Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A journey to a far country
The Confessing Reader ^ | 10/11/2005 | Confessing Reader

Posted on 10/11/2005 5:38:24 PM PDT by sionnsar

The Australian Anglican Church League has published “A Journey to a Far Country”, an address by Mr Robert Tong, member of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, given at the League ’s annual first night of synod dinner.

Mr Tong has a good review of the history of previous Anglican crises of doctrine and order, and has a clear view of what is at stake in the resolution of the current crisis in the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

I was particularly struck by this:

The Americans and Canadians have been requested to withdraw from active participation in the Anglican Consultative Council. What will happen when Lambeth invitations are issued?

The Times of 4 October 1955 carried a statement issued by Archbishop Fisher regarding Bishop Fred Morris of the Church of England in South Africa (previously a CMS bishop in North Africa) effectively putting Morris out of the Communion. This was over a matter of church order. This crisis is over belief.

Will the Anglican Communion survive this present crisis? We must not rule out the possibility of God’s judgment.

The scriptures record the fall of the Northern Kingdom – The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, and the southern kingdom also under God’s sovereignty purposes.

Do read the entire address. Whatever the effectiveness of the Panel of Reference (yet to have any appeals referred to them by ++Cantuar, despite those from the embattled orthodox bishop and clergy of Recifé, the Diocese of Fort Worth, and the Connecticut Six), Mr Tong clearly understands the issues involved here.

TOPICS: Mainline Protestant

An address given at the Anglican Church League’s annual first night of synod dinner

10th October 2005

I have been invited to speak about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference and to add any personal reflections, about my time in England, when attending the first meeting of that Panel.

A title for this talk had to be supplied for advertising purposes: hence,

‘A Journey to a Far Country’

Like many sermons, the title has only a tenuous link to the content; nevertheless, while England is still 24 hours away by plane it remains a journey to a far country. No other parallels should be drawn with the parable of the Prodigal!1

Let me make a few travelogue remarks before I address the topic. I was asked about some high points of my time away. The Whispering Gallery at St Paul’s Cathedral is a long way up. Likewise, climbing between the thousand year old oak beams in the roof in Salisbury Cathedral is a long way up.

The euphoria on the Wednesday, when London was awarded the Olympic Games, (and to an outsider there was a strong theme of ‘we have beaten the French again, just like at Crecy (1346), Poitiers (1356), Agincourt (1415) and Waterloo (1815).’) This mood was dramatically turned around the next day, with the terrorist bombings. But, within a day or so, Londoners had summoned up a resolve, not to be cowered by the terrorists as they had not succumbed to the IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s. This resolve was fortified on Sunday, with the Queen marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War 11, by attending an open air concert, an open car drive up the Mall and the traditional wave from the Buckingham Palace balcony. My primary school reading was a diet of Biggles, so the will to overcome terrorists seemed to be underlined by the roar of the Rolls Royce Merlin engines, powering the Lancaster bomber flanked by a Hurricane and a Spitfire as the flew up the Mall and over the Palace.

Let me enter a number of caveats. I do not have the luxury of a one hour lecture where themes can be developed and explored; I do not have the leisure and liberty given to an after dinner speaker. This is a during dinner speech which must be concluded in time for what looks like a very exciting evening session of Synod. I also want to say ‘thank you’ to the many people who have prayed for me and the work of the Panel.

The members of the Panel have undertaken to each other a measure of confidentiality in how we work together, and also to protect the integrity of the process, and, accordingly, I will confine myself to a prepared text so that I can honour that agreement. I trust you will understand that.

In mid (12th) May (2005) my daughter answered the phone. ‘Mum! There’s a man on the phone wanting Dad, he says he’s calling from London and it’s very important.’

Mum: ‘Tell him Dad is probably in a meeting, he’ll be home sometime, get a number and Dad will ring him back.’

Well, the man from London did ring back, and I did give my consent to be nominated to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference.

