traditional Catholic doctrines, never disputed the validity of
Catholic orders whether Roman or Orthodox, nor the jurisdiction of
Catholic bishops in foreign countries, the expansion of the Anglican
Church has been in no sense conceived as a Protestant aggressive
movement against Rome. Occasional exceptions, such as the consecration
by Archbishop Plunket of Dublin of a bishop for the reformed church in
Spain, raised so strong a protest as to prove the rule. In the main,
then, the expansion of the Anglican Church has followed that of the
British empire, or, as in America, of its daughter states; its claim,
so far as rights of jurisdiction are concerned, is to be the Church
of England and the English race, while recognizing its special duties
towards the non-Christian populations subject to the empire or brought
within the reach of its influence. As against the Church of Rome, with
its system of rigid centralization, the Anglican Church represents the
principle of local autonomy, which it holds to be once more primitive
and more catholic. In this respect the Anglican communion has
developed on the lines defined in her articles at the Reformation;
but, though in principle there is no great difference between a church
defined by national, and a church defined by racial boundaries, there
is an immense difference in effect, especially when the race--as in
the case of the English--is itself ecumenical.
The realization of what may be called this catholic mission of the
English church, in the extension of its organization to the colonies,
was but a slow process.
_The Church in the Colonies._
On the 12th of August 1787 Dr. Charles Inglis was consecrated bishop
of Nova Scotia, with jurisdiction over all the British possessions in
North America. In 1793 the see of the Québec was founded; Jamaica
and Barbados followed in 1824, and Toronto and Newfoundland in 1839.
Meanwhile the needs of India has been tardily met, on the urgent
representations in parliament of William Wilberforce and others, by
the consecration of Dr. T.F. Middleton as bishop of Calcutta, with
three archdeacons to assist him. In 1817 Ceylon was added to his
charge; in 1823 all British subjects in the East Indies and the
islands of the Indian Ocean; and in 1824 "New South Wales and its
dependencies"! Some five years later, on the nomination of the duke
of Wellington, William Broughton was sent out to work in this enormous
jurisdiction as archdeacon of Australia. Soon afterwards, in 1835
and 1837, the sees of Madras and Bombay were founded; whilst in 1836
Broughton himself was consecrated as first bishop of Australia. Thus
down to 1840 there were but ten colonial bishops; and of these several
were so hampered by civil regulations that they were little more
than government chaplains in episcopal orders. In April of that year,
however, Bishop Blomfield of London published his famous letter to the
archbishop of Canterbury, declaring that "an episcopal church without
a bishop is a contradiction in terms," and strenuously advocating a
great effort for the extension of the episcopate. It was not in vain.
The plan was taken up with enthusiasm, and on Whitsun Tuesday of 1841
the bishops of the United Kingdom met and issued a declaration which
inaugurated the Colonial Bishoprics Council. Subsequent declarations
in 1872 and 1891 have served both to record progress and to stimulate
to new effort. The diocese of New Zealand was founded in 1841, being
endowed by the Church Missionary Society through the council, and
George Augustus Selwyn was chosen as the first bishop. Since then the
increase has gone on, as the result both of home effort and of the
action of the colonial churches. Moreover, in many cases bishops
have been sent to inaugurate new missions, as in the cases of the
Universities' Mission to Central Africa, Lebombo, Corea and New
Guinea; and the missionary jurisdictions so founded develop in time
into dioceses. Thus, instead of the ten colonial jurisdictions
of 1841, there are now about a hundred foreign and colonial
jurisdictions, in addition to those of the Protestant Episcopal Church
of the United States.
[v.02 p.0020]
It was only very gradually that these dioceses acquired legislative
independence and a determinate organization. At first, sees were
created and bishops were nominated by the crown by means of letters
patent; and in some cases an income was assigned out of public
funds. Moreover, for many years all bishops alike were consecrated in
England, took the customary "oath of due obedience" to the archbishop
of Canterbury, and were regarded as his extra-territorial suffragans.
But by degrees changes have been made on all these points.
_Provincial Organization._
(1) Local conditions soon made a provincial organization necessary,
and it was gradually introduced. The bishop of Calcutta received
letters patent as metropolitan of India when the sees of Madras and
Bombay were founded; and fresh patents were issued to Bishop Broughton
in 1847 and Bishop Gray in 1853, as metropolitans of Australia and
South Africa respectively. Similar action was taken in 1858, when
Bishop Selwyn became metropolitan of New Zealand; and again in 1860,
when, on the petition of the Canadian bishops to the crown and the
colonial legislature for permission to elect a metropolitan, letters
patent were issued appointing Bishop Fulford of Montreal to that
office. Since then metropolitans have been chosen and provinces formed
by regular synodical action, a process greatly encouraged by
the resolutions of the Lambeth conferences on the subject. The
constitution of these provinces is not uniform. In some cases, as
South Africa, New South Wales, and Queensland, the metropolitan see
is fixed. Elsewhere, as in New Zealand, where no single city can claim
pre-eminence, the metropolitan is either elected or else is the senior
bishop by consecration. Two further developments must be mentioned:
(a) The creation of diocesan and provincial synods, the first diocesan
synod to meet being that of New Zealand in 1844, whilst the formation
of a provincial synod was foreshadowed by a conference of Australasian
bishops at Sydney in 1850; (b) towards the close of the 19th century
the title of _archbishop_ began to be assumed by the metropolitans of
several provinces. It was first assumed by the metropolitans of Canada
and Rupert's Land, at the desire of the Canadian general synod in
1893; and subsequently, in accordance with a resolution of the Lambeth
conference of 1897, it was given by their synods to the bishop of
Sydney as metropolitan of New South Wales and to the bishop of Cape
Town as metropolitan of South Africa. Civil obstacles have hitherto
delayed its adoption by the metropolitan of India.
_Freedom from state control._
(2) By degrees, also, the colonial churches have been freed from their
rather burdensome relations with the state. The church of the West
Indies was disestablished and disendowed in 1868. In 1857 it was
decided, in _Regina_ v. _Eton College_, that the crown could not
claim the presentation to a living when it had appointed the former
incumbent to a colonial bishopric, as it does in the case of an
English bishopric. In 1861, after some protest from the crown lawyers,
two missionary bishops were consecrated without letters patent for
regions outside British territory: C.F. Mackenzie for the Zambezi
region and J.C. Patteson for Melanesia, by the metropolitans of Cape
Town and New Zealand respectively. In 1863 the privy council declared,
in _Long_ v. _The Bishop of Cape Town_, that "the Church of England,
in places where there is no church established by law, is in the same
situation with any other religious body." In 1865 it adjudged Bishop
Gray's letters patent, as metropolitan of Cape Town, to be powerless
to enable him "to exercise any coercive jurisdiction, or hold any
court or tribunal for that purpose," since the Cape colony already
possessed legislative institutions when they were issued; and his
deposition of Bishop Colenso was declared to be "null and void in law"
(_re The Bishop of Natal_). With the exception of Colenso the South
African bishops forthwith surrendered their patents, and formally
accepted Bishop Gray as their metropolitan, an example followed in
1865 in the province of New Zealand. In 1862, when the diocese of
Ontario was formed, the bishop was elected in Canada, and consecrated
under a royal mandate, letters patent being by this time entirely
discredited. And when, in 1867, a coadjutor was chosen for the bishop
of Toronto, an application for a royal mandate produced the reply
from the colonial secretary that "it was not the part of the crown
to interfere in the creation of a new bishop or bishopric, and not
consistent with the dignity of the crown that he should advise Her
Majesty to issue a mandate which would not be worth the paper on which
it was written, and which, having been sent out to Canada, might be
disregarded in the most complete manner." And at the present day the
colonial churches are entirely free in this matter. This, however,
is not the case with the church in India. Here the bishops of sees
founded down to 1879 receive a stipend from the revenue (with the
exception of the bishop of Ceylon, who no longer does so). They are
not only nominated by the crown and consecrated under letters
patent, but the appointment is expressly subjected "to such power of
revocation and recall as is by law vested" in the crown; and where
additional oversight was necessary for the church in Tinnevelly, it
could only be secured by the consecration of two assistant bishops,
who worked under a commission for the archbishop of Canterbury which
was to expire on the death of the bishop of Madras. Since then,
however, new sees have been founded which are under no such
restrictions: by the creation of dioceses either in native states
(Travancore and Cochin), or out of the existing dioceses (Chota
Nagpur, Lucknow, &c.). In the latter case there is no _legal_
subdivision of the older diocese, the new bishop administering
such districts as belonged to it under commission from its bishop,
provision being made, however, that in all matters ecclesiastical
there shall be no appeal but to the metropolitan of India.
