ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



If, by refusing to accept Mr. Mackonochie's resig- 

 nation, I had defeated the late archbishop's dying 

 desire and effort to promote the peace of the Church, 

 I could never have forgiven myself"; nor could I have 

 expected the forgiveness of the great bulk either of 

 the clergy or of the laity of England, whether within 

 the Church or without it. I am not aware that the 

 bishop has the power to require from a duly qualified 

 clergyman, the sufficiency of whose learning he has 

 no reason to doubt, any conditions of admission to a 

 benefice, when presented by the rightful patron, other 

 than the production of testimonials signed by three 

 beueficed clergymen and the oaths and declarations 

 prescribed by law. 



If there are those who, knowing as I do the good 

 and self-denying work done among the poor and igno- 

 rant by such men as Mr. Mackonocnie and the late Mr. 

 Lowder, are yet, on account of differences in disci- 

 pline and doctrine (the seriousness of which I do not 

 wish to extenuate), unable to appreciate or afraid to 

 acknowledge it, I can not sympathize with them 1 

 can only pity them. 



A memorial was addressed to the bishop by 

 the Canons of Durham, Peterborough, Carlisle, 

 and Ripon, and others, in which exception was 

 taken to the institution of Mr. Mackonochie, 

 because by reason of it the recent legal de- 

 cisions against ritual (ritual openly acknowl- 

 edged to be preparatory to the restoration of 

 the sacrifice of the mass) had apparently been 

 rendered nugatory; because by it disloyalty to 

 the formularies, articles, and homilies of the 

 Church of England had received tacit encour- 

 agement from her highest officers; becauss his 

 lordship's action in the matter would appear to 

 the public to be inconsistent with law and or- 

 der; and because the illegalities of ceremony 

 which had been practiced at St. Alban's would 

 seem to them to have received episcopal sanc- 

 tion and approval. Hence a most injurious 

 effect would be produced upon the Church and 

 nation, an.l a strong weapon placed in the 

 hands of the enemies of the Church of Eng- 

 land, for the furtherance of their designs to 

 procure its disestablishment. 



Mr. Mackonochie was formally installed in 

 the benefice of St. Peter's, London Docks, on 

 Jan. 21st, when he read himself into the vicar- 

 ship and subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles 

 of the Church of England. 



The suit against Mr. Mackonochie, which 

 had been before the law courts in various 

 phases for nearly fifteen years, was contin- 

 ued, notwithstanding the exchange of bene- 

 fices which it was hoped would lead to a 

 cessation of proceedings. The final judgment 

 in the case, by Lord Penzance, was given 

 July 21st. The question before his lordship 

 was now whether Mr. Mackonochie should 

 be deprived of all ecclesiastical promotions in 

 the province of Canterbury. The defendant 

 had been admonished by the Court of Arches 

 repeatedly for his illegal ritualistic practices 

 at St. Alban's, Holborn, and had treated the 

 orders of the court with contempt. He had 

 therefore been ordered to be committed. In 

 the mean time an exchange of livings had been 

 effected between Mr. Mackonochie and the 

 Rev. Mr. Suckling, incumbent of St. Peter's, 

 London Docks. The case was remitted to the 



Dean of Arches by the Judicial Committee of 

 the Privy Council for a " definitive sentence " 

 to be passed, it having been decided that a 

 sentence of suspension would be inadequate, 

 because it had once before been pronounced, 

 and Mr. Mackonochie had discharged it, and 

 that a sentence of deprivation was the only 

 one applicable. In the present case, however, 

 the issue was more complicated than usual, 

 the ordinary form of sentence being inapplica- 

 ble in consequence of the defendant having 

 ceased to hold the living of St. Alban's, Hoi- 

 born, in which the offense had been com- 

 mitted. The court had to consider whether a 

 decree of deprivation had become impracticable 

 by the course the defendant had adopted of re- 

 signing the benefice with respect to which the 

 suit had been instituted. After a careful ex- 

 amination of authorities, Lord Penzance came 

 to the conclusion that it, had not. A depri- 

 vation of the defendant was then decreed from 

 all his ecclesiastical promotions in the province 

 of Canterbury, among which is included the 

 living of St. Peter's, London Docks. An ap- 

 peal may still lie to the Privy Council. 



The parish of St. John's, Miles Platting, hav- 

 ing become vacant by the deprivation of the 

 Rev. S. F. Green for contumacy in ritualism, 

 the patron of the benefice presented the Rev. 

 Mr. Cow gill, Mr. Green's former vicar, for the 

 incumbency. The Bishop of Manchester re- 

 fused to institute Mr. Cowgill unless he would 

 obligate himself to conform to the cathedral 

 standard of services, and this Mr. Cowgill, in 

 turn, refused to do. The patron notified the 

 bishop that if he persisted in his refusal to 

 institute Mr. Cowgill, he (the patron) would 

 be driven to one of two alternatives : either to 

 seek in a court of law to protect his right of 

 patronage, which he, had exercised to the best 

 of his judgment, or to ask Mr. Green to re- 

 ceive back his resignation, the bishop having 

 refused to accept it, and to take his old place 

 at the rectory. The bishop replied that he 

 saw nothing in the patron's letter to modify 

 or change the resolution he had come to not 

 to institute Mr. Cowgill, and added : " I deeply 

 regret that it should be so ; but there is a 

 peace which may be too dearly purchased, and 

 in my opinion it would be so in this instance 

 if it were purchased by the surrender of all 

 law and authority in the administration of the 

 discipline of the Church of England." Ad- 

 dresses expressing sympathy with him, and 

 satisfaction at his course, were sent to the 

 bishop from different sources, to one of which 

 he replied : 



With you, in the course which I have felt it my 

 duty to pursue, I " desire no party triumph." _ But the 

 principle of obedience to law, when authoritatively 

 declared, seems to me to need to be vindicated ; and 

 again I agree with you in thinking that to institute to 

 a benefice a clergyman who would continue the same 

 illegal ceremonial acts for which the former incum- 

 bent had been deprived, would be a stultification of 

 the law which the common sense of the country would 

 not tolerate. If I am wrong in my conception of my 

 duty, the law, which is appealed to, will set me right, 



