ADDRESS OF THE BISHOP OF SYDNEY, TO THE MEETING OF CLERGY AT ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL ROOM, SYDNEY. [From the Sydney Herald, April 15.] (Concluded from our last.)

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 706, 8 May 1852, Page 3

ADDRESS OF THE BISHOP OF SYDNEY, TO THE MEETING OF CLERGY AT ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL ROOM, SYDNEY. [From the Sydney Herald, April 15.] (Concluded from our last.)

I have heard some objections proposed against the names which the Bishops proposed to assign to the two assemblies of clergy and ldity — ilia one being called a Synod, the oihera Convention. If there were any real distinction between these terms, beyond what should have the effect of denoting two distinct orders in the Church, I think I may with much confidence say they would not , have been adopted. But all grammarians will agree that Synod and Conveniion are convertible terras. Some persons, I observe, willing to quarrel with a name, I know not why, have sj oken of lay synods. The objection to this is simply that such has nol hitherto been the custom of the Church : and wUy should we indulge in arbitrary innovations upon conven'iorsal language ? When the Judges i>i the Courts at. Westminster assemble m a common forum for deliberation, I know not upon what principle some should he called Judges ol the Kiua'sJJeuCli - or Common Pleas, and others again Barons of the Exchequer, except thai u&e has so determined. It is of no avail to ily in the face of autiquity. It is easy lor any man to raise such au objection as this at a moment's notire; but it wiil be generally found that when men not devoid of • knowledge aud of ihs power of refleoiion have after joint consultation adopted a particu-

lar expression tliert is generally at the bottom I some reason for it. Tbe word Synod, in the Eng- ' lish language, in accordance with tbe usage of tbe Churcb, has always meant an ecclesiastical assembly, a meeting of bishops and clergy ; and there is no apparent reason why the integrity pi that language should be invaded, with no other effect as it seems tban that of making us unintelligible by the rest of Christendom. Archbishop Usher, a <man not generally charged with taking extreme views, in a paper either written, or at least approved by him, u>es the expression "syiiodi^aj convention," to signify a meeting comppsed partly 01. ecclesiastics and partly of laymen. The ad* vantage of such objections used on a grave and important subject is, that they in some degree furnish proof there is no very serious argument by which it can be opposed : tbe disadvantage is that trifles are always difficult to deal with. Ano r ther objection which has reached me is that by accepting this proposal we shall do away with the Queen's supremacy. On more than one occasiop I thought I had so far expressed at least my own - wishes and persuasions upon this point, as tp secure myself and those who thought with me from •any such suspiciou. I have always been of opinion that even setting aside all consideration of tb£ Sovereign's title to ecclesiastical suprema- , cy in 'virtue of any prerogative attached' to the Xingly* office,, the office itself afforded.: so convV _ njent ai|d unexceptionable a ; mode pfxjexercUrog the proper control of the lai.tyipver.jtpd wiib.uT Churcb, that the last of my thought* .apji -wishes would bave been to desire tbe abolition/of that prerogative. But I perceive, I must admit, 1 Cannot but be sensible, however my inclinations vrould lead me another way, that the Crown, as respects the colonies, has abdicated to a * great extent its acknowledged supremacy of control in ecclesiastical affairs. To me this is no novelty. It bai Dot come upon me by surprise, 1 bave been piepared during more than twenty years for the approach of such a state of circumstances* So far therefore is my policy from seeking a release from the Queen* Supremacy that I seek permission for no more tban this : that where the Sovereign bas foregone tbe privilege of royalty on behalf of tbe laity, there, to tbe same extent, and to that extent only, tbe laity shoujd obtain permission from tbe Crown to enter into the tutelage of their own ecclesiastical affairs, and to combine with tbeir clergy iv making the best provisiou for the welfare of the Church which their own resources may admit of. Iv the mean time 1 must say that to cling to the Royal Supremacy as a sufficient support to this Churcb when it stands among us but as the shade of a great name, would be the worst of policy for ourselves and the height of injustice to our successors. The ground of apprehension however which bas been most generally occupied is, that the functions of the laity would be unreasonably circumscribed, as no right is proposed to be cooceded to them, but that of consulting and deciding, in association with the clergy, " upon all questions affecting the temporalities of the Chorea." Perhaps the expression w*s not well choceo, since ie appears ta here been so generally liable to {misinterpretation ; as if nothing were temporal bat that which is pecuniary, or at least material. This however was not th* interpretation lam sure. Whatever is not purely . and directly spiritual if it appertain at aJL. ; tol