everything he did? Yes; but because he could not make everybody else think and do just as he thought, he went off.

Now, I hope we are not going to puritanize this Church, and endeavor to put down laws and rules, and endeavor to make these narrow restrictions. I glory in this Church, coming to it from a sect, because it is the Catholic Church, and there is nothing that pleases me more in it, and edifies me more in it, than in being associated with persons who differ from me in particular points.

Gentlemen have spoken of extreme Bishops. Sir, we had an extreme Bishop in Massachusetts, who was my personal friend during the whole time, and I owe the greatest obligations to him personally. I consider that, if there is any circumstance for which I ought devoutly to thank God, it is that I had for my Bishop, for my pastor, and for my personal friend, a man of extreme opinions, and who differed from me very widely in many things; and much more, I say for the pastor of the only Ritualistic church in all New England, that I know that Bishop Eastburn knew of its existence, and that Bishop Eastburn was after all its principal benefactor by the course he pursued. I do not think there was a church in all Massachusetts which parted from its Bishop, when death removed him, with so much regret as did that Ritualistic Church of the Advent.

Now with regard to this mode of putting down and restraining doctrine, I tell you it will not succeed. Come to Boston, as I hope you will, and we will teach you a little Ritualism. You may ask what is the highest point in Boston. What is that spire? I will tell you it is architecturally known as the tooth-pick spire, from resemblance to that instrument: but that is a Baptist meeting-house; and its spire is the highest point in all Boston. -you may ask who are the Baptists, and I tell you those Baptists are the men whom my ancestors flogged with the whip at the cart's tail and drove over to Rhode Island, and in Rhode Island they have multiplied and grown, and now they have come back and occupy the highest point in Boston. I will take you to Cambridge and show you the largest place of worship there. It is a stone Baptist meeting-house in the very school of their persecutors, and you will ask, "What

is this large cathedral; what are all these numerous buildings?" Those are Roman Catholic Churches, Roman Catholic convents and schools, and the Roman Catholics are the largest denomination in all Boston, and those are the men whom we would not allow to worship God in Boston, and we made them, in all sorts of weather, if they wanted to perform the rites of their religion, go down twelve miles into the Harbor on an island there; and after all the pains we took, they have come back and are the largest denomination in Boston to-day.

Then, sir, I could tell you a little piece of the history of the modern reign of Puritanism. That is the way you would deal with Ritualists now. There came a Pennsylvania Ritualist into Massachusetts about twenty-five years ago. He was born and bred in Pennsylvania. He was nurtured in Maryland, and that, perhaps, is the reason why the Clerical Deputy from Maryland is SO anxious for a Canon on this subject. He came to Massachusetts, bringing with him a kind of fever and ague or malaria from there, and went to a church there. The sign of the cross was identified with Popery twenty years ago, and he had the great imprudence on Christmas Day to put up in the decorations of the church a cross made of holly; and he never entered that church again. He was turned out ignominously. The Wardens and the Vestry took his robes and put them on a

he

we

wheel-barrow, and got them out the back-door, and he was driven away in poverty in the middle of winter. Then it was that I made his acquaintance. Under such circumstances it was that his wife, the niece of one of the most honored clergymen in this Church, the daughter of a former Mayor of Philadelphia, gave birth to a son who lingered only two or three years and then died. That wife lived some ten or twelve years after, but always a miserable invalid. He then undertook a church ministration to the seamen and the poor in a certain part of the city. We gave him more discipline than that, let him start his church, and after he had got it going, and had got a committee of the Convention to act on his application, and all was going on well, we turned him out. We said he did not tell the truth. He was a man who saw things with rather a roseate hue. I never knew him to complain of this, or to lose heart; but he was turned out from that charge. It did not discourage him. He went to work again. His friends supported him, and for fifteen or twenty years he ministered most acceptably among the poor. He commanded the confidence of Unitarians and Congregationalists, who gave him money. He went about and supported himself on the alms of the people; and when he came to dieI was with him at the time-he was so poor that we could not find enough decent clothes in his wardrobe to bury him; and yet when he died he left a property of thirty-five thousand dollars to his church securely in its hands, so that it is a free church-a church for the poor. The church got the benefit of his labor. My friends from Pennsylvania, and my friends from Maryland, if you have any more such Ritualists, send them to us in Massachusetts, and we can do better with them than they can in Connecticut. We always think ourselves in Massachusetts a little ahead of Connecticut. We will take better care of them, and we can assure you we will make very good use of them.

now

will

be

I have only to say in conclusion that with all this experience of trying to drive away error from the Church, it is my belief that the wheat and the tare should grow up together. They separated at the end of the harvest. It seems to me that the opinion of Gamaliel is good in these times, and may be applied to Ritualists: "Refrain from these men and let them alone, for if this work be of man it will surely come to naught."

