1849-chaplain

MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY. SIR, ioiir lettcr to tlic nutlior of '' A few plain Words, &c." is writtcn in so excellent a temper, 2nd is so rcmarkablc not only for its ingenuity, but for its carncstness of tone, as to induce me to hope that you mny be prcvniled upon to reconsider the argument you have employed, and to retract the conclusions at wliich vou have arrived ; I must think, rather through prejudice than any fair process of reasoning. Thcre is so wide a difference between the spirit of your paniphlet and that of some manuscript remarks which liare b e k handed about, and of the printed sheet recently circulated here-as I am informed-by the Britisli Consul, that I eannot help feeling that you,-pained, as you niust be, by so glaring an exposure of the unhappy temper and ill-judged personalities indulged in without scruple, as to any accuracy o$ statement, by the leaders of your present party,may not be reluctant to find on what shallow foundation you are now relying, and that we may be able at no distant period to aequiesce with gladness in your assnmption of the honourable name of " a Churchman." A

i?

MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

'ou lny grcat strcss on tlie Bishop of London's letters, m i t t e n some tliirteen years since to the Cliaplains a t Naples and Antwerp ; you omit, howcver, a11 proof that these were similar cases,-we cnnriot know tliis intuitivcly ; and even granting that tlicy were precisely so, wliich is veiy iniprobable, I tlo iiot sce liow thc force of tlic Bisliop's letters,tlirectly refcrring to tlie present case, and written withiii tlie last two iiiontlisj-is wealtened or neutralized by decisions and definitioiis of tlie same Bishop clelivcred so niany years back. Let me suggest to you that the Bisliop's decisions are judicial, but not so liis definitions. You are surely pcrforming a rather questionable act of friendship to Mr. Brown, by proving that he cannot obtain a mere certificate of respectability ; which, you must see, the Bishop niiglit grant to every clergyman now in Madeira, witliout implying the least censure of Mr. Lowe. Lord Palmerston is evidently awarc that tiie Bisliop's licence is of much more importance than you seern disposed to adniit : a certificate of respectability mould not be sufficient to establish an indepentlent cliaplain in tlie opinion of any persoil ; it mould not even serve to maintain him in his position of eliaplaiii, if no " rival antagonist " Iiad been appoiilted by IIer Majesty's Secretary of State for F o r e i p Affairs. You do not allude to tlie Bishop of Cape Town's letter to tlie Bishop of Loiidon ; though, as you quote " Madeira coirespondence," I presume you must have seen it. Had you attendcd tlie nieeting lash year a& the Consulate, you would liave heard the Bishop of

XADEIRA CH-4PLAINCY.

E

Cape Tomn's admonitioiis, invested with authority, ddegated to him by the Bisliop of London. A little reflection will sntisfy you tliat the letter, over mhich you slide so easily in a note,-tliough not in itself autlioritative,-is an authoritative record of what took place a t the meeting. His Lordship's morda cannot therefore be consi(1crccl as "mercly the expression of Iiis own privatc opinion." As Mr. Brown applicd for thcni cspressly for tlie purpose of t'heir publicatim, hc nlone must nnswer for their being " ol~trudeclupoii tlic public." These letters, as well as tliose of the Bisliop of London to Mr. Brown as partially publislied by tlie latter, me surely a sufficient rcfutation of your assertion to avisitor. The Chaplain receivcs " no inhibition, we no warning except from yourself." While you trcnt individual Bishops with somewhat scant courtesy, you are I tliink too ready to exalt them collectively. Do you know whether the Bishops voted for or against the passing of the Act 6 Geo. IV. cap. 87 ? I freely own I do not ; and I have still to learn how-the English Church being episcopal-a clergyman can be "regularly employed in the ceiebration of Divine Service according to tlie rites and ceremonies of the United Church of England and Ireland," (I quote the Act,) without episcopal licence ; but, granting a11 you would assume as to the authority of the Act, me must arrive a t the conclusion, that the Foreign Recretary having obtained full power to ttppoint and dismiss foreign chaplains, most properly declined to avail himself of it ; and applied to the Bishop of London to grant these chaplains licences,

