Page images
PDF
EPUB

and then, if they act upon that intimation and send back to the Archbishop, formally or informally, in any way they please, their response that an invitation to such a Conference would be generally responded to, the invitation goes forth, and not till then. There have been memorials sent from Canada, and from various colonial Churches, up to the Archbishop of Canterbury already, because this intimation of desire to hold a Conference went forth many months, if not a year or more ago. The memorials sent to the Archbishop requesting him to call it are in print and have been circulated throughout the world, and we are probably the only branch, if we may call ourselves a branch, of the Anglican Communion that has never yet taken any action in the premises. The House of Bishops here feel a degree of delicacy in acting upon the matter until they have some intimation from this House that such action would be agreeable to us, not only upon the point which has been adverted to, that they do not like to elect themselves to an office or to a deputation the expenses of which may come from the laity or from the Church at large. On the contrary, they feel that if there is a desire that they should occupy any such position, that desire should first be expressed on the part of those who probably will send them on their mission; and I think that every ingenuous mind will appreciate at once the delicacy of their position in this regard; and, therefore, I have to say that there will no such suggestion come to us from the House of Bishops. They have no information to give us.

The very learned Deputy from the Diocese of Alabama has given us as full information upon one branch of the subject as we can possibly get through any one of the Bishops; and so we have had from others who have spoken on this question information submitted here which I think ought by this time to inform the mind of the Convention on the whole subject, except certain matters which, I think, are matters of very grave mistake.

in

Touching this idea of an organic unity, if you please, or the suggestions that were made by the Bishop of Lichfield in the Upper House of Convocation, after all, Mr. President, what are they but suggestions? What are they but his individual opinion? No action was taken in the Upper House of Convocation on this subject. It was merely the expression of an opinion of one of the Bishops; and supposing he puts that opinion form, and carries it into this second session of the proposed Council at Lambeth, they have no power to pass it; they are not a representative body in any sense of delegation, of being sent formally or officially. It is merely a body that comes together informally for a comparison of views, and for the attempted adjustment of everything that needs righting throughout Christendom by moral force alone, and by the influential power that naturally pertains to their great office. But supposing they had the power and did create a patriarchate, the gentleman asks, would this Church accept it? No; it certainly would not accept it. The representation from this Church would have no power to act for us in that matter; and if they came back here with the official record of any such decision in that Council of Lambeth, this Church would have the right to put its foot upon it. It would be perfectly free, untrammelled by any action that might be taken there. But I distinctly state that it has not been entertained in any quarter save the one to which reference has just now been made; and in any quarter that is entitled to grave consideration, it has not been proposed to do anything that is either aggressive looking toward a patriarchate or that is organic looking

to any unity of this Church in any more ecclesiastical relations than are now held.

I want the members of the Convention to understand that this is not a political question, nor is it so much a historic question, and I have in my mind, while listening to certain parts of this debate, deprecated the allusion to the difficulty of obtaining the Episcopate, because we know full well that the difficulties that environed the Church of England and the Church in this country at that time, owing to the political relationships as well as other causes, were such as made the obstacles great; but we know that since that time every form of communion and fellowship and courtesy has been assumed by the Church of England towards If the record of all the years that have elapsed from that day to this is not sufficient to obliterate the recollection of any little difficulties that we encountered then, centuries upon centuries, in the minds of some men, would not obliterate it.

us.

So do I deprecate the reference to the political relations between England and this country. All these ought to be buried so deep that nothing could ever resurrect them from their oblivion, so far as our moral sense and our personal relations and our national intercourse are concerned. The great events that have occurred in the adjustment of national difficulties between England and this country, of a very recent date, are so fresh in the minds of us all that I scarcely, for one, have patience to listen to any thing that goes behind or beyond them. On the contrary, we are one in the sentiments that govern our hearts as freemen, as partakers of the same civilization, as, under God, enjoying the same blessings of His providence and the same blessings of His grace in the blessed communion of that Church which is one in Christ Jesus; and I want the members of this Convention to look at it from that standpoint. In this debate there should be no appeal to the excited passions of men, touching matters of record, either in ecclesiastical or political history. On the contrary, it is a question of the communion of saints in Christ Jesus. I, if I am a member of Christ here in New York, am a member in London, as a gentleman said to me to-day in private conversation, or in Jerusalem, and to the end of the earth; and wherever I find the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church, I not only feel that there I am bound together by the common doctrines that make us one in that Christ, but in that formal, visible fold where we have around us the same defences and substantially above us the same divine ægis of protection. I therefore submit that all these "Gorgons and chimeras dire" that have by the splendid Hotspurs in debate been "summoned from the vasty deep of their imaginations be laid to rest. I would exorcise this Convention from all these spectres and phantasms that have been depicted upon the curtain of the future in such felicitous phrases by the distinguished Clerical Deputies from Connecticut and Massachusetts. These things are only born of men's fears. They are only the creations of men's fancies. I am prepared to say that there has not been submitted to this House by either of those gentlemen an argument that is based upon facts as they are, or arguments that are based upon the analogies of history or arguments that can have any fair showing when a proper opportunity has presented for holding them up in the clear light of truth, as that truth reflects upon them from every side.

