlightened reason, and leave the spirit of man the sole arbiter of its own duties." The essay was criticized mainly because of its similarity to other essays of the same title, and, more particularly, of the illustrations of the author to develop the thesis of Christ's coming at a stage of the world's existence when the purpose of the Advent could best be served." The essay on " Bunsen's Biblical Researches " was flippant and contemptuous in tone. Its main purport was to widen the meaning of revelation. The author took the line that there were many elements in revelation, and that records, poetry, legend, prophecy, morals, and doctrine have an historical character which ought not to be ignored; that the idea of revelation must be much wider and deeper; that it was not confined to Sinai and Judea; that the moral value of miracles outweighs the wonder of them ; that revelation acts through normal channels ordained by providence; that, in short, the supposedly supernatural was simply a special and as yet not well understood phase of the natural. This thesis was worked out with much freedom, in fervent and aggressive language, and so gave more offense than almost any other part of the volume. 10 9 Essays and Reviews, pp. 1-49. Hunt, John, Religious Thought in England in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 199-200. Storr, Vernon F., op. cit., pp. 443, 444-445· 10 Essays and Reviews, pp. 50-93. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 200-202. Storr, op. cit., PP. 435-437.

86

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

In " T h e Evidences of Christianity " the author dwelt mainly upon the religious rather than the historical evidences of Christianity and discussed the question of miracles in a very critical spirit. 1 1 In the essay on " T h e National Church," the author claimed freedom of opinion f o r clergy as well as laity, declaring in f a v o r of the complete liberty of the English clergyman, as f a r as regards opinion privately entertained. H e maintained that in subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles " the strictly legal obligation was the measure of the moral one." H i s object also appeared to be one of commending the " ideological " method of Scriptural interpretation, to expound the theory of a " multitudinist," i. e., comprehensive, national church, and with this view to recommend that subscription to the formularies of the English Church should no longer be required. 12 In the essay on " Mosaic Cosmogony," the author summed up his thesis with the assertion that the Mosaic account of the Creation was " not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance which it has pleased Providence to use in a special w a y f o r the education of mankind."

13

In the essay on " Tendencies of Religious Thought in E n g land, 1 6 8 8 - 1 7 5 0 , " the author, after exposing the futility of ancient attempts to find a compromise between authority and reason, recommended thinkers of his own age to undertake " a perplexing but not altogether profitless inquiry " in the search f o r truth. 1 4 11 Essays

and Revieivs,

pp. 94-144. Hunt, op. cit., p. 202. Storr, op. cit.,

12 Essays and Reviews, op. cit., pp. 431-432.

pp. 145-206. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 202-205. Storr,

pp. 439-443·

13 Essays

and Rnieu'S,

pp. 207-253. Hunt, op. cit., p. 205. Storr, op. cit.,

Ρ· 445· 14 Essays

and Rei-ieit'S,

op. cit., pp. 437-439·

pp. 254-329. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 205-206. Storr,

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

87

The essay on " The Interpretation of Scripture " was the most remarkable of all. It was as hotly attacked as any, not so much for the views advanced in it, but mainly because of the manner and tone in which they were presented. It laid down a single comprehensive rule of reading the Bible : " interpret the Scripture like any other book. . . . The first step is to know the meaning. No other science of hermeneutics is possible but an inductive o n e ; " and "Scripture has one meaning—the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered it or wrote it, to the hearers or readers who first received it. . . . We have no reason to attribute to the prophet or evangelist any second or hidden sense different from that which appears on the surface." Scripture was like any other book, to be interpreted from itself; attention had to be paid to personal, local, historical, and linguistic points of character; yet not without a sense that there is throughout Scripture " the witness of God in the world . . . shining more and more unto the perfect day in the life of Christ." 15 This theory of Biblical interpretation was not a new one. The arguments advanced favored a literal as against an allegorical interpretation. The preference for the former, as here expressed, was one that had respectable traditional backing, even at that time. The Essays and Reviews did not at the outset attract any extraordinary attention. It was first brought into prominence by an article in the Westminster Review, from the pen of the Positivist, Frederic Harrison, entitled, " Neo-Christianity." 19 He listed all its unorthodoxies, indicating that inspiration, prophecy, miracles, the truth of history and the authority of the precepts contained in the Old and the New Testaments, the creation and fall of man, the sacraments and creeds were denied or discredited in the volume. Even the central doctrines 15 Essays and Reviews, op. cit., pp. 433-434· 16 Westminster

pp. 330-433. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 206-207. Storr,

Review, October, i860, pp. 157-178.

88

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement were subjected to criticism. In his judgment there remained little but " a revised Atonement, a transcendental Fall, a practical Salvation, and an idealised Damnation." H e conceded that this might be the doctrine of a few professors and divines, who conceived it possible to hold such opinions and yet remain in the church; but that the public, for whom the essays were written, would never believe that the Bible was " full of errors or rather untruths . . . a medley of late compilers; and yet withal remain the Book of Life." He was of the opinion that the essayists would upset the creeds of the church and at the same time declare their authority. But he stated that the church must have one thing or the other, orthodoxy or heterodoxy, and not a vague opinion which sees no difference between the two. The article was written in a jubilant vein because the writer expressed his delight at finding a group of leading churchmen proclaiming views for which the Positivists had been contending so long. Consequently it stirred up the defenders of orthodoxy to reply to the book with critical articles in the press. The most telling of these articles came from the pen of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce of Oxford. 1 7 It began with the assertion that the views propounded by the essayists were not really new, as they had been stated before. Attention was then called to the fact that, although there was not the same degree of divergence from the Christian faith in all the essays, there was, nevertheless, one flaw that ran through all of them; the idea of the entire volume was that of " a verifying faculty," i. e., that human reason was capable of judging divine things, with conscience as the supreme interpreter. Using this as his premise, and with copious citations from the essays, the author contended that the assertions of the essayists were false and were contrary to the Christian faith in every particular. H e deduced from these same assertions that to accept them would 17 London Quarterly Review, January, i86i, pp. 128-156.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

89

be destructive of the Christian faith as propounded in Scripture. The application of " a verifying faculty " would result in the putting aside of the Atonement, as conceived in Christian formularies, because that conception of it would not be in accord with man's ideas of the nature of God. Continuing, he held that, with the acceptance of the essayists' views, the whole range of supernatural phenomena, whether miraculous or sacramental, would be subjected to " the universal solvent of criticism," and would leave " a residuum not particularly sacred,"—a record of the religious life of past ages, uttered " by the voice of the congregation." The idea of progressive revelation, as advanced by the essayists, he argued, would end in " the dreamy vagueness of pantheistic pietism," for if the tendency to minimize miracles was admitted, prophecy would no longer be authoritative, nor would the inspiration of Scripture be inclusive ; creation by the will of God would disappear before blind evolution ; the whole pagan world would be introduced to partake in a parallel scheme of revelation and discovery, and the foundations of religious and secular morality would be made insecure. This vigorous and able attack only added to the already overcharged state of the atmosphere. The authors had maintained a discreet silence since the publication of their volume. The volume itself was immensely popular; it was so popular that the printers could not print new editions rapidly enough to meet the popular demand. The situation was extremely tense, and feeling ran high. Addresses had been and were being sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the clergy urging him and the bishops to take steps to suppress the dissemination of the views expressed in the Essays and Reviews. The Bishops of Winchester, St. David's, and Oxford had already spoken out plainly in condemnation of the essayists. The rising tide of resentment stirred the archbishops and bishops to action. They held a meeting at Fulham on February ι, 1861, and agreed that an episcopal circular should be issued. On February 12

90

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a reply to one of the many addresses sent in by the clergy. The letter expressed disapproval of the views contained in the Essays and Reviews. It then referred to the fact that some of those views had been propounded by clergy of the church and declared that the prelates signatory could not understand how such opinions could be held with an honest subscription to the formularies of the church, with many of the fundamental doctrines of which they appeared to them essentially at variance. It also hinted at a resort to the ecclesiastical courts or a synodical condemnation of the book. 18 Although sounding no clear note of summons to action of any kind, the document was signed by both archbishops and twenty-four bishops, and was, therefore, of importance because of the quarter from which it proceeded rather than for its contents. The Convocation of Canterbury also took up the matter. On February 26, the Proctor for the Chapter of Christ Church, Oxford, Dr. Robert William J e l f , in the Lower House, moved that an address be presented to the Upper House praying " the official attention of His Grace and their Lordships to the volume . . . with a view to synodical action in reference thereto." He wished extracts from the book to be published, with answers to the extracts, accompanied by an official censure. He proceeded to give instances in detail, with quotations from the essays, of errors touching Holy Scripture, denial of inspiration, of miracles, of predictive prophecy, of the descent from Adam, of original sin, and of the Atonement. He commented severely upon the breach of sacred trust on the part of clergymen who, so far from " banishing and driving away erroneous and strange doctrines," were bringing them in. The motion did not find favor with the majority of the members of the Lower House, because they thought it an unwise one, especially in the face of the episcopal circular which they considered as a censure by the bishops. A f t e r much debate Dr. Jelf withdrew his resolu18 Guardian, February 20, 1861, p. 166.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

9I

tion. In its place the Lower House adopted a resolution which, after referring to the censure passed by the archbishops and bishops, expressed a hope that " the faithful zeal of the Christian Church in this land may be enabled to counteract the pernicious effect of the book." 1 8 This resolution was presented in the Upper House, and the bishops took the matter into consideration on February 28. A brief debate ensued, with no official action being taken, because the Upper House thought it necessary to obtain the concurrence of the Convocation of York. 2 0 The matter was taken up again by the Upper House on March 14. A f t e r a spirited debate, and by a vote of 8 to 4, the Upper House adopted a resolution " praying his Grace the President to direct the Lower House to appoint a committee to examine the said book . . . and to report whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to a synodical judgment upon the book." 2 1 The committee was appointed on the following day (March 1 5 ) . 2 2 On June 18 they submitted their report in the Lower House. In it they expressed the opinion that the leading principle of the book was that the truth of the Bible should be measured and determined by the standard of the present advanced knowledge possessed by the world, and that if the Bible should appear to be at variance with the conclusions of human intellect, the Bible must be taken to be a human utterance ; and that new rules of interpretation must now be substituted for old, if the credit and authority of the Holy Scriptures were to be maintained. They found that many statements and doctrines of Holy Scripture were denied, called in question, or disparaged in the book; that it was urged that many passages of the Bible might be understood upon the principle called " ideology; " that the creeds might be put aside as out of date ; that liberty was 19 Chronicle of Convocation (1861),

20 Ibid., pp. 458-472. 21 Ibid., pp. 551-572· 22 Ibid., p. 621.

pp. 364-413.

92

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

claimed for subscription to formularies without belief in them according to their plain and natural meaning ; and that holiness of life might be separated from Christian doctrine. A schedule was appended, quoting instances in proof.2" Upon the presentation of this report the Lower House proceeded to a consideration of the course to be pursued in reference to the book. A decision was finally reached on June 2 1 . A f t e r a prolonged debate, the Lower House, by a vote of 3 1 to 8, agreed that " there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to a synodical judgment upon the book entitled Essays and

Reviews."

24

This decision was then brought up to the Upper House. The bishops, however, decided (July 9 ) not to consider the subject further because of the institution of legal proceedings against Rowland Williams by the Bishop of Salisbury. 26 The institution of these legal proceedings was, in large measure, the outcome of the stand that the bishops had taken in February, 1861. By their joint letter they had, of course, pronounced a censure, which, although severe in terms, was informal and inoperative. Their delay in proceeding to a regular synodical censure gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they considered their spiritual jurisdiction to be subordinate to that of the temporal courts. Nevertheless the orthodox believed that the essayists ought to be punished in some way. Action in particular cases, however, was difficult. Goodwin had resigned his fellowship at Christ's College. Powell died in 1862. Pattison's preferment was a donative one, and was not, therefore, subject to episcopal institution. Temple, as the Queen's chaplain, was subject to neither ecclesiastical nor academic discipline, and Jowett was being attacked in his own university. But there was nothing to prevent action being taken against Rowland Williams. A s Vicar of Broad Chalke he was, of 23 Ibid., pp. 672-687, for the report in full. 24 Ibid., pp. 687-698, 742-770, 786-815. 25 Ibid., pp. 817-818.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

93

course, under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Salisbury. It was suggested that the bishop should judge Williams in his own consistorial court with a view to admonishing him if guilty of heresy and excommunicating him if contumacious. The suggestion was acted upon in principle; the Bishop of Salisbury instituted proceedings against Williams under the Chuch Discipline Act of 1840 by sending Letters of Request to the Court of Arches of the Province of Canterbury on June 1, 1861. On December 16, 1861, the Reverend James Fendali, at the instigation of the Bishop of Ely, instituted similar proceedings against Henry Bristow Wilson, author of " Seances Historique de Genève—The National Church." The two cases, known as Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams and Fendali v. Wilson, were, in great measure, conducted as one in the Court of Arches, June 25-December 15, ι862. 2β In both cases, Dr. Stephen Lushington, the Dean of the Court of Arches, drew a distinction between the opinions expressed by Williams and Wilson and the tendency of those opinions. It had been settled by a judgment in a previous case that all theological doctrines not clearly defined by the Articles of Religion or formularies of the church were open questions in the eyes of the law. Therefore the business of the court, considering that the proceedings were penal, was to inquire and pronounce whether the statements impugned by the plaintiffs were in contradiction to or inconsistent with the formularies of the church. It was not the business of the court to decide whether those statements were true or false, sound or unsound, edifying or dangerous, nor what was " the general impression produced by the publication of Essays and Reviews: a book like the Essays and Reviews might contain much deserving of censure, and yet the law of the church might not reach it." The court applied these two principles to the statements that had been 26 New Reports, Cases Decided in the Courts of Equity and Common Law, 1862-1863, Vol. I, pp. 196-213, Salisbury v. Williams, pp. 213-220, Fendali v. Wilson.

94

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

impugned by the plaintiffs. It held that the universalism charged against Wilson did not contradict Articles I X and X V I I I , because he did not say that men would be saved by the law they profess, and he neither averred nor denied they would be saved by the name of Jesus Christ. An implied denial of the genuineness of the Second Epistle of Peter was held to be not contrary to Article V I , because the purport of that article was canonicity, not authorship. The court censured Wilson for denying that the Bible was written by the special interposition of the Almighty Power (against Articles V I and X X ) ; for denying any distinction between covenanted and uncovenanted mercies (against Articles I X and X V I I I ) ; and for entertaining and expressing a hope of an intermediate state after death, and the final escape o f all from everlasting condemnation, as against the doctrine o f the Prayer Book and the creeds. Williams was censured for holding the opinion (against Articles V I and X X ) that " the Holy Scriptures proceed from the same mental power as has produced other works; " that the Bible was " an expression o f devout reason," and " the written word of the congregation " (against Articles V I and V I I ) ; and that justification by faith meant only the peace of mind or sense of Divine approval which comes of trust in a righteous God, rather than from " a fiction of merit by transfer " (against Article X X X I ) . 2 7 27 Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation: " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the C h u r c h . . . " Article V I I . Of the Old Testament : " The Old Testament is not contrary to the New : for both in the Old and the New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the L a w given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

95

The court pronounced judgment on December 15, 1862. The sentence in each case was " suspension ab officio and beneficio for the term of one year," costs against the defendants, with appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council granted. The defendants were heard, on appeal, before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, represented by the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Y o r k , the necessity to be received in any Commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free f r o m the obedience of the Commandments which are called M o r a l . " A r t i c l e I X . Of Original or Birth-Sin: " O r i g i n a l Sin standeth not in the following of Adam ( a s the Pelagians do vainly t a l k ; ) but it is the fault and corruption of the N a t u r e of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam ; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his o w n nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth a l w a y s contrary to the spirit ; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. A n d this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the L a w of God. A n d although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin." Article X V I I I . Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ : " T h e y also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the L a w or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that L a w , and the light of Nature. F o r holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." A r t i c l e X X . Of the Authority of the Church : " T h e Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith : A n d yet is it not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's W o r d written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the C h u r c h be a witness and a keeper of holy W r i t , yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so beside the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation." A r t i c l e X X X I . Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross: " T h e O f f e r i n g of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. W h e r e f o r e the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."

96

THE LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Bishop of London, and Lords Cranworth, Chelmsford, and Kingston. On February 8, 1864, judgment was given, in which all concurred except the two archbishops, who dissented on the question of inspiration.

The judges followed the same principles of judicial action which had guided the lower court. They decided, however, that it was not penal for a clergyman to maintain that " the Bible was the expression of devout reason, and therefore to be read with reason in freedom; " or that " the Bible was the written voice of the congregation ; " or to deny that " every book of holy Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is the W o r d of God; " or " to speak of merit by transfer as a ' fiction,' however unseemly that word may be when used in connection with such a subject; " or to express " a hope of the ultimate pardon of the wicked who are condemned in the Day of Judgment." These opinions were not penal, as it was held that they did not contradict nor were they inconsistent with the Articles of Religion or the formularies of the English Church. The court, therefore, reversed the decision of the Court of Arches. 28 The judgment produced a great outcry. It was hailed with delight by the latitudinarian party, because it was viewed as a victory for the right of free inquiry for the church, and with dismay by the orthodox, not only in England, but throughout the colonies, because the controversy had been followed with equal interest there. The defenders of orthodoxy indicated their disapproval of the judgment by drawing up a declaration, running as follows : " We, the undersigned presbyters and deacons in Holy Orders of the Church of England and Ireland, hold it to be our bounden duty to the Church, and to the souls of men, to declare our firm belief that the Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church, maintains without reserve or qualification the inspira28 Moore, Edmund, Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Judicial Committee and the Lords of His Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, 1863-1865 (New Series), Vol. II, pp. 375-434-

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

97

tion and divine authority of the whole canonical Scriptures, as not only containing but being the Word of God; and further teaches in the words of our Blessed Lord that the ' punishment ' of the cursed, equally with the ' life ' of the ' righteous,' is ' everlasting '." 29 Signed by upwards of 11,000 clergy, this declaration was then presented at Lambeth. An address of thanks to the archbishops for dissenting from the Privy Council judgment, bearing the signatures of 137,000 " l a y members of the Church of England," was presented at Lambeth within the month following the judgment in the Privy Council. The Convocation of Canterbury was also petitioned to recommend the creation of a new final court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes. In the midst of all this excitement and furor, the Convocation of Canterbury finally took the action necessary to a synodical judgment on the Essays and Reviews. On April 19, 1864, the Bishop of Oxford presented a petition praying the Upper House to proceed to a judgment upon such statements of the Essays and Reviews as bore on the inspiration of Scripture and the everlasting punishment of the wicked. On the next day he moved that the Upper House should take into consideration the message of the Lower House of June 2 1 , 1861, stating that " in the opinion of this House there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to a synodical judgment upon the book entitled Essays and Reviews." The motion provided for the appointing of a committee to report on the matter. After a prolonged and heated debate, the vote was taken. The ten bishops present were equally divided so the Archbishop of Canterbury cast his vote in favor of the motion.30 The report of the committee was presented in the Upper House and was adopted without division on June 2 1 , 1864. The Bishop of Oxford then moved to invite the Lower House to concur with them in the following judgment : " That this Synod, having appointed committees of the Upper 29 Cornish, op. cit., Part II, p. 232. 30 Chronicle of Convocation, 1864, pp. 1460-1463, 1489-1495, 1528-1575.

98

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

and Lower House to examine and report upon the volume entitled Essays and Reviews, . . . doth hereby synodically condemn the said volume, as containing teaching contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of Christ." The motion was immediately carried with only two dissentients.31 The Lower House also considered the matter. A f t e r three days of heated debate, they finally decided, by a vote of 39 to 19, to agree with the bishops in synodically condemning the book. 32 With this vote the deliberations on the Essays and Reviews were brought to an end in the Convocation of Canterbury. The decision carried no legal weight, because there was no means by which it could be translated into action. This state of affairs showed the impotence of the Church of England to deal with the authors of the Essays and Reviews as supposed heretics. Instead of suppression the controversy resulted in great publicity for the views of the authors. This weakness was a matter of grave concern both to the orthodox in England and in the colonies, because the controversy had reverberated through the churches in the colonies. It also showed the need of new machinery to handle such matters and thus brought the necessity for Pan-Anglican organization into prominence. T H E COLENSO

CONTROVERSY

While these events were taking place in England another controversy had arisen in South Africa that gave an even greater impetus to the need of Pan-Anglican organization— the Colenso controversy. This controversy arose primarily from a difference in religious views of the principals, Bishops Gray of Cape Town and Colenso of Natal. It commenced with arguments over faith and doctrine and in time gave rise also to 3 1 Ibid.,

p p . 1655-1683.

3 2 Ibid.,

pp. 1704-1734, 1744-1778, 1783-1833.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

99

arguments over organization. The latter arguments hinged entirely on the provisions of the Letters Patent of the two prelates and on the dates and the circumstances under which they were issued to them by the British crown. T h e issues at stake were brought before the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council and resulted in action that effected a drastic alteration in the status of the churches in the self-governing colonies because it destroyed the machinery which bound them to the church in England and the British crown. It will be recalled that the original diocese of Cape T o w n — the diocese of the Cape of Good H o p e — w a s created in 1 8 4 7 . A t that date the legislative authority of the colony was vested in the crown, so Letters Patent were issued by the crown to Robert Gray granting him episcopal authority and making him subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the same manner as a bishop of any see within the Province of Canterbury. 8 3 Upon his arrival at the Cape, Gray soon realized that the diocese was entirely too large to be under the jurisdiction of one prelate. He, therefore, decided that it should be divided, by creating two new sees, to be known as the dioceses of Natal and Grahamstown. With that end in view he sailed f o r England, arriving there early in 1 8 5 2 . A s the first step in his scheme to effect his contemplated reorganization he voluntarily resigned his see, thereby surrendering all the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the Letters Patent of 1847. On December 8, 1 8 5 3 , new Letters Patent were issued appointing him anew to the reconstituted See of Cape T o w n . These designated him " Metropolitan within the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope and its dependencies, and the Island of Saint Helena, subject nevertheless to the general superintendence and revision of the A r c h bishop of Canterbury f o r the time being, and subordinate to the Archiépiscopal See of the Province of Canterbury." T h e Bishops of Grahamstown and Natal were made suffragan bishops, and they and their successors were " to be subject and 3 3 Gray, C h a r l e s , Life of Robert Cray, Bishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of Africa, Vol. I, p. 154. Cornish, op. cit., P a r t II, p. 252.

IOO

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

subordinate to the See of Cape Town and to the bishop thereof and his successors, in the same manner as any bishop of any see within the Province of Canterbury was under the authority of the Archiépiscopal See of that province and the Archbishop of the same." M In the meantime Letters Patent, dated November 23, 1853, constituting the see of Natal, were issued to John William Colenso, a Cambridge scholar, brilliant mathematician, and a liberal churchman. They designated him Bishop of Natal and placed him and his successors under the metropolitical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Cape Town, by stipulating " that the said John William Colenso, and every Bishop of Natal, shall within six months after the date of their respective Letters Patent, take an oath of due obedience to the Bishop of Cape Town . . ., as his Metropolitan." 30 Colenso was consecrated at Lambeth, with Bishop Gray assisting in the ceremony on November 30, 1853 (St. Andrew's D a y ) . A t the ceremony Colenso took an oath of canonical obedience to Bishop Gray as metropolitan of Cape Town, in these words : " I, John William Colenso, Doctor of Divinity, appointed Bishop of the See and Diocese of Natal, do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Metropolitan Bishop of Cape Town and to his successors, and to the Metropolitan Church of St. George, Cape Town." 36 Prior to the issuance of these Letters Patent to Bishops Gray and Colenso, the crown had granted constitutions to the Cape of Good Hope and Natal. In consequence they secured representative legislatures, with the result that the crown ceased to hold the power in them possessed by the sovereign in a crown colony, and so it did not have the authority to create any jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical, in them. It is also to be noted that the Letters Patent were issued to Bishop Colenso before 34 M o o r e , op. cit., V o l . I l l , N e w S e r i e s . In re Bishop 3 5 Ibid.,

p. 143.

36 Ibid., p. 146.

of Natal, p. 142.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

ΙΟΙ

the issuance of Bishop Gray's new Letters Patent, i. e., while Bishop Gray was not legally bishop of Cape Town or metropolitan of South Africa. These points were of the utmost significance. They bulked large in the controversy and were a determining factor in its ultimate outcome. The relations between the two men were cordial at first despite a difference in personality and viewpoint on religious matters. Gray was a firm and narrowly orthodox high churchman. Colenso was combative, sanguine, and a hater of reticence. Moreover, he was so infatuated with figures and numbers that he had little or no imagination or elasticity of mind. His early reputation was that of a mathematician, for before his consecration he had written two widely used textbooks in arithmetic and algebra. He had no great respect for orthodox beliefs and for those who held them because he was a broad liberal churchman. Indeed his religious views were so broad that they were suspected of bordering on the heretical by Bishop Gray and other orthodox members of the church. Colenso had been brought up under Evangelical influences. In 1840 he began to change his views. This change was brought about through reading the writings of two men who were noted for their liberal theological ideas : John Frederick Denison Maurice and James Martineau. Maurice had been reared as a Unitarian. However, he joined the Church of England and was ordained in 1834. In 1840 he was appointed Professor of English History and Literature at King's College, Cambridge. In 1842 he published the first of his theological works, The Kingdom of Christ. It was this treatise that marked the beginning of the change in Colenso's views. James Martineau, nominally a Presbyterian, was a Unitarian philosopher and divine. In 1843 he wrote a series of discourses under the title of Endeavours after the Christian Life, which were an exposition of his theological philosophy. These discourses were read by Colenso and quickened his progress in liberal ideas. With the passing of time he became more and more influenced by the views of both these men, especially

I02

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Maurice. Maurice wrote several other theological works in the years following publication of The Kingdom of Christ. In them he gave a further exposition of his views, and repudiated the orthodox dogma of everlasting torment and the Atonement. The result was that he was sharply attacked by the orthodox in the church and was dismissed from his professorship at Cambridge in 1853. Just prior to Maurice's dismissal from Cambridge Colenso dedicated a volume of sermons to him in appreciation of his views. Under these circumstances it was not surprising that a churchman like Gray should view Colenso with suspicion.87 A rift appeared in 1855. Bishop Gray believed that Colenso was not acting in accordance with his episcopal office, particularly with regard to the difficult problem of polygamy among converts. Other causes for the rift were the fact that Colenso, according to Gray, had brought out too many ill-chosen laborers all at once to a work scarcely begun; had overstepped the extent of a bishop's power ; and had altered services of the church by omitting portions of the liturgy—e. g., Psalms, Lessons and the Litany, and by introducing others—e. g., a new offertory and prayer for the Church Militant, and a prayer for the heathen ; in short had acted as the sole legislator of the church.38 Once begun, this strained relationship widened and reached a breaking point with the publication of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Newly Translated and Explained from the Missionary Point of View, and Parts I and I I of The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined by Colenso in 1861-1863. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans combated the doctrine of eternal punishment and contained numerous other opinions that were considered unsound from the orthodox viewpoint. This is evidenced by the following extracts : 37 Cornish, op. cit., Part. I I , p. 246. Hunt, op. cit., p. 234. 38 Gray, op. cit., Vol. I I , pp. 395-396.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

IO3

Once for all let it be stated that there is not a single passage in the whole of the New Testament which supports the dogma of modern theology, that our Lord died for our sins, in the sense of dying instead of us, dying in our place, or dying so as to bear the punishment or penalty of our sins.*· And I cannot shut my eyes to the truth which these words ( " Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Romans VIII, 21) appear so clearly to imply, that there is hope in the counsels of Infinite Wisdom and Love for all. . . . Can we say, with these words of St. Paul before us, that such chastisement, however severe, may not be remedial ? 40 Bishop Gray's comments were severe. He stated that the commentary contained views that were similar in most respects to those of Maurice on the Atonement and to those of the Essays and Reviews on other points. He held that Colenso had propounded views on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Justification by Faith, Original Sin, the Sacraments, the Judgment, Eternal Punishment and Universal Salvation which were at variance with those of the church. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, urging that Colenso should be condemned, not by himself as metropolitan, but by the English bishops, and " that possibly the Archbishop qua Patriarch might try him." 41 The English bishops met in council in May, 1862, to consider the proposals of the metropolitan of South Africa. They expressed decided opinion as to the unsoundness of the book. No action, however, was taken. The prelates thought it unwise to commit themselves by expressing any public judgment, mainly because there was the possibility that the Archbishops of Can39 Colenso, John William, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Newly Translated and Explained from the Missionary Point of View, pp. 9 3 , 1 3 0 . 40 Ibid., pp. 1 7 s , 2 6 1 .

41 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, 2 1 - 2 2 .

I04

THE

LAIIBETH

CONFERENCES

terbury and York would be called upon to give judicial utterance on the matter.42 Bishops Gray and Colenso both returned to England. Colenso created a further sensation with the publication in London of

Parts I and II of The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined in October, 1862, and in January, 1863. The theories which he propounded in this work caused his commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans to be almost forgotten. A s a result of critical investigation Bishop Colenso arrived at the conclusion that only a small portion, if any, of the Pentateuch could have been written in the Mosaic a g e ; that the historical existence of Moses was doubtful ; that Joshua was an entirely mythical character; that there were independent and incompatible accounts in the Book of Genesis of the Creation, the Deluge, and other events ; that the Book of Deuteronomy was written as late as the reign of Manasseh; and that the Books of Chronicles were written long after the Captivity and were a fictitious story, put together for a special purpose. The major portion of the work was taken up with elaborate arithmetical calculations. These had to do with such matters as the measurements of the tabernacle, the camp in the wildnerness, the numbers of armies, the growth of population and similar statistical details. The work also contained numerous passages which caused offense. A m o n g them were the following : " The Bible itself is not God's W o r d : but assuredly ' God's W o r d ' will be heard in the Bible, by all who will humbly and devoutly listen for it." Colenso was of the opinion that Samuel was one of the authors of the Pentateuch and that " he appears to have adopted the form of a history, based upon the floating legends and traditions of the time, filling up the narrative, we may believe, perhaps to a large extent—out of his own imagination, where those traditions failed him." R e f e r r i n g to such passages as St. John V , 46, " F o r had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 42 Cornish, op. cit., Part II, p. 249.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

IO5

Me : for he wrote of Me," which introduces a question as to the limits of Christ's human knowledge, Colenso had no hesitation in pronouncing that " certain Divine knowledge was not granted to our Lord in matters of ordinary science or history; " that the " ordinary knowledge of Christ was nothing more than that of any educated Jew of his age ; " and he even suggested that " God may have been in error when He appealed to the Pentateuch as witnessing to His Divine Mission." 4 ' These statements caused a scandal throughout the whole of the Anglican Communion. In consequence the Bishop of Cape Town, the other bishops, the church, the law courts, and the public in general were confronted with the question of determining whether a man who professed such opinions ought to remain a bishop of the Church of England. The entire bench of bishops held several meetings. A t the first one on February 4, 1863, the following resolution was adopted : That, having regard to the grievous scandal to the Church occasioned by certain books published under the name of the Bishop of Natal, and not disavowed by him, we the undersigned, express our own resolution not to allow the said bishop to minister in the Word or Sacraments within our several dioceses until the said Bishop shall have cleared himself from such scandal.44 Another meeting, attended by virtually the entire English episcopate, as well as by Irish and colonial bishops, was held two days later. After a long and heated discussion, in which the Bishop of Oxford assumed a leading role in attack, and the Bishop of London a similar one in defense, the following address was drawn up and signed by all except the Bishops of St. David's and Cape Town. 43 Colenso, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, P a r t I, Preface, pp. x x x - x x x i i , pp. 13, 38-39. 48-52. 84-95. 353, 368, 383; P a r t II, pp. 185, 196, 238, 307. 34944 Gray, op. cit., V o l . II, 52, footnote 1.

Ιθ6

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

We understand you to say (Part II, p. xxiii of your Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined) that you do not now believe that which you voluntarily professed to believe as the indispensable condition of your being intrusted with your present office. W e understand you also to say that you have entertained and have not abandoned the conviction that you could not use the Ordination Service, inasmuch as in it you " must require from others a solemn declaration that they unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament," which, with the evidence now before you, " it is impossible wholly to believe in " (Part I, p. xii). And we understand you further to " intimate that those who think with you are precluded from using the Baptismal Service, and consequently (as we must infer) other offices of the Prayer Book, unless they omit all such passages as assume the truth of the Mosaic history " (Part II, p. xxii). Now it cannot have escaped you that the inconsistency between the office you hold and the opinions you avow is causing great pain and grievous scandal to the church. And we solemnly ask you to consider once more with the most serious attention, whether you can, without harm to your own conscience, retain your position when you can no longer discharge its duties, or use the formularies to which you have subscribed. W e will not abandon the hope that, through earnest prayer and deeper study of God's Word, you may, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be restored to a state of belief in which you may be able with a clear conscience again to discharge the duties of your sacred office;—a result which, from regard to your highest interests, we should welcome with unfeigned satisfaction.45 In the preface to Part I of The Pentateuch Colenso had intimated a willingness to resign, but upon receipt of the bishops' letter he reconsidered and did not comply with their advice. The Convocation of Canterbury turned its attention to the matter in February and again in May, 1863. The proceedings began in the Lower House with a motion suspending the standing orders " in order to the moving of an address, praying the 45 Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 51-52.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

IO7

Upper House to direct the appointment of a committee to examine Bishop Colenso's book on the Pentateuch . . . and to report whether any, and if so, what opinions, heretical or erroneous in doctrine are contained in the said book." *e The resolution was then sent to the Upper House. There were only six bishops present, and the motion for the appointment of the committee was carried by a vote of three to two after a lively debate. On the same day the committee, representing all the schools of theology in the Church of England at the time, was appointed by the Prolocutor in the Lower House, with Archdeacon Anthony Denison of Taunton as chairman. Their report, as drafted by Denison, was submitted in a greatly altered form to the L o w e r House in May. A f t e r considerable discussion a motion was made, seconded, and carried to the effect that á copy of the report should be forwarded to the Upper House, together with a respectful request that their lordships should consider the matter and take such action thereupon as they thought expedient. On May 20 the Upper House adopted the substance of the report with the following resolution : We, the archbishops and bishops of the province of Canterbury, in Convocation assembled, having considered the report of the committee of the Lower House, appointed on the address of the Lower House to examine a book entitled The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, by the Right Reverend John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, Parts I and II and now transmitted to this house by the Lower House, resolve: ι. That the said book does, in our judgment, involve errors of the gravest and most dangerous character, subversive of faith in the Bible as the Word of God. 2. That this house, having reason to believe that the book in question will shortly be submitted to the judgment of an ecclesiastical court, decline to take further action in the matter (at this time) ; but that we affectionately warn those who may 46 Chronicle of Convocation (1861-1863), P- 1010.

Ιθ8

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

not be able to read the published and convincing answers to the work which have already appeared, of its dangerous character and 3. That these resolutions be communicated to the Lower House. 4 1 T h e first resolution w a s carried with one dissentient—the B i s h o p o f St. D a v i d ' s ; the second, as amended, w a s agreed to by all but the B i s h o p of S a l i s b u r y ; and the third was carried nem.

con.*6

O n M a y 20 the L o w e r H o u s e accepted and concurred " in the judgment of the Upper H o u s e . " W i t h this action the deliberations on Bishop Colenso's book by the Convocation w a s brought to a conclusion. Bishop G r a y returned to Cape T o w n in A p r i l , 1863. B e f o r e his departure he consulted with ecclesiastical and legal authorities in E n g l a n d regarding an ecclesiastical trial. Difficulties were numerous. A s the book had been published in the B i s h o p of L o n d o n ' s jurisdiction, Gray w a s advised by eminent lawyers that until its sale in Cape T o w n could be proved, he could not act. E v e n then some one must institute the proceedings for him, because he could not act both as judge and accuser. 4 9 H o w e v e r , a month a f t e r his return to A f r i c a , G r a y received a

letter

f r o m the deans and

archdeacons

of

Cape

Town,

G r a h a m s t o w n , and George T o w n . In it were enclosed nine schedules in the f o r m of extracts taken f r o m Colenso's Paul's

Epistle

Pentateuch,

to the Romans

and Parts I and II of

St. The

charging Colenso with false teaching. 5 0 T h e deans

also urged Gray to take action. G r a y ' s reply was the issuance of a summons to Colenso to appear before him as metropolitan on N o v e m b e r 17, 1863, at St. George's Church, Cape T o w n , for the purpose of answer47 Ibid.,

pp. 1204-1205.

48 Ibid.,

p. 1208.

49 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 45. 5 0 Ibid.,

Vol. II, pp. 593-616, appendix iii, for these schedules.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

IO9

ing "to certain charges of false, strange and erroneous doctrine and teaching . . . in and by the writing, printing, and publishing, and the sale within this province . . . of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans . . . and The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined." 51 Meanwhile Bishop Gray became the defendant in a suit before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Rev. William Long, an incumbent of the parish of Mowbray in the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, had refused to obey certain orders given by Bishop Gray. The orders pertained to the convening of a second provincial synod, to be held January 17, i860. On October 1, i860, Gray addressed a letter to him, inclosing a copy of a pastoral letter that had been issued, and a copy of the printed regulations adopted by the synod for the election of deputies. Mr. Long was of the opinion that the convening of the synod without the authority either of the crown or of the local legislature would be an unlawful act on the part of the bishop; that the synod itself would be illegal, and " its acts of no validity." He declined, therefore, to take any steps for calling a meeting for the selection of delegates in his parish. For this he was first suspended (February 8, 1 8 6 1 ) , and then deprived of his license (March 6, 1861), by the bishop. Mr. Long appealed to the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope, which upheld Bishop Gray's acts by a vote of two to one. Mr. Long then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the final hearing on June 24, 1863, ^ w a s kid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the Bishop of Cape Town had no coercive power in invitos because " all jurisdiction given to him by the Letters Patent of 1847 had ceased by the surrender of the bishopric in 1852 and the issue of the new Letters Patent of the same," and also because the Letters Patent of 1853, having been issued after a constitutional government had been established in the Cape of Good Hope, were ineffectual to create any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical 51 Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 591-592, appendix ii, for this summons.

IIO

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

or civil, within the colony. All these pronouncements were based on a dictum that defined the status of the church in the colonies. Not unmindful of the changes in organization that were then going on in the churches in the self-governing colonies, the Privy Council held that : T h e Church of England, in places where there is no church established by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body,—in no better, but in no worse position; and the members may adopt, as the members of any other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing discipline within their body which will be binding on those who expressly or by implication have assented to them. It may be f u r t h e r laid down, where any religious or other lawful association has not only agreed on the terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the rules of the association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what shall be the consequence of such violation, that the decision of such tribunal will be binding when it has acted within the scope of its authority, has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, and if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles of justice. In such cases the tribunals so constituted are not in any sense courts ; they derive no authority f r o m the crown ; they have no power of their own to enforce their sentences ; they must apply for that purpose to the courts established by law, and such courts will give effect to the decisions of arbitrators, whose jurisdiction rests entirely upon the agreement of the parties. These are the principles upon which the courts in this country have always acted in the disputes which have arisen between members of the same religious body, not being members of the Church of England. They were laid down most distinctly and acted upon by Vice-Chancellor Shadwell and Lord Lyndhurst in the case of Dr. W a r r e n so much relied on at the bar, and the report of which in M r . Grindwood's book seems to bear every mark of accuracy. T o these principles, which are founded in good sense and justice and established by the highest authority, we desire strictly t o adhere.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

III

T h e court also held that M r . L o n g , by taking the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop and accepting a license from him, had voluntarily submitted himself to the authority o f the bishop, so as to enable the latter to deprive him for any lawful cause, such as in E n g l a n d would authorize the deprivation o f a clergyman by his bishop. B u t the P r i v y Council was o f the opinion that M r . L o n g ' s actions did not j u s t i f y the sentence o f suspension and the subsequent sentence o f deprivation, as it held that the synod's acts were illegal. T h e r e f o r e , the P r i v y Council reversed the decision of the lower court (the Supreme Court of the Cape o f Good H o p e ) . 6 2 T h e dictum in this case had tremendous effect on the development o f organization within the churches in the self-governing colonies. In place o f the oath o f canonical obedience they developed a series o f assents to the jurisdiction o f the metropolitan, and to the diocesan and synodical courts. T h i s put the legal position o f those churches on a consensual basis. In consequence they were freed f r o m Erastian control and became voluntary organizations, i. e., non-established churches. T h e decision in this case complicated the situation with regard to Bishop Gray's claim to ecclesiastical authority over the Bishop of Natal. I t was not clear whether that authority was held by virtue o f the Letters Patent or was inherent in the office of a metropolitan, as acknowledged by Colenso.

The

Bishop of Cape T o w n believed that he had this authority by virtue o f his metropolitical office. Despite this belief he had thought it right to take the best legal opinion he could get as to the extent o f his jurisdiction under the Letters Patent. H e consulted D r . R o b e r t Phillimore shortly before the trial. T h a t legal authority advised Gray, that in his opinion, " a unanimous decision of all the bishops of the Province o f Cape T o w n , all formalities being observed, would be valid ; and that the courts, whether of England or the Cape, would not sanction any mere 52 Moore, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 411-470.

112

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

technical objections, if they were satisfied that the rules of justice had been substantially and fully observed." A s the judgment in the Long v. the Bishop of Cape Town case had already been pronounced and published, Phillimore was of the opinion that " the metropolitan's authority was not invalidated by the nullity of the Letters Patent, his right as metropolitan ' being grounded not upon any independent and absolute jurisdiction, but upon the actual consent of the Bishop of Natal, and his recognition of Bishop Gray's metropolitical authority.' " " Bishop Gray decided to act on Phillimore's advice by bringing Colenso to trial in his metropolitan's court. The trial began on November 1 7 , 1863, in St. George's Cathedral, Cape Town. The metropolitan presided, assisted by Bishops Henry Cotterill of Grahamstown, and Edward Twells of the Orange Free State. The accusers were Dean H. A . Douglas and Archdeacon J . J . Merriman of Grahamstown and Archdeacon H. Badnall of George Town. Colenso, was not present in person (being in England) but he was represented by a Dr. Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek, the curator of the Gray Library, a German and not a member of the Church of England. The judgment was given by the Bishop of Cape Town on December 16, 1863, in the following terms: " We do hereby, sentence, adjudge, and decree the said Bishop of Natal to be deposed from the said office of such bishop, and to be further prohibited from the exercise of any divine office within any part of the metropolitical Province of Cape Town," . . . " A s the said Bishop of Natal is not personally present, and we desire to afford him sufficient opportunity òf retracting and recalling the extracts aforesaid, before the sentence shall take effect, we do suspend the operation of the said sentence, for the purpose of such retraction, until the 16th day of April next." 54 53 Cornish, op. cit., Part II, p. 253. Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 70-71. 54 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 640, the sentence in full.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

II3

Finally, the metropolitan stated that he could not recognize any appeal save to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and then only in his private capacity. He required that if such an appeal were made, it must be done within fifteen days after the date of the judgment against Colenso. As Colenso made no reply to Gray, the sentence was officially served upon him on May 30, 1864. Colenso appealed to the crown on December 14, 1864. His case was then referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (composed of Lord Chancellor Westbury; Lord Cranworth; Lord Kingsdown; Dean of the Arches, Dr. Stephen Lushington ; and the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly. The judgment in this case, known as In Re the Lord Bishop of Natal, was delivered on March 20, 1865. In delivering judgment Lord Chancellor Westbury began by referring first to the Letters Patent of December 8, 1853, issued to Bishop Gray, and the powers conferred (supposedly) upon him by them. He then referred to the Letters Patent of November 23, 1853, issued to Bishop Colenso, and to the oath of canonical obedience to Bishop Gray, as administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on November 30, 1853, at the same time pointing out that there was not really any metropolitical See of Cape Town or any bishop thereof at the time these Letters Patent were issued to Colenso or at the date of his consecration and canonical oath to Gray as his ecclesiastical superior. Moreover, previous to the issuance of the Letters Patent of November 23 and December 8, 1853, the district of Natal had been vested with a distinct and separate government. The judgment of the Judicial Committee hinged on three questions: ( 1 ) Were the Letters Patent of December 8, 1853 valid and good in law? ( 2 ) Was the coercive jurisdiction given by them to the metropolitan valid and good in law? ( 3 ) Could the oath of canonical obedience taken by the Bishop of Natal confer any jurisdiction enabling the Bishop of Cape Town to deprive ?

