Page images
PDF
EPUB

raise the point of order that that will be the effect of voting down this motion.

Mr. OTIS, of Illinois. I should like to have one good reason stated why we should postpone consideration until Wednesday. The Committee reported on Saturday last. I have not heard a reason stated for postponing, and I hope the House will vote down the motion.

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. I wish to state that there is one very strong reason for the proposed postponement, which I think will have due weight with this House-

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether my motion to proceed forthwith is before the House?

The PRESIDENT. I think not.

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illinois. The statement which I wish to make is simply this. There are now on the way to this House, from the Diocese of Illinois, certain papers and memorials connected with the proposed confirmation of Dr. Seymour's lection, which are prepared to state certain facts about that election, the consideration of which will, it seems to me, form a very necessary element in the discussion of the question by the House. I hold in my hand a telegram, and also a letter, stating the fact that these papers are now on the way to New York, and I respectfully ask that this fact be borne in mind by the House as offering a very important reason for postponement. These papers may be here tomorrow morning; they may not be here until Wednesday morning; but at any rate the very fact of their being on their way here is a reason sufficient, I think, for postponement.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. What is the question before the House, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT. Postponing until Wednesday morning immediately after Divine service the consideration of the two reports of the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops.

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. Allow me to ask the last speaker, through you, Mr. President, whether that time will be agreeable to him, or whether he asks a further delay?

Rev. Dr. CORBETT, of Illincis. I can only say in reply that that seems reasonable, for the documents were posted in the city of Chicago on Saturday, and therefore ought to be here to-morrow morning by the farthest. I should think Wednesday would be a sufficiently reasonable time to wait. May I ask, before sitting down, in case the papers should not have arrived by Wednesday morning, will the fact of this postponement to Wednesday morning being decided upon preclude the possibility

of their being put in?

[blocks in formation]

Mr. STEVENSON, of Kentucky. There is a reason, I think, why this question should be postponed. There are several Deputies to my knowledge, men of experience and men of influence, who left here on Saturday, and who will not return until to-morrow. It occurs to me that, in a matter of such vast importance as this, in addition to the suggestion of the Deputy last up, every member of this Convention ought to know at least a day in advance when the subject will be taken up, so that if he is within a day's journey from here he can be here if he pleases. I hope the question will be postponed until Wednesday.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. This motion is to override our rules of order. I do not object to Wednesday or Thursday, or next week. I move to amend by inserting "at 12 o'clock on Wednesday,"

and then we do not override our rules of order or set any bad precedent for the action of this House.

The PRESIDENT. Although I am inclined to think a special order of the day can be made overriding the rules, conformably to the suggestion of the gentleman from Western New York, yet I would prefer having a day or two to consider that point; and as it is a fact that we shall hardly reach this business until a few minutes before twelve o'clock on Wednesday, that being, as all here are aware, a Litany day, I think it would be much better for us to make this business simply the order of the day for Wednesday.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I will name any hour the Chair wishes. The PRESIDENT.

Twelve o'clock will suit me; I merely wish to avoid deciding the other question impromptu.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. You will observe, Mr. President, that unless I make the motion before twelve o'clock, or at twelve, the Calendar will take its place.

The PRESIDENT. Let it be twelve, if you please.

Mr. MONTGOMERY, of Western New York. I cheerfully acquiesce in the suggestion of the Chair, if it be the wish of the House to make this matter the special order for Wednesday, at twelve o'clock. That may, however, involve the removal of our friends from the galleries.

The PRESIDENT. No, sir, they will not come. It is moved to postpone the reports of the Committee on the Consecration of Bishops until Wednesday, at twelve o'clock.

The motion was agreed to.

BOARD OF MISSIONS NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

The PRESIDENT. The second order of the day is to proceed to ballot for a committee of three Clergymen and three Laymen to sit with a committee of the House of Bishops to nominate a Board of Missions.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I would nominate Rev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts; Rev. Dr. Scarborough, of Pittsburgh; Rev. Dr. Locke, of Illinois; Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Cornwall, of Kentucky, and Mr. McWhorter, of Central New York.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I move that we dispense with the ballot, these names are so acceptable.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved to dispense with the ballot, and these names be voted upon. The motion was agreed to.

election of the gentleman named as the Committee The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the

named to nominate the Board of Missions. The gentlemen named were elected.

LAMBETH CONFERENCE.

Rev. Dr. VAN DEUSEN, of Central New York. Are resolutions in order?

