filE DEI!/'"' 
 
 0)f THE 
 
 M OF DEPUTIES 
 
 (A' TiJE 
 
 'lAL COF^"" 
 
'-^ PRINCETON, N. J. <f> 
 
 Division.... 
 Section ...\h\..f^. 
 
 Shelf. Number l.S.G.-B.... 
 
:'V- ..>-■. -*" 
 
THE DEBATES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HOUSE OF CLERICAL AND LAY DELEGATES 
 
 IN THE GENERAL CONVKNTION OF THE 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 HELD IN THE CITY OF NEA\^ YORK, 
 
 1868, 
 
 AS REPORTED FOR "THE CHURCHMAN" BY 
 ANDREW J. GRAHAM. 
 
 HARTFORD: 
 
 CHURCH PRESS COMPANY 
 
 1868. 
 
COR H-I G K N n A . 
 
 Pape 8 — In every instance for " Mr. Gadsden of South 
 Cai'olina," read " Rev. Chas. Breck of Delaware." 
 
 Page 67 — Fifth paragraph of report, '2d line, for " wild," 
 read "wide"; last line but one, stril;e out the word "filthy." 
 
 Page 98 — After " Rev. Hiram W. Beers offered," for 
 " second resolution," road " last resolution"; and for "a 
 deputy from Xew Hampshire," read " the Rev. J. F. Spauld- 
 ing of Pittsljui'gh." 
 
 Page 104 — For " Mr. Thomas B. Lawson of Louisiana," 
 read "Rev. C. C. PincUney of South Carolina"; Rev. CO. 
 Pinckney, 'i'Ad hne, last word " the " should be omitted. 
 
 Page 118 — Rev. Dr. Mulchahey, 2d line, for "assenting," 
 read " not assenting." 
 
 Page 1 28 — Rev. Dr. Goodwin (first .speech), for "Eastern 
 dioceses," read " Eastern diocese." 
 
 Page 134 — Rev. Dr. Beardsley, 12tli line, for "parish," 
 read " township." 
 
 Page Kill — Rev. Dr. Goodwin, 23d line, for " supremacy 
 of," read "supremacy or"; line 34, for "simple," read 
 " some." 
 
 Page 144 — Rev. Dr. (Joodwin, 2d line, for "or priest," 
 read "o priest"; 8th line, at end, for " to be," read "to 
 determine " ; 21st line, after " guilty," add " by a majority " ; 
 23d line, after " United States," add " by the dictum of 
 three presbyters out of Hve." 
 
 Page 1.52 — Bottom of 2d colunm, Rev. Dr. Hulibard 
 should be made to say, " We have already referred to that 
 
 committee the whole subject of the proper pointing of the 
 Book of Conimou Prayer, and also the restoration of words 
 left out by mere clerical error, with instructions to report 
 on them to the next Convention." 
 
 Page 155 — Rev. Dr. Haight, 4th line, for "dioceses," 
 read " divorces." 
 
 Page 155 — Rev. Dr. Goodwin, 9th line, for "law," read 
 "Divine law." 
 
 Page 157 — In resolution offered by the Rev. James A. 
 Harrold, 2d line, for "propose," read " prepare" ; last line, 
 for " should reverse the Sectionary," read " lie requested to 
 revise the Lectionary." 
 
 Page 187 — Rev. James A. Harrold, 12th line, for " initia- 
 tion," read "initiative"; 9th line from bottom of second 
 column, for " duly," read " daily." 
 
 Page 159 — 8th line, Lst column, for " whereas morning," 
 i-ead " whereas the order for daily morning." 
 
 Page 166 — Rev. Dr. Goodwin, in 3d line, for " declined," 
 read "disclaimed"; in 5th line, for "autnorize," read "re- 
 commend " ; in 7th line, for " authorize the," read " endorse 
 their"; in 23d line, for "that," read "in saying that." 
 
 Page 174 — 21st line, for "Archbishop Cranmer," read 
 " King Henry the 8th." 
 
 Page 176 — 1st column, in 8th line, for "the misrepresen- 
 tation is," read " there is a misrepresentation" ; in 9th line, 
 for " this is," read, " these resolutions of the minority are" ; 
 in 18th line, for "considerable," read "an excessive ritual- 
 ism " ; in 27th line, for " in," read " and." 
 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 ^; 
 
 
 A List of the Members of the House of Clerical and 
 
 Lay Deputies of the General Convention 
 
 OF 18C8. 
 
 Clerical Deputies. 
 Alabama. 
 Rev. John M. Mitoliell, 
 " John M. Banister, 
 " Francis R. Hanson, 
 " Henry N. Pierce, D. D. 
 
 Cal/fot'nia. 
 
 Rev. Christo'plier B. Wvatt, 
 
 " Thos. W. Bvotherton, 
 
 " Elias Birdsall, 
 
 " Densmore D. Cliapin. 
 
 Connecticut. 
 Rev. Wm. C. Meati, D. D., 
 " E. E. Beardslev, D. D., 
 " R. A. Hallam.D. D., 
 " J. L. Clark, D. D. 
 
 Delaware. 
 Rev. Charles Brecl;, 
 " J. B. Clemson, D. D., 
 " J. Lcighton Mr Kim, 
 " T. Gardiner Littell. 
 
 Florida. 
 Rev. J. Jackson Scott, D. D., 
 " W. Trebell Saunders, 
 " James A. Hariold, 
 " Francis R Starr. 
 
 Georcfia. 
 
 Rev. William H. Clarke, 
 
 " Wni. C. Williams. 
 
 " Samuel Benedict, 
 
 " H. Kollock Rees. 
 
 lUinoiti,^ 
 Rev. Clinton Locke, D. D., 
 " Wari'eu H. Rol>erts, 
 " J. H. Kvlauce ,D. D. 
 " Sidney Corbett, 
 
 Indiana. 
 Rev. Thomas M. Martin, 
 " 11. Strinj,'lellow, Jr., 
 " Wm. H. Carter, LL. D., 
 " William Lusk, Jr. 
 
 Iowa. 
 Rev. Isaac P. Labagli, 
 " George W. Watson, 
 " Richard L. Gantcr, 
 " H. N. Powers, D. D. 
 
 7vrt/t.S'rt.s". 
 Rev. Archibald Bcattv, 
 " Charles Reynolds, D. D. 
 " John Bakewell, 
 " J. Mills Keudrick. 
 
 Kentucky. 
 Rev. J. N. Norton, D. D., 
 " James Craik, D. D., 
 " J. S. Shipman, 
 " Edmund T. Perkins. 
 
 Lay Deputies. 
 Alabama. 
 Mr. Henry A. Schroeder, 
 " N. H. R. Ilawson, I 
 
 " John D. Phelan, 
 " George A. Gordon. 
 
 California. 
 Mr. H. T. Graves, 
 " B. H. Randolph, 
 " J. W. Hammond, 
 " Daniel S. Turner. 
 
 Connecticut. 
 Mr. Wm. Samuel Johnson, 
 " 0. S. Seymour, LL. D., 
 " Cl'.arles A. Lewis, 
 " Andrew 'L. Kidston. 
 
 Delaware. 
 Mr. William T. Read, 
 " Franklin Fell, 
 " James Brown, 
 " S. Miuot Curtis. 
 
 Florida. 
 Mr. Robert Walker, 
 " Daniel S. Oakley, 
 *' Columbus Di'cw, 
 " D. C. Dawkins. 
 
 Georgia. 
 Mr. L. N. Whittle, 
 " W. S. Bogart, 
 " R. D. Moore, M. D., 
 " II. M. Anderson. 
 
 Illinoin. 
 Mr. (Jcorge P. Lee, 
 " L. B. Otis, 
 " Daniel W. Page, 
 " Samuel H. Treat. 
 
 Indiana. 
 Mr. J. S. Irwin, M, D., 
 " Wm. H. Morrison, 
 " John B. Howe, 
 " Morris S. Johnson. 
 
 loiea. 
 Mr. George Greene, 
 " John Hodgdon, 
 " James Armstrong, 
 " William F. Ross. 
 
 Ka7tsa.'i. 
 Mr. William H. Canfield, 
 " E. M. Bartholow, 
 " Ambrose Todd, 
 " C. C. Parsons. 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Mr. J. W. Stevenson, 
 
 " Wm. Cornwall, 
 
 " S. B. Churchill, 
 
 " A. 11. Churchill. 
 
 Louisiana. 
 Rev. Thos. B. Lawson, 
 " Wm. F. Adams, 
 " T. R. B. Trader, 
 " J. F. Girault. 
 
 Alainc. 
 Rev. Ed. Ballard, D. D., 
 " Daniel Goodwin, 
 " William P. Tucker, 
 " Edward. A. Bradley. 
 
 Mari^land. 
 Rev. Wm. Piukuey, D. D., 
 " Milo Mahan, D. D., 
 " John Crosdale, 
 " Erastus F. Dasliiell. 
 
 Mu.'f.'iacli uscUs. 
 
 Rev. F. D. Huntington, D.D., 
 
 " S. P. Parker, D. D., 
 
 " J. Mulchahey, D. D., 
 
 " Wm. H. Mills. 
 
 Michigan. 
 Rev. G. D. Gillespie, 
 " J. P. Tustin, D. D., 
 
 B. 11. Paddock, D. D., 
 " Thos. C. Pitkin, D. D. 
 
 Minnesota. 
 
 Rev. S. Y. McMasters, D. D., 
 
 " S. W. Manney, D. D., 
 
 " D. B. Knickcrbacker, 
 
 " Edward R. Welles, D. D. 
 
 Mississippi. 
 Rev. James J. Pickett, 
 •' Win. C. Crane, I). 1),, 
 " Heurv Sanson, D. D., 
 " C. B.' Daua, D. D. 
 
 Missouri. 
 Rev. E. F. Berkley, D. D., 
 " W. B. Corbyn, D. D., 
 " F. B. Scheetz. 
 " E. C. Hutchinson, D.D., 
 
 Nebraska. 
 Rev. John G. Gasmaun, 
 *' (n'orge C. Belts, 
 " Charles H. Rice', 
 " Samuel D. Hinman. 
 
 Neil) Ilampslnrc. 
 Rev. 1.5 (i. llubhar.i, D. D. 
 " J. 11, Fames, D. D., 
 " C. Ingles Chapin, 
 " _ Francis Chase, 
 
 Louisiana. 
 Mr. P. Lansdale Cox, 
 " Robert Mott, 
 " George S. Lacey, 
 " J. H. Keep. 
 
 Maine. 
 Ml'. James Bridge, 
 " Henry lng;dls, 
 " G. E. B. Jackson, 
 " Robert H. Gardiner. 
 
 Maryland. 
 
 Mr. Wm. (J. Ilarrison, 
 
 " Daniel M. Henry, 
 
 " Wm. S. Walker. 
 
 " Fred. W. Brune. 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 Mr. Amos A. Lawrence, 
 " B. R. Curtis, LL. D., 
 [ " John B. Stebbius, 
 Dr. G. C. Shattuck. 
 
 a Michigan. 
 
 'Mr. Henry A. Hayden, 
 
 " C. C. Trowbridge, 
 
 " Peter E. Demill, 
 
 " W. N. Carpenter. 
 
 Minnesota, 
 Mr. Eli T. Wilder, 
 " Lorenzo Alli.s, 
 " Isaac Atwater, 
 " Isaac G. Cuininius. 
 
 Mississippi. 
 Mr. John Duncan, 
 " Wm. T. Balfour, M. D., 
 " T. E. B. Pegues, 
 " Claudius W. Sears. 
 
 Mi*isouri. 
 Mr. II. I. Bodley,! 
 " George H. Gill, 
 '* Joliu T. Douglass, 
 " William Wallace. 
 
 Nebraska. 
 Mr. .1. M. Woolworth, 
 " Julian Metcalf, 
 " T. S. Clarkson, 
 " J. W. Van Nostraad. 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 Mr. Charles A. TuH't.s, 
 
 " Wm. P. Wheeler, 
 
 " Arnold Briggs, 
 
 " Albert N. Hatch. 
 
 New iersey. 
 Rev. A. Stubb.s, 1). P., 
 " J. S. B. Ilodg.'s, D. D., 
 " R. M. Abercrombie, D.D. 
 " Spencer M. Rice. 
 
 Nni} York. 
 Rev. B. 1. Haight, D. D., 
 " A.N. Littlejohn, D. 1)., 
 " Wm. Payne, 1). 1)., 
 " Samuel Cooke, D. U. 
 
 New Jcrsei^. 
 Mr. J. H. Thompsmi, M. D . 
 " J. C. Garthwaite, 
 " R. S. Couover, 
 " Henry Meigs, Jr. 
 
 New York. 
 Mr. S. B. Kuggles, LL. D., 
 " Hamilton Fish, LL. D., 
 " Orlando Meads, 
 " H. E. Pierrepont. 
 
North Carolina. 
 
 Rev. R. S. Mason, D. D., 
 
 " A. A. Watson, D. D., 
 
 " J. B. Cheshire, D. D., 
 
 " F. M. Hubbard, D. D. 
 
 Ohio. 
 Rev. Erastus Burr, D. D., 
 " Samuel Clements, 
 " William Newton, 
 " John Ufford, D. D. 
 
 Pemiiiylvania. 
 Rev. M. A. De W. Howe.D. D., 
 " D. R. Goodwin, D. D., 
 " G. E. Hare, D. D., 
 " A. Augustus Marple. 
 
 Pittsburgh. 
 Rev. Marison Byllesby, 
 " John Scarborough, 
 " John F. Spaulding, 
 " William White. 
 
 Rhode hland. 
 Rev. H. Waterman, D. D., 
 " S. A. Crane, D. D., 
 " Daniel Henshaw, 
 " Wm. S. Child. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 Rev. C. C. Pinckney, 
 " C. P. Gadsden, 
 " Peter J. Shand, 
 " J. Stuart Hanckel. 
 
 Tennessee. 
 Rev. Wm. Crane Gray, 
 " James Moore, 
 " J. T. Wheat, D. D., 
 " G. W. James. 
 
 Texas. 
 Rev. Benjamin Eaton, 
 " Joseph Cross, D. D., 
 " Benj. A. Rogers, 
 " W. R. Richardson. 
 
 Vermont. 
 Rev. A. H. Bailey, D. D., 
 " J. Isham Bliss, 
 " R. S. Howard, D. D., 
 " Charles S. Hale. 
 
 Virginia. 
 Rev. G. H. Norton, D. D., 
 " Wm. Sparrow, D. D., 
 " J. Peterkiu, D. D,, 
 " C. W. Andrews, D. D. 
 
 Western New York. 
 Rev. Wm. Shelton, D. D., 
 " Theo. Babcock, D. D., 
 " E. M. Van Deusen, 
 " Jas. Rankine, D. D. 
 
 \Visco?isi?i. 
 Rev. Wm. Adams, D. D., 
 " J. De Koven, D. D., 
 " Franklin R. Haff, 
 " Hiram W. Beers. 
 
 North Carolina. 
 Mr. W. H. Battle, LL. D., 
 " Richard H. Smith, 
 " A. J. De Rossett, 
 " Robert Strange. 
 
 Ohio. 
 Mr. J. W. Andrews, 
 " Columbus Delano, 
 " V. B. Horton, 
 " A. H. Moss. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 Mr. J. N. Convngham, 
 " William Welsh, 
 " George L. Harrison, 
 " Lemuel Coffin. 
 
 Pittsburgh. 
 Mr. J. H. Shoenberger, 
 " George W. Cass, 
 " Thomas M. Howe, 
 " B. B. Vincent. 
 
 Rhode Island. 
 Mr. Robert H. Ives, 
 " C. B. Farusworth, 
 " George L. Cooke, 
 " H. H. Burrington. 
 
 South (JaroUna. 
 Mr. Edward McCrady, 
 '* J. J. Pringle Smith, 
 " Alexander C. Haskell, 
 " Henry D. Lesesne. 
 
 Tennessee. 
 Mr. Francis B. Fogg, 
 " William H, Stephens, 
 " Geo. R. Fairbanks, 
 " John Francis Jett. 
 
 Texas. 
 Mr. E. B. Nichols, 
 " James H. Cutler, 
 " Wm. B. Grimes, 
 " Thomas Freeman. 
 
 Vermont. 
 Mr. R. Richardson, 
 " Julius E. Higgins, 
 " Janu's H. WiUianis, 
 " Geo. F. Houghton. 
 
 Virginia. 
 Mr. Hugh W. Sheffey, 
 " B. Johnson Barbour, 
 " J. J. Jackson, 
 " N. H. Massie. 
 
 ]Vestern New York. 
 
 Mr. G. F. Comstock, 
 
 " Thomas A. Johnson, 
 
 " (tco. (!. McWhorter, 
 
 " Laurens C. Woodruff. 
 
 Wisoo7isin. 
 Mr. Diiinel Jones, 
 " 'J.Bodwell Doe, 
 " J. A. Helfenstein, 
 " D. Worthington. 
 
 THE FIRST DAY. 
 
 New York, Oct. 7, 1868. 
 
 This being the time and the place appointed for the 
 meeting of the General Convention of the Church, Di- 
 vine Service was celebrated in Trinity Church. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Kev. Henry C. Pot- 
 ter, D. D., Secretary of the House of Bishops, and the 
 
 Rev. William Q. Ketchum, M. A., of the Diocese of 
 Fredericton, assisted in the Lessons by the Rev. Canon 
 L. P. Balch, D. D., of the Diocese of Montreal, and the 
 Rev. William Stevens Perry, of the Diocese of Connec- 
 ticut. The Litany was said by the Rev. M. A. De 
 Wolfe Howe, D. D., of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The Communion service was begun by the Rt. Rev. 
 Manton Eastburn, D. D., Bishop of Massachusetts, the 
 Epistle being read by the Rt. Rev. Thomas Atkinson, 
 D. D., LL. D., Bishop of North Carolina, and the Gos- 
 pel by the Rt. Rev. John Johns, D. D., Bishop of Vir- 
 ginia. 
 
 The Sermon was preached by the Rt. Rev. Alfred 
 Lee, D. D., Bishop of Delaware, from the text, " He 
 that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto 
 the Churches." Rev. ii. 7. [This sermon is to be 
 printed.] 
 
 The Ottertory sentences were read by the Rt. Rev. 
 H. W. Lee, D. D., Bishop of Iowa, the alms being re- 
 ceived and placed on the Altar by the Rt. Rev. Horatio 
 Potter, D. D., D. C. L , Bishop of New York. 
 
 The Prayer for Christ's Church Militant was said by 
 the Rt. Rev. S. A. McCoskry, D. D., D. C. L., Bishop 
 of Michigan. The Rt. Rev. C. P. Mollvaine, D. D., D. 
 C. L., read the E.\hortations and the Confession, the 
 Absolution being pronounced by the Rt. Rev. B. B. 
 Smith, D D., the Presiding Bishop. The Prayer of 
 Consecration was said by the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop 
 of Rupert's Land. The Post Communion was said by 
 the Rt. Rev. Henry C. Lay, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of 
 Arkansas, the Benediction being pronounced by the Rt. 
 Rev, the Presiding Bishop. 
 
 After the conclusion of public worship, the Testi- 
 monials of the Clerical and Lay Deputies elect were re- 
 ceived and recorded. 
 
 The Roll was then called, and it was found that Dep- 
 uties were present from a majority of the Dioceses, as 
 required by Article L of the Constitution. 
 
 On motion of Mr. L. B. Otis, 
 
 Hesdlved, That the House proceed to the election of 
 a President. 
 
 On behalf of the Deputation from Illinois, Mr. Otis 
 nominated the Rev. James Craik, D. D., of the Diocese 
 of Kentucky. 
 
 There being no other nomination, on motion of Mr. 
 William Welsh, ballotting was dispensed with, and the 
 vote being taken vioa ooce, the Rev. Dr. Craik was de- 
 clared to be unanimously elected, and the Rev. Wm. 
 Cooper Mead, D. D., and Mr. L. B. Otis were appointed 
 a Committee to conduct him to the Chair. 
 
 Before taking the Chair, the President addressed the 
 House as follows : 
 
 I ihauk you, gentlemen, for this expression of your con- 
 fidence, when my deficiencies in the administration of this 
 office are known to so many of you. 
 
 It would, I think, bo unpardonable in me, at this junc- 
 ture, not to give some voice to the feehiig which is welling 
 up in every heart in this assembly, of joyful gladness, and 
 of devout gratitude to God, that we are all here together 
 
once more, as in the old time, a band of brothers, with one 
 heart and one mind to take eounscl tor tlie sood estate of 
 Christ's Church. This is the eonsuniniatiou and the crown 
 of our long sustained effort to vindicate the integrity of the 
 Church of God, 'as a liingdom not of this world — a haven 
 of rest, a peaceful home, a refuge from the storms and tem- 
 pests and tyrannies of the world,- — a kingdom that cannot 
 be moved. 
 
 The Church indeed is here in her integrity, entire and 
 unharmed. But alas! we sadly miss from this her great 
 representative Council some of tlie ablest and most trusted 
 of the leaders of the host of God. Since our last meeting, 
 the faithful Pastor, the profound canonist, the learned jnd 
 eloquent Francis L. Hawks, whose fervent words of power 
 never failed to thrill and move the hearts of all who heard 
 him, has gone from hard service to a blessed reward. 
 
 My noble friend, the patriot Statesman, pure and unsul- 
 lied, Washington Hunt, who gave all his great powers so 
 unreservedly to the saci-ed cau.<e of Christ, he too has been 
 taken from earthly labor to heavenly rest. 
 
 Judge Chambers, with his clear and discriminating mind 
 and untiring devotion to the interests of Christ's kingdom, 
 was for more than a generation the consummate guide of 
 the legislation of the Church. Kone who heard it will ever 
 forget the beauty, dignity and pathos of that prophetic 
 farewell with which he parted from the House of Deputies 
 at the close of the last General Convention. Hugh Davey 
 Evans, the strong, plain, downright old man, illustratmg 
 with clear logic every important subject brought into this 
 House, he, too, will be no more seen on earth. Who 
 will occupy the places of these great and good servants of 
 the Master, and enter into their labors! Although indeed 
 they are absent from us in the body, yet by the mighty 
 power of the Holy Ghost uniting them and us in the mys- 
 tical body of Christ, they are one with us now as ever. 
 May the same Holy Spirit enable us to emulate their virtues 
 and to follow their example. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Mead, 
 
 Resoleed, That the Hou.se proceed to the choice of a 
 Secretary. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Mead nominated the Rev. William 
 Stevens Perry, assistant Secretary of the House at the 
 last General Convention, and there being no other 
 nomination, the vote was taken vioa voce, and Mr. Perry 
 was declared unanimously elected. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Haight then announced the arrange- 
 ments which had been made for the Business sessions of 
 the House, and moved that when the House adjourn it 
 adjourn to meet at Trinity Chapel to-morrow morning, 
 at 10 o'clock, which motion was carried. 
 
 On motion of the same, 
 
 Resiilvid, That the daily sessions of the House begin 
 at 10 A. M , and continue until 4 P. M. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Liltlejohn, 
 
 Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to inform 
 the House of Bishops of tlie Organization of this House, 
 and of its readiness to proceed to business. 
 
 The Chair appointed the Rev. Dr. Liltlejohn and the 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles such Conuniltee. 
 On motion of the lion. Hamilton Fish, 
 
 Resolved, That the Rules of Order of the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies of the last General Conven- 
 tion be adopted as the Rules of this lIou.se until others 
 are provided. 
 
 The following message was received from the House 
 of Bishops: 
 
 Message No. 1. 
 
 The House of Bishops informs the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies that it has organized, and is ready to 
 proceed to business. 
 
 Hknry C. Potter, Sec'y. 
 
 On motion of Mr. L. B. Otis, 
 
 Resolved, That the President appoint the following 
 Standing Committees, viz. : 
 
 On the State of the Church, to consist of one mem- 
 ber from each Diocese, — and on the General Theological 
 Seminary; on the Domestic and Foicign Missionary So- 
 ciety ; on the Admission of New Dioceses; on the Con- 
 secration of Bishops; on Canons; on Expenses; on 
 UnBuished Business; on Elections; on the Prayer Book; 
 and on Christian Education, — each to consist of eleven 
 members. 
 
 The Secretary announced that he had appointed the 
 Rev. J. S. B. Hodges, D. D., a Clerical Deputy from 
 New Jersey, the Assistant Secretary, which appoint 
 ment was, on motion of the Rev. Dr. Mead, unanimous- 
 ly confirmed by the House. 
 
 On motion of Mr. AVilliam Welsh, the House then 
 adjourned. 
 
 THU SECOND DAY. 
 
 October 8th, 1868. 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment, in Trinity 
 Chapel, in 25th street. 
 
 The Morning Prayers were read by Bi.shop Talbot 
 of Indiana, and Bishop Neely of Maine. The Benedic- 
 tion was pronounced by Bishop Smith, the presiding 
 Bishop. 
 
 The Convention was call d to order by the Rev. 
 James Craik, D. D. 
 
 The roll was called by the Secretary, William 
 S. Perry. 
 
 The minutes of yesterday's proceedings were then 
 read, and approved on motion of Dr. Mead. 
 
 Dr. LiTTLE.jOHN, of the Committee to report to the 
 House of Bishops the Organization of the House of Cler- 
 ical and Lay Deputies, reported that they had performed 
 their duty. 
 
 The President announced the Committees given below 
 in List of Standing Committee. 
 
 STANOINO ('OM.MITTEKS. 
 
 State of till' C'/iurc/i— The Revs. R. A. Hallam, D. D., 
 Conn.; t, Urotherton, Cal. ; .]. R Clemson, D. I)., Del. ; 
 W. 11. Roberts, 111. ; Horace Stringfellow, jr., Ind. ; H. X. 
 I'owiTs, I). D., Iowa; Charles Revnolds, Kansas; J. S. 
 ShiiiiiMui, Kv. ; Ed. liallard, 1). V'., Me.; E. F. Da.shiell, 
 Md. ; W. 11. Mills, Mass. ; G. U. Gillespie, D. D., Mich. ; E. 
 R. Wells, Minn. ; E. F. Berkeley, D. D., Mo. ; J. H. Eame.s, 
 
 D. D., i\. H. ; S. M. Rice, N. J. ; Wni. I'ayne, D. D., N. 
 Y. ; .1. B. Cheshire, D. D., N. C. ; E. Burr, D. D., Ohio; G. 
 
 E. Hare, I). I)., Penn. ; S. A. Crane, D. D., R. I. ; J. T. 
 Wheat, D. D., Tenn. ; R. S. Howard, D. D., Vt. ; T. Bab- 
 cock, I). D., W. N. Y. ; F. R, Half, Wis. ; M. Bvllesbv, 
 Pittsburgh ; C. W. Andrews, D. D., Va. ; C. C. Piiickney, 
 S. C. ; Sanniel Benedict, Ga. ; J. J. Scott, D. D., Fla. ; J. 
 M. Mitchell, Ala.; Wm. C. Crane, D. D., Miss; Thomas 
 K. Li. Trader, La.; .Joseph Cross ,D. D., Texas. 
 
Consecration of Bishops — The Rev. S. Cooke, D. D., New 
 Vork ; J. H. Rylance, D. D., Illinois ; E. F. Berlder, D. D., 
 Missouri ; R. M. AbercTOiubie, D. D., New Jersey ; C. Breek, 
 Delaware ; G. H. Norton, D. D., Virginia ; Mr. Lemuel;Coi'- 
 tin, Pennsylvania; W. G. Harrison, Maryland; J. J. Prin- 
 gle Smith, S. C. ; V. B. ilorton, Ohio ; A. B. Churchill, Ky. 
 
 (Jnjinished Buxiness — The Rev. W. T. Saun Jers, Florida ; 
 E. A. Bradley, Maine ; W. C. Gray, Teiine.-isee ; W. H. 
 Clarke, Georgia ; J. Scarborough, Pittsburgli ; E. T. Perkin.s, 
 Kentucky; Messrs. C. B. Funisworth, Rhode Island; L. C. 
 Woodruff, Western New York ; E. M. Bartholow, Kan- 
 sas ; W. P. Wheeler, New Hampshire ; D. S. Turner , Cal. 
 
 Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society — Revs. A. N. 
 Littlejohn, D. U., New York ; J. L. Clark, D. D., Connecti- 
 cut; H. Waterman, D. D., Rhode Island ; F. D. Huntington, 
 D. D., Massacliusetts; Chnton Locke, D. D., IlUuois; C. 
 
 C. Pinckney, S. C. ; Messrs. C. C. Trowbridge, Mich. ; W. 
 Cornwall, Ky. ; W. Welsh, Peuu.sylvania ; J. II. Schoen 
 berger, Pittsburgh ; E. T. Wilder, Minnesota. 
 
 A'lections—ReYn. J. S. B. Hodges, D. D., N. J. ; Isaac G. 
 Hubbard, D. U., N. H. ; C. P. Gadsden, S. C. ; H. N. 
 Pierce, D. D., Ala; H. W. Beers, Wis. ; W. C. WiUiams, 
 Ga; Messrs. R. H. Ives, Rhode Island; R. Richardson, 
 Vermont; T. M. Howe, Pittsburgh ; W. T. Read, Delaware ; 
 H. I. Bodley, Missouri. 
 
 General Tlieological Seminary — The Revs. Wm. Sheltou, 
 
 D. D., W. N. Y. ; A. Stubbs, D. D., N. J. ; S. W. Manney, 
 I). D., Minn. ; A. H. Bailey, D. D., Vt. ; D. R. Goodwin, D. 
 D., Pa. ; C. B. Wyatt, Cal. ; Me.ssrs. H. E. Pierrepont, N. Y. ; 
 (J. L. Harrison, Pa. ; C. A. Tufts, N. H. ; H. A Hayden, 
 Mich. ; R. H. Smith, N. C. 
 
 Canons— T:\iii. Revs. W. C. Meade, D. D., Conn. ; B. I., 
 Haight, D. D., N. Y. ; Milo Mahan D. D., Md. ; A. A. Wat- 
 sou, D. D., N. C. ; B. H. Paddock, D. D., Mich. ; M. A. De 
 \V. Howe, Penn. ; Messrs. Hamilton Fish, N. Y. ; J. N. 
 Conyngham, Penn. ; L. B. Otis, 111. ; B. R. Curtis, Mass. ; 
 F. B. Fogg, Teun. 
 
 Christian A'diwatiun— The Revs. J. DeKoven, D. D.,AVis. ; 
 F. M. Hubbard, D. D., N. C. ; J. S. Hauckel, S. C. ; J. Ran- 
 kine, D. D., W. N. Y. ; T. M. Martin, Ind. ; H. X. Pierce, D. 
 D., Ala. ; Mes.srs. G. C. Shattuck, Mass, ; G. R. Fairbanks, 
 Tenn; J. W. Stevenson, Ky. ; Wni. H. Battle, LL. D., N. 
 C. ; A. L. Kidston, Conu. 
 
 Prayer iJou/t— Revs. R. S. Mason, U. D., N. C. ; W. 
 Adams, D. D., Wis. ; W. Pinkney, D- H., Md. ; S. P. Par- 
 ker, D. D., Mass. ; E. M. Van Hcuseu, D. H.,W. N. Y. ; Isaac 
 • G. Hubbard, D. D., N. H. ; Me.ssrs. Orlando Meads, N. Y..; 
 J. C. Garthwaite, N. J. ; G, E. B. Jackson, Me. ;;,0. S. Sey- 
 mour, Conn. ; J. J. Jackson, Va. 
 
 Jixpenses — Revs. W. S. Child, R. I.; S. Clements, Ohio; 
 W. C. Crane, .Miss.; E. Birdsall, Cal.; C. S. Hale, Vt. ; W. 
 H. Carter, LL. D., Ind. ;. Messrs. J. Brown, Del. ; G. Greene, 
 Iowa; J. B. Stebbins, Mass.; J. B. Doe, Wis.; G. P. Lee, 
 Illinois. 
 
 On New Dioceses — The Revs. Thomas C. Pitkin, D. D., 
 Michigan; William B. Corbyn, D. D., Missouri; Jacob S. 
 Sliipmau, Iveutucky ; Josluia Peterkin, D. D., Virginia; 
 Peter J. Shanil, South Carolina; E. Edwards Beardsley, D. 
 D., Connecticut; Mes.srs. Samuel Ruggles, LL. D., New 
 York ; George C. McWhorter, Western New York ; Henry 
 Meigs, jr.. New Jersey; L. N. Whittle, Georgia; T. E. B. 
 Pegues, Mississippi. 
 
 Dr. Mead asked leave to present the petition of the 
 newly-organized Diocese of Nebraska, asking for ad- 
 mission into union with the General Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ; and 
 he moved that the petition be referred to the Committee 
 on New Dioceses. 
 
 Dr. LiiTLEjOHN — Mr. President: As this petition 
 lias now been presented to the House with a view to 
 refer it to the Committee on New Dioceses, I deem it prop- 
 er to present a few statistics touching the growth of that 
 infant Diocese which now applies for admission to this 
 
 body. It will be seen by a bare reading of these statis- 
 tics, that not only a great work has been done in the 
 State of Nebraska, but that that work has been done 
 in such a manner — it has been run in such a mould — as 
 to give the most ample guarantees to the whole Church, 
 that as that vast and multitudinous emigration which I 
 saw one year ago rolling into those plains, shall settle 
 there, they will find there ready for use such moulds as 
 will receive and fashion, and direct and shape to the 
 glory of God and the extension of His kingdom on earth, 
 the'cnergies of that vast and growing population. When 
 Bishop Clarkson, who was elected Missionary Bishop at 
 the last Convention, entered upon the work of his jurisdic- 
 tion, he found in Nebraska three churches and nine 
 clergymen. There are now fifteen churches and 701 
 communicants. There are two colleges, two academi- 
 cal institutions, one divinity school, and five parish 
 schools ; and the value of the Church property already 
 in that Diocese exceeds $124,000. I think this shows 
 good work for about two years and eight months, of 
 which the Bishop of Nebraska has just reason to be 
 proud, and upon which the representatives from that 
 Diocese have reason to congratulate themselves, and to 
 receive the congratulations of this body. 
 
 The reference of .the petition to the Committee on " 
 New Dioceses was then approved. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — Mr. President : I have a memo- 
 rial to present from the Diocese of Wisconsin which was 
 passed at the last Convention, and which was ordered to 
 be signed by all the clergy and laity of the Convention. 
 Of this memorial, t am happy to say that it represents 
 the public opinion of a large proportion of the West in 
 reference to the obstruction that is oB'ered to the propaga- 
 tion of our Church in this country. I believe that this 
 Church derived fnnn the English Church is not a sect 
 to bring in the educated and refined only, but it is and 
 must be the Catholic Church in these United States ; 
 and I must say that I think we have been shackled by 
 our obstructive legislation. It is the purpose of this 
 memorial, to bring before this National Council of the 
 Church in the United States the Fifth Article [of the 
 Constitution] wherein this obstructive legislation exists 
 and which has prevented the propagation of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church through the whole West, and is 
 injurious and obstructive to the Church in the whole 
 country. The memorial was then read. 
 
 First : lli'cognizing the principles of the See, and pro- 
 viding that there should ultimately be a Bishop of the 
 Church, with his Bishop's Church or Cathedral, in every 
 city of the laud. 
 
 Second : When in any Dioce.sc it shall seem expedient 
 to divide and erect a new See, it may be done upon the 
 vote of a majority of both Orders, passed in two consecu- 
 tive Conventions, with the approv.al of the General Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 mrd : That the division of the parishes and the assign- 
 ment of limits between the two Sees should^be made by mu- 
 tual consent, the linal decision thereof resting with the Bish- 
 ops, clergy, and laity of the whole State, or a Committee ap- 
 pointed by them. 
 
[The memorial was published in full in Thk Church- 
 man at the time of its ado])tion.] 
 
 On motion, the memorial was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maii.\n, of Maryland, read a memorial from 
 his Diocese, concerning the formation of Provincial 
 Councils, with the following resolutions. 
 
 Resolved, That it is the opinion of the Convention that as 
 soon as may he after the organization of two or more Pio- 
 ci'sos within the limits of the present Diocese of Mary- 
 laiul, and after the Ooiiseoration of Bishops for the same, 
 there sliall he a Coimeil of said Dioceses, tliroujjh their prop- 
 er representative.s, to consider and adopt measures for a per- 
 manent Synodieal or Conventional Union, .said Council to con- 
 sist of the Bishops of the several Dioceses into which tlie 
 present Diocese shall have been divided, with ten clerical 
 and ten lay deputies from tlie several Conveutious of tlie 
 same, and to be called at such time and place a.s the senior 
 Bishop, on conference with his brethren, shall determine. 
 
 Jiexoti'nl, That this Convention petition the next General 
 Convention for such modifications of the (.'oustitutions and 
 canons, if any such are ueeded, as may enable the Dioceses 
 formed or to be formed w ilhin the limits of any present Dio- 
 cese, to organize among themselves a Synodieal or Concil- 
 iar Union. 
 
 Ixexo/ved, That this Convention also petition the next 
 General Convention to take the necessary steps for author- 
 izing the erection of Provincial Courts of Appeal, whenever 
 it may be desired by any Church province. 
 
 On motion, this memorial was refened to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 Dr. Haigiit presented an application from the Diocese 
 of New York for the erection of two new Dioceses, one 
 on Long Island, and the other in Northern New York. 
 
 Referred to Committee on new Dioceses. 
 
 Dr. H. also presented a memorial of the Diocese of 
 New York on the subject of a Federate Council of the 
 several Dioceses within the State. 
 
 Referred to Committee on Canons. 
 
 The Secretary announced the appointment of the Rev. 
 John M. Mitchell, from the Diocese of Alabama, as 
 second assistant Secretary. 
 
 Dr. Hutchinson read papers concerning the election 
 of the Rev. Dr. Robertson as the Bishop elect of Mis- 
 souri ; which were referred to the Committee on the Con- 
 secration of Bishops. 
 
 Dr. Wheat, of Tennessee, read a memorial from his 
 Diocese on the e-xtent and formation of Dioceses ; which 
 was referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Mr. Lkk, of Illinois, read a memorial from his Diocese 
 in Illinois, seconding the memorial from the Diocese of 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Ckosdale, of Maryland, offered a petition 
 for the division of the Diocese of Maryland. The peti- 
 tion and accompanyini; documents were referred to the 
 Committee on New Dioceses. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Watson read a memorial and resolution 
 from the Diocese of North Carolina ; which were refer- 
 red to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Berkley, Ordered that the 
 Clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and 
 Clergymen of the United Church of England and Ire- 
 
 land, and of the British Colonies, also of the Epi8coi)al 
 Church of Scotland, who may be sojourning in this city, 
 members of the Board of Missions of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Cluirch, Trustees, Professors and Students of 
 the General Theological Seminary, other students of 
 Theology who are candidates for Holy Orders in this 
 Church, former members of the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, Members of the Vestry of Trinity Church, 
 in the city of New York, in one of whose (^hapels this 
 Convention holds its present session, be admitted to the 
 sittings of this House. 
 
 Rev. W. H. Ci.AUKE, of Georgia, read a memorial from 
 the diocese of Georgia in favor of changing the name 
 Convention. Referred to the Committee oh Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Ckoss, of Texas, read a memorial from Texas 
 with reference to limiting the extent of Dioceses so as to 
 secure proper episcopal oversight. 
 
 Dr. Bekklev, ofl'ered a resolution to provide members 
 of the House with 400 copies of a list of Deputies with 
 their residence in the city, a list of the Standing Com- 
 mittees, and the Rules of Order. Adopted. 
 
 A recess of 20 minutes was then taken. 
 
 Dr. Goodwin, offered a resolution to print 3,000 copies 
 of the sermon preached at the opening of the Conven- 
 tion. An amendment to print 1,500 copies was accepted 
 
 Mr. Wallach, of St. Louis, moved to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table. 
 
 Dr. Mead — It has been the practice to publish the 
 sermon at the opening of the Convention. Though I 
 differ toto calo from the doctrines of that sermon, yet 
 T should be sorry to see in this Convention the practice 
 initiated of laying on the table a resolution to print a 
 Bishop's sermon, when it has been the invariable practice 
 to print the sermons at the opening of the Convention. 
 
 The PiiESiDENT — As the motion to lay on the table 
 the resolution to print, has not been withdrawn, there 
 can be no debate to lay on the table. 
 
 On the vote being taken, the President declared the 
 motion to be lost, so the question recurred on the reso- 
 lution to print l,.oOO copies. 
 
 Mr. Geo. R. Fairbanks said that some time the 
 question would have to be decided whether the Conven- 
 tion should, by printing, give its sanction to sermons of a 
 controversial nature. The (juestion was fraught with 
 diHiculty for the future. Therefore, in the outset it 
 would be best to enter the sermon on the Journal but 
 not to publish any extra copies. While it was appro- 
 priate to publish the final address of the Bishops, as ex- 
 pressing the views of the Church, it was not proper to 
 publish the opcnin;; sermon, because it expresses only 
 the individual views of the preacher. If we are bound 
 by the question of courtesy now, we shall be equally 
 bound in the future when it may involve greater dif- 
 ficulty. 
 
 The President remarked that the sermon had never 
 been printed in the Journal. 
 
■■■W 
 
 8 
 
 Mr. Gadsdkn, of South Carolina. May I ask how it 
 has been printed ? 
 
 Dr. Mead. As a separate pamphlet, by a motion as 
 to the number of copies to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Gad.sden. I understand from the deputy from 
 Connecticut that it ha? always been done. 
 
 Dr. Mead. I say almost invariably. I do not rec- 
 ollect where a motion has not been made to that effect. 
 Mr. Gadsden. Then I do not see how it is possible 
 to avoid publishing this sermon. It would be an act of 
 discourtesy to refuse to publish. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haiciht. If we should ever change the law 
 in regard to printing sermons, I would deprecate the 
 introduction of this resolution at this time. I think it 
 would not only be an act of severe discourtesy, but an 
 act exceedingly unwise on the part of the majority of 
 this House to pass any such resolution. We are not 
 here to sit in judgment on the doctrines of the sermon at 
 the opening of the General Convention. It is our duty 
 to sit and listen to it calmly and respectfully. We may 
 not approve its doctrines, but I think we are bound at 
 least to recognize the fact that the preacher is a Bishop, 
 and that he has spoken what he believes to be the truth 
 of God, and as the preacher appointed by the Bishops, 
 he ought to be respected by a vote of this House. I am 
 not prepared to say whether or not the rule in general 
 is a good one. But be it ever so faulty, I hope that 
 this House will not so far forget what is due to itself and 
 to the Bishop of Delaware as to pass any resolution de- 
 viating from the usual practice of this House. 
 
 Dr. Goodwin. The resolution proposes to legislate 
 that the sermons to future General Conventions shall 
 not be published. In that respect, it is nothing but a re- 
 ijsal to print this. It, therefore, stands in the face of 
 the uniform practice of the Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States. In ofiering this 
 resolution I thought I was making a mere proposition of 
 routine. I observed the fact that it was in the Journal 
 of the last two Conventions. I happened to take up the 
 Journal of the Convention before the last, and, there- 
 fore, I proposed as it was done there, 3,000 instead of 
 1,500 copies; but I would as lief say 1,500 as 3,000, sim- 
 ply to accommodate our action to the uniform action of 
 the Convention. Shall we take this opportunity to treat 
 with disrespect one of the honored Bishops of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church in the United States, one of 
 venerable standing in the House of Bishops, one who has 
 done no wrong, one who has spoken what he believes to 
 be true, in charity and love, and one who would be the 
 last of all men on the face of the earth to treat any man 
 with disrespect ''"Shall we treat him with disrespect be- 
 cause he has before God and the Church spoken what 
 he believes to be the truth, standing there as the appoint- 
 ed preacher of the House of Bishops ? Shall we treat 
 him with discourtesy by saying that his sermon shall not 
 be printed? I have nothing to do with the question 
 whether I agree or not with the doctrines of the sermon. 
 
 That has been spoken of, and fully to my satisfaction, 
 by my Rev. brother [Dr. Mead] who preceded nie. 
 Shall we sit in judgment upon the sermon to determine 
 whether we agree with it in every point? I am amazed 
 at the proposition, and, therefore, — sit down. 
 
 Dr. Mead. I would say to the members of this 
 House that although you may difier from the doctrines 
 or sentiments, some or many of them, uttered in the ser- 
 mon, yet the simple fact that it would be an act of dis- 
 courtesy to refuse to print it is sustained by documents 
 which I hold in my hands. Here is a package of sermons 
 from 1 785, preached before the General Convention, 
 printed separately by a vote of the House of Deputies. 
 If we should now, under the present circumstances, re- 
 fuse to print that sermon, we should place ourselves in a 
 false position, before the House of Bishops, before the 
 Christian World— before the whole Church. And as to 
 the resolutions for the future action of the Convention, 
 it would be impossible to determine their action, for, as 
 said the Reverend Deputy from Pennsylvania, every 
 Convention manages its own business. 
 
 Mr. Roggles. I hope the sermon will be printed. It 
 forms a part of the history of the Church, and we want to 
 preserve a history of all that has been said pro and con. 
 Mr. Parsons. I approve of what has been said by 
 the Reverend Deputy from Pennsylvania. I feel it my 
 duty, while I shall vote against the printing, to say that 
 I do not intend thereby any discourtesj'. I shall vote 
 against it chiefly on the view stated by the Deputy on 
 the other side of the House that the time may come when 
 the present formal action of this House will be, as a prec- 
 edent, a cause of great embarrassment. At the same 
 time that I vote against the resolution I disavow any in- 
 tentional discourtesy ; and I think it is not altogether fair 
 to charge with intended discourtesy those who vote 
 against the resolution. 
 
 Judge Conyngham. It is imp6rtant to think what 
 we are proposing to do under the circumstances present- 
 ed by this resolution. As I understand, in the regular 
 order of proceedings, the Bishop was called upon to 
 preach a sermon. By appointment from his brethren, 
 he has preached a sermon ; and the simple question here 
 is whether, he having preached a sermon that was listen- 
 ed to by the Deputies here present and a large Congre- 
 gation there assembled, that sermon should be published 
 by the authority of those who listened to it or not. It 
 will be published ; and if I desired particularly that it 
 should produce the effects desired by those approving its 
 doctrines, I would wish especially that this Convention 
 should refuse to publish it. If they should thus stigma- 
 tize it, it would be published far and wide. Regarded 
 as an act of persecution, its author would be deemed a 
 martyr, and everywhere persons would be desirous of 
 obtaining that sermon for the purpose of seeing what it 
 is. I say to those who oppose the publication of the 
 sermon, if you desire to give it force — not the mere force 
 of a formal and customary resolution — put upon it a 
 
9 
 
 stipnia by refusing to pass this resolution. Let it be 
 ailo|)tiil iu ihe ordinary way. Do not adopt the rule J 
 that vvf will sit in judgment upon overy sermon preach- 
 ed before the General Convention, and that if a Deputy 
 objects to a particular doctrine enunciated by it, a Com- 
 mittee shall be appointed to inquire into it and determine 
 whether or not the sermon shall be. published. But let I 
 us publish the sermon as a formal and customary matter. ' 
 That cannot be regarded as the adoption b}' the House 
 of its doctrines ; it is merely a formal act, an<l carrying 
 out the practice that has always prevailed. I think we 
 ought to publish it out of respect for the Right Reverend 
 Father in God who, out of his own conscience, preached 
 that sermon, and also out of respect to the uniform ac- 
 tion of this House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams said he was not a believer of the doc- 
 trines of the sermon, but out of respect to a Bishop of 
 the Church he would favor publishing the sermon. He 
 hoped that no man of right reason, and common sense, 
 and (ijjostolica! princij'lts, would oppose it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Meigs approved of the publication of both sides 
 of a controversy, and would therefore vote for the reso- 
 lution. 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks would vote agaiiist the resolution with 
 no intention of discourtesy to the venerable father, but 
 with the hope of getting rid of a troublesome precedent 
 which was likely to bind the House for all time. 
 
 Dr. Littlcjohn called upon the secretary to read an 
 extract from the Memoirs of Bishop White, touching the 
 disposition made of a sermon delivered by Bishop Moore 
 in 1820. The action taken by the House of Lay Depu- 
 ties at that time was germane to the subject, and it was 
 right that the extract should be read to the House. 
 
 The secretary lead from page "iS.'i of the Memoirs of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church by Bishop White, sec- 
 ond edition, as follows: 
 
 The reception of Uisbop Moore's sermon apju-ars on 
 the journal iu ."uch a shape as requires explanation. The 
 House of Clerical and Lav Deputies pa.ssed a vole request- 
 ing a co|iv for piililicatimi. The House of Bishops concur- 
 red in tlie vote with the addition of their thaniis, wliich luid 
 been ouiitted by the otlier house. The reason was tiu' 
 preacher's having made baptismal regeneration one of the 
 points of his discourse. Some of the gentlemen, and 
 especially those the most in habits of friendship with him, 
 were displeased at this: and hence the resolve on the 
 .lournal of the House of ('lerical and Lay Deputies, that it 
 will lie inexpedient hereafter to pass votes of (hanks for 
 sermons deli\ered hefoi-e (ieneral {Conventions, and to re- 
 quest copies for pu'ilication. The author believi's, that 
 willi the majority of the house, this resolve was owing nTH 
 to their dissatisfaction with the doctrine of the liishop 
 Moore, hut to their general view of the subject of voting 
 thariks ; which may have suggested the apprehension, that 
 dissatislaclion with any point in a conventional sermon, he 
 
 it even in the minds of a few members of the body, may 
 excite all angry controversy, not having anv tendenev tu 
 settle the matter in question. In the House of Bishops the 
 vote of thanks for the sermon was passed unanimously. 
 
 So far as the duty of a conventional preacher is concern- 
 ed, the author is of opinion that there should he carefully 
 avoided .all questions on which the sense of the Epi.soopal 
 Church is doubtful. 
 
 The resolution was then adopted by a nearly unani- 
 mous vote. 
 
 On motion of Gov. Stevenson of Ky., 
 
 Rexolved, That, the House of Bishops con.senting, a joint 
 Committee to consist of three on the part of this House be 
 appointed to consider the f)ropriety of .selecting another 
 building for the ilaily sessions of this ficneral Convention. 
 
 Dr. Haight and otliers of the New York committee 
 
 who had selected Trinity Chapel as meeting best the 
 wants of the Convention, all things considered, offered 
 no objection to the appointment of the committee. 
 
 The resolution was adopted, and the president named 
 the committee. 
 
 The following resolution, offered by Dr. Mahan, was, 
 by a rising vote, unanimously adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That this House place upon its records the ex- 
 pression of its grateful sense of the eminent and long-coi - 
 tinned services to the Church of the three venerable depu- 
 ties from the Diocese of Maryland taken to their rest since 
 the last Convention, the late Hon. Judge Ezekiel F. Cham- 
 bers, LL. D., the Rev. Henry M. Mason, D. D., and Hugh 
 Davey Evans, LL. D. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Pinckney the name of 
 John Henry Alexander LL. D. was added. 
 
 On motion of Mr. George C. McWhorter, the followins 
 resolution was also unanimously adopted by a rising 
 vote: 
 
 Resolved, That this House place upon its records this e.\- 
 pression of its grateful recollection of the higli Christian 
 character and valuable services in behalf of the Church, of 
 the Hon. Washington Hunt of Western N. Y., deceased 
 since the last General Convention, and for many years a 
 member of this House. 
 
 Dr. Haight offered the following resolution, which 
 was unanimously adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That this House has learned with deep regre 
 of the death of the Most Rev. Dr. Fulford, Bishop of Mon 
 treal and Metropolitan of Canada, whose presence and ser 
 vices at the last (xend'al (.'onvention irave us so much picas 
 ure — and that tliis House do connnunicate to the House ot 
 Bishops its desire to join with them in such expression of 
 regard for the departed Bishop and of respect tor his mem- 
 ory as they may see fit to pi'cpai-e. 
 
 Mr. Ruggles offered a resolution of respect for the 
 late Rev. Francis L. Hawks, D. D., which was unani- 
 mously adopted. 
 
 The Convention adjourned to to-raorrow morning, at 
 10 A M. 
 
10 
 
 THIKD day's proceedings. 
 
 Oct. 9th, 1886. 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment, the Morn- 
 ing Prayers were read by Dr. McMasters, of Minnesota, 
 and Dr. Gibson, of Western N'ew York. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop McCos- 
 kry, of Michigan. 
 
 The House was calh-d to order at 11 o'clock. 
 
 The names of Deputies not previously present were 
 then called. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 The president presented a communic ition from the 
 Treasurer of the Convention giving a summary of his 
 ■ report ; which summary stated the total disbursements 
 .•IS $8,291.. 5.5, in excess of receipts, .$4.17.8.5. 
 
 On motion the account of the Treasurer was referred 
 to the committee on e.xpenses. 
 
 The committee on elections reported by its chairman, 
 J. S. B. Hodges, that certificates of election to the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies have been received from 
 every Diocese in Union with this Convention, 34 in 
 number; that the certificates are all in due form; and 
 that they have given accurately a list of the names of 
 those entitled to a seat as members of the House, being 
 the same as have been entered on the roll and called by 
 the Secretary. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin — from the committee on New 
 Dioceses, reported the following resolution : 
 
 Ttexohed, That the Diocese of Nebraska be and is hereby 
 admitted into full canonical union with the I'rotestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the I'nited States. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin. — added : The committee feel it 
 necessary to state to the House that the meeting in 
 which this Diocese was organized and the Canons and 
 Constitution adopted is called not a Convention but a 
 Council. 
 
 Hon. Samuel B. RnGor.Es. — As one of that committee, 
 I think it proper to state to the House that although the 
 action of the convention did not in all respects conform 
 to the constitution, still I would consent to the report so 
 far as to bring it into this House, that they might now 
 distinctly understand that this new Diocese desiring to 
 come into the convention, has adopted a new and signifi- 
 cant title for their organization. This new Diocese and 
 convention calls itself the council of that church, and as 
 such asks admission to this body, which is canonically 
 known as the General Convention of the Church, and 
 which in most or many canons and in parts of its con 
 stitufion speaks of itself as a convention. If we assume 
 that this word Council is only a synonymous word with 
 Convention, then we maj' safely admit this Diocese into 
 union with this body defined in its constitution as a 
 convention. Were it_ an original question to change 
 the name from convention to council, I would be fully 
 prepared to do so : I do not like the name convention. 
 I therefore favored, ^bringing' this question, in this dis- 
 
 tinct manner, before this convention to take such order 
 as will decide the question forever; and in doing so, I 
 hope they will decide in favor of admitting the Diocese 
 without a moment's delay. I feel an interest in the in- 
 troduction of this Diocese into the Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe. — I deem tliis question of the utmost 
 importance. I am not particularly tenacious of this or 
 that name for our assemblies , but after the Church has 
 adopted a given name, it seems to me that it is not com- 
 petent in the several Dioceses to adopt other names for- 
 if one may adopt the name council, another Diocese may 
 call icself a conference, another ma)' call itself an assem- 
 bly, and another may call itself a synod ; and we shall 
 have a motley set of names. Moreover, if the name may 
 be changed in that particular, it may be altered in -other 
 respects. There are members of this Church who are 
 very fond of calling it the reformed Catholic Church ; 
 and by and by, we may have a Diocese coming in and 
 calling itself the convention of the reformed Catholic 
 Church. I hope that, while the Diocese is admitted, it 
 will be expected of it and all other Dioceses that they 
 will conform in their designation to the terms which this 
 Church has adopted lor the designation of its respective 
 parts. If that nomenclature is to be altered, I shall 
 very cheerfully go into that. I heard it suggested 
 yesterday that the Diocesan convention should be called 
 convocation, and that the federative meetings where 
 Dioceses are associated with one another, should be called 
 synods or counc'ils, and that the higher meetings in 
 which we are now engaged should have some other 
 name. But until the change is made, let every part of 
 the Church conform to the nomenclature adopted. 
 
 Dr. Pitkin. — It appears that the Missionary Bishop 
 of the Diocese called the meeting which organized this 
 Diocese as "a Convention" — as a "primary Convention." 
 It is afterwards called in the other proceedings a coun- 
 cil. I think it is a perfectly fair inference that the 
 word council is used as synonymous with convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. — Is the term council used in the con- • 
 stitution of the Diocese V 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin. — It is used in the constitution. 
 The title of the journal is: "Journal of the Pioccedings 
 of the First Annual Council of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church," &c. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. — However strong my desire to see 
 the new Diocese of Nebraska brought into communion 
 with this General Convention, I have strong constitu- 
 tional objections to such a reception unless we can have 
 assurance that there will be a correction of the name at 
 their next convention. I have strong constitutional 
 objections to the admission of this or any other Diocese 
 under any other name than that which is recognized in 
 the constitution of the Church. If the term convention 
 were not applied in the constitution to the Diocesan or- 
 ganization I^hould have no difficulty < but if any gen- 
 tleman examines the constitution, he will find that it 
 says "If the Convention of the diocese should neglect" to 
 
11 
 
 do thus and so ; and in something like half a dozen in- 
 stances, the term convention is made a constitutional 
 designation. If we constitutionally agree to strike out 
 the word convention and substitute some other, very 
 well : but I do not believe that any diocese ever existed 
 in the union that had a right to change this name, and 
 I certainly do not believe that any Diocese coming as a 
 suitor, asking for admission, has any right to assume any 
 other name than that authorized by the constitution. 
 Words mean something, and although these may be words 
 which are synonymous, there are few synonyms which 
 have not variations of meaning. But admitting that 
 they are correlative terms, yet let us resist every attempt 
 at encroaching in any degree even to a letter on the 
 constitution of the Church. There are encroachments, 
 unintentional perhaps, that are at this very day intro- 
 ducing among us variations totally unauthorized by the 
 con.stitution of the Church. But if any security can be 
 given that this name assumed by the diocese of Nebraska 
 will b^ corrected, I have no objections to receive it into 
 union with the Church. 
 
 Eev. Dr. LiTTLEjouN. — The Diocese of Georgia me- 
 morialized this House yesterday, and the memorial was 
 referred to the committee on Canons, asking this House 
 to consent to the change from the name convention to 
 council, and suggested other changes. It has occurred to 
 me that the debate which has already arisen on this sub- 
 ject is premature. I think it will be better for this 
 House, inasmuch as the matter has been formally 
 brought to its notice, to ask the committee on Canons to 
 make an early report, and then the whole matter of the 
 name will come regularly before the House. I under- 
 stand the Diocese of Minnesota has adopted for its Dioce- 
 san convention the name Diocesan council ; and there 
 are other Dioceses in which it is called a council. I submit 
 to the consideration of the House whether it is not ex- 
 pedient to postpone the further discussion of this matter 
 of the admission of the diocese of Nebraska until after 
 the committee on Canons have reported concerning the 
 memorial of the Diocese of Georgia. But 1 submit that 
 it is too late for any gentleman to resist the admission 
 of the Diocese on the technical objection to its name 
 council, when other Dioceses in full communion have 
 already adopted the name. And 1 have yet to hear a 
 satisfactory argument on this point which shall convince 
 me that a Diocese acting in, its own proper sphere and by 
 its accredited authorities has not the right to make a 
 change in that regard. 1 know that the word conven- 
 tion is used in the constitution of the Church, but it is 
 nowhere made imperative upon the Dioceses to assume 
 that name. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Petehkin, of Virginia, — said that he was 
 willing, with the gcutlenian from New York, that discus- 
 sion on this subject should cease, but it was due to the 
 members ot the committee, of which he was a member, 
 that he should state the reasons whicU inllueneed their 
 action. 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops announced the 
 concurrence with the House of Deputies in the resolution 
 to appoint a committee to consider the propriety of se- 
 lecting another place for the daily sessions of the con- 
 vention. 
 
 Dr. Peterkin — continued : We observed that in the 
 Bishop's call for the meeting of the Diocese, it was called 
 a "primary convention." And then it occurred to some 
 of us that the words were interchangeably used — as, f. r 
 example, in the prayer in which we joined this morning 
 we read : "A prayer to be used at the meetings of the 
 convention ;" and yet in the prayer we jiray that God 
 may be "present with the council of His Church." 
 Taking all these things into consideration, we thought it 
 was not proper for us to throw any obstacle whatever in 
 the way of the adiiiissioii of this new Diocese. 
 
 Mr. WuLsu. — For the reverend gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia it was but natural he should be liberal, because it 
 seems from his own certificate that the word convention 
 has been stricken out and the word council inserted. 
 
 Judge Otis. — Just before the assembling of this 
 convention, my attention was attracted to this question. 
 The name convention is to be (bund ten times in the 
 constitution, and the Canons of our church use the 
 name thirty-five times, and no other name. Now the 
 question is presented whether a new Diocese can be 
 admitted, whose legislature has adupted another name. 
 I am the friend of that Diocese and of its Biohop, and I 
 know well many of its presbyters. And 1 know they 
 do not, in any degree, intend to dejjart from the laws 
 and usages of this Church. I think they can be admit- 
 ted with a'declaratory law or resolution such as has been 
 adopted in Congress requiring a state to conform some 
 of its provisions to the general laws of the United States. 
 They may be admitted upon that principle, and upon 
 no other. A memorial was passed by my own diocese 
 which we are instructed to present here asking to 
 change to the name council ; but no Diocese can seize 
 the lists and change the name in advance of the Church 
 at large. Here it must be initialed, and nowhere else ; 
 and it takes two General conventions to do it ; and 
 until two General conventions have done it, it is an 
 entire departure and unlawful for a diocese to make the 
 change. But this diocese has acted in good faith. I 
 think we may lawfully admit it, and pass a declaratory 
 resolution that they shall conform to the law of the 
 Church until it is changed by the General convention; 
 and in that way only can we get over this difficulty. I 
 believe the State of California was admitted, though its 
 constitution was adopted in advance of an enabling act, 
 but with certain prescribed conditions ; and States have 
 been required to change their constitutions notwithstand- 
 ing they had been admitted before, by giving pledges that 
 they would conform to the conditions by their first sub- 
 sequent legislature. 1 will mention difficulties of going 
 on loosely and of the diocese changing its name in ad- 
 vance. They cannot elect a Bishop by any body ex- 
 
12 
 
 cept the convention of the diocese. No power is given 
 to elect a Bishop except by a convention. The testimo- 
 nials must be signed by a constitutional majority of both 
 orders of the convention elect, i would like to see a 
 house elect a Bishop and present his tentimouial signed 
 by a council, a body entirely unknown, and unauthor- ■ 
 ized to do it. How could we get over the difficulty ? j 
 We could not do it. The presiding Bishop has no 
 authority to take orders to consecrate a Bishop until 
 the testimonials are signed by the conventions electing 
 and are prusented to him. A presbyter cannot be 
 tried by an}' other body, according to the constitution 
 of our Church, than that body known as the diocesan 
 convention prescribing the rules. If any other body 
 does it, his rights are infringed upon. 
 
 Gov. Stevenson, of Kentucky : — I have listened 
 with pleasure to the learned deputy who has just oc- 
 cupied the floor. The nomenclature is not only import- 
 ant, but it should be uniform. I think it is an important 
 matter ; but really this discussion is premature. I con- 
 curred in every sentiment that was uttered by the 
 deputy from New York. It does seem to me that we 
 ought to admit this new diocese. We should admit her 
 as a matter of justice, although she did use the name 
 council. She had a right to look to Virginia, the first 
 state in this union where the Episcopal Church flourish- 
 ed, and there she would have seen the word council 
 applied to a diocesan convention. She might have gonn 
 to this general convention and seen where a council had 
 elected a Bishop who had been consecrated, and accept- 
 ed by the general assembly — the Bishop of Alabama. 
 Suppose he had been elected by a diocese styling itself a 
 council, which I believe is the fact. There is the per- 
 tinent answer to the gentleman who last addressed this 
 House. If Virginia using the word council, had elect- 
 ed an assistant Bishop, would this general convention 
 have refused to accept it V It has done it ; and there is 
 the answer to my venerable friend who last addressed 
 the convention. 
 
 Judge Otis. — The election did not come before this 
 House ; it was simply sent to the standing committees. 
 
 Gov. Stevenson. — It has not yet met the objection 
 that it is unconstitutional, and that he is not a regular- 
 ly consecrated Bishop in this Church. If the general 
 convention chooses to retain the word convention, 1 
 have no feeling against it. When Nebraska saw Minne- 
 sota, Virginia, and other states using the word council ; 
 ■when she saw that the stale of Georgia had memorial 
 ized that the general convention should be termed a 
 General Council— is that a reason for excluding her? 
 When she acts in accordance with what the people of 
 Nebraska may have supposed the popular sentiment of 
 the Church, it does seem to me that that ought to ex- 
 cuse her. But I do not agree with my learned friend 
 in his construction of the constitution. I yield with 
 -»reat deference to his experience as a churchman and as 
 a lawyer ; but I cannot believe that the term convention 
 
 as used in the constitution carries with it any particular 
 force. If I have ever believed any thing respecting it, 
 it was that the organization of the Episcopal Church was 
 based upon our federal form of Government, the House 
 of Bishops corresponding to the Senate, and this 
 House corresponding to the House of Representatives. 
 My learned friend says that unless the diocesan con- 
 vention shall use the term convention, its acts are not 
 valid because this constitution uses the word convention. 
 I refer him to the constitution of the United States. A 
 senator of the United States is elected by what ? By 
 the legislature of each state. In some of the states they 
 are called the popular branch of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives : in others, they are called the House of 
 Delegates; in others, a Council. It is, however, at 
 last, but a legislative body. I might multiply the vari- 
 ous epithets applied to the branches of that constituent 
 body by which a Senator is to be elected. But no man 
 doubts that it is still the legislative body, and that body 
 which the constitution of the United States recognizes 
 as the electors of a senator of the United States. There- 
 fore I say, with great deference, that when the word 
 convention was used, it does seem to mc that it meant 
 but the legislative power, and, whether called council 
 or convention could not mihtate against the validity of 
 the election of the members elect, and should not mili- 
 tate against the reception of the new diocese which is 
 now seeking communion with the Church. 
 
 Judge Battle — I believe it has been disputed a 
 long while whether a rose smells as sweet by any other 
 name, but I believe it has never been disputed whether 
 a rose is not a rose because called by some other name. 
 It seems to me that Nebraska has done everything that 
 the constitution requires, notwithstanding her use of the 
 term Council. 
 
 Gov. Fish — The admission of this new Diocese, it is 
 claimed by my honorable friend who preceded me, is 
 under the 5th article of the Constitution. The Diocese 
 of Nebraska does not tell us tliat it is the Protestant 
 Episcopal Cliurch, as required by the 5th article of the 
 Constitutii n. They do not ask admission as a Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church. They accede to the Constitu- 
 tion, b^it it cannot be claimed under this 5th article of 
 the Constitution, they are entitled to admission. Sup- 
 pose the resolution reported by the committee to be 
 adopted, how are these deputies to take their seats? 
 Article second ol' the Constitution of this Church pro- 
 vides that the churches in the Diocese shall be entitled 
 to representation of both clergy and laity " chosen by 
 the Convention thereof." But there has been no Con- 
 vention of the Diocese to prescribe the mode of electing 
 the deputies. Some stresj has been laid upon the fact 
 that the Bishop called the meeting as a Convention. 
 But what does that convention do ? It disclaims the 
 title convention and calls itself a council. They are 
 not, therefore, what the Bishop convened — a convention 
 of the Diocese, but another body which has adopted this 
 
 / 
 
13 
 
 constitution, and which asks admission. [Reads from 
 the 6th article of the constitution with reference tu the 
 trial of presbyters]. Every lawyer in this body will 
 recognize the necessity of strict terms in criminal pro- 
 ceedings. Suppose the case in this Diocese of a pres- 
 byter being arraigned on charges, and he pleads that he 
 is not arraigned or tried as prescribed by the constitu- 
 tion of the Church — that there has been no Convention 
 of the Diocese of Nebraska to direct the mode of try- 
 ing ? Now it is claimed that the words are synonymous ; 
 but that position might be overruled and involve the 
 Church in trouble. We all desire to have this Diocese 
 in communion with the Church as soon as possible. 'J he 
 gentleman from Illinois proposes to admit it on condition. 
 That is an old proposition. It is letting the lion in to 
 see if you can turn him out again I think my friend's 
 argument of analogy of the action of Congress in ad- 
 mitting Stales under conditions, seems strained. 1 think 
 the States admitted h;ive been admitted " loheii tbe.f 
 .shall change their constitutions." I propose that the 
 Diocese of Nebraska shall be admitted whenever the 
 authority of the Diocese shall have adopted a constitu- 
 tion recognizing it as a Protestant Episcopal Church 
 and changing the name of council to Convention. I 
 would move to amend the resolution before the House 
 in that manner. 
 
 A Deputy — Likened the election of deputies by a 
 Diocese, to the election of representatives by the legis- 
 lature of a State, and argued that the election was valid 
 by whatever name the legislature might be called, and 
 it was immaterial whether the legislative power of a 
 Diocese was called a convention or a council. 
 
 Gov. Fish — The "legislature" is a very geueric 
 
 term. The parliament of Great Britain is a legislature. 
 
 A Deputy — Is not the House of Burgesses the same '! 
 
 Gov. Fish — No doubt it is. Whatever body the 
 
 legislative power of a State is vested in, constitutes its 
 
 legislature. 
 
 A Deputy — Is it material then whether a legislative 
 body is called a convention or council V 
 
 Gov. Fish — We have conventions and cnuncils of 
 the Church. The term "legislature" as used in the 
 Constitution of the United States i.s a generic term, but 
 not so with these terms convention and council. If they 
 were s} nonymous, and if they were generic terms, the 
 analogy wcjuld be complete ; but I think there is a very 
 great dili'ereiice between the two cases. Sume gentle- 
 men desire to change the name of this body from con- 
 vention to council, but we have not done it. We have 
 councils, conventions, and synods. Does any gentleman 
 undertake to say that they will come under the same 
 designation as the word legislature in the Constitution of 
 the United States? 
 
 Kev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin— 1 think I can add a 
 few words to the resolution -before the House, which 
 would settle the whole question with reference to the 
 Diocese of Nebraska. I listened with great pleasure to 
 
 \ the remarks of the distinguished layman from New 
 York [Gov. Fish]. As a lawyer I suppose the House 
 has the highest confidence in him, and that he under- 
 stands the legal position of the questions that may come 
 before this House. He objected to the use of the word 
 council, but thought that if that word were understood 
 to mean precisely and exactly what the word convention 
 means, this House should pass the resolution. I think 
 this House can pass a resolution with the addition that I 
 propose — that is, adding to the proposed resolution thes 
 words: "with the understanding that the word council 
 in its constitution and canons is identical in meaning and 
 perfectly synonymous with the word convention." I 
 think all the objections that have been made by gentle- 
 men against the reception of the Diocese of Nebraska 
 into full union with our convention are perfectly met by 
 this proposition. The proposed addition of a declara- 
 tion that by-and-by they shall 'substitute the word con- 
 vention for the word council is certainly very awkward 
 and clumsy. We had better admit the Diocese at once 
 or reject it. If we declare that the word council is 
 identical in meaning with the word convention, there 
 will be no <lifficulty in the case ; that settles the question 
 completely and entirely. Gentlemen have considered 
 the constitutional reasons against it. I myself come 
 from the West, and I wish to bring forward the real 
 reasons why we from the West do not want this title of 
 conventiori any more. The word convention is bona 
 fide and actually synonymous with synod (si/nudos). 
 convention, or synod. They are all the same. In the 
 constitution and canons the word convention was given 
 as identical with the word coiuicil, as is manifest from 
 the prayer to be used at the meeting of the Convention. 
 The Prayer Book I take to be superior to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. In the Prayer Book, in the 
 prayer we used this morning, " Council of Thy Church " 
 is synonymous with convention. I take it that the orig- 
 inal writers and composers of imr constitution and can- 
 ons took them to be identical in meaning; but if they 
 did so use the term, circumstances have occurred sincel 
 which make us desire that the word should be changed 
 to the word Council. 1 proposed myself, in the last 
 Convention, that " General Convention," wherever the 
 words occur, should be changed into the words " Great 
 National Council;" and I believe there is not a deputy 
 in this IIou.se that is not willing to take the word coun- 
 cil instead of tlie word convention. But what are the 
 reasons for the change Theyai>,, ... i..e lirst place, 
 that the word convention is used for all sorts of assem- 
 blies. When we sat in General Convention in Phila- 
 delphia, there was a Dctilixts' Convention; and there 
 was a 67)iri7«(!/i.<'.v' Convention ; and there was a Con- 
 vention of Baptists. There is the convention of all 
 classes, sort«, and sizes. The word is a dirly one ; it is 
 a word that is polluted and defiled. There is nothing in 
 itself that is wrong; but it is used so that it means any 
 chance-like meeting of any sort of persons whatsoever 
 
14 
 
 that gather together to form any sort of society. We 
 in the West feel that that meaning and that use of the 
 word give us some trouble. If it were a council, men 
 would come to it who take an interest in the Church — 
 who are desirous to forward the progress of the Church ; 
 but as a convention we have demagogues of all sorts and 
 sizes, thinking that tliey have a right to come to a con- 
 vention; and 1 saw men in convention in the West 
 making the motions and speeches and using the meanest 
 arts, of the dirtiest demagogues, in the Council of the 
 Church ; and when 1 saw that, I said we should have 
 some other name ; — that we should huve tlie name coun- 
 cil ; — that the proclivities and tendencies which this word 
 convention brings upon us, are injurious and destructive. 
 I rejoice that the Church in the State of Virginia has 
 taken the name council ; and I would ask the opponents 
 of this term, if they intend to e,\pel the Church in the 
 State of Virginia? Do they intend to shut out Bishop 
 Whipple from the House of Bishops ? Certainly, if 
 they reject Nebraska, they are bound to do so. I think 
 the word council is an ecclesiastical one, and an admi- 
 rable one; and I think if we admit the Diocese of Ne- 
 braska with the title council, we do what we have a 
 rif/hl to do, and we open the way for the change in the 
 title of this assembly, which I hope before this meeting 
 is passed will be on its way to be the Great National 
 Council of the Church in the United States. 
 