the Church is among its temporalities. And, yet af^ ter establishing this definition we are not much nearer the object ; which is to draw a line exactly separating between temporal and spiritual questions, rights, and objects... We bave (bis good reason for, saying that it cannot be done — that it never bas been done. On this point I have recently seer* a very just illustrative remark. " Ecclesiastical rule is like the organic world in uatural history. As the one deaU with temporal and spiritual questions, so the other consists of plants and animals ; and in both cases, generally speaking, the difference between them is plain enough, but, in both cases there is a debatable region lying between the two divisions in wbi.ch the character of botbare blended." — {Englisfr Review, Oct. 1841.) Instead, then, of attempting to define what does not admit of definition, tbe more advantageous because the more practical course will be to consider what precautions have been suggested to prevent encroachments from either side upon tbe, lawful claims of the other. In the first place, there is an entire, class of most important questions, which in the r opinion of the bishops, should be put beyond* the interposition of any authority here— alteration of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and, the Authorized Version of _the Scriptures. A declaration to this effect was, scarcely necessary, inasmuch as it ia, "the Church " .jajone, which bas authority in controversies, of faith, and. not the Synod of a single \ diocese. But there might be changes of con- j stitutipp, sport of this, rendered necessary by, local circumstances, yet not by any means inconsistent with the maintenance of entire uniformity with the system of tbe Church of England. These might be within, tbe, scope of a Provincial Synod's authority to copsult anil agree upon, Yet even h^ere the most ample precaution is taken, cr rather an opinion is expressed that it should be taker>, aga)n>tany socb process J>eisg carried iwb effect without the consent of the" laity in tfiefr Provincial Cqmre.ntio.ii,. TJ»« i jpshoosin reality, bave proposed that neither tbeir "owa order, nor tbe order of the clergy, nor both united, should be -competent to decree any fresh formulary of faith or doctrine, order, or discipline ecclesiastical, to be conclusively binding upon tbe Churcb, unless it be accepted and ratified by the consenting voice of tbe lay convention. Even beyond this the laity will bave great and sufficient powers. There will be no restraint, except from tbeir own sense of duty and propriety, upon the discussion of any subject, the offering of any representations, or the expression of any opinion. They will be as free upon these points in their Convention, as tbe Commons of England in tbeir own bouse ; and I trust they will be as much bound by judgment and good taste as public bodies of English laymen have always shewn themselves, in refraining from encroachment upon the province of the ministerial order. If there be any wbo wish to goO&feyond; this, antf aspire, under shelter of tbe privilege which it bas been proposed that tbe laity should now acquire, to a degree of control in tbingsvspiritual and< sacred such as the legislature of England itself has never ventured to exercise on daim, then I must say candidly that I can take no part in any such conception. What we have to do with is tbe Church of England as it now in. Its cieedt are not to be abolished ; it j Articles are npt to be dirniuished> .nor their

comprehension to be increased i its liturgy 4s not to be -altered its version of the scriptures not to bje tampered with under the pies -of improvement. 4H these things sre and must be beyond our competency. We hate but "one object in view, tjiat of introducing the laity in an elective eotaVjeniion to undertake, in conjunction with tht bishops and clergy, tbat superintendence of the ordinary and current affairs of the Church as to its internal management, which the force of cirCjumstancea no longer- suffers the Sovereign, as head of the Church, to administer. From the djays of Constantino until -now, except when the Church of England was overthrown, and Another 1 system erected upon its ruins, the laity bas never disputed that Synods consisting of apostles and ejlders in the first instance, and afterwards of bishops and clergy, have ever been the proper tribunals from which the first proposition of divine truth should issue, nothing being ordained contrary tp God's word written ; apd the office of the lajty his been no more, nor can it ever scripturaliy be more, than to express .assent to, or dissent from this adjudication. If any such principle be urged upon us for acceptance, as that because Jibe clergy and .laity unitedly form one body, the cbilrcb, they must therefore have identically the same office to .execute in the chucb, I must candidly but conclusively say, that I would tale no park in attempting to cairy out such a aneory, groundless and ' therefore mischievous : v tjie sole eflyct of whicjh, be ta destrqyPthe fprm and substance of . Christianity wherever jts, establishment should be accomplished. It was to his apostles only .that our Blessed Saviour said, "Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world." And