it i ars OS® aye r ‘ . a ( 
 STATEMENT 
 "CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL | 
 DHPUITLES ( 
 
 FROM THE LATE 
 
 DIOCESAN CONVENTION 
 
 OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 
 
 
 
 _ PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ~ 
 APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
 
 CHARLESTON, S. C. 
 
 -WALKER, Evans & CoGswELu Co., PRINTERS, 
 Nos. 3 and 5 Broad and 117 East Bay Streets. - : ' 
 
 (OC ee ae 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
¥ 
 
 on) BIMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL 
 
 DEPUTIES 
 
 FROM THE LATE 
 
 DIUGESAN GOUNVENTION 
 
 _— 
 — 
 
 OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 
 
 PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE 
 
 APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
 
 CHARLESTON, S. C. 
 
 Waker, Evans & CocgsweLt Co., PRINTERS, 
 Nos 3and 5 Broad and 117 East Bay Streets. 
 
 1887. 
 
» 
 ' 
 - 
 - 
 ¢ 
 J 
 ~ 
 . 
 . 
 : ‘ 
 7 
 - 
 . 
 ’ Pa 
 as 
 ‘ 
 an iy 
 e ¢ 
 - 
 
 
 
THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 
 
 SAT he N Te 
 
 To THE MEMBERS OF THE PROTESTANT EpiscopaL CHURCH 
 IN THE DIocESE OF SouTH CAROLINA: 
 
 The undersigned were appointed a Committee by the 
 Delegates who withdrew from the late Diocesan Convention 
 to prepare a statement of the causes which impelled them to 
 do so. 
 
 It will be necessary in doing this to recall the history of 
 the great question which so unhappily has divided this Dio- 
 cese for the last twelve years. This we shall endeavor, 
 
 calmly and dispassionately, to do, and that as briefly as pos- 
 sible; and, minding the deep feeling which has arisen in 
 regard to it, we shall be careful to avoid, if possible, any ex- 
 pression which may wound the feelings of those who differ 
 with us, especially as we remember that those with whom 
 we have chiefly now to contend in this matter are those to 
 whom in our childhood we were taught in our catechism 
 that it is our duty to submit ourselves as to our “ governors, 
 teachers, spiritual pastors and masters.” Which inall mat- 
 ters pertaining to their rightful authority we reverently pray 
 that we may do; but as reverently will we maintain the 
 rights of the Order in the Church which as Laymen we 
 represent. 
 
 CoNVENTION OF 1875. 
 
 The Convention which met May 12th, 1875, wasa memor- 
 able one. It was opened with the grand and imposing 
 ceremonial commemorating the existence of the Church 
 in this Province and State for two hundred years—an 
 occasion upon which, as it was so well said, those who had 
 worshipped sought the quiet of their homes in grateful peace, 
 
 
 
4 
 
 feeling that for the future as well as for the past the beautiful 
 day had been a day of memory. 
 
 But little did they think that from thenceforth the peace 
 of the Church in this Diocese was, too, to be but a memory 
 —a thing of the past—that the very next day would in- 
 augurate a struggle for an innovation upon the constituency 
 of the government of the Church which would for more 
 than a decade of the new century rend the Diocese asunder, 
 and that twelve years thereafter the oldest servants of the 
 Church—those who had devoted their whole lives to her 
 service—more than one of whom had been in her councils 
 for more than half a century—would be seen walking down 
 that same aisle, through which the solemn procession of 
 Bishop, priests and people had just passed and repassed, leay- 
 ing in sorrow and distress a body in which they Had so long 
 served, and the council of the Church which they so loved. 
 
 But so it was to be. Foran innovation of at least doubt- 
 ful expediency in the Church, after two hundred years of 
 its existence in our land, Bishop and clergy were willing 
 to see the lay representatives of two-thirds of her Laymen 
 leave her Convention. 
 
 On the next day, May 13th, the Convention met, and upon 
 its organization the Bishop communicated the application of 
 St, Mark’s Church (colored)for admission to the Convention, 
 whereupon the following resolution was proposed : 
 
 Resolved, That the application of St. Mark’s congregation for admis- 
 sion into union with this Convention be referred to a commission of 
 —— —,, to be appointed by the Bishop, to report to the next Convention 
 upon the same, and allits relations to the Church and constitution of 
 this Diocese. 
 
 This resolution gave rise to a discussion, which was con- 
 tinued until the next day. During the discussion several 
 amendments were suggested and moved, two of which we 
 will quote because, though both were laid on the table, 
 they are significant as indicating the views the movers 
 then entertained. 
 
5 
 
 The Rey. J. H. Cornish offered the following as a sub- 
 stitute : 
 
 One lay delegate chosen ly the communicants of any missionary 
 station or congregation of colored people represented in this Conven- 
 tion by the rector or missionary in charge, acting under the ecclesiastical 
 authority of the Diocese, shall be entitled to have seats assigned 
 them in this house, and may be allowed to speak on any question 
 directly and specially affecting their respective parishes or stations, 
 and no others, upon the motion of any member of this Convention. 
 
 This motion was laid on the table, and the Rev. Mr. 
 Prentiss offered the following as a substitute: 
 
 Resolved, That while this Convention welcomes the delegates from 
 St. Mark’s to all the rights and privileges of this body, it expressly 
 declares and insists that this case shall not be drawn into precedent ; 
 but that hereafter all applications kindred to that of St. Mark’s shall be 
 received and decided, each one on its individual merits, and that this 
 Convention possesses and will exercise the right of excluding from the body 
 all such delegates of the class herein referred, as it shall hereafter regard 
 likely to interrupt the peace of the Church or impede the glory of God. 
 
 This motion was also laid on the table, and the resolution 
 referring the application of St. Mark’s to a commission was 
 adopted—the number of the commission being fixed at seven. 
 
 It will be observed here that in the commencement, the 
 clergy were not at least unanimous upon the application to 
 this question of St, Paul’s maxim that as to those who have 
 been baptized into Christ, there is neither bond nor free, &c. 
 
 On the contrary, both these clergymen recognized clearly 
 the right of the Convention to discriminate as to colored 
 people because of their race. Mr. Prentiss went so far as 
 broadly to assert that the Convention possesses and will exercise 
 the right of excluding from thas body all such delegates of the class 
 herein referred, as it shall hereafter regard likely to interrupt the 
 peace of the Church or impede the glory of God. 
 
 He not only asserts the right to exclude colored people 
 from the Convention, but he recognizes that the admission 
 of such people into our Convention may be “likely to inter- 
 rupt the peace of the Chureh or impede the glory of God.” 
 
 If laymen still hold to these opinions entertained by 
 clergymen twelve years ago, are we to be blamed ? 
 
‘6 
 CONVENTION OF 1876. 
 
 The commission of seven appointed, under the resolution 
 adopted, consisted of the Rev. Messrs. C. C. Pinckney, D. D., 
 James H. Elliott, D. D., R.S. Trapier and Ellison Capers, and 
 Messrs. Edward McCrady, George A. Trenholm and Wm. F. 
 Colecock. Of these, the Rev. Mr. Capers at that time 
 removed from the Diocese, and Mr. Trenholm’s health pre- 
 vented his serving. Of the other members, the Rey. Mr. 
 Trapier and Messrs. McCrady and Colcock united in one report 
 against the admission of St. Mark’s Church into the Con- 
 vention, and the Rey. Dr. Pinckney and the Rey. Dr. Elliott 
 each presented a separate individual report in fayor of its 
 admission. 
 
 The report of Messrs. Trapier, McCrady and Coleock con- 
 cluded as follows: 
 
 “Tn conclusion, the undersigned cannot recommend the admission 
 of St. Mark’s congregation into union with this Convention : 
 
 “(1.) Because the admission of all other colored congregations must 
 follow that of St. Mark’s, as there is no sound reason for making it an 
 exception ; and, in the opinion of the undersigned, the Chureh is bound 
 to recognize in all its relations to the world, and its offices to mankind, 
 that distinction between the races of men which God has been pleased 
 to ordain and to conform its polity and ecclesiastical organisms to His 
 divine ordinance. ; 
 
 ““(2.) Because our colored population are at this time, and must, for a 
 long time to come, be a missionary field, and our Right Reverend 
 Fathers in God have already taken the matter in hand, and will prob- 
 ably make ample provision for them and other races within our terri- 
 torial limits. 
 
 “(3.) Because, in the opinion of the undersigned, St. Mark’s congrega- 
 tion cannot now send delegates competent to act as legislators for our 
 Diocese. 
 
 “(4.) Because their admission may drive away some of the Churches 
 now in union, and make others indifferent to preserving their connec- 
 tion with this Convention. 
 
 ““(5.) Because the members of St. Mark’s congregation can, without 
 their admission to this body, enjoy every catholic Christian right, and 
 their introduction to our representative legislative body involves their 
 participation, in powers, they are not prepared to exercise advantage- 
 ously to the Church in this Diocese.” 
 
7 
 
 To this was appended a copy of a report upon the same 
 subject made to the Convention of the Diocese of New York 
 in 1846, and which the undersigned also addas an appendix 
 (“A”) to this paper. From this report to the New York 
 Convention, it will be seen that the same views we now 
 entertain upon the subject of the admission of the colored 
 element into our Diocesan Convention were entertained by 
 the churchmen of New York forty years ago; and that if 
 it be true that we are now contra mundum, it is to a new doc- 
 trine thereon that we are so opposed, and not to a matter of 
 inherent right, which, if it exists to-day, must have existed 
 for all time—semper eadem. 
 
 Dr. Pinckney’s report ended with the recommendation of 
 two resolutions, as follows: 
 
 Resolved, That the application of St. Mark’s for admission to union 
 with this Convention be granted. 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention memorialize the General Convention 
 to provide Missionary Suffragan Bishops for the spiritual oversight of 
 the colored race. 
 
 The question was elaborately discussed in the Conven- 
 tion, to which these reports were made, and which was held 
 in Columbia in 1876. Upon the question of the adoption 
 of the first resolution, above mentioned, viz: that the ap- 
 pleation of St. Mark’s for admission to union with this 
 Convention be granted, the vote was taken, and the resolu- 
 tion was lost by a non-concurrence of orders, as follows: 
 Of the Clergy, ayes, 17; nays, 9; of the Laity, ayes, 12; 
 nays, 17; divided, 2. 
 
 STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE SaALtus’ Cass, 1880. 
 
 The question thus decided was allowed to rest for several 
 years. It was, however, in a measure, revived in 1880, by 
 the application of Thaddeus Saltus, a colored person, for 
 admission to the order of Deacon. His application, it was 
 understood, caused considerable discussion in the Standing 
 Committee, before whom it came. ‘This discussion 
 
8 
 
 resulted in the adoption of the following resolutions, to 
 be found in the Journal of the Convention for the year 
 1881, and which will explain the conditions under which 
 his credentials were passed as an exceptional case : 
 
 Resolved, I. That under Divine Providence two races have been 
 brought together in this Diocese to occupy the same territory, differing 
 in all those essential characteristics which constitute different peoples, 
 and most especially in Christian knowledge and culture. 
 
 Resolved, II. That under such circumstances this Diocese has become 
 a missionary field, in which the race in possession of the higher gifts 
 should endeavor to advance the Christian condition of their deficient 
 neighbors, and are invested with proper authority to promote that end. 
 
 Resolved, III. That it would reverse the order of missionary opera- 
 tions, and evenof nature itself,and would tend to the advantage of 
 neither race, that the race having the lesser Christian knowledge and 
 culture should be advanced to the position of teachers and rulers of the 
 other race. 
 
 Resolved, IV. That the authorities of the Church not realizing that 
 this is the condition of the Southern Dioceses have as yet made no 
 provision for its remedy, and that until such provision shall be made it 
 is not expedient to invest individuals of the less advanced race with 
 official authority over the other race. 
 
 Resolved, V. That the practices of the early Church and the experi- 
 ence of our own missionaries in like circumstances, suggests the em- 
 ployment of evangelists and catechists, or some order of inferior clergy, 
 who, under the direction of the Bishop, could supply such religious 
 teaching and services as the occasion may require. 
 
 Resolved, VI. That the case now presented to the Committee is excep- 
 tional in so many particulars, that when it is understood to be the in- 
 tention of the applicant to confine the ministrations of his office to St. 
 Marks and similar congregations, the objections to his admission may 
 be considered as sufficiently obviated to allow his testimonials to be 
 signed by the whole Committee. 
 
 C. C. PINCKNEY, 
 President. 
 
 There has always been a question as to a further under- 
 standing in relation to the Saltus case, viz: that he was not 
 to take his seat in the Convention; but however that may 
 be, whether it was a mistake on the part of those who 
 thought they had such an assurance, we will not discuss. 
 What we now wish to call attention to are certain state- 
 ments or admissions in these resolutions which are made by 
 the unanimous consent of the Standing Committee, includ- 
 
9 
 
 ing, of the clergy, the Rev. Dr. Pinckney, Rev. Dr. Porter, 
 Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jackson, who has since left the Diocese, 
 and Mr. Campbell. 
 
 These clergymen unite in agreeing as to the anomalous 
 condition of the*Church in this Diocese, to wit: that two 
 races are brought together, differing in all those essential 
 characteristics which constitute different peoples, and most 
 especially in Christian knowledge and culture; that under 
 such circumstances the Diocese has become a missionary 
 field ; “ that it would reverse the order of missionary opera- 
 tions, and even of nature itself, and would tend to the advan- 
 tage of neither race, that the race having the lesser Christian 
 knowledge and culture should be advanced to the position 
 of teachers and rulers of the other race;” and that for the 
 present, at least, “it is not expedient to invest individuals of 
 the less advanced race with official authority over the other 
 race.” 
 