[ocr errors]

I am exceedingly sorry, as I said before, that this debate has run into such wide extremes; but since questions have come up, in God's name, let us meet them, and do not let us at all attempt to stifle the expression of the sentiments of this Convention upon this subject. I think the most of the issues

of this debate are false ones. I think the simple question is that of the original resolution. I am not in favor of the suggestion made by the Deputy from New York [Mr. Ruggles], proposing that if we do send the Bishops over there we shall send them trammelled, harnessed from head to foot with conditions and limitations. We cannot trust them to go over unless they are swathed almost in grave clothes, so that they can scarcely utter speech or make a motion !

I am not in favor of the amendment of the Clerical Deputy from Central Pennsylvania. That proposes to send it to the Bishops for them to tell us what all this means, and for them to tell us what has been submitted to them, when we know that nothing has been submitted to them, and that nothing will be submitted to them, and that the only possible course of procedure is that which is proposed in the original resolution, and that if you carry that amendment it is just the same as negativing the whole idea; it is just the same as saying, "We will have nothing to do with this proposed Council of Bishops; we are afraid to trust our right reverend fathers to go over and sit in the company of the prelates of the English Church." Why, sir, the Deputy from Massachusetts said that the Church of England would overwhelm us. Overwhelm this colossus of the American Church! No, sir; we have reached such dimensions that I do not feel any fear of any sister church, or mother church, or grandfather church. [Laughter.]

If the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts was good as against this Pan-Anglican Council, this Lambeth Conference, it is good against all the Primitive Councils. Why, sir, they were willing in a Primitive Council to let one Bishop act as the presiding officer over other Bishops coming from other sees and provinces; and I cannot conceive myself that it is possible to have a Conference or a Synod without a presiding officer; and I certainly understand that the proper person to preside is he who by reason of the seniority of his special Church organization, if you choose, or by reason of his seniority of consecration, or by reason of his exaltation by peculiar office, should be permitted to occupy the seat. I do not see that that in the slightest degree trenches upon the liberties of any other members who are sitting with him as prelates in the same Council.

I cannot for the life of me see anything in these ideas that have been presented to us to frighten us away from this proposed deputation to the second Lambeth Conference. It seems to me that the arguments are so unimportant that by the pricking of a pin you could let out-no, I will not say what is in them. [Laughter.] I beg to submit, therefore, for the consideration of the House, that they vote upon the original proposition, simple and pure. There is no departure from it that does not involve us in complication. The effect of sending the matter back to the House of Bishops under the amendment proposed by the Deputy from Central Pennsylvania, amounts in fact to negativing the whole thing. I do not believe that is his intention; I know from what he said that it is not his intention; but it amounts to that practically; and I therefore invoke my good friends of the clergy and laity that they will either vote it down upon a square issue or carry it in its original form.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. Mr. President, I will not answer my reverend brother from Long Island, so far as his poetry is concerned. I do not deem myself competent to answer that. I have become too old to be a poet or to have much poetry in my composition. I deal with plain matters of

fact.

He proposes that we should put in a

pin or a needle. I will do it for him. I will ask him a question, and I want the gentlemen of this House to understand his answer. He says he belongs to the Church Catholic, and if he goes to England he is as much a member of the Church Catholic there, and is entitled to and would receive all the privileges there that he receives here. Now, let me ask my brother, suppose he goes, or a Bishop of this Church goes there, and wants to spend a month there, and would like to preach during that month, has he the right to do it? Has he, as a Priest or a Bishop of this American Church, a right to do it? No, sir. You have a certain permission of Parliament. On application to the Bishop of the Diocese where you are to officiate, you are permitted to appear once or twice, and then you have to shut up your mouth. Stick a pin there yourself, if you please, sir. [Laughter.]

