Page images
PDF
EPUB

SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERS IN 1860.

The following tables from the report of the census for 1860, showing the number of slaveholders and slaves in the Southern States in 1860, will be valuable for preservation:

States. Alabama

Arkansas

Delaware

Florida

Georgia..
Kansas..

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi
Missouri

North Carolina..

South Carolina.

Tennessee..

Texas

Virginia

Total..

Territories.

District of Columbia...

Nebraska

Utah....

Slaveholders.
-33,730

1,149

577

5,152

41,082

2

_38,645

22,033

13,783

30,943

_24,320

_34,658

-26,701

-36,844

_21,870

52,128

383,637

1,229

6

12

1,247

384,884

Slaves. 435,080

111,115

1,798

61,745

462,198

2

225,483 331,726

87,189

436,631

114,931

331,059

402,406

275,719

182,500

490,855

3,750,513

3,185

15

29

Total..

3,229

Total States and Territories......

*3,953,742

The total number of slaveholders in 1850 was 347,525, increase in 1860, 37,259.

ROMANISM IN MEXICO.

The Emperor Maximilian has issued a proclamation confirming and ratifying the sales of Church property; a large amount of which the Bishops had managed to get into their own hands, by arts which they so well understood. He has also issued a Decree as follows, granting religious toleration::

Article 1. The empire protects the Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion as the religion of the State.

Art 2. All forms of worship not contrary to morality, civilization and good manners, shall have free and ample toleration in all the territory of the Empire. No worship can be established without the previous consent of the Government.

Art. 3. As circumstances shall demand, the administration, by police regulations, will arrange all that may concern the exercise of worship.

Art. 4. Abuses which may be committed by the authorities against the exercise of worship and against the liberty which the laws guarantee to their ministers, shall be laid before the Council of State.

This decree shall be placed in the archives of the Empire and published in the official journal. MAXIMILIAN.

To all this the Archbishops have replied, in the form of an Address to the Emperor, in which they express the "profound affliction" of the Mexican Church at the attacks made upon it by the Juarez Government, and the fond hopes which the accession of Maximilian and the arrival of the Papal Nuncio aroused. They say: "whatever may be the power, rank and position of those who exercise supreme

*Exclusive of eighteen colored apprentices for life, (in the State of New Jersey), by the act to abolish slavery, passed April 18, 1840.

authority in the State, they have absolutely no power whatever over these matters; for it is only the visible head of the Church-that is the Pope-who can exercise this jurisdiction; it is only this power that binds and unbinds consciences; it is only this authority that is competent to proclaim dogmas of faith, to enlighten belief, to rule over morals, to decide doubtful questions, and to order all conflicts to cease by means of its sovereign declarations.

* * * “With regard to religious tolerance, we can see nothing that renders it, not to say urgent, but even excusable."

SUMMARY OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.

ENGLAND.

The Rt. Rev. JOHN GRAHAM, D. D., Bishop of Chester, after a brief illness, died June 15th, 1865, aged 71 years. He was a son of JOHN GRAHAM, Esq., of Durham, and was born in 1794. In 1834 he was appointed Prebendary of Lincoln. He was formerly Rector of Willingham, Cambridgeshire, and was one of the chaplains of his late Royal Highness, Prince Albert. He was consecrated to the Bishoprick of Chester in 1848, and was patron of 47 livings. The annual value of his See is £4,500.

He had consecrated 78 new Churches in his Diocese.

The Queen has issued her Conge d' Elire to the Dean and Chapter of Chester, directing the election of Dr. Jacobson to the vacant see. The appointment is due to the influence of Mr. Gladstone. The Rev. Dr. Jacobson is Canon of Christ Church and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. His early theological training was amongst the Dissenters. He was a student at Homerton College and a pupil of Dr. Pye Smith, but he has become a very decided Churchman.

BISHOP OF RUPERT'S LAND.

