MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

SIR,
ioiir lettcr to tlic nutlior of '' A few plain Words,
&c." is writtcn in so excellent a temper, 2nd is
so rcmarkablc not only for its ingenuity, but for
its carncstness of tone, as to induce me to hope that
you mny be prcvniled upon to reconsider the argu-
ment you have employed, and to retract the conclu-
sions at wliich vou have arrived ; I must think, rather
through prejudice than any fair process of reasoning.
Thcre is so wide a difference between the spirit of
your paniphlet and that of some manuscript remarks
which liare b e k handed about, and of the printed
sheet recently circulated here-as I am informed-by
the Britisli Consul, that I eannot help feeling that
you,-pained, as you niust be, by so glaring an ex-
posure of the unhappy temper and ill-judged person-
alities indulged in without scruple, as to any accuracy
o$ statement, by the leaders of your present party,-
may not be reluctant to find on what shallow founda-
tion you are now relying, and that we may be
able at no distant period to aequiesce with gladness
in your assnmption of the honourable name of " a
Churchman."
A i?
 MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

'ou lny grcat strcss on tlie Bishop of London's

letters, m i t t e n some tliirteen years since to the
Cliaplains a t Naples and Antwerp ; you omit, how-
cver, a11 proof that these were similar cases,-we
cnnriot know tliis intuitivcly ; and even granting that
tlicy were precisely so, wliich is veiy iniprobable, I
tlo iiot sce liow thc force of tlic Bisliop's letters,-
tlirectly refcrring to tlie present case, and written
withiii tlie last two iiiontlisj-is wealtened or neutral-
ized by decisions and definitioiis of tlie same Bishop
clelivcred so niany years back.
Let me suggest to you that the Bisliop's decisions
are judicial, but not so liis definitions. You are
surely pcrforming a rather questionable act of friend-
ship to Mr. Brown, by proving that he cannot obtain
a mere certificate of respectability ; which, you must
see, the Bishop niiglit grant to every clergyman now
in Madeira, witliout implying the least censure of Mr.
Lowe. Lord Palmerston is evidently awarc that tiie
Bisliop's licence is of much more importance than
you seern disposed to adniit : a certificate of respec-
tability mould not be sufficient to establish an inde-
pentlent cliaplain in tlie opinion of any persoil ; it
mould not even serve to maintain him in his position
of eliaplaiii, if no " rival antagonist " Iiad been ap-
poiilted by IIer Majesty's Secretary of State for
F o r e i p Affairs.
You do not allude to tlie Bishop of Cape Town's
letter to tlie Bishop of Loiidon ; though, as you quote
" Madeira coirespondence," I presume you must have
seen it. Had you attendcd tlie nieeting lash year a&
the Consulate, you would liave heard the Bishop of
 XADEIRA CH-4PLAINCY. E
Cape Tomn's admonitioiis, invested with authority,
ddegated to him by the Bisliop of London. A little
reflection will sntisfy you tliat the letter, over mhich
you slide so easily in a note,-tliough not in itself
autlioritative,-is an authoritative record of what
took place a t the meeting. His Lordship's morda
cannot therefore be consi(1crccl as "mercly the ex-
pression of Iiis own privatc opinion." As Mr. Brown
applicd for thcni cspressly for tlie purpose of t'heir
publicatim, hc nlone must nnswer for their being
" ol~trudeclupoii tlic public." These letters, as well
as tliose of the Bisliop of London to Mr. Brown as
partially publislied by tlie latter, me surely a sufficient
rcfutation of your assertion to avisitor. The Chap-
lain receivcs " no inhibition, we no warning except
from yourself."
While you trcnt individual Bishops with somewhat
scant courtesy, you are I tliink too ready to exalt
them collectively. Do you know whether the Bishops
voted for or against the passing of the Act 6 Geo. IV.
cap. 87 ? I freely own I do not ; and I have still to
learn how-the English Church being episcopal-a
clergyman can be "regularly employed in the ceie-
bration of Divine Service according to tlie rites and
ceremonies of the United Church of England and
Ireland," (I quote the Act,) without episcopal licence ;
but, granting a11 you would assume as to the authority
of the Act, me must arrive a t the conclusion, that
the Foreign Recretary having obtained full power to
ttppoint and dismiss foreign chaplains, most properly
declined to avail himself of it ; and applied to the
Bishop of London to grant these chaplains licences,
 AI A1)EIR:I CBAPLAINCY.