114

THE

LAIIBETH

CONFERENCES

T h e first a n d second q u e s t i o n s w e r e decided in the negative, a s the c r o w n h a d n o p o w e r in 1853 t o establish a metropolitical see or p r o v i n c e , the a u t h o r i t y o f w h i c h the c o l o n y w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o r e c o g n i z e . A l t h o u g h the c r o w n m i g h t c o m m a n d the c o n s e c r a t i o n o f a bishop, it could n o t a s s i g n h i m t o a diocese o r g i v e h i m a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n or coercive legal authority o v e r the s u f f r a g a n bishops or o v e r a n y o t h e r person. A s r e g a r d s the third question, it w a s n o t legally competent t o the B i s h o p o f N a t a l to g i v e , or to the B i s h o p o f C a p e T o w n to accept or exercise, a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n f o u n d e d on a contract or s u b m i s s i o n on the p a r t o f the B i s h o p o f N a t a l , such as m i g h t be implied f r o m the oath o f canonical obedience taken by h i m . N o r could the B i s h o p o f C a p e T o w n under the L e t t e r s P a t e n t o f 1853 g i v e appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n to the A r c h b i s h o p of C a n t e r b u r y , such as w a s g i v e n b y the ( i n v a l i d ) L e t t e r s Patent o f D e c e m b e r 8, 1853. T h e appeal could lie only to the c r o w n , w h o s e settled p r e r o g a t i v e it w a s t o receive appeals in all colonial cases. In

the l i g h t

rendered

the

of

these a r g u m e n t s

judgment

that

C o l e n s o w a s null and v o i d in

Bishop

the Judicial Gray's

Committee

sentence

upon

law. 6 8

R e p e r c u s s i o n s o f the decision w e r e felt t h r o u g h o u t the entire Anglican

Communion. W h e n

the n e w s o f

it reached

South

A f r i c a , the c l e r g y o f N a t a l held a m e e t i n g on M a y 3 1 , 1865, a n d resolved, w i t h one dissentient v o i c e , that they

( 1 ) con-

sidered the m e t r o p o l i t a n ' s spiritual p o w e r not to be affected b y the declaration o f the P r i v y C o u n c i l a g a i n s t the validity

of

L e t t e r s P a t e n t ; ( 2 ) received B i s h o p G r a y as their metropolitan ; a n d ( 3 ) w e r e satisfied o f the justice o f D r . C o l e n s o ' s degradation, a n d r e j e c t e d h i m as their bishop. T h e y also expressed a w i s h that the E n g l i s h a r c h b i s h o p s and bishops should select a bishop f o r them, to be consecrated by the metropolitan. In June, 1865, both h o u s e s o f the C o n v o c a t i o n o f

Canter-

b u r y v o t e d " the e x p r e s s i o n o f our h e a r t y a d m i r a t i o n o f courage,

firmness,

the

a n d d e v o t e d love o f the truth o f the Gospel

55 Moore, op. cit., Vol. I l l , pp. iiS-157-

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

115

as this church has received the same which has been manifested by him and them [i. e., Bishop Gray and the bishops of his province] under most difficult and trying circumstances." 84 The church in the United States concurred in the action of the Convocation of Canterbury by unanimously passing at its General Convention, held at Philadelphia, October 4-24, 1865, a similar resolution addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Cape Town. 5 7 The decision made the situation more complicated and difficult both for Bishops Gray and Colenso. Although Colenso considered himself acquitted by the judgment, he was, by that same judgment, no longer de jure Bishop of Natal. A s de facto Bishop of Natal, he was a member of a voluntary association only, and was subject to any rules which such associations might make, " rules for enforcing discipline within their body which will be binding on those who expressly or by implication have assented to them." However, no such rules had been drawn up, nor had any provincial synod sat. In considering himself to be the Bishop of Natal, Colenso's position was contradictory. H e appeared to recognize the validity of the authority of the metropolitan in some way. Y e t he denied the metropolitan's right to deprive him for heresy, and refused to acknowledge that the metropolitan's jurisdiction was comprehensive enough to deny him the right to appeal to the crown. There were constitutional grounds in favor of the metropolitan jurisdiction of the Bishop of Cape T o w n , in spite of the judgment of the P r i v y Council. A statute had been enacted during the reign of E d w a r d III, stating that " the Church of England is founded in the estate of prelacy within the realm of England; " that the crown has power to create bishoprics in its possessions beyond the seas; and that by the universal law of the church, a bishop has order and jurisdiction. T h e act, 56 Chronicle 57 Journal Protestant General

of Convocation, of

the

Episcopal Convention,

1865,

Proceedings Church 1865,

of

p. 2359. the

Bishops,

in the United

pp. 58, 152-153.

States

Clergy

and

of America,

of

the

Assembled

Laity

in

Il6

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

2 1 H e n . V I I I , c. 20, re-enacted by Elizabeth, also gave p o w e r to the c r o w n to create bishoprics beyond the seas, with the jurisdiction which in ecclesiastical law belongs to a bishop; and this power was part of the royal prerogative, and could not be impaired by acts of colonial legislatures. F u r t h e r m o r e , the ancient church rules with regard to prelates, so f a r a s it could be ascertained, had not been abrogated

by any

subsequent

legislation. Finally,

colonial bishoprics

had been created

by

Letters

Patent in such colonies as N o v a Scotia, Quebec, N e w f o u n d l a n d Tasmania,

and

New

Zealand

after

constitutions

had

been

granted to them. 58 It seemed, therefore, that this judgment would impeach the validity of all former Letters Patent f o r creating

episcopal

sees in self-governing colonies. A t any rate the c r o w n ceased issuing Letters Patent a f t e r the Long Town

and In Re the Lord Bishop

v. the Bishop

of

Cape

of Natal cases.

Colenso returned to Natal f r o m E n g l a n d in N o v e m b e r , 1865. O n his arrival he announced

that he would preach in the

Cathedral of M a r i t z b u r g on S u n d a y , N o v e m b e r

17. O n that

day, armed with an interdict f r o m the chief justice, he entered the cathedral, in spite of the protests of the churchwardens, and conducted the service and preached. Bishop G r a y took cognizance of the act by issuing the sentence of greater excommunication f o r e taking this drastic

(December 16, 1 8 6 5 ) . Be-

step Bishop G r a y

had appealed

Colenso in an unofficial letter to resign as B i s h o p of

to

Natal

(December 13, 1 8 6 5 ) ; that having " c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y departed f r o m the Faith of the Church of England, . . . as a religious minded man, you ought to openly admit this, and retire f r o m a post which not only implied that y o u held the Faith, but required y o u to see that others under you taught it," . . .

in

deference to " the general voice of the church as clearly expressed, not only in England, but by the synods of many colonial 58 Cornish, op. cit., Part II, pp. 257-258.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION",

185O-1867

II J

churches, and of the church in Scotland, . . . and the unanimous vote of the General Convention of the church in America." 5 ' Bishop Colenso replied on January i, 1866. He stated that as his commission was held from the Queen, he could not lawfully admit any other judicial authority, and that he could not refer his cause to judges who had condemned him already. However, he offered to submit his writings to the Archbishop of Canterbury, not personally, but sitting in his ecclesiastical court ; but he reserved his appeal to the crown. The See of Natal was vacant, according to the opinion of the clerical judges, on the legal side; so the trustees of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund stopped Colenso's salary. He then brought suit against them and obtained a judgment in his favor before the Privy Council (Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone and Others), November 6, 1866, for that tribunal ruled that the plaintiff retained his legal status as Bishop of Natal; that even though the Letters Patent might not confer upon him any effective coercive jurisdiction over his clergy, he could still enforce obedience by having recourse to the civil courts, and, as no allegation was raised in the pleadings against the plaintiff's character he was entitled to the income of the see.60 In the meantime, the clergy and laity of the See of Natal ignored Bishop Colenso. They proceeded to elect the Reverend William John Butler, Vicar of Wantage, to the see, under the title of Bishop of Maritzburg. Butler withdrew a few days later at the request of Archbishop Charles Thomas Longley, because troubles arose over the problem of his consecration, whether it should take place in England, Scotland or South Africa, and whether it would be legal, should he be consecrated. Bishop Gray, having thus been defeated in the law courts, then appealed to the Convocation of Canterbury to take action in his support. His appeal was in the form of a resolution, as 59 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 242-243. 60 The English Law Reports, Equity Cases Before the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors, V o l . I l l , pp. 1-60: Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone.

Il8

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

drawn up by a conference of clergy and laity of Natal which had been held on June 29, 1865. Addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Convocation of Canterbury, it asked their advice on these questions: " ( 1 ) Whether the Church of England holds communion with the Right Reverend Dr. Colenso and the heretical church which he is seeking to establish in Natal, or whether she is in communion with the orthodox bishops, who in synod have declared him to be ipso facto excommunicate, in consequence of the course which he is now pursuing; ( 2 ) Whether the acceptance of a new bishop on the part of the Church of Natal would sever the South A f r i c a n Church from the Church of England; and ( 3 ) W h a t steps should be taken by the diocese of Natal to obtain a new bishop?"61 These questions were debated by the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury on June 28 and 29, 1866. By a 5-4 vote they adopted the following resolution as their reply to the first of them: " It is the opinion of this house that the Church of England holds communion with the Bishop of Cape T o w n and with those bishops, who lately with him in synod, declared Bishop Colenso to be ipso facto excommunicate." 62 A s to the second and third questions, the Upper House agreed that " it is the judgment of this house that the existence of the Letters Patent would not cause the acceptance of a new bishop to involve any loss of communion between the members of the church in the diocese of Natal and the Church of England provided—first that the bishop be canonically consecrated according to the use of the Church of England; and secondly, that there be no invasion of the title of Bishop of Natal conveyed by her Majesty's Letters Patent," and that " it is the opinion of this house ( 1 ) That a formal instrument declaratory of the doctrines and discipline of the Church of South A f r i c a should be prepared, which every bishop, priest 61 Chroniclc

of Convocation

62 Ibid., p. 524.

(i860),

pp. 298-299.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

II9

and deacon appointed to office should be required to subscribe; (2) That a godly and well learned man should be chosen by the clergy, with the consent of the lay communicants of the church ; (3 ) T h a t he should be presented for consecration either to the Archbishop of Canterbury (if the aforesaid instrument should declare the doctrine and discipline as received by the United Church of England and Ireland) or to the bishops of the Church of South A f r i c a , according as hereafter may be judged to be most advisable and convenient." 83 The concurrence of the L o w e r House to these resolutions was obtained on June 29, i866. M These suggestions were acted upon by the diocese of Natal, the Reverend W . K . Macrorie, Vicar of Accrington, Lancashire, being chosen bishop in January, 1868. But the question of his consecration w a s a matter of great perplexity. T h e matter was finally adjusted when Bishop Gray, aided by the Bishops of Grahamstown, St. Helena and the Orange Free State, consecrated him as bishop of the church in Natal, with the title of Bishop of Pieter Maritzburg, on January 25, 1869. The last official act in the long controversy was the declaration by the Convocation of Canterbury in February 1868, that substantial justice had been done to Bishop Colenso, and that although the sentence could claim no legal effect, the church as a spiritual body might rightly accept its validity. Bishop Colenso died in 1883. U p to his death there was a schism in South A f r i c a between the " Church of England," which still considered him the legal bishop, and the Church of South A f r i c a , which supported Bishop Macrorie. Bishop Macrorie resigned his see in 1891. Both factions then agreed to entrust the choice of a successor to Archbishop Edward White Benson of Canterbury. T h e archbishop selected his domestic chaplain, the Reverend Arthur Hamilton Bayne. W i t h his consecration on September 23, 1893, the quarrel was brought to an end. 63 Ibid., pp. 595-596. Mt Ibid., pp. 604-641.

I20

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

T h e whole controversy, and especially the decisions of the P r i v y Council in the three cases dealing with the validity of Letters Patent, were of the utmost significance with regard to the relation of the churches in the colonies to the state in England. The controversy itself affected the relation between the churches in the colonies and the mother church, and made it all too apparent that the old machinery under Letters Patent had been destroyed. The foregoing account of this controversy shows the impotence of the Anglican Church to deal with supposed heretics, and the complications arising f r o m the changing relations between church and state. T o clarify the position of the courts in these cases it is necessary to review the provisions of the Letters Patent with regard to the authority, power, and jurisdiction granted by them to colonial bishops and to review the dicta of the courts with regard to this authority, power, and jurisdiction during the years 1 8 5 7 - 1 8 6 6 . Such a review should make manifest the need f o r new Pan-Anglican machinery following those decisions. Letters Patent were issued as grants of authority to persons appointed by the crown to be bishops or metropolitans of colonial dioceses and metropolitical sees. Those that were granted to the bishops of dioceses which were not in ecclesiastical provinces required them and their successors to take an oath of c a n o n i c a l o b e d i e n c e at t h e i r consecration to the Archbishop of Canterbury as their metropolitan, because they were subject to him and the primatial See of Canterbury, " in the same manner as any bishop of any see within the Province of Canterbury w a s . " This oath was only a temporary one, as it was understood that these dioceses would be incorporated into ecclesiastical provinces whenever that was possible. Letters Patent granted to a person appointed to be a metropolitan contained no provision requiring him to take an oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Instead, they stated that he was to be the metropolitan

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

121

of the designated province and bishop of the metropolitical see of that province, " subject nevertheless to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and subordinate to the archiépiscopal see of the Province of Canterbury ; " that the bishops of the other dioceses of the province were to be his suffragans; that they were to be subject and subordinate to him and to his metropolitical see " in the same manner as any bishops of any see within the Province of Canterbury was under the authority of the archiépiscopal see of that province and the archbishop of the same ; " and that the metropolitan was to exercise metropolitical jurisdiction over all bishops and clergy in his province. Similar differences were embodied in the provisions dealing with the subject of appeals in ecclesiastical causes. The Letters Patent granted to bishops gave them power to impose deprivation, suspension or any other punishment allowable by ecclesiastical law in ecclesiastical causes, but with the proviso that the aggrieved person could appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was finally to decide and determine the appeal. Letters Patent granted to metropolitans stipulated that appeals from the sentences imposed by the bishops of the province lay to the metropolitan first with appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The other provisions embodied in these Letters Patent were the same in all cases. They conferred upon the bishops to whom they were granted all the functions connected with that office. They designated them " corporations sole," gave them authority to purchase and enjoy real and personal property in perpetuity, and empowered them to prosecute and defend all claims and interests pertaining to their office. Powers granted to these persons were to be exercised only in their respective provinces and dioceses, and were to terminate when they voluntarily resigned their sees, when they were authorized by the crown to resign, when they were transferred to another province or diocese, or by death. The first attack on the authority granted by the crown in Letters Patent was voiced in the decision in Regina v. Eton

122

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

College, Queen's Bench, 1857. The case arose over the right of the crown to presentation of the living vacated by promotion of H. J . C. Harper to be the first bishop of Christ Church, New Zealand. If the diocese had been in England, there would have been no question that the vacancy should be filled by the crown, but the court held : " There is great difficulty in seeing that the Bishop of Christ Church in New Zealand has any jurisdiction except over those who voluntarily submit to his jurisdiction : and he really seems in this respect to be in the situation of a titular bishop whose promotion to be a bishop, all the authorities agree, gives the crown no right to present to his preferment. . . . The declaration shows no title in the crown and as the right to present to the living was the same as if the vacancy had arisen upon the death of the incumbent, it is our duty to give judgment for the defendants." "B The precedent set by this decision was made more explicit in Long v. Bishop of Cape Town, Privy Council, 1863, as previously quoted: " The Letters Patent of 1853, being issued after a constitutional government had been established in the Cape of Good Hope were ineffectual to create any jurisdiction ecclesiastical or civil within the colony." ββ Very definitely the trend in these decisions was toward relinquishing state control over the churches in the colonies. The exact status of Letters Patent was further elucidated by the Privy Council in the case In Re Bishop of Natal, 1864: The Letters Patent are sufficient in law to confer on Dr. Gray the ecclesiastical status of metropolian and to create between him and the Bishops of Natal and Grahamstown the personal relation of metropolitan and suffragan as ecclesiastics, yet it is quite clear that the crown had no power to confer any jurisdiction or coercive legal authority upon the metropolitan over the suffragan bishops or over any other person. 65 Ellis, T h o m a s F l o w e r , a n d B l a c k b u r n , Colin, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Court of Exchequer Chamber on Error from Court of Queen's Bench, 1857-1858, Vol. V I I I , p. 237. 66 M o o r e , op. cit., Vol. I I , p. 460.

PAN-ANGLICAN

ORGANIZATION,

185O-1867

I2ß

It is a settled constitutional principle or rule of law that although the crown may by its prerogative establish courts to proceed according to the common law, yet it cannot create any new court to administer any other law; and it is laid down by Lord Coke in the 4th Institute, that the erection of a new court with a new jurisdiction cannot be without an Act of Parliament. It cannot be said that any ecclesiastical tribunal or jurisdiction is required in any colony or settlement where there is no established church, and in the case of a settled colony the ecclesiastical law of England cannot, for the same reason, be treated as part of the law which the settlers carried with them from the mother country." Finally, in the case of the Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, the Court of Equity, 1866, allowed Bishop Colenso to keep the emoluments of his see, " although the Latters Patent might not confer upon him any effective coercive jurisdiction over his clergy." No wonder that after these judgments Letters Patent ceased to be issued by the crown in ecclesiastical matters concerning the self-governing colonies. W h a t could be the use? A s if all this disunion caused by the growth of new conceptions of the relation between church and state were not sufficiently disturbing, the Convocations of Canterbury and Y o r k changed the canons with regard to the subscription required of the clergy before ordination. T h i s required alteration of the thirty-sixth, thrity-seventh, thirty-eighth, and fortieth canons. 48 The canons changed had been in force since 1603, and the changes made were in the interest of simplification and omission of the acknowledgment of sole authority of the crown in ecclesiastical affairs. The subscription was changed from an oath to a declaration of conformity to the Articles of Religion, the Prayer Book, and a promise to use the forms embodied in that book. The changes made no trouble in England, but as the Convocations had no authority outside their provinces the churches 67 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 5768 Chronicle of Convocation, 1865, pp. 2053-2059 et seq.

124

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

in the colonies were left without this reform. The differences were enough to excite still more fears of disunion within those churches. The growth of the Anglican Communion and the British Empire had thus resulted in disintegration of the political bonds between the mother country and overseas possessions : synodical government in the churches in the colonies paralleled constitutional government in the same colonies. The loosening of the control of the mother country over the churches in the colonies as well as over colonial legislatures, a new emphasis on the autonomy of the constituent members of the Anglican Communion and the British Empire, demanded the creation of a Pan-Anglican organization : Lambeth Conferences, Imperial Conferences, and the British Commonwealth of Nations.

CHAPTER III T H E INAUGURATION OF PAN-ANGLICAN ORGANIZATION: T H E LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1867 BY 1865 the growth of synodical government in the churches in the colonies had reached a stage of development which made colonial churchmen increasingly sensitive to the need of a more effective form of organization f o r the entire Anglican Communion. A s has been shown, the decisions of the P r i v y Council had destroyed the efficacy of the Letters Patent, and the changes in canons made by the Convocations of Canterbury and Y o r k had further differentiated the churches in the colonies from the United Church of England and Ireland. Bishop John T r a v e r s L e w i s (Ontario) was among the colonial churchmen who recognized this need. In 1 8 6 4 he took the initial step toward the convening of the Lambeth Conference of 1867 and the inauguration of Pan-Anglican organization by proposing to the clergy of his diocese an assembly of the bishops of the entire Anglican Communion. This informal action was soon transformed into official action by the church in Canada. In the following year Bishop L e w i s introduced the suggestion in a slightly altered f o r m in the House of Bishops of the Canadian Provincial Synod. T h e proposal, embodied in two addresses, w a s unanimously adopted by both houses of the synod, and the two addresses were then sent out in the name of the synod. T o give the appeal a personal touch, and as a matter of courtesy, the first of these documents was addressed to Charles Thomas Longley, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of A l l England and Metropolitan, in the following words : May it please your Grace: We, the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Province of Canada, in Triennial Synod assembled, desire to represent to your Grace,

135

I2Ó

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

that in consequence of the recent decisions of the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council in the well-known case respecting the Essays and Revinvs, and also in the case of the Bishop of Natal and the Bishop of Cape T o w n , the minds of many members of the church have been unsettled or painfully alarmed; and that doctrines hitherto believed to be scriptural, undoubtedly held by the members of the Church of England and Ireland, have been adjudicated upon by the P r i v y Council in such a way as to lead thousands of our brethren to conclude that, according to this decision, it is quite compatible with membership in the Church of England to discredit the historical facts of Holy Scripture, and to disbelieve the eternity of future punishment ; moreover, we would express to your Grace the intense alarm felt by many in Canada lest the tendency of the revival of the active powers of Convocation should leave us governed by canons different from those in force in England and Ireland and thus cause us to drift into the status of an independent branch of the Catholic C h u r c h — a result which we would at this time most solemnly deplore. In order, therefore, to comfort the souls of the faithful, and reassure the minds of wavering members of the church, and to obviate, so far as may be, the suspicion whereby so many are scandalized, that the church is a creation of Parliament, we humbly entreat your Grace, since the assembling of a general council of the whole Catholic Church is at present impracticable, to convene a national synod of the bishops of the Anglican Church at home and abroad, who, attended by one or more of their presbyters or laymen, learned in ecclesiastical law, as their advisers, may meet together, and, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, take such counsel and adopt such measures as may be best fitted to provide for the present distress in such synod, presided over by your Grace. F.

MONTREAL

(Metropolitan,

JAS. BEAVEN, D . D .

President),

(Prolocutor)1

T h e second address w a s sent in duplicate to the Convocations of C a n t e r b u r y and Y o r k . It w a s much like the one sent to the Archbishop 1 Journal of England

of

Canterbury

of the Proceedings and Ireland

and suggested

of the Provincial

in Canada,

1865, p. 34.

Synod

that

in order

of the United

to

Church

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I2J

strengthen the connections o f the colonial branches with the mother church " means could be adopted by which the members of our Anglican Communion in all quarters o f the world should have a share in the deliberations for her welfare, and be permitted to have a representation in one general council of her members gathered from every land."

2

When the address first reached him, Archbishop Longley was not enthusiastic. Bishop Lewis, who continued to push the movement he had begun, made a trip to England on his own responsibility, after the adjournment of the Triennial Synod in Montreal. His purpose was to persuade the Archbishop of Canterbury that the condition o f the churches in the colonies warranted such a gathering as had been suggested by the Canadian synod. In Bishop Lewis' biography written by his wife is found this graphic description o f his numerous audiences with the Archbishop of Canterbury : Archbishop Longley listened very attentively to him, and then said that such a step as he proposed would be without precedent. The bishop replied : " That may be so, but let your Grade make a precedent." He shook his head, and again repeated " entirely without precedent," and then the interview was ended. The bishop, however, called on his Grace again and again, and eventually received a letter in the handwriting of the Archbishop, " thanking him for the honor of his calls and saying that he had seventeen bishops dining with him that night and he would be very pleased if the Bishop of Ontario would join the party ". . . . Of course he went, and, as usual, lost no opportunity of interesting the bishops in the reason of his being in England instead of Canada, and explained that the church in the colonies was ripe for such a gathering as that for which he pleaded. There were differences in the church which needed to be sought out and put right, and he ended by saying " Your Grace, do we not all belong to the same family ? Why should we not meet ? " 8 2 Ibid., pp. 6o-6i, for the address in full. 3 The Life of John

Travers

Lewis, D.D. by His Wife, p. 68.

128

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

H a v i n g promised " to think the matter well o v e r , " the Archbishop, as Primate of A l l England, sent a reply to the Canadian synod in December, 1 8 6 5 , in which he w r o t e : The meeting of such a synod as you propose is not by any means foreign to my own feelings, and I think it might tend to prevent those inconveniences, the possibility of which you anticipate. I cannot, however, take any step in so grave a matter without consulting my episcopal brethren in both branches of the United Church of England and Ireland, as well as those in the different colonies and dependencies of the British Empire. 4 This reply was made public as soon as it was sent. Although the Convocation of Y o r k remained aloof and took no action, the Convocation of Canterbury, in M a y , 1866, turned its attention to the Canadian proposal. The proceedings began with this motion : That a committee of this house be appointed to prepare, for consideration by the house, an address to his Grace the President, praying his Grace to take such measures as seem to him best for assembling in London a synod of the Anglican Communion. In the short debate which ensued, several of the speakers indicated their general approval of the contemplated synod. A t the same time they suggested that it should include representatives f r o m all the churches in communion with the Church of England ; deal with the problem of the reunion of Christendom ; promote unity among the several branches of the Church of E n g l a n d ; and make canons which would be binding upon the entire Anglican Communion. Moreover, they thought such a synod would answer the taunt of R o m e on the isolation of the English Church. T h e opponents of the idea pointed out legal and technical difficulties. T h e most important of these were : the question of royal assent, i. e., whether the Archbishop of Canterbury could legally summon an ecclesiastical synod with4 Davidson, Randall T., The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878 and 1888, P a r t II, p. 55-

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I2Ç

out the consent of the crown; or, if the proposed meeting were to be a council, as some of the speakers had designated it, whether, if the Archbishop of Canterbury should summon it as such, it would be in violation of Article X X I of the ThirtyNine Articles, which states that " General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes." 5 The second question concerned the representation of the laity, which was impossible in England, because of legalities connected with the establishment. The third was the question whether the crown would consent to " give its sanction to such a synod passing canons that would be binding on the English clergy, when part of that synod were subjects of a foreign state." The difficulty here was that the church in America was a member of the Anglican Communion, while the Convocations of Canterbury and York were the only legally constituted synods in England, and they alone could pass canons binding on the English clergy. The fourth question concerned the churches to be included in the proposed synod— were they to be " churches which speak the English language, or churches with which the Church of England was supposed to be in communion, whatever language they speak." 9 Beside all these difficulties, the Archbishop was being asked to take measures for convening a synod before the Convocation decided whether such a synod was desirable. Toward the end of the discussion the motion was voluntarily withdrawn, and the Lower House unanimously agreed to this substitute : 5 Article X X I — O f the authority of General Councils : " General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes, and, when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture." 6 Chronicle

of Convocation,

i860, pp. 266-290.

I30

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

That his Grace the President be respectfully requested to direct the appointment of a committee to consider and report upon the address of the Canadian branch of the United Church of England and Ireland, dated at Montreal, September 20, 1865.7 The next day, May 3, the Prolocutor of the Lower House appointed a committee of fifteen members, with Archdeacon Anthony Denison of Taunton as chairman.8 This committee ended their labors in June, 1866, and their report was read in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury on June 29. But action upon it was deferred until February, 1867, when its adoption in toto was rejected. Nevertheless, the essential features of three of its many recommendations were adopted. These were : that the proposed council should include the Scottish and American branches of the Anglican Communion as well as the United Church of England and Ireland, and the churches in the dependencies of the British crown; that it should be assembled by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and that it should comprise all the bishops of the Anglican Communion and any other persons whom the non-established churches might wish to select. While these events had been taking place in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury the annual meeting of the archbishops and bishops of the English and Irish Episcopate, held at Lambeth Palace, had commenced. Several colonial bishops and Bishop Henry John Whitehouse (Illinois), who were in England at the time, attended the sessions of this assembly. The subject of the Canadian address was discussed, and it was unanimously agreed that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be requested to issue a letter of invitation to all the bishops of the Anglican Communion to meet in London in September of that year, 1867. No formal action was taken in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury. On February 13, 1867, the Archbishop 7 Ibid., p. 290. 8 Ibid., p. 386.

THE L A M B E T H C O N F E R E N C E OF 1 8 6 7

I3I

of Canterbury, with a view to allaying the fears of the prelates present, stated that if he assented to the prayer of the Canadian petition, it would be on the full understanding that he would repudiate all idea of convening any assembly that could be justly called a synod, or that could enact canons or take action which would be in direct opposition to the authority of the crown. He then went on to say that he hoped that they might meet together with a view to encouraging each other under circumstances of considerable difficulty to the church, and particularly to the churches in the colonies. H e had found, he said, in the correspondence which he had had with the colonial bishops that they desired such a meeting in order that they might more clearly understand their relations to the Church of England and cement more fully their union with her. Finally, after calling attention to the fact that the report of the metropolitan and church in Canada was of that character, he stated that he could hardly feel himself justified in refusing a request which seemed so natural. 8 Another short debate was held in the Upper House on February 15. B y that time the action of the bishops at Lambeth Palace with regard to the meeting had been taken. However, doubts and difficulties still existed in the minds of the prelates. A g a i n Archbishop Longley took the utmost pains to diminish these. He began by stating that first of all it should be distinctly understood that no declaration of faith would be made at the meeting and no decision come to which would affect generally the interests of the church, but that they should meet together f o r brotherly counsel and encouragement, in the hope that the bonds which already existed between the churches in the colonies and the mother church might be strengthened. H e then asserted that he would refuse to convene any assembly which claimed authority to enact canons or to make any decisions binding on the church. Continuing, he said that he felt he was undertaking a great responsibility in assenting to the 9 Chronicle of Convocation, 1867-1868, pp. 646-647.

132

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

request of the church in Canada and if he saw anything approaching what was apprehended as likely to result f r o m the meeting, he would not be disposed to sanction it. He assured his brethren that he would enter on the meeting in the full confidence that nothing would pass but what tended to brotherly love and union and would bind the churches in the colonies, which were certainly in a most unsatisfactory state, more closely to the mother church. T h e discussion in Convocation in February, 1867, illustrates clearly the unprecedented character of the proposed conference. It illustrates also the typically English method through which an innovation in ecclesiastical organization came about. A week later Archbishop Longley issued the following invitation to all the bishops of the Anglican Communion, except Bishop Colenso. A t that time there were 144 of them: 4 archbishops and 36 bishops in England and Ireland, 8 bishops in Scotland, 45 English colonial bishops, 6 English missionary bishops, 39 bishops in the United States, and 6 American missionary bishops. LAMBETII

Right Rev. and Dear

PALACE, FEBRUARY 22,

1867.

Brother,—

I request y o u r presence at a m e e t i n g of the bishops in visible communion proposed

with

(God

the U n i t e d willing)

Church

to be holden

of

England

and

at L a m b e t h ,

Ireland,

under

my

p r e s i d e n c y , on the 24th of S e p t e m b e r next and the three f o l l o w ing days : T h e circumstances under w h i c h I have resolved to issue the present invitation are t h e s e : — T h e metropolitan and bishops of C a n a d a , last year, addressed to the t w o houses of the C o n v o c a tion of C a n t e r b u r y the e x p r e s s i o n of their desire that I should be m o v e d to invite the bishops of our Indian and colonial E p i s copate to meet m y s e l f and the home bishops f o r b r o t h e r l y c o m munion and c o n f e r e n c e . T h e consequence of

that appeal has been that both

houses

o f the C o n v o c a t i o n of m y p r o v i n c e have addressed to me their

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I33

request that I would invite the attendance, not only of our home and colonial bishops, but of all who are avowedly in communion with our church. The same request was unanimously preferred to me at a numerous gathering of English, Irish and colonial archbishops and bishops, recently assembled at Lambeth; at which, I rejoice to record it,—we had the counsel and concurrence of an eminent bishop of the church in the United States of America—the Bishop of Illinois. Moved by these requests, and by the expressed concurrence therein of other members both of the home and colonial episcopate, who could not be present at our meeting, I have now resolved,—not, I humbly trust, without the guidance of God and the Holy Ghost,—to grant this grave request, and call together the meeting thus earnestly desired. I greatly hope that you may be able to attend it, and to aid us with your presence and brotherly council thereat. I propose that, at our assembling, we should first solemnly seek the blessing of Almighty God on our gathering, by uniting together in the highest act of the church's worship. After this, brotherly consultations will follow. In these we may consider together many practical questions, the settlement of which would tend to the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and to the maintenance of greater union in our missionary work and to increased intercommunion among ourselves. Such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would greatly tend to maintain practically the unity of faith; whilst they would bind us in straighter bonds of peace and brotherly charity. I shall gladly receive from you a list of any subjects you may wish to suggest to me for consideration and discussion. Should you be unable to attend, and desire to commission any brother bishop to speak for you, I shall welcome him as your representative in our united deliberations. B u t I must once more express my earnest hope that, on this solemn occasion, I may have the advantage of your personal presence.

134

T H E

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

And now I commend this proposed meeting to your fervent prayers; and humbly beseeching the blessing of Almighty God on yourself and your diocese, I subscribe myself, Y o u r faithful brother in the Lord, C. T .

CANTUAR.10

One serious difficulty still remained, namely, the strong divergence of opinion among the English prelates with regard to the legal aspects of the Bishop of Natal's deposition and excommunication. Some of them, notably the Archbishop of Y o r k and the Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, Ripon, Peterborough, and Manchester, believing that the conference would only increase the confusion in which the church found itself because of the Colenso controversy, immediately notified the Archbishop of Canterbury of their refusal to attend. Others, including Bishop Connop Thirlwall of St. David's, a prelate who was on both sides of many ecclesiastical questions, accepted a f t e r the official agenda paper had been published, but only on the promise of Archbishop Longley that the Colenso a f f a i r would not be discussed at the conference. T h e invitation was accepted by 76 bishops, of whom 1 8 were English, 5 were Irish, 6 were Scotch, 2 6 were of the churches in the colonies, 1 7 were American, and 4 were retired colonial bishops. The American and colonial bishops went to England as soon as it was possible f o r them to do so. A m o n g this group was Bishop G r a y (Cape T o w n ) , who saw in the conference the possibility of securing synodical sanction of the course which he had adopted with regard to Bishop Colenso ( N a t a l ) . A f t e r the arrival of these prelates in England, a series of preliminary meetings was held to discuss and arrange the procedure f o r the conference. T h e principal task, and a most d i f ficult one because of the Colenso a f f a i r , was to make up an agenda paper which would conform to the conditions laid down 10 Davidson, op. cit., pp. 11-13. Guardian,

J u n e 19, 1878, p. 857.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I35

by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his speech in Convocation and yet make possible some settlement of the difficulties of the Bishop of Cape T o w n . The agenda, drawn up at the direction of Archbishop L o n g ley, were distributed in printed form among the bishops before the conference commenced, and also appeared in several of the London newspapers. They consisted of eleven resolutions. These were: Introductory Resolution, Notification of N e w Sees and Bishops, and Letters Commendatory, which were to be discussed under the heading of Intercommunion between the Churches of the Anglican Communion on September 24; Subordination to Metropolitans, Discipline to be exercised by Metropolitans, Court of Metropolitans, Question of Appeal, and Conditions of Union, to be discussed under the heading of Colonial Churches on September 25 ; and Notification of Proposed Missionary Bishops and Subordination of Missionaries, to be discussed under the heading of Co-operation in Missionary Action, along with a concluding resolution of thanks, on September 26. 11 These agenda formed the basis of the preliminary meetings, which continued to the date set for the opening of the conference. They were held at the offices of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and were attended by thirty-six bishops including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some of these resolutions, however, did not meet with universal approval. It was therefore agreed, with the expressed approval of the Archbishop, that any bishop might propose any amendment legitimately arising out of the program, provided that the subject matter was the same. It was also agreed that only bishops should attend the conference, and that a stenographer should be present to make a verbatim report of the proceedings—a decision reversed later. The question of introducing the Colenso affair was discussed more fully than any other. Although t h e r e w a s p e r f e c t unanimity among those present as to the spiritual validity of 11 Guardian, September 11, 1867, pp. 983-984-

I36

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Dr. Colenso's excommunication, nothing w a s decided with regard to introducing the matter, because of the difficulties in the way of dealing with it. However, Bishop Gray (Cape T o w n ) , who felt very keenly the untenable position in which the decisions of the P r i v y Council had placed him, in a long and very able speech urged the church, through the conference, to act on the subject. H e was supported by the Metropolitans of Montreal and New Zealand, as well a s by the Bishops of Ontario and Huron from Canada, and by those of Vermont, New Y o r k , Illinois, and some other dioceses f r o m the United States. The omission of any provision in the official agenda f o r discussion of the Colenso affair did not meet with the approval of the colonial and a majority of the English high-church Anglo-Catholic prelates. Determined to bring the matter squarely before the conference they met " in caucus " with the prominent Anglo-Catholic Archdeacon Christopher W o r d s worth in the Cloisters of Westminster Abbey on the evenings of September 19, 20, and 23 to arrange f o r united action. With a view both to making the group a more imposing one and obtaining additional support in their contemplated course of action they invited another outstanding Anglo-Catholic prelate, Bishop Hopkins ( V e r m o n t ) , the presiding bishop of the church in the United States, to join them. Although he was of the opinion that the Colenso matter ought not be ignored by the conference, he declined the invitation to join this group solely because he thought it indelicate for an American bishop to participate in meetings for opposing the Archbishop's program. 1 2 Undaunted by their failure to obtain the support of this most prominent and influential bishop, they proceeded to map out a plan of action. Taking advantage of the opening presented by the Archbishop's ruling in regard to proposing amendments legitimately arising out of the official program, 12 The Life of the Late Reverend John Henry Hopkins, First Bishop of Fermant and Seventh Presiding Bishop, By One of his Sons, pp. 411-412.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I37

they d r e w up n e w a g e n d a w h i c h w e r e more in accordance with their v i e w s . T h e s e a g e n d a w e r e in the f o r m o f a series o f nine resolutions, entitled r e s p e c t i v e l y : I. A l t e r a t i o n o f O r d e r ,

II.

C o n d i t i o n s o f U n i o n , I I I . Q u e s t i o n o f A p p e a l , I V . T h i s meeti n g to be f o l l o w e d by O t h e r M e e t i n g s , V . T i m e o f F i r s t Meeting, V I . C o n d i t i o n s o f U n i o n , V I I . C o u r t o f

Metropolitans,

V I I I . S c h e m e o f C o n d u c t i n g Elections o f Bishops, W h e n N o t O t h e r w i s e P r o v i d e d F o r , a n d I X . Declaration o f

Submission

to R e g u l a t i o n o f S y n o d s . I t is to be noted that R e s o l u t i o n s I I a n d V I h a v e the same title. B u t they w e r e not identical. T h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s will be made clear later, f o r both o f them were to be discussed by the c o n f e r e n c e . " It w a s also a g r e e d that a d v a n t a g e should be taken o f the A r c h b i s h o p ' s ruling by b r i n g i n g all these resolutions b e f o r e the c o n f e r e n c e at the second session on September 25, w h e n the c h u r c h e s in the colonies w e r e to be the s u b j e c t o f the d a y ' s discussion. T h i s plan w a s c a r r i e d out. It b r o u g h t about a complete c h a n g e in p r o g r a m , f o r these prelates w e r e to be successf u l in h a v i n g their resolutions supplant those o f the officiai a g e n d a . T h e result w a s that the C o l e n s o matter w a s b r o u g h t squarely b e f o r e the c o n f e r e n c e , f o r one o f their

resolutions

dealt w i t h the condition o f the church in N a t a l . T h i s action o n the part o f these colonial and E n g l i s h bishops is a n e x a m p l e o f the w a y in w h i c h the v a r i o u s g r o u p s f u n c tioned w i t h i n the A n g l i c a n C h u r c h , and s h o w s v e r y clearly the rôle that those g r o u p s played in A n g l i c a n procedure.

More-

o v e r , the tactics used by these bishops to c i r c u m v e n t successfully

the

wishes

of

the

Archbishop

make

manifest

the

latitude that prelates o f the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n e n j o y e d a s well as s h o w that the a u t h o r i t y o f the A r c h b i s h o p w a s not merely u n e n f o r c e a b l e , but w a s actually a nominal one, even t h o u g h he w a s the titular h e a d o f the C o m m u n i o n . T h i s contrasts sharply w i t h the decree o f the V a t i c a n C o u n c i l o f 1870, 13 Guardian, J u n e 26, 1878, p. 889.

138

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

which recognized the pope as the possessor of a supremacy that is direct, immediate, and universal. A n unpleasant incident occurred immediately before the conference assembled. This was Dean Arthur Stanley's refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury's request for the use of Westminster Abbey for a special service on September 28 to bring the conference to a close. The dean justified his refusal on the ground that the conference only partially represented the Church of England, because of the absence of the Primate of Y o r k and the majority of the bishops of the Province of Y o r k , as well as that of the bishops of India and Australia and other important colonial and missionary bishops. A s further reason for his refusal, he stated that " the absence of any fixed information as to the objects to be discussed and promoted by the conference, leaves me . . . in uncertainty as to what would be the proposals or measures which would receive, by implication, the sanction given by the use of the A b b e y — a sanction which in the case of a church so venerable and national in character ought . . . to be lent only to public objects of well defined or acknowledged beneficence." 14 T h e dean offered as a substitute to have a special service on either the morning or afternoon of September 28 which could be attended by the prelates of the conference as individuals. T h i s is very interesting evidence of the latitude in discipline in the English hierarchy. Westminster is a " Royal Particular," the dean being appointed directly by the crown ; it is, therefore, outside of the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and is competent to make an independent decision on the use of the Abbey. T h e stand taken by the dean, moreover, illustrates the independence of the Anglican clergy in relation to their bishops ; it contrasts sharply with Roman discipline. 14 Davidson, op. cit., p. 102. T h i s w a s in a letter which D e a n Stanley had written t o the Archbishop of Canterbury on September 21. Guardian, June 19, 1878, p. 858, for the correspondence between the Archbishop of Canterbury and D e a n Stanley regarding the use of the Abbey for the closing service of the conference.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I39

Articles began to appear meanwhile in the London press and continued until long after the conference had adjourned. They were concerned with the conference itself, the " Encyclical Letter," the official resolutions, and the committee reports. Naturally, there was a wide divergence of opinion, ranging from avowed hostility and disapproval to whole-hearted approval. The Times believed that the conference could not be productive of beneficial results, but would cause harm and mischief. All its articles were depreciatory in character. This was not surprising, for it was noted for its outspoken articles on all matters of public interest. A s a result it had often been wrong in its judgment of such matters, and events were to prove that that was to be the case in this instance.15 On September 14, in an editorial it said: We need not urge the obvious fact that it is an imitation of those great assemblages of the Roman Catholic hierarchy which the present Pope delights to gather. . . . We feel some surprise at the outset to observe that the deliberations of the assembly are to be confined to three days ; each day, of course, being curtailed by unavoidable preliminaries at the commencement, and by natural conviviality at its close.1* On the other hand, the religious weeklies, like the Guardian and the Church Times, expressed guarded approval. The Guardian of September 18 said: The proceeding of the conference next week cannot but be regarded with the greatest interest by churchmen of every shade. The time allotted is short for the discussion of large questions; but had it been only for a day, we do not believe that such a conference could take place without good resulting to the Church of England at home and abroad.17 15 Cook, Edward, Delane of the Times. 16 Times, September 14, 1867, p. 8. 17 Guardian, September i8, 1867, p. 989.