 Dr. Adams's amendment was seconded. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — There has been an amendment 
 already offered. In regard to this proposed amendment, 
 the grand objection is, that it is a proposition to settle 
 by a side issue, a question already brought to the atten- 
 tion of this House by solemn memorials Irom some Dio- 
 ceses, and already referred to the Committee on the 
 Conslitution and Canons. The distinction between con- 
 vention and council has been considered a question of 
 so great importance that one or more Dioceses have 
 memorialized this Convention to have the change made. 
 Now, it is proposed by a side-issue, and before-hand, 
 that we should declare, according to the proposed amend- 
 ment to this resolution, that there is no difference at all 
 between the two words. It seems to me that it is a very 
 exceptionable mode of proceeding. And it seems to 
 me very strange that, as far as I can understand it, some 
 of these same gentlemen who are so earnest to have the 
 change made come here and say there is no difference. 
 Bui then, Mr. President, we are told that convention is 
 a dirty word. It seims to me that this is something like 
 a reflection, not upon ourselves only, but upon our pred- 
 ecessors in the Protestant Episcopal (_'hurch in the 
 United States of America. We have been calling our- 
 selves a General Convention. In our constitution and 
 (jeneral Convention we have spoken repeatedly of con- 
 ventions of the Dioceses in the several Slates, and now 
 we are arraigned for the use of a dirty word. We have 
 been called by a dirty name and have got tired of a 
 dirty name, and want to change it. If some other body 
 
 call themselves by the name convention, shall we be 
 ashamed who have called ourselves, for more than half 
 a century, by the name of convention ? Is the conven- 
 tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church degraded V 
 Has its very title become dirty because some other peo- 
 ple call themselves conventions? I know people who 
 call themselves councils. There is a plenty of councils 
 in the Congregational denomination. Every month, 
 probably, a council meets. Convention has a wider ap- 
 plication ; that is, it implies a larger and more respect- 
 able sort of meeting. But the gentleman says that 
 council is an ecclesiastical term. But it has been used 
 tor councils of Bishops; and if the distinclion were to 
 be taken at all, then the word council would be histori- 
 cally inaccurate, and not exactly appropriate, for our 
 conventions. 
 
 The House then took a recess of 20 minutes, when 
 Dr. Goodwin continued : — I did not intend to occupy 
 the House much longer and should have closed in a few 
 minutes, but, as all the members who have spoken here 
 will easily understand — as I have had a few minutes ' 
 to think of the matter, I would naturally like to say 
 more, a misfortune for the House as well as (or myself 
 In regard to the word Council, I was stating that there 
 was some distinction between the word convention and 
 council, not intending, however, at all to hold the ground 
 that it would be improper or inexpedient that we should 
 change the name of this convention to council and the 
 name of the Diocesan conventions to councils if we see 
 fit. I do not think it is a matter of so much importance. 
 It is other people who think it is a matter of so much im- 
 portance ; and I said ihat it is a curious thing that those 
 same people come and tell us that there is no difference ; 
 that the Diocese of Nebraska is to be admitted with the 
 understanding that the two words have just the same 
 signification. We have been told by men learned in 
 language — and I confess as a learner that I receive the 
 doctrine— that there are no two words in any language 
 that have precisely in all respects, and in all applications, 
 and associations, and in all the breadth and length of 
 their meaning, precisely the same signification. I un- 
 dertake to say, therefoi-e, that these words do not have 
 the same signification. They may have a correspondent 
 or analogous etymology, and what of it? They have not 
 the same signification. As to the word convention being so 
 much degraded by its various uses, allow me to say furth- 
 er'that our brethren ot'the West might become familiar 
 with tlie word Council in a great variety of applications. 
 There arc Indian councils ; then are we to become Indian 
 councils? Uh no. Theysay that it is an ecclesiastical term. 
 Very well, say it is an ecclesiastical convention ; and I do 
 not understand that if the spiritualists choose to hold a 
 convention, we are to be ashamed of our old received 
 term and call it dirty. I protest that it is not proper in 
 my brethren to throw dirf upon our own received, ac- 
 knowledged, well-established appellation, given us by 
 our fathers — the very name by which we were baptized. 
 
15 
 
 I think it is a respectable name. Although Council, in 
 some respects, may not seem so good a term, 1 do not 
 object to it. I think it is a matter of no great conse- 
 quence, if we choo.se to chiingc it. I'.ut I think it is a mat- 
 ter of ureat consequence whi'ii otlu'.r people uiulertaUe 
 to change it for us. I think th'- terms which this Church, 
 hy its proper authorities, has given it, are terms that 
 should be adhered to until changed by proper authority. 
 It is said that this Church itself recognizes — in the 
 Prayer Book, for example, by the prayer for the Gener- 
 al Convention — that the two terms Convention and 
 Council are interchangeable. I have no doiilit that in j 
 some respects they are interchangealih' ; and I have no 
 doubt that a man might in conversation and in his prayei s, 
 call this a council of the Church ; but the constitutional 
 word is one thing, and a word used in conversation or 
 even in prayer is another thing. If a man will insist 
 upon it that there is a prayer of this Church with the 
 term council in it, then allow me to say that the term Cath- 
 olic in the creed is understood to be equivalent, I sup- 
 pose, to the word Univefsil. I ask the gentlemen if they 
 are willing that any chun h in any Diocese shall, without 
 the authority of the (icneral Convention, change the 
 term Catholic in the creed to the term Universal. Our 
 Church has substituted Universal for it in one of the 
 prayers for the admission of candidates to Holy orders - 
 " who hast purchased for Thyself a universal church " ; 
 and in another prayer — " who hast purchased fir Thy- 
 self a universal church by the precious blood of Thy 
 dear Son" — that in the Latin corresponding is Catholic 
 Church. More especially in our petitions in the Litany — 
 " that it may please Thee to rule and govern Thy Holy 
 Church universal in the right way." In the Latin edi- 
 tion ot the Prayer Book, that is "catholic." Here then 
 we have the authority of the Church in our own Lit- 
 urwy that " Church Universal " is interchangeable with 
 " Church Catholic." is it then a matter of no conse- 
 quence that the term Catholic should be used in its 
 place? I believe'these very brethren who are so nigeiit 
 that the term Council should be substituted for the term 
 Convention, and would endeavor to thrust it in in thi.s 
 way, would be the last to give up the term Catholic and 
 allow the term Universal to be substituted at will for it. 
 But you sa}' this Prayer Book is established by the au- 
 thority of the Church and cannot be changed one word or 
 syllable without the authority ofunc General t'onveiitioii 
 referring the change to another (ieneral Convention and 
 being made known to every Conventi<m of the Dioceses, 
 and adopted by a subsequent General Convention. 
 That is true. So you cannot change Catholic in the 
 Creed; you cannot change a word in the Prayer Book. 
 But, we read also in the very ne.xt article of the consti- 
 tution, that this constitution shall be unalleralile unless a 
 General Convention of our Church, by a majority of the 
 Dioceses should have ailopted the same. So the altera- 
 tion is placed upon precisely the same grounds as an al- 
 teration of the Prayer Book. 
 
 I wish to have this point distinctly made and under- 
 stood — Has the church in each Diocese a right to change 
 even a word in the constitution ? " Oh, no, not in the con- 
 stitution, liut they use different words for themselve.s." 
 Have they a right to use different words in their services 
 and in I heir church V Can they substitute in their daily 
 prayer the word Univer.^al for the word I'atlinlic V Can 
 they substitute in their terminology in regard to their 
 own convention the term Council ? iVIust it not take its 
 regular course through the General Convention ? I do 
 not inquire what they can do in the abstract ; I mean to 
 inquire what they can do constitutionally and rightfully. 
 Iftlieterm Catholic might be changed, then the term 
 Protestant E])iscopal might be changed. [Reads from 
 the Constitution about the organization of Dioceses.] 
 Niiw the Convention of this Diocese in Nebraska was call- 
 ed as a Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Chundi 
 of that Diocese. On the title-page of the proceedings 
 of that Convention, it is called a '• Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church." Its Journal opens with the 
 recognition of its being a Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church. It appears, therefore, that they 
 have not abolished the name Protestant Episcopal but 
 i-ecognized it on the face of their Journal. But I ask 
 the attention of the House to this stepby-step process. 
 Here is a ( 'onvention of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 They meet as a Convention of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church ; they then adopt a constitution as the Diocese 
 of Nebraska, and they declare as their title the Council of 
 the Church of the Diocese of Nebraska ; and I take it that 
 is to be henceforth their title. They have resolved them- 
 selves into something else than a Convention of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church, and they come here asking for 
 admission into communion with this Convention. It is 
 not in my apprehension, any answer to my objection to 
 say that they met as a Convention. They or 'anized 
 themselves under another name, and they come to us 
 under that other name. 
 
 We have been told that this word (Convention is a 
 dinv word. Xvt we next to be told that Protestant is a 
 dirty word ? I know of men who have said — I have heard 
 it said — that it was already something equivalen t to that. 
 I have not heard it in this Convention; I trust I shall 
 never live to hear it said here ; but it is uttered by some 
 men who consider themselves connected with the Church, 
 that ihey do not wish to be called Protestant. Now, 
 suppose these geuikMnen abolished the word Protestant 
 or the word Episcopal. Suppose this Diocese of Nebras- 
 ka had done tliis^ and had styled themselves the Protes- 
 tant Church in the Diocese of Nebraska, and had come to 
 this Convention to be received into communion with 
 this General Convention, I should object; and I should 
 stand at the door and object as long as I had a right to 
 object, that they could not be under our Constitution ad- 
 mitted as a '• Protestant Church," and if not as a Protes- 
 tant Church, I would like to know if it improves the 
 matter if they leave out not only Episcopal but also Proteg- 
 
16 
 
 fant ? Now words are things, and nobody knows it bet- 
 er than those gentlemen who urge the proposed action. 
 The evidence that they know it I have adduced — the 
 importance they attach to this very change. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : I asli liberty of the gentleman to 
 correct a mistake that I believe he has made. You have 
 said [addressing Dr. Goodwin] that the title of the Con- 
 vention on the title page of the procedings vpas " Con- 
 vention." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I had not at the time the op- 
 portunity of seeing a copy of the Journal. 
 
 The Secretary read the title : " Journal of the Pro- 
 ceedings of the First Annual Council of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Nebraska ; " and the 
 first article of the Constitution : -'This Church shall be 
 called and distinguished as the Diocese of Nebraska;" 
 and article second : " The Cliurch of the Diocese of 
 Nebraska accedes to the Constitution and Canons of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America, and recognizes the authority of the General 
 Convention of the same." 
 
 Rcv.Thos. C. Pitkin, D. D.: — I will simply state, as 
 chairman of the Committee, that we considered the sec- 
 ond article as carrying the name, because they accede 
 to the constitution and canons of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States of .America. I am 
 not a lawyer, but I suppose that that would certainly 
 carry the name with it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin. 1 had no opportunity to look 
 at that document e.xcept at the secretary's table. I am 
 glad to know its exact terms. I was uncertain whether 
 it was entitled the Convention or the Council. We 
 are told by the Chairman of the Committee that some 
 hold was taken of the fact that they met as a Conven- 
 tion ; but now it seems that even that hold is gone — they 
 met as a Council, and did not resolve themselves into 
 anything else. 
 
 As to another point — that they accede to the Consti- 
 tution of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and- that you 
 must not go behind that. That is a curious sort of ar- 
 jument, when perchance it may stand on the face of the 
 same document that they do violate that constitution. 
 I suppose they accede to the constitution as they under- 
 stand it ; they choose to understand that when you say 
 convention you mean council. I do not know that they 
 have any right to do that. We mean what we say. 
 Their saying thej' have complied with the Constitution 
 does not really make it so. My argument is that they 
 have not really conformed to the Constitution of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America. 
 
 It is alleged, in regard to the Constitution of the 
 United States, that although the words are not identical, 
 yet it is in accordance with the language in the Constitution 
 of the United States and the interpretation of the action 
 under it. 1 wish to say and show that the argument 
 from analogy with the Constitution of the United States 
 
 is all the other way. The legislative power under the 
 Constitution of the United States is declared to be vested 
 in a Congress of the United States. We say that our 
 legislative power is vested in a General Convention. 
 Now, if the Constitution of the United States had gone 
 on to speak of the Congresses of the difi'erent States, we 
 should have had an analogy ; but our constitution goes 
 on to speak of conventions of the different Dioceses, us- 
 ing the same terms. But as the Deputy from New York 
 has clearly set forth, the term legidalive which the Con- 
 stitution of the United States employed is intentionally 
 a general term which will cover grand Congress, or 
 general court, or general assembly, or whatever other 
 name any State should choose to assign its legislature. 
 It is intended to be a general term. There was, at the 
 time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States, a difference in the different States, in the desig- 
 nation of the Lower House in their Legislatures. In 
 some, they were called the House of Burgesses ; in some, 
 the House nf Assembly ; in some, the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. Now, supppose the Constitution of the 
 United States having declared that its Congress should 
 consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, should 
 have proceeded to designate the Lower House in all the 
 States, as a House of Representatives, that would have 
 been analogous to our Constitution. But the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States very carefully abstained from 
 so designating them. It took a roundabout (brm of ex- ' 
 pression to avoid it. Thej' declared, for example, that 
 the qualifications for electors of Representatives to the 
 Congress of the United States shall be the same as the 
 qualifications of electors for the members of the most 
 numerous house in the State Legislature. 
 
 Message No. 3 from the House of Bishops was here 
 received, informing the House of Clerical and Lay Dep- 
 uties that the House of Bishops had adopted the follow- 
 ing resolution. 
 
 Resolved, the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 concurring, that the Diocese of Nebraska be, and the 
 same is hereby admitted into union with the General 
 Convention of the Church in the United States. 
 
 A Deputy. — I tliink that settles the matter. 
 
 The President. — The gentleman will proceed with his 
 argument. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — continuing : That the Dioceses 
 already in communion with the Chui-ch should change 
 the nomenclature is one thing; our adopting the change 
 is another thing. I hold they have no right to make the 
 change. I am perfectly willing that the Diocese of Ne- 
 braska should be received. I was sorry from the first 
 moment that there was any difficulty in the way. The 
 question I have been discussing has been forced upon 
 me by the amendment to the amendment. 
 
 Judge Battle. It is very well known that most 
 of the old thirteen States had adopted Constitutions 
 prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States. Now, when the Constitution of the United States 
 
17 
 
 was adopted, did it not necessarily change the constitu- 
 tions of all the States that were inconsistent in any de- 
 gree with it ? The moment the Constitution of the 
 United States was adopted, of course that had the ef- 
 fect, ipso facto, to change at once everything inconsist- 
 ent with it. Now if the Diocese of Nebraska have 
 adopted the Constitution of the General Convention 
 that, ipso facto, changes everything that ought to be 
 changed in the Diocesan convention. 
 
 Rev. Du. Goodwin. The proposition is that the 
 Constitution of the United States rendered null anything 
 inconsistent with its provisions. I might admit it for my 
 present purpose. My argument is, and was, that, in- 
 asmuch as the Constitution of the United States did not 
 intend to dictate to the several States by what name the 
 Lower Houses of their Legislatures should be called, it 
 carefully avoided designating those Lower Houses by 
 any name. We have designated the conventions of the 
 Dioceses by names; there lies precisely the difference. 
 The analogy utterly fails at that point. If the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States had designated the Lower 
 House, the more numerous branch of the State Legis- 
 latures, as the House of Representatives, they would 
 have been bound to style themselves the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, by the authority of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 Judge B.\'itle. If the Constitution of our Church 
 does not do the same thing, why not permit them to re- 
 ain the name ? The Constitution of the United States 
 does not require the States to do it. If our Constitution 
 is inconsistent with the name, it changes it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin. Our Constitution retains the 
 name, and we stultify ourselves by receiving a Diocese 
 that has abolished the name. What matters it that they 
 say they accede to the Constitution when on the face of 
 their acts it appears that they have not conformed to the 
 Constitution ? I am willing that the Diocese of Nebras- 
 ka should be received according to the amendment to the 
 original resolution which I would heartily second ; but 
 the amendment to the amendment I have endeavored to 
 oppose. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams. I proposed an amendment and 
 the Committee accepted it as a part of the first reso- 
 lution. 
 
 The Pkes't. The Committee had no right to do so. 
 
 Rev. Dh. Goodwin. We have a message from the 
 House of Bishops on this matter. Whether they have 
 had the whole subject before them or not I know not. 
 I know not upon what grounds they have acted, but I 
 think it is fair to say that it is not for this house to be de- 
 termined i^ its legislative functions by the vote of the 
 House of Bishops : and I believe they do not expect us 
 to be. 
 
 Rkv. Dr. Goodwin — then moved that the whole 
 subject be postponed until the Committee on canoii> re- 
 ported on this subject, which motion being seconded and 
 Uie cjuestion being called for 
 
 3 
 
 Judge Otis — remarked : Mr. President, the temper 
 of this House is evidently to admit the Diocese of Ne- 
 braska. I have this morning set forth the legal objec- 
 tions in respect of change from the term Convention to 
 the name Council, declaring at the same time that I 
 wanted to admit this Diocese. The report of the Com- 
 mittee on New Dioceses to whom it was referred, admit- 
 ting it, should be, in my opinion, adopted with a pro- 
 viso. I have carefully drawn a proviso that will require 
 the resolution of admission to go back to the House of 
 Bishops. They having acted upon it, we may adopt this 
 report of the Committee retaining our own views of 
 the law in accordance with the view of the Committee 
 on Canons, as announced by Dr. Mead, as chairman of 
 the Committee. Two amendments have been olTered. 
 By referring to our rules of order, it will be seen that 
 an amendment to an amendment may be offered, but no 
 further amendment ; but a substitute for these may be 
 adopted. I propose this substitute to the report, to 
 come in after the report as a substitute for the two amend- 
 ments now before the House. I have submitted it to the 
 Bishop of Nebraska, and it is satisfactory to him. It 
 preserves our consistency as a Church of law and order. 
 It does not require us to express any opinion as to wheth- 
 er Protestant and Catholic are equivalent, or whether you 
 may leave out certain words of the baptismal service or 
 from the Prayer Book. The substitute is this, to add 
 after the resolution of the Committee the following pro- 
 viso : " Provided, that in admitting the new Diocese of 
 Nebraska, this House does not intend to sanction the 
 change of name from that of Convention to Council by 
 the Diocese of Nebraska unless and until the Constitu- 
 tion and canons of the General Convention are so 
 changed in the manner therein provided, for amend- 
 ments and alterations." 
 
 Gov. Fish made some remarks on the question ot 
 order, when 
 
 The President stated that the question before the 
 House was the resolution oftcred by the Committee on 
 New Dioceses. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Rugrles. — As one of the committee I 
 claim to say, in justice to that committee, that when 
 this subject was brought before them, thi.s difficulty of 
 the substitution of the word council for the constitu- 
 tional word known to this Body, met the committee at 
 once. We were oppressed by the difficulty, and we 
 were unable to bring our minds to a satisfactory con- 
 clusion whether the objection was well or ill founded. 
 We required the aid of the Committee on Canons. We 
 raised the objection at once that we should be instruct- 
 ed, before we go any furthei', by that committee, se- 
 lected for the express purpose of defining the constitu- 
 tion of this House, and on whose judgment I should be 
 willing to rely. With all possible respect for our Right 
 Reverend Fathers, the House of Bi.shops, I doubt wheth- 
 er they have examined that question with the scrutiny 
 it will receive from the Committee on Canons of this 
 
18 
 
 House. I, therefore, support the motion to postpone 
 until that Committee on Canons can thoroughly exam- 
 ine the subject in order that we may not deliberately 
 violate the constitution of this Church. 
 
 The president decided the motion of Dr. Goodwin to 
 postpone out of order, since it was not to postpone to a 
 definite time nor "indefinitely." 
 
 The question then recurred on the adoption of the 
 substitute offered bj- Judge Otis. 
 
 Mr. Wilder, of Minnesota. — I desire to say prima- 
 rily, that the substitute really amounts to nothing ; it 
 is a perfect nonentity. We understand that tlie House 
 of Bishops have admitted the Diocese of Nebraska to 
 union with this body. The substitute is offered to pre- 
 serve our dignity and self-respect. In my humble 
 judgment our dignity and self-respect will be preserved 
 by adopting the original resolution as it came from the 
 hands of the Committee on New Dioceses. I do not 
 think we are pre-eminently profound in legal or canon- 
 ical lore beyond the House of Bishops. I do not think 
 that the use of the word Council instead of the word 
 Convention is of such essential and material importance 
 as that we may not consistently with self-respect and 
 consistently with its duty to the constitution of the 
 Church, harmonize our action with the action of the 
 House of Bishops. What conceivable reason is there 
 that this Diocese of Nebraska may not be admitted into 
 union with this body ? Simply and alone because it 
 has made its legislative body a council instead of a 
 convention. That is all there is of it. Gentlemen may 
 criticise, they may split hairs, they may talk about 
 constitutional and canonical law, but the question is 
 simply whether the Diocese of Nebraska has the right 
 to change the name Convention to that of Council. It 
 is simply said that the Church of the Diocese of Ne- 
 braska desire that their legislative body shall be known 
 as and called the Council of the Diocese of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in Nebraska instead of a Conven- 
 tion. I humbly submit, with all deference to the opin- 
 ions of gentlemen more learned and experienced, that 
 whatever seems to be anything more than that is hy- 
 percritical and the very embodiment of pre-eminent 
 technicality. [Laughter]. 
 
 Judge Otis then withdrew the proviso and moved to 
 lay the substitute on the table ; which motion was car- 
 ried. 
 
 Judge Otis moved that this House take up the mes- 
 sage of the House of Bishops ; which motion was 
 adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe. — I will occupy the time of the House 
 but a single moment. I shall vote against concurrence, 
 with very great regret, for I desire to admit the Dio- 
 cese of Nebraska, and when I hear it reiterated in the 
 very last speech that has been made upon this floor 
 that the simple question is whether we shall admit them 
 as the Council of the Church in Nebraska, or the Con- 
 vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Dio- 
 
 cese of Nebraska, then I am obliged to say I cannot 
 vote for the admission because I find those terms in the 
 constitution of this Church, and I am not ignorant of 
 that fact. 
 
 The President stated the question to be on concur- 
 rence with the House of Bishops, when 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia, moved to amend the 
 resolution by the insertion of the words Protestant Epis- 
 copal before the word Church. When 
 
 A Deputy moved to amend the amendment by 
 adding the proviso withdrawn by Judge Otis, which 
 motion was seconded. 
 
 The President decided a question of order that the 
 resolution from the House of Bishops can be amended. 
 
 Ret. Dr. Norton accepted the proviso offered by 
 Judge Otis. 
 
 After remarks by Rev. Dr. Adams, and by another 
 deputy. 
 
 The President said : The original motion was to con- 
 cur in the resolution from the House of Bishops. An 
 amendment has been offered to that to insert the words, 
 " Protestant Episcopal " before the word Church in 
 that resolution. 
 
 Question being taken upon that amendment, and a 
 division having been called for, it was declared lost. 
 
 The question then recurred upon amending the res- 
 olution of the House of Bishops by adding the proviso 
 offered by Judge Otis. 
 
 A motion to refer to a special Committee was laid 
 upon the table. 
 
 The question recurred upon the proviso as an amend- 
 ment ; the vote being taken, at the request of Rev. Dr. 
 Goodwin, by Dioceses and orders, the amendment 
 was declared lost, the yeas and nays being almost equal. 
 
 The question recurred upon the concurrence with the 
 resolution of the House of Bishops. 
 
 A motion to adjourn having been lost the vote upon 
 the question was taken by Dioceses and Orders, and 
 resulted in its adoption by a large"majority. 
 
 FOURTH DAT. 
 
 Saturday, October 10th, 1868. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 The Morning Prayers were read by the Rev. J. Mitch- 
 ell, of Alabama, and the Rev. Dr. Beardsley, of Con- 
 necticut. 
 
 The benediction was pronounced by Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 
 The House was called to order at 1 1 o'clock. 
 
 The names of delegates not previously present were 
 called. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was then read 
 and approved. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Goodwin moved to refer to the Committee 
 on Canons a resolution adopted by the Diocese of Penn- 
 sylvania with reference to the appointment by the Bishop 
 of a permanent committee of presbyters to examine can- 
 didates for orders. Referred. 
 
19 
 
 A deputy from INIaryland presented the memorial of 
 the diocese of Miiryland with reference to the division of 
 that diocese. Referred to the Committee on New Dio- 
 ceses. 
 
 MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin presented a memorial signed by the 
 Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg- and others with reference to the 
 construction of Section 0, Canon 12, Title I., in regard 
 to the ofiiciating of ministers within certain territorial 
 limits. Referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin presented another memorial signed 
 by Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg and others, asking that Canon 
 11, Title I., be repealed. Referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 A deputy offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Coniiiiittee of Arrangements be, and 
 they are hereby, requested to iulbnii this House why there 
 was no music at the services this inonnug, and whether the 
 services for the remainder of the session are to be conducted 
 in the same manner. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Bailey, of the diocese of Vermont, presented 
 a petition and accompanying resolutions from the diocese 
 of Vermont, asking permission of the General Conven- 
 tion for the taking of a copy, b}- the Rev. Dr. Bailey, of 
 the late Bishop Burgess's list of names of persons ad- 
 mitted to Deacon's orders in the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States from the time of its estab- 
 lishment down to a comparatively recent date. 
 
 Similar petitions having been presented from the dio- 
 cese of Maine, on motion, these memorials and resolu- 
 tions were referred to a special committee of three, sub- 
 sequently appointed by the President. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, from Illinois, asked to have referred 
 to the Committee on Canons a proposed alteration of 
 Canon 13, Title I., Section 14, on page 58 of the last 
 Journal of the Convention. 
 
 An amendment was accepted asking the Committee on 
 Canons to inquire what are " e.xtraordinary occasions;" 
 and another amendment was accepted, which was pro- 
 posed by Rev. Dr. Gkoodwin. that the Committee on Can- 
 ons should inquire whether any change be necessary to 
 make the Canon referred to and Canon 20, on page 69 
 of the Journal consistent. The resolution was then 
 referred. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs offered a resolution that no church 
 or chapel shall be consecrated at any time before suffi- 
 cient evidence be furnished to the Bisliop that the build- 
 ing to be consecratedis free from debt, and that a church 
 once consecrated to the serrice and worship of Almighty 
 God shall be separated from all unhallowed, worldly, and 
 common uses, and that it shall not be removed, or dis- 
 posed of, or taken down, unless permission be first ob- 
 tained from the Bishop acting by the advice and with 
 the consent of tlie Standing Committee of the diocese, 
 and that the title to such consecrated building shall be so 
 secured that it can not be ahenated by sale, without the 
 consent of the Church. Referred to the Coaunittce on 
 Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs presented a resolution from the Dio- 
 cesan Convention of Illinois in favor of the early adop- 
 tion of a provincial system of Clhurch organization, and 
 in favor of changing the name Convention to Council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, from the Committee on Canons, re- 
 ported that the committee having considered the said 
 memorials, are unanimously of the opinion that it is in- 
 expedient at the present time for the General Convention 
 to enter upon the subject thus presented, and accordingly 
 they recommend no action cm the part of this House, 
 and ask to be discharged from the further consideration 
 of the subject. 
 
 On motion, the committee were discharged. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles, of the diocese of New York, of- 
 fered the following resolution : 
 
 Rt'nolved, That there be a Standing Committee of this 
 House, to cousist of five clerical and tour lay deputies, to be 
 deiioininated the Committee on the Foreign Kelations of the 
 Chuivli, who shall consider ami report upon any proposition 
 or sulijcet connected with the intercourse, iutfrcommimion, 
 or synodical union of this Church with any other portion of 
 the Church Catholic throughout the world. 
 
 On motion, the resolution was laid on the table until 
 Wednesday next at 12 o'clock, when it is made the order 
 of the day. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, of the Diocese of New Jersey, 
 offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That Canon 20, Title I., be amended by adding 
 "but whereas peculiar circumstances niay exist in some par- 
 ishes or missionary stations which may ren(fer deviation 
 fioin the prescribed forms of the Morning or Evening 
 Prayer expedient on special occasions, therefore, the bish- 
 ops of this Church shall have power in their respective dio- 
 ceses to allow, for such special occasions, selections from 
 the Book of Common Prayer approved by themselves, to be 
 used instead of the prescribed forms of the Morning or 
 Evening Prayer." 
 
 Referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Harrold, of the diocese of Florida, moved 
 an amendment to the eB'ect that the House of Bishops 
 be requested to set forth a service which may be used on 
 other occasions of public worship than Sundays. 
 
 The President suggested that the resolution should be 
 presented as a separate one. 
 
 Dr. Abercrombie's resolution was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 The following resolution was referred to the mentioned 
 committee: 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Prayer-Book be in- 
 structed to inquire whether the last perioil but one in that 
 part of the Holy Communion Office known as the Invoca- 
 tion, ending with the words, "That He may dwell in them 
 and tliey in Him," does not contain a grammatical inaccu- 
 racy, originating in a typographical error, and whether the 
 words ought not to be "That He inav dwell in us and we in 
 Him." 
 
 A resolution was adopted inviting to seats in the Con- 
 vention clerical i-epresentatives of the Church in foreign 
 countries who might now be in the city. 
 
 The following resolution was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 Resolved, Th.at it be referred to the Committee on Canons 
 
20 
 
 to inquire whether any change is required in section 5, 
 Canon 13, Title 1, relative to the election of assistant 
 Bishops, anil if so, report the same to this House, in shape 
 for their action. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, of New Jersey — I beg to refer to 
 the Committee on Canons, Canon 13, Title 1, para- 
 graph 5. The section reads (p. 50 of the last Journal) : 
 Any Bishop or Bishops elected and consecrated under 
 this section, shall be entitled to a seat in the House of 
 Bishops, and shall be eligible to the office of Diocesan 
 Bishop in any unorganized Diocese within the United 
 States; and whenever a Diocese shall be organized with- 
 in the jurisdiction of such Bishop, if he shall be chosen 
 Bishop of such Diocese, he may accept the office without 
 vacating his missionary appointment, provided," &c. The 
 alteration I propose is this : " Any Bishop elected and 
 consecrated under this section shall be entitled to a seat 
 in the House of Bishops." I propose to omit the other 
 part of that paragraph. Then to the other part : " And 
 whenever a Diocese shall have been organized within 
 the jurisdiction of such Missionary Bishop," I propose to 
 add : " he shall be the Bishop of such Diocese, and he 
 may accept the office without vacating his missionary 
 appointment." I propose this for the consideration of 
 the Committee on Canons. If it should meet with their 
 favorable consideration and the favorable consideration 
 of this House, it will prevent, 1 think, one of the great- 
 est evils to which this Church is now exposed — namely, 
 that of the translation of Bishops. 
 
 Mr. Wallace, of the Diocese of Missouri, offered the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be requested to 
 inquire into the expediency of reporting such anieudmeut 
 to Canons 9 and 10, Title 1, as shall remove therefrom the 
 discriminations made in favor of ministers ordained by Bish- 
 ops not in communion with this Church and against minis- 
 ters ordained in foreign countries by Bishops in commun- 
 ion with this Church, when such ministers desire admission 
 to the communion of the Araercian branch of the Church. 
 
 Referred. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn — offered the following reso- 
 lution, referred to the above mentioned Committee : 
 
 Resolved, That the third article of the Constitution of the 
 Board of Missions be referred to the Domestic and Foreign 
 Missionary Committee of this House, to inquire if there be 
 any ambiguity of expression in article third, seriously im- 
 pairing the sense thereof; and if there be such ambiguity, 
 to report such changes of phraseology as may be necessary 
 to remove it. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Harkold, of Florida, offered the following 
 preamble and resolution : 
 
 Whereas, it has been found difficult to fulfill the daily 
 order for Morning and Evening prayer because of the 
 supposed length of the services alike burdensome to the 
 clergy and people under the present social arrange- 
 ments, and whereas many of the clergy and people are 
 desirous of enjoying the privilege of daily prayer. 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Bishops be requested to 
 prepare a service for morning and evening use as nearly 
 after the short Matin and Evening song services of the 
 primative times as shall seem to them best which shall 
 be allowed tor use on other days than Sunday. 
 
 On motion of* Rev. J. S. Hanckel, of South Carolina, 
 this I'csolution was laid on the table. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Haheold was permitted to explain that he 
 did not say that the services were burdensome but al- 
 luded to the supposition of others. His object was to 
 show that he disapproved of that and that it was disap- 
 proved of by those who voted to sustain the resolution. 
 It was not his intention to express an idea against the 
 services, but to meet every sftpposable case he offered 
 the resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — moved that when the hour of 
 recess arrives the House adjourn to Monday morning, 
 at 10 o'clock. 
 
 Rev. Mr. M'Kim, of the diocese of Delaware, offered 
 the following resolution : 
 
 Resohed, as the opinion of this House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, that so long as the sittings of this convention 
 continue to be held in Trinity Chapel no departure be made 
 from the usiial method which obtains in said parish of ren- 
 dering the musical parts of the services in the order for 
 daily morning prayer and resolved that, the House of Bish- 
 ops concurring, the choir of Trinity Chapel be, and is here- 
 by requested to give their assistance in the music as here- 
 tofore during the session of this convention. 
 
 On motion the resolution was laid upon the table ac- 
 cording to the decision of the President, and a division 
 being called for, the motion prevailed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — asked for a division of the 
 question, but the President decided that there was no 
 time, as the hour for adjourning had nearly arrived, to 
 entertain the motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. I desire to say one word in ex- 
 planation of what has happened. I wish to be distinctly 
 understood that the change made in the nmsical part of 
 the services was not made by the request directly of any 
 person or persons connected with this convention, but 
 that my Reverend brother who is in charge of this 
 chapel as assistant minister, having understood that the 
 consciences of certain members of this convention were 
 troubled by our boys appearing to t^ke their part in di- 
 vine worship in the accustomed manner, stated that he 
 would, of bis own motion, request them not to appear 
 this morning, for the sake of peace, that this convention 
 might not be disturbed with questions of this sort. It 
 was a great sacrifice lor him to make. It was a great 
 sacrifice on the part of the people of this chapel who 
 come here from morning to morning. To me it is a 
 great sacrifice, as one of the ministers of this parish, ac- 
 customed to worship here day after day. But if there are 
 those in this House who cannot come here and worship 
 Almighty God according to our mode, then I, for one, 
 though I cannot understand such feelings and never had 
 them myself in going into another parish, am willing to 
 make the sacrifice ; and my brethren are willing ; and 
 so are my people of this chapel. That is the whole 
 statement of the case. What might have been done if 
 ray brother had not taken this course, I do not know. 
 I fear that something unpleasant would have happened; 
 
21 
 
 but I thank God that nothing has happened except the 
 manifestations of the bitterness of some members of, this 
 House to-day. 
 
 The President — declared the House adjourned to 
 10 o'clock on Monday morning. 
 
 FIFTH day's proceedings. 
 
 Monday, Oct. 12th, 1868. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 The Morning Prayers were read by Rey. Dr. Adams, 
 of Wisconsin, and Rev. W. C. Williams, of Georgia. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Wliit- 
 tingham. 
 
 The journal of Saturday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Thomas 0. Pitkin, from the Committee on 
 New Dioceses, reported in favor of the division of the 
 Diocese of Maryland by the formation within its limits 
 of a new Diocese, the name of the new Diocese to be 
 determined by the Diocesan Convention, with the con- 
 currence of the Bishop and the Standing Committee of 
 the Diocese of Maryland ; the division to take effect 
 when the Bishop shall call the Convention. 
 
 On motion the preamble and resolution reported by 
 the committee were adopted. 
 
 PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Alfred Stubbs presented a memorial from 
 the Diocese of New Jersey, on the subject of clerical 
 support. 
 
 Mr. William Welsh, from the Diocese of Pennsyl- 
 vania, moved that arrangements be made for holding 
 the session of the House to-morrow morning in the 
 Church of the Transfiguration. 
 
 Mr. Lacey moved to lay this motion on the table. 
 Lost. 
 
 A motion to indefinitely postpone the subject was 
 withdrawn, and substituted with 
 
 A motion to refer the subject to the Joint Committee 
 on Removal, with instruction to report as early as 
 practicable. Adopted. 
 
 ORDER OF THE DAY. 
 
 The President announced as the order of the day 
 — the election of a committee on the part of the House 
 to co-operate with the Committee of the House of Bish- 
 ops in nominating a Board of Foreign Missions. 
 
 On motion, balloting was dispensed with, and 
 
 On nomination, by Rev. Dr. Littlejohn, the following 
 named gentlemen were elected as said Committee : 
 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock, of the Diocese of Michigan. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Huntington, of the Diocese of Massachusetts. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Pierce, of the Diocese of Alabama. 
 
 Judge Otis, of the Diocese of Illinois. 
 
 Judge Battle, of the Diocese of North Carolina. 
 
 Mr. McWhorter, of the Diocese of Western N. York. 
 
 Mr. Wm. Welsh, of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs again presented the Memorial from 
 the Diocese of New Jersey, based upon a resolution of- 
 fered by Mr. Ruggles at the session X this Convention 
 in 1865, namely — 
 
 Resolved, On the part of the Lay Deputies of this House, 
 in view of the increased cost of living, it is the opinion of 
 .the lay niembci-s of the House that the salarie's of the Clergy 
 ought to be increased at lea,st one-half from the amount 
 heretofore paid in coin. 
 
 On motion, the memorial was referred to a Special 
 Committee of five Lay Deputies. 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops, informed the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies that the House of 
 Bishops had appointed a committee of three Bishops to 
 act with the Committee of the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, as a Joint Committee to nominate a 
 Board of Missions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Theodore Babcock presented the following 
 resolution, unanimously adopted by the Diocese of 
 Western New York, at its annual session in August, 
 186T: 
 
 -Resolved, That the General Convention be requested to 
 enact a permissive Canon, authorizing a general council 
 of the Dioceses of the State of New York. Referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 Judge Conyngham, of the Diocese of Pennsyl- 
 vania : — I hold in my hands a number of memorials — 
 twenty or more — which have been sent to me to pre- 
 sent to this House. They are signed by a large num- 
 ber of individuals calling themselves Laymen of this 
 Church. They represent that, in certain instances, their 
 rights as Churchmen are affected, and conceiving this 
 convention to be the proper source of relief, they send 
 their memorials here, upon the same principle that, 
 when civil rights are affected, we apply by petition or 
 memorial to the civil authorities. They apply to this 
 House, or rather to the two Houses in convention as- 
 sembled here, for the purpose of seeing whether it is 
 proper that any remedy should be furnished them, or 
 whether they need any remedy. 
 
 I will read, by the permission of the House, one of 
 the memorials, and then will submit the form of a canon 
 that has been sent to me, or rather one that has been 
 somewhat modified by myself, merely as the basis of ac- 
 tion for the committee to whom it will be referred — the 
 committee on canons rather than for any other purpose. 
 In relation to that matter, I hold my own opinions, not 
 considering myself bound by anything ofi'ered in the 
 present memorials. My own action will depend upon 
 my own judgment in regard to the propriety of the ac" 
 tion here asked lor. [Judge Conyngham then read the 
 Memorial]. I have read one of these memorials. As a 
 basis for the action of the committee I would submit a 
 canon for the purpose of their consideration embodying 
 some suggestions to which, as understood, the memo- 
 rialists refer: 
 
 Cj.vo.n on the Manner of Conducting Divine Worshii-. 
 Section I. No ministerial vestments shall be worn bv 
 
22 
 
 any minister during divine worship or when present at or 
 officiating in any rites or ceremony of this Church excepting 
 surplice, stole, barj^ls or gown, which shall be used as 
 heretofore accustomed on the regular occasions of worship, 
 and at the discretion of the minister may be used at rites and 
 ceremonies; and no ecclesiastical vestment shall be worn 
 on occasion of divine worship or Church ceremonials by 
 choirs or other assistants therein, provided this section shall 
 not be construed to relate to Episcopal vestments. 
 
 SECTion II. Candlesticks, crucifixes, super-altars so call- 
 ed, made of wood, metal, or other substances, shall not be 
 used, or suffered to stand upon or hang from any Com. 
 raunion-table as part of the furniture or decorations thereof. 
 
 Section III. Bowing at the name of Jesus, except in 
 repeating the Creed ; turning or bowing towards the Com- 
 munion-table except so far as now enjoined by the Rubric ; 
 making the sign of the Cross, except in baptism ; the eleva- 
 tion of either of the elements during Holy Conujiunion, or 
 of the alms or oblations of communicants ; processional 
 singing in churches except as provided by the Rubrics ; and 
 the use of incense in and during the conducting of Divine 
 service — are all hereby declared unlawful. 
 
 Judge Convngham, continuing; — Mr President, I 
 move that these memorials and the proposed Canon be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons to report thereon. 1 
 have nothing to say further than that these gentlemen — 
 and there is a large number of them, some of whom I 
 know to be highly respectable and of high standing in 
 our Church, as laity — present these memorials for the 
 consideration of this House. They are entitled to a 
 hearing. They desire that this subject may be submit- 
 ted to the proper authority. 
 
 Rev. Charles Breok — inquired whether the several 
 memorials were verbally the same. 
 
 Judge Conyngham — replied that they were, except 
 that, in some, the words "in this diocese and other dio- 
 ceses" were erased. 
 
 Rev. Charles Breck.- — I will make a few remarks 
 concerning the memorials from Delaware. They came, 
 as I understand, from the City of New York. The me- 
 morial declares that "there is great scandal and dissen- 
 sion in the Diocese of Delaware on account of this varie- 
 ty of worship, dress, &c., in the Church." I read this 
 memorial the day before I came to this Convention. I 
 read it to the Bishop of the Diocese. I took it to one or 
 two gentlemen who had been circulating it, and I asked 
 them whether it was true that there had been any scan- 
 dal or dissension in the Diocese of Delaware, and they 
 had to acknowledge there was none ; and they said that 
 this paper had been hastily signed, they were busy, and 
 had not time to reflect upon it, etc. T object most 
 solemnly to kuch papers being sent into dioceses that 
 are at peace, papers concocted in the City of New 
 York, and sent down to our people to be signed, to be 
 brought in here to be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 Judge Conyngham, — I now hold one of these memo- 
 rials signed by a number of gentlemen from Wilming- 
 ton, Del. There is an erasure of the words "in this 
 Diocese." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Breck. — 1 can tell this Convention that I 
 have been informed by a number of gentlemen who 
 
 signed the memorial that they would not have touched 
 that paper if they had i-eflected upon it. The erasure 
 has been made because I drew their attention to it. I, 
 therefore, submit to this House whether such papers sent 
 from a city outside of a diocese to create dissension and 
 division in that diocese, should even be referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. At any rate, I feel bound to 
 make these statements that the committee may know 
 what they are acting upon. 
 
 The House then took a recess ; after which — 
 Judge Battle — moved to postpone the subject of 
 the reference of the memorials presented by Judge 
 Conyngham, to allow the Committee on Removal to 
 report. Adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan — on behalf of the committee charg- 
 ed with the selection of a place for the daily sessions of 
 the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies to whom was 
 
 recommitted a former report, reported 
 
 First — That a place possessiug better acoustic qualities 
 [than Trinity Cliapel] cau be secured at the Church of the 
 Transfiguration, 29th St., 5th Avenue, which has been kind- 
 ly tendered since the former report. 
 
 Secondly — That the place now offered for our use, while 
 possessing all the advantages of the one previously men- 
 tioned [St. Mark's Church], has the additional recommenda- 
 tion of being within easier reach of the House of Bishops. 
 
 Your committee, therefore, recommend the adoption 
 of the following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That, the House of Bishops concurring, af- 
 ter the recess to-morrow, this House meet for its future 
 sessions at the Church of the Transfiguration. 
 
 Rfsoloed, That the cordial thanks of this convention be 
 tendered to the Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity 
 Chapel for their generous and hospitable provision for the 
 comfort of both Houses, and also to the Committee of Ar- 
 rangements for their indefatigable exertions and kind 
 attentions. 
 
 Resolved, That Mr. William Welsh, and the Rev. R. M. 
 Abercrombie be appointed a Committee of Arrangements. 
 
 Many deputies expressed their appreciation of the 
 liberality and assiduous attentions of the Rector, Ward- 
 ens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Chapel, and regretted 
 that the requirements of the convention necessitated a 
 change of place. 
 
 Upon motion, the report of the committee was 
 adopted. 
 
 Gov. Fisii — reported, from the Committee on Canons, 
 certain proposed amendments of the Constitution and 
 Canons. Of them he said : The Convention will observe 
 that the committee recommend the transfer from the 
 constitution to a canon of that portion of Article 5 of 
 the constitution which wai complained of [by various 
 memorials referred to the committee] as too restrictive 
 in the formation of new dioceses. In proposing the 
 transfer from the constitution to a canon, they also pro- 
 pose to eliminate requirements that the requisite number 
 of existing parishes shall be self supporting and to re- 
 duce the number now required from fifteen to six. la 
 other respects, the canon as proposed by them will be 
 
23 
 
 the same as the present provision of the constitution. 
 As a substitute in the (.■onstitutiou for this restriction 
 thus taken out, they propose that every new diocese 
 shall make before consent is given to its creation some 
 provision for the support of the episcopate, to be ap- 
 proved by the convention. There is also some verbal 
 amendment, to remove question as to whether a diocese 
 may be divided into more than two dioceses. 
 
 On motion, this report was made the order of the day 
 for Thursday, at 1 2 o'clock. 
 
 The subject of the reference of the memorials pre- 
 sented liy Judge Conyngham being under consideration. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams said : — I have read over very care- 
 fully this memorial which was presented by the gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania ; and I find that it is respectful 
 to the House and to the President, and Constitutional, 
 as I suppose, in every way. I, therefore, can have no 
 objection whatsoever to its reference to the Commit- 
 tee on Canons. I have also listened to its [proposed] can- 
 on, and I have no objection to its reference also. But, 
 at the same time, I have to say a few words to this Con- 
 vention, which perhaps will make clear the position I am 
 going to take when the matter comes into debate, which 
 I suppose it will do when the Committee on Canons re- 
 port. I take it that this Church to which we belong is 
 a National Church, according to the doctrines laid down 
 by Murray Hotfman, the most distinguished of our can- 
 onists hitherto, atid has a right to decide upon her own 
 rites and ceremonies and vestments. I take it, also, that 
 the matter on hand is simply a matter of aberration on 
 the right and on the left. There is a certain class 
 of men who have perhaps made a movement towards 
 Geneva — men who are Calvinistically inclined. They 
 have had their ritualism — (I must say I know something 
 about it) ; and a strange ritualism it is indeed, and just 
 as contradictory of the canons and rubrics and laws of 
 the Church, as the ritualism on the other side. I will 
 say, therefore, that 1 calculate that in this House, when 
 the debate comes on, as come it must, there will be fair- 
 ness and honesty. We should intend to make as much 
 allowance for one side as for the other. We should 
 make no laws that shall oppress or stigmatize one side 
 as uncanonical, unrubiical, unless the same law ap- 
 plies in the same way to the other party ; that is to say, 
 the canon or legislation should be in favor of a uni- 
 form ritual all around. 1 will also say that 1 think that 
 in this Church and in this House there is such a degree 
 of honesty and fairness that when the discussion com- 
 mences, we, the General Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States will be found 
 neither^n one side nor the other, but in behalf and on 
 the side of the vast body of the Church who have no ten- 
 dency towards Unitarianism, Romanism, Methodism, or 
 Calvinism. One more remark I would make, that I 
 think it is very likely this may result in a rather excited 
 debate, in which we may worry one another without com- 
 ing to any tangible result — merely laying it on the table. 
 
 Itakethisopportnnity of declaring, that thedebate will af- 
 ford the Church the o])portunity of doing what every oth- 
 er Church in the world has done — Greek, Roman, and 
 every other Church — prescribing a proper and suitable 
 ecclesiastical set of vestments for its clergy. I myself 
 will take the opportunity of bringing this question up in 
 order to make the debate fruitful, if the House gives 
 permission. I think we ought to have a permanent 
 committee on rites and rituals. They have such in the 
 Greek and in the Roman Church ; and I think we ought to 
 have such here. Instead of having a fruitless debate 
 in which gladiators and combatants on one side or 
 another will worry one another with mutual objurgations 
 and reproofs, this debate when it comes, ought to be 
 fruitful ; and, therefore, I take the chance of saying that 
 I think we ought to have vestments prescribed for the 
 clergy in all the dioceses of the Church, and that we 
 should have a committee on rites and ceremonies. Hav- 
 ing made this explanation, I am perfectly content that 
 the memorial presented by Judge Conyngham and 
 also the canon, should go before the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Harrold, of the Diocese of Florida — propos- 
 ed to offer a resolution as an amendment. 
 
 The President suggested the inconvenience of the 
 course, and that it should be separately offered — which 
 suggestion was adopted by Rev. Mr. Harrold. 
 
 The President announced the appointment of Rev. 
 George C. Belts, of the Diocese of Nebraska, as a mem- 
 ber of the Committee on the State of the Church. 
 
 The Committee on Clerical Salaries was announced 
 as follows : 
 
 J. }I. Thompson, M. D., of New Jersey. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles, of New York. 
 
 Mr. J. AV. VanNostrand, of Nebraska. 
 
 Geo. C. Shattuck, M. D., of Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. B. J. Barbour, of Virginia. 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops gave informa- 
 tion of their concurrence in the removal of the House 
 of Deputies to the Church of the Transfiguration. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Harrold, of Florida — offered the follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 Rexolred, that it be referred to the Committee on Canons 
 to consider the question oi" departure from est.iolished usage 
 by omission of any portion of the service already prescribed. 
 Referred. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead— -offered the following preamble 
 and resolution : 
 
 ^\lln^eas, the restoration of tlie unity of the Church is an 
 object of vast importance, as without restored unity it will 
 be impossible for licr pert'ci'tly to fulfill her mission or to 
 evangelize the world ; and — 
 
 whereas, in the opinion of many the signs of the times 
 clearly indicate that there is a strong and increasing desire 
 aniouK the churches and in various denominations of Chris- 
 tiiins in Christendom to see sueh unity restored — therefore — 
 
 Resolved, the House of Hishops concurring, that a Joint 
 ('oniniittcp of tile two Houses constituting the General Con- 
 vention, which coniinittee shall consist of an equal number 
 of Bishops, Presbyters, and Laymen, be appointed as an or- 
 
24 
 
 gan of communication with other branches of the Church 
 and with different Christian bodies who may desire informa- 
 tion or conference on the subject; the said committee to be 
 entitled the Commission of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States of America on Church Unity. 
 
 Dr. Mead — -moved that the resolution be considered 
 at once. 
 
 Mr. Ruggles — said that the resolution offered by 
 him on the 10th instant for the appointment by this 
 House of a Committee on the Foreign affairs of the 
 Church had, for its object, to secure the necessity of con- 
 currence by the Clergy and the Laity of this House with 
 the House of Bishops in any proposed Sy nodical Union 
 of this Church with any other branch of the Church 
 Catholic. That resolution was made the order of the 
 day for Wednesday next. Believing that the present res- 
 olution would more directly and fully effect the object 
 desired, he would now move to withdraw the resolution 
 offered by him for a " Committee on Foreign affairs," 
 and would second the motion of Dr. Mead that the con- 
 templated joint committee of Bishops, Clergy and Laitj', 
 be considered and passed at once. 
 
 The resolution was therefore passed unanimously. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — offered a resolution to inquire 
 concerning the plates of the Standard Edition'of the Book 
 of Common I'rayer, and whether any alterations had 
 been made therein, and if so what they are. 
 
 Referred to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Cooke — -from the Committee on the Conse- 
 cration of Bishops, reported that the testimonials of Rev. 
 Chas. F. Robertson, Bishop elect of the Diocese of 
 Missouri, were satisfactory, and offered a resolution giv- 
 ing consent to his consecration. 
 
 Which /esolution being adopted, the Deputies pro- 
 ceeded to sign the certificate to be presented to the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops gave informa- 
 tion of their concurrence in the division of the Diocese 
 of Maryland. 
 
 The House then adjourned to 10 o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 SIXTH day's proceedings, 
 
 Tuesday, October 13th, 1868. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Morning grayer was said by the Rev. Robert A. Hallam, 
 D. D., of Connecticut, and the Rev. Chas. Breck, of 
 Delaware. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop White- 
 house, of Illinois. 
 
 The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut, offered the follow- 
 ing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, that the secretary of this House be and is here- 
 by directed to transmit to the House of Bishops the testi- 
 monials in favor of the Rev. Chas. Franlilin Robertson, S. 
 T. D., Bishop elect of the Diocese of Missouri ; the said testi- 
 monials having been signed by a constitutional majority of 
 both orders of this House. Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, of the Committee to supervise Removal 
 
 of the Convention to the Church of the Transfiguration, 
 reported that all necessary arrangements had been made 
 for the meeting of the Convention after the recess. 
 
 The Committee on Elections reported that there had 
 been laid before them the certificate of the election as 
 Deputy to the Convention, of Mr. Frederick W. Brune, 
 in accordance with the usages of the Dioceses of Mary- 
 land, and that he is entitled to a seat in this House. 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — made the following report: 
 The Committee on Canons to whom was referred the 
 memorial concerning section 6, Canon 12, Title 1, having 
 considered the same, do respectfully report the following 
 amendment of the said canon, and recommend the fol- 
 lowing resolution upon the subject for adoption by this 
 House. 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that section 
 6 of Canon 12, Title 1, of the digest be amended by insert- 
 ing in line 20 of said clause immediately after the words 
 "shall be necessary " the following words, namely, "but 
 nothing in this cauon shall be construed to prevent any 
 clergyman of this Church from officiating in any parish 
 church or in any place of public worship used by any con- 
 gregation ofthis Church with the consent of the clergyman 
 of any church or of such congregation, or in his absence, the 
 church wardens and vestrymen or trustees of said congre- 
 gation or a majority of them. 
 
 Dr. Haight moved to make it the order of the day 
 for Friday next ; but said lie would withdraw the mo- 
 tion if the House were prepared to consider the subject 
 of the report at once. 
 
 Judge Conyngham : — I would suggest that it is better 
 to leave it as it is until Friday. There may be some 
 question coming that will lead to a debate of this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Haight, Resolved, that the re- 
 port of the committee be printed and made the order of 
 the day for Friday next. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan — made the following report : 
 
 Tlie Committee on Canons to whom was referred the 
 memorial concerning Canon 11, Title I., having consid- 
 ered the same, do respectfully present the following 
 report : The memorial asks for the repeal of the canon 
 aforesaid, on the ground that the canon is differently in- 
 terpreted in our Church, that it is of difficult application 
 to lay-readers, and that it is unnecessary and inexpe- 
 dient. The Committee on Canons are of opinion that 
 some canon to prevent persons fiom officiating in this 
 Church who are not ministers or even members thereof, 
 is highly necessary and expedient, and the necessity of 
 some such prohibition being granted we doubt whether 
 any words could express it more clearly than those of 
 the [iresent canon. As to lay readers, they have never 
 been reoarded as officiating in the sense of Canon 11, 
 and their case is provided for in another canJh. The 
 conunittee, therefore, can not recommend that the pray- 
 er of the memorialists be granted. 
 
 The committee further report that in their judgment 
 it is expedient to make the title of the said canon con- 
 tbnn to the text of the canon ; and they recommend the 
 adoption by the House of the following resolution : 
 
25 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops coneiirrinp;, that the Title 
 of f'anon 11, Title I., be aiiieiulcil so as to reiul, " (.)f per- 
 sons not ministers of this Clmrch oHieiatinp; in any congre- 
 gation thereof" 
 
 Rkv. Dk. Mahan (continuing) — At present, the title 
 is merely an abbreviated title : " of persons not ministers 
 officiating." We propose merely to fill it up according 
 to the text of the canon itself, thus: "Of persons not ' 
 ministers of this Church officiating in any congregation 
 thereof." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane, of Rhode Island — moved that the 
 report be made the order of the day for Saturday, and 
 that it be printed. • 
 
 The President — suggested that as there was no order ; 
 of tlie day for to-morrow it would be well to have it 
 made the order of the day for to-morrow, and that the 
 printing would be unnecessary since the proposed alter- 
 ation was so slight. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — It has been suggested to me that 
 as it is a subject kindred to that of the order for Friday, 
 it should be made tlie order of the day for Friday im- 
 mediately following the other. As to printing I with- 
 draw that part of my motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin- — suggested certain reasons for 
 careful deliberation of the proposed change. The 7th 
 article of the constitution provides that " no per.son or- 
 dained by a foreign Bishop shall be permitted to officiate 
 as a minister of this Church until he shall have complied 
 with the canon in that case made and provided, and 
 have also subscribed to the aforesaid declaration " with 
 regard to the Holy Scriptures. If the title of this can- 
 on is to be " Of persons not ministers of this Church of- 
 ficiating," it will apply directly to ministers of the 
 Church of England, and they will be prohibiting from 
 thus officiating without doing certain things recjuired by 
 this canon, and the con?iilulion would require them to 
 do something more. It will be seen that officiating as 
 ministers of the Church is now understood by us to 
 mean not as a transiently officiating minister, but as settled 
 ministers ; but in the mean time, the canon using the 
 .same forms, is likely to lead to a dillerent conclusion. 
 
 Mh. Wm. Welsh, of Pennsylvania. There is anoth- 
 er reason for deferring the consideration of this matter. 
 It is this : The committee have given an interpretation of 
 the canon ; and a partial interpretation is a very dan- 
 gerous thing. I have no objection to the canon as it 
 stands. The only thing I object to is the committee's 
 interpretation. They speak in their report of the lay- 
 reader, referring to other authority given to certain lay- 
 readers. It is well known that tliis Church has been 
 using another cla.ss of readers who arc not official lay- 
 readers — those to whom the Bishop has no distinct ;iu- 
 thority to grant a commission ; and there is hardlv a 
 Bishop of the Church that does not use such. Some of 
 tender consciences have refused to read the services, 
 though directed by their Bishop and then- clergy. When 
 first requested to do it, 1 positively refused, believing 
 it to be contrary to the spirit of the canon. That can- 
 
 4 
 
 on was interpreted to satisfy nie; but if this report as 
 made by the committee is received as the interpretation 
 of the canon, it will throw difficulties in the way of lay- 
 men acting for their ministers, or at the request of their 
 Bishops in what is called by many officiating. They 
 do read the services and sermons ; and I know cases of 
 laymen being directed to do more than read sermons — 
 to exhort and preach. Now, if that be right, I sincerely 
 hope that the Committee on Canons will be willing to 
 have it recommitted to them that we may have the true 
 interpretation of the canon. All are aware that the 
 Protestant Episcojjal Church is now waking up to a pro- 
 gressive work. But if this interpretation goes forth, I 
 apprehend it will throw difficulties in our way, when I 
 know it is not the intention of a single member of the 
 committee to do it. Therefore, I would be glad to move, 
 if not deemed discourteous, that it be the order of the 
 day for Friday, after the othei canon is disposed of, and 
 in the interval to be recommitted to the committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — We are perfectly content to 
 take that course. I will only say that the committee 
 have had it under consideration several times, and I be- 
 lieve the committee are entirely unanimous in the pres- 
 ent report. Still we are perfectly willing to take it back 
 and think it over again. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maiian. If it be recommitted to us, the 
 other case spoken of should be brought before us distinct- 
 ly. Besides lay-readers, there are other kinds of offici- 
 ating persons spoken of, that we have not had brought 
 before us at all. 
 
 Mr. William Cornwall, of Kentucky. I would 
 ''ke to find where the canon is defining the duty of lay- 
 readers I never found any canon requiring the lay- 
 reader to take out a license, or defining what parts of 
 the service he may read. I think this ought to be at- 
 tended to and referred to the Committee on Canons with 
 instructions to report what are the duties of lay-readers, 
 what pait of the service they shall perform, what part 
 of the church they shall occupy, etc. 
 
 Mr. Welsh. I am satisfied with the canon as it 
 is, with its present title, if the committee will withdraw 
 that report. But there is the report and the interpreta- 
 tion of the Canon, that the word officiating means, as I 
 understand it now, representing the office of minister ; 
 if I in any way represent the minister in his office, then 
 I official e 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. From my own experience, I 
 can say that the custom of the Church for nearly fifty 
 years has been that the Bishop of the Diocese has given 
 a license to any layman he thought a proper person to 
 conduct the services of the Church as a lay-reader; 
 and under such circumstances, if any gentleman desires 
 a special canon authorizing the Bishops to do that 
 which they have done from time immemorial, it can be 
 passed ; but there is no question nor difficulty on the sub- 
 ject. I believe there arc laymen of this House who 
 went to their parishes last Sunday (their Rectors being 
 
26 
 
 Cvjufined here), and conducted the services — whether 
 with the authority of the Bishop or not, I know not ; 
 but it is not an uncommon thing for such persons to 
 take the place of the Rector in our churches. I will 
 giv.e one instance. Some years ago, being severely af- 
 flicted by dyspepsia and a nervous excitability which 
 would sometimes deprive me of the power of speech, I 
 was about coming into my chancel when one of those at- 
 tacks came upon me. I sent for the sexton and told 
 him to go to the senior warden and tell him I wanted 
 him to read the service. But, by the time he got there, 
 I was able to perform the service myself I felt I was 
 not violating any rule by doing such a thing. My ex- 
 cellent friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Welsh] may 
 readily understand that there is no danger of such lay- 
 men as he being interrupted in their service as lay- 
 readers. 
 
 No amendment is offered to the canon except a sim- 
 ple amendment in the title, which it is thought would 
 more clearly define the meaning and intent of the can- 
 on. I am myself perfectly satisfied to let the canon 
 stand, title and all, as it is. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Adams, from Wisconsin. There is no need 
 at all, it seems to me, of referring back to the Commit- 
 tee on Canons their report and resolution, when (here 
 was profound inquiry, and when they have fully made 
 up their minds, so that if it is referred back to them they 
 can simply give the same report, verbatim et liberatim. 
 I must say, also, that I think making this the order of 
 any future day is another waste of time. I conceive 
 that this question can very easily, without injury to con- 
 science, be passed upon now. The verbal amendment 
 which the committee has proposed is a very plain thing. 
 The intention of the canon is to prevent people, wheth- 
 er congregations or clergy, being deceived by men com- 
 ing forward and pretending to be ministers of the Church 
 of En,L;land or of our own Church and officiating 
 thereby. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane . — If T understand the position of 
 this matter, it is this : upon the report of that com- 
 mittee being submitted, I have made a motion that it shall 
 be the order following the order of the da}^ for Friday ; 
 and I submit to the House — Is it fair to go into a discus- 
 sion of the merits of the question, simply when I have 
 asked that it shall be referred and made the order of 
 the day for a future day V 
 
 Thr President : There was another motion con- 
 nected with that motion — a motion to recommit; and 
 that is a debatable motion, of course. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — 1 would say that on the other 
 side of the House, this question has already been dis- 
 cussed as to its merits; and it seems to me that lam 
 not out of order in discussing the merits of this question. 
 Now, I will say with i-egard to this canon, that I have 
 known such a circumstance as this in the West. I have 
 known, by good evidence, of a valet of an English Bishop 
 — who was a gentlemanly-looking valet as many valets 
 
 are — who stole his master's sermons and clothes, and 
 came into a Western diocese, and there he appeared as 
 an English clergyman ; and they were too modest or 
 too respectful, or felt this canon oppressive, and there- 
 fore did not ask him for his testimonials ; and there that 
 man officiated for the major part of a year until his 
 Bishop incidentally met him in the Diocese, and he was 
 driven out, after he had committed blasphemy for the 
 course of a year by falsely representing himself as a 
 minister of the Church. I have known many instances 
 of a similar kind. I have known of an instance of a 
 minister of a church t(^whom a man represented him- 
 self as a clergyman of the Church, and he was admitted 
 to officiate for that minister transiently ; and the minis- 
 tor was too modest to ask him for his testimonials ; and, 
 by-and-by, it was found that he was a man of the worst 
 possible character — a mere adventurer. I say that this 
 canon in every respect is a good canon, and properly 
 understood, there is no difficulty about it whatsoever, 
 and it needs no alteration in any way. I will say it refers 
 to transient ministers, and to those who come forward 
 with the idea of becoming permanent ministers of the 
 Church. I do think there can be no objection to it — 
 that it is as plain as can be ; and think that the mass of 
 this Convention understand that, putting in the words 
 which the Committee on Canons have recommended as 
 merely an amendment of the title expressing the 
 distinct and plain sense of the canon, it will be right and 
 just, and according to the sense of this General Conven- 
 tion, and that we need not make any trouble or waste 
 any time which is so valuable, in discussing this matter 
 any further or in referring it back unnecessarily to the 
 Committee on Canons, or in making it the order of the 
 day for any future day. I do think that we can go in and 
 with clear consciences insert the words, " Of persons not 
 ministers of this Church officiating in any congregation of 
 the same ;" and in doing so, I think that this Convention 
 will be convinced — that both sides will be satisfied — that 
 we will not in any way break the interest of evangelical 
 truth or apostolical order. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall, of Kentucky : — I differ from the 
 gentleman who has last- spoken. Although I mainly 
 agree with him in his views of this subject, 1 think 
 there is an ambiguity about the title of the canon, 
 and by referring it back to the Committee on Canons, 
 that ambiguity can be easily cured : if they will make the 
 language of the title conform to the language of the 
 Ordinal, the whole difficulty will be avoided. " Of per- 
 sons who claim to be ministers, not Episcopally ordain- 
 ed." This is a canon with reference to ministers, and 
 does not apply to any other class of persons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia: — I hope that this 
 subject will be postponed. I had the great pleasure of 
 hearing distinctly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Rev. 
 Dr. Adams) ; and regret very much that every member 
 of this body could not have heard his remarks. I like- 
 wise had the pleasure of hearing the remarks of the learn- 
 
27 
 
 cd gentleman from Connecticut [Rev. Dr. Mead], and 
 I felt when he was speaking that if we could all hear 
 such words as that, where we could understand one 
 another, it might be possible to agree upon something 
 with regard to this canon ; but I was conscious that those 
 sitting in the rear heard little or nothing of what was 
 going on. I feel anxious therefore that the subject may 
 be discussed at a future day when we can all hear and 
 if possible come to a common understanding with regard 
 to it. 
 
 Mh. Cornwall : — The canon alluded to as defining 
 the subject of lay-readers, docs not exist except as to 
 candidates for Holy Orders. As the subject is entirely 
 open, I wish to offer an amendment referring back to 
 the same committee to report that canon. 
 
 Dr. Haight — suggested that the proposition should 
 be referred separately. 
 
 Mr. • : I wish to state that the venerable 
 
 chairman of this committee has made a statement in re- 
 gard to the canon, which I have no doubt is entirely 
 correct in many dioceses, but it has never been the 
 practice in the Diocese which I in part represent. The 
 canon in regard to lay-readers and the power of the 
 Bishops to license them has always here been construed 
 with regard to those who are candidates for Holy Orders, 
 and our Bishops have never licensed any laymen who 
 are not candidates for Orders, to read ; but there has been 
 a custom prevailing, with the full assent of the Bishop, 
 that on extraordinary occasions, when the minister is 
 prevented from performing the offices of the sanctuary, 
 any layman may take upon himself, as an occasional thing, 
 the performance of Divine service ; and in the present 
 prostrate condition of our Diocese it is a matter almost 
 essential in some parts of the State, if the services are 
 to be performed at all, that our laity shall be allowed, 
 from time to time, under these extreme circumstances, 
 to perform the services as far as laymen may. As this 
 canon is now construed, it would seem to cut off entire- 
 ly all such possibility of occasional officiating by laymen. 
 I do trust that in the recommitting of this canon, that 
 matter will be taken into consideration. 
 
 The President then stated the question to be upon 
 making the report with reference to Canon H., the or- 
 der of the day for Friday immediately after the previous 
 order for that day — the motion to i-ecommit, meantime 
 having been withdrawn. 
 
 This motion was then agreed to. 
 
 RiiV. Dr. Pitkin, of Michigan — then presented the 
 following report : 
 
 The Committee on New Dioceses to whom was referr- 
 ed the memorial from the convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York, respectful- 
 ly report that, having examined the documents committed 
 to them and found them to be correct, they recom- 
 mend the adoption of the following preamble and reso- 
 lution : 
 WHiiUEAS, a request has bci;! jireseuted to tlie House ol 
 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies from the Convention of the 
 Diocese of New York that a new Diocese be erected in 
 the present Dioeose of New York, to consist of the coun- 
 ties of Kings, liiieens, and Suffolk, connuouly known as 
 Long Island, in accordance with a re.so!utionofsaid Diocese 
 of New York, said portion of tlie Stale being part of the 
 Diocese of New York and of no otlier Diocese; said act 
 to take effect on tlie IStli day of N'oveiiibor, A. D. 1868; 
 and — 
 Whereas, it appears l)y official documents laid before this 
 House, that the Bishop of the Diocese of New York has 
 consented to the erection of tlie said Diocese, and that all 
 the requirements of tlic Tjtli article of the Constitution and 
 i the Canons are f'ullilled, thci-cfore he it — 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishojjs concurring, that this Con- 
 
 J vention does hereby ratify the above mentioned action of the 
 
 ! Diocese of New York in the erection of the Diocese afore- 
 
 I said, said action to take place on the 1 ."ith day of November 
 
 next, the name of said new Diocese to be determined by the 
 
 primary Convention Ihrieof, with the consent of the Bishop 
 
 of New York. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin — moved the adoption of the pre- 
 amble and resolution. Agreeil to. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin — reported, from the Committee on 
 New Dioceses, similar preambles and resolution con- 
 senting to the formation of a new Diocese in New York, 
 to consist of nineteen counties lying northerly of the 
 southerly limits of the counties of Greene and Delaware ; 
 the date of effect of the act, 1 5th day of November ; and 
 name to be determined by primary Convention. 
 
 Dr. Pitkin's motion to adopt the resolution of the 
 report was agreed to. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Littlejohn, Rev. Wm. C. 
 j Williams, of Georgia, was added to the Domestic and For- 
 eign Missionary Committee. 
 
 The President — appointed the Rev. Mr. Lusk of 
 Indiana, a member of Committee on Expenses. 
 
 The Committee on Unfinished Business made a report 
 of various matters left unfinished by the last Convention ; 
 which report was received without any action thereon 
 being then taken. 
 
 Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles : — I beg to inform the 
 Convention that his Lordship, the Bishop of Ontario, 
 is now present. In accordance with usage on similar oc- 
 casions, 1 move that he be invited to take a seat beside 
 the President. Adopted. 
 
 The President: — I have the pleasure of introduc- 
 ing to the Convention [who then arose] the Right Rev- 
 erend Bishop [Lewis] of Ontario. 
 
 Mr. William Cornwall, of Kentucky — offered 
 the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be retiuested to 
 report what parts of the Morning and Evening service may 
 be read by Lay-readers, and that the same committee pro- 
 pose a canon placing them under such discipline as may be 
 re(niisile to insure proper subordination. 
 
 There is no canon on the subject, except the canon 
 applicable to candidates for Holy Orders. It is under- 
 stood and so ])ractised in some Dioceses, that any com- 
 municant of the Church may read the service. I have 
 had occasion lo do so, but without a canon for it; and I 
 have inquired of the clergy what was proper to do, and 
 have found differences of o])iiiion I (ind, also, that 
 
28 
 
 there is no discipline. There is no canon on this sub- 
 ject ; and tliose who may engage in this worli are under 
 no discipline. There ought to be a responsibility on 
 the part of those who act as lay-readers, just the same 
 as there is on the part of the clergy — a responsibility to 
 some superior authority. There are 111 unlicensed lay- 
 readers reported in the Journal of the Convention ot 
 1865. By a little effort the number of lay-readers 
 might exceed the number of our clergy. I hope the 
 day will come when there will be many more lay read- 
 ers working under the direction of their rectors, and 
 licensed by their Bishops, than the entire number of the 
 clergy, and that they will go out into all ]/arts of the land. 
 I hope to see the whole United States districted and oc- 
 cupied by the services of our Church ; and as this is a 
 vast power that may be brought into action, I think it is 
 proper to ofTer this resolution. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall's motion was then adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn e.xpressed a wish that the Con- 
 vention should not leave the chapel without some ex- 
 pression of their appreciation of the zealous and un- 
 wearied labor for their convenience and comfort that 
 had been devoted to the sessions of this convention by 
 the chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, Rev. 
 Dr. Haight. 
 
 Mr. Welsh of Pennsylvania offisred a resolution 
 which, somewhat modified by Rev. Ur. Peterkin of Vir- 
 ginia, was as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the members of the House of Clerical and 
 Lay Deputies, in leaving Trinity Chapel for the greater con- 
 venience of its future sessions, de.sire to express and report 
 their hearty thanks to the Vestry of this Church, the Com- 
 mittee of Arrangements, iuul especially to tlie Rev. Dr. 
 Haight, the ehairuuui, for tiie kind and liberal etforts made 
 by one and all of tlicm to promote the comfort ot this Con- 
 vention. 
 
 This resolution was unanimously adopted. 
 
 Inquiries and suggestions were made as to the place 
 of holding the morning services, whether the House of 
 Bishops would unite with the deputies in those services, 
 or conduct them separately in Trinity Chapel ; where- 
 upon — 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead said — It is the general practice of 
 this House to make its own arrangements for Morning 
 Prayer. Those of the Bishops who may attend with us, 
 afterwards return to their own House and say their 
 prayers there. Our prayers are not satisfactory to them. 
 In fact, it has been the custom of the Hr.use of Deputies 
 to fix the time for Morning Prayers and send a notice 
 to the Bishops, that they might, if they pleased, attend. 
 I think it would be far the best way to let them have 
 their Morning Prayers and for us to take care of our 
 Morning Prayers for ourselves. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs — It is an unseemly thing for one 
 House to have prayers in one place and the other House 
 to have prayers in another place. I think the most 
 Christian way would be to have a Committee of Con- 
 ference. 
 
 The President — A Committee of Conference, tech- 
 
 nically so-called,' can only be appointed upon some dis- 
 agreement between the Houses. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Cooke offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That, ivith tlie approval of the House of Bish- 
 ops, the morning service of tlie Cluu-ch, as jirescribed by the 
 Rules of (Jrdcr of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, 
 be held in tlie Cliurch of the Transfiguration. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Morning Prayers of this House be 
 held in Trinity Chapel, and the House of Bishops be re- 
 quested to attend. 
 
 During the discussion of the subject of the place of 
 holding the morning services — 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops announced that 
 they had adopted a preamble and resolution, ratifying 
 the erection of a new Diocese out of the present Dio- 
 cese of Western New York. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead inquired if any documents concern- 
 ing the proposed new Diocese had been sent to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 The Secretary — No, sir. 
 
 A Deputy from Western New York — moved con- 
 currence in the resolution of ratification adopted by the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Sheltox, of the Diocese of Western New 
 York — supported the motion, and claimed that the ac- 
 tion of the Plouse of Bishops was regular. 
 
