ITO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—The right bearing of the Bishop of Manchester's conduct does not appear to me to have been quite correctly dis- criminated. The present position of the Church of England— that of a body .Nrhose organisation has been outgrown by the progressive development of her internal life, the power of effi- ciently moulding her organisation in accordance with her organic needs, meanwhile, being atrophied—imposes a special duty on her sons, differing in its character, as the position they occupy is that of executors of her laws, or subjects under them.
As entrusted with the maintenance of the organic functions of the Church, and with the responsibility for this trust over- riding personal considerations, I do not see how the Bishop of Manchester, having been an official participator in the execution of the Church's laws in Mr. Green's deprivation, after proceed- ings resulting in a distinct statement of their bearing, could in- stitute Mr. Cowgill to the same benefice, knowing that he would continue to practise the proscribed ritual (unless he was legally obliged to do so, which has not been shown), without weakening the claims of all law to obedience, and being untrue to the responsibilities of his position.
His present conduct is, I think, a necessary outcome of his position, and is quite consistent with the highest desira to pro- mote the permanent unity and usefulness of the Church, and with sympathy with the claims of the High-Church school for greater liberty and toleration.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Hanley, Staffordshire, January 10th. FREDERICK HAIGH.
Previous page