Now, another thing: You talk of the Church of England asking us. They have not asked. We have nothing before us from the Bishop of Lichfield or any other man that would warrant our legislation on this subject. No person has asked us yet. Wait till they ask, and then it will be time enough for us to decide the question.

But I want to call the attention of one branch of this House to the fact that the laity have no voice in the affairs of the Church of England. The English Government have; Parliament have; but the laity have none. Suppose one of you goes there as a layman of this General Convention, after voting for anything of this kind, they will treat you as a gentleman, but they will not recognize you as a legislator by any means. I tell you we are not at all on an equality, and I therefore must contend, as I did in the former speech that I made, that until the Church of England is free as we are from the influence of the state, until the Church of England has what she is longing to have, the permission to bring laymen into her councils, diocesan and otherwise, to legislate for her-until that day arrives, it comes with an ill grace from any individual in their behalf, not themselves, to ask us not merely to permit but to urge on our Bishops to go there to be bluffed off, or else, "Humble servant to your Lordship, will you permit me to preach in your cathedral to-morrow? I do not want a presbyter to be placed in that position, and God forbid that I should lift up my voice to place a Bishop of the Church in that position, or that I should expect laymen to sustain such a resolution for a Church in which they are treated as a mass of nobodies in the Church, except to support it.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I wish to say that with regard to this subject I think there has been a great deal of learning and knowledge and principle shown by my old friend from the Diocese of Connecticut, by the gentleman from Massachusetts, by the gentleman from Alabama, and above all by the distinguished layman of whose presence we all are proud from the Diocese of New York (Mr. Ruggles), and I think that to-morrow what these men have said will fly convincingly over all this Union. But in looking at this orignal proposal, and in looking at the amendment which the gentleman from Central Pennsylvania has moved to it, I see that both the original proposal and this amendment do not express what I distinctly and clearly understand to be the feeling of this Church and also of the members of this great National Council. I therefore take the liberty of proposing, as I believe I have the power to do, an amendment to the whole question. I can do that, I believe.

The PRESIDENT. There is only one amendment pending. An amendment can be offered to that.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I propose to make an amendment which I think will express the power of the arguments that have been brought forward by these gentlemen, and I think it will carry conviction at once. ["Read it."] I shall read it, but I may take my own time to read it, I think. [Laughter.] I will read this amendment, and then speak a few words in its favor:

"Resolved, That we hereby desire the reassembling of the Lambeth Conference."

Rev. Dr. FULTON, of Alabama. I ask the gentleman's permission to make a motion that the session be prolonged to half-past four, because otherwise our adjournment will be here in two minutes.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman give way to that motion?

Mr. WELSH, of Pennsylvania. The difficulty is that there are engagements at four.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman give way?

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. Yes, sir.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the House sit until half-past four o'clock to-day.

The motion was agreed to.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. My proposition is :

64

'Resolved, That we hereby desire the reassembling of the Lambeth Conference, and we hope that our Bishops personally may attend according to the best of their judgment; and, when offering this expression of opinion, we hereby, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, most solemnly and emphatically declare that the Church in these United States is not in any sense a member or branch of the Anglican Communion, but is a Sister Church which, in our faith and belief, is in future to be the Church of the whole people of this great land; and we request the Bishops of our Church who attend the second Lambeth Conference to take their stand most distinctly upon this ground.'

Now, Mr. President, I wish to say a few words. In the first place, I am proud of the Lambeth Conference and of the attendance of our Bishops upon it. I think that they did perfectly right, and I give them nothing but applause for doing it. Therefore, in speaking on my own behalf, and putting my words into the mouths of the members, clerical and lay, of this Convention, I cannot in any way blame the Lambeth Conference, or any one that attended upon it. It has been productive of good, and of unmixed good, and, therefore, I think that, when the Bishops are invited, it is not only their business and great pleasure, but their duty also, to attend, according to the best of their own judgments personally.

But we have been told that power, when it begins, never fails to increase itself. There was, before this time, a personal invitation to the Bishops of our Church to go to the Lambeth Conference. We, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, had nothing at all to do with it. Now, as I understand from the distinguished Lay Deputy from Massachusetts, there has an intimation come down from the House of Bishops that if we, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, express an opinion it would be very gratifying indeed. Mr. President, I am for expressing an opinion, and a very distinct opinion, as you know; but the opinion which shall go in to form the basis for first being received, then being summoned, and then finally the whole thing being cumulated into a position which we do not admire and cannot take as a national Church, I do not believe in; and, therefore, I wish, as they have indicated their desire that we should give an opinion, that we should give an opinion.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. They cannot

ask for it except by the House of Bishops sending a message to us.

The Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I am referring to the speech of Dr. Shattuck.

The Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I could tell another story from the House of Bishops, but I prefer not to do it. I have a different story from that, however, but it is not my business to tell it.

Rev. Dr. ADAMS, of Wisconsin. I would say another thing in regard to the Church in England There is no man in this Council who has a higher respect for our dear Mother Church of England, but I make one great distinction. The English state, that is to say, the English Government, in its action upon our Church previously, and in its action upon the Church of England at present, I by no means respect. I say that for two hundred years that English state kept us without Bishops, without Council, without cathedrals, without anything that belonged to a Church. Any one of us that desired to be confirmed or ordained had to go to London. We were crushed into the shape of an unconnected mass of Congregational ministers, having no bond of union whatsoever, and that Congregationalism which the hardness of the English state towards its own English communicants settled in these colonies has come down to us in the traditional Congregationalism that is on us at this day and torments us all-clergy and laity, bishops and ministers I have no respect for that Government in its ecclesiastical operations, which, within the last ten years, laid its strong claw upon the property of the Irish Parliament, can take every morsel of property Church, and which, to this day, as they profers in from the English Church, if it simply chooses to do because So, the English Government has a ΚΑ doctrine which have -the doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament. Parliament can do anything it pleases in the way of property rights. In the debates on that Irish bill, when some one told one of those lawyers, “You dare not do that to a Dissenting denomination,” be said, "You make a mistake; we can take the property of Dissenters just as much as we can take the property of the Irish Church.”

[ocr errors]

Sir, I have no respect whatever for the English Government in its relation to the English Church. What does this English Government do now! It simply has the English Church tied up hand and foot. They cannot act they can pass no law. They may deliberate and speak, but they can do nothing. What is the use, then, of tying a living body to dead? a What is the use of us making

а

any sort of organic union with Church that is in that shape? It is of no use at all except what? Except for an extreme conservative use, I say it is dead, without a pulse, or hands or feet, so that if we propose anything here in this American Church, and you have an organic union established in any way, a man who is extremely conservative can get up and say, "This question has been decided by the whole Anglican Church." No, sir, the whole Anglican Church will not come to any decision upon it.

I, therefore, in reference to these matters simply gather together the conclusions that I have come to from the speeches of the four distinguished men whom I have mentioned. I think that we can ap prove of the Lambeth Conference, of its meeting, of the assembling of our Bishops with that Conference personally as men and gentlemen and Christians, and at the same time we can take their chance of cutting away the last floating fragment of the wreck of Anglicanism in this country; that is to say, the feeling that somehow or other, we do not know how, we are members of the English Church, members of the Anglican Communion. For my

till

self, I must honestly say that I believe in an ultimate result. I believe that in the course of time, and not a very long time, our organization will be perfected, our Bishops, our clergy, our laity will rise in faith, in doctrine, in holiness, in purity of life, the whole mass of this great American people shall look upon us and say: These men, this organization, this institution which hitherto under a mistake we have called the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion is the American Catholic Church of this great land from the great peaceful ocean to the Atlantic, from the north to the south." Therefore, sir, in order to make this matter more distinct, I move this resolution of mine.

Mr. MEIGS, of New Jersey. Mr. President, I do not propose to occupy more than about a minute on this question, and it is for the purpose of attempting to correct what I conceive to be a misconception of the language of the original resolution. It seems to me that all the misapprehension in this body in regard to dangers in the future results from overlooking the fact that the language of the resolution contains no consent, no approval to the House of Bishops to do anything more than to engage in a Conference. If the movement is to take the form of a Synod or anything looking to an organic change, the resolution does not authorize it at all. If it is a Conference, this body if it passes this resolution will approve of our Bishops' meeting in that Conference, but if it is a Synod the Bishops if they go there go without the provision of this body. Therefore I do not see any of the dangers which have been so vividly protrayed by gentlemen in reference to this movement. Merely for the purpose of saving time I draw attention to that point.

