Open Collections

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

Trial of the Very Reverend Edward Cridge, rector and dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Victoria. Documents,… Cridge, Edward, 1817-1913 1875

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcbooks-1.0221750.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcbooks-1.0221750.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0221750-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0221750-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0221750-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0221750-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0221750-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0221750-source.json
Full Text
bcbooks-1.0221750-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcbooks-1.0221750.ris

Full Text

       The ensuing pages contain the documents, evidence,
correspondence, and judgments of the trial of the Rev.
Edward Cridge before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The following are some of the breaches of propriety
and discipline alluded to in those documents and papers:
Disturbing the Congregation.
Attacking a brother Clergyman before the Congregation.
Public repudiation of the Bishop's censure.
Attack upon Episcopacy.
Refusal to explain.
Refusal of returns to Visitation Articles of Inquiry.
Denial of the Bishop's authority at Visitation.
Refusal to answer questions at the Visitation.
Refusal to produce the Registers.
Declaring the Bishop to have denied the Queen's supremacy.
Declaring the Bishop a seceder from the Church of
England.
Denial of the Bishop's right and discretion as to preaching in the Cathedral.
The proofs afforded of so presistent a violation of the
rules and discipline of the Church, of vows and promises of
obedience, must convince every intelligent and impartial
reader that, however painful, it was the imperative duty of
the Bishop to initiate proceedings for the purpose of vindicating the law and order of the Church.
It is satisfactory to find the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal pronounced in the j udgment of the Supreme
Court to have been conducted on the principles of justice,
and to have resulted in a right conclusion.
The readiness of -Mr. Cridge to abandon the Church of
Eugland, and to express his agreement with the principles of
a hostile sect* is a complete justification of the painful process of law, and affords a clue to his extraordinary conduct
under the long forbearance by which he has been treated.  TRIAL
OF THE VERY REVEREND DEAN \ CRIDGE,
Sept. 10th, 11, 12th, 14th and 17th, 1874.
-o-
COPY OF THE OPENING REMARKS AND JUDGMENT OF THE RIGHT REVEREND THE
LORD BISHOP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,
AND THE ASSESSORS' FINDING, ALSO OF
THE DOCUMENTS ADDUCED AT THE
TRIAL.
-O'
THE BISHOP'S OPENING REMAKES,
In opening the painful proceedings of to-day, it is right to state, for ilhe
information of the members of the Church of England, that this Tribunal,
lander the best legal advice, has been constituted in accordance with the
(requirements of the •"Clergy Discipline Act of England." (3 and 4, Vic., c.
S6.)
That Act is not here in force and dees not apply in many respects, but it
represents the mode of procedure in the Church at home, which we here axe
bound, where possible, to follow.
That Act not only authorizes the Bishop to initiate proceedings and t®
preside, but to appoint assessors to sit with him.
In accordance with this I have appointed gentlemen to assist and adyise
me who have been in no way connected with the questions in dispute.
"We have thrown these proceedings open to members of the Church, but
•as in religious questions there is always considerable feeling, we hope there
will be no expression of this one way or the other, in order that a calm and
orderly consideration may be given, and that quietness preserved which be-.
•comes, the gravity of the occasion. On the one hand for consideration, is the
•conduct, conscientious we are bound to believe, of a Minister of our Church,
who by his. past services has deservedly secured many friends, and on the
•ether hand are the laws and discipline of the Church. How far these are in
harmony—the conduct and the laws—is the question for this Tribunal to decide. Both sides must be patiently "heard, and a conclusion arrived at with
impartiality, justice, and as.in the sight of God.
Let us hope from neither one side nor the other will escape a word of bitterness, but that all things may be done with charity.
We now call upon the Registrar to read the Citation and Articles. 9
CITATION.
[i]
To the Venerable Edward Cridge, Clerk,
Dean of Christ Church, Victoria,
Greeting: ■
"We, George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, by
virtue of the authority vested in us as your ordinary, and of Her Majesty's
Letters Patent, '■ dated 12th January, 1859, do hereby summon you, the said
Edward Cridge, to appear before us at the building known as the Pandora
Street Church, on Pandora Street^ in the City of Victoria, on the 10th day of
September next, at the hour often o'clock in the forenoon, to answer the several
articles, matters, and things alleged, charged and propounded against you,
and which are hereunto annexed,*, and take notice that in default of your ap-.
pearing and answering the several articles, matters, and things so alleged
against you, we shall proceed to hear and adjudicate upon the same, your absence notwithstanding.
Dated at Victoria, the 27th day of August, 1874.
G.  [L. S.} COLUMBIA.
M. W. Tyrwhitt Drake, Registrar,
by Robt. E. Jackson, his Attorney.
ARTICLES.
IN THE NAME
OF GOD, AMEN,
We, George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to you
the Rev. Edward Cridge. Licensed Minister of the Cathedral Church of
Christ Church, Victoria, m the Province and Diocese of British Columbia,
and Dean thereof, do hereby article and interrogate you touching and concerning divers matters and things wherein you have offended against the laws"
Ecclesiastical; have refused to acknowledge our authority; have neglected
to comply with our lawful requests, and have. obstructed us in the performance' of our Episcopal office and functions, as follows:—
1 We article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that by the Ecclesiastical Laws, Can'ons and Constitutions of the Church-of England, all Clerks
and Ministers in Holy Order's, holding the Bishop's license, are required to-
obey the said Bishop in all lawful matters and things under pain of deprivation or other Ecclesiastical punishment or censure as, the exigency of the case
and the law thereupon may require and authorize according to the nature and
quality of their offences.
2 And we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on the
24th day of February, 1859, we were duly consecrated to the See of British.'
Columbia,- and that the following, among other clauses, are in the Letters
Patent from Her Majesty appointing us:—
• • And we do further by these presents ordain that it shall be competent
to the Bishop (meaning ourselves) from time to time to select any suitable-
Church already erected, or which may hereafter be erected, within the limits
of the said Bishoprick, or DiOcese, to be used as his Cathedral Church.
" And we further ordain and declare that the said Bishop of British Columbia and his successors shall be subject and subordinate to the Archbishop*
of Canterbury and his successors.
"And we do further will and ordain that every Bishop of British Columbia shall take an oath of obedience to the Archbishop of• Canterbury for
the time being, as his Metropolitan, which oath shall and may be "ministered
by the said Archbishop, or by any other person by him only appointed or
authorised for that purpose.
"And we do further by these presents expressly declare that the said
Bishop of British Columbia, and also his successors/ having been respectively
by us, our heirs named and appointed,, and by the said .Archbishop of Canter-- 3.
bury, canonically ordained and consecrated according Lo the form of tho
United Church^ of England and Ireland, may perform all the functions peculiar and appropriate to the office of Bishop, within the said Diocese of British
Columbia.
"And for a declaration of the spiritual causes and matters in which the
aforesaid jurisdiction may be more especially exercised, we do by these presents further declare that the aforesaid" Bishop of British Columbia'and his
successors may exercise and enjoy full power and authority by himself or
themselves, or by the Archdeacon or Archdeacons, or the Vicar General, or
other officer or officers hereinaf ter mentioned, to give institution to benefices, to
grant licenses to officiate to all Rectors, Curates, Ministers and Chaplains of
all the Churches or Chapels, or other places within the said Diocese wherein
divine service shall be celebrated according to the rites and liturgy of the
Church of England, and to visit all Rectors, Curates, Ministers and Chaplains, and all Priests and Deacons in Holy Orders of the United Church of
England and Ireland, resident within the said Diocese, as also to call before
him or them, or before the Archdeacon or Archdeacons, or the Vicar General,
or other officer or officers hereinafter mentioned, at such competant days,
hours, and places, when and so often as to him or them shall seem most meet
and convenient, the aforesaid Rectors, Curates, Ministers, Chaplains, Priests,
and Deacons, or any of them, and to enquire as well concerning their morals
or their behaviour in their said offices and stations respectively, subject nevertheless to such right of review and appeal as are hereinafter given and reserved.
"And for the better accomplishment of the/purposes aforesaid we do
hereby grant and declare that the said Bishop of British Columbia, and his
successors, may found and constitute one or more dignities in his Cathedral
Church, and also one or more Archdeaconries within the said Diocese, and
may collate fit and proper persons to be dignitaries of the Cathedral Church,
and one or more fit and proper persons to be the Archdeacons of the said
Archdeaconries respectively.
" Provided always that such dignitaries and Archdeacons shall exercise
such jurisdiction only as shall be committed to them by the said Bishop or his
successors, and the said Bishop and his successors may also, from time to
time, nominate and appoint fit and proper persons to be respectively the
officers herenafter mentioned; that is to say to be Vicar General, Official Principal, Rural Deans and Commissaries, either general or special, and may also
appoint one or more fit and proper persons to be Registrars and Actuaries.
"Provided always that the dignitaries and,Archdeacons aforesaid shall
be subject and subordinate to tho said Bishop of British Columbia and his
■ successors, and shall bo assisting to him and them in the exercise of his and
their jurisdiction and functions.
"And we' will and-declare that during a vacancy of the said See of
British Columbia, by the demise of the Bishop thereof, or otherwise*, the dignitaries and Archdeacons, and Vicar General, and other officers, respectively
appointed as aforesaid, shall continue to exercise,, so far as by law they may
or can, the jurisdiction and functions delegated to them, and that the said
Registrars and Acturaries shall respectively continue to ■discharge the duties
• whereunto they have been appointed, until a new Bishop of the said See of
British Columbia shall have been nominated and consecrated, and his arrival
within the limits of the said Diocese shall have been notified to the said parties
respectively.
"And we further will and do by these presents declare and ordain
that it shall be lawful for any party against whom any judgment, decree, or
sentence shall be pronounced by any of the said Archdeacons, or by the
Vicar General, or other officer or officers of the said Bishop, or his successors,
to demand a re-examination and review of such judgment, decree, or -sentence,
before the Bishop, or his successors, in person, who upon such demands made
f shall take cognizance thereof and shall have full power and authority to affirm,
reverse, or alter the said judgment, sentence, or decree, and if any party shall
consider himself aggrieved by any judgment, decree or sentence,^pronounced
by the said Bishop of British Columbia, or his successors, either in case of such
review, or in any cause originally instituted before the said Bishop, or his 4.
rSSS^ * Sh? ^ lawful **?* said Party t0 "W*"! to the Archbishop of
?pTe5   ^ °r      SUCCessors' who sha11 &™*y decide and determme the LkI
"Provided always that in any such case of appeal or review   not™ «*
the intention of the party to make such appeal, or 'deman   sX^ew  shall
be given to the Bishop or subordinate judge, Dy whom the sentence appealed
from, or to be reviewed, shall have been pronounced, within fflESS
the promulgation thereof. y
"iA^dn\e d° f?1"ther bF these P^sents ordain that in all cases in which an
appeal shall be made, or review demanded, as aforesaid, a copy of the judS
ment, or sentence, in such case promulgated or given, setting forth the ciusfs
thereof together with a copy of the evidence on which the same was founded
«£L™? ^^ie reCtlfied ^ trrmitted h? && subordinate jS£4
the said Bishop or his successors, or by the said Bishop, or his succesS to
to the said Archbishop of Canterbury, as the case may require" '
3 We article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you were and
are a Priest or Minister m Holy Orders of the Church of England Ind that
on or about i^e 17th day of September, 1860, you were duly ana Swfully
licensed by us to perform the offices of clergyman in our Diocese in Si*Z
the Church of Christ CWh, Victoria, anfthat yon Sd toand tW I
SS oi andsuJscrlbe> theoath of Canonical obedience to us as your BfchVn
and Ordinary the form of which said license and oath is hereunto annexed
and that you have been m possession of the said Church of Christ ChuS ever
since as the Minister thereof, ^ BYBr
\ Hi *^ *rticle„a°d obJ** that ^u, the said Edward Cridge, were on or
about the ,th day of December, 1865, collated, constituted, and"appointed Z
us Dean of the Deanery of Christ Church, Victoria, and were appSd unto
S^K rl^T1* D-ean67 °f Ctnrt CWh? ^thin the CatheSSSSch
&Sft P ? ^ '   -W .always the Episcopal rights of the said Bishop of
British Columbia, and their successors in thesaid Cathedral, and did thi and
there before us swear on the Holy Evangelists that you would*pay tmeandGin
onical obedience to us and our successors, Bishop of British Columbia  in 7n
things lawful and honest, and did also tnen and there We^2S t£e
several articles and things, copies of which are hereto annexed, and did then
and there receive from us a certificate of subscriptions and letters of collation
copies of which are hereto annexed, although no freehold, benefice pronertv'
or emolument is annexed to the said office, or does the Dean hold LS'
s. e. by virtue of such dignity. * BULJ1>
5 Also we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that having
received from us on December 14th, 1872, a formal censure for the disturbance
°u PoSp70n^; **? fOT the vlolation of the 53d Canon, you, on "Wednesday
the 25th dayofMarchnow last, at a meeting called by yo'/at 'the PresbXS
Church, in Pandora Street, did publicly and advisedly repudiate such Sure
and admonition and set the same at naught, and justified the acts which
.called for the censure and admonition, and you did then and there in effect
declare that you would act in the same way under similar circumstances and
^TAf^r^r,^^ V6 published> such address on or about the
Sum/cy '       eief0re y°U haV6 been guilty of contemP* «d
6 Also we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridee that v™, ^w
on the said 28th day of March last,'publish, or ca^e to bfp'uWfehed ^e
following statement:— *     w ""i l"e
"When any attempt is made to defame my ministry,  or intrude upon
my office, which I have received m trust for the Church, as well S
?? ^SYVrVr^ lf LbeUeve the inteiests of religioA ij£ if to gfe
it to the light of day. -     ^ »   u &iye
• 'iI Sh^d n°K ^ve Puhlfeh^d the Bishop's judgment, had I not previously made my best endeavours to convince him of what I conceived to &
its true character. ,cu w ue
« I bring this, (the censure), before you as an official act on the Bishop's 5.
tor, the said letter having
been sent by him to
tat I now say to you
part, and not as a personal mat
t:ie Churchwardens, and thcrefore'virtually published;
therefore is in some sense my defence,
'' The best answer I can give to this letter is to repeat in my protest, now
before you, all that I did say. 'I stood up, as I believed, for my master and
my church, in defence of the ministry which had been entrusted to me.'
uIn fact there was no other way of dealing with this offensive discourse.
"It is a well understood principle that when a man's office, or his right,
or his trust is in danger, he is at liberty to utter a protest, and even should he,
in the sudden unexpected emergency somewhat exceed the accustomed restraints of language or conduct, it is pardoned for the urgency of the occasion.
The most despotic Pope would not forbid this liberty, for he might be forbidding a defender.
"If the sermon in question had been an attack on sentiments held by the
Bishop, as it was an attack on those held by the Minister and his Congregation, the Bishop himself would hardly have failed to thank his defender, and
load him with his best rewards," thus setting at naught our office, and in contravention of our authority as your ordinary, contrary to your ordination vow
'and oath of canonical obedience.
7 Whereas, our private admonition and censure which we administered to
you on the 14th of December, 1872, for the hereinafter named offences, has
been of noneffect, and has been treated by you with contempt
"We article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you did on
the 5th day of December, 1872, in Christ Church Cathedral, interrupt the appointed order of divine service, and instead of proceeding therewith by giving
out the Hymn after the sermon, did make an address to the Congregation
from the reading desk in irritating, insulting, and chiding language, towards a
brother clergyman, who was present, attacking the sermon which had just
been preached, your words being to the effect that the principles it advocated
were contrary to the law of God in the Scripture, contrary to the law of England, and contrary to the Prayer Book, causing a disturbance in the
Congregation, calling forth irreverent noises of stamping of feet and clapping
of hands and vehement expressions, unbecoming the House of God, producing distress amongst the properly disposed, under the effect, of which several
members of the Congregation hastily left the Church.
We article and charge you that such conduct on your part was an interruption of the due order, and an act of disturbance of public worship, and an
oftence contrary to the Ecclesiastical laws as contained in Canons 14 and 18,
and other Canons, and to the general Ecclesiastical Law, as witnessed in 5 and
6, Edward, VI, cap. 4, sec. 1., and other statutes in that behalf
[canon 14.]
All Ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures
and saying of prayers, as in administering of the Sacraments, without either
diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding anything
in the matter or form thereof.
[canon 18.]
In the time of Divine Service, and of every part thereof, all due reverence is to
be used, for it is according to the Apostle's rule, "Let all things be done
decently and according to order," answerable to which decency and order wo
judge these our directions following, &c, &c.: None, either man, woman or
child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied in the
Church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand, &e.: Neither
shall they disturb the service or sermon by walking, or talking, or any other way,
nor depart out of the Church during the time of service or sermon without some
urgent or reasonable cause.
[5 AND 6, EDWARD, VI, CAP. 4, SEC.. 1.]
If any person shall,
by words only', a
quarrel, chide, or brawl in any Church
or Churchyard, that then it shall be lawful unto the Ordinary of the place
where the same offence shall be done and proved by two lawful witnesses, to
sen 6.
suspend every person so offending, and if he'be a clerk, from the ministration of
his office for so long a time as the said Ordinary shall, by his "discretion, think
meet and convenient according to the fault.
8 Whereas our private admonition and censure, which we administered to
you on the 14th of December, 1872j has been of non-effect, and has been treat-
el by you with contempt, we article and object to you, Edward Cridge, that
that you, on the 5th day of December, 1872, in Christ Church Cathedral, did
nameiy of purpose impugn and confute the doctrine "which had just been delivered in a sermon in the same Church," by the Rev. S. W. Beece,- that you
did name the preacher by name and did say in effect, or in the words here
quoted, that the principles advocated in such sermon were contrary to the law
of God in the Scriptures, contrary to the law of England, and contrary to the
Prayer Book, causing by such public dissenting, and contradicting much of-
fenee and disquietness unto the Bishops, Clergy, and people there assembled,
all which your conduct we article and object to, as being in contravention of
the 53d Canon, and therefore a grave Ecclesiastical offence, and contrary to
the 5 and 6 Edward VI, c. 4. s. 1., and other statutes and Canons in that
behalf.
[canon 53.]
" If any preacher shall, in the pulpit particularly, or namely of purpose,
impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any other preacher in the same Church,
or in any Church near adjoining, before he hath acquainted the Bishop of the
Diocese therewith, and received order from him what to do in that case, because upon such public dissenting and contradicting there may grow much
offence arid disquietness unto the people, the Churchwardens or party grieved,
shall forthwith signify the same to the Bishop and not suffer .the same preacher
any more to occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he faithfully
promise to forbear all such matter of contention in the Church, &c."
9 We also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you, on
or about the 12th day of February, and 23J of March last, having received
from us as your Bishop, letters requesting you to'explain certain statements
made and published by you in the newspapers of this Province, particularly
on January 10th, 1874, touching certain Ecclesiastical matters, you have
neglected and refused to render such explanations, copies of which letters are
hereto annexed, or referred to, by which conduct you have set at naught our
Episcopal office in the lawful exercise of enforcing obedience to the laws
Ecclesiastical, which laws, for instance, Canons 4, 5, 6, 7, 36, 37, 51 and
others, require conformity in teaching with the article^, prayer book and
ordinal, as do also the Imperial Statutes 13 ELIZ., c. 12, 1 ELIZ., c. 2, and
14 CAR. ii c. 4, which bear witness to, and confirm th-e Ecclesiastical laws
of the Church of England, and respecting any alleged departure from*
the aforesaid articles, prayer book and ordinal, it is the duty of the Bishop"
to enquire and to demand explanation " that he may determine the matter,
and take such order therein as he shall think convenient."    (Canon 51.)
10 We article and object to you, Edward Cridge, that although you signed
the 36th Canon on the 17th September, 1860, and made the declaration
thereby required that you, on several occasions have published statements in
disparagement of the Episcopal office, and derogatory of the institution of
Episcopacy as held in the Church of England, to wit; in a certain letter
dated January 9ih,'1874, and published in the Victoria Standard, of January
10th, 1874, also in a certain letter signed " Eipectans," dated January 22nd,
1874, and published in the Victoria Colonist of January 25th, 1874, also in a
certain letter signed " Eccentric," dated January 27tb, 1874, and published
in the Victoria Standard.
The following passages contain the statements aforesaid, and the
remainders of the'said letters respective'y, tend to verify the said charge as
also do other letters referred to in these articles. "Tnere is something fascinating to many minds in the notion of the Church being under one visible
bead, and invested with divine authority to rule it. It seems to afford the
fairest promise Of unity and peace. It has b>en tried and found wanting. It
has proved the friulful soiuxa of either discord or deadness.    And its legitimate
mm 7.
tendency after ages of trial, may be learned from the reformation, and from the
last Ecumenical Council. The traditional traces of it, unhappily are not yet
blotted out, in our body nor its memory from the minds of those who on
account of prelacy, more than any other thing, left us." Letter of January
9tb, 1874.
',' The sword always banging over a Pastor's head." ibid. ll The
shadow even of a Bishop strikes one with dread." ibid. I no longer wonder"
when I look back to the cradle of dissent, a ministry carried on under, or by
the side of such a power, must become a ministry of horror and aversion,
rather than of love.    This is not irony but truth,    ibid.
"The institution of Bishops which, when carried out according to its
original, is a blessing in the Church, has on traditionary principles been
ever productive of perplexity and strife, and what is far more deplorable,
destructive of charity, and tolerance, There is not a country of Christendom which, even while I write is not ^affording pregnant and numerous
examples of this fact,
ECCENTRIC.
' The Synod, however, in order to make the Bishop's claim effective,
muft give him a footing in congregations as well as a seat on the throne.
The Churchwardens must be declared to be the bishop's officers, to be the
Bishop's spies, and the minister who was conscious of the eccentricty of
moving in another orbit, than round the Bishop, to dread their approach as
familiars of the inquisition."
EXPECTANS.
We article and object to you, Edward Cridge, that the 'statements
contained in the foregoing articles are derogatory of the institution of
Episcopacy, as set forth in the prayer book and ordinal, the VII Canon,
and in contravention of the 36th Canon, which youjhave subscribed, and of
your ordination vow, for instance:
Preface to the ordinal.
"It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, and
ancientauthors that from the Apostles tim s, there have been these orders of
Ministresin Christ Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, &c,. &c. And therefore to the intent that these orders may be continued and reverently esteemed.'*;
Almighty God, the giver of all good gifts, who by thy divine providence
hath appointed divers of ders in thy Church.
Ember Week Prayer.
"So guide the minds of thy servants the Bishop and Pastors of thy flock.'7
ibid.
Article 2 of 36th Canon. " The book of common prayer containeth in
it nothing contrary to God's word." etc.
" I Edward Cridge, do willingly and,ex animo subscribe to the three
articles of the 36th Canon, and to all things fhat are contained in them."
E. C. 17th Sept., 1860,
11 Also, we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that having
received from us, on or about the 10th day of February last, certain visitation articles for you to fill up and return to us, you have refused and neglected to fill up and return the same, although required by us so to do by letter
dated the 25th of May, 1874; a copy of such visitation articles, and letters,
being hereto annexed.
12 Also, we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you did
at the time of our lawful visitation, on the 3rd of July, 1874, in our Gathed-
ral deny our authority, declaring that you only attended for courtesy and
peace sake, and that you held the same views as those contained in a letter
addressed to us by the Churchwardens of Christ Church, dated 2nd of July,
1874, in which they state that they consider we have seceded from the
Church of England; and you did further state to us that the relation of the
Bishop to yourself and of the Bishop to the*Churchwardens, had entirely
changed during the last few days, thereby implying that in your opinion wo i^^^OS
8.
were no longer your lawful Bishop, or entitled to your obedience in things
lawful and honest, which letter of the 2nd of July, and also a statement read
by you, May 3rd, 1874, to us, are annexed hereto.
13 Also, we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on or
about the 3rd day of July last, when we visited our Cathedral in pursuance
of a notice to you and the Churchwardens, you did contumaceously refuse to
answer questions put to you by us touching and concerning the property of
the said Cathedral, and other matters, and did obstruct and render void and
of no effect our said visitation.
14 We also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on the
3rd day of July last, when we visited our said Cathedral, and required from
you the production of the Registers of Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials,
and which have always hitherto been in your custody and control, and have
always been produced by you on all former visitations, you did neglect and
refuse to prodnce the same.
15 Also, we article an3 object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on the
3rd of July, when we attended to visit our said Cathedral, you read a paper
or protest to us with vehement emphasis and insulting tones and looks, and
when we asked you to be shown-the goods of the Church, you said, " The
■Church is open, see for yourself," and when asked by us for the Communion
plate, you said, " Ask those who have the care of it, don't ask me." And "
on further questions being put to you by us, touching and concerning the
goods and property of the Church, you said, " I refer you to the last part of
my letter," which is the paper or protest before mentioned, and which is in
the following words: " I beg to be excused from answering questions, and
that what the Bishop has to say to me, he will put in writing." And that
you did there and then use many other improper and insulting expressions,
and did neglect to produce any of the articles asked for by us, or to answer
any question we put to you, whereby you have contravened the vow you
made at your ordination, your oath of canonical obedience, and have
repudiated and ignored our authority, and have refused to render us that
obedience which is necessary for the proper management and control of the
affairs of the Church in our Diocese.
16 All which conduct in respect of our lawful visitation as exhibited above
in the foregoing articles, that is to say, in 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, we article and
object to you as constituting ecclesiastical offences as well against our office
and authority as ordinary, as against Canons 42, 6D, 111, 116 119, 121, 137,
-which assume the lawfulness of Episcopal visitation and against also the
Imperial Statutes, 1, ELIZ., c. 2., s, XXIII. And 2 and 3 VICT. c. 55, s, IV,
which assert the legality of the same, and represent the common law and
custom of the Church of England;
17 And we also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that
you, the said Edward Cridge, have from time to time questioned our author-
i ty over you, and the Church wherein you minister, and our right to preach
and minister in our Cathedral, and have persistently endeavoured to depreciate our office, in support whereof we refer to the several letters written by
you to us, which said letters and oar replies thereto, we make part of these
our articles against you.
18 And we also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that all
and singular, the premises were and are true public and notorious, of which
proof being made to us and our Court, we will that you, Edward Cridge,
tie duly and canoncally punished and corrected, according to the exegency
of the law.
LICENSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3.
George, by Divine permission, Bishop of Columbia, to our beloved ia
Christ, Edward Cridge. Greeting: We do by these presents give and grant
"unto you in whose fidelity, morals, learning, sound doctrine and diligence,
we do fully confide, our license and authority to perform the office of Minister in Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese, and jurisdiction in
performing all ecclesiastical duties belonging to the said office, according to
the form prescribed in the book of common prayer, and not otherwise, you 9.
having just before me subscribed tbe articles, taken the oaths, and made
and subscribed the declaration, and we do by the presents authorize you to
receive and enjoy, all and singular stipend profits and advantages belonging
to said office.    In witness, etc., etc*
OATH REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3.
I, Edward Cridge, do swear that I will pay true and canoncal obedience
to George, lord Bishop of British Columbia, in all things lawful and honest.
So help me God.
DECLARATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4.
7th Dec. 1865.
I, Edward Cridge, now to be instituted to the Deanery of Christ Church,
Victoria, in the Diocese of British Columbia, do declare that I will confrom
to the liturgy of the Chnrch of England, as it is now by law established, and
further I do willingly and ex animo subscribe to the three articles in the 36th
Canon, and to all things that are contained in them.
Witness my hand,
This seventh day of December, in the year of Our Lord, 1865.
EDWARD CRIDGE.
LETTERS OF COLLATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4.
George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to our well
beloved in Christ, Edward Cridge, health, grace and benediction.
We do by these presents collate, constitute and appoint you to be Dean
of the Deanery of Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese of British
Columbia, to our donation or collation in full right belonging, and we do
hereby confer on you the same, and by these presents do canonically
institute you in and to the said dignity and Deanery of Christ Chnrch, Victoria, and do invest yoa with all and singular, the rights, members,
privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, you having first before ns
taken the oaths, and made and subscribed the declaration which are in this
case required, and we do by these presents assign and appoint unto you the
place, chair and seal, of the said Deanery of Christ Church, Victoria, within
our Cathedra^ Church, saving always to ourselves our Episcopal rights in
the said Cathedral,
In testimony whereof, we have caused our Episcopal seal to be hereunto
affixed.
Dated the seventh day of December, One thousand eight hundred and
sixty five, and of our consecration the seventh.
G. [L. S.] COLUMBIA.
CERTIFICATE   OF   SUBSCRIPTION  AND OATHS  REFERRED   TO  IN
4th ARTICLE.
To all Christian people to whom these presents shall come or in any
wise concern,
George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, sendeth
gree ing :
Be it known unto you that on the day of the date hereof, Edward
Cridge, B. A. to be collated and instituted to the dignity and Deanery of
Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese and jurisdiction of British
Columbia, did before his collation therieto personally appear before us an4
subscribe to the articles in the thirty-sixth of the Ecclesiastical Canons made
in the year of Our Lord, One thousand six hundred and three, and to all
things that are contained in them, and did at tbe same time on the Holy
Evangelists, swear that he would be faithful and bear true allegiance to her
Majesty, Queen Victoria, and that he renounced all foreign jurisdictions,
power,   superiority pre-eminence   ecclesiastical  or   spiritual,  within   her 10.
