EPISCOPAL ADDRESS. [From the "Standard,"]

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 558, 20 August 1851, Page 4

EPISCOPAL ADDRESS. [From the "Standard,"]

The following address has been published: — " We, the undersigned archbishops and bishops of the provinces of Canterbury and York, do most earnestly and affectionately commend the following address to the serious consideration of the clergy of our respective dioceses. " J. B. Cantaur. " G. Peterborough. T. Ebor. C St. David's. C. J. London. 11. Worcester. E. Dunhelm. A. T. Cbiccsler. C. R. Winton. J. Lichadd. J. Lincoln. T. Ely. C. Bancror. S. Oxon. 11. Carlisle. T. Y. St. Asaph. G. Rochester. J. Chester. J. 11. Gloucester and S. Norwich. Bristol. A. LlandaiF. C. T. Ripon. Auckland, Sodor and E. Sarum. Alan. " Beloved Brethren, —We have viewed with the deepest anxiety the trouble, suspicions^ and discontents which have of late in some parishes accompanied the introduction of ritual observances exceeding those in common use amongst us. " We long indulged the hope that, under the influence of charity, forbearance, and a calm estimate of the small importance of such external forms, compared with the blessing of united action in the great spiritual work which is before our church, these heats and jealousies might by mutual concessions be allayed. But since the evil still exists, and in one most important feature has assumed a new and more dangerous character, we feel that it is our duty to try whether an earnebt and united address on our part may tend, under the blessing of God, to promote'lho restoration of peace and harmony in the Church. "'lhe principal point in dispute is this — whether, where the letter of the Rubric seems to warrant a measure of ritual observances which yet, by long and possibly by unbroken practice, has not been carried out, the clergy are either in conscience required, or absolutely at liberty, to act each upon his own view of the letter of the precept rather than by the rule of common practice? Now, as to this question we would urge upon you the following considerations: First, that any change of usages with which the religious feelings of a Congregation have become associated is in itself so likely to do harm that it is not to be introduced without the greatest caution; secondly, that beyond this any_ change which makes it difficnlt for the congregation at large to join in the service is still more to be avoided; thirdly, that any change which suggests the fear of still further alterations is most injurious; and fourthly, that according to the rule laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, where an) thing is doubted or diversely taken ' concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in that book, the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion, shall take j order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in that book.' " The fair application of these principles would, we believe, solve most of the difficulties which j have arisen. It would prevent all sudden gaml startling alterations, and it would facilitate the reception of any change which was really lawful and desirable. We would, therefore, first^ urge upon our reverend brethern with affectionate earnestness the adoption of such a rule of conduct. We would beseech all who, whether by excess or defect, have broken in upon the uniformity, _ and contributed to relax the authority of our ritual observances, to consider the importance of unity and order, and by common consent to avoid whatever might tend to violate them. In rccommending'this course as the best under present circumstances, we do not shut our eyes to the evil of even the appearance of any discrepency existin" between the written law and the practice of the Church. But there are many cases where the law may be variously interpreted; and we believe that we are best carrying out her own principles in urging you to have recource in all such cases, to the advice of her chief pastors. "But beyond mere attempts to restore an unusual strictness of ritual observance!!, we have to deal with a distinct and serious evil. A principle has of late been avowed and acted on, which, if admitted, would justify far greater and more uncertain changes. It is this—that as the church of England is the ancient Catholic church settled in this land before the Reformation, and was then reformed only by the casting away of certain strictly defined corruptions ; therefore, whatever form or usage existed in the church before its reformation may now be freely introduced and observed, unless there can be alleged against it the distinct letter of some formal prohibition. f'Now, ao-ainst any such inference, from the undoubted identity of the church, before and niter the Reformatiqn, we feel bound to enter our clear and unhesitating protest. We believe that at the Reformation the English church not only rejected certain corruptions, but also, without m any degree severing her connection with the ancient catholic church, intended to establish one uniform ritual, according to which her public services .should be conducted. But it is manifest that a license such as is contended for is wholly incompatible with any uniformity of worship whatsoever, and at variance with the universal practice of the

catholic church, -which has never given to the officiating ministers of separate congregations any sach lar'^e discretion in the selection of ritual observances. "We, therefore, Lcsecch any who may have proposed to themselves the restoration of what under sanction of this principle, they deemed a lawful system, to consider (lie dangers which it involves; to see it in its true light, and to take a more j ast and sober view of the real position of our church ; whilst with earnestness, we beseech others, who, cither by intentional omission, or by neglect and laxity, may have disturbed the uniformity and weakened the authority of our prescribed ritual, to strengthen the side of order by avoiding all unnecessary deviations from the Church's rule. "Such harmony of action we are persuaded would, under God's bles.>ing, go f<ir towards restoring the peace of the church. This happy result would more clearly exhibit her spiritual character. The mutual relative of her various members would be more distinctly perceived ; and our lay brethcrn would more leadily acknowledge the special trust committed to us, as stewards of the mysteries of God, 'for the edifying of the body of Christ.' They would join with us in asserting, and if need be, defending for themselves, as much as for us, the true spiritual freedom of the church. They would unite with us in a more trustful spirit, and therefore with a more ready will, in enlarging her means and strengthening her powers for the great work she has to do amongst the swarming multitudes of our great towns at home, and of our vast dominions "abroad ; and that church which has so long received from the hands of God such unequalled blessings might continne to be, yea and become more and more, ' a praise in the earth.' "Maich.29, 18J1."