EPISCOPAL ORDERS IN THE COLONIES.

Clutha Leader, Volume IV, Issue 174, 9 November 1877, Page 7

EPISCOPAL ORDERS IN THE COLONIES.

The New Zealand Wfsleyan has the following upon the above subject ; — It is well known that the attempt to connect the Episcopal churches in tho colonies with the Queen's "letters- patent" having come to nought, a colonial bishop possesses exactly the same political status as a Methodist Chairman of District, or any other good citizen, and that he has as much right to be on lied "his Lordship" us he has to be called " his Grace " At a recent meeting oi one of the Synods of the disestablished Church of Ireland, a motion to dispense with the title " Lord" was objected to hy one of the bishops present on the ground that he had been made a "Lord hy the (i Queen's letter," for which he had paid L 260 iti " honor fees," but he added that if the Synod chose to refund him this sum. it might call him what it pleased. The suggestion wears somewhat of a mercenary look, yet we can hardly withhold our sympathy from a prelate whom it was proposed to deprive of what he had honestly bought and paid for. The case of colonial bishops is different. Ihey have not been troubled with the honor of a " Queen's Inner. 5 ' and their deliverance from a title which " affords a handle to the scoffer," and which must be sufficiently ridiculous? even to them-s-'lves, might be effected without any pecuniary sacrifice. Wh can readily imagine that the bishops, for their part, would make no difficulty. They are probably modest Christian gentlemen, to whom the consciousness of wearing" borrowed plumes is a sore humilitution. It is not their vanity that is to be accused, but that of the minor clergy, whose feminine love of millinery is a proverb, arid for whom perhaps, it is a source of delicious exhiiaraiion to purr about the legs of v " Lord" — even though he be one of their own making. It is true that the matter is one which concerns Anglicans alone. If our Episeopa'ian friends chose to call their chief pastor 'his Imperial Majesty," the outside world might thrust its tongue into its cheek, but would havo no right to object. Upon another point, however, nearly related to this, we are not entirely indifferent. We are willing that "their Lordships" should be " their Lordships," but we object to the territorial titles which they are wont to assume. The " Bishop of Melbourne" is of course, simply Bishop of the Episcopal i Church in Melbourne — a Church which does not number more than one -fourth of the population. To the other three* fourths " his LorashipV assertion — in his signature and otherwise — that he is their bishop, is an affront. The same thing of course is true of the half-dozen New Zealand bishops, who divide, the country between them, and charge themselves w it'll our spiritual over&iguc whether we will or not. We are ungrateiulenough to wish they would mind their own business. An English bishop is an official of the State, to whom a certain ecclesiastical jurisdiction is assigned within a- certain territory, and this is expressed in hi- it^.d ritle. To parody in this part of the world the territorial tithis ot the English Establishment i& au oftVnce not,. only against good taste, but also against truth, and the peace of the Churches.