preciscly siiiiilnr to tliose grmted to tlie clergy in

Englnnd ; nnd, of course, froni tlicir very nature, not
linble to bc witlidramii, cxcept on similar grounds.
Tou c10 not inforni us when Her Majesty recom-
nieiidcd Mi-. Lowe to resiçn " tlie niiiiistering unto
Brit isli souls iii JIadeira." I really cannot believe that
Hcr Majesty lias ever done so. You have throughout
confouixled teinporal &'ri spiritual authority ; the
Act G Geo. IV. cap. 87, does not allude to the latter,
cscept i11 thc words I liave quoted above. Mr. Lowe
lias sbundantly sliown, in liis Appendix to Protest,
that tlie autliority of tlie Bisliop of London was in
csistence long bcfore the passinç of that Act, by
~yliicliit is riot i11 any respect modified. Mr. Lowe
does not retain aiiy thing which he received under
tlie authority of tlie Act, tliougli he can scarcely be
said to have surrendered tlie temporalities of which
Iic was dcprived, certainly by no act of his own. I
really niust remind you, that the Crown acts through
responsible Knisters ; but I doubt how far even this
will nssist you in vindicating the loyal obedience o€ a
p r t y , wliich was for gears engaged in a n endeavour
to render void sn appointment of the Crown, which
liad the full sanction of the authorities, both civil
aiid ecclesiastica1.
You have argucd very plausibly from the use af
the term cliaplaiii ; but clergymen in foreign por&
aiid places are in a position very different from th&
of a chaplain to a nobleman, who is an officer in the
household of his patron : I imagine that not even w,
nobleman's chaplain can preach and administer the
Sacraments without episcopal licence. The tem
 MADEIRA mAPLAINCY.