Majesty's realm, pursuant to an Act of Parliament made and published to
that effect, and further that he had not directly or indirectly obtained or
procured the said dignity or Deanery by any simoniacal payment or contract
whatsoever. And that he would pay true and canonical.obedience to us and
our successors, Bishop of British Columbia, in all things lawful and honest.
In testimony whereof, we have caused our seal to be hereunto affixed.
Dated the seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord, One
thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of our consecration the seventh.
G. [L. S.] COLUMBIA.
LETTERS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9.
[12th February, 1874, letter from the Bishop to the Dean.]
Bishop's Close, March 23rd, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge,
It is nearly six weeks since I required from yon an explanation respecting certain statements opposed to tbe principles of the Church of England,
published by you in the local papers. In a note dated February 14th, you
excused .yourself from replying at once, formally, on account of press of
work atr that time. I must now require an immediate attention to my
letter. I am, faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
LETTER  REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 11.
Bishop's Close, May 25th, 1874.
My dear sir,
I have not received your return to the articles of enquiry for 1873, sent
you in February last.    I must request your replies without delay.
f^-r Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
Very Rev. Dean Cridge.
LETTERS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12.
Victoria, B. C, July 2nd. 1874.
My Lord Bishop,
I have conferred with Mr. Williams, the other Churchwarden, and
pending the result of a memorial to his Excellency, the Governor-General of
Canada, a copy of which we forward to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
We, tbe Chnrcbwardens, most respectfully decline to receive'the visit
of your Lordship.
In the address headed " Diocesan Synod," and signed " G. Columbia,''
the authorship of which you do not deny, but our right to interrogate you
upon which,, you, through Mr. Drake, question, you appear to U3 to have
seceded from the Church of England. If you have done so, you cease to be a
Bishop of the Church of England, to which we, tbe Churchwardens of Christ
Church, belong; if you have not seceded from the Church of England in
convening a Court of Convocation and Holy Synod, without the assent of
the Queen, you have assumed a greater power than that possessed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and we think, have encroached upon the prerogative of the Crown, to which is, we believe, a misdemeanour.
I had been Churchwarden of Christ Church, several years before your
arrival in Vancouver. Island, and after nearly ,_ten years service in that
capacity, resigned my office, principally for the following reasons: When
you said you would stop up the Roman Catholic approach to the cemetery, I
expostulated with you without effect. Yon persisted, and the consequence
was an action at law, in which you were defeated, and the costs of which,
some $600 or $800, I believe, you, as trustee of tbe Church Reserve,'
charged against Mr. Cridge's income from that source. When you stated to Mr. Shepperd. and myself, as Churchwardens, that
it was your intention to remove the Church to the plot of ground fenced off
lor that purpose, and adjoining* your Lordship's palace. (?) I strongly
objected, notwithstanding a road running through tbe edifice, was placed
upon the official map of the Church reserve, and I believe it still remains
there. I would gladly have continued to avail myself of tbe cessation from
from care and anxiety which I have enjoyed since my resignation of the
office of Churchwarden, now some eight or nine years, but recent events in
the Church, call every friend of hers to the assistance and support of one of
her most devoted and excellent ministers,'bur much esteemed, our long and
greatly respected Pastor, Mr, Cridge.
In conclusion, supposing your visitation to be in the nature of an
Ecclesiastical Court, if not under license from the Queen as head of the State
to which in your Synodical address you say you owe no allegiance permit us
the Churchwardens, to ask under what authority do you hold a Court of
Visitation.
I remain, my Lord Bishop,
Your very obedient sevant,
A. F. PEMBERTON.
For the Churchwardens of Christ Church.
LETTER OF 3rd JULY* REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12.
To the Right Reverend Bishop Hills, D. D.
I, the undersigned, though concurring in opinion with the Churchwardens as to the illegality of your proceedings in sundry matters,.affecting the
Church under the name of a Bishop of. the Church of England, do nevertheless, for peace and courtesy sake, and not through any diversity of opinion
with them, open the Church on the present occasion.
At the same time, I hereby make my respectful and solemn protest as
against former acts of your administration so against these, viz., first your
endeavoring in what I believe to be an illegal manner to draw myself and
congregation against our will, away from the protection of the law, under
which we at present stand, to come under a law other than that of the
Church of England. Thereby introducing discord and division into a
hitherto peaceful congregration, and causing grief and great hindrance to
myself, both in the discharge of my ministry, and in the enjoyment of my
legal rights. And secondly, in this, that notwithstanding my repeated
remonstrances, you have persevered in preaching to my congregation in connection with the Synodical movement, doctrines which you know to be
offensive to me, as being in the conscientious persuasion of my own mind
contrary to the Scripture and the Chureh, a course tending only that I have
felt it my duty to resist the temptation to provoke polemical strife. And I
also declare that what I say and do in connection with the present occasion is
said or done without prejudice to. my own rights or privileges, which by or under the law I possess, as also to those of the Churchwardens as appertaining
to them by virtue of their office.
E. CRIDGE,
Victoria, B. C, 3d July, 1874. Incumbent of Christ Church.
I am also constrained to add that in the absence of the Churchwardens,
and of any other friend, witness or adviser, not being able, through weariness,
to obtain one in time for the present occasion, I beg to be excused from
answering questions, and that what the JBishop has to say to me he will put in
writing. E. C.
LETTERS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 17.
July 28th, 1873.—Letter from the Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
"      from the Very Rev. E, Cridge to the Bishop.
H Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
" Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
July 29th,    »
Aug. 18th,   "
"   27lh,   "
8KB 12.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
„ Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very IJev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
And all other letters which have been written and sent by the said-Edward
Cridge to the Bishop, and in support of all the Articles the following letters
will be referred to:
Dec. 7th, 1872.—Letter from the Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to tbe Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Sept. 3d,
ic                        ><
!«    8tb,
it                        ii
"    17th,
it                         ii
|    22d,
ii                         »<
Oct. 14th,
i (                        ii
'«   18th,
it                         "
"   27th,
it                         "
Nov. 1st,
it                         "
" 25th,
it                         "
Dec. 1st,
ii                         (<
"  16th,
it                         '*
" 26th,
ti                         "
II
9tb,
10th,
13th,
14th,
July   "
" 28th, 18T3
u  ii
it
ii
ii
ti
ii
ic
it
ti
it
it
II
29th,
ii
Aug.
18th,
it
it
27th,
ii
Sept
.3d,
it
ii
4th
ii
ii
8th,
it
ti
22d,
ii
Oct.
14th,
ti
ii
18th,
ii
ii
27th,
it
Nov.
1st,
ii
ii
25th
ii
Pec.
1st,
ii
ii
16th,
it
ii
26th,
ii
Jan.
9th,
1874
it
22d,
ii
ft
23d,
it
it
26th
it
it
27th
it
ii
29tb
ii
ii
29th,
it
Feb.
12tb,
tt
Mar.
23d,
it
May
25tb,
it
July
2d,
it
it
3d,
a
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
((
(i
(t
If
II
it
II
It
11
it
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
it
ii
v Rev.
it
it
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. B. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to tbe Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
ii ti
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
it ii
Very Rev; E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. B. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
Very Rev. B. Cridge to the Bishop.
M Expectans" to Editor of Colonist.
"One of the Eccentric" to the Editor of
Standard.
" Ignoramus " to the Ed. of Standard.
"Eccentric" " "
"H. K. W," " "
"One of the Simple" "
Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge.
n
tt
it
ii
A. F. Pemberton to the Bishop.
Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop.
[2.3
THE CITATION   AND  ARTICLES DELIVERED TO THE REV.
E. CRIDGE, ON 28th JULY, 1874.
These Articles are embodied in the Articles delivered to the Rev, E.
Cridge, on the 27th August, 1874.
IWBWB
swwh
mrr Tbe Very Reverend Dean Cridge,
Dear Sir:
13.
[3]
Victoria, V. I., Sept. 7tb, 1874.
I have the honor to inform you that at the hearing on the 10th inst., at
Pandora Street Church, of the charges set forth againSt you in the Articles
dated on or about the 27th day of August last, it will be contended that the
articles and the proof thereof afford sufficient ground to justify tbe revocation
of your license to preach and officiate as set forth in tbe said articles and
otherwise, and the suspension of you, the said E. Cridge and other, the
censures of the Church.
I am, yours faithfully, M. W. T. Drake, Begistar,
by Robert E. Jackson, bis Attorney,
HEADS
mi
OF PROTEST.
September 10th, 1874.
The Dean protested that he appeared before the Bishop as Bishop, and'
so far as he is lawfully Bishop, and as Judge of an Ecclesiastical Court, that
is a Court of legal or competent jurisdiction^ neither the Letters Patent, nor
the consensual compact supposed to exist between the Dean and the Bishop,
through the oath of canonical obedience, being effectual of themselves to create
such jurisdiction.
The Dean protested further against the jurisdiction of this court, on the
ground that it may hereafter be decided that the contract referred to is dissolved by reason of the Bishop having seceded from the Church of England,
and referred to published address on Diocesan Synod by the Bishop, dated
February 25th, 1874: " Though a voluntary body, etc.;" and last resolution
in same; whereby the supremacy of the Queen is virtually impugned.
The Dean protested on the ground that the Bishop was an interested
party, having, as it would appear by the trust deed, the next preferment; this
being contrary to the Church Discipline Act. That the Dean is not a member of a church disconnected with the State, but of one of which the Queen is
Head, both in Church and State; and it may be found that the Bishop,
through the above Act, is not the Bishop to whom the Dean promised canonical obedience.
The above are the heads of protests as delivered by me, Sept. 10th, 1874.
E. CRIDGE.
[5.] September 11th, 1874,
My Lord Bishop and Gentlemen Assessors:
I have an application to make to the Court, it is that you will permit me
to read' a statement by way of protest.
I object to the formation of this Court and deny its competency to sit in
judgment upon me, on the following grounds:
1.—The Bishop, who is promoter of this prosecution, in his letter of
the 14th July, 1874, accuses me of having committed one offence, namely,
that which occurred as asserted at his visitation on the 3d July last, and
threatened to initiate proceedings against me if I did not acknowledge my
fault. Not being conscious of having committed any offence, I made no reply. Hence the proceedings now instituted, amounting to eighteen articles
for alleged offences committed during a period of nearly two years. I consider
this action on the part of the Bishop oppressive.
2.—There is an anomaly and inconsistency running through the whole of
this prosecution, namely, that there is apparently one law for the Bishop and
another for the Rector. As an example take the 36th Canon, which has
been extracted from the code of laws and made part of the articles against me.
The Canon consists of three subdivisions."
1.—The oath of Supremacy of the Queen as Head of the Church in all
Her Dominions. 14.
2.—That the Book of Common Prayer and-Ordering of Bishops, Priests
and Deacons, contains nothing contrary to the word of God.
3.—That the 39 Articles of Religion are agreeable-to the word of God.
Both the Bishop and I have taken this oath at Ordination. Yet the
Bishop has impugned the Supremacy of the Queen in his published address
on the Synod, and in his letter to the Churchwardens, wherein he asserts that
it is lawful for him to summon a Synod without the consent of Her Majesty,
thus claiming a power superior to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to
whom he has sworn Canonical obedience.
Here is a double example of imperium in imperio, viz.: The Bishop's denial of the Supremacy of the Queen, and setting at naught his oath of obedience
to the Archbishop, under whose authority he is supposed to act.
The Bishop m his opening address stated that the proceedings in this
Court would be in conformity to the English Church Discipline Act, 3 and 4
Vict. That act requires that one of the Assessors shall be learned in law, and
I object to the formation of the Court in this respect. I object to Mr.
O'Reilly as a legal Assessor for the following reason:
- When Mr. .O'Reilly came to this Colony, he applied to Mr. Pemberton
for instruction as to his duty as a Magistrate, presenting a letter of introduction from the then Colonial Secretary, Mr. Young, and I am informed and
believe that Mr. O'Reilly was engaged in the Excise Department in Ireland
before ho came to Vancouver Island.
I applied yesterday for time to -consider the legal points raised by Mr.
McCreight, and was told by the Court that owing to other duties devolving
upon the members who compose this Court, as Assessors, it was impossible to
grant my request.
I am thus deprived of opportunity to defend myself effectively.
On these grounds, and others which I laid before the Court yesterday, I
object and protect against being tridd before this Tribunal.
E. CRIDGE.
[6.]
Date, January 12th, 1859.
' VICTORIA by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith: .
To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting:
Whereas, the doctrine and discipline of the United Church of England
and Ireland are professed and observed by many of our loving subjects, resident within our Colonies or Territories of British Columbia and Vancouver
Island, respectively, as each of the same is at present established, and whereas
our said subjects are deprived of some of the offices prescribed by the
Liturgy and Usage of the Church aforesaid, by reason that there is not a
Bishop residing or exercising jurisdiction and canonical functions within the
same.
And whereas for remedy of the aforesaid- inconveniences we have determined to erect our said Colonies or Territories of British Columbia and
Vancouver Island into a Bishop's See or Diocese, to be styled " The Bishopric of British Columbia." Now know ye that in pursuance of such our Royal
intention, we, by these, our Letters Patent, under the Great Seal of Our
United Kingdom of Greet Britain and Ireland, do erect, found, make, ordain
and constitute our said Colony or Territory of British Columbia, as at present
established, and our said Colony or Territory of Vancouver Island, as at pres
e'nt established, into
, Bishop's See or Diocese, and do declare and ordain
that the same shall be styled "The Bishopric of British Columbia," saving
nevertheless unto us, our heirs, and successors, the power of altering from time
to time, with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the time being,
if the said See be vacant, or otherwise, of the Bishop of the said See for the
time being, the limits of the said Diocese, or of the jurisdiction of the Bishop
thereof. 15.
And to the end that this our intention may be carried into due effect,-we,
having great confidence in the learning morals and probity of our well beloved George Hills, Doctor of Divinity, do name and appoint him to be
ordained and consecrated Bishop of the said See of British Columbia.
And we do hereby signify to the Most Reverened Father in God, John
Bird, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all
England and Metropolitan, the erection and constitution of the said See and
Diocese, and our nomination of the said George Hills, requiring and by the
faith and love whereby he is bound unto us, commanding the said Most
Reverend Father in God to ordain and consecrate the said George Hills to be
Bishop of the said See and Diocese in manner accustomed, and diligently
to do and perform all other things- appertaining to his office in this behalf
with effect.
And we do ordain and declare that the said George Hills, so by us nominated
and appointed, after having been ordained and consecrated thereunto as aforesaid, may, by virtue of such appointment and consecration, enter into and
possess the. said Bishop's See as Bishop thereof, without let or impediment
from us, our heirs and successors, for the term of his natural life, subject
, nevertheless to the right of resignation, hereinafter more particularly expressed.
Moreover, we will and grant by these presents, that the said Bishop of
British Columbia, shall be a body corporate, and so ordain, make and constitute him to be a perpetual corporation, and to have perpetual succession
and that he and his successors be for ever hereafter called or known by the
name or title of tbe "Lord Bishop of British Columbia." And that he and
his successors by the name and title aforesaid, shall be able and capable in
the law and have full power to purchase, have, take, hold and enjoy, manors,
messuages, lands, rents, tenaments^ annuinities, and hereditaments, of what
nature or kind soever in fee or inperpetrfity, or for a term of life or years, and
also all manner of goods, chattels aad things personal, whatsoever, of what
nature or value soever. And that he and his successors, by and under the
said name or title, may prosecute, claim, plead, and be impleaded, defend,
and be defended, answer, and be answered, in all manner of courts of us, our
heirs and successors, and elsewhere in, and upon all, and singular causes,
actions, suits, writs and demands, real and personal, and mixed, as well
spiritual as temporal, and in all other things, causes and matters whatsoever,
•and that the said Bishop of British Columbia, and his successors, shall, and
may forever hereafter, have and use a corporate seal, and the said seal from
time to time, at his and their will and pleasure, break, change, alter or make
anew, as he or they shall deem expedient.
And, we do further by these presents ordain, that it shall be competent
to the Bishop from time to time, to select any suitable church already erected or which may hereafter be erected within the limits of the said Bisopric
■or Diocese to be used as his Cathedral Church.
And we further ordain and declare, that the said Bishop of British
Columbia, and his successors, shall be subject and suborinate to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his successors.
And we do further will and ordain, that every Bishop of British Columbia shall take an oath of obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the
time being, as his Metropolitan, which oath shall and may be ministere dby
the said Archbishop or by any other pers#on by him duly appointed or authorized for that purpose.
And we do further by those presents, expressly declare that the said
Bishop of British Columbia, and also his successors, having been respectively
by us, our heirs, named and appointed, and by the said Archbishop of
Canterbury, canonically ordained and consecrated, according to the form of
the united Church of England and Ireland, may perform all the functions
peculiar and appropriate to the office of Bishop, within the said Diocese of
British Columbia.
And, for a declaration of the spiritual causes and matters, in which the
•aforesaid jurisdiction may be more specially exercised, we do by these
presents, further declare that the aforesaid Bishop of British Columbia and
his successors, may exercise and enjoy full power and  authority by himself, 16,
or themselves, or by the Archdeacon, or Archdeacons, or the Vicar-general
or other officer, or officers, hereinafter mentioned, to give institution to
benefices, to grant licenses to officiate, to all Rectors, Curates, Ministers, and
Chaplains, of all the churches or chapels, or other places within the said
Diocese, wherein Divine Service shall be celebrated according to the rites
and liturgy of the Church- of England, and to visit all Reetora, Curates,
Ministers and Chaplains, and all Priests and Deacons in Holy Orders of the
united Church of England and Ireland, resident within said Diocese, as also
to call before him or them, or before the Archdeacon or Archdeacons, or the"
Vicar-general, or other officer or officers hereinafter mentioned, at such competent days, hours and places, when, and so often as to him, or them, shall
seem meet and convenient, the aforesaid Rectors, Curates, Ministers, Chaplains, Priests and Deacons, or any of them and to enquire as well concerning
their morals as their behaviour in their said offices and stations respectively
subject nevertheless to such right of review and appeal as are hereinafter
given and reserved.
And for the better accomplishment of the purposes aforesaid, we do
hereby grant and declare that the said Bishop of British Columbia and his
successors may found and constitute one or more dignities in his Cathedral
Church, and also one or more Archdeaconries within tbe said Diocese, and
may collate fit and proper persons to be dignitaries of the Cathedral Church
and one or more fit and proper persons to be the Archdeacons of the said
Archdeaconries respectively, provided always, that such dignitaries and
archdeacons shall exercise such jusis'diction only as shall be committed to
them by the said Bishop or his successors. And the said Bishop and his
successors, may also from time to time nominate and appoint fit and proper
persons, to be respectively the officers hereinafter mentioned, that is to say,
to be Vicar-General, Official Principal, Rural Deans, and Commissaries,
either general or special, and may also appoint one or more fit and proper
persons to be Registrars and Actuaries.
Provided always, that the Dignitaries and Archdeacons aforesaid, shall
be subject and subordinate to the said Bishop of British Columbia, and bis
successors, and shall be assisting to him and them in the exercise of his and
their jurisdiction and functions.
And we will and declare, that during a vacancy of the said See of
British Columbia, by the demise of the Bishop thereof or otherwise the
Dignitaries, and Archdeacons, and Vicar General, and other officers respectively, appointed as aforesaid, shall continue to exercise so tar as by law,
they may or can, the jurisdiction and functions, delegated to them, and that
the said Registrars and Actuaries, shall respectively continue to discharge
the duties whereunto they have been appointed, until a new Bishop of the
said See of British Columbia shall have been nominated and consecrated,
and his arrival within the limits of the said Diocese shall have been notified
to the said parties respectively.
And we further will, and do by these presents declare and ordain, that
it shall be lawful for any party, against whom any judgement, decree or
sentence, shall be pronounced by any of the said Archdeacons, or by tbe
Vicar-General, or other officer or officers, of the said Bishop or his successors
to demand a reexamination and review of such judgement, dtcree or sentence,
before the Bishop or his successors in pe-son, who, upon such demand made,
shall take cognizance thereof, and shall have full power and authority to
affirm, reverse, or alter, the said judgement, sentence, or decree. And if
any party shall consider himself aggrieved by any judgment, decree, or sentence, pronounced by the said Bishop of British Columbia or bis successors
either in case of such review or in any cause originally instituted before tbe
said Bishop cr his'successors, it shall be lawful for the said party to appeal
to tbe Archbishop of Canterbury or his successors, who shall finally decide
and determine the said appeals.
Provided always, that in any such case of appeal or review, notice of
the intention of'the party to make such appeal or demand, such review shall
be given to the Bishop or subordinate judge, by whom tbe sentence appealed 17.
from, or to be reviewed, shall have been pronounced within fifteen days from
the promulgation thereof.
And we do further by these presents ordain that in all cases in which an
appeal shall be made-, or review demanded as aforesaid, a copy of the judgment or sentence in such case promulgated or given, setting forth the causes
thereof, together with acopyof the evidence on which the same was founded,
shall, without delay, be rectified and transmitted by such subordinate judge
to the said Bishop or his successors, or by tbe said Bishop or his successors,
to the said Archbishop of Canterbury, as the case may require.
Moreover it is our will and pleasure, and we do hereby declare and
ordain, that nothing in these preseats contained, shall extend or be construed, to extend, to repeal, vary or alter, the provisions of any charter
whereby Ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been given to any court of judicature within the limits of the said Diocese.
And for removing doubts with respect to the validity of the resignation
of the said office and dignity of Bishop of British*Columbia, it is our further
will, that if the said Bishop or any of hissucGessors, shall by instrument
under his hand and seal, delivered and sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury
for the time being, and by him accepted and registered in the office of the
Vicar-General of the said Archbishop, resign the office and dignity of Bishop
of British Columbia, such Bishop shall from the time of such acceptance and
resignation, cease to be Bisbop of British Columbia, to all intents and
purposes, but writhout prejudice to any responsibility to which he may be
liable in law or equity in respect of his conduct in his said office.
And lastly to the end, that all things aforesaid, may be firmly hoi den
and done, we will and grant to the afoiesaid George Hills, that be shall hava
.our letters patent, under our great seal, of our said united kingdom, duly
made and sealed.
In witness whereof, we have caused these, our letters, to bo mado
patent.
Witness, ourself, at Westminster, the twelfth day of January, in the
twenty-second year of our Reign.
By Warrant, under the Queen's Sign, Manuel,
C.  ROMILLY.
T7
.]
EXTRACT of a dispatch from the Duke of Newcastle to Governor Sir
P. E. "Wodehouse, K. C. B., dated 4th February, 1864.    No. 736.
In the first place I am advised that (assuming that there is no local law
to the contrary) the members of the Church of England in a Colony in which
that Church is not established have the same liberty of assembling for any
lawful purpose which is possessed by members of any other religious denom-.
ination, and that it would be lawful for a Colonial Bishop, or Metropolitan,
without the consent of the Crown, and without any express legislative authority to summon meetings of the Clergy and Laity of the Church, under the
designation of Provincial or Diocesan Synods, or any other designation, for
the purpose of deliberating on matters concerning the weilfare of the Church.
The powers of such a meeting may be gathered from the following extract
from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
"The Church of England, in places where there is no church established
i by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body, in no better,
but in no worse position, and the members may adopt, as members of any
other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing discipline within their body,
which will be binding on those who expressly, or by implication, have assented to tliem."
It follows that the rules passed for such an assembly as I have described
(unless in themselves contrary to law) are binding, not indeed-on all professed
members of the church over whom the Bishop has been appointed to preside,
but on all those who expressly, or by implication, have assented to these rules.
_ So long, therefore, as the action of the Synod is confined \?ithin these
limits, I should wish you to recognize it officially—to treat it as being what it 18.
virtually is, the representative of the Anglican Church, and to place at its disposal, without inquiring into its internal relations or disagreements, the funds
which may be voted from time to time by the legislature in aid of the Anglican Communion.
For the present, however, I have instructed you not to "take official cognizance" of the Acts of the. Assembly "until steps have been taken to clear it
'from the imputation of illegality, which at. present attaches to it."
When I gave you these instructions I supposed that the Bishop could
have little real difficulty in ascertaining how far the proceedings of the Synod
had violated, or had appeared to violate, the principles laid down by the
Court of Appeal, and I hoped, (as indeed I still hope), that the members
of the Church of England would be wise enough to cancel all such proceedings, and by so doing to place their institutions on a footing which would
enable the Government to countenance them, and to abandon a position which
must obstruct their relations with the Civil Power, and expose them to continual collision with the law of the Colony, to disastrous litigation, and perhaps
to embarrassing defeat.
With these feelings and wishes I consider that it would be most convenient for the Bishop and the Church thai I should leave them at liberty in the
first instance to place their own construction on the judgment, and to submit
for my consideration such amendments of their existing rules as, with least
"detriment to their own position, would enable the Civil Power to give them its
cordial co-operation. The Bishop, however, professes his inability to understand me, and, I assume, desires me to explain myself with more fullness.
His principal difficulty is, I suppose, to ascertain what measures 1 hold requisite
to remove the imputation of illegality to which I have alluded. The following opinions on this subject embody the advice Which has been furnished me
on this head.
The Judical Committee, I am fully aware, did not decide that it was unlawful for the Bishop, ,with such Clergy and Laity of the Church as might
concur in any. scheme or arrangement for that purpose, to meet in a voluntary
Synod, and to pass rules and regulations, by whieh those who assented to
them might be bound,* they decided only that some of the particular acts and
resolutions of the Synod in question had exceeded those lawful limits, and that
Mr. Long, the appellant in "the case, who was not a party, and had not assented to those resolutions, could not be compelled to give notice of any
meetings of such Synod, or of any proposed elections thereto, or to attend it,
or to be bound by its proceedings. Mr. Long, under an express contract with
the Bishop, would apparently have been bound to give that notice, if the
Synod had been a body recognized by the existing law of the Church of England.    There Lordships are of opinion that the Synod was not such a body.
The portion of the judgment which relates to the illegality of some act of
the Synod, is in these terms, (p. 16):—"The Synod which actually did meet
passed various acts and constitutions purporting, without the consent either of
the Crown or of the Colonial Legislature, to bind persons not in any manner
subject to its control, and to establish
fact
Courts of Justice for some temporal as
the Synod assumed powers which only
well as spiritual matters, and i
the legislature could possess."
"There could be no doubt that such acts were illegal."
It is obvious that in this passage referrence is more particularly made to
those parts of the "Acts and Constitution" of the first Synod, (the very term
" Constitutions," seems to imply the assumption of some binding authority),
which are mentioned in the paragraphs'beginning, "Various Rules, &c, ana
"a Consistorial Courts, &c," at page 8, of the printed judgment.
The surest mode, I conceive, of relieving the Assembly in question from
the prejudical effect of these errors in its past proceedings, will be for some
future meetings, with the concurrence of the Bishop, to review all the acts of
the former Synods for the purpose of removing from them, both in substance
and in form, everything which ha* the appearance of an assumption of any
compulsory p wers, or of any attempt to create tribunals similar to those which,
in countries where there is an established church, exercise a legal and coercive
jurisdiction,   It would be desirable expressly to declare that the Synod alto- 19.
gether disclaims the power of legislating so'as to bind any persons, who do not
voluntarily assent, and agree to to be bound by its rules; that the terms, '' Constitutions," " Consistorial Courts," and the like, should be disused, and that
the rule, "that all Presbyters and Deacons, before institution or induction, or
before receiving a license from the Bishop, and as a condition of receiving
such institution, induction or license, shall sign a declaration that they will
' subscribe to all rules and constitutions enacted by the Synod of the Diocese of
Cape Town," (Judgment, p. 8-), and any other rules, (if there are any), of a
like nature should be rescinded.
In place of the resolutions as to the Consistorial Court, deemed objectionable by the Judical Committee, I am advised that it would be competent to the
Synod to pass resolutions recommending for the adoption of their Bishop,
suitable forms of proceeding, (as in foro domestico), for. the investigation,
trial, and decision of offences against the laws of the Church,, before the Bishop
himself, or before persons appointed by him upon principles similar to those
which prevail for 'the necessary preservation of good order and discipline in all
voluntary religious bodies, and I apprehend that all persons who had-assented
to such resolutions would be bound by what the Bishop, from time to time,
might reasonably do in accordance with the forms so recommended.. Upon
this point I again refer to the words of the judgment:—" It may be further
laid down that where any religious, or other lawful association, has not only
agreed on the terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine
whether the rules of the association have been violated by any of-its members
or not, and what shall be the consequence of such violation; then the decision
of such tribunal will be binding when it has acted within the scope of its authority, has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms be
prescribed, and if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles
of justice.
"In such cases the tribunals so constituted are not in any sense courts;
they derive no authority from the Crown; they have no power of their own
to enforce their sentences; they must apply for that purpose to the Courts
established by law, and such Courts will give effect to their decisions, as they
give effect to the decisions of arbitrators whose jurisdiction rests entirely upon J
the agreement of the parties."
Having expressed the opinion that the Synod should repeal that resolution of their body, which requires all Presbyters and Deacons before institution
or induction, or before receiving a license from the Bishop, to subscribe all
their rules and constitutions; it is proper forme to state further to what extent
the Executive Government should recognize the right of the Bishop to enforce
practically, on his own authority, the resolution, which in its present form
the Synod is called upon to cancel.
I am informed that it would be competent to the Bishop to adopt the
course prescribed by that resolution with respect to matters as to which he
has by law a free and unfettered discretion.
