the ceremonies with which we do it, are utterly, utterly indifferent; the thing itself is what we plead for, and I know I should not plead to unkind or unfeeling hearts. I remember those words of the great Christian poet :

"No distance breaks the tie of blood;

Brothers are brothers evermore;
Nor wrong nor wrath of deadliest mood
That magic may o'erpower.

Oft ere the common source be known

The kindred drops will seek their own,
And throbbing pulses silently

Move heart toward heart by sympathy.

"So is it with true Christian hearts :

Their mutual share of Jesus' blood
An everlasting bond imparts
Of holiest brotherhood.

O might we all our lineage prove,
Give and forgive, do good and love,
In mutual efforts of kind strife,

Light'ning the load of daily life.

"There is much need, for not as yet
Are we in safety or repose;

The holy house is still beset

By leaguer of stern foes;

Wild thoughts within, bad men without,
All evil spirits round about

Are banded in unblest device

To spoil love's earthly paradise.

"Then draw we nearer, day by day,
Each to his brethren--all to God.
Let the world use us as she may,
We may not lose our road;-
Not wandering, though in grief to find
The martyrs' foes still keep her mind ;
But fixed to hold love's banner fast,

And by submission win at last.'

And yet I am thankful to say that this clause, marked “d," instead of forbidding Eucharistic adoration, is the most definite assertion of it that ever was passed in our Church since the time of the Reformation, and I mean to prove that fact. I do not know, of course, whether there was any Ritualist amongst the great Committee of Thirteen. I do not know how this came to pass. I do not know whether it befell them as it does sometimes befall men, that they build other than they intend to. But I do not hesitate to say that that clause is the greatest assertion of Eucharistic adoration that has ever been passed since the time of the Reformation. Now let me prove it.

You will please look at the words, "any act of adoration of or towards the Elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, genuflexions, and all such like acts not authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer." In other words, if there is any such act allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, then that we have a right to do. Now, if I can prove that there is such an act allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and that, historically, this Church has a very peculiar relation to this act, then I think I shall have proved my point. Now, in the Book of Common Prayer there is but one Rubrical direction of this sort. It is all I want. We are allowed to kneel, and I do not want any other posture whatsoever to express my feelings of adoration to Christ. We are allowed to kneel. Everybody knows that. It does not need to be proved by looking into the PrayerBook. Now, that question as to kneeling in the Eucharist has historically been a very vexed question in the Anglican Church. No sooner was the first Book of Edward VI. put out than the King

and his Council surreptitiously put into it, without the consent of the Convocation, an explanation of the kneeling; and the explanation showed what they thought the kneeling might mean, that this kneeling is not meant to express any adoration of any real or essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood." But no sooner did Bloody Mary come in than she abolished it, and when Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne she did not revive it, for the Prayer-Book of Elizabeth has not that declaration in it. When King James the First came to the throne, his Prayer-Book did not have it either, and it was not until the time of Charles II. that the question came up, and then it came up in this way: Those people who were not willing to consent to the Act of Uniformity sent in to the Savoy Conference, at the beginning of the reign of Charles II., a series of objections to things in the Prayer-Book, and one of those objections was to kneeling in the Holy Communion, because it implied adoration; and then the divines of King Charles's time, who were assuredly sus pected of being very High Church indeed, quite inclined towards the Laudian school, while they put in that declaration as to kneeling did it with a significant alteration. That alteration was that no adoration is due to any "corporal preof Christ's natural flesh and blood." They changed the words "real от essential presence" to the words "any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood ;" and ever since around that declaration of kneeling there has been a contest in the Church of England; and there was a contest only the other day, and the judg ment of the Privy Council, which I have here, declares expressly, though the Privy Council of course, everybody knows, is tolerant of everything except ing faith, I say the Privy Council in their judg ment expressly assert that the declaration of kneeling cannot be so construed as to deny right to adore Christ present in the elements; that it includes both ideas.

sence

the

Now I come to my argument. Strangely enough, when the American Book of Common Prayer was adopted, the declaration of kneeling was left out. It is not to be found in our Book of Common Prayer, and I think I know the reason why. It pleased God to give to Bishop White an utter abhorrence of all Calvinism, and he knew that that Rubric could be interpreted in a Calvinistic direction; and, though you cannot find any allusion to its omission in the records of the time, some how or other it slipped out, and I suppose it slipped out precisely as a single word in the Catechism has slipped out. It says, "The Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God"; that is the way it reads in the English Prayer Book; but in our Prayer-Book it is, "The Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the people of God." The word "elect" was left out under a mistake, no doubt, but under that dreadful terror of possible Calvinism which so affected the excellent first Bishop of Pennsylvania.