cliaplain has probably been generally appred to

English Clergy in foreign ports and places only, as
more convenient, and less inaccurate, than that of
rector, vicar, &c., which would convey an untrue
idea. Pray do not let Mr. Brown suppose he holds
the appointment of chaplain to the Queen, which
would invest him with more privileges than perhaps
you are aware of He is not even chaplain to the
British subjects resident in Madeira, as we have not
yet attained the privileges of nobility. If you con-
sider the difference between a chaplain whose minis-
trations are euclusively confined to a single household,
without prejudice to the rights and authority of the
minister of the parisli in which his patron may
Iinppen to reside, and a clergyman who undertakes
the cure of souls in a foreign port, you cannot fail to
see that the whole of your reasoning on this point
falls to the ground.
Since you wrote the paragraph, asserting that Mr.
Lowe's licence is extinct, you have seen a letter from
the Bishop of London, dated Nov. 22, 1848, in wbich
the Bishop says, " Mr. Lowe continues to hold my
licence ;" I need not, therefore, argue that point. I
Iiave shown above that we have good r e w n s to
believe the Bishop'i licence of more importanoe than
you do, and Lord Palmerston himself probably differs
with you on this subjed. There are passages in your
pamphlet which lead me to doubt whether you your-
self are quite satisfied with Mr. Brown's freedom
from episcopal control ; indeed you cannot but yearn
aRer some authority; you turn from the Bishop of
London in despair, and-can it be ? yes,-you are the
n m n i hf Yr. Ilmwn's ?iupprtem alio lia4 favouted
us wit h n pthlic vinilicntkm of tlic ~ u t h o r i t gof th0
Itonisn C'ntholic Uishliop of Funclinl. Do you hopo
thnt hc will liccnsc Mr. Ifron-n ? Al:xs ! I fcar "a
(ftiitrrlitwm'' aithout n 13isliop is in n prcenrious nnd
tlrspwate con Ji tion. C m ynu wondcr tlint wc doclino
to tmst oiic ~ 1 1 0 fi11lo~sc.r~
s~ are so cvidently adrift ?
J f n ~tve net fnirly tlotibt to wlint havcn hc niay con-
duct tlicw who trust liis pilotngo ?
Ijut o11 what p u n t l s do you rcfuse to mognize
tlie suthority of tlic Bisliop of London in this placa?
Nccausc it is not, strictly spe,zking, wi thin bis dia-
cew ? you rrcognize tlic appoint nicnt of t lic English
cmwn in this plsec, to which its authority does not
ex t enci : you rceognize the force of a t least one A&
of thc Nritiali Parliamont in this place, and Mr.
J h w n mxives hia snlnry under it ; though, strictly
s p t d h g . thc Act has no authority here. Wiy do
?ou ri+u.ic S U C ~reco'pition of thc ccclesiasticd tm
'ou rtpparctitly conctdc to tho civil powers of govem-
m c n t ? EWQ- nnr knows that the "positions of a
b d y uf our countrymn residing a h r o d " aro not tho
.-ame 2.3 tliat of an English pariah. Mr. Brown may
wfcly de@ t h r ImVsof England to reacli hirn hert?,
and continue h i ~irregular ministry. Ris dohg so
may entitlc him to your respect, but nevor to mim
I shall not cntcr upon tlic religious questiona you
have startd, further tlian to caution you @mk
indnuating that those who have the prayers, p&q
c&, and 8acmments of the Church, either h
not, or do nat duly value the blessing of a faithu
niinistmtion of God's worcl. An ~ t t e m p of t this soit
has been made more than once,-need I remirdyou
how signally it failed ?
You say, '' there has been no intimation as yet of
any desire on the part of the State to remove foreign
cliaplains froin the superintendenoe and spiritual
direction of the Bishop of London ;" but I under-
stand that the new Regulations issued by Lord
Palmerston insist that henceforth all differences on
spiritual subjects betwecn thc chaplain and his con-
gregation are to be referred to the decision of the
Crown. If I am not greatly misinformed, Lord Pal-
merston by these regulations assumes tlie superiority
of the Secretary of State, not only over tlie Bishop,
but actually over tlie Parliameiit of tlie United King-
dom, and positivcly makes alterations in, and addi-
tions to, the Act itself. I can most readily assent to
your statement, that autliority to preach, &c. "ia in
England dircted to a particular loeality by the licence
or institution of a Bishop," while " here Churchmen
may well be content to receive and obey a pastor first
duly ordained, and then sent by the only authority
that has power to send him ;" but why this authority,
which ia the Christian Church has ever been exer-
cised by Bishops alone, should, as regards this place,
be usurped by a lay Secretary of State, I know not,
nor do you atternpt to show. I h k with some
distrust on the present excessive loyalty of the sup
porters of the Government place of worship, when I
reflect that our present unhappy díssensions are
wholly owing to the refusal of those parties "to
receive and obey a pastor," who was indisputably
" sent by thc only authority that had power to send
dl) MADEIRA C ~ P AINCY.
L

liirn;%otli according to yours and the Church's

interprctation of tlie words ; and I am confimed in
my distrust by the knowledge that those parties
refused to comply with the recommendations of the
Secretary of State, in the very first instance, in
which he advised an act of plain justice, contrary to
their inclinations.
And now, Sir, I wish I could bring my remarks to
a, conclusion. I give you full credit for the "wish and
intention to represent things as they are ;" and I
thank you heartily for your statement of the case of
Mr. Brown and his supporters. I have at times had
doubts whether theirs might not be a better case than
I was aware of I thought they might have argu-
mente and documents, which some temporary obstacle
did not permit them to lay before the world ; but
dter so bold an appeal as you have made to the public
-an appeal, I must repeat, so distinguished by its
earnestness and ability, and which, I can hardly be
rash in thinking, you would not have made without
consulting the wishes of Mr. Brown and his principal
friends-I must conclude that the arrnoury of your
party ia exhausted, that Mr. Lowe's position, as the
only minister of the Church of England authorized
to preach and adrninister the sacraments in this
island, is impregnable ; and that Mr. Brom's claims
to that position, though they may be put forth in
good faith, (and until irresistibly convinced of &e
contrary I will believe them to be so,) are whdy
without foundation, and altogether unworthy af our
att ention.
I said that I wished I could now conclude my
 MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

