Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BARTHOLOW, of Kansas. I offer the following substitute for the report of the Committee on Canons :

on

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That in case of the election of a Bishop by any Diocese six months prior to the sitting of the General Convention of this Church, its standing Committee shall transmit to the Bishop and Standing Committee of each Diocese a copy of all proceedings bearing such election, together with the evidence of their approbation of the testimonials and certificates; and testimonials, as required by Canon 13, be submitted to the General Convention, and it shall be the duty of the Bishop or Standing Committee, as aforesaid, to cause the preceding testimonials, etc., to be transmitted, as provided herein, before the several Diocesan Conventions next succeeding, for their approval."

He

I desire merely to say that, as a member once of a convention that elected a Bishop, I saw the necessity of knowing the several candidates who were brought before the Convention. I did not know that any of the candidates were known to other members; they were not to myself. I was in great difficulty as to making up my mind whom to vote for, because I had no one to consult with. Finally, I found that there was one person in the Convention who knew probably all the candidates who were proposed. I approached him on the subject. He was unwilling to give an opinion. I named over the several candidates, one or two of whom I knew something of by reputation. thought they would not accept if elected. I then named to him another whom he seemed to know, and he thought he would accept. I tried to get his views of this candidate. He declined to give his opinions; but I gathered from the conversation which passed that he had every confidence in the person. He was finally elected. As a member of that Convention, probably a word from me would have avoided all difficulty. He is now with us; he is entirely acceptable; but it has occurred to me, suppose something had transpired which was unknown to the person of whom I inquired. I think it is important that, in case of the election of a Bishop hereafter, we have an opportunity to discuss his qualifications; and if the Diocesan Conventions have six months to think of the matter, in my judgment, it will be better. Hence I have offered this proposition.

The amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the resolution discharging the Committee on Canons. The resolution was agreed to.

PLACE OF MEETING.

The PRESIDENT appointed as the Committee of Conference on the part of the House of Deputies, in regard to the place of meeting of the next General Convention, Rev. Dr. Davies, of Pennsylvana; Rev. Dr. Lambert, of Massachusetts; Rev. Dr. Cady, of New York; Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Mason, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Bruné, of Maryland.

SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTY.

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Elections, reported that due evidence had been presented of the appointment of Rev. J. H. Knowles as Supplementary Deputy from the Diocese of Illinois in place of Rev. Clinton Locke, D.D., who has withdrawn from the House by leave.

TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I have a long report from the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, and I will simply state its contents that it may go from us to the Committee on Canons.

We are asked if it is necessary to change the Constitution in order to translate a Bishop from one Diocese to another. The answer of a majority of the Committee is that it is not necessary; that the word "proper" signifies simply that one Bishop shall not interfere with the Diocese of another, but shall be kept to his own one Diocese, for which he is consecrated. A minority of the Committee have differed, and have kindly signed simply the fact of that difference, and not the adoption of an argument. The resolution appended to the report is:

Resolved, That the Committee on Constitutional Amendments be discharged."

The report then goes to the Committee on Canons. The PRESIDENT. The motion is that the Committee on Constitutional Amendments be discharged.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Now I move that the resolutions, which have been considered by the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, on that subject be referred to the Committee on Canons.

The motion was agreed to.

THE PRESIDING BISHOP.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I wish to take from the Calendar the resolution offered on Saturday for the relief of the Presiding Bishop. that it may be put on its passage, inasmuch as it calls for the appointment of a joint committee with the House of Bishops; and if it is not done now it may not be reached. I move that it be taken up.

The motion was agreed to; and the House proceeded to consider the following resolution :

66

Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That in view of the advanced age and increasing infirmities of the present Presiding Bishop and the pressure of duties devolving upon him, a joint committee of three Bishops, three Presbyters, and three laymen, be appointed to consider and report to this body some plan by which adequate relief can be accorded him under the circumstances."