 Mr. justified the action of the House of Bish- 
 ops in originating this action by the precedent of 1838, 
 when the Diocese of New York was divided. In defer- 
 ence to that action the deputation from Western New 
 York had thought it proper to have the same course 
 taken nqjv. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLKs — As one of the Committee on 
 New Dioceses, I feel bound to say that this is not a mere 
 matter of form — the birth of a Diocese. The bringing 
 into this great Church a Diocese to last for all time to 
 come, is not a mere matter of form. The constitution 
 of this Church requires certain prerequisites for the ad- 
 mission of a new Diocese. Therefore, this body has a 
 Committee on New Dioceses, whose duty it is honestly, 
 vigilantly, and carefully, to e.xamine whether these pre- 
 requisites exist. We have no evidence here that this 
 examination has been made in the other House. We 
 must discharge our constitutional duties by ascertaining 
 whether the constitutional prerequisites have been com- 
 plied witli. I can pledge myself for the committee that 
 we will take immediate action upon the matter, if the 
 documents aie referred to the committee. Our hearts 
 are all with Western New York ; there has been no de- 
 lay ; but I earnestly hope that the safeguards thrown 
 around the subject by the constitution may not be omit- 
 ted — that we may not be drawn into a mischievous prec- 
 edent. 
 
 During the recess which occurred at this point, the 
 deputies proceeded to the Church of the Transfiguration. 
 
 The I'ueside.S'T — after calling the House to order. 
 
stated that the business before the house was the resolu- 
 tion of Dr. Cooke. 
 
 Dr. Clahk — We have anotlier resolution to succeed 
 this, of an entirely opposite character. To my mind 
 both of them arc unfortunate. I see no reason why we 
 need pass upon any resolution of the kind whatever. 
 There will be morning service here and also at Trinity 
 Chapel ; and why need we pass either of these resolu- 
 tions whicli are invidious. I move the resolutions be 
 laid on the table. 
 
 Dr. Clark's motion was carried. 
 
 Mr. C. C. Pahsons of Kansas — moved that the mes- 
 sage No. 7 from the House of Bishops relative to the 
 erection of a new Diocese in Western New York, be 
 referred to the Committee on New Dioceses. 
 
 Mr. Hexky Mf.igs, Jr., from New Jersey — With 
 reference to the suggested amendment of Mr. Parsons's 
 motion, that the House of Bishops be requested to fur- 
 nish the documents upon which they had acted, said : 
 If we have not sent the documents upon which we have 
 acted, when we sent messages to them, it would hardly 
 be respectful to ask them to send theirs to us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin — It is the duty of the Diocese to 
 send the documents both to the House of Bishop.s and 
 to the House of Deputies. ■ The House of Bishops could 
 not act without the proper papers ; and this House could 
 not act unless they have the proper documents. This 
 House has not yet had the facts in regard to tlie aj)pli- 
 cation from Western New York. 
 
 A Deputy from Western New York — having stated 
 that the deputation would present the proper documents 
 in the matter of their application, the proposed amend- 
 ment to Mr. Parsons's motion was withdrawn. " 
 
 Mr. Parsons's motion was then adopted. 
 
 Presidknt — 1 have called for resolutions and other 
 business, all the regular business of the day having been 
 disposed of; but none have been oU'ered. I recall a re- 
 port from the Committee on Canons dealing very sum- 
 maril}- with a memorial from the Diocese of Georgia. 
 The report, which was against the memorial, was receiv- 
 ed, and the committee was discharged. 1 submit the 
 question whether tliat can now be brought up for the 
 consideration of the House. Gentlemen learned in the 
 law will be able to tell us whether the discharge of the 
 committee has entirely taken the subject from before the 
 House. If not, and it is the pleasure of the House to 
 take up that subject, it might be done while we are wait- 
 ing for something else to do. The Secretary then read 
 from the journal of the fourth day's proceedings the re- 
 port from the Committee on Canons, submitted by Rev. 
 Dr. llaight; from which it appeared that the memorial 
 of the Diocese of Georgia asking that the name Convo- 
 cation be substituted for Diocesan Convention, Synod for 
 Provincial Council, and General Council for General 
 Convention, was reported against by the connnitlee, who 
 asked to be disch.irged from tlie I'urtlu'r consideralion of 
 the subject; and tliey were accordingly discharged. 
 
 Rev. Wm. H. Clarke, of Georgia. — I had the honor 
 of presenting that memoiial. The object we aimed at 
 pi'incipally was to get rid of the word convention, and 
 substitute for it the word council. When this report came 
 in from the Committee on Canons we took no notice of it, 
 because we supposed the subject of changing tlie name 
 would come up in another form; and we did not think 
 it necessary to embarrass the proceedings of the conven- 
 tion by introducing a nefr resolution. I think the sub- 
 ject of making this change is now before the Committee 
 on Canons. If it be not before them, I should be glad, 
 if it be in oidor, to make the motion that it be referred 
 to the Committee on Canons to consider the expediency 
 of changing the name convention to council wherever it 
 occurs in the Constitution and Canons. According to 
 the generally accepted authority of Webster, the two 
 words Convention and Council, taken in their original, 
 are synonyms, one denoting the idea of coming together 
 or being convened, and the other denoting the idea of 
 coming together with some little excitement. . Men 
 come together voluntarily in a convention. Convention 
 is said to be derived from ronvcnio and Council from 
 concilium. The word council descn-ibing a body like 
 our own, has nothing to do with counsel meaning advice 
 As the word convention has been degraded in these lat- 
 ter times, it might be well to have a word not so much 
 degraded at least. 
 
 Judge Otis. — The question was asked whether the 
 action of the Committee on Canons disposed of the sub- 
 ject in discussion. The memorial from Georgia asked 
 for three names; Convocation for Diocesan Convention, 
 Synod for Provincial Council, and tieneral Council for 
 the General Convention. This was acted upon, and the 
 report was made. After that a memorial from the Diocese 
 of Illinois was presented and referred to the committee, 
 simply asking for the change of the name convention to 
 council wherever it occurs. That 1 sujjpose is now on 
 the list of subjects before the Committee on Canons, to 
 be acted upon, and will be reached in its order. 
 
 Hon S. B. Rdggles, of New York. — I think that in 
 the consideration of this subject the Convention has lost 
 sight of one important circumstance, namely, that our 
 House of Bishops, in prosecuting and carrying on their 
 business, frequently adjourn as a House of Bishops, ami 
 gointo "Council," and sit in council. I can readily 
 imagine that sitting in council they sit under their in- 
 herent authority as Bishops, while in General Conven- 
 tion they sit ujider the constitutional authority confer- 
 red upon them. But, at any rate, they use the woid 
 council to describe the part of their proceedings which are 
 printed in the journal; and we may make confusion by 
 adopting the name Council instead of Convention. 
 ' Tni; President — suggcstwl that the (|uestion was 
 whetlier this subject could be brought up at all. Of 
 course the house could not go into the merits of that 
 question unless it should be brought up in some form or 
 other. 
 
30 
 
 Mr. Geokge a. Gordon, of Alabama. — I am satis- 
 fied from having- liad .«ome little experience in legislative 
 matters that ft is entirely legitimate for the house to 
 take up the subject ol' the memorial from Georgia, if 
 they choose to do so. The reports of the committees, ac- 
 cording to Jefferson's Manual, are always in order. The 
 mere fact of the introduction of a report does not neces- 
 sarily imply the taking up of a report. And if the 
 Committee on Canons or a ' committee on any other 
 subject in this house rises at this moment and makes a 
 report, it would always be in order and right to receive 
 it. It would then require a substantive, independent 
 vote of the house first to take it up ; because otherwise 
 it will simply lie upon the table to take its place on the 
 calendar or when ever reached in regular order. After 
 having been taken up, the house would proceed to con- 
 sider, and either adopt or reject, the report of the com- 
 mittee. If I understand the condition of the memorial 
 from the State of Georgia, it was referred to the appro- 
 priate committee ; that committee made a recommenda- 
 tion; and in addition to the usual recommendation, name- 
 ly, that it should not pass, they also asked that they should 
 be discharged from the consideration of the subject. 
 The House acted upon nothing but the latter branch. 
 They simply discharged the committee from the further 
 consideration of the subject. The memorial therefore 
 came back to the House, and is now in possession of it, 
 to be acted upon now or at any other time. 
 
 The President — Then if a motion is made to take 
 it up, it will be before the House, if that be the law of 
 the case as I presume it is. 
 
 A Di'PUTY — suggested that the discussion of the ques- 
 tion in any wise was premature as he understood that 
 the Provincial System, which properly involves this 
 question, would be brought before the House during the 
 present session. He moved that the subject be post- 
 poned. 
 
 The President — said the motion was not in order 
 because the subject was not before the House. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Clarke, of the deputation from Geor- 
 gia — moved that the memorial from Georgia be taken 
 up ; but upon the announcement that the Committee on 
 Canons were about to make a report, withdrew his 
 motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe, of Pennsylvania— submitted the fol- 
 lowing report : 
 
 The Committee on Canons to whom were referred 
 certain memorials from the Dioceses of New York and 
 Maryland concerning the establishment of Federate 
 Conventions or Councils, beg leave respectfully to 
 i-eport that after careful delibei'alion they are prepared 
 to recommend the adoption of the following resolution ; 
 
 Jiemlved, The House of bishops concurring, that the fol- 
 lowing be iidopted iLi Guion , Title , au- 
 thorizing the foriii:itioii of Fetleratc Councils or ('ouncilsof 
 Dioceses within anv Statu, to wit : It is liereby declared 
 lawful for tlie Dioceses now existing or hereafter to exist 
 within tlie limits of any State or Commonwealtli, to establish 
 for themselves a Federate Coiivciuion or Couiuil ri-|iie»i.-nt- 
 
 ing such Dioceses, which may deliberate and decide upon 
 the common interests of tlie Church withiu the hmits afore- 
 said ; but l)efore any dclcniiinate action of said Convention 
 or Council shall be liad, tlie power jiropcsed to be exercised 
 thereby shall be submitted to the General Convention for 
 its approval. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe, continuing:- — I will take occasion, 
 Mr. President, with your leave, to say that the substance 
 of this canon was adopted by the last General Con- 
 vention, or rather by the Lower House in the last Gen- 
 eral Convention, and sent up to the House of Bishops 
 for concurrence. It was returned to us with the message 
 that it was too late in the session to take into considera- 
 tion so grave a matter, and thereby the legislation 
 failed ; but it passed in the Lower House by a large 
 ma,jority. 'J'he canon was recommended, in the 
 first instance to the attention of the fieneral Convention 
 by the Convention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, then 
 about to be divided. The same canon — in the form 
 into which the Lower House of the last General Con- 
 vention moulded it, with some modifications from that 
 whicli had been submitted by the convention of Pennsyl- 
 vania — was recommended again to the attention of the 
 General Convention, by the Convention of the Diocese of 
 New York, at its late session, with only an amendment 
 in the final clause, and with the proviso that no deter- 
 minate action shall take place by such Federate Council 
 or Convention until the powers which it proposes to ex- 
 ercise are submitted to the (jeneral Convention for its 
 concurrence. With that exception it is the same as was 
 postjjoned by the last Hoiise of Deputies. It may be 
 said further that it is believed that no Diocese now knows 
 precisely what powers it would like to intrust to such a 
 Federate Council or Convention — That any step which 
 may be taken in that direction must be for the time 
 merely experimental or. tentative and that this General 
 Convention therefore are just as unprepared to prescribe 
 any fashion after which such Federate Council should be 
 moulded as any one of these dioceses requesting such 
 powers are themSclves unprepared now to express them. . 
 However, in any organization which they may institute 
 in these several states or dioceses experimentally, an in- 
 terchange of views wdl bring out to their own appre- 
 hension precisely what they want; and at the next 
 General Convention it is beheved that the General Con- 
 vention will be ready to act definitively on this matter. 
 
 Ret. Db. Haight made a motion — suljseqnenlly 
 withdrawn — to make this report the order of the day 
 for Monday. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight inquired whether the vote by 
 which certain subjects were assigned to Friday could 
 not be reconsidered. 
 
 The Presioent said he had suggested that before the 
 recess. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — Yes — but the House could not 
 hear then. (Laughter.) I move to reconsider the mo- 
 tion by which the Canon on Clerical Intrusion (Canon 
 12) be made the order of the day for Friday, and that 
 it be made the order of the day for to-morrow. 
 
81 
 
 The question upon reconsidering the assignment to 
 Friday of Canon 12 was reconsidered; and then — 
 
 On motion of ])r. Haiglit, its consideration was talcen 
 up ; when — 
 
 The Secretary read the report ; when — 
 
 Rev. Dk. Haight said — The committee have had this 
 canon under consideration, and referred it to a sub-com- 
 mittee, wlio presented the following, which will be read 
 from the desk, as an amendment to the canon. It 
 is designed to meet one class of difficulties which has 
 been alleged to grow out of the present canon. The 
 committee do not pretend to say, by theii- report, that 
 it is the onh' amendment which they have to suggest. 
 There are many and grave difflculties connected with 
 the subject; but the attention of tlie committee was 
 called to the fact that this canon was supposed by 
 many persons, and some of them persons of eminence, 
 to interfere with the right of the individual rector in 
 a city or town where there were two or more parishes 
 to invite into his own pulpit any l>rother whom he 
 might desire to have officiate for him, without the con- 
 sent of the other clergyman or clergymen. I have nev- 
 er had the slightest idea that this canon had that appli- 
 cation. Still it is supposed to have that application ; 
 and I have heard it argued by some eminent men that 
 the canon necessarily meant this, and it ought to be 
 obeyed. In order to meet this difficulty and relieve 
 the minds oftho.se who suppose by the language of the 
 canon they are under some disability, the committee 
 have considered, framed, and submitted the amendment 
 to the canon now before this House. 
 
 Mr. N. H. Massie — ^suggesting that the proper con- 
 sideration of the report and amendment required printed 
 copies of the same, and (this meeting the views of many 
 others), moved that the further consideration be post- 
 poned until the amendment could be printed and dis- 
 tributed. , 
 This motion was agreed to. 
 
 The Committee on the Treasurer's report, reported 
 that it was correct and properly vouched. 
 
 Rev. Du. Norton, of Virginia — desiring that the 
 change of the name Convention to Council sliould be 
 consideredindependently of other questions which might 
 prejudice it, offered the following : 
 
 Resolved, The Iloufc of Bishops conciuriiig, that the 
 Con.^titiitioii of this Cluirch hi> amended by the substitution 
 of the word Council for the v.ord Convention, nlicrevor the 
 latter word occurs in the said constiMition. 
 
 After various inquiries as to order of business and as 
 to effect of discharging the Committee of Canons from 
 the further consideration of tlie memorial from fieorgia 
 in reference to change of three names apjilying to ditf'er- 
 ent Church assemblages — 
 
 Rev. Dh. Norton, of Virginia, said his proposition 
 was not the one contained in the memorial from Geor- 
 gia, but an independent resolution. 
 
 Rkv. I)i{. .\d.vms: — Mr. President, I was very glail, 
 indeed, to hear the gentleman from Virginia bring for- 
 
 ward this question, because it was one part of the great 
 question to be settled in these few next conven- 
 tions, or else we must give up tc others the po- 
 sition which we ought to have in these United Stales. 
 The matter, sir, is the matter of organization. — 
 We are the descenilants of the Anglican Church. 
 We have — and we count it a great thing — the Apos- 
 tolical succession, the Prayer-Book ; and we have a 
 full belief in the Church everywhere. 
 
 The question of organization comes up, and that is a 
 complicated matter; and it is one which we must dis- 
 cuss. This matter of Federate Conventions is part of 
 it. This matter of names of the General Convention, 
 Diocesan Convention, and State C"onvention is part of 
 it. The decision of all these questions comes before 
 us ; and it is well for us, instead of complicating the 
 matter by having all these come together, to take, as 
 the gentleman from Virginia lias done, one of the most 
 important points at a time, in this great idea. He has, 
 as ] understood, brought forward the change of title of 
 General Convention to General Council. Now, Mr. 
 President, I conceive that that can be clearlj' and dis- 
 tinctly brought forward as a separate part of the great 
 idea that we can decide upon, and that we can settle it; 
 and by so doing we shall reach one portion of this great 
 question of organization ; and we shall reach the vote of 
 the Convention, distinctly and plainly, without any com- 
 plication of any other matter, whatever; and then, hav- 
 ing done this, we shall be able to proceed to other mat- 
 ters. I should like that the Secretary would read the 
 resolution which was offered by the gentleman from 
 Virginia, in order that I may distinctly imderstand the 
 verbal complexion of it. I would ask the gentleman 
 from Virginia if he is willing to accept the change of a 
 single phrase in that resolution of his. The word 
 Council, I conceive, is an admirable one, but I think 
 that if we are to proceed to this question, it will be bet- 
 ter to take the matter of General Convention first. 
 And I would ask the gentleman from Virginia if he 
 will accept the substitution for the word Council of the 
 phrase National Council or Great National Council, so 
 that we may come at this question of the name of the 
 General Convention. 
 
 Rkv. Dh. Norton — I should like very much to 
 gratify the gentleman; but, if he will observe, it would 
 defeat one of the main objects of the resolution, which 
 is, to bring into harmony our diocesan councils with 
 the General Convention. While those who call their 
 diocesan conventions councils, feel that they have a 
 right to do so, they all feel it inconvenient. It was 
 with the especial intention of remedying that difficulty 
 that I offered this resolution now. 
 
 IIev. Dk. .\p.\ms — The gentleman, of couise, has a 
 
 right to his opinion ; and I also have my rights on the 
 
 lloor of this House. Therefore, instead of asking him 
 
 to accept the change, I will put my opinion and my ac- 
 
 j tion as an amendment to his. I will, tlierelbic, move 
 
32 
 
 an amendment to his resolution in the shape of an 
 
 amendment to the Constitution ; which will, I believe, 
 
 bring it more distinctly before this House : 
 
 " An Amendment to the Constitution." 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops ("oncurring, that in every 
 place where the words General Convention occur in the 
 Constitution and Canons of this Church, the words Great 
 National Council be substituted. 
 
 In order to test the tone and temper of this House, I 
 would ask them not to send this in to the Committee 
 on Canons. (Laughter.) You said, Mr. President, that 
 this is a safe Committee, and so it is. This resolution 
 I brought forward in 1865, and it was referred to the 
 Committee on Canons, as will be seen on p. 131 of the 
 Journal. "The Committee on Canons, to whom was 
 referred the resolution" — identical with this — "re- 
 spectfully reported that in their opinion the change is 
 inexpedient, and ask to be dismissed from the further 
 consideration of the subject." I therefore hope that in 
 this House, whatever disposition may be made of this 
 motion, it will not be referred to that Committee on 
 Canons. (Laughter.) I have the highest respect for 
 them all ; and they are some of my best friends ; but I 
 have an idea that if they should sit upon this resolution . 
 it would end in smothering it. 
 
 A Depttv — Will the gentleman drop the word 
 Great ? 
 
 Rev. Dh. Adams — I will do it. Now, sir, 1 will ask 
 of the Secretary of this House, as a matter that I think 
 will be rather important in the discussion of this sub- 
 ject, whether the Diocese of Nebraska was admitted with 
 the term Council or not. 
 
 The Secretarv — I understood it was. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — I understand, then, that in the 
 General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States we already have gone so far upon 
 this question as to authorize in the case of the Diocese 
 of Nebraska, and, of course, in the case of all dioceses, 
 the term council as a name of their convention — their 
 annual convention. I will suggest that that is upon 
 the record. The gentleman from Virginia will permit 
 me to say that the thing is settled, so far as he is con- 
 cerned. If the united action of both H(nises of this 
 General Convention admits anew diocese with the term 
 council, after the fullest debate, I should think, sir, 
 that the Diocese of Virginia, and every other diocese 
 that chooses to change the name, has, by the permis- 
 sion of the General Convention of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Chinxh, a canonical right to change the title of 
 Convention to Council. And I should conceive that 
 members of this Church who have hitherto complained 
 of the discord of having the word Council along with 
 Convention, would .see that the argimient goes the other 
 way. The General Convention has authorized the term 
 council with regard to dioceses ; and therefore it will 
 be its most natural action to pass an amendment — that 
 which is proiioscd here — in order to bring its nomencla- 
 ture, in reference to the General Convention, into per- 
 
 fect accord with its nomenclature as concerns individu- 
 al Dioceses. I suppose that there are in this Church 20 
 different Dioceses which, in the course of the next three 
 years, will, in accordance with the permission given us 
 here, change their name from Convention of the Diocese 
 of so and so to Council of the Diocese. 
 
 Rev Dr. Haight asked if it was competent to amend 
 the Constitution by joint resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Adams. — I propose an amendment in due 
 form to the Constitution. It will be seen that this is a 
 matter of organization, and contemplates three things. 
 It, in the first place, contemplates the taking by this 
 present General Convention — which is really and truly 
 a National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States — unaltered in all its powers, and 
 with every right unchanged, of its proper title of the 
 National Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States of America. In the second place, it 
 will be seen that this matter of Federate Council will 
 come up very naturally to receive its settlement. In 
 the third place, the Diocesan Council will come up also. 
 It will be seen that these are three distinct subjects — 
 distinct portions of one great system of organization of 
 the Church in the United States. It will be seen also, 
 I trust, by the present National Council that the matter 
 I propose is perfectly distinct, and can now be acted on; 
 it is merely a change of names; makes no constitutional 
 changes; and at the same time sends us on our way in 
 reference to the organization of the Church, so that it 
 may be enabled to perform its proper duty. Upon the 
 question of the admission of Nebraska, I presented some 
 reasons for the change from the name convention, and 
 said something as to the danger and disadvantages of 
 using the word convention. I need not repeat them. 
 I will only say that council is an ecclesiastical term. 
 Convention is not merely a political term; it is a term 
 for any chance meeting of ajiy persons whatsoever, that 
 is. :i convention of any and every thing. So far as my 
 experience goes, I know of no good Christian in the 
 West that has ever spoken in any assemblage of the 
 Church, especially in the West, that is not desirous that 
 we should have this change. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Ad.^ms continued his argument at consid- 
 erabli' length, cs|iccially urging the importance of the 
 change according to that spirit of progress by which 
 the Church should achieve the position of the National 
 Church — a position '^hich the Roman Catholic Church 
 was energetically striving for. 
 
 IMii. Meigs argued against the inference that the ad- 
 mission of the Diocese of Nebraska committed the Con- 
 vention to the name council. The argument was 
 brought forward distinctly by the committee that by the 
 adoption of the Constitution of the General Convention 
 the Diocese pledged itself to conformity therewith as to 
 constitutional name and every thing else. 
 
 Mr. George A. Gordon spoke in favor of the reso- 
 lution of Dr. Norton, and against that of Dr. Adams. 
 
33 
 
 Judge Conyngham said that if the question were a 
 new one, there might not be an)- espceial ehoice between 
 the name Convention and Couneil; but the name Con- 
 vention was a time-honored and hallowed one. That 
 the dioceses, in his opinion, could not be required in 
 matters of mere nomenclature to conform to that adopted 
 by the Convention, and hence uniformity could not re- 
 sult from the proposed change. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin, while claiming the absolute right 
 of the General Convention to give a nomenclature to 
 the Dioceses, thought it inexpedient — at least, the power 
 should be exercised with caution. He denied the right- 
 fulness of any inference from the admission of the Dio- 
 cese of Nebraska that the Convention had recognized 
 the name council, and analyzed the vote upon the pro- 
 posed proviso, and showed that it showed no majority 
 in favor of the name. 
 
 Judge Battlk argued that the admission of the Diocese 
 of J^ebraska was upon the idea not of approval or sanc- 
 tion of the name council, but upon the ground on the 
 part of many members that either the Constitution re- 
 quired no change of name from council to convention, 
 and therefore the name was not material, or that it did 
 require such change, and that the adoption of the Con- 
 stitution by the Diocese either of itself worked the 
 change or required it of the Diocese. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin continuing, said that according 
 to the statement of Dr. Adams we stand in the year of 
 Grace, 1868, the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
 United States, debating its Prayer-Book of 1 787, and as 
 not organized yet. It seemed a strange view that we 
 are just entering upon the question of organization. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned to to-morrow at 10 
 o'clock. 
 
 SEVENTH day's PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Wednesday, Oct. 14, 1868. 
 
 The convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Dr. Goodwin 
 of Pennsylvania, and Rev. Horace Stringfellow, Jr., 
 of Indiana. The Benediction was pronounced by Bish- 
 op Talbot, of Indiana. 
 
 The .Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approvcil. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams accepted the suggestion of the Presi- 
 dent as to the parliamentary form of his last resolution 
 of amendment yesterday. 
 
 Rev. S.\MUEL CoOKK, D. D., of the Diocese of New 
 York — Presented the following memorial : 
 
 lo the Hotiae of Jiixhofx and t/ie MuUM of Clerical and La;/ 
 Depiitien ill the General Vonrention of the Protestant 
 EpiKC(tpal Churrlt in the United States of America: 
 The uiulersignoil, Ijcin-; nionihers of tlic Protestant Epis- 
 cop.ll Church, uiiil Wardens ;ind Vestrvnicn of the Church 
 of the Holy Trinity in the City of .Nch York, resiicct fully 
 invito the attention of the (icncnil Convention to the an- 
 nexed report of the trial of the Kev. Stephen H. Tvn<;, 
 Junior, Hector of .said Church, as e.\liiliiting a recent inter- 
 pretation of certain eanons, the previcnis understaniting 
 
 5 
 
 thereof, and the long-continued, widely extended, and un 
 disputed usape in conformity with that luiderstanding; and 
 respectfully submit for their consideration the propriety of 
 pronouncing some definition, or making some amendment, 
 which may clear the law of dispute, and prcnnote the ex- 
 tension of the Church and the advancement of religion. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Robert Dumont, ) Wardens 
 
 S. Henry Hurd, \ "'^rlens. 
 
 E. R. Tremain, 
 
 J. Nelson Tappan, 
 
 Chas. K. Randall, 
 
 William L. Andrews, }■ Vestrymen. 
 
 Jonathan Edgar, 
 
 William B. Northrup, 
 
 R. M. Bro.ndige, 
 New York, October, 18i;8. 4 
 
 " The annexed report " of the trial is a volume of 310 
 octavo pages. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Cooke, the memorial and the 
 printed document [the report of the trial] were referred 
 to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Benedict, from Georgia— Ofiered the 
 following resolution : ' 
 
 Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on Can- 
 ons to consider the expediency of proposing an amendment 
 to the constitution, or a declaratory canon, setting forth the 
 principles embodied in the following statement, or such or 
 so much of tliera, as they may deem of suHicient clearness 
 ami importance, and in such form and mode as they may 
 select : 
 
 This Church in her legislation recognizes these princi- 
 ples : that the Episcopate is derived from the Apostles of 
 our Lord, and perpetuates their authority to confer holy 
 orders and to rule in the Church of Christ ; that this au- 
 thority, in matters ecclesiastical, is absolute, save when 
 limited by the Prayer Bool; or Canons and Constitution of 
 the Church ; that when the scope and meaning of this limi- 
 tation is questioned, it is the duty of the inferior to defer 
 to Apostolical authority until the question of liinitatioi,! is 
 settled by the proper tribunal. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Benedict (continuing) — I will simply 
 say, in moving the reference to the Committee on Can- 
 ons, by way of explanation, if necessary, that to many 
 of this Church, clergy and laity, it is very apparent we 
 are going to be too democratic. The analogy is fre- 
 quently drawn between the constitution and government 
 of the United States and the constitution of the Church 
 in the United States. While it is good for illustration 
 as a partial argument, it is faulty in this important par- 
 ticular, that while in the State the authority springs up 
 from the people, in the Church authority comes down 
 from Christ. We are probably in the course of a little 
 while to have a debate upon matters of the Ritual. I 
 submit that there are many in this Church who feel that 
 no canons can produce uniformity. And even if it were 
 possible to have a rigid uniformity, it is not expedient. 
 What we need is not so much uniformity as harmony, 
 and that, in the field of the Church as in other fields, is 
 subserved by the obedience of each one in his place to 
 proper authority. I do not propose to enter into this 
 discussion at the present time, but simply move the ref- 
 erence of this resolution to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 A Deputy — Suggested that it should be referred to 
 
34 
 
 the Committee on the Prayer Book as involving a ques- 
 tion of doctrine. 
 
 Another Deputy — Moved the amendment that the 
 Committee on Canons, to whom it is referred, make as 
 early a report as possible. 
 
 Mr. B Repeated his suggestion that the refer- 
 ence should be to the Committee on the Prayer Book, 
 because, when there was an attempt to touch the doc- 
 trine of the Church, it should be done with the utmost 
 caution and care, and should not be done by the wrong 
 authority ; that if the object were to explain the Prayer 
 Book or to enlarge it or to express its views more clearly 
 and succinctly, it should go to the Committee on the 
 Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, New Jersey — This matter has been 
 already in part acted upon ; and the first canon of the 
 Church refers to it. I should like very much to see the 
 substance of the first canon embodied in these resolu- 
 tions, and the first canon repealed. I do not see myself 
 that it is necessary in the canons to assert the principles 
 which are universally recognized. The first canon as- 
 serts the doctrine referred to. But that canon is ob- 
 jectionable on the ground that no one in the Church 
 denies the truth here asserted. There are some princi- 
 ples involved in those resolutions not so universally ac- 
 knowledged; and if they were enlarged somewhat, I 
 should be glad to see them considered in connection 
 with this first canon. I beg leave to make the sugges- 
 tion that the first canon be embodied in these resolutions 
 and that the canon be repealed. 
 
 Mr. . That is merely a declaratory canon. It 
 
 appears to me to open a wide discussion — to present 
 principles upon which there may be the widest differ- 
 ences, and principles which do touch our standard of 
 faith, and I do not think we ought to impose that sub- 
 ject upon the Committee on Canons. There is a special 
 committee for it if we do mean to touch the Prayer 
 Book. Let us understand what we are about. I stand 
 by the Prayer Book as handed down to us by the fathers 
 of the Church ; and I go against every proposition to 
 touch or change it. 1 trust that this Convention will un- 
 derstand that it is the charter of our religious rights, and 
 maintain it to the last. This is no time to tamper with 
 it. If it is to be tampered with, by either one side or 
 the other, let the Church understand distinctly and 
 clearly what we are about. Let it be touched by no 
 side issue. Let it go to that committee which the 
 Church has appointed to prepare such action. I press 
 my motion, and if the gentlemen will not accept my 
 suggestion, I move it as an amendment that this resolu- 
 tion be referred to the Committee on the Prayer Book, 
 as it is intended to change the standard of the Church. 
 
 Judge Battle — Thought it should be referred to 
 the Committee on the Prayer Book ; the Committee on 
 Canons already have business before them to occupy them 
 one fortnight ; and it is utterly impossible that they 
 should engage in these extensive inquiries. Let the 
 
 gentlemen who wish these things considered, bring some 
 definite matter before the Convention. Let this be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Prayer Book, and let 
 them frame an article and let that be referred to the 
 Committee on Canons ; and then as one of the members 
 of tliat committee, I shall be prepared to act upon it. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Benedict accepted the amendment to re- 
 fer to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — Said the Committee on Canons 
 had so much business that he should be sorry to have 
 this matter referred to them. 
 
 Dr. LiTTLEjOHN — I trust that in the motion which I 
 am about to make touching this resolution, it will not be 
 considered by the mover that I am guilty of any inci- 
 vility towards him in any shape, or that I wish to stand 
 in the way of formal and emphatic assertion of perhaps 
 most of the points which he has made in that resolution. 
 But in this resolution he calls upon this body to set 
 forth, in the form of a declaratory canon, principles 
 which, according to the phraseology of the resolution, 
 it is declared are already recognized in the legislation of 
 this Church. There is not a principle embodied in that 
 resolution which is not already incorporated in the leg- 
 islation of our Church. There is not a principle afi'ect- 
 ing doctrine or discipline that is not admitted by every 
 well-educated member of this Church ; and the only 
 practical point that I can see in the resolution is simply 
 a formal e.\hortation to be given by this body, based 
 upon a report of the Committee on Canons, if you 
 please, — a formal and earnest exhortation to every pres- 
 byter and deacon to obey his Bishop in matters doubtful. 
 That is all provided for in our ordination vows. I can 
 see, therefore, nothing to be gained by the reference of 
 this resolution to either of the committees named. I see 
 no practical result to arise from the reference of this 
 resolution. I shall, therefore, move, with all due respect, 
 that it be laid on the table. 
 
 Dr. Littlejohn's motion was seconded and adopted. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Clements, of Ohio, presented a memorial 
 from members of the Church of St. .John's, Passaic, 
 N. J., similar to those offered by Judge Conyngham, 
 and referred to the Committee on Canons. This memo- 
 rial was so referred. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin off'ered a resolution to the effect 
 that it be referred to the Committee on Canons to inquire 
 whether a change be not desirable in Article 4 of the 
 Constitution, by adding some phrase equivalent to ''or 
 by the Bishop himself of some other Diocese." Not 
 acted on. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams obtained the floor, and moved that 
 the order of the day be postponed. 
 
 The President. — The order of the day has arrived. 
 
 Rkv. Dr. Adams. — I moved that it be postponed. I 
 made the motion before its announcement. I moved 
 that it be deferred, that the debate may be carried on 
 upon the question of changing the title of the General 
 
^?< 
 
 Convention into National Council, Triennial Council, or 
 Great Council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — The order of the day is Canon 
 12. I am perfectly content that the order of the day 
 should be postponed, because the printed copies are not 
 here. But when they arrive I shall move to postpone 
 this matter and take up the order of the day. Unless 
 we keep to the order of the day we may as well go home ; 
 we shall never get through our work. 
 
 The vote being then taken upon Dr. Adams's motion 
 to postpone the order of the day, and to take up the un- 
 finished business of yesterday in regard to nomenclature 
 of Church Cnnventions, the motiop was agreed to. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia. — Has the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania [Rev. Dr. Goodwin] the floor ? I 
 feel anxious that we should obtain a vote upon this ques- 
 tion this morning. Wu seemed to be almost ready for it 
 yesterday evening when we adjourned. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin having the floor, allowed Rev. 
 Dr. Pitkin to submit a re[iort from the Committee on 
 New Dioceses, ratifying the formation of a new Diocese 
 within the present limits of the Diocese of Western New 
 York. He said (omitting remarks founded ou a misap- 
 prehension, and withdrawn), the fact remains that the 
 papers were imperfect, but have been perfected. They 
 have been carefully examined by the committee, and they 
 are satisfied that all the requirements of the Constitution 
 have been complied with. These papers arc in possession 
 of the House, and can be read if the reading shall be 
 called for. I move the adoption of the preamble and 
 resolution. 
 
 On motion, and by consent of the chairman of the 
 committee, the report was re-committed for the rectifying 
 of certain informalities. 
 
 Message No. 8 from the House of Bisho[)S was re- 
 ceived, announcing their adoption of the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Re.wleed, The House of Clerical and Lay Di>putios con- 
 curring, that Section 2 of Canon Id, Title I., be so amended 
 as to read as follows, namely, in place of the words "at 
 least three years," the words "af least one year." 
 
 On motion, this message was referred to the Commit- 
 tee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goonwi.s : — I should be sorry to liave the feel- 
 ing prevail that I am delaying the business of the Conveu- 
 tiou in uiidertukiug to address them. I will address niy.'^elf 
 to tile work which 1 left yesterday with, however, one per- 
 sonal explanation first of all. When, on a former occasion, 
 I was cut off, after five minutes' speaking, by a recess, I com- 
 pleted my speech after the recess, and after that rose to !isk 
 ou behalf of the Diocese of Peuusylvania, that the vote 
 should be taken by Dioceses and orders, and it was with great 
 difficulty that I could get a hearing, because it was alleged 
 I had spoken twice on the same question. I beg now to 
 inform the President and the Hoii.se that I had not spoken 
 twice on the same question. It is unfortunate for me that 
 I am so often cut off, and now liere is the second time that 
 I have been interrupted in the midst of a speech by an ad- 
 journment, anil everybody thinks that f have made two 
 
 speeches. (Laughter.) I beg the House to observe th.it 
 this is not two speeches. I hardly know where I left the 
 subject yesterday, Init I will begin as well as I can with the 
 statement that seems important in regard to the manner or 
 circumstances in which the terms Convention and General 
 Convention came to be adopted in our Church. It seems 
 to me to be a strong point to consider. 
 
 When after the American Revolution, our Church came 
 to organize herself — and I think she did organize herself — 
 in this country, she began in the different States. The 
 Church undertook to organize herself in those States. 
 There were no Bishojis at tlic first, and, of course, they were 
 oliliged to be content with a very imperfect organization ; 
 and no better term suggested itself to the minds of tlie 
 Fathers of our Church than to call their meetings Conven- 
 tions ; and they were called Conventions of such and such 
 States. Then, when they came to frame their Constitution, 
 I believe there were three Bishops, and that they constitut- 
 ed a House of Bishops there, or immediately thereupon. 
 They continued the same term Convention for the legisla- 
 tive bodies of the Church in the different Dioce.ses or States; 
 and they Introduced the term General Convention for the 
 legislative body of the Church in the United States. And 
 whv? Xot simply because they had been thus obliged to 
 begin, but becau.se they thought there were good reasons 
 for so continuing. For example, if you will look to the rat- 
 ification of the Book ^f Common Prayer, you will find that 
 it is ratified by the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of tli£ Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church hi the United States in General 
 Convention. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I have not the slightest doubt that 
 the term was thoughtfully, deliberately, and purposely cho- 
 sen. I hold myself hable to correction. I am not as learned 
 in ecclesiastical history as some other gentlemen in this 
 Convention doubtless are ; but to the best of my knowledge 
 there was no Council held in the Church or any branch of 
 the Church Catholic after the so-called Council at Jerusalem, • 
 
 where the laity were represented as constituting a part of 
 such Council. In the so-called Council at Jerusalem, I say, ^ 
 
 because it does not seem to be called so in the text. Now 
 the Councils in the Church after this date were not Councils 
 of Bishops, Elders, and Laity. To the best of my knowl- 
 edge, there was no such Council. I am not sure about that, 
 but certainly I am sure of the general fact that the Councils 
 were Councils of Bishops. I say, then, our Church deliber- 
 ately, inteutionaily and with the full knowledge of the case, 
 as I apprehend, intending to introduce Lay-representation 
 in the legislative body of the Church in the United States, 
 intending that it should consist of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, 
 did introduce the term General Convention— designated it 
 so that it should be the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Prot- 
 estant Episcopal Church in General Convention. Such 1 
 understand to be the origin of the term and thffjustification 
 of it. This is the mode of organiziug our Church, as adopt- 
 ed by the Fathers of our Church. It seems to be impHed 
 in the remarks that have been made ou the other side, as I 
 said yesterday, that the Protestant Episcopal Church, in its 
 principles of organization, has hitherto been a failure. At 
 all events, it is argued that somuhow or other it will follow 
 in connection with adopting this change, I do not pretend 
 to understand how, but will try to guess, using my YnnUro 
 
36 
 
 Jirivilege; but it is somehow or other supposed that, by 
 aiiopting this oliauge, tlie Church will begin to grow and 
 grow until it is the Church of the United States, acknowl- 
 edged as sucli by all the people of the United States, one 
 beautiful Cliurch of all the United States, with uo dissenters, 
 no Romanists ; and not only so, but that this Church, with 
 the Anglican Church, is to be the Church of the whole world, 
 and so to be acknowledged ; and all this to follow from 
 changing General Convention to Council. 
 
 Now, I think it will take a little time if I am to answer 
 such an argument as this. If the argument is in order and 
 fairly to be brought before this Convention, and expected to 
 influence the minds of the members of this Convention, if I 
 think it is futile and false, it ought to be in order to answer 
 it; yet, I think it is going pretty wide from the question. I 
 have felt the desire as strongly as any desire I cherish, that 
 such a glorious result as has been pictured for the Church 
 might come about somehow or other, some day in the world 
 — that this Church of ours should grow and grow until it 
 should be the Church of all the inhabitants of the United 
 States of America ; that it should grow until, witli all the 
 Churches in its communion, it should become the great Cath- 
 olic Church of the whole world. I pray God that such a 
 consummation may one day be reached. It is the desire of 
 my hea" as strongly, I think, as it can be the desire of the 
 gentleman (Rev. Dr. Adams) who made the argument re- 
 ferred to. But while I cherish such a desire, it is the desire 
 that the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States 
 of America should thus become the Church of the whole 
 world. I believe it is the Catholic Church — most assuredly 
 a branch of the Catholic Church, No man will pretend that 
 it is now the whole of the Catholic Church, that is, including 
 all the members of Christ's Church within its immediate 
 communion. I believe it is the Catholic Church in this 
 sense : that it is a true branch of Christ's Church Catholic 
 here on the earth. But what I believe to be a true branch 
 of the Church is the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
 United States of America. Now, in order that that glori- 
 ous consunmiation should be reached to which the gentle- 
 man referred, this Protestant Episcopal Church is to be Or- 
 ganized, not even ce-organized. But if it is assumed that it 
 is no Church, in other words, it is uo Church-organization, 
 and is not a Church, and must be organized inorder to ac- 
 complish such an end, I confess that I start back. It is the 
 Chtircli of my fathers ; it is the Church, the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church, of seventy-nine years, that I am looking at, 
 organized and in full action these seventy-nine years. 
 Must we, Mr. President, sit here on the question of a post- 
 mortem examination of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 and consider whether we can resurrect it, or organize it, 
 and make a Church for this country ? I would like to have 
 it distinctly stated to this House, if the gentleman would be 
 kind enough to do so, whether, with all his heart, he does 
 adopt the Protestant Epi.seopal Church of the United States 
 of America as the church of his affections, or whether it is 
 the American Catholic church, or the Reformed Catholic 
 Church of America. I hear only such phrases : I would 
 like to know before I am called upon to act upon a ques- 
 tion of this kind which is to reach forward into this grand 
 result, whither we are tending — what this means. Is it that 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church is to become all this ? or 
 
 are we first to organize a Church in the United States that 
 is thus to go forward ? 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I understand that there is a differ- 
 ence between the Church and " this Church." In all my 
 reading of our Constitution and canons I find a distinct 
 implication, from beginning to end, that there is no claim 
 on our part to be the Church. The claim is to be " This 
 Church" ; and, of course this Church is the Church for us. 
 It is " This Church" in the Constitution and in the Canons. 
 I need not go over it: it is over and over again "This 
 Church," that is, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America. If you will have the patience to 
 allow me to refer to some of these cases, if any evidence is 
 needed, I iind that in the preface to the Book of Common 
 Prayer set forth by the Fathers oUhis Church, that they de- 
 clare that " when in the course of Divine Providence these 
 American States became independent, the different denomi- 
 nations of Christians in these States were left at full and 
 equal liberty to model and organize their respective churches 
 in such a manner as they may judge most convenient for 
 " their future prosperity." " The attention of this Church ;" 
 they claim an equal liberty with all the other religious de- 
 nominations in the United States to model their Church 
 as they should see fit. And so in the Constitution, it is 
 over and over again " this Church.''^ I think time would 
 fail to cite all the cases in the canons in which " this Church^' 
 is thus referred to. But there are two or three cases that 
 are exceedingly deserving of consideration as it seems to me. 
 In canon second, Title one, 8th, 9th and loth paragraphs, 
 we have such statements as these : " When a person who, 
 not having had Episcopal ordination, has been acknowl- 
 edged as an ordained minister or licentiate in any other de- 
 nomination of Christians, shall desire to be ordained in this 
 Church he shall" do so and so. And then in the ninth : 
 " When a person, if not a citizen of the United States, who 
 has been acknowledged an ' ordained minister in any other 
 denomination of Christians shall ' apply to become a candi- 
 date for orders in "this Church." So in the next section, 
 and in Canon 5, 6 and 7. In Canon 5 : " candidates who, 
 not having Episcopal ordination, have been acknowledged 
 or ordained as licensed ministers in any other denomination 
 of Christians may," etc. So in the 7th : "Ordained or li- 
 censed ministers in any other denonmiation of Christians," 
 and the same phrase occurs in Cauon 7th, tith section. Now, 
 what is the meaning of " in any other denomination of 
 Christians" if this is not a denomination of Christians ? 
 
 Mr. President, here are our Canons not made by the first 
 Fathers of the Church, but we have the testimony of the 
 Fathers of the Church in the very preface of the Prayer- 
 Book ; and now we have the Canons as set forth in 1859 I 
 believe ; and they gravely talk to us of "other denomina- 
 tions of Christians and the ministers of other denominations 
 seeking orders in "this Cliurch." I ask again what can be 
 the meaning of " oMer christian denominations''' \in\ess this 
 Churcli is a denomination of christians ? — Now as to the 
 proposition that this should be a National Council. I have 
 no objections to the idea of a National Council at all, the 
 idea being I suppose that this is a National Council of the 
 Church. Yes, and more than that, the National Church of 
 the United States — the only Church — the only Church in 
 the United States. That is to be the claim. And upon that 
 
87 
 
 claim, if I understand it, and through that sort of claim, we 
 are to get, by the change of Convention to Council, the 
 beautiful results, the glorious ends, referred to. They are 
 to be reached through tliu claim that this Church is to be 
 the only Church of Christ in the United States. I do not 
 ask whether the Fathers of this Church would recognize 
 such a Church as the Church which they intended to or- 
 ganize here. I have no objection to the idea in some points, 
 however ; and would only say that if it should come to pass 
 in the good Providence of God, and in His infinite mercy 
 upon us who do not deserve so great mercy, that this 
 Protestant Episcopal Church should become the only Ch()i'ch 
 of Christ in the United States, God be thanked and praised : 
 but the claim to be such is another question. I ask as to 
 the reaching of these results by such a claim — Has the 
 Church of England which makes that claim and has made 
 the claim that it is the National and only Church of England 
 authorized by law and recognized in the Canons of the 
 Church — has she, under such a claim, grown against dissent 
 and against JRomauism according to the idea which the 
 gentleman will please us with ? We say that we are to rout 
 out Romanism and all dissent by such a claim as this, if I 
 heard the case aright. But I think the Roman Catholic 
 Church has grown more rapidly in thirty years past in 
 England than the Roman Catholic Church has grown in this 
 country out of the native population of this country. I be- 
 lieve the growth of the Roman Catholic Church out of the 
 native population has been very small within the last thirty 
 or forty years. It seems to me that this cannot bear out 
 the idea that barely making such claims is seeking to ac- 
 complish such glorious results. I believe that hmnility is 
 as likely to lead to exaltation of the Church as its own ex- 
 altation of itself would be. We are told that we must run 
 a race with the Roman Catholic Church or that they will 
 run ahead of us. If I were to be allowed to speak for my- 
 self, I should say that I do not desire to run a race with the 
 Roman Catholic Church on any such course. I am ready 
 to run a race with the Roman Catholic Church with all my 
 might and main, but as the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 the United States of America ; but as to undertaking to run 
 a race with the Roman Catholic Church in all her claims 
 and usages so as to stand side by side with her and to be 
 able to tell the people that we have the same sort of priest- 
 hood and the same .sort of sacrifices and altar ; that we have 
 all the claims that this Roman Catholic Church has and ape 
 all her forms and ways — say to run a race with her for the 
 Churchship of this country — I have no notion of it. — As to 
 establishing schools, cannot this Protestant Episcopal 
 Church establish schools as well under the name of Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church as under the name of Reformed Catho- 
 lic Church '? I say I cannot see how these glorious results are 
 dependent upon this beginning. It is a beginning, and the 
 deputy from Connecticut has uttered extremely important 
 words to us as lo this subject when he says obsta principiis 
 [resist the beginnings]. This is a beginning ; it is an 
 entering wedge, we are honestly told. I have two or three 
 other things to say. There are grave legal difficulties con- 
 nected with this change as regards the donations and lega- 
 cies that have been left to this Church, or, in Dioceses, left 
 to the control of the conventions thereof. We cannot 
 change our legal designation without legal authority, or if 
 
 we do so we may lose. I leave this part of the subject to be 
 dealt with by the Deputy from Illinois, who I believe is ful- 
 ly prepared to state the case to us as a lawyer. It is an 
 important thing to be considered before we go forward in 
 this way. — Xow, as to the objection to the term National 
 which was made by the honorable Deputy from Alabanm, I 
 believe I have only to observe to him, while I fully recipro- 
 cate those feelings of gratification which he has expi-essed at 
 being here to deliberate with us, that he still holds to the 
 title General Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 the United States of America. If we could have the Church 
 without regard to National boundaries, a Church pervaded 
 by the love of Christ spreading over the world without re- 
 gard to National boundaries, 1 would most hear-tily rejoice 
 in having such a result, if it might be. But I think it is an 
 impossibility, taking man as he is and human natur-e as it is. 
 Humanity may be so elevated by the power of christiair 
 truth one of these days that all wars and dissensions shall 
 cease in the world ; but we must not anticipate that time 
 and make arrangements as if it had already taken place. 
 Now, observe it would still be the General Council of the 
 United States of America ; it is still National. 
 
 Now it seems to me that great and inconsider-ate haste is 
 exhibited in bringing these propositions before the Conveir- 
 tion, and particularly the amendment. That is nothing bin 
 my private opinion publicly expressed. It may be unwise in 
 me to point out what are the future difficulties to which I 
 may refer ; because if I wanted to leave this matter in such 
 shape as that at the next General Convention it could not 
 be carried through, I would leave it exactly as these gentle 
 men have put it; and I would have this Convention pass 
 these things as they are, and I should be perfectly sure that 
 the whole thing would be completely finished at the next 
 session of the Convention, finished, I mean, without anv- 
 thing being done. For what is the proposition? The 
 proposition on the amendment is that the phrase General 
 Convention wherever it occurs in the Constitution shall be 
 changed to National Council. Look at Article first : " A 
 General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church" 
 and so on. Now, in the 6th line it is, "and in such place as 
 shall be determined by the Convention." Now there is no 
 proposition to alter that. The proposition made by the 
 Deputy from Illinois (and of course he cannot change, be- 
 cause he has pledged him.self that he will stand by every 
 word like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, and will 
 not change a word of his speech, and still less the text of his 
 amendment), his amendment would not require the word 
 convention to be changed because it is not General Conven 
 tion. And so in three or four lines below, four or five times 
 in that line, convention occurs; and it is only proposed that 
 where General Convention occurs it should be changed to 
 National Council. That certainly will not cari'V this Conven- 
 tion in so important and grave a matter as changing the Con 
 stitution, w'liei'e the word convention stands alone. And I 
 call attention to this matter ; in the second Article it is said 
 that "the concurrence of both or-ders shall be necessary to 
 constitute a vote of the Cenvention." There is not a syllable 
 in that article that I see before it about General Convention 
 even to give antecedent to it. We see that the concurrence 
 of both orders shall be necessary to constitute a vote of the 
 Convention, In the third Ai'ticlc, "the Bishops of this 
 
S8 
 
 Church, when there shall be three or more, whenever Gen- 
 eral Conventions are held, form a separate House," etc. 
 Further on — -"in all cases the House of Bishops shall signify 
 to the Convention their approbation or disapprobation." 
 What is the Convention now in the meauinfi; of the Consti- 
 tution? It does not include the House of Bishops in the 
 meaning of the Constitution. There, it is not " General 
 Convention ;" it is " the Convention ;" and it means the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, I suppose. It appears 
 from this that it would be a very bungling piece of work, 
 simply to change General Convention to Xational Council 
 wherever the term General Convention occurs in the Con- 
 stitution ; because there are many other cases where Con- 
 vention occurs alone which would have to be changed; and 
 if you proceed to change Convention, wherever it occurs, to 
 Council, then you will have this strange arrangement that 
 the "House of Bishops shall signify to the Council their ap- 
 probation or disapprobation." Now that is certainly, histor- 
 ically and ecclesiastically speaking, a strange state of things 
 that the House of Bishops is not the Council and that they 
 are to signify their approbation or disapprobation to those 
 who are the Council. One word as to the inconsiderate 
 haste with wliich this is proposed. There are two Rubrics 
 in the Prayer-Book — before and after prayers, the special 
 prayers to be read on the occasion of the session of this 
 Convention — in which occur the terms General and Dioce- 
 san Conventions. It has never been proposed here to 
 change that rubric, and we should have the rubric one 
 way and the Constitution the other ; and if there is any im- 
 portance in changing words, it would be a sad divergence 
 it seems to me. To make this change in the Constitution 
 will require three years, and we cannot make this in the 
 Prayer-Book until after three years. 
 
 While I have pi'esented these difficulties, I think that, it 
 anything were to be done with this, it should be referred 
 to the Committee on Canons, although it is begged that it 
 should not be referred to that committee. I would add 
 this, namely, that in the prayer which we offer we pray that 
 we may be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit — for 
 what purpose? "That the comfortable Gospel of Christ 
 may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed in 
 all places." It is an evangelical petition ; and it closes 
 with a Catholic aspiration ; but observe how the faith of the 
 Church, as it were, lingers when it approaches the Catholic 
 aspiration — " until at length the whole of Thy dispersed 
 sheep, being gathered into one fold, may be made partakers 
 of everlasting life." Most heartily do I endorse the evan- 
 gelical petition, and the Catholic aspiration ; but let us re- 
 member that it is the petition which we offer. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles — obtained the floor, when 
 the time of recess occurred. After which — 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — moved to proceed with the or- 
 der of the day, behaving only waived its consideration. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — I moved that the order of the 
 day be postponed ; that motion was seconded and pass- 
 ed. (Dr. Haight — when ?) Five minutes before 12 
 o'clock. I conceive that instead of the gentleman waiv- 
 ing, we have postponed the order of the day by the ac- 
 tion of this House. i 
 
 Rev. Dk. Haight — 1 was in the House and did not > 
 
 I notice the motion. I moved that the matter before the 
 House be postponed for the purpose of taking up the 
 order. I do insist that unless we proceed with the order 
 of the day 
 
 Rbv. Dr. Adams — I call the gentleman to order, 
 because Mr. Ruggles is entitled to the floor. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — asked permission of Mr. Ruggles 
 to move the taking up the order of the day. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles — however, would only yield for 
 taking the sense of the' House upon the question of post- 
 pqaing the present question. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — declined to make the motion. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles : 
 
 Mn. Presie.ntd, I rise to address this House upon that 
 portion of the amendment, offered by my most learned 
 and excellent friend from Wisconsin, which proposes that 
 the name of this Church shall be the National Convention 
 or Council, as the case may be. It is to discuss the proprie- 
 ty of introducing the word National, that I rise ; and it is 
 more proper to do so, because I am a layman, and think 
 it is a branch of Church affairs peculiarly proper for lay- 
 men to discuss. Although it may be deemed a want of 
 modesty for them to enter deeply into ecclesiastical matters, 
 yet when it comes to a question of nationality, if there ever 
 was a purpose for which the laity were brought into the 
 Church, it was to discuss a question like that. I shall address 
 myself very much to the laity of the House. I shall ask a 
 caudid decision from both orders, but I shall confine my 
 remarks entirely to that point. I wish to inquire whether . 
 or not the introduction of this word National into our name 
 to denote and to describe this Church, will be mischievous — 
 whctlier it will be necessary — whether it will exalt the dig- 
 nity of this body — and, lastly, whether it will increase its 
 efficiency, as oue of the working bodies of the Church Cath- 
 olic throughout the world. In the first place, this Church 
 and its character have been very much and learnedly debat- 
 ed this morning, as embracing only a particular denomina- 
 tiou of Christians living in these United States. If I un- 
 derstand the argument of the acute and learned divine 
 who preceded me [Rev. Dr. Goodwiu] this Church is only 
 oue of several deiiouiiuatious of Christians who have 
 their local habitation in these United States, and nothing 
 more. I nuiintain, as far as I have been able to investigate 
 a question of so great importance and extent, that it is some- 
 thing more. I liave been told by my learned friend of the 
 clergy that this Church was not established for the whole 
 world by our blessed Lord and Redeemer, Who came down 
 here to save it. I maintain that the Church does not exist 
 for any one country or for particular denominations, but for 
 the whole world. In the prayer of our blessed Saviour the 
 night before His crucifixion, so fullof parental tenderness, 
 so exquisitely pathetic. His last prayer to His Father was, 
 that we might all be oue. It requires little teaching to con- 
 vince me that the Divine Author of the Church meant to 
 make us all one. If He meant it, it is our corresponding duty 
 to attempt, by all lawful means, to become one. If He did 
 intend to establish one Church for the world — one universal 
 Church — one Catholic Church (aud if I am wrong my learn- 
 ed clerical friends will correct me), and if this Church 
 was instituted by its Divine Head, it is a Holy Church ; and 
 
39 
 
 If He intended to make a Church for the whole world, anfl 
 did found it Himself, it is the Holy Catholic Church. The 
 Church in carryiug out that Divine injunction, every Sun- 
 day bids us pray " We pray for Thy Holy Church universal, 
 that it may be so guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, 
 that all who profess and call tliciiiselves Christians may be 
 led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of Spirit, 
 in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life." There- 
 fore we are carrying out in the daily Morning service of this 
 Churcli that blessed injunction of the Saviour to have one 
 holy Church universal. That prayer is like the drum-beat 
 of the British empire that was heard round the world, for it 
 encircles the globe, in the Morning and Evening Prayers of 
 the Church, ascending to the Great Architect of the universe 
 from all the Churches catholic — that they may " hold tlie faith 
 in unity of Spirit." How is this Church distributed geo- 
 graphically ? the ancient Church occupied a small portion of 
 the surface of the globe — a little part of .\-sia Minor, Jerusa- 
 lem, and a little part of the coast of the Mediterranean sea ; 
 but all without and beyond was barbarian darkness. It knew 
 nothing of the East. It knew nothing of this other hemi- 
 sphere. It was a small speck on the world's surface. What 
 does it occupy now ? It has circumnavigated the globe ; it 
 embraces both hemispheres — all the continents, new and old. 
 It formed a Christendom out of the barbarians of Eu- 
 rope. It has extended into the southern hemisphere. Its 
 prayer is heard from the Cape of Good Hope, from Calcutta 
 from the furthest Indies, — until every portion of this globe 
 unites in one common prayer. Now, what is our duty, if we 
 seek to obey the injunction of our Lord and Redeemer? It is 
 to make that great cosmical, world embracing-Church, one. 
 What are we? How much of the work are we doing? and 
 what do we represent? We occupy a very respectable por- 
 tion of the surface of the earth — not all of it, by any means, 
 but a very respectable portion ; and we have a very eligi- 
 ble and desirable position in the part of the world we occu- 
 py for a Church : that piece of land on this globe bounded 
 on the East by the Atlantic, on the West by the Pacific, 
 extending from the fragrant groves of the South and the Gulf 
 of Mexico, to the Polar basin. It olfersa very good site for 
 the Church. It has all the elements, powers, capacities, and 
 prospects in the future, to form the central site of a great 
 world-embracing Church. It is not only a good position but 
 a pre-emini'ntly important position geographically. We 
 look out upon both oceans ; and in fact we shall become 
 the centre of the great -systems, which I can not but think 
 my excellent friend from Pennsylvania did slightly caricature. 
 We are earnestly engaged in this evevated, cosmical, 
 world-wide work of making a Church universal. -We do 
 not deserve sarcasm nor ridicule. Our work is honest ; it is 
 large and comprehensive and Christian ; and we do not de- 
 serve to be caricatured. 
 
 Hev. Dr. Goodwin — Will the gentleman allow me 
 with all my heart, to di.sclaim any disposition to caricature 
 or speak sarcastically of the work of the Church ? 
 
 Mr. RiiGGLKS (resuming)— Now, sir, in what sort of polit- 
 ical condition is this part of the globe which we occupy for 
 the Church— that which we call our country? I will now 
 particularly address myself to those friends whom I so 
 gladly welcome back to the Convention. I wish to remove 
 
 from their minds any difficulties upon the subject of nation- 
 ality or any political subject whatever. But I must inquire 
 what is the political character of that piece of the world's 
 surface which we call our country ? In the first place, I mean 
 to say that this Church exists on that portion of the sur- 
 face of the globe, entirely independent of any political con- 
 ne<'tion with any government of that country. This Church 
 is embosomed between two oceans on this geographical sur- 
 face ; it does not belong to the government of that coun- 
 try. This Protestant Episcopal Church, as was most signif- 
 icantly defined in its origin, is the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, not of, but in the United States. We do not use the 
 word in the possessive, but we use the geographical preposi- 
 tion in ; and this is not a verbal criticism ; the.se two little 
 prepositions mean very diflferent things. It is the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church in the United States, 'therefore, we 
 have nothing to do with the government of this country. 
 The government is not a religioifs body. The Constitution, 
 the Government of the United States, has no religion : I am 
 sorry it is so. It has been defined as a Godless Government ; 
 it is not quite so ; but the poHtical government of the Unit- 
 ed States is not a religious body — the more is the pity. It 
 has no connection with the Church. Of late, the Govern- 
 ment of the Unitf d States has taken upon it a little religion, 
 for it has put on all of its coins : " In God we trust ;" which 
 was the first step that I have ever known taken in this Gov- 
 ernment to recognize a Supreme Being. How does the 
 Church exist witliin the geographical limits of thisnation? 
 It is no sort of consequence what form of Government that 
 nation has. It is of no possible importance whether these 
 thirty-five million people living between these oceans are a 
 collection of atoms without any coherence with each other, 
 or rising to the dignity of an association, or a confed- 
 eracy, or a union, or a nation. With these questions 
 the Church has nothing to do ; it exists entirely apart from 
 all questions of political Government. This Ship of State in 
 which the Church is embarked is the subject of great differ- 
 ences of opinion between us at the North and some of our 
 much esteemed friends at the South, we holding it to be a 
 union, and they, on the other hand, holding it to be a con- 
 federacy or league. But we can not discuss those questions 
 here. We meet on common ground. It is no matter to the 
 Church whether she be embarked in one great majestic line- 
 of-battle-ship, or a flotilla of forty gunboats ; it is nothing to 
 us; it is enough for us to know that the Church is on board, 
 and we liave got to go with the ship, be it one or be it many. 
 I must, however, contend that in forming the government 
 of the United States and defining its name to be the United 
 States of America, a political entity of some sort was created, 
 call it what you may, the Union, the Nation, or anything else. 
 That political entity has within itself enough of the func- 
 tions, attributes, and faculties of a Nation, to preserve 
 its own existence, and to preserve its geograpical integ- 
 rity. We must take that as a fact. We may deny all else, 
 h\it we can not now deny that that political entity called the 
 United States has tlnit inherent faculty and function which 
 belongs to a sovereign government to preserve its existence 
 and its territorial integrity; and I pray to God it may, and I do 
 not doubt it will, preserve it for countless ages to come. The 
 integrity of tliat great territorial area docs concern this 
 Church. The fact of its being occupied by one nation is of 
 
40 
 
 interest to the Church, because we wish to be one great 
 united Church. Why is a large area desirable? It is desir- 
 able that we, this American people, may have due influ- 
 ence when the great convocation of the nations of the 
 earth takes place to form one universal Church — an event 
 which is certain in the future. [Messages, elsewhere men- 
 tioned, from the House of Bishops, were here received and 
 read ; when Mr. Ruggles continued]. 
 
 I was proceeding to say that this political structure called 
 the United States has the power to preserve its own life and 
 its own territorial integrity. Having that power, it must be 
 considered to possess in the view of all other surrounding 
 nations the essentials of a nation. A political structure 
 that has that transcendent power in itself may fairly be 
 denominated a nation. But it is not necessary to use the 
 word national for the councils or conventions of this Church, 
 because it would be tautological. The United States ex vi 
 termini is a nation. Foreign nations do not go into the 
 question of its internal government. They look at it liv- 
 ing as one, and see it preserving its Hfe as one ; and, there- 
 fore, the external nations treat the word United States as 
 signifying a nation, and, if they do, it is not necessary for 
 us to use the word national in designating this Church; 
 the Church of the United States is the Church of the Na- 
 tion. That is all that is needed. It is enough for me to be 
 a citizen of the United States. I need not claim to be a citi- 
 zen of the nation. To be a member of the Church of the 
 United States is enough for me. What I mean to say is, 
 that the use of the word National is superfluous and unnec- 
 essary. We are willing to leave it " in the United States," 
 and they may call it what they please. It is enough to be 
 "in the United States." Why is it necessary to preserve 
 our territorial area for ecclesiastical purposes ? I do not 
 speak with the national pride of every citizen of the na- 
 tion. I speak of the ecclesiastical necessity of having a 
 large area. We ought to have a large territorial area be- 
 cause the other branches of the Church of the world have 
 large areas, and that we may have something like an equal- 
 ity of representation in the convocation of the Church of 
 the whole world that is coming sooner or later. The great 
 empire of Russia has twice the territorial area that we 
 have ; it is inferior in quality perhaps, so that the territory 
 of this and that nation are probably about equal ; but she 
 has twice the geographical area in which she has an immense 
 Church transmitted to her most legitimately from the gen- 
 uine Greek Church as established by the Fathers, and car- 
 ried there by a Greek princess tied to her barbarian hus- 
 band, but through that husband and that Greek princess 
 diffused through that vast empire. When we have an 
 Ecumenical Council that Church will be represented ; and I 
 wish that this Church shall stand on an equal ground. 
 What shall we say of the Anglican Cliurch, with her little 
 island and with her outlying empire covering the whole 
 "■lobe 'i When that great meeting takes place, this Church 
 ought to show an etjual dignity and an equal weight, if pos- 
 sible ; and it is do time to diminish her territory, but rather 
 to increase it. It is our duty as Churchmen, without med- 
 dling with political questions, if possible, to extend it. The 
 empire of Russia is a religious empire ; it is eminently re- 
 ligious — far more religious than ours. Religion pervades 
 (he whole of it. Religion lias fought its battles. Her re- 
 
 ligion defended the empire in the struggle of 1812; and I 
 will tell my friends, that a single sermon of the Archbishop 
 of Moscow did more than any one thing to drive back the 
 French invasion. I must speak of Russia with profound 
 respect. We must meet her in convention when the great 
 Ecumenical Convention occurs ; and therefore I wish to in- 
 crease our territory. That great Russia recognizes the ex- 
 istence of the American Union as necessary "to preserve the 
 political equilibrium of the globe." I say, to carry out the 
 same sentiment, the extension of the American Church to 
 its widest limits is necessary to the ecclesiastical equilibrium 
 of the globe. Now, occurs a point upon which I wish to 
 make some remarks. At the last General Convention, the 
 Metropolitan of Canada was invited to a seat in our body; and 
 the wish was expressed by him that some measures might 
 be taken to secure a closer union with the Anglican Church 
 and the other Churches throughout the world. The 
 debates show that the subject of the importance of a 
 union with the Anglican Church was particularly alluded 
 to by the Lord Bishop ; and his proposition was supple- 
 mented by a suggestion in that Convention that the great 
 council which he proposed should be extended so as to in- 
 clude the orthodox Church of Russia. Now, what took 
 place in that Convocation of the Anglican Church? As 
 Bishop Fulford had proposed, the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury issued his invitation to all the Bishops of the Church, 
 not only Anglican but American. He did not call a Coun- 
 cil, because it had not reached that degree of maturity yet ; 
 it was called a Conference. On the subject of the woi-d 
 Conference I can only say that in civil life it is one of the 
 highest of diplomatic facilities. Nations have Conferences 
 where they meet by their representatives. A Conference is 
 the highest mode of diplomatic meeting. A Conference of 
 the Church is not so trifling a matter. This Conference 
 took place ; and nineteen of our Bishops attended. Now 
 we naturally ask what took place. Those who attended 
 that Conference from this country were gladly received on 
 their return ; and we have expressed our opinions, warmly 
 approving their attendance. The resolutions generally are 
 not of an organic character except the single one introduc- 
 ed in respect to Natal, which suggested that they 
 should elect the Bishop by clergy and laity. But that is 
 immaterial. What concerns us is that they passed this res- 
 olution unanimously : 
 
 Resolution 4. That, in the opinion of this Conference, 
 unitv of faith and discipline will be best maintained among 
 the several branches of the AngUcan Communion by due 
 and canonical subordination of the synods of the several 
 branches to the higher authority of a synod or synods 
 above them. 
 
 That is an approach towards an organism. There is an ec- 
 clesiastical Council suggested — the formation of a synod, su- 
 perior to this Convention, superior to that of any local Church. 
 That is some evidence that the drift in that direction is 
 pretty rapid. We shall reach this General Council a 
 little sooner than is supposed. In view of the probability 
 that this Church will have to be represented there in some 
 form, it may as well be represented as the Convention of 
 the United States as to be represented as the National Coun- 
 cil of the United States. The two terms, as I said before, 
 are synonymous. Whoever comes from the Church in the 
 
41 
 
 United States -n-ill have sufficient authority and need not be 
 called the representative of the " National Church of the 
 United States." 
 
 Two messages were received from the House of Bish- 
 ops announcing tlieir concurrence with the House of 
 Deputies in their action as announced by their messages 
 No. 8 and No. 9. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia — I have been wanting 
 some time to get the Moor, but not that I desired to make a 
 long speech. My aim is not to pursue any of those inquir- 
 ies that have been raised by other gentlemen, but rather to 
 draw in from their limit to the consideration of the simple 
 question involved in the resolution which was submitted 
 yesterday evening. I may say that I can not view without 
 profound admiration the expansive power of the reverend 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania [Rev. Dr. Goodwin]. Why, 
 sir, I feel disposed to bestow upon him the encomium which 
 was conferred upon an eminent lawyer in my part of the 
 world, of whom it was said, he could erect a pyramid upon 
 the point of a needle. (Laughter.) And it may be said of 
 other gentlemen who have discussed this question that they 
 are htile inferior to him in that respect. I have been al- 
 most disposed to withdraw from the whole question because 
 of the alarming subjects which seem to be connected with 
 it. Let me beg the reverend gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 not for a moment to believe that we are beginning now to 
 organize this Church. That has been too long and too well 
 organized for any layman tq be alarmed at any charges ; 
 made against his Churchmanship or Christianity. I take it 
 that in this proposition to change the name of our delibera- 
 tive assemblies, no man's Churchmanship or no man's Chris- 
 tianity is at stake. The whole question is one simply of 
 names. And with regard to this proposed change of 
 names, of course it is objectionable because it is a change. 
 It is objectionable likewise, because we have become accus- 
 tomed to the name convention ; though I have not heard a 
 gentleman who, if it were now an original question, would 
 not now, with the present lights before him, use council in- 
 stead of convention. Xo gentleman has expressed the op- 
 posite idea. It is no imputation upon the wisdom of our 
 venerable Fathers who organized the American Church, un- 
 able as they were to foresee all the multiform activities of 
 this great people which should call for the name convention 
 to be applied to such various assemblies — to suppose that 
 they, if they could be with us to-day to choose a new name, 
 would take some other than that of convention. If 
 this be a mere question of prejudice, of association, of uu- 
 willinguess to make a change even in names, let me say 
 that there is no Diocese represented upon this floor which 
 has so old an association with the word convention as the 
 Diocese of Virginia. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 has spoken this morning as though this word first came in- 
 to use as an ecclesiastical word at the time when the Gen- 
 eral Conveution first assembled. Let nie tell that gentle- 
 man that the establishment of the General Convention is 
 in our times almost, by comparison with the usage of this 
 word with the Church of Virginia. We have the complete 
 record of the convention of the Church in Virginia which 
 was held laore than 150 years ago. And notwithstanding 
 all our associations with this word in former years, we in 
 Virginia have agreed with other Southern dioceses to adopt 
 
 6 
 
 the name council. And our old prejudices against it hai'e 
 passed away, and use has made it familiar to us; and we 
 have heard on many sides of us a wish expressed that we 
 would retain the name in hopes that other dioceses would 
 adopt the name, and that it would become finally the gen- 
 eral term adopted by our Church. Now, it seems to me 
 that the indications are plain that there is a disposition on 
 the part of dioceses to adopt this name. Several have 
 done so, and the other day we admitted a new Diocese with 
 this name council for their deliberative assembly, indicat- 
 ing clearly, I think, not so much a deliberate expression of 
 opinion on the part of the General Convention that that 
 name was right, or that the Diocese had a right to it, but, 
 at least, that the General Convention is not inclined to 
 place any obstacle in the way of the adoption of that name. 
 I have promised not to detain this Convention, and though 
 very much tempted to remark upon a number of difficulties 
 that are supposed to be in the way of our adopting this 
 resolution, let me say, that if the reverend gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania will take the word council and carry it 
 through the entire constitution with all the amendments, 
 he will find but a single incongruity there — that which 
 he called attention to this morning, and which exists in 
 precisely the same form and to the same extent, whether 
 you read council or convention ; it was an oversight. We 
 are told that the adoption of this resolution now will indi- 
 cate a purpose on the part of the Church to change the 
 name. I will'not say purpose but a willingness on the part 
 of this Convention to use the word council, on a three years 
 proof to see whether among all the dioceses a majority of 
 them shall be disposed to adopt this measure. That is all 
 that is involved. It was mentioned that the passage of 
 this resolution was an interference with diocesan rights, in 
 the judgment of the learned gentleman [Judge Conyng- 
 ham], eminent for his learning and ability, also from Penn- 
 sylvania. If we send out to the Dioceses this preliminary 
 measure, is it not plain that nothing can be fixed for three 
 years, and that if adopted at all even by the next General 
 Convention, it must previously have received the consent of 
 the majority of dioceses declaring their willingness to make 
 the change. It at least gives them an opportunity to ex- 
 press dissent. Assuredly, unless at the end of three years 
 a majority of the dioceses represented on this floor, having 
 had the question .before them, as this year, are ready to 
 adopt it, the whole attempt proves of no avail. I do not 
 feel inclined to prosecute the subject further. I have re- 
 fretted that so many questions have become connected with 
 this simple one of change of name. I should be very much 
 gratified if the reverend gentleman from Wisconsin, who 
 ofl'ered the amendment to my resolution, would take up 
 some other word than that proposed by him, upon which 
 we could all unite and take a fair vote upon the single ques- 
 tion as to the name convenliun. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Adams.— Will the gentleman allow me to 
 explain? (Dr. Norton— Certainly.) If the gentle- 
 man from Virginia will be satisfied with the word Coun- 
 cil for the word Convention in tlie Constitution, and for 
 the words General Convention the words Triennial 
 Council or Great Council, according to his choice, I am 
 perfectly willing lo withdraw my amendment, and let it 
 come to a fair and square vote upon his resolution. Rut 
 
42 
 
 I would say that to keep the word General is simply to 
 complicate us with all ecclesiastical history ; because in 
 all ecclesiastical nistory the fact is. that there are four 
 classes of councils— the General or Ecumenical Council, 
 the Provincial or State Council, the Diocesan Council. 
 Now if we leave the word General, we simply commit 
 an ecclesiastical blunder, an Irish bull perpetrated by 
 this House; and, therefore, if the gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia will substitute the words Triennial Council for the 
 General Convention, or the term Great Council, I am 
 perfectly willing to withdraw my amendment, and have 
 a square vote on Dr. Norton's amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton.— I am much gratified at the spirit 
 manifested by the gentleman from Wisconsin. I have 
 hastily drawn up such an addition to my resolution as 
 covers precisely the ground the gentleman has indicated. 
 It adds to my former-resolution the words "and that the 
 word Triennial be substituted lor the word General 
 wherever the latter word is followed by the word Con- 
 vention in said Constitution." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan.— It seems to me that there is no 
 , objection to the use of the word General, because the 
 term will not be simply "General Council," but the 
 "General Council of the United States." That makes 
 a title distinct from any of those which the gentleman 
 mentions. There is the Ecumenical Council, which re- 
 lates to the whole world; and there is the General Coun- 
 cil, in antiquity ; and then there is the Diocesan Synod, 
 etc. The limiting term of the United States sufficiently 
 qualifies the term General Council. If we adopt any 
 such term as tiiennial then we pin ourselves to that par- 
 ticular term of years. , We adopt a mere accident as the 
 name of the council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe.— I simply have to ask if calling this a 
 General Council would be an Irish bull, what sort of bull 
 or what sort of animal would it be for us to say that there 
 shall be a Triennial Council of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America in every third 
 year '? (Laughter.) 
 
