Page images
PDF
EPUB

cus he fell to the earth, and a great light shined around about him, and he said, Who art thou, Lord" and the answer was, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest.' I dare say some persons may say he only saw a vision, but then we read immediately after that unto Ananias the Lord appeared in a vision. So when Ananias came to Saul he said that God had chosen him "that he should see that Just One and hear the voice of His mouth." And then we find that self-same St. Paul saying, "Am I not an Apostle am I not free? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ?" And then we find that same Apostle speaking on the resurrection, saying, He appeared first to James, and then to five hundred brethren, "and last of all He was seen of me also, as one born out of due time, who am not meet to be called an Apostle." And so St. Peter says that somehow or other it was necessary to a call to the apostleship that the man should see and hear the Lord Jesus Christ, because he says, in speaking about the election of Matthias, One must be chosen to be a witness of the Lord's resurrection," and also to Cornelius, that "Him God raised up the third day and showed Him openly not to all the people but to witnesses chosen before of God even to us." And if any one will explain to me how it was possible for our Lord to be in heaven and be seen and heard by St. Paul, not in a vision, but actually and really, then I may be able to explain the mystery of the Holy Communion.

say,

to

Now, I have only a word more to say. My explanation, which is not an explanation but only the bringing forth of a great and true doctrine, is that it is the mission of God the Holy Ghost not to supply Christ's absence, but to accomplish His presence. know that people hold that the Holy Ghost is God's vicegerent upon earth; I know that people have been bold enough affirm that Christ is absent personally from this world that in other words this world of ours is like the sepulchre, and we, like Mary Magdalene, are left to cry, "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." It is not so. It is, I say, the mission of God the Holy Ghost not to supply Christ's absence, but to accomplish His presence. Blessed are the words which ..It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart I will send Him unto you." That seems to imply that the Holy Ghost was to take Christ's place: but then when the broken hearts of the Apostles seemed to say, "Give not Thou us any, Comforter; we need no comforter but Thee," He replied to their thought, "I go away, and come again unto vou. "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." "Yet a little while and ye see me no more; but I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." These words indeed applied first to His return after the resurrection, they also apply to that blessed supplying of His presence which is the definite work of God the Holy Ghost, and which He accomplishes chiefly, though not exclusively, in the sacrament of the Holy Communion.

Mr. President, we live in troublous times, and around us are all sorts of terrible questions. It does seem to me the day is not now to legislate on nice points of doctrine, or to prescribe exactly the measure of a genuflexion or the angle of inclination which can express an orthodox devotion. The

[ocr errors]

powers, and sending it forth to mould and form this nation of ours, and to give new life and vigor to every effort it makes for the salvation of men. I see the storm-cloud gathering; I see the lightnings flash; I hear the thunder roll afar; I hear the trumpet call; in my ears the bugle blast is ringing; and I call you, brethren, in a time like this, not to narrow-hearted legislation, but to broad, catholic, tolerant charity, and to work, as never men worked before, for the souls of those for whom the Saviour died.

I now offer the amendments. I have written them out, and I propose that these amendments be referred to the Committee on Canons for their consideration; and that motion includes the proposed substitute of Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland.

The Secretary read the amendments proposed by Rev. Dr. De Koven, of Wisconsin, and Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I did not understand the Rev. Deputy from Wisconsin as pressing for a vote on that motion now. Of course, if a vote be taken, and it be sent to the Committee, it would take the whole matter from the House.

The PRESIDENT. Of course the other matter would have to be recommitted.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. It is to be acted on when the House comes to a vote.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Convention of the Lower House: I stand here this afternoon at a very great disadvantage. I come to this debate with your minds already impressed by the elaborate argument which you have just heard; your convictions, certainly your feelings, swayed by the eloquence of the gifted speaker who has preceded me. am not prepared to swear in the words of that master, but if any master could carry me to that side of the question which he holds, or is reported to hold, I know of none more powerful, none more attractive. He has spoken to you with a commanding eloquence. I think you will all agree with me that we have never been stirred during this session as by his appeal. He has brought to his argument a skill which perhaps he will pardon me when I say enables him almost, possibly wholly, "to make the worse appear the better reason, And he has brought a learning, too, which, without preparation on this floor, and without such special preparation as he has evidently made, I will not venture to meet. I say this in all frankness because I propose to speak truth, which possibly may not quite be so palatable by and by. shean to the doctrinal argument in this case. That I shall not go directly to the argument of this case— has been put before you with a greater or less fulness and accuracy, and I know that other speakers will succeed me who will direct themselves especially to this point.