Thus, he may decline to confer holy orders On persons unwilling to be
bound by the resolutions passed at such meetings, without being liable to any
interference on the part of any civil court; but with respect to the power of
the Bishop to make assent to such resolutions, the conditions of licenses admissions or institutions, of clerks to spiritual offices, benfices or cures a
distinction must be made according to the nature of the office, benefice or cure.
If there be no previous contract or trust expressed or implied between the
Bishop and the patron, or the Bishop and the presenter, and if the office
benefice, or cure, in question, has not been founded, endowed, or established
by any positive law or enactment, or by any other mode of legal foundation
inconsistent with the exercise, in that respect, of a free and uncontrolled dis-
oretion by the Bishop, in these circumstances, I am advised that it would be
competent to the Bishop to make the license, admission, or institution  of a
clerk to a spiritual office, benefice, or cure, conditional on his assent to such
resolution.    But, if the Bishop be bound, with respect to such benefice or
cure, by any antecedent contract or trust, (like the engagement to appoint the
nominee of Mr. Hoets), by the'terms of any legal foundation, of which assent'
or obedience to such resolutions forms no part, he cannot, under such circum- 20.
stances, lawfully exact from any clerk entitled to claim from him license,
admission, or institution, to such office, bcnelice or cure, that such clerk
should, as a condition of receiving such license, or institution, agreo to be
bound by such resolutions.
Within the limits thus laid down, the exercise of the Bishop's discretion
in this respect should be recognized by the Executive Government as legitimate.
Lastly, the Bishop requires to be informed " whether the document, which
has been placed in his hands by the Crown, is in all respects, as it. confessedly
is in some, an illegal instrument; whether any, and if so, which of its provisions are valid in law; whether it conveys any rights, title or authority to the
Bishop of this Diocese, and the Metropolitan of this Province, or not."
The words of the. Judicial Committee, to which the Bishop, I presume,
refers, (page 13), are as follows:—"Their Lordships state the Supreme Court
of the Cape to have been of opinion ' that the letters patent of 1853, being
issued after a Constitutional Government had been established in the Cape of
Good Hope, were ineffectual to create any jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical or Civil,
within the Colony, even if it were the intention of the letters patent to create
such jurisdiction,' which they think doubtful."
"In these conclusions," they add, "we agree."
The letters patent then, were ultra vires and invalid, if and so faras they
purported to convey to the Bishop any power of coercive jurisdiction, irrespectively of the sanction of the local legislature, and of the consent, express or
implied, of those over whom it might be exercised.
I am aware of no 'reason whatever for supposing, them ■ to be invalid,
otherwise than as they may assume to grant this coercive jurisdiction. The
Bishop's corporate character and'any other incidents of-his Episcopal position
which result from the letters patent remain untouched by the recent judgment.
[8.]
DIOCESAN SYNOD.
TO  THE CLERGY AND LAITY OF  THE  CHURCH OF  ENGLAND  IN   BRITISH   COLUMBIA.
Dear Rev. Brethren and Brethren of the Laity:—
A general desire for a Diocesan Synod having been expressed, and some
matters seriously needing that organization, I invite your co-operation in
the election of Lay Representatives in the second week after Easter, with a
view to the assembling of a Convention of Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, early
in July.
The office of the Convention will be to consider and agree to a declaration of principles and fundamental provisions as the basis upon which the
.Synod will he formed.
The first assembly will not therefore be the Synod, but a body authorized by the Parishes to agree upon a Constitution, and then,.if there be such
agreement, to resolve itself into the Synod,
In framing Laws and Regulations respecting Bishop, Clergy and Laity,
property, finance, discipline, spread of the Gospel, and in adopting measures
proved successful in other branches of our Communion, it must be our endeavour to adhere closely to the principles of the Chnrch of England, of which we
,de6i.r.6:to remain an integral part. Though a voluntary body, so far as disconnection with the State is .concerned, we claim no liberty to choose for ourselves any other system of ecclesiastical order than that of our Mother
Church.
The deep importance of subjects to come under consideration presses
.upon all Electors the great desirability of choosing Representatives well
known and trusted for intelligent attachment to the Church, and whose time
and energies will be readily and heartily given.
mn
Lima 21.
T adopt and recommend to yon the Resolutions passed at an influential
meeting of Church Committees last month in Victoria, as tbe guide for our
first proceedings and the understanding upon which we meet in Convention.
I append a copy of those Resolutions, and also some directions kindly
d-twvn up from them by tbe Registrar of tbe Diocese. Requesting you to
take the necessary steps, should you decide to join the Synod, and earnestly
trusting that in this important nndertaking we may all be guided with wisdom from above, so that our conclusions may be for the promotion of God's
glory and the true edification of His Church.
I am,
Dear Rev. Brethren and Brethren of the Laity,
Your sincere friend and Pastor,
G. COLUMBIA.
Bishop's Close, Victoria, February 25, 1874.
DIRECTIONS   FOR   TUB   ELECTION OF "LAY   REPRESENTATIVES    TO   THE    FIRST   CONVENTION.
1. The Roll of Electors is to be entered in a book, and the following
declararation is to be signed in the book by every one who desires to become
an Elector:—
" T, A B——, do solemnly de.clare that I am a member of the
Church of England,   and am  an  accustomed member of tbe  congregation
of and do not belong to any other denomination."
2. The Church Committee will appoint a Select Committee to make up
the voting roll, and where no Church Committee, the congregation will
delegate this duty to three of their body.
3. The Churchwardens or Clergyman will give notice in church or on
the church doors, or by both methods, of tbe intended election 14 days at
least before the time appointed, in the following form :—
"Notice.—An election of Lay Representatives to the Convention, for the
urpose of establishing a Synod in this Diocese, will take place in this Church
Jn   tbe    day of   at   o'clock. All persons who are seatholders or members of
this congregation, of the age of 18 years, will be entitled to vote on subscrib-
the declaration in the Roll of Voters, at any time before the election."
P
on
in
> Committee.
4. The election will take place in the vestry or other appropriate place
•to be appointed by the Committee, at which meeting the Clergyman shall be
the Chairman, and in his absence a Chairman shall be appointed by the
Committee, who shall take the votes, and whose duty will be to see that no
one votes who has not fulfilled the prescribed formalities.
5. Each church or congregation will be entitled to one or more Lay
Representatives in the following proportion, namely : Two Delegates for 20
•or under 20 qualified voters of the age of 18 years; four Delegates for 50 or
•under 50 qualified voters, and six Delegates for more than 50 voters.   •
6. No person can be elected as a Lay Representative unless he is a
communicant, and unless he signs the following declaration, also to be entered in the book of votes :—
"I, A B , do solemnly declare that I am a  communicant of
the Chnrch of England, and belong to no other religious denomination."
7. Every Clergyman, or the Churchwardens, shall keep, or cause to be
kept, a roll with the names of all the communicants entered therein.
8. Every Lay Representative, when duly elected, shall receive from
■the Chairman a certificate to the following effect:—
"I  hereby certify that at a meeting of the electors of Ghurch, or
District,  held  on   the day of 137    A -B——■—,   who   is   a
•communicant of this church, was duly elected a  Lay Representative to the
^Convention for the establishment of a Diocesan Synod."
Chairman.
9. The Chairman shall also forward to the Bishop of the Diocese a
certificate of the result of the election in the following form :—
seena 22.
•'I hereby certify that at a meeting of the electors of Chnrch, or
District, held on the day of 187    the following persons, commu
nicants  of the Church,  were  duly elected as  Lay Representatives to   the
Convention for the establishment of a Diocesan Synod :
A. B.
C. D.
E. P.
G. H.
of
of
of
of
PROFESSION.
per-»
And I further certify that there are entered on the Roll of Electors
sons entitled to vote at this election.
Chairman.
10.   In the case of the death or resignation of any Lay Representatives
so elected as  aforesaid,  the Church  Committee, or where no Church Committee, the electors   shall as  soon   as practicable   select some other  duly
qualified person to fill the vacancy.
RESOLUTIONS    OF   THE   MEETING OF   CHURCH    COMMITTEES   BBLD.   IN   VICTORIA,
JANUARY 5TH,   1874..
1. "That it is expedient that a Convention be formed consisting of the-
Bishop, the Clergy of the Diocese holding the Bishop's license, and Lay
Delegates for the purpose of organizing a Diocesan Synod."
2. "That every congregation of the Anglican Chnrch, with twenty cr
less qualified electors, may elect two'Lay Representatives, and every congregation having over twenty qualified electors up to fifty inclusive may eleet
fonr Representatives, and having over fifty qualified electors may elect six
Representatives."
3. "That the elect'on of Lay Representatives shall be decided by the
whole body of seatholders, and of those who are accustomed members of the
congregation not being seatholders, of the age of eighteen years and upwards
who shall sign a declaration as follows :
■ I, A- B , do  solemnly  declare that  I  am   a member of the
Church of England,   and am an  accustomed  member of the  congregation
of and do not belong to any other denomination."
4. "That no person  shall be qualified   for election as a Lay Representative, or be permitted to take his seat as a Delegate,  unless he be a male
communicant of the Church, of the age of twenty-one years, and   upwards,
and have signed a  declaration  that he is a  communicant of the Church of
England, and belongs to no other religions   denomination, as follows :—   F,,
A —B , do   solemnly  declare  that  I  am  a communicant of the
Church of England, and belong to no other religious denomination.'*
5. "That the list of voters shall be made'up by a special Chnrch Committee to be selected by the Church Committee of each congregation, and in
places where no Church Committee exists, by three persons to be selected by
such congregation, as such Committee, and the said list shall be signed by
a majority of such Committee; and no one shall be entitled to vote who is not
included in such list."
6. "That the election for Delegates shall take place on the second
Monday after Easter, 1874.
7. "That a certificate of election shall be given to each Representative
by the Chairman of the meeting at which the election took place, who shall
also forward to the Bishop immediately after the election a certificate of the
due election of a Representative."
8 "That the Convention of Bishop, Clergy and Laity shall meet the
second week of July next, at Victoria."
9. "That no act of the Convention shall be valid and binding unless it
has received the assent of tbe Bishop, a majority of the Clergy, and a majority of tbe Laity voting by orders." EVIDENCE ON THE TRIAL OE THE REV. DEAN CRIDGE.
1st Witness.—R. E. Jackson, stated: I know the handwriting of Mr.
Cridge and believe the signature to the letter dated December 7th, to be that
of the Dean.
2d Witness.—Thomas Holmes Long, stated: I was assisted-by the Dean
and Mr. Williams in preparing the address which appeared in the Standard
of the 28th March, 1874, the heading of which is "Address of the Dean of
Christ Church to the Congregation."
The letter in the Standard,of the 10th January, 1874, and headed "to the
Right Eeverend George Hills, D. D.," was handed to me by the Dean for
publication.
I decline to say who is the author of a letter signed "Eccentric," and
which appeared in the same paper.
I am one of the Editors and owners of the Standard newspaper.
3rd Witness.—W. C. Ward, stated: I know the handwriting of Mr.
Cridge; the letters produced I believe to be in his handwriting.
It is dated 7th December, 1872.
Also one dated 10th December, 1872.
13th " "
29th July 1873.
28th    " "
18th August "
3rd September    "
11
it
11
n
11
it
11
cc
11
<<
(t
it
((
tt
a
a
a
tt
it
a
it
tt
{(
a
<<
it
14th October "
27th       " "
25th November    "
16th December     "
14th February, 1874.
28th March "
I also know Mr. Pemberton's handwriting; I believe that the letter produced, dated 27th June, 1874, to be in his handwriting, as also one of the 2nd
July, 1874, also produced.
The letters dated 2nd and 3rd July, 1874, I believe to be in the handwriting of Mr, Cridgei
I recollect on the day of the consecration of Christ Church at Christ
Church, and during the evening service a sermon being preached by the Rev.
Archdeacon Reece, at the close of which, Mr. Cridge, instead of giving out
the hymn, proceeded to address the Congregation. His address was something to the effect that he had preached for 17 years, and that this was the
first occasion on whieh Ritualism had been openly preached from that pulpit;
that, though very painful to him, he felt bound by every sense of duty to protest against it, and that he was prepared to shew that it was contrary to the
Book of Common Prayer, contrary to the law of God, and contrary to the
law of the land, and could not be proved from the Scriptures. Mr. Cridge
appeared much excited and spoke with evident warmth; his address called
forth some noise, such as applause, he appealed to them, and asked them to
remember that they were in the House of God; that was the substance of
what he said.
I was very much pained to see the service disturbed; several persons left
the Church. Mr. Cridge spoke in a very earnest way, and said that his remarks were not intended to provoke any controversy; Mr. Reece of course
was present. The sermon was referred to by the Dean as that of the Archdeacon.    I don't recollect that any name was used.
I was-Churchwarden of Christ Church for. two years; the Communion
Plate was, as far as/I know, always kept by the Dean, and under his control;
so I always understood. I was the Dean's Churchwarden. The Registers of
Baptism and Marriage were always kept by the Dean, I believe at his house;
there is a safe in the vestry in which they might be kept, and I bdieve the 24.
Dean kept the key of it; I don't know that the Plate was kept there; I never
had the key under my control, or do I believe that it was under the eontrol of
the other Churchwarden.
Examined by Mr. Mason.
The address of the Dean was so sudden that it made a deep impression on
me; several persons left the Church; the service was subsequently proceeded
with,
4th Witness.—/. E. Curtis, stated: I am clerk to Messrs, Drake and
Jackson: the document produced is a copy of one served by me on the Rev,
Mr. Cridge on 8th September last, and is a list of letters that he was required
to produce,
I produce a copy of a letter dated September 7th, 1874, the original of
which I left at Mr. Cridge's house; I believe the Articles are in Mr. Drake's
handwriting; I served the Dean with a copy of the Articles now produced on
the 27th August last.
I also served a copy of the Articles produced on the Dean about the end
of July, but I cannofr say the exact date,
5th Witness.—The Bishop, stated: I recollect sending a letter dated 7th
Dec., 1872, to Mr. Cridge; the subject of it was with reference to the occur-
rance that took place at the evening service on the day of Consecration of
Christ Church,
I also sent Mr. Cridge a letter dated Dec. 9th, 1872; a true copy of which
is now produced.
The book now produced contains true copies of the following letters sent
by me to Mr. Cridge.
Letter dated Dec. 14th, 1872.
July 29th, 1873.
August 27th, 1873.
September 8th, 1873.
"       22d, 1873.
October 18th, 1873.
November 1st, 1873*
December 1st, 1873.
"        26th, 1873.
February 12th, 1874,
March 23d, 1S74.
May 25th, 1874.
I have Letters Patent appointing me Bishop of British Columbia; Letters
Patent produced; I believe tbe license produced is a true copy of the
license to Mr. Cridge to preach; it is dated Sept. 17th, 1860.
The oath produced is a true copy of the Canonical Oath of Obedience
taken by Mr. Cridge, Sept. 17th, 1860.
I have the subscription book before me; I saw Mr. Cridge sign it; the
date is Dec. 7th, 1865; the Oath of Canonicat"Obedience was taken before me
by Mr. Cridge at the same time, Dec. 7th, 1865; I have no doubt that the
Letters of Collation referred to in Article 4 are correct copies; also the Certificate of Subscription and oaths in Article 4 is a correet copy.
I recollect sending, on Feb. 10th, 1874, certain Articles of enquiry to Mr,
Cridge; they are the usual Visitation Articles; no answer was returned to me
by Mr. Cridge.
On May 25th, 1874, I again applied for an answer to mine of Feb. 10th;
copy produced.
I attended visitation, July 3d, 1874, at Christ Church, having first written to Mr. Cridge, under date June 22d, 1874, informing him thereof; I also
wrote on the same date to tbe Churchwardens to the same effect.
I received a letter from Mr. Pemberton, Churchwarden, dated June 23d,
1874, of which that produced is a copy.
On 29th June, I wrote to Mr. Cridge, appointing July 3d, 1874, for my
visitation, also to the Churchwardens on the same date and to the same
effect.
I received a letter dated July 2d from Mr. Pemberton, Churchwarden,
declining to receive my visitation.
It
tt
tt
tt
a
it
it
it
it
it
tt
<f
ii
it
tt
it
tt
tt
a
tt
tt
a Oi
5ns*
a, letter from Mr. Cridge, declining
l1
d bt
sent to the Governor-
I also received, on July 2d,  187'
my visitation, on the ground that a memorial naa
General.
On the same date I wrote to the Churchwardens, stating my intention to
hold the visitation; I also wrote to Mr. Cridge.
I received no other letter before attending visitation; on 3d July, 1874,
I went to Christ Church, accompanied by Mr. Drake, the Registrar; Mr.
Cridge was in the Vestry, and on our entering he said he requested to read a
letter which he produced; b<jread the letter signed 3d July (a copy of which
has already been put in evidence), with strong emphasis and vehement gesture, evidently laboring under great excitement.
On his finishi g the letter and saying that the Churchwardens would
not be present, I said:    Mr. Cridge I am fulfilling the duties of my office, and
I come to visit you as well as the Churchwardens.    I request you to produce
the registers and inventory in  order that I may proceed with my visitation,
tie said, I refer you to the latter part of my letter.    I said, will you produce
the register books.    He said, I bave not got them; I have not the key; the
Churchwardens have it.    1  said, you  have always -kept it and tbe Churchwardens could only  have obtained  it from  you  and w;th your consent, in
order to frustrate my visitation.     He said, I bave not the key; why do you
expect me tobave it? and referred to a book of the Canons, one of which requires a coffer to  be  kept with  three locks,  implying that he could not
produce the registers without the  presence of the Churchwardens.    I said,
•you know Mr. Cridge this is no,w never the cast?, and you alone have the care
of the registers; do you refuse to produce them?    He said, I refuse to produce nothing.    I   said,   I   cannot  proceed   with   my   visitation   uuless you
produce these things, and other property of the Church.     He said, why do
you ask me, ask those who have the custody of the goods of the Church ?
the Church is open, you can go and see for yourself,    I again asked him
to produce the registers and plate; he made no reply.    I said, do yon then
refuse to produce them?   He said, I refuse nothing; the relation which you
hold towards me, and which you hold towards the Churchwardens, has entirely changed during the last few days; put your questions down in writing.
1 said, this is a subterfuge, you   have  connived with the Churchwardens to
defeat my lawful visitation.    He  expressed himself offended  at the  words
subterfuge and connive.    I satd, it is too true.    I again asKed him to produce the registers; he made no answer.    I then said, this is contumacy, and
came away.    On previous occasions, when I visited Christ Church, Mr. Cridge
always-had the keys and produced them.    I have visited Christ Church periodically for the past 15 years, and I have never before had any difficulty
whatever in seeing these articles.
The letter dated July 3d, 1874, was the one he read and handed to me.
On the same day, on my return home 1 received a letter from the
Churhwardens, dated July 3d. I asked for the Communion Plate; I think
the answer was, ask those, who have the charge of the Church; when I
asked questions he said, I beg to be-excused from answering questions, and
what the Bishop has to say to me he will put in writing; he said, see tbe
concluding part of my letter dated 3d July. Mr. Oridge's demeanour was
unhappily not that which a clergy mam should assume towards his Bishop.
Both in tone and gesture I considered it to be insulting:.
I selected a Cathedral; I am empowered to do so by my Letters Patent ;
I selected Christ Church aud have used it as such since 1865. The seal
produced is mine, and the Articles appended are signed by me.
After Mr. Reece descended from the pulpit on the 5tb Dec, at evening
service, Mr. Cridge proceeded to address tbe congregation in a state of
considerable excitement; he said' something to the effect that the sermou
which had just been preached by ArGhdeacon Reece, mentioning his name,
contained doctrines which had never been preached iu Christ Church during
bis time of 17 years, and never should be while he was Pastor of the Church;
he said that lviiualism,"wbieh bad just been advocated, was contrary to tho
Law of God in the Scripture, the Prayer" Book,
consulted with Bishop Morris as to what should
aud the law of the land; I
done^ under jo cxiruoidi- 26.
nary and unhappy an iuterrnption; we considered it best for the s ike of the
peace of the Church not to stop what was going on, there being evidence of
considerable excitement in the congregation; I heard aoises which appeared
to me like the movement of feet, clapping of hands, and expressions ot voice;
several persons left the Church.
I received a number of letters from Mr. Cridge, these letters were read
yesterday, I received them all.
I have the original book of subscriptions, and I produce it.
The letter signed and dated 17th September, I860, was faignei by Mr.
Cridge in my presence.
Mr. Cridge has not any benefice, there is no benefice in this country.
6th Witness.—Charles Good, stated: I was in Christ Church on the day
of Consecration, December 5th, 1872; at the evening service, after the sermon
by the Rev. Reece was terminated, at the usual time for giving out the hymn,
the Dean, instead of, giving out the hymn, faced the congregation and addressed them on the subject of the Archdeacon's sermon; he took exception'
to tbe doctrines preached by him in being in favor of Ritualism; he stated
that he could not allow his pulpit to be used without warning his congregation against any such doctrine.
Considerable excitement was manifested both during and at tbe close of
his address, by clapping of hands, stamping on the floor, and ejaculations;
one person in the phoir having said " Bally for Cridge."
To the Very Reverend Dean Cridge:
Take Notice that you are required to produce to the Court on th
ing of the charges sot forth in the Articles dated on or about the 27th
August last, the following documents:—
Dec.  7th,  1872,   Letter from the
e hear-
day of
9th.
u
" 14th;
July 28th, 1873
it
it
ti
29th.
<<
<(
it
<<
a
it
n
it
a
it
a
it
a
it
a
a
a
ii
it
n
tt
it
it
u
Aug. 27th,
Sept.   8th,
"    22d,
Oct.   18th,
Nov. 1st,
Dec. 1st,
" 26th,
Feb'y 12th, 1874,
March 23d,
May 25th,
And your certificate of subscriptions, and all other documents,
papers, and writings whatsoever in any wise relating to the charges
you. Yours, etc.,
M. W. T. DRAKE, Registr
By Robt. E. Jackson, his Attorney.
(<
u
<(
<<
(<
<<
a
a
tt
tc
a
t<
a
Bishop to yourselfl
ti
it
it
a
it
a
it
a
a
<(
a
tt
it
it
a
tt
(<
u
<<
a
a
a
a
it
a
a
a
letters,
against
ar.
[11.]
Bishop's Close, Victoria, Dec. 7th, 1872.
My dear Mr. Dean:
It is with very great pain that I write to you in referrence to the unhappy
scene which occurred in Christ Churohlast Thursday.
I am sure you were in' ignorance that you were committing a grave offence
against the laws Ecclesiastical, and the Statute Law of the Realm, in disturbing the order of public worship, and in using irritating words respecting a
brother elergyman, who was present, and who had just performed a duty
assigned to him.
As your Bishop the subject is one which I cannot pass over, and I now
iWaiHHW 27.
Write in the earnest hope that I have not misconstrued your character,
but that when it has been shewn that a breach of order and propriety has been
committed, and one which must inevitably cause offence to many members of
the Church, you will be the first to express your regret for the occurrence, and
render my duty less painful.
I am, my dear Mr, Dean, very faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA,
My dear Lord: [12.]
In reference to your letter of this day's date, I trust, that "when it has
been shewn," and I am convinced that I have committed the wrongs imputed
to me in that letter, your hope will not be disappointed, and that I shall be
the first to express regret for violating what I have ever been foremost to uphold amongst my people, order, charity, and law; but I find it impossible till
after Sunday to consider the authorities and reasons on which your statements
are grounded, and which I gather from the tenor of your letter, you will deem
Yours faithfully.
just to shew me.
7th December, 1872.
E. CRIDGE.
[13] Bishop's Close, Dec, 9th, 1872.
My dear Mr. Dean:
As you desire to be furnished with the*authorities on which my reasons
for writing to you are founded, I will mention that your action on the 5th was
in direct contravention of the 53rd Canon, and comes within the provisions of
the Act of 5 and 6, Ed. VI. c. 4.
I shall be most happy to allow you to inspect these authorities, but I was
in hopes that my letter would have found you, on a calm reconsideration of
the circumstances, to have come to the conclusion that the mode you adopted
for the expression, of your views on the questions raised by the Archdeacon's
sermon was illjudged, out of all order, and calculated to produce distress and
offence in the Congregation.
Trusting that my endeavours to avoid a disagreeable and most painful
•duty will be assisted by your good sense and right feeling,
I am, my dear Mr. Dean,
very
faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
My Dear Lord: [14.]
"Will you kindly send by the bearer the books you said you would allow
me to inspect.
10th Dec., 1872.
Yours faithfully.
E. CRIDGE.
My Lord: [15.]
I have carefully'looked into the authorities which yon have submitted to
my inspection, as well as reviewed my own conduct in addressing my flock on
Thursday evening, and I conscientiously believe that I have not either in
letter or spirit violated any order of the Church or law of the realm.
If the step'was unusual, the occasion was almost without precedent. At
the same time I beg most respectfully to answer your Lordship that I had no
thought or intention of impugning in any way the authority ofthe Bishop,
but only to fulfill my duty as the ordained and licensed minister of the Church
and congregation whom I serve.    I beg to remain with all respect and duty.
Your Obedient Servant,
Doc. 13, 1S72. E. CRIDGE.
The Lord Bishop of Columbia. 28.
Having offered yon, with no good result,
ing rt
expres
rret at your com
luct
the 51 h of D
et*.
[lfi ] Bishop's Close, Victoria, Dec. 14th, 1S72.
Reverend Sir:
sral opportunities of express- .
, a regret which should be
ed to your Bishop, who was unhappily present, an eye and ear witness
of the sad scene, to your brother minister, whom you openly insulted in the
House of God, and to the congregation whom you disturbed and distressed, it
now remains for me to discharge a most painful duty, the more_painful considering your position as Dean of the Cathedral, and as senior clergyman of
Diocese, from whom might be expected at least an example of self control,
propriety and order.
On the 5th of December at the Evening Service of the Day of Consecration of Christ Church, immediately after the sermon by the Archdeacon of
Vancouver, instead of proceeding with the service, you stood up and in irritating and chiding language you denounced your brother clergyman by name,
and amongst other words declared that he had violated the law of the Church,
the law of the land, and the law of God in theScriptures. Being evidently un-
der excitement your manner and language caused unseemly disturbance in the
congregation. There were vehement expressions, such as are only heard in
secular buildings and in drinking saloons, stamping of feet, clapping of hands,
and other unseemly noises,
Much distress was created amongst all the properly disposed and. regular
members of the congregation, in the midst of which several persons hastily
left the Church.
The deepest pain was caused to the Bishop of Oregon, myself, the Clergy
and the congregation generally.
To the enemy of religion and to the careless and profane an occasion has
been given to blaspheme and to ridicule the sacred cause of God, and a stumbling block has been placed in the way of the weak.
You have committed the grave offence which is described both in the
Ecclesiastical Law and in the Statute Law of the Empire by the term of
brawling, an act of disturbance of divine worship, punishable in a layman by
fine or imprisonment, in a clergyman by suspension.
Moreover you violated the 53rd Canon of the Church of England, which
forbids public opposition between clergymen, and requires the clergyman
offending to be inhibited "because upon such public dissenting and contradicting there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the people."
No provocation is allowed to justify a violation-of these laws. If the
Archdeacon's sermon had contained error, there are means to be adopted by
which he could be called,to account.
If, as was the case, you disapproved of the view*he took of a particular
subject you have abundant opportunities of teaching your congregation what
' you consider to be right, your attack upon him in the House of God was the
more unjustifiable, since he had occupied the pulpit by your own suggestion,
and he is a member of the Cathedral body.
Considering all these circumstances, considering the public scandal you"
have caused, the. outrages upon order and propriety in divine worship, and
violations of the laws expressly framed to prevent such unhappy exhibitions, I
should probably be justified in taking a course much more severe; considering
however, also, your long and faithful service in the Church, that you were
probably unaware of the laws which prohibit such actions, and that this is the
first grave offence of any kind in the Diocese which I have been called upon
to notice, I take the most lenient course I can adopt, and inflict upon you only
a grave censure.
As your Bishop, then, I censure you for your conduct on Thursday, the
5th day of December, 1S72, and I admonish you to be more" careful in the
fhture.
Witness my hand this 11th day of December, 1872,
G. COLIMBIA.
The Very Rev. E. Cridge,
Rector of Christ Church Victorin,
And Dean of the Cathedral.
waiMWU """SRC
My dear Bishop of Columbia: [!".]
Before I received notification of your intention to visit Christ Church"" today, I had formed an engagement which will hinder me from being present,
but which I did not take to mind when Mr. Ward spoke to me.
This being so, I beg most respectfully to reaffirm my purpose, sincerely
and conscientiously, to follow the laws of our Church, so far as they are in
force and applicable here. As I do not see that the visitation as held by you
on certain former occasions, and attended by me out of courtesy, is requisite
or necessary by any law or custom of our Church.
I do not regret the circumstance which spares the necessity of a personal
statement of this view.
While I acknowledge myself ready to be corrected, if I am in error, you
will not be surprised if I feel that my course must be guided rather by pure
duty and obligation, than courtesy. At the same, time I should be sorry
that you should suppose that in anything that relates to your episcopal office,
I shall be contented to act from cold constraint. I shall hope ever to perform
my duty with the earnestness and respect which are due to the same. Pressure
of duties has hindered me from writing before with the consideration which I
felt necessary.
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your intention to hold 'a confirmation
at Christ Church on October 12th, and shall do all in my power to make every
preparation which the solemnity of the occasion requires, and to carry into
effect any wishes you may have in reference to the same.