 Mk. C. C. Parsons.— If the gentleman will yield the 
 floor I will introduce the following resolution: [which 
 was to the effect that the subject of a change of name 
 should be referred to a joint committee, to consist of 
 three Bishops, three clerical and two lay deputies.] I 
 wish to say a few words in explanation, first, relative to 
 personal usage. I do not wish to be a member of this 
 committee, but wish the best minds to be placed upon 
 this committee ; and, secondly, I wish to say that when 
 the Committee on Canons made their report a sh4rt 
 time since, I would have been content to have allowed 
 that report to remain upon the table, as the Diocese of I 
 Kansas has not called for the change from Convention to i 
 Council; but I am obliged to confess that when this dis- 
 cussion was for a long time continued, I became deeply 
 interested. I saw in my imagination, under the fervid 
 and eloquent remarks of several deputies on this floor, 
 this Church risen to a high and august position upon 
 
 the earth; and 1 desired, so far as it was in my power, to 
 furnish her with every weapon and every part of armor 
 necessary for her lo fight the good fight with assurance 
 of success; and hence, if it be possible that this change 
 of the word Convention into Council can be made, I 
 earnestly desire that it may be made; but at the same 
 time it seems to me that no great change in our Consti- 
 tution or Canons should take place until it has gone 
 through the machinery of a committee; and I inquire 
 whether this House is ready to vote upon this question ? 
 It seems to me not ; because, first, if the vote be adverse, 
 it would certainly be unjust to the memorialists from 
 Georgia, who have not been able to have a hearing be- 
 fore the Committee. If the vote should be favorable, it 
 would certainly be wrong to adopt a change until the 
 amendment introducing it had been carefully elaborated 
 and reported upon by a committee. With regard to its 
 being a joint committee, I desire to say that I have been 
 told by one of our Right Reverend Fathers that this 
 same question has been before the House of Bishops. 
 Whether it has been decided or not I do not know, but 
 I believe it has not been decided. It is important that 
 they should join in the consideration of this question. 
 If their i'eport be adverse, a committee of conference of 
 course would be necessary. If their report be favorable, 
 they can assist in throwing light upon the subject. It 
 seems to me that the discussion of this question in this 
 crude manner only places us in a false light. I dare to 
 say that if these gentlemen who have discussed the ques- 
 tion so ably were put upon the committee some satisfac- 
 tory conclusion might be reached. I desire not to be a 
 member of the committee, and I shall expect that the 
 President will not appoint me upon it. I believe that if 
 the resolution as I now propose it be adopted, the 
 present debate will end. And when this House takes 
 up the debate again, it will be with a clearer idea of the 
 work before them. One word in regard to phraseology. 
 We have had references to Canons, Constitution, and 
 the Prayer-Book. There seems to be a great deal of 
 doubt as to how far the amendment should be made. I 
 have therefore used the words "in part" — this is to say 
 that the committee are to consider the subject of a change 
 in part or wholly. 
 
 Dr. Norton — Does the resolution call for such a re- 
 port as would give us a proposition in definite shape for 
 our action '? 
 
 Mr. Parson.s — No; it intrusts that grave matter to 
 a committee without instructions. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles — Does the gentleman indulge 
 in the mon.strous supposition that two laymen are equal 
 to any three of the clergy V (Laughter.) 
 
 Mk. Parsons — Will it meet the views of the dele- 
 gate from New York if I make it three laymen and three 
 clergymen ? 
 
 Mr. Ruggles— Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Parsons — Then I accept the amendment. 
 
 Mr. As I understand the question before the 
 
43 
 
 House it is simply whether the word Conventinn be 
 chaneed to Council. That is not the name of the 
 Church ; it is the name of this body. 
 
 Mr. Paksons thereupon substituted "nomenclature" 
 for "name" in his resolution, and afterward changed it 
 to "designation." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — 1 wish to be permitted to with- 
 draw altogether my amendment, if the House will allow 
 it, and then I am perfectly content to go in upon Dr. 
 Mahan's explanation and vote for the words " General 
 Council in the United States." 
 
 Judge Battle — I wish to say a tew words on this 
 subject. I wish to call the attention of this House to a 
 plain, practical difficulty. It is a discussion about words 
 — whether we shall take the word convention or the 
 word council as designating the general legislative body 
 of this Church in the United States. Now does the 
 word convention express the idea which we have all 
 along entertained with regard to this legislative body? 
 I believe that it will be admitted that the word conven- 
 tion expresses the idea. Now why change it? Why 
 adopt another word? Certainly there can be no good 
 reason for it, unless the word convention has in some 
 way become degraded. We were told the other day that 
 it would become so — that it was so ccjmmonly used on 
 all occasions that it was not a proper word to signify the 
 general legislative body of tWs Church. In answer to that 
 objection I will not use the precise language the speakei' 
 used — the President has requested that it should not be 
 used again. Now what word is there in the English lan- 
 guage that can be applied that is incapable of becoming 
 degraded? Let us try the word (/wod. I believe that is a 
 good word — now see what a vast variety of cases there 
 are in which it may he applied. A loving husband 
 speaks of his good wife. The wine-bibber speaks of his 
 good wine; and if he is profane he adds an adjective. 
 A gambler of his good luck. And some friend will speak 
 of another of whom he does not entertain a very high 
 opinion, and will say "he is a good fellow." Nowhere 
 is the word yuod applied in a variety of ways; and yet 
 who will object to the word good on that account? The 
 same is true of the word convention. If we change that 
 word to council will it suit any better? May not that 
 be used by all the religious denominations? Then why 
 should we throw aside a good word ? I admit that if we 
 had a word which implied a grand humbug or something 
 of that sort, it should be changed ; but no such idea as 
 that can be attached to the term convention. So it 
 seems to me that in a plain and practical view of this 
 question, we are at least discussing the question whether 
 we shall pass from tweedle-dum to tweedle-dee. 
 
 Mr. : — There is a difference between 
 
 Convention and Council. A word not only denotes 
 but it connotes. The word Convention means an occa- 
 sional assembling for any purpose, as the Convention of 
 a State to alter the Constitution. It is inappropriately 
 used to denote any meeting which is regular and or- 
 
 dained by the organic law. For this reason I would 
 like to get rid of the word Convention. The dillerenee 
 is not that between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. The 
 word Council conveys the idea of a meeting regulated 
 by organic law. 
 
 Mh. : — I do not see any necessity for such' 
 
 a change — every Council is a Convention, but not every 
 Convention a Council. 
 
 Mr. : — I was told by one of the members 
 
 of the House of Bishops that they are of the opinion 
 that, as the matter now stands, any diocese has the right 
 to use the word council. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight — Mr. President, is it right for any 
 gentleman to state upon the floor of this House what is 
 the opinion' of the House of Bishops ? 
 
 President — Certainly not. 
 
 Judge Otis — It is evident that the proposition be- 
 fore the House for passing the resolution of the clerical 
 Deputy from Virginia would not have the effect that he 
 , designs even if adopted word for word as he proposes it, 
 or as amended by Dr. Adams. This Church for seven- 
 ty-nine years from its first organization has legislated in 
 a particular manner ; to use the language of the lawyer, 
 it uses meet and apt words to accomplish the objects in 
 view. If we convey land, we must use words that have 
 the operative effect to convey the land. If we repeal a 
 law, we must use the wordi necessary to repeal the law. 
 A resolution can never change a canon, much less the 
 Constitution, much less the Prayer Book. If passed it 
 will be a nullity. Therefore it has been announced that 
 they do not want it referred to the Committee on Can- 
 ons. As one of that committee I am very glad, for other 
 CTentlemen could be constituted into a committee. But 
 some one must put it into the proper form to accomplish 
 the object they desire. The change necessitates about 
 twenty changes in the Constitution and four in the 
 Prayer Book, and these must be effected by somebody. 
 
 r will answer the question put as to the effect the 
 chani'e has upon donations and legacies. How far the 
 term Convention is so interlaced and interlocked with 
 State legislation that it cannot be changed I do not pre- 
 tend to say or know. That is for the committee to in- 
 vestigate — whoever undertakes that labor of getting up 
 the necessary form to change the Constitution and 
 Prayer Book. 
 
 Mr. Bartholow : — Believing this learned discus- 
 sion has satisfied this body that it is inexpedient to act 
 upon this question,'! move the whole subject be laid 
 upon the table. 
 
 The motion was lost. 
 
 Dr. Littlejohn — moved to indefinitely postpone 
 further consideration of the subject. 
 
 The President — decided that a motion of indefinite 
 postponement allows the discussion of the merits of the 
 question. 
 
 A Message, — Number 1 1 , from the House of Bishops, 
 announces their non-concurience wilh the action of the 
 
44 
 
 House of Deputies as communicated by their message 
 number six, and asks for the appointment of a joint 
 commission. 
 
 Mr. Welsh— claimed the right to the floor, and that 
 Dr. Littlejohn's resolution of indefinite postponement 
 -was not in order, as he did not yield the floor to him for 
 that purpose. The latter part of the resolution, which 
 is specific I think, is without any material objection, 
 though I would prefer that the whole should be voted 
 down. It is changing the name of our primary meetings. 
 What possible benefit can arise from it? I cannot see 
 any advantage in changing the name. I call for a di- 
 vision of the subject. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead — I am opposed on principle as 
 well as expediency to this appointment of joint commit- 
 tees on questions which have been thoroughly debated 
 and are perfectly understood in this House and on which 
 I presume at this moment every member is prepared to 
 vote. The mingling of the two Houses in joint Com- 
 mittees has had a bad effect. It is just bringing us back 
 to the original condition of the General Convention, 
 which originally consisted of one House, the Bishops 
 sitting with the clerical and lay Deputies, and voting 
 with them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — I renew the motion to post- 
 pone indefinitely. I do it not with the view of stifling 
 discussion or to defeat action upon it, but in order that 
 it may take the course it ought to have taken from the 
 start, to relieve us of this whole day's debate. I there- 
 fore renew the motion to postpone indefinitely the reso- 
 lutions which are before the House. 
 
 The vote having been taken by ayes and noes, and a 
 division being called for, a tie vote was the result, which 
 was settled in the affirmative by the vote of the President . 
 so the subject was indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead — moved that a Committee of Con- 
 ference be appointed on the part of this House 
 on the subject of message No. 11 from the House of 
 Bishops. 
 
 The motion was adopted, and also a motion that the 
 committee consist of three clergymen and three laymen. 
 
 The Secretary read a communication transmitting the 
 triennial report of the Board of Trustees of the Gen- 
 eral Theological Seminary, for the year 1868, and sub- 
 mitting a resolution non-concurring in a proposed amend- 
 ment of the Constitution of the Seminary. 
 
 The financial condition of the Seminary is exhibited 
 
 by the following statement from the above-mentioned 
 
 report. 
 
 Total Assets .... $350,500 
 
 Estimated Expenses fm 1868-9. 
 
 "3,000 
 
 Supplies . . 
 
 Agent's commission and expenses 
 
 1,000 
 300 
 $12,650 
 
 Taxes and assessments 
 
 Repairs 
 
 Insurance and printing 
 
 Maintaining Seminary — 
 Scholarship aud prizes 
 Professors?' salaries 
 .Janitor and assistant 
 Librarian 
 
 1,000 
 650 
 
 $2,300 
 
 8,000 
 
 900 
 
 160 
 
 IS4,650 
 
 Total expenses 
 
 Estimated Income Same Period. 
 Rent .... $8,000 
 
 Interest . . . ■ . 6,760 
 
 Donations .... 340 
 
 in, 300 
 
 15,100 
 
 Estimated deficiency . . $2,200 
 
 It is hoped by the trustees that this deficiency will be met 
 by leasing additional lots. The number of students at the 
 seminary during the last three years is reported by the trus- 
 tees to have been 57 in 1866, 56 in 1867, and 6.S in 1868. ' 
 
 Rev. Samuel Clements, of Ohio, — introduced a 
 resolution relating to canons for the admission of candi- 
 dates for Holy Orders, and asking for the appointment 
 of a committee thereon. 
 
 On motion, these resolutions were referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of Dr. Haight, the report of the Commit- 
 tee on Canons as to Canon 12 Title I. was made the or- 
 der of the day for Friday. 
 
 The House then adjourned to 10 o'clock to-morrow 
 morning. 
 
 EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 Thursday, Oct. 15, 1868. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Thomas M. Mar- 
 tin of Indiana, and Rev. Thomas C. Pitkin, D. D., of 
 Michigan. The Benediction was pronounced by Bish- 
 op Kemper. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 Reports of Committeees being in order, Rev. Dr. Pit- 
 kin reported, from the Committee on New Dioceses, a 
 preamble and resolution concurring with the action of 
 the Hoiise of Bishops, in ratifying the organization of^a 
 new diocese within the limits of the Diocese of Western 
 New York. Adopted. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Fredericton, Nova 
 Scotia, was introduced to the Convention, and assigned 
 a seat by the President. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Manney, of Minnesota, reported in behalf 
 of the Committee to whom was referred the canon sub- 
 dividing the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States into several provinces. The report in favor of 
 the provincial system was submitted without present 
 action. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, of the Committee of Canons, report- 
 ed a resolution of concurrence with the House of Bish- 
 ops as to amendment of section 2, Canon 10, Title I. 
 Adopted. 
 
 A report from the same Committee, reporting a new 
 canon in lieu of Canon 10, title 1, in relation to election 
 of assistant Bishops, was, by motion of Dr. Haight, laid 
 on the table to be called up. 
 
 A report from the Committee on Canons, in refer- 
 
45 
 
 ence to consecration of churches, was laid upon the ta- 
 ble and ordered to be printed. 
 
 The Committee on Conference with House of Bish- 
 ops, on the subject of Church Unity, was appointed by 
 the President. 
 
 Rev. Dk. M.vxnev moved that the resolution on the 
 provincial system be referred to a special committee of 
 five. 
 
 An amendment to print having been withdrawn, the 
 report was so referred. 
 
 On motion of Mu. Soand, of South Carolina, the 
 sessions of the House are to extend from 10 A. M. to 3 
 P. M., without reccs.s. 
 
 Mk. offered a resolution that the Commit- 
 tee on Canons consider a propo.sed amendment to Can- 
 on 5, Title 3, namely, by adding after the words, "ec- 
 clesiastical authority" in the 1-ith line, 20th paragraph, 
 the words '• consent for such formation or establishment 
 shall be considered as granted unless refused within 
 three months after the ecclesiastical authority has been 
 notified of the intention of forming any such parish." 
 Referred. 
 
 On motion of Rev, Dk. Haiout, the Convention pro- 
 ceeded to the consideration of the order of the day — the 
 report of the Committee on Canons in reference to arti- 
 cle 5 of the Constitution. The report recommends the 
 article read, as follows : 
 
 A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United 
 States, or any territory thereof, not now represented, may, 
 at any time liereafter be admitted on acceding to this Con- 
 stitution ; and a new Diocese, to be formed from one or 
 more existing Dioceses, may be admitted under the following 
 restrictions : — • 
 
 No new Diocese shall be formed or erected within the 
 limits of any other Diocese, uor shall any Diocese be formed 
 by the junction of two or more Dioceses, or parts of Dio- 
 ceses, unless with the consent of the Bishop and Conven- 
 tion of each of the Dioceses concerned, as well as of the 
 General Convention, and such consent shall not be given by 
 the General Convention until satisfactory assurance of a 
 suitable provision for the support of the Episcopate in the 
 contemplated new Diocese shall have been given and ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 No city shall form more than one Diocese. 
 
 In ca.se one Diocese .sliall be divided into two or more 
 Dioceses, the Diocesan of the Diocese divided may elect the 
 one to which he will be attached, and shall therupon be- 
 come the Diocesan tliereof, and the Assistant Bishop, if 
 there be one, may elect the oue to which he will be attached, 
 and if it be not the one elected by the Bishop he .shall be 
 the Diocesan tliereof. 
 
 Whenever the division of a Diocese into two or more Di- 
 oceses shall be ratihed by the General Convention, each of 
 the Dioceses shall be subject to the Constitution and Can- 
 ons of the Diocese so divided, except as local circumstances 
 n^y prevent, until the same may be altered in either Uiocese 
 bythe Convention thereof. And whenever a Diocese shall 
 be formed out of two or more existing Dioceses, the new 
 Diocese shall be subject to the Constitution and Canons of 
 that one of the said existing Dioceses to which the greater 
 number of clergymen shall have belonged prior to the erec- 
 tion of such new Diocese, until the same may be altered by 
 the Convention of tlie new Diocese. 
 
 And that the following be adopted as a new Canon, to be 
 section IV of Canon 0, of Title III. 
 
 No new Diocese shall be formed which shall contain less 
 than =ix Parishes, or less than ^ix Presbyters, who have 
 
 been at least one year canonically resident within the 
 bounds of such new Uiocese, and regularly settled in a Par- 
 ish or congregation tlieroin, and qualified to vote for a 
 Bishop. 
 
 Nor shall any new Diocese be formed if thereby any ex- 
 isting Diocese shall be reduced so as to contain less thiin 
 thirty Parishes, or less than twenty Presbyters who have 
 been residing and settled and qualified as above mentioned. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Haigut stated the principal points of the 
 report, and the features of the proposed amendments, 
 and answered various inquiries concerning them. He 
 said : The Convention will observe that the effect of 
 these amendments is to strike out all the existing re- 
 strictions in ths division of a Diocese except that which 
 arises from the necessity of the consent of the Bishop 
 of the Dioce.se, of the Convention of the Diocese, and of 
 the General Convention, and add only one other restric- 
 tion, and that is, that "the consent of the General 
 Convention §hall not be given to the erection of a new 
 Diocese, until satisfactory assurance of suitable provi- 
 sion for the support of the Episcopate in the new Dio- 
 cese shall be given and accepted." 
 
 Mk. Faikbanks, of Tennessee moved to strike out 
 the quoted clause — as inexpedient, vague and impracti- 
 cable. The question of provision for their Bishop 
 ought to be left to the Diocese to be divided. 
 
 Rev. Mk. Hanckel, of South Carolina: — I should 
 not regret to strike out this last and only restriction 
 which is left by the Committee on Canons, for it brings 
 up ex necessitate a broader question — namely, shall we 
 allow any limitation of the multiplication of Bishops ? 
 I am opposed to such an indefinite multiplication of 
 Bishops, and upon principle. That multiplication has 
 been urged by its strenuous advocates. The theorj' is 
 that the Bishop is the pastor to each congregation, and 
 that the ultimate responsibility aud authority rests in 
 him. This, in the fir.st place, is not the theory of our 
 Church, and its adoption by us would be fatal to our 
 whole system as a Church. It would graduallj' intro- 
 duce among us a system of presbyterianism in lieu of 
 Episcopacy, and the Bishops would sink to the grade of 
 presbyters, and the three orders no longer be found in 
 the practical administration of this Church. I believe 
 that the Presbyterians, on one hand, and the Method- 
 ists, with the system of presiding Elders, on the other, 
 will take off their hats and thank these advocates of 
 the indefinite multiplication of- the Bishops. If you 
 have no other restriction than the one proposed by the 
 Committee — a pecuniary restriction — what is the direct 
 effect ? Vast districts would be deprived of such addi- 
 tional Episcopal service as they may imperatively need, 
 while on the other hand, the large-moneyed centres of 
 the country will have it in their power to multiply indefi 
 nitely their Bishops upon a representation to this body 
 that they are able to support them ; and thus a few 
 moneyed centres would really control the House of 
 Bishops. The ground upon which the multiplication 
 of Bishops has been urged, is defeated by this provision. 
 I contend that it is just in those scattered districts dis- 
 
46 
 
 tributed over large areas, without the facilities of inter- 
 communication, that we need additional Bishops, if we 
 need them anywhere ; and yet, a Bishop may come be- 
 fore this Convention, elected by his Diocesan Conven- 
 tion, and for the want of what may be deemed a suita- 
 ble support, he may be denied his Diocese, and his Di- 
 ocese be deprived of his almost indispensable services. 
 I ask, sir, whether we are not to have the privilege in 
 our day of apostolic self-denial and devotion as well 
 as the apostolic order, and whether it may not be possi- 
 ble for a Bishop with limited ideas of adequate support 
 to come here and say, " In weariness, in hunger, and 
 almost in nakedness I am willing to serve this Diocese 
 to which I have been called in the providence of God," 
 and yet, for the want of what may be supposed adequate 
 support, the Diocese may be refused his services, and 
 he, his work. I contend that this proposed restriction 
 does not meet the case, and that it is best to meet it by 
 the existing provision of the Canon, where the number 
 of presbyters and the area to be traversed make up two 
 of the elements to be considered. Otherwise, you have 
 a Bishop with, according to this Canon, but six presby- 
 ters and six parishes, with little or nothing to do. No 
 matter how restricted the area, yet, if there be six pres- 
 byters and six parishes they may claim a Bishop, pro- 
 vided they are rich enough to support him ; and where 
 will the thing end ? Multiply miracles, and you un- 
 make miracles. There are miracles happening every 
 day, as in the rotation of the earth upon its axis in the 
 orbital movements of the heavenly bodies, more than 
 were ever wrought in the attestation of truth. The 
 stopping of the sun by Joshua is cited as the greatest of 
 all ; yet, the going forth of the sun on its daily course 
 is a vaster and perpetual miracle. Why does it attract 
 less attention, and that of Joshua greater attention, but 
 that the one wrought by Joshua was unusual. Now, 
 multiply Bishops and you unmake Bishops; you lower 
 the dignit}' of the office ; and you diminish its influ- 
 ence; and instead of these wondrous effects which we 
 are told will result from the multiplication of Bishops 
 you will find you have shorn yourself of your strength; 
 for the fact that the Bishops' visits are a very unusual 
 thing is what attracts the multitude to hear him. Make 
 the visit a matter of frequent occurrence, daily, or even 
 once in three months, and it bcomes an ordinary occur- 
 rence and his influence in that respect is gone. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe, of Pennsylvania. — I desire to utter 
 one word of explanation. My reverend colleague who 
 presented this canon to the House, expressed his opin- 
 ion as to what constituted support of the Bishop under 
 the provision, of this alteration of the constitution, and 
 he said, as his own opinion, that he believed that it 
 should be such that the Bishop need not engage in 
 keeping a school. He answered also the question 
 whether the Bishop might have a parish, in the negative ; 
 but that was barely his own opinion. The terms of the 
 Constitution as proposed by the Committee on Canons, 
 
 leave it entirely in the hands of the Convention to decide 
 what constitutes an adequate support. If the Bishop 
 and if this Convention recognize that the care of a par- 
 ish where the Bishop is maintained is sufficient guaran- 
 tee for his support then the Diocese may be divided 
 under the terms of the constitution as now proposed. I 
 state it at this time because it partially answers the 
 objection of my reverend brother of South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hanckkl. — It does not answer it. It leaves 
 to the Convention the decision of the question whether 
 it is an adequate support. 
 
 Rev. Benjamin Rogers, of Texas: — 1 am from a Diocese 
 more deeply interested in this question than any other 
 represented iu tliis Coiiventiou. My Diocese has acted, and 
 instructed me to act iu this matter ; and I wish to submit 
 an amendment to the Canon as reported by the committee, 
 and then give my reasons for the introduction of this 
 amendment. "Amend the second clause of article as pro- 
 posed by the committee by striking out all the said clause 
 after the words as well as" etc. 
 
 If the Convention will pardon me a moment, I will give 
 some of my reasons for this action. When the memorial 
 from the State of Texas was read, and perhaps the Con- 
 vention will have read it as a part of the record, it appear- 
 ed that "the Rev Mr. Rogers then offered" etc., [reading 
 from the memorial from the Diocese of Texas]. This [the 
 resolution of the Diocese of Texas] covers this very matter 
 removing restrictions of dioceses. Mr. President, the 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Texas knew very well for what; he 
 was asking ; and the Diocese of Texas knows very well 
 what she comes here to ask. She is too modest to ask for 
 that which is asked for by a thousand trumpet tongues, she 
 knows that she stands here as a diocese needing above all 
 others this very thing to be done for lier. Texas has more 
 than three hundred thousand square miles of territory. 
 From her eastern to her western boundary, starting at the 
 river on this side and going to the river on the other side 
 is a line equal to a line from the city of Boston to the east- 
 ern line of the State of Indiana, and yet it is but one dio- 
 cese. From the South to the north, starting from the Rio 
 Grande and going up to the Indian Territory is a line 
 equal to one starting from the point where we stand to-day 
 and going down through all the intervening states until 
 you reach the State of Florida; and yet she has but one 
 Bishop. Now suppo.se the territory extended as far as from 
 Boston to Indiana iu one direction and from the city of 
 New York to Florida on the other constituting with its twelve 
 or fifteen parishes, but a single diocese. Suppose there are 
 stretching along from end to end several great rivers that 
 come rushing down, rising thirty feet in a night, with their 
 hundreds of other streams only smaller than they, that iii a 
 single hour come in from the hills that surround thd^, 
 rushing so wildly that horses and carriages, men and all, 
 and stages are swept away. Now, that is all under one 
 Bishop, and he is compelled to travel almost constantly to 
 visit his parishes. Now suppose that there are but twenty 
 Presbyters in all that vast territory ; yet there are 127 
 counties each county of which is larger than were the Sees 
 of ancient Africa or Rome. Yet so scattered are these 
 twenty Presbyters, that, starting from the city of Austin 
 
47 
 
 wherr I live and going to the nefirest. parish, that of San 
 ATitonio, it is ninetv miles. If I come down from the east 
 in order to get to the nearest parish in that direction, it is 
 ainety miles. If I go nsrth to tlie nearest parish it is ninety 
 miles. Now these are the parishes branching from her 
 centre. Do you think we need no aid in our direction 't 
 The Bishop of the Diocese starts in the fall from his house 
 — no bridges upon the river ; and no railroads upon which 
 to travel save a few miles, and he is compelled to go by 
 stage, because it hurries bim through day and night and 
 otherwise he cannot get through at all — and he travels for 
 a hundred days and nights before he can rest in the bosom 
 of his family; and I have the record here of his journey 
 from day to day as he travels. If he should travel with his 
 own conveyance he could make but half the circuit in half a 
 year. When he has traveled that one hundred days, day 
 and night, and returns, he has only taken the northern line 
 form the centre of the State. When Spring comes round, 
 he starts for another hundred day.s' and nights' travels and 
 visits before he can return to his family, this making over 
 four hundred days' work in a year. The last time I saw 
 him he had been riding night and day for weeks ; and yet 
 he had to sit down and work in my study during the time 
 of his stay there that he might bring up his correspondence. 
 Were he not a man of iron constitution he could not endure 
 it ; aud I am not willing to see my Bishop killed. 
 
 Do you think our six or seven hundred thousand souls 
 need no shepherd? Do you believe that through all that 
 vast territory we are to be precluded from carrying the 
 .Church, because the Bishop can only hurry from point^to 
 point where accidentally a Church happens to be upon a 
 stage-rout by which he must travel ? He cannot stop to say 
 a fatherly word in this and that village, because the stage 
 moves on day and night, and he cannot otherwise keep his 
 appointments. Our ministers are so far apart that we have 
 to fold ourselves within ourselve.s, and wait for what the 
 Lord and the" Convention shall do in permitting the influ- 
 ence to go out beyond our parishes. Yet as I travel over the 
 State — and I have traveled largely in my time— I find there 
 are in every community hearts earnestly yearning for the 
 Church. I can only say to them that perhaps the Conven- 
 tion will give it them some time. What we ask is, that all 
 restrictions be removed. St. Paul never asked whether he 
 should be adequately supported when he crossed the (Jhan- 
 nel to carry the Gospel to Britain. There are thousands of 
 men who are willing to go with the same spirit as St. Paul. It 
 is the fatherly hand that gathers the children together from 
 •day to day. It is this fatherly hand that should be permit- 
 ted to go leisurely along from town to town and from vil- 
 lage to village, and gathi'r the few churchmen that are scat- 
 tered all over the countrv, and thev would bring in their 
 neighbors; and thus he would drop down parishes like 
 blessings and flowers all over the land wherever he went. 
 But now it is physically impossible that the one Bishop 
 should do this; and Te.xas is to-day worse off in soine re- 
 spects than she would be in the heart of Africa; for, if she 
 were there, you would send to her missionaries and Bishops. 
 But now that she is a Slate, you adopt sui-h cauons as pre- 
 clude her having either. Where will our people go in 
 such a condition of affairs? It is to Home, who is drop|ii]i:; 
 her Bishops all over that countiy. They have great 
 
 churches, and great schools, and their women and mission: 
 aries. After they shall have gathered in our children and 
 built their houses of worship ; after the sects shall have sem 
 their itinerating men all over the country, dropping down 
 their school-ma'ms here and there aud gather up all belong- 
 ing to our fold, you will be ready to act, and the early mis- 
 sionaries of the church will be dead ; and you will be suf- 
 ferers for it. I have had very .serious experience in my 
 time. I began to ask that they miglit simply give me a 
 si'hool that I might gather in the children, and teach them 
 something, that we might have a Church in the future. 
 While we were debating, the Church of Rome came, and 
 they are doing for Rome what ought to have been done for 
 the Church, and you are to blame for it, rather than I. 
 What I ask is, that we shall not be compelled to wait "until 
 we have thirty-six parishes and thirty-six clergymen. We 
 have eighteen parishes now ; where are we to get the 
 others? We have a noble man, thank God, for our Bishop, 
 but he cannot do the work of a thousand, [The speaker 
 here referred to a memorial from South Carolina and com- 
 mented upon its reference to Texas, to the effect that upon 
 the Episcopal principles of Asia Minor, in the ancient 
 Church, Texas would have 8(iii Bi.shops.] If we were to act 
 upon the principles of the English Church we ought to have 
 150; and are Texas souls not worthy to be saved as much 
 as those in Asia Minor ? Besides the hundreds of thousands 
 of whites, there are 2(1(1,(10(1 blacks, subject to the control 
 of any one who will give them the primer and Bible. If 
 you will give me a school, I will take the children, and if I 
 get the children, I have got the generation ; and whoever 
 educates the negroes of Texas, has them soul and body, 
 for all future time; and yet I have to stand still and wrap 
 my surplice about me, and wait for you to give us the privi- 
 lege of acting for ourselves. I ask you to answer the ear- 
 nest entreaty of our own Bishop, aud give us such a right. 
 
 Mr. . I have the deepest sympathy with our 
 
 brother from Texas. I am glad to hear such earnest 
 appeals come to us from such parts of the country; 
 but I cannot agree with my reverend brother in the 
 plan which he has projjosed to accomplish his object; 
 nor can I agree with the proposition made by tlie Com- 
 mittee on Canons. I tliink we have had one of the no- 
 blest appeals made to this Church for the increase of 
 our Missionary Bishops. We want the heai't of this 
 Church to beat responsive to the needs of the Church 
 there. But we have a system which has been tried, and 
 which has brought forth abundant fruit. Any one who 
 has attended our missionary niee.tings must have felt 
 moved by the great and noble work going on there. 
 But while we are seeking to push the Church, let us 
 also remember that there is another question. We 
 must be careful that we do not break down the truly 
 conservative element of the Church — the Diocesan 
 Episcopate. Our Church is .-io arranged that while it 
 uuiintains its position with firmness and stability, cling- 
 ing to the oracles of the past, still it opens every ave- 
 nue Jo meet the demands of the present and the future. 
 What we want is an increase of cm- missionary Episco- 
 pate. Missionary Bishops are sent forth with the (iod- 
 
48 
 
 speed of the Church ; we feel personally responsible to 
 them ; we feel obliged to support them. Suppose the 
 Diocese of Texas to be divided into a number of dio- 
 ceses, can we be so perfectly sure that the feeling of the 
 Church would go forth with the same directness towards 
 its Bishops who are there selected by what we have 
 every reason to suppose would be regular, established 
 churches, as it would go forth toward our missionary 
 Bishops sent forth by us ? I entirely object to any pe- 
 cuniary restrictions upon which the extension of the 
 Episcopacy shall depend. Let our Bishops go forth and 
 labour, denying themselves. — I also do object to the in- 
 definite division of our existing dioceses and reducing 
 them so much that the Episcopacy shall lose that dig- 
 nity and universal respect which has made the name of 
 our venerable Fathers, as they come down to us from 
 the early history of this country, names honoured and 
 esteemed by the whole Church. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers : Under this canon as proposed, 
 Texas must remain with one Bishop until she has 36 
 parishes and 36 presbj-ters. 
 
 Judge Otis : The gentleman confounds the proposed 
 canon and the proposed amendment to the constitution ; 
 we took some restrictions that were in it before and 
 placed them in a canon ; but that canon cannot be act- 
 ed upon until three years from now. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers : I have not misunderstood the 
 gentleman. I understood that what we initiate here is 
 simply to be put in shape for action three years hence. 
 I do not propose a change of the canon. I have pro- 
 posed my amendment as a substitute, to some extent, 
 of the second clause of the article as proposed by the 
 committee, and because what they propose does not 
 meet the wants of Texas. A gentleman has said we 
 want Missionary Bishops ; but according to the pro- 
 posed canon and constitution we cannot have them. 
 We are inside of a State organization. In order to get 
 what we wish, I would be willing to blot out the State 
 organization to some extent, and to throw it into a ter- 
 ritory, to get the needed bishops, but I cannot ; where- 
 as in the Indian territory they can elect a bishop, with 
 only six presbyters. I think we should be no worse for 
 being on the south side of the dividing line. Do not 
 compel a State to go without the Church, when you are 
 givin"' it to the Territories and to the heathen world. 
 
 Gov. Fish : The most of what I proposed to say has 
 been anticipated by gentlemen who have had the floor 
 since I flr.st endeavom-ed to obtain it. There is, how- 
 ever, a consideration which I will endeavour to present, 
 which operated with the Committee on Canons in in- 
 ducing them to report this amendment. Their atten- 
 tion was drawn to it, as the Convention will remember, 
 by the presentation, in the first instance, of a memorial 
 from Wisconsin, [read by Dr. Adams] and followed up 
 by others, complaining of restriction in the fifth Ai^icle 
 of the Constitution against the creation of new dioceses. 
 The question before the House now, I suppose, is that 
 
 of the gentleman from Tennessee to strike out ; but I 
 would submit to him and the Chair that that is not a 
 proper proposition to adopt. The immediate question 
 before the House was the insertion at the end of the 
 second clause of the fifth Article, of the words " and 
 such consent shall not be given by the General Conven- 
 tion until satisfactory assurances of suitable provision for 
 the support of the Episcopate in the new diocese shall 
 have been given and accepted." There were two ques- 
 tions to be considered. One was the necessity of di- 
 ocesan Episcopates, the increase of Episcopates, though 
 there was the danger of too great an increase. There 
 was the danger of the creation of an Episcopate where 
 there would be no adequate support, and where possi- 
 bly in a short time thei'e might be no population to re- 
 ceive the Bishop. Experience in some parts of the coun- 
 try has shown us that parishes may be created to-day and 
 pass away to-morrow. Js it safe for the Church to al- 
 low six parishes, created possibly under such circum- 
 stances as we have seen every month, and created 
 sometimes for purposes I would rather not refer to — is 
 it safe, I ask, to allow the creation of new dioceses and 
 the election and consecration of new Bishops to be ef- 
 fected thus loosely ? We thought not. We believe the 
 Church thought so. We did not believe that this Con- 
 vention would sanction any such principle of laxity as 
 that. 
 
 It was, however, of the utmost importance that the 
 growing dioceses of the West should be relieved from 
 the restriction that the present article of the Constitu- 
 tion put upon them. We wanted to give the Episco- 
 pate to a smaller number of parishes, and therefore the 
 word " self-supporting" was stricken out ; but if we do 
 away with that provision, and wish to retain some rea- 
 sonable and safe supervision of the formation of new 
 dioceses, how can that be better done than by giving an 
 Episcopate to any moderate number of parishes where 
 support is guaranteed '.•' The Committee approached 
 thai carefully, and we think wisely, in the provision 
 recommending that such consent shall not be given by 
 the General Convention until satisfactory assurances of 
 su])port of the Episcopate have been given. And in 
 every particular case the Convention will judge how 
 much is necessary. They attempt to fix no standard 
 foi- the support. What is necessary in one diocese is 
 much more than necessary in another. Can we not 
 trust our successors in the General Convention to give 
 a judgment upon that? Do we believe that all the wis- 
 dom, that all the conservatism, that all the love for the 
 growth of the Church, is to be dispersed and abandon- 
 ed, the moment this Convention rises '? I believe that 
 the next Convention will bring the same conservatism 
 and the same love of the Church and the same desire 
 Ibi- its progress as ever. It has been asked how other- 
 wise than by an endowment can an adequate support 
 lie guaranteed. There are many other modes. I will 
 suggest one which has been in my contemplation fr m 
 
49 
 
 the beginning, and which wo employ constnntly in rais- 
 ing funds for missionary purposes. Now what is to 
 prevent the State of Texas, State though she be, from 
 setting apart a new diocese there, and the Missionary 
 Societ}' of this Church assuming the payment of one or 
 more hundred dollars, in order to assure a satisfactor}- 
 support to the Bishop ? And then tlie Convention in 
 Texas at once creates a diocese and elects a Bishop. 
 There is no necessity for any endowment. You have 
 here a question of organization, of raising and expend- 
 ing money for missionary purposes, and where can they 
 do it better than precisely in that Held V In this way 
 you combine missionary eftbrt with <liocesan organiza- 
 tion. The support lor the Episcopate is passed iijion 
 by the Convention, and you prevent the creation of too 
 many dioceses ; you restrain to some extent the in- 
 crease of dioceses and Episcopates, but }'0U provide tor 
 it wherever it is necessary. That is the object and the 
 whole extent of that limitation in the Constitution. 
 We sti'ike out that number of self-supporting parishes, 
 but to retain some hold we make this provision, which 
 seems to be entirely safe. 
 
 Now as to the question raised by the Rev. gentleman 
 fromTexas, in words and manner which will not be for- 
 gotten when this Convention ceases to hold its sessions. 
 He tells us, and justly, that under the proposed Cdnon, 
 Texas cannot be divided with her present number of 
 twenty-four to thirty parishes. We have not yet acted 
 upon that limitation of number. But when we come to 
 do so those numbers can be reduced and I premise they 
 will without hesitation be reduced. [Upon the assur- 
 ance that this would be done, Rev. Mr. Rogers said he 
 would withdraw his amendment.] The Committee have 
 recommended six parishes for the new Diocese to be set 
 off ; because the Canon to be amended requires six, we 
 took this number ; not because of any attachment to it 
 but for the sake of conformity ; and with regard to the 
 number of parishes to be left in the old Diocese, we took 
 the number in the cOHstitutional requirement, not be- 
 cause we had any particular attachment to that number, 
 but because it is there. When that particular Canon 
 comes up for consideration we can make the number suit 
 the Rev. gentleman from Texas and satisfy the Conven- 
 tion. For one I am ready to take any number, but 
 we should hold a certain restraint in this body over the 
 creation of Dioceses. We allow this case of Te.xas to be 
 provided tor and our Missionary society can find no bet- 
 ter field than that for the expenditure of its funds ; 
 and I undertake to say that the State of Texas, State 
 though she be, under the operation of the Missionary 
 society, and by its co-operation would secure an increase 
 of Diocesan Bishops; and this provision of the Constitu- 
 tion now proposed will enable the Missionary society to 
 furnish the guarantees for the formation of those new 
 Dioceses. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Andrews : — I have a resolution which I 
 will submit, and which I think will meet the views of 
 
 7 
 
 the delegate from Texas, and also the views of the ijen- 
 tleman from New York (Gov. Fish). But before I read 
 this, I will make some general remarks upon tlie subject. 
 When I heard the memorials as they came in a few days 
 ago [understood to be the memorials in favor of the 
 Provincial system], followed as it was bv the report, I was 
 reminded of the celebrated speech of the great statesman 
 of Kentucky, which I heard thirty years ago, the open- 
 ing sentence of which is so well remembered to this day. 
 Nor do I consider it as comparing small things with great, 
 when I say that the condition of the Church at this 
 time is similar to what he conceived to be the condi- 
 tion of the Republic Men. And if ever I coveted that 
 effective capacity for debate which Providence has de- 
 nied me, it was when I heard the report on the Provin- 
 cial system just read. As we are constantly referred to 
 the example of antiquity for this indefinite diminution 
 of Dioceses, I beg to make are-statement of the facts 
 so far as they hear upon the question before us. Dio- 
 ceses anciently corresponded to civil divisions of the 
 State : but under the emjjerors, thirteen of them em- 
 braced the whole Roman world, with a population of 
 one hundred and sixty millions. When the Church 
 came into the field, where she came with Divine author- 
 ily, it is to be observed that the Dioceses conformed to 
 civil divisions. The sees were large and as compared 
 with the system now proposed, very large ; but this 
 scheme of conformity to civil divisions continued until 
 every city which had a civil magistrate and a local senate 
 demanded a Bishop ; and hence it was that the sees were 
 of various sizes, depending upon the extent of the juris- 
 diction of the civil magistrate. Hence we are told that the 
 sees of Carthage contained five hundred clergy, while 
 the sees about Rome scarcely contained a dozen; so that 
 we have examples in antiquity of all kinds — for large di- 
 oceses as well as small. But there can be no question 
 that the division went on until it furnished the most 
 plausible objection against Episcopacy itself See and /lar- 
 ish are claimed by Presbyterians to have been the same 
 thing. By the close of the Iburth century we find a cat- 
 alogue of nearly two thousand sees. The Episcopacy of 
 the apostolic age had been changed. The sees were 
 reduced to such insignificancy that some remedy was 
 demanded ; and the sees were consolidated and put under 
 the supervision of metropolitans. These metropolitans 
 were one hundred and twenty, and over these were 
 placed subsequently, the Bishops of the principal cities 
 of civil Dioceses in which such provinces were contained, 
 under the name of patriarchs, so the civil Dioceses and 
 provinces became ecclesiastical Dioceses and provinces. 
 After all this it was deemed expedient — for the power 
 grew by degrees — in the seventh century to place the 
 Bishop in the principal city of the empire ; and he reign- 
 ed there as the Caesar of the Church. In this process 
 the first step was the reduction of Dioceses, and by 
 degrees there came to be a consolidation of power which 
 deprived the people of the last vestige of liberty with 
 
50 
 
 wbich God had endowed them, in3titutin<; a system un- 
 der which the individual was uothingand the State every- 
 thing — in whicli everything was borne down by the all- 
 crushing, remorseless State. Such, sir, in its bearings 
 upon this question, are the real teachings of antiqnity. 
 We are left to exercise discriminating judgment upon the 
 past and common sense as to the present. A Diocese 
 may be too large or too small. We have a minimum and 
 we have a maximum in the constitutional provision that 
 the Bishop shall be required to visit every Parish once 
 in three years. The Diocese of Pennsylvania, now 
 claiming another division, has but one hundred and 
 fifty parishes, and Maryland, which we have just divided, 
 had, all-told, but ninety rectors. Take the maximum to 
 be one hundred and fifty, and the minimum to be fifteen 
 and the average would be abuut eighty ; which would 
 allow the Bishops to visit every parish every year, to 
 stay two days in each, to have seventy-five days for 
 travel, and four months for rest and study ; and surely 
 no Bishop wants more than that for rest and study ; and 
 surely no parish requires more protracted and frequent 
 visits than this, and as for any official purposes it is 
 twice as much as they require ; and as to those more 
 protracted visitations, the fond notions that so'many seem 
 to entertain on this subject have never been realized and 
 never will be. 
 
 No theory was ever so thoroughly exploded, and yet 
 none was ever so persistently entertained. As to 
 the philosophy, what is it that gives such superior influ- 
 ence to Episcopal presence and counsel ? Is it the su- 
 perior talents of the Bishop ? Not necessarily. Is it 
 his superior piety ? Not necessarily. Is it the convic- 
 tion on the part of the people that he acts under Di- 
 vine authority? So does the Presbyter. No, Sir, never. 
 It is the jurisdiction. It is the office, and the influence 
 of that office will be in proportion to the singularity of 
 its functions and to the size and importance of territory 
 over which it extends. Suppose the Bishop visits each 
 parish every month or every three months. He will on- 
 ly divide his power with the rector and we shall have 
 gained nothing. This is a power which ought not to be 
 trifled with. But it is trifled with by the proposed 
 canon ; nay, it is destroyed. It has already been re- 
 marked that we are Presbyterianizing the Church, and 
 reducing the Episcopate to the office of moderator, and 
 yet I sympathize with those who desire this multiplica- 
 tion of Bishops. I do not believe that ambition has a 
 great deal to do with it. It may affect some minds 
 among the clergy, but not many ; as to the laity, they 
 desire nothing but to build up the Church. As to the 
 facts of the theory, the experiment has been made too 
 often and with too marked effects to be doubted. The 
 facts are as much against the theory as philosophy. Look 
 at Kansas, which reported one hundred and seventy-one 
 communicants at the last General Convention. Look at 
 Delaware, with a good and able man as Bishop for 
 twenty years. Yet she reported fewer parishes in 1865 
 
 than in 1863, some sixteen or eighteen in all. I do not 
 believe that any one parish in that Diocese has grown 
 beyond what it would have grown had it continued a 
 constituent Diocese of Pennsylvania. Look at Florida. 
 It has had a Bishop for many years and they now report 
 in Florida three rectors. So in Arkansas, where they 
 have had a Bishop so many years, we have one rector 
 (and he is the Bishop and reported as officiating). 
 As to the cases which have been cited of these new mis- 
 sionary Bishops, I think some provision should be made 
 for cases where population is mainly confined to the lines 
 of great railroads, and where towns spring up, almost in 
 a night. There ought, no doubt, to be Bishops there. 
 But what are the facts with regard to these old dioceses ? 
 Is it possible for any man, if he will open his eyes, to fail 
 to see the facts of the case as they now stand ? If you in- 
 quire whether a Bishop's missionary labors or influence 
 as Rector of a parish will be enlarged, the facts warrant 
 no such conclusion. We have Bishops as Rectors of 
 parishes; are they found to grow more rapidly than 
 others ? Nobody ought to expect it. So likewise in 
 towns where the Bishop resides, is the Church found 
 growing more rapidly than in other places ? It does 
 not, and it is not reasonable to expect it. It is a nice 
 thing to talk of a Bishop coming into a parish every few 
 weeks and inquiring of the minister about the vestry, and 
 of the vestry about the minister, and of both about the 
 people, and of the people about both. A Bishop might per- 
 form one such visitation but never a second. It is said in 
 this pamphlet [reads as to the " paternal influence of a 
 Bishop," his being the ''father of his Diocese," "living and 
 moving daily among his people"]. I would ask the Chair- 
 man do you profess to have such a supervision as that 
 over your parish, or have the pastors of great churches in 
 this city ? They" do not and they cannot. I confess for 
 one I do not desire it of the Bishop. I never heard of its 
 being attempted but once. That was not in a small par- 
 ish but in a large one and met with no encouragement ; 
 but it was thought a wonderful tljing that the Bishop was 
 coming to make the personal acquaintance of every one in 
 the parish. It was attempted ; after the service all 
 came up to be introduced — not only colonels, majors, 
 and Esquires, but especially the poor Uncle Jack and 
 Aunt Susan ; (I give the naraes^ and these were taken 
 by the hand and shaken cordially. But afterward the 
 people began to ask themselves how much there was of 
 reality in all this ; not a natural sentiment was expressed 
 on either side ; and it is sufficient to say that afterward 
 these things were left to regulate themselves. So as to 
 the clergy — they came to shrink from such an inspec- 
 tion, and I confess for one I do not desire such an in- 
 spection. I do not bejieve there is one who does, how- 
 ever he may draw these pictures in pamphlets. This 
 domiciliary inspection was looked forward to as a visita- 
 tion in more senses than one (laughter). But it is said 
 that the Bishop ought to render some service to the 
 minister more than his professional duties, but how ? 
 
51 
 
 The Rector ought always to be master of the situation. 
 Ordinarily he is so ; but if he is not it is seldom in the 
 power of the Bishop to make him so. The idea of a 
 Bishop in this age is not realized under the idea of a 
 father among his children, but as that of a man among 
 men. He operates by character as well as by office — 
 by his reputation for sincerity and for piety — and by 
 reputation foi wisdom, enterprise and success. A dio- 
 ^se should never be so large but that a Bishop may e.x- 
 ercise these qualities in behalf of the parish where he 
 may chance to be. And where he finds the rector has 
 peculiar difficulties to contend with he uses the whole 
 weight of his character official and personal to hold up 
 the rector's hands. [Reads from the pamphlet]. But, 
 alas, Sir, I cannot but notice the signs of the times; and 
 if I do not misinterpret them, the Bishops are all to be 
 supported with ample funds. I fear we shall have Bish- 
 ops in foreign parts. Bishops by the seaside, Bishops 
 among the mountains. Bishops here in New York. And 
 if not supported, there is a great probability that we shall 
 have a multitude of Bishops without Episcopal occupa- 
 tions, without the means of subsistence, and without re- 
 spect in so much that a wealthy lay friend would take 
 the opposite side of the street. 
 
 One word as to the drift of the resolutions. I am 
 safisficd it is not fully perceived. What is it ? First, 
 small dioceses. I was astonished when I heard the 
 principle admitted — they are not so large as Scottish 
 classes. What was at first hinted is now completely 
 announced — Metropolitans; the dioceses in a State 
 gathered into one government and with a Metropolitan, 
 under which system the Bishop of Philadelphia would 
 be a greater man than now, and the Bishop of Pittsburg 
 a much le.ss one. This is the first stage of the Provin- 
 cial system of which we have heard so much and know 
 so little. Then we may be absolutely sure of the second 
 and third instalments asked for in the report. We shall 
 have, not the primate pictured in that rcpoit, but a 
 very different one. We have been told that with this 
 system we shall be alile to have our own way ; but we 
 shall find the little finger of the primate thicker than 
 the local Bishop's loins. It is well that we know this, 
 and that we can look before we take this enormous leap, 
 which will l)e a leap in the dark for the majority of the 
 Churdi. It is .said that this system did not advance in 
 the last (ieneral Convention as much as was expected. 
 Others said that it was no more than we had expected, 
 because the Church had not been educated up to this 
 thing. Sir, I am. jealous of the being educated up to 
 any system that is not declared in all its parts at the 
 beginning. We have men educiited in various ways 
 up to believing th;it to be lawful which they once 
 thought to be unlawful, and believing that right which 
 once the Gospel and every moral sentiment told them 
 wa.s wrong. The system is recommended as preventing 
 the necessity of a.ssistaiit-Bishops, but the more you 
 multiply the Bishops the more you increase tlie liability, 
 unless you provide that the Bishops shall die suddenly, 
 
 without previous infirmity or decay. The resolution 1 
 propose is this : as a substitute, T move that the whole 
 matter be recommitted with a resolution providing for 
 increased Episcopal service in the Diocese of Texas. 
 
 Mu. Faiuh.vnks; — The proposition is out of order, 
 my motion being to strike out. 
 
 The Presidknt decided the motion to recommit to be 
 in order. 
 
 Mr. : — I do not see how the resolution can 
 
 be a substitute for the proposition under consideration. 
 The substitute is in regard to the election of Bishops, 
 a wholly different subject, and is provided for in another 
 aiticle of the Constitution. It cannot be admitted as a 
 substitute. 
 
 The President : — I suppose the motion to recommit 
 is in order, but without the instruction. [To the Com- 
 mittee.] 
 
 Mr. «Cteorge A.Gordon, of Alabama: — The debate 
 upon the report of the Committee on Canons has taken 
 so wide a range this morning that it is with dilHculty 
 that I can catch precisely the points at issue before the 
 House, and yet, the main proposition discussed is one of 
 such deep interest to me that whether they were strictly 
 germane to the particular point at issue or not, I was 
 very glad to listen to the arguments, upon one side or 
 the other ; and I desire, upon tliat point, also, to be 
 heard in a few remarks. If I know myself, I certainly 
 would not engage in an)' project which would look like 
 revolution. Like the learned gentleman who last took 
 his seat, I am afraid of revolutmn. I have been taught 
 to be afraid of revolution. I never have been in favor 
 of it in the Church, but in neither Church nor State am 
 I ever again in favor of revolution. In all matters of 
 the Church I shall shrink from anything approaching a 
 difference from the established order or law in the 
 Church. But I deny the proposition, with all deference 
 to the learned Deputy from Virginia, that a return to 
 apostolic order is revolution. The}' are two distinct 
 propositions : one is subveision, and the other is a re- 
 turn to order. And is it too much for us to say that 
 there have been errors in the American Church '! Is 
 that the only Church organization in the world that has 
 been free from error? It has comparatively a new con- 
 stitution; there have been, from time to time, new con- 
 stitutions framed; new branches of the constitution have 
 been placed in the old one, and new canons enacted. We 
 certandy have not reached perfection to-day. There 
 fore, if, by the enlightened wisdom of experience, study 
 and increase of knowledge, we are enabled to arrive at 
 the fact that by a return to first principles we are bring- 
 ing back tlie Cluirch to apostolic usage, call it not revo- 
 lution, but a return to ordei-. 1 think there can be no 
 one in this House who listened to the stirring tones ol 
 the Deputy from Texas but was impressed with the vital 
 necessity for aid in that direction. There is no doulit 
 about the fact that assistance ought to be accorded lo 
 tlie Cliureh in Texas. I am satisfied that no one who 
 has listened to the report of the action of the Hisliop in 
 
62 
 
 Nebraska was not satisfied that the action taken 
 by the last General Convention in sending forth a Bish- 
 op into that vast field has been one of the main causes 
 in producing the glorious results reported. There can 
 be no doubt, then, that some remedy is needed for a 
 deficiency which confessedly exists. AVhether the 
 remed}' reported by the Committee on Canons is ade- 
 quate or not, some remedy is necessary. 
 
 The Church has a responsibility upon it; and she 
 cannot shrink from it; it must be assumed ; and that we 
 shall be called upon to answer bctbre God for the re- 
 sponsibility resting upon us this day, I firmly believe. 
 Now, it is not revolution to say what I have said, that, 
 though called revolution, 1 am in favor of multiplication 
 of Episcopates. I am not afraid of the various objec- 
 tions which have been stated by the distinguished gen- 
 tlemen who have spoken on the other side. The learn- 
 ed deputy from Virginia, who gave us a very interesting 
 history of the early Church, forgot to call the attention 
 of this Convention to the different set of circumstances 
 then and now. One of the sti-ongest points urged by 
 him, after having stated succinctly and beautitully the 
 history of the early church, was, that there were, at one 
 time, two thousand Bishops in the Church — a larger 
 number than now exists in the Episcopate anywhere. 
 And that was urged as a reason why we should not bring 
 the Episcopate into disrepute by increasing the number 
 of Bishops. He said one of the strongest arguments 
 used against Episcdpacy by the Presbyterians and 
 Methodists, was, that at the end of the fourth century 
 there were two thousand Bishops in the Church. That 
 was one of the arguments to prove that we ought not to 
 have two thousand Bishops now. That was an argu- 
 ment to prove that Methodists and Presbyterians might 
 successfully attack us at that juncture. [Rev. Dr. An- 
 drews : — I said it furnished a plausible argument.] I 
 know the gentleman did not intend himself to use the 
 argument. I understood him that it was only a plausi- 
 ble argument used by Presbyterians and Methodists. I 
 do not care what Presbyterians and Methodists say, I 
 am not in the habit of consulting them, or being moved 
 by their opinions. Let me call the attention of the Con- 
 vention to this fact. At the close of the Fourth century, 
 whether the church was corrupt or not,it was one. At the 
 present time, the body of Christ is rent into a thousand 
 forms. Now suppose that all the Presbyterians in the 
 United States of America and all the Methodists, and all 
 the Baptists, and all the multiform sects in the United 
 States were in the Church, would the present number of 
 Bishops suffice? Would it be sufficient to have the 
 number of Bishops we have now, if hundreds of thous- 
 ands of communicants were added to the church ? That 
 shows the distinction between the illustration he drew 
 and the present time of the Church. Then the Church 
 was united ; now it is divided ; and the only reason why 
 we have not two thousand Bishops in the Church of God 
 to-day is because of seliism and sectarianism. 
 
 Now the learned deputy from Virginia, in tones of 
 great eloquence declared that we, who desire 
 the system, defeat our own ends by the fact that we 
 would take away from the dignity of the Episcopate all 
 that with which it is now invested. Mr. President, I 
 do not know that there is a member upon this floor who 
 has for the Episcopal office and for those who illustrate 
 that oflice in our church a higher degree of respect than 
 I have. But, sir, I do not look upon the Bishop of tllfe 
 Church of God as simply a Great Mogul set up to be 
 worshipped. 1 do not look upon that office as simply a 
 sinecure, as simply something that is shrouded and con- 
 cealed for 364 days in the year to be brought forth upon 
 the 365th for an exhibition before the people. I 
 do not want to have any such veneration for the office 
 or for the man ; nor do I think they are sound church- 
 men who desire it. I want the Episcopate to be a work- 
 ing Episcopate. I want the Bishops to be working 
 Bishops. I want them to go into parishes, and it will be 
 all the better if they have a talk with "Uncle Jack" and 
 "Aunt Susan" even more than they did when they visit- 
 ed the deputy from Virginia, whose experience and 
 mine are sadly at variance. [Dr. Andrews : — It was not 
 in Virginia.] It varies from my experience much. We 
 long, in the parish from which I come, for the presence 
 of our Bishop; and we desire that his personal influence 
 should be exercised over the Uncle Jacks and the Aunt 
 Susans. I know that, when the Bishop comes, his main 
 office is for confirmation, that which cannot be done by 
 any one save himself; yet whoever thinks that the 
 Bishop ends his duties by confirmation mistakes, in my 
 humble judgment the purpose of the Episcopate. Is 
 that the Episcopate that St. Peter undertook ? Is that 
 the Episcopate set before us by any of the first Bishops 
 of the Church '? No, sir, it was not merely to place 
 Episcopal hands upon the humble penitent who came to 
 ratify his baptismal vows ; it is not only to transmit the 
 Episcopal ministry. Those are unquestionably the dis- 
 tinguishing features of his office. He is a minister of 
 the living God. He has by virtue of the high position 
 which he holds more power to do good than the parish 
 priest alone ; and he may come and hold up the hands 
 of the parish priest who for years has been standing 
 alone, perhaps, amid misrepresentation, and he may not 
 only help bim, but absolutely, if it be necessary, 
 confirm the faith of Uncle Jack and Aunt Susan. 
 
 We have heard from the gentleman from Texas con- 
 cerning the herculean labor that has been performed 
 by the Bishop of that Diocese, and it does not need 
 any amplification from me to show that it is impossible 
 for human nature to endure that much longer. But 
 let me call the attention of this Convention to the power 
 for good that the Bishop can exercise by bringing to- 
 crether parishes, and enabling them to touch hands in the 
 communion of the saints. The deputy from Virginia 
 has alluded to the little good that has resulted from the 
 multiplication of Bishops, and has pointed to Arkansas, 
 
53 
 
 and has stated that in that Diocese there is but one 
 parish, and that has as its rector the Bishop of the Dio- 
 cese. I would state that Arlsansas is not a Diocese, but 
 a missionary station, and the Bishop who is in Arliansas 
 is the missionary Bishop of the suuth-vvest, Bishop Lee. 
 But even if it were a Diocese, h^' (as well as 1), knows 
 so well the ravages of an unhappy war not only uj)on 
 individuals but upon churches, that there can be no argu- 
 ment based upon our destitution to-day. Wo are una- 
 ble to do more than oiler up our prayers. There can 
 be no argument based upon the condition of Te.\as. 
 When that Diocfee was admitted, it was a self-supports 
 ing Diocese, but in the Providence of God, during the 
 progress of the war, it has been stripped of its wealth; 
 the men who supported it are dead ; their wealth is 
 gone ; their churches are burned. I<ow, to bring that 
 as an argument to show that the incrense of the Episco- 
 pacy has been a failure, 1 do not think is a sequitur. 
 Give us three years more with the ministrations of 
 the man who is Bishop of the South-west, and by the 
 blessing of God, there wiU be a difierent report from 
 that made to-day. There is encouragement in the field of 
 Arkansas, but to ask for self-supporting parishes in many 
 parts of the South and South-west, is to ask more than, 
 in the Providence of God, it is possible for the Church 
 to do. [Dr. Wheat — there were 20 parishes in Arkan- 
 sas before the war] ; and there was but one at the expi- 
 ration of the war. 
 
 To resume the main point, — as I said before, I do not 
 apprehend that in this step there is the slightest tincture 
 of revolution. In the remarks which I had the honor to 
 make the other day upon the question of a change of 
 the word convention to council, 1 heard myself reported 
 afterward as having made a State-rights' speech, when 
 no one who followed my argument, if I was enabled 
 to express it with any sort of facility, could have inferred 
 that I desired to do anything less than to blot out from 
 our legislation any word that should be connected with 
 State orgunizatiiin. But, sir, to-day, upon this question, 
 1 go a step further against the jiosition to which I was 
 assigned the other day as making a Stale-rights' speech. 
 It has been always the belief of my heart, the conviction 
 of my Judgment, that we should blot out all connection 
 with the territorial limits ; and that was one of the ideas 
 I desired to express the other day, and that is one reason 
 why I desire to see the increase of Episcopacy. I do 
 not want the Church of New York to be coterminous 
 with the territorial limits of New York, nor do I wish 
 the Church of Alabama to be coterminous with the terri- 
 torial limits of the State of Alabama, but, following the 
 pattern of the primitive Church of God, I wish dioceses 
 to be created and erected just e.xactly as the wants of 
 the people require, whether comprising States, cities or 
 counties. 
 
 I would have Bishops in every place where there is 
 a necessity for Episcopal supervision. [A Deputy : — 
 One Bishop to the city of Mew York ? ] I would be 
 
 perfectly willing. The city of New York has a much 
 larger field of labor than is worked by the Bishops 
 of the South anil the Southwest. I therefore say, with- 
 out entering specifically into the question of the size of 
 the diocese, that we should give a Bishop with the 
 Church wherever the Church is planted ; that whenever 
 we advance beyond the confines of present civilization, 
 or beyond the confines of the States or territories, we 
 should plant with the Cioss a Bishop, and give every 
 means of grace that God has provided by the which we 
 can carry forward the standard of the Cross ; and I do 
 believe that in that way alone shall we be able to carry 
 out the great work which this branch of the Church 
 Catholic has undertaken to perform. The signs of the 
 times plainly show that this Church is to be the point of 
 central unity. ' I therefore desire that there should al- 
 ways be Bishops to be able to confirm and ordain ; and 
 in that way the Church of God, going on as a unit, ir- 
 respective of territorial limits or territorial subdivisions, 
 may be able to live, as it unquestionably will live, be- 
 yond revolutions of any character. 
 
 I do not pretend to be wise enough to peer into the 
 future, which is left to the great God who rules the 
 Church, but throwing it out for what it is worth, I 
 had ventured the assertion that we never shall be able 
 to overcome the hosts of sectarians around us until 
 we do it with a three-fold ministry meeting face to face. 
 It is not simply by the efforts of the Presbyters, whose 
 efforts in their sphere I respect highly, nor by the efforts 
 of the layman in his sphere, though he can do a great 
 deal. If the ministry has been Divinely constituted, the 
 Church should have the benefit of its machinery from 
 the lowest point to the Bishops. With this machinery 1 
 believe that sectarianism will dwindle and be forced to 
 come into the Church. The gentleman from Texas 
 has told you what has been done by the Church of 
 Rome and sectarians around him ; and he has given it 
 as the result of his experience and his deliberate judg- 
 ment that if there were an increase of the Episcopate — 
 he did not lay stress upon assistance of other sorts but 
 upon giving the Bishops — with the Bishops would come 
 the means and all the appliances for evangelizing that 
 portion of the country. I agree with him with all my 
 heart ; I have thought prayerfully upon the subject, and 
 it has been dear to my heart for many years. In the 
 Convention of lb")'.!, I had the honor to state, in part, 
 some of the reasons which now agitate my mind. I most 
 heartily give my consent to anything which shall in- 
 crease our ministry. 
 
 Rev. Dh. Paddock, of Michigan : — Mr. President, 
 I sometime ago I desired to say something on the subject 
 i before the House; I presume I have forgotten nearly all 
 of it ; but I think there is something that ought to be 
 said yet. The very course which the debate is taking 
 this morning has satisfied me more than ever of the pro- 
 priety of the action of the Committee on Canons ; and if 
 it had not happened by some accident or other, unex 
 
54 
 
 plained to me, that I am a member of thatCommittee 
 on Canons, I should have been bold to compliment 
 the exceeding -wisdom of that committee. We have 
 seen it demonstrated in this House that there are certain- 
 ly two classes of opinions prevailing as to this exceed- 
 ingly important matter of the creation of new dioceses 
 within the limits of old ones ; and we say without being 
 too minute, there is one large class of men representing 
 some of the most earnest, devout, and hard-working men 
 of this Church, who are thoroughly persuaded that dio- 
 ceses ought to be brought down to the smallest possible 
 limits. And we have here a theory which, while some 
 gentleman was speaking, I called in my own mind noth- 
 ing but a sort of microscopic theory, by which a Bishop 
 could never do his work unless he was so well acquainted 
 with every man, woman, and child of his diocese that he 
 absolutely knew the domestic arrangements of its fami- 
 lies. And then wo have another theory to which 1 do 
 not any more subscribe than to the other, and that I 
 would call a sort of telescopic theory — that the Bishop is 
 one whose only use is to be seen afar off', and when he 
 visits his diocese, his greatest care must be that he do 
 not stay too long nor come too often. And I confess, 
 if not indecorous to state it, that while one gentle- 
 man was speaking of the horrors that would overspread 
 the entire Church in this land, the Divine visitations 
 which would be realized by the Church, if the Bishops 
 came too often, I could not help recalling that line which 
 made me- think that the only fit description of a Bishop 
 was that which I have heard given to something else 
 which was said to be — 
 
 " A monster of so horrid mien 
 That to be hated needs only to be seen." 
 
 1 believe we cannot come down to this theory. It is an 
 awful coming down of the work of a Bishop of the 
 Church of God. There are two distinct classes that vote 
 in this House; the one inclining to ahnost indefinite mul- 
 tiplication of Bishops, the other strongly inclined to 
 throw every possible hindrance in the way of their mul- 
 tiplication. It seems to me that the wisdom of the com- 
 mittee is apparent now. The committee remember that 
 there has-been from the beginning in this Church, cau- 
 tion in the direction of too rapid multiplication of Episco- 
 pates. They rememlier how slowly the minds of the 
 Church had progressed towards what I believed to be 
 the truth, namely, we must have more Bishops than we 
 have, before we can do the work that Christ has laid 
 upon His Church in this land. But the question now is, 
 do you accept of the amendment instructing the Com- 
 mittee on Canons to go back to their rooms and bring 
 in a report which would leap over with one single stride 
 all the conservatism of the Church in this matter, for 
 the entire period of its history, and plant us on the 
 ground simply of an illimitable number of Bishops ? 
 Are you prepared to have no restraint at all upon the 
 multiplication of Bishops ? Are you prepared to be mov- 
 ed by the fact that because there was no support requir- 
 
 ed for the Apostle Paul, that therefore no support need 
 be pledged for the support of any Bishop, not even a 
 missionary Bishop ? Are you prepared to say that it 
 was not the wisdom of the Apostle to become all things 
 to all men to win some to Christ ? Is it not the wisdom 
 of the Church to adapt itself to the change of circum- 
 stances? Some men seem really to imagine that they 
 are living back again in those glorious times of Saint 
 Paul. I do not suppose that any gentleman expecting 
 to vote seriously upon this matter will dare to stake bis 
 reputation for sound judgment upon the fact that were 
 Saint Paul and other Apostles, or "the old Bishops 
 in the Eoman Empire among us to-day, they would nec- 
 essarily ailopt bodily, all the features of their system of 
 Church organization, and transplant them into the nme- 
 teenth century. Their system was a wise system, be- 
 cause wonderfully adapted to the condition of the world 
 at that time. Uur system may be wise now by being 
 equally well adapted to the present state of things. 
 
 If you allow the committee to adopt the plan of the 
 deputy from Texas, you will be led into a sort of 
 special legislation. I beg gentlemen to remember that 
 the case presented by the deputy from Texas, is the 
 strongest instance that can be presented by any gentle- 
 man. He has taken the largest diocese and has almost 
 persuaded the House by his eloquence, that it is a fair 
 specimen of all our vast territories. No other instance 
 can be given that will compare with that ; and as for 
 that instance, the learned deputy from New York 
 has shown that there is ample relief by putting part of 
 it under the care of a Diocesan Bishop supported by the 
 missionary fund. I hope- we shall not be persuaded by 
 this one instance to actually pass from our condition of 
 conservatism in this matter right over into the extremest 
 license in this matter. It will be observed that the re- 
 port of the Committee on Canons makes a great advance. 
 Remember that the canon is not in any possible sense 
 before tliis House. The canon can not be acted upon 
 now, for the reason that if passed now it would stand in 
 the face and teeth of the constitution. Therefore we 
 have nothing to do with the canon so far as action is 
 concerned. We merely ask you to vote upon this one 
 limitation, namely, before a new diocese shall be formed 
 out of a diocese, the new diocese shall have some 
 provision made for the suitable support of the Bishop. 
 In some way, there should be some limitations to indefin- 
 ite expansion. 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks, of Tennessee — said that while the 
 committee strike out certain restrictions, they impose a 
 heavier burden on the dioceses which require division 
 most. It would be jumping from the frying-pan into 
 the fire. The pecuniary restriction would to some, 
 justify the proverb that is sometimes applied to this 
 Church, that it is the Church of the wealthy, whereas it is 
 the Church of the living God. The restriction violates the 
 purpose of the memorialists from those States wanting an 
 increased Episcopate ; it would be burdensome to the 
 
55 
 
 impoverished dioceses of the South. If a missionary 
 Bishop should be interpolated into an ordinary dioctese 
 who would support him ? Tennessee was naturally divis- 
 ible into three parts, for each of which a Bishop should 
 be provided. That was the unanimous Vdice of the 
 Church in Tennessee. They were there looking at the 
 interest of the Church, and other dioceses came up to 
 the Convention with similar feelings, and all praying 
 that these restrictions should be removed so that every 
 diocese may have its wishes gratified. He hoped, that 
 it would be the sense of the House that the restric- 
 tions shall be removed, and that the little ones taken 
 away would not be the cause of imposing heavier ones. 
 He hoped that the support of the Episcopate from with- 
 out, would not meet with approval, for the Bishop so 
 supported would be apt to feel himself the servant of 
 those who furnished the money. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — I wish to say a few words upon this 
 subject. It is a raa-Kim, and a very good one, and I wish 
 the brother who just .sat down would hear it, that when 
 we can not get all we want, it is most prudent to get all 
 we can. If you were to take out this proviso which i.s 
 now proposed, my word for it, you would get the prop- 
 osition back with the dissent of the House of Bishops. The 
 House of Bishopsoriginally put in these large restrictions, 
 and we have gradually worked them down. Letme call at- 
 tention to one fact. It appears to me tiiat gentlemen have 
 forgotten that this is a proposed amendment to the 
 constitution that does not operate upon a diocese after 
 it has become an acknowledged dioc se. I have heard 
 gentlemen say, Are we to have a General Convention 
 sitting in judgment upon our Bishop's salary ? It has 
 nothing to do with that. It is simply the question of 
 the admission of new dioceses, and tlie circumstances 
 of their formation. The Bishop of the old diocese must 
 give his consent, and the members of the Convention 
 must be satisfied that the new diocese will give sufficient 
 support to the Bishop if they are set apart and acknowl- 
 edged. The statement of the deputies from the old 
 diocese and of the Bishop, who is a member of the 
 House of Bishops, will be all that is necessary to satis- 
 fy this Convention. We do not want them to say that 
 the diocese shall give two, three, or four thousand dol- 
 lars a year. No ; we only want to be .satisfied that the 
 Bishop will receive an adequate support, according to 
 the condition of the diocese, so that he may livf as his 
 people do. Why should any one wish to imperil this 
 amendment by striking out that provision V If you ilon'l 
 take this amendment to the constitution as it is, I believe 
 you will get none. You have this constitution still ex- 
 isting which requires fifteen parishes and fifteen settled 
 clergymen in the new diocese, and to leave thirty par- 
 ishes and thirty clergymen m the old diocese In con- 
 clusion, I should say that I am friendly to the division of 
 dioceses to any reasonable extent. I have even felt the im- 
 portance of striking out this clause of the .5th Article of 
 the Constitution ; but I am sufficiently a man of policy, 
 
 that if I can't get every thing, I want to take what I can, 
 and be thankful for the smallest favors. 
 