I40

THE

LAMBETH

THE

CONFERENCES

C O N F E R E N C E OF

1867

The conference commenced on September 24 at eleven o'clock with prayers and the celebration of the Holy Communion at Lambeth Palace Chapel. It was stated at the time that the bread was made from corn grown at Bethlehem, and that the wine was brought from Jerusalem. At this service the sermon was preached by an American prelate, the Right Reverend H . J. Whitehouse, Bishop of Illinois, whose text was " W h o now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" (Colossians I, 24). This sermon was described by the Bishop of London, as " wordy, but not devoid of a certain kind of impressiveness." After this opening service, the prelates assembled in the upstairs dining hall, or " guard room ", of Lambeth Palace, where the meetings of the conference were held. Archbishop Marcus Gervais Beresford (Armagh), Primate of Ireland, Bishop Archibald Campbell Tait (London), Bishop John H . Hopkins (Vermont), Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and Bishop Robert Eden (Moray, Ross and Caithness), Primus of Scotland, sat on the Archbishop of Canterbury's right; on his left sat Archbishop Richard Chenevix Trench (Dublin), Bishop Francis Fulford (Montreal), Metropolitan of Canada, Bishop George A. Selwyn, Metropolitan of New Zealand, and Bishop Robert Gray (Cape T o w n ) , Metropolitan of South Africa. The other bishops sat in a body before them, without any special designation or order or place. The opening address was made by Archbishop Longley, as president of the conference. In it he indicated the character and purposes of the conference: It has never been contemplated that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I4I

merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action. Thus it will be seen that our first essay is rather tentative and experimental, in a matter in which we have no distinct precedence to direct us. 18 T h e first item of business considered by the conference w a s D e a n Stanley's o f f e r of W e s t m i n i s t e r A b b e y f o r the service on September 28, under the conditions suggested by him to A r c h b i s h o p L o n g l e y . T h e invitation w a s rejected immediately, with only nine bishops v o t i n g in f a v o r of it. It w a s agreed that the closing service should be held in L a m b e t h Church, a f t e r the conference had been informed that the rector of L a m b e t h was willing. After

the appointment

of

the B i s h o p of

Gloucester

and

Bristol as the episcopal secretary, the conference directed its attention to the resolutions of the agenda. A l t h o u g h there were three of them for the first day, the consideration of the

first,

the Introductory Resolution, consumed the entire session, because of the special importance attached to that resolution. It was a preamble to the subsequent resolutions and described in general terms the standpoint of the A n g l i c a n Church. It stated that: W e , Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, professing the faith of the primitive and undivided church, as based on Scripture, defined by the first four general councils, ( A ) and reaffirmed by the fathers of the English Reformation, now assembled by the good providence of God at the archiépiscopal palace of Lambeth, under the presidency of the Primate of All England, desire, first to give hearty thanks to Almighty God for having thus brought us together for common counsels and united worship ; secondly, we desire to express the deep sorrow with which we view the divided condition of the flock of Christ throughout the w o r l d ; and lastly, we do here solemnly declare our belief that the best hope of future 18 D a v i d s o n , op. cit., p. 79. F o r the a d d r e s s in full, s e e pp. 77-82. J u n e 19, 1878, pp. 857-858 : f o r the a d d r e s s in full.

Guardian,

142

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

reunion will be found in drawing each of us for ourselves closer to our common Lord, in giving ourselves to much prayer and intercession, in the cultivation of a spirit of charity, and in seeking to diffuse through every part of the Christian community that desire and resolution to return to the faith and discipline of the undivided church which was the principle of the English Reformation. ( A ) S e e I Eliz., c. i, s. xxxvi. 18 The discussion was wide in scope, with all the leading bishops participating in it. Numerous amendments were introduced suggesting verbal alterations for the resolution in its original form had been criticized in several quarters. Three of the amendments recommended changes in wording of the opening clause. One of them was by Bishop Hopkins (Vermont), who moved to change the word " four " to " six " on the ground that " four " was an unnecessary limitation, since the first four general councils were not, in his opinion, by any means a complete exposition of the faith of the church. 20 Another was proposed by Bishop Whitehouse (Illinois), namely, to omit both the reference to the number of councils and the footnote 19 Guardian, September n , 1867, p. 983. 1 Eliz., c. I, s. x x x v i : " Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, T h a t such person or persons to whom your Highness, your heirs or successors, shall hereafter by Letters Patents, under the great seal of England, give authority to have or execute any jurisdiction, power or authority spiritual, or to visit, reform, order or correct any errors, heresies, schisms, abuses or enormities by virtue of this act, shall not in any wise have authority or power to order, determine or a d j u d g e any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as hereofore have been determined, ordered or adjudged to be heresy, by the authority of the canonical scriptures, or by the first four general councils, or any of them, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to be heresy by the high court of parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation ; anything in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding." 20 T h e councils in question were : F i r s t Nicaea, 325 A. D. ; First Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Second Constantinople, 553; Third Constantinople, 680.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I43

" See I Eliz., c. i , s. x x x v i ", so that the sentence would read " as based on Scripture, defined by the general councils ". This amendment was justified on the ground that it avoided the difficulty of specifying the number of general councils, and would leave the authority of the church in full force. The third amendment was moved by Bishop Sumner (Winchester), who took exception to the phrase " primitive and undivided church as based on Scripture " as not being in accordance with the formularies and history of the Church of England. He, therefore, moved that the opening clause be changed so that it would read : We, the Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church in visible communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, professing the faith delivered to us in Holy Scripture, maintained by the primitive church, etc.21 The proposed changes embodied in these amendments were an exemplification of the belief of the various schools of religious thought within the Anglican Communion on the subject of general councils and their relation to Anglican standards of doctrine and belief. Both questions were of such importance that it was not surprising that there was a great diversity of opinion with regard to them on the part of the prelates participating in the debate which ensued. Opinion was sharply divided on the opening clause. Bishop Thirlwall ( S t . D a v i d ' s ) , who belonged to the liberal Evangelical group in the church, believing the entire discussion unprofitable and a waste of time, indicated complete disapproval, and suggested the omission of the whole clause by striking out all the words after the word " w e " on the ground that " what the bishops of the Church of England hold or do not hold is a rather strange thing to define in 1867 ". Some of the other bishops also disapproved of the opening clause, but only because they considered it to be inconsistent with the Anglican standards of belief. Others supported it on the ground that the 21 Guardian, June 19, 1878, pp. 858.

144

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

statements contained in it were the doctrine of the Church of E n g l a n d since the E n g l i s h canons directed the clergy " to preach according to the ancient fathers " . T h e amendments of the Bishops o f V e r m o n t and Illinois were hardly discussed. T h e f o r m e r w a s acceptable to only a f e w of the prelates in attendance; while the latter, although not meeting with general approval, w a s not discussed at all. T h e B i s h o p of W i n c h e s t e r ' s amendment received the most attention. Opinion w a s even more sharply divided with regard to it than on the opening clause. T h e B i s h o p s o f

Ely,

St.

A n d r e w s , and L l a n d a f f opposed it. T h e i r objections were based on the f e a r of the ambiguity of teaching with respect to general councils in the Greek, R o m a n , and A n g l i c a n Communions, and the effect on R o m a n Catholic opinion. B i s h o p T a i t

(London),

a leader of the Evangelicals, opposed it too, as he w a s of the opinion that it proposed a new rule of faith. Bishop G r a y ( C a p e Town),

a churchman

w h o belonged

to the

Anglo-Catholic

group, f a v o r e d it. H e did not wish to see all reference to general councils eliminated. H e believed that, as worded, it precluded the adoption of the particular councils acknowledged by the Greek and R o m a n Churches. In support of these v i e w s and in refutation of the arguments against any mention of general councils he cited the f o l l o w i n g f r o m the Convocation of 1 5 3 6 : " t h a t nothing w a s better instituted by the ancient fathers, f o r the establishment of the faith, the extirpation of heresies, the healing of schisms, and the unity of the Christian Church than general councils gathered in the H o l y Ghost, duly called to an indifferent place with other necessary requisites ". T h e debate on the opening clause and these amendments w a s finally

brought to a close, f o l l o w i n g some conciliatory remarks

by B i s h o p W i l b e r f o r c e

(Oxford)

in which he suggested the

elimination of all reference to general councils in the interest of harmony. T h e Bishop of Illinois withdrew his amendment. T h e Bishop of Winchester's amendment was put. T h e opening clauses as amended were then carried by a vote of 38 to 2 1 . 2 1 2 2 Ibid.,

June 19, 1878, p. 859.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I45

After the adoption of the first clause, the conference proceeded to a consideration of the remaining clauses of the introductory resolution. In the debate which ensued there was discussion on both the suggested amendments and the clauses themselves, for some of the former provided for additions to clause two; others proposed verbal changes in clause three. The first of the former was introduced by Bishop Sumner (Winchester). Believing the reference to their regret was " somewhat cold " and " not in harmony with the object of the meeting ", he suggested the addition of a prayer in the following words at the end of clause two " as a means of removing those difficulties " : and our earnest prayer that an affectionate intercommunion should be established between all those who profess and call themselves Christians, amongst whom the pure Word of God is preached and sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance.23 He justified the addition of these words as " an expression of their sorrow " as well as pointing out the mode by which they could have more affectionate intercommunion, be brought more closely together and so lessen the difficulties which they deplored. Even with this explanation the amendment did not meet with universal approval. Those objecting to it did so in the belief that it was " just so many meaningless words " and that " it was inconsistent with the preceding clause " which had already been agreed to by the conference. Another amendment was proposed by Bishop Thirlwall (St. David's). Objecting to the whole resolution, he was of the opinion that its order might be transposed with advantage. The second clause was acceptable to him, but he thought there was an inconsistency between the beginning and the end of the last clause. This inconsistency lay in the fact that they expressed 23 Ibid., June 19, 187«, p. 859.

146

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

themselves in terms which seemed to imply that the prospect o f reunion was, humanly speaking, impossible in that they could " only hope " and that their ' 4 best hope " consisted in the exercise of faith, hope and charity, while at the end o f that clause they seemed to say that their best hope " consists in seeking to diffuse through every part o f Christendom that desire and resolution to return to the faith and principle o f the undivided church, which was the principle o f the English Reformation " . He, therefore, suggested that the third clause be omitted and moved, as a means by which they thought reunion might be effected, the addition of the following words to clause two : And earnestly long and pray for a return to the faith and discipline of the undivided church which was the principle of the English Reformation." This amendment received little or no attention. The debate still continued on the Bishop o f Winchester's motion. Bishop Fulford ( M o n t r e a l ) disapproved of it because it was not apparent to what body it applied, for neither in the Church o f Rome nor in any of the Protestant bodies on the continent were the sacraments duly administered or the pure W o r d o f God preached according to the Anglican Church. " Did the right reverend prelate mean the Greek C h u r c h ? " Since he disapproved the Bishop of Winchester's proposal, he proposed the following : And, lastly, we do here solemnly declare our belief that the best hope of future reunion will be found in maintaining in its purity and integrity the faith as we have received it in the creeds, and in drawing each of us for ourselves, etc.25 The Bishop of Winchester's motion was favored by the Bishop of London, because it expressed the reason why there 24 Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859. 25 Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I47

should be no return to Rome, " namely that the pure W o r d o f God was not preached nor the sacraments duly administered in her Communion." The Bishop of Winchester attempted to refute the Bishop of Montreal's objection by claiming that the clause had no reference to reunion, because it did not apply to any Christian body, but to individuals whom they should be anxious to bring to a closer communion with one another. Bishop Ollivant ( L l a n d a f f ) believed that the inconsistency of the original clause would be avoided by a single reference to the Lord's own words. A f t e r alluding to the fact that in the former part of the resolution they had desired to express the deep sorrow with which they viewed the divided state of Christ's flock, he then asked if they could not add their hope that the prayer of their Lord might be fulfilled. Therefore, he proposed as a motion that the following words should be added after clause two : Heartily longing for the time when our Saviour's prayer may be fulfilled, " That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me." 28 A final suggestion was made by Bishop Butcher that:

(Meath)

W e do solemnly declare our belief that the only solid basis for future reunion is agreement in faith and discipline with the primitive and undivided church, and for its promotion we declare we will give ourselves to much prayer. 27 The debate continued. Eventually, the Bishop of Llandaff's motion was put, and " 45 hands appeared in its favor, which was so large a majority that the ' noes ' were not counted." Immediately after this vote the Bishop of Winchester formally withdrew his amendment. 28 26 Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859. 27 Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859. 28 Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859.

I48

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

T h e remainder of the session was taken up with discussing the last clause of the resolution. A t 5 :3ο P. M . the President pronounced the benediction and declared the meeting adjourned. The second day's session, Wednesday, September 25, began with a continuation of the discussion of the introductory resolution. Several other amendments were proposed. Finally, the conference agreed to refer all of them to a committee which was composed of Archbishop Longley and Bishops Tait ( L o n d o n ) , Sumner (Winchester), Wilberforce ( O x f o r d ) , Browne ( E l y ) , Wordsworth (St. A n d r e w s ) , Eden (Moray, Ross and Caithness), Gray (Cape T o w n ) , Cotterill (Grahamst o w n ) , Selwyn ( N e w Zealand), Atkinson (North Carolina) and Mclllvaine ( O h i o ) . The committee was composed evidently of those prelates who had expressed strong views on the subject. 2 " W i t h the sanction of the President, but without a vote of the conference, and over the strenuous protest of several bishops, the series of resolutions which had been agreed upon by the Anglo-Catholic English and colonial bishops in the preliminary meetings of September 19, 20, and 23 at the residence of Archdeacon Wordsworth were then substituted for those of the official agenda. This change in procedure was the result of some conversations behind the scenes between Archbishop Longley and those bishops. During the course of the conversations the latter had made known their resolutions to him and had succeeded in extracting a promise from him to allow them to be considered instead of those of the official agenda. T h i s action by the Archbishop sprang from the realization that their resolutions, even though one of them dealt with the condition of the church in Natal, could not be completely ignored either by him or by the conference. Moreover he was not unaware that those Anglo-Catholic bishops were among the most illustrious and influential of the Anglican Episcopate and that a great many 2d Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 859.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I49

of them had played a very prominent role in bringing the conference into being. Finally he had become convinced that if he did not accede to their wishes, he would be charged with partisanship by them, since he was an Evangelical liberal churchman with personal predilections favorable to Bishop Colenso. In consequence these were the compelling reasons for his decision and also the explanation for it. This change in procedure thus diverted the discussions into an unexpected channel. On the motion of Bishop Selwyn, seconded by Bishop Gray (Cape T o w n ) , it was unanimously agreed that Resolutions II and V I of this new program should be considered first by the conference. As a result, a lengthy discussion of unity of faith and discipline in the Anglican Communion, under the heading of " Established and Non-Established Churches ", occupied the attention of the conference for the major portion of the remainder of the session. Section " a " of Resolution II (Conditions of Union) served as the basis of this discussion. It stated : That in the opinion of this Conference " Unity of Faith," and fellowship in the one Body of Christ, will be best maintained among the several branches of the Anglican Communion in the manner already pointed out by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury : viz., by the due and canonical subordination of the synods of the several branches to the higher authority of the synods above them, the diocesan synod being recognized as inferior to the provincial synod, and the provincial synod to some higher synod or synods of the Anglican Communion.30 This would have been acceptable to all present, had the last phrase been omitted. Its inclusion largely accounted for the lengthy discussion on that section of the resolution. As was to be expected, the colonial bishops who had been instrumental in drawing it up joined forces in urging the conference to adopt it. They were doomed to disappointment be30 Ibid.,

June 26, 1878, p. 889.

ISO

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

cause the conference would not sanction the proposition in that form. Bishop Fulford (Montreal) commenced the proceedings by stating that the section in question had involved considerable thought on the part of the colonial bishops who had drawn it up in the preliminary meetings held at Archdeacon Wordsworth's residence. H e informed the conference that those bishops had unanimously adopted it. Having disposed of these preliminaries, he began the discussion by remarking that their experience had led them to believe that their synods formed a good practical way of carrying on the discipline and of giving a true expression of the mind of their respective churches. In conclusion he voiced the opinion that if those synods could be brought into connection with the other branches of the church, they would constitute a bond of union and the only bond of union practical in the situation in which the churches in the colonies found themselves placed as a result of the dictum in the case of Long v. The Bishop of Cape Town. In refutation of these arguments, Bishop Thirlwall (St. David's), as the principal opponent of the resolution, voiced his objections. H e thought it was " utterly impractical ", and was " the expression of a desire which the conference had no means whatever of carrying into practical effect." He believed it was the expression of an opinion which, unfortunately, in the matter of result, would have no weight. In his judgment it was a topic on which they could not even speak with authority. H e believed that what they were really invited to do was nothing less than to extemporize the organization of an entirely new body, under the name of the Anglo-Catholic Church, and such a body, he said, remained to be created and organized. He admitted that the desirability of the recommendations for the churches in the colonies was an open question. If they were independent bodies, they had a right to organize themselves as they thought fit, but the conference had no power of imposing such an organization upon them ; it must be left entirely to their own judgment. But with regard

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I5I

to the Church of England, the very attempt to reorganize it in such a way as this seemed an unwarranted assumption of authority and he thought that they were placing the Archbishop of Canterbury in a most critical and dangerous position if he was invited to lend his authority and influence to any such organization. Bishop Browne ( E l y ) was of the opinion that the real difficulty with the resolution under consideration was the fact that it was questionable whether such synods were possible, because there was no existing authority to call a patriarchal council, and also because the legalities connected with the establishment made reorganization of the Church of England very difficult. A s a way around these difficulties he suggested the following addition : " if it should be found hereafter that such higher synod or synods can be legally constituted on sound ecclesiastical principles." A t this point the President remarked by way of explanation that he never contemplated by the words " provincial synods " that he was expected, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, to summon the different synods. H e expected that they would settle that among themselves. Bishop Cotterill (Grahamstown), speaking in defense of the proposal, stated that the bishops in the colonies had long felt that it was a most practical question to solve. H o w were their relations to the Church of England to be maintained? T h e reason why this question was brought forward in the form which it had now assumed was this : The colonial bishops considered that the subject resolved itself into two parts. First of all, how their relations to the Church of England could be maintained since they were now non-established churches and therefore their relation to the mother church was similar to that of the churches in America and Scotland and other similarly situated churches. A t first the principle was accepted that there should be subordination of diocesan to provincial synods, and of the latter to the action of the whole Church of England.

I52

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The colonial bishops wanted to know how this was to be done. Speaking for himself, the principle of voluntary acceptance seemed to him to be the solution of the whole question. Bishop Hopkins (Vermont) then suggested the use of voluntary councils as the means of bringing about the desired unity. Bishop Gray (Cape T o w n ) stated the case by saying that what they wanted to do was to control the diocesan synods so that those synods might not exercise too great a coercive power or enjoy too much liberty. H e argued that they might be controlled by placing them in subordination to provincial synods and depriving them of the power to legislate or decide upon any point upon which the provincial synods themselves might choose to legislate or decide. H e then asked the question, how were the different provinces in India, in South Africa, in New Zealand—how were the dioceses, not yet brought into provinces—to be controlled? Were they to be left in a state of perfect independence, or was any check to be placed upon them? The colonial bishops were most anxious to remain bound to the mother church, but continued union could not be effected by any legal power because they would never consent to it. It could only be by a self-constituted, spiritual subjection, by their consent to yield obedience to the decision of some higher synod, to be gathered together in England or elsewhere. Consequently, the colonial bishops saw no other way of preserving the unity of faith. As to the matter of discipline, they proposed that the higher synod mentioned in the section of the resolution under consideration should meet and lay down limits within which a certain amount of liberty was to be allowed, but beyond which no inferior synod should travel. As a colonial bishop, he was quite sure that the churches in the colonies would most gladly submit to the authority of this higher synod, whether it was a general or a national one. In his opinion there would be no danger that its decisions would come in conflict with any decisions given by the church in

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

153

England, for if the Church of England did not think it fitting to accept any conclusion arrived at by the higher synod, that conclusion would not be binding upon her. They desired the contemplated synod to be called " general " rather than " national ", because they hoped that their brethren in the United States would come into the arrangement. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to call it a national synod, because it would be then a synod of two nations only. Of course, if the Archbishop of Canterbury were called upon to accept the office of Patriarch, it might be called a patriarchal synod. He was convinced it was only in submission and obedience on the part of the churches in the colonies that an effectual means could be found of accomplishing what they desired. He concluded by remarking : " I am sure I am speaking the sentiments of colonial churchmen when I say, God forbid that we should be legislated for in all our affairs as the Church of England is legislated for, or that we should be placed in the same danger by means of the Privy Council. I believe it would cause a schism if the attempt were made to force it upon us." Bishop Tait (London) opposed the resolution in its original form on the ground that it was open to criticism and needed alteration. It would not, in his opinion, secure the object desired by all of them, because it covered too wide a field by bringing the matter in direct connection with the established Church of England. He admitted it would have been agreeable to all of them if it had been restricted to those churches in the colonies in which it was universally granted that the provincial system was advisable, but it was doubtful whether it ought to be introduced universally. He agreed with the Bishop of St. David's that this had very much the appearance of being a constitution for the Universal Anglican Church, which might be with propriety established if all existing systems were swept away and they were beginning with a tabula rasa to define what was best for the whole existing Anglican Communion. He was of the opinion that it was necessary to proceed with

154

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

caution lest they should pass a resolution that might bring them into conflict with the law of the land. In conclusion, he gave notice that he would move an amendment embodying these views. Bishop Mclllvaine (Ohio) then made some remarks in which he, as spokesman for the American bishops, indicated their views in the matter. He pointed out that there was a difference in the position of a bishop in the United States and in the British colonies. It would be a very difficult question as to whether they could come into a synod composed not only of American bishops but also of bishops of the churches in the colonies and of the Church of England. He was therefore dubious about so much as even considering this resolution until the bishops of the church in the United States who were present had had an opportunity of consulting with the representatives of their church at home, lest they should in any degree directly commit the church in the United States to a motion of this sort. The Bishop of Montreal continued the discussion by remarking that since the colonial churches sprang from the mother church, and were separated from her solely by the effect of law, they had a right to come there and ask how they were to be preserved in the faith and not be isolated from the rest of the community. " How were isolated churches to get a succession of bishops except by being connected with some other? " He had had a letter from the Bishop of Nova Scotia stating a desire for union. He had also a letter from the Bishop of Rupert's Land of a similar character. Although he was not particularly committed to the words of the resolution, he thought that something ought to be done to maintain the connection of the churches in the colonies with the mother church. At this point, Bishop Thirlwall (St. David's) asked, " what is the precise thing we are to advise them to do? " The Bishop of New Zealand answered this question with the following quotation from the deliberations of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury:

THE L A M B E T H CONFERENCE OF 1 8 6 7

I55

There seems to us to be a special need of combined counsels to maintain in unity the church as it extends, and that by regular gradation of duly constituted synods all questions affecting unity might be duly settled ; diocesan synods determining all matters not ordered by the synod of the province, provincial synods determining all matters not ordered by a national synod — a national synod determining all matters not ordered by a general council. Unity with necessary variety might thus be secured in our spreading branch of the Holy Catholic Church. (Chronicle of Convocation, June 8, i860, p. 203.) 3 1 He went on to say : " In return f o r the question of the Right Reverend Prelate (Bishop of St. D a v i d ' s ) , I will ask your Grace, and those who were members of the Upper House of Convocation, what did they mean by this advice ? " T o which the Bishop of St. David's replied : " I perfectly understand the passage you have read ; but what I don't understand is what we are advising other bodies to do with respect to this last step. It is in their power to constitute diocesan and provincial synods, but what I want to know is how they can constitute such a thing as a Pan-Anglican synod ? " Bishop Gray replied to this : " W e have endeavoured to act almost in the same way as we were counselled by Convocation." T o which the Bishop of St. David's said : " I am sorry to say that is not at all a satisfactory answer to my question, and it does not remove my difficulty. What is it we advise them to do? There is something that depends upon a contingency that may never arise." The Bishop of Cape T o w n replied : " W e are of a different opinion. W e think it exists at this moment." 32 A f t e r this dialogue was over, Bishop Wordsworth ( S t . Andrews) came out against the proposal, asserting that the conference would be making a mistake if it went beyond the notion of provincial synods. In the first place, there was the practical difficulty that some arrangements which were suitable 31 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 891. 32 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 891.

156

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

f o r some portions of the church would be found to be unsuitable f o r others. Another objection was that this must eventually culminate in aiming at a system which would not be generally satisfactory. E n o u g h had already been done to insure the guidance of the whole church with reference to matters essential both in practice and in faith. H a v i n g that guidance, if they went f u r t h e r , instead of maintaining unity of belief, they would diminish it. They already had, in the history and decisions of the primitive and undivided church, the guidance which God intended to give H i s church over the whole world, regard being had to the different organizations in different nations. The Bishop of St. A n d r e w s was followed by several other prelates whose remarks were a reiteration of the arguments previously advanced. Bishop Tait ( L o n d o n ) introduced the following substitute resolution : That in the opinion of the conference it is highly desirable for the maintenance of faith and discipline, that rules should be made where necessary, or where existing maintained, whereby in the several branches of the colonial churches in which the metropolitan system has been already introduced, or in which a general desire has been expressed for its introduction, there should be due and canonical subordination of diocesan to provincial synods, and that such synods, as far as may be, should be guided by the advice and counsel of the national church at home, and of such conferences of the representatives of the various churches of the Anglican Communion as that which is at present, by God's providence, here assembled. 33 T h i s had been drawn, he said, " i n an endeavor honestly to express all that was valuable in the resolution." The Bishop of Cape T o w n disapproved of this substitute resolution because he desired that their American brethren might in some way be included. But this alteration would en33 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 891.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I57

tirely exclude them. His second reason for objecting to the amendment was that it stated that they were to be guided by the advice of the " national church at home." H e absolutely denied that the church at home could be called the national church. The national church was, according to him, the churches in all the colonies and provinces of the British Empire subject to his Grace, and recognized in subordination to him. The Bishop of London : " Will you say ' The church at home?'" The Bishop of Cape Town : " Not at all. The church is everywhere." The Bishop of London : " I have been altogether deceived. I drew up the resolution because I thought it was desired to have the advice of the church at home. I ask whether this is or is not desired? " The Bishop of New Zealand : " The advice and counsel of the national church." The Bishop of London : " I must admit that we are in the dark as to wishes of the colonial churches. Do they desire to be assisted by the advice of the church at home? " The Bishop of New Zealand : " No." 84 Bishop Ellicott (Gloucester and Bristol) then made some temperate remarks in which he urged the conference to consider the tremendous issue which was at stake, and not allow any feeling on their part to carry them too far. H e thought there was a solid reality about the amendment, which commended it to his mind. H e concluded by reproaching the Bishop of Grahamstown for seeming to imply, that advice and counsel were not exactly needed by the churches in the colonies. In reply Bishop Gray (Cape T o w n ) remarked tartly: " O f course we should accept the counsel; but the Bishop of London has put the question whether the church at home, in which the colonial church is not represented, shall be the referee in the concerns of the colonial churches." 34 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 891.

158

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol continued to argue for Bishop Tait's resolution. H e indicated that it said " as far as may be " and that surely was very guarded. He did not like the word " national," and hoped for its withdrawal. W a s not the theory of the amendment that there should be metropolitical government wherever it could be introduced ? H e admitted that it could not be introduced everywhere. There would be great difficulties in doing so with India; but the amendment did affirm it as a general principle. Therefore, taking the general sentiment of the amendment rather than its mere words, it seems to be substantially the same as the original proposition, only a little more prudently expressed. In consequence he urged its adoption for that reason. The Bishop of London then made some verbal alterations in his amendment. But even with these it did not meet the approval of the Bishops of Montreal, Grahamstown and Cape Town, who continued to oppose it. Finally, Bishop Wilberforce ( O x f o r d ) brought the discussion on this amendment to a close by urging the adoption of the original motion instead of the Bishop of London's amendment, because there was something real in the plan proposed by the resolution, whereas in the alternative there was nothing that was tangible. He said that in laying down, in this resolution, what they believed to be the real things at which to aim, they were acting in the strictest sense practically and wisely too. But he spoke in vain. Immediately after his speech, Bishop Selwyn (New Zealand) said that he had had some communications with his brethren to see how far the resolution could be adapted to the wishes that had been expressed and at the same time preserve its pith and substance. Accordingly, he introduced another substitute resolution : That in the opinion of this conference unity of faith and discipline will be best maintained among the several branches of the Anglican Communion by due and canonical subordination of the

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I59

several branches to the higher authority of a synod or synods above them.35 This, he said, expressed his own mind in the matter, and he hoped it would also express that of the meeting. Bishop Browne ( E l y ) declared that he would rather vote for the original proposal. Bishop Gray (Cape Town) stated that he would infinitely prefer it; and Bishop Wilberforce ( O x f o r d ) said he could not agree to its being substituted for the section (a) of the resolution, because it appeared to him that it only escaped from the difficulty by introducing an ambiguity. Dolus latet in generalibus. In spite of these protests, the Bishop of New Zealand's resolution was accepted without a dissenting vote, 47 to o. M Then the second section (b) of the resolution which recommended the appointment of a committee to consider the whole subject was put and carried unanimously.37 The committee was appointed at the next session of the conference on the motion of the Bishop of New Zealand. It was composed of Archbishop Trench (Dublin) and Bishops Browne ( E l y ) , Hopkins (Vermont), Eden (Moray, Ross and Caithness), Fulford (Montreal), Gray (Cape T o w n ) and Selwyn (New Zealand). Again the prelates most concerned in the discussion were those appointed to the committee.38 Immediately before the adjournment of the September 25 session, the Bishop of Oxford suggested a slight alteration in the arrangements connected with the English chapels on the continent, in deference to the American prelates present at the 35 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 892. 36 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 892. 37 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 889. Resolution II (appointment of Committee) " ( b ) that a committee o f . , .members (with power to add to their number, and to obtain the assistance of men learned in ecclesiastical and canon l a w ) be appointed to inquire into and report upon the whole subject; and that such report be forwarded to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, with a request that, if possible, it may be communicated to an adjourned meeting of this Conference." 38 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 892.

ΐ6θ

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

conference, as well as to American travelers on the continent. T h i s alteration was the addition of the prayer f o r the President of the United States after the prayer f o r the Queen. Such an alteration would cause no difficulty, as the A c t of U n i f o r m i t y did not apply on the continent. Besides, it was believed that this proposed change would be very useful in bringing American travelers who did not always belong to the church to its services. The proposal was unanimously agreed to without discussion. 8 " T h e third day's session, on Thursday, September 26, began with a consideration of " the case of Bishop Colenso." T h e basis of this consideration was section ( c ) of Resolution I I , entitled " Proposed Inquiry into Disunion in N a t a l , " as prepared by the colonial bishops in their preliminary meeting, viz., That in the judgment of the bishops now assembled, the whole Anglican Communion is deeply injured by the present condition of the church in Natal; and that a committee be now appointed at this general meeting to consider the whole case, and inquire into all the proceedings which have been taken therein ; and to report on the best mode by which the church may be delivered from the continuance of this scandal, and the true faith maintained. That such report be forwarded to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, with a request that, if possible, it may be communicated to an adjourned meeting of the conference; and Further, that his Grace be * requested to transmit the same to all bishops of the Anglican Communion, and to ask for their judgment thereupon. * Convocations, Conventions and Synods ? 1 0 The discussion was a heated and personal one, and was colored by the religious views of the participating prelates. The Anglo-Catholic bishops naturally were unanimous in supporting the resolution. They wanted the conference to adopt it on the ground that Bishop G r a y ' s action, in declaring Bishop Colenso a heretic, would then have the approval of the Anglican 3 9 Ibid., J u n e 26, 1878, p. 892. 4 0 Ibid., J u n e 26, 1878, p. 889.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

161

Communion in its entirety. As a matter of fact this was the motive behind the arguments that they advanced in favor of the resolution. The Protestant minded prelates, on the other hand, were as much opposed to the resolution as the AngloCatholics were in favor of it. Their opposition was based on the idea that its adoption by the conference would not be PanAnglican approval of Bishop Gray's action, but a thinly veiled declaration of heresy against Bishop Colenso by a group within the church that was opposed to him, solely because his views in religious matters differed from theirs. Moreover, the religious views of these Protestant minded prelates were not so far removed from Bishop Colenso's as they were from those of the Anglo-Catholic bishops. In consequence they were vigorously opposed to'having the conference taken any action that would have the appearance, even indirectly, of formally condemning Bishop Colenso. Finally, although admitting the deplorable conditions within the church in Natal, they held that the responsibility for them rested not with Bishop Colenso, but solely with Bishop Gray. These points were behind the arguments advanced by the spokesmen for this group, just as the other point was behind the arguments advanced by the spokesmen for the Anglo-Catholic group. In the discussion which followed Bishops Gray (Cape T o w n ) , Ful ford (Montreal), Selwyn (New Zealand) and, to a lesser degree, Bishop Cotterrill (Grahamstown) were the Anglo-Catholic spokesmen, and led their fight for the adoption of the resolution. The Protestant minded prelates were represented by Bishops Thirlwall (St. David's) and Tait (London), with telling success. The resolution was withdrawn in deference to the wishes of the Evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury, and a substitute resolution, which was a face-saving one for all concerned, was finally adopted. Bishop Selwyn, who began the discussion, moved the adoption of the foregoing proposal because they all felt that this was in many respects the greatest question which they had to consider at that session of the conference. It was not his

IÓ2

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

intention, he said, either to praise the Bishop of Cape Town or to condemn Dr. Colenso. But there was a great evil existing in the bosom of the church and it was their duty, as bishops of the church, to seek a remedy for that evil. The courts in the Colenso case had not attempted to decide the question of whether Dr. Colenso's doctrines were heretical or not, they simply had to decide whether Dr. Colenso was or was not, upon the construction of certain deeds, the Cestui Que trust of certain funds held by trustees for the Bishop of Natal. The question before the conference was the validity of the judgment of the Bishop of Cape Town, and he thought they ought not to be satisfied without a searching inquiry which would enable them to pronounce definite judgment on the heresy issue. Bishop Fulford (Montreal) seconded Bishop Selwyn's motion. H e thought it would have been impossible for the bishops in justice to their consciences to separate if they had entirely passed over this unfortunate question. He admitted that in consequence of legal difficulties, the conference might not be able to satisfy the desires of all its members, and of some persons outside the conference, who might wish for a decision endorsing all that the Bishop of Cape Town had done. In conclusion, the Bishop of Montreal stated that the resolution under consideration had been drawn up with considerable care so as to avoid the legal difficulties of the case and yet as far as possible to satisfy the wishes of those who were anxious for some decision. He, therefore, expressed the hope that the conference would be able to adopt it with a unanimous vote. Bishop Hopkins (Vermont) was opposed to the resolution on the ground that the appointment of a committee would imply that the church had not already taken action. A heretic had to be rejected. Why should there be further inquiry? The appointing of a committee would, he said, be equivalent to condemning the church in the United States as having acted upon evidence with which the prelates present at this conference were

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

163

not satisfied. H e felt, in short, that it would be a sort o f indirect reproach upon the church in the United States for having acted without sufficient investigation. H e held that the temporal courts had n o t decided upon the spiritual and ecclesiastical questions involved, and that it was their duty to decide them. H e believed that it had nothing to do with the right o f an individual to a certain salary ; it was a question as to the right o f a man to call himself a bishop o f a church which he was destroying. T h e r e f o r e , he proposed the following as a substitute resolution : Whereas the bishops of the Holy Catholic Church in communion with the Church of England hold it to be their sacred and imperative duty to maintain the unerring truth of the Holy Scriptures as the divinely inspired rule of Christian faith and practice, and to condemn, as false and heretical, all doctrine which is opposed to the same; And whereas, Doctor John William Colenso, sometime Bishop of Natal, has taught and published many great and grievous errors, against the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and utterly subversive of the Catholic Faith, which errors have been condemned by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, by the Synod of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and by every Provincial Synod of the colonial churches; And whereas, the said Doctor John William Colenso, after due and repeated admonitions, has been deposed and excommunicated by the metropolitan of the Province of South Africa, with the unanimous consent of the synod, for the said grievous and notorious errors, involving the most destructive heresy, and nevertheless refuses obstinately to submit himself to the united voice of the whole Anglican Communion, and now contumaciously acts in defiance of the same, scattering and oppressing the Flock of Christ which he was appointed to gather and to feed with the saving truth of the everlasting Gospel: Therefore, Resolved—That the Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church assembled from every quarter of the Anglican Communion in this present conference, do hereby declare their entire approval of the

164

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

deposition and excommunication of the said Doctor John William Colenso, as valid, righteous and just. And while they abstain from pronouncing any opinion concerning the judgment of the secular courts, they will hold themselves bound to regard the said Doctor John William Colenso as a heretic, cut off from the communion of the church, until, by the Grace of God, he shall renounce his grievous errors, and be openly reconciled by lawful authority; for which they devoutly pray." Bishop Thirlwall (St. David's) was opposed to the discussion of the resolution " in any way whatever," regarding it as nothing less than a breach of faith towards all who attended the meeting in the belief that its proceedings were to be regulated by the program issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He objected to what he called the new program, by which the whole matter was taken out of the Archbishop's hands ; subjects entirely foreign to the Archbishop's proposal were brought under deliberation, and the whole nature of the conference was changed. The Bishops of Grahamstown and New Zealand then observed that they had come to the conference " o n a general invitation limited only as to declarations of faith and definitions of doctrine " and that the church in Canada had asked for the conference, because the minds of many churchmen had been " unsettled and alarmed " as a result of the cases of the Essays and Reviews and the Bishops of Natal and Cape Town. The Bishop of Grahamstown declared that there had been nothing in the Archbishop's invitation to lead any one to suppose that the subjects given as the reason for holding the conference would be put aside. It was, therefore, in his opinion, no breach of faith to introduce this subject. The Bishop of New Zealand said that when he saw that one of the subjects specified for consideration by the conference was " conditions of union " he felt it was impossible for them to consider the unity of the church while so important a branch of the church as that in South Africa was in a state of utter disunion. 41 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 893.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

165

The Bishop of New Zealand called attention to a charge which the Bishop of St. David's had made to the clergy of his diocese in which the latter had expressed his views on Bishop Gray's action in the Colenso affair in these words : The result showed how dangerous it will be to entrust a purely ecclesiastical tribunal with the administration of justice in ecclesiastical cases ; how surely the divine would get the better of the judge ; how easily the most upright and conscientious men might be betrayed by their zeal for truth into the most violent and arbitrary proceedings, exercising an usurped jurisdiction by the mockery of a trial in which the party accused was assumed to acknowledge the jurisdiction against which he protested, and was condemned in his absence, not for contumacy, but upon charges and speeches which had the advantage of being heard without a r e p l y . . . . 4 2 This the Bishop of New Zealand regarded as a challenge to the Bishop of Cape Town and he asked the Bishop of St. David's whether a Christian bishop had a right to bring charges before the clergy of his own diocese against a colonial bishop from a distant part of the world. Since this had happened to the Bishop of Cape Town, the Bishop of New Zealand asked whether the former had not shown moderation in consenting to submit his own case and conduct, as well as the heresy of Dr. Colenso, to the judgment of a committee to be appointed by the conference. In reply, the Bishop of St. David's remarked : " In answer to the question raised by the Bishop of New Zealand, let me say I do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the abstract justice or propriety of the course of proceeding he has taken. All I would say is, this is not the occasion for it." After this verbal tilt between the Bishops of New Zealand and St. David's, Bishop Wilberforce ( O x f o r d ) , the peacemaker, took the floor with a request that before the President decided upon this question, attention should be given to the third resolution of the original program, entitled Court of Metropolitans, which read : 42 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 893.

l66

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

That in the case of any charges being preferred against a suffragan bishop of any province, it appears to us desirable that the metropolitan thereof should summon all the bishops of his province to sit with him for the hearing of the case, and that he should not proceed to the hearing of it without the aid and concurrence of all the bishops of his province that can be assembled. The question of any charge being brought against a metropolitan should also be considered.48 Therefore, the Bishop of O x f o r d was of the opinion that the Bishop of Vermont's resolution went beyond the limits of the meeting, because the original resolution did not involve the direct censure of an individual. On the other hand, he believed that the resolution moved by the Bishop of New Zealand and seconded by the Bishop of Montreal did not exceed the limits laid down for the conference by the President, because of the concluding words of the original resolution, which stated that " the question of any charge being brought against a metropolitan should also be considered." He believed that the existence of the scandal, under the terms of that very resolution which they were invited to consider, abundantly justified silent and universal acquiescence in the resolution proposed by the two metropolitans. The Bishop of Salisbury, after being told that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not invited Dr. Colenso to attend the conference, then came out in favor of Bishop Hopkins' resolution, which he believed had done no more than put the acts of the conference into intelligible shape. Furthermore, he urged the conference to give some distinct expression to its sentiments. If that was not done, he believed that a most deadly wound would have been inflicted upon the Anglican Communion, because it would be thought in England that the bishops were shirking the question. The Bishop of Ely sympathized with Bishop Hopkins' resolution, but he thought that the bishops present were not competent to declare Dr. Colenso excommunicated and deposed, 43 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 893.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

l6j

because they were a conference and not a synod. He had no objection to the Bishop of New Zealand's resolution, for it was limited to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the judgment and report to a future conference upon what had been done by the Bishop of Cape Town in the matter of Dr. Colenso's heresy. Moreover, although he considered the conference to be incompetent to sit in judgment upon Dr. Colenso or the Bishop of Cape Town, he thought Colenso should be censured for the letter which he had published. In reply to the Bishop of Ely's remarks, Bishop Selwyn (New Zealand) stated he had only insisted that grave charges had been made, not against Dr. Colenso only but against the Bishop of Cape Town; and he claimed that the conference should inquire into them. Bishop Wordsworth (St. Andrews) concurred with the ideas of the Bishop of Ely, who, he believed, had raised the only points of difficulty in connection with the admirable resolution of the Bishop of Vermont. H e regretted that there had been too much of the personal element introduced into the discussion and said that the humility of the Bishop of Cape Town and those who acted with him was unnecessary, because every one of them in some way or other signified his condemnation of the heresies of Dr. Colenso. They were all satisfied in their minds that justice had been administered in the case; and being so satisfied, they accepted the Bishop of Cape Town's decision and what had taken place in the diocese of Cape Town, and knowing that Dr. Colenso was excommunicated, they would hold him to be excommunicated until he should repent. The Bishop of Cape Town in reply said he should be perfectly satisfied with what the Bishop of St. Andrews had suggested. It was the very thing he intended to propose. H e had given his assent to the present resolution, but he had given it reluctantly. After the Bishop of Gibraltar had reiterated the arguments previously advanced by the Bishop of New Zealand in support

l68

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of the resolution under discussion, Bishop Lewis (Ontario) addressed the conference. H e was opposed to the Bishop of New Zealand's resolution, because he was at a loss to see whether it aimed at describing the scandal created by the Bishop of Cape Town or the late Bishop of Natal. Furthermore, as they had no legal power whatever, because they did not sit as a synod, he was in doubt as to the effect of the motion. For these reasons he was disposed to move as a substitute for the whole thing simply an expression of opinion " that the noninvitation of Dr. Colenso to attend this meeting is hereby approved by this conference," and to express warm thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the course he had pursued, which amounted to a refusal to recognize Dr. Colenso any longer as a bishop of the Established Church. Archbishop Longley of Canterbury then made a statement. In the first place he said that in penning the third resolution under the second day's work, he had not had the Bishop of Natal in mind. He did not conceive that Dr. Colenso came at all into the category there referred to. Furthermore, if it had been proposed to him to assemble a conference with a view to condemning Bishop Colenso, he would have declined positively, for the reason that they collectively were not competent to do anything of the kind, and also because they had severally and respectively condemned him already. Then, again, if he had assembled a conference with a view to passing a condemnation upon the Bishop of Natal, not only would they have no power to do so, but they could not possibly come to a unanimous vote, and if the vote was not unanimous, it would be useless. It was said that something ought now to be done. Whether the whole of this resolution under consideration was adopted or not, by adopting part of it something would be done, and the essential part of it was reporting on the best mode in which the desired object might be carried out. If a well selected committee could report upon the best mode in which this great and grievous scandal could be abated, good service would be

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

169

done to the church. A s to considering the whole case and inquiring into all the proceedings which had been taken, that appeared to him to be sitting in judgment upon the Bishop of Cape Town, and he did not know that they had a right to do that. But he could not conceive that they should be in any degree violating good faith by allowing the name of the Bishop of Natal to be introduced. T o propose to condemn him would be a violation of good faith, but not the mere introduction of his name, or any question connected with his name or proceedings. He could not imagine that if a resolution to the effect of section ( c ) of Resolution II were to be passed there would be any difficulty. T h e only question, as far as he was concerned in the matter, was whether the words " to consider the whole case and inquire into all the proceedings which have been taken therein," should not be omitted. The Bishop of Vermont, adhering to the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, withdrew his proposed resolution. Then the Bishop of N e w Zealand introduced the following amended resolution as a testimony to the respect felt for the judgment of the President, with the hope that it would pass without a dissentient voice : That in the judgment of the bishops here assembled the whole Anglican Communion is deeply injured by the present condition of the church in Natal; and that a committee be now appointed at this general meeting to report on the best mode by which the church may be delivered from the continuance of this scandal and the truth maintained. That such report be forwarded to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury with the request that his Grace will be pleased to transmit the same to all the bishops of the Anglican Communion and to ask their judgment thereon.44 Immediately Bishop Wordsworth (St. A n d r e w s ) moved " that after the words ' a committee be now appointed ' there should be added ' in accordance with the express desire of the Bishop of Cape T o w n . ' " 44 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 894.