The resolution was adopted, and Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island, Rev. Dr. Tucker, of Albany, Rev. Mr. Leverett, of Central Pennsylvania, Mr. Garthwaite, of New Jersey, Mr. Whittle, of Georgia, and Mr. Blair, of Maryland, were appointed the Committee.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. PresidentMr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Before Dr. Fulton begins his remarks, I move that the rule limiting debate to thirty minutes be suspended so far as he is concerned, inasmuch as he represents the Committee on Canons in introducing this Canon to the House.

The motion was agreed to.

CANON ON RITUAL.

The House proceeded to consider the Canon reported from the Committee on Canons relative to Ritual.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, for years past there has been over the length and breadth of the United States a great excitement of public opinion touching the ecclesiastical matters which pertain to our own household of the faith. It has been no slight evidence of the power which this Church exercises upon all sorts and conditions of men, that while other bodies might divide, might split into fragments and go hither and thither with no force at all except what seemed to be centrifugal, our Church has been before the public constantly a topic of discussion; constantly before the public as representing this fact, that whatever centrifugal influences it may include, the centripetal is stronger than all. And yet, sir, the matters in ques

tion have not been unimportant mitte: s There has been a deep-seated feeling of uneasiness in the Church itself; so that the eyes of the whole Church have been fastened upon this present assembly which was approaching to see what we should do concerning the question of Ritual, about which we were expected judicially to pronounce. Shortly after the meeting of the Convention, before the real business began, the evidence of anxiety was very manifest in the deluge of petitions and other documents which was poured in upon us; documents of vast variety; documents of vast particularity in definition; documents, however, which indicated great study, and certainly documents which indicated much anxiety; and yet it did seem as if all this dread and anxiety and excitement were somewhat disproportioned to the facts of the case.

When we looked over the whole length and breadth of the country, and saw that the actual source of all this trouble lay in less than a dozen churches, called Ritualistic; when we reflected that, with the exception of perhaps two of these, the rest were insignificant; when we reflected, moreover, that the influence of these churches did not seem to be on the increase, but on the wane ; when we reflected that it was almost impossible for some of them to maintain their present standing and to continue their present services, I must say that many men felt that the cause of alarm had been exaggerated by the intense interest of the public in our affairs, and that we were not nearly so near destruction or heresy or schism as many men had supposed. And so, on the part of many of us, there was at first a great indisposition to enter into any course of legislation upon this subject. It was also evident to the minds of many of us that there was a growing variety of services throughout the land; that the aesthetic faculty had been brought as never before into our worship of Almighty God; that the Churches of Christ throughout this country had been seeking to allure men to the worship and to the love of Christ; and it was felt by many of us that it would be a dangerous thing and a wrong thing to crush down these æsthetic tendencies used for so high, so holy, and so noble a purpose. Manifestly throughout the congregations of our Church there has been a large increase of devotion shown by those significant contributions of the people, the offerings at the altar; and most certainly no man can have looked into our churches with his eyes open, without seeing that within the last few years there is in the attitude, in the whole tone, in the whole expression of the worshipping multitude, a grand, a glorious increase of outward and apparent devotion to our Master. And, sir, I beg to say on the part of the Committee on Canons that in regard to these things there was no disposition to crush, not the slightest disposition to repress. Matters of mere taste were not the cause of the excitement which has prevailed in the Church, and of the curiosity which has prevailed beyond it.

But it was said that practices which had been introduced had a doctrinal purport, and so far from that being denied on the part of those who had carried on certain Ritual practices, it has been openly proclaimed, and indeed has been made their only excuse for disturbing the peace and quiet of the Church by the introduction of such practices. "Why," they said, "it would not be worth the trouble to expose ourselves to all this obloquy if the thing had not a doctrinal significance. It has a doctrinal significance, and we intend to use it for a doctrinal purpose." This is the real cause why the mind of the Church has been disturbed, why this Council of the Church has been petitioned, and why your Committee is constrained to present this Canon, while in that Committee there are several

members at least, if not a majority, who would prefer not to present to you any canon at all. I say it is because of the doctrinal significance of this thing that we are compelled to come before you and bring in a Canon with all the reluctance that you could wish.