rcniarks ; but, homever painful, it is neoessary to

complete my task, that I sliould notice the extraor-
dinary appendix to your letter, in whicli the assump-
tions you have nisde are of such a character, as
almost to nmke nie cloubt wliether its writer is the
snnie gentleman I liave been hithcrto addressing.
you coniniencc hy an assumption entirely gratui-
tous, nnd uttcrly iiicorrect in fact, that tlie BishogJs
letter, datccl Fullinni, Dec. 15, 1848, " is the rnost
f:wourrzble document tliat Mr. Lowe has ever yet
reccived froni tlie Bishop." I sliould have thouglit
tliat tlie rcason for its being selected for circulation
i11 tliis placc wns apparent enough ; nclmely, that it
was writtcn cspressly tliat it might be publicly cir-
culated. A Gisliop's communications are usually con-
siclered private by the clergy ; as Mr. Brown knew
when he wrotc to the Bishop of Cape Town, request-
ing him to yublisli, or to authorize him to publisb,
the reply. Your deductions from the letter itself are
ntost preposterous ; you insist upon keeping Mr.
Brown in tlie unhappy predicament of waiiting a
certificate of respectnbility, which he might hold
without the slightest injury to Mr. Lowe. You do not
see that the quot'ations you give from the Bishop's
letters are only verbally different, but upon each of
them gou build a fabric, which i t is onfY impossiblc
to pull down, because there is neither foundation nor
conclusion. They are genuine cwtles in the air.
The Bishop says, " A s far as I am concerned, you
(Mr. Lowe) alone are authorized to act in the capacity
of Chaplain ;" and again, " Mr. Lowe continues to
hold my licenbe, and is therefore authorized by me
 X i D E I R A CRAPLAINCP.

to officiate as Cliaplain, as far ns I Iiave poww to

nuthorize him." Do pray esercise your comrnon
sense. Tliese passages will only bear one interpreta-
tion ; i. e. the Bishop gives a11 the authority which
Iie, as ,z Bisliop of thc Cliurcli, can give to Mr. Lowe.
And nom let us examine your conclusions.
2. I t is surely uttcrly unimportant to us whethcr
the Bisliop acts from feeling or principie, but I can-
not see liow you infer this from the words in your
note, I regret to add unfairly quoted ; I have not
seen a copy of the Madeira correspondence, but this
letter Las been published elsewhere. The Bishop
does not assiire " Lord Palmerston, that nothing was
further from liis wishes, than that Mr. Lowe should
do what he is doing." I will give you the whole
passage from the Bishop of London's letter to Lard
Palmerston. " I beg to assure your Lordship that
nothing is further from nly wishes than to estahlish
an independent Chaplain at Madeira, being fully
sensible of the inconvenience which must arise from
such a measure. I am only desirous of not doing an
act of injustice to an amiable and excellent Clergy-
man. I simply decline revoking the licence which I
granted to Mr. Lowe a t the request of the Secretary
of State, because I am persuaded i n niy conscience
that he has not committed any fault deserving of so
severe a censure as the revocation of his licence, &er
a faithful and zealous service of fifteen years-a
censure which I sliould not be jiistified in castiag,
under similar circumstances, upon the curate of any
parish i n this country."
2. Your second conoIusion, or I ought to aay IS-
 NADEIRA CNAPLSINCY.

suniption, ccrtainly proves tliat moderation of ex-

pression is neither appreciated nor understood by
Mr. Brown's friends. Thc Bishop does not mention
Mr. Brown at all, neither does lie mention tlie Pres-
byterian Minister. I t was not necessaiy that he
sliould mcn t ioii eit her separatis t from the Cliurch.
3. Your third conclusion is ratlier too late to be of
any iniportnnce. BIr. IIntliamay's late position was
fully saiictioned by tlie Bisliop. We really miglit
I a r c cspcctcd tliat bcfore procecding to publication
you slioulcl liave made some littlc inquiry on this
point, wliich ~ ~ o u lhavcd saved you tlie trouble of
deducing siicli n conclusion, and the mortification of
finding yourself in crror. I imagine tliat you must
have becn tlie only person in Madeira in ignorsnce of
the simple fact, that Mr. Lome's absence was only
tcmporary, Iiis friends scarcely expectcd tliat his
return woulcl have becn so loiig delayed. You are, I
liope 2nd believe, mistakcii in imagining tliat Mr.
Lome's presence is necessary to kecp alive in the
members of the Cliurch liere the plain Church prin-
.ciple for which they are now contending ; you may at
least give them credit for acting from conscientious
motives, and not for the sake of supporting an in-
dividual, liowever much they may both honour ancl
esteem him.
4. As your fourth conclusion you give us three
assertions, you add one or two more afterwards. Now
I cannot prove a negative in tliese cases ; Irut I cai1
positively stste, not as an assertion, but as a matter
of fact, that you have not produced any prcmises
froni whicli these miscalled conclusions can by any
 MADEIRA CHAPLAINCY.