1 beg to remain, yours, faithfully,
E. CRIDGE.
July 28th, 1873.
Clergy, Churches and Parishes,
[18.] Bishop's Close, July 29th, 1873.
My dear Sir:
I am sorry you have again placed yourself in opposition to the laws and
customs of the Church.     " Visitation" of al
is a primary duty of the office of Bishop.
The attendance, of the Clergy at such visitations is not opti
to which each one has bound himself by his oath of Canonical Obedience, and
reception of the Bishop's license.
In the present case I gave you ample notice of my visitation and if there
had been any sufficient objection to the day and hour appointed, you were
made aware that I was ready to fix another time. Under these circumstances
you have exposed yourself to the charge of a grave ecclesiastical offence. '
On my arrival at the Cathe'dral yesterday, at the time" named, the doors
-were locked, and"'after waiting some time I wag compelled to depart without
being able to carry out my Episcopal duties. This, to say the very least, is a
very culpable neglect.
I am unwilling to believe it was intentional, but I must investigate the
circumstanees, and have fixed half-past two o'clock to-day for my visitation,
at'which I require your attendance.
I am, dear sir, faithfully yours,
Very Rev. E. Cfidge. G. COLUMBIA.
T19.1
I have nothing to alter in my loiter of 28 July, 1873, to the Bishop.
I believe the Bishop to be as much bound by the laws and custom of the
Church as others.
With all respect and duty, with much pain,  and only in behalf of the
past liberty and scriptural purity of the Church, I beg to ex-press my conscientious belief that the Bishop has arbitrarily and unjustly violated both in
connection with Christ Church during the past vear.
Victoria, 29 July, 1872. "E. CRIDGE,
(Turn over.) Dean and Rector.
I duly gave orders for the Church to be open for the reception of the
Bishop at 4 o'clock, p. m., on Monday
July
18 30.
[20.] Victoria, August 18, 18?3.
My dear Bishop of Columbia:
In fulfilling my undertaking:, made at the vestry on the first occasion of
my meeting you this year in the presence of the Churchwardens of Christ
Church, to .state the grounds on which I believed the Bishop to have acted
unjustly in the discharge of his office. I may use the more freedom in that it
is the right of all who believe themselves to have been wronged, whether in
their own person or in their lawful calling and office, temperately to
declare it.
In order to make my meaning more plain I will confine myself in this
letter to the Bishop's censure of my conduct in my protest against the ritualistic teaching of the Archdeacon, .delivered to my congregation on the occasion
of the opening of the Church. In the document conveying that censure, you
^accused me of offences which, if true, would prove me unfit for the ministry,,
and unworthy of the esteem of my congregation, and inflicted on me, as you
said, under your hand as Bishop, a grave censure. You did this, although I
had pleaded, "not guilty" to your accusations, without hearing the grounds of
my plea, or giving me opportunity of stating them; without confronting me
with my accusers, or with the witnesses who testified against me, and whose
names, except your own, (and I deem it impossible that you grounded your
sentence solely on your own. testimony), I do not know to this day, you condemned me, and inflicted this punishment (whatever it was) upon me.
This proceeding I believe to be arbitrary, unjust, and a great wrong. To
render impossible such wrongs law is framed. To prevent injustice being
done through haste, passion, inadvertence, or private ends, it is provided by
the laws of even heathen nations that no one shall be tried, condemned or
punished "before that he which is accused have the accuser face to face, and
have license to answer for himself concerning the crimes laid against him."
By no law except over infants or slaves can any one combine in his own person, as the Bishop appears to have done in this case, the functions of accuser,
witness, governor, and judge. The iaws of the Church do not overlook this
fundamental principle of justice. I will refer to only one authority at present.
The "Church Discipline Act" in England has been careful not to give the
Bishops, (although Lords in a National Church), any pretext for the exercise
of arbitrary powers, but has tied them up to the forms of justice and to lay
control. Though in this land the Bishop, being a simple minister of religion,
has no power under this Act to hold or order a legal investigation,, the principles of justice might have been satisfied in another way.
The sentence in question was not one of those admonitions which, with
no pretence of judicial authority, are always respected.by the well disposed on
account of the presumed good intention and allowed legitimate office of those
■who administered them. The Bishop gave to this censure, illegal as it was,
official form and effect, so far as he could, by sending it to the Churchwardens
of my congregation, as well as to myself. I neednot say that such a censure,
so given, if it be anything at all, is in its purpose and character as much a
punishment or penalty as suspension or deprivation.
It is moreover a principle of justice that the person who judges must be
an uninterested person. In this case if, by the promulgation of the sentence
and its effects, I had been harassed into resigning my incumbency, the next
presentation, if the trust deed is valid to this effect, devolved on you. You
could have put into my room one of your own clergy, that is one of those
who derive their status here solely from your own choice and appointment,
and did not as myself possess it before the recognition, or even the existence
of your Episcopate. Nor perhaps is this the only respect in which the Bishop
is not an indifferent person. 1 should be sorry that you should take this
remark in an offensive sense, it is not so meant; it belongs to my argument and
is made to shew the reason of the care with which the law fences the rights of
man against the encroachments of arbitrary power and the operation of interested motives.
The evil consequences also, which are apfcto result from unjust judgments,
prove tho necessity of all alike being under the dominion of the law and its
forms.
mm 81.
Permit mo to point out a few of the mischiefs which might and have resulted, or may oven be resulting, from the judgment in question.
I might, for instance, have been irritated by what I-believed to be a libel
of a highly criminious and, whoever may. have been the Bishop's informants or counsellors, untrue character, into going to law with the
Bishop, and have only been restrained by a sense of what might be my duty
as a Christian in the matter.
The Churchwardens, confiding in the Bishop's wisdom, or awed by his
office, might, by promulgating it, have rendered themselves similarly obnoxious to the law, or they might have changed in their conduct towards their
minister, contemned his rule, discouraged him in his ministry, or thrown up
their office. Or to preserve friendly relations between the" Bishop and the
congregation they might, although not unconscious of the injustice of the document in question, have allowed it to stand against their minister without
remonstrance or protest. Or by taking official notice of it they might have
divided the congregation into parties, marred the integrity of the ministry, and
alienated from the order and administration of the Church some of its devout
members. Or the minister himself, believing the cause of truth to have been
"wronged in his own person, might have maintained a constant, though for
quietness sake private, protest, so long as there remained against his ministry
imputations ready at any time to be revived, as in fact they have been revived
up to a recent period by the Bishop himself.
These are not imaginary things, but evils either actual or imminent, in
great part as it appears to me in connection with the.judgment in question.
To avoid such evils surely it is that law forbids arbitrary judgments as being
unusually impotent for anything but mischief, productive often of dissention
and strife, bitterness and disquietude, there being no arbiter of the question
thus'generated, but not decided, but the truth, the mercy of God, and the good
sense and discernment of the people.
In stating the grounds on which I conscientiously believe the Bishop to
have acted arbitrarily and unjustly in the discharge of his office. I have
studied to use the words of truth and soberness.
. After waiting several" months without perceiving any indications of consciousness on the Bishop's part of having committed a wrong, (but the contrary),
I embraced with pain and reluctance the opportunity above referred to of
pointing it out, well believing it a duty which I owe to my ministry, to the
Church, and to the interests of justice and religion to do so.
I remain, my dear Bishop Hills,
Yours, faithfully,
E. CRIDGE.
[21.] Bishop's Close, August 27, 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
The authority of the Bishop may be exercised by private censure as well
as by public trial. The former course was adopted out of kindness to you,
and to avoid wider exposure of scandal to our Church.
The offence having been committed in-the presence of the Bishop, and in
a public manner, formal evidence was unnecessary; there could be no question of fact.
Justice to those whom yon aggrieved, the Clergy and the Church at
large, demanded there should be recorded proof that the offence had-not been
passed over by the Bishop, and hence the formal character of the censure,
and the communication of it to the Churchwardens.
Had the offence not been dealt with privately, opportunity having been
given for explanation and expression of regret, a public trial would have
been demanded by others, and then as serious consequences were involved,
the forms of justice usual in such cases would have been strictly observed.
So long as you hold it lawful for a clergyman (1) to stop the appointed
order of divine service at his pleasure, give vent to excited feelings, and
disturb the peace of a congregation, and (2) to attack and denounce a brother clergyman before the congregation as he descends from the palp
it tor a dif
ference of opinion, you are m conflict with the laws of the Church of
England, which you have solemnly engaged to obey, and by which, in the
name of order, sobriety, and charity, these acts are marked as grave offences,
and, it having Committed them', you show no regret for the scandal they have
caused, you must not wonder if the imputations upon your character as a
clergyman should remain.
Such e\il consequences as those you allude to should be traced back,
not to the exercise ot authority for an offence clearly established, but to thj
wrong doing in the first instance by yoarself.
I am, faithfully yours,
G. CULUilBIA.
[22.] Victoria, Sept. 3, 1873.
My dear Bishop of Columbia:
In answer to my complaint that you have as Bishop wronged me in my
person and office, your  argument, if I understand it arigni, is as follows:—
That as the Bishop and the public were witnesses of my conduct on the
occasion referred to, there was no need of evidence to prove that the Bishop's
account of the same was true. Truly, though a thousand persons witness
a proceeding, it does not follow that a certain one who testifies to it, testifies
truly. Many heard our Lord speak when he said, (or seemed to say), that
he would destroy the Temple, yet this did not make the testimony which two
of them bore as to what he did say true. Notoriety is good to prove that
something happened, though not what. Though I believe that notoriety in
this case, (v. the public papers), is adverse to the truth of the Bishop's censure, what took place is still unsettled. There can, therefore, be "question
of fact," seeing that I, the accused, say that what I am accused of is not true
and by no means was done.
Your reasoning that though a "formal" censure was "just," for tbe
satisfaction of "the Church at large," "formal" evidence was not necessary
for the sake of the accused, seems to me to confound equity. You say that
if you had not dealt with the case privately, though without the forms of
of justice, others would have demanded that it should be deslt with publicly,
with the forms of justice. How the justice, which would, have been done -m
the supposed method, can excuse the absence of justice in the actual, is not
clear to my understanding. But the forms of justice, the Bishop says, would
have been observed in the supposed case,-because the consequences would
have been serious. Tbe loss of character, which the Bishop readily admits
to be a natural consequence of the method actually pursued by him, is indelibly affixing, if not wiped out by confession. The "imputation" of
wrong doing upon me is not, it would seem, a consequence sufficiently serious in the Bishop's estimation to render any form of justice necessary in
that method.
Still, tbe consequences in the supposed method of trial would have been
so serious that tbe Bishop determiued, out of kindness to me, to save me
.from them by publishing me through a private censure to the "Church at
large" as an evil doer of a bad type. While I tell the Bishop, that all things
considered, I do not recognize this feature in his proceedings, I must also
say, for the cause sake, that I am not troubled about my character, as I
might have been, had I done the evils, instead of being accused of them.
The Bishop appears to. refer to his authority in justification of his proceedings. To this I answer, that no authority can justify a wrong, which I
have proved this to be, which the Bishop has not denied, still less disproved,
least of all redressed.
Although, therefore, tbe question of authority does not affect my argu
ment, and although this is not th<
.'in to go into that question, though
important, still, as you have given me the opening, I will briefly point out
what,appears to me to be a double fallacy in your definition ot the scope of
the "authority of a Bishop," namely: thai it is "exercised by private cea- sure as well as by public trial," which to my apprehension contains, first:
a distinction in sound and not in sense, a private or any censure being a
penalty and not a trial, and coming after a trial, whether public or private;
secondly: an assumption concealed under the double meaning of the term
"authority," as if the Bishop's authority were by Jaw, which it is not, and
not by consent, which it is, with its scope and effect yet undefined. In a
neighbouring church, if I remember rightly, the Bishop has authority to administer a censure, whether public or private but not to take part in the trial
by which it is awarded. In another neighboring church no authority to administer censure is allowed at all, apparently because the authority might,
as I submit is the case of your censure against me, come into collision with
the law of the land. I think it not irrevelant also to remark that there is a
certain offence against the State, implied in the enforcement of Ecclesiastical
law, when not authorized by the law of the land. It may be presumptive in
me to instruct the Bishop, but it is not unlawful to defend myself. The
Bishop ought not to be ignorant that when a person assumes, without tbe
authority of the State, the office of judge, such a document as that which
the Bishop has proceeded to publish against me, is not a judgment, but a
libel, and an offence against the law, for which the alleged Ecclesiastical
authority ot the Bishop affords no shelter, while, on the other hand, such a
judgment proceeding from a person with authority to judge, would constitute
a wrong under another name, but equally open to redress by the law.
One error into which I submit the Bishop has fallen is a failure to perceive the distinction between 'evidence and law. The first thing in every
cause is to show what has been done, this is the function of evidence. The
next is to determine what law if any has been broken, and to award the
penalty, this is the office of the Judge, the last thing is to administer the
correction or pardon the offence. This is the prerogative of the Governor.
The principles which aictate these forms mu3t be observed in private or
conventional proceedings to make them just. I submit that the Bishop has
confouuded all these functions together in one abitrary assumption.
To say that I denounced, and attacked, and brawled, and caused scandal, and grieved the Church, and upon tbe mere strength of these denunciations, (I appeal to the document itself for the accuracy of the words), to
indict and publish a penalty, is, I submit, tbe language of abuse and slander, and an act of lawless authority : the crimes thus imputed having been
manifested by no evidence, proved by no law. The Bishop affirms them, I
deny them. The Bishop has judged the cause, I judge it not. I appeal, God
will judge.
I have now only to ask the Bishop one question. In your last letter*
(27 Aug.,) you repeat your accusation of attacking and denouncing a brother clergyman.    In your censure you say:—
"You denounced your brother clergyman by name, and amongst other
words, declared that he had violated the law of the church, the law of the
land, aud the law of God in the Scriptures."
I ask,   did yon say this  of yourself,   or did others tell it you of me?    I
request also that the Bishop will give me the words,   or reasonably near the
words, which I am said to have uttered,  and to give them,   not obliquely or
. constructively,   as in the censure, but directly and as spofceo.
I ask also for the names of the other witnesses, if any. The Bishop
will, I presume, also deem it right to give me the minutes of any Council
which he, as Bishop, may bave held in this matter, as also any record he may
have made, or caused to be made, in reference to it in the Archives of.the
Diocese.
Yours faithfully,
E. CRIDGE.
To the Eight Reverend G. Bills, D. D.,
en
Culumt
)ia. New Westminister, Sept. 8th, 1873.
Dear Mr* Cridge :
'Much of your complaint is founded upon tbe assumption that the Bishop
in this Province lias no legal authority. In this you are mistaken. The authority of the Bishop c*n be'legally exercised first, under the Letters Patient,
which, having been granted by Her Majesty before constitutional powers of
Government had been conferred upon the Colony, are of force and validity,
and secondly, under the contract into which every clergyman has entered by
acceptance of the Bishops License, and the oath of canonical obedience, to be
governed by tbe laws of the Church ot England. All acts of eclesiastical
dicipline done under these sanctions are legal, and must be respected by the
civil courts, [See Long v. Bishop of Cape Town], Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone. You next complain that this authority has been exercised in an arbitrary
manner, and that you have been treated unjustly. la the exercise of dicipline it is true that the Episcipal office has the heavy responsibility of
combining in itself several functions. The Bishop may have to initiate proceedings and be as it were, both prosecutor and judge; of this, however, you
cannot reasonably complain, seeing that, as a minister of the Church of
England, you have accepted this form of government over you, nor is there
injustice in my having acted on the evidence of my own eyes and ears.
What is the use of evidence, but to bring to the mind of the Judge a clear
preception of the facts as they actually occurred? It is not necessarily an
injustice to pass sentence in spite of a plea of not guilty, and denial of the
charge ; is not this done every day ?
With regard to the mode of procedure,   the private method is tbe most
usual.    A Bishop is not bound  to  proceed in any particular manner.    His
;forum domesticwn is under little restraint from the forms observed in contentious suits in courts of justice," [report of the Comissioners ou Ecclesiastical
Courts,  1832 p. 54].
In England, notwithstanding tbe Clergy Diocipline Act, he can proceed
personally, aad without process in court, to enquire into and adjudicate
upon the alleged offence, "Cripps," 32. He' can in some cases deprive a
clergyman of his license and cure, refusing his demand for a public trial and
to bave his accu&ers face to face, (see Poole and Bishop of London). In
this land, where Statutes of English Law affecting the Church are not in
force, the Bishop's discretion is still more unfettered, and must remain so
until a Synod shall establish a Tribunal of Discipline. The principles of
substantial justice essential to every proceeding, are stated by Dr. Lushing-
ton, in. Poole v. Bishop of London, to be these, viz 1—
1. That the accused should know when an accusation is brought
against him.
2. That he should know what is alleged against him.
3. That the matter alleged must be stated  with sufficient precision.
In my letters to yos of Dec. 7 aud 9;  in my forwarding at your request
the Ecclesiastical law books, marked in the places where the offences charged are described, and in giving you opportunity to explain your conduct, or
to offer any plea in extenuation before tbe censure, these principles of justice
were satisfied, and having endeavored, under a painful necessity to execute
my office in a way usual in such cases, not without legal advice, I do not
see that you can justly complain of any wrong having been done; having
also carefully considered all you have advanced, I see no good reason to
re-open further this matter, which was decided in December last.
If you still feel aggrieved you can appeal from my decision to the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am, Dear Mr. Cridge, faithfully yours.
G. COLUMBIA. [24-3
Yictoria, B. C, Sept. 4, 1878.
My dear Bishop of Columbia:
Some members of the Congregation having expressed regret at your not
having preached at the Cathedral of late, and wishing to know why, I have
referred them to you for information.
On this subject I have but two things to say with regard to myself personally.
First, as long as you consider "ritualism" to be a mere "difference of
opinion'' between clergyman, and do not consider its advocacy in the Cathedral pulpit to be a matter of which any formal notice can be taken, I can have
no assurance but you may one day advocate the same yourself, or at least
favour its doctrine in your own teaching. I do not judge the accuracy of
your view, as if my judgment could decide the question, but I must judge for
for my own ministry/ which is inviolate and independent, as long as I do not
therein depart from the "doctrine of God's word and of the Church.
Your view of the import of this subject is essentially opposed to the whole
basis and substance of my ministry, I hold, (and my doctrines have always-
been notorious to all my brethren), that ritualism and more especially the doctrines of which it is the informal expression and which doctrines may be arid
often are fostered and taught apart from ritualism are irreconcilable with the
doctrines of our church, our rending that church to pieces in England, and
are a deadly attack upon the cause of the reformation, whose battle is being
fought over again.
You are not bound to be of this opinion because I hold it as manifestly
you are not, but my conscience binds me to say that I cannot welcome or invite
to any participation in my personal ministry any clergyman, however high
his order may be, who holds the views on this vital question which you
have expressed in connection with the same.
.But to say that I will oppose your access to the pulpit as Bishop' is another thing, -and when any request is made to me on the subject it will I hope
receive from me the attention and respect which the office of Bishop demands
from every clergyman of the church.
Sept. 17. I beg to append to the above written last Thursday week my
acknowledgment of your letter of the inst. in which you -declined to answer my question as to the evidence on which you grounded the censure which
has been the subject of this correspondence.
It is not to continue a correspondence of which, for the sake of my pastoral work I am glad to be relieved, that I write this, but to make still more
apparent to you the justice (from my view) of my determination not to impugn the authority of the Bishop but to preserve, as far as in me lies, my own
ministry, pure and violate. I will, however, state that I was prepared unless
you had silenced me to prove further that you have wronged me by partiality
against me in your oversight as Bishop; by insincerity towards me in your
statement as to other modes of redress open to me under the outrage I protested against, by misquotation of authorities and to sum. up all that in a manner
contrary to equity, and justice, truth, fidelity, and law you used your office as
Bishop to intimidate me in the honest faithful and lawful discharge of my
ministry.   These things I submit in foro conscientict, and leave them.
I am glad to be reminded that it was a " contract" and not a bond of
servitude under which we entered into the relation of Bishop and Presbyter,
and must be permitted to observe that there are always two sides to a contract,
and that it was never heard of that one party to a contract should be both
" prosecutor and judge" of the others violation of it except in ecclesiastical
matters, in which it would appear from your arguments that a Bishop is not
hound by the same kind of justice which governs other men.
It is because I believe you have violated the implied contract between yourself and the church at large no less than that which you have referred to as ex-
siting between ourselves by your claiming for ritualism a right to be recognized or at least to have a footing as a part of the allowable teaching of our
church that I as a Prespyter of the church having a right to a voice equal with
your own, have written the above. 36.
I hold*your reference to the Archbishop of Gantenbury for redress to be
only a confirmation of your resolution to maintain this view.
A more just and satisfactory way would be to refer it to the church in
this country in which the Supreme authority resides not the Church as constituted in synod on the principles published under the sanction of your name, but
exercising a free voice.
Before the whole body of the church then, I am .willing if God help me.
to undertake to maintain, whether with voice or pen, against any one that you
as Bishop may appoint, the affirmation against, ritualism and your action in
connection with it which I have made above.
Meanwhile I can only pray that the merciful Lord will bring deliverance
and quiet to our unhappy body in his own way, but above all that in this
land and within our church the notion of liberty to discuss doctrines under the
name of opinions a notion which I believe to tend only to make the church the
. hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean bird, may be disallowed
and come to naught.
I will only add in conclusion that if I have said one word in this correspondence but what is reasonable just and true as pertaining to the rights of
the meanest man, to say nothing of those of a minister of the church I shall
be glad that it be pointed out and I will readily retract it.
With sincere prayers for the unity of the church in the Protestant faith,
sealed with the blood of Bishops and martys.
I am sincerely and faithfully yours,
-    E. CRIDGE.
The Right Reverend Geo. Hill. D. D.
Bishop of British Columbia.
Pressure of pastoral duties compels a little untidiness which I hope will be
overlooked. E. C.
[25.]
[The Bishop to Rev. E. Cridge.]
Sapperton, Sep. 22, 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge.
Upon some things contained in your letters of the 4th and 17th, I wish
to observe as follows :—
1. The statement in the sermon attributed the ritualistic movement to
certain causes upon which there is, and may fairly be a difference of opinion; no particular practices were advocated and while the movement was
favorably regarded, the approval was limited by the expression of a hope
that the extra vaganees'would in time subside and the good rem.-nn. TUough
I did not agree with all that was said I heard nothing that was not permissible within the limits allowed in the church of England, to this extent, therefore, was the statement a matter of opinion. But even if serious error h d
been taught, that would have been no justification for a disturbance of the
order of service, or for an attack upon a brother minister before the eongre-
tiou.    Three modes of redress were legitimately open :—
1. To present the alleged error to the ordinary who would be compelled to deal with the charge according to the laws ot the church.
2. To give an expos tion from the pulpit on the earliest; occasion of the
truth according to your view upon the subject. 3. To publish your views
and protestation.
2. In opposing any system in which we believe there i's error, it is hardly christian, certainly not wise, to refuse, 10 acknowledge whatever in it
lheie may be of good. I observe you speak of ritualism as entirely evil,
i.ot so others who are living in the midst of it. At a meeting of the Rural
Deans and Principal Clergy of tbe Dioeese of Winchester about two months
ago under the presidency of the late lamented Bishop, the subject was As-
cussed in this form. ''How can tbe earnestness and energies ot those called
Ritualists  be directed   to the best purpose,  and the evil rooted up without destroying the good?" Let us recognize use, and hold fast whatever is good;
while we as zealously and as faithfully abhor and eschew that which is evi!-
but do not let us eall good evil any more than call evil good.
3. With regard to the independence of a clergyman of the Church of
England in his ministry, he is of course, not independent of the laws of the
church ; he must not teach contrary to the doctrines of the church as laid
down in tbe Prayer Book and Articles. Holding a license to officiate from
the Bishop, he is removeable for just cause. But having been appointed to
a Cure no one can officiate in it without his consent, with the exception of
the Bishop, or whoever exercises the office of ordinary. The Bishop is the
chief Pastor of tbe Diocese, of clergy and people of the church, and can visit
and exercise his ministry in every chnrch wherever he pleases ; usually he
does this at confirmations and at his visitations ; and in practice at other
time3 breaches qnly when requested. In a Cathedral, however, the case is
different. In it is the Cathedra, or seat of the Bishop, and there he is to be
most frequently present, the law being, see Burnes' ecclesiastical laws (by
Phillmore) vol. 1. p. 21. " Bishops shall abide at their Cathedral churches
and officiate on the Chief Festivals and on the Lord's Days and in Lent and
Advent." Not only does the Bishop by right more frequently preach in his
cathedral than in any other church, it is customary for him to appoint on
certain occasions other preachers, as for instance at his ordinations and general visitations. Christ church was constituted the Bishop's Cathedral, the
Deanery created and the Dean appointed under the powers contained in the
Letters Patent ; by which also the Bishop is authorized to appoint other
clergy to have places and consequently a right to officiate in the Cathedral.
Snbject to these conditions which only follow the custom of the church, tbe
Dean if he is also a Parochial minister can otherwise independently carry
out his ministry. Under this view which I believe to be correct, you will
perceive that the Bishop officiates by right and not through consent of any
other person when he ministers in his Cathedral, and that the congregation
there assembled are as much his flock as. Chief Pastor as they can be to any
one who holds his license.
I am, dear Mr. Cridge, very faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[26.]
14th, Oct., 1873,
My dear Bishop of Columbia.
Pastoral duties disable me at present, (but it is only I fear a duty deferred) from entering into assumptions contained in your letters; assumptions which to me are subversive of all faith, sanctity and peace in the church
and tend only to one thing, the erection of an image of Papal domination
in our midst; the darling object of the sacerdotal body in our church and of
none more than the late Bishop of Winchester whom you quote, but who to
me is the last and least of all authorities.
I cannot however allow the season of confirmation to pass without
drawing your attention to points on which I believe you have violated or departed from the order and doctrine of the church.
1. The service of confirmation :s not the Bishop's service (as yon term
it, and evidently regard it; "my confirmation"), but it is a rite of the church
to be ministered according to a prescribed order from which tbe Bishop has
no au'hority to depart. It is as competent for the Pastor of a congregation
to stop the appointed order of morning Prayer (for instance) before the recital of the Creed by tbe congregation, and to direct a pause for Silent Prayer for the increased solemnity of that act aud to deliver addresses with that
view as it is for the Bishop to do so and as you have done is the " order of
confirmation."
2. You attribute Grace to the laying on of hands in confirmation a
grace restrained in tme to that act. This I believe to be entirely without
warrant either from Scriptures or the church. 38.
3. Yon attribute to Bishops descent from the Apostles in respect to
their being a distinct order in the church and in other respects. This also
I believe to be devoid of authority as above. I believe I can give reasonably
near your words if you require.
May I hope if you see fit to instruct my ignorance in this matter that
you will for the sake of precious time, refer, not to vague and disputable,
bat conclusive authorities.
Tours faithfully,
E. CRIDGE.
The Bight Rev. Geo. Hills, D. D. Bishop of British Columbia.
[27.]
(The Bishop to Rev. E. Cridge.]
New Westminister, 18th October 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge.
From the tone of your letter of the 14th, and some expressions in it
there would seem little likelihood of any profit from a correspondence upon
the points you have raised. Let me refer you to tbe present Bishop of Winchester's work upon the 39 articles, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity for
information to enable you to judge how far your opinions agree with tbe
conclusion of the most learned* and most moderate Divines of the Chnrch of
England.
Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[28.]
Victoria, 27th, Oct. 1873.
My dear Bishop of Columbia:
If you will point out any expression in my letter of the 14th, which'
taken in its full and proper reference, goes beyond the just liberty of a minister in repelling, according to his convictions, erroneous doctrine from bis
flock, or in defending his office, the authority of which is not of man, but of
the Holy Ghost, from what he believes to be illegal and unscriptural domination or in guarding the due order of the church a duty as much binding on
one as another ; I will gladly withdraw it.
If in the support of the doctrines and acts complained of yon refer to
authors, it is obvious that I can do the same; and must be permitted to speak
of them as Zesteem them, and not as you esteem them, while on the other
hand if wishing to settle tbe matter, you reter to lawfully constituted author*
ities, I must either bend to your reference or show reason why not.
Hooker's Ecclesiastic il Polity is not an authority in this sense. Besides
which his argument is in part applicable only to the affairs of a national
church ; is in part a matter of expediency, and in part is disputed by many
both within and without the church. I referred to that work before writing
to you on confirmation and orders, and could meet you on this ground, but
surely it would be waste of time and to no purpose, settling nothing.
, I, as I think a faithful and accountable minister of the church, am engaged in defending my flock irom erroneous doctrines and my ministry from
threats and irritation. The prayer Book and the Homilies, with final reference, in case of question to tbe Scriptures are authorities which all must
respeot, and one clear sentence from these (E. G. from the 39 articles themselves instead of from any Bishop's work on the same), would settle more
than volumes from authors, however eminent.
The rule and principle of my ministry are plainly different from those
which you would have me follow. I do not find in either of the above authorities any reference to " moderate divinity". Truth is one and simple,
and admits of no degrees ; ministers as it appears to me are not bidden
whether by the word of God or by tbe'order of the church to follow "moderate divines", but to speak as the oracles of God.
Yours faithfully,
E. CRIDGE. 39.
[29.]
[The Bishop to the Rev. E. Cridge.]