a

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. I was so uncertain as to whether Dr. Adams was in earnest or in joke that I will not presume at this time to dwell even on the argument he presented. I ask the courtesy of the House only for a moment or two while I return my thanks to the Deputy from Long Island for the very courteous manner in which he pronounced my amendment entirely meaningless. It was sharp saying very softly said. Sir, it is not meaningless. It had a definite purpose, and I think it will appear to the House that its purpose amounts to something. It was so worded carefully as to express most courteously our respect and interest for the intimation that had been given us by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield of a purpose or proposal to invite the Bishops of this Church to a future Lambeth Conference; but it was at the same time so worded that while expressed that interest, it refused to bind us definitely in any important action or in any manner to a question so important, while it remained in its indefinite and uncertain form. It was, further, so worded that it intimated to the House of Bishops our desire that, as soon as they shall have received any definite information themselves or any due invitation, they shall communicate to us their own knowledge in the matter and enable us to act with certainty. The proposition was not intended, and I think this House will not take it as meant, to express our opinion as opposed to a reassembling of the Lambeth Conference, but only to take this position, that we are not prepared to act upon so momentous a question, while it is yet entirely indefinite, unsatisfactory, and apparently far in the future. I ask for the reading of my amendment.

it

The PRESIDENT. The amendment will be read. The Secretary read the amendment of Rev. Dr. Paret.

Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. I wish to introduce a substitute for the matter now before House.

I

Rev. Dr. PARET, of Central Pennsylvania. rise to a question of order. There are two amendments already before the House. Can a third be proposed.

The PRESIDENT. A substitute can be proposed. Rev. Mr. ROGERS, of Texas. My proposition is in this form :

"Resolved, That all exchange of friendly greetings, all evidences of the existence of the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace between the Church of England and this Church in America, whether by Bishops in conference or otherwise, are especially welcome to this body."

The objections raised to either of the preceding propositions seem to me very great, but this in my mind is so worded that we throw ourselves to the world open as in harmony with the English Church so far as doctrines and intercommunication are concerned, but that we commit ourselves to no organic union whatever. If this Conference is summoned, and our Bishops go there, they go for the interchange of friendly sentiments, and for the good of the Church, not committing us to anything beyond. That is all.

Rev. Dr. MEAD, of Connecticut. I second that. Rev. Dr. SULLIVAN, of Illinois. Mr. President, I think the large majority of this House are probably in favor of something in the shape of a Conference between the Bishops of this Church and the Bishops of the English Church-a conference for mutual consultation and communion-and no one who looks at it merely in this preliminary light can for a moment question that great benefit must result.

Great emphasis has been laid in this House on the potentialities, as they are called, of the future, the possible dangers that may come back to us from the communion of our Bishops with the Bishops of the English Church. In other words, there are some gentlemen here who seem to be defective altogether in the confidence they have in the wisdom and prudence and discretion of their own Bishops if they should possibly come in contact with the supposed larger wisdom and broader experience of the Bishops of the English Church. I think, sir, we are ready to claim for the Bishops of our own Church at least an equal measure of all these good qualities with that possessed by the rulers of the Church on the other side of the Atlantic; and to counterbalance that idea of the possible dangers that may come back to us, there is another side of the question altogether which has never been alluded to. The subject was indirectly referred to in a conversation, very brief, between myself and a venerable Archdeacon who has no voice in this House, but who I wish had a voice here, for he would give better expression to the idea than I possibly can, namely this: Is it not more than possible that through the communion of the American Church with the representatives of the Anglican, a large measure of benefit, moral and spiritual, may be conveyed to them, and through them as its representatives to the whole body of the Anglican Communion in England? That Church at the present moment is, as is well known, in a peculiar transition process. That process has already been passed through by the Church in Ireland. That Church has been disestablished and disendowed. That Church is now in a condition of new life and vigor and energy in consequence of having passed through that process. It was thought at the first it would be a peculiarly dangerous one; but even already, within the brief time that has elapsed since then, that Church has become more than ever the Church of the affections of the people, and those affections have found for themselves large and liberal and substantial expression.

Now, it is held by a great many deep thinkers, men who have some foreknowledge apparently of the future, that the Church in England is doomed to pass through the same process sooner or later. It is perfectly true that Mr. Gladstone just at the present moment disavows the idea. He repudiates having for the present any intention of severing the bond that unites the Church to the state, but he does so, as is well known, only because the time has not yet come, because public sentiment in England is not yet sufficiently educated up to the point. When that time comes, the Church in England, like the Church in Ireland, will be set free from all shackles of state legislation, and will be able, as she ought to be able, to do her own work for Christ in the world.