And there is something touching the doctrinal character of Ritualistic observances that touches the very roots of our manhood. It is this, that while no man will object to a priest of this Church, within the lawful limits of doctrinal freedom, preaching what he believes to be the truths of God, yet we do want him to preach it in words; we want him to stand upon his feet, as has been nobly done to the knowledge of this body, and to say what he believes; not to make women and children believe it without their ever hearing anything said. This is the thing that really, I think, has troubled our Church-people most, that their doctrine has been in danger of being invaded by indirection, and that, too, by men who would shrink from open expression of what they were thus seeking to teach.

Mr. President, it is certainly true that innovations upon Ritual do have such effect as to change the doctrines of the Church. The lesson of antiquity teaches this. It has been by posture, it has been by Ritual, not only that doctrines have been formed in the minds of Christian people, but also, thank God, by this same agency, that doctrines have been preserved. Look at the ancient liturgies, as they come down to us! To-day, how invaluable they are as teaching what was the settled doctrine, as well as the settled worship of the ancient Churches. And yet these liturgies grew up naturally from belief of that doctrine and has been the means of preserving that worship. So, among ourselves, a people so ready to change and adopt new things, so glad to get rid of old things felt to be burdensome, a people so confessedly restless, there has seemed to be a peculiar danger of our doctrines becoming unsettled by means of practices that in themselves perhaps are not objectionable.

So then in the Committee on Canons, as in this Convention, the feeling that has been all-pervading has been that this Convention ought, as far as possible, to protect the doctrine of the Church from indirect invasion. After the array of petitions which came in one morning, a startling question was presented to the House by my reverend and dear friend, the Clerical Deputy from Louisiana [Rev. Mr. Harris]. He raised the point: The law of this Church is threefold; first, its organic law, contained in the Constitution; secondly, its Ritual and Liturgical law, as contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and particularly in the Rubrics of that Book; and thirdly, the Canon law, relating to such matters of detail as cannot be regarded as belonging to the other two; and he put this significant question, Whether we have a right to change the Ritual law of the Church, otherwise than as the Church declares we shall do it?

I am frank to confess that the Committee on Canons felt themselves exceedingly startled by this question. There were many members of that Committee who were decided in saying that no such thing, with their consent, could or should be done; that they would not invade the Book of Common Prayer; that they would not change the Rubrics by way of Canon; that the action coming from that Committee on Canons should be straightforward, direct, and should not touch the Ritual law of the Church as laid down in the Book of Common Prayer, otherwise than as the Constitution of the Church provided.

I ought to state that the Committee on Canors reached some of its conclusions not by any direct discussion of the merits, but that gradually, as we conversed day after day and night after night, we

came to certain conclusions as to which we were substantially agreed; and I think, Mr. President, that as the youngest member of this Committee, now for the first time acting upon that Committee by your appointment, I have a freedom to say what no other member of the Committee could say, an that is that I never in my life have seen such ingenuousness; I never in my life have seen such candor; I never in my life have seen such readiness to listen, and yet at the same time we had thirteen tolerably hard heads to be reached, and thirteen tolerably forcible tongues to speak for what they in lividually believe. We sat five or six times before we could put one word to paper. We sat longer than that before we put down any words that had any meaning, going over and over the subject in order that we might if possible reach a principle. But then, substantially agreeing that we could not go beyond the bar placed in our way by the Reverend Deputy from Louisiana, we considered how we should appeal to the Rubrics, and what matters ought to be touched in the Rubrics, for evidently it was to the Rubrics we must go; and I think that the candor of this Committee on Canons, in dealing with this subject, is conspicuously manifest when you consider that the measure which I am here now advocating on their part is not the great measure of that Committee, but, on the contrary, the very least measure that that Committee has proposed to this House on the subject of Ritual, and that therefore this little measure has rightly been committed to me as the junior member of the Committee.