New Westminister, Nov. 1st, 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
The tone and expressions of your letter of the 14th, to which I alluded
were in part the soreness and irritation under which you seem to write. To
this I attribute the discourteous language in your last paragraph, your absurd
and morbid statement of an attempt to erect "an image of Papal domination in our midst", and your unreasonable attack upon the ordinary mode of
conducting a confirmation. I much regret to learn that you deny confirma-
. tion to be a means of Grace, for I do not see how any clergyman of thfc
Church of England can consistently hold so extreme an opinion. The two
authorities were not given on account of any estimate of mine respecting them,
but because they are acknowleged Text books of the Church of England, universally required to be studied by all candidates for the ministry as most fair
and very learned expositions of the doctrines and principles of our church.
"With these you found your views upon confirmation and orders do not agree
and accordingly you are prepared to depreciate them. It does^not occur to
you that they may possibly be right and you wrong : at least that they may
hold some truth which you have overlooked, but you assume, as a matter of
course, that your own opinions must be right and those who differ from you
all wrong.
So very confident a tone may lead to mistakes, and when driving awayr
what, from your extreme point of view, you deem to be erroneous doctrine,
you may be misleading your people, and fighting against the truth of God.
Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[30.]
Victoria, Nov. 25th, 1873.
My Dear Bishop of Columbia:
Permit me in reference to your letter of Nov. 1. without preface to observe, that;
1. I no not think the words "image of Papal domination" bear on
the face of them anything that is " morbid " or " absurd ", They are part
of a sober proposition which wherever I see occasion or you shall require, I
am prepared to maintain: viz. thalf the rule which you aspire to exercise over
your brethren is a close resemblance in its nature, ground and origin to that
system which under pretence of a paterual domestic authority, has, proceeding from small beginnings,  for so many ages,  lorded it over Gods Heritage.
2. It was a sincere and lawful request which I made in the last paragraph of my letter and one which I again respectfully and earnestly draw
your attention as that which if complied, with would settle more than volumes
of writing.
3. I made no " attack' • on the usual way of conducting a confirmation,
(which I am persuaded yours was not), but in words of simplicity, andlbeligve
of truth, pointed out your unauthorized doctrines and your violation of the
"order" of the church, a viey? which, in the absence of all disproof, I must still
hold.
4. The strictures of your letter, so far as I can see, are absolutely against
nothing else but my refusal to violate my ordination vows, and to sacrifice my
own persuations as to the true Doctrines of God's word to human opinions.
5. It gives me pain to advert to another point in connection with this
part of the correspondence.
In my complaint against your teaching on the day of confirmation, I did
not, according to one of the laws you laid down, make a public protestation,,
but wrote privately to yourself. No soul knew of that'letter from me j yet
I find it has been communicated to members of my congregation.
Now* Sir, if I sought personal justification I could wish nothing better
iAJiaiMWiijaikiuujiiwMJuiiiJjmii than that it and all my letters should be published; but I cannot think it
quite the act of a Bishop, especially of one who claims judicial powers, to re--
sort to private influence against a presbyter among the flock of the latter.
As for myself I can use only, and when the time shall come, the open
method. As a Christian, a gentleman, and a man, I cannot resort to whispering or detraction, even in defence of a just cause.
But the doctrines and practices which I believe to be subversive of the
pure Gospel and of all sanctity and peace in the church, I must ever, both
openly and privately, in season and Out of season, endeavour to put down.
I must again express my ^regret if I have used any word in this correspondence contrary to charity and respect; I cannot give the time required for
complimentary language, and only hope my words will be construed with
charity in their literal signification.
Yours faithfully,
E. GRIDGE.
[31.]
[The Bishop to the Rev. E. Cridge.]
New "Westminister, Dec. 1st, 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
It is not necessary to think so badly of your Bishop as that he can "resort
to private influence" whispering or detraction "against any Presbyter" of
his Diocese.
It is simply his duty to confer with the faithful laity on matters respecting their clergy and it is for the interest of the Presbyters that he should do so.
Your extraordinary letter of October 14th was not marked private, and 1
cannot see that you have any just ground for objecting to the communication of
its contents to any person to whom I might think right to show it.
Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[32.]
December, 10th, 1873.
Dear Bishop of Columbia:
In reference to your note of Dec. 1st, permit me to ask, does the Bishop
think it his "duty," by private conference with the "faithful laity,'.' to excite
their animosity, and: to instigate them to use inflammatory language against
their Pastor ? Yet such has been the effect, (not the only one,) of his communications in the present instance, and while I ask the Bishop to shew how such-
methods can be for "my interest," I would remind him that it is not the
simple perusal of a letter, but the manner and purpose with which it is com-'
municated, that produce certain effects..
Permit me also to say that my letter of the 14th Oct., was only so far
extraordinary "as the proceedings which called it forth were so." The
Bishop is well aware that I, in common with a vast number of Protestants,
both in and out of our church, hold the doctrines in question to be of an essentially Romish tendency and that to instil them under the curcumstances could
not but cause dissatisfaction and protest.
I might, in reference to this and other matters between us, have agitated
the church by persuing certain methods indicated by yourself, but I have
sought the peace of the church, beyond all other things, next to its soundness
in the faith. What less, with my convictions could I do, than write plainly to
yourself? Is it wrong for the Pastor of a church to endeavour as he canto
banish and drive away strange and erronous doctrines from his flock ? What
Pope-even ever dared to say so ? I have acted only on the defensive throughout and in defence of my flock, in defence of my ministry; actuated still by the
same motives, I must with pain express the convictions which has been formed
in my mind, (and for which I am prepared to give reasons), that you favor the.
sacredotal doctrines, and their bud, "ritualism."    It is surely better, that such 41.
being my conviction, I should state it. And having said this much I hope I
may also, without presumption, ask whether the last clergyman you have
brought here, Mr. Mason, favours or holds the same, or whether you have
token steps to ascertain ? I shall deem it only a duty to state my reasons for
asking this question, should any more be needed, than the interest which every
member has in the welfare of the body.
I am sorry that you are offended with my confident tone, yet looking at
our vows and standards, what but confidence in our belief, if we be ready always to give a reason for it, otherwise confidence may be only a folly and
arrogance, becomes us as ministers of Christ and clergy of the church? I could
wish all the latter no harm, but to forsake the dark and restless sea of views
and opinions and to preach, defend and uphold the word. Dissensions and
disputations would then have but little place among us.
Meanwhile I must ask one question, if you can answer it; how can two.
walk together except they be agreed ?
Yours, sincerely,
E. CRIDGE.
[33.]
[The Bishop to the Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, Dec. 26th, 1873.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
Your letter of the 15th I found on my arrival from Cowichan, and I have
been much occupied since.
I regret to learn that members of your congregation nave shown "animosity" and used towards you "inflammatory language," but I am not
surprised, for complaints have reached me of provoking expressions in your
sermons; and misgivings are entertained as to your loyalty to the Church of
England.
So long as you set up your own opinions, which you appear to me to do
as an infallible standard, and fraternize with those who are conscientiously
opposed to the doctrines and order of the Anglican Church, it is not strange
that y6u first misunderstand, and then designate as erroneous in tendency,
teaching which is perfectly consistent with the doctrines of our church, or th^t
you should be led into uncharitable suspicions,
I must now beg to close this unprofitable sort of controversy.
Faithfully yours,
G, COLUMBIA.
[34.]
[Te the Right Rev. George Hills, D. D]
Dear Bishop Hills:
I should not have chosen this public mode of stating my sentiments with
regard to the movement just commenced under your direction, for organizing a Diocesan Synod, had time been allowed me to be prepared for the
meeting on Monday last, I did not receive your letter till Friday—and had
it even reached nie on its date—the Tuesday preceding,—I could not have
been ready, the time chosen for this important movement being, as you are
very well aware, the busiest time of the year for most clergymen. At the
same time, knowing that you have no objection to this mode of delivering a
protestation, I am glad to adopt it as a means of making known to yourself,
my brethren, and my people, both the reasons of my absence from the meeting in question, and, to some extent, my sentiments on its object.
And first, I feel that the proper mode of proceeding in a movement
where not mere ideas, but interests and consciences were concerned, was to
bave made known to the clergy and their congregations the matters of which
it was proposed that the Synod should take cognizance, as well as the con-?
stitution of the Synod itself, in order that they might freely and deliberately 42.
" Consider how far it might be safe to consent to be bound by its decisions,
not to seek such assurance before throwing myself into the movement, would
have been, I feel, on my part at least, not only nuwise, but a culpable disregard of the most sacred interests and obligations.
Besides which, there are matters on which'I for one, could not consent
to be bound by a body constituted as you prescribe; as for instance in the
erection of a tribunal of discipline. I have been struck in reading the history
of synodical movements in a sister Province, at the suppressed but resolute
eagerness of the Bishops, to get hold of the whip over their brethren.
There are other matters on this head which I will not now advert to;
but I trust I shall not be deemed personal if I state that my radical objection to a synod, constitued as proposed, is the nature of the authority of the
Episcopate. As the Bishop must needs be, not a President, but an estate in
that body, it is imperative that I state ray views with plainness.
On this subject I entirely dissent from the views of Archdeacon Gilson,
published with your approval; and I presume, under your direction; sentiments by so much the more dangerous as the character of that divine
amongst us was held in such high esteem; who, in ascribing to tbe Bistop a
divine commission with a divinely conferred right of ruling the church,
leaves vast number of our fellow Protestants without a ministry, and without
a church. With these sentiments your own statements I maintain, folly
harmonize; the authority of the Bishop over the clergy, in your view, being
such that it is independent of the ordinary rules of justice; that be can
without evidence, trial, or law, even deprive them of their cure,—that is,
their office and their living; from which it would appear that neither a
clergyman's character, nor his subsistence, can be deemed secure, except
through the Bishop's clemency or discretion. These assumptions, moreover,
rest in great part on Old laws, customs, traditions, and such like, so that no
one who does not possess a library of this complexion, with leisure to con-
Suit it, can be in the least aware how he stands; and so far a3 any certainty
of knowing what the law is, is concerned,.it is a standard which can be
compared to nothing so properly as the Roman Catholic rule of faith.
It is the dread that I should give even an implied assent to so tremendous an authority, that has made me hesitate to join the movement for a
synod. When one knows whether by words or deeds, of the sword which
—according to this view—is always hanging pver a pastor's head, the
shadow, even of a Bishop, strikes one with dread. I no longer wonder,
when I look back to tbe cradle of dissent. A ministry carried on nnder or
by the side of such a power, must become a ministry of horror and aversion,
rather than of love. This is not irony, but truth; and I declare it as the
strongest evidence of my sincerity in shrinking from the proposed synod.
A good conscience (I trust) and a higher name, and the word of truth containing no such thing restore my confidence, and disperse my fears.' And I
may, I trust, innocently express the hope that even a synod, with such
blood as we have amongst us, may do more than Archdeason Gilson allows
it to be competent to do; and that it will not only limit, but correct this
authority.
Permit me on the other hand to state what I believe to be truths' of scripture and the church; and the principles on which alone I could be one of a*
Synod.
I believe that every congregation, with its accepted pastor, is a complete
church (the word and sacraments being duly administered therein); that a
Diocese is.no necessary part of a church; but that so far as it does not belong
to a national -church, a Diocese is a voluntary confederation of churches,
presided over by a Bishop, chosen or accepted as their federal head, for certain common purposes; the words " Church of England," and such like
expressions, being used in the sense of law or accepted doctrines, and do not
designate the present actual church or congregation of faithful men.
The scriptures alone are -binding on the consciences of churchmen, and
are. therefore the virtual law; the prayer book, as containing the accepted
interpretation of the seriptures, is the actual or express law.   Law, then, is the 4a.
bond of unity which bishops and all must obey; and, as in the State, so in the
Church, law is the guarantee'of liberty.
The only accountable and lawful expounder and interpreter of this law,
whether of the doctrine, ritual, or order, is the pastor of the congregation
(persona ecclesise, the actual church), to whom not even the Bishop can dictate; into whose church he cannot come to share his ministry, or to oppose his
order. If a pastor and a bishop, whether under the name of a cathedral or
otherwise, should, for convenience, honour, or gain, enter into a compact
whereby the former compromises his accountability, so as to wink at or give
place to erroneous doctrine, or unauthorized ritual, or violation of order, for a
single'moment, both he and the Bishop are guilty—sowards God of simony,
towards the church (the actual congregation) of treachery.
But the Bishop may use his eyes; his office is his set; and he should
neither be blind to things which others see, nor be too seeing where he might
better be blind. If the pastor offends against the law in any of the above respects, then it is the office of the Bishop—:if appointed thereto or accepted by
the church, and being moved by the people—to take steps to bring him to
account; but he cannot judge; he is a party interested; either he may have a
friend or client to put into the living (if the congregation delegate to him. this
power); or he may be actuated by personal animosity; or by interested
motives. The Synod of a sister Province—by what influence moved can
easily be seen—has overruled this just principle of English and all law;
another risk of synodical action which I would by no means consent to incur.
On the other hand, the principles of the American Conventions,, which
Archdeacon Gilson objects to, as curtailing the divine rights of Bishops, are
that the Bishop (in. the confederation of churches) is bound by the majority
without the power of a veto.
The Bishop in this Province, on account of the invalidity of the Queen's
letters patent—which in any case are entirely inconsistent with the rights of
the church—through the incompatibility of those letters with pre-existing constitutional rights of the Legislature, cannot bring an offender to justice except
through the law courts and under particular trusts. And I confess that
under present circumstances, I would prefer being tried by christian lay gentlemen, who are accustomed to weigh evidence, and to hold the scales of
justice evenly, than by a tribunal constituted in the way in which I have
little doubt a Synod would be taught to constitute it.
There is something fascinating to many minds in the notion of the churuh
being under one Visible head, invested with divine authority to rule it. It
seems to afford-the fairest promise of unity and peace. It has been tried and
found wanting. It has proved the fruitful source of either of discord or dead-
ness, and its legitimate tendency, after ages of trial, may be learned from the
Reformation, and from the last Ecumenical Council. The traditional traces
of it, unhappily are not yet blotted out in our own body; nor its memory from
the minds of those who, on account of prelacy, more than any other thing,
left us.
When I first came to this country, a parent (still a respected resident in
our vicinity) hesitated to allow me to baptize his child, until he received an
assurance that it would not belong to the Bishop, not good Bishop Demers,
but some supposed lord of mine elsewhere. The Pope's recent letter to the
Emperor of Germany, with that potentates's noble reply, may illustrate how
the principles of divine authority in the episcopate, may be only papal domination in a more limited field.
The truth is, my dear Bishop, the divine authority is in the body of the
church itself, the actual congregation, and not in any man or order of men.
I doubt not that you, as Bishop, with (as you suppose apostolical succession,
are most sincere in your convictions, that if all the clergy would consent to
be, not what they are, the churches' curates, but the bishop's, it would be for
the good of the church. The church would be a happy family; the pastor
would be spared the pain of driving away strange doctrines through the
Bishop's being recognized as the supreme and only arbiter.
But it cannot be.    Our vows before God and man will not permit. 44.
In conclusion let me express my solemn conviction that this is a time for
all protestant bodies (to say no more) to be united in the common faith, and
in christian works; not a time for jealousies and envyings and making proselytes, but a time in which the christian army, each soldier steadfast to his own
standard, should, under one head, to whose authority all bow, march against
the common foe; defend the citadel of Christianity itself, rather than too_ zealously seek their own things; defend, I say, our common faith against attacks
which, but for the rock on which it stands, could hardly fail to overthrow it.
With every feeling of good-will towards yourself personally, and with
earnest prayers that the. peace of the present season, descending, may unite in
love and truth the members of the Holy Catholic Church, which is the blessed
company of all christian people dispersed throughout the whole world;
I remain, yours very sincerely,
Victoria, B. C, Jan. 9th, 1874. E. CRIDGE.
[35.]
[The Bishop to the Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, Feb. 10th, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
y  I herewith forward to you the usual Articles of Inquiry,
I am, fiaithlully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[36.]
[Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, Feb. 12th, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
My attention has been directed to certain letters recently published by
you in the local papers, one with yottr own name at attached, dated January
9th, and four with anonymous signatures, in which you enunciate principles
in variance with those of the Church of England.
You have been made aware, by a resolution of-your Church Committee,
how much faith is felt in the Congregation at the substance and tone of this
correspondence.
A feeling widely prevails that you are using the position of a trusted
Minister of the Church in a manner not consistent With good faith, and it is
my painful duty to call upon you for an explanation. Out of many misleading statements, I will.select thres particulars in which you appear to Impugn
the plain teaching of the church, and to violate your vows.
1st. As to the necessity of the Episcopal Office and Diocesan organization .
in the Church of England, your words are: "Every congregation, with its
accepted pastor, is a complete church." "A Diocese is no necessary part of a
church." 'l Our church does not make the regimen of the church by Dioceses
necessary to a church." "The reproduction of that mode in a voluntary
church depends of right in the free choice of that church." This is opposed
to .the clear teaching of all the Formularies of the Church, the Prayer Book, the
Ordinal, the Articles and the Canons, which assume throughout, the necessity
of the Episcopal office for the supply of full ministrations and oversight to every
congregation. How can there be a pastor at all in the Church of England
without Episcopal ordination ? How can confirmation be supplied ? The
Bishop, by the rules of the church, has a Pastor! interest in every congregation, and it is a direction of the Prayer Book that "concerning the manner
how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the
parties that doubt or diversely take any thing shall always resort to the Bishop
of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same."
The Canons, by which the discipline of the church is everywhere regulat-
9m 45.
ed, abound in similar recognition of the authority of the "Bishop of the
Diocese" in connection with every congregation.
2d. As to the governing authority your words are : "The truth is
that divine authority is in the body of the church itself, the actual congregation, and not in any man or order of men." " The governing authority of
Bishops in the Church of England is not inherent in the office." "The governing authority in the days of the Apostles was in the body of the church
itself." These statements contradict the principles of the Church of England
which declare that Bishops are admitted to "government in the Church of>
Christ," and each Bishop is thus charged "to correct and punish according to
such authority as you have by God's word such as be unquiet, disobedient and
criminous within your Diocese." (See consecration of Bishops.) You have
yourself been solemnly asked at your ordination, "will you reverently obey
your ordinary and other chief ministers unto whom is committed the charge
and government over you ? " And you have answered, "I will do so, the
Lord being my helper."
You have also more than once taken the oath of canonical obedience to
the Bishop of the Diocese. How can you now declare that the governing authority is not in the Episcopal office in any man or order of men, when you
yourself solemnly and publicly recognized it ?
3.—The obligation of Rites and Ceremonies. You say, our church makes
Riles and Ceremonies not of Divine Institution to be not binding on the conscience. You have subscribed a declaration "that the book of Common
Prayer and of Ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, contain in it nothing
contrary to the word of God, and that you will use the form prescribed in the
said book, and none other."
Do you mean to say after this that it is not binding on your conscience to
use, uphold and defend the rites and ceremonies in that book, which are not
of Divine Institution, that you may if you please omit the use of them, or
disparage them ? So far from admitting this right, the church, in Article
XXXIV, which you have also subscribed, declares:—
".Whosoever, through his private judgment willingly and purposely
doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church which be not
repugnant to the word of God and be ordered and approved by common
authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like
as he that offendeth against the common order of the church."
To claim the liberty not to observe what you have so solemnly engaged to
do is immoral. Many of your expressions are designed evidently to biing
into contempt the Episcopal office; such as " its sword always hanging over
a Pastor's head;" "the shadow of a Bishop strikes one with dread;" the
unworthy motives you attribute to the " Bishopsof a sister Province in their
suppressed but resolute eagerness to get hold of the whip over their
brethren;" your story about the ignorant settler who wished for baptism
but objected to a Bishop; that about the "crozier" your ungenerous attack
upon your Churchwardens to whom yeu have been so much indebted " as
spies of the Bishop;" and other remarks in a similar spirit. All this would
not be surprising in a bitter congregationalist, or an open enemy, but is
indefensible on any principle of christian charity or common honesty, in one
who is acting as a minister, and eating the bread of the Chnrch of England.
Regretting to be constrained under a  sense of duty thus to write,
I am, dear Mr. Cridge,
Faithfully yours,
G.COLUMBIA.
[37.]
Dear Bishop Hills:
My thoughts are so much occupied at present with arrangements for
Lent that I cannot now formally answer your letters, especially that received
yesterday in reference to my protestation against your assumption in the
matter of Synods.
mmwwMi 46.
I am extremely glad of the prospect of the opportunity, (and I trust I
shall have grace to embrace it with humility and truthfulness), of further
vindicating tbe principles of charity and sound doctrine, as taught by our
church according to the Scriptures, as well as the fidelity of my own
ministry.
Meanwhile I must protest (with all respect to your office) against your
making my pulpit (as last month) the arena for designedly teaching doctrines
contrary to those which I teach, against which, privately and publicly, I
have to yourself protested as entirely unauthorized by Scripture or by our
church.
Your letter of Dec, 30th, signifying your "purpose" to preach at stated
times, I have as yet, for peace sake, forborne to answer, and not because I
admit the assumption which it appears to advance.
I will only in conclusion again repeat my unaltered determination to
abide by the doctrine and order of our church "in all things lawful and
honest," and again entreat you to do the same, in the spirit of Apostles and
of Our Lord himself.
Yours, faithfully,
Feb. 14th, 18T4. E. CRIDGE.
[38.]
[The Bishop to the Rev, E. Cridge,]
Bishop's Close, March 23d, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
It is nearly six weeks since I required from you an explanation respecting certain statements opposed to the principles of the Church of
England, published by you in the local papers. In a note, dated Feb. 14tb,
you excused yourself from replying at once formally on account of press of
work at that time.
I must now require an immediate attention to my letter.
I am, faithfully yours,
G. COLOMBIA.
[39.]
DIOCESAN   SYNOD.—ADDRESS   OF   THE   DEAN   OP    CHRIST
CHURCH TO THE CONGREGATION.
Editor Standard, Sir:
At the request of several members of the congregation, I avail myself of
your columns to publish the following address to the congregation of Christ
Church.
The obvious tendency of the Synod, on the principles proposed, is to establish a system of centralization, highly prejudicial, in my opinion, to life in the
church, and one which, I think, every church person throughout the Province
should seriously consider before consenting to it in any way.
The whole course of events, from the ritualistic teaching of the Archdeacon at the consecration of the church, down to the covering of the church
doors with electioneering placards, without my knowledge or consent, is so
illustrative of the danger in which we stand, that I feel it my duty to raise the
voice of warning.
For myself, personally, I feel little concern what may be said of me. I
may be mad, or false, or anything else. But when any attempt is made to
defame my ministry, or intrude upon my office, which I have received in
trust for the chureh, as well as for myself, I shall not hesitate, if I believe the
■ interests of religion require it, to give it to the light of day. I only hope the
congregation will bear this disquietude in hope of a greater peace in a brighter
day.   I have supplied two or three points accidentally omitted in the delivery. I may observe that I should not have published the Bishop's "judgment"
had I not previously used my best endeavors-to convince him of what I conceived to be its true character.
Yours faithfully,
March 26th, 1874. E. CRIDGE.
Dear Brethren,
In addressing you on the subject of the proposed synod I wish to be plain,
inasmuch as it is a public question; affecting church people throughout the
Province: and the public acts of all concerned are open to discussion.
But I wish also to address you in the spirit of candour and charity, as
one who would in all things seek the edification of the church, and the advancement of true religion. And inasmuch as this is purely a pastoral address
I do not propose that there should be on the present occasion any discussion
or resolutions. And I am sure, as this is, in a sense, a religious meeting, you
will also concur in the desire that there'should be no demonstration, whether
of applause, or otherwise; for although personal questions must unavoidably
be touched, it will not, I hope, be in a personal manner.
And here I may offer a word of explanation as to the course I have
pursued in reference to the movement so far, and my reasons for not joining
in it* My reason is simply this, that neither the congregation nor myself,
have had a free voice in the matter. We have been expected to move in a
channel marked out for us; that channel, unhappily, being one which my own
conscience could not approve.
It was right that the Bishop should have set forth his views before the
congregations. But, that being done, he should, in my humble judgment,
have retired, and left the congregations and ministry free to deliberate on his
proposals.
On this ground I protested three several times against the evident
unfairness of expecting myself and congregation to be bound by a movement
of the nature and ends of which the majority, I am persuaded, are still profoundly ignorant. And I must also observe that this movement, so far as
authority is concerned, is only the act of individuals, however highly esteemed, and not of the congregation.
Now I believe that the true business and end of a synod is that of a
voluntary union of congregations, who have agreed on their common faith,
to combine their strength in spreading abroad the gospel and in common
christian works. And had these been purely the ends of the present movement, I for one would not have opposed it. So far from this being the case,
it has at the outset been grounded on principles utterly repudiated by a large
body in the Church of England.
I must put this matter plainly before you, because I declare to you my
conviction that the purity of the reformed faith is in danger from those
principles.
Had it not been for the occurrences which took place at the consecration of the church, when, before you all, I protested against ritualism; and
had it not been for what has ensued from that protest; I, too, might have
been led into the unconscious acceptance of principles, the nature of which
I might have discovered when too late.
What has subsequently happened I feel I must now briefly put before you.
It is a duty which I owe to my ministry and the cause of truth; to my family,
and to you, my beloved brethren. To you, the congregation, because ever since
that protest there has been a something, you scarcely have known what, dis_
turbing your quiet if not obstructing your edffication; to my ministry, that j
may not be supposed to have exercised it unlawfully; to my children, that my
name may'not be a reproach to them when my lips are silent,
I must therefore put a certain letter before you; a letter which, what*
ever others may  have done, I have never communicated, nor spoken  of
except to some very few members of the congregation, who have sought of
me an explanation; and you will bear me witness, my friends, that whatever 48.
wrong may have been done to me, I have not gone whispering among you to
foment dissensions.    What I say, therefore, I say openly.
The letter to which I allude is a judgment passed upon me by the Bishop
for the protest which I uttered on the occasion referred to; and I produce it
now in order, first, that this element of disquiet,—so far at least as it is a
hidden one,—may be be removed from amongst you; and also, because it
forcibly illustrates what I wish to say as to tbe dangerous nature of the
principle on which the projected synod is virtually based; the doctrine, I
mean, of the apostolical succession; the controversy of ages and of all the
churches.
And here I wish you to bear in mind, that I bring this before you as an
official act on the Bishop's part, and not as a personal matter; the said letter
having'been sent by him to the Churchwardens (who did not send it back)
and therefore virtually published.    What I therefore now say to you is in
some cense my defence, as well as pertinent to my general argument.
This is the letter :—
Bishop's Close, Victoria, December 14, 1872.
Rev. Sir:—
Having offered you, with no good result, several opportunities of ex-
» pressing regret at your conduct on the 5th of December, a regret which
should be expressed to your Bishop, who was unhappily present an eye and
ear witness of the sad scene; to your brother minister, whom you openly
insulted in the House of God, and to the congregation whom you disturbed
and distressed, it now remains forme to discharge a most painful duty, the
more painful considering your position as De in of the Cathedral, and as
senior clergyman of the diocese, from whom might be expected at least an
example of self-control, propriety and order.
On the 5tb of December, at the evening service of the day of Consecration of Christ Church, immediately after the sermon by tbe Archdeacon
of Vancouver, instead of proceeding with the service, you stood up, and in
irritating and chiding language you denounced your brother clergyman by
name, and amongst other words declared that he had violated the law
of the chnrch, tbe law of the land, and the law of God in the Scriptures.
Be'ug evidently under excitement, your manner and language caused
unseemly disturbance in tbe congregation. There were vehement expressions such as are only heard in secular buildings and in drinking saloons,
stamping of feet, clapping of hands, and other unseemly noises. Much distress was created amongst all the properly disposed and regular members of
the congregation, in the midst of which several persons hastily left the
church. Tbe deepest pain was caused to the Bishop of Oregon, myself, the
clergy, and the congregation generally.
To the enemy of retigion and to the careless and profane, an occasion
has been given to blaspheme and ridicule the sacred cause of God, and a
stumbling block has been placed in the way of the weak.
You have committed the grave offence, which is described both in the
ecclesiastical law, and the statute law of the empire by the term of brawling,
an act of disturbance of divine worship punishable in a layman by fine or
imprisonment, in a clergyman  by suspension.
Moreover you violated the 53rd Canon of the Church of England, which
forbids public opposition between clergymen, and requires the clergymen offending to be inhibited, "because upon such public dissenting and contradicting
there may give much offence and disquietness unto the people."
No provocation is allowed to justify a violation of these laws. If the
Archdeacon's sermon had contained error there are means to be adopted by
which he could be called to account. If, as was the case, you differed from
the view he took of a similar subject, you have abundant opportunities of
teaching your congregation what you consider to be right. Your attack upon
. him in the House of God was the more unjustifiable since he occupied the
pulpit at your own * suggestion, and he is a member of the Cathedral body.
* Made to prevent his preaching on Sundtiy evening.—K. C. 49.
Considering all these circumstances, considering the public scandal you
have caused, the outrage upon order and propriety in divine worship, and
violation of the laws expressly framed to prevent such an unhappy exhibition,
I should probably be justified in taking a course much more severe; conaidei-
ing, however, also your long and faithful service in the church, that you were
probably unaware of the laws which prohibit such actions, and that this is the
first grave offence of any kind in the Diocese which I have been called upon
to notice, I take the most lenient course I can adopt, and I inflict upon you
only a grave censure. ,
As your Bishop then I censure you for your conduct on Thursday, the
5th day of December, 1872, and I admonish you to be more careful in future.
