Page images
PDF
EPUB

cluded among its members the Bishops of three Dioceses, in which there is probably more woman's work done to-day than in all the other Dioceses of the Church put together. The measure, instead of being made the order of the day, as should have been done, was referred to the Committee on Canons, briefly considered by them and disallowed. Now there is every probability this Canon or one substantially identical with it will be introduced in the next General Convention for action. Therefore, the few words I have to say on the subject are not irrelevant.

Many members now present will probably be members of the next General Convention; and in the name of the late Commission that brought in this measure, I ask them earnestly to consider the principles involved in it. The fundamental principle is this: that there shall be no organized work in this Church, wearing the livery of this Church, that is not under Episcopal supervision. In other words, the principle underlying the proposed measure is the very important one of visitorial rights. I am too much of an Episcopalian. I use the word advisedly, and with regard to its etymological significance-in other words, I have too much faith in the wisdom of the right of inspection in ecclesiastical affairs, not to deprecate the action of the Committee on Canons in disallowing this

measure.

A great deal was said in our debate in secret session about a certain community in a neighboring Diocese, which was represented as being of a most objectionable character. Sir, do we desire that feminine counterparts shall spring up all over this land, wholly independent of Episcopal supervision and control?

Many persons will argue that this measure, if carried, will hamper the free development of woman's work. Nothing of the sort. Look at the names of the persons recommending it. Would the Bishop of this Diocese, think you, ever affix his name to a report recommending a Canon which would hamper woman's work? Would the Bishop of Long Island, having under his care at present the most efficient body of Deaconesses in the land, have put his name to a recommendation to hamper woman's work? When you look at the terms of the Canon itself, what is there in it of a restrictive character, save only that to which I have referred, namely, that it ensures the right of Episcopal supervision? All the vexed questions are untouched in it, and purposely and intentionally untouched. Nothing is said about the question of putting women who are officially engaged in the Church's work, in uniform. That whole question is left, as it ought to be left, an open question. Nothing is said about the question of celibacy, another vexed question which ought to be left open in connection with the female diaconate just as much as it is left open in connection with the male diaconate.

Moreover, it is probable that this measure would have received the unanimous support of the Committee on Canons, but for one omission, which might have been supplied in debate, and possible would have been. There was a fear that, while the rights of Bishops were sufficiently guarded, the rights of Presbyters were not; and if a simple amendment had been added, providing that no deaconess or sister, and no community of deaconesses or sisters shall be introduced into a parish against the consent of the settled minister of that parish, undoubtedly the measure would have been carried by almost two-thirds.

I make these remarks knowing very well that the subject will come up in a similar shape three years hence, and hoping if what I have said is true, and commends itself to your judgment as wise and just,

that you will give it some thought during the in terval.

One point more, and only one. It has been said that this Commission was appointed to consider the expediency of reviving the primitive order of deaconesses; and therefore it ought to have confined itself to that point only, and because it did not confine itself to that point, therefore this recommendation ought not to be received. Is that quite fair? Suppose that Committee, upon examining the subject, did find that it was not expedient to revive, strictly according to its ancient and primitive form, that order of deaconesses, did that necessarily forbid their bringing in a measure which had to do with woman's work in general and the regulation of it? The simple fact is, that this Commission found a certain state of things existing-namely, persons working as ministering women in the Church, in one Diocese under the name of Sisters, and in another Diocese under the name of Deaconesses. They did not lay down the law on the subject at all. They simply said that so far as Church government is concerned, we will have one uniform status for the ministering woman; you may call her Deaconess, if you please; you may call her Sister, if you please; but whatever you call her, if she is regarded as in any sense officially attached to this Church, that official status shall be definitive, and we shall know just what it is, and it shall be a status that is under Episcopal control.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, it is again pleasant to find the Convention allowing ten minutes for the discussion of a practical subject. ["Five."] Five here and five there make ten, and it is very encouraging, for this is really a practical subject.

The PRESIDENT. I understand from the Secretary that this matter has been disposed of.