I70

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Bishop Gray objected that this was not in accordance with his express desire. H e had refrained from taking part in the matter because, being so deeply concerned personally, he thought it best to leave it in the hands of others. H e had come to the meeting at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he had had no intimation that the subject of Dr. Colenso would not be introduced or would be excluded. H e would not have come if he had known that such w a s to be the case. H e had hoped that he would have an opportunity of vindicating himself from the aspersions which had been cast upon him and his proceedings, and that there would be some expression on the part of the members of the conference, either that they did or that they did not accept the spiritual sentence which he felt it his duty to impose. H e had intended to ask for that. But his brethren took a different view of the matter. H e did not agree either with the terms of the motion or with the appointment of the committee. H e assented to them, but he did so with reluctance. T h e resolution, as it stood, left untouched the whole question as to whether this great scandal had been caused by his proceedings—proceedings taken on the advice of the whole episcopate of England and Ireland, and of the most eminent counsel he could procure. He felt that the whole question remained untouched and that the evil had received no amendment whatever. This speech brought the long discussion to an end, for the question was then put, the vote on the Bishop of N e w Zealand's amended resolution being, A y e s 49, Noes io. 45 A t the termination of the debate, Bishop M'Dougall (Labuan) (Bishop Colenso's brother-in-law) and several other prelates thanked Bishop Gray for his moderation and forbearance; while the Bishop of Salisbury and others remonstrated with him for having yielded. The American bishops said that they had expected to hear a full statement of the whole case and were disappointed. 45 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 895.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I7I

At the end of the session of Thursday, September 26, the conference was so dissatisfied with the result of the discussion on the Natal question, that fifty-five bishops signed the following declaration : " We, the undersigned bishops, declare our acceptance of the sentence pronounced upon Dr. Colenso by the metropolitan of South A f r i c a , with his suffragans, as being spiritually a valid sentence." The next item of business was the introduction of a motion by Bishop Lewis (Ontario), seconded by Bishop Trower (Gibraltar), that a vote of thanks be given to the President " for not having invited Dr. Colenso to the conference." The motion was soon withdrawn, when Bishop Wilberforce (Oxford) expressed the belief that such a procedure was not dignified or " one becoming such a gathering of bishops." The Bishop of Oxford, perhaps a little tired, or at least not as conciliatory as usual, also called attention to the absence of another prelate, Bishop Crowther ( N i g e r ) , and stated that that bishop had not received an invitation either. This oversight was later shown to be unintentional. Then the conference directed its attention to Resolution V I of the new program and discussed it under the heading of " The Home and Foreign Churches." It was as follows : Resolution V I (Conditions of Union) That, in order to the binding of the churches of our colonial empire, and the missionary churches beyond them in the closest union with the mother church, it is necessary that they receive and maintain without alteration the standards of faith and doctrine, as they are in use in that church. That nevertheless each province should have the right to make such adaptations and additions to the services of the church as its peculiar circumstances may require. Provided, that no change or addition be made inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Book of Common Prayer, and that all such changes be liable to revision by any synod of the Anglican Communion in which the said province shall be represented.*7 4β Gray, Charles, Life of Robert Cray, Bishop of Cape Town, Vol. II, p· 350. 47 Guardian, June 26, 1878, p. 889.

I72

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

This resolution was introduced by the Bishop of New Zealand, and its adoption was seconded by the Bishop of Lincoln. After a very short debate in which objections were made to the phrase " standards of faith and doctrine " and the suggestion was made that the resolution be amended by adding to these words, the words " which are in general use in the Church of England," the question was put and the resolution in its original form was carried nem. con.** The next item of business considered by the conference was the subject of appeals. Before the resolutions dealing with it were introduced, Bishop Thirlwall expressed his opinion that the matter was not one which should come before the conference. H e thought that they would become involved in " very great embarrassments " if they went on record as forming a system of appeal when there was no prospect of its being established. Where the church was a voluntary association, not connected with the state, it should enjoy " the most entire and unbounded independence." H e regarded the idea of forming any scheme of a court of final appeal in causes of doctrine as " exceedingly dangerous and pernicious." The Archbishop of Canterbury took substantially the same position. Notwithstanding these protests, the conference did discuss this topic. It had been incorporated in Resolution III of the new program and was as follows : Resolution III (Question of Appeal) That, in the opinion of this conference, it is very desirable that there should be a board of reference, or a spiritual tribunal for final appeal and decision in all matters of faith; including representatives from all branches of the "Anglo-Catholic Church ; " and the bishops here assembled earnestly recommend this most important matter to the deliberate consideration of the Convocations, Conventions and Synods of the said Anglo-Catholic Church. Or, if Resolution III should not be carried them— 48 Ibid., J u n e 26, 1878, p. 895.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I73

(Question of Appeal) I I I That, in order to the maintenance of the strictest union between the mother church of England and her daughter churches in the colonies, it is desirable that in questions of doctrine there should be an appeal from the tribunals for the exercise of discipline in each province to a spiritual tribunal in England. That such a tribunal be presided over by the Primate of A l l England ( f o r the time being), and be composed of bishops only. (Appointment of Committee) A n d — T h a t a committee be appointed to consider the details of the constitution of such tribunal, and that their report be forwarded to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, with a request that, if possible, it may be communicated to an adjourned meeting of the conference. (Circulation of Report) And further, that his Grace be requested to transmit the same to the Convocations and Synods of all the provinces of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to all bishops (if any) of the said church not included in any ecclesiastical province. (Election of Members of Tribunal) That his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury be requested to invite the several provinces of the church to elect bishops for the said tribunal. 49 T h e proceedings began with an introductory speech b y the B i s h o p of N e w Zealand in which he b r o u g h t f o r w a r d the first of these resolutions with the observation that there w a s n o attempt to recommend any particular

f o r m of tribunal.

He

supposed that all were willing to admit that w h e t h e r any proper tribunal of appeal w a s wanted or not, the question had been v e r y much discussed whether provincial decisions should be final or subject to some further reference. T h e r e w a s no desire to trench upon the privileges of the P r i v y Council, or the Supreme

Court

of

the United

49 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 889.

States.

In

consequence

the

174

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

proposition had been limited to what is called in the resolution a board of reference, or spiritual tribunal, i. e., some mode by which doubting minds might ascertain upon spiritual authority what is the declared faith of the Anglican Church. H e inferred that the principal function of this proposed tribunal would be to handle causes involving heresy for he stated that he thought that where there is a church there must be some definite standard of f a i t h ; call it dogmatic or anything you please—there must be a clear declaration of what the faith of the church is, otherwise there never can be any heresy at all. Heresy must be an individual opinion chosen by one or more men against the whole Catholic Church, and if the Catholic Church has no faith, it is evident there can be no heresy. Bishop Williams (Quebec) also favored the creation of a board of reference on the ground that it would be a real bond of union within the Communion, and a " real step towards that inter-communion to which they were so ready to invite others." Bishop Tait ( L o n d o n ) , on the other hand, opposed the resolution because there was some confusion as to the purpose and function of the proposed court of appeal. H e therefore sought for enlightenment in the matter by raising the question : " W h a t on earth has the court of appeal to do with the settling of f a i t h ? " T h e Bishop of New Zealand : " Everything." T h e Bishop of London : " T h e business of a court of appeal is to ascertain whether a man has been properly punished in an inferior court. W h a t has that to do with making laws? The function of the judge and the function of the legislator ought to be kept quite distinct. If we are going to consider what is the best mode by which a court of appeal can be established, let us do so; if we are going to consider what is the best means of announcing the mind and law of the church, let us do so; but I think the two things ought to be kept separate. . . . This board of reference is not at all to be called a court of appeal. Is it then, to be a sort of synod? or is it to be a committee with

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

l 8 6 j

I75

power delegated to it by some other body for making laws? (No, No.) What on earth is it to be if it is not to be one of these two? Is it to try cases? " The Bishop of New Zealand : " It is to say whether a man is a heretic or not." The Bishop of London : " A man insists that he has a right to think for himself. But by the law of the country he has no such right as regards those points upon which the formularies of the church and the Thirty-Nine Articles have pronounced. If he has contravened them, it is necessary, however disagreeable, to bring him before a court. Whether the court exists by legislation or by compact, it is its business to ascertain whether he has transgressed the law as it stood ; but to constitute a new law to meet his case is as unjust as anything I can conceive. I must, therefore, confine my observations on the proposed board as a legislative body." The Bishop of Cape Town : " It was never intended to be that." The Bishop of London: " Then what is it? " The Bishop of New Zealand : " The object is to ascertain whether a doctrine is contrary to the Thirty-Nine Articles." The Bishop of London : " But there is no settlement of the faith in that. It is only trying cases. Either it is to be the business of this court to try cases or it is to legislate." The Bishop of Cape Town : " Or to state what the teaching of the church is." The Bishop of London : " That is legislation." The Bishop of Cape Town : " But it is to state what the doctrine is from our documents." The Bishop of London: " If it is to ascertain it from documents, I cannot conceive what better court you can have to ascertain the meaning of documents than the court you have. But it seems to be thought that this proposed court shall have the power to make law. (No, No.) Then in that case you give up the very object for which it is desired. I am convinced that in both resolutions there is confusion between the two offices

176

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of making and administering the law, and I am convinced that the proposed machinery is calculated to encourage judges to make law." The Bishop of Gibraltar : " It is to declare what the law is." The Bishop of London : " In my humble opinion that is the same thing as to make laws. ( N o , N o . ) I object as much as anyone to judge-made law, but I have the same objections to bishop-made law. I think it would be much better to give up the first of these resolutions." The Bishop of New Zealand : " Then we should have to give up the entire American Church." The Bishop of L o n d o n : " T h i s body, I see, would consist entirely of bishops." The Bishop of New Zealand : " It is to consist of the same elements as the Privy Council—of some bishops and some laymen." T h e Bishop of Montreal : " The question, I take it, is whether the colonial churches are to be kept in unity of faith, and we all felt that there should be some general court of appeal for all of us, and that the question could no longer be delayed." The Bishop of London : " It is to be a court of compact? " The Bishop of Montreal : " Yes, a court of compact—a court in which all disputed questions of faith and doctrine might be decided, as it were in the abstract." The Bishop of L o n d o n : " I am convinced that that is the most dangerous thing in the world. You would not decide in the abstract; you would take a particular man, and make a law by which he might be punished." 50 Upon the conclusion of this dialogue, Bishop Tait suggested that the churches in the colonies, because of the difference of their status in the various colonies, should apply t o the English government to create a colonial court of appeal. The suggestion did not meet the approval either of the Bishop of Cape Town or the Bishop of Grahamstown. The 50 Ibid., June 26, 1878, pp. 895-896.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I77

former's objections were based on the impossibility of the churches in the colonies to bear the cost of such appeals and also that such a colonial court of appeal would help to perpetuate a system which would destroy discipline and faith altogether in the Church of England. H e then continued to argue in favor of the general proposition by remarking that there was nothing open to colonial bishops but the establishment of a forum domesticum and that they must have that. They must not have a body legally constituted, and the churches in the colonies would resist to the death the imposition upon them of any legal court which would most certainly bring them to the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Privy Council. The Bishop of Grahamstown was also opposed to the Bishop of London's suggestion. His objections were based upon the belief that as a practical matter, the course proposed as to legalizing appeals to England to a properly constituted court of the crown was simply impossible. This contention rested on the assertion that it could only be effectual if there were subordinate courts. He then developed the idea further with the statement that there could be no appeals from courts that were merely voluntary tribunals guided by rules which were simply impossible. This contention rested on the assertion that it could be effectual only if there were subordinate courts. He developed the idea still further, declaring that there could be no appeals from courts that were merely voluntary tribunals guided by rules which were simply a question of compact. It would be impossible to appeal from one tribunal to another which was of a totally different order. Proceeding, he pointed out that the system recommended by the Bishop of London necessarily involved the formation of courts of the crown through the whole colonial empire and that such a course was simply impossible because it would result in the establishment of a colonial church, and so place the branches of such a church in a position which no colony could be allowed to hope for. There was also a belief that there would be a strong feeling in

178

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the colonies, not on the part of the church, but on the part of the government and of the colonists themselves, against any tribunal that would subject the colonists to being brought before any court of the crown of England, whether spiritual or civil, unless the appeals from such a tribunal came through the Supreme Court of the colony. H e believed that that was absolutely fatal to the system proposed by the Bishop of London. W i t h regard to the general question, it was necessary for the protection of the interests and liberties of the colonial clergy that there should be a court of appeal in England. W i t h regard to the question whether that tribunal should be composed of persons drawn from all branches of the Anglican Communion, or simply of the members of the Church of England in the colonies, he was more favorably disposed to the latter. A t this point, the Bishop of London, who still was not in favor of the establishment of a board of reference, suggested that the question be put to the conference. Instead of this, the motion was withdrawn with the Bishop of New Zealand's consent, because he was aware of the unfavorable attitude of those present toward it. The alternative resolution was then proposed by the Bishop of Montreal, and his motion was seconded by the Bishop of Grahamstown. In the short debate which followed, an amendment was proposed by the Bishop of O x f o r d and seconded by the Bishop of St. David's, viz. : T h a t a c o m m i t t e e be appointed t o c o n s i d e r the constitution o f a v o l u n t a r y spiritual tribunal in E n g l a n d t o w h i c h c a s e s i n v o l v i n g questions of d o c t r i n e c o u l d be appealed f r o m the tribunals in each p r o v i n c e , and that their r e p o r t be f o r w a r d e d to his G r a c e w i t h a request that he will f o r w a r d it, if possible, to an a d j o u r n e d meeting o f this c o n f e r e n c e . 5 1 N o v o t e w a s t a k e n o n the a l t e r n a t i v e r e s o l u t i o n , b u t the a m e n d ment w a s carried

unanimously.52

51 Ibid.,

J u n e 26, 1878, p. 896.

5 2 Ibid.,

J u n e 26, 1878, p. 896.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I79

Then the following Encyclical Letter, or " Address to the Faithful ", which had been drawn up by the committee appointed to draft the introductory resolution, was read by the Bishop of Oxford. To the Faithful in Christ Jesus, the Priests and Deacons, and the Lay Members of the Church of Christ in Communion with the Anglican Branch of the Catholic Church : We, the undersigned bishops, gathered under the good providence of God for prayer and conference at Lambeth, pray for you that ye may obtain grace, mercy and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. We give thanks to God, brethren beloved, for the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love towards the saints, which hath abounded amongst you ; and for the knowledge of Christ which through you hath been spread abroad amongst the most vigorous races of the earth; and with one mouth we make our supplications to God, even the Father, that by the power of the Holy Ghost He would strengthen us with His might, to amend amongst us the things which are amiss, to supply the things which are lacking, and to reach forth unto higher measures of love and zeal in worshipping Him, and in making known His name; and we pray that in His good time He would give back unto His whole church the blessed gift of unity in truth. And now we exhort you in love that ye keep whole and undefiled the faith once delivered to the saints, as ye have received it of the Lord Jesus. We entreat you to watch and pray, and to strive heartily with us against the frauds and subtleties wherewith the faith hath been aforetime and is now assailed. We beseech you to hold fast, as the sure work of God, all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament; and that by diligent study of these oracles of God, praying in the Holy Ghost, ye seek to know more of the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, very God and very Man, ever to be adored and worshipped, whom they reveal unto us, and of the will of God, which they declare. Furthermore, we entreat you to guard yourselves and yours against the growing superstitions and additions with which in these latter days the truth of God hath been overlaid; as otherwise, so especially by the pretension to universal sovereignity over God's

ΐ8θ

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

heritage asserted for the S e e of R o m e , and by the practical e x altation of the Blessed V i r g i n M a r y as mediator in the place of her Divine S o n , and by the addressing of prayers to her as intercessor between God and man. O f such beware, we beseech you, knowing that the jealous God giveth not His honour to another. Build yourselves up, therefore, beloved, in your most holy faith ; grow in grace and in the knowledge and love of J e s u s Christ our L o r d . Show forth before all men by your faith, self-denial, purity, and godly conversation, as well as by your labours for the people amongst whom God hath so widely spread you, and by the setting forth of His Gospel to the unbelievers and the heathen, that ye are indeed the servants of H i m who died for us to reconcile His F a t h e r to us, and to be a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. B r e t h r e n beloved, with one voice we warn you : the time is short ; the L o r d c o m e t h ; watch and be sober. Abide steadfast in the Communion of Saints, wherein God hath granted you a place. Seek in faith for oneness with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of His body and blood. Hold fast the creeds and the pure worship and order, which of God's grace ye have inherited from the primitive church. B e w a r e of causing divisions contrary to the doctrine ye have received. P r a y and seek for unity amongst yourselves, and amongst all the faithful in Christ Jesus ; and the good L o r d make you perfect, and keep your bodies, souls and spirits until the coming o f the L o r d J e s u s Christ. 5 3 O n the m o t i o n o f the B i s h o p o f V e r m o n t , seconded by the B i s h o p o f S t . A s a p h , the letter w a s unanimously adopted by the c o n f e r e n c e . T h e last event o f the day's session w a s the adoption, con.,

item,

o f the revised i n t r o d u c t o r y resolution which had been

d r a w n up by the s a m e c o m m i t t e e . T h e resolution as adopted w a s as f o l l o w s : W e , Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, in visible communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, professing the faith delivered to us in Holy Scriptures, maintained by the primitive church and by the fathers of the English Reformation, SS Ibid., October 2, 1867, p. 1048.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

181

n o w assembled, by the good providence of God, at the archiépiscopal palace of Lambeth, under the presidency of the Primate of A l l England, desire : First, to give hearty thanks to A l m i g h t y G o d f o r having thus brought us together f o r common counsels and united worship; Secondly, we desire to express the deep sorrow with which we view the divided condition of the flock of Christ throughout the world, ardently longing f o r the fulfilment of the prayer of our Lord, " T h a t all may be one, as T h o u , Father, art in M e , and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that T h o u hast sent me " ; and Lastly, w e do here solemnly record our convictions that unity will be most efïectually promoted by maintaining the faith in its purity and integrity, as taught in the H o l y Scriptures, held by the primitive church, summed up in the creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed general councils, and bv drawing each of us closer to our common L o r d , by giving ourselves to much prayer and intercession, by the cultivation of a spirit of charity and a love of the L o r d ' s appearing. 5 4 T h e session of F r i d a y , S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , b e g a n w i t h a request by the B i s h o p o f St. A n d r e w s to m o v e an a d d r e s s o f s y m p a t h y to the B i s h o p o f C a p e T o w n , because o f the latter's e m b a r r a s s m e n t resulting f r o m the C o l e n s o a f f a i r , but the president denied the request on the g r o u n d that it w a s not w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e o f the conference. T h e n the E n c y c l i c a l L e t t e r , or " A d d r e s s t o the F a i t h f u l , " w a s f o r m a l l y signed by each bishop a c c o r d i n g to his seniority. A conversation took place as to the s i g n i n g o f the a d d r e s s b y bishops not present. It w a s a g r e e d that such s i g n a t u r e s m i g h t be added, but w i t h the m o s t distinct separation between t h e m a n d those o f the bishops actually in attendance. A s r e g a r d s the latter, it h a d been a g r e e d that those w h o w e r e

unavoidably

absent that m o r n i n g m i g h t sign by p r o x y . L a t e r , A r c h b i s h o p L o n g l e y o f C a n t e r b u r y , d e s i r i n g to h a v e the address widely spread, h a d A r c h d e a c o n W o r d s w o r t h u n d e r take a translation o f it into L a t i n a n d G r e e k . A f t e r the s i g n i n g o f

the E n c y c l i c a l L e t t e r , the B i s h o p o f

N e w Z e a l a n d n o m i n a t e d the c o m m i t t e e t o inquire into the state 54 D a v i d s o n , R a n d a l l T . , The Six

Lambeth

Conferences,

1867-1920,

p. 9.

I82

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of the diocese of Natal. The Bishops of Winchester and St. David's declined to serve. A t the request of the Bishop of New Zealand, the committee appointed to consider the question of the maintenance of unity was also empowered to deal with the question of appeals. The Bishop of Grahamstown then asked the president whether he was willing to summon the conference again before Christmas, because the colonial bishops were quite ready to meet again. In reply the president said he would be very glad to summon those who could attend either in November or early in December to receive the reports of the committees. T w o resolutions concerning inter-communion were moved by the Bishop of O x f o r d , viz. : That it appears to us expedient, for the purpose of maintaining brotherly intercourse, that all cases of the establishment of new sees and the appointment of new bishops be notified to all archbishops, metropolitans and presiding bishops of the Anglican Communion. That having regard to the conditions under which intercommunion between members of the church passing from one distant diocese to another may be duly maintained, we hereby declare it desirable that forms of letters commendatory on behalf of clergymen visiting other dioceses be agreed upon, and that a form of letters commendatory be likewise prepared for lay members of the church. 55 A f t e r a very short discussion they were unanimously adopted. 5 " The question of the publication of the proceedings of the conference was discussed. Opinion seemed to be divided, with those opposed to publication in the majority. It was, therefore, agreed that the thirteen resolutions officially adopted by the conference were to be published, while the debates were to be deposited in the archives of Lambeth Library. An account of the debates was, however, published later in the Guardian and 55 Guardian, June 26, 1878, p. 897. 56 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 897.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

183

it is evident from the tone of the excerpts here collected why great care has been taken in the later conferences not to allow publication. A perusal of this account in the Guardian conveys the impression that secrecy was decided upon both because the debates were typical of the workings of Anglican procedure in church affairs and the prelates knew full well that the debates in the later conferences would, in all probability, follow much the same pattern. On the motion of the Bishops of Oxford and New Zealand, the Archbishop of Canterbury was requested to publish his opening address and the Bishop of Illinois his sermon. Thanks to the president for the manner in which the American bishops had been received was then expressed by the Bishops of North Carolina and New York. Both prelates also stated their belief that the American bishops had been greatly benefited by coming to the conference. Then the Bishop of Lincoln expressed a desire to say a word or two regarding missionary bishops. This was not permitted, because the president indicated that it was almost time for adjournment. However, the Bishop of Lincoln moved that a committee be appointed to consider the matter of missionary bishops. At this point, Bishop Cotterill (Grahamstown) said he believed that the Bishop of New Zealand was prepared to move that Resolutions VII (Court of Metropolitans), VIII (Scheme for Conducting Elections of Bishops, when not otherwise provided for) and IX (Declaration of Submission to Regulations of Synods) of the new program should be referred to the committee which had already been appointed. The suggestion led to considerable discussion as to whether the resolutions should be dealt with summarily or referred to committee, with the Bishops of St. David's and Ely being strongly in favor of the latter course. Bishop Selwyn (New Zealand) threatened to resign his office as metropolitan if some solution of the problems involved in the resolutions was not worked out. The

184

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

result was that committees were appointed which reported at the adjourned meeting of the conference. Bishop Gray (Cape T o w n ) , not satisfied with the results of the discussion on the Colenso matter of the previous day, then moved the following resolution, which was seconded by Bishop Wilberforce ( O x f o r d ) : That we who are here present do acquiesce in the resolution of the Convocation of Canterbury, passed on June 29, 1866, relating to the diocese of Natal, to w i t — " If it be decided that a new bishop should be consecrated,—As to the proper steps to be taken by the members of the church in the diocese of Natal for obtaining a new bishop, it is the opinion of this house, first, that a formal instrument, declaratory of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of South Africa should be prepared, which every bishop, priest and deacon to be appointed to office should be required to subscribe ; secondly, that a godly and well-learned man should be chosen by the clergy, with the assent of the lay-communicants of the church; and thirdly, that he should be presented for consecration, either to the Archbishop of Canterbury, — if the aforesaid instrument should declare the doctrine and discipline of Christ as received by the United Church of England and Ireland,—or to the bishops of the Church of South Africa, according as hereafter may be judged to be most advisable and convenient." 57 A f t e r a brief but very heated debate, this resolution was carried, the vote being, A y e s 43, Noes 3.58 In conclusion the Bishop of Argyle moved: That we desire to render our hearty thanks to Almighty God for the blessings vouchsafed to us in and by this conference; and we desire to express our hope that our meeting may hereafter be followed by other meetings, to be conducted in the spirit of the same brotherly love.59 5 7 Ibid., J u n e 26, 1878, p. 898. 58 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 898. 5 9 Ibid., J u n e 26, 1878, p. 898.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

185

This was seconded by the Bishop of New Zealand and was unanimously adopted.60 The Archbishop of Canterbury then read the Prayer for the Church Militant, and after the singing of the Gloria in Excelsis, led by the Bishop of Indiana, the conference was dismissed by the Primate with his blessing.61 On Saturday, September 28, the concluding service was held in Lambeth Church. Thirty-four bishops as well as a large number of the clergy attended. The sermon was preached by Bishop Fulford (Montreal). His text was Psalm I V , 6, " There be many that say, who will show us any good? " This sermon was described by the Bishop of Cape Town as " a plain, sensible one." The Holy Communion was celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. With this service the conference broke up, having adjourned until December 10. THE

ADJOURNED

SESSION

DECEMBER

OF T H E 10,

CONFERENCE:

1867

The adjourned meeting held on that date at Lambeth Palace was attended by twenty-nine bishops. It was convened to adopt the thirteen formal resolutions which had been drawn up as a result of the discussions of September 24-27, and also to enable the eight committees appointed during the sessions in September to present their reports.62 These reports were : ι. Report on Synods (Resolutions IV and V ) . Signed by the Bishops of New Zealand and Grahamstown. 2. Voluntary Spiritual Tribunal (Resolution I X ) . Signed by the Bishops of Montreal and Grahamstown. 3. On Metropolitan Courts (Resolution X ) . Signed by the Bishops of Montreal and Grahamstown. 6 0 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 898. 61 Ibid., June 26, 1878, p. 898. 6 2 Ibid., D e c e m b e r 24, 1867, pp. 1389-1390.

l86

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

4. Scheme for Conducting the Election of Bishops when not otherwise provided for (Resolution X I ) . Signed by the Bishops of Montreal and Grahamstown. 5. On the Declaration of Submission to Regulations of Synod. Signed by the Bishops of New Zealand and Grahamstown. 6. On Provinces and Subordination to Metropolitans. by the Bishops of Montreal and Grahamstown.

Signed

7. On Missionary Bishops. Signed by the Bishop of Gibraltar and Missionary Bishop Tozer. 8. The Report on the Natal Committee. Seven additional resolutions were also adopted at this adjourned meeting. Bishop G r a y ' s diary describes this meeting in detail. In it he writes : " T h e first subject a f t e r prayer was the bringing up of the reports of committees. T h e Archbishop first laid the Natal report upon the table, and seemed to think that nothing could be done with it, or with the other reports. He and the Bishop of London had evidently been conferring on the subject and come to this conclusion, f o r the Bishop of London made a strong speech in support of this view, objecting on principle to the rump of the conference settling anything, and urging that we could not discuss the reports in a week. I rose to object, and to move the adoption of the first report. Others spoke strongly to the same effect as myself, declaring that if we met only to receive reports and do nothing, we had better not have met at all; P r i m u s of Scotland, Bishops of O x f o r d , Rochester, N o v a Scotia, Montreal, Illinois, and others taking this view. Ultimately the Bishop of Montreal drew up a substitute, which the Bishop of O x f o r d seconded, to the effect that each report be read and received, published, recommended earnestly to the consideration of the church, and that the committees be thanked f o r their care and labour. A s the Bishop of London and others felt that there was not sufficient time f o r this, I consented to withdraw my motion in f a v o u r of the Bishop of Montreal's. E a c h report was then read, slightly can-

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

l8j

vassed, and the resolution agreed upon adopted with regard to each. After going through seven, not including Natal, the Archbishop consulted the synod whether the American Church should have a copy of the whole proceedings, including the debates. This was agreed to, but not for publication. As the proceedings seemed likely to close without any further reference to the Natal report, I rose, and in, I fear, rather a warm speech, urged that it should be treated precisely as the other reports had been dealt with; pointing out that if it were not done, and this were the only report of which the conference took no notice, it would be said that it had disapproved of it, and that it would go forth to the world at a great disadvantage with the other reports; that the shelving of this report would be an act of injustice to the South African Church, and give fresh moral support to Dr. Colenso ; that he owed his present position very largely to the course pursued by the bishops of the English Church, and that I trusted the conference would never consent still more to weaken our hands ; and that I did not think there was anything in the objection that the conference had ordered the report to be made to the Archbishop and communicated by him to the bishops of the Anglican Communion—this would still be done, but that if no action were taken with reference to the report we should feel aggrieved. The Bishop of Rochester seconded my motion ; the Bishops of Nova Scotia, Montreal, Oxford, Illinois and others warmly supported it." " T h e Archbishop very graciously conceded the point; the Bishop of London offered very slight opposition, and altogether today acted nicely. It was resolved also that this particular report should be communicated to the Colonial Bishoprics Council." " The only subject fully debated in the afternoon was the bill to be introduced into the Imperial Parliament, with reference to the position of colonial clergy and the property of the church. All the conclusions arrived at by the committee were assented to, and a sub-committee appointed to see to the drafting of a bill, and submitting it to the government. Little more

l88

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

remained to be done. T h e P r i m u s of Scotland moved, and I seconded, a resolution asking the President to express to the Russian Church the sympathy of the Anglican Communion with it, under the loss it had sustained by the death of its eminent Metropolitan Philarete. I would have done more with reference to the subject of the inter-communion with the Greek O r t h o dox Church, but other bishops thought more could not now be done. T h e Bishop of Grahamstown and his assistant secretaries were heartily and unanimously thanked for the important services which they had rendered in preparing matter for the committees ; and the Archbishop was once more warmly thanked f o r summoning the conference, and his conduct of it. And then this most important gathering, whose conclusions are destined to exercise so great an influence on the whole future of the churches of our Communion, both at home and abroad, came to a close, the Archbishop giving his final blessing." 83 It is to be noted, according to this account of the adjourned session, that Bishop Tait gave way to Bishop Gray and his supporters by withdrawing his opposition to the submission of the report on the conditions of the church in Natal to that session of the conference. H e saw that nothing was to be gained by his continued opposition under the existing circumstances because that report was a fait accompli for him as it was f o r Archbishop Longley. However, his action was solely in the interests of harmony. But it was against his better judgment for he still held to his original views in regard to the whole affair, which had been stated by him with so much firmness first in the Convocation of Canterbury and then in one of the preceding sessions of the conference. H i s action did not, therefore, really compromise his principles because it did not represent any basic change in his stand on the matter, nor was it, in strict accuracy, inconsistent with that stand as evidenced by his previously stated views. 63 Gray, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 373-376.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

189

T H E R E S U L T S OF T H E C O N F E R E N C E AS E V I D E N C E D I N T H E R E P O R T S ON S Y N O D S , T H E V O L U N T A R Y

SPIRITUAL

T R I B U N A L , AND T H E C H U R C H I N N A T A L

The reports on synods, the voluntary spiritual tribunal, and on the conditions of the church in Natal, were the most important of the eight reports submitted, not only because of the publicity given to them by the press, but also because of their future significance. In the report on synods, the committee dealt with the problems involved in the abstract, being guarded in their recommendations. A f t e r noting the existence of diocesan and provincial synods in some branches of the Anglican Communion, and giving a brief résumé of them from the standpoint of organization, duties and powers, the committee then went on to recommend the creation of a higher body, which was not to be called a synod, but might be called an assembly, congress or council, and that if such a body should be called into existence it should not " be competent to enact canons of binding ecclesiastical authority on these different bodies, or to frame definitions of faith which it would be obligatory on the churches of the Anglican Communion to accept." Indeed the committee stated definitely : " Its decisions could only possess the authority which might be derived from the moral weight of such united counsels and judgments, and from the voluntary acceptance of its conclusions by any of the churches there represented." The committee believed that the " Archbishop of Canterbury should be the convener of such an assembly." Heeding the adverse criticism in some quarters, the committee suggested the the proposed assembly " should be attended by both clerical and lay representatives of the several churches . . . and that the proceedings should be more formal, and, in part at least, public." The report concluded with the final recommendation that the time of the first meeting, and at what periods this congress or council should be called, should be left to the discretion of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The six later Lambeth Conferences are the fruit of this report; however they have

I9O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

followed the precedent of the first conference and included only bishops and their proceedings have been even less public than those of the conference of 1 8 6 7 . " In the report on the voluntary spiritual tribunal, the committee recommended its creation. A s to its constitution, each province of the churches in the colonies w a s to elect two members; each diocese of the churches in the colonies not associated into provinces should collectively have the right of electing t w o members, each province of the United Church of E n g l a n d and Ireland should elect t w o members, but the P r o v i n c e of Canterbury should elect three, in the event that the Archbishop o f Canterbury w a s not acting as president. T h e Episcopal Church in Scotland should be represented by t w o elected representatives, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America w a s invited to elect five members. T h e members of this tribunal were to be elected by the bishops of the several churches. I t was understood that the A r c h b i s h o p of Canterbury w a s to be the presiding officer and that the tribunal w a s to be constituted as soon a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 , 1 8 6 9 , as possible, and was to come into existence when the names o f ten members were f o r w a r d e d to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Seven members were to constitute a quorum f o r the transaction of business. T h e principal function of the tribunal w a s to be that of a court of appeal. 65 N o f o r m a l action w a s taken on these recommendations. T h e matter was, nevertheless, brought before and considered in the Conferences of 1 8 7 8 , 1 8 8 8 , 1 8 9 7 , and 1 9 0 8 . But a g r o w i n g aversion w a s manifested in each of these Conferences to the creation of such a tribunal. T h e result w a s that the idea w a s finally given up. N o tribunal of references has, in consequence, ever been created f o r the A n g l i c a n Communion. T h e principal recommendation of the Natal committee w a s incorporated in the last paragraph of their report, which stated that : " J u d g i n g , therefore, that the see is spiritually vacant ; and learning, by the evidence brought before them, that there are 64 Guardian, December 24, 1867, p. 1389. 65 Ibid., December 24, 1867, p. 1389.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I9I

many members of the church who are unable to accept the ministrations of Dr. Colenso, the committee deem it to be the duty of the metropolitan and other bishops of South A f r i c a to proceed, upon the election of the clergy and laity in Natal, to consecrate one to discharge those spiritual functions of which these members of the church are now in want." ββ This recommendation resulted in the consecration of Bishop W . K . Macrorie, with the title of Bishop of Pieter Maritzburg, as described in the previous chapter. T H E A T T I T U D E OF T H E PRESS, A N D OF T H E C H U R C H E S IN ENGLAND,

CANADA

AND THE

TOWARDS T H E

UNITED

STATES

CONFERENCE

What was the attitude of the press, of the bishops, and of other interested persons towards the conference and its proceedings, the Encyclical Letter, the formal resolutions and the committee reports ? By holding its proceedings behind closed doors, the conference was the target for adverse criticism. The Times, on September 25, expressed itself as follows: "Seventy-five bishops disappeared under the gateway of Lambeth Palace, and were lost to public view. Neither the public nor the press were admitted to their mysterious deliberations. This arrangement will have the effect of completing the perplexity with which this singular assemblage must be regarded. . . . T h e Archbishop has published a programme of the subjects to be taken into consideration, and of the resolutions at which the bishops are expected to arrive. The conclusions of the synod by such a step are made public property, and it is impossible that it should any longer be regarded as a private assembly. The synod, in short, was publicly summoned and announced, its intended results and even its course of proceeding have been made public beforehand. There is nothing private either in its initiation, in its assemblage, or in the issues expected. It has been surrounded with a boastful publicity up to the last moment ; but 66 Ibid.., December 24, 1867, p. 1390.

I92

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

it is finally shrouded in a prudent privacy." βτ The Guardian and the Church Journal criticized the conference, though in a milder tone.™ Dean Stanley of Westminster was as caustic as he had been obdurate about the use of the abbey, or as was the Times with regard to the matter."" A s to the conference itself, there was general

unanimity

a m o n g the bishops w h o had attended it, that it had done a great deal of g o o d in an intangible w a y , by promoting good will and friendship throughout the A n g l i c a n Communion. Bishop T a i t (London)

indicated this in the f o l l o w i n g extracts f r o m his

d i a r y : " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g this sad incident at the close, [i. e., the introduction of the resolution by the Bishop of Cape T o w n ] I

feel that the tone of

the conference generally was

very

good. . . . O n the whole, let us be t h a n k f u l f o r the kindly spirit o f the conference, f o r its essential unity."

70

Bishop F u l f o r d

( M o n t r e a l ) w a s more enthusiastic in his appraisal of the success of the conference. O n June 16, 1868, he w a s present at the annual meeting of his diocesan synod. O n that occasion he referred to the conference by s a y i n g : " W e l l , we met, and notwithstanding the doubts of the timid and the sneers of the scornful, though everything m a y not have been done that some eager ardent spirits hoped and expected, though we had no constituted legal character, and never f o r an instant affected to claim it; yet I unhesitatingly assert that if those seventy-six archbishops

and

Christ, . . .

if w e have done nothing more than give visible

bishops,

holding

office in the Church

of

testimony to our oneness in faith and discipline by our united 67 Times,

September 25, 1867, p. 8.

68 Guardian, N o v e m b e r 13, 1867, p. 1217. " T h e secrecy of the proceedings is in itself somewhat of an offense to our publicity-loving kinsmen." Church Journal, October 16, 1867, p. 317. " That the sittings with closed doors was a mistake." 69Chronicle of Convocation, 1S68, p. 1091. D e a n Stanley: " O n e main vice of the conference-—viz., that its proceedings were carried on with a secrecy unworthy alike of Englishmen and the English Church." 70 Davidson, Randall T. and Benham, William, Life of Archibald Tait, Vol. I, pp. 381-382.

Campbell

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1867

I93

acts of public worship . . . then I unhesitatingly assert that we have done the most important act connected with the maintenance of the true faith, as we have received it, . . . that has been accomplished for many hundreds of years." 11 The Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter dated December 27, 1867, to the Bishop of Illinois, referred to the conference " as an important era in my life and Arch-Episcopate." 72 But the press continued divided in its opinion. The Times again described the conference as " a meeting of bishops, more numerous and less exclusive than the annual meetings, but aiming at more moral weight, but if possible, with even less authority in law." 73 And at a later date it remarked that " the results have not been such as to encourage a repetition of the experiment." 74 On the other hand, the Church Times believed that " The conference of bishops of the Anglican Communion, which has just been held, must be pronounced a success. That it has not done a great deal is true, but it may well be doubted whether it would not have been less successful had it aimed at accomplishing more. . . . A s a historical fact, likely to be of moment in the future, the conference may fairly rank with those tentative Parliaments of the early Plantagenet Kings out of which the English constitution has grown. . . . The immediate result of the conference has been two-fold. It has dealt a heavy blow to the Erastian spirit by showing the spiritual equality of the unestablished prelates of a republic with the mitred peers of a kingdom. It has struck more heavily still at the insular narrowness which limits all interest within the compass of England and Wales. And what will come of these wounds to an old system no man can tell." 75 Of all these com71 Taylor, Fennings, The Last Three Bishops, Appointed by the Crown, For the Anglican Church in Canada, p. n o . 72 Ibid., p. 109. 73 Times, September 27, 1867, p. 6. 74 Ibid., December 10, 1867, p. 7. 75 Church Times, October 19, 1867, p. 370.

IÇ4

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

ments this was the most important because of its prophetic nature. The Guardian considered the conference as " important, as marking where we have got to, and what in some parts of our Communion is imperatively needed; it may not be eventful, according to what comes out of it, or whether anything comes of it or no." 78 Later the Guardian stated that " the unity of faith and doctrine, of heart and hope . . . have been brought out by this synod of Lambeth, as they have never been brought out before." 77 The appraisal of the conference was mild compared with that of the Encyclical Letter, the resolutions and committee reports. Opinion with regard to the Encyclical Letter was diverse, to say the least. Archbishop Longley, in the letter previously alluded to, said : " The Encyclical, as I have heard from good authority, is considered a very serious matter by Roman Catholics—English and foreign; and some of them have said that the Church of Rome has never received such a blow since the Reformation." 78 Bishop Tait (London) asserted that " The pastoral is the expression of essential agreement, and a repudiation of infidelity and Romanism." 78 On the other hand, Dean Stanley (Westminster), a prominent Broad Churchman, described the Encyclical as " the most latitudinarian document ever issued from any assembly of bishops held in any part of the world," which of course, was not intended as praise.80 The Church Times referred to the Encyclical with the statement that " while it is impossible to say that the pastoral letter issued by the bishops . . . is all that it might and ought to have been, it is at least a great deal better than it could reasonably 76 Guardian,

September 25, 1867, pp. 1024-1025.

