THE CONSECRATION OF BISHOP HADFIELD.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2357, 21 October 1870, Page 2

THE CONSECRATION OF BISHOP HADFIELD.

At the consecration of the Bishop of Wellington last week, a protest by Mr Kempthorne of Auckland was read. As the matters doubtless one of some interest to Churchmen in this province we give the considerations on which the protest was based:— 1. The Venerab’e Archdeacon Uadfield has of late promulgated views opposed to “the ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical,” by the Queen’s Majesty, which is declared by the 37 th article of our Church, to be Her Majesty’s prerogative, in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture. 2. The Church of England, in the 2nd canon of 1603, hesitates not to declare, that such opposing views are “ wicked errors,” and adjudges that a person holding them is “ excommunicated Ipso focto 3. The Venerable Archdeacon was one of a Select Committee of three (the late Bishop of New Zealand being one) who drew up the “Report of Conference,” ■which was the foundation of the present Church constitution. The said report—under the head of doctrine—declares that “ the earnest desire of the memb rs of the Church of England in New Zealand has always been to maintain the supremacy of the Crown;” and the report farther deflares, that the doctrines of tbp Church of England, including —in the above express terms—-the doctrine of the royal supremacy, are embodied in the deed of constitution as “ fundamental and unalterab'e.” 4. Notwithstanding these explicit declarations, the Venerable Archdeacon has of late professed and promulgated opinions diametrically opposed to them; for instance, in his replies to the late Bishop of London’s queries, published in the proceedings of the Wellington Synod, he declared that the Queen’s Supremacy is gone for ever, or words to that effect —an opinion completely contrary to the foregoing authorities, as well as to tue judgment of the High Court of Appeal, in the case of the Bishop of Natal, 20th March, 1865. Moreover, at the General Synod in 1868, the Venerable Archdeacon, while industriously opposed to this capital and fundamental doctrine, confessed his inability fully to understand it, and yet with singular inconsistency and want of logic, presumed to.pronoilnce it.a “Phantom.” 5. The undersigned begs further to state, firstly, -That the compact of 1852,—’which . is the only compact that can he considered legally or morally binding upon the members -' ■ qtthe Church of England, in tips Cqlqijy—was entered into upon the express condition that the doctrines qf our Churqh should he preserved intact. Q, And secoud'y—That the rubric of the consecration service requires that “the Queen’s mandate shall be read,” and “ the oath touching the acknowledgement touching the Queen’s Supremacy shall be ministered;” —obligations which have not been or cannot be rightly dispousqdjwith, except by authority from the Imperial Parliament, 7. The undersigned fools it his duty to protest, that a clergyman holding and pub-

listing such views, as above mentioned, entirely contrary to the judgment of the Church of England, in all its authorised formularies and homilies contrary to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and contrary to the fundamental doctrine of the Church constitution itself, is ineligible ipno facto, and ought not to be consecrated as a Bishop of our Church, or to receive the emoluments of the see in (piestian. And he further protests that such consecration would be a violation of the public compact of 1852, as well as of the church constitution of 1857; and as such will endamag the title of the General Synod to the property which it holds in trust for the Church of England; and |will tend to render the acts of the General Synod null and void.