Dr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. No vote has been taken on it yet.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. A Joint Committee has been appointed to consider the subject.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. True, a Joint Committee has been appointed to consider the subject; but the Committee on Canons have a resolution on your Calendar which has never been taken from the Calendar, and we may take it up now and pass it.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. Go on and subject. make your speech while we are investigating the

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. I hope those of you who are young enough to be here three years from now will remember that when a practical subject is brought up and referred to the Committee on Canons it is really referred to a committee whose main business it is to prepare specimens of fossilized conservatism. I say this is a practical subject, and only this day I had the pleasure of conveying to the Bishop of Colorado the intelligence that one of the sisters of the Bishop Potter Memorial House, whom he desired to have, would be ready to go back with him, and another expressed a readiness to go in the spring. We are exceedingly anxious to have it brought under Episcopal supervision, and have it receive the sanction of the Church as soon as the Church is prepared to take one step forward in the great work that has been committed to us.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the resolution to discharge the Committee.

Rev. Dr. LEEDS, of Maryland. I am glad that what has been said by the Clerical Deputy, my friend from Massachusetts, has put this question in so right a light before the House. The question here concerns not simply an indigenous diaconate, but it has to do with the importation of womanly help from abroad that is here seeking employment.

I think it of the first importance that all such womanly help should be amenable to the authority of the Diocese in which it works, that it should not be responsible to a foreign headship; and while nominally it is so, yet I believe from the testimony of the Bishop of Honolulu, and also of Bishops in this country, it has not been practically so. Therefore the great importance of an indigenous diaconate among our holy and noble women who will devote themselves to the cause of Christ subject to the authority of this Church, and that this Church also shall insist as a condition of help from abroad that it shall be subject to the same rule.

I do not propose to discuss it, but I am very glad it has been brought before the Convention to work in the minds of the members of it until this body assembles again.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin.

With regard

to this matter of "the Female Deaconate and also of Sisterhoods," I think it is one of the most important things that ever have been brought before this Church; and it was brought before the Church prominently by one of the greatest members of the Church, the late Alonzo Potter, Bishop of Pennsylvania. I do hope that in this matter, we shall comply with the request of the Committee on Canons, and adopt their resolution. I propose that the whole matter be referred to the next General Convention for consideration.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. A Joint Committee has been appointed to take into consideration this whole subject during the recess, and report to the next General Convention.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I withdraw the motion I made, and move that it be referred to that Joint Committee.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. Why cannot the Canon be passed now?

The PRESIDENT. Because we have raised a Joint Commission and referred the matter to it, and no Canon is reported to us. The resolution reported from the Committee on Canons is that they be discharged from the consideration of the subject.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. And I hope it will be understood, Mr. President, that this report was not made through any lukewarmness or indifference to the work.

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. I should like to hear from the Committee why we cannot consider this practical subject, one of great importance, now. This putting off till to-morrow what ought to be done to-day, and the Church to lose all the benefit of active work, it seems to me, speaks a want of efficiency in the Episcopal Church which ought not to be charged against it. Now

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I was about to answer the gentleman, and I think I can answer him to his satisfaction. The Committee on Canons had referred to them the report of the Committee, to which the gentleman from Massachusetts has referred. That Committee was in the terms of the resolution creating it for the consideration of the expediency of reviving the primitive order of Deaconesses. That was the subject before the Committee. It was upon that subject that their report was to be made. The Committee on Canons found that the Canon which was proposed by the Committee was on Deaconesses, or Šisters hoods. There was an order of Deaconessein the ancient Church, most undoubtedly, but we found throughout this Canon that the word "sister" and "sisterhood" was used as synonymous with the word "deaconess." We were not prepared to say how far these two were identical, and therefore we preferred to separate them, and to leave the whole matter of the management and control of sisterhoods to the several Dioceses. Meanwhile, a

Joint Commission has been raised to take this whole subject into consideration, and to report to the next General Convention.

Rev. Dr. ABERCROMBIE, of New Jersey. I move that the Committee on Canons be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

Rev. Dr. KNICKERBACKER, of Minnesota. This matter was referred to a Joint Commission at the last General Convention. They have had the matter under consideration, and they have reported to us a Canon, the result of their deliberation and judgment. Why cannot that be called up and proposed at this convention? Do we expect that a new Commission can deliberate further, or enter more fully into the whole question? The whole question, I consider, was referred to a Commission three years ago, and they have settled upon this Canon. It seems to me we ought to adopt it, and not put off practical legislation of this kind so long. Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. Was that Canon adopted by the House of Bishops? The PRESIDENT. No, sir.

The SECRETARY. The whole matter was referred, by the action of the two Houses, to a Joint Committee to report at the next Convention.

Rev. Mr. HOPKINS, of Albany. The Canon, then, is not before us?

