New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-08-24
THE LAMBETH CONTEPRNcr

PRAYER-BoOK WARRANTS For cONPFssIoN-TBu
AUTHORITY OF BISHOP OVER PRIEST, AND TARia
RELATIONS TO PUBLIC LAW.
TO the Editor or Tie rrf6wne.
SIR: We are all obliged for your accurate
cearDess in treating the Lambeth Conference n yoar
issue OF this date The Bishops Outgivng Is an avcFea
Episcopal utterance taking back With hand what's
given with the other and carefully affecting notn
ing Tho Bishops tell US that no minister az
the church is authorized require from his poniients
particular or detailed enumeration OF all their sps
or TO require private confession previous receiving
the Holy Communion; or enioin or even eneourae,
the practice Of babituai confession to prest or
teach that such practice Of habitua confession or Tia
being subject to what has been tel med the direction OF
priest is q condition Of attaining to the highest sons
fe. But they add. they are not to be understood AZ
desiring to limit any way the provision made in the
Book Of Common Prayer for the relief OF troubled con-
sciences" add. the provision made in the Book Of
Common Prayer" which Is in form TO he read ny the
priest in the church. follows Crbe italics are my
own.)
And because II Is yeqse that should come 10 the
Holy Communion but with full mercy and
Win ge conscience Therefore II there be 81
oas o 2ot % eoss ~ nm eoae 70 NE Or
ne may reeeys such gody oass and 9sse a may tend
Therefore, unless the Bishops really believe that peo
pie generally have q (aR trust in Gods mercy and
quiet cOnscences (Which, indeed would be very like
their idea that men can make particular or detailed
enumeration of all their % they require confession
be habitua by the prayer book provision while de-
carng that priests not authorized to enIon or even
encourage the practice of habiual confession" And II
the bishops do believe Christian folk generally have
ought in their ordinary state 10 have, "quet con-
sciences what to be said Of spiritual teachers little
en- rapport with facts which of all IN this world ought
best TO be known by them. The whole matter OF
confession must be LEFT, the bishops do and must
leave It, where it Is immOVably fixed, viz: with tina
laIty. The Bishops have not and bad any power
over it, If man wishes to confess and be directed biz
priest Is obliged to hear him aud direct him The priest
can refuse than he can compel Josh BILLINGS
stoDDed0 That is the case with cOnfessions And IA
for the priest IL Is certainly not unlikely that he should
TO do, even II it become " habltuaL"
One word Mr. MackOnOchie You think his not
obeyng his Bishop In violation Of his 1.-TWO Oathss
Of obedience. But will you not teach your readers that
the English church is an established State church,
nnder tie law Of the realms Mr. Maekonoe5is ts
oaths were subject the law, and the Bishops con-
iGands subject 10 the law. II "a regulated Ohea
ence TO regulated command, and the latter II without
the law, they not. The highest court Of
England has declared that the commands were without
the law, and void. ERL
Eeio- York, Aug. IA, 1878.
lOur correspondent might have strengthened his
first argument by referring to the rubrcs and ser
vice for the visitation of the sick. The citation
which he makes, however, SHOWS that tile Kit
ualists have some warrant for the practice Of con
fessOn, if they wish to strain the meaning Of the
passage in interpreting it, The second point is not
so we'll taken. The Lambeth Conference declared
that no alteration from lOng-aecustOmed ritual
should be made contrary to the admOnition Of the
Bishop of the diocese; and in order to show that
in England at least, the authority Of the Drelate
a feeble barrier against rItualistie excuses. We
cited the case of Mr.. Mackonochie, who had paid
no heed to his Bishops " admonitiOn." even when
reminded of the eaDOnieal oath and ordination
VOWS in which be had promised obedience. The de-
cision in his case reached by the Queens Bench Is
not based upon any warrants for ritual, nor upon
the relations of bishop and priest to the State
Church; but turns upon a question of Jurisdiction
and certain technical errors in the proceedings
The Public Worship Act has now been in force four
years and nothing has come Of it, the judgments in
che cases of Pelham Dale and Arthur Tooth having
been set aside manly on technical grounds
The proceedings against Mr. Maekonoche were not
taken under this act although the final decision in
this case calls in question the summary jurisdiction
claimed for the ecclesiastical courts. These mat
tiers of law, however, do not affect the principle
of obedience to ecclesiastical superOrs which used
10 be High Church dOctrine,-Edl