 These are certainly strong, though but true statements 
 of the difficulties of our position and they go to show that 
 the position of the laity in fact ditfers from that of many 
 at least of the clergy, not in principle, but in expediency. 
 The clergymen who agreed to this statement fully recognize 
 the peculiar condition of things in the Diocese, and they 
 recognize the evils. They differ from us only as to the 
 measure of the danger, and the manner of avoiding it. 
 
 SEWANEE CONFERENCES, 1883. 
 
 But the peculiarity as well as the difficulty of the relation 
 of the Church to the colored people has been fully recog- 
 nized, not only in our own Diocese, but throughout the 
 Church in the South. In April, 1883, the Bishop of Mis- 
 sissippi, the late venerable Bishop Green, addressed a com- 
 munication to all the Bishops of the Southern States, inviting 
 their attendance at the University of the South, at Sewanee, 
 for the purpose of conferring upon this matter of such vital 
 importance, and requested them to bring with them some 
 one of their clergy. By a subsequent communication, each 
 
10 
 
 Bishop was requested to bring with him also one layman. 
 In response to this invitation, bishops, clergy, and laymen 
 from all the Southern States attended at Sewanee on the 
 25th July, 1883. 
 
 At this Conference the question was considered of Suffragan 
 Bishops, such as had been suggested by the Rey. Dr. 
 Pinckney in his minority report to our Convention of 1876, 
 i. e. Bishops who, it was suggested, should be appointed for 
 one or more Dioceses desiring their services, who should be 
 charged with the organization of the colored members into 
 congregations and convocations or conventions as the 
 General Convention should determine; that is, for the 
 establishment of a distinct organization for the colored 
 people. The committee, to which were referred all the 
 resolutions or suggestions upon the subject submitted to the 
 Conference, reported against that plan of Suffragan Bishops. 
 The committee reported that there are grave embarrassments 
 attending each and all proposed methods for the accom- 
 plishment of the work. The committee believed that the 
 ecclesiastical unity should not be broken, that for the truest 
 welfare of all mankind there could be but one fold and one 
 chief Shepherd for all the people in any field of ecclesiastical 
 designation. The report went on to say: 
 
 * * * “ But your committee is of opinion that because of the peculiarity of 
 the relations of the two races one to the other in our country, because of their 
 history in the past, and the hopes of the future, there is needed special legisla- 
 
 tion, appointing special agency and methods for the ingathering of these 
 wandering sheep into the fold of Christ.” 
 
 The committee thereupon submitted a draft of a Canon to 
 be presented to the approaching General Conyention, (1) 
 authorizing the Bishop and Convention in any Diocese to 
 constitute the colored population into a special missionary 
 organization under the charge of the Bishop; (2) providing 
 an Advisory Board of two or more Presbyters and two or more 
 laymen—presumably from the context to be white persons 
 —to assist the Bishop in this work; (3) authorizing the Bishop 
 to appoint two or more Presbyters as Archdeacons—again pre- 
 sumably white persons—to perform such duties asthe Bishop 
 
11 
 
 may assign, and by authority of the Bishop to convene the 
 clergy and laity of such missionary organizations in conven- 
 tion for the purpose of furthering its work ; (4.) requiring the 
 Bishop to report to the General Convention the proceedings 
 and the state of the Church in such missionary organizations; 
 and (5) providing that congregations organized under the pro- 
 visions of the proposed Canon, and ministers exercising 
 their functions within such special missionary organization 
 may be received into union with the Convention of the Diocese on 
 such terms and by such process as are provided by the said 
 Diocesan Convention ; that until such reception into union with 
 the Convention shall have been accomplished, it shall suffice if the 
 names of the clergy in such missionary organization shall appear 
 on a separate list, to be delivered to the Secretary of the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, as containing all the names of the 
 ministers of the churches in the special missionary organizations, 
 and that they be not placed on the Diocesan list as the basis of 
 determining the Diocesan ratio of contingent expenses.” 
 
 On the committee which made this report were the Rev. A. 
 Toomer Porter, D. D., and the Hon. Charles Richardson 
 Miles, of South Carolina. 
 
 We publish as an appendix “ B,” a letter from the Hon. 
 C. G. Memminger to the Right Rev. Bishop Howe, written 
 two years before, 28th September, 1881, embodying the 
 same suggestion as those contained in this action of the 
 Sewanee Conference. : 
 
 The report was adopted, the Bishop of Alabama alone 
 dissenting. Another committee was appointed to lay the 
 proceedings of the Conference before the General Convention, 
 of which committee the Bishop of South Carolina was the 
 chairman. 
 
 This Conferénce, it will be observed, was practically a 
 clerical Conference. The laymen of this Diocese were so 
 fortunate as to be represented by one who truly and ably 
 represented their views. But they had no choice in selecting 
 him. Out of the forty-one members of the Conference there 
 were thirteen Bishops, seventeen clergymen and but eleven 
 laymen. This expression of opinion then was, we may say, a 
 
12 
 fair representation of clerical opinion. Here, then, we have 
 another distinct and almost unanimous declaration of the 
 clergy, that the peculiar relations of the two races need special 
 legislation and special agencies; and they propose to have 
 special missionary organizations for the cflored people, leay- 
 ing it to each Diocese to provide as it shall choose whether 
 the congregations of these people shall be received into their 
 Convention, and that until they are so received the 
 clergy officiating in these missionary organizations shall not 
 be returned to the general Convention on the list of the 
 clergy of the Diocese, but on a separate list. 
 
 Are laymen to be blamed for having the same opinion 
 still, and for still objecting to these people being forced into 
 their Conventions in 1887, when the clergy themselves 
 thought in 1883 that they should be in an organization 
 by themselves? 
 
 CONVENTION OF 1885. 
 
 Nothing came of the Sewanee Conference. The General 
 Convention took no action upon the recommendations. The 
 House of Bishops, it was understood, approved of the Canon 
 proposed by the Sewanee Conference, but it was not acted 
 upon. And matters so rested in this Diocese until 1885. 
 
 At the Convention held in Columbia in that year the sub- 
 ject as to the admission of the colored element unfortunately 
 came up in another form, and connected with another ques- 
 tion of scarcely less importance, involving the organization of 
 the Convention itself, and renewing in this Diocese a contro- 
 versy between the Clerical and Lay Orders which has agi- 
 tated other Dioceses in which that of the negro controversy 
 has never arisen. It arose in this wise: 
 
 The list of the clergy having been laid before the Conven- 
 tion by the Bishop, it was referred to a committee under See- 
 tion IV, Canon VIII. Upon the report of the committee a 
 resolution was offered by a Lay Delegate that the report of the 
 Committee on the Credentials of Clergymen be amended by 
 striking out the names of two persons so reported, and that 
 
13 
 
 the question of their eligibility be referred to a Committee of 
 Five—two clergymen and three laymen—to be appointed by 
 the Chair, to report to the next Convention whether or no 
 any other than white delegates have a legal and constitu- 
 tional right to be¢admitted to membership of the Conven- 
 tion of the Diocese of South Carolina. After much discus- 
 sion and some attempts to amend, the vote on the original 
 resolution was taken by Orders on the second day and was 
 defeated—two of the clergy voting for the resolution and 
 nineteen against it, and eighteen of the parishes for and nine 
 against it. | 
 
 On the morning of the third day a Lay Member moved to 
 take up the report of the Committee on the List of the 
 Clergy. The Chair decided that the motion was out of 
 order. An appeal from the Chair was taken, and the Chair 
 announced that the decision was sustained, and thereupon 
 ruled that the two clergymen whose right to seats in the 
 Convention had been questioned were entitled to their seats. 
 
 On the next day a protest was presented by a number of 
 clergymen and lay delegates against the action of the Con- 
 vention in refusing to consider a motion to adopt the report 
 of the Committee on the Credentials of the Clergy, as un- 
 parliamentary and illegal, and as drawing into question the 
 very organization of the Convention itself. And they fur- 
 ther protested against the position which had been an- 
 nounced by the President, and acted upon practically by 
 the Convention, that, by virtue of their names being on the 
 Bishop’s list and reported upon by the Committee on Cre- 
 dentials, certain persons who had been admitted to Holy 
 Orders, to wit: Messrs. H. C. Bishop and Thos. G. Harper, 
 are entitled toand do occupy seats in this Convention. And 
 they further protested against the action of the Convention 
 in affirming that, under our Constitution and laws, persons 
 of color, and not belonging to the white race, are entitled 
 to seats upon the floor of this Convention and to participa- 
 tion in the government of the Church in this Diocese. 
 
 The protest was duly entered upon the Journal of the 
 Convention. 
 
14 
 
 PROVISIONS OF THE CANONS AS TO ORGANIZATION. 
 
 To understand the question which thus arose in Columbia 
 as to the organization of the Conyention we must refer to 
 the following provisions of Canon VIII. , 
 
 2III. When the Convention shall have been called to order the 
 Secretary shall proceed to call the names of the Clergy and then of 
 Parishes and Deputies; after which, ifa quorum be found present, 
 the President shall declare the Convention duly organized; provided 
 that no Deputy whose seat may be contested shall have place on his 
 list. 
 
 21V. Two Committees on Credentials shall then be appointed, the 
 first consisting of three Clergymen to whom the roll of Clergy shall be 
 referred; the other of three Laymen to whom shall be referred the roll 
 of Deputies together with the certificate of their appointment, and the 
 list of the Treasurer required by Canon X, Section II. And these Com- 
 mittees shall examine forthwith and report to the Convention upon the 
 lists so referred; the latter specifying in their report which Parishes are 
 entitled to all the privileges of the Convention, and which are by 
 Article VIII of the Constitution debarred from voting until admitted 
 by a vote of the Convention. Should the Committee have considered 
 any certificates unsatisfactory these shall be taken up and the question 
 of their sufficiency settled. 
 
 It will be observed that if a quorum shall be found 
 present on the call of the names of the Clergy and of the 
 Parishes and Deputies, the President, it is provided, shall 
 declare the Convention duly organized. But we must not 
 suppose that this organization is all that is necessary before 
 proceeding to business. An important step has yet to be 
 taken. Two Committees on Credentials are to be appointed, 
 one for the Clergy, and another for the Lay Deputies. As 
 Mr. Cushing in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice ob- 
 serves, “ in all deliberative assemblies, the members of which 
 are chosen or appointed to represent others, it is necessary 
 before proceeding to business to ascertain who are duly 
 elected and returned as members; in order not only that 
 no person may be admitted to participate in the proceed- 
 ings who is not regularly authorized to do so, but also that 
 a list of the members may be made for the use of the 
 assembly and its officers.” He adds: “ The proper time for 
 
 - 
 2 
 
15 
 
 the investigation is after the temporary and before the per- 
 manent organization, or when the assembly is permanently 
 organized in the first instance before it proceeds to the transaction 
 of any other business ; and the most convenient mode of con- 
 ducting it is by the appointment of a Committee to receive 
 and report upon the credentials of the members.” 
 
 As the Bishop is ex-officio the presiding officer, and no 
 change is therefore made from a temporary to a permanent 
 organization, the Canon provides that if a quorum is found 
 present on a call of the Clergy and of the Parishes and 
 Deputies, the President (i. e. the Bishop) shall declare the 
 Convention duly organized. 
 
 Much stress has been laid upon the use of these words, 
 “duly organized,” as indicating that nothing further is 
 necessary to perfect its organization so as to authorize it to 
 proceed to business; but not only is it from the very nature 
 of things necessary, as Mr. Cushing says, in all deliberative 
 assemblies, the members of which are chosen to represent 
 others, to ascertain before proceeding to business who are 
 entitled to seats, but the Canons expressly provide that when 
 the President has declared the Convention organized, two 
 committees shall be appointed, one toexamine the List of the 
 Clergy, and another to examine that ofthe Laity (Canon VIZJ), 
 
 -and that if any question be made the right of any clergy- 
 man shall be determined by the Convention itself (Canon J), 
 provided that no deputy whose seat may be contested shall 
 have place on the Secretary’s list (Canon VIII). Is it not 
 
 _ the duty of the Convention, before it proceeds to business, 
 
 to dispose of such questions relating to its organization ? 
 
 Suppose that on some question of interest the Convention 
 
 should be nearly equally divided, and that with the exclusion 
 of certain clergymen whose seats were contested, it would 
 be carried in one way, or, with their presence, it would be 
 carried in the other, would it be proper or competent to 
 proceed to this business before acting upon the report of the 
 
 Committee ? Or would it be any more proper or competent 
 
 to pass such a measure by the vote of a clergyman whose 
 
16 
 
 seat was contested, without allowing the report of the Com- 
 mittee to be heard and acted upon ? 
 
 If a doubt on this point could be entertained, the Canon 
 again settles it. Canon VIII, after directing the appoint- 
 ment of these committees, to whom the respective lists shall 
 be referred, provides in explicit terms, “ and these committees 
 severally shall examine forthwith and report to the Convention 
 upon the lists so referred.” It surely will not be questioned 
 that wh en a matter is once referred to a committee it can 
 only be dealt with by the body referring it, by acting upon 
 the report of the committee (Cushing’s Legislative Assem- 
 blies, §1388), or by discharging the committee and resuming 
 control of the subject. (Ibid, §1989). But the latter course, in 
 this instance, cannot be adopted, because the referenceto the 
 committees are not by order of the Convention, but by 
 Canon, which controls the Convention itself. The only 
 course, therefore, is to act upon the report, and until the 
 report is received and acted upon the Convention cannot 
 proceed to business. 
 
 Observe, the committees are to examine forthwith and re- 
 port. Does not this clearly indicate that the examination 
 and report is to precede any other business? 
 