Rev. Dr. HUNTINGTON, of Massachusetts. 1 would remind the House that the Chairman of the new Commission, namely, the Bishop of the Diocese of Alabama, is in full accord with the language of the Canon as reported to this House. There is not the slightest doubt that, so far as he is able to shave the doings of this commission, it will bring in identically this measure. Therefore, if this House is prepared at this late day to pass the measure as introduced by the Committee, which considered it for three years carefully, then you will just save the Commission so much trouble. I am not very anxious about it, but I think if it can be done it would be well to be done.

Rev. Dr. DE KOVEN, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I have only a remark to make. The subject, of course, is an exceedingly important one. It is one that involves, I suppose, the most earnest work in this Church now. If we postpone the passage of any Canon until the next General Convention, we are not stopping this work. It is going on. The lay Deputy from Pennsylvania has just told us that this very day a member of that most admirable institution, the Bishop Potter Memorial House, has decided to join the Bishop of Colorado; and other Deaconesses are doing their work. We do not stop any work by considering this matter a little longer. It surely would do no harm to give three years more to the consideration of what is, the best practical way of organizing this most important labor. Therefore it seems to me that we can safely adopt this resolution, discharging the Committee on Canons, as we have already permitted a Joint Commission to go on with its labors. We shall then be prepared at the next General Convention to come to some definite and positive legislation, and not do it in a hasty way now. Meanwhile the work will not be interfered with in the least; it will go on whichever; action we take.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. I call for the reading of the Report of the Commtteeon Canons. I think that will give the House full information as to the ground upon which we acted. The Secretary read as follows:

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred the Canon reported by the Joint Committee appointed at the last General Convention, respectfully report that they are unable to recommend the passage of said Canon as it has come to them, for the reason that it is not sufficiently explicit as to what is to be understood by the word Deaconess.'

[ocr errors]

Throughout the proposed Canon the word Sister is used as synonymous with Deaconess'; although, as it appears to this Committee, there is a marked difference between the Order of Deaconesses, as described by early Christian writers, and the association of Christian women now existing under the name of Sisterhoods. While we fully appreciate the value and usefulness of the service rendered by these Sisterhoods, we are not prepared to make them identical with an order of ministers which undoubtedly existed in the Primitive Church, but regarding whose official position therein we have so little certain knowledge. The Committee therefore do not deem it expedient to legislate at present upon the subject of the Order of Deaconesses; and they prefer to leave the subject of the Sisterhoods to such action as each Diocese may judge wise and proper for itself.

66

They therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed 'Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters.""

May I

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. simply say that those who are curious on the subject will find the original Canon reported on page 60 of THE DAILY CHURCHMAN, and that the Committee on Canons considered these two subjects as different in themselves. They did not feel willing at present to make this legislation on the subject of Deaconesses; they did not feel prepared to go on with it; and as to sisterhoods they thought it was altogether better that the arrangements, laws, and rules of sisterhoods should be left for each Diocese to regulate by itself. It is no aversion to the work, but it is simply a judgment that it is unwise at present to legislate, either for one or the other, in the Convention.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adop tion of the resolution reported by the Committee on Canons.

The resolution was agreed to.

PAROCHIAL TEACHING.

The SECRETARY. The next business on the Calendar is Report No. 28, from the Committee on Canons, as follows:

"The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred Message No. 27, from the House of Bishops, proposing an additional section to Canon 19 of Title 1., 'Of Parochial Instruction,' respectfully report that they have considered the same, and recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That this House concur with the House of Bishops in the adoption of an additional section to be added to Canon 19, Title I., as proposed by the House of Bishops in their Message No. 27, with the amendment that the said section shall read as follows:

"Sec. 2. Ministers shall also be diligent in teaching the people committed to their charge according to the doctrine of Christ; observing and inculcating Christian holiness of life; rebuking gaming, intemperance, licentious theatrical amusements, and all amusements involving cruelty to the brute creation; reproving all ungodliness, covetousness, and worldliness; exhorting to the maintenance of family worship and the due observance of the Lord's Day; and calling upon parents and sponsors to train their children and god-children, both by precept and example, faithfully to observe their Baptismal vows." Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that we concur with the House of Bishops.

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. We recommend concurrence in the amended form.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS. of Wisconsin. What are the amendments?