The Rev. ROBERT MACHRAY, D. D., was consecrated for this See on Saturday morning, June 24th, 1865, in the chapel of Lambeth Palace. The officiating Bishops were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Ely, and Brisbane, and Bishop Anderson, late Bishop of Rupert's Land.

BISHOP OF NELSON.

The Rev. Andrew Burn Suter, M. A., has been nominated to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the See of Nelson, in New Zealand, by Bishop Hobhouse. He was formerly incumbent of All Saints Church, Spitalfields. His jurisdiction will extend over the northern part of the middle island of New Zealand to the 43d degree-a space which includes some 15,000,000 of acres. The income of the See is £500 from the Colonial Bishopric Fund, to which the Colonists make some small addition. The See of Victoria (Hong Kong), which was resigned by Dr. Smith some time back, still remains vacant. as does also that of Grafton and Armidale, which has been formed in New South Wales.

A new See has been erected in New Zealand, called Dunedin, and embracing the provinces of Otago and Southend, heretofore in the Diocese of Christ Church. The gold diggings have attracted a great population. The Archbishop of Canterbury, acting at the request of the Primate of New Zealand, has appointed as its first Bishop, the Rev. H. L. Jenner, Vicar of Prestoncum-Wingham, in Kent, who is a thorough Churchman, and an accomplished Church musician. He has already been consecrated.

CONVOCATION: PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY.

The Convocation of this province met in St. Paul's Cathedral, on Friday, Feb. 2, for Service and a Sermon, which was in Latin, and on the following Tuesday for business. In the Upper House, the Archbishop of Canterbury presided, and there were present, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Oxford, St. Asaph, Lincoln, Bangor, Salisbury, Peterborough, Gloucester and Bristol, Rochester and Llandaff. In the Lower House there was a full attendance. In the Upper House the Bishop of London presented a petition, numerously signed-so numerously signed, indeed, that it was hardly possible for any single person to lift the petition from the floor, on which it rested, to the table-praying their lordships to use their influence in discouraging the observance of obsolete customs, such as peculiar vestments, incense, &c., in the performance of Divine service. The petition was signed exclusively by laymen.

The Bishop of Oxford begged to move, as a matter of form, that the petition just presented do lie on the table. He did so in order to enable him to mention that he had received a petition on the same subject from Bachelors of Arts and undergraduates of the University of Oxford, who intended to offer themselves for Holy Orders. They represented that they had heard, with great regret, that certain changes in the rubrics, which materially affected the Ritual of the Church of England, were likely to be advocated in Parliament, by certain eminent members of the Legislature.

In the Lower House, after much debate, the following motion was passed:

"That this House, recognizing the evils which may arise from an excess of ritualism, deprecates, nevertheless, any attempt to avert those possible evils by the introduction of changes in the Prayer Book; that in coming to these resolutions the House by no means intend to express approval of any alteration from Church Order not included in the expression 'excess of ritualism;' that this resolution (the first paragraph) be communicated to their Lordships of the Upper House, with an humble request that they would take the matter into their consideration, and adopt such measures as they shall see fit, in conjunction with the House, for clearing the doubts and allaying the anxiety that exist upon it."

In the Upper House the Archbishop of Canterbury then put the resolution as follows:

"That this House concurs with the Lower House in the Address presented by it; and that, with a view to granting its request, the Lower House be directed to inquire, by a Committee, as to such measures as may seem to them suitable for clearing the doubts and allaying the anxieties to which the Address alludes, and to communicate to this House such report, and also the judgment of the Lower House upon it."

The resolution was carried nem. dis.

Whereupon in the Lower House the Prolocuter appointed the committee as follows:-The Deans of Canterbury, Westminster, and Ely; Archdeacons Grant, Wordsworth, Denison, Freeman, and Randell, Chancellor Massingberd, the Rev. A. Oxenden, Canon Pilkington, Canon Woodgate, Dr. Jebb, the Rev. J. R. Woodford, Dr. Leighton, the Rev. J. W. Joyce, and Canon Seymour.