I desire rather to discuss the question in a certain broad, general way. But before going on to that I wish to make one or two remarks with regard to the argument which you have just heard. We have indeed listened not to an argument touching the immediate question before us except in the most indirect way. We have listened rather to a learned and eloquent exposition of the doctrine of the Presence in the Holy Eucharist and of Eucharistic adoration; and I take this opportunity to say that I am glad that my reverend brother from Wisconsin has been enabled to make the explanation with which his speech has closed. I think it will put him on clearer ground and higher hearts of his brethren. I for one give him all credit ground, both in the intellectual esteem and in the

answer to all this panic and all this outcry is one, and one only. It is work; work for the cause of Christ; work for the souls of men; a fuller, deeper, more noble sense of the obligation of the Church, developing its ity, he can demand of every one of us that we ac

[ocr errors]

for his words. I believe that not only in gentlemanly courtesy, but by right of Christian author

cept his words, so far as he is concerned, as conclusive on this point.

But, as I have said, I do not propose to address myself especially, primarily, chiefly to the doctrinal I assume that argument involved in this matter. the great proportion of this body is agreed that the Church does not hold certain doctrines with regard to the Eucharist which I charge, and I think I shall be able to show, are held by those among us, and on the other side of the Atlantic, who are known distinctly as Ritualists. The only point I shall speak to is the point touching the expediency of the present action.

In order, however, to reach this point, it will be necessary to ask your attention to one or two preliminary matters. The question meets us as we endeavor as a Church to legislate in this matter; it is urged against us with a certain spirit sometimes of mockery, "What do you mean by a Ritualist? What is Ritualism ?" This certainly, as we all know, is a most unfortunate word, and I do not propose this afternoon any definition of what is Ritualism, for, as I shall endeavor presently to show, the peril of the thing is its very vagueness; but I propose to answer this questionI think I can answer it-" What do you mean, what does the great majority of the men and women of the Church mean, by Ritualism?" I know the term has been defined, or attempted to be defined, after this fashion. A clerical wit on this side of the water has told us that Ritualism is that to which we are not accustomed. Mr. Gladstone has given the same definition, in almost the same words, on the other side of the Atlantic. The trouble is, however, and the secret of the power of this system is, that it is SO vague, SO undefined, and 80 undefinable. If it were well defined, if we could put it within sharp limits, then it would be easy at once to frame a Canon and to bring this thing to justice; but I can tell you that it is the very vagueness of the thing that makes it so hard to deal with, and it is this very vagueness which renders it so dangerous.

But, sir, if I cannot tell you in any clear, brief, succinct statement what Ritualism is, I think I can tell you, as I have promised, what we mean by Ritualism. There is no question among us that the Church has given large liberty to her children in this matter of ritual. As in regard to her doctrine so in her Ritual she allows for divergencies of temperament, and enables her children, so long as they do not infringe her doctrine or her law, to be gratified in those particulars. I believe that there is a large range allowed between the bald on the one side and the ornate on the other. I believe that this is a necessity in the very nature of things. I believe that God put these varieties of temperament into men, and I believe that the Church but responds (stands over and against) to this arrangement, this creation, this adaptation of God, when she allows to men having these different temperaments, variety in regard to Ritual. But as in doctrine she allows no opinion which touches vital truth, concerning which she has decided it, so she opposes the self-same limitation in regard to Ritual, and it is very important in this matter.