77 Ibid., November 13, 1867, p. 1217. 78 Taylor, Fennings, op. cit., p. 109. 79 Davidson and Benham, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 381-382. 80 Chronicle

of Convocation,

1868, p. 1089.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE 81

OF

1867

J

95

be expected to have proved." The Times called the Encyclical " a solemn kind of sermon " and, because of its somewhat formal and antique phraseology, the result was " an indescribable incongruity " and was, in fact, so " profoundly innocuous " that it " could not offend any party in the church and might give gentle satisfaction to all." 62 Opinion was also divided with regard to the resolutions. The Church Times looked with favor upon all of them,83 while the Times stated that " a series of resolutions have been passed, which if they could be carried out, would produce the most injurious consequences upon the Church of England ",81 and branded them as " impracticable." The committee reports, especially those on synods, the voluntary spiritual tribunal and Natal, did not escape criticism either. Again the Times led the way with hostile criticism by saying: " N o w what is the plain meaning of these resolutions? The bishops have appointed committees to consider by what means the Church of England may be transformed from a national body into a mere member of an almost oecumenical organization. Of course, we cannot constitute a new Rome. . . . Although the bishops could not possibly carry out their professed intentions, they might occasion very mischievous results. Nor is it compatible with the peace of the church that an episcopal ' Committee of Public Safety ' should be permanently sitting at Lambeth, and from time to time issuing authoritative resolutions or addresses on matters of faith and discipline." 85 The Guardian criticized the resolutions in a milder manner with the statement that " the Lambeth reports may be open to criticism in detail. We have expressed our own opinion that in recommending a grand central court of appeal they fly too high; but we have no doubt that their general suggestions for orderly 81 Church Times,

October 5, 1867, p. 346.

82 Times, October 1, 1867, p. 6. 83 Church

Times,

October 19, 1867, p. 370.

84 Times, October 10, 1867, p. 6. 85 Ibid., December 10, 1867, p. 7.

196

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

government by the Anglican Church in its several provinces and dioceses are founded on trustworthy experience, and dictated by practical wisdom and good sense." 88 Also the Church Times guardedly remarked that " the reports of the committees appointed by the conference of bishops are in many respects highly satisfactory, especially that upon the Natal question." 87 In February, 1868, the Convocation of Canterbury, after a spirited debate in the Lower House, finally voted to incorporate the Encyclical Letter into its records.88 In September, 1868, the Canadian Synod at its triennial meeting also officially adopted the Encyclical Letter.89 This was the extent of the action which the Province of Canterbury and the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada took with regard to the conference. The church in the United States, on the other hand, in its triennial convention, held in New York in October, 1868, adopted six resolutions on the motion of the Bishop of Illinois. These were : I. Resolved : T h a t this church records with gratitude to A l mighty God the satisfaction and thankfulness with which it regards the solemn assembly of the bishops of the A n g l i can Communion in the Lambeth Conference, by which the bonds have been strengthened " of Christian Communion between churches acknowledging one L o r d , one Faith, one Baptism, and connected by common formularies ", and we do cordially unite in the language and spirit of the " Introduction " by which the deliberations of that body were prefaced. II. Resolved : T h a t this church receives the Encyclical Letter, or " A d d r e s s to the F a i t h f u l in Christ Jesus, the Priests and Deacons, and the L a y Members of the Church of Christ, 86 Guardian, 87 Church 88 Chroniclc

January x, 1868, p. 9.

Times, D e c e m b e r 14, 1867, p. 437. of Convocation,

1868, pp. 1081-1108, 1160-1168.

89 Journal of the Proceedings of the Prozincial Synod Church of England and Ireland in Canada, 1868, p. 41.

of the

United

THE L A M B E T H C O N F E R E N C E OF 1 8 6 7

I97

in communion with the Anglican Branch of the Church ", and orders the same to be incorporated into the official records of the church. I I I . Resolved : That we acknowledge with thankfulness the act of the venerable Primate, . . . in convening the meeting of the chief pastors of the Anglican Communion . . . I V . Resolved: That this church accept the full spiritual validity of the deposition and excommunication of Dr. Colenso, pronounced by the metropolitan and bishops of the South African Church; and we will regard him as deposed and excommunicated accordingly . . . V . Resolved : That this church recognizes with satisfaction as indispensable for the discipline of the church, the provision of letters dimissory reciprocal between its several branches, and the full change of jurisdiction understood to be secured by such transfer. V I . Resolved: That this church also expresses its cordial approval of the provision that emigrant members of the church of good Christian standing, should be furnished with testimonials addressed to the bishops and pastors of the church to which they may remove. 90 T h e action taken by the Convocation of Canterbury and the churches in Canada and the United States was illustrative of the attitude of the various branches of the Anglican Communion towards the conference and its labors. T h a t the conference was a success, in spite of all the d i f ficulties it encountered, is proven by the fact that it has been followed by others. In consequence, the Lambeth Conferences have now become an institution of the Anglican Communion. F o u r things stand out in bold relief with regard to this particular conference. T h e first was the attitude of those in authority in the church both towards the convening of such an assembly, and the conference itself. Whether they approved or disapproved, their attitude was one of wariness because all of 90 Proceedings of the General Convention of the Protestant Church, October 17-29, 1868, pp. 275-276.

Episcopal

I98

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

them realized that such a gathering was an experiment of unprecedented character in Anglican ecclesiastical procedure. Those who disapproved felt, for that very reason, that the conference would lead the church into strange and dangerous waters, and so would do more harm than good. On the other hand, those who approved made little of that fact and refused to allow it to deter them from bringing the conference into being. The second was the part played by the Colenso controversy in the convening of the conference and upon its deliberations. That controversy was partially responsible for its convening, in that it was in the background of the deliberations of the Convocation of Canterbury; it also cast a dark shadow over the conference and all of its deliberations, and so prevented the conference from being the success that it might otherwise have been. The third was the attitude of the London press, both before and while the conference was in session. As has already been shown, it was, on the whole, a critical one. This was neither surprising nor wholly unexpected, because the press also looked upon the conference as an unprecedented innovation in Anglican ecclesiastical procedure. The fourth and final one was the rôle of Archbishop Longley. His position was an extremely delicate and difficult one from the very beginning. The divergent views of the parties within the Communion and, more particularly, the Colenso matter were in the background of all the decisions which he had to make. At the outset he thought he could steer a middle course between the Scylla of liberalism and the Charybdis of orthodoxy, and escape the charge of partisanship by both groups, by insisting that the official program be formulated so as to prevent consideration of the Colenso matter and yet make some settlement of the difficulties of the churches in the colonies and of the Bishop of Cape Town. But his failure to do so, as evidenced by his sanctioning of the substitution of the program of the Anglo-Catholic bishops for the official agenda, was more to be commended than condoned, when viewed in retrospect. Had he not acceded to the wishes of these Anglo-Catholic bishops, the conference

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

18Ò7

I99

would have been adjudged a total failure by posterity, for all present were unanimous in the view that the conditions of the church in Natal were not only a detriment to the well-being o f the churches in the colonies, but also to the welfare of the entire Anglican Communion. However, the conference survived all of these obstacles and so redounded to the courage and vision of the persons who were responsible for promoting it. Moreover, nothing could better illustrate the English method in constructing new institutional relationships. Perhaps it prefigured the Imperial Conference of the British Commonwealth o f Nations, for the family of interdependent organizations constituting the Anglican Communion came into conscious relationship with each other twenty years before the corresponding political understandings were reached.

CHAPTER IV T H E DEVELOPMENT OF PAN-ANGLICAN ORGANIZATION AS SHOWN THROUGH THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1878 T H E Lambeth Conference of 1867 was, in truth, an experiment. I t set a precedent for the discussion o f problems common to all the branches of the A n g l i c a n Communion, but it did not make provision f o r summoning a second conference. T h e events o f the next decade, with the continuing and the new problems o f the Communion, and the feeling that the first conference had begun much, but had finished very little or nothing, resulted in holding the second conference in 1878. W i t h i n the decade between 1868 and 1878 there were several important changes in matters ecclesiastical. T h e

discontinu-

ance o f Letters Patent f o r the self-governing colonies in 1864 had been followed by an act of the British Parliament disestablishing and disendowing the church in Ireland. 1 T h i s act provided that the legislative union between the church in E n g land and in Ireland was to terminate on January 1, 1871. T h u s , the church in Ireland attained the status of a mature national episcopal church like that of the church in Scotland. A l t h o u g h the movement toward disestablishment and disendowment originated in the British Isles, it spread, pari passu, to the lands beyond the seas under British jurisdiction.

Every-

where it paralleled the g r o w t h of synodical government and the relinquishment of civil control of the colonies by the home government. A s a result of these changes, the A n g l i c a n C o m munion, by 1870, resembled a religious confederation. It was comprised of a congeries of autonomous branches in England, Ireland, Scotland, the self-governing British possessions, and the United States, each with its own episcopate, organization, formularies, canons, and liturgy. 1 32 and 33 Vict., c. 2 : T h e Irish Church Act. Evans, Anna Laura, Disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869. 200

The

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

P R E L I M I N A R I E S OF T H E C O N F E R E N C E OF

20I

1878

The situation was a matter of grave concern and gave rise to the belief that something ought to be done to unify the Anglican Communion. Widely variant suggestions were made : to change the office of Archbishop of Canterbury to one similar to that of " Patriarch in the Ancient Church; " to create a PanAnglican council under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which should meet at stated times, with jurisdiction to deliberate upon matters of doctrine only; and to convene a second Lambeth Conference. These suggestions were all made by the Right Reverend G. A. Selwyn,—the prelate who had done so much to promote the first conference. Having been translated to Lichfield (England) in 1868, this former Bishop of New Zealand was now to play an equally prominent role in promoting the second conference. In 1871 he was invited to attend the triennial convention of the church in the United States, held that year in Baltimore. The invitation was an opportunity for him to make his first trip to America; his object was " to promote intercommunion and living sympathy between all the branches of the Anglican Communion." The difficulties to be overcome in unifying all the branches of the Anglican Church were complicated by the party divisions within each of these branches. The Tractarian movement was steadily gaining strength both in England and America. The Catholic doctrine of these churchmen was leading to a revival of much of the pre-Reformation ritual, and the Evangelical or Protestant-minded episcopate in both countries objected far more to the " popish " rites than to the Catholic doctrines. The controversy over ritualism threatened to disrupt the various branches of the church—even yet it is the most noticeable distinction between high and low churchmen. When Bishop Selwyn was invited to preach on the first day of the convention he referred to the activities of the ritualists, both in America and England, proposing in general terms a means whereby their activities might be controlled. In so doing,

202

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

he gave first utterance to an idea, which was the precursor of his later suggestions : Every particular branch of the church hath authority to ordain and change ceremonies and rites of the church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. It is the duty of all loving members of the Church of England to submit their own private opinion, in matters indifferent, to the judgment of their brethren ; for truth of doctrine and fervency of devotion are best promoted when Christian men are seen to be of one heart and soul. There need be no servile uniformity, if there be but a recognized authority, which all are willing to obey. The whole of our church is interested in obtaining this happy combination of elastic freedom with efficient control. May we not hope that some central authority, elected and obeyed by every member of every branch of the whole Anglican Communion, may be appointed to exercise this power of controlling inordinate self-will, and zeal not tempered with discretion : saying to the too hasty minds, who claim as lawful, things which are not expedient, " Thus far shalt thou go, and no further ? " 2 Bishop Selwyn left Baltimore f o r a trip to Canada two days after he preached this sermon. But his remarks about the creation of some central authority to control ritualism and ritualist activities made a great impression upon Bishop Benjamin Bosworth Smith of Kentucky, the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Indeed, Bishop Smith was so much in accord with the idea that he wrote a letter to Bishop Selwyn suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should, whether under the name of Patriarch, or otherwise, convene a decennial council of all the bishops of the Anglican Communion whose deliberations should be limited to questions of doctrine. A f t e r visiting Canada, Bishop Selwyn returned to the United States, for a brief sojourn in New Y o r k City before his final 2 Selwyn, G. Α., L o r d Bishop of Lichfield, Sermon delivered before a General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, Baltimore, October 4-26, 1871, pp. 8-9.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2O3

departure to England. A farewell breakfast was given in his honor at Delmonico's shortly before he sailed. On this occasion he gave further impetus to the developments for strengthening the unity between the various branches of the Anglican Church by saying : Now your presiding Bishop writes me a letter, proposing that all branches of the Anglican Communion should send their representatives,—bishops, clergy and laity, to (what he aptly calls) a " Patriarchal Council." This council should be held, he says, either at Canterbury or at Lambeth. I hope the suggestion will be carried out in 1877, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who should be recognized by all the bishops of the Anglican Communion as virtually, if not actually, the Patriarch.8 These suggestions produced action in another quarter — Canada. In December, 1872, at a special meeting of the Canadian synod, the Canadian bishops took the first official step toward convening the second Lambeth Conference, just as in 1865 they had initiated the first conference. They made a formal appeal to the Convocation of Canterbury to join them in requesting Archibishop Archibald Campbell Tait, who had succeeded to the primacy in 1869, to summon a second meeting of the Lambeth Conference as soon as possible, on the grounds " that such meeting will be most efficacious in uniting the scattered branches of the Anglican Communion, and in promoting the extension of the Kingdom of Christ throughout the world." 4 The matter was considered by the Convocation of Canterbury early in 1873. Only a part of one day's session was used for discussing it. On February 1 3 Bishop Selwyn took advantage of the Canadian memorial to present a set of resolutions in the Upper House. They requested the appointing of a joint com3 Curteis, C. H., Life of G. A. Selwyn, Lichfield, Vol. II, pp. 305-306.

Bishop of New

Zealand and

4 Davidson, Randall T., The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888, pp. 139-140.

204

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

mittee of both houses of Convocation " to consider and report upon " several proposals : that the various branches of the Anglican Communion throughout the world should be invited to concur with the Convocation of Canterbury in requesting the Archbishop of Canterbury to undertake an office " equivalent to that of patriarch in the ancient church " ; that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be requested to " convene a general conference of the bishops of the Anglican Communion to carry out the work begun by the Lambeth Conference in 1 8 6 7 " ; that the proposed conference should be held in 1 8 7 5 ; and that it should consider the reports of the committees presented at the adjourned session of the 1867 conference. 5 Bishop Selwyn, in a memorable speech, justified these proposals. H e commenced by giving a résumé of the events by which the relationship of the churches in the colonies and in Ireland had been changed with respect to the Church of E n g land. Then he referred to the status of the churches in Scotland and in the United States. In the face of these facts, the Anglican Communion had become a confederation, because all these branches were now removed from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. All these events had been of a centrifugal character. However, he believed, because of his knowledge of conditions in N e w Zealand, and as a result of his visit to the United States and Canada in 1 8 7 1 , that this decentralizing tendency could be overcome. Unity could be brought about, but only through voluntary compact. He was convinced that this voluntary compact could best be consummated by means of " a general council of bishops of the Anglican Communion to carry on the work begun by the Lambeth Conference of 1 8 6 7 , " as requested by the Canadian bishops. Changing the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to one " equivalent to that of patriarch of the ancient church " , he contended, would be logical and entirely consistent with the fundamental beliefs of the Church of England. He considered 5 Chronicle of Convocation

(1873),

pp. 168-169, for these resolutions in full.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2C>5

the year 1875 an expedient date for convening the proposed council, because the General Convention of the church in the United States, the Synod of the Province of Canada, and the General Synod of the church in New Zealand were all holding their meetings in 1874. Finally, he justified the consideration by the proposed council of the reports of the committees presented at the adjourned session of the Lambeth Conference of 1867 on the ground that they had not been adopted or even discussed in 1867.® The resolutions were presented to the Upper House in the form of a motion, which was seconded by the Bishop of Winchester, who also made the additional suggestion that the Archbishop of Canterbury should confer with the Primates of Y o r k and of the church in Ireland. No further action was taken by the Upper House. N o vote was taken on the motion, the matter being tabled for future consideration, because of the pressure of other business. Later in the same year, the West Indian bishops, assembled in conference at Georgetown, in Demerara (British Guiana), seconded the Canadian proposal. They adopted and dispatched a resolution to the Convocation of Canterbury requesting the Archbishop of Canterbury " to summon another meeting of bishops of the Anglican Communion throughout the world at as early a date as may seem to his Grace practicable and expedient." 7 The Australian bishops also memorialized the Archbishop of Canterbury to take the same action. Early in 1874, Bishop Selwyn received a letter from Bishop Smith of Kentucky requesting him to ascertain what progress had been made towards calling the conference in 1875. These events made it imperative for the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury to direct its attention to the matter again in 1874. In the interim Archbishop Tait had altered the first proposal of Bishop Selwyn, believing it to be too radical a 6 Ibid. (1873),

pp. 169-174, for the speech in full.

7 Davidson, op. cit., p. 140.

2O6

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

departure f r o m traditional Anglican principles, and also because he thought that it would place him, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, in an embarrassing position. T h e proposal, as altered by the Archbishop, invited the various branches of the Anglican Communion to concur with the Convocation of Canterbury " in considering what is the exact position that it is desirable that the Archbishop of Canterbury should hold in reference to the various branches of the Anglican Communion scattered throughout the world." Archbishop Tait altered the wording of the second and third proposals too, but these alterations were of a minor character and did not m o d i f y their substance. He eliminated the fourth, i.e., to hold the conference in 1 8 7 5 . The proposals, in their altered form, were introduced in the Upper House by Bishop Selwyn on April 29. In another speech, similar in character to the one he had'made in 1 8 7 3 , again made an impassioned plea f o r the Archbishop of Canterbury to assume the headship of the Anglican Communion ; f o r the proposed conference to become a voluntary tribunal of appeal; and that this tribunal should have the authority " t o take into consideration statements of doctrine and external acts symbolic of doctrine, now threatening the disruption of various branches of the church." Although that part of his plea was disapproved by Archbishop Tait, the Upper House, after a brief discussion, agreed to refer the proposals to a joint committee. A t the same time, they formally resolved to communicate with the Convocation of the Province of Y o r k for an expression of its opinion upon the proposals. 8 The committee, under the chairmanship of Bishop Selwyn, met at the Bounty Board Room on J u l y 8, 1 8 7 4 . T w o days later their report was brought before the Upper House. They expressed the opinion that " the relation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the other bishops of the Anglican Communion should be that of primate among archbishops, primates and bishops." They recommended that the Archbishop of Canterbury " should be respectfully requested to convene the second 8 Chronicle of Convocation

(18/4),

pp. 73-80.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

20J

meeting of the Lambeth Conference for the year 1876," and that " the reports of the committees which had been presented at the adjourned session of the Lambeth Conference of 1867, should be taken into consideration at the second conference." * A f t e r a few remarks by the Bishops of Gloucester and Bristol, Winchester, and Lincoln in explanation of the decision arrived at by the committee regarding the position that the Archbishop of Canterbury was to hold, the Upper House finished its consideration of this matter. Acceding to a suggestion of Archbishop Tait, they agreed to communicate the report to the Lower House before adopting it. 10 A s July 1 0 was the last day of session in 1874, and ended that particular Convocation, the report was never discussed in the Lower House. However, even though the Convocation of Canterbury did not adopt it, the recommendations of the committee nevertheless clearly indicated a kindly disposition toward the proposal to hold a second conference. The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury was not the only body to consider the matter of convening a second Lambeth Conference. In 1874 the question was discussed in the Synod of the Province of Canada, and in the General Convention of the church in the United States. This was in deference to Bishop Selwyn, who made a second trip to America in that year and attended the sessions of both of these bodies. The church in Canada held its triennial synod in Montreal from September 9 to 16. The matter of a second Lambeth Conference was considered, and a memorandum, which was drawn up by the House of Bishops and adopted by both houses of the synod, was addressed to Bishop Selwyn. In this document it was suggested that the proposed conference should be held in 1876, and that its duration should be one month, with four days of each week being days of session, or at least two weeks of session with an interval between the first and last week. Other recommendations were: that the committee reports of the 1867 conference, with the exception of Report No. 8 (The Report of 9 Ibid., pp. 437-488, for the report in full. 10 Ibid., pp. 438-439.

2o8

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the Natal C o m m i t t e e ) , should be c a r e f u l l y considered ; that the bishops invited should be g i v e n an opportunity beforehand o f suggesting a n y subject w h i c h they m i g h t w i s h t o have considered; and that the A r c h b i s h o p o f C a n t e r b u r y should incorporated in the circular o f invitation the topics to be considered d u r i n g the session. 1 1 T h e action o f the church in the U n i t e d States w a s largely the result of the efforts o f the R i g h t R e v e r e n d John Barrett K e r foot, first B i s h o p o f P i t t s b u r g h , w h o was, with Bishop S e l w y n , one of the principal promoters of the 1 8 7 8 conference. T h i s prelate, as a representative of the church in the U n i t e d States, visited E n g l a n d b e f o r e attending the General Convention o f 1874 in N e w Y o r k . D u r i n g the visit he had some consultation with A r c h b i s h o p T a i t . T h e A r c h b i s h o p w a s skeptical of

the

wisdom of convening a second conference, both because of his attitude t o w a r d s and his experience in the conference of 1867, and also because of the justifiable adverse criticism of that conference in certain quarters. T h a t Bishop K e r f o o t succeeded in r e m o v i n g some o f this skepticism f r o m the Primate's mind is indicated in the f o l l o w i n g letter : ADDINGTON PARK, AUGUST

My dear

21,

CROYDEN.

1874.

Bishop:

Before you leave England, I wish to say to you that the subject of another gathering of bishops of our Communion at Lambeth has been much talked of lately. If the House of Bishops of your church were to express their wishes on this subject, it might help me in bringing the matter before my brethren of this country when we meet in January of next year. Trusting that God will bless you in your journey and on your return to your work, I am, your faithful brother, A.

C.

CANTUAR.12

I I Davidson, op. cit., pp. 148-149. 1 2 H a r r i s o n , H a l l , Life LL.D., p. 141.

First

Bishop

of

of the Right Pittsburgh,

Reverend

John

Barrett

Kerfoot,

V o l . I I , p p . 583-584. D a v i d s o n , op.

D.D., cit.,

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2&)

T h e early sessions of the General Convention of the church in the United States in New Y o r k were attended by Bishop Selwyn, and the Bishops of Montreal and Kingston. These prelates, after being officially introduced, addressed the convention, and each referred to the question of a second Lambeth Conference. Bishop Selwyn, in particular, said: " If you desire to take up the one thought of a practical kind that sums up this address, it is my earnest hope that it may tend to bring to a point the question now being mooted in England — of the Lambeth Conference, which I believe to be the greatest event since the Protestant Reformation. If you take up that question, I am sure it would give great pleasure to our brethren in England, to have the bishops of all the various branches of our church meet again under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and meet again upon English soil for the benefit of the entire church." 13 A few days later a set of resolutions was introduced in the House of Deputies to the effect that " the House of Clerical and L a y Deputies respectfully submit for the consideration of the House of Bishops its cordial approbation of any means that may be proposed by the Church of England for the reassembling of the Lambeth Conference in a second session." 14 T h e resolutions were never adopted because opinion was so divided and the debate upon them was of a decidedly acrimonious character. Eventually they were withdrawn and the following substitute was introduced : " Resolved, That all exchanges of friendly greeting, all evidences of the existence of the unity of spirit in the bond of peace between the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, whether by bishops in conference or otherwise, are especially welcome to this church." 15 A f t e r a very brief debate this resolution was adopted by a vote of i o 8 to 96. 1 β 13 Church Journal, October 15, 1874, p. 668. 14 Ibid., October 22, 1874, p. 680. 15 Ibid., October 22, 1874, p. 681. 16 Ibid., October 22, 1874, p. 681.

2IO

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

T h e H o u s e of Bishops also considered the question during the early sessions o f

the Convention. T h i s enabled

Bishop

S e l w y n to discuss the matter in that body, as he had done previously in the H o u s e o f Clerical and L a y Deputies. A resolution introduced by Bishop K e r f o o t was adopted by a vote of 43 to 3, by which the bishops signatory individually expressed " their hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury will find it consistent with his views of duty to take steps towards the assembling of such a conference."

17

O n the final day of the Convention Bishop K e r f o o t wrote the following letter to Archbishop T a i t : HOUSE OF BISHOPS NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 3, My dear

1874.

Lord:

I had the pleasure not long since of writing to you from this House, to say that the request to your Grace to invite another Lambeth Conference had been signed by forty-three of the fortysix bishops in attendance. I then said that I would write again fully when the engagements of the General Convention allowed me to do so. The matter was introduced by me into this House early in our session, so that the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, who was with us for the first week of the Convention, might speak to the bishops on the subject. H e did this with great discretion and effect in our House, and also in the House of Deputies. While the bishops generally were very favourably disposed towards the proposal, (and your Grace's note to me of August 21st. very much promoted this inclination), some of them wished that any action of the bishops should be preceded by some expression from the clerical and lay deputies that would prevent any thought that the bishops were acting for themselves alone, and not for and with the clergy and laity It was deemed by all the bishops to be sufficient, and for several reasons, best, that we should express our wish and our request to your Grace in the form in which it has by this time 17 Ibid., O c t o b e r 22, 1874, p. 681.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

211

reached you through the Bishop of Lichfield. The Bishop of New York and myself prepared the paper, and received the signatures of the bishops individually. A s some of the signatures may not be readily legible, I enclose a printed list of the names of the signers. It clearly appeared in the consultations of the deputies, and even of the bishops, that there were not a few misconceptions about the conference of 1867. This, I think, was due, in large measure, to the misrepresentation of its character and management in the memoir of the late Bishop Hopkins. . . . Bishop Hopkins himself would not, I am sure, have approved of the sketch of the Lambeth Conference given by his biographer. But its effects were seen, and I hope contradicted, in the discussions. In the consultation of the bishops, the wish was several times expressed that the arrangements for a conference in 1876 should be such as to manifest that the variety of the topics admitted, and the time allowed, should be such as would seem to justify a convocation of our bishops from all over the world. There was no wish to annex terms or conditions to our request to your Grace. The suggestions already made by the Canadian Synod (whose action on this subject was recited in our House of Bishops) covers most or all of this ground. As our consultations went on, it seemed to be devolved on me, by general consent, to make to you this informal communication about such wishes. T w o or three bishops gave them to me in writing ; some others in unwritten words. The thoughts were that the bishops attending the conference might propose for discussion such questions as each one should deem right; and that the sessions should be continued long enough to allow of the needful conferences. Those of us who were at Lambeth seven years ago knew quite well that such were the real character and spirit of that conference; but that it being then an enterprise and experiment at once novel and anxious, precautions were rightly taken and limitations wisely observed that persons at a distance could not fully or fairly comprehend. The invitation was even then given in advance to the bishops to suggest topics; and many of us did this, and I believe every such topic was introduced. I made such answers to the inquiries of some of my brethren, adding that, of course, as then, so whenever we should meet again,

212

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

no topic should be introduced which must elicit discussions on the state relations of the Church of England. All the bishops here at once recognize this as the right rule. I said this was the only real limitation I witnessed seven years ago. I ventured to anticipate that on this point every reasonable wish would be satisfied in the future conference. In thus writing at, I hope, not a needless length to your Grace, I think that I quite fulfill the promises made to some of my American brethren, who united heartily in the request sent to you, and I hope that I also convey such intimation as will entirely meet your own view in your anticipation of any such conferece. I may also add that the careful consideration given to the whole scheme here of late only confirms our convictions of the wisdom and usefulness of the renewal of the conference of 1867. I am, my dear Lord Archbishop, your Grace's very faithful and affectionate brother. JOHN

B.

KERFOOT,

Bishop of

Pittsburgh.18

In compliance with the request of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, the Convocation of Y o r k discussed briefly the resolutions d r a f t e d by Bishop S e l w y n ' s committee in F e b r u a r y 1875. T h e outcome o f this discussion was that it also gave its sanction to the movement by officially expressing the wish " that all necessary

steps may

be taken

for

the

assembling o f a second conference at Lambeth, but [it] would desire to leave all other questions involved in these resolutions to be decided as may seem best to the Archbishop and the bench o f bishops."

19

These events made it quite obvious that a second conference would be assembled. But there were difficulties still to be overcome. It was necessary to obtain agreement on the date, topics to be discussed, and the conditions under which the Archbishop would convene the conference. T h e solution of some of these difficulties had been suggested by the Canadian bishops in the 18 Harrison, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 585-586. 19 York Convocation Journal (1875),

p. 136.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

213

memorial to Bishop Selwyn, and in Bishop Kerfoot's letter of November 3, 1874, to Archbishop Tait. Others were laid down by the Archbishop himself, first in an important speech in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury on April 16, 1875, 2 0 then in a confidential letter, which he wrote to Bishop Kerfoot on April 27, 1875, 2 1 and finally in his formal answer to the American bishops on June 7, 1875. 2 2 The Canadian bishops and Bishop Selwyn had suggested the year 1876. This date was out of the question, because Archbishop Tait had to make his episcopal visitation of the Archdiocese of Canterbury at that time. Therefore, he suggested that the conference might meet in the early summer ( J u l y ) of 1877, although he was aware that the General Convention of the church in the United States and the Synod of the church in Canada were holding their regular triennial meetings later in that year. Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that that date was early enough to leave ample time for the American and Canadian bishops to return to these meetings, but as his suggestion did not meet with the approval of those churches, it was finally and definitely decided that the conference should meet in July, 1878. Because of the criticism of the first conference, the Archbishop made both positive and negative suggestions regarding the question of topics : " respecting matters of doctrine no change can be proposed or discussed, and no authoritative explanation of doctrine ought to be taken in hand. Each church is naturally guided in the interpretation of its formularies by its recognized authorities. Again, respecting matters of discipline each church has its own appointed courts for the administration of its ecclesiastical law, with which, of course, such a meeting of bishops as is proposed claims no power to interfere," 20 Chronicle of Convocation (1875),

pp. 131-135.

21 Harrison, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 586-587. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 145-146. 22 Davidson, Randall T . and Benham, William, Life of Archibald Campbell Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, Vol. I I , pp. 363-365. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 146-148.

214

T H E

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

and, he said, " it will be necessary to exclude all questions which might happen to trench on the complete independence of the several branches of the church." O n the other hand, he was favorably disposed towards the inclusion o f and the discussion of " such general questions as relate to the intercourse of the various branches o f our church." The Archbishop felt that it was necessary to determine definitely beforehand the topics to be discussed. Insistence on this point was one of the principal conditions under which he would convene the conference. H e said : " I ought not to take the step o f inviting so large a body of bishops to leave the scene of their labours in their distant dioceses without being able to state to them somewhat explicitly what the practical results are which are expected to be derived f r o m the conference." According to Archbishop Tait, " practical results " would come only f r o m the consideration of " practical questions ", and he had, on several occasions, suggested in broad terms his conception of such questions. A s the response to these stipulations was encouraging, A r c h bishop Tait addressed the following circular letter of inquiry to all the bishops of the A n g l i c a n Communion : LAMBETH

Right Reverend

PALACE, MARCH

28,

1876.

Brother:

A wish has been expressed by many bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amercia, by the bishops of the Canadian Dominion, and by the W e s t Indian bishops, that a second conference of our brethren should be held at Lambeth. B e f o r e I decide upon the important step of inviting the bishops of our Communion throughout the world to assemble at Lambeth, I have thought it right, a f t e r consultation with the bishops of England to give all our brethren an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the expediency of convening such a conference at this time, and upon the choice of subjects which ought to engage its attention, if it be convened.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

215

I therefore beg leave to intimate to you our readiness to hold a conference at Lambeth in or about the month of July 1878, if it shall seem expedient, after the opinions of all our brethren have been ascertained ; and I need scarcely assure you that your advice is earnestly desired, and will be respectfully considered. May I ask, for our guidance, whether you are willing, and are likely to be able, to attend the conference yourself ? . . . Anxiously awaiting your answer, I remain Y o u r faithful brother and servant in Christ. A . C. CANTUAR."

O n the same day he sent the f o l l o w i n g " covering letter " to all the metropolitans and presiding bishops. LAMBETH PALACE S. E., MARCH 28, 1876.

My dear Bishop: A f t e r consultation with my brethren, the bishops of England, including the Archbishop of Y o r k , I beg leave to address you as (a) of and request you to circulate among the bishops of your branch of the church the enclosed documents, having reference to a second Lambeth Conference. I shall feel obliged by your favouring us at your earliest convenience with your own views on the questions now submitted for your consideration. I remain your faithful brother and servant in Christ, A . C.

CANTUAR.24

(a) (e. g. Metropolitan of Canada)

B e f o r e the close o f the year about ninety letters of reply had been received from all branches of the A n g l i c a n Communion. T h e y showed an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favor of a second conference, with the proviso that a longer period of session could be arranged f o r than that o f 1867. T h e majority of them also contained suggestions concerning subjects 23 Davidson, op. cit., pp. 151-152. 24 Ibid., p. 153.

2I6

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

f o r discussion. These were considered b y Archbishop T a i t , aided by Bishop S e l w y n and an episcopal committee. A f t e r the fullest deliberation Archbishop T a i t issued the following formal invitation: LAMBETH PALACE, J U L Y IO, 1 8 7 7 .

Right Reverend and Dear Brother: It is proposed to hold a conference of bishops of the Anglican Communion, at this place, beginning on Tuesday, the second day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight. The conference, it is proposed, shall extend over four weeks ; the first week, of four sessions, to be devoted to discussions, in conference, of the subjects submitted for deliberation; the second and third weeks to the consideration of these subjects in committees; and the fourth week to final discussions in conference, and to the close of the meeting. The subjects selected for discussion are the following: ι. The best mode of maintaining union among the various churches of the Anglican Communion. 2. Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable. 3. The relations to each other of missionary bishops and of missionaries, in various branches of the Anglican Communion acting in the same country. 4. The position of Anglican chaplains and chaplaincies on the continent of Europe and elsewhere. 5. Modern forms of infidelity and the best means of dealing with them. 6. The condition, progress, and needs of the various churches of the Anglican Communion. I shall feel greatly obliged if, at your early convenience, you will inform me whether we may have the pleasure of expecting your presence at the conference. I am, Right Reverend and dear brother, Yours faithfully in Christ, A . C. CANTUAR.26 25 Ibid., pp. 25-26.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2\"J

These invitations, unlike those of 1867, were not sent out directly from Lambeth, but were issued to the presiding bishops and metropolitans with the request that they be sent to the bishops to whom they were addressed through the appropriate channels. This change was a further evidence of increasing organization within the Communion and set a precedent which has been followed ever since. In 1877 the Anglican Episcopate numbered 1 7 3 bishops, in contrast to 144 in 1867. Archbishop Tait's invitation was accepted by 108 of these prelates. For various reasons, some of them were prevented at the last minute from attending. A s a result, the actual number present at the conference was exactly one hundred. Of these thirty-five were English, nine were Irish, seven were Scottish, thirty were colonial and missionary and nineteen were American. Several preliminary gatherings took place immediately before the conference convened. They were not only attended but were actively participated in by the American and colonial bishops. The first of these gatherings was the consecration of the bishops-elect of Lichfield, Nassau, and the newly created diocese of North Queensland, by the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Paul's Cathedral, on June 24 (St. John the Baptist's D a y ) . The scene was eminently impressive, emphasizing as it did, the union of the Communion, as one of the most notable of the American bishops, the Bishop of Pennsylvania, assisted the other bishops in the ceremonial of the laying on of hands on the heads of each of the three candidates.24 There followed a series of missionary services on June 27 and 28, in connection with the 177th anniversary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The first of these services was at St. Paul's Cathedral on June 27. It consisted of a sermon followed by Holy Communion, in which some of the American and colonial bishops took part, assisting in the administration of the elements. 2 6 Guardian, J u n e 26, 1876, pp. 873-875. S t e v e n s , W i l l i a m B., The beth Conference of 1878, pp. 5-6.

Lam-

2I8

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

That evening a conversazione, specially designed for the introduction of the American and colonial bishops, was held in the Westminster Palace Hotel. The affair was well attended, and several brief addresses were made by American bishops. A morning and afternoon missionary conference was held in St. J a m e s ' Hall, Piccadilly, on the following day. Archbishop T a i t presided at the gathering, and excellent and instructive papers on the foreign and domestic work of the church in the United States were read by the Bishops of Ohio and L o n g Island. T h e final session of the missionary conference was a service at Westminster Abbey in the evening. The anniversary sermon was delivered by the Bishop of Pennsylvania. 2 7 T h e last of the preliminary gatherings took place in Canterbury on J u n e 2 9 and 30. On the morning of June 29 ( S t . Peter's d a y ) a special service was held f o r the Missionary College of St. Augustine, Canterbury, in which another American bishop participated, the sermon being preached by the Bishop of Western N e w Y o r k . On the afternoon of the same day there was a special evensong service, the " Service of Welcome," in Canterbury Cathedral. A t this service Archbishop T a i t delivered an official address of welcome to the bishops in attendance. 28 On the following day, J u n e 30, the Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada, as one of the canons of Canterbury Cathedral, preached a sermon at the morning service there in behalf of the Canterbury branch of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. There was also an afternoon service in the cathedral on the same day. On this occasion the sermon was preached by the Bishop of Pennsylvania, at the written request of the Archbishop and Dean of Canterbury. The preliminaries ended with this service. A t 1 1 o'clock on J u l y 2 the bishops assembled at Lambeth Palace for the official opening of the conference with the celebration of the Holy 27 Guardian, July 3, 1878, pp. 930-931. Stevens, op. cit., pp. 6-8. 28 Ibid., July 3, 1878, pp. 929-930, for this address in full.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2IÇ

Communion with sermon in the Lambeth Palace Chapel. The bishops were first marshalled in the Guard-Room. They then passed in procession to the chapel, with the American bishops walking as guests of the English diocesans, and with all precedence being given to the metropolitans and presiding bishops. After the Veni Creator had been sung, the Holy Communion was celebrated by Archbishop Tait, assisted by the Bishops of London, Winchester, Salisbury, and Rochester. The sermon was preached by the Archbishop of York, who took as his text : " But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians, II, n . ) 28 The sessions of the conference were held in the Great Library of Lambeth Palace. In this room was a long table where the archbishops, metropolitans and primates sat. Archbishop Tait, as the presiding officer, sat in the center. The Archbishops of York, Armagh, and Dublin, the Metropolitans of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Rupertsland, the Primus of Scotland, the Bishop of Moray and Ross, and the Bishop of Delaware—the senior bishop of the American delegation—sat on either side of the president. The other bishops in attendance sat in front of these prelates. T H E C O N F E R E N C E OF

1878

The bishops assembled in this room at 1 :3ο p.m. on July 2 for the opening session of the conference. The session commenced with an opening address by Archbishop Tait. 30 At the conclusion of his address the conference directed its attention to matters of procedure. It was decided, almost unanimously, that the proceedings of the conference should, as in 1867, be private. The unanimity of the decision was influenced by the fact that a long account of the debates of the conference of 1867 had just been unexpectedly published in the Guardian of June 19 and June 26, 1878, by the Reverend W. Benham, Vicar 29 Ibid., July 3, 1878, pp. 921-922, for the sermon in full. 30 Davidson and Benham, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 371-375, for a portion of this address.

220

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of Margate under the most amazing and unexplainable circumstances.11 It was felt that the unity of the Communion had not been promoted by the publication. A shorthand report was made of all the speeches, and it was arranged that this should be preserved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that it should not be made public under any circumstances. This is the only record in existence of the debates and discussions of the conference. But it is impossible to gain access to it, because the decision by this conference that the proceedings should be private established a precedent that has been followed by all the later conferences. The policy remains adamant. 31 Guardian, June 26, 1878, p. 900. Mr. Benham attempted to " explain " his action in furnishing an account of the Conference of 1867 to the Guardian in a letter, dated June 19, 1878, to the Archbishop of Canterbury. However his action was so mysterious that it was actually unexplainable because there is no way by which it can be explained. H e began the letter by referring to the fact that he had requested permission in 1873 f r o m the Archbishop to read the reports of the Conference of 1867, " primarily to ascertain how f a r Mr. J. H . Hopkins' account of that conference was accurate," because he had Hopkins' book " to review for a leading journal ". Benham then stated that the original reports were so voluminous that " he found himself quite helpless." He, therefore, copied and arranged a large portion of the reports in order to review Hopkins' book for the journal in question and claimed that his efforts made a complete history of the conference, the first detailed history, as he described i t ! H e informed the Archbishop that what he had submitted to the Guardian was " not a mere transcript of the shorthand writer's notes, but a complete written narrative of the conference." He stated to the Archbishop that he had ventured to publish it without asking his Grace's leave, because he felt confident that " it will be very useful at the forthcoming conference and will contain nothing which the various speakers are ashamed of." W i t h amazing, but naive, frankness, Benham tried to minimize his action by stating " that there are very few words here and there which were avowedly spoken on the understanding that they were spoken in confidence and with closed doors, like the words spoken in the Upper House of Convocation when the reporters withdrew. I do not believe that there is anything even in these which the speakers, at the distance of time, would object to have reported, but I have not thought it right to transcribe these words." The behavior of the Guardian in printing this account of the conference and Benham's letter to the Archbishop is equally unexplainable. It made the whole affair all the more mysterous because the Guardian was a semi-official organ of the Church of England. Small wonder, then, that the decision that the proceedings should be private was decided upon for the Conference of 1878, as well as for all succeeding conferences !

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

221

Having reached an agreement on these points, the conference proceeded to the consideration of the topic assigned for that session : " The best mode of maintaining union among the various churches of the Anglican Communion." The discussion on it was begun with the reading of a specially prepared paper on the subject by the Bishop of Iowa. A debate then ensued in which the participants were the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Iowa, Edinburgh, Peterborough, Albany, Louisiana, Barbadoes, Dunedin, and the former Bishop of Melbourne. This debate was brought to a close by referring the matter to a committee. " The debate on this topic must have been wide in scope. It no doubt included some discussion on the proposals to change the office of Archbishop of Canterbury to Patriarch of the Anglican Communion and to create a patriarchal council or synod. These suggestions had been brought forward again shortly before the conference convened, for the Guardian, on June 19,1878, printed a long communication under the caption of " The Patriarchate of Canterbury," which had been received from the Archdeacon of George, Cape of Good Hope. The Archdeacon began his communication by expressing the opinion that the problem of unity was the most serious one facing the Anglican Communion. He then urged the bishops who were about to assemble at Lambeth to recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as Patriarch and immediately to constitute themselves a patriarchal synod or council. Such a move, he contended, would be in conformity with the practices of the ancient church, and would be the best means of solving the problem of unity." In the same issue, the Guardian, speaking editorially, voiced disapproval of these proposals. The editorial commenced with the statement that they might lead eventually to an Anglican Pope, (a contention previously advanced in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury on July 10, 1874), 32 Ibid., July 3, 1878, p. 922. 33Ibid., June 19, 1878, p. 862: "The Patriarchate of Canterbury." This communication was dated April 12, 1878.

