after all, is the protection of liberty, and there is no true freedom or security in the want of it. The privileges of the subject are guarded against invasion by the very statute that arms and no less restrains the governor. You must defend the rights of the clergy by erecting over them an elastic and generous, though definite rule, while at the same time you protect the Church by upholding authority.

Law, Mr. President and gentlemen, can never be dispensed with. It is the guardian of order and peace-"the harmony of the universe." The dewdrop falls silently into its place under its direction, and the wild sweep of the storm is obedient to its sovereign control. Law under the New Covenant is no less binding in its moral prescriptions than it was under the Old; and the only difference in its action under the two systems is that in the latter it is ac- | commodated to human infirmity. In other words, it is administered as all law in the Church ever should be administered-with kindness. He who came into the world to restore men to rectitude, and make all righteous, threw His cloak over the sinner. The life of Jesus was charity, and this should be the life of His Church. Grievances against His precept, and therefore against Himself, He forgave.

"Men write their wrongs in marble; He, more just, Stooped down and wrote them in the dust."

The first footfall blotted out their record-the faintest breath of the wind confused and obscured it.

Mr. President, it has been well observed that "the soft pillow sooner breaks the stone than the hardest marble." And the reason is this: That the pillow, yielding, gives the full force of the blow to the stone which is smitten, which otherwise it would divide by taking a part of it to itself.

if

The Bishop, to be a Bishop, must be gentle, considerate, meek, patient, and skilled to teach. The man who can be touched with a feeling of another's weakness, who himself has done amiss or strayed away, it may be, to the confines of error, is sometimes best qualified, repentant, for the high and holy vocation of watching over his brethren. His own experiences prove his ripest qualification. The gentleness in some men of their mother's blood in their veins, or the chivalry of their father's spirit in their breasts, leads them always to interpose for persons in error; more to rescue than to punish, more to influence them for the better than to drive them to the worse. A manly sympathy, wedded to a manly adhesion to duty, looks well to see if it cannot possibly effect by the former what it is bound in conscience to accomplish by the latter. The feeling, perhaps, that in new adjustments and relations, with new checks brought to bear upon an offending party, he may avoid past faults, compels many a noble spirit to generous suffrages towards him."

This is the kind of temper which, in a true father of his flock, will save law from becoming cruel. The secret of all right government is power tempered with charity, and guided with sound discretion.

A Bishop will endeavor to put himself into relation to all of his clergy in a way to do justice to them and no injustice to the Church. Your storied windows are only daubs and patches when seen from without. They must be looked at from within. There is always some point of sight from which the well-meaning, though it may be perverse, conclusions of another may be considered with candor; and where falsehood and heresy do not stand in the way, the chief pastor of a diocese will endeavor to get at it-not to compromise, but to gain influence and to recover.

A Bishop now no more of earth-one of the wisest this Church has ever known-used to employ the leading men of a party to restrain and to correct its less sober members. I have known a Bishopstill among the living-who, on the point of making public his condemnation of certain practices in a particular congregation which he despaired of correcting in a more private way, gladly accepted the interposition of one of his presbyters, who ap proached the rector of the congregation complained of, and, after long closeting and comparison of view, succeeded in obtaining his consent to every change which had been demanded by the Bishop. And not only so, but the effect of that interview was to elicit an expression of thanks from the clergyman for the gift of new light and for kindly dealing.

Law comes to bear on men, where it is not defiantly treated, through a fatherly and brotherly ministration.

It is in this way that the Church expects italways expects it-to operate. It is not meant for oppression and bondage. It is the Bishop's guide and support when called to administer discipline, and it is equally the ægis of both clergy and people against possible injustice; but most certainly, at all times, under any wise government, the precept of a loving though faithful shepherd.

In this persuasion, Mr. President, I wish to record my vote in favor of the Canon now presented to this House; and, being called from the city by pastoral engagements I cannot fail to meet, I shall, in the event of final action upon this action during my absence, ask the privilege of so doing upon my return.

TWENTY-SECOND DAY.

SATURDAY, October 31. The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel at nine A. M.

Morning Prayer was said to the Creed by Rev. J. H. Knowles, Canon of the Cathedral, Chicago, Ill. The Creed and Prayers were said by Rev. Archibald Beatty, of Kansas. The Benediction was pronounced by Rev. J. H. Knowles, of Illinois.