 G. C. Shattuck, M. D., of Massachusetts : — I have 
 a few words to say on this money question. I wish sim- 
 ply to relate the e.xperience of my own diocese with re- 
 gard to this question, and show why I think it an impor- 
 tant provision. I certainly should not vole for this resolu- 
 tion if that provision were stricken out ; and at the same 
 time I am in favor of the extension of the Episcopate. 
 Still I agree with the deputy from Virginia that there is 
 danger at this period of going too widely into this matter. 
 I regard this money provision as secured in the liberali- 
 ty of the laity of this Church, if we put this mone}' pro- 
 vision in. We have had a Bishop in Massachusetts for 
 many years who was universally respected and univer- 
 sally beloved, and who was poor beside, and we kept him 
 so. Every now and then persons would go and see his 
 condition, and tliey would send him something. There 
 was still something for us to do ; it is not the position for 
 the laity to put a Bishop into. It is the wisdom of the Eng- 
 lish Church to see that the Bishop has some provision 
 for his support, and they do not have any Bishop made 
 until he is personally independent of every body. We 
 had a Bishop provided for as rector of a church. Fi- 
 nally, we needed more of his services, and he wished to 
 give himself more to the Episcopate, and then the ques- 
 tion came up before the laity. Shall we keep him on 
 faith? Our Bishop had exhibited great self denial. For 
 the first ten or twelve years he gave all his salary to 
 support missionary work. Then reverses came, and he 
 could not live without support; and all those to whom the 
 matter was referred were unanimous that he was entitled 
 to an independent support from the diocese. We set 
 out to get it. One committee tried to raise it, and re- 
 signed without accomplishing it ; and then another com- 
 mittee which failed to raise the requisite amount, and 
 asked to be discharged ; and so several committees were 
 appointed. I had the honor to be chairman of the last 
 committee, and it took us five years of hard besguig be- 
 fore we could get up the amount necessary to a bare 
 support. I should be ashamed to report some of the 
 answers to our appeals. People looked upon the Bish- 
 op as their servant, and they found all sorts of fault ; 
 and the conclusion in my mind was that I would not ex- 
 pose any Bishop to that ordeal again, and that I would 
 always advocate as a very iuiportant thing, that before a 
 Hishop is sent out he should be provided for. 
 
 The Convention then adjourned to 10 o'clock to-mor- 
 row. 
 
 NINTH day's PROCEEDINr.S. 
 
 Friday, Oct. 16th, 1868. 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Morning Prayer was siid by the Revs. Dr. Parker of 
 
 Ma-ssachusetts, and Scott of Florida. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by the Bisho[) of 
 
 Connecticut. 
 
56 
 
 The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles : — I desire to offer a resolution 
 proposing an amendment to the constitution by reduc- 
 ing the number of Deputies in this House, and I more 
 that the proposed amendment may be taken up and con- 
 sidered in connection with the present proposition [for 
 the admission of new dioceses] which will greatly en- 
 large the number of dioceses. The one amendment 
 will necessitate the other. The resolution is as follows: 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that the 
 alteration of the constitution recommended by the suc- 
 ceeding resolution be made known to the several Dioce- 
 san Conventions ; and further resolved,' That Article 3 
 of the Constitution be amended as follows: by striking 
 out of said Article the wonls "four clergymen and four 
 laymen," and inserting in lieu thereof the words " three 
 clergymen and three laymen," and by adding to the 
 said Article the tbllowing words : " whenever the dio- 
 ceses admitted into union with the General Convention 
 shall exceed fifty in number, the representation from 
 each shall be reduced to two clergymen and to two lay- 
 men. 
 
 The importance of considering this proposition in con- 
 nection with the one to increase the number of dioceses 
 will bo readily perceived. The number of this House 
 is 8 times 35 that is 280. Including Nebraska we have 
 35 dioceses in union ; and the four dioceses that have, 
 been brought in beside, by our recent action, will add 
 32 more, making 312 as the number of this House. In 
 the next three years, if the proposed alteration of the 
 canon shall pass facilitating the introduction of new di- 
 oceses, we may expect a large accession of dioceses. If 
 the enthusiastic hopes are at all realized, the old dioceses 
 will burst into blossoms of dioceses for good or ill. But 
 apart from such glowing hopes we see a certain amount 
 of reality. There will probably be one from Pennsylva- 
 nia, one from Connecticut, and one or two from Wiscon- 
 sin. That is the smallest increase in the next convention, 
 which will add 32 more members, making the number 
 344. Now I ask can wc go on in that way much longer ? 
 Have we not reached the point where we can go no far- 
 ther ? If we augment the number of our dioceses, we 
 must diminish the number of Deputies /jro lanto- 
 
 In the first place three will be better than four as giv- 
 ing a majority which will control the vote. 
 
 It is so in our representation in parishes and should be 
 so here. When the dioceses become 50 we shall have 
 400 delegates ; but, by that change, I propose that the 
 number be reduced to four from each diocese, that is 
 two clergy and two laymen ; and the House be 
 brought back to a manageable body of 200. As we go 
 along down the stream of time we shall come down to 
 100 dioceses — and I do not want to look farther. Then 
 it will have to be reduced to one clergyman and one 
 layman, and that is the minimum ; we cannot represent 
 the clergy and the laity short of that. When we get 
 100 dioceses we shall have two representatives from 
 each, making a House of 200 — a manageable House. 
 
 The representation of this question will bring about a 
 test vote. It is perfectly certain that if you do not re- 
 duce the number of Deputies you will be forced into 
 the Provincial system, and therefore I commend it to the 
 careful consideration of the House. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ruggles, his motion was laid upon 
 the table to be considered in connection with the other 
 proposition. 
 
 Rev. Dk. J. S. B. Hodges — offered the following 
 amendments and additions to Canon II., Title 1 ; 
 
 In section 1, after the word "producing," in the sec- 
 •ond line, strike out the words " the evidence of his being 
 a minister thereof," and add at the end of the section 
 the words " the evidence of his being a minister of the 
 Church, or of some Church in communion therewith." 
 
 In section 2, after the word " minister," in the fourth 
 line, introduce the words " of the Church, or of some 
 Church in communion therewith." 
 
 And add the following new section : 
 
 Section 3. No minister of this Church, settled over any 
 parish or congregation, or in temporary charge thereof, 
 shall invite or permit any person not having had Epis- 
 piscopal crdinntiou to officiate with him or in his place 
 or stead on any occasion of public worship in the church 
 or congregation over which he is so settled or in 
 charge. 
 
 Sec. 4. No minister shall invite or permit to officiate 
 as aforesaid any minister ordained by a Bishop not in 
 communion with this Church, unless such person shall 
 have been received as a minister of this Church under 
 Canon IX. of Title 1. 
 
 A motion to table the resolution was lost ; it was then 
 referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 A motion to take a recess of one hour and to adjourn 
 at four o'clock was lost. 
 
 jVIr. Ambkose Todd, of the Diocese of Kansas — of- 
 fered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
 the Prayer Book to consider the expediency of erasing 
 from the commission given liy the Bishop to the pres- 
 byter in the prayer following the Ordering of Priests, 
 the words " Whose sins thou dost forgive they are for- 
 given, and whose sins thou dost retain they are re- 
 tained." 
 
 Mk. 
 
 table. 
 
 -moved to lay the resolution on the 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I move that the gentleman have 
 leave to withdraw his resolution inasmuch as I think no 
 clergyman has a right to make such a petition. I do not 
 want that resolution to appear upon the records of the 
 House. 
 
 Mb. Todd — wished to make an explanation ; but as 
 the motion to table precluded any remarks, and as con- 
 sent of the House was not given he said he would not 
 withdraw his resolution as he could not do so without 
 the opportunity to e.xplain. 
 
 On motion the resolution was tabled. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that the 
 phrase " Presiding Bishop," in Canon 0, section 3, line 3, 
 Title II., be referred to a joint committee, to sit during 
 
57 
 
 the recess between this and the next General Conven- 
 tion, to report as to the meaning of that phrase. 
 Whether it simply menns the prcsiiling Bishop of the 
 House of Bishops, or whether it means that which stands 
 upon its face. And if it be a Presiding Bi.shop in the 
 sense of a Primux, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, that this 
 commiltee report a canon defining his powers, and 
 bring the pre.sent phraseology of the Constitution and 
 Canon into harmony with itsell, and prescribe the mode 
 of his election. 
 
 It will be seen that this resolution is one which sim- 
 ply inquires into the meaning of a certain phrase — " Pre- 
 siding Bishop of this Church " — that that phrase occurs 
 in one of our canons — that that phrase seems to say and 
 does say that we have a " presiding Bishop of this 
 Church." I wish to understand whether there is a pre- 
 siding Bishop of this Church or whether the doctrine 
 which I was taught in my course that there is no presid- 
 ing Bishop of the Church, but that there is a presiding 
 Bishop of the House of Bishops, be correct. I was 
 taught that there was no presiding Bishop of the Church. 
 A member of the Committee on Canons, in tact two or 
 three of them, will state that this was their instruction also. 
 1 will slate also another fact, that this phrase •' presiding 
 Bishop of this Church " occurs simply in one canon, that 
 is to say Canon 9 ; and that canon was passed in 1856. I 
 cannot ascertain the fact, but it is my impression that that 
 phrase " presiding Bishop" was introduced into that canon 
 in 1855. That canon refers back to canons of 1841-44. 
 I have gone over those canons very carefully and the 
 phra.se '"presiding Bishop of this Church" does not oc- 
 cur in them. In the .irst, 1841, the phrase " presiding 
 Bishop" occurs three or four times. In the second can- 
 on it occurs four or live times; but the phrase "presid- 
 ing Bishop of this Church " does not occur in this can- 
 on. When that phrase " presiding Bishop of this 
 Church " was introduced, I do not know, but I suppose 
 it was introduced in 185.5-6. I should like any gentle- 
 man of this House to show me the phrase " presiding 
 Bishop of this Church " antecedent to that canon of 1856. 
 I am not a member of the Committee on Canons, but I 
 know that the Committee on Canons embraces upon all 
 points of canonical knowledge the greatest amount of in- 
 formation and science that can be had. I should like 
 that committee to tell me whether the term " presiding 
 Bishop of this Church" was put into the Constitution or 
 into canons before that time ; because if it was not we 
 have in that canon of 1856 an instance of a sort of iecis- 
 lation that is very common in political bodies, but is not 
 very common in our Religious bodies — that is to say, the 
 introducing of a new idea by a side-wind. We have 
 been taught previously that there was no presidin" 
 Bishop of this Church, but by introducing a phrase in- 
 cidentally, we have a presiding Bishop of this 
 Church ; and taking the constitution interpret- 
 ed by this phrase, I cannot see how you will avoid 
 acknowledging that upon the sense of the canons 
 ^ literally as interpreted there must be a presiding Bishop; 
 that is to say, we have a primate, metropolitan, or pa- 
 8 
 
 tnarch, eanonically. Now my opinion in reference lo 
 this matter is simply that there has been a mistake — 
 that this phrase was not wanted simply to express what 
 was there before, and that therefore it was perfectly law- 
 ful forme to lining forward that resolution concerning the 
 meaning of this phrase. [Jud^eOtis: It is in article 10] 
 It is " presiding Bishop of the Church " that is not in the 
 constitution. I venture to say that there is not a law- 
 yer in this House who will interpret on the plain literal 
 sense of the words presiding Bishop, using this canon, 
 that must not say that wo have a presiding Bishop of 
 this Church. I have looked over all places in which 
 the woi-ds oecurj and I have to say that the phrase 
 " presiding Bishop " simply occurs without anything at- 
 tached to it in 16 or 18 places in the constitution .and 
 canons. The " presiding Bishop of the House of Bish- 
 ops" occurs in three places, and the presiding or senior 
 Bishop, taking the one as the alternate of the other, oc- 
 curs in three places more. I will say further that I 
 have no objection whatsoever to this Church having, if 
 it cho )ses, a presiding Bishop, giving him the powers of 
 a presiding Bishop, and leaving him to act by the 
 authority thereof; bu* if it has to be done I want it to 
 be <lone clearly, distinctly, by the vote of the Church. 
 I do not want a change so great as this to be introduced 
 by a side-wind — to be introduced by altering a phrase 
 quietly in 1856, or at any other time. I want, if wo 
 are to have a presiding Bishop, to have him according to 
 our constitution and canons, with his powers defined 
 strictly, and the thing understood. 
 
 Mr. Farns worth's motion to lay on the table was 
 lost; Ayes 87, Nays 115. 
 
 Gov. Fish — moved as a substitute (adopted) the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be directed 
 to inquire into the expediency of striking out the words 
 " of this Church," after the words "Presiding Bishop" 
 in section 3, Canon 9, Title II. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little.john — reported, from the Domestic 
 and Foreign Missionary Committee the following (adopt- 
 ed) resolution. 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that in 
 Article 3d of the Constitution of the Board of Missions, 
 for the words " four in number from each diocese in 
 union with the Convention," there be substituted the 
 following words, " at least equal in number to four times 
 the number of dioceses in union with the General Con- 
 vention." 
 
 The President announced the appointment of a com- 
 mittee on Dr. Mahan's Report and Resolutions, name- 
 ly : Dr. Mulchahey, Mass., Dr. Otis, Mich., Rev. Dr. 
 C. B. Dana, Miss., S. H. Treat, 111., H. A. Schroeder, 
 Ala. 
 
 The time for the order of the day having arrived — 
 
 The Secrktary — read the report of the Committee 
 on Canons as to section ."), clause 12, Title I. of the lli- 
 gcst, with reference to clerical intrusion. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas, the onler 
 
58 
 
 of the day was postponed, to take up the unfinished 
 business of yesterday — the .imendment to constitution, 
 as to tlie formation of new dioeeses. 
 
 G. C. Shattuck, M. D. (resuming): — I was speali- 
 ing, when the House adjourned yesterday, to one point — 
 tlie advisability of that provision, that there should be 
 assured a support for the Bishop )iefore he is elected. I 
 mentioned that I had been led to this conclusion — that 
 the way of managino; those cases in England, where no 
 Bishop is sent out until a support is provided for him, 
 was a wise one. When I spoke of the diocese in which 
 there had been a Bishop for twenty years, and where an 
 effort to provide an independent salary consumed the 
 whole time of eight years, I did not mean to insmuate 
 that there was less disposition to contribute for so im- 
 portant an object than in the adjoinmg diocese, where 
 there being a new Bishop, the support was provided in 
 six months. I meant that it was human nature ; and 
 that if the two cases had been reversed I believe there 
 would have been the same difficulty in attaining the 
 desired object. Therefore I advocated the wisdom of 
 this measure, that there should be provision for the 
 Bishop in the outset and that he shouUi know exactly 
 what his support was. I have heard that the lay dep- 
 uty from Pennsylvania has a motion to offer, which it 
 seems to me would dispose satisfactorily of tl^is matter, 
 and I should like to yield the i]t>or to him and hear what I 
 he has to say on the subject before I say anything fur- 
 ther. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania — having the floor, yield- 
 ed to — 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigiit, of the Committee on Canons: — 
 What I have to say is this, looking to a resolution com- 
 ing from a friend at my right (Mr. Welsh) which will 
 brin ; this matter to a vote. I had hoped to have :in 
 opportunity before this matter came to a vote, to say a 
 few words in reference to the general subject, and to 
 show that the Committee on Canons had not acted 
 thoughtlessly or unwisely in presenting this propo.sition. 
 A great mvany things were said yesterday which would 
 not have been said if the gentlemen had thought for one 
 single moment that this matter had been before a com- 
 mittee of the House for several days — that it was not a 
 haphazard proposition thrown in simply to provoke dis- 
 cussion. I have no desire to prolong this debate. I am 
 perfectly willing to waive all my feelings and that of my 
 colleagues upon a proposition to be submitted by my 
 frieiitl from Pennsylvania. In allowing this matter to 
 go to a vote, should it be the will of the House, the Com- 
 mittee on Canons must not be understood as assenting 
 to many views touching the question. There were 
 many things said most elo(|uently by the gentleman from 
 Texas, by the gentleman from Alabama, and by the 
 oentleman from Tennessee, in regard to the main points, 
 as to which my heart went with them. No man in this 
 House sympathizes morcfully than I do with their hopes 
 and aspirations. But this is a question which touches 
 
 other interests than those of these dioceses. It looks tea 
 question of far-reaching issues, and therefore we are 
 obliged to put aside our feelings, our sympathy, our 
 deep interest in the immediate prosecution of the work 
 of the Church, and to consider maturely the principles 
 upon which we are acting, for if we act upon unsound 
 principles, then in the long run the Church whose life is 
 not measured by the lifetime of a man or a generation, 
 whose existence will run long after time shall have pass- 
 ed away, will suffer very material injury in the future. 
 
 Mr. Welsh :— If this be the Church of Christ, and if 
 it is the will of God we should have Bishops, surely there 
 must be some way to get them where God would have 
 them and needs them. I am a firm believer that it is a 
 literal truth, that any branch of the Christian Church 
 that refuses to let God preside over them with Bishops, 
 man will furnish with a Pope. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maiian : I do not see what is to be the 
 drift or force of this ari'angement. There is some sort of 
 understanding that it is going to put an end to debate. 
 I should like to understand by what process. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I can only say that it may put an end to 
 debate upon the particular proposition before us, but not 
 upon the subject. For the first time in a career of more 
 than 3') years in convention, I was about to call for a 
 vote to lay a proposition on the table. 1 was about to 
 ask for the tabling of this particular proposition with the 
 view of introducing that which I will now read. The 
 present proposition is so entangled that we thould re- 
 quire three or four votes to reach the point and then do 
 It imperfectly. If the House decree to lay that on the 
 table, then it was my purpose to offer this : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Canons be instruct- 
 ed to report such amendment to the constitution and 
 canons as to remove all restrictions as to divisions of 
 dioceses beyond the approval of the Bishop and Con- 
 vention of Dioceses that ask for the division, and the ap- 
 proval of the House of Bishops and the House of Cler- 
 ical and Lay Deputies in the General Convention, as to 
 the acceptance of the new dioceses. 
 
 After discussion of the question of order as to the ob- 
 taining of the floor by one member yielded by another 
 decided adversely — 
 
 Mr. Welsh — withdrew his motion to table the differ- 
 ent proposition, and offered his own proposition as a 
 substitute. 
 
 The Pkksident: — I beg leave to state to the House 
 the actual position of the question. The Committee on 
 Canons have reported an amendment to the constitution 
 two-fold in character. One is in the nature of a repeal 
 of most of the numerical and other (territorial) restric- 
 tions. That question is not yet before us, because they 
 reported previously a resolution to amend the 5th arti- 
 cle of the constitution by adding this pecuniary qualifi- 
 cation. The question before us is upon adding those 
 words to the constitution. If the House rejects that 
 motion, then the report of the Committee on Canons 
 will be almost identical with the substitute of the gen- 
 
59 
 
 tleman from Pennsylvania, tbat is, it leaves the whole 
 matter to the action of the Bishop of the diocese, the 
 convention of the diocese, and the General Convention. 
 The question would then be upon the adoption of these 
 words or the rejection of them. That w;is the condition 
 of the question before the oB'ering of the substitute! ! 
 which is now the first question. 
 
 Mr. : The proposition is, that before a new 
 
 diocese shall be formed the General Convention shall 
 have assurance for the support of the Bishop. I may 
 live to see the day when the State of Virginia will ap- 
 pear before this House asking for a division. What 
 shall we do? If the laws of tliat State remain as they 
 are now, I don't see how we can afl'ord to the General 
 Convention a satisfactory assurance for the support of 
 the Episcopate, for under our laws we can give no other 
 assurance than that the Church will walk by faith. 
 Under our laws we can have no vested funds; and the 
 laws of the State forbid ecclesiastical institutions from 
 holding more than a certain amount of funds. The 
 way the two Bishops of Virginia are now paid is out of 
 a convention fund which is njiised by an assessment upon 
 the churches of a sum equal to one dollar upon each of 
 the communicants of each parish. We have 150 par- 
 ishes, and we report 110 ministers. By the assessment 
 we raise about $7,000 or $8,000. None of the Bishops 
 we have ever had have had the least reason to complain. 
 I wish to present this point to the Committee on Can- 
 ons. What kind of assurance do they mean to require ? 
 As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Welsh] has 
 well said, what better guarantee can we require than the 
 other prerequisites still left, for the formation of a new 
 diocese ? The adoption of this provision would shackle 
 the judgment of our successors. By rejecting it, we 
 do not deprive our successors of giving due weight to 
 that circumstance, any more than we de]irive them of 
 the opportunity to give due weight to every other con- 
 sideration in the creation of a new diocese. This busi- 
 ness of over-legislation in the Church as well as in the 
 State is evil. It is well to believe that those who succeed 
 us will have as much wisdom as ourselves. We should 
 trust to the faith, honor, and zeal of the Church for its 
 welfare and prosperity. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchaiiey of Massachusetts : — I want to say 
 a few words to suggest a difficulty in voting for the substi- 
 tute of the delegate from Pennsylvania, to accomplish 
 the object he desires to accomplish. If I understand 
 his object he desires to get rid of the pecuniary condi- 
 tion lor ihe formation of new dioceses; and in order to 
 do that, he proposes a substitute for this series of amend- 
 ments proposed by the Committee on Canons, that all 
 restrictions shall be removed other than the consent of 
 the Bishop. Now, it so happens that there is no pecun 
 iary restriction in the constitution as it now stands. 
 The Committee on Canons propose as the first amend- 
 ment, the insertion of this proviso [for Episcopal sup- 
 port]. But for the substitute we should have had that 
 
 question directly before us, and if we vote down the 
 substitute we shall still have that question before us. 
 
 I desire to say a few words more, duo to the Diocese 
 of Massachusetts. My learned colleague, one of the 
 lay delegates from Massachusetts, has stated as a reason 
 of this pecuniary condition some of the facts as to se- 
 curing Episcopal support in the Diocese of Massachu- 
 setts. Those of us who know him, and have known how 
 indefatigably he has worked for making up the episco- 
 pal fund, certainly will not for a moment suspect him of 
 designing any imputation upon either the liberality of 
 the laity or the earnestness of the clergy in that dio- 
 cese. Still it is due to the truth of the argument, if 
 not to the facts in the caiSe, that somewhat should be add- 
 ed to the statement he has made. It is true there has 
 been difficulty in making up the episcopal fund in the 
 Diocese of Massachusetts ; it is true also that the fund 
 has been made up. It should be understood that the 
 difficulty in raising it has not been the want of liberality 
 on the part of the laity of the diocese, nor the fact that 
 the Bishop was not a new Bishop. About 20 years ago, 
 and after the jjresent Bishoj) had been our Bishop for sev- 
 eral years, a proposition was made directly for making 
 up the fund at that time. The Bishop declined to com- 
 ply with the proposition, and therefore the thing went 
 by, and that as well as loral circumstances should be 
 taken into account, if the, facts are to be used as argu- 
 ment on the floor of this House. It seems to me that 
 my excellent colleague has been unfoitunate in another 
 matter — in referring to a former Bishop of Massachu- 
 setts or of the eastern diocese. The argument which 
 was used yesterday, again and again, in favor of the 
 pecuniary requirement has been that we are in danger 
 of rendering our Bishops — shall I say, contemptible, or 
 of detracting somewhat from the respect that we should 
 otherwise attach to our Bi>hops, if we allow them to be 
 poor y And if I understood the illustration of m}' col- 
 league he referred to the former Bishop of Massachusetts, 
 Bishop Griswold, as" one who had been allowed to be 
 without sufficient support. If the refusal to add the 
 (jccuniary restriction to the constitution shall give us 
 such Bishops as Bishop Griswold, what stronger argu- 
 ment could be used against it ? In the amendment 
 proposed by the Committee on Canons, they ado])t the 
 phraseology of the constitution, providing for two classes 
 of new dioceses. The first clause is very brief and r<'- 
 fers to new dioceses in territories or unformed dioceses ; 
 there is absolutely no restriclion to the formation of 
 such dioceses, but the simple fact of acceding to the con- 
 stitution of the Church in the United States. [Reads 
 from the report of the committee.] So that in the liu-- 
 mation of new dioceses in unformed territories the onlv 
 condition required, is that there shall be si.\ [larishes and 
 six presbyters. Mow, that disposes of a large part of 
 the arguments adduced on the floor of the House yes- 
 terday. We were told of the danger of multiplying 
 dioceses — the danger of having very insigniflcant dio- 
 
60 
 
 ceses — the danger of having Bishops who were not 
 properly supported. There is danger of having inferior 
 Bishops — always danger. How can we guard against 
 that ? Do you guard against it by pecuniary restric- 
 tion ? On the other hand is there not an opposite 
 danger of forming dioceses on a pecuniary basis ? — of 
 forming too many in the money centres ? I am not 
 afraid of the legitimate development of the life of the 
 Church. I am afraid of these money centres, and 
 afraid of the influences that come thence to disturb the 
 peace of the Church all over the land. I am not alVaid 
 of the legitimate development of the Church from its 
 own inherent life, and I do think it is best to leave the 
 Church in the South and elsewhere to develop itself in 
 its own way. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — In answer to what was said by the 
 reverend gentleman about the formation of dioceses, not 
 of already existing dioceses, I wish to say that we have 
 heretofore had two classes of restriction, of which one 
 is a territorial restriction, and another a restriction as to 
 the number of ministers. The proposition at this mo- 
 ment is to strike out all restrictions, and yet in regard 
 to the organization of the dioceses of new states or 
 territories there is a geographical extent, and that makes 
 the two cases to differ. Now, in regard to the question 
 asked of the chairman of the committee, by the gentle- 
 man from Virginia, it will be observed that the restric- 
 tion which it is proposed by the committee to insert in 
 regard to the organization of new dioceses out of already 
 existing dioceses, is intentionally indefinite in its 
 terms. It does not undertake to prescribe how the 
 maintenance shall be provide(^ It may be by teaching 
 a school, or by being pastor of a parish. It may be by 
 impo.sing upon the several parishes the requisition that 
 there shall be a contribution from them, respectively, 
 equal to one dollar from each of their communicants. 
 Now, let us suppose there came up a [iroposition for a 
 new diocese in Virginia, don't we know that until it has 
 adopted a constitution and canons of its own, it will be 
 governed by the constitution and canons of the diocese 
 out of which it goes V In the supposed case it is re- 
 quired by the regulations of the old diocese there shall 
 be a contribution equal to one dollar from each of the 
 communicants; and that- would constitute at once a pro- 
 vision for the Bishop if the new diocese is formed out of 
 the old diocese of Virginia ; for it will carry with it the 
 laws of the old diocese; there will be immediate evi- 
 dence submitted to this House and the House of Bish- 
 ops that there is provision made for the Bishop. In re- 
 gard to this multiplication of Bishops, J think there is a 
 sensible mean upon that question. I think we may 
 have too many Bishops, though I have heard an argu- 
 ment this morning for the multiplication of Bishops 
 which would be more convincing to me than for the 
 purpose to which it was applied. We were told that 
 just in proportion as we increase the Bishops we in- 
 crease the age of the senior Bishop, and by the time we 
 
 have reached 150 Bishops we shall have a senior 
 Bishop approaching the age of Methuselah. 
 
 Gov. Stevknson of Kentucky — moved that the de- 
 bate be closed at half-past one o'clock, giving Dr. Haight 
 the right to close the debate. 
 
 A substitute to allow only ten minutes for one speech 
 to any member, prevailed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. McIMasijjrs, of Minnesota: — We have 
 long been feeling that there is a propriety in taking off 
 some of the restrictive legislation upon the dioceses. 
 Upon this matter we have felt, especially in the West, 
 that there were many cases of extreme hardship result- 
 ing from the restriction. We have come before this 
 legislative body and asked that the restriction be taken 
 off in part. The matter has gone to our legislative 
 committee, the Committee on Canons ; and that com- 
 mittee has made a report, which to my mind is satisfac- 
 tory. It has taken off all the restriction that we felt to 
 be any grievance. We have felt that we should be 
 able to arrange matters easily if only the constitutional 
 restriction were removed. I suppose that in the West 
 generally, there would be entire satisfaction with the 
 report of the committee. You have been told that if 
 we proceed further and take off all restriction, the 
 House of Bishops would most unquestionably kill the 
 bill, and I fully sympathize with the views of the ven- 
 erable gentleman from Connecticut [Rev. Dr. Mead] 
 that it is better even if we want more, to take what we 
 can get, than to hold on for more and lose it all. I am 
 in favor of agreeing with the report of the committee. 
 We shall lose the whole if we do not accept this, I am 
 abundantly assured. I will say still further that there 
 is an immense propriety in the General Council of the 
 Church keeping its hands on the dioceses. It is well 
 known that the presbyters of many small dioceses are 
 mainly young men, and they often become exceedingly 
 ambitious, and anxious to divide their dioceses-, some for 
 astonishing the world, and some for other reasons. It 
 has long been observed that there is an intense individ- 
 uality among our people. Children do not want to be 
 restrained by their parents ; States do not like to be 
 controlled by Congresses; dioceses want to throw off 
 the authority of the General Convention. We need 
 the conservative element — something to hold Young 
 Ameiica in his place. Already we have instances of 
 dioceses young indeed rising up in complaint of their par- 
 ents' name, and changing their own name. I have always 
 thought it would he much more decorous and more filial 
 if they had turned to their parents and said, " By your 
 leave we will change our names." As it is, I think the 
 parents will have to consent to the change of the family 
 names in order to satisfy the children. This thing will 
 have to be checked. They think it necessary, but older 
 heads may see no necessity. I have known instances 
 of Bishops elected without any certain provision, and a 
 few years have shown the sad story that the dignity of 
 the Episcopal office was almost degraded. One Bishop 
 
61 
 
 in our Church has supported himself for years by teach- 
 iu" school. I Another one told me that he accumulated 
 within 16 years an indebtedness of more than $5,000 
 just to support his family ; there was no obligation telt 
 by any one, and hence no provision made. I do not 
 say th;it there should be an endowment; there are 
 many other wajs by which a satisfactory assurance can 
 be given ; but, for heaven's sake, let us have no more 
 Bishops degraded and paralyzed by being thrust out into 
 new fields without a dollar of support, ashamed to meet 
 their own vestrymen, their own standing committee, 
 their churchmen that they should love and who should 
 love them— their hands hanging down in weakness and 
 their heads in shame. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gasmann, of Nebraska: — I beg leave t 
 address the Convention upon one subject — that is the 
 matter that Young America is getting too big for his 
 boots. All I have to say about this matter is this. In 
 the first place, I do not claim to belong to that class 
 which comes under the head of Young America. In 
 the second place, we have been held up as an example 
 of those who are ambitious to divide dioceses. Now, 
 let me say that I think you will find that this delegation, 
 spoken of almost contemptuously by the reverend gen- 
 tleman, is inclined to adopt the committee's report in- 
 stead of rushing headlong with a blind zeal for the 
 multiplication of Bishops without number. I entirely 
 object to any such epithet. There is not a man in this 
 Convention who will in all humility submit to the au- 
 thority of his lii.shop and all other proper authority, 
 more than myself. I am in favor of the report of the 
 committee as it stands, heart and head. I believe we 
 should provide our Bishops support before we send them 
 out. I believe in Bishops having faith to go into the 
 missionary field, but I do not believe we should require 
 them to live on miracles; and when a man says, I am 
 willing to go into the missionary field without support, 
 I point to that man as an unfit man to go into the mis- 
 sionary field. There is not a missionary among us, 
 willing to do this. Our missionaries are pledged a sup 
 port by the Boar<l of Missions before they go and enter 
 upon their work. Shall we send into the field a Bishop 
 whose work is herculean and ask him to do without sup- 
 port ? No, sir, it is a thing beyond humanity to endure. 
 
 JuuGK CoMSTocK, of Western New York: — I am so 
 thurou\;hly persuaded of the inexpediency of introduc- 
 ing this change into the constitution, that I will ask tlie 
 attention of the House while I state my views in regard 
 to it. I need not say that I have the greatest respect 
 for the Committee on Canons ; yet we must not be 
 governed by their judgment, but must exercise our 
 own. Let us endeavor, in the first place, if we can, to 
 understand wliat the provision is which the committee 
 propose to introiluce into the Constitution of the Church. 
 Early in the discussion yesterday, 1 took occasion to say 
 that the provision would justify the General Convention 
 of the Church in prescribing the amount of the salary 
 
 which the proposed diocese must pay to its Bishop ; and 
 I then supposed that if that objection were well-founded 
 it would be accepted at once as fatal to this change 
 in the constitution. Upon a further examination of 
 the clause, I am still more satisfied that it would not 
 only justify but will require the General Convention of 
 the Church in all cases to prescribe the amount of the 
 salary ; and I beg leave to call the attention of the 
 House to the fact that no gentleman of the committee 
 has denied that interpretation. 
 
 Gov. Fish : — I attempted to controvert it. 
 
 Judge Comstock: — Whatever may be the views of 
 the committee, we can not accept them as determining 
 the meaning of their own language [in a constitutional 
 provision]. We must judge of the language as those 
 who come after us must judge — that is, by its terms ; 
 there is no other canon of interpretation. The commit- 
 tee say that an adequate provision must be assured to 
 the Convention. I submit the question if that does not 
 mean that the provision must be suitable or adequate 
 (they are convertible terms) in amount. A provision 
 inadequate in amount would be unsuitable. Under- 
 standing that to be the meaning of the proposed change 
 in the constitution, I deny the right of the General 
 Convention or any authority to intervene in a plain 
 matter of contract between the diocese and the Bishop. 
 
 Two messages were here received from the House of 
 Bishops: No. 12 naming Bishops McCoskry, Lee, and 
 Clarkson the special committee to confer with Corres- 
 ponding Committee from the House of Deputies on the 
 subject of Church unity ; No. 13 designating their Com- 
 mittee on Canons a joint committee on their part on 
 the subject of admission to the ministry. 
 
 Judge Comstock — moved as a substitute for Gov. 
 Stevenson's motion to limit debate, that no gentleman 
 should speak more than once nor more than five min- 
 utes, except Dr. Haight. Carried. 
 
 Judge Comstock : — I deny the right on the part of 
 the General Convention to interfere with the contract 
 between the diocese and the Bishop. Especially do I 
 challenge that right in the House of Bishops. 1 do not 
 think they have a right to interfere with a civil contract. 
 But this amendment means something else. According 
 to all that I know of written language, it requires an 
 endowment of the Episcopate. I think it has no other 
 sensible, rational, or practical meaning. It will recjuire 
 in my interjiretation that a capital sum must be raised, 
 the income of which will support the Episcopate. If 
 his be not the interpretation of what is proposed, itt 
 would be difficult, I apprehend, to suggest what the in- 
 terpretation is. Allow me to ask the Committee on 
 Canons — and I shall hear their reply in due time — what 
 is the provision that shall give .satisfaction unless it is 
 an endowment. 
 
 Mr. Edwakd McCrady, of South Carolina: — If 
 you add this to the constitution you are bound hand and 
 loot. If you want to say some provision shall be made, 
 
62 
 
 name it. This provision is so vague and indefinite that 
 if put into the Constitution, you will be entirely at the 
 mercy of the Convention. If laws are made for any 
 purpose, it is to bind the strong, to restrain those who 
 may err. I want to know what shall be the restriction. 
 Of all restrictions none can be so utterly subversive. I 
 come from impoverished regions of the country. Can 
 they satisfy this Convention ? No subscription even 
 could be made in the State from which I come that any 
 man could have any confidence in. There is not enough 
 in the future prospect to rely upon. I care not how 
 you put it, still this Convention declares by this proviso, 
 that unless you can give an assurance of sufficient 
 wealth you can not have a Bishop, whatever may be the 
 needs of the country ; you can not divide unless you 
 show us money. I am utterly and entirely opposed to 
 that. I would throw open the doors as wide as they 
 can be opened and take no restriction before I would 
 take that. I hope that no one will vote for this measure, 
 believing that any explanation upon this floor can in- 
 terpret it. 
 
 Judge Battle: — I rise simply for the purpose of 
 disclaiming on the part of the Committee on Canons, 
 that any interpretation which they may make as to the 
 words tliat are recommencied, shall be considered as au- 
 thoritative. We set up no such claim. They have a 
 right to say what they think is a fair interpretation ot 
 their language. The gentleman from New York [Judge 
 Comstock] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
 McCrady] are entirely mistaken if they suppose that 
 the Committee on Canons set themselves up as having 
 a right to say what is the meaning of that language, and 
 that no one must contradict them. With perfect defer- 
 ence, however, to the opinions of other gentlemen, we 
 think that the language can not possibly be compared to 
 the language of an endowment. All that it requires is 
 that the Convention should be satisfied in some way that 
 the Bishop will be provided for, not that he shall live 
 upon faith, which I consider notliing more than living 
 upon the wind. 1 arose simply lor the purpose of dis- 
 claiming on the part of the committee any claim on our 
 part of setting up ourselves as the sovereign interpreters 
 of words. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan. — I wish to say one word in refer- 
 ence to one point. It is stated in reference to this pro- 
 posed provision that it puts the new diocese entirely 
 within the power of this Convention to say, for example, 
 what shall be the sum of the provision, and the like. If 
 you will take the article as it stands at present you will 
 find that this is already the case ; that no new diocese 
 can possibly be formed without the consent of this Con- 
 vention. If the consent of this House is required, then 
 this new diocese is already in the power of this Conven- 
 tion, and we have a perfect right to say whether it shall 
 exist or shall not. The only object of this proposal of 
 the Committee on Canons is, that when you come to get 
 our consent, we shall take into consideration one very 
 
 important point, namely, whether the proposed new dio- 
 cese is one likely to maintain the dignity of the episco- 
 pate. Suppose part of the Diocese of Virginia should 
 come before this Convention to make a new diocese. 
 The simple statement of their past history and the simple 
 statement that they had made similar provision for the 
 future would be ample provision for the episcopate ; and 
 the provision might be made in a great many such ways. 
 But all I wish to say in reference to this without arguing 
 the question is, that the language here was carefully con- 
 sidered for the purpose of leaving it entirely to the dis- 
 cretion of this House to determine what is a suitable pro- 
 vision in each case as it may arise. It seems to me ut- 
 terly impossible to find any way in which this language 
 can be tortured into any particular assurance. The 
 great object was that this House should have before it 
 the question of support of the episcopate in any new 
 diocese, and use its own discretion as to what that should 
 be. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Marple — read an extract from Bingham's 
 Church History as to the use of the oiTertory in the 
 ancient Church, which was divided into four parts, the 
 first of which went to the Bishop. This justified the 
 assertion that the ancient Church had a pecuniary pro- 
 vision for the support of the Bishop. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin. — I desire to answer a question 
 as to whether this provision is apostolic. The Apostle 
 Paul says that "the Lord hath ordained that they who 
 preach the Gospel shall live by the Gospel." I don't 
 care whether you call it worldly support or pecuniary 
 support. The apostle voluntarily declined to enjoy the 
 privilege himself, for specific and peculiar reasons. I 
 think it is an entirely different question whether Bishops 
 shah deny themselves and serve the Church without sup- 
 port. It is our duty to support our Bishops. It is our 
 duty under the ordinance of the Lord to give them a 
 support ; and I agree with the deputy from Nebraska 
 that when a man comes and oflers to live without a sup- 
 port, he is not fit for the work. Now who are interested 
 in this case ? In the first place, the new diocese electing 
 its Bishop. Has the old diocese any thing to do with it V 
 All parties agree that the Convention of the old diocese 
 has a right to consent or to refuse consent. All agree 
 that that restriction shall remain. Now they have not 
 so much interest as we have. The General Convention 
 has an interest in the case, for every Bishop that is added 
 to the House of Bishops is one added to the legislative 
 body of this Church. It seems to me extremely reason- 
 able, therefore, that the General Convention shall have 
 something to say. They have it to say. While the 
 General Convention has a right to refuse or consent, 1 
 will suggest whether you do restrict at all if you put in 
 the particular point that there shall be a pecuniary sup- 
 port. It may, thereupon, be fairly argued that that ex- 
 cludes all other grounds — that that provision having 
 been made they would have a right to be admitted. 
 JVlr. Churchill. — There appear to be two sets of 
 
opinions — some are for multiplying; Bishops, and some 
 are for having as few as possible. Some seem to tMiili 
 that if we have Bishops, thvy had better be as vcileil 
 ])rophets. I do not want Bishops unless they can mingle 
 with the people. J am entirely in favor of the substitute 
 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. That 
 puts it into the power of the General Convention to 
 make a Bishop when they see fit. If this Convention 
 are not able to form a sound judgment as to vfhether a 
 new diocese ■should be admitted, where are we to look 
 for a proper judgment ? I think that this Convention 
 has nothing at all to do with thg pecuniary provision. 
 A diocese asks for a Bishop; it elects a Bishop; and it 
 comes knocking at the door and asks to be admitted. 
 .Now is it fair to ask if they have made provision for 
 their Bisliop ? Is it not fair to presume that we shall 
 have many Bishops who want no salary at all? In the 
 parisli to which I belong in the state of Kentucky — prob- 
 ably the largest in the whole state — we have a minister 
 who year after year has devoted himself to the Church, 
 and has received not one cent of pay, and yet the 
 Churclj under his administration has flourished as in no 
 other part of Kentucky. And I believe that there are 
 plenty of gentlemen who will be willing to accept the 
 office of Bishop, and trust for support to the people wlio 
 elected them Bishop. 
 
 Mr. — : — I understand the question before the 
 
 House is whether this Convention shall have control over 
 the stipend or salary that shall be given to the Bishop 
 when he is properly elected. We live in a day when 
 free churches have become common throughout our 
 land, and when the principle has been maintained that 
 the clergyman ministering to his people shall defxnid 
 upon the ofl'erings at the altar — that the whole phiu of 
 a salary is all wrong — that the alms at the altar should 
 be that which should satisfy him. We have many 
 churches now estabhshed on that principle. Now sup- 
 pose a new Bishop should be required in a diocese, and 
 one should be elected, and be should be sent forth on the 
 same principles that the apostles were when our Lord 
 said " Provide neither gold nor silver," &c. "The work- 
 man is worthy of his hire." Suppose we should agree 
 to send forth a Bishop, should this Convention have a 
 right to say we have not that right 'i If this rest riction 
 is to be adopted, don't the Convention assume that right? 
 Do they not say you shall not send them forth as the 
 Lord .sent forth His apostles? I should be very sorry if 
 a Bishop siioul'l ever be chosen upon — not upon the 
 apostolic plan — but the Master's plan, and this Conven- 
 tion should not allow it. 
 
 Kev. Mr. Gordon. — I believe we can reach the object 
 to-day, which the substitute woulil postpone iiidelinitely. 
 The proposition is upon the repnrl of the Committee on 
 Canons. He proposes as a substitute that the Committee 
 on Cauotis shall be instructed to report a change of the 
 Constitution — permitting an increase of the episcopate 
 without any restrictions. I think we can do the same 
 
 [ thing to-day as his resolution intends shall be done bv 
 the Committee on Canons in two weeks, at which time 
 I we shall have to debate the same thing over again. I 
 j would ask whether it is not better that the gentleman 
 I should withdraw his substitufe, and enable us to act di- 
 1 rectly upon the report of the committee? 
 I Rev. Dr. Haight: — I am deeply sensible of the kindness 
 j iif the House in according to iiio an opportunity to .say a 
 few words, and I will not detain tlieni longer than is neces- 
 sary. I think there is some danger of our misunderstand- 
 ing each other in reference to the position which the mem- 
 bers of this House occupy, in regard to the great question 
 of Church and State. I suppose that all the members of 
 this House are equally, one with the other, desirous, above 
 all things, of promoting the prosperity and the growth of 
 this branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church. For one, I 
 can only say that, whatever may be my views with regard 
 to a particidar plan, if I know my own heart at all, I have no 
 desire deeper in my soul than to see this Church lengthenino- 
 her cords, and strengthening her stakes as fast as is com- 
 patible with the true interests of the Church. If there are 
 any men who desire to clog the wheels of the chariot of this 
 Church as it is going forward, I do not know who they are. 
 I repudiate, for myself and colleagues, all such imputations. 
 I do not believe there is a man on this floor who cau be 
 called an obstructive in the way of Church extension and 
 Church growth, although we may differ as to the mode in 
 and by which this prosperity may be promoted. There are 
 some, among whom is my honored friend from Wisconsin, 
 for whom I entertain feelings of the deepest respect, feel- 
 ings which began years ago when (I am almost ashamed to 
 say it) he was my pupil and knew more than I did — I say, 
 there are those among us who, with him, seem to suppose 
 that all that is necessary to promote the growth of the 
 Church is' to settle the question of organization and the 
 proper nomenclature. I am free to admit that the question 
 of organization is an important one, that the question of 
 names is not an unimportant one ; but I cannot agree that 
 if we settle these questions, henceforth the progress of 
 the Church will be rapid. It may be, and it may not be. 
 Then, there are those who seem to think all you have to do 
 for the growth of the Church is to stud this world all over 
 with Bishops. There is no man here who has a higher rev- 
 erence for the Episcopal Office than I have, or who appre- 
 ciates their functions more in the riiurch of Christ. But 
 you might plant 25 Bishops in tlie State of Texas, and how 
 much would the Church grow in the next year ? There is 
 something beside the Bishop necessary. I know the old 
 maxim, Ecclesia est in Ephcopo. It is a sound maxim, but it 
 is not a universal maxim. There is something besides or- 
 ganization, and there is something besides the presence and 
 authority of the Bishop, necessary for the growth of the 
 Church of Christ. The Lord has ordained other elements, 
 and you can not ignore these and expect the great results 
 which prophecy leads us to expect, in our day. We want 
 organization ; and we want Bishoprics extended and multi- 
 plied; but besides the organization and Bishops, we want 
 that those Bishops shall be able to go to their work with 
 untramnieled hands and with minds at ease. W^e want 
 them to have tliat wliicli the Lord has also ordained — the 
 
64 
 
 silver and gold wherewith to do their work. We want that 
 they shall be able to gather around them the elders and the 
 brethren, and that they should have their support, their 
 sympathy and their alms. We have been referred to the 
 Apostolic practice, and we have been told, almost in so 
 many words, that the Divine institution of the Episcopate 
 required simply that a man should be consecrated to the 
 Office and then sent forth without scrip and without staff. 
 I ask any gentleman upon the floor of this House whether 
 there ever was a time from the days of the Apostles down 
 to the present when the first care of the Church was not to 
 provide for the support of the Episcopate ? A gentle- 
 man on my left referred to Bingham. I looked at the 
 passage this morning. I knew it was there. Every one 
 knows that from the time of the Apostles down- — the 
 fourth of the oblation, of what we call the offertory — 
 brought in and laid upon the altar every Lord's Day, was 
 given for the support of the Bishop ; and I challenge any 
 man upon this floor to point me to a single instance from 
 the time of the Apostles, from the time miracles ceased in 
 the Church Catholic, where this rule has not been observed. 
 Why, sir, the Lord hath ordained that those who preach 
 the Gospel should live by the Gospel. What instruction 
 do we give our people in the Offertory of the Church : 
 "Who goeth to warfare at any time of his own cost?" 
 They are the words of St. Paul himself " Who planteth a. 
 vineyard and eateth not the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth 
 a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 
 
 I claim that it has been the settled rule of the Church 
 Catholic from the primitive Church down to the present 
 that the first care was the support of the Bishop. What 
 was the Bishop wanted for ? He was wanted to guide his 
 Diocese, to give the best powers oj his mind to the consid- 
 eration of the great questions which came up for the de- 
 cision of the Church ; and he was wanted for his prayers. 
 To hear some men, you would suppose that all that a Bishop 
 was wanted for was to go about from parish to parish and 
 from house to house and hold converse with his people. I 
 hold that he has higher duties than these in the study and the ' 
 closet ; and woe to the Church when you have Bishops who 
 do not study, and who can not think, and whose prayers 
 are few and hurried. 
 
 I was speaking of the points in which we agree and those in 
 which we differ. We all agree that the Episcopate is necessa- 
 ry for the welfare of the Church, and we all agree that it is de- 
 sirable that the Episcopate and the dioceses should be extend- 
 ed from time to time, just so far as the needs of the Church de- 
 mand. There is no difference at all upon these points. 
 Some of us think that something more is necessary than 
 the consecration of Bishops. I have already adverted to 
 the fact that from the times of the primitive Church the 
 rule has been established that the Bishop should be support- 
 ed. We are the daughter of the Church of England. We 
 owe to that Church a great debt of gratitude. We may 
 learn, Mr. President, from the course of procedure of tha; 
 venerable Church. It is true that from her connection with 
 the State, and from the way in which she is fettered by the 
 State, there are many things in regard to which her exam- 
 ple and her precepts may not be applicable to us ; but 
 touching all those points which look to the life of the 
 Church, I hold that this Church can never turn away from 
 
 the example. of the Church of England. I chanced to be in 
 England in 1841, just at the time when the great move- 
 ment began for the colonial Bishoprics — a movement 
 which has done more to strengthen the cause of Christ 
 throughout the world than any other movement for the last 
 two generations. The Bishops decided that a colonial fund 
 should be established, ^tnd the Bishops sent out. From that 
 time to the present the work has been going on, until now 
 you find all over the globe. Bishops of the Anglican Church 
 at work efficiently. What was the principle ? , Not to send 
 forth or consecrate a Bishop until a decent support was se- 
 cured for him. Not a great sum, but a sum sufficient to 
 relieve bim from all anxiety about his daily bread — a sum 
 sufficient to enable him to go forth with mind and heart 
 unfettered and untranimeled. Let us look across the bor- 
 der to our Canadian brethren ; we may learn something 
 from them. A few years ago it was proposed to divide the 
 Diocese of Toronto into three dioceses. The venerable 
 man then at the head of the diocese, now translated to his 
 rest — one of the wisest, and one of the noblest Bishops the 
 Anglican communion ever had — what did he say about this 
 matter of division? He gave hia consent at once that the 
 two new dioceses should be formed — the Diocese of Huron 
 and that of Ontario — but not to come into existence until a de- 
 cent support for the Episcopate was provided. So that from 
 the earliest times down, all through the history of the Church, 
 has this principle been recognized. And what has been the 
 result in that Communion? Why, sir, you never hear of a 
 colonial Bishop spending his time teaching school to get his 
 daily bread, frittering away his precious time at the school- 
 master's desk. We have heard of that in this country, and 
 we have seen it to our shame, and the Church has known it 
 to her great loss. 
 
 One of the objections which has been made to the plan of 
 the committee is, that it indicates a great want of faith that 
 this Church should say that the Bishop of any new diocese, 
 created out of an old one, should not be consecrated until 
 this Convention has satisfactory assurance that he will be 
 supported. Tliat, it is said, indicates a great want of faith. 
 What is faith ? It is trust in the promises of Almighty God, 
 and readiness to obey all His commandments. What com- 
 mand is there of Almighty God, or what arrangement is 
 there of His in regard to this matter of the Bishops and 
 clergy of His Church, save that contained in His Word to 
 which reference has been made ? If that is the Divine or- 
 dinance, that they who preach the Gospel shall live of the 
 Gospel — that the Bishops in the Church shall be supported 
 by the Church, where is the want of faith in asking that 
 the Church shall walk in the line indicated by Almighty 
 God and His Word ? That the Laity shall be told—" Here 
 is your duty clearly written upon the pages of Divine inspir- 
 ation. Do that duty, and you shall have the blessed privi- 
 lege which you seek." I have heard this cry of faith often 
 raised ; have known it to be raised by young, ardent and 
 enthusiastic minds. I believe it to have been raised hon- 
 estly and conscientiously ; but I contend it will not stand 
 the test of examination. Do you ask your clergy to act up- > 
 on any such notion of faith ? Have you asked your mis- 
 sionaries to act upon such a notion of faith as that? And 
 will you ask your Bishops to act upon that idea of faith? 
 to come forward and kneel down and receive the imposition 
 
65 
 
 of hands, and assume the fearful responsibility of a Bishop 
 in the Church of God, and then go out and depend upon 
 the chance charity of their fellow Christians, and wondering 
 how they shall be supported? If that is faith, then I have to 
 go to .school again and renew my study in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, and in the catechism. It is not faith ; it i.s presump- 
 tion ; and if we act upon that, we shall most assuredly be 
 covered with shame. I have known wise and intelligent 
 men in the Church who have attem|)ted to act upon this 
 idea of faith, and have seen them covered with misfortune 
 and pecuniary responsibility, and loaded down with agony 
 for years by so doing ; and I do not desire to see any one 
 of our Bishops again placed iu this position. Again, we 
 are told that Bishops must be men of self-denial, and that 
 to provide comfortable support in this way is to intimate 
 that you do not expect self-denial on the part of your Bish- 
 ops. I do not know what may be the experience of others, 
 but my own experience and observation lead me to say, 
 that I never yet have known any Bishop in this Church who 
 has not been obliged to exercise great self-denial. I think 
 you will find greater equality among the Bishops in point 
 of support than persons looking from the outside only 
 would be apt to imagine. I have never known a Bishop 
 who has not been obliged to exercise self-denial. I ven- 
 ture to predict there never will be a Bishop in this Church 
 who will never be called upon to exercise self-denial — 
 whose support will not be meagre, not only when compared 
 with gentlemen at the head of other professions, but with 
 men who are working at your looms and on your railroads. 
 The Bishops are not only expected to be gentlemen, but 
 to Uve like gentlemen, and to act as gentlemen ; and they 
 are expected to do this upon a miserable pittance, nine 
 times out of ten, which the men who work for your rich 
 men would scorn to take as their wages. I know scores of 
 presbyters, and many Bishops, who not only are gentlemen, 
 but live as gentlemen, and whom the whole world recog- 
 nize as living as gentlemen, but who are obliged, in order 
 to do that, to resort to a close economy, which the common 
 workman is not bound to exercise. It pleased the Great 
 Head of the Church to lay, at the beginning, the cross upon 
 those whom He called to go forth and preach the Gospel in 
 His name ; and that heritage has been handed down from 
 generation to generation. Thank God that that heritage is 
 ours. It is our glory ; it will be their comfort, and through 
 God's mercy the salvation of scores of the clergy, and will 
 redound to the welfare of the Church throughout the un- 
 ending ages of eternity. You need not be afraid that your 
 Bishops will not be men of self-denial. The world will have 
 to change, society, and all the circumstances around us, be- 
 fore that can be the case. 
 
 Another objection rai.sed by the gentleman from Tennes- 
 see, and repeated this morning by the gentleman from 
 Western New York is, that any such provision as this is an 
 interference with the rights of the diocese. Their view is 
 that we assume to legislate upon the subject of salary, and 
 then others have objected that the language of this proviso 
 is exceedingly broad, vague and indefinite. It is indefinite 
 and broad, and was made so on purpose ; for, we had no 
 idea, whatever, of introducing any proposition into this 
 body by which this Convention should undertake to say 
 you .shall pay your Bishop so much salary. We never in- 
 
 9 
 
 tended to say it; and repudiate altogether the idea that we 
 meant to say that there should be an Episcopal fund out of 
 wliich the Bishop shall be paid. It was left open on pur- 
 pose, our simple idea being to bring before the minds of 
 this Church that what was needed for the prosperity and 
 growth of the Church was simply provision for the support 
 of the Episcopate — some arrangement by which a Bishop 
 should not be obliged to engage in a secular business tor 
 his bread. The honorable gentleman from Tennessee spoke 
 of the division of Tennessee into three parts. He said if it 
 could be done and we had a Bishop in Knoxville, he could 
 be surely supported. If that is the case, then, I apprehend, 
 he can make it perfectly patent to any committee on the 
 part of this House ; he can render it evident to this Ilou.se 
 that that is the fact, and that being the fact, the House 
 would give its consent. I do not know how it may be with 
 others, but when I come up to this House I do not regard 
 it as merely an assemblage of gentlemen coming up to leg- 
 islate in regard to this and other matters. There is another 
 and a higher view to be taken of the functions of this body. 
 It is called in the prayer which we offer from day to day a 
 council of the Church, and we pray that the Holy Spirit 
 may guide our deliberations. Are those mere words ? or 
 do we believe that in this body the Great Head of the 
 Church, by His Spirit, is presiding, guiding, moulding, and 
 governing the minds of its members? If so, as I believe, 
 . and if I did not believe it I should not value the honor of a 
 seat on this floor very much — if we do believe it, then can 
 ■ we not trust this body with the settlement of a question like 
 this, without supposing that they are going to treat il 
 merely as a secular convention ? I trust this body as I trust 
 .the Church, because I believe it to be a branch of the great 
 Catholic body, and because I believe this body to be a 
 Council of that Church. I am willing to trust this and simi- 
 lar questions to this House, to be acted upon as they shall 
 think best, upon the broad, general principles of the Gos- 
 pel. These points give me, as an individual, no manner of 
 concern, whatever. When I look back to General Conven- 
 tions which I remember when I was a boy — I have always 
 felt the deepest interest in them, and have retained a lively 
 rec^lection of what has passed — I have not yet seen the 
 day, in the most trying times of the Church, in seasons of 
 the greatest difficulty and perplexity, when, though sorrow 
 and darkness brooded for the night, joy did not come in the 
 morning. I have never yet seen the day when clouds have 
 not dispelled and the Deputies gone home, rejoicing 
 on their way ; and what has been will be, if we arc only 
 faithful to our trust. 
 
 What is the proposition of the committee? Wc intro- 
 duce great changes in the organic law of the Chm'ch iu re- 
 gard to the creation of new dioceses and the appointment 
 of new Bishops, if it shall plea.sc this House, and the House 
 of Bishops shall concur. Wc strike out — such is our propo- 
 sition — all other restrictions from the Constitution save 
 three, the necessity of the consent of the Bishop of the Di- 
 ocese for a new Diocese, of the Convention of the Diocese, 
 and of the General Convention ; we put certain restrictions 
 into a canon, which we propose for adoption hereafter, 
 where they can be altered from time to time, according to 
 the needs of the Church, and as the e.vperience of the Church 
 shall point out the importance of so doing, without waiting 
 
66 
 
 three years. We take away every restriction save the three I 
 have mentioned, and this new one. I do not wonder that 
 the proposition has occasioned a great deal of debate ; but 
 I now leave it to the thoughtful minds of the members of 
 this Convention. Whatever may be the decision of this 
 House and this Convention touching this proposed altera- 
 tion in the Constitution, I shall look forward to the future of 
 this Church with renewed hopes, with higher expectations 
 than any I have yet cherished. To see us all together 
 again from the East and the West, from the North and 
 South ; to be able to take each other by the hand and hold 
 sweet converse together, comparing our different local 
 views with reference to the work of the Church ; communi- 
 cating our hopes, aspirations, and expectations — this is not 
 only most delightful and most glorious, but it certainly doe.'* 
 stimulate, in my mind, higher hopes of the future of this 
 Church. And when 1 look around this Convention and 
 take note how, since the day when we first came together, 
 not one unkind word has fallen from the lips of anybody, 
 how there has been presented a remarkable degree of for- 
 bearance, I thank God and take courage. We have passed 
 through a great crisis. We are now upon the verge of great 
 movements for the future. I have no doubt, whatever may 
 be the decision upon this case, that these movements will 
 be onward and onward ; and by whatever means it shall 
 please Almighty God to bring about the result, the result 
 will come that this branch of the Church shall be a praise" 
 and glory in the whole earth. God grant it. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Sheffey, of Virginia (long a speaker of the 
 House of Delegates of Virginia), stated his vievps as to 
 the parliamentary order of taking the vote. 
 
 A motion to strike out the pecuniary proviso was 
 lost, the vote being by dioceses and orders. 
 
 A motion to adjourn was negatived. 
 
 The pending amendment to the resolution of the com- 
 mittee was withdrawn. 
 
 The President : — The question recurs upon the adop- 
 tion of the whole resolution. 
 
 Judge Comstock — moved to strike out of the first 
 proposition of the committee all after the word Until, 
 and insert these words, so that it shall read "until the 
 General Convention shall be satisfied that the Bishop 
 of the said new diocese shall receive a competent sup- 
 port." 
 
 Rev. Dk. Pierce — offered verbal amendments, ac- 
 cepted by the committee. 
 
 Mr. SHEFFEY-raised the point of order, that the House 
 having refused to strike out, precludes a subsequent 
 motion to strike out and insert. 
 
 Which point of order was sustained by the President, 
 and Judge Comstock's motion was declared out of order. 
 
 Dr. Wheat : — I understand the President to say 
 that the vote is now to be taken upon the whole 
 report, including the canon. 
 
 The President : — We have nothing to do with the 
 canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — called for the vote by dioceses 
 and orders. 
 
 The resolution was then adopted by the following 
 
 vote : Clerical, Ayes, 27 ; Nays, 3 ; Divided, 5 ; Lay, 
 Aj^es, 27; Nays, 3; Divided, 1. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I move that the remainder of 
 the report of the committee be referred to the next 
 Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dk. Haight : — I move that it be sent to the 
 House of Bishops for information. 
 
 The President being about to take the vote upon 
 motion to refer the remainder of the report to the next 
 General Convention as unfinished business — 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers said : — I believe the committee are 
 prepared to make that [canon] satisfactory to Texas [in 
 respect to number of parishes and clergy in the new and 
 the old diocese] which needs it more than any other dio- 
 cese. I do not wish that transferred to the next Con- 
 vention ; and I ask that this Convention may pass upon 
 it : they can do it as well as the next. 
 
 On motion this House adjourned to 10 o'clock, a. m., 
 to-morrow. 
 
 TENTH day's PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Saturday, Oct. 17th, 1868. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Rev. Dr. Stubbs, 
 of New Jersey, and by the Rev. Dr. Jacob L. Clark, of 
 Connecticut. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Atkin- 
 son, of North Carolina. 
 
 The journal of yesterdaj-'s proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 On motion, members of the Board of Missions were 
 invited to seats within the body of the church. 
 
 Reports of Standing Committees being in order, 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight — from the Committee on Canons, 
 reported an amendment to Canon 9, Title I, substituting 
 " one year" instead of " six months," as the required 
 time of probation to be required of ministers not of this 
 Church [i. e., of the Roman Catholic Church] candi- 
 dates for admission to this Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stcbes — favored rather decreasing to six 
 months the time of probation (one year) now required 
 of the ministers of the Church of England. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — said that an increased time of pro- 
 bation for Roman Catholic ministers was necessary to 
 guard against imposture, and allow ample time to 
 obtain testimonials. 
 
 Mr. Wallace, of Missouri — stated an illustrative 
 case of application of a Roman Catholic priest for admis- 
 sion to this Church, arguing the propriety of increase 
 of the time of probation. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigdt — reported from the Committee on 
 Canons : 
 
 (1) That it is inexpedient to change Clause 59, Sec. 
 7, Canon 13, Title 1, so as to make the missionary bishop 
 of course the Diocesan Bishop of a diocese created 
 within his district. The committee were discharged 
 from further consideration. 
 
\ 
 
 67 
 
 (2) With reference to a referred memorial, that the 
 amendment to Canon 11, already reported, was all that 
 was now expedient. Submitted, without an)' action. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Robeht A. Hallam, of Connecticut, Chair- 
 man ot the Committee on the State of the Church, read 
 the following report and resolution: 
 
 EKPORT. 
 
 The Committee on the State of the Church, in presenting 
 their report to the (Jeneral Convention, ate happy to find 
 themselves relieved from the embarrassment under which 
 their predecessors have labored in the last two General Con- 
 ventions in consequence of the civil distractions of tlie 
 country. Again it is possible, with devout thanks to Al- 
 mighty God be it said, to present a view of the whole Church 
 in all parts of the land. In the present General Convention 
 all the dioceses of the country are once more represented, 
 aud from them all statements of their condition have been 
 received, which are embodied in this report. 
 
 From these statements, and from such other sources of 
 knowledge as have been within their reach, the comiuittee 
 are enabled to preseut a view of the state of the Church 
 that exhibits abundant reasons for encouragement aud grat- 
 itude. In every part of the Church there are signs of 
 prosperity and success. Especially gratifying are the evi- 
 dences of an increased zeal for missionary efforts and the 
 salvation of men, evinced in larger contributions and in 
 more earnest work of clergymen and laymen. The laity of 
 the Church liave awakened to a livelier sense of their obliga- 
 tion to give and labor as felfow-workers with their ministers 
 unto the kingdom of Christ. There is an increase of be- 
 nevolent effort in various departments of action ; in the in- 
 struction of the ignorant and the succor of human want 
 and suffering and in the use of appropriate means to ndti- 
 gate the ills of life aud promote the highest interests of 
 men. The committee rejoice to be able to say that in 
 their judgment this Church is becoming more and more a 
 working Church. 
 
 From some parts of the land, to be sure, comes up the 
 sad complaint of devastation and impoverishment. But 
 these complaints are tempered by a Christian patience, 
 an unshaken faith in God and a firm determination to 
 strengthen the things that remain, and rebuild upon the old 
 foundations, as God shall give them power, the walls of Je 
 rusalem that are broken down : while the sympathy and 
 assistance that this want and suffering have called forth 
 have bound the parts of the country together in stronger 
 bonds and rendered the unity of the Church firmer aud 
 more complete, a more living and conscious priuciple. 
 
 And this unity, the committee beheve, has been strengthe 
 ened, as by this, so by other causes also. The occasional 
 trials to which it has beeu subjected, and abnormal tenden- 
 cies that have manifested themselves here aud there, 
 whether by excess or defect, have served to illustrate this 
 unity and also to establish it. The great mass of church- 
 men are one in heart, and, as to all necessary things, in 
 judgment and purpose also. With the Church as she is, as 
 our fathers have handed her down to us, they are content; 
 aud while willing to tolerate minor differences ol opinion 
 aud practice in one another, are striving together for the 
 defence of the Gospel, in nothing terrified by their adversa- 
 
 ries. Beholders from without may have thought divergen- 
 cies and repeUencies within strong enough to rend her apart ; 
 but she has never allowed herself to doubt that the bonds 
 which hold her together are far stronger and more effi- 
 cient. 
 
 The success of our missionary and frontier bishops and 
 their faithful feUow-laborers in planting the cross in the wild 
 and rapidly growing regions committed to their care since 
 the Church last met in council, is a fact too pleasing to be 
 omitted in this report. For once this Church has beeu in 
 advance of the stream of population aud has moved on 
 abreast of its swelling current. And she is blessed in the 
 deed, and is making lierself effectually felt amid the growing 
 mass of emigrants and settlers, and even in the realm of 
 filthy Mormonism, and, to some small extent at least, among 
 the wronged and neglected aborigines. 
 
 Since the last General Convention the ranks of our epi.s- 
 copate have been thinned by the demise of six of our 
 Bishops — The Right Rev. John Henry Hopkins, D. D., LL. 
 D., Bishop of Vermont, and at the time of his death presid- 
 ing Bishop of the House of Bi.shops; the Right Rev. Stephen 
 Elliott, D. D., Bishop of Georgia ; the Right Rev. Cicero 
 Stephens Hawks, D. D., Bishop of Missouri ; the Right Rev. 
 George Burgpss, D. D., Bishop of Maine ; the Right Rev. 
 Francis Huger Rutledge, D. I)., Bishop of Florida; and the 
 Right Rev. Thomas Fielding Scott, D. D., Missionary Bish. 
 op of Oregon and Washington Territory. But the loss has 
 been more than made good in number by the addition of no 
 less than fourteen to the number of our bishops, a number 
 far outstripping the additions in any like period of our 
 former history. They are as follows : — The Right Rev. 
 Richard Hooker Wilnier, D. D., consecrated by bishops of 
 this Church during the temporary suspension of communi- 
 cation with the Southern portion of the country, and recog- 
 nized as Bishop of Alabama upon his compliance with the 
 conditions prescribed by the last General Convention ; the 
 Right Rev. Robert Harper Clarkson, D. D., Missionary 
 Bishop of Nebi'aska and Dacota ; the Right Rev. George 
 Maxwell RandaU, D. D., Missionary Bishop of Colorado and 
 Wyoming; the Right Rev. Johu Barrett Keifoot, D. D., 
 Bishop of Pittsburgh ; the Right Rev. Channing Moore Wil- 
 liams, D. D., Missionary Bishop in China and Japan ; the 
 Right Rev. Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer, D. B., Bi,<hop of 
 Louisiana ; the Right Rev. George David Cummins, D. D., 
 Assistant Bishop of Kentucky ; the Right Rev. William 
 Edniond Anuitage, D. D., A.ssistant Bishop of WLscousin ; 
 the Right Rev. Henry Adams Neely, D. D., Bishop of 
 Maine ; the Right Rev. Daniel Sylvester Tuttle, D. D., Mis- 
 sionary Biiihop of Montana and Utah ; the Right Rev. John 
 Freeman Young, D. D., Bisho|) of Florida; the Right Rev. 
 John Waters Beckwith, D. D., Bishop of Georgia; theRighi 
 Rev. Francis M. Whittle, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Vir 
 ginia, and the Right Rev. William Henry Augustus Bissell, 
 D. D., Bishop of Vermont. 
 
 The committee have again encouutered embarrassmeui 
 and delay in the execution of their work, in consequence oi 
 the imperfect condition in which the tabular digests requii- 
 cd by the canon from the different dioceses have come be- 
 fore them and llic want of promptness in preparing and 
 presenting them. The committee venture to suggest that 
 this difficulty would be much diminished il" in all the Dio- 
 
68 
 
 cesau Conventions there were a committee on the state of 
 the Church, or a tabular summary of the parochial reports 
 were printed in the journals of conventions. 
 
 The reports of the respective dioceses are made a part of 
 this report and are herewith presented. 
 
 In conclusion the committee recommend the adoption of 
 the foUowhig resolution : — 
 
 Resolved, That the view of the state of the Church here 
 presented be transmitted to the House of Bishops, asking 
 its prayers and blessing, and requesting it to prepare and 
 cause to be published a pastoral letter to the members of 
 the Church. 
 
 ROBERT A. HALLAM, Chairman. 
 
 Gborge D. Gillespik, Secretary. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn ; — I desire to call the attention 
 of the House to the character of the report just submitted. 
 I consider it in its way a model. Although brief it 
 touches most happily upon every leading subject which 
 interests the Chui'ch, presenting an exceedingly satisfac- 
 tory total result, all in a style which my neighbor of 
 accurate tastes (Gov. Fish) has aptly said was like a 
 polished crystal. A document so brief yet comprehen- 
 sive, so happy in tempei' and faultless in style, is certain- 
 ly a subject of congratulation. 
 
 The resolution of the above report was then adopted ; 
 and by subsequent motion temporarily referred, prior to 
 being sent to the House of Bishops, to Committee on 
 Christian Education. 
 
 Rev. Hiram W. Beeus, of Wisconsin — offered the 
 following preamble and resolutions, the second resolution 
 (moved by a deputy from New Hampshire) having been 
 accepted by Mr. Beers. 
 
 Whereas our Church is charged by its Divine head with 
 the duty of imparting to all the people of this country the 
 Gospel of Salvation ; and whereas the growth of the nation 
 and the increase of its population have thus far vastly tran- 
 scended both the ordinary and missionary arrangements of 
 the Church, so that to-day there are thousands of cities and 
 towns and hundreds of interior counties scattered through 
 the States where the voice of the Church is not heard and 
 the presence of her ministers is unknown ; and whereas it 
 would require a five-fold greater number of regular clergy 
 men than are now in orders, and an additional outlay of 
 millions for the next twenty-live years to biing the scale of 
 our rehgious operations and the measure of our spiritual 
 provisions up to a high standard of our Catholic claims, and 
 the solemn magnitude of our Catholic obligations; and 
 whereas it is the peculiarity of this country and age that 
 sentiments, beliefs, institutions and usages, seeking to possess 
 and mould the minds and hearts and lives of the people, 
 must appeal to, and operate through the children ; and 
 whereas the Christian school is, under (iod, the one instru- 
 mentality and channel through which Christian sentiments, 
 beliefs, iu.stitutions and usages can be brought to bear 
 directly^ systematically and continuously upou the children 
 of this country, so that they shall be trained in a manner 
 befitting "members of Christ, the children of God and the 
 inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven :" and whereas the 
 Christian school would find a field of usefulness and a 
 ready welcome iu places where honest prejudices would 
 stand hi the way of Church woik by the regular clergy 
 through the ordinary parochial organizations; and whereas 
 existing theological schools, general and local, fall far short 
 of supplying the constantly increasing demand lor clergy- 
 men for the regular parochial work of the Church ; there- 
 fore, in solemn view of the duty of this Church to God as 
 
 the Steward of His Grace, of life and salvation, and in an 
 honest endeavor to meet our responsibilities, it is hereby 
 
 Resolved, That this House, the House of Bishops concur- 
 ring, recommends the establishment of Christian schools in 
 every parish where it may be practicable. 
 
 Resolved, That the work of extending and planting the 
 Church iu cities and towns, where it is already established, 
 can be carried on economically and successfully by opening 
 grammar schools in chapel school-houses, where the children 
 can be trained in learning and religion through the week, 
 and assembled with parents and others on Sundays for Di- 
 vine worship. , 
 
 Resolved, That iu order to provide competent principals 
 or heads for these schools, and especially for the mission 
 grammar schools, we recommend the establishment in every 
 diocese of a traiuing school for those who desire to become 
 teaching deacons in the Church of God, and for the edu- 
 cation and traiuing of youths and young men who may wish 
 to devote their minds to the work of God, by acting as lay 
 teachers in this Church. 
 
 Resolved, That the subject of a training-house for female 
 teachers in each diocese and a sisterhood of such, under 
 wise regulations, voluntarily bound for definite periods to 
 go where the Church needs them, and to train, in the schools 
 of the Church, our children for Christ, as a work of love and 
 mercy to their souls, is one of vast importance and is com 
 mended to the prayerful consideration of churchmen. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Beehs : — Before moving the reference of 
 these resolutions to the Committee on Christian Edu- 
 cation, I would like to make a few remarks :n relation 
 to the matter contained in the resolutions. Our theory 
 is that we are a branch of the Church Catholic in these 
 United States. I suppose that there is not a clergyman 
 or intelligent layman in the Church, that has not often 
 been perplexed from the difficulty of reconciling our 
 magnificent theory with the actual practical condition 
 of attairs in the Church. Under responsibility to give 
 the Gospel to all we do not give it to one in five hun- 
 dred. And probably he has sometimes thought that it 
 is the business of conventions and committees of our 
 Church to find how not to do it, to constitute of them- 
 selves a circumlocution office that shall be occupied with 
 splendid success in the work of endeavoring to contrive 
 how we shall not go outside of a certain circle and how 
 we shall reach no result that has not been reached half a 
 century or seventy -five years ago. We need not be sur- 
 prised that the religious world outside of the pale of the 
 Church, and especially that the world of irreligion 
 outside of the pale of the Church, are incredulous about 
 the grand claims put forth by us. We need not be surpris- 
 ed that when they hear us recite in unison the great 
 Catholic creeds of Divine worship, there is an undercur- 
 rent of doubt about the conviction and sincerity with 
 which we recite these formulas of faith, because they see 
 that in some way or other, if we are the Church of Christ 
 in this land, the land is going to the devil as fast as it 
 can, for all we are doing. I mean outside of the com- 
 paratively limited circle. In saying this, it is not said 
 that the ministry and laity of the Church, according 
 to the instrumentalities they have adopted are not doing 
 according to the best ability that God has given them. 
 But the question arises whether there are not Instru- 
 mentalities within our reach that would expedite the 
 
69 
 
 realization of our grand ideas by centuries, and wliich it 
 
 would be better to use than to stick to the old tracks and 
 run in the old ruts forever. As stated in one of the pre- 
 ambles, education is the particular vanity of the Ameri- 
 can people. It is the one subject about which there is 
 not in any quarter the courage to raise a single question. 
 I dd not care what kind of school is proposed, there is no 
 man, especially if he has any aspiration to office, that 
 dares raise a question about that being the finest thing 
 in the world. And 1 say this for the purpose of bring- 
 ing forward this consideration, namely, that the partic- 
 ular ground of education wliich it is proposed in these 
 resolutions to occupy, and which is open for the 
 advantage of the Church and the salvation of souls, is 
 absolutely unoccupied in all this laud to-day. [After 
 speaking of tlie Roniisli schools, of the difficulty of ex- 
 tending the Church owing to the prejudices of the adult 
 population, of the importance and ease of impressing 
 the young, and of the advantage of having a teaching 
 ministry to support the services of the Church, he said:] 
 In this way I have come to the settled conviction that 
 if the Church is willing to take this instrumentality 
 and plant herself as a teaching Church in towns and 
 cities where the Church does not exist, there will be no 
 difficulty in laying firm her foundations. In some of 
 the dioceses of tlie West, there are a hundred towns and 
 cities, the smallest of which has a population of a thous- 
 and, where the voice of the Church is not heard. 
 There is one diocese, which is comparatively well occu- 
 pied, and in which Church work is going on with great 
 vigor, and yet it has fourteen counties, where the ser- 
 vices of this Church are not heard at all, and we can 
 not do any better by the ordinary processes. The 
 teaching side of the Church will sustain the siile that 
 celebrates the Divine service, and you will establish 
 the Church in a community in a few years, and have 
 all the elements needful to go on with the work of the 
 Church. 
 