The PRESIDENT. They are. The Calendar has been disposed of.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Then I call for the consideration of the resolution I offered a while ago.

Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia. Mr. President, I interposed an objection to the resolution of my friend from Long Island. I desire now to withdraw it, having understood the object of the resolution. Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I call for the resolution.

The Secretary read the resolution, as follows: "Whereas, In the address of the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield, made to this House on the occasion of his formal presentation on the 9th inst., as well as in the address of the Most Rev. the Metro

politan of Canada and the Bishops of Kingston and Quebec upon the same occasion, reference was made to the probable reassembling of a Lambeth Conference at an early day, including an intimation that an expression of the sentiment of this Church upon the subject might possibly facilitate the convening of the second session of this Conference. Therefore,

"Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies respectfully submit for the consideration of the House of Bishops its cordial approbation in any measures that may be proposed by the Church of England for the reassembling of the Lambeth Conference in a second session.

"Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and resolution be communicated to the House of Bishops as a message from the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.'

The PRESIDENT. Does the Deputy from Long Island wish to speak to the resolution?

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. If there is to be any debate on the resolution, I should like to be heard; but I hope it will not elicit any debate. I presume there is no occasion for discussion; the inatter is plain; it is readily understood by the House.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I confess that I rise with diffidence to express the opinions I am about to express on what I deem a very important subject, if a farce can be deemed to have importance. This is to be a repetition of a scene which took place in 1867, I think, on the invitation of the late Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in the Colonies and the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, or who were in any way connected with it, in these United States. Now, mark, by this invitation - it was nothing but a polite invitation

of one gentleman the Church of England as a Church had nothing to do with it-gentlemen here in America were called to travel, some three thousand, many three thousand five hundred or four thousand miles, to go and visit the late Archbishop of Canterbury. It was said to be for a conference, but only four days were the period appointed for that conference. It was a mere invitation to a Canterbury tea-party, nothing else; and then what was the consequence? These gentlemen go there I thank God that my Bishop had too much sense to go-they go there, and what is the result? They go there full of this then recent affair in the British Colonies, the Colenso business, and they find that by a private arrangement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury nothing of the kind can be entertained; and after politely waiving what I would deem their rights in the matter, the four days were soon expended, of course, as much of our time is expended, in preliminary discussions, and at the expiration of that time what have they done? What could they do? The Church of England dare not move in a matter of that kind unless assured that the state will back her in what she does. Thank God, we belong to a Church that does not ask toleration from the state, but protection, and we ask nothing else; and we say, when the state does attempt to put its hands on the Ark of God which is committed to our protection, Stand off, stand off!" "Procul este, profani!" Now, sir, we are asked to affirm to the Bishops that we are ready to consent to another farce of that kind, for it was nothing but a farce, and a farce which ended in something very tragical. When these Right Reverend Fathers gathered from Australia, from America, and from the little dominion of England (little compared with the dimensions of this dominion of ours in the United States), what was the result? After the four

days' conference they came to the conclusion to separate in the best humor possible, and proposed-I do not know but that the proposition came from him who was at that time the presiding Bishop of our Church that the Bishops should have their final meeting in Westminster Abbey. What was the result? A priest, who forsooth had the authority of the Dean there, said, "No, gentlemen," to all the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in the world-"No, gentlemen, you shall not go there "-that very man who admits to the Holy Communion with other good men (and I trust he night have been a good man, though a very crroneous one) a Socinian afterwards. Genticmen, are we going in any way to countenance this?

in the hands of

Let me tell you further that the right reverend gentleman who has taken so strong an interest in this subject has made a proposition, and the proposition is that we should become one great province, if you please, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan of these United States for the nonce, and that in all these conferences the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the great Metropolitan or Patriarch, is to preside. Gentlemen, are we, who know that the English Church did not dare to give us a Bishop until they got the consent of Parliament,-are we prepared to take a man appointed under a congé d'élire, a permission to elect, but at the same time assuring "them if you do not elect you have got to take the other alternative, and we will oust you and send you to th Tower," -are we to put this free Churc or with a perron thi appointed at the head? I say there i no parity in the case. I say there is no respectability in the case. I cay what is more, that you can not do a thing that will injure this Church more in the estimation of this Republic than such a movement as that. God forbid that I should ever forget what the Church of England in her society did for this country. God forbid that I should forget what the sovereignty of England in days past in our colonial period did. But I never can forget that again and again the Church in the country petitioned for perfection, "Send us a Bishop." We had to send our candidates 3,000 miles, and two-thirds of them, or onehalf at least, died before they came back with permission to officiate; and why did that Church refuse? Simply because the timid state was afraid of sectarianism here, and that they would injure themselves and their government at home if they made the Church here perfect.