Rev. Dr. WATSON, of North Carolina. It would be impossible to say without first reading the origi

nal message, and I have not that. It is simply a change of language. The same substance is aimed

at in both.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I myself and a large number of the Committee on Canons are opposed to this kind of legislation, to undertake to interfere with pastoral duties and to enumerate a lot of special duties without naming the hundredth part of them. We undertake to take up the details of a minister's work, and specify a few items, making a small decalogue, and leaving all the rest out. Now, there is no limit where you can begin to specify what a minister shall teach; there is no limit as to what he shall take up, and I think we have done enough when we have laid down, as we did in our Nineteenth Canon, some general duties as to keeping the Lord's Day, etc.; but when we undertake to say what he shall teach on this subject and on that, in regard to theatres, dancing, etc., we are opening the door to an enumeration that there is no end to, and we are implied to sanction everything else that is not there enumerated. It is the duty of this Church to lay down general rules for the laity. It adopts the principles of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, and the minister can teach such specific things as he thinks proper. If you look at the Nineteenth Canon, and then look at what is proposed to be added, I think it will be seen that there is serious objection to this special legislation. I, for one, was opposed to the report, and a large number of others in the Committee; but, as one or two members persisted in it, we finally concluded that the report should be made. I wish each clergyman here would look at it for himself; he is more competent to judge of it than I, a layman; but, to my mind, there is serious objection to all this kind of legislation.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Georgia. I merely want to ask whether circuses, cock-fighting, and bull-baiting are mentioned? [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. They are implied.

Mr. President, when this matter was first brought up I spoke about it and its importance, and I want to say now, in reply to the objection to legislation on this subject, that I am acquainted with some of the legislation of the Primitive Church, and that the main business of that legislation was to make the members of that Church holy and devout; and with regard to this amendment to the Nineteenth Canon, I say that we just do that thing. We come forward and say by our legislation to the members of this Church that it is the business of our clergy to teach them, not simply Apostolic succession, the doctrine of the ministry, etc., but that, as members of this Church-the Church which I calculate is to be the Catholic Church of this country-they be holy in life and doctrine; and I look upon this amendment to the Nineteenth Canon to be very distinctly and clearly a declaration upon that point. I see no difficulty whatsoever in the objections that have been made against it by my distinguished friend Judge Otis, of Illinois.

I hope, therefore, that the members of this Convention, the clergy, both High and Low, who want holiness of life and doctrine written on the banners of this Church, and the laity who want morality and truth according to the best morality—that is, the morality of our Lord Jesus Christ-taught by this Church, will not listen to any picking of flaws or fault-finding, but will give us this resolution as it has come from the Committee on Canons.

[blocks in formation]

standard of morality set forth by the Church. We have in our constant work in the Church the principles of Christian morality held up, and held up in language better, stronger, and clearer than could possibly be set forth in that Canon.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. In reply I would ask the reading of the Canon as proposed to be amended.

The Secretary read the resolution.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. To properly appreciate and understand this section, it is well to look at the scope of the Canon which is to be amended. The Canon is a very brief one, and in Title I. is an injunction upon the ministers of our Church to be diligent in catechetical instruction, and also in instruction in informing the youth and others in the doctrine, Constitution, and Liturgy of the Church. It will be observed that the Canon as it now stands is simply an injunction upon clergymen to instruct children and others in the Catechism, and in the doctrine, Constitution, and Liturgy of the Church. The proposed amendment changes the entire character and scope of the Canon.

Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia. I think if I understand it right this is another section to be added to that.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. It is added, but I say it changes its entire character and scope. The present Canon is based upon the assumption that every clergyman in this Church inculcates morality, and what is more than morality, spirituality and holiness of life, and it did not deem it necessary that the duty which was imposed by the injunction of Holy Writ, and the very nature of their offices, should be made in the form of a Canon. I understand it is charged from outside that we do not inculcate Christian morality and spirituality, but that we only require teaching in the Catechism, Doctrine, Constitution, and Liturgy of the Church. If it is deemed proper to meet that absurd charge, then it would suffice to terminate the Canon at that part of it which enjoins upon the clergyman also to inculcate Christian holiness of life; and that is as far as we can go if we follow the example, as I understand it, of our Divine Master, and the record He has left for us. He has not undertaken to define and specify the particular things which Christians may or may not do, because that partakes of the nature of the law which He intended to supersede; but He gave us a universal law, love to God, and love to our neighbor. He gave us directions in the Sermon on the Mount for the whole field of human duty, and this new law which He gave to us of love, is the expansion and interpretation of the ancient law given by Moses, if I have been properly instructed by my clergyman.