AI A1)EIR:I CBAPLAINCY.

preciscly siiiiilnr to tliose grmted to tlie clergy in Englnnd ; nnd, of course, froni tlicir very nature, not linble to bc witlidramii, cxcept on similar grounds. Tou c10 not inforni us when Her Majesty recomnieiidcd Mi-. Lowe to resiçn " tlie niiiiistering unto Brit isli souls iii JIadeira." I really cannot believe that Hcr Majesty lias ever done so. You have throughout confouixled teinporal &'ri spiritual authority ; the Act G Geo. IV. cap. 87, does not allude to the latter, cscept i11 thc words I liave quoted above. Mr. Lowe lias sbundantly sliown, in liis Appendix to Protest, that tlie autliority of tlie Bisliop of London was in csistence long bcfore the passinç of that Act, by ~yliicliit is riot i11 any respect modified. Mr. Lowe does not retain aiiy thing which he received under tlie authority of tlie Act, tliougli he can scarcely be said to have surrendered tlie temporalities of which Iic was dcprived, certainly by no act of his own. I really niust remind you, that the Crown acts through responsible Knisters ; but I doubt how far even this will nssist you in vindicating the loyal obedience o€ a p r t y , wliich was for gears engaged in a n endeavour to render void sn appointment of the Crown, which liad the full sanction of the authorities, both civil aiid ecclesiastica1. You have argucd very plausibly from the use af the term cliaplaiii ; but clergymen in foreign por& aiid places are in a position very different from th& of a chaplain to a nobleman, who is an officer in the household of his patron : I imagine that not even w, nobleman's chaplain can preach and administer the Sacraments without episcopal licence. The tem

MADEIRA mAPLAINCY.

cliaplain has probably been generally appred to English Clergy in foreign ports and places only, as more convenient, and less inaccurate, than that of rector, vicar, &c., which would convey an untrue idea. Pray do not let Mr. Brown suppose he holds the appointment of chaplain to the Queen, which would invest him with more privileges than perhaps you are aware of He is not even chaplain to the British subjects resident in Madeira, as we have not yet attained the privileges of nobility. If you consider the difference between a chaplain whose ministrations are euclusively confined to a single household, without prejudice to the rights and authority of the minister of the parisli in which his patron may Iinppen to reside, and a clergyman who undertakes the cure of souls in a foreign port, you cannot fail to see that the whole of your reasoning on this point falls to the ground. Since you wrote the paragraph, asserting that Mr. Lowe's licence is extinct, you have seen a letter from the Bishop of London, dated Nov. 22, 1848, in wbich the Bishop says, " Mr. Lowe continues to hold my licence ;" I need not, therefore, argue that point. I Iiave shown above that we have good r e w n s to believe the Bishop'i licence of more importanoe than you do, and Lord Palmerston himself probably differs with you on this subjed. There are passages in your pamphlet which lead me to doubt whether you yourself are quite satisfied with Mr. Brown's freedom from episcopal control ; indeed you cannot but yearn aRer some authority; you turn from the Bishop of London in despair, and-can it be ? yes,-you are the

