Obrázky na stránke

order that advantage may not be hereafter taken of our silence, under pretext that the present unfounded pretension to establish a metropolitan jurisdiction here by the sole authority of the Bishop of Rome was suffered to pass without contradiction or remonstrance, I have held it my duty thus publicly to declare, in express terms, in the face of the Church, that, beyond its own limits, the See of Rome possesses no right to establish bishopricks, or other offices of ecclesiastical order, in provinces of the Church where they already subsist. No such prerogative or privilege can be proved to belong to the Bishop of Rome, or to his See, either by virtue of any supposed succession or derivation from St. Peter, the first of the apostles; or of the authority direct or indirect of Holy Scripture; or of the testimony of the early Fathers; or by the decree of any General Council lawfully assembled; or through the mission of Augustin into Britain; or by the laws and statutes of this realm; or in any other manner, or by any plea of what nature soever.

“Whatever widening of the unhappy separation which prevails may be apprehended from the act to which, after a full and mature deliberation, I have subscribed, such a consequence, however deplorable in itself, is not to be weighed in the balance against an apprehension of God's anger, which must fall upon us if we should, through fear of man, engage in a weak and ineffectual attempt to maintain outward peace by surrendering the fundamental principle of Christian unity.

“In my own name, therefore, as Bishop and Ordinary Pastor of the Diocese of Australia, and for my successors canonically entering, and in behalf of the clergy and all the faithful within the same Church and diocese of Australia, and also in the name and on behalf of my proper lawful superior, William by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, and on behalf of his successors, I have entered my protest against the establishment of any archiepiscopal or episcopal See within this Diocese, except it be with the consent first obtained of the Church of England at large in convocation assembled.

“ In this entire proceeding I have confined myself most strictly to the principles of ecclesiastical antiquity, by which it is clearly to our advantage to abide; and on behalf of the Church of England in Australia, I advance explicitly a claim to be considered the genuine representative of the early British Church. It is my desire that nothing be done by us of strife or vain glory; nothing with the design of wantonly provoking controversy, or for the mere purpose of magnifying our own pretensions. Let me hope that it will be found possible to shun both these improprieties; and the probability of it will be greater, if, while we express without disguise our views of Christian faith, we prove ourselves more sincere, more earnest, more incorrupt, more humble minded, exactly in proportion as we believe that God has vouchsafed to commit an ampler measure of it to our stewardship.

" I earnestly desire the benefit of your prayers for my support under the present difficulties; and, relying with perfect confidence on your fulfilment of this and every act of deference to your diocesan, and of duty towards the Church, I remain, reverend brother, your very faithful servant,

“ Will. G. AUSTRALIA.”

“In the name of God. Amen. By this public instrument be it declared and made known to all, that in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, according to the course and reckoning of the Church of England, on Saturday, the twenty-fifth of March, being the festival of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at or near the hour of eleven in the forenoon, being the commencement of the morning service for the day, in the vestry adjoining and pertaining to the church of St. James the Apostle, in the city of Sydney, and colony of New South Wales, in the presence of me, James Norton, notary public, and registrar of the diocese of Australia, lawfully constituted according to letters patent of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, and in presence also of the witnesses whose names are hereinafter recited, the Right Reverend Father in God, William Grant, hy divine permission Bishop of Australia, did personally put in and exhibit a certain written protest, and did then and there openly and publicly protest, and otherwise also did profess and do in such a manner and according as was more fully contained in a certain parchment schedule which he held in his hands, and publicly read : of which schedule the purport is here inserted, and is as follows, without any addition or omission whatever : « « In the name of God. Amen. We, William Grant, by divine permission

Bishop and Ordinary Pastor of Australia, do protest publicly and explicitly, on behalf of ourselves and our successors, Bishops of Australia, and on behalf of the clergy and all the faithful of the same Church and diocese, and also on behalf of William by divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, and his successors, that the Bishop of Rome has not any right or authority, according to the laws of God and the canonical order of the Church, to institute any episcopal or archiepiscopal see or sees within the limits of the diocese of Australia and province of Canterbury aforesaid. And we do hereby publicly, explicitly, and deliberately protest against, dissent from, and contradict, any and every act of episcopal or metropolitan authority done or to be done, at any time, or by any person whatever, by virtue of any right or title derived from any assumed jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority of the said Bishop of Rome, enabling him to institute any episcopal see or sees within the diocese and province hereinbefore named.'