It will be justly said that this clause of the Canon is a contribution in the same direction, and when it impliedly asserts that there are certain acts of adoration which are authorized and allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, and people remember that kneeling is allowed, it will not take twenty-five years before this clause of the Canon will wheel into line, and will be an argument in favor of Eucharistic adoration in the books of that day of the very strongest character. And let me say that, if our debates go down to posterity, as I trust they may, the fact that I have pointed this out to this House, being duly recorded and duly read, will add a point and pungency to the

fact, if you pass it without disproving what I have to say.

These are my objections to the Canon, and I intend to propose an amendment to this Canon. I would not for the world bring it before this House without having first submitted it to the Committee on Canons. They tell us that like the Greeks of old they have burned their ships, and mean to stand or fall by this Canon; and woe betide me if I attempt to pass anything through this House with the great Committee against me, and so I will not propose it to this House; I will only propose that it be referred for their consideration to the Committee on Canons. Now let me read it; and I believe, although I have argued with a great deal of earnestness, what I have to say is really in the interest of truth, and peace, and kindness, and love, and the settlement of difficulties.

"If any Bishop shall have reason to believe that ceremonies or practices, during the celebration of the Holy Communion, not ordained or authorized in the Book of Common Prayer, or setting forth or symbolizing doctrines not according to those of this Church, have been introduced into a parish within his jurisdiction, it shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as his council of advice, and with them to investigate the matter; and if, after investigation, it shall appear to the Bishop and Standing Committee that doctrines not in accordance with those of this Church have in fact been set forth or symbolized by ceremonies or practices," etc.

And the rest of the Canon is just the same. The amendment merely leaves out these specifications; it leaves out the word "doubtful" in connection with "doctrines"; it leaves out the two prying Presbyters, and keeps the Bishop and Standing Committee to their duty; and if they do it, I am free to say that all over this country there will be a tolerable freedom from rites, and ceremonies, and practices which offend the mind of this Church. That is my proposition. I say, I consider it in the interest of truth and peace; and if such a proposition is brought forward, I myself will vote for it. I understand that a Lay Deputy from Maryland has a Canon drawn up that he wishes to bring forward, and if at this moment it would be of any service to him to bring it forward, to be referred at the same time to the Committee on Canons, it will give me great pleasure to yield the floor to him for that purpose, if it be not taken out of my allotment of time.

Mr. BLANCHARD, of Maryland. Is that legitimate ?

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask the Rev. Doctor from Wisconsin to repeat his proposition. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. The Canon I propose?

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Precisely. Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I will read it again:

"If any Bishop has reason to believe that ceremonies or practices during the celebration of the Holy Communion not ordained or authorized in the Book of Cemmon Prayer, and setting forth or symbolizing doctrines not in accordance with those of this Church, have been introduced into a parish within his jurisdiction, it shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as his council of advice and with them to investigate the matter; and if after investigation it shall appear to the Bishop and the Standing Committee that doctrines not in accordance with those of this Church have, in fact, been set forth or symbolized by ceremonies or practices not ordained or authorized as aforesaid," etc. And the rest of the Canon is just as was reported.

"2. The placing, or carrying, or retaining a crucifix in any part of the place of public worship.

"3. The elevation of the Elements in the Holy Communion in such manner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects to which adoration is to be offered.

4. Any act of adoration of or towards the Elements in the Holy Communion.

"Sec. 2. If any Bishop have reason to believe that the ceremonies or practices hereby prohibited have been introduced into any parish or congregation within his jurisdiction, it shall be his duty to admonish in writing the minister of the parish or congregation aforesaid to discontinne such ceremonies or practices, and, if the minister shall disregard such admonition, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of the Diocese to cause him to be tried before the proper ecclesiastical court of the Diocese having jurisdiction of the offences for which ministers may be tried and punished."