222

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

and to the creation of an Anglican Papacy at Canterbury. T h i s was followed in turn by an assertion that the bishops of the church in the United States could not possibly place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, if his office was changed to Patriarch, because they were citizens of another country. Attention was next directed to the fact that these proposed changes would destroy the elastic organization of the Anglican Communion. Finally attention was directed to the fact that they could not be applied successfully, because the status of the Church of England, in being an established church, was different in the modern world from the ancient church. T h e objection probably represented the opinion of the English episcopate, because the Guardian was a semi-official organ of the church. The report on unity drawn up in 1867 must have been discussed too, because the recommendations on unity finally incorporated in the encyclical letter of 1878 were strikingly like the earlier report. The session of July 3 began at 10:30 with Litany in the Lambeth Palace Chapel. A t 11 o'clock the consideration of " Subject I I — V o l u n t a r y Boards of Arbitration for churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable," commenced. The inclusion of this question in the official program of the conference and the necessity of considering it concerned the altered status of the churches in the self-governing British colonies. The dicta laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Long v. the Bishop of Capetozim, declaring them to be " voluntary associations," " with power to make rules for their governance, and to constitute tribunals, whose decisions would be binding, if they acted within the scope of their authority, or, when rules were not prescribed, in a manner consonant with justice," had been reaffirmed in other cases of a later date. The pronouncement of these dicta altered the relationship of those churches to the courts in England. Appeals could no longer be made from their ecclesiastical tribunals to any of the ordinary ecclesiastical courts in England,

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

223

or to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, when that body was advising the crown on appeals from ecclesiastical courts ; no questions relating to the exercise of discipline in those churches could come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, except on appeal from the colonial civil courts, exercising jurisdiction in matters affecting property or civil rights. This meant that the churches in the self-governing British colonies were, to all intents and purposses, no longer under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in England. A s none of the colonial civil courts had jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters, except in causes affecting property or civil rights, and as there were no colonial courts similar to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it was suggested that external tribunals, to be known as Voluntary Boards of Arbitration, should be constituted to which appeals in ecclesiastical causes and references in matters of doctrine and ritual could be made from the provincial and diocesan ecclesiastical tribunals and synods. The proposal was connected with a somewhat similar suggestion which had emanated from the church in Australia several years before. It will be recalled that the question of creating a tribunal of this character had been the subject of discussion in the conference of 1867, and the creation of a voluntary spiritual tribunal had been recommended at that time. A s no officiai action was taken towards putting the recommendation into effect, Bishop Frederick Barker of Sydney, Metropolitan of the church in Australia, continued to push the movement. In 1869 he made his first suggestion in his opening address in the Sydney Diocesan Synod (April 6 ) by saying: A. . . . subject of great practical importance is the formation of a tribunal of appeal in matters of faith and worship. It would be very undesirable to allow questions of doctrine and ritual to be decided by diocesan tribunals with no other appeal than to a civil court. Our own internal ordinance contemplates an appeal to another tribunal.

224

T H E

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Besides this, however, further action is contemplated by the formation of a council of reference in England. It is conceivable that a tribunal in Australia might give a decision upon some question of doctrine or ritual different from one given in Canada or any other province. It is uncertain whether it would be practicable to carry such a question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and if practicable it would no doubt be very expensive. It is thought that if a council of reference were constituted, and questions referred to it by the general synod, the arrangement would tend to the union and peace of the church." Shortly after making this pronouncement, Bishop Barker made a trip to England in 1871, to discuss this and other matters connected with the welfare of the church in Australia with the proper authorities. Immediately after his arrival in England he waited upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Lord Chancellor, and the Bishop of London to explain his views with regard to the formation of a tribunal of final appeal in matters of doctrine and ritual for the church in Australia, for he believed there were two modes by which this might be accomplished. One was by providing an easier method of carrying appeals from the churches in the self-governing colonies to the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council, while the other was by providing a council of reference to which questions might, from time to time, be referred by the general synod, and any decision pronounced by it be binding upon the general and diocesan tribunals, unless a judgment at variance with it should be pronounced by some ecclesiastical court in England. In order to facilitate matters, two bills had been drafted as a suggestive mode of proceeding, which might be adopted by the British Parliament, one by the chancellor of the diocese of Sydney, the other by the chief justice of Victoria. Bishop Barker presented copies of these to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to the Lord Chancellor, but they thought it hopeless to attempt to carry such bills through Parliament. 34 C o w p e r , W i l l i a m Α., Episcopate of the Right Reverend Frederick D.D., Bishop of Sydney and Metropolitan of Australia, p. 237.

Barker,

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

225

Undismayed by their advice, he directed his activities to the alternative course of a council of reference. A s the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom it seemed most becoming to consult regarding this proposal, was on the continent at the time. Bishop Barker employed the time until his return in correspondence and consultation with legal advisers and friends with respect to the best mode of procedure. A s a result, he was able to present to his Grace in his first interview an outline of the plan which he wished to propose. The Archbishop, after giving the plan his careful attention and consideration, suggested modification in certain particulars, and then gave it his full approval. It was then submitted to the Archbishop of Y o r k and the Bishop of London, and also to Lords Hatherly and Cairns. These prelates and jurists not only voiced their approval, but also expressed their willingness to become members of the council when it should be created. The mode of calling the council into existence was to be by a general synod of the Australian and Tasmanian dioceses, if such a synod should be held and it so determined. It was also agreed that the council should be composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and two other prelates, who were to be members of the Judicial Committee of the P r i v y Council for the purpose of appeals under the A c t 3 and 4 Vict., c. 86, viz., the Archbishop of Y o r k and the Bishop of London, together with four lay members of the Judicial Committee who were to be designated by the colonial church synod.*8 N o action was taken in the matter in Australia, but the efforts of Bishop Barker in that direction explain, no doubt, why he was designated by Archbishop T a i t to introduce the subject to the conference. A f t e r speaking at some length on it, he was followed by the Bishop of Edinburgh, the Archbishop of Y o r k , the Bishops of Winchester, Ely, Adelaide, Fredericton, Delaware and Down. In all probability the debate centered on two questions : the advisability of creating these boards, as external tribunals to which an appeal or reference should be 3 5 Ibid., pp. 250-252.

22Ó

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

m a d e f r o m the diocesan a n d p r o v i n c i a l tribunals i n v o l v i n g the constitution a n d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f these diocesan and p r o v i n c i a l tribunals, a n d the q u e s t i o n o f the trial o f bishops. It is a l s o quite likely t h a t r e f e r e n c e w a s m a d e t o the 1 8 6 7 report o n the s u b j e c t a n d that there w a s a g r e a t deal said a b o u t the action w h i c h the c h u r c h e s in the s e l f - g o v e r n i n g colonies had t a k e n in t h e m a t t e r since 1 8 6 7 . T h e A m e r i c a n bishops t o o k practically n o p a r t in the debate o n these questions, because they felt that under n o circumstances w o u l d their c h u r c h consent t o h a v i n g its decisions revised or o v e r r u l e d by a n y f o r e i g n ecclesiastical court, irrespective o f its n a m e or o f the w a y it w a s constituted. N e v e r t h e l e s s , they g a v e some i m p o r t a n t a d v i c e t o the colonial bishops f o r they s y m p a thized w i t h t h e latter in their e m b a r r a s s m e n t . T h e

American

bishops c o u l d appreciate the peculiar relations o f the colonies a n d the B r i t i s h g o v e r n m e n t

w i t h ecclesiastical

provinces

of

w h i c h the dioceses w e r e integral parts, a n d the relation o f the colonial bishops t o the A r c h b i s h o p o f C a n t e r b u r y to w h o m they nearly all o w e d f e a l t y . T h e A m e r i c a n bishops also r e m a i n e d a l o o f on the question o f the trial o f bishops, f o r it w a s a s u b j e c t w h i c h they could not touch, because the c h u r c h in the U n i t e d S t a t e s h a d a l r e a d y a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y settled all points c o n c e r n i n g such trials, in G e n e r a l C o n v e n t i o n , w h i c h w a s a n d is the only legislative b o d y that that c h u r c h recognizes. T h e y , t h e r e f o r e , declined to become a p a r t y t o a n y f o r m of p r o c e d u r e other t h a n that laid d o w n in the d i g e s t o f their o w n church, but they did g i v e e x p r e s s i o n to their o w n v i e w s as to the w o r k i n g s o f the c a n o n s o f the c h u r c h in the U n i t e d S t a t e s c o n c e r n i n g the trial o f bishops, because here, too, they saw the d i l e m m a in w h i c h the colonial bishops w e r e placed. T h e debate w a s concluded w i t h a f e w r e m a r k s b y A r c h b i s h o p T a i t , a n d the s u b j e c t w a s r e f e r r e d t o a c o m m i t t e e c o m p r i s e d entirely o f

English

and

colonial

bishops." T h e session on the a f t e r n o o n o f July 3 w a s g i v e n over to the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f " S u b j e c t I I I — T h e relations to each other o f 36 Guardian, July io, 1878, p. 964. Stevens, op. cit., p. 31.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2.2J

missionary bishops and o f missionaries in the various branches of the Anglican Communion acting in the same country." This question was a very acute and complicated one and was one of the many consequences resulting from the widespread overlapping in all phases o f missionary activity then prevailing in the mission field, for there was no settled policy with respect to missionary arrangements anywhere within the Anglican Communion. T h e overlapping was most pronounced in Japan, China, Western Africa, and other heathen lands, for here was a neutral zone in which all the branches of the Anglican Communion could establish missions and missionary districts if they so desired, because these regions, not being under British or American rule, were outside the territorial boundaries o f the churches in the United States and in England or its colonial branches. Although this zone presented an equal opportunity for missionary propaganda and evangelization to all the branches of the Anglican Communion, the major portion of the missionary labors in these regions was actually done under the auspices of the churches in the United States and England. 3 7 Both churches failed to consult or cooperate with each other to any great extent, and set up their own missions and missionary districts in these lands without regard to each other. This confused condition led to many instances o f an American and an English bishop, and American and English missionaries, ministering in the same country, where their respective missionary spheres often comprised virtually the same territory. T h e result was a conflict o f episcopal jurisdiction and authority involving the control of the missionaries, their converts and congregations ; a conflict of personalities, for the bishops and missionaries were often of different schools of religious thought ; and a diversity of forms o f worship based on different forms o f the Book of 37 Denison, S . D., History of the Foreign Missionary Work of the Protestant Episcopal Church. E m e r y , Julia C., A Century of Endeavor 1821-1921. A Record of the First Hundred Years of the Missions of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Pascoe, Charles Frederick, Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G., 1701-1900. Stock, Eugene, The History of the Church Missionary Society, Its Men and Its work, 3 vols.

228

Common missionary

THE

LAMBETH

Prayer.

Moreover,

methods.

All

the

CONFERENCES

both

churches

missionary

used

different

operations o f

the

church in the U n i t e d States w e r e done through one official b o d y — T h e Domestic and F o r e i g n Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal C h u r c h in the United States of A m e r i c a — f o u n d e d in 1820 and under the jurisdiction of the General Convention o f the church. N o such officiai body was possible in the church in E n g l a n d , h o w e v e r . T h e division in churchmanship, greatly accented by the development of the Tractarian movement in the nineteenth century, resulted in a large part of the missionary w o r k being done b y voluntary societies founded under the private auspices o f the high and low church groups. B y the middle of the nineteenth century the church in E n g land had established a P r o v i n c e o f India and Ceylon containing the dioceses of Calcutta (the metropolitical see), Madras, B o m bay, and C o l o m b o .

B u t most o f

the w o r k in India,

being

missionary in nature, w a s conducted by the Society f o r the P r o p a g a t i o n o f the Gospel in F o r e i g n Parts or by the evangelical C h u r c h M i s s i o n a r y Society. Both societies started their o w n missions, appointed their o w n missionaries, and paid their salaries. T h e question of the control and religious views of the missionaries m a d e great trouble in Ceylon a f t e r the consecration and installation of the high church Reginald S. Copleston as Bishop of C o l o m b o in 1875. In the five years which followed, Bishop Copleston w i t h d r e w licences f r o m Church Missionary Society appointees, because o f insubordination to his rulings. T h e controversy

w a s still r a g i n g in 1878. T h e

Missionary

Society had changed its rules, and the bishop had restored all the licences save one. B u t the difficulty was that no one knew definitely w h a t the authority of the bishop over the society's missionaries, or w h a t the authority o f the society over

its

own missionaries was, and this was the crux of the whole controversy. 3 8 38 Stock, op. cit.. Vol. I l l , pp. 203-211.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

22Ç

It seems quite probable, therefore, that this controversy was largely responsible for the inclusion in the official program of the conference of the question of the relation to each other of missionary bishops and of missionaries in the various branches of the Anglican Communion acting in the same country; Bishop Copleston certainly had suggested it in his reply to Archbishop Tait's circular letter to all the bishops of the Anglican Communion of March 28, 1876. W h e n the bishops of the conference considered the question on the afternoon of July 3, the discussion turned largely on the difficulties between Bishop Copleston and the missionaries. Bishop H u g h W . Jermyn of Brechin and Bishop Piers Claughton, who were both former bishops of Colombo, opened the debate with conciliatory speeches. There were several bishops present who were known to be sympathetic to the missionaries and hostile to Bishop Copleston. These prelates were followed by Bishop Louis G. Mylne of Bombay, who came to the defense of Bishop Copleston, for the latter took no part in this debate. H e stated views in support of Copleston's claims, which were more or less enforced by the Bishop of Cape Town. 3 9 The conference directed its attention to a communication from Bishop Edward R. Johnson of Calcutta, dated June 4, 1878, which contained resolutions of the Bishops of India and Ceylon, embodying the substance of the Calcutta resolutions of March, 1877, and to a letter from Bishop Robert Caldwell, Coadjutor Bishop of Madras. The latter communication was on the subject of the relation of bishops abroad to the missionaries in their dioceses and districts. It dealt especially with the power and authority of the bishop, in respect to giving and withdrawing licenses of the clergy under his charge and of lay readers and catechists; and also of the rights of the bishop in reference to changes in the management, order of service and place of worship of any congregation. These were discussed, and several of the bishops expressed agreement with the views 39 Guardian, July 10, 1878, p. 964.

23O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

embodied in the resolutions of the Indian episcopate. Finally, the debate turned on the conditions in the missions outside of the boundaries of the churches in the United States and E n g land. This discussion was begun by Bishop Samuel I. J . Schereschewesky, the American Missionary Bishop of Shanghai, who must have spoken about the difficulties resulting from the overlapping of the American and English missions in these lands. Bishop Schereschewesky was then followed by the Archbishop of Y o r k , and the Bishops of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Niagara, London, Peterborough and Salisbury, also speaking on the conditions and difficulties in these regions. The discussion was eventually brought to a close, and a committee was appointed to report on the questions which had been under discussion, as well as the matters embodied in Bishop Johnson's and Bishop Caldwell's letters. The session of J u l y 4 also began with the Litany at Lambeth Palace Chapel at 1 0 : 3 0 a.m. A t 1 1 o'clock the conference directed its attention to " Subject I V — T h e position of Anglican chaplains and chaplaincies on the continent of Europe and elsewhere." This was introduced by the Bishop of London, who had jurisdiction over all the English chaplains, except those in the diocese of Gibraltar. A f t e r his introductory speech, the Bishop of Gibraltar and Bishop Piers Claughton contributed a great deal of valuable information on the subject by telling about the work and problems of the English chaplains abroad. These prelates were followed by the Bishop of Long Island, the bishop of the church in the United States in charge of the American chaplains, who spoke at some length on the activities of the American chaplains in Europe and elsewhere, and about the difficulties associated with their work. Then Archbishop Tait and the Bishops of O x f o r d , Carlisle, Antigua, Pennsylvania and North Carolina addressed the conference on the subject. A s the discussion continued a strong feeling was manifested by all the speakers that English and American chaplains should work harmoniously and should not interfere with each

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

23I

other's work. Finally, the discussion was brought to a conclusion and the matter was turned over to a committee.40 A t the afternoon session of July 4, the conference discussed " Subject V—Modern forms of infidelity and the best means of dealing with them." This most important topic dealt with the whole question of unbelief. But there is no way of knowing what that term implied; i.e., whether it was restricted to professed unbelief outside the church, or whether it was limited to alleged instances within the church. This is the result of the impossibility of obtaining access to the official debates of the conference, and also because there was no report drawn up on the subject, for the committee assigned to frame the report asserted that they were unable to do so in the time allotted because the subject was so vast in scope. Finally there is nothing in the articles of either the Times or the Guardian on that particular session of the conference indicating what modern forms of infidelity were. They simply listed the prelates who participated in the discussion and described their speeches with complimentary phrases. The Archbishop of York was expected to introduce this topic, but as he was absent from the morning session, and it was feared that he might also be absent from the afternoon session, the Bishop of Ohio was called upon to take his place. After a specially prepared paper, in which the Bishop of Ohio made a plain and lucid statement of the question to be discussed, the Bishop of Killaloe followed with an extemporaneous speech remarkable for its depth and breadth of thought, for its analysis of the various forms of doubt, and for its profound reasoning and scientific illustration. He was succeeded by the Bishop of Peterborough with a speech abounding in happy and epigrammatic sayings and full of eloquent passages. Then came the learned Bishop of Lincoln. In a paper of great ability he dealt with the various failings of the Roman, Greek and Anglican Churches in dealing with the pressing question of infidelity and said that the great lack in England was better provision for 40 Ibid., July 10, 1878, p. 964.

232

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the intellectual training of the clergy. N e x t came the Bishop of O x f o r d , with strong, manly views on the prevalence of infidelity among young men at college. H e was followed by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, who made the speech of the afternoon, in which he detailed the various forms of unbelief and suggested methods o f meeting them. Then, in an eloquent peroration, he showed the folly of believing that the church would be overcome by attacks of infidelity, which, he contended, had already done their worst. T h e Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol was followed by the Bishop of Winchester, whose short but admirable address was worthy of his world-wide reputation as a scholar and theologian, and showed intellectual vigor and personal piety. The Bishop of Montreal then addressed the conference, giving his colonial experiences on the matter, while the aged Bishop of Llandaff compared modern and ancient times with respect to forms of infidelity. AfteT a vigorous and searching speech by the Archbishop of Y o r k , the Bishops of Bombay, Saskatchewan and Bloemfontein, detailed their varied experiences among unbelievers of different intellectual capacity. The interesting discussion was finally ended when Archbishop Tait gathered up the various points and condensed them into a brief, comprehensive résumé for presentation to the committee to whom the subject was referred. 41 Both the morning and afternoon sessions of July 5 were used to discuss " Subject V I — T h e condition, progress and needs of the various churches of the Anglican Communion." This was introduced by the Bishop of Delaware. The discussion was participated in by a large number of bishops, with the best speeches being made by the Bishops of Ontario and Western New Y o r k . The other speakers included the Archbishops of Canterbury, Y o r k , and A r m a g h , the Metropolitans of Sydney, Cape T o w n , and Rupertsland, and the Bishops of Moray and Ross, Lincoln, Winchester, Gloucester and Bristol, Ripon, Salisbury, Chichester, O x f o r d , Down, Meath, Brechin, Kingston, Niagara, Saskatchewan, Fredericton, Adelaide, Barbados, 41 Ibid., July 10, 1878, p. 964. Stevens, op. cit., pp. 34-35.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

233

Nova Scotia, Iowa, Pittsburgh, Ohio, Central Pennsylvania, and Albany. What served as basis for the discussion is again a matter for conjecture, but all these bishops undoubtedly voiced their views on the condition, progress and needs of their respective churches and must have made suggestions regarding the problems confronting these churches.42 When this discussion was concluded, the order was varied from that of the preceding sessions. Instead of appointing a committee to report on this subject, an influential committee, comprising the Bishops of Lincoln, Manchester, Barbados, and other equally illustrious prelates, under the chairmanship of Archbishop Tait, was appointed " to receive questions submitted in writing by bishops desiring the advice of the conference on difficulties or problems they have met with in their several dioceses." The appointment of this committee marked the conclusion of the first week of sessions, and the conference adjourned until July 22. The committees which were appointed during the first week of sessions met at Lambeth, Fulham, Farnham and elsewhere, to prepare their reports for presentation to the conference when it reconvened on July 22. All of them, it is reasonble to suppose, were guided largely by the discussion in the general sessions on their respective subjects. Archbishop Tait's committee sat de die in diem at Lambeth, and was, perhaps, the most important of all these committees because the questions submitted to them involved matters of great importance to the Anglican Communion. They dealt with the following difficult and varied questions: the attitude of the Church of England towards the Church of Rome; the position which the Anglican Church should assume towards the " Old Catholics " and other persons on the continent of Europe who had renounced their allegiance to the Church of Rome, and were desirous of forming some connection with either the English or American branch of the Anglican Church ; applications for intercommunion with the Anglican Church from persons connected with the Armenian 42 Guardian,

July 10, 1878, p. 964.

234

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Church and other Christian communities in the east ; the position of Moravian ministers within the territorial limits of dioceses of the Anglican Communion ; the West Indian dioceses; the Church of Haiti; local peculiarities regarding the laws of marriage; a board of reference for matters connected with foreign missions; and difficulties arising in the Church of England from the revival of obsolete forms of ritual, and from erroneous teaching on the subject of confession. 43 The question of the relation of the Church of England to the Church of Rome was, in all probability, submitted to the Archbishop's committee by Bishop Christopher Wordsworth of Lincoln, or some other Anglo-Catholic prelate. Whoever it was harbored the opinion that that question had been raised by the convening of the Vatican Council (1869-1870) and the promulgation of Papal Infallibility as Christian dogma by that council. The Anglo-Catholic group of the church in England, because of the Anglican claim to Catholicity, had taken exception to the Roman claim of oecumenicity for the council. They considered that the procedure of the early councils, which both Canterbury and Rome recognized as oecumenical, had been violated, principally with respect to the circumstances under which, and to the manner in which, the Vatican Council had been called, and to the personnel attending it. In support of these contentions they called attention to the fact that the decision to hold the council and the preparation for it were made under papal auspices only; that the pope's issuance of the Bull of Convocation ran counter to the precedents of the councils of the early church which were recognized as oecumenical because none of those councils had been summoned by the Bishops of Rome; and finally that it would not represent the whole of Christendom, but only the Roman Communion. O n historical grounds they also held erroneous the promulgation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility by the council, and took umbrage at its acceptance as Christian dogma. 43 Davidson, Randall T., The Sixth Lambeth Conferences, 98-99·

1867-IQ20,

pp.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

235

The first utterance of these views had followed on the issuance of the Bull of Convocation, Aeterni Patris, by the pope on June 29, 1868, because that document announced the convening of the council in Rome on December 8, 1869 (the fifteenth anniversary of the promulgation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception), and designated it as " a sacred, oecumenical, and general council Taking advantage of this declaration, the future Bishop of Lincoln, who was then the Archdeacon of Westminster, issued a specially prepared paper entitled On the Proposed Council at Rome, in which, as an unofficial spokesman of the English Anglo-Catholics, he gave expression to their views on the council and the possibility of its declaring the Bishop of Rome infallible. He took exception to the papal claims of generality or oecumenicity for the approaching council with the Anglican contention that it would not follow the precedents of the councils of the early church which were recognized as oecumenical ; that its dogmatic degrees would not be accepted throughout the whole of Christendom; and that the failure to follow these precedents would invalidate it ab initio from being a general council. He also took exception to the possibility of the proposed council declaring the Bishop of Rome infallible, with the contention that former Bishops of Rome had fallen into heresy. In support of this latter contention he cited as matters of history that Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus had been partisans of the Noetian heresy, that Pope Liberius had lapsed into Arianism, Pope Vigilius into Eutychianism, that Pope Honorius (626-638) had been a Monothelite, that " in ancient times, even to the seventh century, the Bishops of Rome themselves, at their ordination, in the profession of faith which they then made, publicly denounced and anathematized Pope Honorius by name as a heretic," and that in that solemn formulary they not only openly acknowledged their own fallibility, but they also " de44 Guardian, July 15, 1868, p. 790, for an English translation of document.

this

236

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

livered a prophetic protest from the papal chair itself against the assumption of infallibility on the part of their successors." 45 This pronouncement was, of course, completely ignored by the pope. A few days later he addressed Letters Apostolic of Our Holy Father, Pope Pius IX, to the Bishops of the Eastern Rite who are not in Communion with the Holy See, extending an invitation to them to attend the Council.16 The papal emissaries who were the bearers of this document made an official attempt to present it to the Patriarch of Constantinople. He refused to accept it, or the invitation to attend the council, on the ground that the pope, in the pastoral, had reiterated " tenets wholly at variance with those of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and principles directly hostile to the Spirit of the Gospel, and also to the doctrine of the Oecumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers." The reasons given by the Patriarch of Constantinople as justification for his refusal to attend the council, and the circumstances under which they were advanced, had the appearance of lending support to the Anglo-Catholic views. The Anglo-Catholics were resentful of the issuance of this papal letter, not because it was addressed to the Bishops of the Eastern Rite, but because they thought that the pope ought to have addressed it, or a like one, to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their indignation against the Roman See was increased with the issuance by the pope of another Apostolic Letter of our most Holy Lord Pius IX, by Oxviyie Providoice Pope, to all Protestants and other non-Catholics,48 This document was, according to the Anglo-Catholics, a most uncompromising one. 45 W o r d s w o r t h , Christopher, Miscellanies, pp. 312-322. 46 Guardian, document.

Literary

and Religious,

Vol. I,

October 7, 1868, p. 1106, for an English translation of this

4 7 J o h n Bull, N o v e m b e r 21, 1868, p. 1056: " T h e Oriental Answer by the Patriarch of Constantinople to P o p e Pius I X , October 17, 1868." 48 Guardian, October 7, 1868, p. 1114, for an English translation of this pastoral. T h e original Latin version w a s printed in the Guardian of October 14, 1868, pp. 1133-1139·

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

237

In it the pope, as Christ's vicar on earth, stated that " we have judged it fitting to summon before us all our venerable brethren, the bishops of all the world, and to convene them in an oecumenical council." The Anglo-Catholics held that the pope branded the groups to whom the letter was addressed as heretics and schismatics by stating that " we cannot do otherwise than address them all, on the occasion of the approaching council, with our apostolic and paternal words, who, although they own the same Jesus Christ as a Redeemer, and glory in the Christian name, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor follow the communion of the Catholic Church." Finally they took umbrage at the fact that the pope, in conclusion, had exhorted and supplicated these groups " to hasten a return to the fold of Christ " by attending the council and placing themselves once more under the jurisdiction of the Holy See. The Anglo-Catholics' resentment was increased still further because at that very time several of the more prominent of them were conducting some informal conversations with Archbishop Georges Darboy of Paris, Bishop Félix Antoine Philibert Dupanloup of Orleans, and other liberal members of the French Roman Catholic hierarchy with respect to the possibility of moving towards reunion with the Church of England. These conversations had commenced when the convocation of the Vatican Council was assured. They were at the suggestion of the French prelates, who had expressed the wish that the English Church would make the occasion of the council an opportunity for such a move. With that end in view they unofficially expressed the opinion that the Church of Rome might concede conditional reordination, communion in both kinds, the use of the English Prayer Book, some modus vivendi regarding the cult of the Virgin Mary, and the retention of the wives of the already married English clergy. The propositions were viewed with some favor by the AngloCatholics who were carrying on conversations with the French prelates. They were, therefore, indignant at the pope for issuing the pastoral. They held that it closed the door to all negotiations

238

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

on the subject of reunion, both by completely ignoring and denying the Anglican claim to Catholicity and by including the Anglican Communion with the Protestant and non-Catholic groups. This indignation led to further protests and attacks against the See of Rome. In England, the Guardian, as well as the Times, attacked the pope and the pastoral.4" Archdeacon Wordsworth joined in the attack and resumed his protestations by writing An Anglican Answer to the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX to all Protestants, denouncing the pope, the pastoral letter, the council, the Church of Rome, and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, since the pope had called attention to the fact that the council would be convened on the fifteenth anniversary of the promulgation of that doctrine.50 The pope and the pastoral were attacked by the AngloCatholics in America, too. On May 6, 1869, the Right Reverend Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Bishop of Western New York, wrote a personal letter to the pope as " the Most Reverend Pius, Bishop of Elder Rome and Metropolitan, and also by favour of the Oecumenical Councils, Patriarch Primate with jurisdiction in the Suburbicarian provinces of Southern Italy " in which he substantially reiterated the contentions enunciated by Archdeacon Wordsworth. The attack thus begun was continued after the promulgation of the infallibility decree by the council on July 18, 1870. Like certain Roman Catholics in Germany and other parts of Europe who had protested against the decree before its promulgation by the council, the Anglo-Catholics repudiated it as Christian dogma on the ground that it ran counter to the whole stream of Catholic tradition by substituting the personal infallibility of the pope for the infallibility of the church. They sought to make capital out of the fact that Cardinal Manning and other English ultramontanists had taught the Roman Catholic laity in Eng49Ibid., October 14, 1868, p. 1144: " T h e Pope's Letter to all Protestants." Times, October 3, 1868, p. 8 : " O n the Pope's Pastoral to Protestants." 50 Wordsworth, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 344-359, f ° r the English translation. For the original Latin version see pp. 330-344.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

23g

land that papal infallibility, prior to the Vatican Council, was " Protestant calumny and heresy ", even though those ultramontanists had tried to extricate themselves from that predicament by stating that papal infallibility had unquestionably been a doctrine of the church from her very foundation and that the promulgation of the decree by the council had only confirmed that doctrine. The Guardian took exception to the contention of the ultramontanists with the counter contention that the Church of Rome had never insisted on the acceptance of Papal Infallibility as doctrine of the church until it had been proclaimed by the Vatican Council. It asserted that the Church of Rome had made " a theological somersault " by requiring the acceptance of " Protestant calumny and heresy " as a divinely revealed truth necessary for salvation, and that, in consequence, she had contradicted herself more flatly on a question of necessary faith than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had ever contradicted the Church of England. 51 The informal action and protestations of the Anglo-Catholics were turned into formal action by the church in England. Believing that the church ought to promulgate a formal declaration of principles as a protest against the new Roman dogma, several of the more prominent Anglo-Catholic members of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury decided to take steps necessary to attainment of that object. On July 6, 1870, they presented a " gravamen " urging the Convocation of Canterbury to take measures to vindicate " the independent position of the Church of England ", by addressing a remonstrance " on the present assumption of the Roman curia " in the name of the Metropolitan of the Anglican Communion, the Primus of the church in Scotland, the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, the Holy Synod of Greece, the 51 Guardian, November 2, 1870, p. 1285 : " Roman Catholic Views of the Vatican Council." Ibid., November 9, 1870, p. 1313 : " Roman Catholic Views of the Vatican Council."

240

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Metropolitan of Serbia, and the Archbishop of Utrecht, head of the church in Holland. The signers of the gravamen intentionally designated their primate as the " Metropolitan of the Anglican Communion " and included the national churches as listed because those churches were not only considered by them to be Catholic, according to their definition of Catholicity, but were Catholic churches outside the jurisdiction of the Roman See. They thought that the inclusion of those churches would give added weight both to any declaration of principles that would be made, and, at the same time, to their resentment against the Roman See for what they considered an attack upon the Catholicity of the English Church. However, they exhibited a zeal not tempered with discretion in harboring these ideas. A s a matter of fact they were presuming a great deal, even though a movement under Anglican auspices for intercommunion with all those churches had already begun. Finally, it was an act of presumption to assume that the Convocation of Canterbury could be the mouthpiece of the other members of the Anglican Communion in the matter. Attention was drawn to these facts in the discussion in both houses of the Convocation. The result was that it was decided that the Convocation could speak only for itself. The proceedings began with a long discussion on this proposal in the upper House. A s usual in Anglican church affairs, each member had his lengthy say. The result of the discussion was, as so often in Anglican church procedure, the appointment of a joint committee to draw up a report. The committee submitted their report to the Upper House on February 14, 1871, with a set of tentative resolutions to serve as a basis for a declaration which they recommended be put forth by the Convocation of Canterbury. The report was then sent to the Lower House with a request that it communicate its opinion upon the report to the Upper House. A f t e r a discussion seriatim of the resolutions in the Lower House, on the next day, with plenty of objections to the whole

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

idea, the resolutions were adopted with slight changes

24I

in

wording : — Resolved—That this House acquiesces in the opinion of the joint committee that a declaration ought now to be put forth by the Convocation of this province, and that such declaration should be drawn up in accordance with the tenor of the following paragraphs : That the Vatican Council has no just right to be termed on oecumenical or general council, and that none of its decrees have any claim for acceptance as canons of a general council. That the dogma of Papal Infallibility now set forth by the Vatican Council is contrary to Holy Scripture, and to the judgment of the ancient Church Universal. That the assumption of supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in convening the late Vatican Council contravenes canons of the Universal Church. That there is one true Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; that of this true Catholic and Apostolic Church the Church of England and the churches in communion with her are living members; and that the Church of England earnestly desires to maintain firmly the Catholic faith and discipline as declared and settled by the undisputed councils of the Universal Church, and to be united upon those principles of doctrine and discipline in the bonds of brotherly love with all churches in Christendom. 62 These resolutions were sent up to the Upper House. That body deferred consideration of them until J u n e 16, 1 8 7 1 , because of the illness of Archbishop Tait. On that day they were introduced by Bishop Wordsworth, who moved that they should " be communicated to all bishops in communion with the Church of England," if they were adopted by the Upper House. A brief discussion followed in which Archbishop Tait spoke against the idea that in some way or other the synod of the Province of Canterbury should be " required to be cleared f r o m complicity with the decrees of the Vatican Council," and said 52 Chronicle of Convocation (1871), these resolutions, see pp. 118-143.

p. 143. For the debate in full on

242

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

" that it was important that nothing should be put forth that could in the slightest degree lessen our intimate fellowship with those bodies of Protestant Christians who are not so regularly constituted as ourselves, but who have done good service in the maintenance of the Catholic faith, not only in this country, but on the continent." This expression of opinion, even from the Archbishop of Canterbury, did not affect the vote, for the resolutions were carried unanimously. Copies of them were then sent to every bishop of the Anglican Episcopate, as had been suggested by Bishop Wordsworth. 5 3 Here again the contrast between the Archbishop of Canterbury in his communion with that of the pope in the Roman Communion is noteworthy, as is also the extent to which the religious views of the " Metropolitan of the Anglican Communion " affected decisions reached by bodies over which he presided. This action was, of course, completely ignored by the Roman See. It was of no avail insofar as exerting any influence at all in the acceptance of Papal Infallibility by the Roman Communion. Nevertheless it did assuage the feelings of the Anglo-Catholics, because they were and are sensitive to any attack on the Catholicity of the English Church, especially by the Roman See. The prominent part played by Bishop Wordsworth in the Anglican protests against the Roman See and in the promulgation of the formal principles of the Convocation of Canterbury as contained in the resolutions of that body supports the view that it was he who submitted the question in regard to the relation of the Church of England to the Church of Rome to Archbishop Tait's committee. If this surmise is correct, he was, no doubt, actuated by the belief that the conference, in being a gathering of the Anglican Episcopate, was the agency by which the other members of the Anglican Communion could indicate their approval of the action of the Convocation of Canterbury, by making a similar declaration, and that such a declaration would have more weight, because it would have behind it the moral support of the entire Anglican Communion. Moreover it 5 3 I b i d . (1871),

pp. 441-450.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

243

was much more necessary to make a declaration of this kind because the Anglican Communion was still on the defensive in 1878, insofar as its attitude towards the Church of Rome was concerned. It had also entered into negotiations with other Christian groups, some of whom were Catholic according to the Anglican definition of Catholicity, with a view to bringing about Christian intercommunion. The question submitted to Archbishop Tait's committee on the attitude of the Anglican Communion towards the Old Catholics and other groups on the continent of Europe who had renounced their allegiance to the Church of Rome had been brought forward by the Old Catholic movement, and, in lesser degree, by kindred reform movements in-Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mexico, and other parts of Christendom, because they were the movements which had brought these groups into being. The Old Catholic movement had commenced as a schism within the Church of Rome under the leadership of Dr. John Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, and other liberal Roman Catholic professors and distinguished scholars associated with the German Universities, against the decree of the Vatican Council. At the outset, it did not aim at any drastic changes in doctrine, but at the restoration of the ancient Catholic system, founded on the diocesan episcopate, which, under the influence of the ultramontanist movement, had been finally displaced by the rigidly centralized system of the papal monarchy. A s the movement progressed and spread throughout Germany and Europe, it ultimately resulted in a complete secession from the Church of Rome and in the setting up of a separate ecclesiastical organization on the episcopal model. The churches in England and the United States, through a few, but very influential Anglo-Catholics, assumed an attitude of informal and unofficial sympathy toward this movement. They considered it to be analogous to the English Reformation of the sixteenth century, because the Old Catholics, in their attempt to restore the ancient Catholic system, widened the breach with the Church of Rome to the breaking point, and at

244

T H E

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the same time enunciated tenets which were considered Catholic according to Anglican principles. This sympathy increased as the movement progressed, because the Old Catholics brought the question of Christian intercommunion into prominence, for they desired and sought to bring about the reunion of the churches of the west with those of the east. Anglican interest in the Old Catholic movement was first manifested in 1 8 7 1 . In that year the Old Catholics held the first of several Old Catholic conferences at Munich. The Church of England was unofficially represented by a member of the Anglo-Continental Society, a society for the dissemination of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church of England in Roman Catholic lands. At that meeting the Old Catholics made their first pronouncement regarding Christian intercommunion. In the following year greater stress was placed on Christian intercommunion by the Old Catholics at their conference in Cologne. This meeting was attended by several Anglo-Catholic bishops and clergy from the churches in England and the United States. In 1874 a reunion conference under Old Catholic auspices was held at Bonn. This conference was attended by Old Catholics and Evangelicals from Germany, Switzerland and France, by members of the Russian Orthodox Church, by Anglo-Catholics from England and the United States, and representatives of religious bodies in Greece and southeastern Europe. The deliberations at this conference were centered on a consideration of " the confessions, teaching, and institutions recognized by the church in the first centuries, and regarded as essential by both Eastern and Western Communions before the great schism ", as a basis of agreement, though not necessarily of fusion, between the different communions represented. The discussion turned mainly on the Filioque ( " and from the Son " ) clause in the Nicene Creed, for that clause, it was agreed by all present, had been responsible, in a large degree, for the schism between the east and the west, and was the chief obstacle in the way of possible reunion. The problem involved concerned the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1 8 7 8

245

All admitted that the clause had been inserted in the Nicene Creed in an irregular manner. The Orientals urged the expunging of it from the creed. The Anglicans were not agreeable to the proposal, because the Filioque clause had been acknowledged and accepted as a vital part of the doctrine of Western Christendom for seven or eight hundred years. They refused to admit that a false doctrine had been introduced by the insertion of the words Filioque in the creed, but they agreed that the teaching of the Eastern and Western Churches was equally orthodox, because they admitted with the Orientals but one Fons Deitatis —One Godhead. After further discussion an agreement was reached on the " formal " difficulty, but the doctrinal question was reserved for future consideration, as it had already been arranged that another reunion conference was to be held at Bonn in the following year. The Bonn Conference of 1875 drew up the following formula with respect to the Procession of the Holy Ghost: I ι. We agree in receiving the oecumenical creeds and dogmatic decisions of the ancient and undivided church. 2. We agree in acknowledging that the addition of the Filioque to the creed did not take place in an ecclesiastically regular manner. 3. We acknowledge on all sides the representation of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, as it is set forth by the fathers of the undivided church. 4. We reject every proposition and every method of expression in which in any way the acknowledgment of two principles in the Trinity may be contained. II ι. The Holy Ghost issues out of the Father as the Beginning, the Cause, the Source of the Godhead. 2. The Holy Ghost does not issue out of the Son, because there is in the Godhead but One Beginning—one Cause, through which all that is in the Godhead is produced.

246

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

3. The Holy Ghost issues out of the Father through the Son. 4. The Holy Ghost is the image of the Son, Who is the image of the Father, issuing out of the Father, and resting in the Son, as His revealing power. 5. The Holy Ghost is the personal production out of the Father belonging to the Son, but not out of the Son, because He is the Spirit of the mouth of God declarative of the Word. 6. The Holy Ghost forms the link between the Father and the Son, and is linked to the Father by the S o n . " T h e propositions embodied in these Bonn resolutions, as they were called, were unanimously adopted, and so laid down a basis of union f o r the churches of the east and the west. In consequence they were undoubtedly not ignored by A r c h bishop T a i t and his committee during the deliberations on this and other questions involving Christian intercommunion which were submitted to them. It is also to be noted that these Bonn resolutions were referred to by the Lambeth Conferences a f t e r 1 8 7 8 in their deliberations on Christian intercommunion, as is shown by the reports and resolutions on Christian intercommunion of the later conferences. While these events had been taking place in Europe, the church in the United States had, at its General Convention of 1 8 7 4 , appointed a committee, consisting of three bishops, " f o r exchange of information and consideration of overtures f o r reconciliation and intercommunion " between the church in the United States and the Old Catholic Church in Germany. 5 5 This committee was reappointed at the General Convention of 1 8 7 7 , but no further action was taken by the church in the United States prior to the conference of 1878. The Bonn resolutions did not pass unnoticed in England. Late in 1 8 7 5 there was lodged a protest against them by D r . E d w a r d Bouverie Pusey, Canon of Christ Church, O x f o r d , and 54 Chronicle of Convocation (iS/ó),

p. 5.

55 Journal of the Proceedings of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (1874), p. 347.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

247

one of the most influential members of the English Church. In a letter addressed to the Times he took exception to the resolutions by branding the first as contrary to the creeds and articles of the Church of England, and describing the second as " misleading Early in 1876, the Bonn resolutions were brought to the attention of both the Convocations of Canterbury and York. The proceedings in the Convocation of Canterbury began in the Upper House with a resolution suggesting that the Bonn resolutions be referred to the committee of the Lower House on Intercommunion with the Eastern Churches. The resolution was adopted after a brief debate which turned more on the question of intercommunion than on the resolutions. The bishops present were dubious as to the orthodoxy of the statements in the resolutions and were not prepared to attach their signatures to them on that account. Their reluctance resulted largely from Dr. Pusey's views as contained in his letter to the Times. Opinion was equally divided on the matter of intercommunion. The prelates with Anglo-Catholic tendencies spoke in favor of a possible union with both the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Protestant minded prelates, on the other hand, thought that there was more hope of reunion with the Protestant churches on the continent than with any of the more Catholic bodies. In consequence of this diversity of opinion the Upper House decided to take no definite action beyond submitting the resolutions to the committee.57 The Lower House, after a very brief debate, followed the action of the Upper House, and submitted the propositions to the same committee.58 The committee made a very comprehensive study of each of the propositions in the resolutions. They embodied their findings in an elaborate report, in which they stated that the propos e Times,

December 28, 1875, P- 3·

57 Chronicle of Convocation (1876), pp. 4-19, 40-57, for the debate in the Upper H o u s e ( F e b r u a r y 15, 16, 1876). 58 Ibid., pp. 27-29, for the debate in the L o w e r H o u s e (February 15, 1876).

248

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

sitions were orthodox. But they made no recommendations, with the result that the matter w a s dropped. 58 T h e resolutions were also considered by the Convocation of Y o r k . M o s t of the members of that Convocation were reluctant to take any action on them for virtually the same reasons that had been advanced in the Convocation of Canterbury.

The

m a j o r i t y were not in f a v o r of considering union either with the Old Catholics or the Eastern O r t h o d o x Church, because they believed it would be more advantageous for the Church of E n g l a n d to attempt to bring about reunion with the Separatists and non-Church of E n g l a n d groups in E n g l a n d as well as with the Protestant churches on the continent. 60 T h e caution of the churches in both the United States and E n g l a n d was largely actuated by the status of the Old Catholic movement. Old Catholicism had reached its zenith in

1874.

A f t e r that date its position became increasingly precarious. reaction had set in in Prussia against the Kulturkampf. marck had overplayed his hand by the promulgation o f "May"

or " F a l k "

A

Bisthe

laws in 1873 and 1874. T h i s discrimi-

natory anti-Catholic legislation in the long run defeated its o w n purpose ; public sentiment began to s w i n g a w a y f r o m extreme anti-Catholicism. T h e Prussian government had overestimated the Old Catholic strength in the Kulturkampf

and practically

deserted the Old Catholics. Finally the Old Catholics severed themselves f r o m the Jansenists of Holland, by adopting practices which were not in c o n f o r m i t y with the Jansenist definition of Catholicity. 6 1 T h u s the Old Catholics found themselves in an isolated position by 1878. T w o alternatives were open to them : to return to the Church of R o m e or to f o r m some connection with the 59 Ibid., A p p e n d i x , pp. 1-23, f o r the report. 60 York

Convocation

Journal

(1876),

pp. 105-114, for the debate in the

C o n v o c a t i o n of Y o r k ( F e b r u a r y 18, 1 8 7 6 ) . 61 F o r a fuller a c c o u n t of the O l d C a t h o l i c m o v e m e n t see T h e o d o r u s , New Reformation.