 But, it is urged, that it has not been the practice of the 
 Convention for years past to do anything more than appoint 
 the committees ; that it has never waited for or taken action 
 upon their reports. This is the old plea of communis error 
 facit jus, an argument which Lord Kenyon tells us that 
 another learned judge treated with indignation, and adds: 
 “T perfectly well recollect that learned judge’s saying that 
 he hoped he should never hear that rule insisted upon to set 
 up a misconception of the law in destruction of the law. Ishould 
 have disdained,” he continues, “ to say anything on this po- 
 sition unless it had received the appearance of some counte- 
 nance in the eases I have mentioned, and in the discussion 
 of this case.” 
 
 Let us then look into this practice and see how old it is, for 
 the very first requisite of the validity of a practice or cus- 
 tom is its antiquity. If one can show the beginning of a 
 
17 
 
 custom or practice, it must rest on its merits, not on its ex- 
 istence as a custom. If one can show when a custom com- 
 menced, those who would maintain it must show it was 
 properly commenced. For this reason lawyers, since the 
 time of Coke, have held that no custom can prevail against 
 an express act of Parliament; and, for the same reason, 
 churchmen must equally hold that no practice can prevail 
 against an express provision of a Canon, or render such a pro- 
 vision nugatory. 
 
 Prior to the revision of the Canons in 1872-75, the only 
 canonical provision in regard to the Convention was con- 
 tained in a Canon then numbered III, and which in the re- 
 vision was made Canon I. 
 
 The provision in the old Canon I that the List of the 
 Clergy should be referred to a Committee of Three Clergy- 
 men is transferred to Section IV of Canon VIII in the re- 
 vision, with only such changes of phraseology as are necessary 
 to its application to the two Committees—one on the List of 
 the Clergy and another on that of the Laity. In the old 
 Canon the list was to be referred to a committee— 
 
 “ Who shall forthwith consider and report who of the clergy on said 
 list are entitled to all the privileges of the Convention, and who are en- 
 titled to seats only.” 
 
 In the revised Canon VIII it is provided— 
 
 “And these two committees shall examine forthwith and report upon 
 the lists so referred,” &c. 
 
 Now let us see what the practice was under the old Canon. 
 In the Journal of the Convention of 1867 we read, that after 
 a brief interval, upon the conclusion of the services the 
 Convention was called to order by the Bishop; and the 
 Journal continues: 
 
 “The Roll of the Clergy was then called by the Secretary, and the 
 following answered to their names, viz; ” 
 2 
 
18 
 Here follows the list of those who answered: 
 
 “The Roll of the Parishes and Churches entitled to representation 
 was then called, and the following answered, viz: ” 
 
 _ Here follows the list of those who answered: 
 
 “The List of the Clergy was referred to a Committee, consisting of 
 the Rey. Messrs. P. Trapier, J. H. Cornish and W. B. W. Howe, and the 
 Certificates of the Lay Deputies to a Committee, a of Messrs. 
 W. T. Wragg, F. P. Elford and J. J. P. Smith. 
 
 “These Committees reported severally as follows: 
 
 “The Committee onthe List of the Clergy respectfully tle | That 
 the following Clergymen are entitled to all the privileges of oe 
 of the Convention, viz: (Here follow the names.) 
 
 “2d. The following are entitled to seats and a voice, but not to a is, 
 viz: (Here follow the names.) 
 
 “The Committee on Certificates of Lay Deputies report: That the 
 following Deputies are entitled to seats in the Seventy-seventh Annual 
 Convention of this Diocese, viz: (Here follow the names.) 
 
 “ These reports being received, the names of Deputies were called, and 
 thirty-six found present, whose names are marked thus (7). 
 
 “A quorum of both Orders being present, the President declared the Con- 
 vention duly organized.” 
 
 This exact formula of minutes is found in the Journals 
 of the Convention for the years, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 
 1872, and 1873. It will be observed that, in each of these 
 years, the Convention was not declared organized until the 
 reports were received—and their reception without question 
 was their confirmation (Cushing); nor was it declared 
 organized until it was ascertained that a quorum of those 
 so reported was present. The custom relied on, therefore, 
 must have arisen since 1873. 
 
 In 1871, a Committee had been appointed to revise the 
 Canons. This Committee reported: Canon 1, “ Of the Clergy,” 
 as it now reads down to and including the sentence : “ And 
 such List shall be laid before the Convention immediately 
 after it shall have been called to order on the first day of 
 meeting, and the names called therefrom,” and the Report 
 added this provision : 
 
 “ And until otherwise ordered by the Convention, it shall be received as the 
 Roll of the Convention.” 
 
19 
 
 It appears from the Journal of 1873, and its Appendix, 
 VIII, B, that this Canon was adopted in this form at that 
 Convention—doubtless incautiously, as will thus appear. 
 
 In 1874 the Roll of Clergy and List of Deputies having 
 been called and the lists referred to the respective commit- 
 tees, before their report, the journal records: 
 
 “A quorum of both orders being present, the Convention was 
 
 declared duly organized.’y 
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 
 Question was made whether the Convention could be organized, 
 that is, whether the old ‘ Rule of Order’ or the Canons adopted by the 
 last Convention should direct the mode of procedure. After consid- 
 erable discussion, Mr. John Philips offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That this body being duly organized, do proceed to 
 business. 
 
 After further discussion, Mr. W. D. Porter offered the following 
 substitute for the above, which was accepted by the mover, viz: 
 
 Resolved, That it is the sense of this Convention that the President 
 declare the Convention organized. 
 
 The question being put, it was adopted, and the Convention declared 
 duly organized.” 
 
 This action was taken, it will be observed, under the 
 provision of the Canon as it then stood, which directed that 
 until otherwise ordered by the Convention, the List of the 
 Clergy presented by the Bishop or Standing Committee 
 should be received as the roll of the Convention. But the 
 Convention proceeded at once to rectify this mistake into 
 which it had fallen. On the third day we read in the 
 Journal (1874): 
 
 “Mr. McCrady offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That Canons I, II, IIT 1V, of the new series be referred to 
 the Committee on the Constitution and Canons to inquire and report 
 whether there be any inconsistency between them and the Constitu- 
 tion, and if found to be inconsistent, that the said Canons be remodeled 
 by them so as to be brought into consistency with the Constitution. 
 
 Which was adopted,” 
 
 In the journal of the next year (1875) we read, page 23: 
 
 “The Committee on the Constitution and Canons presented their 
 report. (See Appendix IV.) 
 On motion of Mr. W. A. Pringle, 
 
20 
 
 Resolved, That the Canons as reported by the Committee be taken up 
 in a body and adopted as the Canons of the Diocese.” 
 
 Turning to Appendix IV, page 64, we find the report of 
 1872 republished, with a note by the Secretary, as follows: 
 
 “In 1874 these Canons were referred. back to the Committee, who 
 presented to the Convention the following report : 
 
 “The Committee on the Constitution a»d Canons to whom Canons 
 I, II, III and IV were referred by the las? Convention (p. 26) to in- 
 quire and report whether there be any inconsistency between them and 
 the Constitution, and if so, to remodel them 
 
 Respectfully report, that in discharging the duty assigned them they 
 have taken occasion carefully to revise the entire report submitted by 
 them to the Convention in 1872, (see Journal, page 128),and ask leave 
 to propose sundry amendments as well as to the portion of that report 
 which has been acted upon as that yet to be considered. 
 
 These amendments are embodied in the following resolutions : 
 
 N. B.—These resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution 
 having been all concurred in, and the whole body of the Canons 
 adopted, instead of printing the report as handed in, the original 
 report here follows as amended by them.” 
 
 Then follow the Constitution and Canons, with this note 
 by the Secretary : 
 
 “These Canons having been adopted by the Convention are now 
 the Canons of this Diocese.” 
 
 On examining Canon I, as then amended and adopted by 
 the Convention, we find that the clause, 
 
 “And until otherwise ordered by the Conventionit (the Clergy List) 
 shall be received as the Roll of the Convention,” 
 
 was stricken out and the provision as it now stands in the 
 Canon was adopted, to wit: 
 
 * * * “And it (the Clergy’s List) shall be taken as presumptive 
 evidence of the privilege of clergymen in the Convention. Provided, 
 that if questions be made, the right of any clergyman shall be de- 
 termined according to the provision of the Constitution itself, whether 
 his name be inserted in the list aforesaid or not.” 
 
21 
 
 Here then was the most decisive, positive, and explicit 
 action by Canon on the very point. The Convention has 
 _ expressly refused to allow the Clergy List to be received as 
 
 the Roll of the Convention ; and by a unanimous vote—not 
 merely the two-thirds required to change the Canon which 
 had been incautiously adopted—ordained instead that 
 the list should be only presumptive evidence subject to question, 
 and if question made, such question to be determined by 
 the Convention itself’ according to the provisions of the 
 Constitution, to wit: by a vote by orders. Is there, can there 
 be room for question after this of the right to question the 
 List of the Clergy and to demand a vote by orders upon it? 
 
 CONVENTION OF 1886. 
 
 The next year, 1586, the Convention met at St. Luke’s, 
 Charleston, on the 12th May, and the List of the Clergy and 
 Lay Delegates having been referred to the appropriate com- 
 mittees, as required by the Canon, the President stated that 
 the Convention was duly organized, and that the first busi- 
 ness in order was the election of a Secretary. Thereupon a 
 lay delegate raised the point of order that the Convention 
 was not organized for the transaction of business until the 
 reports of the Committees on Credentials, clerical and lay, 
 had been received and acted on. 
 
 The discussion on this.point of order, involving the 
 organization of the Convention went on all of the first day, 
 and during its continuance on the second day, the Com- 
 mittee on Credentials having reported on the List of the 
 Clergy, a motion was made that the reports be confirmed, ' 
 there being no objectionable name upon it, as there was no 
 colored clergyman in the Diocese that year. The President 
 ruled the motion out of order, and upon an appeal from the 
 ruling, the debate on the question as to the due organiza- 
 tion of the Convention was renewed and carried on to the 
 third day. Upon its close, the President—i. e., the Bishop 
 presiding—thus fairly stated the question before the Con- 
 vention. He said: 
 
22 
 
 “The house was confined entirely to the question of the adoption or 
 rejection of the report of the committee on the clerical list. On that 
 committee’s report a motion was made to adoptit. The Chair ruled 
 such adoption out of order, thereupon an appeal was taken. The ap- 
 peal has been discussed, and the question is about to be put. The real 
 question, however, is not shall the appeal be sustained, but shall the 
 decision of the Chair stand as the decision of the Convention ?” 
 
 A vote on this appeal was taken by orders and resulted as 
 follows: Clergy—yeas, 25;. nays, 4; Parishes—yeas, 5; 
 nays, 25 ; divided, 1. 
 
 The president recognized the legal effect of the vote 
 against his decision as binding upon the chair, and pro- 
 ceeded to put the question upon the adoption of the report 
 of the Committee on the Clergy List, though announcing that 
 he himself would vote against its adoption by way of protest. 
 The report was not confirmed. 
 
 The Convention was, however, finally organized by the 
 almost unanimous adoption of a resolution avowedly framed 
 so as to commit neither party to the struggle, which had 
 already lost three out of the four days of the Convention. 
 It was as follows: 
 
 ‘* Resolved, That the clergymen whose names were referred to the 
 Committee on the Clergy List be declared entitled to all the privileges 
 of the Convention according to the classification of the Committee.” 
 
 QUESTION AS TO THE INHERENT RiGHT oF CLERGYMEN TO 
 SEATS IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 The question which had thus divided the two Conyen- 
 tions (of 1885 and 1886) immediately preceding the last, 
 although doubtless suggested and made of immediate 
 importance by the further question as to the right of any 
 other but white clergymen to seats in our Convention, is alto- 
 gether independent of it, and would have been insisted upon 
 by us just as earnestly had it been raised on any other occasion. 
 It is, as we say, not a new question, nor is it confined to our 
 Diocese. Were the question of the status of colored clergy- 
 men eliminated from the discussion to-morrow, laymen 
 
23 
 
 cannot afford to give up that as to the organization of the 
 Convention itself. It is simply the question of the right of 
 laymen to judge and determine for themselves as to the 
 fact whether or not the persons named upon the Clergy List 
 are qualified under the Constitution to seats in the Conven- 
 tion, just as they admit the right of the clergy to pass upon 
 that of the lay delegates. 
 
 This subject has agitated other Dioceses, among them, 
 New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 
 
 The High Church party in Connecticut, under the lead 
 of Dr., afterwards Bishop Jarvis, claimed as our clergymen 
 do now, that the List of the Clergy presented to a 
 Convention was ipso facto conclusive, under the same idea, 
 if not so broadly expressed, as declared by one of ourclergy- 
 men in Columbia in 1885, to wit: that “ he stood on the floor 
 of the Convention as a priest of God;” or, as expressed by 
 another at the late Convention, that “the very fact that Mr. 
 Pollard’s name is on the Bishop’s roll of clergymen consti- 
 tutes him a member of this Convention” Dr. Jarvis made 
 an elaborate report in favor of this view. But the church- 
 men of Connecticut would have none of it, and though the 
 proposed amendment to the Constitution was adopted that 
 year, it was immediately repealed the next. 
 
