The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1885-07-31

ana We soon ma IlmOLny peacefully
located in Pleasant Prairie.
Mr.. EDITOR; The statement in this
weeks TELEGRAPH, quoted from an
unmentioned writer, speaking of the
Episcopal church as one which has
been ruled by its clergy almost ex-
clusively," is one so utterly false that
it is hard to see how any man could
have made it. The Episcopal Church
in this country, is. / believe, the first
religious body which gave the laity an
equal, if not predominating, voice in
all legislative matters, and there is no
religious organization in America TO-
day in which the laity have as promi-
nent and controlling voice in all
matters of government as in the
Episcopal Church. TO begin at the
bottom. In a parish the laity elect
the yestry of laymen, who in their
turn elect the Rector, and the ballot is
not even restricted to members of the
church; but regular contributors,
whether or not they are church men,
bers, have voice in the election of
vestrymen, and therefore Indirectly in
the choice of a rector. Parishes, either
at parish meeting, or through the
yestry, elect delegates to the council
Of the diocese. In Wisconsin each
parish is entitled to four delegates, so
that in full council the laity out
number the clergy four to one. On
the demand of certain number, clergy
and laity vote separately, and law or
resolution so voted upon must COM
mand majority of each house or
order before it can pass. That is. no
law can be amended or formulated
without the consent of both clergy and
laity. No bishop can be elected except
by concurrent action of both clergy
land laity. The clergy may and often
have elected men whom they knew to
be wise and godly, well suited for the
Office Of bishop, and their choice has
been negatived by the laity. Then
| the church at large is governed by the
General Convention, in which there is
an equal number of clergy and laity-
four of each from each diocese--and
canons and constitutional amendments
must here again be passed by con-
current vote of both "orders." (These
deputies are chosen by the diocesan
councils-not the clergy by the clergy
and the lay deputies by the laity, but
all by the concurrent vote.) The House
of Bishops indeed sits as a separate
house, like the Senate, but any legisla.
ton originating with them must have
the consent of both clergy and laity in
the lower House in order to be effective
1t is hard to see how the laity could
be given more influence or power un-
less the clergy should step down and
out altogether.
In England the case is even more
against the unknown writer. The
Church of England is the only religious
organization in that country in which
the clergy have absolutely no voice in
making the laws by which they are
governed, choosing their bishops, or
trying their brethren if they are ac-
cused. All this is done by the State.
The laws are made and the PRAYER
book itself amended Gf at alb by Par
Lament, which is composed entirely of
laymen-not even church members
necessarily, for Jews, Turks, Infidels
and Heather" may be made members
of the Parliament which forms the
church laws, and establishes its liturgy.
A certain number of bishops have
seats in the upper house of Parlia-
ment, but no clergyman of the Church
lof England may have a seat in the
House of Commons, while ministers of
any and every other denomination are
eligible. The bishops and all the lead
ing clergy are appointed by the prime
minister, who is layman. ard who
need not be Churchman. The clergy
have no voice whatever in the matter.
The clergy Of other religious bodies are
tried according to their own laws and
customs. The clergy of the Church of
England are the only men who cannot
be tried by jury of their peers-nor
by their bishop even, but are hailed
before secular courts, courts cOnsti-
tuted by the state, in which the Judge
is a layman and has the power to send
the priest to Jail for violating the
ecclesiastical laws made, not by the
Church, but by Parliament. I am
not speaking now of criminal offences.
but of purely ecclesiastical offences.
We can only fully understand the case
by supposing Congress to make laws
for the Episcopal church in This coun-
try-laws regulating the ritual, the
dress of the clergy, the furniture of the
church, etc., and requiring the clergy
to answer for their obedience to the
civil courts; and then by supposing the
President of the United States to have
the sole power of appointing bishops
and all this while every other church
was left to govern itself.
The Convocation of the English
Church. which is debating upon the
propriety of establishing house of
laymen, has no legislative power what
ever. If it wants to make a new
canen law itmust get permission from
the crown to enact, and then the law
must be sanctioned by the crown.
But it cannot amend the PRAYER Book.
nor is it in any sense a governing body. |
1t is simply deliberative. Hence it is
hard to see how the proposed house of |
laymen could be anything more than |
consultlye." In fine, the Church of |
England is the slave of the state-is in |
no sense self-governlng. How this
state OF things has come about-how
ConvOcatiOn has been little by little
robbed of its ancient functions, and
how the state has been gradually en-
HI Il