PROTEST against the assumption of the spiritual duties of this Chaplaincy, without a Licence, by the Reverend Thomas Kenworthy Brown; as unduly interfering with the Office of the Reverend Richard Thomas Lowe, licensed by the Lord Bishop of London to the spiritual Cure and Charge of all members of the United Church of England and Ireland in Madeira.
1. Because such assumption is contrary to the Apostolical rule, not to "build upon another man's foundation" (Rom. XV. 20), "and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand" (2 Cor. X. 16); and is opposed to the Apostolical position (Rom. X. 15), that the preachers of the Gospel must be "sent."
2. Because without "sending", i.e. mission or special executive authority from the Bishop, such interference with the spiritual Office of another, however favoured by the Civil Government, is by the laws and Constitutions of the Church, which are founded upon Scripture, openly schismatical and sinful.
3. Because no Priest or Deacon of the United Church of [3/4] England and Ireland may presume to exceed the Authority conferred on them respectively at their Ordination: the Priest being only empowered "to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where he shall be lawfully appointed" ("called and sent", Art. XXIII.) "thereunto" (Ord. of Priests); and the Deacon receiving merely authority "to read and preach the Gospel, if he be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself" (Ord. of Deacons). See Appendix, A.
4. Because such assumption is in violation of the solemn promise and engagement made by every Priest of the Church of England at his Ordination, "always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same":--it being a well known law, and an integral part of the constitution of the Church and Realm of England, that "it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the Office of publick preaching or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, except he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same" (Art. XXIII):--sending or mission, being one of the peculiar functions, and belonging to the special Office, of the Bishop. (See Consecr. Of Bishops, "Will you be faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others?")
5. Because by the 36th of Canons of the Church of England, which are especially binding on the Clergy, it is expressly enacted, that "No person shall be . Suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a lecturer or Reader of Divinity . . . . . except he be licensed either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the Diocese where he is to be placed," &c: and because 2dly, by the 37th Canon, "None licensed as is aforesaid, to preach, read, lecture, or catechize, coming to reside in any Diocese, shall be permitted there to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or minister the Sacraments, or to execute [4/5] any other Ecclesiastical function, by what authority soever he be thereunto admitted, unless he first consent and subscribe to the three Articles before mentioned, in the presence of the Bishop of the Diocese wherein he is to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or administer the Sacraments, as aforesaid:"--and because 3dly by the 48th Canon, headed "None to be Curates but allowed by the Bishop", it is enacted, that "No Curate or Minister shall be permitted to serve in any place, without examination and admission of the Bishop of the Diocese, or Ordinary of the place, having Episcopal jurisdiction, in writing under his hand and seal":--and because 4thly, by the 49th Canon, it is enacted, that "No person whatsoever, no examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocese, or not licensed, as is aforesaid for a sufficient or convenient Preacher, shall take upon him to expound in his own Cure, or elsewhere, any Scripture or matter of Doctrine." (See Appendix, B.)
6. Because it has been already ruled and judicially decided in the cases of "Barnes versus the Revd. James Shore", and of "the Archbishop of Dublin v. the Revd. T. D. Gregg", that any Clergyman of the United Church of England and Ireland celebrating Divine Service and preaching without the licence and authority of the Bishop of the Diocese, is amenable to correction and punishment by law.
7. Because whatsoever things the Church and Realm of England prohibits under penalties within the proper territorial jurisdiction of the same, are in equity and conscience equally binding upon all members of the Church and Realm, even where those penalties cannot be by law immediately enforced.