 Our clergymen generally assyme that to be so in our case 
 in the very nature of things which Dr Jarvis, high church- 
 man as he was, only sought to ingraft by amendment on 
 the Constitution of Connecticut. ¢ 
 
 The late Judge Hoffman, of New York, who was a staunch 
 supporter of Episcopal prerogative; in his work on Canon 
 law in the American Church, devotes some space to this 
 discussion and thus states his views: 
 
 * * x “When a Bishop becomes a party to a compact by which a 
 Convention shall be found to be composed of clergymen, and in which 
 the qualifications of those to be admitted as members are stated, that 
 assent involves an assent that the Convention shall judge of the pos- 
 session of those qualifications. There must be a positive enactment to 
 avoid the consequence. The provisions in the two Dioceses named 
 (Connecticut and New Jersey) do not amount to such an enactment. 
 The case is very distinguishable from that elsewhere discussed as to the 
 
24 
 
 right of a Bishop as presiding officer upon questions of order. The 
 Bishops never relinquished the right of presidency. The Constitutions 
 always recognize, do not confer, that right and that right, it is consid- 
 ered, involves the right of determination where there is no different 
 regulation. But here the Bishop agrees to the establishment and composition 
 of a body to which, presumptively, the privilege attaches of deciding upon its 
 member’s qualifications. There should be an express denial of the power, or 
 an express bestowal of it elsewhere to avoid the conclusion.” 
 
 Some ten years ago the same question was revived in 
 Massachusetts by an attempt to amend the Constitution so 
 as to provide that the right of voting in Convention should 
 not be restricted to such clergy as were actually and 
 canonically employed in certain settled duties, and to 
 allow all clergy employed or unemployed to yote by virtue 
 of their orders. This was advocated by Dr. Vinton, Dr. 
 Burgess and others, and was opposed by the Rey. Dr. 
 Huntington, Mr Causten Brown and Mr. Richard H. 
 Dana, Jr. Dr. Vinton urged the claim which is now set up 
 in this Diocese that a seat and vote in the Convention was a 
 right inherent in the office of the clergyman; that they 
 sat and should vote as representatives of their order while 
 the lay deputies sat to represent their parishes. It was 
 responded that there was no such right to sit and vote in a 
 Church Synod inherent in the clerical character as such ; 
 that it had not been enjoyed in other ages and was not 
 now theirs in other portions of the Church; that it was a 
 privilege bestowed on them by statute enactment as a correla- 
 tive of certain setvices which they were rendering to the 
 Church. Dr. Vinton’s proposed amendment to the Con- 
 stitution was defeated by a fair majority, even of the clergy. 
 
 The laymen in Massachusetts were right in asserting that 
 there was no such right to sit and yote in any Convention 
 inherent in the clerical character, but that when enjoyed 
 it was a privilege bestowed by some positive enactment. No 
 such right is enjoyed by the clergy of the Church of Eng- 
 land (our Mother Church) in the convocations of Can- 
 terbury and York. The clergymen who sit in those conyo- 
 cations are elected as proctors or representatives by such 
 clergymen only as themselves possess certain property quali- 
 
 OO 
 
25 
 ‘ 
 
 fications in their offices. Their qualification is one of 
 property rather than of orders. See Burns Ecclesiastical Law ; 
 Blackstone, Jacobi’s Law Dictionary; Encyclopedia Britannica, Ith 
 Edition, Title Convocation. We venture to assert that no in- 
 stance in the history of the Church can be found in which 
 clergymen have had seats in any legislative synod or council 
 of the Church by virtue simply of their orders. 
 
 So you see, Brethren of the Laity, your delegates who. 
 withdrew set forth no new or strange doctrine when they 
 maintain the right of the Laity to pass upon the qualifications 
 of the clergy whose names are laid before the Convention by 
 the Bishop, or by the Standing Committee in his absence. 
 Observe we say, “or by the Standing Committee in his ab- 
 sence.” For you will recollect that this list, to which a charac- 
 ter approaching almost to sanctity is claimed, may after all be 
 made up not by the Bishop at all, but by the Standing Com- 
 mittee in his absence—a body which can set up no claim to 
 apostolic authority. Indeed this list is always made up 
 by the Standing Committee on the most important occasion 
 on which a Convention can meet—the occasion for the elec- 
 tion of a Bishop. 
 
 CONVENTION OF (1887. 
 
 The Convention which met in St. Philip’s Church on the 
 12th May last, had before it the now inevitable question 
 which had agitated the two previous, to wit: that of its or- 
 ganization ; but unlike that of 1886, it had the question not 
 asa matter of principle only, but with it was involved the 
 underlying question of the admission of colored clergymen 
 into our councils. 
 
 Upon assembling, the Secretary of the last Convention hay- 
 ing called the rolls and ascertained that ten clergymen were 
 present and ten parishes represented, the President, using the 
 formula prescribed by the Canon, announced that the Con- 
 vention was duly organized, and appointed the Committees 
 on the Credentials of the Clergy and Lay Deputies. 
 
 The Bishop then announced that while these committees 
 
26 
 
 were out he would read his Annual Address, and proceeded . 
 to do so. Upon its conclusion, the Committee on the Cre- 
 dentials of the Clergy submitted their report approving the 
 list as presented by the Bishop, including the name of a col- 
 ored clergyman in the list of those entitled to seats, but not 
 to votes. 
 
 Upon this a Lay Delegate moved to confirm the report, 
 and another to amend it by striking out the name of the col- 
 ored clergyman. The motion to strike out the name of the ~ 
 colored clergyman resulted as follows: Clergy, yeas, 3; 
 nays, 28; Lay Parishes, yeas, 22; nays, 6; so the motion 
 was lost by non-concurrence of orders. 
 
 It was then moved by one of us to divide the ques- 
 tion so as to confirm the clergymen reported as entitled 
 to seats and votes about whom there was no question. 
 This would at once have organized the Convention for 
 business, leaving for the present the name of the colored 
 clergyman upon the list of those entitled to seats, but not to 
 votes, subject to such action as might be taken thereafter. 
 This motion to divide the question resulted as follows: 
 Clerical, yeas, 5; nays, 21; Lay, yeas,19; nays, 9; divided, 
 3; and was consequently lost. 
 
 So, you see, we the laymen were willing, and proposed to 
 separate and remove the question of the admission of the 
 colored clergymen from that of the organization of the body, 
 leaving the former to the action of the Convention after its 
 organization ; but that the clergy would not allow us to do so, 
 insisting on making their admission a condition of the organiza- 
 tion of the Convention itself. 
 
 The question then recurred on the original motion to 
 confirm the report of the Committee on the Clergy List, as 
 presented by the Bishop. This resulted—clerical, yeas, 
 22; nays, 3. Laymen, yeas, 6; nays, 18; divided, 6. So 
 the motion to confirm the report was lost. 
 
 The Chair then announced that, notwithstanding the vote 
 refusing to confirm the list of the clergy, as reported, “ that 
 the Convention is duly organized, and ready for any business that 
 may come before it.” 
 
27 
 
 Thereupon a motion was made by a clerical member in 
 reference to the Bishop’s Address. Upon this a point of 
 erder was made, that, as the Convention was not as yet 
 organized for business, the motion in reference to the Bish- 
 op’s Address colulld not be entertained. 
 
 The Chair overruled the point of order, holding that the 
 Convention was fully organized for business. From this 
 ruling an appeal was taken. The Chair announcing that 
 he would receive no further appeals after this, but would go 
 on with the regular business, then put the appeal in these 
 words: ‘“ Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the sense of the 
 House?” 
 
 This question was taken by orders, and the House refused, 
 by a divided vote, to sustain the decision of the Chair. The 
 vote was as follows: Clergy—yeas, 22; nays, 3. Parishes— 
 yeas, 9; nays, 13; divided, 2. 
 
 The Bishop then announced that “there being a non-con- 
 currence, the decision of the. Chau had not been sustained,” but 
 immediately turned to the Secretary and instructed him to 
 proceed to read the Rules of Order, this being the first busi- 
 ness, as he said, under the order of business. 
 
 Now we ask, in all soberness and. earnestness, why did 
 the Bishop go through the meaningless form of putting the 
 question to the House, “ whether his decision should stand,” 
 if he had not intended to be bound by the result? If he was 
 bound by the action of the Convention in 1886, upon an 
 appeal from his decision, washe not likewise bound in 1887? 
 
 An appeal was attempted to be taken from this ruling, 
 but as the Bishop had announced he would do, he refused 
 to put the appeal to the House. 
 
 Upon this the Lay Delegates from St. Paul’s Parish, Rad- 
 cliffeboro’, sent up to the Chair the following paper : 
 
 “The Lay Delegates of St. Paul’s Parish, Radcliffeboro’, finding it im- 
 practicable to organize the Convention according to the Constitution 
 and the Canons of the Church, deem it wise to withdraw, and hereby 
 notify their colleagues of their intention.” 
 
 The Delegates from St. Paul’s were followed by Delegates 
 from twenty other parishes. 
 
28 
 
 The next day the Deputies who had retired from the Con- 
 vention met in consultation, and this committee was ap- — 
 pointed to prepare this statement. While they were in such 
 consultation a committee, waited upon them . and presented 
 the following resolution, which the Committee informed 
 them had been unanimously adopted : 
 
 “Resolved, This Convention profoundly regrets the action of the Dele- 
 gates from certain parishes in withdrawing from the Convention on 
 yesterday evening, and affectionately and most earnestly requests their 
 brethren to reconsider their action and resume their seats in the bsniz? 
 vention. 
 
 “Resolved, That this resolution be presented to our absent biedaead 
 by a committee appointed by the Chair.” 
 
 Upon the presentation of this resolution it was asked of 
 the committee what had been attempted to be done in our 
 absence; and upon learning from them that those remain- 
 ing in the Convention had undertaken to transact business, 
 to amend the Constitution and to elect a Standing Commit- 
 ‘tee, turning out from that Committee all members who 
 had acted with your Deputies, the following resolution was 
 unanimously adopted by us: 
 
 “Resolved, That we accede to the request submitted to us by the com- 
 mittee, provided that when we return and resume our seats in the 
 Convention, the President of the Convention shall entertain the appeal 
 taken by Mr. McCrady yesterday, and shall forthwith put the same to 
 the Convention.” 
 
 This condition was refused. 
 
 Upon a careful consideration of the foregoing statement 
 we think our brethren of the Laity will agree with us that 
 there was indeed no other course left open to us but to 
 withdraw. 
 
 The Bishop had ruled—notwithstanding that the Con- 
 vention had refused to confirm the report of the Committee 
 on the Clergy List—that the Convention was duly organ- 
 ized for business. An appeal had been taken, and upon this 
 appeal, which he himself correctly put in these words: 
 
29 
 
 “ Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the sense of the house ?” 
 a vote of the house had been taken, the result of which 
 he himself announced in these words: “There being a non- 
 concurrence, the. decision of the Chair has not been sustained.” 
 Here, then, we had his own announcement, pvt in the for- 
 mula which at the Convention held last year he had de- 
 clared that he had adopted upon the advice of parliamenta- 
 rians, whom he had consulted, that the decision had not 
 been sustained by the body to which he had put it. And 
 yet, with this express and announced refusal of the Conven- 
 tion to sustain his ruling, the Bishop nevertheless assumed 
 to decide against the action of the Convention itself, and by 
 his own authority to determine that the Convention was 
 fully organized for business ! 
 
 For the Church’s sake it was the greater pity, too, that 
 the Bishop should thus have assumed to decide the ques- 
 tion as to the organization of the Convention by his — 
 mere will, for at that time, when he refused to hear any 
 other appeal in regard to it, the delegate who made the ap- 
 peal had in his hand a proposition looking to peace, which 
 had been agreed upon by parties on both sides, clergymen 
 and laymen, as a fair basis of settlement, at least for the 
 time. 
 
 What were we to do? 
 
 But one of four alternative courses was possible: 
 
 1. To submit. To abandon all right of the Laity to an 
 opinion upon the organization of the Convention, and to 
 recognize the action of those sustaining the Bishop, what- 
 ever it might be, on any question, notwithstanding that 
 upon a vote the Convention itself had in effect declared 
 that it was not organized. 
 
 2. To protest against the action of the Bishop, and remain. 
 
 3. To remain and, by means of parliamentary expedients, 
 to obstruct the business—forcing a divided vote on every 
 question—or 
 
 4. To withdraw with dignity and refuse to recognize any 
 further action of those who remained under the Bishop’s 
 Truling. 
 
30 
 
 We do not suppose that our brethren of the Laity would 
 have had us to take the first course and thus to abandon, not 
 only our own, but their rights as well. We had tried the 
 second two years ago, and it had produced no results. The 
 third would have given rise to unseemly conduct and strug- 
 gle, and would have, in some measure at least, justified the 
 use of the expression “ filibustering,” with which our oppo- 
 nents had already endeavored to prejudice the parliamen- 
 tary struggle we had made. We saw no course consistent 
 with our own dignity and your rights but to withdraw, and 
 refuse to recognize any action that those who remained 
 might take. : 
 
 As we have said before, had the quéstion as to the right 
 of colored persons in our Convention been entirely elimi- 
 nated, we could not have given up the assertion of the right 
 of the Laity to pass upon the qualifications of the Clergy- 
 men on the Lists laid before the Convention by the Bishop, 
 or Standing Committee—any more than the Churehmen in 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, and other Dio- 
 ceses, who have had likewise to insist upon it, though there 
 was no such underlying question of present moment as with 
 us. But with us there was the “ burning” or “festering” 
 question, as it has been at different times designated, behind, 
 forcing itself upon us, and demanding that we should give 
 up no barrier against the intrusion of the colored race into 
 our councils. From the stand taken by the Bishop, sup-. 
 ported by a large majority of the Clergymen, if we gave up 
 this question as to the proper organization of the Conyen- 
 tion, we had no longer any means of resisting the seating 
 colored Clergy in our Conventions, though we believe such 
 action unconstitutional, and in itself dangerous in the 
 extreme to the Church. 
 
 CoLoRED CLERGYMEN NOT CONTEMPLATED IN oUR Con- 
 STITUTION. 
 