Witness my hand this 14th day of December, 1872,
G. COLUMBIA.
To the Very Reverend Edward Cridge,
Rector of Christ Church. Vtctoria,
And Dean of the Cathedral.
Now, my brethren, the best answer I can give to this letter, is to repeat,
in my protest now before you, all that I dtd say, as word for word I may aver
I wrote it down, after delivery, having spoken with deliberation. Its tenor is
confirmed by others who also wrote for me their recollections; I am confident
you will find in it nothing that will contradict your own.
After a pause, and the preacher had left the pulpit, and before giving out
the hymn, I turned myself to the congregation, and said;—
My very dear brethren and friends, it is with feelings of sorrow and
humiliation that I feel myself compelled to take an unusual course. Something has been said in your ears this evening, upon which I feel myself-
impelled by my conscience as your pastor to have the last word, (Subdued
applause.) I do entreat you to remember that this is the house of God.
(Perfect quietness to the end.) I have ministered among you on this spot for_
nineteen years, and this is the first time,—and I humbly pray to God it maybe the last,—that I have heard ritualism advocated here. I know I am weak,
but I trust I can say in dependence on God's help, that ritualism shall not be
introduced among you, as long as I have a voice to raise against it. I have
three reasons for this, which I give to you in no controversial spirit,—first,
that it is contrary to the Scriptures. The temple is referred to in support of
ritualism, but it, with all its" ceremonies, was according to a pattern from
heaven, and is therefore no authority to us. Secondly—it has been declared
to be contrary to the law in England. And thirdly, it is not found in this
book—the Prayer Book,—which is my only guide for ministering among you.
For these are the reasons, which I trust with God's help not to give my consent to its introduction in this church.
Now, my friend
office, or his
rights,
it is a well understood principle that when a man's
his   trust, is in danger,  he is at liberty to   utter  a
protest. . And even'should he in the sudden unexpected emergency, somewhat
exceed the accustomed restraints of language or conduct, it is pardoned for
the urgency of the occasion. The most despotic pope would not forbid this
"liberty; forhe might be forbidding a defender. If the sermon in question had
been an attack on sentiments held by the Bishop, as it was an attack on those
held by the minister and his congregation,—the Bishop himself would hardly
have failed to thank his defender, and to load him with his best rewards.
How- much   more,   when
and  for my
trusted to me
I   stood   up,   as   I   believed,   for   my master,
church,   in   defense of the ministry  which had   been   en-
with the most solemn adjurations.    Still, had I acted m the
manner described, I should have been unworthy of the ministry.
I have the consolation of believing, from numerous testimonies, that the
step was approved by the congregation generally,—some of whom even on
their dying beds, have referred to it with tears.
But in fact there was no other way open to me of dealing.with this offensive discourse. There was no tribunal in the country which could have dealt
with the erroneous doctrine which I believed it to contain. I had no hope
that the Bishop would rebuke the preacher. He has indeed since intimated
that there was nothing in the sermon which went beyond the li   r y of opm-» 50.
ions allowed in the Church of England, and of which any formal notice"
could be taken. I may observe, my brethren, in passing, that the preached
on that occasion, was guilty of a great breach of trust in using my pulpit to
teach doctrines which he knew were notoriously adverse to my own. The pulpit
is under the exclusive Control of the minister who, as he must have known, is
accountable for the doctrine taught, so far as in him lies.
I say, then, that in this case,—in the case of the letter I have read to
you, condemning me for my protest,—the Bishop, relying doubtless, on the
irresponsible authority which I am sure he sincerely believes ;he possesses,
combined in -his own person the functions of prosecutor, witness and judge;
functions which, I venture to say, except in the ecclesiastical law, (if this be
law) or in your Government over infants or slaves, are never allowed to meet
in one person.
I must also observe, that on applying to the Bishop to know what others
witnessed against me, at what council, if any, this sentence was decided on;
and what record, if any, was made in the archives of the diocese; this information was refused, and I was referred, for redress, to the Archbishop of
Canterbury,- which means, I believe, a costly lawsuit; lam quite sure if
Archdeacon Gilson knew these things, he would write somewhat differently
from that which I read from his pen in the "Standard" of to-day's date.
Now brethren, I put this case in connection with the synod from a chris*
tian point of view.
It has, I believe, been impressed upon you that the synod is to heal this
and every other wound of the chureh<
Now it is not a synod in itself that I object to, but the principles on which
the proposed-synod is grounded. And seeing in this case the working of these
principles, and feeling certain from the very nature of the assumption on
which they are based, that they will still work, though in another form; the
question arises, is it safe to go into such a synod ?
"Who will suggest a tribunal by which such a case as this could be tried ?
For I find in the proposed synod no provision made for trying the Bishop
himself, whoever may be the incumbent of the office; I wish to speak with all
respect. This is a public question. We are constituting, or professing to
constitute, the church for our children. And surely we cannot omit from our
consideration the chief part of that constitution,—the head. Now, as in the
proposed constitution, the Bishop can say "no" to every proposal of the rest
of the body, it is plain that no tribunal can try the Bishop, except a revolutionary one,—i. e., one which will destroy the prerogative.
It may be supposed that the convention will alter this. The Bishop does
not suppose so. He has adopted the resolutions which include,—though they"
do not express,—the veto, as the ''understanding" on which the convention
meets. See tb^ circular to the "Clergy and Laity." And in looking over
the programme set forth, I must express my own feelings that there is appar-<
ently little that sayors of religion in the movement, but much that resembles
an approaching political contest. At least I must say that when elections are
directed to be held in any church,—for the registrar of the diocese, it would
seem, has kindly arranged that this proceeding shall take place in the sacred
edifice itself;—(subject, I believe, to the approval of a committee)—and when:
the communicants and congregation are called to what may be a party strife*
where no sound of discord should be heard, it does a little grate on my ideas
of the sanctity and demotion which one would like to see preserved amongst us.
But to revert to the question from the Christ Church point of view. How
is the synod to heal the wound which was opened at the consecration, and has
been increasing ever since, rendering my ministry a continual protest ?
Will it forbid me from protesting against false doetrines, or compel me
to admit those which are subversive of my own ministry ? The synod might-
I am well aware, —if one consented.to be bound by it,—be taught to put a
rod in any bishop's hand, by "means of an ecclesiastical tribunal, under his
immediate guidance, to'keep ministers who taught contrary to his will, in a
kind of subordination ? But what sort of unity is that which would be
achieved in this manner ?
It is said, indeed, that a Synod will not be called upon to give judgme n "upon doctrines.    There is a
to frame laws of discipline.
fallacy here; for one of the objects of a synod is
Whatever tribunal, therefore,
will judge doctrines,—whether they are, or are not those of the Church
the synod erects,
of
England. The meaning, of course, is that the synod will concede to the
Bishop, probably with such assessors as he may call to him, the power to deal
with doctrines.
In this way the organizing meeting,—and but for the circumstance above
mentioned, I probably should have been one, and have done as my brethren
did, without knowing what I was" doing,—have virtually decided, by adoption, doctrine, viz.; the doctrine of apostolical succession,—on which alone
the veto rests.. Now, in reference to this doctrine, which we have so quietly
accepted, or at least allowed, let me quote a reply of the present Bishop of
Exeter,—Dr. Temple—to some of the Tractarian body who wished him to
declare that this was the doctrine of the Church of England. He declined,
saying rather felicitously, that while the church had provided that her "ministers should have that succession," i. e., ordination by Bishops in the
traditional sense,—"as a matter of fact she had omitted from her articles
all mention of that succession as a matter of doctrine."
I must not pass over the evident intention that the synod shall declare
the churchwardens to be the Bishop's officers. I hope our own churchwardens
—and I say it with the most sincere appreciation of their valuable and assiduous services—will be able to explain at the approaching annual meeting the
grounds on which they have, as it appears to me, acted for some time past
rather as the Bishop's agents than of those who appointed them. Such a
canon, if passed, must produce the most disastrous effects upon the harmony
of congregations.
It has been suggested, and I think it not improper to advert to usage,
that there is danger, if I give my consent to a synod, of the Christ Church
Trust being affected. I only glance at this, as the land being part of the
support of your minister, you are as much interested as! myself. And the
question has been raised how it may be consistent with the Bishop's office, as
trustee, to pursue a course which may tend to draw the. cestin que truste, which
is myself, into a proceeding which might endanger his vested rights.
I want you to see how this matter stands in another point of view. I exercise my ministry, and hold what may be called my living, under a trust
deed which renders me safe from all .molestation as long as I conform to the
laws of the Church of England. That trust deed confirmed and conveyed for
my benefit.first the land which was promised to me by express covenant before I left England, and which I entered on some five years before the Bishop
came to this country. If I offend against these doctrines I must be tried for
breach of trust*by ordinary course of just law. But if I were not to be bound
by a synod which shall have authority to decide in any case upon the infring-
ment of these doctrines, I come under a different law: and might one day find
7 7 O _•/
that in the estimation of a certain close tribunal, I am judged to have violated
these doctrines.
A looking: at the
synod in its constitution of voting by orders, what hope
might I have in a body where a majority of one's brethren, as I believe is now
the case, are dependent on the Bishop for removal on any qnestion in which I
might have the misfortune of differing from the Bishop. I say it with all respect to such of my brethren and to the Bishop himself. For though I put it
as a personal question, I doubt not that some of my reverend brethren, whose
positions, like my own, is settled by law, might find themselves in both the
above respects in essentially the same altered circumstances as those which I
have described.
It may be expected that I should shew my own views with regard to
what might be a desirable constitution for a synod.
I mast first repeat my sense of the insuperable differences which, to my
mind, exist in so reconciling religious differences as to render possible an
arrangement for dealing with doctrines which shall be satisfactory to all,
when you call to mind (and I speak this without judging who is right and
who is wrong,) that fundamental differences exist between the Bishop aud
some of the clergy, and between some of the clergy and others.   You can see "the difficulty; there are but two ways of getting over it both of which are
opposed to all religion and faith; tbe first is submitting questions of doctrine
to the will of a majority among the opponents, or compelling all to teach as
the Bishop believes; which with tbe most-sincere conviction on the Bishop's
side that it is the only means of purity, is, I apprehend, one main object of
the movement.
How much better 'or congregations, being lawfully constituted under
Cburrh of England principles, rather to pray and trust to a Gracious God to
maintain amongst them its pure faith.
But with this reserve and withoutkaowing until tbe time comes what
course I might myself feel it right to adopt, I think that the whole body
should deliberate together under the presidency of the Bishop; every question
being decided by a majority of clergy and laity with equal votes, the Bishop
having when necessary the casting vote. By this method I think all questions,—those of doctrine being as above excepted, might most satisfactorily
be dealt with.
I should deem it just also that questions affecting the internal affairs of
congregations should be communicated to all the congregations beforehand
with a view to their being determined at a subsequent session, and only
congregations to be bound by such decision as consent to it.
For I see no necessity for the iron band of-unformity being so stringently placed on congregations as to destroy their independence and freedom of
action on their own internal affairs. And I hope to see our own congregation waking up to a more lively interest iu its own affairs.
At the same time I consider that the Prayer Book must as it now is be
adopted in its integrity, subject only to such exceptions as are demanded by
our own situation outside the national church and for the reasons I bave
above stated, any cases of violation of it should be dealt with simply on the
grounds of a breach of trust by the ordinary tribnnals.
I would make one remark in reference to a wild statement I have been
told has been made, that I have asserted that Bishops are not necessary in
the Church of England. Why my brethren, I am by birth and education an
Episcopalian, and by choice, an Episcopal minister. I believe tbe Episcopal
office when exercised according to the principles of our church, to be most
reverend and beneficial, and is just authority to be most readily and gladly
submitted to by all who are under it, Bat I ask is the Episcopal office, that
is as in the Church of England, necessary in the Presbyterian, or other
churches? You know that this has been one of my objections to the doctrine of the apostolic succession; which however its consequences may be
deprecated by charitable kind hearted men like Archdeacon Gilson does, as
we hear it taught, and I fear, see it practiced, involve as its logical sequence
the conclusion that such bodies are not proper churches at all.
I thank you very much for your kind forbearance in listening to me this
evening, I have no doubt omitted points of interest and perhaps of importance; but I hope yon will give me credit for a sincere desire and endeavour,
however I may come short in the performance, and however I may differ from
some whom I respect and bave to form all my conduct and sentiments as
near as I can according to the will of God.
I would only, in conclusion, ask yon to make these matters the subject
of your earnest prayers. I will not disguise from you that I view tbe future
with some anxiety, but not without hope, God is light and wiil guide us if
we look to Him. One of our greatest evils is interference. If we can' but
have peace—a blessing indeed most to be desired by a christian people—it
seems sometimes to matter little what, on a point more or less, is our faith.
The chief danger I should apprehend to the congregations should a synod as
proposed be carried into effect, is the settling down into a dead level of
uniformity, with peace purchased by no little sacrifice of truth. May God
avert the danger. ■ 53.
I 40.]
Dear Bishop-Hills:
I find it impossible to deal with the allegations in your letter till after
Easter.
Meanwhile I feel it a christian duty not only to affirm that its accusations are groundless, but also that tbe letter itself abounds with inaccuracies
both of statement and reference. I mention this in order that, should you
see fit to review it, you may have the opportunity of doing so.
Yours, faithfully,
March 28th, 1874. E. CRIDGE.
1.41.]
[The Bishop to the Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, May 25th, 1874.
My dear Sir:
I have not received your return to the Articles of Enquiry for 1873, sent
you in February last.    I must request your replies without delay.
Faithfully yours,
Very Rev. Dean Cridge, G. COLUMBIA.
[42.]
[Bishop of Columbia to the Churchwardens.]
Bishop's Close, June 22d, 1874.
Gentlemen:
It is my intention to hold my annual visitation of the Cathedral on
Thursday next, at 2 o'clock. Should that day and hour be inconvenient to
yourselves or the Dean, I shall be glad to be notified, that I may fix another
day.
Faithfully yours,
To the Churchwardens of the Cathedral. G. COLUMBIA.
[43.]
[Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, June 22d, 1374.
Dear Mr. Cridge:
It is my intention to hold my annual visitation of the Cathedral on
Thursday next, at 2 o'clock. Should that day and hour be inconvenient to
yourself, or the Churchwardens, I shall be glad to be notified, that I may fix
another day.
Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[44.]
Victoria, B. C, 23d June 1874.
My Lord Bishop:
In reply to your letter ofyesterday, I beg leave to say that it will not be
convenient to receive your Lordship's visit at Christ Church Cathedral on
Thursday next.
I will confer with the Dean, and my fellow Churchwarden, and will
write to your Lordship again upon the subject.
My Lord Bishop, your very obedient servant,
A. F. PEMBERTON, Churchwarden.
The Very Rev. the Lord Bishop of Columbia. [The Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, June 29tb, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge.
Mr. Pemberton having informed me that the day I named was inconvenient, I now appoint Friday next, July 3d, at 4 o'clock, for my
visitation of the Cathedral.
Faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
[46.]
Victoria, B. C, 2d July, 1874.
My Lord Bishop:
I have conferred with Mr. Williams, the other Churchwarden, and pending the result of a memorial to His Excellency tbe Governor-General of
Canada, a copy of which we forward to the Archbishop of Canterbury, we,
the Churchwardens, most respectfully decline to receive the visit of your
Lordship.
In the address headed "Diocesan Synod," and signed "6. Columbia,"
the authorship of which you do not deny, but our right to interrogate you
upon which, you, through Mr. Drake, question, you appear to us to have
seceded from the Church of England. If yon bave done so,you cease to be a
Bishop of the Church ot England, to which we, the Churchwardens of Christ
Church, belong; if you have not seceded from the Church of England in
convening a Court of Convocation and Holy Synod, without the assent of
tbe Queen, you have assumed a greater power than that possessed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and we think, have encroached upon the prerogative of the Crown, to do which is, we believe, a misdemeanour.
1. I had been Churchwarden of Christ Church, several years before
your arrival in Vancouver Island, and after nearly ten years service in that
capacity, resigned my office, principally for the following reasons: "When
you said you would stop np the Roman Catholic approach to the cemetery, I
expostulated with you without effect. You persisted, and the consequence
was an action at law, in which you were defeated, and the costs of which,
some $600 or $800, I believe, you, as trustee of the Church Reserve,
charged against Mr. Cridga's income from that source.
2. When you stated to Mr. Shepperd and myself, as Churchwardens,
thatit was your intention to remove the Church to the plot of ground fenced
off for that purpose, and adjoining your Lordship's palace. I strongly objected, notwithstanding a road running through the edifice, was placed upon
the official map of the Church reserve, and I believe it still remains there.
I would gladly have continued to avail myself of the cessation from care and
anxiety which I have enjoyed since my resignation of the office of Churchwarden, now some eight or nine years, but recent events in the Church, call
every friend of hers to the asaistance and support of one of her most devoted
and excellent ministers, our much esteemed, our long and greatly respected
Pastor, Mr. Cridge.
In conclusion, supposing your visitation to be in tbe nature of an
Ecclesiastical Court, if not under license from the Queen as head of the State
to which in your Synodical address you say you owe no allegiance, permit us,
the Churchwardens, to ask under what authority do you hold a Court of
Visitation.
I remain, my Lord Bishop,
Your very obedient servant,
A, F.PEMBERTON.
For the Churchwardens of Christ Church. 55.
[47.]
Bear Bishop Hills,
I have received a communication from the Churchwardens, stating that
they have informed you that they respectfully decline to receive your visitation pending the result of a memorial to the Governor-General of Canada,
and notifying me that it will be therefore useless for me to attend.
Yours faithfully,
Victoria, B. C, 2d July, 1874. E. CRIDGE.
[48.]
[Bishop of Columbia  to the Churchwardens,]
Bishop's Close, July 2d, 1874.
Gentlemen:
There is nothing in your letter signed by Mr. Pemberton which I have
just received, to justify your refusal to attend my lawful visitation of Christ
Church. I therefore inform you agaiu of my intention to hold my visitation to-morrow, at four o'clock, and shall require the doors to be opened,
tbe books, registers and other goods of the Church to*be ready for my
inspection.
I am, Gentlemen, Faithfully yours,
Messrs. Pemberton and Williams, G. COLUMBIA.
Churchwardens of.the Cathedral.
[49.]
[The Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.]
Bishop's Close, July 2d, 1874.
Dear Mr. Cridge.
I am sorry to have again to inform you that it is my intention to hold
my annual visitation at Christ Church to-morrow, at four o'clock. The
Churchwardens to whom I have repl ed, are leading you into a serious position if they induce you to refuse to attend
I am, Dear Mr. Cridge, faithfully yours.
G. COLUMBIA. '
[50.]
Victoria, B. C, July 3d, 1874.
My Lord Bishop.
By courtesy, we address you as formerly.
In reply to your letter of last evening, we beg to say that as you have
failed to inform^us according to our request under what authority and by
what law, you hold a Court of Visitation, and without any legal summons or
citation, require our attendance thereat, we must still respectfully decline.
As soon as you shall make us aware in this or any other of your episcopal acts, that we are bound by law, we as law-abiding, will most cheerfully
conform.
We remain, your very obedient servants,
A. F. PEMBERTON    \ n.       ,        , .„,..„,      ,
ROBERT WII    jams i of Christ .Church.
The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Columbia,
[51.]
[To the Eight Reverend Bishop Hills, D. D.]
I, the undersigned, though concurring in opinion with the Churchwardens as to the illegality of your proceedings in sundry matters affecting th
aMummiumflUBMWH
HOSHR
iJUiiBJwmiuuau 56.
Church, under the name of a Bishop of the Church of England, do nevertheless, for peace and courtesy's sake, and not through any diversity of opinion
with tbem, open the Church on the present occasion.
At the same time, I hereby make my respectful and solemn protest as
agaicst former acts of your administration, so against these, viz: First your
endeavoring, i what I belive to be an illegal manner, to draw myself and
congregation against our will away from the protection of the law under
which we at present stand, to come under a law other than that of the
Church of England. Thereby introducing discord and division into a
hitherto peaceful congregation, and causing grief and great hindrance to
myself, both in the discharge of my ministry and in the enjoyment of my
legal nights. And secondly in this.;- That notwithstanding my repeated
remonstrances, you have persevered in preaching to my congregation in connection with the synodical movement, doctrines which you know to be
offensive to me, as being in tbe conscientious pursuasion of my own mind,
contrary to the Scripture and the Church, a course tending only that I have
felt it my duty to resist the temptation to provoke a polemical strife.
And I also declare that what I say or do in connection with the present
occasion, is said or ^done without prejudice to any of my own rights or privileges which by or under the law I possess, as also to those of the Churchwardens as appertaining to them by virtue of their office.
E. CRIDGE,
Incumbent of Christ Church.
Victoria, B. C, July 3d, 1874.
I am also constrained to add that, in the absence of the Churchwardens'
and of any other friend, witness or adviser, not being able through weariness
to obtain one in time for the present occasion, I beg to be excused from
answering questions, and that what the Bishop has to say to me he will put
in writing. B. C.
[52.]
Bishop's Close, July 14th, 1874.
My dear Sir,
Ten days having elapsed without any intimation of regret or apology
for your conduct in reference to and on the occasion of my visitation at the
Cathedral on the 3d inst., I am forced to the painful necessity of initiating
proceedings for your defiance of the Episcopal authority, and of the laws of
the Church, contrary to your ordination vow, and your oath of canonical
obedience.
Deeply pained to be Compelled to take this course, I now offer you before
formal steps are begun, the opportunity of acknowledging your fault, expressing regret, and submitting yourself in future to lawful authority,
I am, faithfully yours,
G. COLUMBIA.
Very Rev. Dean Cridge.
[53.]
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE VERY REV. E. CRIDGE.
The painful office now devolves upon us of declaring the judgment of this
tribunal upon the Very Reverend Edward Cridge, in respect of certain charges
preferred against him before us-, and our assessors, on the 10th, 11th, 12th and
14th days of the present month of September, 1874.
After careful and lengthened consideration of the evidence adduced, in
support of the said charges, the assessors, viz:, Mr. P. O'Reilly, County
Court Judge; the Venerable Archdeacon Woods, and the Rev. G. Mason,
have reported to us their unanimous conclusions.
Of the eighteen articles of charge, they.declare sixteen proved.
Of theee sixteen, five are of a mere formal character, viz:, 1, 2, 3, 4, and
18. 57.
Article 1 recites that all clerks and ministers in holy orders, are required
by the ecclesiastical laws, canons, and constitution of the Church of England,
holding the Bishop's license, to obey the said Bishop in all lawful matters and
things.
Article 2 recites the Royal Letters Patent of January 12th, 1859, consti-
' toting the Bishopric of British Columbia, and conferring jurisdiction upon
George, Bishop of British Columbia, and his successors..
Article 3 recites that Rev. Edward Cridge was duly and lawfully licensed
to the Cure of Christ Church, Victoria, on or about the 17th day of September, I860, and did then take the oath to us, and our successors, of canonicaL
Obedience.
Article 4 recites that the said Edward Cridge did, on the 7th day of September, 1865, again take the oath of canonical obedience, and was by us collated to the dignity of Dean of Christ Church, Victoria.
Articles 5 and 6 contain the charge that the said Edward Cridge having
.received from us, on December 14th, 1872, a formal censure for disturbance
of public worship, and for violation of the 53rd canon, did, on Wednesday,
the 25th day of March, now last, publicly and advisedly repudiate such censure and admonition and did set- the same at nought, and did justify the acts
which call for the censure and admonition, and did then and there in effect
declare that he would act in the same way under similar circumstances, contrary to his ordination vow, and oath of canonical obedience. These articles
having been reported to us, by our said assessors, as proved, we declare our
judgment in respect of the same to be revocation of the license granted by
us to the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th of September, 1860.
Article 7 charges the said Rev. E. Cridge with causing, at Christ Church
Cathedral, December 5th, 1872, a disturbance in the congregation, calling
forth' irreverent noises of stamping of feet, and clapping of hands, and
vehement expressions unbecoming the House of God, producing distress
amongst the properly disposed, under the effect of which several members of
the congregation hastily left the church; and that suchconduct on his, the
said Reverend E. Cridge's part, was an interruption of the due order, an act
of disturbance of public worship, and an offence contrary to the ecclesiastical
laws.
Our said assessors having reported to us this article proved, we decree
our judgment to be, in respect of the same, the revocation of our license which
we gi*hnted to the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th of September, 1860.
Article 8 charges the said Rev. Edward Cridge that he did, on the 5th
day of December, 1872, in Christ Church Cathedral, viz.: of puipose impugn
and confute the doctrine which had just been delivered, in a sermon in the
same Church, did name the preacher by name, and did cause thereby much
offence and disquietness; such conduct being in contravention of the 53d Canon,
and therefore a grave ecclesiastical offence.
Our said assessors have reported to us this article as proved, we
decree our judgment, in respect of the same, to be revocation oi" the license
which we granted the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th day of September,
1860.
Articles 9 and 10 our assessors have reported to us as not proved.
Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, charge various culpable acts and omissions against the said Edward Cridge,' in connection with our lawful visitation
of Christ Church Cathedral, July 3d, 1874, namely, that he refused to make
returns to the visitation articles of enquiry; that he denied our authority over
him at the time of our said visitation, and imputed that we had seceded from
the Church Of England; that he refused to answer questions it was our duty
to put; that he refused to produce the Registers of Baptisms and Marriages,
which are necessary for our proper visitation; doing other disobedient and
contumacious acts, all of which are ecclesiastical offences, as well against our
office and authority as ordinary, as against sundry canons which assume the lawfulness of episcopal visitations, and also against certain Imperial Statutes,
which assert the legality of the same and represent the common law and custom of the Church of England. These charges our assessors have reported
to us as proved, and we decree our judgment, in respect of the same, to be 58.
'revocation of the license granted by us on the 17th day of September, 1860,
to the said Rev. E. Cridge.
Article 17 charges the said Rev. E. Cridge with having, from time to
time, questioned our authority over him, and our'right to preaeh and minister
in our Cathedral, and with persistently endeavoring to depreciate our office;
in support of which charge various letters are referred to. All which charges
our said assessors have reported to us as proved, and we decree our judgment
for the same to be a formal admonition to the said Rev. E. Cridge to abstain
from such conduct in future.
Considering that through a lengthened correspondence between us and
the said Rev. Edward Cridge for more than a year and a half, touching the
matters now before referred to, and throughout the present painful proceedings there has been no expression of regret on his part for acts proved to be
contrary to the laws of the Church, nor any sign of submission in the future,
we are compelled to mark still further such a deliberate and long continued
resistance to lawful authority, as is proved in the various articles heretofore
referred to, and to decree our judgment to be that the said Edward Cridge be
suspended from the office and dignity of Dean of the said Cathedral Church,
until he submit himself to our lawful authority.
Our judgment on the present proceedings, therefore, is that the license
granted by us on the 17th September, 1860, to the said Rev.'E. Cridge, be
revoked; that he be suspended from the aforesaid office and dignity of Dean,
until he submit himself to lawful authority, and that he be admonished so to
submit himself in the future.
Witness our hand, this seventeenth day of September, in the year of Our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four.
G. COLUMBIA.
Victoria, B. C.
In presenting their report my assessors have unanimously expressed the
hope that in administering this necessary discipline the past faithful labors of
Mr. Cridge may be recognized to mitigate, where possible, the force of any
judgment passed in this case.
I can truly say I sincerely enter into this feeling. There is no intention
or wish on my part to remove Mr. Cridge permanently from Christ Church.
It will rest with himself, not with me, whether he be removed from the parish
or not.
A license may be revoked the and clergyman* holding it cease to be able
legally to minister in the Diocese, but if the cause of the revocation be removed
the revocation can be annulled and another license may be granted, and the
clergyman, on due submission to the laws of the Church, may be reinstated.
That such may be the case in the present instance is my earnest hope.
After Monday, when the formal revocation of the license will be issued, the
Cure of Christ Church will be vacant, and it will be my duty to provide in
the best way I can for the services.
An arrangement will be sanctioned in consultation with Mr. Cridge's
friends whereby, for a period during the vacancy, a portion of the income of
Christ Church may be allowed to him and his family.
[54.]
The Right Reverend,
The Lord Bishop of Columbia,
IN RE
The Very Reverend Edward £!ridge,
Dean of Christ Church, Victoria, V. I.
We, the Assessors in the above cause, find as follows:—
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are proved.
Articles 9 and 10 are not proved.
Articles 11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17 are proved.
Article 18 is proved, excepting as to Articles 9 and 10.
Witness our hands this 16th day of September, 1874. '
CHARLES T. WOODS, Archdeacon of Columbia.
GEORGE MASON.
P. O'REILLY. [55.]
Victoria, Sept. 14th, 1874.
I appear this morning to state that I decline to plead before this Court.
First—Because it is not a court of legal or competent jurisdiction.
-Secondly—That I have been refused time to consider and reply to the
arguments of the counsel on the question of the jurisdiction before proceeding
with the evidence.
Thirdly—That the constitution of the court is not just, there being on it
no one of legal standing, learning and experience, qualified to try the case,
and the ecclesiastical members belonging to one of the two great bodies into
which the church is divided, and myself to the other, and that although the
published correspondence articled against me referred to the subject of a
synod, to which I was adverse, one of the assessors is, I believe a delegate
to the synodical convention.
