[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. "] Sin,—Your argument, excellent as
far as it goes, must go one step further. Mr. Green, when for a time deprived of his church by inhibition, continued his official ministrations as Vicar; now that he is permanently deprived of his church, what reason is there to suppose that he would, when released, act differently ?
Ignoring, as he does, the Act, he must hold that he continues vicar ; and, as such, is bound, if free, to perform the duties of vicar, to the exclusion of any other nominee of the Bishop or patron who may be presented and instituted to the now vacant living. What is, then, to follow ? Deprivation is thus not quite equivalent to resignation. This is the difficulty, at the present moment, in the way of Mr. Green's release, to which your excellent article does not ex- tend, and to which your reply would be welcomed by many, [The Bishop and patron would have precisely the same power to prevent Mr. Green's intrusion into a benefice of which he had been deprived, as the Bishop of Rochester had in the case of Mr. Tooth at Hatcham. Mr. Green could be excluded from the church, just as Mr. Tooth was excluded, without keeping him in Lancaster gaol.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