8. Because that the 37th Article of the Church of England, in attributing to the Crown the chief Government of all Estates Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes, to the exclusion of [5/6] any foreign jurisdiction, declares expressly in limitation, that "we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments". And therefore no appointment emanating simply from the Crown, or Government, can supply the want of mission, or the right of ministering God's Word and Sacraments to a particular congregation; the power of conferring which, belongs exclusively to the spiritual Office of the Bishop. Archbishop Bramhall (Works ii. 128) says, "Our Kings neither do challenge, nor ever did challenge 'all jurisdiction in spiritual causes', nor any part of the power of the Keys, either to their own use, or to derive it to others." And in another place he writes, "It may be that two or three of our princes at the most (the greater part whereof were Roman Catholics) did style themselves, or give leave to others to style them, the Heads of the Church within their dominions. But no man can be so simple as to conceive that they intended a spiritual Headship,--to infuse the life and motion of grace into the hearts of the faithful; such an Head is Christ alone; no, nor yet an ecclesiastical Headship; we did never believe, that our Kings in their own persons could exercise any act pertaining either to the power of order or jurisdiction; nothing can give that to another, which it hath not itself." . . . . "But who told you that ever King Charles" (the 1st) "did call himself the 'head of the Church'? thereby to merit such a heavy judgment, he did not, nor yet King James his father; nor Queen Elizabeth before them both, who took order in her first Parliament to have it left out of her title." (Archb. Bramhall, Works, 1. 29, 31).
9. Because although the said Revd. T. K. Brown be appointed by the Government under the Crown, he cannot plead from such exercise of the Royal Supremacy, authority to minister God's Word and Sacraments, inasmuch as, whatever meaning might be otherwise attached to the term 'Supremacy of the Crown', (that of 'Head of the Church', assumed by Henry VIII, A. D. 1534, [6/7] was dropped A.D. 1554 in the next succeeding Reign but one, and never resumed), it is certain, that by the Royal Admonition annexed to Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and which was afterwards incorporated and referred to, as authoritatively expressive of the sense of the Oath of Supremacy, in an Act of Parliament, (Stat. 5. Eliz. cap. 1.), and in the XXXVIIth Article, it was expressly forbidden "to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of the same oath (viz. of supremacy), it may be collected, that the Kings and Queens of this Realm, possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of Divine Offices in the Church, wherein her said subjects are much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly Her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority than that .. which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm, that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." "By which," observes Bishop Beveridge (Works VII. 558), "we may see how vain and groundless the scandal is which is usually cast upon the oath of Supremacy, as if we there acknowledged the King to have the keys as well as the sword committed to him, and that he might administer the Word and Sacraments in spiritual, as well as justice and judgment in secular affairs; whereas the same power that asserted the King's supremacy, hath still denied it to extend to the exercise of any spiritual function." And as it is remarked by Palmer (Treatise on the Church, I. 254), "The Clergy of England, in acknowledging the supremacy of the King, A.D. 1531", (See Appendix C) "did so, as Burnet proves, with the important proviso, 'quantum per Christi legem licet'; which original [7/8] condition is ever to be supposed in our acknowledgement of the Royal supremacy. Consequently we give no authority to the Prince, except what is consistent with the maintenance of all those rights, liberties, jurisdictions, and spiritual powers, which 'the law of Christ' confers on his Church." (See Appendix D.)
10. Because the Crown, abjuring all executive ministerial or spiritual office, function, or authority, and only claiming the chief power or supremacy of rule or government in the Realm, in opposition to any foreign jurisdiction, over all estates or persons of men in all causes, whether ecclesiastical or temporal,--cannot exercise or confer an executive power or authority, of which it disclaims the possession; such as the power of sending, or of conferring mission, which, like that of Ordination, is a function belonging solely to the executive ministerial or spiritual Office and authority of the Bishop. (See Appendix E.)
11. Because the Act of Parliament (6 George IV. cap. 87) itself provides "for the performance of Divine Service", and for the maintenance and support of a Chaplain who shall be "resident and regularly employed in the celebration of Divine Service according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the United Church of England and Ireland"; whereas a clergyman officiating without license from the Bishop, cannot perform or celebrate Divine Service as aforesaid according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the United Church of England and Ireland; the said Church not recognizing or allowing any right in her Ministers to officiate, or undertake any spiritual Cure, without special mission or licence from the Bishop. And therefore the appointment of the said Revd. T. K. Brown by the Government without the Bishop's licence, is invalid: he as a clergyman of the Church of England, so appointed, not possessing the qualifications for this Chaplaincy specified or contemplated by the said Act.