The Prolocutor also, by the direction of the Archbishop, reäppointed the RussoGreek Committee, adding to it Dr. Fraser and Canon Hawkins. Convocation was prorogued to the 1st of May.

CONVOCATION: PROVINCE OF YORK.

The Convocation of the Northern Province assembled in the Cathedral of York, and was opened by the Archbishop of York. Of the Upper House, there were present the President, Bishop Thomson, the Bishop of Ripon, Bickersteth, and the Bishop of Chester, Graham. After the separate organization of the two Houses, the members of the Upper House took their seats in the Lower House. In the Lower House the Dean of York was elected Prolocutor. On taking his place said they met for discussion and deliberation for the first time on the opening of a new Parliament after 225 years. It was now 225 years since this House of Convocation

met for discussion and deliberation on the opening of a new Parliament. Seven years ago, and on previous occasions, they met simply to separate, but when they now met Convocation was a fact and a reality, and they were, under the advice and command of the Sovereign, able to meet for discussion and for the promotion, as they believed, of the best interests of their fellow-creatures.

The most important matters brought before Convocation were as follows: The passing by the Convocation of Canterbury of certain alterations in the 29th Canon.

The Prolocutor offered the following motion, which was passed. "That with a view to securing the harmonious action of the Convocation of the two English provinces, it be agreed that no measure requiring the assent of the Crown ought to be transmitted by either Convocation to the Ministers of the Crown until it shall have been first considered and agreed to by both Convocations."

Numerous petitions were presented against any alterations in the Book of Common Prayer. Rev. J. Bell made the statement," It might be within the knowledge of many members of this House, that the late Mr. Wesley, some years before he died, printed and published a revised Book of Common Prayer. That revision, he believed, contained almost all the parts of the Book of Common Prayer against which exception was taken now, and he might say, without fear of contradiction, that that Prayer Book was not now used in half-a-dozen chapels in England, and he could not help thinking that if any alteration were to take place, it would not be the means of bringing over to the Church any great number of the dissenting body, who, he believed, dissented not so much from the doctrines of the Church, but to show an independent spirit."

Archdeacon Churton gave notice of a motion:-"That the position and status of curates and unbeneficed clergy in the Church of England, which leaves them liable to a judicial sentence in matters of doctrine and practice, without the legal trial to which all beneficed clergy are entitled, is anomalous in itself, discouraging to all voluntary service on the part of the younger clergy, and calls for some more legal definite protection."

This led to a warm discussion as it involved the case of the Bishop of Manchester and the Rev. Mr. Nihill of St. Alban's. The motion was withdrawn, but in the debate Archdeacon Churton made the following statement: "He referred to Bishop Poynet's testimony showing that in the primitive Church adoration was paid to the Eurcharistic Sacrifice, and surely this prelate could not be accused of leaning towards Romish tendencies. He also read an extract from a work published by Archdeacon Freeman, proving that these high sacramental doctrines and practices had always been held as sound by the Church. The work of Archdeacon Freeman had never been called in question, and it was well-known by most scholars. Some years ago Mr. Freeman was appointed an archdeacon in the diocese of Exeter." Whether even it is true,

Archdeacon Churton's statement is a very loose one. depends upon what is meant by "the Primitive Church."

In respect to the condition of affairs in South Africa, the following motion was adopted, "That we, the Bishops and Clergy of the province of York, in Convocation under her Majesty's most royal writ of summons lawfully assembled, do hereby agree to pray his Grace, the Archbishop of York, as President of this Synod, and Primate of England and Metropolitan, to convey to the Lord Bishop of Capetown, and through him to the others, Bishops and clergy in the Church in South Africa, the expression of their deep sympathy in the heavy trial and perplexity which has befallen them, first in the denial, by a Bishop of that Province, of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, as received and held by the United Church of England and Ireland in common with the whole Church of Christ; and secondly, in the great difficulties attendant on the correction of the painful scandal and danger thus accruing to the Church in these lands. And they further pray his grace to add to this expression of their sympathy, the assurance of their prayers that the Holy Spirit of God may give to their brethren in South Africa, in their present difficulties, such courage, wisdom, and sound judgment as may enable them both to vindicate the faith committed to their care, and to recover the peace and unity so essential to the spiritual health and edification of their own flocks, as well as for the further propagation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ among the heathen."