 On motion these preambles and resolutions were re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Christian Education. 
 
 Two messages, No.s. 14 and 15 were here received 
 from the House of Bishops. 
 
 The House now proceeded to (he unfinished business 
 of yesterday, the motion of Dr. Goodwin to refer the 
 following canon reported in connection with amend- 
 ment to canon 11 (concerning new diocesesj to the next 
 General Convention as unlinishcd business. 
 
 Resolved, That the following be adopted as a new 
 canon, to be section four of Canon six, of Title three. 
 No new diocese shall be formed which shall (•ontaiii less 
 than six parishes, or less than six presbyters who have 
 been at least one year canonically resident within the 
 bounds of such new diocese and regularly settled in a 
 parish or congregation therein, and (|ualihe<l to vote for 
 a bishop. Nor shall any new diocese be forniid it 
 thereby any existing diocese shall be reduced so as to 
 contain less than twelve parishes, or less than twelve 
 presbyters, who have been residing and settled and 
 quahtied as above mentioned. 
 
 A question as to whether the reference had already 
 been agreed to was discussed sometime, when the 
 President decided that whatever might Vhave been the 
 parliamentary effect of the action of yesterday, the 
 House had not intended to either adopt or refer, but 
 had simply acted upon the first resolution of the report 
 of the committee. 
 
 Mr. McCkauv, of South Carolina— opposed the ref 
 erence, and claimed that as the subject of the canon 
 relating to the organic constitution of the Convention, 
 its provisions should be in the constitution. 
 
 Judge CoNYNGHAM — Concurred in these views. 
 
 Mr. Columbus Delano — opposed the reference and 
 claimed that it not only could but should be acted upon 
 now, so that the restrictions removed from the consti- 
 tution should exist somewhere in the legislation of the 
 Church. 
 
 Gov. Fish — moved as a substitute for the pending 
 motion the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that the 
 following ainendtnent to the canons be adopted to take 
 efl'ect and become operative on the adoption and rati- 
 fication of the proposed amendment to the 5th article of 
 the constitution as recommended Ijy the Convention, 
 IGth Oct. inst. " No new diocese," [&c., as in the can- 
 on above.] 
 
 The vote upon the substitution resulted in the affirm- 
 ative, when the resolution^was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Alfi-ed A. Watson, of North 
 Carolina, the Committee on Canons were instructed to 
 inquire into the expediency of establishing missionary 
 organizations within existing dioceses when requested 
 to do so by the ecclesiastical authoritj' of such diocese 
 or dioceses. 
 
 Mr. CnuncniLL, of Kentucky — moved that for 
 the remainder of the session no member be permitted 
 to speak more than ten minutes, nor oftener than once on 
 the same subject, which was adopted, excepting mem- 
 bers of standing committees in charge of motions. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Haight, the House proceeded 
 to the consideration of the following amendment to the 
 canons. 
 
 Resolved, the House of Uishops inncniring, That 
 section (i, clause 2, of Canon 12, Title 1, of the Digest, 
 be amended by inserting in the lOth line of said clause, 
 innnediately after the words " shall be necessary," the 
 following words, viz: — "Hut nothing in this canon 
 shall be construed to prevent any clergyman of this 
 Church from officiating in any parish church, or in any 
 place of public worshi]) used by any congregation of 
 this Church, or elsewhere within the parochial cure of 
 the minister of said congregation, with the consent of 
 the clergyman in charge of such congregation, or, in his 
 absence, of the church wardens and vestrymen or trus- 
 tees of such congregation or of a majority of tliem." 
 
 The reverend doctor proceeded to explain the intended 
 operation of this amendment, that it would obviate 
 conflicting interpretations of the present law of the 
 Chuieli, so as to allow of a minister's inviting a brother 
 to officiate in his pulpit without asking the consent of 
 
70 
 
 a majority of the ministers of the Church resident in 
 the city or town. A nvniiber of amendments were 
 oflered, but they were all declared out of order, and 
 without much debate the proposed amendment was 
 unanimously carried. After the vote was announced, 
 Judge Conyngham, of Pennsylvania; Judge Comstock, 
 of New York ; Mr. De Rossett, of North Carolina, and 
 Rev. Dr. Peterkin, of Virginia, offered other amend- 
 ments to the same canon, with the intention of render- 
 ing it less restrictive, which were all referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 The following new canon, on the consecration of 
 churches, reported from the committee on the 15th 
 inst, was then taken up : — 
 
 1. The form of consecration of a church or chapel 
 shall not be used at an}' time before sufficient evidence 
 be furnished to the bishop that the building to be con- 
 secrated, and the land on which it stands, aie free from 
 debt or other pecuniary liability. 
 
 2. The title to such building and land shall be secured 
 to the person, persons or corporation authorized by the 
 laws of the State or Territory in which it is situated to 
 hold property for the diocese, parish or congregation, 
 and such building and land shall not be encumbered nor 
 alienated by mortgage or sale, by the parties aforesaid, 
 without'the consent ol the ecclesiastical authority of the 
 diocese in which they are situated. 
 
 3. A church or chapel once consecrated to the service 
 of Almighty God shall be " separate from all unhallowed, 
 worldly or common uses ;"' and it shall not be re- 
 moved or disposed of or taken down unless permission 
 be first obtained from the bishop, acting by the advice 
 and consent ot the standing committee of the diocese in 
 which it is situated. 
 
 A number of objections were made to the phraseology, 
 especiall)' from Vermont and Maine, the peculiar laws 
 of which States make a pew real property and subject 
 to attachment for debt. The proposed canon was final- 
 ly referred back to the committee, and the House at 
 half past three o'clock P. M., adjourned to Monday. 
 
 ELEVENTH DAy's PKOCEEDINOS. 
 
 Monday, Oct. lyth, ISOS. 
 
 The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Mr. Perkins, 
 of Kentucky, and Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Talbot. 
 
 The journal of Saturday's proceeding was read and 
 approved. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — reported from the Committee on 
 Canons, that the proposed amendment to Canon 12, Sec- 
 tion 2, Title 2, (to the effect that members of the Church 
 should be amenable to the parish jurisdiction to which 
 thev may remove) is inexpedient, and asked that the 
 committee be discharged. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs — hoped that the Convention would 
 not dispose of the subject in that manner, and moved 
 to recommit. But understanding that the Committee 
 on Canons had before them the subject of an amend- 
 ment which would meet his wishes, he withdrew his 
 motion to recommit. 
 
 On motion the committee were discharged from the 
 further consideration of the subject. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — presented Report No. 13, from the 
 Committee on Canons, with reference to a resolution of 
 inquiry and direction touching the duties and discipline 
 of Lay-readers, reporting that in their judgment the ex- 
 isting legislation of the Church on this subject is 
 sufficient, and asking to be discharged from further 
 consideration of the subject. 
 
 The counnittee were then discharged. 
 
 Report No. \i from the same committee was submit- 
 ted, with reference to the proposed amendment of Can- 
 on 20, Title 1, as to the use of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, giving Bishops of this Church the power to 
 sanction forms of service selected from the Book of 
 Conuuon Prayer instead of the prescribed forms, under . 
 peculiar circumstances. 
 
 The committee deemed the proposed amendment in- 
 expedient and asked to be discharged from further 
 consideration of the subject, and wei'e accordingly dis- 
 charged. 
 
 Rev. Dr. liicHAuo S. Mason — from the Committee 
 on the Prayer Book, reported on the resolution of Dr. 
 Rylance, with reference to the typographical correctness 
 of the last sentence but one in that part of the Holy 
 Connnunion office known as the Invocation, ending with 
 the words, " That He may dwell in them and they in 
 Him." 
 
 The committee reported that it was originally derived 
 frpm the office of the Scotch Episcopal Church, and 
 they were unanimously of the opinion that it would not 
 be advisable to make any change in the present phrase- 
 ology. On their request the committee were discharged. 
 
 Another report from the same committee was sub 
 mitted, on the resolutions offered by Rev. Dr. Haight 
 with respect to alterations in the stereotype plates of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, and other matters — that 
 the committee did not find in the possession and custody 
 of this House or of any officer of the General Convention 
 a copy of the standard edition of Common Prayer re- 
 ferred to in Canon 17, Title 1 ; that the Messrs. Harper 
 Brothers had formerly in their possession a set of stereo- 
 type plates which had been sold and whose present 
 ownership could not be traced ; that a set of plates is in 
 the possession of Mr. James Pott, agent of the New 
 York Bible and Prayer Book Society, who says that the 
 plates have been in his keeping smce December, 1801, 
 and that from that date they have remained intact 
 though some changes had been previously made in 
 them but by whose authority he had not been able to 
 find out. The nature or extent of the changes the 
 committee were unable to ascertain. They submitted 
 a resolution to the effect that a joint committee to con- 
 sist of three members on the part of this House be 
 appointed to sit during the recess with power to exam- 
 ine the stereotype plates of the edition of the Prayer 
 Book now in the possession of Mr. Pott, and correct the 
 
71 
 
 manifest typographical errors thereof; secondly, to 
 ascertain what changes had been made in said plates 
 from the standard edition of 1844, and restore such plates 
 to conformity with said standard edition ; and thirdly, 
 to procure and publish citlier from the old plates or new 
 another and correct edition of the standard Prayer Hook; 
 and, fourthly, that there should be an officer of the 
 Convention appointed to be called the custodian of the 
 standard Prayer Book who shall be intrusted with 
 the keeping of the plates and a copy of the book for the 
 use of the Convention. The committee nominated as 
 members of the committee referred to in the resolutions, 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, of New York ; Rev. Dr. Coit, of Troy ; 
 Rev. Dr. Howe, of Philadelphia ; and, as a custodian of 
 the General Convention, Rev. Dr. Haight. 
 
 On motion, these resolutions were adopted. 
 
 Another report from the same committee was sub- 
 mitted with the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons to consider the expediency of amending the 
 second section of Canon 17, Title 1, by striking out the 
 words " Harper and Brothers in 184.5," and inserting 
 the words " and corrected and republished under tlie 
 supervision of a joint committee of both Houses of the 
 General Convention, 1868." 
 
 Which resolution was adopted. 
 
 The special committee to whom was referred the 
 resolution that the Diocese of Maine have permission to 
 make a transcript of the catalogue of ordinations in the 
 American Church, prepared by the late Bishop Burgess, 
 and also the memorial and statement of Rev. Dr. Bailey, 
 of Vermont, embracing preambles and resolutions to 
 the same effect, adopted by the Convention of that dio- 
 cese together with similar memorials h'om the dioceses 
 of Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hamp- 
 shire, reported in eft'ect that the said catalogue was oi' 
 too great value to be loaned; but that some facility 
 should be attorded to dioceses for procuring the infor- 
 mation contained in the catalogue of Bishop Burgess ; 
 that it would be well to create a permanent commission, 
 composed of an equal number of ISishops, Clergy, 
 and Laymen, who shall have power to control the 
 archives of the Church and other articles belonging to 
 the Convention, and to whom, during recess, application 
 may be made for liberty to examine pamphlets or manu- 
 scripts according to rules which the commission might 
 establish. 
 
 A resolution embodying such recommendations was 
 adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason — called attention to a resolution 
 passed at the last General Convention witli reference to ! 
 preparing a new cycle completing the present century, 
 to be inserted in the table for finding Kiister. It being | 
 uncertain whether the House of Bishops had taken action I 
 upon that resolution, at the last General Convention, ! 
 Dr. Mason moved the adoption of. the same resolution 
 by this Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason — submitted a resolution suggesting 
 certain, changes in the Metrical Psalms and the Hymns, 
 as, in the 20th selection, 4th line, of 1st stanza the 
 word "Thy" into "my"; in the 101st selection, in the 
 1st stanza, .'id line, the word "movably" to "movable"; 
 in the 1st line, 3d stanza, Hymn .5(1, the change of the 
 words " by Thine hourof dark despau'"; in Kiuth Hymn, 
 4th line,of the 3d stanza,instead of the words "the .sicken- 
 ing anguish of despair" the words " thy bitter griefs, 
 thy harrowing care." 
 
 Which resolution was referred to the Connnittee on 
 the Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason — offered a resolution, which he de- 
 sired laid upon the table for the purpose of having it 
 brought before the Committee on the Prayer Book ; 
 which was to the effect that the House of Bishops con- 
 cur in the following changes to be made in the Book of 
 Common Prayer : (1) That a semicolon be restored in 
 the place of the present comma after the words Holy 
 Catholic Church in the creed commonly called the 
 Apostles' Creed ; (2) That a comma be inserted after the 
 words " the Holy Ghost the Lord " in the Nicene Creed ; 
 (3) That a comma be inserted after the word Father in 
 the next line. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Mason, his resolution was laid 
 upon the table, with the view, he said, that it might be 
 printed in the Journal and be submitted to the consider- 
 ation of the Church at large. 
 
 The Secretary, at the request of Rev. Dr. Howe, 
 read the Rev. Dr. Coil's report from the joint Commit- 
 tee of the Convention of 1841, appointed to recommend 
 a standard Prayer Book ; which report, by motion of 
 Rev. Dr. Hodges, was ordered to be printed as an ap- 
 pendix to the Journal of this Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason — offered a resolution to the effect 
 that the word Holy be inserted in the Nicene Creed, so 
 as to read "one Holy Catholic Church." 
 
 Mr. TazewellTaylor, of Virginia — offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That in the judgiuem of this Convention it is 
 inexpedient to alter the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Mr. Todd — took the opportunity to make an explan- 
 ation of his motive in offering his resolution some days 
 since, with reference to the change in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. It was not his wish that the Prayer Book 
 should be altered in any sense ; but he had heard so 
 many intimations that it should be altered, that he 
 thought the suggestion of the change should be made 
 in the case of alteration ; for, be did not believe that 
 there was a member in this Convention that believed 
 that the literal meaning of the words referred to in his 
 resolution are the meaning of this Clmrch— that the 
 minister has any power to forgive or to retain sins. 
 
 Mr. Taylor : — The objeut of my resolution was at 
 this stage of the session or of any session, to prevent a 
 reference to any committee of any proposition to alter 
 the grayer Book ; and the proposition which I have the 
 
72 
 
 honor of submitting, does not interfere with the resoln- 
 tion adopted, directing the standing Committee to cor" 
 rect any typographical errors in the plates ; they are 
 corrected by the standard edition, as I understand it. 
 The effect of the adoption of the resolution will be to 
 stifle all these references to a committee. I tliinli if 
 you will look back to the past action of this Convention, 
 you wdl find that almost invariably all efforts of this 
 kind to alter the Prayer Book, have ended this way. 
 One of my friends near me suggests that the distinguish- 
 ed Judge Cliambers, whose memory we all revere as ex- 
 pressed in our ri-solutions, invariably pursued this course- 
 and invariably met with the approval of the Convention; 
 I do not think there is any reason why we should'un- 
 dertake this work of reform. We have all seen learned 
 Doctors disagree on this subject of alterations. It seems 
 to me best to stand by the standard or there would be 
 unending doubt and confusion. I have here a book 
 which speaks of the Romanizing germs in this Prayei- 
 Book, and I would desire to put a stamp of disapproba- 
 tion on this book and all other attempts to weaken the 
 laith in the Prayer Book. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RoGGLEs : — I think that the resolution of 
 my much esteemed friend goes too f;\r, because prema- 
 ture. I do not think this body is prepared to say, that 
 the Prayer Book, however excellent it may be (and I 
 yield to no man in admiring its perfection), is never to 
 be changed. 1 will give a particular reason why we 
 should not take this action — namely, the growing ques- 
 tion of the unity of the Church throughout the world. 
 It is perfectly well known that there is a large party in 
 the Anglican and in this Church, that are desirous to 
 bring about a union with the orthodo.x Greek Church ; 
 and the great impediment to that union is the existence 
 of an interpolation by the Church of Rome in the Ni- 
 cene Creed ; and if we determine that this is not change- 
 able we can never unite with the orthodox Greek 
 Church. This was an interpolation by the Church of 
 Rome, which has separated the Greek Church from the 
 Anglican Church and our own ; and if we declare 
 that that interpolation shall forever remain, we shall 
 decide in advance that we will never enter into union 
 with those two Churches. I hope that the gentle 
 man will not press his resolution. 
 
 Mr. Taylor : — I desire to say that it is not my wish 
 to press the House to vote upon any question. With 
 the consent of the House, I move that the proposition 
 which I have submitted be laid on the table, to be call- 
 ed up on Wednesday morning. 
 
 This motion was adopted. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES — offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Rexolvnd, That the Committee on the Prayer Book cause 
 to be prepared, and report to the next General Conven- 
 tion, an accurate translation fiom the original Greek, of the 
 creed, inserted in the Prayer Book as the Nicene Creed. 
 
 Adopted. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resoloed, That the Committee on the Domestic and For- 
 eign Missionary Society and the Committee on Canons be con- 
 stituted a committee to report to this House for its considera- 
 tion such changes in tlie canons and also in the constitution of 
 the Domestic and Foreis'n Missionary Society, as may be nec- 
 essary to change the title of the Board of Missions, to the 
 Missionary Council of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States of America, and to give that council high 
 efficiency. 
 
 Adopted. 
 
 Mr. RuGGLES — offered a resolution Cadopted), that 
 the Secretary take the necessary measures to obtain re- 
 turns from the sevei-al dioceses of matters required by 
 Canon 15, and to insert the same in the printed copy of 
 the Journal. 
 
 A resolution having been offered that the next Trien- 
 nial Convention be held in Cincinnati — 
 
 Mr. Welsh — moved that the places for holding said 
 Convention be now named, and the vote be taken to- 
 morrow at 12 o'clock. Adopted. 
 
 Thereupon were suggested Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
 Chicago, Louisville, and St. Louis. 
 
 Judge CoNYNGHAM movcd to take up the report of 
 the Committee on Canons relative to Assistant Bishops 
 — an amendment to section 5, Canon 13, Title 1. Motion 
 agreed to. 
 
 Judge CoNYKGHAM : — As the canon now stands no 
 assistant-bishop can be elected until by reason of old 
 age or other permanent cause the Bishop is unable to dis- 
 charge his episcopal duties. We have valuable bishops in 
 various dioceses of these United States, and I am dis- 
 posed, if we can with the approbation of this House, to 
 provide for the preservation of the health of those Bish- 
 ops in the performance of their duties by giving them 
 proper assistance so that their dioceses may be enabled to 
 have the episcopal duties properly performed and yet 
 the bishop be not broken down. A proper title of this 
 canon would be— "To preserve the health and lives of 
 valuable bishops." I think this canon would also meet 
 many of the difficulties suggested in relation to the di- 
 vision of dioceses. It may be objected that this amend- 
 ment would enable dioceses to multiply bishops and in- 
 crease the episcopal representation of the diocese in the 
 House of Bishops. We place the assistant-bishop in the 
 House of Bishops and give him a vote except when his 
 Bishop is present. It is to have no retrospective appli- 
 cation ; it applies to no assistant-bishop already 
 elected. The bishops are not regarded particularly as 
 the representatives of dioceses, but they come from dio- 
 ceses and so far they represent dioceses. It might not 
 seem to be exactly right to say that the assistant-bishop 
 may vote when the bishop himself was present, either 
 negativing or doubling the vote of the Bishop. Under 
 the present canon bishops are often unwilling to 
 acknowledge themselves permanently infirm; no man 
 likes to undervalue himself physically or mentally. This 
 amendment will not only remove many difficulties sug- 
 
73 
 
 gested the other day in relation to the division of dio- 
 ceses, but preserve to the dioceses that now have them, 
 valuable bishops. 
 
 Ivev. Dr. Adams : — 1 believe I was the first person to 
 point out the iniquity of this matter of assistant bishops, 
 before the Church in Richmond, Va. It has been a 
 universal principle of the Church from the earliest times 
 that there shall be but one bishop in a diocese. History 
 tells us that there was no assistant-bishop until the great 
 Augustine was made assistant of Valerius ; and when he 
 became assistant he was so affronted by it, considering 
 that he hail broken the Nicene Canon that he appoint- 
 ed him bishop of a small place near him that he might 
 not break down the canon. I think the principle of the 
 Church is simply one bishop in one diocese. It is just 
 as appropriate as one sun in one planetary system. This 
 Church has adopted the principle that in case of perma- 
 nent infirmity there shall be an assistant-bishop. The 
 canon is loosely interpreted and thereby bishops of one 
 stripe or another are enabled to perpetuate their princi- 
 ples, and to put down upon the diocese as an assistant a 
 successor who certainly would not be elected if left to 
 the natural course of affairs. I would say that the bish- 
 op is unquestionably the most influential man in the 
 diocese ; and, by the urgent exercise of authority can 
 control the elections, thus destroying freedom of elec- 
 tion ; and any clergyman or any layman is put in the 
 position of either voting for the bishop's choice or of 
 being proscribed. Indeed, the whole matter of assist- 
 ant bishops is simply a matter of destroying the 
 freedom of. elections, and the assistant is simply 
 anti-church iniquity. It is perfectly just that the bishop 
 should have an assistant when he is incapacitated by old 
 age or other permanent cause of infirmity. But look at 
 the bishops that have assistant-bishops. Are they in- 
 capable ? Certainly not. We have several bishops that 
 have assistants who are as lively men as any that we 
 have ; the result is a breach of ecclesiastical order ; you 
 have two bishops in one diocese — two suns in one system. 
 The matter of assistant-bishops ought to be regulated, 
 but in a different way from that proposed. Casting 
 away the ground of permanent disability and substi- 
 tuting the idea of assistants to preserve "valuable lives," 
 will simply develop this iniquity. I know a man at 
 present that has an assistant, and every time they meet 
 both in good health, they must smile at one another, and 
 feel that they have done something not exactly right. 
 There are a good many bishops who have "valuable 
 lives," that will want assistants. 
 
 Judge Battle : — My learned friend compares the 
 bishops to the sun of the solar system. We have now a 
 provision that in case of old age or other permanent in- 
 firmity there shuU be an assistant-bishop. I have no 
 objection that if the sun in the solar system should get 
 so old and infirm that it could not afford us the necessary 
 warmth, we should have another sun. I have no objec- 
 tions to two suns if one will not answer the purpose. 
 10 
 
 There is no proposition before the Convention to do 
 away with all assistant-bishops ; they are already provid- 
 ed for; and therefore all remarks to that intent are beside 
 the question. If there are to be no assistant-bishops, 
 because there can be but one sun in the system, then, 
 sir, we must strike them out; but as there are cases in 
 which even that gentleman admits wo must have assist- 
 ant bishops, I suppose every body recognizes the neces- 
 sity. The proposed change goes thus far and no further. 
 It provides that in case that it is seen that the health of 
 a bishop is about to be broken down, permanently im- 
 paired, by the onerous duties devolved upon him, he 
 should be saved from the condition of permanent infirm- 
 ity. I was sorry to see my learned friend cast any re- 
 flections on the bishops, by saying that they would liave 
 assistants without need. He instanced a case in which 
 he said the bishop and his assistant could hardly meet 
 without smiling at each other [for the supposed pre- 
 tence of incapacity]. It might well be supposed tiiat 
 the election of the assistant-bishop has been the means 
 of restoring the health of the old bishop. Shall we com- 
 plain of that? Ought we not rather to rejoice at it ? 
 What has taken place es/jos^/ac^o ought not to liave 
 any effect. 
 
 Judge Otis — I assume from what our learned friend, 
 Dr. Adams, has said that assistant bishops are lawful, 
 and have been for a long time. Large dioceses cannot 
 be divided sometimes and it is provided that no city, 
 though large, shall constitute more than one diocese, and 
 this amendment gives the bishops needed assistants 
 when the episcopal duties threaten to break down their 
 health. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, of Pa., was opposed to the amendment as 
 likely to give two heads to the diocese ; and nothing but 
 the utmost discretion of the old bishop would save the 
 diocese from faction and anarchy ; and it would give the 
 Diocesan Convention opportunity for worrying the bishop 
 into the acceptance of an assistant, or resigning. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Shelton — was in favor of deferring the sug- 
 gested action. The emergency had not arisen for assist- 
 ant bishops to share the episcopal duties of dioceses too 
 large, as ultimately in cities. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Marple — had lived in a diocese where the 
 bishop and his assistant were alike welcomed in all parts 
 of the diocese, and no difficulty between themselves or 
 between them and the clergy or laity. The proposed 
 system was justified by experience, and the anticipated 
 discord disproved. He was not in favor of one of the 
 propositions of the proposed amendment ; he would like 
 to have the assistant have a vote in the House of Bishops 
 under all circumstances, not as representing a diocese, 
 but in right of his office as a bishop. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews — said that during the last .30 
 years there had been assistant bishops in the Diocese of 
 Virginia, and all those years bad been years of undivid- 
 ed harmony. So far as experience there went, it did 
 not justify the apprehension that the bishop could con" 
 
74 
 
 trol the election of the assistant against the free votes of 
 the clergy aad laity. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — beKevfd that the election of as- 
 sistant bishops arose from a felt want, and the practice 
 would therefore continue, do what we will. His doctrine 
 was that the true line for the legislation of the Church 
 was to take things as they are and not certain men's 
 opinions of what they should be. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Shllton, of Western New York — said the 
 need of one bishop should be supplied by other bishops 
 having less duties, and not by appointing assistant bish- 
 ops. It is not absolutely necessary we should push this 
 matter. (Rev. Dr. Haight. We are not pushing it.) I 
 don't know what you call pushing; you are urging it 
 with all your might, (laughter). 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hodges — did not think it necessary to adopt 
 special legislation to suit the sensitiveness of some bish- 
 ops to availing themselves of th#present law as to disa- 
 bility. No legislation could go to the point of the par- 
 ticular degree of sensitiveness of our bishops. There is 
 nothing urged to show the nel■os^ity of the change, and 
 the only provision made is that it is going to appear be- 
 forehand to the convention that their bishop is going to 
 be permanently broken down. [Laughter). 
 
 Rev. |Mr. Rogers — opposed the amendment. He 
 could conceive of a case where a shrewd managing act- 
 ive bishop having made up his mind that he wants an 
 assistant — a particular man for assistant and succes- 
 sor — in a.single round could bring his influence so to 
 bear upon the diocese that when the convention met, his 
 chosen man nominated as pre-arranged, should be elect- 
 ed against the judgment of the convention. On the other 
 hand, in some cases, two or three shrewd managing 
 presbyters could worry the bishop into acceptance of 
 whomsoever they desired to have as assistant, or crowd 
 him from his office. He did not believe there was a 
 bishop in the world who could stand against the active 
 opposition of his clergy. A lawyer would go on with his 
 business till he could do so no longer, and then tell his 
 clients so. The bishop should do as the lawyer. The law 
 as it is should remain. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut :— I have been some- 
 what surprised at the course of the argument which 
 some gentlemen have taken in relation to this matter, 
 which is utterly at variance with my own observation and 
 experience. One gentleman tells us that one great 
 danger will be that the bishop will in effect appoint his 
 own successor. I have never known an instance where 
 even a man with the whole influence of Bishop White 
 could have a successor appointed. But liow does the 
 argument go ? One gentleman in one sentence will tell 
 us that the bishop will succeed in appointing his suc- 
 cessor, and in the next breath, that by pressure an as- 
 sistant will be forced upon the bishop in spite of himself. 
 I have lived long enough to know that the great error 
 or the great tendency in our Church is not to crowd 
 bishops but to worship them. Let me tell you that any 
 
 Presbyter who will attempt to crowd them will find that 
 he is playing with edged tools. I could name 
 one who tried it, who said, " I care not what a bishop 
 will do ; I meddled with one and I will take care how 
 I meddle with another." I have no apprehension that 
 bishops will be crowded by the Diocesan Conventions. 
 I know this one thing : that the one-man power of bish- 
 ops in the dioceses makes his little fingers more power- 
 ful than the loins of all his clergy and laity. Under 
 these circumstances are we to fear taking away that 
 whijh J hold to be a snare to the consciences of bish- 
 ops ? Bishops will stretch a point in the interpretation 
 of a canon as it now stands in respect to the "permanent 
 cause," especially when they are not required to submit 
 to the e.xaminatiou of physicians but to decide the ques- 
 tion for themselves. We know that as men advance a 
 little in life they are apt to become a little wheezy and 
 imagine that many difficulties e.xist which do not in re- 
 ality. The canon as it now stands is a snare to the 
 consciences of some bishops. In the ca* where there 
 is an unwiUingness to divide dioceses and the duties are 
 too onerous, the amendment allows the appointment of 
 an assistant to save the bishop from disability by over- 
 taxing duties. There is an unwillingness to divide my 
 own diocese. Yet I see my Bishop is every day becom- 
 ing prematurely an old man fiom the pressure of his 
 duties ; but he cannot under the present canon ask for 
 an assistant ; yet I have no doubt that many in the diop- 
 cese believe that it would be an advantage to the dio- 
 cese as well as to the Bishop, to have an assistant, though 
 he has no permanent cause of infirmity at the present 
 time. I will go to the Diocese of Pennsylvania. We 
 have recently known that in the providence of God the 
 good bishop of that diocese met with a railroad accident 
 which has undoubtedly injured if not shattered his con- 
 stitution. Through the goodness of God, and by being 
 permitted to go abroad, he is somewhat restored to 
 health. At the last action of the diocese the proposi" 
 tion to divide the diocese failed. Now are you going to 
 leave that bishop to be crushed by the duties of a large 
 diocese, when, if he had the opportunity, with his own 
 consent and with the action of the Convention, to ap- 
 point an assistant be might last for the Church for 
 years ? 
 
 Judge Battle: — I do not wish to be considered as 
 making a second speech. I rise simply for the purpose 
 of entering my solemn protest against any argument 
 being used in this House on the supposition that our 
 Bishops are or ever will be dishonest and demagogues, 
 that our Convention will be composed of men no better 
 tiian they should be. 
 
 Rev. E. T. Perkins, of Kentucky : — I do not pro- 
 pose to make a speech. I call for a division of the 
 question now before us. For one I want to express an 
 alarm which I feel because of the influences and repre- 
 sentations we have here in this House. It has been my 
 good fortune since I have been in the ministry to be 
 
75 
 
 under Bishops who were Christian men, and to bo as- 
 sociated with ministers who were Cliristian gentlemen. 
 Now, the great danger seems to be that this Church is 
 to have a parcel of shrewd, managing men as Bishops, 
 and shrewd managing men as their Prcsbj'ters. I am 
 not willing to believe that such is the case with men 
 who occupy high positions in this Cliurch. If this is 
 true there is only one order in this Church for whicli I 
 should have any respect — -the Deacons. I have not 
 heard a word against them. I wish to call for a division 
 of the question. I am in favor of the first amendment 
 proposed, but I am not in favor of the last. I move to 
 strike out the last provision (that the assistant-Bishop 
 shall not vote when his Bishop is present). 
 
 The motion to strike out was lost. 
 
 The question then recurred upon the adoption of the 
 resolution of the amendment ; when, after a division, 
 it was adopted, by ayes 89, noes 84. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hodges, the message of the 
 House of Bishops, with reference to clerical union with 
 the Canadian Church, was referred to the Committee 
 on Canons. 
 
 On motion of Judge ComstoCK, the sessions of the 
 House were fixed from 10 to 5, with a recess from 1 
 to 2. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hdbbard, the resolution re- 
 ported by the Committee on the Prayer Book was re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hdbbahd, the following reso- 
 lution was adopted. 
 
 Resolved, that the joint standing Committee on the 
 Prayer Book be authorized to consider and report to the 
 next General Convention on questions relating to the 
 proper pointing of the standard Prayer Book, and the 
 restoration of the words left out of said book by mere 
 clerical error. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Goodwin, there was referred 
 to the same committee, to consider, the punctuation of 
 the quotation from Jeremiah in the Epistle for Good 
 Friday. 
 
 Rev. Di\ Hodges — called the attention of the House 
 to the report No. 11 of the Committee on Canons with 
 reference to persons not ministers, officiating. The com- 
 mittee reported that the proposed action was inexpe- 
 dient and asked to be discharged from the further con- 
 sideration of the subject. He then moved that the re- 
 port be recommitted, together with a new resolution 
 containing a new form for tlie amendment. 
 
 He then, as required in moving a recommitment, gave 
 his reasons for so doing. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Peterkin, of Virginia, — opposed the recom- 
 mitment, insisting that the canon as it now stands is all 
 that is required, if properly interpreted. 
 
 The recommitment was then agreed to, 
 
 Adjourned to to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 TWELFTH day's PROCEEDINGS, 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Rev. Henry N. 
 Pierce, D. D., of Alabama, and the Rev. Edward Ballard, 
 D. D., of Maine. The Benediction was pronounced by 
 the Rt. Rev. John B. Kerfoot, D. D., LL. D., of Pitts- 
 burgh. 
 
 ThE minutes of yesterday's proceedings were read 
 and approved. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Howk from the Committee on Canons 
 made the following report : 
 
 The Committee on Canons to wliom was referred cer- 
 tain resolutions of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, touch- 
 ing the examination of Candidates for Holy Orders, beg 
 leave to report that they recommend the adoption of the 
 following amendment of Canon .5, Section 8, Title I., and 
 the adoption of tlie following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that 
 Canon 5 of Title I., is hereljy amended by the addition 
 of the following section,! o be numbered section 8. 
 
 1. All examinations of Candidates (or Holy Orders 
 shall consist in part of written questions and answers ; 
 and the manuscripts shall be preserved in the Episcopal 
 archives of the dioceses in which such e.xaminalions are 
 respectively held. 
 
 2. Examinations of Candidates for Priestly Orders 
 shall, unless the Bishop in any case remit the rule, be 
 extended through parts of three days. 
 
 3. For the conduct of exammations at which the 
 Bishop of the diocese is not personally present, it shall 
 be his duty to appoint a j)ermanent committee for his 
 diocese or the different districts thereof, or, if he so pre- 
 fer, one presbyter as an examining chaplain, who, with 
 two other presbyters appointed for each occasion, shall 
 conduct the examination. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — The motive for the suggestion of 
 the passageof such a canon has been a conviction in the 
 minds of many in our diocese, and I think also in 
 other dioceses, that examinations are very imperfect and 
 insufficient; and the fact that a man has the necessary 
 oertificate that he has passed his examinations, by no 
 means proves that he has passed them in such wise as 
 hey ought to have been passed. This canon is for the 
 purpose of exacting a more certain preparation for the 
 admission to the holy ministry. (In answer to an in- 
 quiry^ It amends the canon in one sense ; it adds a 
 section at the close of it. (In answer to inquiry as to 
 object of keeping the manuscript examination). The 
 object is that if any candidate is rejected, the written 
 documents may be on hand to show that his examination 
 was an imperfect one. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gadsden — said that the provision for 
 three examiners might be well in some sections of the 
 country, but would occasion great difficulty in dioceses 
 where the population is scattered. This binds thc^ 
 Church to a certain mode of e.xamination where it is now 
 left free. The Bishop may now make provision mo.st 
 convenient to himself and his presbyters. 
 
76 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stobbs : — I think the objection offered by- 
 the deputy from South Carolina has some force. I do 
 not think it is becoming for this body to go into details 
 of that kind. It should be left to the Bishops acting 
 with the advice of their presbyters. Why should we 
 meddle with details of that kind ? The conditions of 
 pioceses are so different that it seems inexpedient to leg- 
 islate upon this subject. We should legislate upon gen- 
 eral principles and let these matters of detail be man- 
 aged by the BisViop of the diocese with his clergy. 
 What is of more consequence and what the can- 
 on does not provide for, is an examination on doc- 
 trine — that no person shall be allowed to enter the 
 ministry, unless he passes a satisfactory examina- 
 tion on doctrine. Our great difficulty is that men are 
 ordained priests who do not believe in the doctrines and 
 sacraments which as priests they are to teach and ad 
 minister. Do not let us go into details of this kind 
 which cannot be complied with. 
 
 Rev. Dr. HowB : — In the seventh section of the can- 
 on as it now stands it is provided that there shall be 
 "three examinations at such times and places" — and 
 the topics that shall be under consideration at these sev- 
 eral examinations are afterward specified. This pro- 
 posed section which I have had the honor to submit only 
 provides that these examinations shall not all be crowd- 
 ed into one, unless the Bishop for special reasons remits 
 the rule. It provides that there shall be three examina- 
 tions literally, as by the previous section of the canon 
 which has been long established. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas : — I should be in favor ot 
 these provisions provided all the examinations were to 
 be about the centres. In my own parish to-day there 
 is a candidate for orders. If the committee were to be 
 appointed at Galveston or Houston, he must travel from 
 165 to 200 miles to get his examination. If on the 
 other hand they are appointed in the vicinity of Austin 
 there a minister must go 90 miles one way and 90 miles 
 the other to examine him. I cannot well see how that 
 rule can be complied with in my diocese. If we had a 
 candidate for orders in the northern part of the diocese, 
 and the committee in our region, he might be compelled 
 to travel from 300 to 500 miles. But when the Bishop 
 can take a clergyman with him then tliese examinations 
 can be in any part of the state without much travelling. 
 It would operate very hardly in our ease and might in 
 others. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — Having had long experience in 
 this matter of the examination of candidates for orders, 
 1 beg leave to say that, in my judgment, this is one ofthe 
 most important matters that will come before this 
 House during its present session ; for I have no hesita- 
 tion in saying, and I think that most of those on the 
 floor of this House who have had experience as examiners, 
 will have no hesitation in saymg — that of all the shams 
 ever seen the greatest are examinations for candidates for 
 orders. Examinations have been held where the three 
 
 examinations have been crowded into one. I have 
 thought of the subject with shame and regret that this 
 Church should tolerate this thing. You may say it is in 
 the hands of the bishop. That is very well, but the 
 bishop is often called upon to have reference to the con- 
 venience of candidates and ofthe clergy; and it requires 
 some specific legislation to regulate examinations. 
 Either let us have no examinations at all, or let them be 
 real. As to the remarks of my brother from New Jer- 
 sey, as to examination on doctrine, I entirely concur ; 
 but this canon coincides with his views, and will 
 strengthen his purpose ; because if you have one or 
 two presbyters charged with the examination of candi- 
 dates for Holy Orders, they will be prepared, and the 
 candidates will find they have to deal with those who 
 know what they are about. I remember perfectly well 
 the horror depicted on the countenances of two or three 
 candidates in this diocese, when presenting themselves 
 for examination. The Bishop was not well, and, at his 
 request, I conducted the examination for the priesthood. 
 Shortly afterward came up the examination for the di- 
 aconate. Said one ofthe examiners, " We will take a 
 short course in the Thirty-nine Articles." He then drew 
 from his pocket a little memorandum book, and pro- 
 ceeded with the examination, the result of which was 
 that one of the candidates was put back. His only re- 
 ply was : " What shall I do? I have got my surplice to 
 preach next Sunday." Candidates who feel that before 
 they are ordained they have to pass another ordeal on 
 the part of those who are charged with the solemn duty 
 of an examination, would not come up here so illy pre- 
 pared. 
 
 Rev. D». Stubbs : — We all concur with the views 
 just expressed by the reverend gentleman of the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. I am sorry to hear such a confession 
 with reference to New York. What I object to is this, 
 that certain details are presented which can not be 
 complied with in different parts of the country. 
 
 A Deputy. — Is not this whole thing already in the 
 hands of the bishop V 1 see a great many things that 
 can be said against this canon. For instance, a bishop 
 of one diocese may have peculiar views ; and a student 
 of his views would be considered as prepared ; but if he 
 should not be au fail in another school of theology, he 
 might be rejected. Bishops already have this whole mat- 
 ter under their control. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goodwin. — There is one idea in con- 
 nection with this subject which seems not to have been 
 brought forward, and that is, that the whole Church of 
 the United States is interested in the examination of 
 candidates in each diocese. It is not the particular dio- 
 cese alone wherein the examination takes place that is 
 interested in the proper qualifications of the candidate 
 who is to be ordained to the ministry. That man, if he 
 is ordained a priest, may go to any part of the United 
 States as a priest of this Church. We are all therefore 
 interested that the examinations in every way should be 
 
77 
 
 sufficient. It is not proposed to interfere with the hish- 
 ops at all ; and so tar as the bishop actually attends per- 
 onally to the examinations in the diocese, we leave the 
 bielv)p of each diocese to determine who shall be a dea- 
 con or a priest. But the trouble is, that by this power to 
 appoint a committee of presbyters to conduct the exam- 
 ination, the responsibility is thrown from him, and then 
 afterwards we cannot find where the responsibility is 
 when an incompetent priest is found in the ministry. 
 This amendment to the canon puts it in his way to adopt 
 this method of having a permanent committee, or a per- 
 manent chaplain, or something of that kind, that shall 
 secure proper examinations. Then, as for the examina- 
 tion being in part in writing, if the wrong man is found 
 to be in the ministry, there is the record of his examina- 
 tion, under which be was admitted by his bishop. The 
 record is intended to protect the whole Church and make 
 the examiners responsible ; the record is there against 
 them if they admit an incompetent man, or reject a man 
 who passes a good examination. As to the number of 
 examiners, the difficulty suggested by the delegate from 
 the Dioce.se of Texas is for Texas and some other dio- 
 ceses an importan t one, but is it not as great now ? The 
 bishop must have two presbyters with him when he ex- 
 amines candidates for priests' orders, unless you alter the 
 canon that now exists. I call the attention of the Con- 
 vention to this point, that as the canon now stands the 
 bishop must have two presbyters with him ; I do not see 
 why his substituted committee should not be three pres- 
 byters; but I agree with the proposition of the commit- 
 tee that it should be reduced to one if that should be 
 thought best. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gadsden, of South Carolina. — I am not sat- 
 isfied with the explanation of the committee with regard 
 to the preservation of papers. I think there is scarcely 
 any man on this floor who will be disposed to say that 
 when he was examined for Deacons' or Priests' orders he 
 had attained to that ripeness in theological lore that he 
 would be willing to stand on his first examination. Are 
 we to suppose that candidates at first are prepared thor- 
 oughly on all theological matters, and that a record 
 should be kept against them; and notwithstanding their 
 minds may enlarge and they attain profounder views, 
 are they to be leterred back to their first step ?• it is 
 impossible that the ecclesiastical study that any one can 
 give to theology for three years can at all compass the 
 immense field that lies in every part of it. If you fix a 
 limit 10 the time for which these records shall be pre- 
 served, so that if the candidate should be unjustly dealt 
 with, an appeal might lie, then ihe record would be use- 
 ful, though I do not see how an appeal could be taken. 
 If they are to be kept as records which are always to be 
 referred to, you may have a gentleman who had some 
 crude notions when he was ordained, who may have his 
 written examination brought forth and arrayed against 
 him, when in fact he has entirely reviewed the sub- 
 ject, and taken broader, wiser, and more scriptural views. 
 
 I object to any such cast iron plan as this, by which we 
 are to be fastened down to one particular system, and 
 by which the candidate's written examination is to be 
 his record through all his ministry. I am in favor of 
 one chaplain and an assistant. I have known candidates 
 fail to be examined on account of the failure of some 
 members of the examining committee to be present — a 
 difficulty that is increased by having three examiners. 
 I think it is unwise to fix ourselves upon any absolute 
 system from which we cannot depart. Then, again, have 
 you any assurance at all that the Bishops are going to 
 accept this? They are charged with this matter. At 
 last the responsibility rests with the Bishop. The pres- 
 byters united with him in the examination are called in 
 to assist him, but at last they cannot force him to ordain 
 and they cannot hinder him from ordaining. Where is 
 the reason or use of absolutely fixing a system from 
 which there can be no departure, and which may lead to 
 great inconvenience, and which cannot result in prevent- 
 ing an ordination or forcing it. I trust this canon will 
 not pass. I believe the system as now arranged is far 
 more suitable, especially to that part of the country from 
 which I come. 
 
 Mr. . — I was about to touch upou the same 
 
 points as those treated of by the deputy from South Car- 
 olina. I will add one other suggestion, that is, the diffi- 
 culty of keeping in the arcliives so many worthless pa- 
 pers. If they are to be kept from generation to genera- 
 tion, what shall we do for the accommodation of these 
 papers ? There they are only as a nuisance iu the way 
 of anybody who wishes to look through the Episcojjul 
 archives I approve of all the other jiart of this canon- 
 I approve especially of the examination being in writing ; 
 but after ordination has passed away, what possible pur- 
 pose can these papers serve except to be iu the way of 
 the Bishop and other parties examining the archives of 
 the Church '? i move to amend the report of the com- 
 mittee by striking out of the first section the words 
 " and the manuscripts prepared therein sliall be preserved 
 in the episcopal archives of the diocese in which such 
 examinations are respectively held." 
 
 Dr. Or. C. SiiATTiCK — referred to liis experience as to 
 the examniation of .students of medicine, lie thought 
 as great care should be taken in the examination 
 of candidates for the ministry as m the examination of 
 persons to be admitted to the practice of medicine. ^Ve 
 always have a written examination and keep it. We 
 have these written proofs to hold up for years as a jus- 
 tification for our admitting them to practice medicine. 
 They show that when a man has studied three years he 
 knows a little .something. Whenever an examination 
 is called in question, we have the papcrs^to refer to, to 
 show that the person was qualified to receive the de- 
 gree of a doctor of medicine. We do not consider that 
 a person is qualified without passing a satisfactory ex- 
 amination before six or eight persons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Uarh : — It has ever been the custom of this 
 
78 
 
 Church to establish rules by which the bishop must 
 be governed with regard to persons to be ordained. 
 Among the other specific rules that we have in relation 
 to this matter, is this : " The examination must take 
 place in the presence of the bishop and two or more 
 presbyters." I presume there can be no doubt that if 
 a bishop should undertake to ordain any candidate to 
 the ministry without an examination conducted by 
 presbyters as well as by himself, he would be liable to 
 degradation for this plain violation of the canon. This 
 is enough to show that it is competent for this House to 
 legislate in regard to the matter of examinations. The 
 object of the canons throughout seems to be the obtain- 
 ing of right doctrine on the part of persons to be 
 ordained. Their object seems to be also to see that 
 these persons shall be well qualified to teach those doc- 
 trines to the people. 
 
 In order to secure this end is it not most desirable 
 that the candidate for the ministry should look forward 
 to an examination as an important thing ? That which 
 the Rev. Dr. Haight has said with regard to the Diocese 
 of New York is certainly not peculiar to that diocese. 
 It belongs to the diocese in which I live; and I fear it 
 belongs to the dioceses generally ; persons appointed 
 to examine not having been accustomed to such work, 
 fail to perform it in the most effectual manner. They 
 have little time to prepare for it, and when the examin- 
 ation comes on they are rather afraid, in some instances, 
 of coming to close quarters with a student. Veiy fre- 
 quently it happens that a person appointed to examine, 
 has lately had his mind occupied with some out- 
 of-the-way topic, and is for the time riding that as a 
 hobby ; and although it is a matter simply of private 
 opinion, he occupies the time of the board with the dis- 
 cussion of this matter. When 1 was examined, many 
 years ago, for orders, two reverend presbyters who 
 conducted the examination, almost at the beginning of 
 the hour which was given to the subject of the evidences 
 of Christianity, began a dispute among themselves with 
 regard to the sufficiency of Campbell's answer to Ilume 
 in tlie matter of miracles. This discussion occupied the 
 whole hour ; and I went from the examination scot-free ; 
 as a young man would do, I told this far and wide ; and 
 who can doubt that the effect was to cause students to 
 look forward to an examination as a trifle. That which 
 the Rev. Dr. Haight alleged, is true. Examinations are 
 too often sham and an injury to the Church. It is alto- 
 gether in our power, if not to prevent, at least to 
 diminish, this crying evil. 
 
 Mr. . We hear strange things in these 
 
 two large cities. I do not believe that the evils 
 which we have heard of here, exist throughout the land, 
 by any means. I am sure they do not exist in every 
 diocese. I can see evil attendant upon the bishop be- 
 ing allowed to appoint a chaplain to examine all can- 
 didates. We all know that every bishop is likely to be 
 particular upon some points that are by no means es- 
 
 sential to a minister's usefulness in the Church of God. 
 I am free to say that I knew more about some 
 great doctrines when I first entered the ministry than 
 I know now. I recollect a young man who came into 
 the Diocese of Kentucky and preached, in the presence 
 of one of our most experienced presbyters, his first ser- 
 mon. Said I : " What do you think of this man's 
 preaching ? Do you think he is qualified for such a po- 
 sition ?" " I do not know : he has settled, I believe, to 
 his own satisfaction, that great doctrine of justification 
 by faith in his first sermon. I have observed that 
 young men take up that doctrine or some other great 
 doctrine and settle it the first time they preach." 
 Suppose a young man comes before a chaplain and the 
 chaplain has some peculiar views on some subject, 
 perhaps some one that is the subject of dispute. Because 
 he passes a good examination on that subject, at least 
 to the satisfaction of the chaplain, he is admitted into 
 the ministry, and at last it appears that he is not a 
 practical man ; that he is a man of theory rather than 
 practice. I see evils connected with this recommen- 
 dation. To my own mind there are great evils, and I 
 much prefer to leave the matter as it is. I do not be- 
 lieve that all examinations are sham. If they are in 
 New York and Pennsylvania — and I trust they are not 
 here — I know very well for one that my own theological 
 kniivvledge was put to a severe test, though I thought 
 when I began that I knew a great deal. I for one am 
 not prepared to vote for that amendment ; I am pre- 
 pared therefore to move the indefinite postponement of 
 that canon. 
 
 Another Deputy : — I desire to speak a moment or 
 two upon this great question. I very heartily approve 
 of and endorse the report of this Committee on Canons ; 
 and I do hope from the depths of my soul that it, with 
 some slight amendment, will pass the House. We must 
 all concur in one thing, and that is the need of the ele- 
 vation of the standard of admission of candidates into 
 our ministry. It must be admitted by the different 
 members of this House who have had anything to do 
 with the examination of candidates for the ministry, 
 that, in a fearful number of cases, it amounts to little 
 more than a sham, when it ought to be made an intense 
 reality. I therefore heartily concur in the report of the 
 committee just submitted to this House, with one 
 slight departure therefrom, made by the member sitting 
 by my side with reference to the indefinite preservation 
 of written answers. I heartily approve, as I am sure 
 the wisdom of this House must approve of the examin- 
 ation being a written one ; but I fail to see the wis- 
 dom of preserving those written documents after the 
 examination is ended. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Cobbett supposed that every presbyter on 
 the floor of the House found the examination all suffi- 
 cient when brought up for examination. He had con- 
 versed, not long since, with the professor of one of the 
 theological seminaries, and he made this remark, that 
 
79 
 
 those who passed the best examination were not by any 
 means those who were the most successful in winning 
 souls to Christ when they went out into the Lord's 
 vineyard. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Shelton : — I wish to say that I hope that 
 everything will be done that can be done on the part of 
 ihis House to dignify the examinations of our young 
 men. I wish to solemnize that event. I wish to have 
 it done in the most solemn manner ; and as to individ- 
 ual clergymen who have not paid any particular atten- 
 tion to the examination of students, it is most incompe- 
 tent for them to conduct examinations. I do say there 
 ought to be a settled body of men whose business it 
 should be to prepare themselves for it. To take an 
 ordinary country clergyman, or a city clergyman that 
 has not paid any particular attention to these things, 
 and call upon him to make an examination of a young 
 man for the ministry — I won't say that it is impossible 
 for him to do it ; but I do say that gentlemen who are 
 prepared for it, and who have made a business of pre- 
 paring themselves for it, will do it much better. Then, 
 again, when young men are required to put their answers 
 in writing it is altogether a more solemn act, and 
 one which they would more dread. They ought to be 
 prepared to do these things, and I believe it would be 
 the means of advancement in our theological education 
 if carried thoroughly into effect. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Marple — said that he had not liked this 
 canon in many respects, but that the arguments used 
 against it made him think he was mistaken in not liking 
 it. He did not believe that it was a fact that those who 
 passed the poorest examinations turned out the best 
 men. He did not believe anytliing of the kind, but he 
 believed with Macaulay, that it will be found to be true 
 that those first in the competition of schools are found 
 to be the first in the competition of life. It will be 
 found to be equally true in reference to the Church, 
 and he hoped that the idea would never go abroad that 
 the poorer the examination tlie better the minister. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I have heard nothing from the Laity 
 upon this subject, who are somewhat interested in it. 
 I think the Laity are deeply interested, because either 
 we are to have a local Church or a general Church. It 
 is true that the dioceses diifer ; and that is the very 
 reason why we should have a general canon to insure 
 uniformity. Sometimes a young man who cannot pass 
 an examination in one diocese will go into another and 
 be admitted and then come back. There is one thing 
 that makes me exceedingly anxious that this verv [iro- 
 vision as reported by the committee should be carried 
 out. If there is any peculiarity in the Episcopal Church 
 it is, that she does require her ministry to be thoroughly 
 educated. There is not a congregation that has not 
 some educated persons in it who cannot be administered 
 to by those who are murdering the King's Englisli all 
 the time. We need skilful leadens, and the day is 
 coining when the' Laity will marshal around these lead- 
 
 ers and do a work never done before. If we are to have 
 these ill-trained ministers thrust into the ministry, we 
 shall be sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind ; 
 and we shall be bringing ourselves down below many 
 other religious bodies that have advantages over us in 
 that department. I do hope that this canon will pass 
 with all its provisions ; and let all young men preparing 
 for the ministry know that the examination is to be 
 thorough and they will prepare themselves for it. Now 
 tliere is a disposition to squeeze them through too rapid- 
 ly, and I do not wonder at the Bishops passing them 
 when they see they are so much needed. The Deputy 
 from Massachusetts spoke of the examination of medical 
 students : I know that in medical colleges it is seldom 
 when a man has paid for his tickets that he is turned 
 back ; some I know are ; but from the want of skill of 
 a good many who enter the profession I premise the 
 difficulty is the other way. So I think we need to throw 
 guards around us, seeing there is so earnest a desire on 
 the part of the Bishopis to have more clergymen. 
 
 Rev. Mr Gasmans, of Nebraska: — I would like to 
 say one word upon this subject. I think we had bet- 
 ter let well enough alone. The Church in this coun- 
 try has gone on well with the present canon, and is 
 going on well. The dangers spoken of, I think, are 
 more imaginary than real. As for the examinations 
 being sham, if they have been sham and have admitted 
 the men that are now serving in the ministry of the 
 Church, I say, for one, let them continue to be shams. 
 If we, by a sham examination, can admit such men as 
 we have serving in the ministry of the Church of God 
 in this country, I say let the canon stand. We do not 
 want to make the fence any higher over which our 
 young men have to walk in order to enter the minis- 
 try. We do not want to add one bar to it. I remem- 
 ber well the time when I was led up to be examined. 
 It was no sham. We have heard about a classically 
 educated ministry. Now, sir, I say this, that it is 
 time, when this great continent is crying to us for men 
 able to preach the Gospel of Christ, that we should not 
 add to the difficulties in the way of men entering the 
 ministry. If it is possible, we should even make it 
 easier than it is. There are young men who would fail 
 to stand an examination on doctrines, and yet, who 
 would do so if examined in the Word of God, and that 
 is what is to be preached, be the congregation never so 
 refined. I, for one, in all humility, would say that 
 the latter should not be prevented from entering upon 
 the work. I fully appreciate an educated ministry, but 
 there is such a thing as going too far in that matter ; 
 there is such a thing as being too particular and too 
 nice in this matter; and it has often been said with re- 
 gard to our Church, and there is some truth in it, that 
 it is dying of respectability. I tell you, gentlemen, we 
 have to wake up to one thing and one fact, and it is 
 this, that if we could have a little more unction in our 
 hearts, if we could have a little more of the spirit of 
 
80 
 
 Wesley in our hearts, we would do well, and, in many re- 
 spects, be improved. I am perfectly aware that at times 
 young men have been admitted to the ministry who 
 ought not to be there ; but make your canons as strong 
 as you please ; make your committees as learned as 
 you please, you will have the same difEculties to con- 
 tend with. There always will be men entering the min 
 istry who will be unfit for it. Remember that when the 
 committee of examination consisted of the Lord Him- 
 self, Judas was one of the twelve. You cannot guard 
 against this thing ; and you simply — be it spoken with 
 all humility — keep out of the ministry men who ought 
 to enter it, and you will admit men, because of their 
 scholastic capacity, who ought never to enter therein. 
 Rev. Dr. J. T. Wheat, of Tennessee : — May I be al- 
 lowed to say, in the hearing of this Convention, that 
 in more than forty years in the ministry, it is the re- 
 sult of my observation and experience, that the dangei' 
 is much greater in the way of affording increased facili- 
 ties than in the way of restraint? I am fully persuad- 
 ed in my own mind that I ought not to have been ad- 
 mitted, for want of proper qualifications, when I was. 
 I do think it would have been better for me if I had 
 been kept three years longer preparing for the minis- 
 try. I look back upon my first efforts in the ministry 
 with the recollection that the examination was not suf- 
 ficiently thorough — that I was admitted without the 
 requisite qualifications. And I recollect that St. Paul 
 after his miraculous conversion, spent three 
 whole years in Arabia before he thought it expedient 
 to enter the ministry ; and I recollect that our blessed 
 Lord Himself was thirty years of age before He entered 
 the ministry. I do believe that the Church has suf- 
 fered and will continue to suffer from the exercise of 
 the ministry by inexperienced and incompetent persons. 
 I meant, in reference to my own case, to .say that in 
 these latter years of my ministry I have learned that it 
 is better that a man, before he is put into a responsible 
 position, as a teacher and guide for others, should have 
 a matured character and mind. I have not reference 
 so much to scholastic attainments, though the most 
 thorough course of academic studies, it seems to me, 
 is almost indispensable to discharge the duties of the 
 ministry ; and I am in favor of the canon, as reported 
 by the committee. I am in favor of hedging around, 
 by even still greater hindrances, the entrance into the 
 ministry of the Church, of persons not properly quali- 
 fied. 
 
 Mr. : — I am sorry to say that I am not in favor 
 
 of the canon. It is true that it is a great and important 
 thing for every minister of the Church to be a profound 
 scholar, a profound theologian ; and that must be taken 
 care of in regard to some of the great and important po- 
 sitions in the Church ; but, sir, we can learn from our 
 enemies. The Romish Church boasts, witli some 
 measure of truth, that they insist on the highest cul- 
 ture of their priests. But it is well to know that they 
 
 have priests who are ignorant men, and who are sent 
 out because adapted to the location to which they are 
 sent. They mingle with the ignorant and teach them, 
 and are some of the most important men, in point of 
 practical work, in the cliurch. It is the same with the 
 Methodist Church. Some of its most efficient men are 
 those who never learned Greek or Latin, and who are 
 distinguished for their eloquence and for their power in 
 bringing souls to Christ. There is truth on both sides 
 of the argument, and truth very well uttered ; but this 
 should be considered, that the Church should have its 
 heavy artillery and its light artillery ; we should have 
 men of the most profound erudition, who are most pro- 
 found theologians ; and then we should have men who, 
 though not classically educated, are practical, of sound 
 judgment, and who can, of course, speak the King's 
 English properly. It is a common thing to find men 
 who have not time nor means to go to college to learn 
 Hebrew, Greek and Latin — men of fine judgment, pass- 
 able English scholars, fine speakers, and who are very 
 familiar with the plain English Bible. These men 
 would be wholly excluded from the Church if you built 
 up any higher the walls of restriction around the minis- 
 try ; and T therefore do hope that this canon will not 
 be adopted. Let us have men of the profoundest schol- 
 arship and theological knowledge on the one side : and 
 let us have men of less attainments, but men of ability 
 and of earnest hearts to go forth everywhere. As soon 
 as you have these requirements, that every man shall 
 be a scholar and pass an examination as a scholar be- 
 fore he can go into the ministry, there is a large body 
 of earnest men looking towards the ministr}^ who will 
 be shut out. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Mead, of Connecticut : — While the gen- 
 tleman has been giving his views of the subject, the 
 thought occurred to me that if many of our presbyters 
 were sent back to their studies to learn what the can- 
 ons teach, we should be saved long speeches. The gen- 
 tleman has referred to a point which is already provid- 
 ed for by the canons. Let him, with any other presby- 
 ter, sign a testimonial to the effect that they believe a man 
 possesses extraordinary qualifications, and their certifi- 
 cate is equivalent for that man to a diploma. Do you. 
 want to change that ? We want ministers of the Gos- 
 pel, but, as a certain Bishop once said to a very incom- 
 petent man, "you ought not to go." " The Lord hath 
 need of me," said the examinee.' "Ah! I believe He 
 once wanted an ass, but we do not want them in this 
 Church."' [Laughter.] Tlie object of this amendment 
 is to strengthen the hands of the Bishops in the exami- 
 nation of those who have full qualifications, those who 
 come before the Examining Committee with a diploma, 
 or an examination equivalent to that ; men who come, 
 perhaps, with a second diploma, from the Theological 
 Seminary. In the diocese frum which this amendment 
 originated, I once lived awhile. I saw then examina- 
 tions fully as rigid as any I liave known. I remember 
 
81 
 
 one instance, at least, where a gentleman presented 
 himself for examination, with the parchment of the Gen- 
 eral Theological Seminary, and wo had, in conscience, 
 to say, " It is necessary, on some branches, you go back 
 to your studies again ; " and we sent him back before 
 we would pass him. It has been alleged that the Bishop, 
 albeit he is rcquii-ed to examine with the presbyters, 
 can ordain a candidate in spite of them, in spite even of 
 the Standing Committee ; but let any Bishop ordain a 
 man that has been rejected by the examining presby- 
 ters, and he will find himself subjected to trial for the 
 violation of the canons. I attended one examination 
 under these circumstances, at the time when our canons 
 required what they do not now reijuire, that is, that the 
 candidate with full qualilications should, before he was 
 passed, give an account of his faith in the Latin tongue. 
 The examination took place in the city of Philadelphia. 
 Two of the examiners have since been Bishops of the 
 Churcli ; oni.', the aged and venerable BLshop of Wis- 
 consin ; mj'self, the third ; and another, the saintly 
 Montgomery. The Bishop told us he had appointed the 
 next day for the ordination, and had given notice of it. 
 We examined the man in various matter.s, and we requir- 
 ed him to give account of his faith in the Latin tongue. 
 It was an amusing thing. He had looked into a Latin 
 dictionary and had selected the origin of the words, 
 nouns in their first case, and verbs in the first person, 
 singular indicative ; in that manner he had made out 
 something like the Latin sentence, Gallus tuus ego et 
 nunquara animus. [Laughter.] My brethren sat, not 
 knowing what to do. The Bishop asked our opinion 
 with regard to the examination. I waited for them ; 
 they said nothing. Said I : "Bishop, I sit here as an 
 examiner, feeling the responsibility of my act to Christ 
 and the Church. I have a conscience ; and if you had, 
 tenfold more than you have done, committed your- 
 self, I must say, before God and you, I cannot pass this 
 man." So said every one of them. This man was a 
 bush-lawyer in Pennsylvania. He was sent back, and 
 never disgraced the Church by going into holy orders. 
 If a practising physician wants to enter the government 
 service as sui'geon in the army or navj% what coin'se is 
 pursued ? That man is shut up for hours, and written 
 questions are put to him and he has to give written an- 
 swers, without books ; and oftentimes in the case of 
 thirty or forty examinees, perhaps, but five can stand 
 the examination, and be considered qualified to go and 
 take care of the health of the soldiers and sailors of our 
 country. Now, shall those to whom is committed the 
 charge of inquiring who is worthy to represent Christ 
 in His vi.sible Church on earth, be totally reckless in 
 their examinations of candidates, and open the doors so 
 wide that we shall not merely have the Gospel preached 
 as foolishness, but foolish preai:hing of the Gospel ? I 
 hope this canon will commend itself, not only to com- 
 mon sense, but to the love of tlie Church and of its 
 Head, and that we shall vote in the fear of God. 
 
 11 
 
 Judge Ooktngham: — I believe that there are some 
 oVjservations made by those opjiosed to the amendment 
 to the canon that do not relate to the question before 
 the Hou.se. The standard of education, the character 
 of the education required for admission to the ministry 
 is not affected by this canon. 
 
 The .simple question is whether you shall devise means 
 that will surely bring out upon the examination wheth- 
 er the candidate reaches that standard or not. That is 
 the point in hand, and that alone. I <lo not see that this 
 affects, in any way, the standard already fixed by the 
 canon ; but it merely fixes the mode by which the ap- 
 plicant is brought up to the standard. Reference has 
 been made to the proceedings in some other professions. 
 I will say something with regard to the admission of 
 law students to the bar. A motion was formerlj' made 
 in the court, and it was made known that an individual 
 had applied for admission. During the session of the 
 court a committee was appointed, and they met in the 
 presence of the judge, and some few questions were 
 asked, and the person was admitted, if his examination 
 proved satisfactory. Afterwards it became necessary 
 to appoint a standing committee, to whom the applicant 
 applied ; he is thoroughly examined then ; and there is 
 no application made before the judge until the commit- 
 tee has inquired into his qualifications ; and if there is 
 any difficulty, he is sent back to pursue his studies. 
 
 Mr. Chas. C. Tkowbkidge : — As I am aware that 
 many lay members of this House are new members, 
 and may not have had as much experience upon this 
 subject as I have had, I beg to state my own experi- 
 ence as the secretary of a Standing Committee of a 
 Western dioce-se for 30 years past, without interrup- 
 tion. My experience is that, in that diocese it has been 
 the duty of the Standing Committee, from time to time, 
 to protest against the attempts (innocently, in most cases) 
 of zealous clergymen to introduce into the ministry per- 
 sons who were not qualified. It is a common occurrence 
 with us, and upon a comparison of views with gentle- 
 men from other dioceses, I am told it is a very common 
 occurrence in Western and also in some large Eastern 
 dioceses, that zealous clergymen, and sometimes anxious 
 Bishops, are so desirous to increase the ministry that 
 persons are proposed who really are not competent ; 
 and when the Standing Committee take into considera- 
 tion that in the rapid increase of our Episcopate these 
 persons may soon be presented for that high office, they 
 feel they must protest, in many instances at the thres- 
 hold, against the attempts to introduce these unquali- 
 fied persons into the ministry. I merely sjjeak of it as 
 a matter of experience, hoping that it may have its 
 weight with some lay members of the Convention. 
 
 l!ev. Dr. S. P. Pahkeb, of Mass. :— The subject of 
 examination in writing strikes me favorably, in more 
 ways than one — in one respect that has not been sug- 
 gested to this Convention. I can conceive of cases and 
 circumstances in which the examination in writing, thus 
 
82 
 
 preserved, shall operate in defence and in behalf of the 
 candidates for the ministry. I can conceive of its oper- 
 ating as a restraint, as a motive for carefulness on the 
 part of the Bishops and of the presbyters, who may be 
 inclined to press their peculiar views of doctrine. But 
 in that respect, it is possible that some further provi- 
 sion may be necessary. The proposed canon provides 
 for the preservation of the examinations, but it says 
 nothing about their being accessible. NovF, it seems to 
 me that if they are worthy of preservation, some provi- 
 sion should be made for inspecting them, if there be 
 motive therefor. 
 
 The motion for indefinite postponement was then put 
 and lost. 
 
 The question then recurred, upon striking out the fol- 
 lowing words: " and the manuscripts prepared therein 
 shall be preserved in the Episcopal archives of the dio- 
 ceses in which such examinations are respectively held." 
 Which motion was lost. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas, moved to substitute "one" 
 for " three." Agreed to. 
 
 The Canon as amended was then adopted. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the oi der of the day — 
 the selection of a place for the next Triennial Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 On motion of Judge Sheffey, of Virginia, the vote was 
 taken by dioceses — one vote for each diocese, — resulting 
 in the selection of Baltimore ; and, on motion, the vote 
 was made unanimous. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight— of the Committee on Canons, sub- 
 mitted a report, that they did not deem it expedient to 
 change the canon by which it is made obligatory on the 
 clergy of a diocese to use occasional prayers set forth by 
 the Bishop of the diocese. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs : — Inasmuch as I took the respon- 
 sibility of proposing an amendment to that canon, it be- 
 ccmes me to explain my reason, and also to take leave 
 to call the attention of the House to a matter which I 
 conceive is not less important than any thing which 
 has been or can be brought before this House, inasmuch 
 as it aflTects the worship and service of Almighty God. 
 I beg leave to call especial attention to the language 
 of the canon as read by the Rev. Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Messages 16, 17, 18, and 19 were here received from 
 the House of Bishops. 
 
 On motion of Dr. Haight, numbers 16 and 19 were re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs (resuming) — I beg leave to call the at- 
 tention of the House to the language of the canon which is 
 this: "the Bishop of each diocese may compose" — at the 
 end of it — " whose duty it shall be to use such forms in his 
 Church." One reason why I brought forward an altera- 
 tion of this kind, is that my position is one of entire disin- 
 terestedness. There are .some clergymen in certain portions 
 of the Church who may have suffered personal wrong, and 
 
 who may be unwilling therefore, to move in this case. But 
 I have no personal wrongs to redress ; I have suffered no 
 personal injury. The diocese to which I belong has been 
 honored by three prelates, all remarkable for their sound 
 learning and good judgment. All have been men who can 
 be intrusted witli this duty to put forth certain forms of 
 prayer and thanksgiving for any occasions, ordinary or ex- 
 traordinary. They have all been animated by a Catholic 
 spirit and by a high devotional feeling ; and I undertake to 
 say that there has not been a form of prayer put forth in the 
 diocese, from the days of Bishop Croes to the present time, 
 which has not been unexceptionable in form, and truly cath- 
 olic in spirit ; and no form has been put forth which all 
 the clergy of the Church have not been able to use without 
 the least objection ; and the Bishops of the diocese have 
 been men of such large and liberal views that they have not 
 imposed them upon the clergy ; and during the recent troub- 
 le in the country, though the Bishop of New Jersey put 
 forth a prayer perfectly unexceptionable, he left the Presby- 
 ters free to use it or not. I am satisfied with my present 
 relations to the Diocese of New Jersey. I am not afraid 
 that forms may be put forth which I or my congregation 
 may not be able to use. I do not wish to interfere with the 
 power of the Bishops to put forth forms of prayer and thanks- 
 giving ; they may put forth such forms, they are welcome 
 so far as I am concerned, to put forth as many forms of 
 prayer and thanksgiving as they please. 1 believe they 
 have the inherent power to do so. They have a power be- 
 yond this canon, by virtue of their office, to put forth at 
 any time such forms of prayer and thanksgiving as in 
 their godly judgment may be necessary for the use of the 
 diocese ; and I would be the last man that would attempt 
 to deprive them of their Divine right, a right always ex- 
 ercised in the Church from the beginning to this time, and 
 which is not derived from this cauon ; aud for myself I 
 say that I would not take away one jot or tittle of the power 
 which they had before this canon. But I do wish to pro" 
 tect the clergy and laity of the Clnu'ch from the undue ex- 
 ercise of this power by men who cannot be qualified to put 
 forth such forms of prayer aud thanksgiving as may be of 
 benefit to the Church. That is my object ; 1 claim that we 
 shall protect clergy and laity against the undue exercise of 
 the authority, which may be prejudicial to our interests aud 
 the interests of this Church. As the case now stands, we 
 are exposed to the very worst evils that ever have arisen 
 from extemporaneous forms of worship. We object to ex- 
 temporary forms put forth by the brethren of the denom- 
 inations around us — I say brethren, in the truest Christian 
 sense of the word. We say that in this extemporaneous 
 service they very often introduce their private opinions, 
 their political views, and they may introduce heretical no- 
 tions, and they may use language whicli is not proper nor 
 even grammatical. We claim that we have a form of prayer 
 free from all these abuses. Ours is perfect, and such as 
 a congregation can unite in with one voice and one heart 
 and all say amen. By giving this power to the Bishojis to 
 put forth forms of prayer and thanksgiving and making it 
 incumbent upon us to use them on all occasions, we have 
 the worst evils connected with extemporaneous worship, 
 and more than that we stereotype them. What is the case 
 now ? We have a large number of Bishops, a number that 
 
83 
 
 is yearly increasing, and if each one of this number can put 
 forth such forms, they may introduce heretical views, politi- 
 cal views, their mere private opinions, and they may use 
 language which we do not beheve to be correct or proper ; 
 and yot it matters not what the language is or the views, 
 according to this canon it is absolutely iucunilient to use 
 them. I protest against it ; I will not have such a burden 
 laid upon my conscience that any Bishop may put forth a 
 prayer — and such have been put forth — containing language 
 which I believe should not be offered in any prayer to Al- 
 mighty God, and I must use it. I stand upon my rights, and 
 I will not use it. If he introduces political notions or he- 
 retical, I will become amenable to the law and subject my- 
 self first to a public trial, and will be condemned by a court of 
 justice, before I would be condemned by my own conscience. 
 Because if I use such language as I can not use from my heart, 
 I am a hypocrite, and the prayer of a hypocrite can never 
 rise to the skies ; and every clergyman who shall be bound 
 to use such prayers as he can not use from his heart, be- 
 comes thereby guilty of hypocrisy before God and His 
 Church. Now shall he be forced to commit such a crime as 
 that? Shall he be forced to stand up as the ambassador of 
 Christ and use language which he does not believe ? God 
 forbid ! I beg the Convention not to impose this burden 
 upon us, not to force us to use language which we can not 
 use from the heart as well as with the lips. And not only 
 the clergy, but the laity of our congregations are obliged to 
 hear and use such forms whether they believe in them 
 or not ; I say, sir, this is the most arbitrary power which can 
 be exercised, and I beg and implore you to repeal the can- 
 on which to us is such a burden as that upon every man's 
 conscience. 
 