I maintain that the Ritual teaching of the Church is in many respects its strongest teaching. If no other particulars were brought in this remains, that it is a constant teaching; that it teaches a large mass of persons who perhaps could not take hold intellectually of simple doctrinal statements. It brings them physically, so to speak, into the possession of doctrine, and it does so constantly.

Then, remember, Ritualism so-called is not now, as at first, a matter of taste or of simple elaborateness or ornateness in Ritual observance, It is

now confessedly and distinctly a system of doctrine. We can all remember the budding of the system. That tiny flower was innocent, and they it perhaps thought SO at the time; but we have seen how on it has gone day by day, and year by year, until at length it disclosed its crimson bosom, and is now exhaling poison, as I believe, throughout the Church. This is a part of its danger. It is the policy of this system in the Church to advance gradually and stealthily to its object. In support of that point I wish to read the following extract from an authority on this subject. The process is thus recommended:

"Let a gradual change be brought in. A Choral service, so far as Psalms and Canticles are concerned, on some week-day evening, will train people to like a more ornate worship, and that which began as an occasional luxury will soon be felt a regular want, where there monthly Communion let it be fortnightly, where it is fortnightly let it be weekly, where it is weekly let a Thursday office be added. Where all this is already existing, candlesticks with unlighted candles may be introduced; where these are already found, they may be lighted at evensong; where so much is attained, the step to lighting them for the Eucharistic office is not a long one. Where the black gown is worn in the pulpit on Sundays, let it disappear in the week. The surplice will soon be preferred, and will oust its rival. It is easy for each reader to see that some advance, all in the same direction, can be made, and that without any offence taken,"

Now observe the point which I make with this illustration. I am not at all speaking concerning the particulars there referred to. I simply want to bring out the policy pursued by this body, not only witnessed to by this quotation, but acknowledged on all hands, that they are to go on by degrees, as we have seen them go on step by step, until they reach their end.

My brethren around me have been looking at the title of the book from which I have just read. I brought it here for convenience only, and the title is "Facts and Testimonies touching Ritualism," by Oxoniensis; and allow me to say, in order possibly to satisfy some doubt in the mind of my friend from Illinois (Mr. Otis), or to answer some question that may arise, that I have taken in nearly every instance the advice of the venerable Dr. Routh to one of his scholars, "always verify your references." They have been verified.

Now, I go on and ask what do I mean by Ritualism. I answer, first of all, symbolism which involves and teaches false doctrine, whether it be in ornaments or in ceremonies. I need not go into any specifications of this matter. We all know that of the elevation of the elements and the genuflections. In order to illustrate this point, allow me again to quote from this book. The quotation is from the examination before the Ritual Commissioners in 1867. The questions are asked by the Archbishop of Armagh :

"Is there any mysterious signification in the chasuble, or in wearing it? That is a question which involves doctrine. If I am to be launched into doctrine, of course that again will involve an immensely long discussion.

[blocks in formation]

"Then you think you offer a propitiatory sacrifice? Yes, I think I do offer a propitiatory sacrifice."

Now I say that here in this kind of Ritual we have certain acts which involve distinctly and inevitably doctrine. It has been said, for example, that the symbolism of incense does not involve doctrine; we have been told that it implies simply the ascending and the offering of prayer. If we read one of the great authorities on the subject of Ritual, a work entitled the "Ritual Reason Why," we have this distinct answer-I do not vouch for the correctness answer, observe-"We very often cense because we intend to signify and offer sacrifice." My reverend brother from Wisconsin may not hold that view; of course if he says so he does not hold it; I am speaking of the system, and I am speaking of the large number of men who hold that view. It is true they differ. They differ from the writers of the Old Testament that have been quoted. Then the simple answer is, so much the worse for the writers of the Old Testament !