Fourthly—That the Bishop is interested in this case in an unusual degree,
not only by having the preferment, (as is supposed), but in other important
respects.
Fifthly—That whereas the Bishop stated that the rules of the Church
Discipline Act had been followed as nearly as circumstances would permit,
it has been needlessly departed from in more than one important respect.
Sixthly—That the articles, which I have been afforded no opportunity,
(notwithstanding my protests), of having amended, are by their defects, their
excesses, and their errors, illegal and unjust.
Seventhly—That the Bishop has combined, in his own person, functions
which are irreconcilable with justice and law; and
Eighthly—That I believe the Bishop to be personally disqualified by any
authQrity of Her Majesty to try this case by reason of his having denied the
Queen's supremacy, and thus virtually seceded from the Church of England.
And any other reasons which I may have laid before the court in other
protests.
E. CRIDGE.
[56.]
The following sentence, or judgment, in consequence of the said decision,
was likewise served upon the defendant, on the 22d day of September, A, D.,
1874, and his license to officiate thereby revoked.  ,
George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to the Very
Rev. Edward Cridge, Clerk, B. A.
Whereas, we did on or about the 17th day of September, in the year of
Our" Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty, by a license under our
Hand and Episcopal Seal, grant unto you our license to perform the office of
minister in Christ Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island, within our Diocese
and jurisdiction: Now, we, by virtue of the power and authority given to us
in this behalf, by certain Royal Letters Patent, dated January 12th, 1859, and
of all and every other power and authority vested in us, Ordinary or Episcopal, in anywise enabling us in that behalf for sufficient causes us, hereunto
moving, do by these presents revoke, annul, and make void the said license.
And further, we do hereby dismiss and remove you, the said Edward Cridge,
from the Cure of Christ Church, as aforesaid, from the day of the date of these
presents.
Given at Victoria, the twenty-first day of September, in the year of Our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, and in the sixteenth year
of Our Consecration.    As witness Our Hand and Episcopal Seal.
G. [L.S.] COLUMBIA.
[57.]
George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to the Very
Rev. Edward Cridge, Clerk, B. A.
Whereas, we did, on or about the 7th day of December, 1865, appoint
and collate you to be Dean of the Deanery of Christ Church, in Victoria, our 60.
Cathedral, we now for sufficient causes us, hereunto moving, do suspend yoUj
the said Edward Cridge, from the said office and dignity of Dean of the
Deanery aforesaid. . And further, we do suspend you from all and singular
the rights, members, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, if any, from the
day of the date of these presents until you have submitted yourself to our
lawful authority.
Given at Victoria, the twenty-first day of September, in the year of Our
Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, and in the sixteenth year
of Our Consecration.    As witness Our Hand and Episcopal Seal.
G. [L.S.] COLUMBIA.
[58.]
Bishop's Close, Sept. 25th, 1874.
Gentlemen:
It is my intention to perform the services myself assisted by my Chaplain
at the Cathedral, on Sunday next, morning and evening.
I am, faithfully yours,
A. F. Pemberton, Esq., \ churchwardens
R. Williams, Esq.,        J wiurcnwai oens.
G. COLUMBIA.
[59.]
To the Right Reverend Bishop Hills, D. D.
Sir:—In reference to the sentence of suspension that you have passed and
served upon me, and which in your notices to myself and the Churchwardens
-you are apparently endeavouring to carry out, as if effectual and bindiifg in
law, I beg most respectfully to quote the following passage from-the judgment of the Privy Council in the similar case (so far afc legal jurisdiction is
concerned) of-the sentence of deprivation passed upon the Bishop of Natal by
his Metropolitan, the Bishop of Cape Town.
"Suspension or deprivation is a matter of coercive legal jurisdiction, and
not of mere spiritual Authority."
I have already protested against the proceedings which in my estimation
render your sentence on other grounds illegal and unjust, but with the above
judgment in view, guarding as it evidently does, beneficial interests and civil
rights against sudden and arbitrary encroachments, I must at present regard
the sentence in question as of none effect in law, and continue to pursue the
duties of my cure as heretofore.
In this course I am sustained by the authorities of the congregation and
have no intention, as I have never had any, of resisting the lawful authority
of the Bi&hop.
I beg to remain, Right Reverend Sir,
Most respectfully yours,
The Parsonage, E. CRIDGE.
Victoria, Sept. 26th, 1874.
[60.]
Victoria, Sept., 26th, 1874.
Victoria, 28th Sept., 1874.
My Lord Bishop:
In reply to your letter of yesterday we beg to inform you that before receiving it, arrangements had been made for conducting the services to-morrow,
as heretofore, by our Rector, Mr. Cridge.
We remain, your obedient servants,
A. F. PEMBERTON,
ROB'T WILLIAMS.
Lord Bishop of Columbia. Churchwardens of Christ Church. 61.
[61.]
September 28th, 1874.
The Reverend E. Cridge, Victoria:
Dear Sir:—In reply to your letter of the 26th inst., I am requested by the
Bishop to express his regret to find you have ignored the revocation of your
license; but as you state you have had no intention of resisting the lawful
authority of the Bishop, and as his Lordship has not, and never had, any
desire to enforce more than his lawful authority, as his duty prescribes, the
main question appears to be, what is "lawful authority?"
It has been represented to his Lordship that the question may be decided j
by the Supreme Court, on a case to be stated as agreed upon by counsel on
both sides, and he is willing for his part to adopt this course, as by so doing
the great evil of further hostile proceedings might be avoided.
Yours, faithfully,
M. W. T. DRAKE,
By Rob't E. Jackson, his Attorney. Registrar.
[62.]
My Lord Bishop:
In deference to the suggestion of the Chief Justice, who has stated from the
Bench that the protest which I delivered on the occasion of the sermon of Archdeacon Reece was, as to the time and place of its delivery, a violation of the 53d
Canbn of the Church, which I had promised to obey, I consider it my duty
as a christian minister to express my regret for this involuntary breach of the-
law. And this I do in full consistency with the statement which I made to you
in my letter of 19th Sept., and which I now repeat,, that " I have not, and
never had, any intention of resisting your 'lawful' authority as Bishop."
I am, yours faithfully,
23d October, 1874. E. CRIDGE.  BISHOP OF COLUMBIA versus REV. MR. CRIDGE.
Judgment rendered on Saturday, October 24th, 1874, at 11:20 o'clock, A. M.
This is a case of an application for an injunction on a
bill filed by the Lord bishop of the Diocese of British
I Columbia against Rev. Edward Cridge, clerk, praying
that the defendant may he restrained from preaching or
oflciating in the care of Christ Church and from acting
elsewhere in the diocese as a clergyman of tho established church, and for a declaration that the defendant's
license has been duly revoked and i hut the defendant
has failed to conform to the discipline and doctrine of
the Church of England, and is liable to he removed, and
is no longer entitled to the benefits of the trust of the
indenture of 6th May, 1864. Tho present application is
for an injunction to restrain the defendant from
"preaching or officiating in the said church of Christ
Church or otherwise acting in the cure of the said church
according to his former license or elsewhere in the
diocese as a minister of the Church of England."
The Bill sets out the Letters Patent and consecration
uf tbe plaintiff to be Bishop of British Columbia, his
arrival here and license granted to the defendant to
"preach and officiate," his selection of Christ Church to
be his Cathedral, his collation thereafter of the defendant to be the Bean of the said Cathedral Church.
Certain Articles, eighteen in number, are then set
-forth iD the Bill, impeaching the conduct of the defendant in his ministry, appended to which art many
letters aud documents, some of great interest to the parties to the correspondence, but not very important to
the determination of the precise question before me.
Whether the allegations of th; articles thus stated are
to be taken as allegations made in the Bill itself may or
may not be an important question at the hearing.   The
I question whether they are well pleaded by this bill has
not been raise 1 on the arguments now before me, which,
in justice to the defendant it must be said have been
directed more to the matters really lying at the root of
the unfortunate differences between the plaintiff and
defendant than to the technicalities or forms of plead
ing, or even to the facts really necessary to be considered for the determination of this interlocutory application.
Tbe question whether the Attorney General should
or not be a party, was in like m inner banished from the
argument probably through similar considerations ; and
the parties did not conceal that their chief desire now
was t > obtain from me an expression of my views upon
the two very interesting questions, viz. • the visitorial
powers of the Bishop and the legality or legal conse-j
quenses of holding synods, the latter of which, however,
could not, except in a very indirect way, coma into consideration at all.
As the result of the inquiry upon the articles referred |
to the Bishop's assessors found all the charges ot infraction of clerical dnty to be prove 1, except two numbered |
9 and 10. Sixteen articles therefore were reported as
proved. The Bishop thereupon delivered judgement on
each of the proved charges separately, on the 17th of
September, 1874. The investigation had been open.
Th-»re were four assessors, two clergyman and two laymen, County Court judges, one of whom was compelled
to retire ou public business after the first day. The investigation continued tie die in diem for four days, viz. :
on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 14th of September, the defendant having had ample notice, and being in fact present, and with every opportunity apparently to examine
or cross-examine witnesses. He seems, however, to
have remained as a spectator, merely, after
handing in a protest against the proceedings.
The form of the address in which the
sentences of the Bishop in respect of tbe several charges
proved, is not perhaps, free from being excepted to.
But neither, usually is the address in which an ordinary
court of justice conveys its reasons for a decision. The
separate sentence on fourteen of the proved charges is
revocation of the license on one, viz.: that on Article
17, a formal admonition and then, withbtit noticing 18,
the Bishop says, he must still add further punishment
and decrees suspensienvfrvom theDeaneryvand theu gives
as his judgment, on the whole proceedings, to he revocation of the license to preach and officiate, suspension
I from the office or dignity of Dean until submission and
a formal admonition. This is the sentence, ia fact, the
I logical results of which the plaintiff now seeks to have
^enforced by the decree of this Court.
In considering whether this Court will grant its
auxilliary aid, the only questions to consider are those
which arose in Dr. Warren's case, and in Long vs. The
Bishop of Cape Town. The Bishop having no coercive
jurisdiction, had he, however, jurisdiction to summon
the defendant to enquire into his conduct, to pass this
judgment spiritually as it may be said. Unless he had
such a right this Court will not interfere or assist him
in any way. Neither will this Court assist him if it appears that the proceedings were conducted in an oppressive way, or in any manner contrary to the principles
on which questions are examined and determined here.
Neither will it assist him if the sentences appear to be
disproportionate to the alleged offence, or contrary to
public policy, to be allowed e g. If the defendant had
been sentenbed to do penance in a sheet with a taper, I
do not think this Court would have anything to say to
such a sentence as that, or if he were sentenced to deprivation or suspension for once omitting a genuflexion.
The best test to apply is this : Fortunately we are a
branch of the Church of England not "in union and full
communion" only, but a branch of that very church.
If we had here establishd syn ids and canons and regulations of our own.the investigation now wouldbe moro intricate and diilicult,according to the observations of th?
Iftaster of the Rolls in Natal vs Gladstone, p. 37, here all
we h tve to enquire is whether the offences alleged
would, if committed by a clerk in England, he triable
before the Bishop of the diocese, and punishable as this
is punished, and [ apprehend that there is no doubt but
that these questions must subject to some observations
about the Church Discipline Act, and the different relation of the Bishop here qua patronage, be answered in
the affirmative.
In my opinion the Church Discipline Act—3 and 4
Vict., c. 86—it is impossible to comply with here'at
least in its entirety, and therefore at least, in its entirety
is not law. In particular, it would be impossible to have
a tribunal of the five assessors therein referred to. The
assessors chosen here were, however, a better tribunal
than I should have expected to have found here. The
defendant objects first that none of them belonged to
the section of the church to which he says be belongs,
and the argument addressed to ms seemed really to have
been that he was entitled to have one or two partisans
am >ng the assessors, perhaps on the principle of a jury
de medietate, which is now abolished, in civil cases as
from January 1st, 1875. But of course there was no
shadow of reason in such an objection. The next objection was that inasmuch—it is not very easy to state it—
inasmuch as these assessors might more closely have approximated to the assessors described in the Church
Discipline Act. though I can scarcely see how, therefore
these proceedings were a nullity. But, 1st. It was not
shown that better assessors could have been procured.
2nd. It is not pretended that even in England the assessors must be of the character in the Act mentioned, but
only that such assessors will be considered satisfact ry.
3rd. It is not pretended that the Act is applicable here,
or is law here at all. To impugn a judgment (if other-
wise reasonable) because the proceedings on which it is
based, do not tally closely enough (as alleged but not
proved) with certain proceedings mentioned, not required
in England by a statute which is non-existent here is
surely rather far.
mem 1U
Then Mr. Robertson urged that the Bishop here as a
matter of fact appoints and licenses all the different
ministers in the aiocese to their different cures; that by
revoking defendant's license,  by suspending'him, by
perhaps ultimately depriving him of this cure alioge*
ther, he will acquire a right of presentation to this cure,
(which  I  observed  counsel  on   both  sides carefully
abstained from calling "a living") end that this right of
presentation is an interest in the Bishop, which disqualifies him from being a judge,  even  in the preliminary
matter of censure : for it was urged, the neglect even of
a censure may lead to further ecclesiastical proceedings,
and so up to the most hardened contumacy, and inenr-j
able obstinacy, only fit to be cut off.   And the presence
of an interest iu a judge utterly disqualifies him and
annuls hiB judgment.   Now I am not sure that interest;
must not mean some interest which might be turned
into cash.   Apart from the simoniacal odor of such an]
idea, it is not shown to me that this right of presentation is of the smallest money value.   But in the next
place the argument is not pushed, nearly far enough,
hut is ingeniously placed just far enough to  embrace
the defendant's case aud no other.   If it be unlawful for
the Bishop to censure because the neglect of that may-
lead  to  suspension and   so  on, neither  is  it  lawful
for   him    to   direct,   because the  neglect of bis direction may lead to a censure and the neglect of censure
to suspension, and se on.   On the other hand the Bishop
here  qua Bishop appoints not only to this cure, but to)
every cure in the diocese.   So that the argument fairly
tarried out is this:   That because a man is the Bishop
of the diocese, therefore for that reason alone,   virtuttl
officii, he is debarred from either directing or suspending
any of the iuferior clergy whom he may once have appointed to a cure, notwithstanding any solemn vows and]
promises they swore tc God. and to him when he placed
them there.   In fact that on the sole ground of his being
a Bishop, he is disabled from being a Bi-hop,   For I wish
again to impress  upon the defendant- the consideration
which I threw out in argument, that the very first and
highest trust and duty, more than a right or privilege]
of a Bishop—his ratio existen&i—the reason for calling him
what he is called is that he is to visit his clergy. "Bis-!
hop," "Visitor " "Overseer," the three words are almost
identical; and the chief difference between them is that
they are derived from the Greek, Latin and  Teutonic j
roots respectively. In at least one place of the new testi- j
ment the authorized version  translates, "EPISKOPOS"
(Episcopcs) "by the   word   ' Overseer"     Mr.   Robertson's argument came to this; That because the   duties ot
an overseer are ou here somewhat incomparable therefore he could not oversee; at least that though he might I
lawfully perform such duties as the defendant liked he
was not to perform such duties.as the defendant ebjected
to; for it is to be observed that this is just as much an
objection to the power of appointing, as to the power of
censuring.   The two powers it is said, are incompatible.
therefore I claim, says the defendent, not that both)
powers are void, but that I may treat the one as valid, the]
other as inVal id    The Bishop may lawfully appoint, me,
but cannot lawfully censure me.   But in fact contradictory powers are often iu case of necessity .placed in one
-hand.   In this very Colony there is almost .a case in
point.   Nothing surely can be more important than to
keep quite distinct the judicial and executive-functions.
No maxim of our criminal court is better known than,
that ii the absence of counsel, the judge is to be counsel
for a prisoner.   Yet the legislature has thought it expedient by repeated acts which have always obtained
Her Majesty's sanction to leave it to the judge to nominate a sheriff pro re nata, and in criminal trials up the
country it has occasionally happened in the absence ofl
any'caunsel for the prosecution that the judge has been
compelled to indicate to the Kegistrar or to a constable,
what statute appeared suitable for the occasion and in
what book the form of the indictment was shown.   Iu
fact all these regulations are means to an end—that end
is the administration of justice and the repression of
disorder—and to adhere to forms and principles in such
a way as to suffer crime to go at large unpunished, and
disorder to be unrestrained, would  be "to neglect the
oys*er for the sake of the shell."
Ecclesiastical Tribunals bave always been negligent e:j
the forms which- English Lay Tribunals have   deemed I
useful, and all but Essential.   I say English Lay Tiil.u4~
nals, for in many other countries, other principles thaitj
ours are considered to be most conformable with the ad-T
ministration of justice.   And the most prejudiced mind}
must admit that sentences may be just though not ar f
rived at by the machinery of a jury.   1 he judgments of]
Solomon bave been  considered as not without merii|
though every one of them outrages the whole spirit of]
Magna Ghaita.   In considering the charges, and sen-:
I fences of September last, I think however, that as to the]
scene in ihe Cathedral, of the oth December, 1872, it wasj
not competent to the Bishop to renew any charge or inflict any farther punishment for that offence.   HabemvsX
Gmrfittntem ream nobody disputes—not Mr.  Robertson (
himself; that there was a clear breach by the defendant]
I not only of the Canons of the Church ami of the laws of J
Christian Charity and decorum, which are not always j
present to our minds,   hut of social etiquette and propriety—restoaints to which we are more habitually ac-
customed, every one of which forbad the defendant from
thrusting himself forward in thej>resence of two Bishops, j
one a stranger to condemn a brother Presbyter, in terms
which the defendant himself seems to be aware "exceeded the accustomed restraints of language and conduct.'"
(Vide defendant's address of March 28th, 1874 )   Really £
cannot conceive any other course to be taken by the
defendant himself than to say.as soon as the irregularity j
was pointed out, or as soon as he had sufficiently recovered his "accustomed restraint of language and conduct."
"I see I have clearly broken the canon which I swore to
observe, and I have contravened thestatute by which all
men are bound, and I have clearly exposed myself to
suspension, I am very sorry and beg you will remit the
punishment." It is needless  to say that be never says
anything of the, sort.   However, I consider that the
Bishop has dealt with that offence by his censure of the
14th December, 1872.   And .nemo his debet  vexari is a
maxim which our law has borrowed from the Romans
and which I think is Of natural justice."     I  think
therefore, the Bishop had no right to renew that charge
in.Pandora street.   Of course the defiance with which
the defendant met the censnre was a new act of disobedience, and it is not-easy to see the real grounds for
it.   That might well justify a new punishment.   Up to
the 2#th day of March last, the defendant seems to have. |
supposed that he was resisting "an attempt to defame
his ministry and to intrude on his office which he" had
received in trust lor the church as well as himself,"
"that his office or his trust was in danger."   That, I
suppose, must refer wholly to the sermon of Archdeacon
Reece. as to which it is difficult to perceive how it would
affect the defendant at all or any right or privilege of his.
But afterwards in the letter of the 3rd of July, he takes,
I think, other grounds: at least he expresses what perhaps may have been only intended before; and after referring to some opiuions of the Churchwardens (not
uecessarely. though possibly, those contained in their
letter of the 2nd of July,) and taking more  intelligible
ground (as might be expected) than they do, he points
out that the proposed Synodical moveinekt might result in placing himself and his congregation under a
different law than that of the Church of England.   Tnis
1 have already stated my .firm  conviction to be a'very
real apprehension.   It may be a danger to be avoided, it
may be a benefit to be desired,  but so sure as this
Synodical  movement does  proceed,   to  surely  as the
church here assumes power to make laws and constitutions for this dioeese, and to constitute the Bishop an
Ecclesiastical Tribunal with power to enforce obedience
and no appeal except to the Archbishop of Canterbury
for the time being, as a forum domesticum, so surely will
the church here (I fear) one day differ widely from the
Mother Church in forms and ordinances and matters of
Church Government, and probably also by degrees, even
in some particulars of doctrine.    I was about to refer to
Lord Romilly's judgment in "The Bi. hop af Natal vs.
Gladstone," but I find I have nearly repeated his words
which have imprinted themselves on my memory.
The position advanced at the bar, however, and which
was probably necessary for the rebutting the whole case. 111.
of the  plaintiff went far beyond this. Had the defendant!
confined himfelf to the reasonable view which it might
be contended was all he meant in that letter of the 3rd
of July, what may in fact be a fair construction to put
upon it, prefaced with an acknowledgment of his error.
If he had said  "my breach of the canon aud of the
statute and of good manners, I am heartily sorry for,
and I fully intend to offend so no more, and I thank you
for your lenity iu only censuring me for my offence, I
know that every man in tbe diocese whose opinion is i
Iworth caring for, my own counsel and all, are heartily j
sorry that I aeted so.   Your visitation I will dutifully receive.   Everything shall be at your service.   The pul-j
pit of the cathedral I nave no thought of closing to you,
but as to the synodical movement which your lordship
is so earnest in pressing on my congregation and elsewhere in your sermons and discourses, I would with
like   earnestness entreat you to consider and well weight
Lord Romilly 's words.   I know it is not for us to judge
tit" yeur doctrine, but for you to judge oi ours.   But this
is   a  point  of  practice  and   expediency not   of doc
trine   and we   wish to   remain under   the   laws   oil
the Church of England which we know, and not to be
liable to future laws and law makers of which we know
nothing, and under which old decisions will not aid us!
to understand our rights and duties.   We wish to adhere
to the supremacy of the Crown,  and  the decisions of
Crown Courts, and not to have any forum domesticum
with which we ate unacquainted, and which may imperceptibly as Lord Romilly points out constitute the
church he e to be a separate  church, the Church   of
British Columbia, and not a branch any longer of our
old Church of England."   If I say the defendant had
spoken thus, wbo could have been offended ?   I for my
part not now speaking as a judge at all. but as a member of the church out here really feel disposed to say
that I have myself felt inclined to make such an appeal
And it will abundantly appear in the course of these
[observations     that the fact  of the   plaintiff's having
hitherto failed to carry out his  apparent intentions is
not unimportant tor the success of the present appli-
Jwtion
For it is to he noticed that up to the present time there
is not the least indication—there is no evidence and no
argument—that the cburch here is not a branch of the
Church of England, to be governed and guided by all
her practices and discipline by whioh all
her members are bound, and defective only in this
respect, that when such practice and discipline requires
to be legally enforced by the strong arm, that strong!
arm must be put in motion by the judgment of this
icourt following (if it thinks fit to follow) the sentence of
the Bishop, and it may not be put in motion by virtue of
the sentence of the ecclesiastical forum alone as in England. That is all the difference. I am bound to examine to a certain extent the sentence of the Bishop;
if I find it in conformity with the practice in tbe Established Church of England I am bound to order it to be
enforced ; then the force if necessary is applied under
my order not purely as in England on the episcopal
authority; and the disobedience then becomes and is
punishable, as disobedience of my order and not
as disobedience only of the Bishop's order.
The circumstance that the plaintiff has hitherto failed
to carry out his apparent or presumed intentions as to a
synod is also to myself personally a matter on which I
most sincereiy congratulate myself, and for this reason, I mean not now to express my personal predilections at all, but sitting here as a judge I feel how immensely my responsibility is lessened and ray ability for
comprehending the -position increased in comparison
with the occasion when somewhat similar questions
were brought for the first time en somewhat similar
i disputes before the Supreme Court in South Africa.
Since that time a flood of light has been poured upon
tbe constitutional questions, and the relations of ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction in the colonies by the
lators of the great judges and civilians in the Privy
Council and elsewhere, and the whole matter has been
discussed repeatedly in various courts on various rights,
by various minds of the most learned lawyers and most
; sincere and earnest churchmen and statesmen in Eng
land, and has been placed if I may without presumption
say so upon a clear and satisfactory foundation. Of all
that light and of all those discussions I can now avail
myself.
.But if a voluntary association out here had been
formed of persons holding the doctrines of the Church
ot England but rejecting or altering wholly or in part
the discipline and government of the Church of England
—that would be a course perfectly open to any number
of persons to pursue I apprehend, aud the present
Bishop might be among them—but that association
would not be an actual branch of tbe Church of England, though it mi^ht insist that it was in full union
and communion with it, and held all its doctrines. It
dissensions arose in such an association, its members
would bave recourse to the civil tribunals and any questions would have to be tried by their own rules and
ordinances, which would have to be proved by evidence
in the usual manner, and have to be construed by the
Court just like the regulations of a new joint stock company. 1 need not point out the additional difficulty and
responsibility which would thereby be imposed on the
judges, and the additional uncertainty and insecurity.
felt in any construction to be placed on such ordinances;
tbe decisions of Engiish courts would not be biuding and
might not b.e apposite, not being in pari materia.
Fortunately no such case exists here. The jurisdiction here episcopal, judicial, and consensual, appears to
be exactly the same—founded on instruments verbally
identical—with the case of tbe See of Natal (Bishop of
Natal vs. Gladstone). Whet that is may be given in the
words of Lord Romilly. After stiting at very considerable length all the circumstances and the dift'rent
cases in which the unfortunate differences between
Bishops. Deans and Ministers in South Africa had been
discussed, he says, "The result sh->ws that the District
or Colony of Natal is a district presided over by a Bishop
0/the Church of England which is properly termed a
see or diocese; that the ministers, deacons and priests
officiating within that diocese and also all laymen processing to be members of the Church of England, constitute not a church in Natal in union and full communion with the Church of England, but a part of the
Church of England itself; and that all the ministers,
priests and deacons there officiating aud all persons composing the several fl >cks are members and brethren of
the Church of England in the strict sense of the term.
The consequence is, that they have in all matters ecclesiastical, voluntarily submitted themselves to the control of the Bishop of Natal, so long as it is exercised
within the scope of his authority, according to the principles prescribed by the Church of England. If, however, any sentence of the Bishop of Natal should be
contested, recourse must be bad to the courts established by law which will enforce that sentence if pronounced within the scope of the legal authority of the
Bishop, and if he has in arriving at the sentence proceeded iu a manner consonant with the principles of
justice, and in so doing the Court established by law will
proceed upon the laws of the Church of England. So
far as they are applicable in Natal," i. e., the spirit
though not the letter of the Church Discipline Act, is to
be adhered to. It is not law here but it is to be taken
as a guide. Now I apprehend every word of that quotation is not only very good law, but very good sense, and
not only good sense and law, but a most convenient law
for the protection of rights. Not only for obtaining
judicial decisions upou them, but for knowing beforehand and without litigation, the limits of rights and
duties of all members of the Church laymen and clerica'.
It only requires that the name should be ch-ing^d ; for
"Natal" read "British Columbia/' and on this particular point it exactly states the position here.
These considerations make it clear as I have said
before,that it was necessary for the defendant's case to
go tar beyond any reasonable or indeed possible construction of the defendant's letter of the 3rd of July,
even if that letter embodied or referred to the churchwardens letter of the 2nd ef July, which it is by no
means clear that it did. The defendant cannot maintain
his present position of preaching and officiating iu
IChrist Church  or  in any Church of England in   the
tmsm IV.
diocese or at all as a clergyman o f the Church of England, by raaintaing his right to do what he-did on the
day of the consecration of the new Cathedral, which was
the position he took on the 28th March. It is not
enough for him now to allege as in his letter of the 3rd
of July, vague charges of the "illegality of the Bishop's
proceedings in sundry matters afftcting the church," or
the Bishop's ' endeavoring to draw defendant and his congregation" away under another law than the Chnrch of
England's or preaching dnctrioes offensive to the defendant, though the question "synod or no synod" is surely |
no question of doctrine at all, but anly of expediency or
utility. It is not even enough to -allege as in the
churchwar lens letter of the 2nd of July (but I againI
observe that I do not think it proved that the defendant
has assumed the responsibility of this letter) but it
would net be enough to allege as is there alleged in the
alternative "that the Bishop appears to have seceded)
fram the Church of England, or if he have not seceded
that he is at least guilty of a misdemeanour." All these
allegations might be made and might be capable of
proof, and yet until proved and followed by the sentence
of deprivation of his see, pronounced by a court of competent jurisdicti >n, the Bishop would still be bishop,
and his acts would he episcopal acts and claim obedience
from all his clergy until declared null by a competent
court. For the proper defence of the position taken by
Mr. Cridge, his able counse' perceived that nothing of
that kin I would suffice; that n (thing would do but to
contend that his client was not and is not an unlicensed
clergymen of the Church of England, for that he once
' had a license and that the license had never been revoked by a Bishop of the Diocese. He therefore boldly, but1
hy the necessity of his argument, advanced the propoei-j
tion that tbe Bishop is in very fact not a bishop at all.i
hut an excommunicated person to whom no member of
the Church of England owes any obedience and is in-i
.deed to be avoided, according to the 33d article of Religion. And to support that position he read from the
12th Canon, A. D 1603, as follows: "Maintainors of con-;
Btitutions made in conventicles censured," " Whosoever
shall hereafter affirm that it is lawful for any- sort of
ministers and lay persons or either of them to join together aud make rules, orders, or constitutions in causes
ecclesiastical Without the King's authority and shall
submit themselves to be ruled and go\erned by them,
let them be excommunicated ipso facto, and not be restored until they repent and publicly revoke those wicked and anabaptistical errors " Now the first observation
that arises on that is, that if there were anything in thel
objection, Mr. Long and the Bishop of Cape Town, and
the Bishop of Natal and Mr Gladstone and Lord Hath -r-
ly, the Coleridges, Roundel 1 Palmers, Baddeleys and
other learned civilians the Lord Chancellor and members of the judicial committee, who have been engaged
for so mauy years in sifting the South Africau cases, had
all been beating the wind, and expending all their learning and a cute 11 ess and distilling principles out of the
Alembic of Ecclesiastical suits, Privy Council appeals
and Chancery suits to very little purpose Indeed all
that has been said in all these complicated reports is
quite unnecessary and may be treated as obiter dicta, if
this contention is maintainable. For nothing I suppose!
is clearer than that bishop Gray had actually carried
into- practice in long detail and personal application
everything and.more than everything that the present
plaintiff is even supposed not ever to have done, but to
have wished to have done. But in that case Mr. Robertson's argument would be very short. Bishop Gray from
the moment he asserted the legality of a synod, ceased to
be a Bishop at all of any legal diocese (I do not know
that it. is necessary for the argument that he ipso facto
ceased to be what may be termed a Bishop unattached),
consequently from that moment had not nor could have
any jurisdiction qua bishop over any member of the
Church of England. It is odd tnat nobody ever thought
of that before, that is it would be odd, if there were any
show of reason in the argument. But in fact the errors
denounced by this canon are as it expressly says, iian
abaptistical errors." In the previous century, scarce
a   generation   before   the   canons,   certain   fanatics,
with a large support of the ignorant masses set
themselves up as inspired by an inner light, and authorized by it to announce a new order of things. Their
code of morals was that to the truly righteous all things
were lawful. The priesthood they announced to be a general dignity to whieh all men might aspire. As to temporal things their argument was very short. It consisted of
three plain and very intelligable sentences : ''The earth
is the Lord's aud the fullness thereof." "The Lord hath
given the earth to be an inheritance for his Saints."