I offer that as a substitute.

At the

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. end of my speech I propose to offer my amendment, and also this substitute which is proposed; but if the Committee on Canons desire it, I will simply propose that they be referred, or if they tell me

shall not be doing discourtesy to the Committee, I will venture to propose them immediately to the House, for I do not venture to interfere with what I think is a rightful thing, that a Committee constituted like that which has had this subject before it, and has reported to us a Canon, which I am ready to acknowledge is very moderate, and which, no doubt, has been the result of a good deal of consideration and of a certain amount of compromise, should not have at least the opportunity of fully considering the proposed amendment.

Now, I come to something which is perhaps more important than anything I have said already, and yet which I feel constrained to say. I listened with a certain amount of astonishment to an assertion which was made in a different way by two persons in this House during the course of our debates. A gentleman said here that a certain person did not believe in Eucharistic adoration. Another gentleman said that Eucharistic adoration was a doctrine tolerated in our Church. And there are a great many people who evidently believe that Eucharistic adoration is a thing that is not only not allowed, but is very wicked and very sinful. Now, I have only to say that, while I have no question that the gentlemen who use this language have in their own minds a clear and determinate sense in which they use it, yet to say that one does not believe in Eucharistic adoration, or to say that Eucharistic adoration is a tolerated doctrine, is simply to say a thing which to the theological mind is simply and totally unintelligible; for-and here I am going to take a bold flight of ambition-if there be one man in this House whom I admire for his logic, for his clearness, for his wonderful power of management, it is a Clerical Deputy from Virginia (Rev. Dr. Andrews), whose voice has scarcely been heard during this Convention. I always tremble when he speaks. Now let me

say that in my poor humble way I desire to follow him; and when I read in a very clever and able article that he had found out no less than seven ways in which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration might be held in our Church, I tried to think in how many ways the doctrine of Eucharistic adoration might be held somewhere. But, even after long effort, I have only been able to discover six. So I am just one behind him, and I am glad in this respect that Wisconsin is not quite so advanced as Virginia. [Great laughter.]

The PRESIDENT. If there is any attempt at applause, the galleries will have to be cleared.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. The first sense in which Eucharistic adoration may be held to be affirmed, or denied, or tolerated, is that to which I have already alluded-namely, that acts of adoration paid towards or to the elements make up Eucharistic adoration; and yet it is quite possible that a man may go through all sorts of genuflexions and prostrations, and never adore Christ in the Eucharist at all. The Clerical Deputy from Maryland (Rev. Dr. Leeds) told us that in the Eastern Church, at the greater entrance, when the elements unconsecrated are brought forth, the people prostrate themselves before the unconsecrated elements in token of their belief in the coming down of the Son of God into this world; and so it is possible that for far less reason than the adoring of Christ in the Eucharist, for the sake of all sorts of things, a man may go through with external acts of adoration. But I have said sufficient about that. The distinction, I trust, is impressed on the mind of this House.

The second is (and I have heard people say it in this House), that it is wrong to adore the Sacrament. The word " sacrament," as everybody knows, is an ambiguous term, and may mean either the outward elements, or that union of the outward and inward which makes up the Sacrament, or, again, the whole sacramental rite. I suppose when they say this they mean the outward part of the sacrament. It is quite possible that in Mexico and the states of South America, and possibly in Southern Europe, where the host is carried about the streets-a practice which I believe to be a terrible evil-it is possible that the ignorant may adore the outward elements; but I never heard or knew of anybody in our Church or in the Church of England who held to any such erroneous or false doctrine.

There is a third sense in which a man may hold Eucharistic adoration. He may believe that after consecration the substance of Christ's Body and Blood has taken the place of the substance of the bread and wine, and that nothing but the accidents of the bread and wine remain. In other words, he may hold the doctrine of the Council of Trent on the subject of transubstantiation, and, when he falls down before the consecrated elements, he may be adoring not the substance of the bread and wine, but the substance of Christ's Body and Blood hidden under these veils, and believing in transubstantiation, may adore Christ present in His substance; and this the Roman Church does. Let me say that I do not know of any one in our Church who holds to Eucharistic adoration in that sense; and when I heard a Lay Deputy from Kentucky, in a very able and interesting speech, say that he only wished that somebody, whose name shall not be mentioned, would come out and say, "I abhor and detest the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation," I feel certain that any well-trained Churchman would be able to say that. And now, I come to the fourth view of Eucharistic adoration, and that is, that a man may hold that Christ's body and blood, and so Christ's human nature, and so Christ Himself, is in sacramental union