how should he be with them, except by *be maintenance of them in the doctrines which ht appointed jtbem to Jeach, and in the order of the ministry which he conferred upon them, and they in obedience to his injunctions committed to faithful men that they might teach others also. There is no form of doing evil jhat good way come, so insidious as that of yielding through policy or fear that which we do not approve in conscience, in order that ail men. may speak well of us. It is an easy thing, in such a spirit, |o lead an easy life ; provided w,e can lay out of our thought t|ie divine saying^ " if I yet pleased men," (tha.t is to say, pleased them by any pompromise of the ordinance of God), "I should not be the servant of Christ/ If it bet pressed upon us by the motives whicb. I here speak of, policy or fear, that we should gain much support by obliterating the distinction between clergy and people, or at least acquiescing iq what would go some way toward* implying Us nqn-exislence, I must, without any hesitation, reply thajt we do not ask, and could not receive, support at such a. cost. We have the system of the apostolical Church given us to support; and we must, therefore, cling to the authority of Holy Scripture, upon which our entire Church-system is founded, and in accordance with which our present proceedings are to be conducted. When our blessed Lord ascended up 00 high, " he gave gifts to men." And what {rifts were tbese ? "He gave apostles and prophets" and other orders " for the work of the ministry ;" a.nd by the peculiar mark of that appointment be separated them to their proper work. He set some in the Churcb, of which they also - form a competent part ; just as he sets in' the human body^ distindt organs, each discharging i|s peculiar function. The very choice made by divine wisdom of this especial image (that of the body and its members) to elucidate the mysterious conformation of his visible Church, shows this convincingly. The lowest order of bodies is that which comprises iuorganic homogeneous substance. The body of Christ cannot be so represented, for it has many members ; yet is it but one body. God bas set (he members every one of them (or more, in accordance with the original, each separately) in the body, as it hath pleased him; and y«?t " all the members h> v * norths same office." If they had, it wouldbe.au. extraordinary conclusion to arrive at from the image of the human body : ds extraordinary Indeed a.s tbaj the head should not direct the feet, nor the feet the bead, nor the eyes, guide the hands ; in which case each might say to the others, I have no need of you ; which is contrary to the suppo? sition, One only observation. I will ajdd, tbat the, invariable practice 0/ the Church of England, from the beginning has been to employ the term Sjynod to, signify an, assembly of ecclesiastics. It has. borne the same signification from the ages of ({nat apostolical Church from which, we derive, our descent, and with which we claim identity. My purpose in retaining the word is therefore, to show that we will not depart from the views of thj}t pure aptiquity. It ie no( $•£ we have any particular fondness for a name ; but we- are, not a> liberty to surrender the thing) especially as we do. not invade, tht right, or encroach upon the proper province, of any man, or qrder of men, bjj its. re*, tention. In these remarks lam sensible, that there has been a considerable departure, from the, only two, points upon which professedly youjr opinion; was to be asked, for, to-daj. Thest, were* whether you wejre generally, favourable to auqb modification of/ the constitution, of our Church; «% «ja% proposed by the minute qf tbe Bishops, of tfais-Provioce in 1850-r-that. is, a caqstnutUM which should admit tut laity iq * t pojiitt «^ §d-. i^fDUtratite j>o#ei! m * f tifr .*nVr>Vof' ?fc>J Ghiirch, co-ordinate, with that: which bj tfcelnwrlof England is now vested in, the Biabop add clergy of each Diocese. Secondly, wh#tiier you would' unite in- a. Deelacation, that this measure wouldi contribute, in our opinion, very much to the promotion of true religion and to tbe stability of the Cfcurcb ; *od whether you would' agree with, me in, signing * ]?ewipn to her Majesty for. the- removal of. such obstacles as now. oppose, this proceeding, leaving if for the consideration ofr the laity whether they would add their signatures to our.*, in support of the prayer of this Petition. These are really the only questions we bave.noW; to decide upon. But I have been compelled to diverge from these ipto many extraneous matters in consequence of the discussious iuto which, to far as can, be judged from the Resolutions and Reports which you have forwarded to me, some of the. speakers at the parochial meetings hive wandered. It appears to Have been overlooked that tbe whole and sole purpose of the present consultation was to determine on the propriety of asking, that one should be allowed to the anciently existing constitution, or polity of the. Church of England.; apd> that this, was proposed so to be done as. to leaye the constitution itself unimpaired. Instead of this, suggestions and proposals have been, made, and received. with. more or less favour, Jor, the . iuuoduvUQn of. changes «bjch, wptijd.