The

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

249

A n g l i c a n Church. A s the f o r m e r was virtually impossible they decided on the latter as the best means o f improving their isolated position. H a v i n g arrived at this decision, the

Old

Catholics undoubtedly approached the A n g l o - C a t h o l i c prelates w h o had manifested sympathy in their cause f o r the purpose of getting them to bring the attention o f the A n g l i c a n C h u r c h to the plight o f the Old Catholics. T h e Old Catholics also k n e w of the A n g l i c a n interest in Christian intercommunion because they were aware that a movement to bring that about had begun as f a r back as 1856 in the church in the United States. 6 2 62 In 1856 the General Convention of the church in the United States appointed a joint committee " to open friendly intercourse with the Church of Sweden." T h i s committee was reappointed by the succeeding conventions, through that of the year 1871. T h e committee submitted reports to each General Convention, the substance of which was that the Church of Sweden was Catholic, according to Anglican principles, in its belief and doctrine. In consequence, the committee recommended the establishment of relations with the Swedish Church with the possibility of uniting with it in some way. T h a t the church in the United States was kindly disposed toward the Swedish Church is evidenced by the fact that another committee was appointed by the General Convention to compile a Swedish version of the B o o k of Common Prayer. Nothing came of this activity, however, prior to 1878. ( S e e Proceedings of the General Convention for 1856-1871, inclusive, for the action of the church in the United States in the matter.) In 1862 the General Convention of the church in the United States appointed another joint committee " to consider the expediency of communication with the R u s s o - G r e e k Church, to collect authentic information bearing on the s u b j e c t " . T h i s committee was also reappointed by succeeding conventions through that of 1874. T h e committee submitted lengthy reports in 1865, 1868, 1871, and 1874. T h e s e reports were largely a résumé of the activities of the authorities of the churches in England and Scotland, for there was much activity by those churches with representatives of the Russo-Greek and other Oriental churches. Informal conferences were held which were attended by English prelates and the Archbishops of S y r i a and Tenos for the purpose of bringing about a better understanding between the parties present. Correspondence w a s e x changed between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of Constantinople and other eastern patriarchs and metropolitans. A committee w a s also appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury in 1863 for the purpose of exploring the possibility of intercommunion with the Russo-Greek Church. T h i s committee, like the one of the church in the United States, w a s eventually given the power to extend its activities to a consideration of the question of intercommunion with regard to the Oriental Church generally.

25O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The appeal to the Anglo-Catholic prelates had fallen on good ground because they were of the opinion that the intercommunion movement had been greatly stimulated by the Old Catholic movement and the other kindred reform movements in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Mexico and the other parts of Christendom. Finally the same Anglo-Catholics who had shown individual sympathy by unofficial participation in the Old Catholic gatherings submitted the question to Archbishop Tait's committee in the hope that that committee would bring it before the conference, and that the conference would act favorably upon it, since favorable action by the conference would change their informal sympathy to formal official action by the Anglican Communion. Since there were several prelates who were deeply concerned with the question of intercommunion, Archbishop Tait's committee had knowledge of the motives behind the question of the Old Catholics. They knew about the attitude of the English episcopate and the personal feelings of Archbishop Tait toward efforts for intercommunion with the Protestant churches on the continent rather than with the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They saw the connection between the question concerning the Old Catholics and the applications for intercommunion with the Anglican Church from persons connected with the Armenian Church and other Christian communities in the east. These Orientals knew about the efforts toward Christian intercommunion which had been made under Old Catholic auspices. A résumé of the proceedings of Although all this activity by the churches both in the United States and England resulted in nothing tangible at the time, it did a great deal to clear away the misunderstanding between the Anglican and Oriental Churches. In so doing it not only explained the action of the Lambeth Conference of 1878 with regard to intercommunion, but opened the way to further negotiations between the two groups. F o r the reports of the American committee see Proceedings of the General Convention of 1865, pp. 325-342 ; ibid., 1868, pp. 480-487 ; ibid., 1871, pp. 565-585 ; ibid., 1874, pp. 540-556. F o r the reports of the committee of the Convocation of Canterbury see Chronicles of Convocation, 1865 to 1876, inclusive.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2ζ1

the Old Catholic congresses and reunion conferences had been disseminated throughout the Christian world. Illustrious members of the churches in England and the United States had attended the congresses and reunion conferences, and the views these Anglicans had expressed with regard to Christian intercommunion at the meetings were public property. Statements o f fundamental Anglican principles and beliefs which the E n g lish and American churchmen had made during the discussions on the question o f intercommunion in the Old Catholic congresses and reunion conferences supplied ground for the hope that the Anglican Communion might give sympathy and aid to the Oriental churches, particularly as these churches had been and were being grievously oppressed under Mohammedan rule, and Anglican clergymen, after studying the fundamental doctrines and beliefs of Elastern orthodoxy, had expressed the opinion that they were Catholic according to Anglican principles. The committee apparently considered these three questions jointly, because they raised the same fundamental issues. T h e events which had brought them into prominence and the involvement of the Anglican Communion with them, as previously described, were undoubtedly passed in review. Attention was called to the cautious action o f the churches in the United States and England with regard to the Old Catholics and their position at the time. Undoubtedly these facts influenced the committee in arriving at a decision on the question of uniting with the old Catholics. However, the religious views o f the members of the committee seemed to have been the determining factor in the decisions arrived at with respect to the problems raised by the questions. It must be remembered that, even then, the Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics held divergent views regarding Christian intercommunion. T h e former believed that the Church o f England should first unite with the Protestant churches, then with the so-called Catholic communions, and finally with the See of Rome, and then only if Rome would admit the Catholicity of Anglican doctrine and belief and the

2ζ2

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

validity o f A n g l i c a n orders. T h e A n g l o - C a t h o l i c s , on the o t h e r hand, were

just as

firm

in the conviction

that

C h u r c h s h o u l d first u n i t e w i t h t h e o t h e r C a t h o l i c

the

English

communions

including u n i o n w i t h the R o m a n See, b u t o n l y if R o m e w o u l d admit the validity o f

the A n g l i c a n

claim to Catholicity

and

of A n g l i c a n orders, and then effect a union w i t h the Protestant churches. Since the committee included prelates f r o m both of t h e s e g r o u p s , it w a s d e e m e d e x p e d i e n t n o t t o r e f e r t o t h e O l d Catholics, and the other E u r o p e a n groups w h i c h had renounced a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e C h u r c h o f R o m e , a n d t o t h e g r o u p s o f the east w h i c h h a d m a d e these applications

for intercommunion

with

the A n g l i c a n C h u r c h , b u t t o e m b o d y t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s in a declaration of f u n d a m e n t a l A n g l i c a n principles instead. T h e declaration, as a statement o f Catholicity, w o u l d serve as protest a g a i n s t t h e S e e o f R o m e , a n d a l s o a s a p o s s i b l e b a s i s f o r a rapprochement

w i t h t h a t C o m m u n i o n , i f it w a s so d i s p o s e d .

A t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e d e c l a r a t i o n w o u l d be a

pronouncement

o f t h e b a s i s o n w h i c h t h e A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n w o u l d be w i l l i n g t o e n t e r i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e g r o u p s m e n t i o n e d in t h e questions

under

( i . e., t h e interested

consideration,

Protestant in

as

churches

forming

some

well

in

as

any

Europe)

connection

other

which

with

the

groups

might

be

Anglican

Church. In this same connection

f o u r q u e s t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o the

r e l a t i o n s o f the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n t o t h e U n i t e d B r e t h r e n , t h e Unitas

Fratrum,

w e r e submitted to the

committee:

1. If a M o r a v i a n p r e s b y t e r o r d e a c o n desires to be received into the A n g l i c a n m i n i s t r y o u g h t I to ( a ) o r d a i n him a b s o l u t e l y ; (b)

r e o r d a i n him c o n d i t i o n a l l y ;

(c)

accept his orders

as

valid, and s i m p l y g i v e h i m m i s s i o n in the A n g l i c a n C h u r c h ? 2. C a n I c a n o n i c a l l y a n d r e g u l a r l y c o m m i s s i o n a bishop of the Unitas

Fratrum

in m y diocese either to c o n f i r m or to ordain

f o r me, or to do both episcopal acts a c c o r d i n g to the A n g l i c a n ritual ? 3. A m

I j u s t i f i e d , if called on. to c o n f i r m children or ordain

p r e s b y t e r s or deacons, o r do both f o r the M o r a v i a n s , in their

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

253

church and according to their ritual ? 4. May Anglican presbyters and deacons, with their bishop's sanction, officiate and minister the sacraments in Moravian churches, according to their ritual, and invite Moravian's presbyters or deacons to execute the functions appertaining to their office in Anglican churches and according to Anglican ritual ? 0 3 These questions probably came f r o m the West Indies where, in Antigua, there was an especially strong Moravian center. T h e questions hinge on what value the Anglican Communion would give to Moravian holy orders. T h i s was the problem at stake between the Anglicans and the different denominations of Protestantism. T h e earliest committee on intercommunion, that of the church in the United States, had been appointed in 1 8 5 6 as a joint committee of both houses of the General Convention on friendly intercourse with the Church of Sweden. The question w a s : did these churches have th< apostolic succession? The position of the Moravian Church was peculiar, for, by an Act of the British Parliament in 1 7 4 9 , it had been declared to be " an ancient protestant episcopal church, which has been countenanced and relieved by the K i n g s of England, your majesty's predecessors." Notwithstanding this, the committee deemed it expedient to g o no further with answering these questions with regard to Protestant reunion than they had with the involved Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox problem. Another set of questions considered by Archbishop Tait's committee had to do with problems concerning the West Indian dioceses and the Church of Haiti. A s f a r as the West Indies were concerned, the desire f o r disestablishment and the organization of synodical provincial government had reached those dioceses. 65 In 1 8 7 3 the meeting of the West Indian bishops which had requested the Convocation of Canterbury to ask the Archbishop to summon a second meeting of the 63 Davidson, op. cit., p. 95, footnote 1. 64 22 Geo. II, c. 30. 65 Caldecott, Alfred, The Church in the West Indies, pp. 134-141, 145, 148.

254

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Lambeth Conference had as its principal object the formation of a province including the dioceses of Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, Nassau, Guiana and Trinidad." This was part of the movement for disestablishment and disendowment which was then going on in the British colonies, that movement being promoted by the government in England as an imperial policy. The organization of the W e s t Indian province being still incomplete in 1878, the W e s t Indian bishops availed themselves of the opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the Anglican Communion through the second Lambeth Conference. 66 Guardian, December 24, 1873, p. 1645, " The Conference of the W e s t Indian Bishops ". T h e organization proposed by the conference : Diocesan synods to be constituted in each diocese; or, failing this, a church council in each island, to consist of the bishop, the licensed clergy or their representatives, and the representatives of the laity. These synods or councils to seek power from the local legislatures to make rules for the management of their own affairs, which were not to be inconsistent with the civil laws of the colony. The conference also urged the union of the six W e s t Indian dioceses into one province under its own metropolitan, and the immediate institution of a provincial synod, subject to the concurrence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom the bishops had vowed canonical obedience. The provincial synod was to consist, in the first instance, of bishops only, but was to be comprised of representatives of the clergy and laity if " geographical and other obstacles " could be removed. The functions of the contemplated provincial synod were to be those of framing regulations for the formation of new dioceses, the constitution of a provincial court of appeal, and of a tribunal for the trial of a bishop. T h e conference also adopted the following resolution : " The admission to holy orders of a person who intends to continue partially occupied with some secular pursuit must be left to the discretion of each individual bishop, but it is the opinion of this conference that the practice of the medical profession is peculiarly compatible with ministrations of sick souls, and with the discharge of the office of deacon or priest. In all cases, unless of extreme urgency, such persons should act only in subordination to the priest in charge of the parish or district." This action by the W e s t Indian bishops in 1873 is the explanation of the questions submitted by them to Archbishop Tait's committee in 1878. A t the same time the W e s t Indian bishops issued a pastoral in 1873 in which they dwelt upon the two great domestic vices of the n e g r o — i. e., the neglect of the conjugal and of the parental relation. In consequence, it is not unlikely that they submitted the questions concerning " Local peculiarities regarding the Laws of marriage " to Archbishop Tait's committee in 1878.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

255

T h e other problem of the W e s t Indian dioceses concerned their diaconate, about which the f o l l o w i n g points were raised : ι. T h e desirableness, or otherwise, of recognizing a diaconate which, in certain cases, shall be practically permanent, instead of regarding the diaconate as the invariable step to the presbyterate. 2. The desirableness, or otherwise, of permitting deacons to engage in such secular callings as are not inconsistent with the due and edifying discharge of sacred functions. 3. W h a t modifications, if any, should be allowed as regards the intellectual qualifications and tests to be required o f , and imposed on, such laymen as desire to become deacons without relinquishing their secular vocation. βτ It may be assumed that the problem concerned the use of negro deacons. A s f o r the church in Haiti, its position w a s peculiar, f o r here w a s the O r t h o d o x Apostolic Church of Haiti founded in the year 1861 by a church colony of negroes w h o had emigrated f r o m the U n i t e d States to the independent country o f

Haiti.

T h i s church colony of 1 1 1 souls w a s under the pastoral care o f a " presbyter w i t h the full approbation o f his diocesan, the Bishop of Connecticut." These people became citizens o f H a i t i and used in their church services a French edition of the liturgy o f the church in the United States. B y 1874 they had made arrangements to h a v e their first bishop consecrated in

New

Y o r k . T h e arrangements w e r e carried out in accordance w i t h a covenant w i t h the H o u s e of Bishops of the church in the United States. B y the terms of this covenant the consecration of bishops f o r the church in H a i t i w a s to be undertaken by a commission of bishops of the church in the United States until there should be a t least three native bishops in that island. 68 67 D a v i d s o n , op. cit., p. 96, f o o t n o t e 1. 68 Journal of the Proceedings 0} the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity, General Convention (1874), pp. 375-376, f o r t h e covenant in full.

of the

256

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

In 1878 the Haitian government enabled their bishop to attend the second Lambeth Conference. The founding of this church marked the inauguration of a new policy, because it was the first autonomous national church to be founded under Anglican auspices outside the territories of the English-speaking peoples.®9 The precedent thus begun was continued. Other autonomous churches of a similar character were subsequently founded under Anglican auspices in other non-English speaking territories. They, too, like the Haitian Church, ultimately were brought into full and visible communion with the Church of England and the churches in communion with her, and thus became constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Another set of questions brought before Archbishop Tait's committee concerned the divergence between marriage laws passed by local legislatures and the canons concerning Christian marriage. Here the concern of the whole Anglican Communion was directed to the family as a social unit, a concern which was to be developed so notably by each succeeding Lambeth Conference. Then the difficulties of the foreign missionary field took form in a set of questions about a possible Board of Reference. 70 69 Foreign Church Chronicle and Review (1877), pp. 86-90: " T h e Orthodox Apostolic Church of Haiti." Scarth, Α . Ε. M., The Story of the Old Catholic and Kindred Movements, pp. 187-188. 70 It is quite possible that Archbishop Tait submitted this set of questions to his committee. H e had had his attention directed to the desirability of creating such a board by events that had taken place in England in the years subsequent to the Lambeth Conference of 1878. A s far back as 1861 the Convocation of Canterbury had appointed a joint committee to report on missionary bishops, and the advisability of establishing a board of missions similar to that of the church in the United States. T h e presentation of this report was delayed until 1870. In that year the attention of the Convocation was again directed to the matter of foreign missions by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. T h e Upper H o u s e in considering the request of the S. P. G. expressed the belief that a board should be created with power to disburse funds collected for missionary purposes. T h e Lower H o u s e disapproved of this proposal and recommended the creation of a board similar to that of the church in the U n i t e d States. That is, it should be a con-

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

257

Here again were revealed the persistent difficulties caused by the overlapping of diocesan jurisdictions and the difference in religious views between the missionary societies. The final set of questions concerned difficulties arising in the Church of England from the revival of obsolete forms of ritual and from erroneous teaching on the subject of confession. Both of these questions were introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury in person. H i s concern was founded on the obstinate determination of growing numbers of AngloCatholic priests to restore the ornaments and ritual of the medieval church in their services, ornaments and ritual which Archbishop Tait and a large group of conservative evangelical clergy felt had been outlawed by the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The ritualist controversy, a long, bitter and intricate one culminating in a number of cases in the English courts having sultative board, for it was to be one " to represent the Church of England in her missionary aspect," and one " inviting communications from all parts of the world respecting the advancement of missions and questions thereupon, on which advice or information may from time to time be required." After much discussion both Houses of the Convocation agreed to the creation of such a board. In deference to the Convocation of York, they submitted their proposal to that body. However, the Y o r k Convocation deferred concurrence until 1873, chiefly because they thought that action ought to be deferred until the views of the missionary societies had been ascertained. Finally, the S. P. G. gave its approval, but the Church Missionary Society remained aloof, so the scheme fell through and failed to materialize. For the discussions on this proposal see Chronicle of Convocation for 1873, 1874 and 1875. Although the plan fell through, Archbishop Tait realized the excellence of the recommendations of the Lower House. Moreover, while the proposal was being considered in Convocation he received numerous communications from the church in the United States asking him to take some action in preventing the English missionary societies from operating in regions where the American missionaries were operating. Due to the absence of the proper machinery, Archbishop Tait informed the church in the United States that his hands were tied and that nothing could be done in the matter. Finally, his committee reported favorably regarding the creation of a board of this character, while the missionary commttee's recommendations were directly opposed to those of Tait's in the matter. This would seem to be further evidence that Tait submitted the questions to his own committee.

258

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters, cast as dark a shadow over the conference of 1878 as the Colenso controversy had done in 1867. T h i s controversy, even better than the difficulties in the mission field, illustrates the temper of the Anglican Communion, but it had much less to do with its ecclesiastical organization, so that it may, perhaps, be more briefly summarized. T h e official and legal prayer book in England in 1878 was still that of 1662. It ambiguously stated: " Such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministrations, shall be retained and be in use as were in the Church of England by the authority of the Parliament in the second year of K i n g Edward V I . " That year was 1549, the date of the first Edwardian Prayer Book. The ambiguity rests in the word " retained " in this rubric and the state of church usage thus early in Edward's reign. The Reformation changes had only just begun in that first Edwardian book, and it is improbable that in 1662, when the English Church was just emerging from the shadow of Puritan domination, there was any intention to return to the " popish practices " common to the Middle A g e s and that were just beginning to disappear in 1549. B y 1878 English church services had become Protestant in their form. The ritualists, openly disclaiming any wish to obey the spirit of the law, and even avowing the intention to g o as near to disobedience of the letter of the law as possible, took advantage of all legal technicalities, and of the ambiguity of the 1662 ornaments rubric in particular. They justified their position in reintroducing the medieval rites and ceremonies, with all the medieval ornaments, on the principle that what is not forbidden is permitted. They adopted the theory that the vestments ordered by the Prayer Book of 1549 were legal and that it was lawful to use all church furniture which could be proved or might be assumed to have been in use at the beginning of Edward V I ' s reign. They said that the second year of his reign ended on January 27, 1548-49, that the use of the First Edwardian Prayer Book was not mandatory until June ( W h i t s u n d a y ) ,

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

259

some six months later; and that, prior to that date, medieval furniture and ornaments were still in use. In 1857, as a result of the Liddell v. Westerton appeal from the Court of Arches to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the use of eucharistie vestments—chasuble, alb and tunicle—was declared legal. 71 Although this was based on an " obiter dictum " in the case, it resulted in a further spread of ritualistic practices between 1857 and 1 8 7 1 . These practices were further strengthened by the organization of the English Church Union " to defend and maintain unimpaired the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, . . . to unite clergy and laity in opposing the evils of laxity, . . . and to combat Erastianism, Rationalism and Puritanism." 72 Here the ritualists joined hands with the growing desire for disestablishment and the separation of the church from pariamentary control. Much of their strength lay in the distrust of the civil power also felt by the bishops, for undoubtedly the prelates could have persuaded Parliament to pass a law prohibiting the use of the still generally unpopular ornaments ; but both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics alike felt a growing distrust of the national government in church affairs. The English Church Union concerned itself also with sacramental doctrine, reunion with the Roman Church first and then reunion of the whole of Christendom. Quite naturally, such a militant society in England brought into existence an organization of its opponents, the English Church Association, " to uphold the doctrine, principles and order of the United Church of England and Ireland, and to 71 Weekly Reporter {1856-1857), Vol. V, pp. 470-477, for the Privy Council judgment in this case. The proceedings hud begun by an institution of a suit against Liddell in the Consistory Court of the Diocese of London in 1854· The judgment in that court was against Liddell, so he appealed to the Court of Arches of Canterbury. Here also the decision was an adverse one for him, so he then carried his appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 72 Cornish, F. Warre, A History 0} the English Church in the Nineteenth Century, Part II, pp. 108-109.

2ÓO

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

counteract the efforts now being made to pervert her teaching on essential points of the Christian faith or assimilate her services to those of the Church of Rome, . . . to resist all innovations in the service as prescribed by the joint authority of the church and state, . . . and especially to prevent idolatrous adoration of the elements of the Lord's Supper." 73 All this clamor and organization necessitated long discussions in the Convocations and the submission of test cases to counsel. A s was so often the case, the deliberations resulted in a resolution passed by the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury : " Our judgment is that no alteration from long sanctioned and usual ritual ought to be made in our churches until the sanction of the bishop of the diocese had been obtained thereto." 74 Thereafter, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into " the varying interpretations put upon the rubrics, orders and directions f o r regulating the course and conduct of public worship, the administration of the sacraments, and the other services contained in the Book of Common Prayer, . . . with a view of explaining or amending the said rubrics, . . . so as to secure general uniformity of practice in such matters as may be deemed essential." 75 They declared : " W e are of the opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the United Church of England and Ireland all variations in respect to vesture from what has long been the established usage of the said United Church, and we think that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress." 78 However, they were not prepared to recommend any means by which this " easy and effectual process " could be established, and they made no change in the rubrics. They did revise the Lectionary, 73 Ibid., P a r t II, p. 112. HChronicle

of Convocation

75 Parliamentary

(1867),

p. 711.

Papers, 1867, Vol. X X , p. 720.

76 Ibid., p. 721. F o r the report in full, see pp. 721-722.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2ÓI

and this was the only part of their work that was confirmed by legislation. There followed the prosecution of ritualists through action of the English Church Association, resulting in the cases of Martin v. Mackonochie, and Flamank v. Simpson, in the Court of Arches. 77 The decision in these cases so little pleased the English Church Association that they appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1867. 78 There the decision of the lower court was sufficiently reversed to please the English Church Association and to dismay the ritualists, who contended that the judgment was irreconcilable with the precedent established in Liddell v. Westerton and that the judgment showed the uncertainty of legal interpretation of obsolete formularies. Later cases followed much the same pattern ; no one could discover what rules in the controversy would be followed. Ritualism continued to spread, particularly in city churches. In the diocese of London, while Tait was diocesan, ritualistic activities were spreading rapidly. In 1868 he moved in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury the following : Resolved—That this House, viewing with anxious concern the increased diversity of practice in regard to ritual observances, as causing additional disquietude and contention . . . deems it expedient for the peace of the church—uf. That the limits of ritual observance should not be left to the uncontrolled discretion of individual churchmen, and therefore ought to be defined by rightful authority ; 2nd. That some easy and inexpensive process should be provided whereby, while the liberties of the officiating clergymen and their parishioners are protected, the evils of unrestrained license in such matters may be checked.78 77 Law Reports, Admiralty and Ecclesiastical (1867) Vol. II, pp. 116-247. The Dean of the Court of Arches tried these cases as one, since the same issues were involved. 78 Law Reports, Privy Council Appeals (1867-1869), 79Chronicle of Convocation (1868),

p. 1056.

Vol. II, pp. 365-392.

2Ó2

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Like earlier attempts in Convocation this resolution led to long discussion and was finally dropped with nothing accomplished. B y 1 8 6 9 the ritualist controversy had become mixed with the question of clergy discipline, whose processes were so expensive and dilatory that the ritualists took advantage of the inability of their bishops to move against them. I n 1 8 7 2 the Convocations asked the necessary permission and authority of the crown to revise the whole body of

rubrics.

T h e crown issued R o y a l Licenses and Letters of Business as requested. Although a great mass of work—discussions, committees and

reports—was

accomplished,

n o decisions

were

reached. A f t e r two years, in 1 8 7 4 , the R o y a l Licenses and Letters of Business were renewed, and the Convocation discussion continued right down through ficulties

1 8 7 7 . Innumerable

dif-

and questions were involved, but the position of the

Convocations can perhaps best be summed up in the words of one of its committees whose report w a s published in

1875:

" A time of feverish excitement is an exceedingly dangerous one f o r making changes in these rubrics." T h e feverish excitement in 1 8 7 5

was

>

P a r t > due

t0

final passage in 1 8 7 4 of the Public W o r s h i p Regulation Bill, and the animosity which this change in the law met a m o n g the now strong party of the ritualists and the Church Union. 8 0 T h i s law changed the procedure in dealing with clerical cases. It established new provincial courts of Canterbury and Y o r k to try cases initiated by a bishop on a complaint made to him by archdeacon, churchwarden, or three parishioners against a clergyman of his diocese. T h e bishop w a s permitted to hear the case by the consent of the parties, and then no appeal was permitted. T h i s new law made possible the trial of ecclesiastical cases in one court instead of three, as the earlier procedure had been. T h e ritualists objected violently, f o r they claimed that the change was aimed at them alone. T h e y cited Prime Minister Disraeli himself, who had stated in C o m m o n s that the primary 80 37 and 38 Vict., c. 85.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

263

purpose of the act " was to put down ritualism," by putting down practices " avowedly symbolic of doctrines which the clergy were bound in the most solemn manner to refute and repudiate." H e further remarked that he would always speak reverently of Roman Catholic ceremonies practiced by R o m a n Catholics, but he objected to " the mass in masquerade." Instead of improving conditions the change in the law made matters worse. T h e number of prosecutions increased, and o f fenders, feeling themselves abused, ignored the sentence of the courts. They continued their illegal acts, were arrested f o r contempt of court, went to jail, and thought themselves, and were thought by their party, martyrs. M a n y cases ended in acquittal on legal technicalities. In short, the law finally became inoperative. N o wonder Archbishop Tait brought these questions up f o r discussion in his 1 8 7 8 committee. A s Bishop of London and as Archbishop of Canterbury he had had sad experience with the difficulties involved. Ritualism had been and remained a thorn in his side. Parliament had enacted the Public Worship Regulation A c t at his insistence and in deference to his wishes. T h e courts were still filled with ritualism cases. A n impasse had been reached between the ritualists and Evangelicals. Neither group was willing to grant concessions, nor to cease trying to make the Church of England uniform in its ritual. A s f o r the situation with regard to private confession in the Church of England, it was not nearly so intricate as the ritualism controversy. The mind of the church was much more nearly unanimous about it; unanimous enough, in fact, f o r it to be possible f o r the Convocation of Canterbury to agree in a pronouncement on the subject. However, the history of the practice of individual confession so paralleled the ritualistic " popish practices " and was so much more a matter of teaching and less overt in its appearance that it greatly troubled Archbishop Tait and that party within the church which shared his religious views.

264

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

Since the thirteenth century it had been the rule in the Roman Catholic Communion that auricular confession and absolution were necessary preliminaries to reception of Holy Communion. Confession and absolution were grouped together as the sacrament of penance. W h e n Parliament passed the A c t of the S i x Articles in 1539, a f t e r H e n r y V I I I ' s rupture with Rome, the sixth section of that act stipulated : That auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God, . . . if any person preach in any sermon, or collation openly made, or teach in any common school or congregation, or obstinately affirm or defend that auricular confession is not expedient and necessary to be used in the Church of God, he shall be adjudged to suffer death, and forfeit his lands and goods of a felon. 81 T h i s act was repealed early in E d w a r d V I ' s reign, and in the Elizabethan " R e f o r m a t i o n settlement" the E n g l i s h Church took a completely different attitude with regard to confession. T h a t attitude is epitomized in the Anglican

Homily

of Repentance :

" A u r i c u l a r confession hath not the w a r r a n t of G o d ' s w o r d . " H o w e v e r , " if any do find themselves troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate, or to some other g o d l y learned man, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God's word : but it is against true Christian liberty, that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time o f blindness and ignorance."

82

In the English Church, then, the doctrine was clear that confession w a s voluntary, a privilege and not compulsory as obligation ; that it is not indispensable to the forgiveness of sin a f t e r baptism or to the reception of H o l y Communion. T h e 81 31 H e n . V I I I , c. 14, s. vi. 8 2 Sermons, Queen

Elisabeth,

or Homilies, of famous

Appointed memory,

to be read

in Churches

in the

time

p p . 446-467, f o r t h i s h o m i l y i n f u l l .

of

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

265

use of private confession is incorporated in two places in the offices of the English Church. In the Order of the Visitation of the Sick the priest is directed to move the sick person " to make a special confession of his sins if he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter." There is a similar provision in the Exhortation of the Communion Service, but in neither office is private confession more than an opportunity for the especially burdened conscience. For all ordinary sinners the ancient practice and custom is followed by the use of the General Confession in the Communion Service itself. However, auricular confession probably never completely disappeared from the practice of all the devout in England. After the middle of the nineteenth century, when the religious life reappeared in the Anglican sisterhoods and the Tractarians took to the study of the sacramental system, it doubtless revived in many high church communities. In 1874 a book entitled The Priest in Absolution, Part II, A Manual for Such As Are Called Unto the Higher Ministry in the English Church by the Reverend J . C. Chambers had been privately printed and circulated by the Society of the Holy Cross. This book was a manual for " the clergy who desire to have at hand a sort of Vade-Mecum for easy reference in the discharge of their duties as confessors." By 1877 several thousand copies of this book had been distributed when it came into the hands of Lord Redesdale, who called the attention of the House of Lords to it, feeling that " the time has arrived when there should be a decided condemnation of such practice." Although other members of the House of Lords, particularly Archbishop Tait, agreed that the book was " filthy," no action was taken.83 Then the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury took up the matter. In 1877 they accepted the declaration of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury of 1873 passed by the bishops after a short debate in which at least 83 Hansard, Parliamentary for the debate in full.

Debates, 3rd Series, Vol. 217, pp. 269-290,

THE

206

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

one member asserted that they were being asked to add a fortieth to the Articles of Religion. T h e vote f o r the declaration w a s 62 to 6. W h e n the Upper House met t w o days later Archbishop T a i t succeeded in having passed a series of resolutions condemning the book and the Society of the Holy Cross f o r its publication, and ending with expressing " its strong condemnation of any doctrine or practice of confession which can be thought to make such a book necessary or expedient."

84

N o more could be done about the matter, but Archbishop T a i t knew that confession as well as ritualistic practices were going steadily forward among the Anglo-Catholic party and the least he could do was to submit these questions to the Lambeth Conference of 1878. O n July 6, 1878, the Lambeth Conference adjourned to enable its committees to prepare their reports, but, as they had not finished their discussion of " The Conditions,

Progress,

and Needs of the V a r i o u s Churches of the Anglican C o m munion," they agreed to reconvene on the afternoon of July 22 instead of in the morning of July 23 as previously arranged. A f t e r two full weeks of work in committee the conference reassembled, then, on the afternoon of July 22. T h e following bishops took part in the discussion : Niagara,

Rupertsland,

Montreal and Fredericton, ex-Bishop of Melbourne, L o n g Island,

Delaware,

Kingston,

Guiana,

Lincoln,

Peterborough,

Llandaff, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is to be noted that the bishops participating in this discussion are grouped, a f t e r the introductory two, according to their provinces. Each bishop expounded the conditions in his own branch of

the

Anglican Communion, with the exception of the American bishops, who, serving on the commission for Haiti, also spoke f o r that church. A t this meeting there was also introduced a memorial f r o m the president of T h e Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom praying the conference to issue a declaration in favor of Christian reunion. 85 8 4 Chronicle

of Convocation

(1S77),

p . 336.

85 Guardian, July 24, 1878, p. 1036, for this memorial.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

267

Beginning on July 23 the conference considered and adopted the committee reports. On that day, in continuous session from 1 1 A. M. to 4 : 1 5 P. M., the bishops acted on the committee reports on " The Best Mode of Maintaining Union among the Various Churches of the Anglican Communion," followed immediately by the report on " Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable." These reports were included in the Encyclical Letter and so became part of the official acts of the conference. 88 THE

R E S U L T S OF T H E C O N F E R E N C E

AS EVIDENCED BY

REPORTS EMBODIED IN T H E E N C Y C L I C A L

THE

LETTER

The report on maintaining union began with a paragraph voicing " deep thankfulness to Almighty God for the essential and evident unity in which the Church of England and the churches in visible communion with her have always been bound together." Here the report listed in a footnote the churches in the Anglican Communion in 1878 : The Church of England with the churches planted by her, in six provinces; India with six dioceses, Canada with nine dioceses, Rupertsland with four dioceses, South A f r i c a with eight dioceses, Australia with twelve dioceses, and New Zealand with seven dioceses, together with twenty dioceses not yet associated in provinces; the church in Ireland; the Episcopal Church in Scotland ; the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America with its missionary branches; and the church in Haiti. Unity among them was said to consist of " fellowship of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, holding One Faith, . . . receiving the same canonical scriptures, partaking of the same divinely ordained sacraments, with the ministry of the same apostolic orders, worshipping one God." The second paragraph notes the variety of custom, discipline, and forms of worship necessarily resulting from the exercise by each " particular or national church " of its right " to ordain, 88 Ibid., July 31, 1678, pp. 1070-1071, for a full and complete transcript of this Encyclical Letter. See also Davidson, op. cit., pp. 82-98.

THE

208

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

change and abolish ceremonies or rites of the church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying." At present there was no real ground for anxiety on account of this diversity, but a desire existed for practical and efficient methods to guard against possible future disunions. In the third paragraph the impossibility of a general council in the divided state of Christendom was acknowledged and the difficulties attending a synod of all the A n g l i c a n

Churches

seemed insuperable. In the fourth paragraph the report suggests that conferences of bishops called together by the Archbishop of Canterbury f r o m time to time at the request o f , or in consultation with, the bishops of the A n g l i c a n C o m m u n i o n m i g h t with advantage be invested in the future with somewhat larger liberty as to the initiation and selection of subjects f o r discussion. F o r example, " a committee might be constituted such as should represent . . . the several churches of the A n g l i c a n Communion, and to this committee it m i g h t be entrusted to draw

up, a f t e r

receiving

communications

from

bishops,

a

scheme of subjects to be discussed." T h e fifth paragraph lays down three principles of

church

order which ought to be recognized as of great importance f o r maintaining u n i o n : ( i )

D u l y certified action of each church,

province or diocese should be respected by all the other churches. ( 2 ) N o bishop or clergyman of one diocese should exercise his functions in any other diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof. ( 3 ) N o bishop should authorize to officiate in his diocese a clergyman f r o m another church or province without letters testimonial

countersigned

by the bishop of

the

T h e report then passed to details under six h e a d s : ( 1 )

Of

diocese f r o m which he came. church organization ; recommended that all dioceses, insofar as circumstances allow, associate themselves into provinces in accordance

with

ancient

laws

and

usages

of

the

Catholic

C h u r c h ; ( 2 ) O f common w o r k ; recommended cooperation between churches in maintaining

schools

f o r training

native

ministry f o r the mission field; ( 3 ) O f commendatory letters;

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

269

recommended such letters be given by bishops to clergymen visiting other churches and by clergymen to members of their flocks going from one country to another; ( 4 ) O f circulating information as to the churches; recommended that the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge be requested to maintain a department for the purpose of mutually circulating ecclesiastical documents of importance and retaining them for reference, and providing for the dissemination of information respecting the current history of all the churches. Officiai acts and other published documents should be interchanged among the bishops of the Communion; ( 5 ) O f a day of intercession; recommended annual season of prayer for the union of Christendom, time selected, the Tuesday before Ascension Day, or any of the seven days thereafter; ( 6 ) O f diversities of worship ; recommended, since communion in worship might be endangered by excessive diversities of ritual, that churchmen of all views recognize the duty of submitting themselves to the authoritative judgments of that particular church in which by God's Providence they might be placed. Having adopted this report the conference went on to accept the report of the committee on " Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable." In this report the problem was first stated : N o appeal lay from ecclesiastical tribunals in the colonial churches to ecclesiastical courts in England, with the result that no question relating to the exercise of discipline in a colonial church could be heard in England except on appeal from the civil courts in the colony on matters affecting property or civil rights. T h e problem was not the constitution or jurisdiction of provincial or diocesan tribunals, but of external tribunals—i. e., Voluntary Boards of Arbitration to which appeal or reference ought to be made, also how such boards should be constituted, and how approached. The report made general recommendations: first, that the committee could not recommend one central tribunal of appeal from provincial tribunals; that each province should determine

27O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

f o r itself the conditions of reference to a council to settle questions of doctrine, but that any such question should be on a special case, not merely an abstract question; that dioceses not combined into provinces should appeal f r o m diocesan courts to the Archbishop of Canterbury; that consensual jurisdiction should be enforced according to the circumstances in each diocese. Recommendations as to the trial of bishops followed : N o appeal f r o m the trial of a bishop in a province when no other bishop of that province than the accused dissents from the judgment, but the case should have been heard by at least five bishops. If it is not possible to have five bishops of his own province to try the accused, the province should provide f o r enlargement of the tribunal by the addition of bishops from a neighboring province. Moreover, if a condemned bishop has not been tried by such a tribunal he should be able to require his case to be submitted to at least five metropolitans or chief bishops of the Anglican Communion, of whom the Archbishop of Canterbury should be one. And when an ecclesiastical province desires a tribunal of appeal from its provincial tribunal f o r trying a bishop such a tribunal should consist of not less than five bishops of the Anglican Communion under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury. On the next day, July 24, 1878, the conference met at 1 0 : 4 5 A . M. Again they considered and adopted the reports of two committees: " T h e Relation to each other of MissionaryBishops and Missionaries of the various branches of the Anglican Communion, acting in the same country," and the report of the committee " On the position of Anglican Chaplains and Chaplaincies on the continent of Europe and elsewhere." The missionary report contained six recommendations : ( 1 ) In cases where two bishops of the Anglican Communion are ministering in the same country each should have control of his own clergy, and their converts and congregations; ( 2 ) Various bishops in the same country should endeavor, as members of the same Communion, to maintain brotherly intercourse in their missionary work; ( 3 ) In countries not under English or

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

2JI

American rule the church should not establish dioceses with strictly defined territorial limits, but only indicate the district in which it is intended the missionary bishop should labor; ( 4 ) Bishops in the same country should take care not to interfere at all with congregations or converts of each other; ( 5 ) It is most undesirable that either church should for the future send bishops or missionaries to towns or districts already occupied by a bishop of another branch of the Anglican Communion ; ( 6 ) When it is intended to send forth any new missionary bishop notification should be sent beforehand to the A r c h bishop of Canterbury, to the Presiding Bishop of the church in the United States, and to the metropolitan of any province near which the missionary bishop is to minister. This committee further answered in their report questions submitted by the Bishop of Calcutta with regard to the power of a bishop in respect to granting and withdrawing licenses of clergy, lay readers, and catechists; of his rights with reference to changes in management, order of service, and place of worship of any congregation. W i t h regard to licensing of the clergy they held : that every missionary clergyman appointed by a society or otherwise should receive his license from the bishop in whose diocese he was to labor, but if the bishop refused to license, he should state the reasons of his refusal and transmit them to his metropolitan who should have power to decide upon their sufficiency ; reasons were also to be accessible to the person whose license is refused. If there was no metropolitan, the Archbishop of Canterbury was to act. W i t h regard to withdrawal of a license some provinces had canons on the subject fixed by consent. Where this was not the case the committee recommended that there should be no revocation without the clergyman being afforded the opportunity of showing cause against it, and if, thereafter, the bishop should revoke the license reasons should be stated to the clergyman and to the metropolitan with power to sanction or disallow the revocation. Where there was no metropolitan, the Archbishop of Canterbury was to act. T h e bishop would find it desirable where the

272

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

clergyman w a s connected with a missionary society to communicate w i t h the society or its local representative

before

taking steps f o r revocation. W i t h regard to lay agents, they should all have the sanction of the bishop and should not continue to be employed if the bishop saw fit to forbid them. T h e authority of the bishop in appointing places of public w o r ship had a l w a y s been admitted in the church ; every place where H o l y C o m m u n i o n w a s regularly celebrated should have the sanction of the bishop. It w a s the opinion o f the committee that no subordinate, coordinate or s u f f r a g a n bishop should be appointed by one bishop to serve special congregations in the diocese of another bishop. T h e report of the committee on " A n g l i c a n Chaplains and Chaplaincies on the Continent of Europe and Elsewhere," contained f o u r resolutions : ( ι ) A n g l i c a n congregations

should

not admit stated ministrations o f any clergyman without written license or permission o f the proper bishop; occasional assistance of strangers should not be invited or permitted without satisfactory evidence of their ordination and character; ( 2 ) It is desirable that there shall not be t w o chapels, where one is sufficient f o r the members o f both the churches in the United States and E n g l a n d ; members of both churches should be represented on the committee, if a n y ; ( 3 ) It is suggested to societies w h i c h partly support continental chaplaincies that in places where A m e r i c a n s outnumber the E n g l i s h it may be desirable to appoint an accredited A m e r i c a n c l e r g y m a n ; ( 4 )

In

regard to a memorial addressed to the archbishops and bishops o f the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d by f o u r priests and other members of the " Spanish and P o r t u g u e s e R e f o r m e d Episcopal Church " praying for the consecration of a bishop, the committee recommends that they request the church in the United States which is about to consecrate a bishop f o r M e x i c o that thereafter he be sent to minister to them. 8 7 87 The Spanish and Portuguese Reformed Episcopal Church had been organized in 1871 in those countries. The birth of this church was largely the result of the work of the Anglo-Continental Society. The society first

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

273

There remained for submission, discussion, and acceptance the report of the fifth committee, Archbishop Tait's, " O n the Conditions, Progress and Needs of the various Churches of translated books of E n g l i s h theology into Spanish and f o r several years prior to 1871 had circulated them as f a r as w a s possible in the then state of the law in Spain. Finally, some t w o thousand of the Spanish reformers, h a v i n g renounced their allegiance to the See of Rome, combined together and constituted themselves into a R e f o r m e d Spanish C h u r c h under the leadership of the Reverend Juan B. C a b r e r a — a former priest of the R o m a n Communion. T h i s sect set up a General Synod for its organization. T h e General S y n o d issued a P r a y e r B o o k — a Spanish version of the A n g l i c a n B o o k of Common P r a y e r which was " to be received and used in all the congregations that form part of the said Spanish Church." T h e synod also made provision for the consecration of the Reverend Cabrera as bishop. In P o r t u g a l the birth of the Reformed C h u r c h w a s the result of a movement analogous to that in Spain. T h e reformed Christians in P o r t u g a l , distributed into five congregations, had constituted themselves into a " Lusitanian C h u r c h " and issued a Book of C o m m o n P r a y e r similar in character to the one in use in the Spanish Church. T h e t w o churches of Spain and P o r t u g a l , although in full communion with each other, w e r e not fused into one body. See Scarth, op. cit., pp. 182-185. A similar movement was g o i n g on at about the same time in Mexico. In 1866 a copy of the H o l y Scriptures fell into the hands of a Mexican priest named Francisco A g u i l a r , w h o w a s so impressed that he seceded from the R o m a n Church, and opened a hall f o r public worship in the city of Mexico. A g u i l a r died in 1868. T h e congregation that he had collected, consisting of about fifty persons, w a s thus left without a pastor. T h e y then set a deputation of several of their members to seek aid f r o m the church in the United States. T h i s deputation applied, in the first instance, to the Bishop of N e w Orleans, through w h o m some pecuniary aid was given. T h e state of matters w a s then brought to the notice of a presbyter of the church in the United States, the Reverend D o c t o r H . C. Riley, w h o was at that time ministering to a Spanish congregation in N e w Y o r k . D r . Riley consented to undertake the arduous and important duties of a minister of this reformed M e x i c a n C h u r c h , — " T h e C h u r c h of Jesus in M e x i c o . " D r . R i l e y then compiled in the Spanish language a provisional L i t u r g y , embodying the Apostles' Creed, the Lords P r a y e r , the T e n Commandments, Gloria in Excelsis, and several prayers and hymns. Directions w e r e added that portions of the Scriptures ( t o be selected by the officiating minister) should be r e a d ; that a sermon should be preached, and other ordinances observed. Several converted priests and presbyters w e r e appointed to minister t o the native congregation. In 1872 D r . R i l e y w a s called to N e w Y o r k by the illness of his father. T h e M e x i c a n Church, being without a minister, petitioned the bishops of the church in the United States praying them to convey the episcopal office to that church. In consequence of this appeal, a commission, consisting of seven bishops, w a s appointed by the General Convention of the

274

T H E

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the Anglican Communion," as reflected by the questions submitted in writing by bishops desiring the advice of the Conference on difficulties or problems they had met in their several dioceses. T h e final two days of the conference were given to the discussion of these problems, and practically every one of the hundred bishops took part in the discussion. The questions submitted, were, as has been previously shown, divided into five groups : ( ι ) those concerning intercommunion; ( 2 ) those concerning the W e s t Indian dioceses and the Church of H a i t i ; ( 3 ) those concerning local peculiarities regarding the laws of marriage; ( 4 ) those concerning a Board of Reference for matters connected with foreign missions; and finally ( 5 ) difficulties arising in the Church of England from the revival of obsolete forms of ritual and from erroneous teaching on the subject of confession. T h e report as it was finally accepted and published followed these same main headings as to intercommunion. The report began with giving thanks to Almighty God that " so many churches and Christian communities throughout the world had protested against the usurpations and novel doctrines promulgated by the See of R o m e . " The Anglican Church offered sympathy to all suffering from the pretensions of Rome and the assaults of unbelief. W h e n the Bishop of Rome in the Vatican Council in the year 1870 asserted " a supremacy over church in the United States in 1874 to take the case into consideration. Eventually the Bishops of N e w Orleans and Delaware proceeded to Mexico. On February 24, 1875, the first Anglican ordination service was held in Mexico, and several native priests were admitted to holy orders, being ordained by the two American bishops. Steps were also taken to consecrate D r . Riley as the first bishop of this newly born church. Before the consecration took place the matter of his consecration was submitted to the Lambeth Conference of 1878 by the American bishops there present. They submitted the matter, because it involved Anglican intrusion into a see already occupied by a Roman Catholic. T h e consecration was approved by the Lambeth Conference, and in 1879 Riley was consecrated by hands of seven American bishops. See Scarth, op. cit., pp. 185-186. Foreign Church Chronicle and Review (1877), pp. 31-35. " The Reforming Movement in Mexico." Harrison, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 614-662.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

275

all men in matters both of faith and morals, on the ground o f an assumed infallibility—he invaded the attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ." The principles on which the Church of England has reformed itself are well known. W e proclaim the sufficiency and supremacy of the Holy Scripture as the ultimate rule of faith, and commend to our people the diligent study of the same. W e confess our faith in the words of the ancient Catholic creeds. W e retain the apostolic order of bishops, priests, and deacons. W e assert the just liberties of particular or national churches. W e provide our people, in their own tongue, with a Book of Common Prayer and offices for the administration of the sacraments, in accordance with the best and most ancient types of Christian faith and worship. These documents are before the world, and can be known and read of all men. W e gladly welcome every effort for reform upon the model of the Primitive Church. W e do not demand a rigid uniformity; we deprecate needless divisions ; but to those who are drawn to us in the endeavour to free themselves from the yoke of error and superstition we are ready to offer all help, and such privileges as may be acceptable to them and are consistent with the maintenance of our own principles as enunciated in our formularies.8® Intercommunion questions should be dealt with in this spirit. Definite cases in which advice and assistance were sought should be considered by the Archbishops of England and Ireland, the Bishop of London, the Primus o f the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop o f the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the bishops superintending the congregations o f the same upon the continent o f Europe, and the Bishop of Gibraltar, together with such bishops as they might associate with themselves. T h e recommendations embodied in this report with regard to intercommunion did not constitute a decision of the matter. They simply restated the problems and left the decision to the individual bishop in his own diocese. Such a procedure was, of course, dictated by expediency and was in the nature o f a 88 Davidson, op. cit., pp. 94-95.