The Panel of Reference

Experimentation with the blessing of same sex relationships began in some dioceses of the Episcopal Church (USA) as early as 1973. The Lambeth Conferences of 1978 and 1988 discussed homosexuality and issued resolutions2

At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, matters came to a head with the passing of what is known as Resolution 1.10. dealing with Human Sexuality.3 That Resolution was not passed in a vacuum. The three week residential conference provided an appropriate gestation period where intense theological debate took place.4

Despite the clarity of Resolution 1.10 and its overwhelming support by the bishops, led from the floor by the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Cary5,…the heart of the resolution stating:

This Conference:
(e) cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;

A person, to quote from Windsor6,in an openly acknowledged same gender union was elected as Bishop of New Hampshire (USA) and the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster (Canada) authorised public Rites for the Blessing of same sex unions.

These were the flashpoints for the Lambeth Commission on Communion whose work is published as The Windsor Report7.

The Windsor Report and the subsequent Primates’ Meeting in Northern Ireland in February (20th-25th) 2005 called for the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Panel of Reference to provide advice to him on a particular circumstance, namely

In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 20038.

In early (6th) May Archbishop Rowan Williams created a Panel of Reference and appointed Archbishop Peter Carnley to chair it. A month later, (8th June) the names of the other twelve members of the Panel were announced.9 The Archbishop’s mandate reflected the request of the Primates.

At my request to enquire into, consider and report on situations drawn to my attention where there is a serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements which may be needed to provide for parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities.10

The Panel had a very cordial and useful first meeting in mid (13th–14th) July where we considered our mandate, settled procedure and issued a communiqué.11

We now await our first reference from the Archbishop.

So, as you can see, there is no more that I can say about the Panel.


I will however take this opportunity make some remarks from a big picture perspective.

There is little doubt that the Anglican Communion faces a crisis: witness the February 2005 call from the Primates for action as a matter of urgency and look at the internet traffic coming out of North America and Africa.

Can we learn anything from the past? Will a look in the rear vision mirror of Anglican History help us steer a truer course when we look forward? It has been said that those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Given tonight’s time constraints the look in the rear view mirror can only be a glance, with time only for an impression, a touch of colour perhaps, but certainly not with the nuance and analysis which might come from a concentrated gaze.

The Nineteenth Century

The century from the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington at Waterloo in 1815, to the assassination of the Archduke in 191412 was a century of growth and consolidation of the greatest empire in recorded history. At the end of the 19th century Victoria, the Dowager Queen-Empress, was sovereign over a quarter of the earth’s land mass, populated by 372 million souls and located on every continent and ocean.

Her Diamond Jubilee (June 22, 1897) message telegraphed by a button press to the four corners of her empire said simply ... From my heart I thank my beloved people. May God bless them13

Mercantile and military reasons underlie the growth of this empire.

Christianity in its Anglican expression took root in this empire and the existence today of 43 member churches of the Anglican Communion is evidence of how the plant has taken root and flourished. Just the growth in the number of Anglican bishops outside England illustrates this. There was one in 1784 (Seabury) and more than 850 at Lambeth 1998.

Against this unfolding background of empire, the Church of England was challenged on several fronts: for example, its monopoly was broken on Oxbridge education, high political office and membership of parliament; there was the Oxford Movement which by the end of the 19th century had changed the face of Anglicanism; and there was the dramatic shift in intellectual climate.

Not only was there an evolving change of context for the established church in England, but as the century rolled on there were a number crises which threatened to split the Church of England. Our rearward glance will notice four notorious episodes

First: the Gorham Case

The facts are simple. Henry Phillpotts (1778–1869) was Bishop of Exeter, he was bishop for 40 years. In 1848 he refused to institute Charles Gorham to a living in his Diocese. Gorham was already an incumbent in the diocese but for family reasons desired a change. The high church Bishop Phillpotts was committed to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.14 The evangelical Gorham held that baptism was conditional and dependent upon a later personal adoption of promises made. These two views or modifications of them, have existed side by side in the Church of England for some time. Gorham sought an order from a church court (the court of arches) to compel the bishop to institute him to the living, but the court found in favour of the bishop and awarded costs against Gorham. Gorham appealed to the Privy Council15 and the decision of the lower court was reversed, but not unanimously (9 March 1850). Phillpots repudiated the judgment and threatened to excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury and anyone who dared to institute Gorham. The sticking point was this: should a secular court (even with, in this case the two Archbishops and the Bishop of London as members) decide the doctrine of the Church of England.