I know that many are wont to call the Church of England the Mother Church. I hold that she is not. If so, I claim her to be nothing but a very poor stepmother. The Church in this country never was perfected till she got her perfection by the consecration of Seabury from the Bishops of Scotland, and if we acknowledge a mother other than the Mother Church of Jerusalem (which I am not prepared to acknowledge), we must acknowledge Scotland, not England.

I could say a great deal more on this subject; full of it I am; but, under the circumstances, I think I have said enough to satisfy the members of this House that they had better let it alone, and wait till the Bishops tell us what they think of it. They are the persons interested. They accepted the first invitation without asking us "with your leave" or "by your leave." Now, after they have been bluffed, and this Church, I would say, insulted as it has been by the Dean of Canterbury, and by the prearrangement of keeping out the very question which these gentlemen, at a large expense of time and money, went to attend to, why not leave them first to express their opinion? My word for it, from what I know of the self-respect of the members of

that House, if you wait for that you will wait to the end of the term.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Mr. President, I had no conception that the venerable Deputy from Connecticut entertained such feelings of animosity.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I do not, sir. I have shown no feeling of animosity, but simply of self-respect.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I may be permitted, Mr. President, to choose my own words. I say I had no idea that the gentleman had such feelings of animosity toward the Church of England, or toward those fifteen or twenty (I forget how many) venerable Bishops of our Church who went across the water to the Pan-Anglican Conference, as it was called, of 1867. I cannot disguise my astonishment at tantæne animis cœlestibus iræ. Know

to

ing him in other and such very general relations, and knowing his loyalty the Church, and knowing how ready he is to stand up not only for this particular branch of it but for the Church catholic, I must say that I am quite overwhelmed. When I was asked if I had any remarks to make concerning this resolution, I said no, because I supposed it would not elicit debate. An objection that was to be taken having been withdrawn by the distinguished Deputy from Virginia upon a clearer apprehension of the terms, as I supposed, of the preamble and resolution, I took for granted that the way was clear for a unanimous passage, for I had made enquiries in the House in various quarters concerning it. I had intended offering it on Saturday, but I deferred it that I might get at what I supposed to be a fair expression of the average sentiment of the House on the subject. But now, after this warm and very cogent speech-for the distinguished Clerical Deputy from Connecticut always speaks cogently and generally with a great deal of warmth-I feel that it is necessary to say something in defence of the resolution.

The Bishops who went out to the Conference of 1867 had no opportunity of being advised by this House before they went, and therefore the argument in that regard falls to the ground. Furthermore, let me say that the House of Bishops regard it as á delicate matter for them to propose to this House that they shall of their own action elect themselves to be members of a distant conference without some suggestion on the part of this House; and therefore the Clerical Deputy was perfectly right when he said that if we waited for the action of the House of Bishops we should wait for ever. They will certainly never take that action.

I do not propose entering into a labored defence of the Conference of the Anglican Bishops in 1867. I was there at the time, and I was present at the opening religious services of that Conference. I was in daily communication with the deputation of American Bishops. I know perfectly well that during that time there was a degree of enthusiasm on the part of the Bishops of the American Church representing different phases of churchmanship. I remember very well the distinguished Prelate who was then our Presiding Bishop, and the late Bishop of Ohio, saying to me time and again that they felt that that Conference was designed to remove misunderstandings, to promote perfect sympathy throughout the different branches of the Church, to root more firmly the conservative sentiment of the Church through

but

the world and make it more completely one; that they felt that the interchange of sentiments and feelings there would have a tendency to banish from the Church what has been called the madness of extremes. I know that, though that Conference did not meet the

wishes of those who expected special legislation, for it was not in the power of that Conference to take any legislative action. As the Deputy from Connecticut bas already said, they had RO such power. It was purely a voluntary gathering together, precisely as this will be, not for the promulgation of dicta or dogma, but for the simple purpose of conferring concerning the interests of Christ in the several jurisdictions represented by the Bishops who come together for that purposesimply that, Mr. President, and nothing more.