 We say that we believe the seating of colored clergymen 
 to be unconstitional. The Constitution, as we have seen, 
 provides, Article III, Section 1, “ The Convention shall be com- 
 posed of clergymen and laymen.” 
 
ol 
 
 What clergymen and what laymen are here meant ? 
 
 To answer this we must ascertain who the framers of the 
 Constitution intended to designate, and this is but resorting 
 to the old and familiar legal rule, which is thus expressed 
 by Mr. Justice Story. He says “that the first and funda- 
 mental rule in relation to the interpretation of all instru- 
 ments applies to constitutions, that is, to construe them 
 according to the sense of the terms and ‘the intentions of 
 of the parties.” Andas held in the great “ woman’s right’s 
 case” (Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162,) by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, Chief Justice Waite delivering 
 the opinion of the Court, we must ascertain what the terms 
 meant at the time when they were used, and the sense in which 
 they were then used, and must adopt that meaning, and nota 
 meaning which the words may have subsequently received. 
 So in deciding who were the “ cifizens” of the United States 
 whose privileges or immunities in question were not to be 
 abridged, the Court went back to ascertain whom the framers 
 of the Constitution of the United States had in view at the 
 time they used the term, and deciding that the term 
 “citizen” as used and understood when the Constitution was 
 adopted did not at that time, and in the sense in which it 
 was then used, include females, they held it could not 
 be now enlarged to include them. 
 
 A familiar illustration of the justness of this rule is to be 
 found in our Common Prayer, where, in the collect for the 
 17th Sunday after Trinity, we pray “that Thy grace may 
 always prevent and follow us.” Do we mean when we use 
 this prayer to ask the Lord in the present acceptance of the 
 word “prevent” that He would “ hinder,” “ obstruct,” 
 “impede” or “thwart” us? or do we not mean Him to 
 understand us as using the word in the old sense,“ to go 
 before us as a benefactor, to anticipate our wants and 
 desires ?” 
 
 So, in construing our Church Constitution, we must go 
 back and put ourselves in the place of those who wrote and 
 adopted it, and ask what did they then mean? 
 
 And can any one doubt whom they then meant by the term 
 
 we 
 
32 
 
 clergymen? Will any one maintain that it ever entered 
 into the minds of the framers of our Constitution that these 
 terms applied to any but those of the white race? 
 
 At the time of the adoption of these words in the Consti- 
 tution of the Diocese, slavery existed in the State, and, 
 indeed, the cétored race was subject to slavery in every 
 State in the Union except Vermont, and perhaps, as it is 
 claimed, Massachusetts. The framers of the Constitution 
 could not, therefore, have contemplated that these terms 
 applied to the colored race. But it was not only because of 
 their slavery that colored persons were not contemplated by 
 the framers of our Diocesan Constitutions as coming under 
 the general terms used in these instruments. It was 
 because the framers of these Constitutions regarded them- 
 selves as providing for the government of a homogeneous © 
 Church—a race Church—a Church of white people—Anglo- 
 Saxon—the same people as those of the Church of England. 
 
 We say this without fear of refutation, for this is the first 
 attempt in the history of the Church to make a Church 
 other than a National Church—that is the Church of a race. 
 Since the time when Paul and Barfiabus parted asunder at 
 Antioch, on a race question, we find the Church everywhere 
 a race Church. The three great divisions of the Church 
 to-day are the Latin, the Greek and the Anglo-Saxon. — 
 
 We have a singular illustration of this in the Church in 
 New York. An Act for the gradual emancipation of slaves 
 was passed by the State of New York in 1799, by the opera- 
 tion of which the census of 1840 showed that all but four 
 negroes had been freed. In March, 1819, that is, twenty 
 years after the passage of the act, Bishop Hobart applied to 
 the Standing Committee of that Diocese for advice in 
 relation to the admission of a colored person as a candidate 
 for holy orders, upon which the Committee unanimously 
 advised his admission upon the distinct understanding that 
 in the event of his being admitted to orders, he should not 
 “be entitled to a seat in the Convention, nor should the 
 congregation of which he may have charge be represented 
 therein.” It is manifest from this that neither Bishop Ho- 
 
33 
 
 bart nor his Standing Committee imagined that the fact of 
 emancipation had given the colored race a constitutional 
 right to a seat in the Convention. 
 
 But the expediency of admitting a colored congrega- 
 tion to representation was again discussed in 1846, when 
 it may be presumed that the last four slaves had been 
 emancipated by death if not otherwise, and that the con- 
 sideration of slavery was absolutely at an end. In this 
 year, 1846, the subject of the admission of St. Philip’s 
 and other colored congregations into representation in the 
 Convention of the Diocese of New York was referred toa 
 committee, consisting of William H. Harrison, Reubin 
 Sherwood and J. C. Spencer, who made an elaborate report, 
 a copy of which is here added as an appendix ; recommend- 
 ing that neither St.Philip’s nor any other colored congrega- 
 tion be admitted into union with the Convention. This 
 report was received, and its recommendation was adopted. 
 
 The question was again renewed in 1850, when the Con- 
 vention in New York again refused, in spite of Mr. John 
 Jay’s efforts in their behalf, to admit colored delegates. 
 Here then we have a practical construction cotemporaneous 
 with emancipation in New York, and subsequently adhered 
 to. Such construction is always regarded the highest 
 authority by both constitutional lawyers and canonists. 
 
 Bishop Hobart and the Convention in New York were 
 not alone in this regard. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, 
 took exactly the same course, and admitted a colored person, 
 Absalom Jones, to Holy Orders on the distinct understand- 
 ing that neither he nor the Parish of St. Thomas, of which 
 he was to be the Rector, should claim seats in the Conven- 
 tion ; and the same provision was incorporated in the charter 
 of the Church. 
 
 If the admission of colored members, clerical or lay, is 
 regarded as mere matter of expediency, then of course these 
 instances have only the weight of example. Butif it is 
 regarded as a matter of principle and right they have much 
 greater force. For if aseat in the Convention is a matter of 
 inherent right, it must have been as with matters of faith 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 semper eadem. But here we have the venerable Bishop 
 Whiteand Bishop Hobart, and the able, learned and Christian 
 churchmen of New York and Pennsylvania denying rig: 
 in this matter. 
 
 CoNSTITUTION AMENDED BUT Not ApopTEepD In 1876. 
 
 Our opponents would at first pay no attention to this ar- 
 gument, but contented themselves with simply answering 
 dogmatically that the term “clergymen” included all cler- 
 gymen, whether white or colored. But finding that it 
 cannot be thus summarily disposed of, they now make the 
 point that the Constitution was adopted, or re-adopted, in 
 1876, and that as there were colored clergymen at that time, 
 that such are now included in the term. In this they are 
 mistaken. The Constitution was not adopted, nor re-adopted, 
 in 1876—it was simply amended at that time. 
 
 In 1871 the Committee on the Constitution and Canons 
 were instructed to examine and revise the Canons, Rules of 
 Order and Standing Resolutions. See Journal, p —. 
 
 On the 11th May, 1872, the committee presented their re- 
 port, which was adopted. Whereupon the Rey. J. D. Me- 
 Collough, from the same committee, offered the following 
 resolution : 
 
 “Resolved, That the Constitution of the Church in this Diocese be 
 amended in the following particulars, (See Journal 1872, p, 29-21.) 
 
 Then followed the proposed and specified amendments, 
 mostly verbal, and none bearing upon the questions in- 
 volved in this controversy, none in anywise defining or al- 
 luding to the term “ clergymen.” 
 
 The Journal then goes on to record (p. 22): 
 
 “These resolutions were severally considered and were adopted, ex- 
 cept the third,” &e. 
 
35 
 
 The assertion, therefore, now so confidently made, that 
 the present Constitution was adopted in 1876, we have 
 shown to be historically untrue. It was then simply 
 amended in certain specified particulars. 
 
 ERASTIANISM. 
 
 We have been astonished to hear it urged that the change 
 in the institutions of the country, whereby these people 
 have been allowed to participate in the civil government, 
 was binding upon the Church. We did not think that such 
 Erastianism was held in this country. We thought here, at 
 least, that Church and State were by both the civil and 
 ecclesiastical constitutions forever divorced. But if such a 
 doctrine is, nevertheless, maintained, we would beg such 
 persons as think that the action of the civil government 
 binds the Church, to remember that it was never conceived, 
 that emancipation itself gave the negroes the right to take 
 part in the civil government. Nor were such rights con- 
 ferred by the new amendments to the Constitution of the 
 United States. The party in power, through the Recon- 
 struction measures, compelled the States, by the power of 
 the sword, themselves to enact the provisions conferring 
 such rights upon the negroes. It was not left to implica- 
 tion from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Civil 
 rights, rightfully or wrongfully, voluntarily or under com- 
 pulsion, were given and conferred by each State by its own 
 individual enactment. So if the Bishop and Clergy desire 
 to have similar rights conferred in our Church government, 
 at must be done by some positive act of the Church itself. Will 
 they resort to outside pressure to accomplish this, as was 
 done in civil affairs? If they cannot use the sword of State, 
 as Erastus would have had them do, will they seek to bring 
 down upon us the anathemas of the Northern Church, be- 
 cause having experienced the great evil brought upon 
 the State by forcing these people into the civil government. 
 of the country, we hesitate to bring like trouble into the 
 councils of the Church ? 
 
36 - 
 
 — 
 
 Itis thus apparent that the attempt is being made to change the 
 ancient and established order of the Church, not directly by means 
 of any positive and affirmative action of the Church itself, but 
 indirectly by a mere implication from changes which have taken 
 place outside of the Church. 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF COLORED ELEMENT NOT ONLY UNCONSTITU- 
 TIONAL BUT DANGEROUS. 
 
 As we have said, we believe the seating of colored 
 clergymen in our Conventions is not only unconstitutional 
 but in itself dangerous in the extreme. 
 
 And surely in so believing, we have but to refer to the 
 Clergy themselves and to cite their own views and to use their 
 own expressions. We have but to recall Mr. Prentiss’ reso- 
 lution in 1875, asserting that the Convention possesses and 
 will exercise the right of excluding from their body dele- 
 gates of this class, because they may interrupt the peace of 
 the Church and impede the glory of God. We have but to 
 recall the resolutions of the Standing Committee, including 
 Dr. Pinckney, Dr. Porter and Mr. Johnson, that the diffi- 
 culty before us is, that we have to legislate for “two races 
 brought together in this Diocese to occupy the same terri- 
 tory differing in all those essential characteristics which con- _ 
 stitute different peoples, and most especially in Christian 
 knowledge and culture ;” “that it would reverse the order 
 of missionary operations and even of nature itself and would 
 tend to the advantage of neither race, that the race having the 
 lesser Christian knowledge and culture should be advanced 
 to the position of teachers, and rulers of the other race;” 
 “that itis not expedient to invest individuals of the less 
 advanced race with official authority over the other race.” 
 We have but to cite the language of the report of the Com- 
 mittee of the Sewanee Conference, signed by Bishops Green, 
 of Mississippi; Gregg, of Texas; Robertson, of Missouri ; 
 Lyman, of North Carolina; and Dudley, of Kentucky; and 
 Thompson, assistant Bishop of Mississippi; and others 
 clergymen and laymen, “ that because of the peculiarity of 
 
37 
 
 the relations of the two races one to the other in our 
 country, because of their history in the past and the hopes 
 of the future, there is need of special legislation appointing 
 special agency and methods for the ingathering of these 
 wandering sheep into the fold of Christ.” We have but to 
 refer to their memorial to the General Convention in view 
 of these peculiar relations of the two races to organize the 
 colored people into separate missionary organizations. 
 
 That our views upon this subject are neither new, singu- 
 lar nor strange, will be seen by referring to the report to 
 the New York Convention which we have added as an 
 appendix to this paper. Say Messrs. Harrison, Sherwood 
 and Spencer. 
 
 “When society is unfortunately divided into classes. When some 
 are intelligent, refined and elevated in tone and character, and others 
 are ignorant, coarse and debased however unjustly, and when such 
 prejudice exists between them as to prevent social intercourse on 
 equal terms, it would seem inexpedient to encounter such prejudices 
 unnecessarily, and to endeavor to compel the one class to associate on 
 equal terms in the consultations on the affairs of the Diocese with those 
 whom they would not admit to their tables, or into their family circles. 
 Nay, whom they would not admit into their pews during public 
 worship.” 
 
 At the late General Assembly of the Southern Presbyte- 
 rian Church, in which this very question was discussed, as 
 the only remaining barrier to the re-union of the Northern 
 and Southern branches of that Church, the Rev. Dr. B. M. 
 Palmer thus stated the difficulty : 
 
 “You can’t put men side by side as equal presbyters of a court in any 
 number, and side by side in the pulpit, and preaching side by side the 
 same Gospel, without involving social relations. As long as only two or 
 three are there, it makes no difference; but as the thing enlarges its 
 proportions, ecclesiastical and spiritual relations in office, draw after them 
 social relations and social equality.” 
 