Protest and talk of secession to Rome reverberated amongst the ranks of the high church party and in the end some did leave.16

Two months later (3 June 1850) the Bishop of London introduced into the House of Lords a bill to constitute the bishops as a court of appeal in matters of doctrine but the bill failed, eight four votes to fifty one.

I am indebted to Michael Horsburgh for drawing my attention to a Sydney link with Bishop Philpotts. His son, Lieutenant George Philpotts, Royal Navy, was killed aged 31 on 1 July 1845 during the Maori Wars and a memorial was erected by his brother officers in St James, King Street.17

Secondly: Essays and Reviews

1860 saw the publication of Essays and Reviews. All seven contributors were influential Anglicans and 6 were clergy.18 Readers felt that the authors had been disloyal to the Church but had some difficulty in saying where. The bishops, through Archbishop Sumner, unanimously condemned the work. How could clergy hold the opinions in the essays and continue to subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion. Eventually, Williams (a professor of Hebrew) was charged for his article on biblical criticism and Wilson, (a professor of Anglo-Saxon), charged for his article on the National Church. Both were found guilty and suspended but on appeal, both were acquitted by the Privy Council (8 February 1864).19 As in Gorham the Privy Council was split. The Bishop of London sided with the majority while Canterbury and York dissented.

This was the heart of the matter. The Articles of Religion and Formularies were to be construed strictly according to the rules for interpreting statutes and written documents.

Thus it was not an offence, in relation to Article 11 (Of justification) to describe as a ‘fiction’ the idea of the merits of Jesus Christ being transferred to us.

Likewise, it was not an offence against Article 6 (Of the sufficiency of the holy scriptures for salvation); Article 20 (Of the authority of the church); the Nicene Creed and the Ordination Service to assert that not every part of the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, it was not an offence for a clergyman to express a hope of the ultimate pardon of the wicked.

Thirdly: John William Colenso

Two years later, in 1862, an overseas crisis threatened to split the overseas church as well as the church at home. Robert Gray was Bishop of Cape Town and metropolitan. John William Colenso was Bishop of Natal. Colenso published the first part of his commentary on Genesis which attempted to disprove the literal accuracy of the First Books of the Old Testament. Gray charged Colenso with heresy, had him tried and deposed. On appeal, the Privy Council20 held that Gray had no power to try Colenso because the Letters Patent from the Crown had no effect, if they ever had effect, to give a bishop coercive jurisdiction, once the Colony had rights of self government. Letters Patent erected the bishopric, assigned territory and granted jurisdiction.

In the meantime, Gray succeeded in replacing Colenso with a new bishop. Consequent upon the deposition of Colenso, the Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund ceased to pay his stipend. Colenso went again to the English courts21 and obtained an order that his stipend continue to be paid as he was still the legal Church of England Bishop in Natal. Thus, for some 14 years there were two rival bishops in Natal.

Colenso’s character has been described as simple and attractive. He grew up in Cornwall ‘where non conformists were numerous and High Churchmen almost unknown’. Winning scholarships to St John’s Cambridge he became a mathematician. Offering for missionary service he was consecrated as the first bishop of Natal. There he developed a real sense of the human dignity of the Zulu people. He translated into Zulu the New Testament, parts of the Old and most of the Book of Common Prayer. A grammar and a dictionary were also written. It was his critical examination of the Pentateuch, drawing on continental scholarship which got him into trouble.