There is no proposition made, and there is no idea entertained of any such office or proposed office as that of the Archbishop of Canterbury assuming towards the Church in this country the relation of a Metropolitan to a Province, or his becoming the Patriarch of the Anglican Church, or any views such as we know have been entertained by Utopian dreamers in ecclesiasticism at various times and in differ ent parts of the Church-nothing of the sort. It is simply a conference that comes together under the call of Him whom we recognize as the highest officer in our branch of the Christian Church, for the purpose of communing together upon the greatest interests of the Church, for the purpose of promoting those interests in every way-coming together that they may infuse into each other the same energetic spirit that they carry into their work in the different Dioceses, and in that blessed fusion enjoy not only the communion of saints but, at the same time, give fresh impetus to the Catholic idea, enlarge it, augment it, and give it more practical and universal adaptation.

I cannot say that I take any very great special personal interest in this matter. I prefer referring it to those who have wiser heads and who are more experienced than I. I can only say that I can seo nothing detrimental possibly to grow out of such a Conference, and I can see a great deal that will be of advantage to the Church that will grow out of it.

The preamble and resolution, which I worded with the utmost care, Mr. President, you will find commit us to nothing, involve simply nothing but the expression of a polite sentiment. And when the Bishop of Lichfield, who is hore as the guest of this Church and who preached the inaugural sermon of this Convention, states, as he did here on the 9th inst., that he regards the coming together of that Conference in London in 1867 as the most important event since the Reformation, I take it for granted that this Convention owes it, at least to the cause of consistency in inviting that distinguished prelate to come here, to give some little weight to the words that he speaks in reference to this matter. I do not know that I agree with him, but I am only speaking of the weight which I say properly attaches to the words that he speaks in this connection.

I ask only a formal expression of our opinion that we present it to the House of Bishops to consider any measure, to express their approbation to any measure that may be adopted in reference to that conveningprobably my wording there, "by the Church of England," is a mistake, and probably I ought to say, "by the Archbishop of Canterbury," because the point made by the Clerical Deputy of Connecticut is correct that it is not done by the Church of England in its corporate capacity either as an Establishment or as a Church, but it is done at the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I shall therefore be very happy to amend my resolution by accepting his suggestion in that particular, in order to make it to be entirely according to the facts of the case.

But, sir, I feel that we are making entirely too much of a matter that, so far as we are concerned in this House, should be merely a matter of formality or a matter of courtesy. After all, this is not

an

that

opinion Bishops of the

the endorsement of this House of anything that is to be done hereafter. It is merely an expression of if in the wisdom of the Church of England they see fit to call a conference of the Bishops representing not only the Church in England, but the Colonial Church in different parts of the world, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, we are disposed to receive any such proposition as that kindly-politely, if you choose. There is no action proposed that commits us to anything whatever. I therefore beg to deprecate, Mr. President, any violent discussion on this subject. I would not have said, as I intimated in the beginning, anything at all had it not been elicited and made necessary by the remarks of my distinguished friend the Clerical Deputy from Connecticut. I therefore would submit to the catholic feeling, to the evangelical sentiment, and to the hospitable ideas of this House under existing circumstances, that this resolution ought to pass without opposition.

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. Mr. President, in all the deliberations of this House which have come under my observation, I have never felt so great surprise as that a resolution of this kind should be offered and urged as one of mere courtesy. Were it a mere question of delicate consideration, of hospitality, as the gentleman expresses it, I presume there is not one in this House who could for a moment hesitate in an anxious desire to express our warm gratitude to those who have come to us from the Mother Church, honored by every member of our Church, and I am sure by none more heartily than iny honored friend from Connecticut.

But, sir, if it be a mere question as to whether the Bishops of this Church shall accept a social invitation, if such invitation in future may be tendered them, a meeting for social conference or for spiritual improvement, I submit that the strong language contained in this resolution is entirely out of place, and, moreover, that it is not the part of this Convention in advance, to express their warm approval of the Bishops accepting an invitation to a mere social entertainment. But, sir, if there is something more than this, which is in the future and connected with this Conference, then to pass upon the subject in so informal a manner--to treat as a mere matter of courtesy that which seems to aim at an organic change in all the relations of our Church to the Anglican Communion-is to me amazing.

Sir, the gentleman treats with great contempt the idea that there is anything more than a social entertainment or spiritual conference for the benefit of their Churches aimed at.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I beg pardon. I used no such language. I said nothing about this being a social entertainment; much less did I say that it was nothing more than a social entertainment.

Rev. Dr. NORTON, of Virginia. I understood the gentleman to have affirmed his conviction that there was nothing intended like new relations between this Church and the Church of England, and especially that no one seriously dreamed of recognizing the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Primate of the Anglican Communion. That I understood distinctly to be affirmed by the gentleman.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. Yes, sir. Rev. Dr. NORTON of Virginia. Then surely we ought to hesitate before receiving his assurance in the face of all the many intimations which have come to other gentlemen in a great variety of forms that there was something more hoped for by those who are pushing forward these measures. Now, sir, if it be a mere matter of courtesy that our Bishops should meet their brother Bishops and confer

But

with them, I submit that the Diocese of each OLC of our Bishops is the only party competent to give advice and express арproval, and if need be furnish the means. if this be intended as the forerunner of some new legislative body which in the future shall give law to all the Anglican Communion, which shall interfere with the independence of the American Church, it seems to me the most momentous question which could be brought to our notice; and if there be any serious intention in this movement, or any serious aim in it, it appears to me it must come somewhat in this shape. I am sure that if Our Church is to grow and prosper in the land, it must be as an independent Church, attached to all the sympathies, thoughts, and institutions of the American people. And, considering how little we know with certainty of the last Lambeth Conference, how chary they were of informing the public as to what they said and what they did, it can scarcely be claimed that we are called upon in advance to express our cordial ap proval of our Bishops accepting an invitation, if perchance they may receive it.

Rev. Dr. VINTON, of Massachusetts. Mr. President, it strikes me that there could hardly be a proposition made to this House on any general subject so entirely gratuitous, at least in one aspect of it, and so suggestive of all pregnant mischief in another aspect of it. It is gratuitous, because we are not called upon to say a word on the subject. of the resolution means anything, it means that this House shall say to the Bishops: "We would like to have you go to England." We have no authority to take any such stand or utter any voice. Therefore it is gratuitous, and therefore not to be admitted. But touching the other view of the matter, as a mere demonstration of kindness, is it necessary that there should be a repetition of that interchange of visits of 1867? Let the Conference of Lambeth pass for what it may, the prospective meeting at Lambeth is not a Conference. All who have read the English papers, all who listened to the Bishop of Lichfield the other day, can understand perfectly well that the aim of this whole proceeding is to inaugurate an organized and grand synod of the whole English-speaking Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury to be its legitimate and recognized Primate. It is then an organic entity that is to be called into being by this action. Now let us look a moment at the bearings of that.

It is not a mere social gathering; it is not a festival outside, nor a festival of reason simply, but it is to come together to deliberate upon principles of Church doctrine, Church practice, Church interests in some shape or other; and inasmuch as the Church of England cannot legislate with authority without Parliament to help it, it can, nevertheless, when it gathers together in this imposing form, put forth its decrees with a certain aspect of authority. Now, suppose our Bishops go, not once, but remember the idea is to have it periodically. The Bishop of Lichfield told us the other day most emphatically how deeply his soul was in earnest in the matter, and for that purpose in great part did he come here to effectuate-what? Union; independence, indeed, but union. Organic union, that must mean.

Are we ready for organic union with the Church of England? Are we ready-I do not say to receive our laws from her, but are we ready to sit down in a state of receptiveness, and say to her highest authority in matters of doctrine, Teach us; we will carry home these views to our Church at home, and no doubt they will be vastly influenced by the authority of this Synod"? We are importing a sovereignty from abroad. Now, are we so far removed from our origin as a Church that we have forgotten how this Church had to fight

at

We

against, as its main opponent, the constant cry and charge, "You are Anglican, you are monarchical, there is nothing republican in you, there is nothing in you adapted at all to popular institutions"? Do we not know how the Fathers of the Church-all honor be to their memory-studiously aimed to adapt the institutions of this organism to those of our civil arrangements? And has it not been many a time a matter of admiration, and might I not say an argument by which we could once overpower all manner of suggestion against the popularness of this institution of ours? We have proved that it was purely American, and many an elaborate sermon was preached in our early history to prove that the American Episcopal Church had no organic connection whatsoever with the Church of England. say the same again and again; and now are we so clean demented that we shall ourselves make overtures for the reproduction of that which well-nigh swamped us at the beginning, and will most assuredly overwhelm us with deserved reproach at the end? Why, can you carry this Church of ours? I am now supposing what is possible, and only possible, I will admit; but, if possible, a thing to be shunned, that possibility being this, namely: the returning influence of our Bishops from the grand Pan-Anglican Synod, and bringing with them in spite of themselves the remembrance and the reflection of that power born in that institute; they will bring it here and, whether consciously or unconsciously, they will diffuse it more or less. It will take an organic form; by and by that Synod will want to be heard here and it will want to be heard with authority, and then it becomes a recognized power. That is the point I am looking forward to. Let that come; when we go abroad in this great American Union, where liberal ideas, ideas of personal, and civil, and ecelesiastical freedom are as the very breath of life to the population, can we suppose that we can recommend our Church to strangers and outsiders when, on looking into us a little, they say, "Why, but you are connected with the Church of England; you are positively under the authority of a foreign ecclesiastical dominion; you are not American; we will none of you"? I am sure that every American heart here to-day must feel that this is a living likelihood; it cannot be escaped, and it would be fatal.

