COPY OF "CLAIM AND PROTEST" ADDRESSED TO THE LORDS ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF THE Church of England, BY THE REV. CATOR CHAMBERLAIN, M.A. Distributed by the Claimant only. LONDON: 1862. To the Most Reverend the Lords Archbishops of the Provinces of Canterbury and York; and, to the Right Reverend their Suffragans, the Lords Bishops of the Dioceses of their respective Provinces. MY LORDS ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS, in 1859. IN March, 1859, I claimed of your Lordships to be The Claim made licensed to ordinary ministrations as a Priest of the Church of England by episcopal licence, in virtue of my refusal to swear the non-supremacy clause of the oath then recently re-imposed by the 21 and 22 Vict. c. 48, to subscribe the same terms as they are embodied in the XXXVIth Canon, and to sign the co-relative clause of the 37th Article. That Claim, my Lords, if it did receive at the time any consideration, has I doubt not been long since forgotten by your Lordships: but, my Lords, it would have been the most extreme folly on my part to have made it without an intention of keeping it constantly in remembrance. That step was not the fruit of inconsiderate impulse; but it was an act of faith preceded by some preparation, designed to be steadily adhered to and supported. That Claim is now renewed. My Lords Archbishops and Bishops, that Claim I now renew. I now claim of the whole College of our Episcopate, as in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our entire Church, by this Letter of appeal and protest, to be admitted to ordinary ministrations as a Priest of the Church of England by episcopal licence, in virtue of my refusal to swear the non-supremacy clause of the oath which the 21 and 22 Vict. c. 48 imposes as a condition of admission to such ministrations, in virtue of my refusal to sign the same terms as they are embodied in the XXXVIth Canon, and of my refusal to subscribe, in a de facto sense, the correlative clause of our 37th Article. The Case has nothing in common with Dissent, or aversion to Holy Orders. My Lords Archbishops and Bishops, it is expedient that I should distinguish the nature of my objection to the oath and to the subscriptions, lest I should be confounded with Dissentients whose objections have nothing in common with my own. I have no desire, my Lords, to violate our Church polity in any one point; rather, I defend it. I cherish my office as a Priest of the Church of England, under some appreciation of the great responsibility and honour; it is improbable that I shall ever desire such succours as those of the lately proposed "Clergy Relief Bill." My name has not appeared, nor is it likely at any time to appear, among those of the supporters of Lord Ebury's measures. I have no concealed dislike of the Baptismal Service; nor of the Athanasian Creed; nor of the Burial Service. I am neither a Dissenter in Orders, nor weary of my office. It is adherence of the oath, My Lords Archbishops and Bishops, I do not to the principle take objection to the abstract doctrine of the oath, of the clause of the Canon, or of the Article; on the contrary, I heartily approve of and strenuously defend it. That doctrine, my Lords, is the doctrine of de facto absolute exclusion, as I have again demonstrated in the annexed argument. This doctrine of de facto exclusion is now falsified by a notorious de facto presence. The State has repudiated this principle of exclusion; and also ratified her repudiation by the re-imposition of the oath in question. I object to, and refuse to acquiesce in, this her pro-papal policy and guilt. and faithfulness to our Church polity. I am quite prepared, my Lords Archbishops and Bishops, to accept any abjuration of the Pope which our Church may require for her security in this spirit I reject that policy of the State which has so broken down her hedges, and laid her open to the inroads of the foe. But, my Lords, were I to be nominated to a cure, the Bishop of the diocese in which the nomination might have been obtained would at once bar my path to ministration by proposing to mein his character of an officer of the State, and in virtue of the 3rd clause of the 21 and 22 Vict. c. 48, which wholly perverts the intent of the Act of Uniformity and the Canons of 1604 in respect of the Papists-an oath which the State has reduced to absurdity and falsehood. Thus I find even our Episcopate, through its State function, would require me to co-operate in uprooting the ancient anti-papal barriers of our Church. Our Episcopate and Clergy are disqualified. My Lords Archbishops and Bishops, I have not turned aside, either to the right hand or to the left, from my obligations as a Priest of the Church of England and a Minister of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it be that I have, then let some member of the Clerical Estate rise and establish the fact. The imputation of such turning aside, my Lords, can be laid elsewhere with incontrovertible truth. The subjoined case, upon which I base this claim and protest, clearly establishes that the Episcopate and Clergy of the Church of |