Having translated the measurements of the ark22, how could he answer the question from his Zulu converts ‘Do you really believe that all this happened – all the beasts and birds and creeping things upon the earth, large and small, from hot countries and cold, came thus by pairs and entered into the Ark with Noah and did Noah gather food for them all for the beasts and birds of prey as well as the rest’. No wonder a friend said ‘Colenso’s idea of history is that it is a branch of arithmetic.’23

Fourthly: ritual

The Oxford Movement reintroduced ritual into church services.24 These innovations were controversial and were resisted. Archbishop Tait and Prime Minister Disraeli supported the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 to correct irregularities in the worship in the Church of England. In fact the law of ritual was not changed but an improvement was made to the church courts so that ritual excess could be prosecuted more efficiently.

The issue was not purely English. Ritual and particularly confession occupied two days of discussion at the Second Lambeth conference of 1878. With only two dissentients out of more than 80 bishops, a plain and strong condemnation of ultra-Ritualism and the Confessional was carried.25

Back in England in the ten years between 1877 and 1887, five clergymen were imprisoned for contempt of court.26 It made martyrs of them. In the end the bishops exercised their veto to stop further prosecutions. Legal action against ritualists proved counter productive.

The Church of England and the Anglican Communion adjusted, changed and accommodated to each of these challenges. What is different now? And people left.

The first Lambeth Conference 1867

As we have seen, Essays and Reviews and Colenso unsettled the Church of England and the Church overseas, so much so that the Canadians in 1865 wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury (C T Longley)

We the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Province of Canada in Triennial Synod assembled, desire to represent to your Grace, that in consequence of the recent decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the well known case respecting the Essays and Reviews, and also in the case of the Bishop of Natal and the Bishop of Cape Town, the minds of many members of the church have been unsettled or painfully alarmed; and that doctrines hitherto believed to be scriptural, undoubtedly held by the members of the Church of England and Ireland, have been adjudicated upon by the Privy Council in such a way as to lead thousands of our brethren to conclude that, according to this decision, it is quite compatible with membership in the Church of England to discredit the historical facts of Holy Scripture and to disbelieve the eternity of future punishment;

…we humbly entreat your Grace, since the assembling of a general council of the whole Catholic Church is at present impracticable, to convene a national synod of the bishops of the Anglican Church at home and abroad who, attended by one or more of their presbyters or laymen learned in ecclesiastical law, as their advisers, may meet together and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, take such counsel and adopt such measures as may be best fitted to provide for the present distress in such synod, presided over by your Grace.27

The Bishop Colenso – Bishop Gray controversy was encapsulated in an hymn

Though with a scornful wonder

men see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping
their cry goes up, ‘How long?’
and soon the night of weeping

shall be the morn of song.28

Archbishop Longley (22 February 1867) issued invitations to 151 bishops (some retired). York, and most of the Northern bishops refused to come. Some refused to come if the Colenso matter was on the agenda. In the event, 76 bishops attended: 18 English, 5 Irish, 6 Scottish, 26 from the colonial churches, 17 American and 4 retired colonial bishops. Colenso did occupy some of their time.

Who would, who could and who should, make decisions about church doctrine and discipline? In England, unsatisfactory as it maybe, it was the judicial committee of the Privy Council. In the colonies the Privy Council only got a look in if the issue was property or constitution. Ecclesiastical law was not part of what colonial courts adjudicated on.

Our own Bishop Barker29 said to the Sydney synod in 1869

A third subject of great practical importance is the formation of a tribunal of appeal in matters of faith and worship. Moral offences may be dealt with by the tribunal appointed at our last session, or under the Church Act as at present existing. A Clergyman deprived of his parsonage or his income in consequence of a judgment by the Diocesan Tribunal has his appeal to the courts of law of the colony, and we may leave them to deal with such cases of appeal whenever they arise but it would be very undesirable to allow questions of doctrine and ritual to be decided by Diocesan tribunals, with no other appeal than to a Civil Court. Our own internal ordinance contemplates an appeal to another tribunal. In the 8th clause it is thus stated, “Provided that an appeal shall lie to any higher ecclesiastical tribunal of appeal when such shall have been constituted.