ingenuity be deduced. I now clialleiige you to pro-

ducc nny proofs, tlie slightcst or most remote, of your
correctness in stating,
1st. "That Nr. Lowe's return to the islnnd m d
miiiistering in opposition to thc lawful Cliaplain, ia
v e y distastcful to the Rishop."
2nd. "Tliat lie lieartily wished liim to remain where
Iic IRIS."
3rd. " That he hzld on more than one occwion ex-
pressed this wish."
4th. " Tliat the Bishop is caroful to say that he
wialics hini not to return."
Until some proofs of the correctness of t'tiese asser-
tions are produced, I for one shsll beg leave to assert
my disbelief in their existence.
"The Bishop's refusal to censure Mr. Lowe is nothing
like empomering him, or advisiug Iiim, or even wishing
Iiim to return to Madeira."
I liave no hesitation in granting this, but I will
beç you to consider that last Felruary the Bishop
refused to revoke Mr. Lowe's licence " after a faithful
aiid zealous service of fifteen years," as " an amiable
nnd excellent Clergyman ;" that last summer he gave
him temporary leme of absence on condition of h d -
iug an efficient substitute; that he approved of the
substitute selected; and that on Nov. 22nd, md
on Dec. 15th, h e wrote letters, the only object of
which was to establish and render clear to a11 members
of tlie Church, Mr. Lowe's sole claims to the Chap-
laincy ; thereby doiiig his utmost to f a c i l i e Mr.
Lowe's return, and to support him against suoh na-
justifiable attacks as you have ventured to m k e ;
 NADEIRA CHAPLAlNCY.

for your pnmplilet is rather an attempt to assa'il Mr.

Lowe's position, than to defend Mr. Brown's.
I must now lay clearly before you that the ques-
tio11 is not "between an extinct licence and no
liceiice." It is between a Clergyman fully licensed
by tlie Bishop, and one who can only claim mission
froni Her Majesty's Secretary of State, wlio was
wanicd by tlie Bisliop of Loiidon tliat 4e was
nbout to place Iiimself in "an anonialous and un-
plcasant position," beforc he left England, who has
since drawn upon Iiimself the niost distirict and posi-
tive censures of another Bishop of tlie Church ; and
that you, Sir, and a11 of us in Madeira, were fully
instructed as to our duty as members of the Church
of Engllnnd by the delegate of the Bishop of London,
that those mho had not the advantage of hearing
hini have most fortunately been furi~ishedwith tlie
clearest testimony as to his instructions under his
own Iiand, and tliat finally the Bishop of London
tiiniself, in order that not a shade of doubt or un-
certaiiity miglit remain, has sent us a written deela-
mtion, that Mr. Lone alone has episcopal authority
for acting iii the capacity of Chaplain.
I shall conclude with a quotation from a Convoea-
tion Charge delivered by Bishop Wilson in 1721.
"I think it absolutely neeeasary to put you in
mind of the authority with which God hath invested
the Bishops of His Church ; that if any attempts
sliould be made to lessen that authority, or to make
the Clergg or Laity independent of their Bishop, you
may see the danger of closing with designs which
 MADEIRA ' CHAPLAENCY.

aould effectually ruin nll order in the &um&, &nd

xc~arateyou from Christ.
"?Vlioever will read St. Ignatius's epistles as pub-
lislied I>v his Grace tiie preseiit Archbishop of Canter-
h r y , will see wliat tliat holy martyr and 'discip1e.d
St. Johii saith of tlie necessity of being in uniort
with tlic Uishop ; and that such as are not so arenot
iii 111rYoi1with Christ."
11%.the enmest hopc that Mr. Brown may *speedily
he r e c w d from a post, his assumpt$mòf which h a ~
ripened disunion into open schism, that the'differencep
l>etween us inay be healed, and that your tslents and
xenl may for tlie futurc be more shcoeasfully ernbl~ed
i11 & bettcr cause,

I b v e tlie honour to remain, Sir,

Your ebedient servant,

31adeira, .Feb. 3, 1841).

THE E N ~ .

2a;

Printers, St. Jolts's Squars; L

& RIVINGTON,
GILBERT