Now, sir, if I am any judge of the potentialities of the future-because the potentialities apply in the direction of good as well as of evil-I am strongly of the opinion that if anything could possibly give an impulse to that transitional movement which is already beginning to show itself in England in the direction of the disentanglement of the Church from the entanglements of state enactments, such a movement will be largely impelled and propelled by the powerful influence of the thought and life and energy of the representative men of the American Church coming in contact with the representatives of the Church across the water. We must not think merely of the possibility of seeing harm to ourselves, but the nobler possibility of communicating good to others. On this ground, as well as on others already alluded to, I think the general question of the expediency of some form of Conference between our Bishops and the Bishops yonder must be very generally assented to; but then there is another question with regard to the action of this House at the present moment with regard to this Conference. You will have observed that, in the statements already made, the most that has been said is that probably there will be another Pan-Anglican Conference. It is merely an intimation that has been conveyed by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield. No formal proposition has been made to this House certainly, and so far as we know no formal proposition or invitation has been made to the House of Bishops. It seems to me that it is quite time enough for this House to take action upon a proposition which is made to us, when that proposition is really made, and that we are altogether premature in taking any action on the matter now. It seems to me, moreover, that when that proposition is made, it will be made not to this House, but to the House of Bishops, and it seems to me that it is highly proper for the House of Bishops to act upon an invitation given to them, but not for us to act upon it. If I receive an invitation I act upon it. My friend sitting beside me does not take action in the matter at all; he has nothing to do with it. This is a matter belonging altogether to the House of Bishops; and moreover if the Bishops in this matter are willing to receive instruction, or counsel, or advice from any one's hands, it seems to me that inasmuch as the invitation, when it does come, is to come to them, not in their collective capacity as a House, but merely to them as individual men representing the Church, they will have to act upon it as individual men, and any instructions or counsel they may feel at liberty, or may deem it expedient to receive, must be received, not from this collective representation of the Church, but from their individual dioceses.

It is they who have to act upon it in connection with the Bishops as individual men; and therefore it seems to me for the present altogether premature for this House to take any action, but rather to leave the matter over in accordance with the terms of the amendment to the original resolution, pro

posed by the reverend members from Central Pennsylvania. It seems to me entirely proper that the matter should be relegated to the House of Bishops for their individual action upon it.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I move that this subject be postponed until to-morrow at two o'clock, when a vote shall be taken without further debate, for it is now within two minutes of the time of adjournment, and we shall not have time to take the vote.

The PRESIDENT. We have five minutes yet.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I have another remark to make, and that is to say that if the question is postponed until to-morrow, members will have an opportunity of reading these amendments, and comparing them, and of coming to a deliberate conclusion. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Central Pennsylvania merely puts off consideration, and the matter will go up to the House of Bishops, and come back to us, and then we shall have to vote upon it, while the other proposition, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas is substantially the same as the original resolution. If you compare them together you will find that they scarcely vary a particle.

Rev. Dr. BEACH, of New York. Then I hope the gentleman will accept the amendment. We certainly know as much about this case now as we ever shall.

Rev. Dr. SCHENCK, of Long Island. I withdraw my motion.

The PRESIDENT. The question recurs on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Rev. Mr. Rogers], which will be read.

The Secretary read as follows:

"Resolved, That all exchanges of friendly greeting, all evidences of the existence of the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace between the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, whether by Bishops in conference or otherwise, are specially welcome to this Church.

"Resolved, That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Bishops as a message from this House."

The substitute was adopted, there being, on a division-Ayes, 108; Noes, 96.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is on the adoption of the resolution as amended by this substitute.

The resolution as amended was adopted.

COMMITTEE SERVICE.

The PRESIDENT. Rev. Dr. Mead retires from the Committee of Conference relating to the Church in Canada. That leaves the Rev. Dr. Rudder as Chairman, and I name Rev. Dr. Foote, of Western New York, upon that Committee.

Chief-Justice Waite, of Ohio, has left the city, and will not be again in the Convention. He has given me notice to that effect, and I appoint Mr. Hazlehurst, of Pennsylvania, in his place upon the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution.

From the Committee on the State of the Church, Rev. Dr. Beach, of New York, retires and requests that Rev. Dr. George Jarvis Geer, from the same Diocese, a Provisional Deputy, be appointed in his place. I make that appointment.

The hour of adjournment has arrived, and the House stands adjourned until to-morrow at ten o'clock A.M.

SIXTH DAY.

TUESDAY, October 13. The Convention assembled in St. John's Chapel, at ten A.M.

Morning Prayer was begun by Rev. William H.

« PreviousContinue »