The only question whether all this is true or not depends on the possibility, the potentiality of it. I believe it to be wrapped up in this movement. The Bishops may go of their own free motion and make another visit to Lambeth, if their expenses can be paid, and they would enjoy the visit. There are no more university degrees for them to be ornamented with on their visit, but nevertheless they would, no doubt, enjoy the visit exceedingly; but oh! let it be a visit, let it be communion, if you please, to their hearts' content; communion not only at the same altar, but communion in the household, by the wayside, arm in arm, but never organic, integral union. God save this dear Church from any such combination as that, any entanglement of foreign and uncongenial alliances that would merge her prosperity before it is fully born.

The PRESIDENT. There is a standing order that the House shall take a recess at half-past one o'clock. That hour has arrived. The House now takes

a recess to two o'clock.

At two o'clock P.M. the House resumed its session.

REFERENCE OF MESSAGES.

On motion of Rev. Dr. BURR, of Ohio, the message of the House of Bishops (No. 11) in regard to the division of the Diocese of Ohio was referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Dioceses.

On motion of Rev. Dr. WILLIAMS, of Georgia, Messages Nos. 8 and 9 of the House of Bishops were referred to the Committee on Canons.

LESSONS FOR LENT.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut, presented a Table of Lessons for Lent, which was referred to the Committee on the Prayer-Book.

LAMBETH CONFERENCE.

The PRESIDENT. The House will now resume the consideration of the matter pending when the recess was taken, being the preamble and resolution offered by the Deputy from Long Island [Rev. Dr. Schenck).

Mr. RUGGLES, of New York. Mr. President, if I did not feel most deeply the importance of this debate, I should not, in my present state of health, ceedingly brief, and shall simply endeavor, with venture to engage in it; and, as it is, I shall be exwhat little physical strength I have, to state some few facts which I think essentially necessary for the decision of this case.

In the first place, as to myself. I announce that I am utterly opposed to relinquishing in any manner, directly or indirectly, either affirmatively or by any implication, one jot or tittle of the national independence of this Church. Under no possible contrivance, by no possible implication, in no possible way do I propose as a layman of this great Church to allow any interference with its continental independence. I hope that is plain enough. Now, I will go farther. I do not think the Lambeth Conference has yet endangered the independence of this Church. I do not think, if properly conducted, it will ever cadanger the independence of this Church. These are facts which it seems to me ought to dispel all apprehension on this occasion.

There are several parties to this movement of different temperaments. One of them is the great Apostolic Prelate whom we have welcomed twice to this Convention, the illustrious Prelate of whom I speak with the most unbounded admiration as a Churchman, as a gentleman, as a historian, as a man. In every capacity in which I can know human nature he deserves honor and affection. I do not enter into the motives of this movement, but I simply say that he is affirmatively moving, in my belief, to gratify what he has largely developced in his great nature, the power of organism. He does wish, I have no doubt, something like an organic union of the two Churches of the two great English-speaking races. That movement, to a certain extent, is creditable and desirable, but to a certain other extent it is extremely dangerous and utterly inadmissible.

There is no doubt the Bishop of Lichfield has in view some measures that shall, in the first place, secure the integrity of the Prayer-Book. I see before me many clerical faces; and let me ask who is there here that does not want to secure the integrity of the Prayer-Book from all mutilation, from indiscreet alteration, and from all partial readjustment for any local or temporary purpose? I am opposed to all alterations in the Prayer-Book at the present, and will go to the last extremity to oppose any alteration whatever in it.

One great object that he has in view, I believe, is to induce the two great Churches to hold one doctrine on that subject, to say that they will not allow the Prayer-Book, I am almost willing to go as far as to say that we will not alter it, except by the conjoint consent of the two great English Churches, the Church of old England and the greater Church of New England, and when I say that I do not underrate this Church in old England. Old England has a laity of thirty millions of people,

« PreviousContinue »