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. Mr. President, I propose to confine myself entirely to the legal aspects of this case, and not to the theological. You will observe, gentlemen, that the discussion is very much narrowed down. In the first place, under this report it is limited entirely (and I wish

to

I

call attention particularly to that fact), to the symbolizing of erroneous and doubtful doctrine in the administration of the Lord's Supper. Gentlemen seem to lose sight of that. want to call attention to that fact at the outset. Now, it is admitted on all hands, I am glad it is, that the symbolizing of erroneous and doubtful doctrine ought to be stopped, and that the Canon to that extent is unobjectionable.

It is admitted, further, by nearly every speaker, that the mode of dealing with it which we have indicated-by the admonition of the Bishop-is the right mode. One gentleman, it is true, has said to us that he prefers an ecclesiastical trial. Gentlemen, do you prefer an ecclesiastical trial? Do my brethren of the bar prefer an ecclesiastical trial? Nine times out of ten in an ecclesiastical trial-you know it and 1 know it-the remedy is worse thau the disease. The best thing about this Canon is that it gets rid of ecclesiastical trials and puts this question in the hands of the Bishops of this Church; and

if we are to have any Bishops in this Church, what can they deal with if they cannot deal with false doctrine?

One gentleman asks, Why do you not let the laity make complaint? Why is it that you limit the right of complaint to Presbyters? For this reason; that if any Bishop hesitates to do his duty, there can probably be found two Presbyters in this Diocese to hold him to it. That is the reason we put that in. But do we wish every layman, every man that has a crotchet in his head-and the laity have crochets in their heads, as you know-to be getting up and pushing this question in the face of his Bishop and his minister every day? Not at all. We put safeguards about that thing.

There is one other matter that was referred to, and it was the meaning of the word "doubtful" in the clause as to the Bishops adinonishing for the symbolizing of erroneous or doubtful doctrine. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Rev. Dr. De Koven] made a point on that. He said this word “doubtful" should not have been used, that "erroneous and strange doctrines" should be pointed at. As I understood the connection, the word “doubtful" here means substantially what the word strange would mean; and I see no appreciable difference between them, and I think my brethren of the bar will agree with me. But what is it that we aim at If a man wishes to preach doubtful doctrine in this Church, let him preach it like a man, and if I hear it or you hear it, Iet us answer it like men, and we know what we are about; but this symbolizing of doubtful doctrine, this insinuating of doubtful doctrine to men, women, and children who are not in the habit of discussing these matters, that tends to make a lodgment and that you cannot answer, is what we aim at. If a man wishes to preach doubtful doctrine in this Church, let him do it; but let him do it openly by word of mouth and not by symbols. I say the word is rightly there.

I desire to say, gentlemen, that substantially this far we are agreed in reference to this Canon. These criticisms are minor criticisms. If you agree as to the substance of this thing, you are not going to defeat it on any of the grounds to which I have referred. They are merely incidental; they do not touch the substance of the matter. But now we come to a point that needs discussion. It is as to the specifications to which gentlemen object -incense, the crucifix, etc. Why, says the gentleman from Wisconsin, incense is a delightful thing; there is no harm in incense; incense means prayer: and he quotes the literal language of the Scripture as part of his argument. I might quote the literal language of the Scripture as part of my argument, if I did not deem it unworthy of this occasion to attempt to influence this body by it. I might say that Jehovah Himself said, under certain circumstances, that incense was an abomination to Him; but I would not deem that appropriate to this argument at all.

What is the meaning of incense in connection with the administration of the Lord's Supper? That is the point. Incense is external. We deal with an indwelling presence in this Church. We do not like externalism. Incense is material; we deal with the spiritual. Incense in the Romish Church is used in the celebration of the Mass. Why? Does it mean nothing? Is the Romish Church in the habit of dealing with things that are meaningless in its service? What says the voice of history? What is incense in history? What was it among the Greeks and Romans! It was the localizing of the Divine Presence, before which this act of adoration was done. So it is among heathen nations, in China to-day. How was it among the Jews to whom my friend referred ? Incense

was offered in the Temple. Why? Because the Shekinah was in the Temple. That is the reason. It was the localizing of the Divine Presence there. This is the point. Now, if in the administration of the Holy Communion incense is used as a part of in the Protestant Episcopal Church? That is the your service, does it not symbolize doubtful doctrine point.