_Spiritual autonomy._
(3) By degrees, also, the relations of colonial churches to the
archbishop of Canterbury have changed. Until 1855 no colonial bishop
was consecrated outside the British Isles, the first instance being
Dr. MacDougall of Labuan, consecrated in India under a commission
from the archbishop of Canterbury; and until 1874 it was held to be
unlawful for a bishop to be consecrated in England without taking the
suffragan's oath of due obedience. This necessity was removed by
the Colonial Clergy Act of 1874, which permits the archbishop at his
discretion to dispense with the oath. This, however, has not been done
in all cases; and as late as 1890 it was taken by the metropolitan of
Sydney at his consecration. Thus the constituent parts of the Anglican
communion gradually acquire autonomy: missionary jurisdictions develop
into organized dioceses, and dioceses are grouped into provinces with
canons of their own. But the most complete autonomy does not involve
isolation. The churches are in full communion with one another, and
act together in many ways; missionary jurisdictions and dioceses are
mapped out by common arrangement, and even transferred if it seems
advisable; _e.g._ the diocese Honolulu (Hawaii), previously under the
jurisdiction of the archbishop of Canterbury, was transferred in 1900
to the Episcopal Church in the United States on account of political
changes. Though the see of Canterbury claims no primacy over the
Anglican communion analogous to that exercised over the Roman Church
by the popes, it is regarded with a strong affection and deference,
which shows itself by frequent consultation and interchange of
greetings. There is also a strong common life emphasized by common
action.
[v.02 p.0021]
_Pan-Anglican Congress._
The conference of Anglican bishops from all parts of the world,
instituted by Archbishop Longley in 1867, and known as the Lambeth
Conferences (_q.v._), though even for the Anglican communion they
have not the authority of an ecumenical synod, and their decisions
are rather of the nature of counsels than commands, have done much to
promote the harmony and co-operation of the various branches of the
Church. An even more imposing manifestation of this common life was
given by the great pan-Anglican congress held in London between the
12th and 24th of June 1908, which preceded the Lambeth conference
opened on the 5th of July. The idea of this originated with Bishop
Montgomery, secretary to the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel, and was endorsed by a resolution of the United Boards of
Mission in 1903. As the result of negotiations and preparations
extending over five years, 250 bishops, together with delegates,
clerical and lay, from every diocese in the Anglican communion, met in
London, the opening service of intercession being held in Westminster
Abbey. In its general character, the meeting was but a Church congress
on an enlarged scale, and the subjects discussed, _e.g._. the attitude
of churchmen towards the question of the marriage laws or that of
socialism, followed much the same lines. The congress, of course,
had no power to decide or to legislate for the Church, its main value
being in drawing its scattered members closer together, in bringing
the newer and more isolated branches into consciousness of their
contact with the parent stem, and in opening the eyes of the Church
of England to the point of view and the peculiar problems of the
daughter-churches.
The Anglican communion consists of the following:--(1) The Church of
England, 2 provinces, Canterbury and York, with 24 and 11 dioceses
respectively. (2) The Church of Ireland, 2 provinces, Armagh and
Dublin, with 7 and 6 dioceses respectively. (3) The Scottish Episcopal
Church, with 7 dioceses. (4) The Protestant Episcopal Church of
the United States, with 89 dioceses and missionary jurisdictions,
including North Tokyo, Kyoto, Shanghai, Cape Palmas, and the
independent dioceses of Hayti and Brazil. (5) The Canadian Church,
consisting of (a) the province of Canada, with 10 dioceses; (b) the
province of Rupert's Land, with 8 dioceses. (6) The Church in India
and Ceylon, 1 province of 11 dioceses. (7) The Church of the West
Indies, 1 province of 8 dioceses, of which Barbados and the Windward
Islands are at present united. (8) The Australian Church, consisting
of (a) the province of New South Wales, with 10 dioceses; (b) the
province of Queensland, with 5 dioceses; (c) the province of Victoria,
with 5 dioceses. (9) The Church of New Zealand, 1 province of 7
dioceses, together with the missionary jurisdiction of Melanesia.
(10) The South African Church, 1 province of 10 dioceses, with the 2
missionary jurisdictions of Masbonaland and Lebombo. (11) Nearly 30
isolated dioceses and missionary jurisdictions holding mission from
the see of Canterbury.
AUTHORITIES.--_Official Year-book of the Church of England_;
Phillimore, _Ecclesiastical Law_, vol. ii. (London, 1895); _Digest
of S.P.G. Records_ (London, 1893); E. Stock, _History of the Church
Missionary Society_, 3 vols. (London, 1899); H.W. Tucker, _The English
Church in Other Lands_ (London, 1886); A.T. Wirgman, _The Church and
the Civil Power_ (London, 1893).