It would not be desirable that questions of faith and doctrine should be decided in a Diocesan tribunal, without the power of appeal, and the appeal to be of use should be accessible without undue trouble or unnecessary cost. The 4th resolution of the Episcopal Conference expresses the opinion that such a tribunal should be formed by the proposed General Synod.

Besides this, however, further action is contemplated by the formation of what is termed in the resolution, a Council of Reference in England. It is conceivable that a tribunal in Australia might give a decision upon some question of doctrine or ritual different to one given by a tribunal in Canada or any other province. It is uncertain whether it would be practicable to carry such a question to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and if practicable it would no doubt be very expensive. It is thought that if a Council of Reference was constituted by an Imperial Act, and questions referred to it by the General Synod, the arrangement would tend to the union and peace of the Church.

Barker reported to the 16 July 1872 session of Sydney synod his meeting with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Lord Chancellor, the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the formation of a council of reference.

Since it is possible that the Tribunals of the various branches of the Colonial Church may arrive at different decisions upon questions of doctrine and discipline, it appears to us, in the uncertainty whether it would be practicable to carry an appeal from the Colonial Church to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to be desirable that, for preserving the unity of the Church, there should be in England a Council of Reference, to which such questions might from time to time be referred by the General Synod; that such Council should consist of a small definite number of Bishops of the Church at home and laymen learned in the law - viz, the Archbishop of Canterbury or some other Archbishop or Bishop appointed by him, the Bishop of London, and one layman holding some specified office in connexion with the Church, together with two other Bishops and two other laymen, to be elected by the several branches of the Colonial Church in such manner as may be agreed upon among them; and that any decision pronounced by such Council should be binding upon the General and Diocesan Tribunals, unless a judgment at variance therewith should be pronounced by some Ecclesiastical Court in England.

Barker pursued this idea at the 2nd Lambeth in 1878, it was referred to a committee and there it died.

Let me return to the mandate of the Panel,

the adequacy of delegated oversight or other extraordinary arrangements

are key words. They contemplate a variation to the pattern based on the Roman Empire civic arrangement of one bishop one territory. As I have said, we have no references yet so it is not possible to say what might be adequate or extraordinary!

Let me glance in the rear view mirror and list some other arrangements.

“Why I visited New Zealand, not being within my diocese.” The immediate reason was, that Sir R Inglis, on behalf of the Church Missionary Society, had asked me to do so. But I had a further reason for complying with that request, to prove to the Romanists by practical evidence that they are guilty of injustice in affirming that we neither have nor can exercise any episcopal powers except such as are derived from our letters patent under the great seal. I grant that I would never within the Queen’s dominions exercise episcopal functions except within those limits which the Queen appoints; for this, I contend, is the object and effect of letters patent; not to confer spiritual powers, but to define the range within each prelate shall exercise them. Beyond the limits of the British sovereignty, I contend that every Bishop has an inherent right, in virtue of the powers conferred on him at the consecration, to officiate, especially wherever the good of the Church may be promoted by his so doing.... because I have exercised all the powers of a bishop, ordaining, confirming, consecrating, and issuing marriage licences, in a country to which my letters patent neither extended nor pretended to extend.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no legal jurisdiction, nor does his Panel. The 150 years of international Anglicanism has turned its face against international jurisdictional solutions to Anglican problems. Debate, persuasion and peer pressure are the only tools available to those who wish to hold the line. History as we have seen suggests that accommodation is the only way to preserve a semblance of unity. However, the question still remains, as stated in one of the earliest Lambeth Conferences, “Where and how is the line drawn?“

Jesus said (Matthew 18:15) “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained a brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector.”

The Americans and Canadians have been requested to withdraw from active participation in the Anglican Consultative Council. What will happen when Lambeth invitations are issued?