 Message No. 20 was here received from the House of 
 Bishops, announcing that they had nominated the Rev. 
 Benjamin Wistar Morris to be Misssionary Bishop of 
 Oregon and Washington Territory. 
 
 On motion of Judge Otis, it was made the order of 
 the day for to-morrow at twelve o'clock. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, (resuming) : — A few words more 
 to the Convention. Let us take a lesson from the his- 
 tory of the past. If you do not hear that warning 
 voice, then I say that you are deaf to all the wisdom of 
 the past. Forms of prayer and thanksgiving which are 
 put forth for the worship of Almighty Uod should be 
 such as wo can use from the heart or they become a 
 burden to the conscience ; they also tend to destroy 
 peace and harmony in our congregations, as all such 
 prayers of an improper character must do. I appeal to 
 you all whether during the last six years there have not 
 been forms of prayer put forth in various parts of the 
 Church which have been like a thunderbolt and a fire- 
 brand — whether they have not been the cause of driv- 
 ing clergy away from their congregations and producing 
 dissension and trouble in the congregations, so that in 
 many cases men would not come to church because they 
 would not offer the forms of prayer jiut forth by the 
 Bishops of the Church. What scandal is this ! Will 
 you suffer it any longer ? Have you not known the 
 trouble which has occurred all over the Church ? We 
 
 do not anticipate such troubles again. God forbid they 
 should occur. But you do not know what occasions 
 may arise by which Bishops will put forth prayers you 
 cannot use, burdens to the conscience, destructive of the 
 congregations, and causing the clergy to separate from 
 them because they cannot comply with the unreasonable 
 demands of the Bishops. Do as you please. I plead 
 for your own interests. If you do not change this canon 
 I think you richly deserve all the sufferings which have 
 occurred ; and the day will come when you will be sorr\ 
 that you have not listened to the warning voice. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I hope the House will under- 
 stand this question. The law of which the reverend 
 gentleman complains with such elotjuent and vehement 
 language has been tbe law of the Church for thirty-six 
 years. We don't propose to make a new law. The 
 reverend gentleman introduced a proposition to chancre 
 it, and, instead of making it obligatory to use the prayers, 
 to say you may or you may not. The Committee on Can- 
 ons have had the matter under consideration and are 
 not prepared to report a change. If the House recog- 
 nizes the right of the Bishops to set forth forms of 
 prayer and thanksgiving for extraordinary occasions, 
 they should certainly protect them in the discharge of 
 their duty, and not leave them to the mercy of presby- 
 ters — whether they will or will not use them. There is 
 one way in which this difficulty may be obviated. My 
 reverend brother has refei-red to three Bishops of New 
 Jersey, all of whom have left it optional to the clergy. 
 That is the case in this diocese. The Bishop has set 
 forth forms of prayer to be used by tlie clergy at their 
 discretion as to the number of times and whether they 
 will or will not use them at all. If all our Bishops 
 had done the same thing, the whole difficulty would 
 have been removed. But to say in one breath that 
 your Bishop shall have power to iisue forms of prayer 
 for extraordinary occasions and with the same breath to 
 say that the clergy may not use them, is stultifying our- 
 selves. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Stubbs moved that the amendment be 
 adopted. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Hake read the canon as it now stands. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goodwin moved that the motion to 
 adopt the amendment be laid on the table ; which mo- 
 tion was adopted. The Committee on Canons then sub- 
 mitted Report No. 14, to the effect that they had under 
 consideration several amendments to canon twelve, title 
 one, concerning clerical intrusion, and that they are 
 not able to report any of the amendments referred to 
 them as likely to remove the difficulties in the interpre- 
 tation of the canon, and they ask to be discharged from 
 further consideration of the subject. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Haight said : There was a number 
 of amendments introduced with reference to this canon 
 which, after being discussed, were referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons for consideration. We had a meeting 
 and discussed them Tery thoroughly ; and the result of 
 
84 
 
 the deliberation was this, that, notwithstanding the evi- 
 dent desire that something should be done, yet no one of 
 the amendments would effect the proposed object, and 
 therefore the committee had nothing to offer. 
 
 Judge Comstock moved that the committee be 
 discharged so as to leave tlie subject before the House. 
 
 Judge Sheffy presented his views as to the par- 
 liamentary order of dispo.iing of the report of the com- 
 mittee. He would say with proper deference to the opin- 
 ion of the chair, that the object of referring to the 
 •committee was that the committee should digest for the 
 House the resolutions referred to it, that the committee 
 should dispose of them finally; and the report that the 
 committee made was a final disposition of the business, 
 unless the committee reported the resolutions back for ac- 
 tion in some form. He thereupon moved that the com- 
 mittee be discharged from the further consideration of 
 the subject. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — This motion to discharge 
 the committee, is, I believe, a debatable question, and I 
 desire to say something upon the subject-matter. I would 
 ask first, that the Secretary should inform us in regard 
 to the memorials on this subject as to their number and 
 the number of the memorialists. I would like that the 
 House should be informed with regard to the number 
 and character of the memorials, at least the number. 
 The secretary produced several yards of signatures, re- 
 marking that these were only small portions of the me- 
 morials. 
 
 The President : — I think the gentleman may safely 
 assume that the memorials have been very numerously 
 signed. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goodwin, resuming : — I had pro- 
 posed, and I suppose it is in order now to make a mo- 
 tion which I shall make at the close of what I have to 
 say. I am ready to say then out of my ten minutes, that 
 1 entirely, for myself, approve of the canon to protect 
 ministers in their parishes and congregations, and think 
 they ought to be protected. 
 
 I think they have rights which ought to be protected. 
 I entirely assent to that ; but I think they ought not to 
 have arbitrary protection, the protection of arbitrary ac- 
 tion on our part; where there should be reasonable protec- 
 lion. As the canon now stands, there must be express per- 
 mission. No man is allowed to preach, read prayers, or 
 otherwise ofBciate, within the limits prescribed, without 
 e.\press permission, and in the case of a city, the express 
 permission of a majority of the clergymen in the city. I 
 have already called the attention of the Convention to 
 some of the cases of hardship arising under this. I believe 
 that Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, was for many 
 years the President of the American Bible Society. I 
 will suppose that the American Bible Society should 
 have held its annual meeting in New York city, and 
 suppose Bishop White were the one assigned to preach 
 the sermon. Under this canon he could not preach 
 that sermon even by the permission of the Bishop of 
 New York, but must have express permission of the ma- 
 
 jority of all the clergy in New York. The pronouncing 
 of the Benediction is an official act ; so if he should pro- 
 nounce the Benediction at a meeting of that Society, he 
 must obtain the express permission of the majority of 
 the clergy in New York. Now, it seems to me that we 
 might make canons that would not involve such absurd 
 applications. If it be said that of course it would not be 
 applied in such a case, I say I think so, but then every 
 man must determine in his own mind as to what it would 
 not " of course "be applied. As to the matter of intent, 
 I agree— and I believe all men, including the lawyers 
 among us agree — that the intent must be taken into 
 question ; but the intent to do what ? Some say it is 
 the intent to violate this canon — the intent to preach 
 without the express consent, and with the intent of inter- 
 ference. But what do we mean by intent of interfer- 
 ence ? If the intent is to be taken into the question it 
 should be taken in the manner in which it is proposed 
 — the intent to do some wrong. But if nobody is injur- 
 ed, and there is no intent to injure anybody, why should 
 we make a crime out of it '? Why should we give a minis- 
 ter not the power to protect himself in his rights but 
 the power, on account of any peculiar opinion of his or 
 personal pique, to fall upon any minister, who may 
 chance to officiate in his parish ? As to the canons, we 
 say nobody shall do so and so, and then we are to inter- 
 pret them so that somebody may do so and so. I do 
 not see the necessity of keeping our canons in such a 
 condition as that. The vagueness of the canon, it seema 
 to me, is the great objection. I want a canon which will 
 protect the clergy in their rights, but I do desire that 
 the vagueness of the canon should be mended. I will 
 say no more than to make my motion which the secreta- 
 ry can read, and then I expect it will be laid upon the 
 table, but I want to do my duty. I have my own dis- 
 tinct, clear views in regard to this, and have a duty to 
 perform, and when I perform my duty to the Church, I 
 am satisfied. I yield with the most perfect cheerfulness 
 to the decision of the Convention on the subject, and I 
 can anticipate what it will be. I move that the report 
 be amended by inserting the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That clause 1, of section 6, of Canon 12, ofTitle 
 1, is hereljy an.ouded, so as to read : 
 
 No minister belonging to this Church shall officiate pub- 
 licly eithoi- by preaching, reading prayers or otherwise, in 
 tlie parish or within the parochial cure of auotlier clergy- 
 man witli tlic iuiculiou of establishing witliout canonical 
 authority, a now |)arish or congregation therein, or other- 
 wise disturbing the canonical parochial relations of said 
 clergyman, and against the prohibition so to otfioiate, from 
 tlie minister of the parish or cure, or in his absence, from 
 the Church Wardens, or a majority of them. 
 
 Resolved, further. That at tlie end of the fourth paragraph 
 of clause "2, section G, of Title I, instead of the words — " and 
 the assent of a majority of such ministers shall be necessary," 
 shall be inserted the following, "and the prohibition afore- 
 said must be from a majority of such ministers." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton, of Virginia: — I listened with great 
 interest to the proposition of the Rev. gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania ; and 1 had already written something 
 with the same object in view, which may meet the 
 
85 
 
 views of that gentleman ; otherwise I should feel inclin- 
 ed, instead of olfering my own as a substitute, to accept 
 his. We have the same object in view, which is to rec- 
 ognize by a canon, that which almost every cleigyman 
 in this Church does — to bring the letter of the canon into 
 conformity with the general conduct of our clergy, con- 
 duet which they are obliged to pursue in the discharge 
 of their duty as clergymen of the Church. It is difficult 
 to find any general form of expression which will include 
 those duties which we wish to recognize as a canonical 
 right of the pastor to discharge to his parishioners, even 
 though sojourning, it may be, or residing permanently 
 within the parochial limits of another clergyman, and 
 will also exclude those public duties which it would not 
 be safe to confer upon him. The form in which I thought 
 of presenting the matter ia (reading the resolution). I 
 am aware that this expression may not be precisely the 
 best one ; and the committee will hit upon some one 
 which will better express the idea desired to be convey- 
 ed. But this is what is desired, and this, let me say, 
 will defend this canon, in one of its most vulnerable 
 points, from those who seek to bring it into discredit. I 
 think it a valuable and indispensable rule of our Church, 
 that hmits shouhl be assigned to our churches, that these 
 limits should be so clear that there can be no mistake 
 about them, that all our clergy will know where to find 
 them. I would ask tlie reverend gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania whether the amendment presenting the subject 
 suggested in this resolution would not be substantially 
 his own views in the case. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin ; — I cannot accept it, for I think 
 we have spent time enough on it. Although I am 
 earnestly desirous of having something done, we must 
 stop somewhere. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton : — Then I withdraw my re.solution 
 and will support that of the' gentleman from Pennsyl- 
 vania. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Ad.ims : — Mr. President, I think I can sug- 
 gest to the members of this Convention a consideration 
 which I think will bring us to a resolution I will offer. 
 I would ask, is it not a fact that this canon has been for 
 years on our book of legislation ? The answer is, un- 
 questionabl}' it has. Has any objection been had to it ? 
 No objection hitherto. That canon comes in upon a 
 trial. A gentleman in this city is tried upon that canon, 
 he is brought in guilty, and the court acting upon the 
 canon pronounces a sentence and that sentence is car- 
 ried out. I would ask the gentlemen who are lawyers 
 here, what does that amount to V It amounts simply to a 
 judicial interpi-etation of the law, given by men whose 
 ability, whose honesty, whose innocence, whose skill in 
 the law we cannot doubt. There is no person here who 
 must not say that that is true. Now, sir, let us accept the 
 thing in its shape. Some of us are uniiojiular, perliaps 
 a majority of the clergymen of the Church are unpopu- 
 lar; they are apt to hold to the principles of, and to 
 believe in, the Holy Catholic Church, and the cry is 
 raised " These bitter, narrow-minded, 'High-Church- 
 
 men ;' th^ have got a canon, and they put a man 
 down for preaching the(iOspel; and that ought to be 
 brought to an end." AVhat is the operation of it ? As 
 everybody knows, we have shnple legislative duties; we 
 are not a court of appeals; but it is determined to make 
 us a court of appeals by a side-wind, when everything 
 is hot and excited, when faction has reared its hydra 
 head and is hissiug through this city and through all 
 the detestable papers. I have seen Church papers which 
 as a churchman I should be inclined to treat as an old 
 clergyman of this city did his Church paper to which he 
 subscribed in order that every Saturday he could put it 
 into the fire with the tongs [laughter]. They try to 
 make us a Court of Appeals, and to have this Conven- 
 tion stultify itself so far as completely to annul that 
 trial, and to declare that the interpretation of the court 
 was wrong. I submit to this Convention that it is an 
 indecorous procedure — and that it never ought to be 
 brought up here. I submit that all these plausible rea- 
 sons, do not mean anything against the canon. It 
 means that men shall come up here and appeal to inno- 
 cent clergymen ; that they should bring in plausibilities 
 in consequence of which the innocent clergymen and 
 laity should go in and destroy the judicial decision, and 
 annul the canon, and acquit the man who has been tried 
 and condemned under the canon, and who has been 
 solenmly sentenced by the Church. That is what the 
 thing means. I submit it is indecorous in the highest 
 degree. It is unfit: in every respect to come before this 
 Church (and I trust that there is no clergyman nor lay- 
 man of the Church ihat will not recognize that that is 
 the amount of the whole thing) to nullify the law, to 
 pronounce the bishop who declared the sentence, the 
 court that tried him, and all the rest, fools. T suggest 
 it is highl}' indecorous ; and, .it the same time I admit 
 that the gentlemen who brought it up have covered up 
 their designs with plausibilities. 
 
 The President: — Dr. Adams, I do not think it is 
 right in you to indulge that strain of remarks reflecting 
 upon other gentlemen. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I beg leave to withdraw it, at the 
 same time it is the effect of the thing. (Laughter.) If 
 they do intend to nullify the canon and acquit the gen- 
 tleman and pronounce the trial null and void and re- 
 verse the whole action of the court, I believe every cler- 
 gyman and layman of the Church will agree with me 
 that it is unsuitable — that this operation should proceed 
 no further; and in order to bring the thing to an end 
 (and here I apologize if I have imputed any evil inten- 
 tion) in order to bring to an end the thing which would 
 result as I have stated (no man can deny it) 1 move that 
 it be laid upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance, of Illinois : — 1 hope the gentleman 
 will withdraw his motion to lay upon the table ; it is too 
 serious a matter thus to be disposed of. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight: — ^You cannot suppose that this 
 House is going in this way to apply the gag-law. 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I withdraw it. 
 
86 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — From what I have learned 
 from the chairman of the Committee on Canons, I am 
 disposed to accept the proposition of my friend from 
 Virginia [Rev. Dr. Norton] and to agree to substitute it 
 for my proposition. I understand that the committee 
 are ready to reconsider. 
 
 The Secretary then read the proposition of Dr. Nor- 
 ton: 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Canons 
 be recommitted, with instructions to report the following 
 amendment : 
 
 Resolved, That Canon 12, Title 1st, Paragraph 6, Clause 
 1st, be amended so as to read : " nothing in this canon 
 shall be understood to forbid a minister of this Church from 
 discharging his duties as such in respect of members of his 
 own parish who may be within the parochial limits ot an- 
 other minister, except the duty of preaching, and reading 
 prayers in a public congregation," or some other amend- 
 ment of the canon of UUe purport. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance, of Illinois: — I wish to observe, 
 and I trust it is quite clear to the intelligence of this 
 House, that the proposed action on the part of the me- 
 morialists, and on the part of the resolution now before 
 us, by no means involves the implication suggested by 
 the reverend and learned Deputy from Wisconsin. On 
 the other hand, I contend that the presentation of the 
 memorials in this House, calling for modifications and 
 changes of that canon (and here I bold that these me- 
 morials are modest, Christian, and gentlemanly in their 
 expression, and the change which they seem to suggest 
 is also moderate) — I say the very fact of the presenta- 
 tion of such memorials seems to confirm the interpreta- 
 tion hitherto put upon the canon and sanctioned by the 
 action of the court referred to. The very fact that they 
 ask for a change seems to acknowledge that a right in- 
 terpretation was put upon it at the time referred to ; so 
 that there is not even the possibility of thus reflecting 
 upon brethren who have brought these memorials be- 
 fore us. It is one of the unhappiest accidents of this 
 whole matter, that these memorials come before us bur- 
 dened and crippled with this understanding. I believe 
 there is a large party of sensible clergymen prepared to 
 undo, somewhat, the cast-iron rigor of this canon. As 
 it stands, I know it is acknowledged, on every hand, 
 that it admits of factious and foolish application. Hith- 
 erto the tendency has been to look at this canon from 
 one side only, as to the danger and mischief of ap- 
 proaching, contrary to law, the territorial limits of a 
 brother clergyman. But consider this on the other 
 side ; and, in shaping laws, it ought *to be borne in 
 mind, very carefully, that whilst you protect against 
 intrusion, you are not to put tyrannical power into the 
 hands of any foolish member, who shall be ready to 
 use it. Here let me guard the Convention against 
 drawing the conclusion that I have the slightest refer- 
 ence, in my own mind, to recent facts in the history of 
 the Church. I wish to be understood, most distinctly, 
 that I do not pronounce any opinion upon the prudence 
 or imprudence of the brethren who thought fit to bring 
 
 up this canon for judicial interpretation ; nor do I pro- 
 nounce any opinion upon the wisdom or unwisdom of 
 the brother who seemed to be guilty of a breach of it. 
 I say it is the unhappiest thing of this whole matter 
 that these reasonable memorials come burdened with 
 such antecedents as these. I believe that if we were 
 without them, these memorials would induce the con- 
 vention to modify the canon. We are breaking it con- 
 tinually ; and the power lies in the hands of many a 
 brother to throw this Church into disorder, and to 
 bring distress upon Christian feeling, by the foolish ap- 
 plication of the power — the unwise application of the 
 power, shall I say — which the Church has injudiciously 
 put into individual hands. I have no modification to 
 suggest, but I am hopeful that out of the collected rep- 
 resentative wisdom of the Church, as here gathered, 
 and especially from the very able Committee on Can- 
 ons, there may be really something brought before us 
 that may be enacted by this House, which, on the one 
 hand,shall admit of a clergyman doing reasonable, sensi- 
 ble, and necessary things, as going to his parishioners, 
 and ministering to the individual necessities of those 
 who cling to him and love him, though it may be with- 
 in the topographical limits of a brother in another par- 
 ish. The larger part of the clergymen do this thing, 
 without any evil coming from it. If we are brethren, 
 cultivated gentlemen, there is no danger of our being 
 injured by this thing. There is not a man worthy of 
 a place on the list of our clergy who would go and take 
 advantage of these liberties, if you allow them, if you 
 freely sanction them — I say there is not a man with a 
 heart in him that would take advantage of them. 
 Therefore, my brethren, I do trust the members of this 
 House will be prepared to relax this canon ; that we 
 may have more liberty, that we may not be afraid that 
 some brother will bring canonical penalty to bear upon 
 us ; that we may have a reasonable liberty ; that we 
 may minister to members of our parish, as I allow my 
 brethren in Chicago, and as they do continually. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gadsden, of South Carolina: — It is with 
 great modesty that I arise to address this Convention. 
 There is a point which, it appears to me, has not been 
 noticed. The canon is ambiguous. I have known in- 
 stances in which it has been violated, without any in- 
 tention of intruding upon brethren. It is a matter of 
 serious doubt upon the part of clergymen, what is their 
 duty under it. My attention was first called to it some 
 years since ; when I was in London, at the time of the 
 services which were being performed in Exeter Hall 
 by ministers of the Established Church, not the regular 
 congregation of the parish in which Exeter Hall is situ- 
 ated, but composed largely of tliose not parochially con- 
 nected with any church in the vicinity. A prohibition 
 was made in regard to those services, issued by the rec- 
 tor of the parish in which that hall was situated, just 
 before the services commenced. The ministers of the 
 Established Church used extempore services. I re- 
 
87 
 
 member one of the working men sitting near me said : 
 " Why is it that the services of the Church have been 
 set aside ?" I found that a legal opinion had been given 
 that if they would ofiiciate and preach, but not use the 
 Liturg_v, they could not be interfered with, and they 
 might go on with the services ; and they were so con- 
 tinued. Since then I have had it in mind. I have seen 
 various instances in which the canon stood in the way 
 of the missionary work in the Church. Not many 
 Sundays ago, after having completed all the services of 
 ray parish — the morning and afternoon service, and the 
 Communion — I had returned to my house, when I re- 
 ceived a uote, written by the managers of a non-Episco- 
 pal Church, stating that the congregation were about to 
 assemble, and the minister had not arrived ; and they 
 asked me that, as a minister of Jesus Christ, I would 
 come and preach the Gospel. There was no time to 
 see my brother (though I believe I should have readily 
 received his assent ;) I was obliged to refuse the oppor- 
 tunity of preaching the Gospel of Christ, or else violate 
 this canon, as interpreted by some, though I do not 
 think it would be a violation. There is an ambiguity 
 in the canon, and therefore I propose to refer the fol- 
 lowing words to be added, that " the terms defining 
 parochial limits apply only to members of this Church." 
 I would be the last man that desired to intrude upon 
 the parish of a brother. To intrude in any way, by 
 preaching, reading prayers, or administering the sacra- 
 ments among those connected with our Church, it 
 seems to me, would be a violation of the canon ; but, to 
 address a number of people, no matter how organized, 
 so that they have no Church-relations with this Church, 
 I do not think is a violation of the canon as it now 
 stands ; but as there is ambiguitj', I would be happy to 
 have it removed, so that while we sacredly observe the 
 rights of our fellow presbyters, we may be at liberty to 
 preach the Gospel to others, though territorially within 
 the limits of a brother's parish. Let us have opportu- 
 nity to minister to them outside of our immediate 
 church-limits, without violating the law of Christian 
 love, or coming in conflict with any of the canons ; and 
 I have so much of faith in the evangelical purity and 
 scriptural character of our Liturgy, that I believe we 
 shall be doing greater good than if we are bound by 
 this canon. I trust this matter will be referred to the 
 Committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight: — In regard to the motion before 
 the House (to recommit) I desire to say the Conuiiittee 
 on Canons are perfectly willing to have the matter 
 come back to us. There is one great difficulty in this 
 matter. What is the canon ? What is its purport ? 
 Is it anything more than, to put in legal language, the 
 old maxim, " Let every man mind his own busines.s" — 
 the instruction given in the catechism to every child, 
 that "he should do his duty in that state of life unto 
 which it shall please God to call him" — the language 
 in the canon to each Bishop, that "each Bishop shall 
 
 confine himself to his own diocese " ? When you come 
 to put it in a legal form, and apply it, I do not believe 
 it is possible to frame a canon, with rectors on one 
 hand whose minds are bent supremely upon the idea 
 of rectorial prerogatives, and brethren on the other 
 hand who are impressed with the idea that they have 
 a commission to preach the Gospel anywhere and every- 
 where, which one or the other class of minds will not 
 find the means of setting aside. That is one great rea- 
 son why the Committee on Canons have found them- 
 selves unable to bring anything before this House defi- 
 nitely ; but we are perfectly willing to take the sugges- 
 tion of the brother from Virginia, and endeavor to bring 
 in something to-morrow morning. 
 
 Judge CoNYNGHAM : — I do not intend to detain this 
 House by observations with reference to this matter. 
 This canon was passed in 1859 ; it was then submitted 
 to a committee, and there was a report of a minor- 
 ity of the committee at that time brought before the 
 House, which I merely ask to read. This report was 
 signed by William Bacon Stevens, now Bishop of 
 Pennsylvania ; James Craik, now the honored presi- 
 dent of this body ; and Philip Williams, now gone to 
 his reward. I only say that the remarks made Vjy the 
 minority of the committee present themselves now fairly 
 to the consideration of the House. If we are still to re- 
 tain that canon — and I am in favor of such canon, either 
 of the General or Diocesan Convention, something to 
 protect the rights of the clergy — let us cure it of diffi- 
 culty, if we can. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews, of Virginia : — Though there may 
 be little prospect of getting any change from the Com- 
 mittee on Canons, yet, if no other advantage takes place, 
 this discussion has been exceedingly instructive and pro- 
 fitable ; and although it refers to the most exciting facts 
 that have taken place in the Chuich in my day, there 
 has not a single word been spoken that should give pain 
 to any brother in the council or out of it That is a 
 great benefit gained so fiir absolutely. Let me say, in 
 a word, that it is conceded on all hands that this canon 
 can not be carried out in large cities. There are many 
 places in the country where it is equally impracticable. 
 
 What we are to act upon now is as lo the wisdom of 
 retaining this canon in its present form. I will make 
 one single suggestion to the Committee on Canons. 1 
 have never been a member of that committee, though I 
 have been called upon times innumerable in the last 
 20 years to vote upon their deliberations. My suggestion 
 is with reference to the times in which we live. There 
 are certain restrictive rules which no Church has a right 
 under its charter to pass, regarding Catholic union. 
 
 This is an aspect of the case very little considered. 
 The Church has no right to pass such canons. It is 
 easy for us to pass such rules restricting the liberty 
 wherewith Christ has made us free, and tlien turn round 
 and say if you can not observe the rules of the Church 
 you had better leave it. Is the Church a human institu- 
 
88 
 
 tion which a man can leave or not as he pleases ? Sup- 
 pose they should leave it where would they be ? Some 
 would be in the bosom of idolatry ; some would be in the 
 worst possible condition-»-impaled on one of the five 
 points of Calvinism ; or they might be left out in the 
 cold unfriendly world. No, Sir, no man can leave the 
 Church. From the Church he must be driven only by 
 a judicial sentence ; and it is an awful condition for a 
 man to be in. When that blessed day shall come when 
 these Catholic unions shall begin to appear, let us beware 
 lest we be found in the possession of these restrictive 
 laws upon which all the intolerance in the Church shall 
 lay hold to prevent the realization of that unity of the 
 Church for which all so devoutly pray 
 
 Rev. Di . Peterkin, of Virginia : — I am impelled to 
 make some remarks upoathis subject before it shall be 
 finally disposed of, and that because I have not yet al- 
 together given up the suggestion which I had the liberty 
 of making yesterday before the amendments were pre- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons. As one of my 
 colleagues predicted, amendments and resolutions 
 do come flocking like doves to the windows, but they are 
 doves, I think ; they bear the olive branch ; and I think 
 the waters are beginning to assuage ; and I therefore 
 think that we may welcome these emendations and reso- 
 lutions proposed, even though they do occupy some of 
 our valuable time. If 1 thought with one of the gentle- 
 men who spoke that our minds were all fully made up, 
 on this subject, I should not venture to occupy your 
 time for one moment longer. But this, I take it, is an 
 occasion of friendly fraternal conference. It is true in 
 speaking in a large building, and to a large audience, 
 there is necessarily an elevation of the voice, and there- 
 fore there is sometimes a prolongation of discourse so 
 that what ought to be a few remarks may come to take 
 somewhat the shape of a regular speech ; but this I do 
 not design ; I shall try to keep within the time allotted 
 tome, yet I must take some of that time to protest 
 against the peculiar advantages possessed by my reverend 
 brother from Wisconsin, for, his argumentative vigor, 
 his powers of jocularity, and his facility for locomotion 
 have given him an advantage over every member who 
 sits in this quarter of the House. [Laughter.] Then 1 
 would suggest in relation to the allusion made by my 
 brother that when we look at any given subject it de- 
 pends very much upon our capability of looking just in 
 that particular time. I remember to have read of an 
 officer stopping at some country inn who was obliged to 
 be off at the peep of day, and had his orderly sleeping 
 in the room to be sure of his being aroused at the right 
 time. The windows had been closed, and the officer 
 having awakened did not know whether it was light or 
 not. He called and said to his orderly, " Is it light T 
 And the orderly fumbled about the room until he got to 
 a window, as he supposed, but unfortunately went to 
 the cupboard and opened it. The officer said again 
 " Is it light ?" The orderly replied, " No sir, it is as 
 
 black as Satan and smells of old cheese. [Laughter.] 
 Now, sir, I am looking out into the broad day light ; I 
 see light ; I am not looking into this cupboard ; not only 
 are the waters assuaging but the light is dawning upon 
 us. As this canon stands, if it were strictly interpreted, 
 it does work all those restrictions which have been re- 
 ferred to. It would oblige any clergyman coming to 
 officiate, say iu New York, Philadelphia, or any other 
 city, to collect all the rectors and obtain from them their 
 assent. Therein this particular canon is, I presume, vio- 
 lated every day, without rebuke, that is, if it were strict- 
 ly interpreted. But the ordinary interpretation is 
 merely that which has been laken iu this body, that is, 
 that a clergyman is not to officiate by reading prayers 
 or administering the sacrament within the parish, mean- 
 ing within the territorial limits of another clergyman. 
 But even with that interpretation it does not work such 
 restrictions as were suggested by the gentleman speaking 
 on this floor yesterday and to-daj'. Bishop White, if he 
 were living, would still preside in any meeting of the 
 Bible Society, or in any organization of the kind, all the 
 prohibitions of all the rectors in any city to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. Have we forgotten that not many 
 years ago a clergyman from one of the dioceses was 
 called on to make an address before such a society in 
 another diocese, and in a parish of which the Bishop of 
 the diocese was rector, and the Bishop himself, being 
 also a rector of the parish, prohibited him from thus 
 speaking. But the prohibition was of no avail. It did 
 not apply to such a case. Nor does the prohibition ap- 
 ply to any such case as we have read of in the papers of 
 this morning, where we find one of our most devoted 
 Bishops appears at a meeting in this city having in view 
 the amelioration of the condition of the poor Indians. 
 Nor did it prevent that bishop from going into the 
 Friend's meeting-house iu another city, and there mak- 
 ing his statement and address. 
 ■ In times past it has been generally ruled by many 
 that certain bishops and certain clergymen oflended by 
 any such conduct as that, while certain other liishops and 
 clergymen were only advancing the interests of the 
 Church. 1 think now we are disposed to regard this 
 canon and the object it has in view and the whole sub- 
 ject in a more temperate aspect. We are supposed to 
 consider it without prejudice ; and in opposing the reso- 
 lution or the amendment offered by my brother [The 
 Rev. Dr. Norton], I only desire to get a better one and 
 that is the one I referred to and which I think would 
 still be sufficient — that "no clergyman shall officiate 
 within the territorial limits of another clergyman except 
 transiently." Although I know this very phrase excited 
 a smile on yesterday, it is better it should excite a smile 
 than a fi-ovvn. It appears to me that if any clergyman 
 desires to ofliciate temporarily or transiently within the 
 bounds of my parish, it is better that he should do so ; 
 it will be a safety-valve for him, and the people ; and I 
 would say befoi-e this convention that we must remem- 
 
89 
 
 ber the suggestion to an Anti-Lutheran : "Do not reject 
 
 everything or do not object to everything simply because 
 Luther is in favor of it." We must view tlie subject 
 impartially ; and although we may not arrive at a satis- 
 factory conclusion now; I trust at no distant day we 
 will. K any clergyman were officiating in my parochial 
 limits more than transiently and against my will, then 
 his intention must be looked into. T here wonld remark 
 that the gentleman from Pennsylvania offered what 1 
 conceive to be an irresistible argument in behalf of the 
 amendment I proposed. The intention must be looked 
 to, and that must be passed upon, and then, too, there 
 will come in what he ought to regard as of greater force 
 and power than this canonical restriction, namely, his 
 solemn ordination vow to maintain and set torward peace 
 and quietness among all christian men as well as among 
 those immediately committed to his care. That would 
 be a principle while the canon is a rule. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Clements, of Ohio. — I would exhibit 
 one or two difficulties in the canon as it now stands, and 
 also refer to the difficulty in the amendment offered by 
 the gentleman from Virginia. In regard to the enforce- 
 ment of the canon itself in a literal sense, I suppose we 
 all see it is an impossibility in many cases. The gentle- 
 man from Virginia who last spoke wishes to allow a min- 
 ister to enter into the parish of another minister to offi- 
 ciate only transiently. He thinks this would be better 
 than the amendment offered by my brother, the deputy 
 from the Diocese of Virginia. Let us look at this case 
 in one of its aspects. I am the rector of a parish lying 
 very near to the city of Cincinnati. Most members of 
 my Church have a very close connection with that city, 
 many of them being engaged in business there, drawing 
 their supplies from there, and mingling socially with the 
 people of Cincinnati. In my parish are four families 
 that attend churches in Cincinnati. Now the ministers 
 of the resjiective congregations in which they are, come 
 out to CUfton, leaving their own city, coming into a dif- 
 ferent civil division of the state, entering into the village 
 of Clifton, and there officiate in those families — they bap- 
 tize and they administer the Lord's Supper. Here is a 
 plain violation of the letter of the canon. Would it do 
 any good to say that those gentlemen might follow their 
 parishioners and officiate transiently? One cannot sup- 
 pose that any reasonable man would object to this thing. 
 This is one of the cases in which we cannot comply with 
 this canon. There is another matter where the spirit of 
 the canon may be violated without at all touching its letter. 
 There is nothing said in this canon about a minister com- 
 ing into the parish of another minister and into his con- 
 gregation and endeavoring to lead them ofl' from the 
 parish of a brother minister into his own parish. There 
 is no law against this, and yet there is a greater tempta- 
 tion to this than the other matters. If we are going to 
 legislate at all in respect to this matter, why not have a 
 canon that will cover the whole ground ? We leave these 
 other matters to Christian courtesy, and though there are 
 
 12 
 
 occasional violations of Christian courtesy, yet I suppose 
 these are very rare, and the Church is saved the disgrace 
 of a public trial in respect to tliem. It seems to me that 
 we might get rid of this difficulty by leaving it to Chris- 
 tain charity; and I believe there would be less trouble 
 in the Church if there were no canon whatever on this 
 subject. I believe that a great deal of our difficulty is 
 created by the canon. If we have a prohibitory canon 
 at all, let us have such a eanon as we can entirely under- 
 stand, and let us see clearly, too, that there is not the 
 confusion which now prevails in respect to the parish, 
 whether it is bounded by some territorial limit, or whether 
 it embraces the idea, as more important, of a congrega- 
 tion, of a certain number of families attached to a par- 
 ticular Church. I believe we would do better if in an- 
 swer to the memorials of these parishioners we were to 
 repeal this canon. I believe we can better go on har- 
 moniously without restrictions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. J. L. Clakk. — I happen to be mid-way be 
 tween Wisconsin and Virginia, and I shall not appeal to 
 the passions on either side. I want to .isk the attention 
 of the House to the principle of the present canon. We 
 all know what the canon is; we have had very little 
 trouble with it; it has adjusted itself in the various dio- 
 ceses to different individuals quietly. In the diocese to 
 which I belong it is common to go into a different parish 
 to attend a funeral, but with suitable explanation, of 
 course, afterwards. It is not an uncommon thing for one 
 clergyman to go into another parish and marry a couple 
 if he happens to be related to them ; but he always con- 
 sults the rector previously or subsequently informs him; 
 I have never heard of any trouble. At present I am 
 not disposed to any change. There are parishes in this 
 city, one-third of whose members go into the country, 
 and remain, in some instances, from June until October 
 or November. Suppose that they have daughters that 
 wish to be married, or suppose a son wishes to be bap- 
 tized. Under this canon word is sent to a pastor, who 
 comes into the country and performs the service; he 
 reads nothing. Is it said that this is reading the service ? 
 Yet for six months in the year these persons are mem- 
 bers of another parish ; they take pews there. Are we 
 in Connecticut to have city rectors coming into our par- 
 ishes and performing service for four or si.x months in 
 the year without saying any thingabout it to their proper 
 rectors? Under the canon as it now stands we shall 
 have none of these troubles. If a rector comes into the 
 country he expects always to consult the rector there 
 and get his assent. I have not known in my life a ease 
 of refusal; but I have known cases in my experience 
 where there might have been great difficulty and trouble 
 had there been no canon whatever. I hope never to 
 see any time when there shall be no canon. We are 
 human, and we need rules to govern us. Change this 
 canon as now proposed, and what will be the result? 
 The clergyman may perform the service at a private 
 house, and yet the rector of the parish can say nothing 
 
90 
 
 Let us look at the practical operation as it must occur. 
 The change proposed would be disastrous, indeed, in 
 many places in New England where persons are spend- 
 ing a portion of their time in the country, and as much 
 the members of a parish in the country as in the city. 
 I can conceive it possible that a city rector having been 
 many years in his place might go to the parish of a young 
 clergyman in the country, without much experience, 
 and cause him very much trouble if there were no canon 
 in the way. The people would be glad to hear him ; he 
 is an eloquent man, and preaches the Gospel more faith- 
 fully, and draws around him many parishioners. Now 
 what can this young minister do? he has no protection; 
 every possible service could be performed, and unless 
 the Prayer-Book were read (and it might be recited from 
 memory), and unless there was preaching (and there 
 might be many exhortations which might not be called 
 preaching), there would be no remedy. 
 
 Judge Otis : — I should like to read the canon as it 
 was originally adopted in 1 792. [Judge Otis then read 
 the canon of 1792.] It will be seen that the additions 
 have been very few indeed in seventy-six years. Now 
 if a canon has stood for seventy-six years in this Church 
 we should be very slow to change it. Another sugges- 
 tion. It is proposed to legislate against intents. I have 
 run my eyes over the canons of this Church now in ex- 
 istence ; I have not found an attempt to legislate against 
 intents — saying that a man shall not do so and so, with 
 this or that intent. We must legislate against acts. 
 One other suggestion. We propose amendments here 
 as amendments have been proposed time and again. 
 They are referred to a committee. They look plausible ; 
 we get together in our committee-room, eleven men of 
 the Committee on Canons sitting around a table. The 
 amendment is read ; it looks plausible ; but here are 
 four doctors of divinity with thirty or forty years ex- 
 perience ; one will commence to pull it to pieces and 
 show the operation of it here and there ; and it looks 
 immediately as if the treatment had made of it an eccle- 
 siastical bird of another color, entirely different from 
 what it was when first presented. I must say it is a 
 verj' difficult task to change this canon and make it sat- 
 isfactory. 
 
 Hev. Dr. Haight : — I beg the gentleman will add 
 that not all the members of the committee are D. D.'s, 
 and not all the pulling is done by them. (Laughter.) 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — The suggestion of my friend from 
 Illinois ought to have much weight on the minds of this 
 House before they undertake to make a change. A 
 friend from Virginia has spoken of Christian courtesy ; 
 repeal the canon entirely and Christian courtesy will do 
 all the rest. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Andrews : — It is a mistake ; that was not 
 my opinion, but that of the gentleman from Ohio. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead (continuing) : — I am prepared to say 
 that the condition of humanity in which Christian cour- 
 tesy or gentlemanly courtesy is to be expected never I 
 
 existed in this country to a higher degree than in the 
 gentlemen of the old school who constituted the Church 
 when this canon was formed ; and yet they found it 
 necessary, in that early state of the Church, to pass this 
 very canon in 1792. This canon has existed ever since. 
 Christian courtesy may do a great deal ; conscience and 
 the fear of God may do much ; but there are men who 
 are fanatics ; I am willing to attribute to them honesty 
 of intention, but they have their own crotchets and 
 Christian courtesy fails. The moment I am possessed 
 of the idea that I bear a commission to go and preach 
 here and there and everywhere, what but the restraint 
 of the law can hold me back ? I recollect an anecdote 
 related to me by a gentleman who, I believe, heard the 
 remark himself On a certain occasion, the chief mag- 
 istrate of Edinburgh addressed a large assemblage of 
 people. He told them that a certain event was to take 
 place, which would draw together a large multitude ; 
 and he requested them, especially the Hoi polloi, to con- 
 duct themselves with the greatest degree of propriety. 
 He appealed to religious sentiment ; " for, remember," 
 he said, " the eye of God will be upon you ; and if that 
 is not sufficient, the eye of the Edinburgh police will be 
 upon you." [Laughter.] There are men in the Church 
 who need to be under a police regulation. They may 
 not intend to be factious, but they are factious. Look 
 at this canon, and the effect of it ; you hear everywhere 
 how coui'tesy has been exercised, and those who do not 
 know what courtesy means, violate it by their very 
 language. Now repeal it, and what are we to do with 
 such men ? We, in the country, who have our parochial 
 jurisdiction strictly marked out, know what the effect 
 would be — we should soon have our parishes in an up- 
 roar. There is no rector but will have some few men 
 who will be displeased with him, who know not why and 
 care not wherefore. Let there be two or three such 
 men in a parish, and rescind this law. These men 
 have friends who come and visit them in the summer ; 
 they say, " Bring down your pastor ; he is an eloquent 
 
 man, and we don't hke this old fellow, Dr. ; bring 
 
 your pastor here ; " and though he comes but tempora- 
 rily, he may soon draw off enough to break up the con- 
 gregation. Such will be the effects of rescinding this 
 canon. Beware ! Let that which has existed some 
 sixty odd years, stand as it is. I want no alteration ; 
 but if there is any alteration made, it should be to make 
 the canon more stringent. I think it is sufficient as 
 events recently have proved — sufficient for the protec- 
 tion of the Church — sufficient for all the liberty that 
 every man in the Church has a right to require or ex- 
 pect. With these views, I say that I hope this canon 
 will be left untouched, though, if the House sends it 
 with instructions to the committee of which I am chair- 
 man, we will obey them, of course. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Perkins: It seems to me that a great deal 
 has been said which is irrelevant. The gentleman who has 
 just taken his seat has spoken at length against the repeal 
 of this canon, and implied that, if it were repealed, there 
 
91 
 
 would be no police rofculation left. Now, I understand that 
 we have no such proposition belbre us; we are not to vote 
 upon the question of a repeal of the canon. The gentle- 
 man has made a long argument, and other gentlemen have 
 made arguments that this canon has existed so long and 
 worked so well that it would be unwise to alter it in any 
 way whatever ; yet it has been only within one or two days 
 that the majority of this House have voted to amend that 
 very canon, and have sent the amendment to the House of 
 Bishops, and asked their concurrence in it. Strange incon- 
 sistency. It seems to me that that is an inconsistency that 
 ought to impress itself upon the minds of this House. 
 Tlien, again, I hold that a large number of the members of 
 this House have thought it would be wise to make some 
 amendraeut to this canon. The large number of memorial- 
 ists who have memorialized this House to the same end, do 
 deserve some respect at the hands of this House, and, if it 
 can be done, compatibly with the interests of this Church, 
 these memorialists ought to have their petition granted, and 
 the wishes of so many members of this House ought to be 
 consulted. I wish to ask this single question : what objec- 
 tion is there to the amendment, that has been proposed, to 
 this canon which does not exist against the canon as it now 
 stands ? As it now stands it is evidently liable to miscon- 
 struction. Its ambiguity is so great that men equally learn- 
 ed in the law, equally informed as to the history of this 
 Church and its canonical law, differ entirely as to the 
 amending of the canon. And I believe, sir, that the per- 
 sons implicated in the troubles which have been the occa- 
 sion of bringing this matter before us, were equally honest 
 in their construction of the canon. Nor do I believe that 
 there was any intention to violate Christian courtesy on the 
 part of the brethren to whom reference has now been 
 made. Not only so, but it is evident that on the floor of 
 this House there is great diversity of opinion as to the 
 amending of the canon as it now stands. I believe that in 
 the case to which reference has been made, and which has 
 been the occasion of bringing these memorials before us, 
 there was no violation of the canon ; and I doubt uot that 
 in that opinion I do uot differ from the very large majority 
 of the House. Now, what we wish to do — for we are all 
 making at the same end, quietness and peace, the general 
 interests of the Church — is simply so to amend that canon 
 that the meaning of it shall be plain and patent upon its 
 face ; and I do think that if the members of this House 
 will simply consider the amendment as it is proposed, they 
 will see that it tends to promote peace and quietness in this 
 Church, without disturbing the relations of any rector to 
 his parisli, oi' of kiudly feeling that ought to exist between 
 the ditl'ercnt ministers of this Church to which we belong. 
 
 Rev. C. P. Gadsden, of South Carolina — offered the 
 following as an amendment to Dr. Norton's amendment : 
 
 liesol-ved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons, with instructions to report that the terms of 
 this canon defining paiochial limits apply only to mem- 
 bers of this Church. 
 
 A Deputy — moved to strike out the word " instruct" 
 and insert " consider and report." 
 
 Gov. Stevenson: — I hope that amendment will 
 fail. This has been twice before the Committee on 
 Canons, and we have their opinion in the most perfect 
 
 form they were able to present it, and after the most 
 deliberate judgment. Now let us either lay it upon the 
 table or vote the instruction. Let us meet the question 
 fair and full upon both sides, and either jiass the resolu- 
 tion with instructions or lay the whole subject upon the 
 table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams — moved to lay Dr. Norton's resolu- 
 tion upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — I hope the member will with- 
 draw his motion. 
 
 The vote was then taken on Dr. Adams's motion, and, 
 after a division, it was carried by ayes, 99, noes, 92. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I submit to the House that it is 
 a most unfortunate termination of this matter to have 
 such a vote. 
 
 Mr. G. W. Cass: — I presume that many, with my- 
 self, in thus voting to lay upon the table, did so because 
 they did not wish the resolutions to go to the committee 
 with instructions. I would move a reconsideration if 
 the resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
 should be changed from " instruction " to " reconsider 
 and report." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Norton : — I will accept the amendment 
 with pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Cass . — Then, I move a reconsideration. 
 
 Mr. J. B. Doe : — 1 hope this question will not be recon- 
 sidered ; we have been playing fast and loose for about 
 two weeks, and if we paid the same attention to reports 
 of our committees that is usually accorded them,, we 
 might have got through all the business before this 
 time. I do not propose to express my opinion on the 
 merits of the question under discussion. Since 1 have 
 been a member of this House, I have paid particular 
 attention to the reports of the Committee on Canons ; 
 and although I can appreciate the eloquence, and the 
 wisdom, and the piety, of those individuals who have 
 engaged in the debates, I have been particularly struck 
 with the wisdom of the reports of the Committee on 
 Canons which Rave been addres.sed to this House. We 
 have consumed four days in discussing and trying to 
 break down two reports from the Committee on Canons. 
 And, then, after we got through with the discussion, 
 their views were adopted ; and I am perfectly satisfied 
 to pay that respect to the repoits of this House to which 
 they are entitled. I hope this question will rest where 
 it is. I will here give notice that if this question comes 
 before the House again, I shall take the liberty of ex- 
 pressing my views at length upon it, at least as far as 
 ten minutes will permit. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I would be willing to vote for the 
 reconsideration if the word " instruction " were removed 
 [an amendment which Rev. Dr. Norton had sometime 
 before accepted]. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little.john, of New York : — I am glad to 
 hear that my brother from Wisconsin has acceded to 
 this proposition tor reconsideration. The way in which 
 this matter now stands is certainly very unfortunate. 
 
92 
 
 The vote which has been taken to lay this matter upon 
 the table has not brought out the real sense of this 
 House upon the motion. I voted against the proposition 
 to lay npon the table, because I am in favor of fair play ; 
 and when an issue is brought before the House as direct- 
 ly as in this case, I do not believe it is just to either 
 party to terminate the question in the way it has been 
 terminated now. Let us have a direct vote upon this 
 matter, and let the sentiments of the House be revealed, 
 and not covered up as now. 
 
 Judge Battle — withdrew his motion to lay the mo- 
 tion to reconsider upon the table. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Richard S. Mason : — I should be glad to 
 have this subject reconsidered. I was opposed to laying 
 it on the table. I wish to see two things protected: the 
 rights of a rector, and as ample liberty as possible of 
 preaching the Gospel. 
 
 Reconsideration was agreed to. 
 
 The question now recurred upon the resolution of Dr. 
 Norton, modified by the substitution of " consider and 
 report" for the word " instruct;" and it was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — presented report No. 18 from the 
 Committee on Canons, and the resolution of non-con- 
 currence on the part of the House of Deputies with the 
 resolution of the House of Bishops, admitting the clergy 
 and ministry of England and Can<ada to all the rights 
 of this Church ; which resolution was adopted. 
 
 Mr. Meigs — gave notice of his intention to move a 
 reconsideration of the action of the House, with refer- 
 ence to the canon concerning Assistant Bishops. 
 
 Judge Sheffey : — This is a summary proceeding at 
 the heel of a long and arduous session, to bring back 
 upon the House a question that was deliberately debated 
 and disposed of 1 hope the vote is not to be pressed 
 now, and I would suggest that it should be postponed 
 until to-morrow, at half-past 11, that there may then 
 certainly be a full House to vote upon it, especially since 
 a vote upon the merits of the question will require a 
 vote by orders and dioceses. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — The canon has been sent to the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 The mover of reconsideration accepted Judge Shef- 
 fey's suggestion. 
 
 Mr. Taylor — moved that a message be sent to the 
 House of Bishops requesting a return of the canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchahey — raised the point of order, 
 that, after the report of the standing committees and 
 before motions and resolutions, reports of special com- 
 mittees are in order, and that he was ready to submit a 
 report from a special committee on the subject of the 
 Provincial system. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Texas — suggested that the re- 
 consideration could not be deferred till to-morrow, be- 
 cause a reconsideration was required to be made within 
 two days after the action to be reconsidered. 
 
 Mr. Taylor : — It is the notice of reconsideration that 
 is required within the two days, and not the motion. 
 
 A motion to adjourn was lost. 
 
 The motion to reconsider was adopted, and the recon- 
 sideration was deferred until to-morrow. 
 The House then adjom-ned. 
 
 THIRTEENTH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Wednesday, Oct. 21st, 18G8. 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Dr. Wheat of Ten- 
 nessee, and Rev. Dr. Mason, of North Carolina. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Kemper, 
 of Wisconsin. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read. 
 
 Mr. Taylor — moved that a message be sent to the 
 House of Bishops requesting the return of the canon 
 relating to assistant bishops. This motion was agreed to. 
 
 The president said that hereafter, in accordance with 
 the usual course in such matters, reports would be re- 
 ceived as a matter of course and passed upon at once, 
 if without debate ; but that, if they should give rise to 
 debate, they would be laid upon the table, to be called 
 up in their order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — submitted the report No. 2(J, from 
 the committee on canons with reference to a proposed 
 amendment of Canon 9,section 3, Title 2, and a resolution 
 of amendment striking out the words "of this church'' 
 ailer the words "presiding bishop," in said canon. On 
 motion this resolution was adopted. 
 
 Another report from the Committee on Canons was 
 submitted by Rev. Dr. Haight, with a modified form of 
 canon recommitted, relating to the consecration of 
 churches. 
 
 Judce Battle : — By reference to the printed canon 
 submitted the other day, the changes which have been 
 proposed are easily discernible. The gentlemen who 
 raised the difficulties with regard to the canon as origin- 
 ally proposed had the kindness to meet the committee 
 and mention what were the peculiar laws of their own 
 State and the condition of things to which they wished 
 to apply a remedy. It seems that in the Diocese of 
 Vermont, churches were built by subscribers of all class- 
 es of people — some churchmen and some who were not ; 
 and they became tenants in common of the churches ; 
 and therefore a part of the church was frequently owned 
 by a man who was not a member of the Church, perhaps 
 an infidel or Unitarian or person of any other denomi- 
 nation. The object of the canon is that no church shall, 
 be consecrated unless the title is secured for our own 
 Church. Therefore it is provided in the first section 
 that the title is all to precede consecration. These mod- 
 ifications, I was informed by the gentleman by whom 
 the matter was recommitted would be entirely satisfac- 
 tory. There was another objection, that the title should 
 be a title in fee. But it is well known to all lawyers 
 that whenever a title is mentioned it means a title in fee. 
 It was thought best by the committee to leave the title 
 indefinite, because, in some States, it is impossible to ob- 
 tain land in fee simple, as in some of the Southern 
 
93 
 
 States, where much land is in the hands of a corporation 
 that will not grant anything but a long lease. It wjis 
 thought best to use general terms which would apply to 
 the best title which could be obtained. It will be seen 
 that the canon as now presented requires that not only 
 shall the building and the laud be secure from debt, but 
 that the title also shall be secure. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare — inquired as to the effect of certain 
 laws of Pennsylvania. 
 
 .Judge CONYNGHAM: — As to what efl'ect this may 
 have upon what is commonly known in Pennsylvania as 
 the Price Law, — the law of Pennsylvania must control. 
 There is no question so far as that is concerned, with re- 
 gard to Pennsylvania, under her act with regard to cor- 
 porations. There is a provision that the property must 
 remain under the control of the lay members of the cor- 
 poration or some committee, or some authority or other 
 of which there is a majority of lay members. The prop- 
 erly is under the control of the laity under the law of 
 Pennsylvania, (passed in 1856,) and no provision of this 
 kind can supercede that law or destroy its effect. 
 
 Itev. Dr. Goodwin — suggested that it should read a 
 church or chapel which shall be consecrated, to avoid 
 any ex post facto eS'ect. 
 
 The President — If this requires further discussion 
 it must lie on the table for the present. 
 
 Message No. 21 from the House of Bishops announced 
 their non-concurrence in the proposed alteration of Can- 
 on 'J, Title 1, increasing the period of probation of cler- 
 gymen seeking admission from other Churches. 
 
 Messages No. 22 and 23 were then read, the former 
 in reference to education, and the latter with reference 
 to adding a cycle in the Prayer Book. 
 
 The Committee on Canons reported with reference 
 to an inquiry as to the necessity of an addition to article 
 4, of the Constitution, of the words " or by the Bishop 
 himself of some other diocese" or some phrase equivalent 
 thereto, that such addition was inexpedient and asked to 
 be discharged from the further consideration of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 On motion the committee was discharged. 
 
 The Committee on Canons asked leave to withdraw a 
 report of the canon with regard to federate councils with 
 a view to add a further provision. Agreed to. 
 
 The Committee on the General Theological Seminary 
 made their report. 
 
 The committee submitted a resolution nominating 
 trustees from the various dioceses. 
 
 On motion of Kev. Dr. Mead the resolution was 
 adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare, of Pennsylvania — offered a resolution 
 that, after silent prayer, the House proceed to vote on 
 confirming the nomination by the House of Bishops, of 
 the Rev. B. Wistar Morris, as Missionary Bishop of 
 Oregon and Washington Territory. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare: — It is proper for a member of the 
 deputation from Pennsylvania to introduce this matter. 
 
 I have known Mr. Morris from his first entrance into 
 the ministry ; and I know no person whose nomination 
 by the House of Bishops would give me more pleasure. 
 He is a most moderate man, where moderation is appro- 
 priate ; full of energy and zeal ; a Christian gentleman 
 whose election I believe cannot but be of great advantage 
 to our Church and the cause of Religion generally. 
 
 Mr. William Welsh, of Pennsylvania: — In second- 
 ing that resolution 1 will say that it gives me great 
 pain. For if he should be elected, we are to lose about 
 the best man we have among us. We have no man 
 who has thrown himself into the work of the Church 
 with more energy than the Rev. Mr. Morris ; who is a 
 man, every inch of him ; and everybody on the Mission- 
 ary Committee of the Diocese feels him ta be a man. He 
 is more conversant with Missionary matters than any 
 other man in the diocese. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — In endorsing aU that my colleagues 
 have said with reference to Mr. Morris, I wish to add 
 one item, and that is, he is a man of remarkable execu- 
 tive ability. 
 
 Rev. C. B. Wyatt, of California : — The Rev. gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania [Dr. Hare] anticipated me in 
 the pleasure which I hope'd to have in offering the reso- 
 lution he has offered. I would add a few words of en- 
 dorsement. I have enjoyed unusual facilities perhaps 
 for knowing the territory comprised in the jurisdiction 
 of Oregon and Washington, and for becoming acquaint- 
 ed with the character of the jjopulatiou there. I have 
 also enjoyed an intimate friendship with the Rev. gen- 
 tleman nominated by the House of Bishops, beginning 
 with the time when he set out in his studies to prepare 
 for Holy Orders. Sir, in that wide jurisdiction it will be 
 easily supposed, when you remember the variety of re- 
 ligious opinions represented, when you remember how 
 defective the education has been in the case of many of 
 those people, when you remember that their tempers are 
 very sensitive, especially as to any one who is placed in 
 authority to teach them, it will be eeisily supposed that 
 peculiar qualifications are necessary in the man who 
 shall be presented to supervise that part of the Church's 
 field. Sir, let me give before this House my humble 
 testimony from intimate relations of friendship with that 
 gentleman, that in his firm judgment, in his remarkable 
 executive ability, in his power of sympathizing with 
 those who from false instruction have received religious 
 prejudices and are under religious errors, and above all, 
 in his genuine, healthy, all-pervading piety, this Church 
 has the best guarantee that the affairs of that jurisdiction 
 will be administered wisely, and well, to promote the 
 gieat designs of the Gospel of our Lord, to secure the 
 religious welfare of tliat people and the honor of Al- 
 mighty God. 
 
 Rev. Chas. Bueck, of Delaware: — After Mr. Morris 
 had been received into the Church, being baptized by 
 the sainted George VV. Natt, he came to his father's 
 house in my parish, gave up the business in which he 
 
94 
 
 was engaged, and determined to consecrate himself to 
 the service of our Blessed Lord in the sacred ministry. 
 It was my privilege to have him for my parishioner for a 
 considerable length of time before he entered the Gen- 
 eral Theological Seminary, and I have since that time 
 been upon the most intimate relations with him. Noth- 
 ing in a period of thirty years has interrupted our 
 friendship in the least degree ; aud not only has he all 
 the qualifications that have been named by others, but 
 he inherits the wisdom and judgment of his father and 
 mother in a high degree ; and he possesses also the Di- 
 vine gift of common sense in as high a degree as any 
 any man that I know. I would therefore, give my 
 hearty endorsement to everything that has been said. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut : — -I feel it due to Mr. Morris to 
 say that having been educated in the General Theologi- 
 cal Seminary of this city, he won the hearts of all the 
 professors there, by his intelligence, by his industry, 
 aud by his uniform Christian demeanor. I have watched 
 him very closely from that time down to the present ; 
 and I have numbered him among my best friends ; and 
 I rejoice from the bottom of my heart that this nomina- 
 tion has been made. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Van Deusen : — I rise to concur in all that 
 has been said, and to add this remark that 1 believe he 
 belongs to that class of Presbyters whose motto is Nulo 
 episcopari [I do not desire the episcopate]. 
 
 A message from the House of Bishops was here re- 
 ceived, returning the canon concerning assistant bishops. 
 
 The form of testimonials in electing a Missionary 
 Bishop was then read by the Secretary. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hare, his resolution was then 
 adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Shelton, of Western New York, and Mr. 
 O. S. Seymour, LL.U., of Connecticut, were appointed 
 to act as tellers, and the nomination by the House of 
 Bishops was unanimously confirmed, by a vote by dio- 
 ceses and orders. 
 
 On the announcement of the vote, the Convention, 
 rising, sang the "Gloria in Excelsis." 
 
 The episcopal testimonials not being ready for signing, 
 the House proceeded to receive the reports of com- 
 mittees. 
 
 The Committee on Christian Education submitted its 
 report. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little,john moved that the report and res- 
 olutions of the Committee on Christian Education be 
 made the order of the day for to-morrow at 12 o'clock. 
 Agreed to. 
 
 On request of Rev. Dr. Mahan, it was ordered that 
 the report of the Russo- Greek Committee be printed. 
 
 On motion of Mr. T. Taylor, of Virginia, his resolu- 
 tion (declaring inexpedient any change in the Prayer- 
 Book) was made the order of the day for to-morrow. 
 
 The PitESiDENT. — The next business before us is the 
 resolution for the re-cousidcration of the canon concern- 
 ing Assistant Bishops. 
 
 P Mr. Meigs. — I brought that up at a late hour yester- 
 day, and briefly stated my reasons for moving a re-con- 
 sideration. ] will occupy the attention of the House for 
 a few moments while I state more at large the reasons 
 that influenced me. I voted in favor of that proposition 
 of the Committee on Canons, perhaps hastily, but mainly 
 upon the ground that the Committee on Canons had rec- 
 ommended the adoption of it. I was strongly influenced 
 by my great respect for that committee. I thought it 
 was perfectly safe to vote for their recommendation. 
 But after twenty -four hours' reflection I became satisfied 
 there were very serious objections to it. 
 
 The President. — Will the gentleman be so kind as 
 to permit a suggestion from the Chair? The matter be- 
 fore the House has been thoroughly discussed; and if it 
 is to be re-discussed to-day it will throw out a great deal 
 of business that is to come before the House. I will sug- 
 gest that it be postponed to Saturday, and then, perhaps, 
 a vote can be taken without discussion ; but in the mean- 
 time let us go on to reports of committees, and motions, 
 aild resolutions, which are providing new business for 
 the House. 
 
 Mr. Meigs. — I am willing to forego any further talk 
 upon this subject, and should be glad that a vote should 
 be taken at once upon the subject. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams. — This is the order of the day, and 
 I think the gentleman should insist that it be kept the 
 order of the day. 
 
 Mr. Meigs. — If the House is not prepared to vote 
 upon the subject I would be willing to postpone it; but 
 I think the House is prepared to consider whether it is 
 expedient to re-consider. I would suggest that the vote 
 be taken at once to test the sense of the House. 
 
 Judge Conyngham. — I simply wish to call the atten- 
 tion of the House to the probable effect of a refusal of 
 this canon; and it is calling attention to Canon 13, Sec- 
 tion XL, Title I.: "Every bishop in this Church shall 
 visit the Churches within his diocese at least once in 
 three years," &c. We all believe that at least once in 
 three years a bishop ought to visit all parts of his diocese; 
 we all believe it is not too often. If this provision for 
 assistant bishops should not be made, I know there are 
 many dioceses in which episcopal visitations must be de- 
 ferred, for the purpose of saving the bishop's health; and 
 it is not necessary for any man to sacrifice his health to 
 do good. 
 
 Calls for the question. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, called for the vote by 
 dioceses aud orders. 
 
 The President. — The motion is to re-consider the 
 vote adopting on the part of this House an amendment 
 proposed by the Committee on Canons concerning the 
 election of assistant bishops. 
 
 Judge Sheffey, of Virginia. — This is really made 
 the test question. The House will understand that if 
 we sliould re-consider, then the question will come back 
 again upon the adoption of the canon; but it would 
 
95 
 
 probably be best to dispose of it on a tost question, and 
 therefore the delegate from Wisconsin has oalleil for a 
 vote by dioceses and orders. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams. — I have withdrawn it. 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut. — Suppose the House order the 
 matter to be re-considered, and then the question comes 
 up upon the passage of the canon ; is not that open to 
 debate ? 
 
 The President. — Certainly. 
 
 Judge Shepfky. — Those who are in favor of the canon 
 should vote in favor of the re-consideration ; if the other 
 side carry it, those in favor of the canon had better not 
 fight any farther. 
 
 The President. — The question will be taken by di- 
 oceses and orders, and those who are in favor of the 
 canon as it was passed, will, of course, vote in the nega- 
 tive upon this question of re-consideration ; and those 
 who are against the canon as passed will vote to re-con- 
 sider. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — I think it is simply a question of 
 re-consideration. 1 feel myself free to vote one way or 
 the other without reference to the canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. — The question must necessarily be 
 a test question. The canon is the voice of this House. 
 The question is, shall it be taken up and re-considered? 
 If you do not take it up, you leave it as passed. Those 
 who are in favor of leaving the canon as already passed 
 will vote no on the question of re-consideration. 
 
 The vote was then taken by dioceses and orders, and 
 resulted as follows: Clerical vote — ayes 24; noes 6; di- 
 vided 5. Lay vote — ayes 17; noes 14; divided 4. So 
 the re-consideration was defeated by non-concurrence of 
 orders. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchahey stated, as preliminary to sulA 
 mitting the report of the Committee on the Provincial 
 System, that the canon to whicli the report had refer- 
 ence was not in the possession of the committee nor of 
 the House, the Committee on Canons having been al- 
 lowed to withdraw it for amendment. The whole diffi- 
 culty, he thought, as to whether the amendment to be 
 added by the committee would render inapplicable the 
 report, could be remedied by allowing the Committee on 
 Canons to state to the House what the proposed amend- 
 ment is. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance. — Would it not be better to wait 
 for tlie Committee on Canons to report, and then let this 
 report follow it in order? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe said that the Committee on Canons 
 were then ready to report bai:k the canon, and accord- 
 ingly submitted their report, which embodied a canon, 
 declaring that it shall be lawful for any dioceses existing, 
 or hereafter to exist, within any state, to establish for 
 themselves a Federate Council, representing such dio- 
 ceses, which may deliberate and decide upon the com- 
 wion interests of the Church within (he limits aforesaid; 
 but, before any determinate action of the Council, the 
 powers proposed to be exercised thereby shall be sub- 
 
 I mitted to the General Convention for its approval. To 
 this they desired to add the following words: "Nothing 
 in this canon shall be construed as forbidding any Fed- 
 erate Council from taking such action as they may deem 
 necessary to secure such legislative enactments as the 
 common interests of the Church in the state may require." 
 
 Which report, on motion of Rev. Dr. Haight, was laid 
 on the table. 
 
 The PiiESlDENT : — The Committee on Clerical Su[)- 
 port have placed on my table a report, and the gentle- 
 man who made it is an.xious to present it, because he 
 expects to be absent after to-day. 
 
 Mr. B. Johnson Barbouk, of Virginia: — I beg leave 
 to say I have been deputed by my colleagues of this 
 committee to present this report : — 
 
 The committee to which was refcixed a memorial from 
 the Diocese of New Jersey, on the subject of clerical support, 
 beg leave respectfully to report as follows, that they have 
 given the subject the utmost possible attention and examin- 
 ation with the result indicated in the following report and 
 resolution : 
 
 The committee yas met at the threshold by the suggestion 
 that any action of the Convention would be not mandatory, 
 but only advisory in its character. The dioceses differed from 
 each other not less in their circumstances than in their 
 latitude and longitude, and at least each one must be allow- 
 ed to select from a multitude of suggestions the plan which 
 after full consideration it shall decide is most congenial and 
 appropriate to itself. It is of niiuor importance whether the 
 end be aconiplislied by forming a parochial aid system, by 
 a fund or yearly contributions assessed upon jiarishes, or 
 by the arrangement of pew rents, or weekly or monthly con- 
 tributions. The main question is to awaken interest and to 
 maintain it. It will be useless to prepare the conduits un- 
 til we know that the fountain has been struck. It is unnec- 
 essary to compare the price of gold until we have tlic gold. 
 If we desire more earnest prayers and to have uior ■ indepen- 
 dent clergy we must relieve tbcm from the ban ssi ig care.s of 
 insufficient support, and from tlie constant struggle for their 
 daily bread, and give them such assurances of a comfortable 
 and constant maintenance as to enable tliem to turn their 
 undivided eifort to the great work before tlieiii. If we are 
 not content to witness the decrease of the niinistiy and dry 
 up the source of supply we nnist arouse ourselves and pre- 
 pare for a comfortable and full support of the clergy. It is not 
 a charity but a duty ; it is a delit, not a mere benefaction. 
 It is a debt which we owe to the minister.* of the Church, to 
 the country, and to God. It is obvious chough tliat the 
 remedy lies with the laity not the cleigy. This is an op- 
 portunity in which — while the laity are gathered together — to 
 force facts home upon them and remind them affectionately 
 but' pointedly of their culpable delinquency in this great and 
 high <luty, and to urge them in the name of humauitandy, 
 of tlic Master whom they profess to serve, that they set 
 themselves steadily, earnestly, and persistently to the fulfil- 
 nienl of their duty to those on wliose faitld'u! prayers rest 
 tlieir dearest and mightiest interests. In eoiielusion, and as 
 an emI>odiment of our reflections, we offer the following res 
 olutious; 
 
96 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Bishops be requested to 
 present prominently, in a pastoral letter, the sufferings and 
 wants of the clergy of the Church in many portions of the 
 country, and the vital necessity there is for prompt and effi- 
 cient reUef. 
 
 Resolved, That, in the opinion of the laity of this House, 
 it is a solemn and urgent duty resting upon this body of the 
 lay members of the Church to make systematic and c nstaut 
 efforts for the better maintenance of the clergy, and whilst 
 each diocese is, of course, free to adopt the plan best suited 
 to its own condition and circumstances, it is rec mmended 
 that, after due notice, a collection be taken up in every 
 parish on one or more of the festivals of the Church, annual- 
 ly, one portion to be given to the minister of the parish 
 and the remainder sent to the Treasurer of the Do- 
 mestic Committee to be distributed among the clergy of the 
 Southern missionary dioceses. 
 
 Mr. B. Johnson Bakbour: — Mr. President, if I could be 
 permitted to say a few words I should be glad to do so, if I 
 do not trespass upon the patience of the House nor upon the 
 time of the corps of regular speakers. [Laughter.] No 
 one is responsible for my thoughts; therefore I shall be glad 
 to speak them. This report, or rather the memorial on 
 which it is founded, speaks of thiugs we know so little of in 
 the part of the country from which I come, that I am desir- 
 ■ ous of making a little explanation. It speaks of stocks and 
 salaries and gold and silver and real estale. Well, "gold 
 and silver we have none," and as for the paper currency, 
 we have only a disturbed vision of a currency that rose like 
 an exhalation, covered the land like the waters of the sea, 
 and vanished like a dream in the night. As for laud, we 
 have so much land that we cannot sell nor even work it ; we 
 scarcely call laud real estate in our country. I beg leave to 
 repeat in substance a single sentence that I said in your pi'es- 
 ence a few nights since, that I trust I am too well aware of what 
 is due to the sacredness of this edifice and to the solemnity of 
 this occasion, and too well aware of the general inutility either 
 in Church or State of political discussions, to make any 
 mere political allusions to-night, neither would I invade the 
 grave of the dead past. I would not even disturb its sur- 
 face unless it were to plant the flowers that are the em- 
 blems and the token of resignation and peace — a resignation 
 that believes that God speaks to His children alike m the 
 whirlwind of war and in the gentle influences of peace. 
 But it is necessary for me to allude to the general condition 
 of our country ; and my statement is fortified alike by the 
 eloquent words we heard from our brother from Texas and 
 by the striking remarks included in the report of the Com- 
 mittee on Christiairliducation to-day. It is not so much a 
 question, ray friends, in a great many portions of the South 
 how much or how we shall pay our ministers ; but it is a 
 question whether there shall be any parish at all. Flocks 
 and shepherds have been so much scattered by the terrible 
 events of the last few, years that it is a question of great 
 solicitude whether they will ever meet on earth again ; and 
 the only memorials of scenes where once happy assemblies 
 met to worship Almighty God are nothing but blackened and 
 ruined walls. And I believe if those scenes were presented 
 to you, not by poor words of mine, but in their reality, 
 they would touch your heart. As 1 was walking in the 
 principal artery of this great metropolis to-day, my atten- 
 tion was struck at the entrance of a photograph gallery by 
 a splendid reproduction of the Coliseum at Rome. Strange 
 enough, two hours afterwards when talking with a friend he 
 
 drew from his pocket a small picture not larger than th 
 palm of the hand. It was the photograph of the eloquent 
 ruins of his own church ; and it was far more eloquent than 
 the Coliseum. One, to be sure, had clustered around it the 
 associations of fifty generations ; but the other spoke of our 
 own mixeries. One is pagan, but the other, even in its ruins, 
 spoke of the countless ages of eternity ; and I believe that 
 nothing more eloquent could be shown to these northern 
 and western friends of ours than a grand diorama of all such 
 ruins in our country. I remember when the celebrated Dr. 
 Duff came from Scotland, some twenty years ago, in the in- 
 terests of the free church in Scotland, and made his magnif- 
 icent speech. He said only one thousand dollars was re- 
 quired to erect one of the humble mansions they needed. 
 "Then" said a large-hearted merchant, "I will build twenty 
 of them," and sent in his check. Would it not be far more 
 noble to re-erect these ruined churches in your own coun- 
 try ? Do you not believe with me that they would be the 
 best temples of reconstruction, better than all those acts 
 with which the wisest and best men could crowd the stat- 
 ute-book V If you believe with me that our noble Church is 
 destined to arouse from her lethargy, if you believe with me 
 that she is adequate to restore the functions of the great 
 American heart, to give it a grander, a fuller, a healthier 
 pulse, to ;cnd its tides to the remotest portion of our earth 
 and give to the whole body politic health, beauty, and 
 strength, if you have heard, as set forth by the report to- 
 day, the amount of destitution in the South, recollect the 
 greater spiritual destitution. If you would hear, as X do, 
 the voice that speaks from the tomb of many a dead empire 
 and of every past republic, if you would lift up your lone 
 sister of the South, if you would make her believe that her 
 griefs may be sanctified to her everlasting good, if you 
 would teach her that she could wear them not as a crown of 
 thorns but as a golden sorrow — if you would do this — 
 and place this gift upon her brow like a coronet, she would 
 rise up and look to you with a look of startled joy, as 
 though Rachel's children still lived. If I have said too 
 much on this subject, pardon me, for I speak in the name 
 of that country that we should all love and of that God we 
 should all adore. Remember ! oh, remember ! that in the 
 great earthly trinity, — Faith, Hope, and Charity, — that the 
 greatest of these is Charity. [Applause.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs — thanked the gentleman, in behalf of 
 the Convention, for his eloquent, able, and patriotic 
 speech. 
 
 Dr. ( I. C. SnATTucK,of Massachusetts, — thought it was 
 impossible for this Convention to fix the different pro- 
 portions of the collection [suggested by the report] which 
 should be given to the clergyman of the parish, and to 
 ' the other purposes mentioned in the report. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance, of Illinois : — Am I to have a col- 
 lection made in my parish ? I understand we are to 
 do so, in accordance with instructions from the Bishop. 
 
 The Pkesident: — One of the resolutions is for the 
 Bishop to issue a pastoral letter, and the other a recom- 
 mendation from this House that collections be taken 
 up once in a year, and one portion of them to go to the 
 minister of the parish. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance : — I do not need it, [Laughter] and 
 
97 
 
 think that five hundred other clergymen do not ; it is 
 indelicate. 
 