\t of its proper efficacy in opposing injurious .sug» gestions numerously supported. This arrangepent presents an idea of the office of • bishop, ] which, it is scarcely necessary to say, for all mcst j know, the Cbureh of*Ei>gland has never *dop|e'J, the primitive Churches never contemplated, and ! the Scriptures do not recognise. It would be | impossible for me here to enter into arguments, j I can but state principles and conclusions, Can i it then be really jus) in principle that he upon whom comes daily tfbe. care of all the Churches, should have in the direction of them no voice or authority above those who have each the care of , one ? Or, even beyond this : is it or can it be ; reasonable that he who has for years exercised j himself in anxious endeavours for the welfare of all the Churches, should be liable at any time to be defeated in those endeavours by the opposing vote of the youngest presbyter, whom it is possible he may only on the previous day have admitted to the order which entitles him to vote at all ? If such be, as is said, the arrangement in the American Church; I know not what safeguards it may have established against these consequences. But according to principle, it must appear to our English notions that such a distribution, of" privilege is',w#jpfyg. 4JT* have never recognized or .admiuecf iuf-Neithet does it accord with the tenotf of Scripture. In the Epistles to Timothy aud Tiius, describing incidentally their positiou and privileges as set over the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, there are moie than twenty instances (bhort as those epistles are,) in which the singular and personal authoiity of the chief pastor is alluded to : Command them and teach thoif, rebuke thou, commit Mow, and the like. That wotd thou is part of the wprd; of (prod : the laity cannot change it ; no more must we. It certainly conveys to that order in the church which, after the departure of the apostles, succeeded to the diocesan control, the faculty of a single and decisive sentence upon questions properly pertaining to (fee office. There is a remarkable av.owal connected with this theory, made by one of the present age, who certainty f cannot be accused of any tendency towards what are termed high-church principles* " There are even yery^ stiong reasons," he says, " to assert ({bat the abolition* jrc&texiinction of episcopacy generally endangers the soundness of the church's life, and exposes her to despotism from within or without. And the reason of this I believe to be, : not only, the. danger which always must accompany any constitutional change, and tn particular the weakening of the power of government and qf respect for sacred forms, but also the inherent and incurable, one-sidedness and defect of every .form of ecclesiastical government in which the conscience of the individual, ruler it violated.. Such a violation of conscience I find, wherever , there is no free or bond, fids ppwer of veto in legislation, ap.d ia (he exercise of personal functions: or conscience .is nothing but *\vetv." (Cbev. Bunsen to B,«Hon, WrE. Gladstone.) Ido not quote these words a* intending to ex- (l [press any respect for the theory of the. writer, or to, lay auy especial stress upon .his argument* ;, but to show that >acoojding to the- conception of ;9ne^bi> ( ht? no, prepof*je&ion f to.*»y tl»e, least, ja ( &vonr"i>rirQ^lipoil^ttaTlb"MTy^ church gS- > vernmeot, there is, no ground frr serious ala/ttf •on account of the liberties of the church ef en ; when the exercise of personal functions, or of a, .free, and bonafide power of veto is admitted, that is, as he says of conscience, on the part of the ! individual ruler. Yofl observe the particularity of bis expressions, petsoaaL functions, power of veto, which is the conscience of «n individual : ia the permission of this, he says, there is no ground for serious alarm. Aqd I think so too, i/mder proper precautions ; but if precautions be neglected, then there- is ground for serious alarm. Let the laity indulge that jealousy which leads them to withhold this directive pofrer from those over whom, if theyftake the proper course they ' may have power to control, and let it be decided : that in all cases there shall be affinal appeal to some distant Authority; whose freedom of' deciajouj you, cannot by any means moderate* because,' owing to distance, yo<j<'c*imo\ exert any. power ofij opinion upon the exercise of its discretion, and] you will speedily find that literally alterius orbisi papa has been set, op. I have; no, doubt that the) earlier popes (many of them) were men who: exercised. ~a - conscientious judgment ; but when under- the plea of appeals, the causes were taken out of the hands of th,efc own bishops over whose judgment the lay control qf tbgir ova, church might bare been exerted^ and transferred, to * distant coujrt, upon tbc