of the use

in

What I mean by Ritualism is, again, where we have a correct and positive teaching, whether from the pulpit or in books, concerning Ritual and concerning Ritualistic devotion. Nay, Mr. President, I go further than this. I maintain that Ritualism is to be thwarted because it involves the adoption of a dress and ceremonial which has come to be regarded as the livery of the Church of Rome. I know the sneer which this brings out continually. If anything is essential to the truth, then I maintain that we are to hold it and to defend it against all the world; but certainly these things are not essential to the truth, and therefore being not essential I maintain that we have a right to consider the effect which they will have upon those of our Church who are using these forms of worship. The Roman Ritual is the true expression of Roman doctrine. If I believed, as the Romanist does, that Christ was corporeally present on the altar, locally there, then I hold that everything that can give grandeur and beauty, all physical expressions witnessing to a physical fact, are allowable, and not only allowable, but that they are within our bounden duty to provide and to observe. But this Ritual system, as I might again show from this work from the hands of a Ritualist in England, borrowed, and admittedly borrowed, from the Church of Rome in many of its ornaments and many of its ceremonies, means nothing with us, and can mean nothing with us, unless it means Roman doctrine. In other words, I maintain the one system is consistent in all its parts, and I maintain that the other is inconsist ent unless you hold the doctrine in the latter which is held in the former. You say that all this is not Roman but Catholic. I deny it, if the rule and test of Catholicity is the Canon of Vincent of Lerins.

But, Mr. President, what is the simple, natural effect of all this? I maintain it is to damage the Church and to bar its progress. I pass on, however, to consider certain objections which are made to any attempt to interfere with this new heresy in the Church. It is often said, "Let it alone; it will die out itself; do not agitate the Church." Very well, it is worth while to ask, in the first place, by whom this is said. I answer, first, by those clergymen and laymen who from their position are not brought directly into contact with the system, and know it only by mere rumor or hearsay. This is an honest objection, and I can understand it. I can understand how a large number of our clergy, scattered through the country, for the most part in humble parishes where simple tastes prevail, are uninformed concerning this Ritualism, and why they do not fear it. They suppose that it is simply,

as I have said, some mere matter of taste, something which belongs by natural right as well as ecclesiastical right to the individual, and therefore they do not see any necessity for legislation; but, dear brethren, the clergy in our large cities know that it is something more than mere taste. The clergy not infected with this doctrine here in the city of New York and in my own city of Philadelphia know that Ritualism is something more than a matter of mere taste. They know that it is in their parishes; that it breaks down their influence, that it thwarts their teaching, which they have all along believed to be the simple teaching of the Church. They know that it endeavors to draw away their children. They know it endeavors to bring their communicants out of the confines of their own parish to confession and to the reception of absolution in parishes to which they do not belong. Therefore, while this objection is an honest one, I do maintain that it is a mistaken one; and if there are any members of this House unwilling to touch this measure of legislation because they hold it is not worth while to interfere with Ritualism, then I tell them they are making a mistake, because they are not properly informed. But this cry of "Let it alone: do not agitate the Church is said also by Ritualists themselves and those in sympathy with them. If any member of this Convention should go to his home and find it broken into, the incendiary, the robber, the mur derer, entering into his chosen places, imperilling his family, what would he say? How much attention would he give to them if the robbers and the incendiaries were to cry, "Do not agitate the family; do not disturb the household"?

But it is further worth while to ask, How long are we to let this Ritualism alone?, Has Ritualism died out under being let alone? I know that it has not largely multiplied its churches in this country; but in the first place, as I have just said, it has spread its influence into parishes, creating disturbance and unrest, defying rectors and defying Bishops. In the next place it silently distributes and scatters abroad its poisonous literature. We all know, I suppose, the character of that literature. Allow me to read one or two passages in regard to it, taken from a work entitled The Invocation of Saints and Angels," edited by Rev. Orby Shipley, a man well known among Ritualists. Here we find these words:

"

"Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Ever-Virgin, through whose fulfilment of all righteousness thy Divine Son was circumcised, and became obedient to the Law for man-Pray for us."

I supposed the fulfilment of all righteousness belonged only to Christ; I have always been taught that that was His attribute; and yet here, under the teaching of this system which comes into my parish and defies all my efforts, are prayers not only addressed to "Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Ever-Virgin,' but I have this doctrine taught, that she also fulfilled all righteousness. That is one single illustration. another:

Take

"Grant, O Lord God, we beseech Thee, that we Thy servants may enjoy continual health of mind and body; and by the glorious intercession of Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, may be delivered from present sorrows and have the fountain of everlasting joy."