Next as to the crucifix. The gentleman has referred to the language of our Saviour: "It is expedient that I should go away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come; but if I go away I will send the Comforter to you." "I must go away. Why? Because that Spirit cannot come while this external presence is here calling off the worshipper to the external, even though it be the God manifest in Christ I must go away. It is expedient that I go away in order that the Spirit may do my work better. Man communing with God; man walking with God; man becoming like God--that is the mission of the Spirit to which all the other was preliminary; and it was for our benefit that He withdrew His glorious presence in order that this spiritual presence might do its work in the heart of man.

Am

I not right in this? But what say these gentlemen ? It was expedient that this glorious presence should withdraw, but it is expedient that we should put within the chancels of our churches, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, a caricature of His presence! Tell this Church that that is needed for the adoration of its children! Gentlemen, that will not do.

on

Now, what is the feeling of this Church throughout all the length and breadth of this land in reference to these matters. Suppose that this Convention, expressly or impliedly, were to give voice to the opinion that incense in the administration of the Holy Communion is admissible, and Christmas next, throughout all the length and breadth of this land, when we come forward to the celebration of the Lord's Supper and present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God, surpliced boys enter these chancels and wave the censer, what do you suppose the effect in this Church would be? I ask you, gentlemen. I do not know what it would be here m New York; I cannot tell but throughout this whole continent west of this city, if that one thing was authorized and it was understood that this Church had committed itself deliberately to it, I know well that it would break up this Church, and this Convention would never sit again. You would not have to discuss the question whether there could be a Church without a Bishop; but you would have to discuss the question whether there should be Bishops without a Church. There is no mistake about this. It may seem strange to many living under different influences; but there is no mistake about it. I appeal to my brethren without any distinction of Church, High or Low, and I say here that I have just as much faith in my High Church brethren on a question affecting the life of this Church as I have in my Low Church brethren.

Well, how is it with authority on this subject ? We have the authority of the Committee on Canons of the Lower House unanimously, and in the House of Bishops we have the authority of the Committee on Canons. We have other authority, some of which has been read. I think, therefore, on the point of authority we stand pretty firm; but there is one legal aspect of this case which I think relieves it of all possible difficulty, and to that I wish to call the attention of my brethren, particularly of

the bar.

If I understand this matter, suppose that it were found, as is claimed by the gentleman from Wiscon

If he

sin, that we have made a specification here that is erroneous and ought not to be here, that incense is admissible in this Church in the administration of the Holy Communion, and that the crucifix is admissible in this Church in the administration of the Holy Communion, then I ask, gentlemen, what harm have we done? The Bishop to whom this matter comes says: "You have made a mistake, gentlemen; I cannot interefere with this matter on account of this incense," and he so decides. decides incorrectly under this Canon, he can be tried for not carrying out the provisions of this Canon. Then what? It comes to the House of Bishops, and they are called upon judicially to determine the constitutionality and legality of this enact ment. What harm is done? Every lawyer knows that this happens all the time where a penal enactment is decided finally to be unconstitutional, and therefore is null. It does no harm; no man is injured. You simply give an opportunity for the judicial tribunals to try the question, and if they decide it against you, by and by down from the House of Bishops comes a message to that they have had before them the subject of incense and the subject of the crucifix, and that they find that their use does not symbolize doubtful doctrines in the administration of the Lord's Supper at all, and the American Church therefore recognize them as part of her instrumentalities. If they tell us that, let us know it. Then we will discuss the proposition whether in some way we cannot express our sentiments in regard to the matter.

us

So much in regard to these points that have been referred to. Now, gentlemen, it is very strange to me that our friends do not know that this Church is a Reformed Church, a Church of the English Reformation, and that the name "Protestant" is a tolerably important matter to us. It is strange to me that they do not appreciate this fact. Even the Reformers are attacked in this Church. They are vilified and ridiculed martyrs, men who died for the principle for which we are contending to-day are ridiculed in this Church by men who call themselves Protestant Episcopalians; and I think, by these gentlemen, a man is considered a demagogue who stands up in a community and says one word in favor of Cranmer, Cromwell, and Ridley, who went to the stake for this Church. Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. well? Not Oliver?

What Crom

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. I mean the Cromwell who preceded Latimer, not Oliver Cromwell.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Lord Cromwell, the Chancellor of Henry VIII. ?