 But we have been assured again and again that these, 
 fears, as expressed by Dr. Palmer, that ecclesiastical and’ 
 spiritual relations will draw after them social relations and 
 social equality, are groundless; that there is no danger 
 whatever to any of the social barriers between the races if 
 
38 - 
 
 we take these people into our councils and churches as our 
 equals; that they would but sit and vote and not presume 
 upon their professional position to advance their social rela- _ 
 tions; and we have been pointed to our sister Dioceses of 
 Virginia and North Carolina as exemplifying the assertion. 
 Singularly, it happened that at the very time while these 
 pledges were being made on the example of the Diocese of 
 North Carolina, the colored clergymen in the Convention of 
 that Diocese had repudiated any such pledge for them, and 
 considering themselves included in a general invitation is- 
 sued by the Bishop to the members of his Convention, had 
 assumed as of right to enter the household and to partake 
 with their white co-members of the Convention of the 
 Bishop’s hospitality. Was there no danger in this? Are 
 you, Brethren of the Laity, willing to run the risk of it in 
 this Diocese ? 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Joyner, who has been one of the most earn- 
 est advocates for the admission of colored clergymen into 
 our Convention, hastens, it is true, upon the telegraphic an- 
 nouncement of the occurrence, emphatically and warmly to 
 deny that Bishop Lyman received colored members of the 
 Convention at his private residence “ on a footing of perfect 
 social equality.” But about this the Rev. Calbraith B. Perry 
 takes issue with Mr. Joyner, and is sure that the Bishop did 
 not consider the appearance of these colored clergymen as 
 an unexpected intrusion, and stoutly maintains that those 
 who know Bishop Lyman “will find it hard to believe, 
 unless on his own assurance, that he would fail to weleome 
 guests whom he invited, for inviting ‘the members of the 
 Convention’ he necessarily included them.” Between the 
 two, Bishop Lyman is silent. Indeed, what can he say ? 
 For surely if these people are proper and fit to be members 
 of the Convention, they are fit to be our social guests. 
 
 This is not only the logical, but the actual and_ practical 
 result not only in North Carolina, but elsewhere. Read this 
 from a Church paper published in the South. “ The Trinity 
 Church Bell,” published in Hannibal, Missouri, commenting 
 on the trouble in our Diocesan Convention, says: 
 
‘ 39 
 
 “ The difficulties of race and color which have now for several years 
 past so terribly affrighted the ‘ Diocese of Charleston,’ have given no 
 alarm or trouble to this portion of the vineyard, and yet Missouri has 
 three colored clergymen to South Carolina’s one. Year by year we have 
 seen these clerical gentlemen, along with their delegates, present at the 
 Bishop's reception, moving amongst the most cultured and refined people of 
 St. Louis, and receiving the utmost respect from all. Whether their wives 
 were present we donot recall, but they were included and expected in the 
 general invitation. We have yet to hear the slightest protest from the most 
 fastidious. 
 
 Admit colored clergymen in this Diocese, and will our 
 
 ‘Bishop in their turn appoint them to deliver the annual 
 sermons at the opening of the Convention, and call upon 
 them to take part in the daily opening service? And if he 
 will not, what right, we ask, has he so to discriminate 
 against them? If they are proper and suitable persons to 
 take part in our legislation because they are clergymen, 
 why are they not, by the same right, competent to preach to 
 us from our pulpits and to pray for us from our chancels. 
 But if the Bishop has the right to discriminate against these 
 clergymen because of their color whew it comes to preaching 
 and praying, have we of the laity not the same—nay,a 
 greater right to discriminate against their legislating for us? 
 
 To those who agree with the Rev. Mr. Calbraith Perry 
 and The Trinity Church Bell we have nothing to say. To 
 all of owr clergy, who we believe would, with the Rev. Mr. 
 Joyner, shrink from such results, we appeal to pause before 
 they render them inevitable. 
 
 “Contra Munpum.” 
 
 We are told that we are against the world in this matter. 
 Against whom? and against what? We are against what, 
 we believe, is, in its best, a mere sentimentality—and in its 
 worst, and we fear, more general form, a fanatical desire of 
 those so circumstanced as not, in any way, to be personally 
 affected by its consequences, to have negro social equality 
 forced upon us. But the opinion of these dreamers or fanatics, 
 in nowise themselves personally concerned in the result, 
 should not and cannot affect us. To show us that we are 
 
40 " 
 
 contra mundum—against all the world—show us that other 
 people, situated as we are, differ with us on this subject ; 
 and we shall give their example all the weight and au- 
 thority due it. But do not cite the opinion of Exeter Hall, 
 whose people are in no danger of being overrun by the 
 negroes, Whose rights to equality they acknowledge in the 
 few sporadic cases which once or twice in a lifetime happen 
 to them: Do not cite tous the opinion of Faneuil Hall, 
 from whence the crusade on this subject commenced. Show 
 us that the English people in India, in Chureh and State, 
 recognize no barrier between the races. Show us that the 
 people of the North allow negroes in their hotels and places 
 of amusement and recreation, Show us that they submit 
 to social equality in any instance in which it is likely to 
 encroach upon them, and we may consider the example. 
 
 We are not against the world—the world which is cir- 
 cumstanced as we are—that world is not a large one. 
 
 It is the world of the Southern States which are cireum- 
 stanced as no other people are, or ever have been before ; 
 and in this world we are not singular. Inno Chureh 
 or denomination of Christians in the South has this effort 
 been made to force social equality upon its people but in 
 the Conventions of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 It is you, Brethren of the Clergy, who are attempting a 
 thing contra mundum—that is, against the world in which 
 you live. And in doing so, you are inflicting incalculable 
 injury upon your influence in that state of life unto which 
 it has pleased God tocall you. Will a few honied- speeches 
 from those who have no personal interest in the matter, 
 who live and move and have their being under different 
 circumstances, compensate you for the loss of your personal 
 influence among your own people—your own kith and kin? 
 
 Be careful, let us pray you, that your own opinion is not 
 unconsciously influenced by the sword of the conqueror, 
 and the subtile influences of wealth and power. 
 
 And after all, was not the same thing said of Athanasius ? 
 In the language of Hooker, “ the whole world against Athana- 
 sius, and Athanasius against it.’ And about what was the 
 
41 
 
 whole world then against Athanasius, but about that which 
 is now a mere matter of simple fundamental faith? Noah 
 was contra mundum but the deluge came notwithstanding. 
 Galileo was contra mundum but the earth revolved notwith- 
 standing. Let us beware lest if like Galileo we recant— 
 unlike him we may not be able to abjure our recantation. 
 Let us not concern ourselves so much whether the whole 
 world is against us or not as to whether we are right. 
 
 Our Duty to THE CoLoRED PEOPLE. 
 
 We fully recognize that the Church in the Southern 
 States has a great duty and responsibility in regard to the 
 colored people. We join heartily in the report of the Se- 
 wanee Conference on this subject; but we do not believe that 
 this duty necessitates or renders advisable our taking these 
 people into our Church councils. 
 
 We believe it to be our duty to send and carry the Gospel 
 to the colored people ; to urge upon them the Church—our 
 Church—and to bring into it as many of them as we can. 
 But, as our Bishop says, “the Convention is not the 
 Church.” 
 
 It is urged that we cannot expect these people to receive 
 the blessings of the Gospel unless we extend to them with 
 the ministrations of the Church the right to take part in its 
 government. Butif this beso, the same rule should also ap- 
 ply to all our missions, and our missionaries in Asia and 
 Africa should be commissioned to offer to each of their con- 
 verts, upon conversion, the elective franchise and right of 
 representation in our Conventions or councils. If the right 
 to take part in our Conventions and councils depends upon 
 the fact of conversion and connection with the Church by 
 baptism, then it must follow that the converted and bap- 
 tized savage or barbarian is ¢o instanti so entitled, without 
 regard to his education or civilization. If, on the other hand, 
 education and civilization are to be considered, then the 
 question ceases to be one of Christian right, and lowers it- 
 self to one of expediency. Our missionaries are not sent to 
 
42 
 
 make rulers, but Christians. The blessings of the Gospel and 
 the right to rule and govern in the Church are not the same 
 thing. 
 
 But we are told we need not concern ourselves; that there 
 is no danger of our being overrun by these people; that so 
 few will ever come to us that we need not fear them. This 
 argument seems to mock at the very idea of any earnest 
 missionary work among them. It is worse—it implies a 
 want of sincerity, at least, in our efforts to make Christians 
 of them. It assumes that our missionary work among them 
 will be alla pretence and a sham; that we will preach to 
 them without the hope or desire of converting them. 
 
 We believe it to be our duty to carry the Gospel to these 
 people, and that we must do so in no half-heartéd manner, 
 hoping all the while they will not listen to the Word, lest 
 they be converted and become as one of us; and we should, 
 therefore, have to admit them to a share in the government 
 of the Church. This we believe is to-day a great drawback 
 to missions among these people. Clergymen tell us that 
 when converted the negroes have the right to come in and 
 take part in our Church government, and that they must be 
 admitted to our Conventions, and then appeal to us for 
 means to convert them, and our people naturally hesitate to 
 build up negro churches to overwhelm themselves. 
 
 We fully recognize our duty—our bounden duty—to 
 preach the Gospel to these people, but we feel and recognize 
 no call upon us to take them into our councils. 
 
 We have seen it stated that Bishop Davis was the author 
 of the move for the admission of St. Mark’s into the Conven- 
 tion. There is no authority for this statement ; and we are 
 satisfied that it isa misapprehension. Indeed we have eyi- 
 dence in our possession going to show that while Bishop 
 Davis was anxious to afford the colored people all the min- 
 istrations of the Church, he never contemplated their admis- 
 sion into the Convention. 
 
43 
 SUMMARY OF CAUSES WHICH LED To WITHDRAWAL. 
 
 We have thus, brethren of the laity, laid before you the 
 
 causes which led to our withdrawal from the late Conven- 
 tion. We were no seceders from the Church. We left the 
 Convention (1) because the Bishop, as. the presiding officer, 
 after having put to the body the question of confirming the 
 report upon the list of clerical members, and announcing 
 that the report was not confirmed by the vote taken, assumed 
 to decide that, the Convention was nevertheless organized 
 for business; and (2) because, upon an appeal from this 
 ruling, he having put the question, ‘‘ Shall the decision of the 
 ‘chair stand as the judgment of this house ?” and upon the 
 vote having been taken, he having thereupon announced 
 that the decision of the chair was not sustained, nevertheless 
 ruled that the Convention was organized for business; and 
 (3) because from this ruling he would allow no appeal. 
 
 It was useless, and would have been undignified and 
 unworthy on our part as your representatives had we 
 remained ina body whose presiding officer would neither be 
 governed by the decision of the body, nor allow us to appeal 
 from his decision to the body itself. 
 
 We left the Convention because the only barrier we had 
 to the unconstitutional intrusion of the colored element 
 into our councils was thus thrown down by an arbitrary 
 
 ~ assertion of power by the presiding officer. 
 
 We could not give up your rights as churchmen and as 
 our constituents through us, your deputies, to examine and 
 pass upon the List of the Clergy. We could not give up 
 your right through us to appeal to the body of the Conven- 
 tion itself from the ruling of the presiding officer, however 
 exalted his position may be. We could not allow the Con- 
 stitution of this ancient Church to be thus subverted, and 
 an innovation made upon her established order by means 
 illegal and unparliamentary.. 
 
 We could not stay where the gavel of the presiding 
 officer was deemed a sufficient answer to our assertion of 
 your rights. . 
 
A4 
 
 THERE WAS NO LEGAL CONVENTION IN 1887. 
 
 In withdrawing we left the Convention disorganized, and 
 it so continued until its close. 
 
 Twenty Laymen remained in the Convention, represent- 
 ing, as it is claimed, thirteen Parishes. (See Journal, p. 24.) 
 
 But let us examine this claim. Two of these Parishes, St. 
 Luke’s, Charleston, and Christ: Church, have approved our 
 withdrawal, and so repudiated the action of their delegates 
 who remained. So the number is reduced to eleven. Of 
 these eleven, Mr. Desportes, one of the Deputies from Trin- 
 ity, Columbia, stated, in withdrawing, that he represented, 
 in so doing, from seven to nine-tenths of the members of his 
 Parish, and this was not denied by the two who remained, 
 and so may be accepted as true. This would reduce the 
 Parishes represented by those who remained to but ten—a 
 bare quorum, if they were constitutionally represented. The 
 Journal of the next day claims that fifteen Parishes were 
 present, but does not mention which. 
 
 But let us inquire (1), were these Parishes truly and con- 
 stitutionally represented by those who remained; and (2), 
 if these Parishes had been so truly and constitutionally 
 represented, what was their strength in the Diocese, as to 
 numbers, and contributions to the support of the Church ? 
 
 1. Were these Parishes truly and constitutionally represented 
 by those who remained ? 
 
 It will be observed that not one full united delegation 
 from any Parish remained. Three of the Deputies of the 
 Church of the Holy Communion remained—one withdrew. 
 Of the three from Trinity, Columbia, who were present, two 
 remained, and one withdrew. The Churches of St. John’s 
 Fairfield; Advent Spartanburg; Grace Church Anderson; 
 had each two Deputies, who remained. The rest of the 
 Parishes who went to make up the supposed quorum were 
 represented each by a single Deputy. Did these make a 
 constitutional quorum ? 
 
 The Third Article of the Constitution provides : 
 
45 
 
 Section IV. Lay Deputies, not exceeding four in number, shall be 
 elected by each Parish or congregation in union with this Convention, 
 from among the members thereof, to represent it in the Convention. 
 
 By this provision, each Parish or congregation is to be 
 represented by such number of Lay Deputies, not exceeding 
 four, as it may elect. It is conceded that one or more of 
 these may represent the Parish, and make up a quorum for 
 any business which does not require a vote by orders. 
 
 But the Seventh Article of the Constitution further pro- 
 vides: 
 
 21. “On all questions, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution, 
 the members shall deliberate and vote as one body; but at any time 
 before the result of the vote as taken is finally announced by the Pres- 
 ident, any two Clergymen or the Deputies from any two Churches may 
 call for a separate vote of each order where the clergy shall vote indi- 
 vidually, and the Lay Deputies by Churches, (a majority from each Church 
 having one vote), and a majority in both orders shall, in each case, be 
 necessary to a decision. And whenever a vote is taken by ballot the ballot- 
 ing shall be by orders.” 
 