I ask you, is this the doctrine which we are prepared to receive into the Church? Are we to be inet with the argument "Let it alone; do not stop it"? So I might go on with an endless number of quotations gathered in this work, which would show the character of the literature which this system, though there be not one single member of this Convention attached to it, having its agents all around us, is endeavoring to propagate in the Church.

At all events remember-since the declaration of my brother from Wisconsin I almost feel inclined to leave out the words, but I utter them for what they are worth, inasmuch as others were concerned behind him and perhaps misunderstood him-doubtless did misunderstand him as I have misunderstood him this thing which we call Ritualism, which is not to be stopped, has grown stronger and so increased as almost to have obtained possession of two Dioceses in the Church.

as

But we are met with another objection. It is now the popular cry, we hear it on every side, “Toleration, Toleration." Truly this is a good thing, and, let it be confessed, not too common. I believe in toleration as much as any man. It is a good thing, I say, though it comes from strange lips and from strange quarters. The men who have been marked most intolerant in the Church, now when their hour of trial comes, raise this cry of "toleration." But I ask you to consider what is this thing which we call toleration? Toleration, like liberty itself, implies limitation. It is a question, after all, of limits. To attempt to put a limit to certain things is not to be intolerant in regard to them. Unlimited toleration, on the other hand, is the offspring of indifference and the mother of lawlessness. These men may talk now about toleration and peace, but we know the meaning of the words and the fact. It is to break down the walls of our Zion; it is to spread ruin on every side; it is to continue, while we have no legislation, strife and trouble. Solitudinum faciunt pacem appellant.

But it is said, again, we cannot legislate in this matter by Canon. This is the great argument. We have heard it urged by my reverend brother from Louisiana. We have heard it accepted by my reverend brother the Deputy from Alabama, who nas brought the Canon into this House. I ask

you, then, to consider this position in itself, that this Church cannot legislate concerning this matter by Canon. We cannot, it is true, change, add to, or take from the Prayer-Book or its Rubrics by Canon; but I do maintain that we can interpret and define, we can say what the Rubrics or the Prayers mean, and where their limitations are to come in.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts, in the chair). The gentleman's time has expired. ["Go on!" "Go on!"] It is moved that the Deputy from Pennsylvania have leave to proceed without reference to time.

Leave was granted.

Per

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. mit me, sir, to use an illustration in support of this view. As we all know, the last General Convention in the Upper House put forth in a Pastoral a declaration on the doctrine of the Baptismal Office. In other words, they did not add to the faith of the Church, but they did, as they had a right to do, define that faith; and I maintain if it was in the power of that Upper House, as I hold it was. thus in fact to legislate in this sense of the word "legislation," concerning doctrine, a fortiori, the whole General Convention has a right to define the Church's Rubrics in regard to this matter of Ritual. The Reverend Deputy from Alabama has told us that the only authority that can speak in this matter is the apostolic body; that the Bishops are the persons to speak; that we have not had and can have no authority. I believe that I have read somewhere of a primitive practice, "the apostles and brethren. But, after all, what does this objection really amount to? I ask you to observe the position, and what it really is. It comes to this: The General Convention has no power by Canon to forbid these hings manifestly and confessedly above and be

yond the Rubrics; but any single rector on his own individual motion has a right to use any or all of them as he pleases. But it is said you cannot legislate authoritatively. Doubtless, if a man chooses to evade the law, he can evade the law. I might read from this paper, did I not wish to spare the attention of the House, how from the lips of a Ritualist it can be shown how the law can be evaded. Any man can evade the law if he pleases, and yet there is an advantage of legislation, and there are many advantages. In the first place, this clear putting forth of the law rallies all loyal subjects and citizens. In the next place, it puts disloyalty at an open public disadvantage. When men enter upon these practices which teach, as we believe, false doctrine in the Church, and when they tell us, as we have heard to-day, that there is no definition, and therefore they are at liberty to do just as they please, and we meet them by this legislation, I say it puts them at once at disadvantage. In the third place, it rids this Church of ours of odium and responsibility. If, after it has declared itself, the individual members, whether clergy or laymen, choose to go on in their ways, then they stand rebels; the Church at least is free from the odium of their conduct. In the next place, it gives to the Bishops the necessary authority. And lastly, it gives to the rectors, and that is what I want, a clear line of action before them and the law behind them.