Now, Mr. President, my objection to this is that it is too exclusive. As some one expressed it to me, expressio unius exclusio alterius. If you express one or two things, you will have next year something else to be added specifically, and, it seems to me, we shall be only safe in making this matter general, as the Christian law is general.

There is another very important reason. Differences of opinion will exist about some things, and men must stand or fall in such matters by their own consciences. It is between them and their God, and you cannot impose any duty upon a clergyman that will alter the freedom of opinion of individuals on such subjects. I move that all after the word "holiness" be stricken from the Canon.

Rev. Mr. JENNINGS, of Missouri. We are already required to teach the Catechism. We cannot teach the Catechism without teaching the Ten Commandments. We cannot teach the Ten Commandments without teaching the Sermon on the Mount

explanatory of them. What more do we want? I move to lay the whole subject on the table.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to lay the whole matter on the table. The motion was agreed to.

MINISTERS OFFICIATING IN OTHER CURES. The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Calendar is the report of the Committee on Canons, in reference to a proposed amendment to Section 6, of Canon 12, of Title I., relating to the officiating of Ministers within the cures of others, to which is appended the following resolution :

66

Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be discharged from the consideration of the proposed amendment to Section 6, of Canon 12, of Title I." Rev. Dr. CLARK, of New Jersey. The object of that resolution was to cover clergymen whose consciences are very tender with regard to officiating at funerals and other services at which they are obliged to officiate outside the limits of their own parishes. For example, those of us who are located in large towns or cities are sometimes obliged to go to cemeteries and to officiate outside of our own Church districts, and there certainly can be no harm in passing that addition to the Canons only intended to meet such cases. I hope, therefore, the report of the Committee will not be accepted.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I will explain the action of the Committee. It was proposed to amend our law so that a clergyman may go into the parochial cure of another and officiate at funerals, etc., without asking leave of the parochial rector. It was opposed by the Reverend Chairman of our Committee, on the ground that if we commence letting down the bars in this direction, it would be done in other things, and lead to trouble perhaps; and that is the secret of the whole thing.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.

TITLE OF HOUSE OF DEPUTIES.

The PRESIDENT. The next business is the report of the Committee on Canons, relating to the title of this House, being the following resolution :

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the House of Deputies, in making up the proceedings of the General Convention, and in the publication of the Journal of 1874, to strike out the words 'House of Clerical and Lay Deputies' wherever they occur, and insert instead thereof the words 'House of Deputies.'

The resolution was agreed to.

ORGANIZATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES. The PRESIDENT. The next business on the Calendar is the following resolution, reported by the Committee on Canons :

"Resolved (the House of Bishops concurring), That Section 1 of Canon 2, Title III., be amended so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 1. In every Diocese there shall be a Standing Committee composed of an equal number of Presbyters and laymen, communicants of the Church, to be appointed by the Convention thereof, whose duties, except so far as provided for by the Canons of the General Convention, may be prescribed by the Canons of the respective Dioceses. They shall elect from their own body a president and a secretary. They may meet on their own adjournment from time to time; and the President shall have power to summon special meetings whenever he shall deem it necessary.

Rev. Dr. STEARNS, of Easton. I move the indefinite postponement of that resolution, and I will give my reasons.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. Dr. Stearns consents that

the Committee on Canons may explain their amendment. You will notice that the Standing Committee of this Church, in each Diocese, is authorized and provided for by Canons of the General Convention. It is a creature of the General Convention. The Standing Committees are appointed in each Diocese by the Diocesan Conventions. But, to come right to the point, the question is this: In every Diocese but three these Committees are composed of clergymen and laymen. The Dioceses of Connecticut, Maryland and Easton have, from time immemorial, from their first organization after the Revolution, had their Standing Committees composed entirely of clergymen. In all other Dioceses they are composed of clergymen and laymen.

Rev. Dr. HALL, of Long Island. about Connecticut.

One word At one time they changed and admitted laymen, and gave it up again.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. All who are familiar with the history of this Church know that the idea of introducing the laity was strongly opposed by Bishop Seabury, the first Bishop of Connecticut. There was then a fierce controversy, and finally a compromise. The laity were introduced into the General Convention, without which, as Bishop White repeatedly said, we never could have organized under our general Constitution. The laity are equal in this House, equal in the legislation of this House, equal in their constitutional rights. This provision now as proposed, of course, is to make the law of the General Convention the law of the whole Church, that there shall be a Standing Committee in each Diocese, and that that Standing Committee shall be composed of an equal number of clergymen and laymen.