SPANISH TRANSLATION OF PRAYER-BOOK.

The PRESIDENT appointed as the Committee on the Spanish Translation of the Prayer-Book, Rev. W. D. Wilson, D.D., LLD., Charles R. Hale, M.A., Henry Coffee, LL.D., and Professor F. Fred. Crane,

M.A.

TRUSTEES OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask general consent for the introduction of a resolution that I deem to be exceedingly important, and the House of Bishops are desirous of getting it to-day, if pos sible :

"Whereas, Under existing laws the number of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary has become so large as to interfere with thorough efficiency in its government; therefore,

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring). That a commission, composed of two Bishops, two Clerical and two Lay Deputies, be appointed to consider what legislation may be necessary to enable the Trustees to govern the Seminary with increased efficiency, and to report to the General Convention at its next session; said commission having power to confer with the several Dioceses having an interest in the Seminary, and to take such other action as may be necessary to perfect the plan or plans that the Commission may desire to propose to the General Convention."

There are now three hundred and sixty Trustees, and by and by they will get up to a thousand, and

this is a mere proposition to appoint a commission to enquire. I move that the resolution be adopted. Leave was granted to introduce the resolution, and it was adopted.

THE NEW HYMNAL.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would ask unanimous consent to a resolution to concur in the message of the House of Bishops (No. 73), sent in last evening, about the Hymnal, which, as I understand, is to take off the title-page the words in reference to the action of the last Convention, and put in what we all agreed to. The main point, however, the direction in regard to music, is put in as a Canon. I ask unanimous consent to a resolution to now concur in that message. The Trustees want to go right on and print the book, and I am afraid we shall lose it in the pressure of business.

The message was concurred in.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York, submitted the following resolution, which was agreed to:

"Whereas, The New York Bible and Common Prayer-Book Society having provided for the publication of an edition of the standard Prayer-Book as set forth by the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, at the meeting of the General Convention in 1871, without any expense whatever to the Church, and

"Whereas, We understand that the issue of this Book by said Society involved an outlay of over five thousand dollars, thus precluding the possibility of its being published as a business venture of any publishing house. Therefore,

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That we hereby recognize this act of great liberality on the part of the New York Bible and Common Prayer-Book Society, and express our thanks therefor."

RELIEF FUND.

Rev. Dr. SHELTON, of Western New York, from the Committee to nominate trustees of the fund for the relief of widows and orphans of deceased clergymen, and of aged, infirm, and disabled clergymen, reported the following names as trustees :

The Bishop of Delaware, the Bishop of Easton, Rev. H. C. Potter, D.D., Rev. Morgan Dix, D.D., Stephen P. Nash, Esq., Wm. Alexander Smith, Esq., and Lloyd W. Wells, Esq. The nominations were confirmed.

GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

I

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The nomination of Trustees of the General Theological Seminary was suspended the other day on my motion. move now that that resolution be taken from the Calendar for the purpose of action.

The motion was agreed to; and the resolution reported by the Committee on the General Theological Seminary was adopted as follows:

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Trustees named in the accompanying list be confirmed as members of the Board of the General Theological Seminary for the next three years."

ILLNESS OF REV. DR. D. R. GOODWIN. Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. If it is in order I should like to say a word of explanation in reference to a question of privilege. Yesterday or the day before, one of the speakers referring to a Deputy from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, who is absent, and speaking of him by name (Rev. Dr. Goodwin), referred to the fact that he was unable to be present in this Convention on account of ill health, and he used the phrase that his present sickness was the beginning of the end. I wish, in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Goodwin, to correct any impression which this might give rise to. The Reverend Deputy from Pennsylvania has been prevented

from attendance here by sickness; but he is in the way, as he believes, and as his physicians inform him, of a perfect restoration to health. I wish to correct the impression, and I would like the fact to appear, if possible, in some way, on the records of the Convention.

Rev. Dr. ANDREWS, of Virginia. I made the remark. I was misinformed by some of his friends, and I regret that they did not rise at the time to correct me. I have had the correction made in the printed report, and I have also written to Dr. Goodwin.

The PRESIDENT. I do not think that it could possibly appear on the records of the Convention. Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. I suppose not; but it will appear in the printed report of our proceedings.

LEAVES OF ABSENCE.

Rev. Mr. SHIPMAN, of Kentucky, from the Committee on Elections, reported that leave of absence for the remainder of the session had been granted to Rev. Mr. Goodale, of Nebraska; Rev. Mr. Hotchkin, of Delaware; Rev. Dr. Humes, of Tennessee; Rev. Dr. Hutton, of Maryland; Mr. Parker, of Virginia; Mr. Bodley, of Missouri; Mr. Meads, of Albany; Mr. Jackson, of Maine; Mr. Churchill, of Kentucky; and Mr. Curtis, of Delaware.

TIME OF FINAL ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I wish to ask whether it be in order to move a resolution in regard to the adjournment, with a view to testing the judgment of this House as to the time of final adjournment. It is well known that on Tuesday next many of the members of this House will necessarily be absent, a large number of them on account of the elections taking place in this State and some of the adjoining States. We shall then have been four weeks in session, and it will be almost impossible for many of the delegations to be longer represented here. It seems to me that if it be possible for us to close our business on Monday, it would be very desirable that it should be known in advance at what time we shall eventually adjourn. With a view, not of anticipating the judgment of this House, but of bringing out its view on that subject, I offer a resolution that this House will adjourn, the House of Bishops concurring, on Monday next.

SEVERAL DEPUTIES. At what hour?

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Say at two o'clock, so as to enable members who deem it necessary to go home to reach their homes by Tuesday.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I ask the gentleman whether he is willing to stay here until four o'clock to-day? They will give us the church until four, but if we go off at two o'clock we shall lose two hours. If the gentleman is in earnestMr. MEADS, of Albany. I am in earnest. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Then let us stay until four o'clock to-day.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I have made the motion that we adjourn at two o'clock on Monday next, if the House of Bishops concur; and I made that motion with the view of bringing out the sense of the House on the subject. Very few of the delegations will be full after Monday.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I second the motion, with the understanding that we shall remain in session as long as we can to-day, and do all the busi

ness we can.

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. I move to amend the resolution of the Deputy from Albany by striking out "Monday," and inserting "Tuesday." I make this motion because I am thoroughly satisfied that we cannot keep the larger portion of the body together after Tuesday to transact business, and those who necessarily go away to-day will not re

turn early enough on Monday to transact business that day with that order and deliberation which ought to characterize the proceedings of this House. If we fix the time for Tuesday, two o'clock, we shall have all day Monday and Monday evening. I express my own personal feelings about the matter by my amendment.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I beg to say to the gentleman that his amendment would defeat the object of the greater part of the persons who wish to go away. We have five Dioceses in this State represented. Their Deputies want to go home to vote on Tuesday, and they must leave here on Monday to enable them to do so. Elections take place in other States besides this, and the same thing

occurs.

Mr. DE ROSSETT, of North Carolina. I move to refer this matter to the Joint Committee on Closing Exercises.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Perhaps we might close our business on Monday at two o'clock; but an extension of time would be required to hear the pastoral letter, but that would not require the attendance of members here for business. Of course we would comply with all that was courteous to the House of Bishops in respect to hearing the Pastoral Letter; but I want it understood that our business shall close on Monday immediately after lunch.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Make it five o'clock.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. If that is not done, we shall have very poor legislation, for there are a great many men from the West who will go whether or not, and if there is only a quorum left there may be very poor legislation.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. I am sure this House would be unwilling to do anything of that kind. I think we may trust the propriety of members of this House not to act on important business when nearly all the members are absent.

Of course

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. they will not; but I have known one of the best Canons we had to be run out just precisely at the end of the session, because of an absence of men.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. It seems to me, even if we have a quorum, there will be gentlemen representing Dioceses who would want to be present. You may agree on the legislation that they would oppose with all their power if they were here. If you are only going to act on matters of mere form, a bare quorum would be sufficient. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. What is the question?

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of Mr. Meads as amended by Mr. Stark, but I think the whole matter had better be referred to the Committee on the closing services of the Convention, so that they may enquire and report to the House at the proper time.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move, then, that these two resolutions be referred to the Committee to enquire and report at the earliest time.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would also suggest the propriety of the Committee reporting at the same time what are the important matters that must be considered, so as to get an idea of what must come up, and let us do those things before we scatter, because if there was only a quorum left no gentleman would allow himself to press to a vote any important matter. I do not think it would be fair or right.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. That Committee will inform itself.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Had we not better get the sense of the House by voting on Mr. Meads' motion?