When we look at the Rubrics of the Church, we find, first of all, that we have to deal with defective Rubrics, that we also have to deal with doutful Rubrics, and that in the construction of these defective and otherwise doubtful Rubrics, men with the very strongest purposes of truthfulness and rectitude come to directly opposite conclusions. dently, then, the Rubrics require some amendment, that they may carry out the object of telling men what they mean, instead of the Talleyrand object of concealing what the men who wrote them meant.

Evi

In the next place, we find that the various practites which have sprung up under these Rubrics have grown up in all honesty; that men have meant to do right; and that they have adopted practices which in their judgment are right, and it would be a hard measure indeed to condemn any of them, of one side or the other, as if they had been doing

wrong.

Again, we find that from these causes the English Church has also been in sore tribulation these many years, and that the Convocations of the Church of England, including the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy, and even the Parliament of England, which used to be called the Lay Synod of England, have been considering how the Rubrics of the English Book of Common Prayer must be revised, that being the only way, in their judgment, to reach a wise conclusion of the matter.

When we began to consider all that this Synodical revision of the Rubrics means, we met again quite a number of things which demanded much attention. Persons seem to think that, if you touch only a word or two in a Rubric, you have done a very slight thing, but this is a very grave mistake. The Rubrics of our Church have their roots away back in the ancient history of the Church. The most insignificant Rubric of our Book of Common Prayer may really have its tap-root down in the days of the Apostles. And who likes to cut these things off? Who likes lightly to touch them? Who likes to lay rough hands on them?

Again, of all people in the world, I take it that this American people and this American Church of ours, wise as we all know it to be, are perhaps the least

able to touch the subject of Rubrics just at this particular moment. What do we know of Rubrics? How many are there among us who have made them a special subject of study? How many among us would dare to say this must be or this must not be so or so? I think the innate modesty of every Churchman in this assembly would lead him to say, "I dare not touch it." And let me say that the Rubrics of our American Book of Common Prayer require particularly delicate handling, because, the Rubrics of the ancient office books from which the English Book of Common Prayer was compiled, were written in language of perfectly exact and technical significance, so that every word meant exactly what it said. Dicere meant something that was expressed by nothing but dicere. Cantare meant something that was expressed by nothing but cantare. Legere meant something that was expressed by nothing but legere. But when changes came to be made in the English Book of Common Prayer throughout its subsequent revisions, there has been even less and less exactness; and in our American Book of Common Prayer I must say that the Rubrics are of an exemplary looseness; so that any one who would touch this subject must have gone into a vast and large and scholarly examination, not only of liturgies in general, not only of the manifold English Rubrics that were combined together at the time of the Reformation, not only of the revi sions which have since been made of the English Book of Common Prayer, not only of the history (which our people know so little) of the wise and godly men who framed the American Book of Common Prayer, but he must be a master of language-of that delicate subtlety which belongs to the right use of liturgical speech. He ought to be steeped to the lips in Elizabethan English, or else he will be out of all true sympathy with the marvellous style of our Book of Common Prayer and even its structure, wonderfully beautiful as that is, in spite of the defects of its Rubrics.

evident be entered

we do not

In all these matters it is that very careful action must into; and we felt also that, as wish to touch the chords that bind us to our mother Church of England, we ought to be particularly careful in this matter of the revision of the Rubrics, so that, as in her Convocations this subject of Rubrics is, from day to day, and month to month, and year to year, with so much learning and critical acumen, canvassed, we may go on pari passu with her; adopting any of her suggestions that we can follow; and at the same time, perhaps, as a missionary Church, having some things to suggest that it might be well for the English Church to consider.