The Times of 4 October 1955 carried a statement issued by Archbishop Fisher regarding Bishop Fred Morris of the Church of England in South Africa (previously a CMS bishop in North Africa) effectively putting Morris out of the Communion. This was over a matter of church order. This crisis is over belief.

Will the Anglican Communion survive this present crisis? We must not in not rule out the possibility of God’s judgment.

The scriptures record the fall of the Northern Kingdom – The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold,30 and the southern kingdom also under God’s sovereignty purposes.

Was Victoria, the Queen Empress prescient when choosing as a hymn for her Diamond Jubilee celebration of 1897, that well known and much loved hymn

The day you gave us, Lord is ended whose final stanza is,

So be it, Lord; your throne shall never,
like earth’s proud empires, pass away;
your kingdom stands, and grows for ever,
till all your creatures own your sway.31

While Victoria’s empire has passed away, God’s kingdom stands and grows forever and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it32.

The immediate post war (World War 11) NSW education system still recognised the Empire as 24 May, Victoria’s official birthday, was marked by a half holiday in public schools and fireworks which individuals could purchase, without licence, and explode without control, parental or otherwise, were readily available. My first passport said Australian Citizen and British Subject.

What ever may happen to the Anglican Communion we must not forget we are citizens of another country, our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a saviour Philippians 3:20

Like the ancient hymn writer we can sing

O sweet and blessed country,
the home of God’s elect,

O sweet and blessed country
that eager hearts expect,
Jesus, in mercy bring us
to that dear land of rest,
who art, with God the Father
and Spirit ever blest.33

Robert Tong

Anglican Church League



1 Luke 15:11-24
2 See Appendix Three of the Windsor Report for the text of the resolutions.

3 ibid.
4 See the Section 1 report, theme 3 Human Sexuality in The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, Morehouse Publishing Harrisburg PA 1999. Two of our own bishops, Harry Goodhew and Paul Barnett played a significant role in the work of the section and the shaping of the resolution.
5 See Know the Truth, a Memior, George Cary, Harper Collins London 2004 page 328. Five hundred and twenty six bishops supported the resolution, seventy voted against it and forty five abstained. Members of the AC were participants at the conference but only observers at the plenary session. The atmosphere during this debate was electric.

6 Paragraph 129 and 136 and following.
7 Being the report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion published by the Anglican Communion Office, London. 2004.
8 Paragraph 15 of Communiqué issued by the Primates February 2005.

9 Most Rev Dr Peter Carnley AO, Chairman; the Hon Michael Evans QC, retired Welsh district court judge; The Rev Dr Joseph Galgalo, St Paul’s Theological College Limuru Kenya; Bernard Georges, Chancellor Province of the Indian Ocean previously member Anglican Consultative Council ‘ACC’; Rt Rev Khotso Makhulo CMG, retired primate Central Africa; Canon John Moore, retired director Intercontinental Church Society; Rubie Nottage, Chancellor Province West Indies, member Lambeth Commission; Rt Rev Claude Payne, retired Bishop of Texas; Most Rev Dr John Sentamu, just translated from Birmingham to York, previously High Court judge in Uganda; Rt Rev Dr Maurice Sinclair, retired primate Southern Cone; Rev Stephen Trott, Rector Pitsford with Boughton (UK) and Church Commissioner; Fung Yi Wong, Registrar Diocese Hong Kong, solicitor previously Standing Committee ACC; Robert Tong, solicitor, previously member ACC.

10 For text of the mandate see press release Anglican Communion News Service 3977, 11th May 2005.
11 For text of communiqué see press release Anglican Communion News Service 4008, 15th July 2005.

12 On the 28th June 1914 the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo.
13 Farewell the trumpets, Jan Morris, Faber London 1998. p22

14 Seeing now that this child is regenerate…is said by the priest immediately after baptism: Book of Common Prayer 1662.
15 Gorham v Bishop of Exeter [1850] Moore’s Special reports, 462.
16 The Victorian Church (part 1) O Chadwick, SCM Press, London 1971. page270.