If a

It is claimed that this should be done for a special reason. Two-thirds of our Bishops are elected during the interval between the meetings of the General Convention. The laity have no voice in passing upon the credentials of Bishops-elect unless they are placed in these Standing Committees. Therefore, to preserve the rights of the three orders, the Bishops, clergy, and laity, this principle should extend into the Standing Committees of the Dioceses. Bishop is elected after the adjournment of this General Convention in three Dioceses of this Church, the laity are not exalted into taking part in the testimonials, but only the clergymen. To secure harmony, therefore, you will see the position of the Committee in this matter, and we do not understand that it meets with any serious opposition from those Dioceses; that at least is the information of the Committee on Canons; and now, when we have authorized, in this body, these Standing Committees, shall we go a step further and say that they shall be composed of an equal number of clergymen and laymen? The whole Church has practised upon this except the three Dioceses named. We have the clear constitutional right, in my opinion, to insist that their Standing Committees shall be composed of the two orders, the clergy and laity, in equal number. I have no doubt about that. Whether it is wise or politic to insist upon it is the question.

Rev. Dr. BEARDSLEY, of Connecticut. As a Deputy from a Diocese that limits its representation in the Standing Committee to the clerical order, I ask leave to say a few words on this subject. No proposition to change the Canons and the Constitution of our Church has surprised me more than this. Suggested amendments of the Constitution, which had in them a clear sense of justice and right, have been passed over very summarily this session, and scarcely received attention enough to consider their merits; but here is a proposition to abridge the liberty of the Dioceses in a matter which does not concern the Church at large, which affects only two

or three Dioceses. I cannot see that the prosperity of the parishes in New York or Illinois is affected by the fact that Maryland, Easton, and Connecticut compose their Standing Committee of clergymen alone.

I have objections to this proposition independent of the arbitrary character of it. It provides that the Standing Committee shall be composed of equal numbers of the two orders, and questions may arise when one order would balance the other, and thus no decision be reached.

But I have still stronger objections. Connecticut is the Primal Diocese of this land, and came originally into the ecclesiastical union with reluctance, because her first Bishop, Seabury, had doubts about, or was opposed to, the introduction of the lay element into our Church legislature. My reading of history does not show that there was any very great struggle upon that matter. Connecticut gave up all her preferences and cordially acceded to the General Constitution; and I challenge any one to show that from that day to this she has not been as loyal as her sisters to the Church and as devoted to the advancement of its Apostolic principles.

This Convention, under its General Constitution, has no right to say that we shall have our Standing Committee composed of an equal number of clergymen and laymen. What we have is in the nature of a chartered right, and there is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes this body to introduce the laity into the Standing Committee of Connecticut.

It has been said that it was practised to some extent in Connecticut. I would like to know where that history was obtained. Two attempts within my memory have been made to introduce the laity into the Standing Committee of Connecticut, but in both cases the attempts were defeated by the laity themselves. They refused to reverse the history and precedents of the Diocese in a matter which has come down to us from Seabury's time. It is true when Bishop Hobart provisionally administered the Diocese, accustomed as he was to the practice of his own New York, he did succeed in getting into the Standing Committee of Connecticut, for a single year, a lay element; but they dropped it the very next year, and thereafter fixed in their constitution a provision that the Standing Committee should be composed of clergymen alone. Before that, when we acceded to the general Constitution, nothing was said in our Constitution about the orders composing the Standing Committee. It was taken for granted that the clergy would be chosen, and no other order. As I have said, what we have is in the nature of a chartered right, and you cannot take it away from us.

More than that, Mr. President, it is fixed in our Constitution that the Standing Committee shall be chosen at the Annual Convention of the Diocese, and shall be composed of five clerical members. If you pass this Canon you put us to inconvenience if you do not make it practically inoperative, for we cannot change our Constitution under two years, and then only by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Diocesan Convention.

Now, sir, what is the advantage to be gained by this measure? All that I hear said is that it will bring the Dioceses into harmony and make them uniform. Is it necessary to have a Canon for this purpose? Do Maryland, and Easton, and Connecticut show themselves to be without the line now? Does the Diocese which I have the honor of representing on this floor fail to keep step with the Church as she marches on triumphantly to victory here and to victory there, or would she by this change be any more valuable in the warfare with the kingdom of Satan, or furnish better records of her zeal and reverence?

Now, sir, this is a mere theory, and it may well

« PreviousContinue »