There was another matter that came before our Committee and was much spoken of, namely, that the sting of this whole matter of Ritual legislation might be taken out if we would go back to the originals of things. Why, sir, on the great subject of the vestments, does not everybody know that vestments had in the beginning no meaning at all? Does not everybody know that the vestments which were used were the vestments simply of good society or of philosophical teachers? And yet this question of vestments has had a factitious doctrinal meaning imparted to it which in no wise is inherent in it. When I saw that in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury the Bishops had there proposed (and I trust that the proposal will be followed) that any legislation touching the ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be conducted upon the principle that such things had anciently, and are to have now, no doctrinal significance, I thanked God; for here is the true way to

touch the vestment question, so that neither those who use them shall be wounded, nor those who do not use them left in doubt as to their significance. They ought to be treated merely in the light of expediency and of propriety, and no other.

And, sir, it was desired to remove the doctrinal sting from the whole action of the Church in whatever the Church might do, because, however wrong some men may consider that other men are in the bosom of the Church, I do trust and I believe that this Church does not intend to plant the cruel heel on any school of godly men who in the fear of God can work beneath her banner. It is therefore that this thing cannot be done now as it ought to be done. Has not blood boiled in the last ten days?

Mine has. Have not hearts been hot these last ten days Mine bas. And I ask the members of this Convention, if I were left, and I thank God I am not left, to make the legislation of this Church at this moment, what kind of Rubrics I would be likely to make? I take it that my honored and reverend brethren of the other school would not be willing to trust themselves now to make Rubrics. I do think that they would not dare to do it, for the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and the worship of the Church as therein represented, are too sacred to be touched by any but by calm, clean hands, with bent knees, and with an humble, prayerful heart.

Therefore it was that our Committee felt that their grand measure should not be this thing of a Canon on Ritual. Our Committee felt that that was the least part of its work. Our Committee felt that the grand measure to be introduced by some one more fit than myself would be to ask you to raise a commission on the subject of Rubrical revision which might calmly and wisely take into consideration all this vast and sacred subject, and in due time, apart from passion, apart from contaminating influences, apart from anything like antagonism, with a scholarly and wise and reverent heart and hand, suggest at a future time to this body changes that may be necessary. And we felt that in doing so it could be made the duty of that commission to recognize facts as facts stand; that in fact ceremonies are in themselves things indifferent and alterable by ecclesiastical authority; that ceremonies may be useful or the reverse according as they are wisely used; that parishes in the pine woods, or on the frontier, for example, could never appreciate, and ought to have no need of a ceremonial which is used with so much devotion in this Church and the other churches of this venerable parish; and therefore, that there ought to be permitted a wide difference of ceremonial in every matter that does not effect doctrine.

Then again, sir, we felt that there must be shortened services; and in order that there might be no delay concerning the shortened services, I think we have a measure, either proposed or to be proposed, providing for that as soon as possible, so that on that necessary point there may be no delay.

Then as regards ceremonies, we felt that, to prevent future disturbance in the Church, we must endeavor through our commission to find out what is really the safe and the only safe maximum of ceremonial observance, and also the minimum of observance that this Church will permit her clergy to descend to.

I repeat that this is the measure of the Committee. The measure which I am introducing to-day is, if you will look at it, immeasurably less important. The measure that I have the honor to introduce to-day is simply an ad interim thing, until better can be done; and yet I think that this ad interim measure has been proposed and has been carried through the Committee

with as much tolerance, with as much wisdom, and with as much candor as could have been possible in any body on earth. After we had deliberated on the whole matter relating to Rubrical revision, and it took, as I think, some thirteen sessions before we reached this point, there remained only two points to be determined: one, how doctrine is assailed; and secondly, how the Church teaches us to protect doctrine.