17 Associate Professor Michael Horsburgh provided me with a paper published in St Mark’s Review, No 174, 1998, pp 11-17. There is a second Philpotts connection in another St James memorial to the memory of John Coleridge Patterson, First Bishop of Melanesia and Martyr, 20 September 1871. Patterson had been ordained by Philpotts).
18 M Pattison; B Jowlett, professor of Greek and Master of Balliol; F Temple, Headmaster of Rugby and later Archbishop of Canterbury; H Wilson; Baden Powell; C Goodwin; R Williams. See Anglican Attitudes A O J Cochshut, Collins London 1959.

19 Williams v Bishop of Salisbury (1963) 2 Moo PCCNS,375.
20 Re The Lord Bishop of Natal (1965) 16 ER 43
21 Bishop of Natal v Gladstone (1866) 3 Eq.

22 Genesis 6:15-17.
23 Colenso, Letters from Natal, ed. W Rees, Shuter & Shooter, Pietermaritzburg, 1958 is an interesting collection of letters (with comment) written by Mrs Colenso between 1865 and 1893.

24 For example, reservation of the sacrament, vestments, the eastward position, confession. See The Victorian Church, and Evangelical Anglicans in a Revolutionary Age 1789-1901 N Scotland, Paternoster Press, Carlisle 2004 and P Marsh The Victorian Church in Decline Rutledge & Keegan, London 1969..

25 Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences. A M Stephenson, SPCK, London, 1978, p70; The Lambeth Conferences, W R Curtis, AMS Press New York, 1968, p260.
26 The Victorian Church, (part Two), p348 provides names and dates.

27 The Lambeth Conferences, W.E.Curtis AMS Press, New York 1968 p125
28 The Church’s one foundation, S J Stone 1866, hymn 358 The Australian Hymn Book Collins Sydney 1977. ‘it is recorded that the result of singing this hymn at St Paul’s Cathedral during the Lambeth Conference of 1888 was so powerful that the singers were over-whelmed: it made them feel weak at the knees, their legs trembled, and they really felt as though they were going to collapse. An annotated anthology of hymns, ed. J R Watson, OUP Oxford 2002. p339

29 1854-1882 Metropolitan of Australia and from 1872, Primate. Address to fourth session of First Synod Diocese of Sydney, 6 April 1867.
30 And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold, from The Destruction of Sennacherib, George Gordon, Lord Byron. see 2 Kings 19: 32-37 and Isaiah 37: 33-38

31 The day you gave us, Lord is ended, J Ellerton 1870, hymn 388 The Australian Hymn Book Collins Sydney 1977.
32 Matthew 16:19

33 Jerusalem the golden, Bernard of Cluny 12th cent. tr. JM Neale 1851, hymn 346 The Australian Hymn Book Collins, Sydney 1977.

Robert TongMr. Robert Tong, a Sydney Lawyer, is the Chairman of the Anglican Church League.

Robert has been a member of Standing Committee for many years, as well as the Church Property Trust and the Moore College Council. He has also served on the General Synod and the Standing Committee of General Synod, the Canon Law Commission.

He was the lay representative of the Anglican Church of Australia at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Panama (1996), Lambeth Conference (1998) and Dundee (1999).

St. Matthias’ Centennial Park was his church for 30 years; he is now at Christ Church St. Ives.In 2005, he was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a member of his Panel of Reference.


1 posted on 10/11/2005 5:38:27 PM PDT by sionnsar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; Fractal Trader; Zero Sum; anselmcantuar; Agrarian; coffeecup; Paridel; keilimon; ...
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans:

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

2 posted on 10/11/2005 5:40:01 PM PDT by sionnsar (†† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azadi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar
I wonder... is the title of this talk an allusion to Basho's Oku no Hosomichi??
3 posted on 10/11/2005 10:22:22 PM PDT by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson