Page images
PDF
EPUB

when the Gentile came from the outside world into the Jewish commonwealth by baptism and circumcision, that he thereby was regenerate. That was the very technical term used, and it passed over very naturally to the Church. Yet you would allow the minister standing up at the font to deny it all. Brethren, the Church knows her own nature, and she knows that the minister in baptism has no right to speak his own individual sentiments, but that he is her minister speaking in her name, and has no right to speak any other words than she authorizes and instructs him to speak.

Now, a third reason why we must arrest this movement forthwith-and I must pass over these points very briefly-is that it would emasculate the Apostles' Creed. It mangles it and tears out of it one of its most precious articles. Brethren, that Creed is the absolute faith itself and not a series of human opinions gathered together, made up after study and reflection upon the New Testament, for generally it came into being before the New Testament began to be written. That Creed was simply the Church, conscious of the mystery of the incarnation and her part therein, gazing with the eye of faith upon the evolving of that mystery, and reciting its glorious facts. In that Creed she goes through the proofs of the incarnation up to the point of the glorification of our redeemed humanity in the person of her Lord. Thereupon, by a logic of faith, she proceeds in the Creed to recite the coming down of the Holy Ghost to make over that Divine-human law, that revealed humanity, to men on the day of Pentecost. Thereupon, proceeding from that, she proceeds to recite, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." You see how it was constituted then, and from the body of Christ, by the down-coming of the Holy Ghost on that Pentecostal day. Instantly after that: "I believe in the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins"-to be had only in the Church, as all benefits of American citizenship are to be had only in that citizenship, within that country, as all benefits that may be supposed to belong to the masonic lodge, if you please, are to be had only by virtue of membership in it. So "I believe in the forgiveness of sins," because it is in the Church that we obtain this, the initial point, in the innumerable benefits of Christ's redemption. And so the Creed goes on culminating in "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.' You must remember, brethren, that this article of the Creed was exemplified and explained, if explanation were necessary, in the Creed of the Council of Nicæa-"I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." If there could be any possible question as to the meaning of that phrase in the Apostles' Creed, the corresponding phrase in the Nicene Creed settles it.

[ocr errors]

Now, brethren, to trouble you and take your time at this supreme moment no further, let me say that the hour has struck. The bringing in of these resolutions by the Committee on Canons is the alarmbell ringing that the conflict is upon us. It is a conflict between rationalism and supernaturalism. Where shall we stand? Is there any uncertainty? Are we going to break away all the barriers? We will fling the banner to the breeze, and we will by an emphatic vote bury this proposition beyond the possibility of resurrection.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I do not intend to touch upon the theology connected with this question. As a layman I do not think that my province, but as a layman I do think it my province to be able to point out some of the practical questions connected with the subject.

Now, sir, the first one that is presented to my mind is this: That here, for almost the first time in

even our

two hundred years, we are seriously considering the alteration of a fundamental doctrine of this Church. It has surprised and astonished me to hear statements and assertions made here that this proposition to change one word in a Rubric was a trifling affair-not of any serious consequence. I have been astounded that gentlemen could entertain such an idea; and most respected Committee on Canons have said that they do not propose by the change of this word to change the doctrine of the Church. I cannot conceive how, by the slightest reflection, gentlemen can come to that conclusion. What will be the consequence of changing that word? Suppose it possible that this Church can, at this stage of the world, change this word in that Rubric, where shall we then stand, and to what will it lead? Imaintain that it is the initial edge of that wedge which, although it may not be intended, yet will inevitably have the effect of splitting that doctrine which has stood so many centuries.

We

Now, let me point out what appears to me to be some of the consequences of an act of this kind. Suppose we do adopt it, and it finally becomes a law, what follows as an inevitable consequence of this thin edge of the wedge? The wedge must inevitably be driven home, and in this way. must alter the Rubric prescribing that in the Catechism of the Church the clergy must teach the doctrine as it is laid down by the Church. Either the doctrine is altered or they must by the Rubric of the Catechism teach the doctrine, and what follows? What is the next step in driving the wedge? I maintain the next step will be the absolute necessity of altering the ordin ation vow, for can a minister come forward and take the ordination vow to teach the doctrines of the Church, when he has by permission of the Church the authority to omit teaching that doctrine? I trow not, sir.

These are two consequences. There have been others pointed out by the clerical gentleman from Missouri; but these inevitable consequences might be multiplied almost indefinitely. If such a thing is possible in one case, it is possible in others. Suppose for a moment that the word "shall" in the Rubrics of our Church should be changed to the word "may," wherever it occurs. I ask you, gentlemen, whether the natural consequence of that would not be that we could invite most cordially and legitimately the Reformed Episcopal Church and its Prayer-Book to come into union with this

Church? It seems to me that follows as a natural consequence, just as we know when the sun sets that it will rise.

I will not say a word upon the doctrine itself, because I suppose that every man here concedes the fact that this term "regenerate" does in some sense absolutely show the correct doctrine of the Church. I will only say in reference to it that if there is any doctrine of our Church that is proved by Scripture and that is plainly set forth in our Liturgy, it is this doctrine, sanctioned, as it has been, by the most remarkable testimony that it is possible to deduce in reference to any doctrine of this Church. When our Divine Lord established this ordinance, He not only did it by precept, but what did he do? He did it by example. He submitted to the ordinance Himself, and what occurred virtually? The heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove. What did all that signify? Did it not signify what is traced in the language of our doctrines and our Catechism, that baptism is "the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace"? What is plainer?

I do trust that on this occasion we shall give such an emphatic denial to this proposition that it will

be buried beyond the hope of resurrection, beyond the expectation of any resurrection.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky, obtained the floor.

► Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. Will the gentleman allow me to move that after his speech the vote be taken ?

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I simply rise to renew the motion which I have made several | times, though it seems it was out of order before, that the further consideration of this subject be deferred until after action upon the resolution for a Rubrical Commission; and I do this with a view to the referring of this question to that Committee. Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Is that motion debatable?

The PRESIDENT. The motion is open to debate.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I will put it then in this form, that this question be laid on the table until after action on the Rubrical Commission, to be then referred to that Commission.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. I move as an amendment to that to take the question without further debate.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania.

I understand

the motion is to lay on the table. The gentleman merely gives information of his desire. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The motion to lay on the table is not debatable, but a motion to lay on the table with a circumstance is debatable. Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The motion is to lay on the table.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Until after the Rubrical Commission is appointed.

Rev. Dr. PERKINS, of Kentucky. I moved to lay it on the table, and I stated the end I had in view in making the motion.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I move to lay on the table.

Rev. Mr. BROWN, of Michigan. Can that motion be amended?

The PRESIDENT. It cannot.

Rev. Mr. BAKEWELL, of Kansas. Is it not in order for the gentleman who makes this motion to allow me to make a statement to the House?

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has made the motion, and does not listen to any appeal to withdraw it.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I have no right to do so. I will now, however, put the motion in the proper form. It is to lay on the table the report of the Committee on Canon No. 18.

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. A vote in the affirmative puts the whole matter on the table, I believe?

The PRESIDENT. Yes, sir.

And a

Rev. Dr. RUDDER, of Pennsylvania. vote in the negative refuses so to dispose of the matter?

The PRESIDENT. I am requested to state what will be the effect of laying on the table. Any question may be laid upon the table, and it is subject thereafter to be taken up at any time at the will of the house. If you lay this resolution on the table, it may be according to the sense of the House a quietus, or it may be taken up at any future time. It is the will of the House that will determine its ultimate fate.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask a question touching this very point. If it is laid on the table, what hinders us immediately, as soon as the Rubrical Commission is appointed, from calling it up and moving to refer it to that Commission? Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina. We want to vote directly on the merits of the question.

Mr. MEADS, of Albany. If the House want to vote directly on the merits, let it be on a motion to postpone indefinitely.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the .ction to lay on the table.

I move that the

The motion was not agreed to. Rev. Dr. CADY, of New York. vote be taken in five minutes. Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. cese of Pittsburgh calls for a vote by Dicceses and orders on the main question.

The Dio

The PRESIDENT. The motion now is that the House order the vote on the main question to be taken in five minutes.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Mr. President, I have only five minutes, and I intend to use them, because my name has been used in a manner against which I utterly protest. It has been circulated in this Convention that I intended to advocate the change of the Rubric which has been proposed. I wish explicitly to say that I have been trying all the morning to speak against it. Who are the mon that ask this? Are they men who confess their own troubled minds? Not at all. They are men who say: "Oh, no; we have no trouble about it."

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I rise to call the gentleman to order.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Aiabama. I hope this will not come out of my time.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. I can answer all that, but I have no time.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. Am I in order, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT. I cannot understand how you are out of order as yet.

Rev. Mr. DOUGLASS, of Delaware. The gentleman makes a statement which is not altogether correct.

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. The men who are in favor of this thing now are not the old Evangelicals who carried the Evangelical banner so nobly. They are not men like the honored representative from Massachusetts, nor like the noble Deputy from Virginia; but they are men whose voices are not heard and whose persons are not seen. Who are they? I say that they are not brave men, or they would send us a petition saying, "Our conscience is troubled."

The Reverend Deputy from Massachusetts has appealed to the Gorham case, in which it was decided that men could hold the doctrine of Mr. Gorham, which is that of the petitioners or of those who are petitioned for within the limits of the Church. Now it is proposed that the Church shall take that view that I am opposed to.

Again, it has been said, in spite of all this, doctrine is not touched. Why, sir, the whole Catechism is intended to be swept away, and not only the Catechism, but belief in the grace of Holy Baptism which that Catechism teaches is to be swept away. Although the Reverend Deputy from Massachusetts said this morning that after the baptism the grace of baptism has been bestowed, and therefore it is of no importance what a man says; still he would persuade us that it is lawful to deny that there has been any grace bestowed, or anything to be particularly thankful for. If we can sweep away these things from the Baptismal Office, after what the Reverend Deputy from Massachusetts said this morning, I confess that my convictions is that we must sweep away our article of the Nicene Creed, that we must sweep away half a dozen sentences from the Holy Scriptures; that we must sweep away the words of our blessed Lord in his dialogue with Nicodemus.

I am not surprised that the Deputy has repudiated the article of the Bishop as published at the last

General Convention. I really expected three years! ago that it would be proved by somebody that the Bishops had been mistaken. That was done admirably by the Deputy from Massachusetts this morning; but I think there is no good reason for going further and faring still worse.

And yet we are told that doctrine is not at all involved. Why, it strikes at the whole scheme and system of doctrine of this Church; and that must be done, forsooth, because men have troubled consciences! I think we have some conscience ourselves. This thing puts me very much in mind of what the Bishop of Alabama-a very witty manonce said to a man who could not take the Apostles' Creed. Said he, "I cannot take the Apostles' Creed, or I would join your Church to-morrow; I cannot swallow it, sir." "Well," said my Bishop, "it might be well for you to consider, my friend, whether there is not something the matter with your swallow, instead of with the Creed." [Laughter.]

.

As to the Apostolicity and validity of Bishop Cummins's sect, I have this to say, that I deny it to be in any sense Apostolic; I deny that the first fragment of Apostolicity belongs to it. If I admit that his ordinations may be valid, it is because I admit that a man's son is his son, although he may be very unlike his father.

In conclusion, for I have only half a minute of my five minutes, this comes to us under the head of a threat: "Men are waiting to see what we do, in order that they may go out. If they are going out to Bishop Cummins's schism, by all means let them go, and I shall be thankful to the Cummins schism for operating on this Church as a blister to which all such elements may be drawn.

Rev. Dr. SPALDING, of Pittsburgh. The Diocese of Pittsburgh calls for a vote by Dioceses and orders.

Rev. Mr. BAKEWELL, of Kansas. Are the five minutes up?

The PRESIDENT. The House has directed the vote to be now taken. A vote is called for by Diocases and orders. The resolutions now to be voted on will be read for the information of the House. The Secretary read as follows:

"1. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That it be, and hereby is, proposed to add as a Rubric at the end of the Office for Infant Baptism the words following, viz. :

"The minister may at his discretion omit the exhortation preceding the Lord's Prayer in the above Office, and in place of the Thanksgiving substitute the Collect for Easter Even. This Rubric, however, is not to be construed as implying any change in the doctrine of the Church.

2. Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the Secretary of the House of Deputies cause the proposed Rubric to be made known to the Dioceses, as required by the Constitution and Canons." The question being taken, resulted as follows: CLERICAL VOTE.-Dioceses represented, 40: ayes, 5 noes, 34; divided, 1.

LAY VOTE.-Dioceses represented, 31; ayes, 6; noes, 24; divided, 1.

The vote in detail is as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Central Pennsylvania.-Rev. Dr. Paret, Rev. Mr. Marple, and Rev. Mr. Leverett, nay. Connecticut.-Rev. Mr. Johnson, nay. Delaware.-Rev. Mr. Douglass, aye.

Easton.-Rev. Dr. Crosdale and Rev. Dr. Fulton,

nay.

Florida.-Rev. Mr. Thackara, nay.

Georgia.-Rev. Dr. Benedict, aye. Rev. Dr. Williams, nay

Illinois.-Rev. Dr. Chase, Rev. Dr. Corbett, and Rev. Mr. Knowles, nay.

Indiana.-Rev. Mr. Dunham nay.

Iowa.-Rev. Mr. Goodhue, nay.

Kansas.-Rev. Dr. Reynolds and Rev. Mr. Beatty, aye; Rev. Mr. Bakewell, nay.

Kentucky.-Rev. Dr. Perkins, aye. Rev. Dr. Craik and Rev. Mr. Shipman, nay.

Long Island.-Rev. Dr. Schenck, aye; Rev. Dr. Hall, Rev. Dr. Diller, and Rev. Dr. Haskins, nay. Louisiana.-Rev. Mr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Girault, Rev. Mr. Harris, and Rev. Dr. Dalzell, nay.

Maine.-Rev. Mr. Leffingwell, Rev. Mr. Ward. and Rev. Dr. Pise, nay.

Maryland.-Rev. Dr. Lewin, Rev. Dr. Leeds, and Rev. Dr. Dudley, nay.

Massachusetts.-Rev. Dr. Vinton, aye; Rev. Dr. Burgess and Rev. Dr. Lambert, nay.

Michigan.-Rev. Mr. Gillespie, Rev. Mr. Brown, Rev. Mr. Earp, and Rev. Mr. Worthington, nay. Minnesota.-Rev. Dr. Knickerbacker, nay.

Mississippi.-Rev. Dr. Crane, Rev. Dr. Sansom. Rev. Mr. Douglass, and Rev. Mr. Marks, nay. Missouri.-Rev. Dr. Runcie and Rev. Mr. Jennings, nay.

Nebraska.-Rev. Mr. Shaw, nay.

New Hampshire.-Rev. Dr. Hubbard and Rev. Dr. Herrick, nay.

New Jersey.-Rev. Dr. Clark, aye. Rev. Dr. Farrington and Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, nay.

New York.-Rev. Dr. Cady and Rev. Dr. Geer,

nay.

North Carolina.-Rev. Dr. Watson, Rev. Dr. Smedes, and Rev. Dr. Buxton, nay.

Ohio.-Rev. Dr. Burr and Rev. Dr. Boyd, aye. Pennsylvania.-Rev. Dr. Rudder and Rev. Dr. Davies, nay;

Pittsburgh.-Rev. Dr. Scarborough, Rev. Mr. Getz, Rev. Mr. Smith, and Rev. Dr. Spalding, nay. Rhode Island.-Rev. Mr. Locke, aye.

South Carolina.-Rev. Mr. Pinckney, aye. Rev. Mr. Porter and Rev. Mr. McCullough, nay.

Texas.-Rev. Mr. Bird, Rev. Mr. Richardson, and Rev. Mr. Davenport, nay.

Vermont.-Rev. Dr. Douglass, Rev. Mr. Bliss, and Rev. Mr. Putnam, nay.

Virginia.-Rev. Mr. Hanckel and Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, aye.

Western New York.-Rev. Dr. Foote, Rev. Dr. Rankine, and Rev. Mr. Mann, nay.

Wisconsin.-Rev. Dr. De Koven, Rev. Dr. Adams, Rev. Mr. Haff, and Rev. Mr. Ten Broeck, nay.

LAITY.

Albany.-Mr. Meads, nay.

California.-Mr. Webb and Mr. Walsh, nay. Central New York.-Mr. Chedell, Mr. McWhorter, and Mr. Clarke, nay.

Connecticut.-Mr. Stark, nay.
Delaware.-Mr. Fell, aye.

Easton. Mr. Goldsborough, nay.

Georgia.-Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Whittle, aye.

Illinois.-Mr. Otis and Mr. Whitehouse, nay.

Kansas.-Mr. Bartholow, aye.

Kentucky.-Mr. Stephenson, aye.

Long Island.-Mr. Pierrepont, Mr. King, and Mr.

Nicholi, nay.

Louisiana.-Mr. Race, nay.

Maryland.-Mr. Blair, nay.

[blocks in formation]

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should like, with consent, to offer a resolution that I think will excite no debate. I can only apologize that it seems on this unfortunate Hymnal we get more and more into trouble, but I think this is the last tinkering with it. I offer the following resolution:

"Whereas, some typographical and literary mistakes have been found in the Revised Hymnal, and also in the printed schedule of the changes reported by the Committee on the Hymnal; therefore,

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That the trustees of the fund for the relief of the widows of deceased clergyman, and of aged, infirm, and disabled clergymen, be authorized to correct the Hymnal now to be printed, so as to make it accurate and conform to the standard edition prepared for the Bishops, with such changes as were intended by the said Committee on the Hymnal."

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I would ask the reverend doctor who makes that motion what he means by "such changes as were intended by the committee"?

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Those that were upon the separate paper which was put in the pews. About forty of those, I can explain, were a word here and a letter there, all mentioned on the paper.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. What I mean is this: Is there any written or printed memorandum of the intention of the Committee? If there be not, I am opposed to giving an unlimited license to the Committee or any one else.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. They do not want an unlimited license. They only want the things that were printed to be in the book. I have in my hand three papers. Scrupulous members were anxious, and at the time, not having them in my hand, the question was raised what was meant. It was these papers which were printed.

Mr. LIVINGSTON, of New York. Allow me to correct that slightly. It is very important that the House should understand this. The printed schedule was in some instances incorrect, as in one or two instances it says, "In Prayer-Book," when it meant "In Hymnal," and there is one instance where they say, "In Hymnal," when it intended "In PrayerBook." In that case there is call for the reprinting of a hymn. We have the hymn in two forms. Unless this resolution is adopted you will have the hymn with two verses, and you will have the hymn

differently as printed in the Hymnal. These are clerical mistakes.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I ask that the resolution be again read, that we may understand it exactly.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read. The Secretary read the resolution.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move to strike out the last clause so as to confine it to the correction of literary and typographical errors.

Rev. Dr. HÅLL, of Long Island. If the resolution is to be amended, it is better that it should go on the Calendar. If left as it is, I suppose it would get these gentlemen out of a very great difficulty without altering the character as to doctrine or the literary character of the Hymnal.

Rev. Dr. GEER, of New York. This is an important matter, because it is known that, as soon as this Hymnal is before the Church, there will be from all quarters suggestions in regard to what are deemed minor alterations. There were alterations before which caused a great deal of trouble, and it was stated in the Church papers that the alterations were made by authority, and public announcement was made in the services that such alterations had been made, but by what authority was unknown to the Committee. I therefore believe that the objection raised by Judge Sheffey is quite important.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution goes on the Calendar.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I suggest that these words be added:

"Provided, however, That no other than clerical and typographical errors be corrected." That would cover it.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. I move that the resolution just offered by the Clerical Deputy from Long Island be committed to a Select Committee of five, to report a proper resolution, on Monday next, in reference to the Hymnal.

The motion was agreed to, and the President appointed as the Committee Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long Island; Rev. Dr. Schenck, of Long Island; Rev. Dr. Geer, of New York; Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia, and Mr. Pierrepont, of Long Island.

EFFECT OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will announce the Joint Committee to ascertain and report on the legal effect of the joint resolutions, in accordance with a message from the House of Bishops, which was received and concurred in yesterday: Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut; Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long Island; Rev. Dr. Minnigerode, of Virginia; Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia; Mr. Comstock, of Central New York, and Mr. Mills, of New Jersey.

[blocks in formation]

That another member of that House be added to the Joint Committee on Ecclesiastical Relations and Religious Reform."

I offer this at the request of some members of the House of Bishops that they may appoint an additional member. They only ask to add another member of their House who has a very thorough knowledge of the subject. It is necessary to do this by concurrent action, as the Committee has already been appointed under the action of both Houses. The resolution was agreed to.

ALTERATION OF THE PRAYER-BOOK.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. The business which now comes up under order is the reports of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and the one first in order is as to the alteration of the Prayer-Book. I beg leave to read a sentence from that report in order that every one may get the idea of the report.

"But by the present wise provision of the Constitution no alteration can be made in the PrayerBook, unless the desired changes in all essential details have been proposed in one General Convention, made known to each Diocesan Convention, and adopted at the next General Convention, thus securing three full years for their examination and approval. And thus is obtained that deliberate sanction which the Constitution intended to secure in such an important matter."

That is the gist of the report. The resolution at the end of it is:

66

'Resolved, That the Committee be discharged from further consideration of this subject." The resolution was agreed to.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There is a report which was made on the eighteenth day on Article 3,declining to make any change in the article. The mind of the Committee on this point, although not expressed in the report, is simply that it is unwise to make any changes in the third article of the Constitution. My own explanation of their mind is that until the House of Bishops shall surrender the secret session, it is inexpedient to extend the three days or make other changes in that article. That is not in the report, but that is what I think of it. If they will give us the power of knowing what is being done, we can extend the time; otherwise, when we give anything into their hands, we know nothing about it until it comes back at a later time. The resolution is simply that the Committee be discharged.

The Secretary read the report as follows:

"The Committee on Constitutional Amendments, to whom were referred sundry amendments to Article 3 of the Constitution, proposed by Dr. Leeds, of Maryland, Mr. Montgomery, of Georgia, Mr. Blanchard, of Maryland, et al., have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report: That in the opinion of the Committee it is desirable to retain the provisions of said articles, requiring the House of Bishops to signify to this House their approbation or disapprobation (the latter with their reasons in writing) within a specified time, to the end that this House may know what has been done; and in case of non-concurrence, the reasons therefor, which will enable the House to meet the issue thus raised.

"Also to retain that provision which makes any Bishop present ex officio a member of the House until there are three or more Bishops in attendancefor surely, in such a case, such Bishop or Bishops would make most valuable members of this House. And it is not advisable to dispense with such assistance.

"The Committee submit the following resolution:

666

'Resolved, That it is inexpedient, at this time. to adopt any of the said amendments proposed to Article 3 of the Constitution.""

Rev. Dr. BURGESS, of Massachusetts. I move the passage of the resolution. The resolution was adopted.

SUPPLEMENTARY DEPUTIES.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I should be very much gratified if I might be allowed now to present the other reports, in an order that I think will avoid debate upon two or three of them and let them go, otherwise I must go on in regular order.

Several DEPUTIES. Go on in your own way. Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. I would bring up next a report made on the 19th day on Supplementary Deputies, a question put to the Committee, and answered on the 159th page of THE DAILY CHURCHMAN. The conclusion of the report is that the Committee ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject, as the matter really belongs to the Dioceses.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I move that. the request of the Committee to be discharged be granted.

The motion was agreed to.

CLERICAL TRIALS.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Then a ques tion was put to the Committee whether it might not be well to insert an article requiring in all cases of trials of clergymen a verdict of two-thirds of the court. The conclusion is that it is not within our power to order in that manner. The resolution is that the Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. I ask the Chairman what was the main reason for not considering it? Was it that it was within the power of the Dioceses?

Rev. Dr. Hall, of Long Island. Yes, sir: it be longs to the Dioceses.

The resolution was adopted.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. A report was made on an ecclesiastical commission not to examine the Prayer-Book, but the Constitution, and the report was against it. It is in these words:

"Resolved, That it is inexpedient at this time to institute any commission to revise and amend the Constitution of the Church."

The resolution was agreed to.

COURT OF APPEALS.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. There is a report of the same character in regard to a Court of Appeals, against it. The report is as follows:

"The Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, to which was referred the message of the House of Bishops No. 33, and several resolutions upon the subject of an Amendment to the Constitution to empower the General Convention to create a Court of Appeals, respectfully report that they have considered the subject, and while there was some difference of opinion, a decided majority deemed it inexpedient to make such amendment. Your Committee therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

"Resolved, That it is not expedient to amend the Constitution so as to authorize the General Convention to establish a Court of Appeals.

66

Resolved, That this House does not concur in the resolution of the House of Bishops in Message No. 33.

Mr. BURGWIN, of Pittsburgh. I should like that put on the Calendar.

« PreviousContinue »