ANGLING, the art or practice of the sport of catching fish by means of
a baited hook or "angle" (from the Indo-European root _ank-_, meaning
"bend").[1] It is among the most ancient of human activities, and may
be said to date from the time when man was in the infancy of the Stone
Age, eking out a precarious existence by the slaughter of any living
thing which he could reach with the rude weapons at his command. It is
probable that attack on fishes was at first much the same as attack
on animals, a matter of force rather than of guile, and conducted by
means of a rude spear with a flint head. It is probable, too, that the
primitive harpooners were not signally successful in their efforts,
and so set their wits to work to devise other means of getting at the
abundant food which waited for them in every piece of water near their
caves. Observation would soon show them that fish fed greedily on each
other and on other inhabitants of the water or living things that fell
into it, and so, no doubt, arose the idea of entangling the prey by
means of its appetite. Hence came the notion of the first hook, which,
it seems certain, was not a hook at all but a "gorge," a piece of
flint or stone which the fish could swallow with the bait but which it
could not eject afterwards. From remains found in cave-dwellings and
their neighbourhood in different parts of the world it is obvious that
these gorges varied in shape, but in general the idea was the same, a
narrow strip of stone or flake of flint, either straight or slightly
curved at the ends, with a groove in the middle round which the line
could be fastened. Buried in the bait it would be swallowed end
first; then the tightening of the line would fix it cross-wise in the
quarry's, stomach or gullet and so the capture would be assured. The
device still lingers in France and in a few remote parts of England in
the method of catching eels which is known as "sniggling." In this a
needle buried in a worm plays the part of the prehistoric gorge.
The evolution of the fish-hook from the slightly curved gorge is
easily intelligible. The ends became more and more curved, until
eventually an object not unlike a double hook was attained. This
development would be materially assisted by man's discovery of the
uses of bronze and its adaptability to his requirements. The single
hook, of the pattern more or less familiar to us, was possibly a
concession of the lake-dweller to what may even then have been a
problem--the "education" of fish, and to a recognition of the fact
that sport with the crude old methods was falling off. But it is
also not improbable that in some parts of the world the single hook
developed _pari passu_ with the double, and that, on the sea-shore
for instance, where man was able to employ so adaptable a substance as
shell, the first hook was a curved fragment of shell lashed with fibre
to a piece of wood or bone, in such a way that the shell formed the
bend of the hook while the wood or bone formed the shank. Both
early remains and recent hooks from the Fiji Islands bear out this
supposition. It is also likely that flint, horn and bone were pressed
into service in a similar manner. The nature of the line or the rod
that may have been used with these early hooks is largely a matter
of conjecture. The first line was perhaps the tendril of a plant, the
first rod possibly a sapling tree. But it is fairly obvious that the
rod must have been suggested by the necessity of getting the bait out
over obstacles which lay between the fisherman and the water, and
that it was a device for increasing both the reach of the arm and the
length of the line. It seems not improbable that the rod very early
formed a part of the fisherman's equipment.
[Footnote 1: As to whether "angling" necessarily implies a rod as well
as a line and hook, see the discussion in the law case of _Barnard_ v.
_Roberts_ (_Times L.R._, April 13, 1907), when the question arose
as to the use of night-lines being angling; but the decision against
night-lines went on the ground of the absence of the personal element
rather than on the absence of a rod. The various dictionaries
are blind guides on this point, and the authorities cited are
inconclusive; but, broadly speaking, angling now implies three
necessary factors--a personal angler, the sporting element, and the
use of recognized fishing-tackle.]
_Literary History_.--From prehistoric times down to comparatively
late in the days of chronicles, angling appears to have remained a
practice; its development into an art or sport is a modern idea. In
the earliest literature references to angling are not very numerous,
but there are passages in the Old Testament which show that
fish-taking with hook as well as net was one of the common industries
in the East, and that fish, where it was obtainable, formed an
important article of diet. In _Numbers_ (xi. 5) the children of Israel
mourn for the fish which they "did eat in Egypt freely." So much too
is proved by the monuments of Egypt; indeed more, for the figures
found in some of the Egyptian fishing pictures using short rods and
stout lines are sometimes attired after the manner of those who were
great in the land. This indicates that angling had already, in
a highly civilized country, taken its place among the methods
of diversion at the disposal of the wealthy, though from the
uncompromising nature of the tackle depicted and the apparent
simplicity of the fish it would scarcely be safe to assume that in
Egypt angling arrived at the dignity of becoming an "art." In Europe
it took very much longer for the taking of fish to be regarded even as
an amusement, and the earliest references to it in the Greek and Latin
classics are not very satisfying to the sportsman.
[v.02 p.0022]