 12. Because by the XVth of the "Regulations for the Management of British Church Affairs at Foreign Ports and Places: made and issued by Her Majesty, through one of Her Principal Secretaries of State" (Viscount Palmerston) "under the authority of the Act 6 Geo. IV. cap. 87",--headed "Clergymen of Church of England to obey Bishop of London", it is ruled, that "All Chaplains belonging to the Church of England who are appointed under the Act, are, at the request of the Secretary of State, licensed by the Bishop of London. Such Chaplains are to consult the Bishop of London in all spiritual matters, and are to obey his orders thereupon":--a regulation altogether violated or rendered nugatory by the appointment of the Reverend T. K. Brown as aforesaid, without the licence or consent of the Bishop of London. (See Appendix F.)
13. Because a clergyman accepting the Chaplaincy without the licence, in contempt of the authority, support, and counsel of the Bishop, having himself set the example of disregard and disobedience to the Church, and of recognizing in the Civil Government a Dispensing power as to his Ordination-vows and obligations to other Laws and constitutions of the Church, has undermined, so far as in him lay, the very foundations of Ecclesiastical Government, and by his own insubordination (See Appendix G.) forfeited all claim upon the deference, respect, and due attention of the laity. And having not only deprived himself and his supporters of the right of appeal to the Bishop, but renounced his obligation of consulting him in all spiritual matters,--a duty recognized generally by the Civil Government itself in the XVth of the Regulations issued by the Secretary of State (above quoted), should difficulties arise between himself and any portions of his congregation, and enjoined in special cases at he end of the second part of the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, intituled "Concerning the Service of the Church,"--must come pledged or prepared to follow in his ministrations the mere dictates [9/10] of self-will or popular caprice, and must renounce all title to the due and proper independence which becomes a Christian Minister.
14. Because such intrusion is a great reproach and scandal against the Church of England, and is especially calculated to bring discredit upon the English Church and Nation in the eyes of the Portuguese Church and People, and to encourage strife and dissension, instead of peace and union, in this and other communities of British subjects similarly situated abroad.
15. Because although Clergymen may in certain cases, both at home and abroad, officiate with no other licence from the Bishop than his consent or even tacit acquiescence,--the Reverend T. K. Brown is prepared to officiate in the face of a direct refusal by the Bishop of his licence or consent; and not so only, but in opposition to a Clergyman already approved and licensed by the Bishop.
16. Because the Reverend T. K. Brown aforesaid, being possessed in Madeira of no other authority but that which he derives from his appointment by the British Civil Government, which without the licence, consent, or sanction of the Bishop, is incomplete and inoperative for the due discharge of any spiritual function, can be considered in no other light than that of an unqualified intruder into a spiritual Cure and Charge, belonging, under licence of the Bishop, to another.
I THEREFORE, the undersigned, as in painful duty bound,--acting herein moreover in conformity with the Regulations above quoted, made and issued by Her Majesty through the Civil Government, and considering, in accordance with the same, that the duty of submission to the supremacy of the Crown, is best shown and maintained by "reverent obedience" and due subordination" [10/11] (See Appendix H) to the spiritual authority of the Bishop--do hereby solemnly protest against the assumption of the spiritual duties of the Chaplain's Office in this place by the said Reverend T. K. Brown, without licence from the Bishop, as a schismatical and unlawful act; and before CHRIST and HIS CHURCH at large, I hereby warn all members of the United Church of England and Ireland, dwelling in Madeira, not to attend upon his ministrations, and so become partakers in the sins of disobedience and schism, nor to recognize him as one duly authorized to celebrate Divine Service, to administer the Sacraments, or to perform any other Ecclesiastical act, or Ministerial function, in this Island, according to the Rites and Ceremonies, the Laws and Constitutions, the Rules and Observances of the United Church of England and Ireland.
Witness my hand
this 17th day of February, 1848.
R. T. LOWE.
The Reverend T. K. Brown.
 P.S. (February 19th)--In delivering this day the foregoing Protest personally to Mr. Brown, before its publication, and having implored him, as he valued the Church's peace, and his own soul's, to draw back even yet from his mistaken course,--I requested him to regard any words or expressions in this paper, which might seem strong or harsh, as forced from me only by the very urgent circumstances, and extreme nature of the case: and I earnestly deprecated his considering them designed to be in any way personally discourteous, or needlessly painful, in the unhappy position into which he has allowed himself to be placed. And I am happy to add, that he equally disclaimed all disrespectful words or feelings towards myself.
An Appendix, containing further references and authorities in illustration, will appear shortly.