You will observe that the Canon as it is before you in printed form is exceedingly careful to touch no ceremonial except that which belongs to the order of the celebration of the Holy Communion-none other. Processional hymns; recessional hymns; Sunday-school children's crosses; vestments of more or less beauty-these things are left entirely out. I trust the time has gone by when this Church can be pestered out of its dignity by proposed legislation on any such subjects as these. We have confined everything that we have proposed to this Convention to the single subject of the doctrine touching the Holy Communion, and here I rest our cause upon that subject. If a man wants to preach doctrine, let him preach it; but let him not insinuate it; let him do it like a man, and then, if his doctrine is erroneous, we can try him for it; if it is doubtful, he takes his chance as a manly man ought always to be willing to do. If he believes that God has put a parable in his mouth, then the word that the Lord has put in his mouth, that shall he speak. Do not let him say the Lord has put a parable in his mouth and that he does not dare to tell it, but will hold up a picture to represent it. We felt that frankness was to be demanded on all sides touching the doctrine of the Church.

Now, as to the doctrines touched in the Holy Communion, our Committee were wholly indisposed to express any opinion in respect to any phases of doctrine that might occur. We absolutely declined to declare what are erroneous doctrines. We absolutely declined to tell where the lines of limitation of the Church are set. We absolutely declined, therefore, to designate which are doubtful doctrines. Why? Because, I trust, and I believe I am right in trusting, that this Convention well knows that it is not the province of the Committee on Canons to determine that; nay, more, that it is not committed to this House to determine that. The deposit of faith was committed to the Apostles of the Church, and through them to their successors; and it is a significant fact that, when a Bishop is admitted to minister in the Apostolic office in this Church of ours, he is required to make certain oaths as vows to God as well as to the Church. One of them is this: when he is asked the question, "Are you ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word?" "To banish "—it is a harsh word, perhaps, but it is there "to drive away," as the shepherd drives away the wolf; it is strong language, but it is there, and the Bishop is required to promise that he will do so, and to declare: "I am ready, the Lord being my helper." And then, again, he is required to swear that he "will diligently exercise such discipline "mark the word-as, by the authority of God's Word"-not merely by the legislation of this Convention, but "by the authority of God's Word and by the order of this Church"-which may be Canonical or Rubrical or constitutional-"and by order of this Church is committed to him." "I will so do by the help of God," the Bishop answers. Evidently, then, there is power somewhere-power which is given-for when the Church exacts a man's oath that he will do it, it is understood that it gives him power to do it. On the other hand, when the deacon and priest are brought into their sacred orders, here is one of the

questions put to them. I want my brethren to listen to this; I want my brethren who are particularly careful of the question of Rubric and Canon to listen to this: "Will you reverently obey your Bishop and other chief ministers who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you, following"-not reluctantly, but-"following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments." Canons have something to do with this subject, then; and although we cannot touch the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, we can recognize the Bishop as Ordinary, as possessing a real power, which we indeed have the right to regulate as to its exercise, but which all men are bound to recognize, and which the priest has sworn to follow with a glad mind and will. There we rest our cause; there we rest the protection of the Church, where God has put it, where the Church has recognized it, where the priesthood has sworn to respect it.

What is it that this Canon provides? It provides simply that when in due manner a Bishop shall have reason to believe that erroneous or doubtful doctrines have been set forth by ceremonial observances in the order for the Holy Communion, then it shall be his duty to do what everybody knows he ought to do; that is, investigate the matter, and in investigation to seek the counsel of his appointed Council of Advice-the Standing Committee. This is showing the Bishop how he may wisely give a godly admonition. And I think that when the Bishop of a Diocese, with his Standing Committee, generally including the clergy and laity, comes after a deliberate survey of the whole matter to say that practices or ceremonials are erroneous or doubtful, it is sufficient to prove already that the doctrine is at least doubtful. It needs no further investigation.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question right there? That the Bishop may do on the presentation of two Presbyters. Why have the laity no voice in this complaint?