with the bread and wine after consecration, not by transubtantiation, not by impanation, not by consubstantiation, not by a view which is largely held in our Church and which is known as identity of substance; but in sacramental union with the holy elements, and so, not adoring the external elements, may yet pay his reverent homage to the Son of God whom he believes to be present in His own sacrament. Or again, a man may hold in our Church, and if he does so he can claim very venerable authority for it, and I am free to say that the difference between this view and the other is rather a difference of words than of things-he may hold that Christ Our Lord is personally present by His Divine Person in the Holy Eucharist. He may hold that Christ's human nature is present there, first by way of conjunc tion, secondly by way of co-operation, and thirdly by way of force and efficacy; and holding that Christ in His Divine Person is there, and there to give us His own Body and Blood, though that Body and blood be not in the mind of this person connected with the elements, he too may adore Christ present in the Eucharist.

Or again, he may hold something which I believe the conscience of this Church will utterly and totally give up, but which nevertheless is held in our Church, and that is that Christ our Lord is to be adored and only adored at the right hand of His Father in heaven; and holding that, he may believe that the Eucharist is the very special opportunity for paying his express adoration to Christ, though absent in heaven; and he too may adore Christ by means of the Eucharist, though he may adore Him as only at the right hand of His Father.

con

And so I assert that there are no less than six ways in which a man can believe in Eucharistic adoration-two of them which are not held in our Church at all, one of them which no logical mind can possibly hold, and the other three of which, I am free to say, include in some one of their forms ninety-nine one-hundredths of the Churchmen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America; and therefore I assert that when a man says he does not believe in Eucharistic adoration, or asserts that it is tolerated or not tolerated, without further explanation, he says something that is totally unintelligible. And this leads me to a thought which is of the gravest possible description. Our Church in this country was planted in the darkest days of the Church of England. It brought over here every narrow feeling, every insulated policy, every miserable venience that resulted from the connection of the Church and State; and for 177 years our Church was left without a Confirmation, without an Ordination, without a Bishop, for all these evils to crystallize around her. And when it pleased God to give us Bishops, what for seventy years has been the life of the American Church? She has been struggling for her own; she has been grasping at the truth of God; she has been seeking for that which was her heritage from the ages; she has been striving to obtain in all its fulness that which came down to her from her fathers. When I was a boy, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was a doubtful doctrine, so very doubtful that a man scarcely dared to say that he held it, and I have lived to see petitions presented to this House desiring the alteration of the Prayer-Book because it does distinctly assert the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Now let me say about the doctrine of the Eucharist, there is precisely this, that we have not arrived at a full and clear determination about it. Better a thousand times, my brethren, that rash and incautious expressions should be used, better that things should be said that the great heart of this

Church may possibly condemn, than that we should hastily formulate this doctrine. Let me illustrate: I know there is an illustration which presents itself to your own minds, and which it is quite impossible for me to assent to after the adjectives with which I have qualified it. Nor do I mean to apply those adjectives to this that I shall say:

Within the past three years I have read a charge from a Bishop of this Church, honored, venerated, one of the noblest and best of our most aged Bishops, advocating something which he called in terms Zwinglianism. I have read also a pamphlet of a Clerical Deputy from Virginia, advocating the same thing. I do not mean to say that it was Zwinglianism. It did not seem to be as bad as Zwinglianism; but, nevertheless, it was a clear and definite expression of what anybody would say was a very Low Church view of this subject, and I have never heard a single word said against it. I have never read an article in any newspaper against it. I have never heard that it was going to make a crisis in the Church. I never heard that the man who held it was not to be elevated to the Episcopate. I have seen that it had free scope and fair play, and for my part I would give it free scope and fair play too. Let this Church on this doctrine preserve its equanimity. Let it study. Let it read. Let it pray. Let it think. Let men who have the grace and the gift of understanding pour forth their contributions; and if there are things that ought not to be said, free thought, free play, free consideration, and full .consideration never harmed the Church in any way; for, mark you, it is a philosophical truth, which no man can read ecclesiastical history without understanding, that no doctrine, though it be formalized never so often, becomes the doctrine of any church until that doctrine receives the moral unanimity of its members; and if any one here should be tempted either by Rubric or by Article to attempt to take away from the doctrine of this Church on the Eucharist, it would only be endeavoring to do something which in time to come this Church will rise as one man, clerical and lay, and sweep away.