CONVOCATION IN IRELAND.

The Archbishop of Dublin, who, we are glad to say, is a very different man and Churchman from his predecessor, made another attempt on July 4th, 1865, to obtain from Government and the House of Lords some acknowledgments of the right of the Irish Church to a Convocation; but Earl Granville repeated the refusal of Government to allow the Irish Convocation to meet to consider the propriety of repealing or altering the 16th Irish, which is nearly identical with the 29th English, Canon. It is much to be regretted that a privilege conceded to the English should thus be denied to the Irish Church, and it appears as if the two churches, under the Act of Union, were not after all really placed on the same footing. The Irish Clergy feel that they have been unfairly dealt with, and that a slight has been put upon them. They are consoled, however, by the knowledge that the sympathy of their English brethren is with them, and they hope to obtain from the next Parliament what has been so ungraciously withheld from them by the late one.

DR. COLENSO: HISTORICAL STATEMENT AND THE PRINCIPLES
INVOLVED.

As the case of Dr. Colenso is likely to settle some questions of the greatest importance to the well-being and future progress of the Reformed Church of England, we will attempt a brief statement of the facts up to the present time.

On Monday, March 20th, 1865, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, gave decision upon the appeal of Dr. Colenso from the decree of Bishop Grey of Capetown and Metropolitan, deposing him from his office of Bishop of Natal. All the Judicial Committee who heard the arguments were present-viz., the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, Lord Kingsdown, Dr. Lushington, and the Master of the Rolls. The judgment was, that "the proceedings taken by the Bishop of Capetown and the judgment or sentence pronounced by him against the Bishop of Natal, are null and void in law." This decision, the judges attempted to sustain by a long argument, which reads rather like a piece of special pleading than like a calm and impartial decree. By their own showing, the Letters Patent constituting Dr. Gray Bishop of Capetown and Metropolitan, and the Letters Patent constituting Dr. Colenso Bishop of Natal, do clothe the Metropolitan with the very power which he has exercised; but they seek to evade the force of this, by assuming that "these several Letters Patent were not granted in pursuance of any orders or order made by Her Majesty in Council, nor were they made by virtue of any statute of the Imperial Parliament, nor were they confirmed by any Act of the Legislature of the Cape of Good Hope or of the Legislative Council of Natal."

This decision, however, is proving a good deal more than Dr. Colenso and his friends anticipated. If the Royal Patent did not make the Bishop of Capetown a Metropolitan, simply because the Church of England, as a State institution, does not extend to the Colonies; so, for the same reason, the Royal Patent did not make Dr. Colenso Bishop of Natal; and he of course is left without a See. "The Church of South Africa, then, is free; and this freedom is far better than a temporal jurisdiction created by the State. * The South African Church will have to organize itself, as the Scotch Church and the Church in the United States had to do before them. And as the Church in the United States rose from the dust in which it had been trampled, and flourished, as it did not when under the patronage of the State, so by God's help will the African."

*

*

Meanwhile, the Church at South Africa was not idle. On the 18th of January, 1865, the Third Synod of the Diocese of Capetown commenced its Sessions, when the Bishop delivered a Charge, in which he prepared the Church for the already anticipated decision of the Privy Council. In respect to the Royal Supremacy, he shows that one object of the Reformation was to destroy the appellate authority of the Pope. He says: "the personal will and conscience of the Sovereign has, in our day, lost its place in determining causes relating to the Church; and it does not inspire confidence to know that the most vital questions are liable to be decided by judges not one of whom need be even a Christian, much less a member of the Church; the selection of the judges, too, who are to try a particular case, resting, as it is understood, with the President of the Council for the time being.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« EelmineJätka »