Mr. ANDREWS, of Ohio. No, the one who preceded Latimer. I am not speaking of Oliver Cromwell at all. The gentleman from Illinois told me that in Oxford he visited the spot where Cranmer died, and he said that he wept when he stood over the marble slab that covered the place where he suffered. He thought of the time when the name of Protestant was given to the English Church, and thought of the baptism in which that name was given, a baptism that deluged a whole generation of Churchmen in blood. He stood in the presence of history, and when the story was brought before his mind he said the tears stood in his eyes. Gentlemen, that had a meaning; it was not without a meaning. It looked to the future. When the martyr stepped into his chariot of fire, he left his mantle behind him. Free government, free conscience, freedom of thought-these are the treasures we have to-day. This Convention meets under the shadow and the protection of these principles, for which these men died. Thousands upon thousands stand up to-day and say that they

will be true to these principles, and, if need be, die for them.

I am amazed at the course gentlemen take, considering the condition of things in this country. What is the condition of things here? Your professional classes, a majority of them-your lawyers, your physicians, your successful business classes-have the clergy much influence over them? I put it to you-have you much influence over them as a class? Are not the vast majority of them out of your reach ? Your educated young men that come out of your colleges, have you much influence over them? Are they not drifting to indifferentism? The populations of your cities, how many of them attend upon your services? On an average not one-fifth are within the range of the clergy probably. These are serious matters. Sidney Smith said that the clergy of the Church of England had not more influence over the people of England than the cheese-mongers of England. That was an exaggerated statement there, and it would be here; but the influence of the clergy has been reduced in this country very much. It is certainly at a very low point, and it is doubtful whether it is increasing, and yet I am inclined to think it is.

The classes to which I have referred seem to be taking scientific truth rather than theological truth for their guide.

When things are in this condition, when this country is in such a state as this, and these gentlemen stand in the presence of this civilization of ours and undertake to deal with this people, what do they say? Why, they stand up in the presence of all these difficulties, and they say, What you need for the Church is a little pictureteaching, just as we give to our children." They put their hand on the pulse of this continent, and they feel it beating, beating, beating with incessancy with its current of wonderful life, and they say the only thing necessary is to give the people a few more types and symbols and all will be well! That does not amaze me. Have these gentlemen read history? Did not the Jews have types and symbols? Did they not have Divine types and symbols? Every day when the lamb was sacrificed for a thousand years did it not typify the Great Sacrifice? Was it not intended to teach them that when the Lamb of God came they should know him? And yet when He came they knew Him not and crucified Him. What was the effect on the character of the people of types and symbols? We know very well what it was. They were Scribes and Phariseeshypocrites.

Gentlemen, I have but a few more words to say. It has been supposed that this Church had no convictions on this subject. That is a great mistake. It has been supposed that this Church had no convictions because this Church is not swift to mark what is done, because sentence upon an evil work is not executed speedily, because this Church is patient, long-suffering, gentle. On one side of the line we have men leaving us, and people say, "You are drifting into Popery; you are indifferent to it." On the other end of the line men say, "We introduce what services and practices we please into the administration of the Lord's Supper, and the General Convention does not rebuke us, and the Bishops are silent." Therefore men infer that we have no convictions on this subject. Now, gentlemen, I appeal to you, have we not made up our minds on this subject; have we not as a Church made up our minds that the evil at which this Canon aims shall cease? I think we have. I do not mean that this Canon in your judgment is entirely perfect. Every man must judge for himself whether this method is the best; but the fact I do say I believe is undoubted that you have made up

not a Ritualist, who does not love to see God's house what it ought to be, who does not love to hear music as good as we have here, if it can be had. Who does not love to have everything that adds to the sacredness of worship and helps him to lift his heart to God therein? It is not Ritualism-that is a very unfortunate name-it is Romanism that we are trying to get rid of; and we may as well understand it and call things by their right names. It is not Ritualism; it is Romanism.

Another thing in the same direction I desire to get out of the way. I think it is very wrong that these gentlemen should be called "Advanced Churchmen." I never in my life supposed that a man who was going back, retrograding, was a man who was leading in the advance. No, sir; if there be an advanced party in the Church to-day, I contend that it is the Broad Church party, who, when they shall get to be as broad as they are deep, will lead the Church on a path where Catholicity will be practical and Christian unity will be possible.