276

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

compromise in the interest of harmony. It had no deterrent effect on the intercommunion movement, f o r that movement continued on an ever expanding scale. E a c h passing year the involvement of the Anglican Communion in it increased proportionately, with the result that intercommunion has played an ever increasing role in the policy making of each succeeding Lambeth Conference since 1 8 7 8 . A s f o r the questions dealing with M o r a v i a n Orders : " t h e above mentioned prelates are recommended to associate with themselves such learned persons as they may deem eminently qualified to assist them by their knowledge of the historical details involved." T o the second set of questions, on the West Indian dioceses and the church in Haiti, the accepted report replied: If the West Indian dioceses wish to f o r m a synod they should first get the formal consent of the diocesan representative synods where the church is disestablished and disendowed ; the bishops of the several dioceses would then f o r w a r d these consents to the Archbishop of Canterbury requesting his sanction to the formation of the province. T h e diocesan synods should decide on the composition of the provincial synod with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. T h e first metropolitan of such a province should be elected f r o m and by the bishops of the West Indian dioceses. W i t h regard to the diaconate in the West Indies, decision of these questions should be reached in diocesan or provincial synods. T o the church in Haiti the committee extends its congratulations on joining the Anglican Communion and " trusts that God's blessing may rest on the bishop, priests, and deacons, and all other members of this church." T o the third set of questions, in connection with the laws of marriage, the committee recognized the difficulties caused by the action of local legislatures and advised " that each branch of the church, according to its own discretion, maintain the sanctity of marriage, agreeably to the principles set forth in

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

277

the W o r d of God, as the Church of Christ hath hitherto received the same." A s to the fourth set o f questions, with regard to a board of reference for matters connected with foreign missions, the committee advised that such a board would be desirable to advise on matters submitted by diocesan or missionary bishops or missionary societies. They thought the details of the formation and constitution of such a board might be referred " to the Archbishops of England and Ireland, the Bishop of London, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, with the bishop superintending the congregations of the same upon the continent o f Europe, and such other bishops as they may associate with themselves, who should communicate with the authorities of the various colonial churches, and with the existing missionary organizations of the Anglican Communion." It is noteworthy that this recommendation of Tait's committee directly contradicts the report o f the committee on " T h e Relation to Each Other o f Missionary Bishops and of Missionaries of Various Branches of the Anglican Communion, Acting in the Same Country," which the conference had adopted earlier in the week. Anglican procedure shows little need to be consistent. T h e last set of questions, dealing with ritualism and confessions, were dealt with thus : T h e committee affirmed the principle that no alteration from long-accustomed ritual should be made contrary to the admonition of the bishop o f the diocese." The declaration o f the English bishops with regard to confession in a somewhat shorter form was their answer to the question on that subject submitted by Archbishop T a i t : " I t is their deliberate opinion that no minister of the church is authorized to require from those who may resort to him to open their grief a particular or detailed enumeration o f all their sins, or to require private confession previous to receiving the Holy Communion, or to enjoin or even encourage the practice o f

278

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

habitual confession to a priest, or to teach that such practice of habitual confession, or the being subject to what has been termed the direction of a priest, is a condition of attaining to the highest spiritual life." When these reports had been fully discussed and accepted on July 26, 1878, the remaining business of the conference was finished. A cordial vote of thanks was given the Archbishop as chairman, the assembled bishops sang together the Gloria in Excelsis, Archbishop Tait pronounced the benediction and the conference was closed at 7 :oo P. M. On the next day a farewell service was held at St. Paul's Cathedral. Eighty-five of the hundred bishops were present. The Te Deum was sung; the Archbishop of Canterbury celebrated the Holy Communion and gave his farewell blessing on their work. 8 ® When this conference of 1878 is viewed in its historical perspective it is seen to have made a distinct advance on the first conference. It lasted longer—a month as compared with the four days of the first session. Its committee reports were discussed and accepted by the whole conference and issued officially with the Encyclical Letter, while in 1867 the reports were made to a small adjourned session and so had no official character. There was also a marked difference between the subjects discussed by the two conferences. In 1867 the problems discussed centered about the difficulties—doctrinal, organizational, and legal resulting from the expansion of the Church of England overseas, together with the internal problems of the Communion. Of these the most exciting was the Colenso matter with all its legal after-effects. But in 1878 the Anglican Communion was much concerned with its place in the world, its relation to Rome, ritualism and confession being burning issues because of their connection with Roman practice and teaching, intercommunion with other Catholic churches, cooperation in the mission field. In 1878, too, there was much 89 Guardian, July 31, 1878, p. 1069.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

279

definition of jurisdiction of bishops, much more detailed thinking about the autonomy of dioceses with their relation to provincial government. Synodical consensual church government was much more mature. T h e religious views of the Archbishop of Canterbury was notably at work in the two conferences; Tait, Erastian and Evangelical, with a deep concern for the direction of the whole Anglican Communion ; Longley allowing bishops to change the agenda, concerned with offending no one. Tait presided over the 1878 conference with a dispatch and singleness of purpose that contributed in no small degree to the success of that gathering. This, however, was not surprising. It was a further indication of the firmness which he had demonstrated previously in regard to the Colenso affair, in the discussions of the conference of 1867, in the disputes over ritualism and the increased use of confession in the Church of England, and in numerous other matters with which he had been confronted both as Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed his rôle as the presiding officer of this conference was so markedly successful that it received the unanimous approbation of all the prelates in attendance. T h i s universal approval is evidenced in the following testimony of one of the American bishops who attended the conference: First and foremost in rank, as he was unquestionably in his presence and " manysidedness," of character, was the Primate of all England, Dr. Archibald Campbell Tait. . . . A s the host of a hundred bishops who recognized in him, if not a patriarchal dignity, a pre-eminence willingly and reverently accorded to the incumbent of the chair of St. Austin of Canterbury, his evident sympathy with the toils and trials, the prejudices and prepossessions, the varying experiences and processes of thought, of his brethren from all over the earth, won a universal admiration not unmingled with the love. . . . Fair and equitable in his address and rulings, and at the same time astute in feeling the temper of his auditors and brethren, and singularly adroit in the management of one of the most independent and unimpressible gatherings possible to conceive, the Archbishop's presidencey was above praise.

28ο

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

While avoiding all appearance of dictation, his presence and position were always felt; and the harmony and unanimity of the conference were largely due to his uniform affability and good temper, and his masterly leadership. . . . He impressed us profoundly with his eminent fitness for the trying though dignified position he has been chosen of God to fill. ( T h e Second Lambeth Conference, by the Bishop of Iowa, p. 31.) 9 0 W h a t a contrast to the rôle of Archbishop Longley in the Conference of 1867! The conference of 1878 was, in many ways, a much more definite and organic gathering than that of 1867. In historic retrospect the Lambeth Conferences can be seen becoming an institution of the Anglican Communion. The first conference, distinctly experimental in its initiation, procedure, and resolutions, resulted in a general desire of the bishops expressed in their final resolution : " Our hope that this our meeting may hereafter be followed by other meetings to be conducted in the same spirit of brotherly love." In 1878 it was virtually settled that a third conference should be held at Lambeth ten years later. 91 " T h e Address to the Faithful," followed by the resolutions passed by the conference in 1867, became, in 1878, an Encyclical Letter containing the officially accepted recommendations of the committees appointed to study Communion problems. T h e tentative attitude of Archbishop Longley in dealing with an unprecedented gathering of which he was host and presiding officer in 1867, gave place in 1878 to Archbishop Tait's firmly guiding hand, with the result that the Lambeth Conference of that year came out with a clear picture of the religious views and vision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of a great Communion within the Church Catholic, with a special heritage to cherish and a mission to be fulfilled. The Lambeth Conference of 1878 as compared with that of 1867 gives, moreover, a very different picture of the Anglican 90 Davidson and Benham, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 376-377. 91 Davidson, op. cit., p. 27.

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCE

OF

1878

281

Communion. In 1867 its shape as a co-operating group of national churches was still assuming form. The United Church of England and Ireland overshadowed even the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America; the problems were those of the church overseas. By 1878 the Anglican Communion problems had become international with intercommunion occupying a prominent place for the first time. In 1878 the task of the Communion, in maintaining union, had been reduced to a series of techniques recommended for that definite purpose; synodical government had been developed to such an extent that procedures and relationships could be definitely organized. It had become possible to define the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops, to subordinate diocesan synods to provincial ones, to recommend procedure for the organization of dioceses into provinces. The Lambeth Conference of 1878 established a policy for the Anglican Communion, and the conferences which succeeded have followed the precedents there laid down. The press at the time was not nearly so vocal about the conference as it had been in 1867. Even the objection to the closed door to the discussions was noted to follow the precedent of the House of Bishops of the church in the United States, and the organization of the Communion was tacitly taken for granted in this summary from the Guardian: To have taught the rulers of distant churches to act together, and to have made them mutually acquainted with one another's feelings and modes of thought, to have kindled among a large number of bishops a friendly interest in the hopes and wants of poor and isolated communities, to have awakened the great majority of them to a livelier sense of the oneness of their work in the sight of God, amidst manifold diversities of earthly conditions, to have deepened charity and recommended forebearance, to have revived old friendships and promoted brotherly kindness among those who had been strangers before, will be among the best and most fruitful results of this gathering of one hundred

282

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

bishops under the Archbishop of Canterbury's hospitable roof. If the outside world has little good to say of an ecclesiastical conference it will yet be at a loss to find in such results as these material for its scorn.®2 92 Guardian,

July 31, 1878, p. 1060.

CHAPTER V T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF P A N - A N G L I C A N ORGANIZATION AS E V I D E N C E D I N T H E L A T E R L A M B E T H CONFERE N C E S : 1888, 1897, 1908, 1920, 1930 IF the first two Lambeth Conferences set and established a precedent for Pan-Anglican organization, the next five conferences have so followed the precedent that the Anglican Communion has become a typically British union. W h a t the Imperial Conference is to the British Commonwealth of N a tions, the Lambeth Conference has become to the Anglican Communion. The first two conferences show the origins and genesis of the union among the autonomous episcopal churches in the Communion; the later conferences are chiefly of interest as showing how that union has developed and how it functions. The growth of Pan-Anglican ecclesiastical union may be seen first of all, perhaps, in the number of prelates attending the Lambeth Conferences: in 1867 there were 76; in 1878, 100; in 1888, 1 4 5 ; in 1897, 145; in 1908, 242; in 1920, 2 5 2 ; in 1930, 307. There was growth not only in numbers, but in provinces represented: in 1867 there were English, Irish, Scotch, colonial and American bishops; by 1930 there were metropolitans or presiding bishops present from eighteen different provinces. A s each of these provinces was an autonomous church " in full communion " with the Church of England, but subject to its own laws, ordaining and consecrating its own clergy, and sending its bishops to confer with the Archbishop of Canterbury only as " primus inter pares," the development of the Anglican Communion within this three quarters of a century is obvious. It is tempting to compare this ecclesiastical union with the political union developing into the British Commonwealth of Nations during the same period. The steps by which dioceses became disestablished in the colonies of the British Empire 283

284

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

seem to prefigure the growth of political self-government, and their union into provinces suggests the development of dominion status through the union of contiguous colonies. There is no need, however, to labor such a comparison, for, whether in church or state, these institutions are products of the British way of life, and, of course, mirror a British scheme of organization. THE

L A T E R C O N F E R E N C E S AND T H E

CENTRAL

C O N S U L T A T I V E BODY

It was the conference of 1897 which made provision for a further development in Pan-Anglican organization by recommending in the fifth of its formally adopted resolutions : " That it is advisable that a consultative body should be formed to which resort may be had, if desired, by the national churches, provinces, and extra-provincial dioceses of the Anglican Communion either for information or advice, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury be requested to take such steps as he may think most desirable for the creation of this consultative body." 1 T h e " desirable steps " were taken within the next decade. However, the consultative body as originally created by this action was modified with respect to its character and function by each of the succeeding conferences. T h e next conference, in 1908, recommended reconstructing it by declaring in Resolutions 54, 55, and 56 that : 54. The existing central consultative body shall be reconstructed on representative lines as follows : — (a) It shall consist of the Archbishop of Canterbury (ex officio) and of representative bishops appointed as follows : Province of Canterbury, 2, Province of York, I, the Church of Ireland, 1, the Episcopal Church in Scotland, 1, the Protestant Episcopal Church in· the United States of America, 4, the 1 Guardian, A u g u s t 11, 1897, p. 1258. Davidson, The ferences, 1867-1920, pp. 199-200.

Six

Lambeth

Con-

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

285

Church of England in Canada, I, the Church of England in the Dioceses of Australia and Tasmania, ι, the Church of New Zealand, i, the Province of West Indies, i, the Church of the Province of South Africa, ι, the Province of India and Ceylon, i, the Dioceses of China and Corea and the Church of Japan, i, the missionary and other extra-provincial bishops under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1. Total 18. (b) The foregoing scheme of representation shall be open to revision from time to time by the Lambeth Conference. (c) The mode of appointing these representative bishops shall be left to the churches that appoint. A representative bishop may be appointed for one year or for any number of years, and need not be a member of the body that appoints him. Each member shall retain office until the election of his successor has been duly notified to the Archbishop of Canterbury. (d) For the purpose of appointing the bishop who is to represent the body of missionary and other extraprovincial bishops under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, each of those bishops shall be requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury to nominate a bishop to him. The list of bishops so nominated shall be then sent to all the bishops entitled to vote, and each of them shall, if he thinks fit to vote, send to the Archbishop the name of the one in that list for whom he votes. The largest number of votes shall carry the election. 55. The central consultative body shall be prepared to receive consultative communications from any bishop, but shall, in considering them, have careful regard to any limitations upon such references which may be imposed by provincial regulation. 56. The consultative body shall not at any meeting come to a decision on any subject not named in the notice summoning the meeting.2 2 Guardian, August 12, 1908, p. 1358. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 330-331.

286

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The conference of 1920, in the forty-fourth and forty-fifth of its formally adopted resolutions, made the following pronouncements with respect to the consultative body : 44. In order to prevent misapprehension the conference declares that the consultative body, created by the Lambeth Conference of 1897 and consolidated by the conference of 1908, is a purely advisory body. It is of the nature of a continuation committee of the whole conference and neither possesses nor claims any executive or administrative power. It is framed so as to represent all branches of the Anglican Communion and it offers advice only when advice is asked for. ( a ) The existing consultative body shall be reconstituted on the following plan of representation:—(The only change made was the substitution of one representative from the Province of Wales and one from the Province of Canterbury for the two representatives of the latter province in the resolution of 1908. 3 3 4 and S Geo. V, c. 91 : T h e W e l s h Church Act, 1914. T h i s statute provided for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England in Wales, the date of disestablishment becoming effective not less than six months and a day nor more than twelve months after the passage of the act. A t the same time the British Parliament also passed the Suspensory A c t , 1914, 4 and 5 Geo. V, c. 88, postponing the date of the disestablishment of the Church in W a l e s "until the expiration of twelve months f r o m the passage of the W e l s h Church Act, or, if at the expiration of those twelve months the present war has not ended, until such later date (not being later than the end of the present w a r ) as may be fixed by his majesty by order in council, and the provisions of that act shall have effect accordingly." U n d e r this authorization the W e l s h Church Act, 1914, was put into operation on April 1, 1920. A s a disestablished and disendowed church, the status of the church in W a l e s was similar to that of the churches in Ireland and Scotland in that it was a voluntary body entirely free from state control. W i t h the acquisition of this status the church in W a l e s became a mature national episcopal church of the A n g l i c a n Communion. B y the time that the W e l s h Church A c t was put in operation, the W e l s h clergy had made provision for the installation of synodical government, for a governing body, formed on elective principles, and consisting of the three orders of W e l s h bishops, clergy and laity, had been called into being with a carefully drawn constitution. T h i s had been made possible by the provisions of the W e l s h Church Act, for that act, inter alia, stipulated that the W e l s h clergy were no longer to sit in the Convocation of Canterbury. A s the act also provided for the

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

287

(b) The churches that appoint representatives shall be free to fix the method of appointment, whether by the House of Bishops or by Synod or Convention. A representative bishop shall be appointed for a definite term not exceeding six years, and need not be a member of the body which appoints him. A n y vacancy by death, resignation, or other cause, during the term of office shall be filled by the church in the representation of which the vacancy occurs. ( c ) Exactly follows " d " in Resolution 54 of the 1908 conference dealing with the appointment of the bishop to represent the body of missionary and other extra-provincial bishops under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. (d) The central consultative body shall be prepared to consider questions referred to it by any bishop, but shall, before considering as well as in considering them, have careful regard to any limitations upon such references as may be imposed by the regulations of provinces or of national or regional churches. (e) Exactly follows Resolution 56 of the conference of 1908, requiring that no decision be made on any subject not named in the notice summoning the meeting. Resolution 45. The consultative body is asked to take into its consideration the provisions of the Colonial Clergy A c t with a view to their modification. 4 removal of the Welsh dioceses from the Province of Canterbury, the Welsh Synod made provision for the union of these dioceses into one province, the Province of Wales. This, then, explains the reconstruction of the consultative body by the Lambeth Conference of 1920. 4 Church Times, August 20, 1920, p. 171. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 492-493. 37 and 38 Vict., c. 77 : The Colonial Clergy Act, 1874. This statute had been enacted at the suggestion of a committee which had been appointed by the Lambeth Conference of 1867, " to prepare a bill for placing on a more satisfactory footing the status in England of clergy ordained by bishops of colonial and other churches, outside the church in England. A bill to effect this object was introduced in Parliament in 1873 and became law in 1874 under the name of " The Colonial Clergy Act, 1874." The act does not apply

288

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

The consultative body also appears in Resolution 50 of the conference of 1930. to the clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, but, with this exception it deals with the status of all clergy ordained by bishops other than bishops of dioceses in England and Ireland. It proceeds upon the assumption that all clergymen so ordained may be admitted to exercise their functions in the Church of England; but that the bishops of that church have a right, in respect to these clergy, to discretionary powers, analogous to those which they have in the case of ordination. T h e act is a source of irritation to the colonial and American clergy as the following are the provisions of it which affect them as clergy ordained by bishops other than those of ( 1 ) Dioceses in England; or (2) The Church of Ireland; or ( 3 ) the Episcopal Church in Scotland : Section 3. " Except as hereinafter named, no person who has been or shall be ordained priest or deacon, as the case may be, by any bishop other than a a bishop of a diocese in one of the churches aforesaid shall, unless he shall hold or have previously held preferment or a curacy in England, officiate as such priest or deacon in any churches or chapel in England, without written permission from the archbishop of the province in which he proposes to officiate, and without also making and subscribing so much of the declaration contained in ' T h e Clerical Subscription Act, 1865,' as follows :—that is to say, ' I assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the Church of England as therein set forth to be agreeable to the W o r d of God ; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I, whilst ministering in England, will use the form in the said book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.' " Section 4. " Except as hereinafter mentioned, no person who has been or shall be ordained priest or deacon, as the case my be, by any bishop other than a bishop of a diocese in one of the churches aforesaid, shall be entitled as such priest or deacon to be admitted or instituted to any benefice or other ecclesiastical preferment in England, or to act as curate therein, without the previous consent in writing of the bishop of the diocese in which such preferment or curacy may be situated." Section 5. " A n y person holding ecclesiastical preferment, or acting as curate in any diocese in England under the provisions of this act, may, with the written consent of the bishop of such diocese, request the archbishop of the province to give him a license in writing under his hand and seal in the following form :—that is to say : — ' T o the Rev. A . B „ " W e , C. by Divine Providence Archbishop of D., do hereby give you, the said A . B., authority to exercise your office of priest (or deacon) according to the provisions of an act of the thirty-seventh

THE 50.

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

289

( a ) T h e conference re-affirms the opinion expressed in Resolution 4 4 of the Lambeth Conference of

1920,

" that the consultative body is of the nature of a continuation committee of the Lambeth Conference, and neither possesses nor claims executive or administrative p o w e r . " T h e conference recommends that: ( b ) T h e consultative body should be prepared to advise on questions of faith, order, policy or administration, referred to it by any bishop or group of bishops, calling in expert advisers at its discretion, and reserving the right to decline to entertain any particular question. Consequently, the committee of students of liturgical questions appointed in accordance with Resolution 3 8 of the Lambeth Conference of 1 9 2 0 need not be reappointed. ( c ) T h e usual duties of

the consultative body of

the

Lambeth Conference should b e : — and thirty-eighth years of her present majesty, intituled 'An act respecting colonial and certain other clergy.' ' Given under our hand and seal on the day of .' • C . (L. S . )

D'

And if the archbishop shall think fit to issue such license, the same shall be registered in the registry of the province, and the person receiving the license shall thereforth possess all such rights and advantages, and be subject to all such duties and liabilities, as he would have possessed and been subject to if he had been ordained by the bishop of a diocese in England: Provided that no such license shall be issued to any person who has not held ecclesiastical preferment or acted as curate for a period or periods exceeding in the aggregate two years." The Act also contains the following provisions as to the consecration of bishops :— Section 12. " It shall be lawful for the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York, for the time being, in consecrating any person to the office of a bishop, for the purpose of exercising episcopal functions elsewhere than in England, to dispense, if he think fit, with the oath of due obedience to the archbishop." In the light of these provisions it was not suprising that the Lambeth Conference of 1920 recommended that the consultative body should " take into consideration the provisions of this act with a view to their modification."

29O

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

( i ) T o carry on the work left to it by the preceding conference. (ii) T o assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in the preparation of the business of the ensuing conference. (iii) T o deal with matters referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury on which he requests its aid. ( i v ) T o deal with matters referred to it by any bishop or group of bishops, subject to any limitations upon such references which may be imposed by the regulations of local and regional churches. ( d ) Hereafter the members of the consultative body should consist of not less than 18 members, appointed to represent the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with due regard to regional requirements, after consultation with the metropolitans and presiding bishops : vacancies being filled in the same way. Further, the first appointment should be made within eighteen months of this meeting of the conference, the present consultative body continuing to function in the meantime, and those then appointed should hold office until the next meeting of the conference. 0 T h i s series of resolutions concerning the central consultative body is conclusive evidence of changes in temper and point o f view f r o m one conference to the next, and is, therefore, of interest on that account. In 1897 the conference finds a consultative body advisable

" to which

resort m a y be had,

if

desired." T h e A r c h b i s h o p of Canterbury is requested " to take such steps as he may think most desirable " f o r its formation. T h e resolution has a tentative note to say the least. In 1908 the mood has changed : " T h e existing central consultative body shall be reconstructed on representative lines as f o l l o w s . " T h i s 5 Report

of

the

Lambeth

A u g u s t 15, 1930, p. 203.

Conference,

1930,

pp.

55-56.

Church

Times,

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

2ÇI

was a command, not a request, since the Archbishop o f Canterbury has nothing to do with it except to receive notification. The provinces are to choose their representatives as they see fit, no advice is offered even as to length of term, and missionary bishops are to vote only if they see fit. Limitations on reference are to be rigidly observed. In 1920 the scheme of representation remains much the same, but maximum length of t e r m — s i x years—is definitely stated, and vacancies are to be filled by the appointing church. Sensitivity to the rights of the appointing church is again shown in the acknowledgment of limitation of references imposed by individual branches of the Communion. One special subject, T h e Colonial Clergy Act, the consultative body is asked to " take into its consideration." Moreover, the resolution begins with a definition of function of the consultative body : " It is of the nature of a continuation committee of the whole conference and neither possesses nor claims any executive or administrative power. It is framed to represent all branches of the Anglican Communion and it offers advice only when advice is asked f o r . " There seems to be fear that some bishop or bishops might wish to overstep the powers granted. In 1930, ten years later, there is more interest in the special functions of the consultative body; it seems to assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in his function as head of the Communion. Most of the resolution deals with the increase of function, or, at least, of the field of advice, to include questions " of faith, order, policy or administration." The consultative body may call in experts and attend to the work of the liturgical questions committees. It is only in the final paragraph of the resolution that appointment to the consultative body is returned to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that it is definitely stated that the consultative body represents the Lambeth Conference rather than the constituent churches of the Communion; and the only check on the Archbishop's appointing power is stated in a minimum number of eighteen

2Q2

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

members, " with due regard to regional requirements, after consultation with the metropolitans and presiding bishops." The provinces and national churches of the earlier resolutions have become the local and regional churches by 1930. There is less emphasis on checks and balances in government and more on effective operation of existing agencies. More and more the Lambeth Conferences regard themselves as a continuous institution of the Anglican Communion. Not only in 1920 and 1930 is the consultative body a continuation committee of the Lambeth Conferences, but an important part of its work has become, in 1930, " the preparation of the business of the ensuing conference." Again, in each successive set of resolutions, there are more references to the work of the preceding conferences than were to be found in the previous decade. The growing sense of the continuity of the institution is also clearly seen in the constant recurrence of identical problems from one conference to the next. These are the ways in which the Lambeth Conferences have worked to unify the policy of the Anglican Communion. The changing position of the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the conferences has also been noteworthy. Only two conferences have been held under the primacy of a single archbishop, those of 1908 and 1920 under Archbishop Davidson, so some of the difference in the relation of the conferences to their presiding officers must be attributed to the different personal qualities of the primates in question. Archbishop Tait, for instance, dominated the conference of 1878 to a degree unapproached earlier by Longley, or in 1888 by Edward White Benson, in 1897 by Frederick Temple, in 1908 and 1920 by Randall T. Davidson, or in 1930 by Cosmo Gordon Lang. There is no doubt that the religious views of each of these primates has exerted a profound influence upon the Lambeth Conference over which he has presided. However, since 1878, while the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued the invitations, he has done so through the metropolitans of the provinces, and since 1897 the central consultative body has

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

293

made out the agenda for the discussions. Thus with each decade the business of the Communion has become less personal and more institutionalized even though the Archbishop of Canterbury has continued to be the presiding officer at the meetings of the Lambeth Conferences. In consequence the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury has become more analogous to that of the crown in the British Commonwealth of Nations than to that of the Pope in the Roman Communion. Another evidence of the development of the Lambeth Conferences into an institution of the Anglican Communion is to be found in the customary procedure followed by each conference since 1878. The first conference had lasted less than a week; the reports of the committees which did their work after the conference was dimissed in 1867 were made to an adjourned session held some ten weeks later and were only " received and commended to the careful consideration of the bishops of the Anglican Communion, as containing the results of the deliberations of the committee." 8 In 1878 the Lambeth Conference lasted almost a m o n t h — f r o m July second through the twenty-eighth, of which the middle weeks were used for committee work. " In the opening debates during the first week the formal motion was, in each case, for the appointment of a committee to consider the particular subject under discussion and to report to the conference during the closing week of the session." 7 These reports, after discussion during that last week, were adopted by the conference and incorporated as a whole in the Encyclical Letter. A change in this procedure was made in 1888 and it has remained the standard in the conferences since then. Instead of adopting the reports of committees, which were all in print when the conference reconvened after the recess for their preparation, the conference adopted carefully worded resolutions containing, in many instances, the substance of the recommendations embodied in the committee reports. The 6 Davidson, op. cit., p. 12. 7 Ibid., p. 23.

294

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

divisions on these resolutions were made public only if any of the minority requested it. There were nineteen resolutions resulting f r o m the twelve committee reports, and on only three of these was the voting reported. T h e names of the committee members and the reports were published with the note : " T h e following reports must be taken as having the authority only of the committees by whom they were respectively prepared and presented. T h e committees were not in every case unanimous in adopting the reports. T h e conference, as a whole, is responsible only f o r the formal resolutions agreed to a f t e r discussion, and printed above." 8 This same note precedes the published committee reports of each succeeding conference. There is a further note placed before the resolutions of 1 9 3 0 : It may be well to make clear the manner of our deliberations. The subjects proposed for consideration were first brought before us in sessions of the whole conference, lasting for six full days, from Monday, July Jth, to Saturday, July 12th. Having been there set forth in outline, they were then referred to large and carefully chosen committees; and the reports of these committees, with the resolutions which they had prepared, were subsequently laid before the conference, meeting again to consider them in full session from Monday, July 28th, to Saturday, August 9th. B y this procedure we have been able to secure both the detailed study which is the especial task of a committee (a study greatly aided by the essays, reports and papers which had been prepared for us), and that weight of judgment which belongs to the decisions of an assembly gathered from all parts of the world and bringing to the process of deliberation the manifold experience and knowledge acquired under widely different conditions in widely sundered fields of labour. The judgment of the conference is expressed in the resolutions, 75 in number, appended to this letter. These, and these alone, are affirmed by the conference. The reports, which are also printed herewith, have been received by the conference; and the confer8 Guardian, August 8, 1888, p. 1176. Davidson, op. cit., p. 125.

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

295

enee has directed that they should be published; but the responsibility for the statements and the opinions which they contain rests with the several committees by whom they were prepared.9 This had been exactly the procedure in the five conferences following the one in 1888; beginning in 1920 much greater care was taken in preparing the committees for their work. The majority of the bishops were notified in the month preceding the conference of the committee or committees on which they were asked to serve and a list of books dealing with the subjects to be discussed was circulated. Questionnaires had been filled out on such subjects as " Relation to Non-Episcopal Churches " and " Marriage Questions " and these statistics were available. Moreover, no less than fifty-five papers written by specialists, men and women, clerical and lay, which had been prepared especially at the request of Archbishop Davidson, were placed before the different committees. A preliminary secretary had been appointed for each committee and a great deal of expert opinion had been canvassed by each member before the actual committee meetings took place. There was no less preparation for the conference of 1930; and there is, therefore, no possible doubt that the bishops of the Anglican Communion express their deliberate informed judgment in the resolutions and reports of these Lambeth Conferences. The last two conferences saw a change not only in amount and character of preparation, but also in attitude toward the press and publicity. Each evening of a full session of the conference a short statement of the progress of the proceedings was sent to the leading newspapers and news agencies. Towards the end of the session in 1920 the Archbishop of Canterbury held a press conference in which he and the Bishop of Peterborough " explained the idea and motives in the Appeal to ail Christian People " drawn up by the conference to about thirty newspaper men.10 The result was a much wider dissemination 9 Church Times, August 15, 1930, p. 202. Report of the Lambeth Conference, 1930, p. 35. 10 Davidson, op. cit., p. 46η. This Appeal to all Christian People was printed in full in the Church Times, August 13, 1920, p. 161.

296

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

of the reports and appeals of the conference over the Englishspeaking world and a great increase in the personal interest shown in the visiting prelates. There was no change in the policy of having each day's proceedings recorded verbatim by stenographers, and of binding and storing these records at Lambeth. But, although the discussions are still held inviolate, the official proceedings, Encyclical Letter, resolutions and reports are given the widest possible publicity. One of the clearest differences between the first two conferences and the succeeding five, is the shift in emphasis. In the first conferences there is a defensive tone in the attitude of the Anglican Communion, especially toward the Roman Catholic Church. Anglican Catholicity needs defense from Roman claims to infallibility and the Roman refusal to acknowledge the validity of Anglican orders. N o r does the Anglican Communion in these first two conferences possess a satisfactory standard against which to measure varying claims to orthodoxy of other Christian bodies. T h e O l d Catholics, the Moravians, the Church of Sweden, and the problem of Christian intercommunion generally were met in the first two conferences as a series of separate problems; and, because there has been more divergence than convergence among Protestants since the sixteenth century, the first two Lambeth Conferences had to spend most of their energy and attention on internal problems of unity and organization. THE

LATER

CONFERENCES AND C H R I S T I A N

REUNION

By 1888, however, the bishops had acquired such a vision of the Anglican Communion as one of the branches of the Catholic Church that it became possible to formulate a definition of Catholicism which could be applied to the various manifestations of the problem of Christian intercommunion. It has been possible since the formulation of the Lambeth

Quadri-

lateral of 1888, as this definition of Catholicism is called, to use it as a norm of

the Catholicity

of

various

churches,

Eastern Orthodox and Western Protestant, and thus to reach

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

297

definite, correlated decisions with regard to some of the problems of the reunion of Christendom. The later conferences have been able so to deal with these problems of the reunion of Christendom, because the first two Lambeth Conferences had built a real union within the Anglican Communion. T h e Lambeth Quadrilateral is contained in Resolution n of the conference of 1888: i l . That, in the opinion of this conference, the following articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards home reunion : — (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as " containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (c) The two sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church. 11 N o survey of the Anglican movement for intercommunion based on the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 can omit the most publicized document of that movement: the Appeal to All Christian People from the bishops assembled in the Lambeth Conference of 1920. Beginning with an acknowledgment of " all those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have been baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity, as sharing with us membership in 11 Guardian, August 8, 1888, p. 1175. Davidson, op. cit., p. 122. This declaration of faith had been drawn up by the clergy of the churches in the United States at the General Convention which had been held in Chicago in 1886.

298

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

the universal Church of Christ which is His Body," it asks for an association " in penitence and prayer of all those who deplore the divisions of Christian people, and are inspired by the vision and hope of a visible unity of the whole church." Under nine heads the appeal sets forth : ι . God wills fellowship, manifest " in an outward, visible and united society," which is the Catholic Church. 2. This united fellowship is not visible in the world today, for there are several ancient episcopal communions, in East and West, of which the Anglican is one, and there are great nonepiscopal communions " standing for rich elements of truth, liberty, and life which might otherwise have been obscure or neglected." A l l are organized in different groups, " each one keeping to itself g i f t s that rightly belong to the whole fellowship, and tending to live its own life apart from the rest." 3. " T h e causes of division lie deep in the past." They are not simple, nor " wholly blameworthy," but self-will, ambition, and lack of charity among Christians, as well as " blindness to the sin of disunion," are mainly responsible for the broken fellowship which is contrary to God's will. 4. T h e time has come for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited genuinely Catholic Church, loyal to all T r u t h ; a fellowship of all " who profess and call themselves Christian, within whose visible unity all the treasures of faith and order, bequeathed as a heritage by the past to the present, shall be possessed in common and made serviceable to the whole Body of Christ." The now separated Christian communions would retain in this union " much that has long been distinctive in their methods of worship and service," and " through a rich diversity of life and devotion the unity of the whole fellowship will be fulfilled." 5. A n adventure of goodwill and faith, a new discovery of the creative resources of God is required. T o this God is calling all the members of His Church.

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

2Ç9

6. W e believe the visible unity of the church will require " the whole-hearted acceptance of " : — The Holy Scriptures as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith; and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the baptismal confession of belief. The sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion as expressing the corporate life of the whole fellowship in and with Christ: A ministry acknowledged by every part of the church as possessing the inward call of the Spirit, the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body. 7. W e claim the Episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry, because, although other ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit, history and present experience testfy that the Episcopate has been, is, and will be, the best instrument for maintaining the unity and continuity of the church. The office of bishop should " truly express all that ought to be involved for the life of the Christian family in the title of Father-in-God." 8. W e believe that the truly equitable approach to union is by way of mutual deference to one another's consciences. If authorities of other communions so desire our bishops and clergy would willingly accept from these authorities a form of commission or recognition which would commend our ministry to their congregations. This is offered as " a token of our longing that all ministers of grace, theirs and ours, shall be available for the service of our Lord in a united church." It is hoped the same motive would lead ministers who have not received it to accept a commission through episcopal ordination. " N o one of us could, in this, be possibly taken to repudiate his past ministry," but we shall be " publicly and formally seeking wider service in a reunited church." 9. " The spiritual leadership of the Catholic Church in days to come, . . . depends upon the readiness with which each group is prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of a common

300

THE

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

fellowship, a common ministry, and a common service to the world." 1 2 Just how far the A n g l i c a n Communion has moved toward reunion by applying this standard during the decade,

1920-

1930, can be seen in Resolutions 3 1 - 4 9 of the conference of 1930. These resolutions, entitled The

Unity

of

the

Church,

f o r m the whole of the third section of the official resolutions of that conference. 31. The conference records, with deep thanks to Almighty God, the signs of a growing movement towards Christian unity in all parts of the world since the issue of the Appeal to All Christian People by the Lambeth Conference in 1920. The conference heartily endorses that Appeal and re-affirms the principles contained in it and in the resolution dealing with re-union adopted by that conference. The Malines

Conversations

32. Believing that our Lord's purpose for His church will only be fulfilled when all the separated parts of His Body are united, and that only by full discussion between the churches can error and misunderstanding be removed and full spiritual unity attained, the conference expresses its appreciation of the courage and Christian charity of Cardinal Mercier in arranging the Malines Conversations, unofficial and not fully representative of the churches though they were, and its regret that by the encyclical, Mortalium ánimos, members of the Roman Catholic Church are forbidden to take part in the World Conference on Faith and Order and other similar conferences. The Eastern Orthodox

Church

33. (a) The conference heartily thanks the Oecumenical Patriarch for arranging in co-operation with the other patriarchs and autocephalous churches for the sending of an important delegation of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the leadership of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and expresses its grateful appreciation of the help given to its 12 Church

Times, August 13, 1920, p. 161. Davidson, op. cit., pp. 133-136.

THE

LATER

LAMBETH

CONFERENCES

3OI

committee by the delegation, as well as its sense of the value of the advance made through the joint meetings in the relations of the Orthodox Church with the Anglican Communion, (b) The conference requests the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint representatives of the Anglican Communion and to invite the Oecumenical Patriarch to appoint representatives of the patriarchates and the autocephalous churches of the east to be a doctrinal commission, which may, in correspondence and in consultation, prepare a joint statement on the subjects referred to in the Résumé of the discussions between the Patriarch of Alexandria with the other orthodox representatives and bishops of the Anglican Communion, but records its acceptance of the statements of the Anglican bishops contained therein as a sufficient account of the teaching and practice of the Church of England and of the churches in communion with it, in relation to those subjects. 13 34. The conference expresses its sympathy with the Church of Russia in its persecution and sufferings, and prays that God, in His mercy, may give liberty and prosperity once more to that church, that it may again take its place with greater freedom and power of self-expression among the other great churches of Christendom. The Old Catholic Church 35. (a) The conference heartily thanks the Archbishop of Utrecht and the bishops of the Old Catholic Church associated with him for coming to consult with its members on the development of closer relations between their churches and the Anglican Communion, and expresses its sense of the importance of the step taken. (b) The conference requests the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint representatives of the Anglican Communion, and to invite the Archbishop of Utrecht to appoint representatives of the Old Catholic churches to be a doctrinal commission to discuss points of agreement and difference between them. 13 Report of the Lambeth Conference, 1930, pp. 138-140, for the Résumé in full. The discussions resulting in the issuance of the Résumé had been held at Lambeth Palace, July 15-18, 1930.

3