Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VII. The Church in the dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

143¢ THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII of the Church of England, the Sovereign is the head of the Church ; and in substance (for the congé d’élire is nothing more than a form) no bishop can be lawfully nominated except by the Sovereign, nor, as I apprehend, could any person be legally consecrated a bishop of such Church unless by the command of the Sovereign. “If the members of the Inns of Court were to present one of their preachers to the Archbishop of Canterbury, saying that they had elected him Bishop of the Inns of Court, and prayed that he might be consecrated, although the most reverend prelate might feel disposed to accede to such prayer, I apprehend that he could not lawfully do so, and that upon application a prohibition would issue from the Court of Queen’s Bench to prevent such a consecration. So, in like manner, the members of the Church in Natal might elect a divine and call him Bishop of Natal, or invest him with any other title ; but even if the Archbishop of Canterbury could be induced to consecrate such a person in due form, he would, T apprehend, have no legal authority to exercise any of those functions which belong exclusively to a bishop of the Church of England. What his peculiar status in the Catholic Church of Christ might be, I do not profess to state ; but I apprehend that he would not be a bishop of the Church of England, and that, when the validity of his ordinations and consecrations came to be contested in a Court of law, they would not appear to have made the persons ordained priests or deacons of the Church of England, nor would the places consecrated by him belong to that Church. He pointed out that the view which he took was in accor- dance with the legislation on the subject in England with regard to the consecration of bishops in countries not within the dominions of the Crown, or for service in the Colonies, quoting the Acts of 1786, 1819, 1840, 1852, and 1853. The members of the Church in South Africa might make an agreement for an ecclesiastical tribunal to try ecclesiastical matters between themselves, and might agree that the decisions of such a tribunal should be final whatever their nature or effect. This civil tribunal would enforce the decisions against all persons who had agreed to be members of such an association without questioning the propriety of their decision, but such an association would be distinct from, and form no part of, the Church of England, whether it did or did not call itself in union and full communion with the

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation