Page images
PDF
EPUB

of Bishops. It is only changed a little in form in order to comply with the requisitions of the Canor 4 on that subject. I move that this resolution be adopted by the House.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I should like to have that considered before its adoption. It is a very important matter to us Presbyters.

Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I desire to know what is the extent of the change effected. I hope that the gentleman who made the report will explain what change is made in the section.

[ocr errors]

Rev. Dr. WÄTSON, of North Carolina. The change made is in the first section of the Canon. It is on page 89 of the Digest. At present I believe the words in the fifth line are The parties, or either of them, may make application to the Bishop of the Diocese, who shall thereupon." The change, and the only change, is this, "May refer the matter to the Bishop of the Diocese, who may thereupon." That is all.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. It gives the Bishop a discretion?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. Makes it more discretionary; that is the whole change. I move the adoption of the resolution.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I object to the adoption of it, and therefore it must go on the Calendar.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be placed on the Calendar.

CANON ON RITUAL.

A message (No. 63) from the House of Bishops announced that that House concurred in Message No. 48 from the House of Deputies, with the following amendments:

"1st. Strike out in Subsection 1 of the proposed additional Section 2, to be added to Canon 20, Title I., the words, 'not ordained or authorized in the Book of Common Prayer, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines,' and insert in their stead the words, which set forth or symbolize erroneous or doubtful doctrines, and ceremonies, and practices, not ordained or authorized by the Book of Common Prayer.'

"2d. Strike out in the same Subsection 2 all those words enclosed within parentheses, beginning with the words, and, as examples,' and ending with the words, Book of Common Prayer,' being the following words:

(And, as examples, the following are declared to be considered as such :

"a. The use of incense.

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

"c. The Elevation of the Elements in the Holy Communion in such manner as to expose them to the view of people as objects toward which adoration is to be made.

"d. Any act of adoration of or toward the Elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowing, prostrations, genuflections, and all such like acts not authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer."

"3d. Strike out in the second subsection of said proposed Section 2, of Canon 20, Title I., the word by in the third line of said Subsection 2, and insert in its stead the words 'or that.'

"4th. Insert in the fourth line of the same Subsection 2, after the words 'authorized as aforesaid ' the words have been introduced.""

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that the message be referred to the Committee on Canons.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I second that, with a motion that they be requested to report as soon as possible, and have leave to sit during the session of the House.

The motion was agreed to.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE.

A message (No. 64) from the House of Bishops announced the adoption by that House of the following resolution :

Resolved (the House of Deputies concurring), That the following clause be added to Section 1, of Canon 1, of Title III., of the Digest:

"[4] The rules of order of the House of Deputies shall be in force in the ensuing General Convention, until the organization thereof, and until they be amended or repealed by the said House."

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. If I understand that, the House of Bishops merely concur in our rules of order. I move, therefore, that we concur in that message.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I ask that it go on the Calendar.

The SECRETARY. It is already on the Calendar. The motion is too late.

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. to concur.

I move

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I object to that at this time, and I will state my reasons at the proper time.

The PRESIDENT. Objection is made. The message goes on the Calendar.

DISSOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONNECTION. Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. I submit the following report:

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was recommitted their report No. 4, relating to Canon 4, Title II., 'Of Differences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection,' respectfully report that they have reconsidered the same, and recommend the adoption of the amendments to the said Canon contained in the following resolution :

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 4, of Title II., 'Of Differences between Ministers and their Congregations, and of the Dissolution of a Pastoral Connection,' be amended so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. The five Presbyters thus designated shall constitute a Board of Reference to consider such controversy; and shall meet in the city or county in which such rector or assistant minister lives, or elsewhere, as the parties may agree. It shall be the duty of such Board to adjust, if possible, the differences without dissolving the connection between the rector or assistant minister and the vestry or congregation; and for this purpose the Board is empowered to recommend terms of settlement; and if, after hearing such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters, the whole Board being present, shall be of opinion that there is no favorable termination of such controversy, and that a dissolution of the connection between such rector or assistant minister and his parish or congregation is necessary to restore the peace of the church and promote its prosperity, such Presbyters shall recommend to the Bishop that such minister shall be required to relinquish his connection with such church or parish, on such conditions as may appear to them proper and reasonable, including the adjustment of all pecuniary claims between the parties.

"Sec. 3. If the Bishop approve the recommendation of the Presbyters, and if the rector or assistant minister refuse to comply with the requirement of the Bishop and Presbyters, made in pursuance of such recommendation, the Bishop shall proceed to forbid him the exercise of any ministerial functions within the Diocese, until he shall retract his refusal; and if he persist in his refusal, it shall be the duty of the Bishop to dissolve the connection between the said rector and vestry or congregation; or if the vestry or congregation shall

refuse to comply with any such recommendation, they shall not be allowed any representation in the Diocesan Convention until they shall have retracted their refusal."

Now let me state in brief what changes are made: "The five Presbyters thus designated shall constitute a Board of Reference to consider such controversy."

So far, it is as the Canon now reads. Now comes the change:

"And shall meet in the city or county in which such rector or assistant minister lives, or elsewhere, as the parties may agree."

That is to fix the venue and make it not too inconvenient or impracticable for the poor minister, who, in one instance, has been called two hundred or three hundred miles away. Then this is also inserted:

"It shall be the duty of such Board to adjust, if possible, the differences without dissolving the connection between the rector or assistant minister and the vestry or congregation; and for this purpose the Board is empowered to recommend terms of settlement."

In order that this Board may not be constituted merely to consider the dissolution of the connection, but if possible to sustain it by mediation between the parties. Then the Canon proceeds just as at present, excepting at the close, where it is provided that in making terms those terms may include the adjustment of all pecuniary claims between the parties.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. May I ask a question? I see that you have a kind of verdict provided for. Have you also provided by a change in the Canon that those who last give their verdict shall have heard all the evidence? Is that provided for?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. That is provided for.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I did not hear it.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. "If after such allegations and proofs as the parties may submit, a majority of the Presbyters, the whole Board being present," etc.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Does it require that every member shall be present?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. "A majority of the Presbyters, the whole Board being present.'

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. At the verdict, but not at the hearing of the evidence. Let the report go on the Calendar.

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. This has refer ence to the offer of the use of the Church for the whole Convention.

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. I beg pardon. Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. The Chair is my authority for saying that he had a correspondence some time ago on this subject, and it is at his suggestion that I have added this addition to the resolution. I move the passage of the resolution. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

LECTIONARY FOR LENT, ETC.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I suggest that we go regularly to the Calendar. I move to take it up. The motion was agreed to.

The SECRETARY. The first business on the Calendar is the report of the Joint Committee to prepare a new Lectionary for week days in Lent; and in connection therewith there is a message from the House of Bishops.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. I move to pass that by until the Committee on Canons return. That is an important matter. That Committee, one of the most important committees of the House, is in session by leave of the House. I move to pass this by until they return.

The motion was agreed to.

EPISCOPATE IN NEW DIOCESES.

The next business on the Calendar was the report of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, made on the fifteenth day of the session, respecting the requirement of a fund for the support of the Episcopate, which report submitted the following resolutions for the action of the House:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Fifth Article of the Constitution be amended by striking out the following words, and such consent shall not be given by the General Convention, until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese.'

"Resolved, That such amendment be notified to the several Diocesan Conventions, in accordance with the Ninth Article of the Constitution, so that the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next General Convention."

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I ask that the report of the Committee be read. That is the best speech which can be made on the subject.

The Secretary read as follows:

"The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, to whom was referred the Memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee, asking for an Amendment of Article V. of the Constitution by omitting the The PRESIDENT. The resolutions will be placed words, and such consent shall not be given by the on the Calendar.

RESOLUTION OF THANKS.

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. I ask the privilege of offering a resolution which I think will cause no discussion and will pass unanimously. If there be any question in regard to the latter portion of the resolution it can be explained in a single moment.

"Resolved, That this Convention tenders its cordial thanks to the Churchmen of New York, for their generous hospitality, and especially to the corporation of Trinity Church for daily entertainment, and the ample accommodations provided for the transaction of business and other acts indicative of their liberality. Also it desires to express its obligations to the rector, wardens, and vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Trinity for the kind and disinterested offer of their Church for the use of the Convention."

Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. We have already done that. We returned our thanks for their courteous offer yesterday evening.

[ocr errors]

General Convention until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese,' respectfully report that the clause proposed to be omitted stand as a limitation upon the right of creating any new Diocese from one, or more than one, of the existing Dioceses of this Church. It is a restriction of recent origin, having been first proposed as a Constitutional Amendment by the General Convention of 1868, and ratified by the Convention of 1871. It has therefore been a part of the law of the Church for only three years. The Memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee set forth, as we believe truly, that its necessary operation is to obstruct and delay the proper work of the Church in many parts of the country. There are large Dioceses, especially in the Southern and Southwestern States, coincident in boundary with those States, over the whole of which Episcopal supervision and ministration is practically impossible, and yet when the Church is so feeble, and the poverty of the people so great, as to render the creation of a fund or endowment for the support

of a new Episcopate impracticable for the time being. Our construction of the clause in question is that it requires such an endowment sufficient for the support of a Bishop to be actually raised, or at least securely provided for.

"In the judgment of the Committee the policy of this restraint is more than questionable. It seems to us more careful of the dignity of the Episcopate than of the spread of the Church or the salvation of the souls of men. Under a different policy, our Church, from a feeble beginning, has grown with the expansion of our Episcopate until we have forty-one Dioceses, while more are needed, or will soon be needed, to carry forward its beneficent work. We begin to feel already the check imposed upon her growth by a constitutional restraint, which requires an endowment first to be raised when a Church can hardly be said to exist. shall more nearly conform to the missionary spirit of our Church, more truly follow the law of her development, if we first build her up in the destitute places of our land. Endowment will follow an Episcopate, but cannot precede it, except in regions where the Church Communion is already strong, both in numbers and wealth.

We

"Of the forty-one Dioceses now existing, there are very few in which the Episcopate is supported by the income of an adequate fund. If we refer the enquiry to our whole Church, we shall find that the chief basis of support is parish assessment and contribution. If this be so, the question is full of significance: What would now be the condition of the American Church if, in her infancy, the law of her growth had been reversed by a constitutional limitation, like the one now in question? The support of a new Episcopate is essentially a matter of civil contract between the Bishop-elect and the people who call him to be their Chief Pastor, and we see no sufficient reason for restraining their action by organic law. The elected Bishop, who is chiefly concerned in the question, may have the means of self-support, and if, with the zeal of a Peter or a Paul, a Wilson or a Selwyn, he is ready to carry the message of his Divine Master where it is most needed, ought we to arrest his steps by a law which certainly would have a strange significance in Apostolic days? Or, he also may be poor and yet willing to share the poverty of those to whom he is sent, relying on them to provide for humble wants, and relying yet more on the sustaining power of Divine Providence.

"The Committee recommend to the House the adoption of the following resolutions:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Fifth Article of the Constitution be amended by striking out the following words, and such consent shall not be given by the General Convention, until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese.'

"Resolved, That such amendment be notified to the several Diocesan Conventions, in accordance with the Ninth Article of the Constitution, so that the same may be agreed to or ratified by the next General Convention.

(Signed) "CHARLES H. HALL, Chairman." Mr. THOMPSON, of Tennessee. I move the adoption of the resolution.

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Before the resolutions are adopted, I have something to say. It will be found that prior to the introduction of the change which was made in 1868, there was another restraint put upon the endless multiplication of Dioceses, divisions and subdivisions interminable, and that provision was:

"No such new Diocese shall be formed which shall contain less than fifteen self-supporting parishes, or less than fifteen Presbyters, who have been at least

one year canonically resident within the bounds of such new Diocese."

It was thought that this was requiring too large a number of Presbyters, and too large a number of self-supporting Parishes, and, therefore, the number was reduced, as will be seen by the next clause of the Fifth Article, as it now stands, to six self-supporting Parishes and six Presbyters. But as a set-off to this great reduction of the number of Parishes and Presbyters, it was found absolutely necessary, in order to sustain the dignity of the office or to secure suitable provision for a Bishop who might be elected and then left without support, and be in a worse position than a parish minister, to introduce this provision, to which objection is now made: "Until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese."

Strike that out and where are you? Any Diocese may be subdivided so that there are only six parishes and six Presbyters in a new Diocese that may be erected. Are you prepared to allow that without the assurance of a support for the Bishop, and will it be possible for six parishes and six Presbyters to support suitably the Episcopate? Have we any assurance that they will be able to continue to exist as self-supporting parishes, even if they are such at the time they make the application?

con

Look at the article which exists in our Constitution as it stands before us in the Journal of 1871. I happen to be the Chairman of the Committee on New Dioceses, and I am able to state what interpretation that Committee-after mature deliberation, after a full discussion, in which we all harmonized -put upon this provision: "Until it has satisfactory assurance of a suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the templated new Diocese." We all know the fact that the large Diocese of Virginia has not one dollar of Episcopal fund, that it prefers not to have a dollar of fund, for various and, as we conceive, good and substantial reasons, the first being that we deem it a matter of principle that each generation should supply itself with the means of grace. "The laborer is worthy of his hire"-from whom? From the ancestors of those to whom he ministers ? edly not. We therefore make provision that each year the then communicants of the Church shall contribute ratably one dollar apiece; the parishes are assessed, but the rate is according to the number of communicants. The result is not a particle of difficulty in raising enough for the support of our Bishops. We know of instances where this plan exists in other Dioceses, and it has worked well. There is a further reason why, as I conceive, in regard to funds, there are various difficulties and objections. In the first place, they are not absolutely secure. Riches, in the form of an Episcopal fund, as well as in other forms, may take to themselves wings and fly away.

Assur

In the next place such things expose parties to temptation to defraud the Church, and there are numberless cases on record in which scandal has been brought on the Christian Church and name by speculations in church funds. We therefore prefer the plan we pursue.

Again, and lastly, we have acted under the conception that this language does not require an endowment. That word is not used, and my memory is clear that the objection was raised in 1868 and overruled, and it was held that no endowment was required. It was left to the Committee on the Admission of new Dioceses in the first instance, subject to the ruling of this body, to say whether or not any provision made was sufficient or suitable, and whether they had satisfactory assurance of its being provided. In the case of the two Dioceses absolutely admitted in this Convention, the provision is pre

cisely that of Virginia. In the case of the new Diocese in Ohio, the Committee had before them the fact that for fifteen years, I think, the support of both Dioceses had been provided by assessment on the parishes, which had always been properly paid. They had the further assurance that in the new Dioceses the larger proportion of that support had been contributed, and that all the prominent parishes had given assurances by letter that they would continue to pay their assessments, and, if necessary, pay twentyfive per cent. more. The Committee therefore ruled that that was a sufficient provision for the support of the Episcopate, and that it was absolutely more sure than any invested fund that the Diocese could hold, inasmuch as it was the obligation of every parish in the proposed new Diocese, and the number was abundant to provide a support. In the case of Wisconsin, where another Diocese is set off, partial provision was made by an endowment to the extent of fifteen thousand dollars, and the rest provided for by assessment. Now, I contend that there is nothing in this language to establish the ruling which the Committee on Constitutional Amendments has adopted; but suitable provision in both these cases was made for the Episcopate, and we had satisfactory assurance that was made. Therefore, I do not see any necessity for striking out this clause. On the contrary, there is strong reason for its continuance.

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. Mr. President, I hoped that the time of the Convention would not unnecessarily be occupied with this subject, and therefore I contented myself with requesting that the report of the Committee be read. But as the question of the construction of this clause is brought up, I will state as an historical fact that in 1871 the Diocese of Illinois did apply for the division of that Diocese, and that the House of Bishops did rule not only that it meant an endowment, but that it meant an endowment of forty thousand dollars. Now, from the very language of the provision, if it means anything, it does mean endowment.

Rev. Mr. HANCKEL, of Virginia. Will the gentleman allow me to put in a remembrancer there? With regard to the application from Illinois, I was not Chairman then, but a member of the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses; and in that case no assurance was given. It was only said that thirty thousand dollars would be raised; there was no assurance that it would be raised.

Mr. FAIRBANKS, of Tennessee. I think that the logical sequence and construction of that clause is that it does mean endowment; for otherwise how can you have "satisfactory assurance"? In what other form can anybody be bound than by obligation or endowment of some kind? If it means the ordinary parish assessment, that varies from year to year. You cannot give a satisfactory assurance for this year, or next year, or any subsequent year in that way. You cannot bind a parish for the future. Its legislation is annual legislation. It rests with the Wardens and Vestry, and whether they pay their assessment or not is a matter with them. There is no legal obligation upon them. If it means that, if it means simply an assessment on the parishes, then what is the necessity of the clause at all?

Is not the matter sufficiently guarded without this? How can you divide a Diocese? Are you not obliged to have the action of the Convention of that Diocese? Have you not the feeling in the Diocese of preserving its unity to guard against any frivolous or unnecessary subdivision? Does not every Diocese desire to retain its greatness, its historic character and associations? You have, therefore, when you come to divide a Diocese, a large

conservative influence

that goes against division in every case. But when the Diocese is satisfied in the Diocesan Convention that it would be for the benefit of the Church in that Diocese, that it should be divided, and they pass that resolution, you have still the further check that it must have the assent of the Bishop of that Diocese. You have, therefore, his sense of dignity, and of jurisdiction, and everything of that kind to contend against. If he too is satisfied that the Diocese should be divided, why not let it be done? Have you not in these two provisions a sufficient guard against any unnecessary subdivision ?

If, as is contended by the Clerical Deputy from Virginia, the clause means nothing but an assessment, it is useless, because that assessment will necessarily be made, and each Diocese can best arrange that matter, either as they do in Virginia, by putting a dollar on each communicant, or as they do in Tennessee, by assessing so much on the parish, or by any other rule that may seem best to them for providing for the support of the Episcopate. It is not to be supposed that any Diocese would go blindly into subdivision, would call any gentleman to be a Bishop without providing a satisfactory support for him. And why should there be a difference made in the case of a subdivided Diocese from a new Diocese formed out of a missionary jurisdiction? If one of our missionary jurisdictions wishes to be erected as a Diocese, do you require from them any satisfactory assurance of the support of the Episcopate? None whatever. Why then should you put a restriction upon what is really missionary ground in the whole South and Southwest, a prohibition of that kind which does not apply to the missionary jurisdictions? There is no equality in the provision. Moreover, it has operated, and it does operate as a practical obstacle and prevention on the part of the Southern and Southwestern Dioceses from any effort at such division. Have you any application here from any Southern or Southwestern Diocese for division? None whatever. Whatever may be the value of this provision as respects the older and larger Dioceses which have funds or can procure endowments, it is utterly inapplicable to us, and prevents us from having any division whatever; and we are in danger of wearing out our Bishops, of putting them in an early grave by overwork, and checking the growth of the Church by this provision. I hope the resolution will pass.

Rev. Dr. STRINGFELLOW, of Alabama. Mr. President, I was exceedingly glad when the Deputy from Tennessee presented the motion, to refer this matter to the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. When this article was sent down to the various Dioceses six years ago as an amendment to the Constitution, the Diocese of Alabama voted against the amendment simply on account of the clause which is now under consideration. The Deputies were instructed to vote "no" in the Convention. When, however, the Convention assembled, we determined to vote "aye," with the hope that at this Convention a motion would be made to strike out what the Diocese of Alabama considered the objectionable clause; and if I remember aright-for this is only the third Convention that I have been permitted to attend as a Deputy-the object contemplated by the change in the Constitution originally sent down the Dioceses was in order to relieve especially the Diocese of Texas. The application was made for reducing the number of clergy required so that that Diocese might thereby be divided. The clause, however, which was inserted in the amendment of the Constitution actually put a stop upon any proceeding on the part of the Diocese,

to

and we have now elected two Missionary Bishops to be sent to Texas, simply because the Diocese of Texas was unable to provide for what would have been better a division of that Diocese itself.

I speak, sir, as a Southern man when I say that if this Convention had taken any means in order to prevent the division of Dioceses, they could not possibly have taken a more effectual one than the one adopted at the last Convention. It is utterly impossible for any Southern Diocese, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, to divide upon the plan which has now been accepted. Gentlemen may talk as they please about that provision, it has been ruled, and is SO understood, that it means either that there must be an amount of $30,000 raised and invested, or that there must be a sufficient guarantee that the Episcopate shall be supported from such a fund. I hold that in itself is wrong. When I was admitted to the diaconate and priesthood the only guarantee that I received that I should ever have bread for my family was the grand fundamental principle that the man who served at the Altar should live by the Altar. There was not a solitary word said in reference to any support; and I hold that we have no right whatever to require any Diocese to guarantee any fixed amount in order to support the Bishop. When Paul was called to his work, what was it? He was told to go and learn what he was to suffer for the cause of Christ, and not to receive five or six thousand dollars a year for his support, and the Bishop has no more right to have any guarantee when a Diocese comes to be divided, except the same which is given to every priest of the Church of God, that if he serves at the Altar he shall therefore partake of the Altar.

Let us look at this question for a moment in its practical bearings in reference to a large portion of the country over which the Church has jurisdiction at present. Take the Southern Dioceses; the extent of the territory there is well known to every member of this Convention. There are Dioceses to-day that could divide as far as their number of clergymen is concerned, and at the same time would undoubtedly provide a fund; but gentlemen will please bear in mind that that support is now required to be guaranteed before the Diocese divides. Take, for example, the Diocese of Alabama. If that Diocese desired now to divide, it not only has to have a sufficient number of clergymen, but to bring up a guarantee from the Diocese which is formed from the old one, that a certain amount has been secured for the Bishop, without knowing who that Bishop is that is to be elected; whether perhaps he may not be a single man who can live on a comparatively small amount; whether the lot might not fall upon one who has means of his own which he would be glad and willing to spend in the service of the Church. I hold that the question of support is a thing that belongs to the nominee alone, and not to this Church. When a clergyman is called to a parish, it is for him to decide whether the support which is offered to him is sufficient to enable him to live, and not for the Church to say that the rector shall have a certain amount secured to him before he shall be permitted to hold that cure. What would be a sufficient amount for one man would be quite a princely income for another. What would be a princely income to one man, and in one place, would be a very small amount to another. What would be sufficient in this great Diocese of New York, if it was to be divided and the city of New York set apart as a separ

ate Diocese, would be a fortune to a man in the northern part of Alabama, or the northern part of Georgia or in Texas. I hold that the principle is entirely wrong; and if this Convention desire to stop for fifty years the growth of the Church

in the South and Southwest, they can take no better means than preserving this single article of the Constitution as it is. If they desire now to check entirely what this Convention has labored to place its seal to the reduction of the jurisdiction of the Bishops so as not to be appointing one man to suppervise such a large portion of country-this article will be retained as it is. The Convention has already given its seal to that principle, and here is an embargo to the very action which, by their conduct six years ago, in sending this article to the various Dioceses, and three years ago in ratifying it solemnly, they committed themselves to.

Now let every Diocesan Convention decide for itself in this matter. As it has been well said, there can be no danger in it. The Bishop himself, occupying the position that he does, can always check a division, he can always stop it, and if he conceives that from any motive whatever there is an attempt to divide the Diocese so that there is no reasonable chance of giving a new Bishop a support, he can stop it. He has the whole thing before him. He understands the nature and wants of the case. If you remove that restriction, each Diocese with its Bishop can decide for itself when the time comes-a question which, in my judgment, has nothing whatever to do with the division of the Diocese-the amount which the new Bishop who is to be elected shall receive for his report. I vote, not only on my own part, but in discharging a duty which was laid upon me by the Diocese of Alabama three years ago, to refer this change, as I suppose this will have to be referred again, to the various Dioceses for their concurrence, to be acted on finally at the next Convention.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. I had the honor to be in the Convention of 1868, when the clause now under consideration was adopted, and I took considerable interest in it, and for the reason stated by the clerical member from Virginia, that in the change of the Constitution in reference to creating new Dioceses, and allowing a small number to unite in forming a Diocese, it was very important that some check should be put upon those divisions, in order that a Bishop should not be created and be liable to be thrown destitute upon the world, to become a disgrace to the Church by the neglect to furnish him with his bread and his clothes. I was heartily in favor of making some reasonable provision, believing that the position of a Bishop differed materially from that of a Presbyter, that his resources were far more limited, that he could engage in no worldly pursuit without disgrace to his cloth; and I deemed it exceedingly important that some moderate, suitable provision should be made for him. The language of this clause allows various modes by which that provision shall be made, and it was well considered at that time. It does not involve the necessity of creating an endowment or a sum of money invested. It does not necessarily require that, and it is perfectly easy to escape all the dangers attending an endowment or investment in securities by a very simple process, which shall secure the support of the Bishop, and, at the same time, not require the formation of a fund which will be liable to robbery or to loss.

I will instance the Diocese of New Jersey, and the policy which is there pursued. The fund for the support of the Episcopate is formed in this way: the parishes pledge themselves that they will contribute so much per annum, or what is equivalent to a certain amount per annum. That is to say, if a parish pays its clergyman $1,500 salary, it gives a bond, bearing seven per cent. interest, for that amount to go into the Episcopal fund, and they may at their option pay the interest on that bond, and suffer it to run indefinitely. It is a solemn pledge on their part to an engagement that they

« PreviousContinue »