But now, sir, let us come to a simple commonsense view of the case. I take it that I state what is plainly evident when I say that Protestantism and Romanism are two absolutely different things: that when at the Reformation the Protestants separated from the Romanists, they did like the Egyptians passing out of Egypt, passing through the Red Sea, and, being baptized in blood, came out with that name of Protestants. There is, therefore, a wall built up between the two-a wall that is growing broader, and stronger, and deeper, and higher every day, for, depend upon it, the division between Protestantism and Romanism is getting stronger every day in spite of all the things we hear. That wall is far higher to-day than it was in the days of the Reformation. That wall stands between Protestantism and Romanism an impassable barrier, erected there by the common sense of mankind. Romanism feels that it is there and knows it. Protestantism feels that it is there and knows it. But now, what do we find? We find these men endeavoring to pull that wall down. We find them -to-day on this side, and to-morrow on that; now a Protestant, now performing Roman Catholic rites. It puts me in mind of a story of a young collegian at Cambridge, in England, I think it was one who was well posted up in Greek and Latin, but who had not paid much attention to natural science; and upon his examination he was asked whether the sun moved around the earth, or whether the earth moved around the sun; and being somewhat embarrassed, he replied that it was sometimes one and sometimes the other. [Laughter.] That is the condition of these gentlemen.

At the Reformation, what was it? Did the Reformers object only to the abuses of Romanism?— for that is what these gentlemen seem to think. No, sir; it was to the uses; it was to the root of the tree that bore these fruits; and there is where think this Committee so lamentably fail: they do not go to the root of the matter, but are willing to take one of the extremities. Was it simply the selling of indulgences, for instance, that the Reformers objected to? No, sir, it was the underlying Confessional and the underlying thing at the root of that, which was priestcraft in the Church of Rome. Happily the Reformation divided upon that point. Rome held her priestcraft; Protestantism took her ministers. no sense can one of her ministers be called a priest in the sense of the Church of Rome; and you know very well that our office of Presbyter does not mean any such thing. No, sir: we have the Presbyter; the Church of Rome has the sacrificing priest. The Presbyter simply points the sinner to the Saviour: clears every obstruction from his path, but in no way undertakes to stand

In

between the Saviour, and obstruct the way of the sinner to him. The reformers objected not only to the abuses, but to the root of the thing. So here go down to the root, and what do you find? You find that this matter of priest-craft is the very root of the whole evil. These gentlemen do not seem to be very logical. That good brother who spoke yesterday afternoon seemed to be in a profound mist, from which I think it should be the good office of us, his Christian brethren, to bring him out into the daylight, to bring him out from that tabernacle which he talked about, up into the Church of the living God; to bring him out of the darkness of the old dispensation into the sunshine of God's free grace. Therefore, I contend that the Episcopal Church has no priest in the sense of a sacrificing priest, and that is what the word defines it to be. We have no priests in that sense; neither have we any altar in the sense of an altar whereon a sacrifice is made. How can you make an altar of a table? And yet it is the table that is to be covered with a fair linen cloth. The sacrifice, as the good brother was ingenuous enough to say here yesterday afternoon, was one of praise and thanksgiving. Yes. that is it; and that is all it is.

Now, sir, if the Committee had taken hold of this thing in the sense in which the conscience of this Church understands it-for I tell you they are all alive to it-there would have been no difficulty: we should gladly have taken their Canon. But it does not deal with it; it blinks the matter, and when it shall go out to the world, there will be a general feeling of dissatisfaction. The people will ask, "Is that all you can do, in view of the dreadful condition in which the Church has been thought to be liable to lapse?" Let me read from a book that is put into the hands of young peo ple now to prepare for the Lord's Supper, printed in this very city in this very year. read from the "Rules for the Guidance of Communicants :"

"At the Prayer of Consecration commences the most solemn part of the Office. Up to this point Christ is not objectively present, but at the words, "This is my body'-'This is my blood,' Christ is really present upon the altar, under the form of Bread and Wine. Then the Faithful should bow in reverent adoration before their Lord.

"Remember"-it goes on-"we are then in the immediate Presence of our Lord, as truly present as He is in heaven, only that there He will be seen without the Sacramental Veil."

Then it goes on to state the order in which those present shall commune, and one thing most astonishing in that the men, is said, shall communicate separately from the women. Then it proceeds:

"In going up to Communion genuflect as you reach the Chancel. If then the rail is full, kneel on the floor till there is a vacant place. On taking your place at the rail kneel on the appointed step or cushion, and upright.

"Receive the Lord's Body upon the palm of your right hand crossed over your left so as to make a kind of throne for it, and so reverently raise it to your mouth. Be careful to examine your hand lest any fragment remain therein, in which case you must take it up with your tongue, since every particle contains equally the whole body of your Lord, and, as St. Cyril says, 'How carefully oughtest thou to observe that not a crumb falls from thee of that which is more precious than gold and precious stones!" 1999

That is enough. In view of that, I think that this proposed Canon of the Committee goes only half way. Why should we not deal with this thing as honest men-as men of common sense, who know what is the fact out of doors, who know the scandal that has come upon the