And now, Mr. President, I want to say one wordThe PRESIDENT. It will be necessary to ask for an extension of your time.

Rev. Dr. DALZELL, of Louisiana. I move that full time be given to the Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin.

The motion was agreed to unanimously.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. It will be remembered in this House that in the last General Convention, under peculiar circumstances, I stated a phrase which I hardly need to repeat because it has been so often rung in my ears and in the ears of others; "that I myself adore, and would, if it were necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements under the form of bread and wine." I then expressed what was my conviction on this subject, but I did not express it merely because it was my conviction. The object which I had in expressing it was something which has clearly and evidently been lost sight of. Woe be to that man, I say, who in this age of ours attempts to force down the throats of Churchmen any particular formula upon a given doctrine! The doctrine is eternal; the words in which we express it may change and alter. I only used those words, not because they were my conviction, though they were so, but because they were words which a court of law-the second to the highest in England--had adjudicated, and decided that they were words which could be used in the Church of England, and that the man who did use them was not thereby liable to penal prosecution. That was simply my motive in doing it-to express what a court of law had decided a man might say in our Church

in opposition to the very extreme views which had been expressed on the other side. Now, I am quite conscious that in that phrase-for no one could have gone through the series of controversies in which I have been involved without having considered it most carefully-there are two expressions which seem to convey to the mind something which I did not mean to convey, and many people have said that I hold a view which I do not hold, and have attributed to me doctrines which I do not believe in.

I take up, first of all, the words, "under the form of bread and wine." Let me ask if there are not members in this House who have held that when a man

au

says he believes in the presence of Christ in the elements under the form of bread and wine, he really means that the form of bread and wine remains while the substance is gone and another substance has taken its place. In other words, I believe there are those in this House who think that the words, "under the form of bread and wine," definitely teach the doctrine of transubstantiation, and I am compelled to admit that they have been used to express at some time in history the doctrine of transubstantiation. I am also free to say that the words have been used over and over again in the Church of England to express not the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of the real spiritual presence of Christ our Lord in sacramental union with the consecrated elements. Those words are to be found in an advertisement annexed to the first Book of Homilies. It says, "Hereafter shall follow homilies upon the Ascension, the Nativity, and the right receiving the blessed Body and Blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine." I know people have said that that title has no thority. I know that they make the statement that it was introduced by that extraordinary person the King's printer. I know that they also correctly add that when the second Book of Homilies appeared, the homily upon the Lord's Supper did not bear that title; and yet the fact is that the Book of Homilies has been twice revised since this statement was put in, and it has never been altered, and is to this day to be found in the advertisement annexed to the First Book of Homilies of the Church of England. I also must say that the words themselves were familiar to our reformers because they had been used by Bertram or Ratramars in his treatise on the Lord's Supper, not in the sense of transubstantiation, but in the sense of the real presence. The words occur in a formal prayer set out by Queen Elizabeth after the Reformation, though they were afterwards dropped from that form in the year 1566. The words are to be found in varying senses in books like "Nicholson on the Catechism," "Sherlock's Practical Christian," "Sutton's Godly Meditations upon the most Holy Supper of the Lord"; and in our day they have been used by very many writers. In the famous argument, and an argument of unequalled power and cloquence, though it was on the wrong side, and though rumor says it converted the man who made it to the right side-I say that in the argument of Mr. Stephens before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he distinctly asserted that the words "under the form of bread and wine" may be used to express the real presence of Christ in the elements, and that they did not necessarily mean or imply the doctrine of transubstantiation.

But what shall be said of the phrase "in the elements"? It is true that the Bennett formula, as it is sometimes called, did not use the words "in the elements." It used the words "in the Sacrament.” So I was accused of having corrupted and perverted the Bennett judgment in order to express something