“ All and singular the foregoing acts and declarations were had and done as they are above written and recited in the year, month, day, hour, and place aforesaid; there being then and there present (having been specially invited and summoned as witnesses in the premises), the Rev. Robert Allwood, the Rev. Henry Hodgkinsou Bobart, the Rev. William Branwhite Clarke, the



Rev. Thomas Steele, the Rev. Henry Tarlton Stiles, and the Rev. William Horatio Walsh.


" Registrar and Notary Public." “We, the undersigned, Presbyters, duly licensed within the diocese and jurisdiction of Australia, being present in the Church of St. James the Apostle at Sydney, in the diocese of Australia and colony of New South Wales, on the festival of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, do hereby testify, that the Right Rev. Father in God, William Grant, Bishop of Australia, personally attending and assisting at the celebration of divine service on the festival aforesaid, at the conclusion of the Nicene Creed, standing at the north side of the altar or communion table of the said church, holding in his hands a certain parchment schedule, did read therefrom, in our presence, and in the sight and hearing of the congregation, all that protest hereinbefore set forth, without

any addition or diminution whatsoever.

• In witness whereof, in the year and on the day aforesaid, in presence of each other, and before the said Right Rev. Bishop of Australia, we have hereunto set cur hands and seals.

“Robert Allwood, B.A. Minister of St. James', Sydney, Commissary.
“H. H. BOBART, M.A. Minister of St. John's, Parramatta.
“W. B. CLARKE, M.A. Minister of St. Simon's, Castle Hill.
“ Thomas STEELE, LL.D. Minister of St. Peter's, Cook's River.
“Henry T. Stiles, Minister of St. Matthew's, Windsor.
• William HORATIO Walsh, Minister of St. Lawrence, Sydney.”


On this paper the following comments appear in the Australasian Chronicle of 28th March :

“We have been politely furnished with a copy of this document, to which we most willingly give insertion. We are pleased with several things about this manifesto.

“ 1st.— The Festival of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ is introduced with becoming reverence.

“2ndly.-Great solicitude is manifested for the observance of the " ical laws, usages, and common order of the household of the faith.'

“ 3rdly.—The Bishop claims for himself, his clergy, and flock, an undoubted right to the principles of that Catholic Church, to which,' his lordship asserts, that he and they never ceased to belong. Utinam noster sis, cum talis esses. We wish he were ours after such a profession. But there are some knotty and not a few perplexing questions to be settled, before we can concede to his lordship the full and undoubted right to those Catholic principles which he so generously assumes as his own.

“ It will be time enough to draw the consequences at which his lordship trembles, when the principle he disputes is fully discussed and settled, according to the principles of the canons and institutions of the Catholic Church of all ages and nations. We admit that there cannot be two metropolitans of one province, nor two bishops in one diocese, of the same rite. But any one acquainted with ecclesiastical history knows well that there have been, and actually are, two or more bishops exercising metropolitan and ordinary jurisdiction in several cities and provinces of the Eastern Church, the cradle of Christianity, and professing the same faith, and holding communion with each other, but following different rites, such as the Greek, Armenian, Maronite, Copt, and Latin rite. All these exist de facto, at this moment, in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Damascus, on Mount Lebanon, and at Cairo. And no canonist in Christendom calls in question the propriety of such dignities and jurisdiction. As the Bishop of Australia follows the Anglican rite, and the Archbishop of Sydney adheres to the Roman rite, there is no contradiction, nothing repugnant to the canon law, in having two bishops in one diocese ; and when the former shall have been elevated to the metropolitan dignity, we will have full time to reconcile any apparent discrepancy, in that case, with the usages and customs of the Catholic Church.

“ The Bishop of Australia has forgotten to inform us how the Archbishop of Canterbury has got spiritual and metropolitan jurisdiction in New Holland. It could not be from the temporal sovereign of Great Britain ; it is not from the Church of England in convocation assembled, even if it possessed such power, which we deny, for no such convocation has assembled since the territory of New Holland has been discovered and added to the British empire. Whence then has he derived, in a canonical manner, bis jurisdiction over Australia ? We guess it has been assumed in the same equivocal and bungling way in which his grace of Canterbury has lately exposed himself to the jeers and jokes of all who are versed in canon law, hy his recent attempt at giving jurisdiction to the new heterogeneous bishop of Jerusalem! What an idea ! an Anglican prelate appointing a successor 10 James the Apostle, first bishop of Jerusalem !

“ It is satisfactory to learn from the bishop of Australia that he denies the bishop of Rome the power to make new Sees, and appoint bishops to the same, out of the limits of his own diocese or province, because he cannot see that the bishop of Rome has any such prerogative or privilege, either by virtue of any supposed succession from St. Peter, or of any authority, direct or indirect, of the Holy Scripture; or of the testimony of the early Fathers; or by the decree of any general council lawfully assembled; or through the mission of Augustine into Britain. Now, if we can satisfactorily show that the bishop of Rome has the power and privilege to erect new Sees, and appoint bishops for them, out of his own diocese and province, by all and every one of the above sources of proof, we cannot see how the bishop of Australia can consistently adhere to his very rash' Protest.'

“This is not, strictly speaking, a question of religious controversy;' it is rather an investigation of an historical fact. If the fact is proved, there is an end to the controversy, and the Protest' vanishes; there is no question but the bishop of Rome is a true Christian bishop, and that the bishops appointed or consecrated by his authority are truly bishops. And, for the sake of the argument, we admit the bishop of Australia to be a bishop; in the language of the schools we say, dato, non concesso, for this knotty point has yet to be unravelled.

“In order, then, to enlighten the mind of the bishop of Australia on the extent of the spiritual power of the bishop of Rome, we will call in the aid of an old friend, who has written 'five letters' some twenty years ago on this subject-just on the very five points called in question by his lordship of Australia. It seems strange, indeed, that a simple colonial bishop at the antipodes should fulminate his fiery but innocuous ‘Protest' against the spiritual powers of him who on all bands is admitted to be the chief bishop of the first Christian see in the Latin or Western Church, and who is admitted even by the Greek schismatical Church to be Primate, First Metropolitan, and Patriarch of the Latin Church. It is an assertion of no common degree of harshness and rashness to assert that the bishop of Rome has no power out of bis own diocese or province, when it is a notorious fact that the bishops of Rome for the time being have appointed or confirmed the appointment of every archbishop of Canterbury (and of course all the suffragan bishops in England) from Augustin, the first archbishop of Canterbury, in about 598, to Reginald Pole, the last Catholic archbishop of that see, who died in 1558, including sixty-nine archbishops in a period of nine hundred and sixty years. The same bishops of Rome have for the same period, and in several cases for a much longer period, exercised the same powers and rights in appointing and confirming the appointment of bishops and archbishops in every region of Christendom. The present bishop of Rome exercises de facto the same spiritual powers over eight hundred and seventy-two bishops now existing throughout the Catholic world. He has made upwards of thirty new sees those ten years back, and appointed to the same, one of the last of which is the archiepiscopal see of Sydney, though we are happy to say not the least important. And we trust we will be able to prove to every candid mind that the Protest' of the bishop of Australia is vacuum sine re nomen—a shadow without substance. We are quite at home on this subject. We are much more in our natural element while investigating church history, or developing the rules and principles of canon law, than when we are delineating shadows or drawing lines of discrimination between our several candidates for legislative honours. Of one thing our readers may rest satisfied, that we shall treat the subject as a literary question, and cast all personalities and private feelings to the wind. We are now fairly on for an historical chase, and we will see who sball first cry, Hald, enough !

The Chronicle of 30th March thus continues :

“Whatever right or title the bishop of Australia can claim to the order, rank, and spiritual character of a Christian bishop, the whole rests solely and

« PredošláPokračovať »