In almost every parish, in our larger parishes certainly, there is a certain restless element, usually the young, caught by the glitter of this new thing, carried away by the form of eccentricity, Won by the very newness of it, who are for ever endeavoring to force forward their rectors. It is sometimes urged that this whole matter of Ritualism is something to be laid at the doors of the clergy. It is to be laid in many cases at the doors of this little, restless, disloyal, turbulant, defiant faction. Just as they will plead for a Bishop provided their Bishop obeys, so they will stand by their rector provided the rector yields to their demands. If he does not, then certainly he will find trouble. Now, sir, I want this legislation for the sake of the rectors.

Lastly, we are threatened with the civil courts. There is a great deal that might be said on this matter looking at it from a simple legal aspect, but I have exhausted the patience of the House, and I will simply make this remark: The Church, I think, will take that risk.

Now, sir, I have done. I proposed to read some passages illustrative of the following remark, but I forbear. I for one am not ashamed to be called a Protestant, I am a Protestant because first of all I am a Catholic. Just as the germ of primitive doctrine was expanded in its expression to meet on this side and on that side the heretics of the early age, so out of this term "catholic" comes in this modern age as against Rome the necessity of this term "Protestant," and I repeat it, I am Protestant because I am Catholic. I maintain that I could not be Catholic if I were not Protestant. I am not one of those who sneer at the dark ages, when the darkness perhaps is, to a very considerable extent at least, in their own ignorance. I am willing to admit all the good that was done by the Church, its conservation of letters, its care of the poor, standing between the nobles of the feudal systein and those whom they endeavored to grind under their feet; but, sir, I am also not one of those laudatores temporis actis who are led to trust simply and solely in the past, and to deny the good of the present. Yes, sir, I'am Catholic and I am Protestant. I love this free air around us; I know what this liberal mind has done; and I am oppo; ed to Ritualism becausel conscientiously believe that this sys

tem-I am not speaking of individuals, God forbid --but this system, it is a fact, and it cannot be denied to be a fact, tends to carry us back, not to any possible good in the past, but to its false doctrine, to its bad ritual, and to its bad morals.

Mr. WHITTLE, of Georgia. It is with a great deal of diffidence that I bring myself to say a word on the subject, especially after following gentlemen of such eloquence and distinction. But believing, as I do, that this question is, of all questions that come before this House, peculiarly a question for the laity, I ask permission to say a few words on the subject.

move

I shall most heartily vote for this Canon as reported by the Committee in its present shape, although, as I indicated by a question I asked of the clerical gentleman from Alabama, I think it ought to be amended; but if the amendment is not submitted-and I shall not it-I will most heartily vote for the Canon as reported. Why do I say this? I must confess that it does not contain much which I hoped it might contain, and which I hoped the experience of the past few years would have caused the insertion of; but as a friend of mine said to me a short time ago, "At least, it squints in the right direction, and do not lose the whole by demanding too much at once." I heartily respond to this; but still I would much prefer that this Committee, if it were recommitted to them, would at least make to the laity one small concession. In the second section, instead of reading as it now does : "Or on complaint made to him, in writing, by two or more of his Presbyters," it would just drop out those last words, so as to read, "If any Bishop have reason to believe," etc. With that we should be content. I hope, at least, that such will be granted to the laity.