The PRESIDENT. Does Mr. Meads accept the

suggestion of Mr. Welsh to refer the matter to the Committee on Closing Services, and let them report as soon as they can ?

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. Very well, with the understanding that they shall report this morning.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to refer the matter to the Committee on Closing Services.

Mr. STARK, of Connecticut. Would it be not more orderly to lay the resolution on the table and call it up from the table when the Committee is prepared to report, it being understood that it is to lie there until that time? I move that the resolution lie on the table for the present. The motion was agreed to.

TO-DAY'S SESSION.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Now I move that the House to-day remain in session until four o'clock. The Committee must know that we will do that before they report. If you go away at two o'clock to-day, we shall have to remain until Tuesday. The motion was agreed to.

THE BAPTISMAL OFFICE.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Last night the House appointed eleven o'clock to-day for the consideration of the report on the Baptismal Rubric. I propose that that order of the day be changed from eleven to two, in order to accommodate the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I object, because many members have to leave to-day to attend to their duties on Sunday, and this is too important a measure to be acted on in a thin House.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. When that subject went over by the interference of another special order, I had become entitled to the floor, but the calling up of the other order prevented my saying anything on the subject. I desire to have what I say on that subject heard by as many of this body as it is possible to have; and the reason given by the Clerical Deputy from Maryland is a very sound one, in my judgment, that this afternoon a great many of the clergy will necessarily have gone home at the hour named, and therefore my remarks will fail to reach points that I think they ought to reach. For that reason I am opposed to the motion. Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I did not suppose there would be any objection, but I withdraw the motion.

CANON ON RITUAL.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. With the permission of the House, I ask leave to present the report of the Committee of Conference on the disagreement between the two Houses on the Ritual question. The Secretary will please read the report.

The Secretary read as follows:

"The Committee of Conference appointed by the two Houses to consider the differences between the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies in regard to the additional section to Canon 20, Title I., Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer,' have had the same under consideration, and recommend the adoption of the following resolution :

"Resolved, That instead of the section as passed by the House of Deputies, and proposed to be amended by the House of Bishops, the following additional section be added to Canon 20, of Title I., 'Of the Use of the Book of Common Prayer':

"Sec. 2. [1.] If any Bishop have reason to believe, or if complaint be made to him in writing by two or more of his Presbyters, that within his jurisdic

tion ceremonies or practices not ordained or authorized in the Book of Common Prayer, and setting forth erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have been introduced by any minister during the celebration of the Holy Communion, such as

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

"b. Any act of adoration of or toward the Elements in the Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations or genuflections; and,

"c. All other like acts not authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.

"It shall be the duty of such Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as his Council of Advice, and with them to investigate the matter.

“[2.] If after investigation it shall appear to the Bishop and Standing Committee that ceremonies or practices not ordained or authorized as aforesaid, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines, have in fact been introduced as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Bishop by instrument of writing under his hand to admonish the Minister so offending to discontinue such practices or ceremonies; and if the minister shall disregard such admonition, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee to cause him to be tried for a breach of his ordination vow. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the presentment, trial, and punishment of any minister under the provisions of Section 1, of Canon 2, Title II., of the Digest.

[3.] In all investigations under the provisions of this Canon, the minister whose acts or practices are the subject-matter of the investigation shall be notified, and have opportunity to be heard in his defense. The charges preferred and the findings of the Bishop and Standing Committee shall be in writing, and a record shall be kept of the proceedings in the case. 'By order of the Committee on the part of the House of Bishops.

"J. WILLIAMS, Chairman. "By order of the Committee on the part of the House of Deputies.

I

"WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, Chairman.” Rev. Dr. WILSON, of Central New York. wish to call attention to one word under specification "c." It says "all acts." I think grammar requires it to be "any act."

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. The Committee on Canons proposed, inasmuch as this report by the Committees of Conference would be presented in each House, that we take no action for the present upon the report made by our Committee of Conference, but await the action of the Bishops on the report of their Committee. That will give time for members of this House to examine this question and see exactly what the result of this Conference is. It is probable that the Canon, inasmuch as it received the unanimous approval of their Committee, as it did also of our own, will pass their House during the course of the day, and will come down to us by message during the day. It is so hoped; and it is quite possible that when this matter is explained there will be no opposition on the part of this House to this report, and to the Canon which the Committee have reported, and it may go through, as I believe it will, unanimously, and we may close up this question during the course of the day. If, however, when the message from the Bishops shall come down to this House, it be desirable that it shall lie over for further investigation and examination, there will be no objection, I presume, to making it the order of the day at any time on Monday morning, giving us the intervening time to examine it.

I have been requested, however, to state in a

very few words what the sum and substance of this report is, so far as it differs from the Canon originally passed by the House, and I am prepared to say that the only substantial change made in the Canon by the Committee of Conference is by striking out the first two specifications in the original Canon. Otherwise it remains substantially as it was when it passed this House.

Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia. Please state what the changes are.

Mr. BÜRGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Incense, and the use of the crucifix during the administration of the Holy Communion. The report which came from the House of Bishops, and the Canon as sent down to us by them, did make a very serious change. It altered entirely the whole scope and effect of the Canon. It altered it, as I believe, to a much greater extent than the Bishops intended to alter it. That, however, is not important to be considered now. result is, that we, by our joint committees, have restored the Canon to the same condition that it was in when it was presented originally by the Committee on Canons of this House, with the exception of striking out the two first specifications.

The

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. May I ask a question? I would like the gentleman to inform us the reason for striking out those two specifications.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Well, sir, the reason, as I understand it, of course depends upon the individual vote that was given. There were different reasons given. The chief reason was that the Canon, as it stood before the House originally, was logically inconsistent with itself, inasmuch as it set forth that the use of incense and the use of the crucifix did set forth or symbolize false or doubtful doctrine. Some of each Committee were of opinion that that was in a sense true, and that they could consistently vote for it; but I understand that a majority of the House of Bishops would not vote for it, simply for that reason, because they could not conscientiously say that they considered the use of incense at any time during the services of the Church as symbolizing or setting forth a false doctrine, however objectionable it might be in itself, and however desirous they might be of forbidding its use.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I desire, sir, to understand fully whether this question will come back to this House after we have sent the report to the House of Bishops, for our final concurrence?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. If the Bishops disapprove of the report of their Committee, then we shall know where we stand; but if they approve it, as I presume they will, they will send down the Canon, exactly word for word, as we have reported it, and it will then come before us simply on the question of concurrence. Therefore, it is not necessary for us now to take any action on the report we have made, or on the Canon which we have presented.

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. May I ask the question, Will it, therefore, be considered that it is lawful to use incense ?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Not at all. On the contrary, the proviso to the Canon we report is to the effect that any minister who does any act in violation of law may still be presented and tried under the provisions of Canon 2, Title II., leaving that as it was before. We do not interfere with that; we simply provide that where two Presbyters, or the Bishop on his own motion, shall be of the opinion that acts or practices during the celebration of the Holy Communion have been introduced, which set forth or symbolize false or doubtful doctrine, it shall be the duty of the Bishop and Standing Committee to make investigation, and if they find that such acts and practices have been in

troduced, to admonish the minister, and then if he still contínues in their use, to have him tried for a breach of his ordination vows in so disregarding the admonition of his Bishop.

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. That is exactly what I supposed.

Mr. BURG WIN, of Pittsburgh. But, if the gentleman will permit me, with the proviso that nothing in this Canon contained shall prevent that minister from being tried, and if found guilty disciplined for any unlawful act which he may have committed, no matter what it may have been; and if the use of incense is unlawful-that of course this Canon does not decide-but if in fact the use of incense be unlawful, then he may be tried for an unlawful act just as before.

Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. But the conclusion the Committee come to is that the use of incense and the setting up of the crucifix do not teach or symbolize unsound doctrine, and that therefore they may be used.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir, not at all.

Rev. Mr. MARPLE, of Central Pennsylvania. I should like to ask whether there is not danger that the House of Bishops are waiting for us to act while we are waiting for them to act?

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. No, sir; it was understood in the Committee of Conference last night, when we met, that such would be the course of action, and they expect to act on it immediately.

Rev. Dr. CLARK, of Connecticut. I feel certain that this subject ought to be acted on to-day, while members are here. Many will go away to-day, and to-morrow being the first Sunday of the month, they will want to be in their parishes to administer the Holy Communion, and very many cannot get back here by Monday noon. What I want, and I believe this House wants, is that this subject come up and be disposed of to-day before one o'clock. Why should we wait for the House of Bishops to act? Why can we not act ourselves, and transmit the Canon to them, and see whether they will confirm our action, as we have done on other subjects and as we did before on this? Why should we wait for them to act and transmit their action to us? I hope we shall proceed at once to act upon the report made by the Committee of Conference.

Mr. STEPHENS, of Tennessee. I am decidedly of the opinion that that is the correct view to take, unless there is some hidden reason.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. There is certainly no objection on the part of the Committee to immediate action. It was only in deference to what we presumed would be the feeling of the House, not to act on so important a matter simply on a verbal report, without having an opportunity of seeing for themselves what these changes were, and verify what I have stated in regard to the substantial effect of the report.

I

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. move that the message of the House of Bishops be amended so as to conform to the report of the Conference Committee, and be adopted by this House.

Rev. Dr. LEWIN, of Maryland. I would amend by moving that the report of the Committee on Conference be adopted.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. If the feeling of the House be to act now, the proper motion would be to approve the report of the Committee of Conference, and adopt the Canon which they have reported.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Then I understand it goes to the House of Bishops, and if they concur that is the end of it. ["Yes." If this vote is to be taken now, Michigan demands a vote by

orders.

Mr. KING, of Long Island. I can perceive a great difficulty in taking the vote at present. We

had better await the action of the House of Bishops. If we pass this act now, it passes out of our hands altogether; we have no control of it, and it might not pass the other House.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. Allow me to say one word in regard to the question of taking this vote by orders. I have good reason to believe that if it be put to a viva voce vote, there will not be a single dissenting voice in this House; but if it were put to a vote by orders, there might be some negatives.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I appreciate that fact, but nevertheless, Michigan will demand a vote by orders in this case when it comes to the final vote.

Rev. Dr. BROWN, of Albany. The delegation from Albany make the same demand.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I merely want to say one word in regard to the Canon as reported. There are some things in favor of it, and one thing against it. In the first place, it seems to me that the amendinent which has been adopted by the Committee of Conference is a very valuable amendment, because it confines the Canon to the celebration of the Holy Communion, and requires two facts to be proved with regard to the acts to be brought forward: First. That they symbolize erroneous or doubtful doctrines; and, Second. That they are not authorized or ordained in the Book of Common Prayer. That, I hold, is the first change, and I regard it as a valuable one.

In the next place, there are two specifications left out, which said that the use of incense and the use of the crucifix symbolized false doctrine. I hope the reverend gentleman from Pennsylvania will believe it when I say that nothing in this Canon possibly authorizes the use of incense or the use of the crucifix. It leaves that just where it was before. If it was lawful before, it is lawful now; if it was unlawful before, it is still unlawful. Rev. Mr. BOLTON, of Pennsylvania. just the trouble.

That is

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I want to say still further that I can understand how the House of Bishops might have made this amendment without entering upon the question of its symbolizing false doctrines, for there was a very curious thing in that Canon as it stood before. It said that the use of the crucifix and the use of incense was unlawful during the celebration of the Holy Communion. Therefore, it could have been inferred by cunning people that the use of the crucifix and the use of incense were allowable in other services than the Holy Communion; and I can imagine a very magnificent ceremony that perhaps some Ritualists might have gotten up; and I can tell what it is. The crucifix brought into the Church, kept in it all through the service up to the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion, reverently borne by acolytes out of Church when the celebration began, and then the clergyman getting up and saying, "We had the crucifix in the Church up to the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion, and took it out when the Holy Communion begins, because when the real presence is there the symbolic representation is out!" [Laughter.] Therefore I think it is a very wise process to cast out those two things.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Does the Roman Catholic Church remove the crucifix ?

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. I do not know anything about the Roman Catholic Church. I leave that to my brother from Wisconsin. [Laughter.]

There is one thing which I believe must be granted, and that is to say, that adoration is a twofold act. It is both internal and external. The internal act is an act of inner worship, praise, prayer,