 Now a majority is defined to be (Worcester ) : 
 
 “The greater number—the part of any number which is greater than 
 the other part, or than the sum of all the other parts, more than half.” 
 
 Is one a majority of anything? The very term majority 
 implies and assumes that more than one Deputy shall be 
 present. But if, to use an expression of Jeremy Taylor, we 
 allow for disputation, though we hold the contrary, that 
 should there be a single Deputy elected by any parish, he 
 might by a forced construction be considered as equal at 
 least to a majority of her delegation, it is on the other hand 
 clear that in every instance in which more than one 
 Deputy, has been elected by any parish, it requires a ma- 
 jority two out of three, or.three out of four, to unite in casting 
 a vote by orders—for the provision is “ @ majority from each 
 Church having one vote.” 
 
 It will be observed the provision is not a majority present 
 from each Church haying one vote, but “a majority from 
 each Church.” This clearly means a majority of the dele- 
 
46 
 
 gates elected by each parish or congregation to represent it 
 in the Convention. (Sec. JV, Art. LIT) 
 
 When it is intended to provide as to those present or 
 absent the Constitution does so in express terms, as in See. II, 
 Art. VII, in regard to the election of a Bishop, and in Arti- 
 cle XII of altering the Constitution. 
 
 The framers of the Constitution of the General Convention 
 were evidently of our opinion. The Second Article pro- 
 vides that the Church in each diocese shall be entitled to a 
 representation of both the clergy and the laity, and that 
 such representation shall consist of not more than four 
 clergymen and four laymen, and that in all questions when 
 required by the clerical or lay representation from any 
 Diocese, each order shall have one vote, and then it goes on 
 specifically to provide: 
 
 “Tf the Convention of any Diocese should neglect or decline to ap- 
 point Clerical Deputies, or if they should neglect or decline to appoint 
 Lay Deputies, or if any of those of either appointed should neglect to 
 attend, or be prevented by sickness or any other accident, such Diocese 
 shall nevertheless be considered as duly represented by such deputy or deputies 
 as may attend, whether lay or clerical.” 
 
 If, then, it required a special provision in the Constitution 
 of the General Convention to provide that a Diocese shall 
 be considered as duly represented by any deputies who 
 might attend, whether they were the full number elected 
 or not, should it not require a similar express provision in 
 our Constitution? Ifthe framers of our Constitution had 
 intended that one deputy might cast the vote of his Church 
 when voting by orders, would they not have been careful 
 as the framers of the Constitution of the General Conyen- 
 tion, specifically to provide that the parish should be con- 
 sidered as duly represented by such deputy or deputies as 
 might attend, and that on a vote by orders a single deputy 
 might cast such vote? Would they, with such purpose in 
 view, have used the language they did, to wit: “a majority 
 from each church having one yote ?” 
 
 For instance can it be that-St. Luke’s was represented by 
 
47 
 
 a majority from that church when but one deputy remained 
 and three withdrew ? 
 
 With one single exception, that of the Holy Communion, 
 of which three out of four deputies remained, no parish was 
 represented in the body which remained by a majority of 
 the deputies elected; and no other parish except that of 
 the Holy Communion was represented by those who 
 remained so as to be able to cast a vote by orders, had the 
 Convention otherwise been legally organized. 
 
 If even, therefore, the Bishop had the power.to overrule the 
 decision of the Convention announced by himself that the 
 
 Convention was not organized for business, and by his 
 prerogative, as was claimed for him, disregarding the vote 
 of the body to declare it so organized, he and those who 
 remained were still unable to transact any business requiring 
 a vote by orders. 
 ~ The election of a Standing Committee, which the Consti- 
 tution requires to be by ballot (Article IX), and the at- 
 tempted alteration in the Constitution, which the Constitu- 
 tion requires to be made by a vote of Orders (Article XII); 
 were both void and of no effect, even had the illegality of 
 the Bishop’s ruling not otherwise vitiated its proceedings. 
 
 2. What was the strength in the Diocese as to those who re- 
 mained as to numbers and contribution to the Church ? 
 
 One hundred and seventy-two Deputies were elected to 
 represent the parishes in this Convention. | (See Journal, p. 
 14.) Of these seventy-two attended. Out of these seventy- 
 two but twenty were found to remain after the Bishop’s re- 
 fusal to allow an appeal from his ruling. And whom and 
 what did these twenty represent ? 
 
 We have not yet the annual tabulated statement of the 
 Parochial and Missionary Reports for this year, but upon 
 examining those of last year we have compiled a statement 
 of the number of members and communicants respectively 
 of the parishes which withdrew from the Convention and 
 of those which remained, and of their respective contribu- 
 tions to Parochical and Missionary work in the Diocese, and 
 a like statement of the Parishes which were not represented 
 
48 
 
 at the Converltion. From this table we present the follow- 
 ing summary : . 
 
 CONTRIBUTIONS—DIOCESAN AND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 ) 
 } 
 ; 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 
 Parishes which withdrew, 
 or which have approved| 
 the action of those which. 
 did (including half of 
 Trinity, Columbia)........... 4,999) 2,272. $514 sy $721 02 
 
 Parishes ‘which remained, 
 and which have nol since 
 disapproved the course of 
 their Deputies who did 
 (including half of Trinity, 
 
 / PAROCHICAL, 
 | n — a a 
 Z | tse 
 | 4| 3 4] ) a 
 | iS Var uk Ir < 
 | fa |ae*) = | la 
 1p PSS sD a ° Tora, 
 mR | at Qs = 
 | = > a4 Zz 8 
 leléeié a: | 3 a 
 m}/O!| Oo co” fo Sheer 
 
 
 
 $1,728 44) $38,116 49 $41,140 82 
 
 Columbia... 2,315) 900 13175) 171 99} 450 83] 11,1907) 11,944 84 
 Parishes not represented in | 
 the Convention................. kee) 835 128 25) 186 75) 486 48 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ae 
 4,007, $774 €2|$1,029 76) "$2,065 25) $56,908 87 $61,647 03 
 a 
 
 It will thus be seen that (allowing Trinity Chureh, Co- 
 lumbia to be equally divided instead of from 7% to % in 
 sympathy with those who withdrew, as stated without con- 
 tradiction on the floor of the Convention) those who with- 
 drew represented more than half of all the souls in econnec- 
 tion with the Church represented and not represented, and 
 more than two-thirds of those who were represented ; that 
 we represented more than half of all the communicants of 
 the Church represented and unrepresented, and two-thirds 
 of those represented. 
 
 But the disparity is still greater when we come to examine 
 the table of contributions to Diocesan and Parochial ex- 
 penses. 
 
 Thus those of us who withdrew represent Parishes which 
 pay nearly two-thirds of the Convention expenses. More 
 than two-thirds of the Bishop’s fund, and nearly two- 
 thirds of the contributions to missions, that is of all repre- 
 sented and unrepresented in the late Convention. 
 
 We represent very nearly four times as much paid to 
 
49 
 
 the Convention fund, more than four times as much to the 
 Bishop’s fund, and nearly four times as much to mis- 
 sions as those who remained in the Convention. We 
 represent more than two-thirds of all the contributions to 
 Parochial work, and more than two-thirds of all Diocesan 
 and Parochial combined. We represent nearly four times 
 as much of Parochial contributions, and nearly the same 
 of all Diocesan and Parochial contributions combined, as 
 those who remained. 
 
 In the divisions which took place in the Convention, 
 ‘the small Missionary Parishes of St. John’s, John’s Island 
 (150 souls), St. Mark’s, Clarendon (61 souls), Church on 
 Edisto (50 souls), and Grace Church, Anderson (60 souls)— 
 numbering in all 320 souls, and represented by five De- 
 puties in all, out-voted St. Philip’s, St. Paul’s, and Grace 
 Churches, numbering 2,104 souls, represented in the Con- 
 vention by twelve Deputies. These four small Parishes, 
 not one of which is even self-supporting, out-voted these 
 large Churches, whose annual contributions are nearly 
 $20,000, out of about $60,000 of all the contributions in 
 the Diocese. 
 
 With this showing, are not the views of those who with- 
 drew entitled to consideration ? 
 
 CoNCLUSION. 
 
 We withdrew from the Convention and left it, as we 
 maintain, in the same disorganized condition in which it 
 had been up to the time of our withdrawal; and we deny 
 that its subsequent proceedings are of any validity. We do 
 not recognize the officers which those who remained elected, 
 or admit the change in the Constitution which they under- 
 took to make. We do not admit that — was any organ- 
 ized Convention in 1887. 
 
 We withdrew from this body, but we’ did not secede from 
 the Church. We accept the Bishop’s statement upon the 
 adjournment of the body, calling itself the Convention. 
 He said : 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 ‘ 
 
 What is the effect of the withdrawal of these members? Some, 
 I understand, think that they have withdrawn from the Church. 
 Why, the Convention is not the Church; it is not the Diocese. 
 It is simply the organ, the hand which the Diocese uses to effect 
 its sacred purposes. Nor have even the Churches themselves — 
 withdrawn from the Convention—merely their delegates have with- 
 drawn. The parishes are still in union with us, and will continue 
 to be in union until by some organic action of their own they with- 
 draw themselves from us and refuse to send deputies to the Conven- 
 tion. Even in that case they will be a part of the Diocese. So long as 
 the people are in communion with the Bishop they are in the Diocese. 
 For if it were necessary that a congregation should be in union with 
 Convention to be a part of the Diocese, a great many would not bein 
 union with the Church, as, for instance, St. Mark’s Chureh, which has 
 never belonged to this Convention.” 
 
 It is now for you, brethren of the laity, to determine as to 
 your future course. You may send deputies to the next 
 Convention, or not, as you shall think is best. You will 
 not impair your connection with the Church itself should 
 you determine to withdraw from union with the Conven- 
 tion. In that case you will still be entitled as of matter of 
 right to the ministrations of the Bishop and clergy. On the 
 other hand, you may send your deputies there with instruc- 
 tions to abandon the position we have taken; you may 
 elect others who will vote to change the ancient order of 
 the Church, in this its third century in this State, to admit 
 the colored element into its councils, and to brave the 
 dangers in doing so, from which we shrink. You may send 
 others who will give up your right to scrutinize and pass 
 upon the List of the Clergy, whether made up by the Bishop 
 or Standing Committee—who will make no question as to 
 the right of appeal from the decision of the chair upon the 
 organization of the Convention, or upon any other point. 
 
 Now that you have the whole facts before you, you must 
 judge for yourselves as to our course. But those who 
 withdrew from this last Convention cannot be made the in- 
 struments of inflicting, as we believe, such wrong and injury 
 upon the Church, as we would have done had we remained 
 and abandoned your right to pass upon the clergy list, and 
 submitted to the refusal of the President to allow an appeal 
 
dl 
 
 fromhis decision. If this is to be done, you must choose 
 other Weputies to represent you in doing it. 
 C. G. MEMMINGER, 
 Deputy from St. Paul’s Church, Radcliffeboro, Charleston. 
 EDWARD McCRADY, JR., 
 Deputy from St. Philip’s Church, Charleston. 
 W.ST. JULIEN JERVEY, 
 Depittg from St. Michael’s Church, Charleston. 
 W. C. BENET, 
 Deputy from Trinity Church, Abbeville. 
 C. E. R. DRAYTON, 
 Deputy from St. Thaddzus Church, Aiken. 
 
 Committee. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 [JOURNAL OF THE CONVENTION OF NEW YORK, 1846.] 
 
 The Committee in relation to St. Philip’s Church and other Colored 
 Congregations, submitted the following Report : 
 
 REPORT COMMITTEE ON ST. PHILIP’S CHURCH. 
 
 The Committee to which was referred the subject of the admission 
 of St. Philip's, and other colored congregations, into representation in 
 the Convention of this Diocese, report : 
 
 That, in their view, the question referred to them is one exclusively 
 relating to the temporal government of the Diocese, and is wholly un- 
 connected with the religious rights or duties of the applicants. The 
 Convention is but a part of what may be called the civil machinery, 
 instituted by human wisdom, for the purpose of regulating the society 
 by which and for whose benefit it was established. It is no more a 
 part of our Church in this conntry, in a religious view, than are the 
 civil establishments and the connection with the Government in Eng- 
 land part of the Church there. In both countries the arrangements for 
 the administration of the government of the Church are the result of 
 experience and adaptation to circumstances. Among the considerations 
 of expediency which any body of men, uniting together for a common 
 purpose, would deem the most important, must be that of determining 
 with whom they would associate, and who should be permitted to par- 
 ticipate in the government ofthe society. Thus, for reasons of ex- 
 pediency, females, however wortby, are by our Canons excluded from 
 being representatives in our Conventions, and are, by law, incapable 
 of being incorporated as members of Churches. Candidates for Orders 
 are, bya Canon of the General Convention, prohibited from being 
 members of that body. These instances are sufficient to illustrate the 
 principles on which our Church organizations are founded, and to show 
 that they are entirely distinct from the religious rights and spiritual 
 privileges of those who, in a spiritual view, are members of our 
 Churches. Ifit be an incident to Church membership to be repre- 
 sented in the Councils of the Church, then have we, in common with 
 all Christian denominations, from the time of the Apostles, unjustly and 
 tyranically deprived female members of sacred rights. 
 
 When society is unfortunately divided into classes, when some are 
 intelligent, retined, and elevated in tone and character, and others are 
 ignorant, coarse and debased, however unjustly, and when sach 
 prejudices exist between them as to prevent social intercourse on equal 
 
53 
 
 terms, it would seem inexpedient to encounter snch prejudices un- 
 necessarily, and to endeavor to compel the one class to associate, on 
 equal terms, in the consultations on the affairs of the Diocese, with 
 those whom they:would not admit to their tables, or into their family 
 ‘circles. Nay, whom they would not admit into their pews during pub- 
 lic worship. 
 
 If Christian duty require that we should in all respects treat equally 
 all persons, without reference to their social condition, should we not 
 commence the discharge of that duty in our individual and social rela- 
 tions? And is not the fact that we have never so regarded our duty, or 
 have wilfully violated it, sufficient evidence of the existence of a state 
 of society among us that renders an amalgamation of such discordant 
 materials impracticable, if not hazardous to our unity and harmony, 
 We deeply sympathize with the colored race in our country, we feel 
 acutely their wrongs, and not the least among them, their social degra- 
 dation. But this cannot prevent our seeing the fact that they are 
 socially degraded, and are not regarded as proper associates for the class 
 of persons who attend our Convention. We object not to the color of 
 the skin, but we question their possession of those qualities which 
 would render their intercourse with the members of a Church Conven- 
 tion useful or agreeable, even to themselves. 
 
 We should make the same objections to persons of the same social 
 class, however pure may be their blood, or however transparent their 
 skin. It isimpossible,in the nature of things, that such opposites 
 should commingle wlth any pleasure or satisfaction to either. The 
 colored people have themselves shown their conviction of this truth by 
 separating themselves from the whites, and forming distinct congrega- 
 tions, where they are not continuaily humbled by being treated as in- 
 feriors. Why should not the principle on which they have separated 
 themselves be carried out in the other branches of our Church organi- 
 zation? Striking instances are furnished in the early, and indeed in 
 every period of the history of the Christian Church, of conformity in 
 outward things, and in matters not essential to the customs, usages, 
 and even prejudices of theage. Wehavein ourown country inveterate 
 customs and prejudices on the subject under consideration, which can- 
 not be overcome. Is it not the part of wisdom to submit to them until, 
 by a change of circumstances, the occasion for them shall cease to exist ? 
 Would not our present duty to this unfortunate race be fully performed 
 by extended and liberal efforts to improve their mind and their condi- 
 tion, by intellectual culture, by religious instruction, and, as they ad- 
 vance in intelligence and refinement, by relaxing the severities of caste, 
 which now separate us, until by degrees they become fitted for the 
 duties and enjoyments ofa higher social condition, and then admit 
 them in our public and private intercourse, to free and equal com- 
 munion ? 
 
 The efforts of our zealous philanthropists to breakedown the barriers 
 which custom has interposed, and which have so long existed between 
 
54 
 
 the colored and other races, and against the laws of society and the 
 sentiments and feelings of the community, to compel an unnatural and 
 forced equality, have hitherto been attended with results equally un- 
 fortunate to the peculiar objects of their solicitude, and to the great in- 
 terests and beneficient institutions in connection with which such 
 efforts have been made. They have been directed to our common 
 schools, and not satisfied with the abundant provision which has in 
 many places been made for the education of colored children, their 
 special friends and advocates have insisted that they should be ad- 
 mitted to the schools of white children, and have thus caused dissen- 
 sion and conflict, to the great injury of those institutions, while feel- 
 ings of sympathy and commiseration have been too frequently con- 
 verted into disgust and anger. 
 
 Efforts of a similar character, and for the same purpose, have been 
 made to give position in our Churches to colored people. which would. 
 compel association and intercourse with them. It is obvious that such 
 movements are but incipient steps to ulterior objects in relation to the 
 vexed and irritating subject of slavery. Beginning with simple, and 
 apparently just propositions respecting the abstract rights of this portion 
 of our population, their professed friends and advocates have advanced, 
 step to step, until they have prepared the way to agitate the bold ques- 
 tion of the Christian character of those whose sentiments do not accord 
 with their own. The rending asunder of Churches, the disruption of 
 societies, bitter animosities, and all manner of uncharitableness, have 
 been the invariable results. 
 
 By the wise and prudent counsels of the Fathers of our Church, our 
 denomination has been hitherto happily free from the agitation of 
 these and kindred questions—such as temperance, or abstinence from 
 liquors and wine—and the consequences have been peace and quiet 
 among ourselves, and the respect of others. An instance of this cau- 
 tion is furnished in the case of St. Philip’s Church, whose application 
 to be represented in the Convention, is now under consideration. It 
 appears from the Minutes of the Standing Committee of this Diocese, 
 that in March, 1819, on the application of the lamented Bishop Hobart 
 to that Committee, for advice in relation to the admission of a colored 
 person as a candidate for Holy Orders, they unanimously advised his 
 admission upon the distinct understanding that, in the event of his 
 being admitted to Orders, he should not “be entitled to a seat in the 
 Convention, nor should the congregation, of which he may have the 
 charge, be represented therein.” 
 
 It is understood that these conditions were approved by the Bishop, 
 and were assented to by the applicant and the congregation. And 
 although, that Church has been organized and in existence for more 
 than a quarter of a century, it has, until now, abided by the terms they 
 settled. 
 
 The present applicants, it is presumed, were not aware of these 
 arrangements, as it is not to be supposed that they would, intentionally, 
 
55 
 
 be guilty of a violation of good faith. Thus, for this long period, has 
 this question been actually and peaceably settled, and remained undis- 
 turbed. 
 
 The legal, moral and equitable right of the Convention to determine 
 what Churches it will admit into union, so as to entitle them to a rep- 
 resentation in this body, seems to your Committee unquestionable. The 
 fourth Canon provides certain indispensable conditions+to entitle any 
 Church to admission, but nowhere is it declared that these are the only 
 conditions, and the invariable practice of the Convention in taking the 
 vote upon the admission of any Church, shows that it has reserved to 
 itself the right of judging of the expediency of the measure, after all 
 the former requisites are complied with. Otherwise, the report of the 
 Committee, certifying to the fact of such compliance, would be in itself 
 conclusive. The provision in the same Canon requiring the prelimi- 
 nary approbation of the Bishop, or of the Standing Committee “of the 
 incorporation of such Church,” relates only to the separate and inde- 
 pendent existence of the congregation as a separate body, and not to its 
 union with, or representation in this Convention. 
 
 Besides, the very requirements of the Canon that Churches shall be 
 politically incorporated before admission into union with the Conyen- 
 tion, shows conclusively that the right of admission is subject to regu- 
 lation, and therefore that such question is one purely of expediency, 
 and not ene of Christian privilege or right. Cases may easily be con- 
 ceived, and such have actually occurred, where it would not only be 
 highly inexpedient, but grossly unjust to existing Churches to admit 
 into union new applicants. Various circumstances, more or less im- 
 portant, will necessarily enter into the consideration of the Convention, 
 in determining such a question. In the short time allowed the Com- 
 mittee to consider the subject and to express their views, they have 
 been unable to give such a full exhibition of all the considerations 
 which present themselves, as they would have desired. 
 
 They think, however, that they have said enough to cause reflection 
 and to show how full of difficulty would be the adoption of the principle 
 in relation to St. Philip’s Church, or any other colored congregation, of 
 admitting their representatives to seats in this Convention. If once 
 here, they would be entitled to all the consideration and to participate 
 in all the duties and stations to which members may be assigned, or we 
 shall practically repudiate the principle which admitted them. 
 
 It is not believed that this Convention, for instance, would send one 
 of them as a deupty to the General Convention, on account of the 
 offence it would occasion to our brethren of other Dioceses. Thus 
 their condition would be practically and continually one of inferiority 
 and humiliation—more painfully aggravated by the expectation induced 
 by an act which apparently promised their perfect equality. Your 
 Committee do not believe that such an equality can be produced; that 
 in the nature of things it can exist in this community—great and pal- 
 pable inequality must prevail to the extent of preventing the colored 
 
56 
 
 race from any active participation in our Church government—and they 
 believe that an attempt to correct it, contrary to the feelings and cus- 
 toms of our country, would not only be abortive, but would be attended 
 with the worst consequences to our unity, our harmony, and our effi- 
 ciency. They therefore recommend that neither St. Philip’s, nor any 
 other colored congregation, be admitted into union with this Conven- 
 tion, so as to entitle them to a representation therein. ‘The consequence 
 of such a determination probably will be, that such Churches and con- 
 
 gregations will not be responsible to, or under the government or con- ~ 
 
 trol of this Convention, but remain subject to the ordinary jurisdiction 
 
 of their Bishop—and when their members become adequate, may have 
 
 Church Councils of their own for their own peculiar government. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted, 
 (Signed) WM. H. HARISON. 
 REUBEN SHERWOOD. 
 J. C. SPENCER. 
 New York, October 2, 1846, 
 
AP PE RD EX: B. 
 
 Frat Rock, SEpTEMBER 28th, 1881. 
 Rt. Rev. W. B. W. Howe, Bishop : 
 
 Rr. Rey. anp Dear Srr: The thoughtful Christians of the Southern 
 States see that in the providence of Goda great duty has been cast 
 upon them by being placed in the midst of the ignorant multitude of 
 colored population which surrounds them. The members of the Epis- 
 copal Church responded to this duty during the period of slavery, by 
 erecting chapels for public worship on many plantations, and by pro- 
 viding for religious worship and teaching of the colored population in 
 all the Parish Churches. 
 
 Emancipation has changed all this; and on the return of peace, the 
 colored population of all denominations retired from the white 
 Churches, and in spite of every effort which has been made for joint 
 worship, they have allestablished for themselves separate places of wor- 
 ship, and in nearly all these have set apart Churches of their own color, 
 It is now more than fifteen years that this state of things has continued, 
 and the most persistent efforts of those ministers of our Church who 
 had been their Pastors for many years have been unable to bring back 
 to their Congregations even those members to whom they formerly 
 ministered in person. Theonly exception is a small fraction of colored 
 persons who had always been free, and who differed in so many respects 
 from the colored Congregations as not to affect materially the policy 
 which is recognized for the general colored population, 
 
 It may then he affirmed as a settled fact that the colored population 
 will not unite with the whites in common religious worship or organi- 
 zations. 
 
 Any effort, therefore, to continue the former arrangement for mixed 
 worship will result simply inexcluding them fromthe Church. Would 
 it not be better to devise some plan which, without yielding up things 
 essential, might yet afford to this large oncldeon in some form the 
 benefits of the ministrations of our Church ? 
 
 The Church of Christ, through one catholic and universal Church, has 
 always embraced various and separate organizations, and our own 
 branch, since the Revolutionary War, has afforded an example of 
 separation without destroying unity. Separate nationalities, therefore, 
 are admitted to bea sufficient foundation for separate organizations. 
 Is it essential to these that the nationalities should occupy different 
 territory ? It was once thought that the Parish Churches must occupy 
 different territory, but the necessities of cites compelled an abandon- 
 
 5 
 
58 
 
 ment of this idea, and the Parish jurisdiction was transferred from the 
 territory, to the members of each particular congregation. 
 
 By parity of reasoning anational Church instead of being designated 
 by territory might be organized for the members of a particular nation- — 
 ality, for example take the large body of Germans in our midst and 
 who would not understand ministrations in English, would it not be 
 consistant with principle to give them ministrations in their own lan- 
 guage. And has not the Church recognized the necessity by giving them 
 the Prayer Book and Testament. Their Pastor would preach to them 
 in their own language, and would anything seem more reasonable than 
 to allow them a Bishop of their own nationality and habits. 
 
 The apparent anomaly of two Bishops in the same territory, would 
 be as easily adjusted as has been with two Rectors in the same city. 
 
 I would respectfully submit then that our Church must accept the 
 suggestion, that there must be a separate organization for the negroes, 
 and that it will have to adopt legislation to thisend. But inasmuch asa 
 general question requires the action of the General Convention, and 
 would demand much time, I propose to consider if something Saisie 
 be done in the meantime in the separate Dioceses. 
 
 1. The first measure which I would suggest would be to organize sep- 
 arate colored congregations in proper localities. 
 
 These localities can be adjusted by the previous experience of the 
 Church. They formerly extended over the whole lower country of our 
 State and are so numerous, that even if the negroes were willing to 
 accept white ministers a sufficient number of them could not be had or 
 supported. It must be accepted therefore, as a necessity, that the 
 Preachers in these Churches must be colored. 
 
 Their numbers would necessarily be so great and their acquaintance 
 with Church government so imperfect that no Diocesan Convention 
 could admit them to seats. They could not, therefore, be accepted as 
 part of the regular Clergy with existing privileges, but would properly 
 be commissioned as evangelists or some inferior order of Clergy. 
 
 2. My second proposition then would be, that the Bishop should in 
 such manner as might be deemed advisable appoint colored Lay Evan- 
 gelists or some other inferior order of Clergymen for each of the con- 
 gregations which may be established to hold office and to be subject to 
 removal at his pleasure. 
 
 3. In order to locate Churches, organize congregations, and recommend 
 appointment and dismissal of preachers or teachers, and generally to 
 superintend the whole colored Church arrangements, the Bishop shall 
 nominate a Standing Committee of six members of our Church, who 
 shall forthwith take charge of the whole subject and adopt such meas- 
 ures for organizing, evangelizing and bringing into the Church the 
 whole colored population as they shall deem wise and proper, subject 
 to the approval of the Bishop. 
 
aby 
 
 4. The Church, when organized. shall be placed under the supervision 
 of the nearest and most conveniently situated minister of our Church ; 
 and it shall be his duty to attend said Churches at convenient seasons 
 to administer the ordinances of the Church and to see that the services 
 are properly conducted, and the said Clergyman shall report to the 
 Bishop or Standing Committee any irregularities or improvements as 
 he shall see fit. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted for your consideration, with as- 
 surances of respect and esteem from 
 Yours truly, 
 (Signed.) C. G. MEMMINGER.