"We are the Saints" The. conclusion was' obvious.
The name of the "Anabaptists" was given to them, not
without some injustice to the original proprietors of that
designation ; but it remained with this hew sect, if they
they can be called a sect. It is not quite clear that their
principles are wholly extinct. However these men carried their principles into lorcible operation throughout
some of the principal provinces of Europe. They con-J
trived to combine in a groat measure the excesses of the
Paris Commune with the excesses of Brigham Young.
They were not put down without fire and sword ; mauy
towns and cities were devastated either by them or by
their opponents iu quelling them The fate of one of
their leaders known as "The Prophet" has inspired one of
the greatest of modern composers iu the production of a
great work of art, and I sh uld have thought that modern popular melody might have conveyed a ray of history which in its turn might have thrown a light on
theology sufficient to raise some doubt at least as to the
construction of this canon. It is expressly aimed at
disowning on the part of the Church of England the
ecclesiastical part of the usurpations' of these Anabaptists whose very name inspired horror as that of the
commune does to-day Their views on temporal matters
it was probably supposed might be safely left to the
secular legislature. Tho canon confines itself to their
spiritual excesses. But what can equal the imprudence
of the defendant's advisers iu suggesting these reflections ? Is it the plaintiff who affirms that it is lawful for I
"anv sort of ministers'", t. e., unlicensed preachers or
others, to join with "lay persons" whether churchwardens or not and make rules aud regulations or adopt
resolutions without any auth >rity or color of authority |
whatever from the Crown, either by direct commission
or by any Act of Parliament or through the ordinary
Courts of Justice? Is it the plaintiff who alleges that
such an unlicensed preacher with his lay partisans may.
by the simple expression of their opinion, annul the I
Queeu's Letters Patent,fulminate sentences of excommunication and deprivation, come to a resolution that their
leader is entitled to the full enjoyment of valuable
lands, decide on the interpretation of a deed of trust aud
determine that the same leader is entitled to the benefit
of that? and absolve whom they please from the observance of solemu vows ? Is it the plaintiff ho advances
these preposterous pretentions? Do these terms convey
an exaggerated expression of the defendant's case ?
It is hardly worth while to go on breaking this butterfly on this wheel. Yet these further observations
may be useful which by themselves dispose of the whole
argument on this head, even if my view of the meaning
of the Canon draw i from history be wholly wrong. It
is quite true, as Mr Long observes in his letter, (cited
[and approved by Lord Romilly, p. 48) that a man evt n
a Bishop, may by his own act secede from a church.
Even secession, however, would probably still leave hi in
a Bishop until he be deposed or deprived, by tne sentence
of a competent court consequent on his secession. But
still if a Bishop had openly announced his secession.
that would greatly excuse the disobedience of his clergy
even before any formal sentence of deprivation. What
Mr. Robertson failed to establish is the first step, that a
man can commit excommunication upon himself or declare himself excommunicated. All he can himself do
in this way, is to excommunicate all the rest ot the
world, as I believo one or two fanatics have been found
mad enough to do. by declaring till mankind eternally
lost except themselves. A man may undoubtedly com -
niit an offence which exposes him ipsofacto to excommunication; that is when brought up before a proper court, |
the accuser has but to examine this one point: if proved Jj I sentence of excommunication may be pronouced at once,
• without more. It is probable also that in such a case
the consequences  of the sentence, when pronounced,
: would have reference back to the heretical, or other act,
on which the sentence is based ; much in the same man-
; ner as an adjudication of bankruptcy relates back to the
act of bankruptcy, and does not count for all purposes,
from the date of the adjudication/only. Here there ii
no definite act of bankruptcy even alleged. But sentence
of excoramuncation be pronounced. It must be
pronounced by acompe court, and after a trial at
least conformable with natural justice, upon proof,
and af>er summoning the accused. Ana sentence
of excommunication a ay be followed no doubt
in the case of a Bishop by sentence of suspension
or deprivation, or such other sentence as a court of competent jurisdiction may think fit to pronouce, if any.
But that too must be by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion,t after a trial' consistent with natural justice and so on. It would be a poor jest
to ask if any such investigation or sentence has taken
place. But what is, perhaps, not uninteresting to remark, is the extraordinary incapacity of even the most
conscientious man to act towards others on the golden
rule of doing as he would be done by. Here is a man
who, for offences really open, glaring, not denied, but
gloried in,offences against cauon la w,against st a > tuelaw,
against common sense and ordinary good manners,
after the utmost lenity and forbearance shown towards
him, is at last cited, before a self-organized tribunal,
not a court of course in any legal seuse, or with any
legal powers, but as good a tribunal as could be formed
in the diocese—clearly as respectable a tribunal as any
Chamber ot Commerce or Board of Surveyors—and after
weeks of notice, and days of trial in his presence, is at
last found, by that so-called "Court or Board of Inquiry"
to have committed acts which, as I have said, be never
denied, and openly glories in; and yet for weeks the
whole city has been disturbed by the vociferous clamours of his-partisans—I will not say of himself, for I believe he is but the instrument of others—
' against the illegality, the injustice, the monstrous
nature of the tribunal, and the finding and the sentence:
and at least if the defendant does not openly join In
these clamours, he utters no word to brand them as unfounded and slanderous. Nay, bis counsel here argues
most temperately and discreetly I admit, but still
vigorously, on the same side, namely, that the sentence
against the defendant was inconsistent with natural justice. And yet this same man thinks it consistent with
natural justice, and that he is dispensing to others the
same measure of justice, wherewith he seeks to be
judged himself, that the Bishop should be held to have
lost his whole position withoutany trial, by the sentence
of no court or any tribunal resembling a court, without
notice, without summons, without being even put on his
defence, by a mere oral suggestion of counsel. Surely
the old proverb of straining at a gnat and swallowing a
I camel never received so exaggerated an illustration !
The position and status of the plaintiff here seems to
be much misunderstood The fact is that the Lord
Bishop of British Columbia holds his jurisdiction, his
powers, and his authority so far as it can be derived from
any temporal authority, from the &ame Royal and
Supreme Source of all authority in the British Domin
ions, by ah instrument as solemn as I hold my ownCom-
- mission and derived directly from the Crown under Her
Majesty's Sign Manual. It is true the powers so given
require to be supplemented, some of tnem by the authority of an Imperial or locat Act of Parliament. My own
commission is sanctioned by both, and that being th«
method by which Her Mt jesty can constitutionally give
coercive jurisdiction,coercive jurisdiction is placed in the
hands of myself and the different judges in the various
Supreme Courts tnroughcut the British Dominions.
Now the plaintiff's Letters Patent assume to give him
full jurisdiction, and they would probably have at once
• given him such jurisdiction if his diocese had been in a
Crown Colony,—though I .rather doubt this—but the
terms are certainly ample to give him full jurisdiction,
and would do so if the Letters were based on, or confirmed by, an Act of Parliament.   1 ossibly if a local Act were I
passed here, recognizing or confirming the Letters
Patent, the Bishop wonld have full coercive jurisdiction
as from that time. I am far from saying that this is
probable or even desirable. I think that such jurisdiction is much more safely and beneficially for all parties,
placed in the hands of this Court. Not that I have the
smallest opinion that my judgment is superior to that of
the plaintiff, on the contrary, I wish to be understood
as placing very little confidence in my own judgment.
But I have the greatest confidence in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, andso long as t,he plaintiff's
sentences have to come to this court to be enforced, he
and all the church here, and in fact all denominations
and religions have the advantage of the appeal to the
Privy Council, which otherwise would not lie, but there
would be only an appeal from the plaintiff to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being. Now placing
as I do, great confidence in the wisdom and learning of
that great prelate and of those who may succeed him, I
must say that I nevertheless feel very much more confidence in the wisdom, in the learning, and above all in the
coherency and consistency of the Judicial Committee,
than in the decisions of a series of Archbishops of whatever see. Then besides the secular jurisdiction thus
imperfectly bestowed, the plaintiff has his spiritual
authority derived from the imposition of hands, which
though vague, and I conceive, left by our cnurch, purposely indefinite, can never be treated by any churchman as less solemn on that account, but rather as all the
more impressive. He is sent out here by all the author
ity of the Crown and of our church not to be tanght, but
to teach orthodoxy, not to be reviled, but to reprove
error, and to receive all due obedience from tbe members of the Church of England here.
The Bishop till he be duly deposed or deprived will
be considered as a Bishop exactly iu the same way as a
licensed clergyman until his license is duly revoked, is
to be considered a licensed clergyman still, whatever !
his offence. I should wish Mr. Robertson to try aud
find out how loudly his client would have protested if
the Bishop had said nothing for the last two years ; no
Pandora street trial had taken place but,—Mr. McCreight
had suggested yesterday for the first time, "Oh 1 the
defendant appears to us to have committed an offence on
the* 5th of December, 1872, for which the statute says
the Bishop should suspend him. It is true we have
never mentioned the matter since then, but we now
submit that he must be considered as having been suspended as from that date." Yet this is really less than
the measure wherewith he seeks to mete out justice to
his antagonist.
Ak obvious comparison may serve to explain the
matter to the non-ecclesiastical mind. Suppose a trader,
a° many traders do, to have committed au act of bankruptcy upon which no steps were taken and after a
lapse of time a customer were to say, "I shall not pay
you for those goods I have received from you, you are
en uncertificated bankrupt," I apprehend the reply
would be in a tone of indignant surprise. "It is true
some time ago I committed or suffered such an act,
which would have empowered a Court of competent
jurisdiction, if they had thought fit after summoning
me and hearing the whole case, to have adjudicated me
a bankrupt. But who are you ? and what right have
you to take upon yourself to say what decision the court
might have come to ? Now I shall make you pay even
to the uttermost farthing." This I say would probably
be the language between men of business. And how
much stronger would the case be, if the trader could
conscientiously deny that he oyer had committed an act
of bankruptcy at all, and that the act of bankruptcy
existed only in the imagination of the man who was on
this pretense endeavoring to eseape from a very clear
obligation; whatever reputation for conscientiousness
the customer may have claimed for himself, I am afraid
the trader and the world generally would place it at a
very low standard.
This contention, however, by the defendant's counsel,
that the plaintiff is not in facta Bishep of the Church
of England at all makes it impossible for me to take any
longer the favorable construction which I felt disposed
to place yesterday on his statement in the letter of tho VI,
26th September, to the effect (implied) that he only intended to resist the unlawful, not the lawful, exercise of
the Bishop's authority. For it now appears that the
defendant must thereby have meant that he only intended to resist the lawfulness of the Bishop's authority
altogether, and not the exercise of it, if it were held
ultimately to be lawful. That of course is holding out
no olive branch at all.
Having then examined these Pandora street pro-
ceedings'much more minutely than perhaps I have any
right to examine them (looking to Dr. Warren's ctse) I
have come to the conclusion tha" the plaintiff is a Bishop
of the Church of England, and the defendant is a clergyman of the same church ; that the proceedings in Pandora °treet though not according' to the precise form
suggested (not required) by the Church Discipline Act
in .England, were yet in a reasonable analogy with it,
the assessorial part b-jing differently constructed from
that in Long vs. the Bishop of C-ipe Town; that the proceedings were conducted in a way consonant with the
principles of justice as understood in a Court of Equity ;
that the findings were true, and that the sentences and
whole judgment reasonable and appropriate enough to
the offence. It is therefore just that it should be carried out, and if no other ground existed, the inabilfty of
the Bishop to execute justice for himself is one of the
heads of equity which will .maintain a bill. I consider
it a necessary inference from the cases in and from
South Africa that the local civil courts are bound to interfere on the application of either party, in these
spiritual disputes on a proper case being shown. But
more than that; the Bishop has a trust to execute, and
he has a right to come here as trustee to prevent a misapplication of the funds and lands and buildings just as
I apprehend the tieasurer or other proper officer of an
insurance company would have aright to come here and
demand the assistance of the court to get rid of a suspended mana^ei who refused to give up the books or the
key of the office. Moreover the plaintiff has pro ably a
right to come here in his character ot general overseer of
the Church of England to prevent his subordinates from
infringing statutes. And by the 14 Charles II, no unlicensed Minister may preach under the penalty of three
months imprisonment. It is true the Bishop might probably proceed by indictment under this statute, but
there is no reason why he should be driven to a more
tedious remedy and wait for the Assizes here which may
not be held for some time. Besides the defendant surely j
does not wish to be prosecuted as a criminal. I should
be shocked if anybody were to attribute to him the sordid ambition of wishing to appear a martyr. And if the
Bishop were to await for the Assizes, the illegal preach-1
ing would be going on in the meantime. Finally in
order to carry out the object and spirit of this same
statute, the Bishop's manifest duty which he is com-i
pell ed to discharge is to take steps for excluding hi mi
from the pulpit; can I possibly say the Bishop has no]
right to interfere when it is one ot the duties of his high
office which he is bound to discharge ; or that he has aj
less right to have a'wrong r-dressed bee tuse it is also a
statutory misdemeanor? Then again as to the question of marriages. It is impossible to decide anything,
just now as to th^ validity of a marriage by an unlicensed clergyman of the Church of England. The
statute says that the clergyhian iu each denomination
"may celebrate marriages according to the rites aud ceremonies of their respective churches and ail other marriages are to be void. Whether any clergyman who has
been unlicensed can, consistently with the rites and!
ceremonies of the Church of England celebrate a marriage or indeed officiate in any way as a clergyman ofi
that church is the question to be argued and on which
the validity of these marriages depends. It is a grave
point, but it cannot be decided now. If I were now to
express myself, or if all the three judges were here aud
expressed themselyes ever so decidedly in favor of the
validity of the marriages that could decide nothing
'J he question may be raised over and over again as
touching the status of every wife aud husband, as i
touching tne legitimacy of every child, of every mar-,
riage celebrated by the defendant, and the decision in
one case will not be of any binding foice iu any other!
lease    Even if every one of these marriages shall be
severally decided to be valid, there is in the meautime a
; cloud and a disgrace necessarily hanging over every wifo
land every child of such a marriage; the mere doubt is
almost as'bad as the certainty of the invalidity.   It is a
fresh instance of the extreme danger ot   listening to':
what we suppose to be the voice of conscience; here is a
| man general ly reputed to be of the utmost humanity and
the utmost conscientiousness, who disobeys the clearest
(words of a solemn and reiterated vow, with the neces-
■sary and deliberate result of inflicting the most cruel injury upon poor women whom perhaps he never saw
before, and generations, perhaps of unborn children,
and this in obedience, as he supposes to the dictates of
his conscience.   It is simply an" abuse of terms.   There,
lis no conscience in the matter at all, iu the sense in
] which that word is understood by the Court or by any
Iperson of understanding.   It was long ago pointed out
by Lord Coke that a good man will obey the laws, aud
l he quotes the heathen poet, (who may give many les- J
sons to us Christians),  answering  the  question  s' Fir-i
bonus  est  quia?" with the ready and obvious  reply,'
"<2«t  consulia pair urn qui  leges juraque seroat"   It is
I true the heathen moralist immediately goes on to insist J
upon the necessity of much more than a mere ohserv- :
ance of the-.letter of the law tefore he will concede to
any man the epithet of "good; "  a man may, he shows, I
comply .with the letter and yet depart from the spirit of
a   law.    But  how can  he  who  fearlessly  transgresses
both, lay claim to the epithet? or plead conscientiousness.
The letter of the defendant which was this day read at
the request of his counsel in open Court, throws a singular light on the whole of the defendant's conduct, in le-
ference to the scene of the 5th December, 1872.-  Here is
a rule restrainiug heated controversies, and  contradictious likely to lead to beat expressed in four lines of the!
plainest English,   and  with the most judicious  good -
sense.    The 53rd canon says •    "If any preacher shall in I
th« pulpii, particularly or namely, of purpose impugn
or confute any doctrine delivered ly any other preacher
in the same church or in any church  near adjoining
before  he hath   acquainted  the Bishop of  the diocese
therewith and received order from him what to do in J
that case, because upon such public dissenting and con- '
tradicting, there may grow much offence and disquiet- I
nes< unto the people." "the Churchwardens and Bishop
are to prevent the'offeuder  from  again preaching until
satisfaction  be given  by  him."    No preacher is  even
allowed to -'confute; " the offence is quite irrespective of
th« truth or falsehood of the doctrine impugned,   .now i
any Child can see that the defendant's conduct on the
5th December, 1872, was a breach of this canon, except
some question be raised on the word "pulpit," but the
spirit ot it was most clearly broken, and he says he exceeded the  "customary  res'rain ts of language  aud of
conduct."    What   is   required   from   him   is   first   an
acknowledgment of his transgression and then an expression of" regret at having transgressed.   It  is not an I
apology that- is wanted by the Bishop, but repentance.
The Bishop does not ask for the defendant's humiliation, but he wants the defendant himself.   He is ready
always to pardon the man, hut how can he restore the
presbyter without an acknowledgment by defendant that
lie has   erred.   To this hour the defendant refuses to I
make any such acknowledgment.   It is true his b-tter j
to-day says that in deference to my opinion he is ready j
to admit that he has misread the canon.   But to this ]
hour he refuses.to acknowledge that he has committed a
fault; his   letter merely amounts to this, '•There are
two ways of reading the canou, the Court says it is to j
be taken as meaning one tbing, and I how to the deci- I
sion of the Court; but I do not admit that construction j
to be right."   In  other words he still adheres to nis
error.    What is required from him is, not an ackuow- |
ledgment that my  opinion must prevail  over his. but j
that he feels himself to be wroug.   Now, of two things, j
on-.!    Either   his   advisers must be aware that   he is
wrong, but will not admit it—and then what becomes of I
conscience?—or   else they are in reality mentally in-
capable of understanding four lines of pure plain Eng- 1
lish and good sense, iu which ease with what counteu- ] Vll.
ance can he or they claim to form even a conjectural
opinion upon matters really obscure? If a man cannot
understand the 53rd canon how can he claim to direct us
in tho mazes of ecclesiastical law ? "A mighty maze
thodgh not without a plan.!' But how can the defendant be imagined to have a clew to it? or claim a right to
direct others in it? or even to walk in it by himself?
If any man ever wanted an overseer, surely this
man does.
The granting and revocation of a license are very
much in the episcopal discretion (Poole's case) at least
as to curates who enjoy only a stipend. Tfce case may
or may not be different, where the revocation deprives
a clergyman of his right to a freehold benefice. All
that need be said on that argument is, that it does not
arise here. On the materials now before me I must
take it at all events, that there is no freehold benefice
held by the license. It was very strongly urged, however, at the bar, that where a license is so coupled with
pecuniary emolument that the money cannot be pocketed unless the license be continued,,such license cannot
lie arbitrarily revrtked, either in an'ecclesiastical or any
otber case. There is much force in ths argument so far
as the word "arbitrarily''enters into it. Dr. Povah's
case is an authority for that. In fact Poole's case,
though it declares that the Bishop or Archbishop has a
discretion, insists also that that discretion shall be discreetly exercised, i. e., not wantonly nor without due
consideration, nor without notice to the curate; but
when so exercised this discretion will not be interfered
with There must be some authority somewhere. I
have little doubt but that it exists in this Court, to
examine on mandamus, or prohibition, or bill for injunction, or in some way, into the exercise of this discretion by the Bishop, i. e , as iu Povah's ease, into the
manner in which the discretion' has been exercised.
But if the Bishop has examined duly and disapproves,
L >rd Ellenborough intimates that the Court wit! not
say "approve though you do not approve, take our conscience instead of your own." This is especially true
perhaps ii the license is accompanied by any interest or
dignity. In fact I have been examining into that discretion in this very case; I am not sure that I was authorized to do so, but it seemed to be the desire of both
parties and the defendant at least loudly demanded it.
I do not say that my conduct in this respect is to for ma
precedent. In Dr. Warren's case the Court beiug once
satisfied that the Wesleyan Conference was authorized
to act, refused to examine into or to at all to consider
the propriety of the particular line the Conference had
thought fit to adopt. The fatal error in the defendant-
is, that he has takeu no steps to rectify or annul the
erroneous revocation, if it we erroneous. He has not
even attempted to restrain the plaintiff's conduct.
But until set aside the revocation is of course in existence
and iu force    Take an example from this very Court.
The order which I am about to make, may in the op
inion of the defendant's advisers be wrong.' But really
until it is set aside, J must warn them that they must
obey it. It will not do for them to say that I have made
a mistake, and therefore it appears to them that I have
renounced my ailegiauce and torn' up my Commission,
and I am ipso facto not a Judge of the Supreme Court,
The other two judges will soon be here, and this order
may by them be reviewed, I am happy to say. pertnps.
reversed. But until it is reversed, tnose two judges will
enforce its observance iu all its strictness and in what
they, not the defendant's advisers-, deem a conscientious
manner, aud they would probably be inclined to treat
any su.'h line of action as that which I have suggested
very seriously; and this, although they should both have
formed the opinion that my order on re-examination
could not be allowed to stand, it must stand until it is
dissolved Aud so with the defendant's license, until he
gets a license from the Bishop either compulsorily or by
the order of some comptent court, or voluntarily by
making a proper acknowledmeutof his errors, and prav-
iug forgiveness and promising amendment he is au un
licensed clergyman. The Act of Uniformity, says he
snail n it be allowed to preach or officiate, not at least
as a clergyman of the Church of England, nor in a
building  consecrated   to the service   of the Church of
England Nor has the Bishop any choice whether he
will or not take these proceedings or some proceedings
for preventing him from so doing. The Bishop, to use the
words of Sir Herbert Jonner Fust, in Burder vs. Langley,
"would not have properly discharged the duties of bis
high office," if he had permitted an unlicensed person
so to preach or officiate. There is of course unlimited
freedom of conscience here as in England. Everybody,
whether he has ever been ordained iu the Church or not,is
at liberty so far as the lay courts are concerned, to preach
what he likes and where he likes, (within certain limits
lof public decency.) Only the law says, "You shall not do
I chis in the character of a clergyman of the Church of
Kngland, nor iu any English Church, without the licease
of the Bishop. You'may not run with the hare and hunt
with the hounds." The defendant's counsel urged that
this rule does not apply to the defendant, because to
apply tho rule would be to deprive him of §2(30 per
annum. Really I think that is a case of oppression of
conscience, this is a very curious liue of argument.
You are oppressing a man's conscience if you refuse to
allow him to continue receiving §200 per annum when
he breaks every stipulation upon which it was to be
paid to him Now the law lays down the same rule for all
religious denominations and indeed for all voluntary
associations here religious or secular. Leave tbe as
sociation and you may do as you like. But you shall
not be allowed to occupy the Church of your denomination or the sffices of your Joint Stock Company (I make
the comparison with some apology, but really the principle is exactly the same) and at the same time set at
defiance the rules of the voluntary associa ion to which
you say you belong. Nay, more; you shall not be allowed to act here or ho d yourself out as the agent of the
association, trading or otherwise, against and in defiance
of their rules. Everybody/ will see the monstrous injustice of allowing the Secretary of an Insurance Co.,
after he bus been suspended by the manager, to continue
in occupation of the Company's offices, or allowing him
to set up next door, or anywhere within the sphere of
the Company's business, and hold himself out to the
world as secretary to the Company still. And surely
the injustice to the Company would not be less if the
court by refusing to interfere enabled this soi disant
secretary to draw salary out of the company's funds.
That i*eally is the whole of the case. The manager may
be wrong bnt while the secretary is suspended, he
really may not stay there.
I have endeavored to make clear to the defendant in
the course of the argument, the result to which everything pointed, and I have given every opportunity in my
power, and used every ergument which suggested itself, to endeavor to heal an anticipated breach in our
little community. I feel sure that if the defendant
would but listen to the words of his counsel, instead of
yielding to the fatal influence of heated and ignorant
partisans, matters might even now be healed. As to
this beinga question of conscience" or conscientiousness,
it is a mere delusion to suppose that conscience has
anything to do with the present dispute. Mr. Reece's
doctrine has never been approved. The defendant's
doctrine has never "been blamed. Beth gentlemen are
probably within the true limits of doctrine deemed by
our Church to be necessary. No right of conscience Is
or ever has been sought to be invaaed here, except
the right that every man may do just that which is
good in his "own eyes. If that be what is meant Iy
"rights of conscience" there is no more to be said, but
that all cases and instances of society, in Church and
in State, in trade and in the family, the most savage and
the most polite alike, are constructed and can alone
cohere on the exactly opposite principle: viz., that
if society is to subsist at all, men can not be. permitted
to do everything that is right in their own eyes. And
all laws and regulations of society, are at bottom nothing
more than a statement of what a man may do, and what-
a man may not do, of those things which appear to him
right, or desirable. The plaintiff in this case appears to
me to have acted with excessive forbearance and long
suffering. He now comes here iu performance of a
statutory duty, the contained neglect of which would
subject htm to very painful personal consequences, aud it even appears to me that the Churchwardens of Christ
Church, or perhaps any three or more members of the
congregation might probably have succeesfully applied
for a mandamus very many months ago to compel the
Bishop to interfere much more vigorously than he has
done. I am very far from saying the court could interfere without the Bishop, or in any way except simply
to supply coercive power to a lawful order." His reluctance to exert his power may however, obviously be
imputed to motives of the most christian forbearance; it
is the proverbial pr pensity of bishops which gives rise
.continually to complaints. It certainly does not lie in
the defendants mouth to raise any objections on tbe
8 core of laches, and to do him justice, he did not raise,
any such objection. But it the defendant had . been at
once in December, 1872, excluded from the pulpit ofj
[Christ Church, until due submission I should not now.
have had the most painful duty of attending to this distressing case, and-probably much correspondence of a
most disagreeable nature would bave been avoided.
There must be ah injunction, as the defendant will
not make proper submission, -which even now I should
strongly suggest to the plaintiff's counsel to accept if
offered. There is ne offer, so there must be an injunction as prayed. It will be untii further orders. I hope
if the defendant will submit that this order may by consent be presently dissolved and tbe whole bill dismissed.
I make notother order except for the injunction which
will be distinctly uudersto jd to extend most especially to
ceiet)rating marriages,
r^JiATTHEW B. BEGBIE,  C. J; -0-
CONTENTS.
No. of
Document.
Page.
Preface	
Charges against Mr. Cridge	
Protests of Mr. Cridge „	
Letters Patent of the Bishop „	
Lawfulness of Synods;   Duke  of Newcastle's
Dispatch	
Letter of the Bishop calling Convention	
Evidence .	
Correspondence before the Censure	
The Censure	
Visitation of Cathedral, 1873. „	
Correspondence respecting the Censure	
Correspondence respecting Confirmation, &c	
Mr. Cridge's attack upon Episcopacy	
Explanation called for	
The Censure repudiated,	
Visitation of Cathedral, 1874	
Report of Assessors	
Judgment of the Bishop.	
Revocation of License and Suspension from the
Deanery	
Refusal to admit the Bishop to the Cathedral.......
Resistance to the Bishop's Judgment	
Bishops offer to submit a case to the Supreme Court
Apology of Mr.  Cridge during the trial in the
Supreme Court	
The Judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Begbie in
the Supreme Court, granting Injunction
4, 5, 65.
6.
7.
8.
9, 10.
11 to 15.
16.
17, 18, 19,
20 to 25.
26 to 33.
34,
36.
35,
37, 38, -40
39.
41 to 52.
54.
53.
56, 57.
58, 60.
59.
61.
62.
Appendix.
2-12
13-14t-59
14-17
17-20
20-22
23-26
26-27
28
29
30-37
37-41
41-44
44-46,53
46-52
44, 53-56
58
56-58
59-60
60
60
61
61
i-viii UNION    CLUB,
VICTORIA, B.C.      

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcbooks.1-0221750/manifest

Comment

Related Items