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I thank my friend from Georgia for asking that question, for two reasons. The first is, that I do not have to answer it, that being the province of my colleague from Pittsburgh (Mr. Burgwin); the second is, that we were quite sure that the inconvenient parishioner would appear somewhere, though I did not expect him to trouble us quite so soon in this debate. I may just as well say that it is because of the certainty of his appearance that we did not want to let him in.

To resume, we felt that this commission of the whole matter to the Bishop and the Standing Committee would secure what men ought to respect as a judgment; and that, avoiding questions of detail and practical Rubrical matters for the present altogether, we ought simply to require the priesthood and the diaconate of this Church to keep their sworn obligation. That is the point; and I may say that, in comparison with that one point, all the rest of this Canon is smoke. It is the one point. The only thing that our Committee on Canons is perfectly unanimous and determined in having respected is that thing, that the Episcopate shall no longer be an emasculated office in this Church, but that they shall be able to keep their sworn obligations, and that the clergy shall be required to keep theirs.

At the same time, our Committee felt that everything done in such a matter as this ought to be done with the utmost care that no rights should be invaded; and therefore a man even after this investigation has a perfect right to put himself upon his trial. He can be tried; he can demand a trial by his peers, and then the question is simply whether his peers of the Presbytery will or will not agree

with the Committee on Canons, and, as I hope and expect, with this Convention.

Thus, Mr. President, the whole object of our Committee has been to secure respect for the doctrine of the Church. It is true that in the course of our debates many times were introduced multitudinous specifications. Over and over again members of the Committee on Canons were desirous to at once proceed to specifications; and, truly, some of those specifications were formidable enough. In one paper before us I distinctly remember there were eleven paragraphs containing about thirty distinct specifications and about the small number of three thousand possibilities! It was very evident that we had no time to go into these specifications, and still less to argue the merits of the possibilities; and, therefore, the feeling of the members of the Committee on Canons was that we ought, if possible, to avoid specifications. Still it was held that some specifications ought to be introduced or the Canon would appear to be nugatory, and I must do my friends, who be long in most things to the other side from myself, the credit to say that, while they insisted with uncompromising firmness upon the introduction of some specifications, they nevertheless were willing to reduce them to the very small number of four; and moreover they were willing to go further still for they consented that these four specifications should be introduced, not as the enactment of the Convention, but as examples of things which are already considered to be unlawful under the Rubrics and Canons of the Church. I well remember, when the Committee came to that point, when on the one side and the other the conclusion had been reached that the mind of the Church demanded that there should be a certain amount of give and take in this whole matter, that the Convention was looking to us not as individual gladiators to fight for our own colors, but as men of sense to try and meet the necessities of the Church; I remember the eagerness with which all sides of our Committee-I think I am not wrong in saying thirteen men in a committee of thirteengrasped the suggestion, and immediately said, There we stand together."

Mr. President, it must not be understood, and I trust it will not be understood that I myself, for example, would have introduced those specifications; but I do say that the Committee could come together on no other basis than that, and on that basis we agreed; thereby we stand: there we will stand until this Convention stands somewhere else.

Now, if you will allow me a few words more, I shall have done. We had done our best; and yet we were doubtful and exceedingly diffident of the result of our own mature judgment while there was so much of intense feeling and excitement in ourselves. We felt that we must carefully watch ourselves that we might do nothing unwise either by action or by omission; and therefore we called to our assistance, as a previous resolution of this House enabled us to do, the Committee on Canons of the other House-the House of Bishops. We were met by that Committee as represented by two of its most distinguished members. We submitted to them this Canon as it now is before this House, and almost to our astonishment, to mine, certainly, we found that that Committee said, "Gentlemen, we are satisfied with your work; and if you wish us to present it in our House independently of your action, we will gladly do it." The Committee on Canons did not accept that proposition. We thought we ought to mature our own matter in our own House and send our action to the other House. But I appeal to this Convention now to tell me just this one thing-and they will tell it significantly after a while-whether, taken as

« PreviousContinue »