n m n i hf Yr. Ilmwn's ?iupprtem alio lia4

favouted

us wit h n pthlic vinilicntkm of tlic ~ u t h o r i t gof th0 Itonisn C'ntholic Uishliop of Funclinl. Do you hopo thnt hc will liccnsc Mr. Ifron-n ? Al:xs ! I fcar "a (ftiitrrlitwm'' aithout n 13isliop is in n prcenrious nnd tlrspwate con Ji tion. C m ynu wondcr tlint wc doclino to tmst oiic ~ 1 1 0 fi11lo~sc.r~ s~ are so cvidently adrift ? J f n ~tve net fnirly tlotibt to wlint havcn hc niay conduct tlicw who trust liis pilotngo ? Ijut o11 what p u n t l s do you rcfuse to mognize tlie suthority of tlic Bisliop of London in this placa? Nccausc it is not, strictly spe,zking, wi thin bis diacew ? you rrcognize tlic appoint nicnt of t lic English cmwn in this plsec, to which its authority does not ex t enci : you rceognize the force of a t least one A& of thc Nritiali Parliamont in this place, and Mr. J h w n mxives hia snlnry under it ; though, strictly s p t d h g . thc Act has no authority here. Wiy do ?ou ri+u.ic S U C ~reco'pition of thc ccclesiasticd tm 'ou rtpparctitly conctdc to tho civil powers of govemm c n t ? EWQ- nnr knows that the "positions of a b d y uf our countrymn residing a h r o d " aro not tho .-ame 2.3 tliat of an English pariah. Mr. Brown may wfcly de@ t h r ImVsof England to reacli hirn hert?, and continue h i ~irregular ministry. Ris dohg so may entitlc him to your respect, but nevor to mim I shall not cntcr upon tlic religious questiona you have startd, further tlian to caution you @mk indnuating that those who have the prayers, p&q c&, and 8acmments of the Church, either h not, or do nat duly value the blessing of a faithu niinistmtion of God's worcl. An ~ t t e m p of t this soit

has been made more than once,-need I remirdyou how signally it failed ? You say, '' there has been no intimation as yet of any desire on the part of the State to remove foreign cliaplains froin the superintendenoe and spiritual direction of the Bishop of London ;" but I understand that the new Regulations issued by Lord Palmerston insist that henceforth all differences on spiritual subjects betwecn thc chaplain and his congregation are to be referred to the decision of the Crown. If I am not greatly misinformed, Lord Palmerston by these regulations assumes tlie superiority of the Secretary of State, not only over tlie Bishop, but actually over tlie Parliameiit of tlie United Kingdom, and positivcly makes alterations in, and additions to, the Act itself. I can most readily assent to your statement, that autliority to preach, &c. "ia in England dircted to a particular loeality by the licence or institution of a Bishop," while " here Churchmen may well be content to receive and obey a pastor first duly ordained, and then sent by the only authority that has power to send him ;" but why this authority, which ia the Christian Church has ever been exercised by Bishops alone, should, as regards this place, be usurped by a lay Secretary of State, I know not, nor do you atternpt to show. I h k with some distrust on the present excessive loyalty of the sup porters of the Government place of worship, when I reflect that our present unhappy díssensions are wholly owing to the refusal of those parties "to receive and obey a pastor," who was indisputably " sent by thc only authority that had power to send

dl)

MADEIRA C ~ P AINCY. L

liirn;%otli according to yours and the Church's interprctation of tlie words ; and I am confimed in my distrust by the knowledge that those parties refused to comply with the recommendations of the Secretary of State, in the very first instance, in which he advised an act of plain justice, contrary to their inclinations. And now, Sir, I wish I could bring my remarks to a, conclusion. I give you full credit for the "wish and intention to represent things as they are ;" and I thank you heartily for your statement of the case of Mr. Brown and his supporters. I have at times had doubts whether theirs might not be a better case than I was aware of I thought they might have argumente and documents, which some temporary obstacle did not permit them to lay before the world ; but dter so bold an appeal as you have made to the public -an appeal, I must repeat, so distinguished by its earnestness and ability, and which, I can hardly be rash in thinking, you would not have made without consulting the wishes of Mr. Brown and his principal friends-I must conclude that the arrnoury of your party ia exhausted, that Mr. Lowe's position, as the only minister of the Church of England authorized to preach and adrninister the sacraments in this island, is impregnable ; and that Mr. Brom's claims to that position, though they may be put forth in good faith, (and until irresistibly convinced of &e contrary I will believe them to be so,) are whdy without foundation, and altogether unworthy af our att ention. I said that I wished I could now conclude my

MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

rcniarks ; but, homever painful, it is neoessary to complete my task, that I sliould notice the extraordinary appendix to your letter, in whicli the assumptions you have nisde are of such a character, as almost to nmke nie cloubt wliether its writer is the snnie gentleman I liave been hithcrto addressing. you coniniencc hy an assumption entirely gratuitous, nnd uttcrly iiicorrect in fact, that tlie BishogJs letter, datccl Fullinni, Dec. 15, 1848, " is the rnost f:wourrzble document tliat Mr. Lowe has ever yet reccived froni tlie Bishop." I sliould have thouglit tliat tlie rcason for its being selected for circulation i11 tliis placc wns apparent enough ; nclmely, that it was writtcn cspressly tliat it might be publicly circulated. A Gisliop's communications are usually consiclered private by the clergy ; as Mr. Brown knew when he wrotc to the Bishop of Cape Town, requesting him to yublisli, or to authorize him to publisb, the reply. Your deductions from the letter itself are ntost preposterous ; you insist upon keeping Mr. Brown in tlie unhappy predicament of waiiting a certificate of respectnbility, which he might hold without the slightest injury to Mr. Lowe. You do not see that the quot'ations you give from the Bishop's letters are only verbally different, but upon each of them gou build a fabric, which i t is onfY impossiblc to pull down, because there is neither foundation nor conclusion. They are genuine cwtles in the air. The Bishop says, " A s far as I am concerned, you (Mr. Lowe) alone are authorized to act in the capacity of Chaplain ;" and again, " Mr. Lowe continues to hold my licenbe, and is therefore authorized by me

X i D E I R A CRAPLAINCP.

to officiate as Cliaplain, as far ns I Iiave poww to nuthorize him." Do pray esercise your comrnon sense. Tliese passages will only bear one interpretation ; i. e. the Bishop gives a11 the authority which Iie, as ,z Bisliop of thc Cliurcli, can give to Mr. Lowe. And nom let us examine your conclusions. 2. I t is surely uttcrly unimportant to us whethcr the Bisliop acts from feeling or principie, but I cannot see liow you infer this from the words in your note, I regret to add unfairly quoted ; I have not seen a copy of the Madeira correspondence, but this letter Las been published elsewhere. The Bishop does not assiire " Lord Palmerston, that nothing was further from liis wishes, than that Mr. Lowe should do what he is doing." I will give you the whole passage from the Bishop of London's letter to Lard Palmerston. " I beg to assure your Lordship that nothing is further from nly wishes than to estahlish an independent Chaplain at Madeira, being fully sensible of the inconvenience which must arise from such a measure. I am only desirous of not doing an act of injustice to an amiable and excellent Clergyman. I simply decline revoking the licence which I granted to Mr. Lowe a t the request of the Secretary of State, because I am persuaded i n niy conscience that he has not committed any fault deserving of so severe a censure as the revocation of his licence, &er a faithful and zealous service of fifteen years-a censure which I sliould not be jiistified in castiag, under similar circumstances, upon the curate of any parish i n this country." 2. Your second conoIusion, or I ought to aay IS-

NADEIRA CNAPLSINCY.

suniption, ccrtainly proves tliat moderation of expression is neither appreciated nor understood by Mr. Brown's friends. Thc Bishop does not mention Mr. Brown at all, neither does lie mention tlie Presbyterian Minister. I t was not necessaiy that he sliould mcn t ioii eit her separatis t from the Cliurch. 3. Your third conclusion is ratlier too late to be of any iniportnnce. BIr. IIntliamay's late position was fully saiictioned by tlie Bisliop. We really miglit I a r c cspcctcd tliat bcfore procecding to publication you slioulcl liave made some littlc inquiry on this point, wliich ~ ~ o u lhavc d saved you tlie trouble of deducing siicli n conclusion, and the mortification of finding yourself in crror. I imagine tliat you must have becn tlie only person in Madeira in ignorsnce of the simple fact, that Mr. Lome's absence was only tcmporary, Iiis friends scarcely expectcd tliat his return woulcl have becn so loiig delayed. You are, I liope 2nd believe, mistakcii in imagining tliat Mr. Lome's presence is necessary to kecp alive in the members of the Cliurch liere the plain Church prin.ciple for which they are now contending ; you may at least give them credit for acting from conscientious motives, and not for the sake of supporting an individual, liowever much they may both honour ancl esteem him. 4. As your fourth conclusion you give us three assertions, you add one or two more afterwards. Now I cannot prove a negative in tliese cases ; Irut I cai1 positively stste, not as an assertion, but as a matter of fact, that you have not produced any prcmises froni whicli these miscalled conclusions can by any

MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

ingenuity be deduced. I now clialleiige you to producc nny proofs, tlie slightcst or most remote, of your correctness in stating, 1st. "That Nr. Lowe's return to the islnnd m d miiiistering in opposition to thc lawful Cliaplain, ia v e y distastcful to the Rishop." 2nd. "Tliat lie lieartily wished liim to remain where Iic IRIS." 3rd. " That he hzld on more than one occwion expressed this wish." 4th. " Tliat the Bishop is caroful to say that he wialics hini not to return." Until some proofs of the correctness of t'tiese assertions are produced, I for one shsll beg leave to assert my disbelief in their existence. "The Bishop's refusal to censure Mr. Lowe is nothing like empomering him, or advisiug Iiim, or even wishing Iiim to return to Madeira." I liave no hesitation in granting this, but I will beç you to consider that last Felruary the Bishop refused to revoke Mr. Lowe's licence " after a faithful aiid zealous service of fifteen years," as " an amiable nnd excellent Clergyman ;" that last summer he gave him temporary leme of absence on condition of h d iug an efficient substitute; that he approved of the substitute selected; and that on Nov. 22nd, md on Dec. 15th, h e wrote letters, the only object of which was to establish and render clear to a11 members of tlie Church, Mr. Lowe's sole claims to the Chaplaincy ; thereby doiiig his utmost to f a c i l i e Mr. Lowe's return, and to support him against suoh najustifiable attacks as you have ventured to m k e ;

NADEIRA CHAPLAlNCY.

for your pnmplilet is rather an attempt to assa'il Mr. Lowe's position, than to defend Mr. Brown's. I must now lay clearly before you that the questio11 is not "between an extinct licence and no liceiice." It is between a Clergyman fully licensed by tlie Bishop, and one who can only claim mission froni Her Majesty's Secretary of State, wlio was wanicd by tlie Bisliop of Loiidon tliat 4e was nbout to place Iiimself in "an anonialous and unplcasant position," beforc he left England, who has since drawn upon Iiimself the niost distirict and positive censures of another Bishop of tlie Church ; and that you, Sir, and a11 of us in Madeira, were fully instructed as to our duty as members of the Church of Engllnnd by the delegate of the Bishop of London, that those mho had not the advantage of hearing hini have most fortunately been furi~ishedwith tlie clearest testimony as to his instructions under his own Iiand, and tliat finally the Bishop of London tiiniself, in order that not a shade of doubt or uncertaiiity miglit remain, has sent us a written deelamtion, that Mr. Lone alone has episcopal authority for acting iii the capacity of Chaplain. I shall conclude with a quotation from a Convoeation Charge delivered by Bishop Wilson in 1721. "I think it absolutely neeeasary to put you in mind of the authority with which God hath invested the Bishops of His Church ; that if any attempts sliould be made to lessen that authority, or to make the Clergg or Laity independent of their Bishop, you may see the danger of closing with designs which

MADEIRA ' CHAPLAENCY.

aould effectually ruin nll order in the &um&, &nd xc~arateyou from Christ. "?Vlioever will read St. Ignatius's epistles as publislied his Grace tiie preseiit Archbishop of Canterh r y , will see wliat tliat holy martyr and 'discip1e.d St. Johii saith of tlie necessity of being in uniort with tlic Uishop ; and that such as are not so arenot iii 111rYoi1with Christ." 11% .the enmest hopc that Mr. Brown may *speedily he r e c w d from a post, his assumpt$mòf which h a ~ ripened disunion into open schism, that the'differencep l>etween us inay be healed, and that your tslents and xenl may for tlie futurc be more shcoeasfully ernbl~ed i11 & bettcr cause,

I>v

I b v e tlie honour to remain, Sir, Your ebedient servant, 31adeira, .Feb. 3, 1841).

THE E N ~ .

GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. Jolts's Squars; L

2a;