Now, if the reverend gentleman from Wisconsin were to guide the discussion, probably he would maintain that I was no proper person, according to my doctrines, to be a member of this Church, and that I should not be allowed to be here even as a layman. This Convention will probably be surprised when I avow myself here a Ritualist to all intents and purposes; a Ritualist of a certain sort, and only of a certain sort-a Ritualist who would stand by the Prayer-Book-for this reason above every other reason: that this Ritual has stood so long and so sturdily, and our Church is so adapted to it, that it is the Ritual of the Church which brings me more closely to it.

But what is it that the gentlemen claim as Ritual? Is it in truth and fact so? It is not something that the Prayer-Book calls so; it is not something that we, the common people, understand. Is it not directly in the teeth of our Twenty-fourth Article of Religion? That Article is very short, and I will read it :

"Article XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.

"It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people."

My objection to this thing, characterized as Ritual, is that it is preaching the Gospel, and everything that should be done in a plain tongue, in an unknown tongue to the people. We have been told, and most forcibly, that they teach to the young, to the ignorant, to the body of the people, more effectively by their acts than by their words. Mr. President, it is said God gave us the Gospel, but the father of lies gave us theology. [Laughter.] This, to all intents and purposes, is a question of theology. It is admitted by every one who has spoken to be a question of theology. Recollect, then, God being the

any

author of the Gospel, theology relies on the father of lies. I do not mean to say that theolOgy is a system of lies. God forbid that I should have any such notion as that-I mean false theology. What I say is, that take any system of and theology, how it is for easy Presbyter or Deacon, as things now stand in this Church, to preach falsehood without control! I am perfectly willing on this and almost every other subject to leave the matter either to the House of Bishops, or to a committee of the House of Bishops, or to a committee of the common body of the clergy of our Church, not taking the extremes on either side, to instruct the people on the subject of theology. In other words, if you have a limitation on all these rites and ceremonies, let us take it on the faith either of the Bishops or of а committee of the clergy, but let from have some guarantee not from the individual action of any Presbyter or Deacon, that the practices which he uses does not symbolize something that is unprovoked, that is wrong, but let us be certain that his practices are not such as disturb us, and that they are not so varied that when a man accustomed to worship in the Protestant Episcopal Church in one Diocese goes to another he has to hang his head in shame, for not understanding the service of his Mother Church

us

some

source,

For these reasons, while the Canon is not perfect, and while I would agree to some of the valuable suggestions of the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, I shall vote for it just as it is, and shall offer no amendment.

Mr. SHATTUCK, of Massachusetts. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, the distinguished Clerical Deputy from Wisconsin told you he believed that he was the only Clerical Ritualist in this House. I tell you now that I come before you as perhaps the only Lay Ritualist in this House, and yet I came to this Convention to I believe represent the Diocese of Massachusetts.

I am only here to represent the Church, the Broad Church, the High Church, the Low Church, and even the Ritualist I am allowed to speak for, and I may have been sent here because I think I know something about Ritualism.

a

never

Who is it that objects to Ritualism? Is it the New Yorkers? Where are the Ritualist churches in this country? They are here in New York, and what do we find here? We find two hundred gentlemen of New York praying that you will have no legislation on the subject. Sir, I heard that there was any Ritualism within thousand miles of I beVirginia. lieve there may be just one Ritualistic church in the whole of Maryland. There is but one so called in the whole of New England. There is one, I believe, in Philadelphia. I think these are all that exist. I do object to this way of combating the party, if it be so. I know something about RitualI ism. have been a in worshipper church called a Ritualistic church for four years, and yet I utterly deny that there is any such thing as a Ritualistic party. There are individuals, and among those who are called Ritualists there are a great many foolish individuals. Sir, I object wholly to the testimony of such a man as the Rev. Orby Shipley being brought here to represent the views of a party. He is a dilettante; He amuses he is no fixed clergyman of any cure. himself with translating Romish books of devotion, and making utterances of that sort to frighten people; but he represents no one.

I tell you I know something about Ritualism. I am a member of a free church, and have been for some years. That church was vacant Warden years ago, and, being Senior the Chairman of the Committee, it be

four and

a

« PreviousContinue »