 Dr. G. C. Shattuck : — Some do need it ; and those 
 that do not need it can give it to other parishes that 
 do. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance : — I am not opposing that ; but, 
 then, there should be some indications that the collec- 
 tions should be in those parishes only where want is 
 known to e.xist. 
 
 Dr. Howe : — I hope it will not be left to the rector to 
 determine whether it is needed or not ; it may be an 
 awkward thing to ask it, and yet he may feel conscious 
 that he needs it, and his people may think that he does 
 not need it. I heard of a clergyman at a rural place 
 who received a small salary of $2.50 a year. Persons 
 who, in the summer, resort to that place, are in the 
 habit ol makmg up a purse for him, which, on the last 
 occasion, was considerable in amount. When his peo- 
 ple found that that was done, they determined that he 
 did not need the $250. [Laughter.] Often the impres- 
 sion is that the minister is in affluent circumstances, 
 when he knows he is not. It will put him into a painful 
 situation to determine how large a part of the collection 
 he shall appropriate to his own use. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stdbbs : — As little as we can do is to give 
 the whole. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance : — It will be an indelicate thing for 
 the clergyman to take the collection himself. It will 
 be the inception of an improper thing. I want no such 
 help brought out of my parish. I would not need it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — Is that collection to be taken 
 up also in the Southern dioceses and then sent to the 
 committee to be distributed back to them ? 
 
 Rev. Mr. Breck : — It does appear to me there ought to have 
 been one or two clergymen on the committee, in consider- 
 ing this subject. This matter of clerical support has been, 
 I suppose, the study of many gentlemen in this House for 
 a great many years ; and it has been one of those studies 
 that have been utterly incomprehensible to the minds of 
 many. I have had to do with some of the most generous 
 and liberal men in the Church, who give by hundreds and 
 by thousands, but who never seemed to take in this subject 
 in any true or proper way, and I have been waiting for tliis 
 report, hoping that these gentlemen would bring something 
 out that would be practicable. We have had all these 
 things before. We have had Bishops sending letters and 
 circulars, and yet they have not reached the difficulty. And 
 there is nothing in this report that reaches the root of the 
 evil, at all. You may support a clergyman, and give him a 
 salary and these collections, but I wish to know what is to 
 become of the famUy of the clergyman, and whether there 
 is anything to reach their case, if he is removed by death? 
 I say that after the death of the clergyman his family is 
 presently forgotten by the Church ; and I know a large 
 number of ladies who have thus been forgotten. When I 
 was a young man, after I had been ten years in a parish 
 and was about to leave it, I threw out this subject in a deh- 
 cate way ; not in a way that could be made personally ap- 
 pUcable, at all. I went into the new section of Northern 
 
 13 
 
 Pennsylvania. There went into that country, at the same 
 time, lawyers and merchants, all of us very nmch of the 
 same age and condition. We Hved together for ten years. 
 Those business men went on accumulating pro])erty — 
 houses and lauds — property of all kmds. I suggested to 
 them whether it would uot be just, if, at the end of ten 
 years, they should combine, and devote a certain portion of 
 their property to the support of tlie families of clergymen; 
 that they should put it together into a sum, whatever they 
 were able to give, according to their means and prosperity, 
 whether it were five hundred or a tliowsand dollars ; and, 
 after that, let it be devoted to the support of the families of 
 clergymen who had ministered so many years in their 
 midst. It has always seemed to me that if something of 
 this kind could be done, it would be the most practical way 
 of reaching tliis terrible evil. There is another point, and 
 yet it is a very dehcate one for the clergy to touch, and it is, 
 that the families of clergymen might be remembered in the 
 wills of members of the Church. I do not beheve that one 
 will out of one hundred of the members of the Church, wlio 
 are able to contribute sometliing towards the support of 
 the minister's family that had been among them for ten 
 or twenty years, gives them a dollar. There arc these two 
 points that seem to me practical ways of accomplishing this 
 thing ; and they are those two points that have presented 
 themselves to my mind, in reflecting upon this matter, dur- 
 ing a series of years. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — I am very much afraid, in connection 
 with this discussion, that there will be a certain amount of 
 what I call waste of soul. I am very much afraid that this 
 will result in one of those wastes of soul which so often oc- 
 cur in cases of this kind, when a man is inspired by God's 
 Spirit to pour out his soul before us, and it leads to nothing 
 but mere talk and resolution. And, though I am unpre- 
 pared to make anything that might be a wise suggestion on 
 this sul)ject, I would propose, substantially, this : that this 
 Convention should not separate without appointing some 
 committee, or somebody, to ascertain something with regard 
 to that terrible destitution of the Church of God in the 
 Southern States, and to recommend some plan by which we 
 may avert the wrath of God that will certainly come upon 
 us if we do not provide for that destitution. I propose 
 that this feeling should not pass away from us as a mere 
 empty sound. We have listened to eloquent words, that 
 every member in this Convention felt, in his heart, to be truly 
 words from God. Let this lead to something ; let there be 
 something springing from this occasion, and let it go forth 
 as the voice and the act of this Convention. There are va- 
 rious things that may be done. There are members of this 
 Convention, more practical than I am, who may suggest 
 something ; but, if nothing more than this, it would be 
 something, namely, that we should here contribute, upon 
 this spot, at least the begmning of a fund towards this 
 great purpose. If we merely pass resolutions, recommend- 
 ing that some day or other there should he funds, they will 
 amount to comparatively nothing, unless the eftbrt be made 
 to give a distinct impulse. I would recommend that the 
 thing should be more thoroughly considered, and that 
 something, if possible, should be done on the spot. ^ 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe moved that the sulject be referred back 
 again to the Committee for furtherjpractical s uggestious 
 
98 
 
 and that two clerical members be added to the committee. 
 Agreed to. 
 
 The additional members of the committee were Rev. Dr. 
 Mahan and Rev. Chas. Breck. 
 
 Message, number 25, from the House of Bishops, concur- 
 ring in the action of this House, fixing the next meeting of 
 the Convention at Baltimore. 
 
 Message number 26, from the House of Bishops, announc- 
 ed their con-concurrence in amendments, Nos. 2, 3, 4, to 
 article 5, of the Constitution adopted by the House of Dep- 
 uties. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mdlohahet, of Massachusetts, submitted a re- 
 port from the Special Committee on Federate Councils and 
 the Provincial System, which opposed the introduction of 
 the latter as unsuited to our times and country ; but favor- 
 ed Federate Councils where there is more than one diocese 
 in a State, and proposed uew canons relating to them. 
 
 Thev. Dr. Mulchahet moved that the proposed canons be 
 printed and made the order of the day for Friday, at 12 
 o'clock. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Goodwin moved that they be referred to 
 the Committee on Canons before printing. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Mulchahet : — I withdraw the motion to 
 print, and move that they be the order of the day for Fri- 
 day. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES: — I rise to move that when this 
 great propositiou with reference to the re-arrangement of 
 our Church, making an arrangement which in my honest 
 judgment, will lead to its dismemberment and ruin, in which 
 the life of the Church is concerned and the authority of 
 tliis General Convention, — a question of life or death, — we 
 shall have an opportunity of being heard in defence of our 
 common niotlier, that we shall not be confined to the nar- 
 row limits of debate established the other day ; for I aver, 
 after a consultation with experienced gentlemen, that this 
 subject presents at least ten specific points in reality, each 
 of which would properly require the whole of the ten min- 
 utes now given by the rule. I should hardly expect to give 
 ten minutes to this point, if I had the opportunity ; but 1 
 shall move that three minutes shall be given to each point 
 by each speaker, and I propose to .submit those ten points, 
 that we may have them in t&is debate. I therefore propose 
 them in order to condense as far as possible, and to avoid 
 repetition ; and although I do not flatter myself that I have 
 embraced all the points, I will ask leave to read the ten 
 propositions which must be discussed. 
 
 The President : — There are two motions before the House, 
 one to make the following resolution the order of the day for 
 Friday : 
 
 Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on Canons 
 to report whether it is expedient to determine whether it 
 should be compulsory or voluntary on the part of the differ- 
 ent dioceses within the bounds of a certain State, to unite in 
 the formation of these provinces spoken of. 
 
 The motion to make the report of the special committee the 
 order of the day for 12 o'clock, on Friday, has been super- 
 seded by the motion to commit. The motion to re-commit 
 was lost. The question then recurred upon the motion to 
 print the canons reported by the Special Committee and 
 to Aake them the order of the day for Friday next, which 
 motion was agreed to. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RcGGLES : — I merely wish to get these ten 
 points before the House. I merely say to the House that 
 these ten propositions may or may not be true. One thing 
 I will say, they are all pertinent to the case ; and they are 
 offered merely to avoid repetition and secure condensation, 
 and something like consecutive order in this debate. Oth- 
 ers might be added, and the order might be improved. I 
 will read them, coupling them with a motion which makes 
 it proper that any member may speak three minutes on each 
 proposition : 
 
 Resolved, That the resolution of this House as adopted 
 on the 16th in.st., limiting the speech of any member on 
 any subject to ten minutes, be so far modified, in respectto 
 debate on the provincial system, as to permit any member 
 to occupy three minutes in discussing each of the following 
 propositions : 
 
 1. The unity and unexampled prosperity now enjoyed by 
 the Church in these happily United States, is mainly to be 
 attributed to its simple but efficient organism under one su- 
 preme authority in the General Convention, restrained 
 only by the ecclesiastical Constitution established by the piety 
 and forecast of our fathers. 
 
 2. No fundamental change should be made in that organ- 
 ism without the clearest evidence of urgent necessity, and 
 then, only in the Constitutional mode, by carefully consid- 
 ered Amendments to the Constitution to be submitted to 
 the clergy and the laity in each of the dioceses, for their 
 due consideration. 
 
 .3. In framing, altering or enlarging the organism of the 
 Apostolic Church in the United States of America, as one 
 great Province of the Church Catholic, there was not and 
 is not any Scriptural or other necessity for adopting or im- 
 itating any example of local organism in any other 
 country or age, whether in the ancient Roman Empire or 
 any of the monarchies of modern Europe ; and that all 
 such local ecclesiastical structures should be subject to va 
 riation with the necessary changes of time and place. 
 
 4. No evidence has yet been furnished by experience of 
 any action or want of action by the General Convention, 
 which requires any large surrender or delegation of its pow- 
 ers to dioceses or local groups of dioceses, representing only 
 separate sections of the Church. 
 
 5. Any such surrender, according to all human experience, 
 must eventually and inevitably operate to undermine and 
 overthrow the paramount authority of the General Conven- 
 tion necessary for preserving the unity of the Church. 
 
 6. In view of the great continental extent of the Church, 
 requiring personal knowledge of its wide-spread sections and 
 subdivisions, the present House of Bishops of equal dignity 
 and authority, is not too numerous, but may be gradually 
 increased in number, with advantage to the Church. 
 
 7. If the House of clerical and lay deputies has now be- 
 come too numerous for convenient and efficient action, the 
 evil may be remedied at once, and without any fundamen- 
 tal change in our ecclesiastical structure, simply by reduc- 
 ing the ratio ofrepresentationof the dioceses, to keep pace 
 with their increase in number. 
 
 S. Any institution of Provinces, or Sub-Provinces, or 
 Provincial Synods, with power liable at all times to revoca- 
 tion by the General Convention, will be useless and illuso- 
 ry, and no such intermediate body can usefully exercise 
 
99 
 
 any power already enjoyed by each of the Diocesan^Con- 
 ventions. 
 
 9. Such ProTincial Synods, if invested with irrevocable 
 powers, and withdrawn from the constant and watchful su- 
 pervision of the General Convention, may soon diverge into 
 widely differing habits and opinions, and become antagonist 
 organs of ecclesiastical conflict, eventually leading to the 
 dismemberment of the Church, and especially destroying 
 the solid and unbroken front which it should present in the 
 General Council, ere long to assemble under the great Prov. 
 idence of God, in the hope of re-uniting the Church of 
 Christ on earth. 
 
 10. Such division of the Church into Sections or Prov- 
 inces will work at once great injury, in rendering less fre- 
 quent the present triennial meetings of the Bishops and the 
 representatives of the clergy and the laity iu General Con- 
 vention ; in which assemblies, the eflbrts of all to advance 
 the highest interests of the Church are animated and ele- 
 vated, and where by intimate and fraternal intercourse, all 
 become acquainted with the feehngs and necessities of each, 
 thereby uniting our now undivided Church in one common 
 bond of Christian sympathy and affection. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Uaight: — The diocese which I have the honor 
 to represent in part, has presented a memorial to this House 
 asking for the passage of a canon in regard to Federate Coun- 
 cils. The same step has been taken by the Diocese of 
 Western New York, and by the Diocese of Maryland, and 
 substantially by the Diocese of Pennsylvania. I am here 
 on the part of the Diocese of New York to urge it as I best 
 can. I hope I shall be sustained by the rest of my col- 
 leagues, since my brother has taken the position he has. If 
 understand the propositions aright, they make directly 
 and positively against that most important measure which 
 the Diocese of New York has for the second time introduc- 
 ed to the attention of the House. I am not willing to sit 
 here and hear that resolution brought in in the teeth of 
 the memorial from this diocese, without giving some indica- 
 tion that we do not sympathise with the propositions. I 
 move to postpone them indefinitely. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare: — I think the reverend gentleman from 
 New York is mistaken in the impression that the Diocese 
 of Pennsylvania recommended the provincial system. 
 
 Dr. Uaight: — They did ask for a canon to allow them- 
 selves to associate together for a purpose of common inter- 
 est so far as the State is concerned. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES : — I wish to exculpate myself from 
 the charge made against me by my reverend colleague. 
 The memorial did not recommend the provincial system. It 
 was a provincial synod in disguise which I opposed in the 
 Convention. And iu the vote of the Convention it was 
 stricken out on my motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigiit : — I beg to correct the gentleman ; it was 
 not voted upon by the Convention; it was withdrawn by the 
 committee who introduced it. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Ruggles, his resolution was laid upon 
 the table. 
 
 On motion, a resolution was adopted transmitting to the 
 House of Bishops the testimonials of the Rev. Dr. Morris, 
 Bishop elect of Oregon and the Territory of Washington. 
 
 The House then adjourned to 10 o'clock. 
 
 FOURTEENTH DAY's PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Thdrsdat, October 22, 1868. 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Dr. Rylance, of Illi- 
 nois, and Rev. Dr. Cooke of New York. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Clarkson of 
 Nebraska. 
 
 The minutes of yesterday were read and approved. 
 Rev. Dr. Wheat oflfei'ed a resolution referred to the 
 Committee on the Prayer Book, to consider the propriety 
 of preparing a table of Lessons of Daily Prayer during the 
 season of Lent. 
 
 Ou motion of Rev. Dr. Shelton, the report of the Board 
 of Trustees of the General Theological Semin.ary was read. 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan, from the Committee on Canons, report- 
 ed back the canon on ministers officiating, amending sections 
 1 and 2, so as to read, " no minister in charge of any con- 
 gregation of this Church, or in the case of vacancy or ab- 
 sence, no Church Warden, Vestryman or Trustees of a con- 
 gregation shall permit any person to officiate therein with- 
 out sufficient evidence of his beiug duly licensed or ordain- 
 ed to minister in this Church. Canon XI, Title 1, section 1, 
 and 2, are hereby repealed, provided that such repeal shall 
 not affect any case of violation of said canon committed be- 
 fore this date, but such case shall be governed by the .same 
 law as if no such repeal had taken place." I would explain the 
 changes that have been made in conformity with the various 
 requests and suggestions received : the first of which has been 
 in the title of the canon which was somewhat indefinite. The 
 title as at present is, " Of persons not ministers officiat- 
 ing ; but in order that the title might conform to what is 
 iu the canon itself, and might not by any jjossibility be 
 distorted for controversial purposes or otherwise, we sug- 
 gest the more definite phrase, " Of persons not ministers 
 of this Church officiating in any congregation thereof." The 
 next change by which the two present sections have been 
 merged into one, is suggested simply by the possibility that 
 the responsibility is not definitely fixed iu the present can- 
 on. According to our former report, we regard the mean- 
 ing of the canon as clear enough. It simply amounts in 
 our judgment to this, no person shall officiate in this Church, 
 unless he has some sort of Ucense or authority so to do. 
 That is the meaning of the canon in our idea ; but as it 
 reads at present, " no person shall be permitted," — the 
 responsibility of permission, does not seem to be sufficiently 
 fixed ; therefore, in order that the responsibility may rest 
 upon the person who is reaUy in charge of the congrega- 
 tion, we simply reverse the order of the words so as to read, 
 instead of " no person shall be permitted," " no minister in 
 charge," and so on, "shall permit any person to officiate 
 therein without sufficient evidence of his being duly licen 
 sed or ordained to minister in this Church." This last 
 phrase " being duly licensed or ordained," is meant to meet 
 another difficulty suggested by the original memorialists, 
 namely : It was supposed that the case of lay readers was 
 not at all provided for. Their case is undoubtedly provided 
 for in the canons, but that it may be sufficiently covered we 
 have substituted the words, " without sufficient evidence of 
 his being duly hcensed or ordained to minister in •this 
 Church," which, of course corresponds with the canon. 
 
100 
 
 Then the last proviso is put iu iu couformity with what is 
 required in the digest of the canons, where, in repealing any 
 canon, this proviso is provided for, namely, Canon "11, Title 
 &c, is hereby repealed, provided such repeal shall not affect 
 any case of violation of said canon committed before this 
 day, but such case shall be governed by the same law as if 
 no such repeal had taken place." That I believe is a matter 
 understood anyhow, but our digest provides some such 
 caveat to be put in upon the repeal of the canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan — then moved that this canon, as thus 
 amended, be adopted in the place of the present canon. 
 No. 11. 
 
 Rev. C. P. Gadsden : — There are very many portions of 
 our dioceses, in the present condition of affairs, where, un- 
 less such occasional service were allowed to be performed 
 by laymen, our people would be entirely without worship. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — My impression is that this proposed 
 amendment would not prohibit a layman from officiating in 
 such cases ; but it seems to provide for all such cases : in 
 shifting the respousibihty upon the minister in charge, those 
 extreme and extraordinary cases seem to be sufficiently 
 provided for. 
 
 Mr. : — What does the chairman of the 
 
 committee understand by the word " officiate," in that can- 
 on ? I think it is very necessary that we should have an 
 understanding of it. If the word officiate means simply 
 claiming the position of a minister of this Church or any 
 other Church, then it does not cover the ground suggested 
 by my brother from South Carolina. If it means perform- 
 ing any service, under any and all circumstances, by any 
 person, then it covers the whole ground ; and no matter 
 who the layman may be, or what he may be, he has no right 
 to perform any service in this Church, according to that 
 canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — I am not at all certain that an explan- 
 ation, by the chairman of the Committee, would be any 
 authority ; I can only give ray own opinion. By officiating, 
 I would understand, a person performing some duty as 
 though he were the proper officer to perform it. I would 
 not understand by officiating, the case of a person merely 
 acting for another in a certain capacity, as where the cler- 
 gyman breaks down iu the middle of a' service, his voice 
 fails him, and he asks some layman to go on reading ser- 
 vice : that, I would not consider officiating. I suppose, by 
 officiating, we mean the performance of some office by a 
 person to whom it is ordinarily committed. But I do not 
 pretend to be any authority. It would have to be deter- 
 mined by a court. 
 
 The report of the committee giving rise to debate, under 
 the rules, it was laid upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight reported from tlie Committee on Can- 
 ons, in reference to the amendment of Canon 12, on Cleri- 
 cal Intrusion. The committee unanimously reported the 
 following resolution for adoption, amending the canon by 
 the addition of the following words: " Nothing in this can- 
 on shall be understood to forbid a minister of this Church 
 from discharging all his duties as such iu respect to mem- 
 bers of his own parish who may be within the parochial 
 limits of another minister, except the duties of preaching 
 and reading prayers in a public congregation." 
 
 A motion was made to lay the reported resolution on the 
 table. 
 
 Rev Dr. Haight: — What is the object of that? 
 
 Rev. Mr. Lacet : — The effect of that, as I understand it to 
 be, is that the canon will remain as it is, rather than adopt 
 that amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — Under the order of the House, if no 
 motion is made to take it up, it remains upon the table, and 
 can be called up. 
 
 The motion to lay upon the table was then withdrawn. 
 
 A motion was then made to indefinitely postpone. 
 
 The President: — That motion is debatable, but the or- 
 der of the day has arrived. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance — moved that the order of the day be 
 postponed until some disposition be made of the report of 
 the committee ; which motion was amended by postponing 
 the order of the day until 2 o'clock. Agreed to. 
 
 [On motion, a Committee of Conference was appointed on 
 the part of the House, to confer with a corresponding com- 
 mittee on the part of the House of Bishops upon the subject 
 of (the amendment of the fifth article of the constitution.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance: — I understand the motion for an in- 
 definite postponement is before us. I hope that this House 
 is prepared to pass the amendment. It simply brings the 
 letter of the law into harmony with the recognized action of 
 the clergy of the Church. It saves us from the possibility 
 of conflict between the letter and practice. We all of us 
 know, by experience, that we are doing this now by suffer- 
 ance. Let us do it by full and honest recognition of the 
 right conferred upon us, or acknowledged by this House, 
 and no trouble will come out of it. I believe it will concil- 
 iate much of the divided feeling upon this subject. In my 
 opinion, it will be simply doing that which common sense 
 and common honesty require. If we look upon it in this 
 light, I believe we are prepared to vote upon it now. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gray, of Tennessee : It does seem to me that 
 this is a very important amendment to consider, and one, if 
 I understand it right, which I am not prepared to vote for 
 at all. If I understand it right, a minister of another par- 
 ish may come into my parish and may baptize in a private 
 house, and he may perform the marriage ceremony there, 
 for those whom he claiiiis as his parishioners. They may 
 be, ordinarily, but if they are in my parish for a large por- 
 tion of the year, they are my parishioners. Yet he claims 
 them as his parishioners, and follows them into my parish, 
 and then baptizes, and peribrins other ministerial rites, and 
 I have no right, at all, to interpose. Therefore I am utterly 
 opposed to this amendment, and I hope the subject will be 
 indefinitely postponed, or disposed of in some other way. 
 
 Mr. inquired where baptisms, marriages etc., 
 
 would be recorded when performed by a rector within the 
 limits of another parish? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight said that in case they were performed 
 for his own parishioners he would record them in the pariah 
 to which he belonged. 
 
 Mr. •: — -We have been told that no difficulty can 
 
 arise under this canon with the exercise of proper courtesy. 
 But this is a practical question. There are occasions con- 
 tinually arising when it will not be in the power of the cler- 
 gyman sent for to obtain the consent of the brother clergy- 
 man of the parish. It often happens that the clergyman of 
 
!01 
 
 the parish is absent, and in such cases as this, under this 
 canon, the person wishing to perform the service will lalJor 
 under considerable embarrassment as to what course to 
 pursue. This proposed iimendmeut designs simply to save 
 him from this embarrassment, and confer upon him, legally, 
 the power to do that which he has now simply the right to 
 do, by courtesy. For these reasons, I shall vote for the 
 amendment. 
 
 A Dkpoty inquired whether an amendment was in order ; 
 but the President held that an amendment was not in ordei- 
 upon a motion of indefinite postponement. 
 
 Mr. : — I have no objection to the report of the 
 
 committee as it stands substantially. I think it will remove 
 some important objections in the minds of many members 
 of this Convention, if it were freed from the implication 
 that it may be the duty of a minister or clergyman to preach 
 or read prayers in the service he is performing. It says, 
 "except the duties of preaching or reading prayers." I 
 think if these words are stricken out, it will leave it in a bet- 
 ter shape. 
 
 Mr. George S. Lacey, of Louisiana : — If these words are 
 stricken out, I am ready to withdraw my motion for an in- 
 definite postponement. My object is to prevent any thing 
 but the reading of prayers. 
 
 Rev. Dr. HiifiHT :■ — That is precisely the object of our 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. Lacey : — I think, under the reading of the amendment, 
 the service might be read in a private way without violation 
 of the canon. It is for that purpose I wish this to be laid 
 on the table, and the canon to stand as it is. If it will let a 
 minister perform simply the marriage ceremony, bury the 
 dead, and visit the sick of his parish, I can see no objection 
 to the adoption of the report ; but if it is to permit a min- 
 ister to go within the parochial limits of another minister 
 and in violation of the canonical law to read the public 
 prayers and services of the Church, I desire to take a vote 
 to give that curse the seal of condemnation on the part of 
 this Convention. 1 wish to ask the meaning of those 
 terms. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight ; — If I understand the gentleman, the 
 amendment proposed by the committee is precisely in ac- 
 cordance with his views. It does allow officiating in the 
 respects mentioned by him for a rector's own pari.shionersbut 
 does not allow him to read public prayers within the limits 
 of another parish. 
 
 Mr. Lacey : — I do not understand what is meant by a 
 public congregation. He may officiate for three or five 
 persons in a private room. If that is a public congregation 
 and if he is excluded from preaching, though in a private 
 room, I have no objection. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I suppose a public congregation is a 
 congregation assembling in a room which is open to any- 
 body who chooses to come in, whether it is composed of 
 five, or six, or eight, or nine persons. 
 
 A DEPtTTY : — As one that seconded the resolution [indefi- 
 nite postponement] I am unwilling it shoidd be withdrawn. 
 I think the amendment proposed will work trouble; we have 
 not had difficulty as it has been heretofore. The acts have 
 all been performed by courtesy. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams: — I will detain this Convention but a 
 short time. A new state of circumstances has arisen within 
 
 the last twenty years. For instance, we have large cities 
 extending endlessly, andthefaotof the matter with regard to 
 large cities is that there is a multitude of people in those 
 cities who do not reside in them — who have their city 
 liouses, say for instance in New York city, and ten, twenty, 
 thirty or forty miles out, their country houses ; they go out 
 every day ; they sleep there. These places are as it were 
 roosting places for people that have their business in 
 New York. Most of these gentlemen who go out 
 belong to city churches. Now I should like this 
 Convention to consider the effect of this canon. Here, 
 for instance, is a parish, we will say in Morrisauia, 
 outside of New York ; and there is an Episcopal 
 Church there. Under the present position of this canon 
 every person belonging to the Church that comes within its 
 limits, jjro hac vice, is a member of that church. Here for 
 instance, is St. Stephen's Church, and Trinity Church, in 
 New York, some of whose members go out there, and they 
 have a right to say, under this canon, we are members of 
 Trinity Chuj'ch, or St. Stephen's Church, New York, or any- 
 thing else ; our pastors can go out and minister except in 
 certain given exceptions. I don't see but that will make 
 endless confusion. I don't conceive that the Committee on 
 Canons intend it should do so ; but any man who has 
 been coimected with this Cliurch will see that every city 
 rector will be authorized to say to people "I am the pastor 
 except that there is a little suburban minister here of no 
 importance whatever." I say that a man who acts in the 
 spiri^ of the Gospel would not act in that way. I say the 
 majority of our clergy are honest men who have the spirit 
 of the Gospel. I would again urge upon this Convention 
 another ground of opposition. I Vjrought it before this 
 Convention the other day, that is to say, that this has been 
 the law of the Church unchanged for seventy-six years ; the 
 words the same precisely and exactly. We are now asked 
 to go in and change this canon under circumstances of very 
 great excitement. The circumstances are these: — that this 
 canon law for seventy-six years has had a trial upon it ; 
 that trial has been carried to its conclusion ; there has been 
 a court established and the sentence pronounced ; the sen- 
 tence has been executed ; and the public is very much ex- 
 cited upon it one way or the other. I urge upon this Con- 
 vention that if we touch this canon it would be simply con- 
 demning the plaintiff in that case, and an acf|uittal of him 
 who is condemned — a stidtitication of our Chmch, and the 
 condemnation of the court. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance, of Illinois: — I object to this. The 
 amendment is not retrospective. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I beg leave to say that I can carry out 
 my argument in my own way. In the mind of the great 
 public, outside of us, the effect of touching this canon will 
 be simply to reverse that judicial sentence, to condemn the 
 court, to condemn the Bishop ; and to acquit the person 
 who has been brought in guilty under it. For these reasons 
 I think that the best w.ay for this Convention is to leave that 
 canon which has been in use for seventy-six years, as it 
 stands, and then to have it clearly understood that 
 three years from now, when this excitement has passed 
 away, and men outside of the Church aud inside of the 
 Church have come to their senses; then we are willing to 
 1 consider all objections whatsoever to the present canon and 
 
102 
 
 make any alteration whatever that may seem suitable to 
 the wisdom of the Church. . But for the present we should 
 leave this canon just precisely as it stands, and make no 
 alteration in it. Whatever action may be taken upon this 
 question of indefinite postponement or whatever else, these 
 are my opinions and honestly before God I urge them upon 
 the laity and clergy of this Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : There is an amendment suggested 
 which I would be willing to accept. It will make the pro- 
 viso read thus ; "Nothing in this canon shall be understood 
 to forbid a minister of this Church from discharging all his 
 duties as such, in respect to members of his own parish who 
 may be within the parochial limits of another minister, ex- 
 cept that he shall not preach nor read prayers to any con. 
 gregation." 
 
 Mr. Lackt : — I then withdraw my motion of indefinite 
 postponement. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Dashiell: — I renew the motion for indefinite 
 postponement. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe ; — I wish to say, in reference to the re- 
 marks of the Rev. gentleman who has last addressed the 
 House, that the modification of this canon which is hereby 
 proposed, does not touch that part which it has been sup- 
 posed was violated, and which it has been ruled in this dio- 
 cese was violated in a recent case. It does not touch that 
 part at all ; it does not modify it in any one syllable. But 
 I was going to say that, inasmuch as it does refer to other 
 matters and bears upon e.'Lceptional cases in which a minis- 
 ter may officiate within the parochial bounds of another 
 minister, in so far it goes to confirm tliat which has been 
 already done. The exception confirms the rule is an old 
 adage ; and so far from clergymen following their parish- 
 ioners and claiming their parishioners, as my Rev. brother 
 from Tennessee who has spoken has alleged, it is not that 
 the clergy claim their parishioners but that the parishioners 
 claim their pastors, and that alters the case altogether. 
 There are not to be ibuud clergymen who will go to any 
 other man's parish claiming their parishioners, but there 
 are tender ties which grow up between a clergyman and 
 his people that by no accidental and temporary removal can 
 be severed. And in circumstances of sorrow and trial those 
 people will desire the presence of their Christian friend and 
 pastor, and there ought to be nothing in the canon law to 
 break up such ties or rebuke such sentiments. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs : — Other questions are raised here than 
 those having a reference to the past, with reference to 
 which I wish to say a word ; otherwise I should not open 
 my mouth. This amendment will open the door for more 
 mischief than has existed heretofore. I defy any one in 
 this House to point out any instance where the clergy of 
 other parishes have been prohibited, at any time, from vis- 
 iting their parishioners under circumstances mentioned by 
 the delegate from Pennsylvania. I defy any one to point 
 out any instance where the law of courtesy has been broken, 
 and where we have not been at all times ready to receive 
 them with open arms and extend to them all the hospitali- 
 ties and courtesies which are due from one Christian brother 
 to another. It is a law of our common nature, our com- 
 mon humanity, and one which this canon cannot give were 
 it enforced. It is already conceded ; we want no canon to 
 give us this law of courtesy. But this canon does recog- 
 
 nize what I am not willing to recognize, and what is ut- 
 terly unchurch-like — that parishioners may go from one 
 end of the country to the other, and keep up their ties with . 
 the church which they have left, instead of taking letters, 
 as they should do, of commendation, and presenting them 
 to the clergyman of the parish where they may go. There 
 should be that confidence that when parishioners go to 
 another parish, they should be commended by their pastor 
 to the confidence and care of the pastor to whose parish 
 they go; .that is Christian-like; but the passage of this 
 amendment wiU simply neutralize that sort of confidence 
 which ought to exist among the clergy. If any member of 
 my parish should go to some other parish, I would give 
 him letters of commendation, and place him in the confi- 
 dence and care of the pastor of auother parish, knowing 
 that he would look after him ; and if I should be called 
 upon to go there I should go. I maintain that is Church- 
 like and Christian ; and any canon which tends in any way 
 to interfere with this state of things is unchurch-like and 
 unchristian. Besides all that, this amendment exposes us 
 to greater dangers ; because now, if a clergyman goes down 
 and officiates publicly, we know what he does and we can 
 meet him ; but, if you sanction the going out of clergy- 
 men to hold private meetings, then he is placed, as it were, 
 beyond our reach, and you make a perfect nest of hornets 
 in the parish ; if you have any mischievous men and women 
 there, you authorize this clergyman to go down and agitate 
 with them and aggravate this mischief; and there we can- 
 not reach him. Ho is not amenable to the law. We all 
 know that at various times this thing has been tried, not 
 only among us but outside of us ; as, during the times of 
 the great rebellion in England, the Roman Catholic Priests 
 made mischief. They were sent there as missionary priests 
 just in this way. In that manner they did more than any 
 body else to subvert the throne and Church of England. 
 Honorable men will not go for the purpose of making mis- 
 chief; but if you allow mischief-making men to go into 
 parishes, and other dioceses where the people are contented, 
 to agitate and do this thing in private, you open the door 
 to more mischief than ever yet existed in the Church. 
 Why not let the canon stay as it is ? If you make this 
 amendment, you open the door to immense mischief. 
 
 Rev. William Newton : — For myself, though entirely 
 opposed to this canon as sought to be construed, I have no 
 personal grievance ; and I am thankful to say that I in part 
 represent a diocese than which I claim there is no diocese 
 more thoroughly loyal to all the canons and rubrics of the 
 Church. It will be found that the heart of the Church in 
 Ohio beats in entire and cordial loyalty to the canons and 
 rules of this Church. Therefore I desire to say that while 
 I think I am opposed to this amendment, not so far as the 
 principle is concerued, but simply as a choice of evils, I 
 would prefer to be under the present canon ; if there is to 
 be a pressure at all, I think it wiser that the pressure should 
 come unalleviated in order that we may get in the future 
 an efficient relief. For my own part I find no difficulty, if, 
 as they seem to me, the intent and the spirit and the mean- 
 ing of this canon could only be carried out. I know I am 
 speaking against the sentiment of many upon this floor. 
 But I must say that if one word should be construed in ac- 
 cordance with what I think is and has been the meaning of 
 
103 
 
 one word as used in the various canons, all the difficulties 
 would disappear from the consideration of this grave ques- 
 tion, — and that is the meaning of the word parish itself. 
 If gentlemen will turn to the canon, and the section imme- 
 diately preceding the section under consideration, they will 
 find what I understand it to be; " Every minister of this 
 t'hurch shall make out and continue as far as practicable a 
 list of all families and other persons within his cure, and it 
 shall continue for the use of his successor to be continued 
 by him," etc. The next section goes on : " No minister be- 
 longing to this Church shall officiate," etc., ending with, 
 " the parochial cure of another." If we simply adopt what 
 I understand to be a strictly legal idea, that you must ex 
 tend to the same word the same meaning entirely through 
 the canon, the word parish, according to this construction, 
 means — not the parochial limits in a certain territorial or 
 geographical space — but the cure of the souls of the con- 
 gregation within the limits. I know very well that the 
 words parochial limits are used ; and the inference is that 
 therefore the parish must take the meaning of these words, 
 parochial limits. But I understand the parish to be the 
 cure, the congregation, the church, the souls within certain 
 geographical limits. It is a jion xeguitiir that therefore a 
 parish is geographical or territorial in its construction. 
 Hence I find no difficulty whatever in this canon as it is. 
 There is another point that is pressing upon the consciences 
 of many members upon this floor, and that is that, as min- 
 isters of the Gospel of Christ, we are called upon to preach 
 that Gospel without these territorial limits ofiensively 
 urged upon us ; and that, in the discharge of the duties 
 which pertain to us as ministers of Christ — not in the dis- 
 charge of the courtesies that belong to one another that we 
 should be called upon to face the question of an inoffensive 
 intrusion — we should be left to the discharge of our duties, 
 under the higher and freer spirit, that belongs to us as min- 
 ister of the Church in communion with which we stand. 
 Therefore, it is for these reasons I feel that, if the spirit of 
 the canon were thus followed out, and if the spirit of our 
 great commission were thus followed out, there would be 
 no difficulty in the case. For that reason, I think I shall 
 vote against the amendment, in order that the pressure can 
 he made upon all our minds. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce. — I will not keep the attention of 
 the House more than two minutes. I am opposed to this 
 amendment for three reasons. In the first place, be- 
 cause the only divisions that are proper in the Church 
 of God are geoj;raphical divisions. Secondly, I am op- 
 posed to it because it strengthens a spirit of Congrega- 
 tionalism, which, in my opinion, is now the severest curse 
 that the Church is afflicted with. And, thirdly, because 
 I think that the whole canon may, as it stands, be im- 
 improved, by saying no man shall officiate contrary to 
 the prohibition of the minister, instead of requiring the 
 permission. That, I think, would be a greater improve- 
 ment, and would bring the canon into conformity with 
 what is actually now the practice. 
 
 Rev. George N. James, of Tennessee. — We are 
 told that the amendment will introduce a new precedent 
 — that the clergyman is allowed to follow up hi? parisli- 
 ioners. What effect will this have? Herejis a man in 
 
 his parish, and has half a dozen of his people away in 
 different parts of the country, and he is telegraphed to 
 to go and visit a sick parishioner. What is he to do 
 with his congi'egation at home if he is to be, every now 
 and then, with his parishioners a hundred miles away V 
 Rev. W. R. Richardson, of Texas. — I have hoped 
 very much that a certain point would be brought out 
 which I think is very objectionable in the working o' 
 this proposed amendment to the canon. 1 have looked 
 for those who are familiar with the canons of the Church 
 and with the rubrical provisions also to bring out the 
 point to which I refer. It is this. This propo.sed amend- 
 ment will allow clergymen to go into other parishes and 
 perform the rites of the Church — administer the sacra- 
 ments — which by the rubrics are intended to be publicly 
 performed. This amendment requires them to be per- 
 formed privately, otherwise makes each travelling rector 
 with a peripatetic commission a rector pro tern, of any 
 parish in which his parishioners may be visiting. And 
 he thus, if he obeys the rubrics of the Church, has to 
 take possession of the church-building to administer the 
 rites of the Church. That is a difficulty which I have 
 not heard advanced by those so well versed in the laws 
 of the Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason rose to speak, when 
 there were loud calls for the question, with reference to 
 which— 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn said : 1 for one have no desire 
 to say a word upon this amendment. My own mind is 
 clear about it; but I do claim that every member of the 
 House should have the opportunity to utter his convic- 
 tions without being gagged down by this cry for the 
 question. It is not becoming the dignity of this body. 
 We may be impatient to take the question ; I have been 
 myself; but I am unwilling, when a venerabh- member 
 rises in his place, to see such demonstrations of impa- 
 tience as these. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason. — I have a few words 
 only to offer. I am influenced by the example of our 
 blessed Redeemer, who confined Himself to His parochial 
 charge. Our blessed Saviour came as a minister to 
 preach — the minister of God. He came as Redeemer 
 of mankind. He came to be finally the King of kings 
 and Lord of lords in His human nature. While He was 
 upon the earth, and before His death. He was a minister 
 to preach to the people of Israel. He therefore would 
 go nowhere else. He says " I am not sent but unto the 
 lost sheep of the House of Israel." He sent forth His 
 apostles and disciples, and said, " Go not into the way of 
 the Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of the House 
 of Israel." When He arose from the dead He gave 
 them a general commission, confining Himself — if I may 
 dare to use th,e expression — and His chosen disciples and 
 apostles to their paroehial province to preach to the Isra- 
 elites. In my opinion a greater injury would result with 
 reference to the cause of true religion from the faction 
 and heart-burnings which are produced by any thing 
 
104 
 
 like an attempt at intrusion, than by any thing like a 
 proper restraint upon the preaching of the Gospel. 
 
 Mr. Thomas B Lawson, of Louisiana. — An assertion 
 has been made by the gentleman from Wisconsin, both 
 to-day and in his speech yesterday, which differs from 
 my memory on this matter. He asserts that this canon 
 has always received favor. My recollection, then, is en- 
 tirely at fault. That Rev. brother was a member of the 
 Convention of 1859. Does he forget, that for two days, 
 we discussed this very question, and that the great ma- 
 jority of the speakers who spoke upon this point spoke 
 against the canon, pointing out its absurdities and contra- 
 dictions ? Yet we were compelled, for want of a better, 
 I suppose, to retain the old canon. I voted, with many 
 here, for a substitute which has been read by the gentle- 
 man [Mr. Conyngham] from Pennsylvania. That sub- 
 stitute shows that the gentleman is mistaken as to the 
 facts. This canon has made more trouble in this Church 
 than any other I have known. I have never heard ot 
 any canon with which dissatisfaction has been expressed 
 more frequently than with this canon. It has a double 
 edge. One of the edges, I admit, may be sometimes 
 wisely used against intrusion ; the other edge may be 
 used for obstructing the Gospel of Christ ; and that has 
 been so used and may be used again. There are objec- 
 tions to the amendment before us ; yet I would vote for 
 the amendment for the purpose of giving my testimony 
 that 1 desire some amelioration of the canon. For the 
 same reason that I voted for the substitute in 1859, I 
 will vote tor this. That substitute was offered by a mi- 
 nority of the Committee on Canons, and showed that the 
 Committee on Canons differed very much on the expe- 
 diency of that canon. It shows that the Bishop of Penn- 
 sylvania doubted its wisdom. It shows that the President 
 of this House believed the canon unwise, and that the 
 other members of the committee took the same view. 
 The memorials presented to this House show that many 
 men have also felt that it is operating injuriously upon 
 the interests of the Church. I say that it is wise to have 
 some rule protecting the rights of presbyters ; I am will- 
 inc to have some such rule which may not at the same 
 time be used to obstruct the presbytery of the Church in 
 the work of winning souls. This amendment does not 
 satisfy me. Yet it is some rela.xation of the canon. 
 Such is its object. We should endeavor to relax where 
 we can the rigidity of this rule, and freely accord to our 
 brethren the privileges that Christian courtesy will indi- 
 cate. I desired this opportunity of recording my testi- 
 mony in opposition to the fact assumed by the gentleman 
 from Wisconsin that this canon has given constant satis- 
 faction. 
 
 Mr. : As an humble member of this Conven- 
 tion I have not troubled you with .Tny remarks since I 
 have been here, and I have listened with great interest 
 to the discussion which has been had upon this matter. 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said, I still adhere to 
 my original views with regard to it, and that is that the 
 
 canon should not be amended. Those of you who are 
 acquainted with the canon law of the Church know that 
 in the substance and almost the letter it has existed 
 since the Council of Ephesus. It has been enacted in 
 the laws of Justinian ; it is found to-daj' in every branch 
 of the Churcli Catholic ; and why this branch of the 
 Church Catholic should be chafing, and so uneasy under 
 the discipline of the Church that has come down from 
 age to age, I cannot understand. There is something in 
 this body that is aggressive against all canons. We are 
 working to break down and build up in every direction. 
 Instead of working wisely and harmoniously under the 
 canons and rules of our Church as our forefathers did, 
 we are constantly altering and changing until our canon 
 law to-day is the most singular looking specimen of 
 canon law I ever saw. It has amendment upon amend- 
 ment and condition upon condition, until you can hardly 
 tell what is the law of the Church to-day. The conse- 
 quence is that this disposition to make law, and break 
 law, and form new enactments, consumes our whole time, 
 while there are a thousand things of ten-fold more in- 
 terest to us. I cannot see why any man who holds him- 
 self to bo n jentleman should ever refuse any one who 
 wishes to come into his parish and perform any of the 
 duties of his ministry. It has been done in every age 
 of the Church ; and I conceive that any Churchman 
 who would refuse permission to perform those things 
 which the amendment proposes, is unworthy of the 
 name of gentleman. And why you should make laws 
 in the Church to force men to do that which all Chris- 
 tian men ought to do and will do, is inexplicable to my 
 mind I do think that this work is certainly unworthy 
 of men professing to stand here to represent a great 
 brand) of the Church Catholic. We are to-day stulti- 
 fying ourselves. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews: — This is an amendment offered 
 liy the deputy from Virginia. I move that the deputy 
 from Virginia as the mover of the resolution have leave 
 to speak, and that then we shall vote upon the question. 
 Rev. Dr. Norton : — I have not one word to say in 
 its defense, if it does not commend itself to the judg- 
 ment of the members of the House. 
 
 The question was then put on the indefinite postpone- 
 ment of the proposed amendment, and the vote being 
 taken resulted, yeas 122, nays 78; and so the question 
 was indefinitely postponed. 
 
 t)n motion of Judge Battle, the proposed canon on 
 the consecration of churches was made the second order 
 of the day. 
 
 On motion of Dr. Adams, a canon commonly called 
 the Hugh Davey Evans canon on marriage and divorce, 
 was referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Adams, there was referred 
 to the same committee the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, the fol- 
 lowing canon is hereby enacted : While our own col- 
 lection of hymns usually annexed to the Prayer Book 
 
105 
 
 is the hymnal of this Church, nevertheless any clergy- 
 man of this Church with the express consent of his 
 Bishop, is authorized to use as supplementary any 
 hymns in the underneath collections employed in our 
 own Church : — Hj'nms, Ancient and Modern ; Hymns 
 for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel ; 
 Hymns for the Church and Home. And this permission 
 shall be applied for in writing. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Pitkin, there was referred 
 to the Committee on Canons a memorial in favor of 
 power being granted, under certain circumstances, to 
 remit six months of probation in the case of clergymen 
 coming from other bodies. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Stubbs, a canon of similar 
 intent was referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 With reference to which memorial and canon the 
 Rev. Dr. Mead said: — The maxim which guides me in 
 this matter is that of my reverend father, now in Para- 
 dise, Bishop Brownell, whose usual expression was 
 " do not catch [fish] faster than you can cure [therti."] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Me.id, in behalf of the Committee on the 
 disagreeing of the votes of tlie two Houses in regard to 
 the creation of a commission on church-unity, submitted 
 the following report : 
 
 The Committee of Conference on the resolution of the 
 House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, passed Oct. 12, 18(i8, 
 on the subject of the restoration of Church Unity, and non- 
 concurred in by the House of Bishops, beg leave to repoi't 
 the following preaniljle and resolution, for adoption by both 
 houses of the General Convention : — • 
 
 Whereas the restoration of the unity of the Church is an 
 object of vast importance, as without restored unity it would 
 be impossible to fulfil her mission to evangelize the world ; 
 and whereas, iu the opinion of many, the signs of the times 
 clearly indicate that there is a strong and iucreasing desire 
 among the churches and in the various denominations of 
 Christians in Christendom to see such unity restored, there- 
 fore. 
 
 Resolved, That, with the concurrence of the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, a committee may be appointed 
 by the House of Bishops, from a;uong their own number, 
 who shall be an organ of communication with other branches 
 of the Church and with the dilferent Christian bodies who 
 may desire information or conference on the suiiject, the 
 said committee to be entitled " The Comnussiou of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the Uuited States of America 
 on Church Unity." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — This was agrce<l upon by the Com- 
 mittee of Conference, and a similar report has been, or 
 will be presented to the House of Bishops. I move the 
 adoption of the resolution. 
 
 Hon. S.' B. RuGci.ES : — Will the chairman of the 
 committee explain why the clergy and laity should 
 take no part in this commission ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — For the reason that, in treating 
 with other branches of the Church, they more naturally 
 recognize the Bishops as their compeers. With regard 
 to denominations in Christendom other than those who 
 are branches of the Church, they would most naturally, 
 if they wish to make any communication, communicate 
 with the head of the Church in the dioceses, or with the 
 commission appointed by the House of Bishops ; and, 
 although, in the original resolution, I desired, if it were 
 compatible with the object which was sought, that there 
 14 
 
 should be an equality among the Bishops, clergy, and 
 laity in the commission, yet, upon conference with the 
 Bishops, we became sufficiently satisfied to believe that 
 it would be better to leave the question, for the present, 
 in the care of the House of Bishops, and hf satisfied 
 with what they should do. They may not have any- 
 thing laid before them, because they are only to receive 
 applications. They are to consider them, if made, and 
 give answers, and finally report to the next General 
 Convention on the subject. They have no powei of 
 action, except the power of conference ; and, under 
 these circumstances, I move, most cordially, that the 
 House of Bishops be authorized, according to that res- 
 olution, by this House, to appoint such a committee of 
 their own body. You will bear in mind this one thing; 
 and this is a very important feature which I wish the 
 House to understand, in view of its own position and 
 self-respect. In 18.56, irrespective of any consultation 
 with this House, the House of Bishojis appointed a 
 commission of Bishops on this subject. They did not 
 recognize the House of Deputies as co-ordinate in such 
 an important matter. Here, the agreement between 
 the committees of the conference is that they shall ask 
 the House of Deputies to do that which they clainied 
 they had a right, independently of the House of Depu- 
 ties, to do in 1856. 
 
 Hon. S. B RuOGi.ES :— It is understood, then, tliat 
 they have no power of definite action without the assent 
 of the Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead: — None at all. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles: — Are we to concur in the com- 
 mittee they name ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — I presume, if this House should 
 pass that resolution, the House of Bishops will pass a 
 corresponding resolution, an<l we shall have a message 
 asking our concurrence ; and when they appoint the 
 commission, there is an end of it. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles : —Then they have the sole pow- 
 er of selection. 
 
 The resolution was adopted. 
 
 Message No. 27, from the House of Bishops, gave in- 
 formation that that House had adopted the resolutions 
 appended to the report of the joint committee on the 
 Italian Reform movement. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan: — I move that a day be fixed for 
 the consideration of this subject ; and T would also move 
 that the Kev. Mr. Langdon, who knows more about the 
 subject than any of us, be requested to address the 
 House on the subject. I make this motion because the 
 subject is vastly more iujportant than it appears at first 
 sight, and one which it is difficult to understand suffi- 
 ciently, until we have received every ray of light that 
 can be thrown upon it. I have no doubt that his re- 
 marks will be of interest to the House, and might be 
 the means of exciting greater interest in the subject. 
 I move that it be made the order of llic day for Satur- 
 day. [Which motion was agreed to.] 
 
106 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce, hj general consent, presented a me 
 morial addressed to the House of Bishops, with refer- 
 ence to the Nicene Creed ; which memorial was sijjned 
 hy ten Presbyters of the Church. He also presented 
 the same petition signed by the Right Rev. Dr. South- 
 f!;ate and others — clergymen of the Church fi'om twenty- 
 one different dioceses. He also presented a preamble 
 and resolutions upon the same subject, adopted by the 
 Diocese of Alabama. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance: — It becomes my duty to state 
 that T had a petition sent to me, precisely in the words 
 of the one just read to us, signed by about forty names. 
 It was not from the Piocese of Illinois, but from indi- 
 viduals, clergymen and laymen, who signed it in the 
 city of Chicago. It is not here, but I suppose it is prop- 
 er to state that such a petition was sent. 
 
 A Pepitv : — T hold in my hand a similar testimonial, 
 from the Diocese of Indiana. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams: — I have instructions and petitions 
 from the Diocese of Wisconsin, unanimously passed, in 
 regard to this s.anie matter. 
 
 Rov. Dr. LiTTi.E.ronN : — T must insist that the Presi- 
 dent will enforce the rule of the House which has made 
 an order of the day. 
 
 On motion, the various memorials and resolutions 
 were referred to the Committee on the Prayer-Book. 
 
 The House then resumed the consideration of the 
 order of the day — the report of the Committee on 
 Christian Education. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlkjohn : — I do not intend to say anything 
 in advocacy of the'resolutions offeredlby the Committee on 
 Christian Education ; they all relate to practical measures, 
 abo\it which I presume there will be very little difference of 
 opinion, I desire during the brief time that I may address 
 the House to speak to a matter of principle which I desire 
 to emhody in a resolution to be incorporated with thosS 
 offered by the Committee on Christian Education. 
 
 I think it must be admitted on all hands that up to this 
 time a painful contrast has obtained between our belief and 
 our practice on the whole matter of education — between 
 our practice and our principles, gathered as they are from 
 the Word of God and the example of the Church in the age 
 of her purity and of her power. About this I presume 
 there will be no disagreement in this House. First, then, I 
 hold that this Church does not expect to grow in the main, 
 by individual conversions from without, but rather by or- 
 ganic expansion and developement from within. In the 
 statement of this sound principle, I think we have the real 
 philosophy of all the Church's practical methods. I think 
 here 'lies the key to the pervading genius of the greater 
 portion of her practical work. This single principle, of nec- 
 essity, makes this Church a training and a nurturing 
 Church. And if there be one peculiarity or one claim more 
 marked than another in her work for souls, it is this; that 
 she does consciously and intelUgently undertake, from first 
 to last, to educate the Christian children into Christian men 
 and women. It is, sir, that she is unwilling to treat the at- 
 tributes and faculties of our nature except in their unsever- 
 able relations, if I may so speak, to a personal immortality. 
 
 It is that she values character more than knowledge ; that 
 she values life in the total expression of its responsibility 
 rather than in the culture, however wonderful, of any one 
 series of faculties in that nature. It is, moreover, that she 
 is unwilling to look for a single hour, with toleration upon 
 any distinction made between the food intended for the in- 
 tellect and the food intended for the conscience and the 
 will. This Church knows nothing of such a theory ; it can- 
 not be sound, in her standard nor in her Prayer-Book, nor 
 in her history. I speak now of her theory as defined and 
 embodied in her history. She is unwilling to look with 
 favor upon that false and wretched theory of the day, which 
 says to this teacher, "It is your business to take care of the 
 brain ;" and to that teacher, "It is your business to take 
 care of the heart." The two fundamental principles upon 
 which the Church is disjiosed to act in this matter, are 
 these : Firist, That every child of hers shall be treated from 
 first to last in the complete organic unity of its being. Sec- 
 ondly, That all knowledge of every sphere and of every 
 grade shall be treated in practical subordination to the soul's 
 health. 
 
 Now, sir, I presume that, in respect of these principles 
 there will be no disagreement of opinion among the mem- 
 bers of this House. Now, I beg to ask what has been our 
 practice under these principles ? We admit that we hold, 
 and that we have always held them. But what has been our 
 practice ? It is not for me to arraign those who have hith- 
 erto fa.shioned the practical work of this Church. I do not 
 desire to do it, nay, I shrink from the task of reciting the 
 indictment which I believe the unfaithfulness of our past 
 justifies. I decline utterly a criticism in this matter. 
 
 I say, notwithstanding what we have held and what we 
 have t.iught in respect to this great interest, what is the fact 
 to-day ? Simply this : Tliere is no other lack in the Church 
 to-day so great as her lack of systematic, all-pervading care 
 in the Christian nurture of the young living within her fold. 
 There is one great power which she has permitted to lie un- 
 used, and that is the power of education. There is one 
 great talent which God has given her, one that has more 
 to do with the coming ages of the Church than any other 
 which I had almost said — I hope I shall not be betrayed in- 
 to any extravagant statement in so grave a matter as this — 
 which, I had almost said, she has tied up in the napkin of 
 chronic indilTcrence, and buried in the soil of forgetfulness. 
 Look at the facts as they stand. We have, by our mission 
 ary and parochi.al work in this country, achieved conquests 
 which we have taken no pains to fortify and consolidiite 
 We have multiplied our churches, dioceses, and 'parishes 
 but — I beg careful consideration of this subject — have we in 
 any corresponding degree strengthened our corporate grasp 
 upon the future ? No, sir, we have not. In my judgment, 
 we have permitted one of the chief purposes of the Divine 
 commission of the Church to become practically olisolete 
 and an abandoned and surrendered function. Why, sir, I 
 say with profound sorrow — but I can say no less if I speak 
 what I believe to be truth in this matter — this Church, not- 
 withstanding the position which she holds, and which I have 
 just alluded to, has to-day no place of dignity or of power 
 among the educators of this land. She is doing no work in 
 this direction which inspires her friends with respect, or 
 which creates a solitary fear among her adversaries. So 
 
107 
 
 far from doing anything even in the least degree, to educate 
 the children of this laud, she has not so much as educated 
 her. own children. I beg to remind the members of this 
 House of the statistics draivn from eleven dioceses of this 
 Church, in the report submitted yesterday — the beggarly ar- 
 ray of not quite two thousand children being educated by this 
 ('hurch in the eleven states of this country ; ami if the sta- 
 tistics had been presented touching the work done in the 
 other states, I do not think tlie case would have been m;ile- 
 rially improved. Now, I hold these to be our principles ; 
 aud I hold this unfortunately, disastrously, to have been our 
 practice up to this time. Of course, there are some notice- 
 able exceptions ; they will readily occur to every member 
 of this House. Having placed our faith and practice side 
 by side, and shown how glorious the one is and how beg- 
 garly and insufficient the other is, I beg to ask, why is 
 this ? I have my own reason for it, and I shall venture to 
 give it with all diffidence in presence of so many thoughtful 
 minds. I shall speak, I trust, with becoming care in en- 
 deavoring to assign what I believe to be the reason for this 
 sad discrepancy. Is it because the people of this Church 
 have been lacking in intelligence and culture ? Is it because 
 they have ever undervalued their power, the power of in- 
 telligence and culture ? Is it because they have failed to see 
 the eounection between a living aggressive Church and au edu- 
 cating Church ■? Is it because they have been too blind to 
 discern au effect which may be read, as it were, upon the 
 very sky and all aro\md us, that tlie Church which educates 
 most, extends widest the foundations of her power and 
 holds most firmly in her grasp the generations which 
 are to come ? No, sir, it is for none of these reasons. It is 
 because — and let us speak it ; I desire to make a clean 
 breast of the nuitter ; no one is accused ; I am simply 
 speaking of what has been in my judgment our failure in 
 the past, viewed as a branch of the Church Catholic in this 
 great land — it is because we have held to theory and ab- 
 stract ideas upon this subject, when the great and pressing 
 realities of the hour have demanded action, action at our 
 hands. It is, moreover, because we have listened very 
 much to the vaguenesses, to the delusions, to the great 
 promises, to the ingenious flatteries of what is known as 
 the common Christianity of the country. Why, sir, the 
 effete, thejdemoralized, the disintegrated Puritanism of the 
 day, which has parted from every proper aud safe guaran- 
 tee of a positive faith, which is alioat itself and would put 
 everything else in religion afloat with it, has gone 
 through this land glorifying our popular education, and 
 why ? Because it was universal ; not because it was Chris- 
 tian. And, sir, the Old-World infidelity of the Continent of 
 Europe that has rolled in on us like darkening waves of a 
 darkeniug sea of an old Ufe, that has flowed in the wake of 
 that same effete Puritanism, has cried everywhere, that this 
 education is to be glorified because it is popular, and be- 
 cause it is universal, and not because it is permeated with 
 any positive christian influence. Here is where our fault 
 ias lain ; we have not had the moral courage, the back- 
 bone, to stand up at our firesides and in the pulpits and 
 protest against this, as required by every principle, in my 
 judgment, and by every hope, and by every instinct of the 
 Church of Christ. 
 Now, sir, I have stated what I believe to be our faith, and 
 
 what I know to have been our practice ; and I have under- 
 taken to give in a few words the reason why there has been 
 this fearful discrepancy between them. I know I am tread- 
 ing upon what appears to many to be delicate ground. 
 But I may not stop here without a few words more on 
 another important aspect of this questiou. There are 
 minds among us who in spite of all the facts of the age in 
 which we live and the condition of our country education- 
 ally, still seem to believe that it is.unwi.se to make any 
 strong assertion of the Church's true position on this ques- 
 tion. They hold to the principle, but they doubt the ex- 
 pediency of asserting that principle in any practical form. 
 They are averse to any apparent direct ecclesiastical influ- 
 ence — to the exercise of any such influence in the work of 
 educating the children of this laud — aud why ? I can .sym- 
 pathize with their feeling to a certain extent, and yet I be- 
 lieve it is a feeUug that ought not to be listened to, and 
 should not be allowed any practical sway in this matter. 
 They feel, judging from a great deal of experience in the 
 past, that this question of ecclesiastical influence (as it is 
 called) in education, has a narrowing and repressing influ- 
 ence. It depends entirely upon the quarter whence this in- 
 fluence com.es. It depends entirely upon the manner in 
 which this influence is exercised. It is a question of degree 
 and quaUty. We all know how Austria has but i-ecently 
 shaken off that priestly domination that so long interfered 
 with a free education in that empire. We all believe that 
 Spain amid the throes of revolution is going to do the same 
 thing. Those who are well informed upon the subject know 
 that France chafes this hour under the Jesuit's sway over 
 the education of the masses. No wonder that those coun- 
 tries and every country that has been so situated and under 
 the ecclesiastical influence of the sort which they have felt, 
 should, under the rising tide of modern liberty, reject aud 
 trample under foot that kind of influence. But I submit 
 that we are charged with an influence. We are the admin- 
 istrators and servants of the Church that will wield auotlier 
 influence than that. Why, sir, the genius and life of this 
 Church as certified by her history for three hundred years, 
 are as widely apart from Sectarianism as from Popery. May 
 I affirm what every member of this House will assent to, that 
 this Church dreads the torpor of despotism, whether spirit- 
 ual or iutellectual, as much as she dreads the anarchy of an 
 over-wrought individualism ? No, sir, it belongs to the 
 geuius and life of this Church, it is incorporated into her 
 framework, it has come to us from our fathers in the faith, 
 naturally, easily, spontaneously to make room for the de- 
 velopment of a free intelligence in every quarter, and a 
 many-sided culture. In her, the life of the individual mem- 
 ber and the fife of the whole body meet and are reconciled. 
 There is no antagonism of necessity there. I speak the 
 language of the history of this Church. I recall what she 
 has done for the English people to whom she has supplied 
 the very props and buttresses of Eugland's greatuess, be- 
 cause she has been the mistress of knowledge and the guide 
 from a fettered intellect in that land. She rejoices in and 
 loves every impulse toward aUj educated reason ; she re- 
 joices with a joy unfading over every real, not sham, ad- 
 vance of human knowledge. And she proposes to devclope, 
 to educate the individual, not by absorbing him into the or- 
 ganic life of the Church, nor on the other hand by wasting 
 
108 
 
 that organic life in the auarchy of individual impulse, but by 
 gathering up these two co-oriliuate forces which the great 
 Head of the Church intended to move on together, each 
 supplying to the other guidance, support, and vitality. 
 While she holds such pi'inciples as these, it is impossible, in 
 the nature of the case impossible, that she shall ever fetter 
 the free course of human intelligence or hinder its whole- 
 some development. If there be any great moral, if there 
 be one great fact, that looms up from the past of this 
 Church and her present, it is this, that she seeks peace and 
 order through liberty ; she seeks for jliberty through and 
 under law ; and she seeks for the foundations of law in the 
 righteousness of God as exemplified in the mission to our 
 world, of the Son of Man. 
 
 Now, sir, holding these convictions as I do, holding them 
 with an earnestness greater than I am able to express, the 
 fruit of long and deliberate conviction on this subject, I 
 venture to call upon this House not to dispose of this im- 
 portant subject, not to turn away from it, until they shall 
 have put upon record a declaration in words of suitable em- 
 phasis and .solemnity, that we bejieve that it belongs to the 
 organic and corporate work of the Church of Christ to pro- 
 mote the Clu'istian education of her children not less than 
 to promote the great work of missionary extension. The 
 two, sir, are co-ordinate. We have suffered,thus far because 
 we have attempted the latter, and we have not fortified and 
 held the position by education which we have taken by our 
 missionary zeal. I will not detain the House longer. I beg 
 to offer this resolution to be appended to those ofifered by 
 the Committee on Christian Education ; and from its nature 
 and significance, I think the proper place for it would be 
 the first in the order of those resolutions, as it does not con- 
 template any practical measure, but simply the declaration 
 of a principle — that principle to which my remarks have 
 tended. 
 
 Resolved, That this House hereby declares its conviction 
 that the Church ought to consider the Christian Education 
 of her children as a work which she is bound to promote in 
 her organic corporate capacity and, as of co-ordinate im- 
 portance with her missionary work. 
 
 Mr. : — Have we rescinded the rule that limits 
 
 U3 to ten minutes, or have we extended it ? 
 
 The President : — I was about to mention with ref- 
 erence to that point, that, after the announcement made 
 by the Rev. Dr. Littlejohn, last evening, when this sub- 
 ject was introduced, I considered that the House was 
 consenting to his occupation of the time beyond that — 
 assenting by general acquiescence in listening to the 
 able and eloquent address which he has made upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I have no sort of desire to 
 speak more than ten minutes nor do I suppose I should 
 speak so much. I have prepared no speech upon this 
 subject ; I had not expected to say a word upon it ; and 
 of course I cannot be expected, even if it were in my 
 power to make great preparation, to speak with any 
 eloquence. I propose to look at the matter simply in a 
 practical manner ; and I propose to speak upon it sim- 
 ply in a practical way. As to the resolutions which have 
 been ofiered, I agree with them so far as I understand 
 
 them. As to the last resolution offered [by the Rev. 
 Dr. Littlejohn] I see nothing to object to in them. The 
 Christian education of our children is put into the hands 
 of this Church ; we ought to attend to it ; but it seems 
 to me to be put upon extraordinary and strange grounds 
 as it is now presented. I hardly know, as it has been 
 presented to us, what is meant by Christian education. 
 I thought at one time it was presented in such a way 
 that it would include all sorts of instruction. If I under- 
 stood the gentleman, nothing could be separated from 
 Christian education — that we are to teach our children 
 Arithmetic, Geography, and the classics, and they could 
 not be separated from a Christian education. I 
 agree that it most certainly belongs to this Church 
 to give a Christian education to all our children. 
 But the position taken is that if our children want to 
 learn any trade or handicraft, they must learn it in our 
 schools — to be shoemakers, tanners, or whatever it be ; 
 and if they wish to be good lawyers, we must furnish 
 them all the means, because it is all a part of Christian 
 education. The common school system wliich is exploded 
 before us proposes to teach certain other things ; it does 
 not propose to give a Christian education. And that 
 is the iault that is found with it. It leaves out the whole 
 sphere of Christian education. God forbid I should say 
 anything against giving it to our people, — but why should 
 I come here to say anything against other people doing 
 good ? If I am not misinformed, if I am not under a 
 wrong impression, about the character and career of the 
 late venerable Bishop of Pennsylvania, Alonzo Potter, 
 he was a man who took the deepest and strongest inter- 
 est in the general education of the country ; not confin- 
 ing his whole heart and soul to what could be done 
 within the limits of his own Church. Was he wrong ? 
 If Presbyterians and all the Puritan sects are effete and 
 demoralized, yet, with all their effeteness and demoral- 
 ization we leave the whole public school system of the 
 country to them to carry on, and confine ourselves to 
 our own limits, they will get an advantage over us — 
 precisely the advantage which it has been allowed they 
 have ; for we have been told that those who educate the 
 people of the country will have the future generations ot 
 the country. And, if I understand the proposition, 
 it is to settle ourselves in hostility to, and not to take any 
 sympathy with, others. I think it is a very bad policy. 
 If that is the ground upon which it is placed, I am op- 
 posed to it. And I believe our Church is not growing 
 exclusively by simply developing itself and educating its 
 own children. I had hoped our Church might bring 
 many others into its fold from without. I find the Church 
 has made progress upon the population of the country 
 — that where twenty years ago there were one hundred . 
 communicants in this Church to ten thousand population, 
 there are now nearly one hundred and fifty to every ten 
 thousand population. We have encroached upon the 
 population. I rejoice in that progress. I would lay 
 hold of everything that would help us on in that progress. 
 
109 
 
 Let us by all means give a full Christian education to 
 every child in our Church, and I would add as lull an 
 education as we can give in every profession ; but that wc 
 are bound organically to act as a corporate body to go into 
 all this work, all the minuteness of education, I doubt. 
 At the same time let us do all we can. I doubt whether 
 we cannot do more for our Church by preaching the 
 Gospel and giving a Christian education, than we can 
 by using the same funds and energies in those other 
 fields. But let us do all we can; let us have colleges, 
 higher schools, and seminaries ; and let us, if possible, 
 surpass the colleges and schools of other denominations 
 in this country. I shall rejoice in it, and I think it will 
 be a great advantage to this Church. Ido not therefore 
 dissent from the purposes and aims of these resolutions ; 
 but, if I understand the grounds upon which they have 
 been put, I do disisent from some of those grounds. I 
 think wc are an aggressive Church, an encroaching 
 Church ; I think our grand business is preaching the 
 Gospel ; the more of all those other agencies that we can 
 command, the better. 
 
 Rev. ^X. F. Adams : — I would like to say a few words 
 upon this subject, especially upon that part which relates 
 to the education of the children of the south. It was not 
 my intention to say anything upon this or any other 
 subject that should (ome up before this Convention. 
 Thus far I have not done so. IVIy mind was only changed 
 by the report of the chairman of the committee upon the 
 subject of Christian Education, yesterday evening, and 
 the speech that followed it. Up to that time I felt more 
 than an alien and more than a foreigner in what I had 
 before believed to be the common househo.d of faith. 
 I have been suffering from that keen disappointment 
 which a man feels when he is wounded where his afi'ec- 
 tions are the strongest. If I know my own heart, they 
 are strongest in that which marks the advancement and 
 the glory of his Church. That disappointment was oc- 
 casioned by what I have seen transpiring in this council, 
 and in this country. For three years last past, I have 
 taught with all my heart, with all my mind, that the 
 Church was one, that the boundary line that inclosed 
 one part inclosed every part, that its divided waters 
 stricken asunder by no hand of man, but by the hand of 
 God Himself flowed together in one unbroken current 
 again, — that the banner of Christ went on undisputed, 
 unburdened by any shock of discord. This was my im- 
 pression, these were my feelings, and I was disappointed, 
 sir. It was my opinion that all my teaching had been 
 false, that it was a malignant, deceitful and cruel peace, 
 in which there was no reality ; and I was only shaken in 
 this conviction by the report of that committee, and by 
 the speech which was made by the gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia. Nay, not by these but by the feeling reception which 
 was accorded to the speech by this House, for I expected 
 all that from him — from a man where wisdom and elo- 
 quence and learning descend, as if by inheritance, from 
 father to son, the utmost stretch of these cannot exceed 
 
 our expectations. 1 am thankful to Almighty Cod that 
 this conviction was shaken, and that it was entirely eradi- 
 cated by the manner in which that report was received, — 
 the manner in which that speech was heard. Therefore 
 I and others here rejoice that we have been thrown back 
 into the arms of the Church, already filled with the living 
 fervor of our own teaching. If there should be any in- 
 quiry made here why I should have had these views, 
 and thoughts, I can give reasons which no one man upon 
 this floor can answer. And Ido not thus presumptuously 
 throw myself before the ability, and the Icai'ning, and 
 the age of this House trusting in ray own ability. I have 
 learned long smce where is our strength — that it is in 
 God and in His truth. I rejoiced to hear the words that 
 were spoken by the gentleman who first called for the 
 attention of this House and spoke of the duty of the 
 Church, the duty of the hour. I have listened for weeks 
 to addresses for Chinese, for Japanese, and for Canni- 
 bals in Central Africa, and for the Indians, but not one 
 woi'd, so help me God, have I heard concerning the 
 lambs of our own household, the children, the offspring 
 of the Church's own womb. Is not this enough to shake 
 our conviction in this truth ? We have heard these 
 things, and a Ijurning indignation, too profound for utter- 
 ance, has stilleii our hearts when we heard every woe 
 but our own, when we listened to that Catholic and 
 Universal charity wliich went around the whole belted 
 globe, so diflused and so attenuated that it was invisible, 
 affecting nothing anywhere, but touching ever}' place. 
 I ask you to bear with me. I am speaking what I be- 
 lieve to be true. If I speak unseemly, pardon me. But 
 just reverse the situation ; place yourself in the same 
 position ; look upon your churches burned down to the 
 ground, or marred and blackened ; look upon your altars 
 burned and desecrated ; look at your homes with their 
 desolate hearths and the weeping forms around them of 
 thqse you love ; look at those unspeakable woes and 
 griefs, and sufferings which have brought a whole Church 
 into keen and living sympathy with that great passion of 
 our Lord in His dark struggle in Gethsemane ; and then 
 imagine, if you please, the gentlemen from Virginia, 
 Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolma, asking you to 
 make speeches for the Chinese, whose stone wall two 
 centuries ago was prophetic of that stupid, isolated civil- 
 ization which has marked her among the kingdoms and 
 Empires of the world — to make speeches for the un- 
 tamed and the untamable savages of the wilderness, 
 against whom we can show ten sorrows to one — asking 
 you to make speeches for Cannibals in Central Africa, 
 to the neglect of your own children, the children of your 
 own household, those whom you are bound by the law 
 of God and by your own position to defend — and what 
 would be your answer if on such a subject you could 
 speak at all ? What would you say ? "The man that 
 taketh not care of his own household is worse than an 
 infidel," and so have we thought of you. 
 Mr. Fairbanks. — As a member of that committee 
 
110 
 
 which has brought in this report, I propose to speak of 
 the practical bearing of the first resolution, which was 
 for the purpose of raising funds for education at the 
 South. I do not propose, upon the present occasion, to 
 endeavor at all to arouse the sympathy of this House by 
 any pictures of desolation. I feel that the time of this 
 House is too precious to do more than give a practical 
 suggestion in reference to such aid as can be afforded for 
 the special object proposed by the committee. In refer- 
 ence to a country whose accumulated capital of centuries 
 has been swept out of existence, it is not necessary to 
 say that such a country is poor. The South has been 
 regarded as a wealthy country. It has, as a Church and 
 as a people, in all its relations been a part of this com- 
 mon country, and has contributed liberally to all the 
 institutions of the country. Yet the time has come when 
 we are prostrated. It is only, I hope, a temporary pros- 
 tration. It is a calamity which has overtaken us ; our 
 capital has been swept from us; we hope in time to be 
 able to accumulate a new capital. But there is a gener- 
 ation passing before your eyes ; that is the generation of 
 sons and daughters of parents who have been educated, 
 and who have now the pain of seeing their children 
 growing up around them, while they are unable to give 
 them sucli an education as they have themselves received. 
 I know nothing can be so great a calamity as that the her- 
 itage of our children should be ignorance. We may be 
 content to submit to privations, and to perform any kind 
 of labor which may be presented. But there is a thing 
 which we are not able to do — that is, to educate our 
 children. This generation is unable to educate their 
 children, and time will not wait. The boys will soon 
 pass beyond the period when they can be educated, anil 
 they will be required to take their places in society with- 
 out an education ; and the Church will sulTer largely by 
 the withdrawal of an educated class from its councils. 
 It is with that particular reference that this commission 
 has been proposed by this committee, in order to give 
 that temporary aid which is such a crying want on the 
 part of the people of the South. We come forward 
 here and make this statement — not in the way of an ap- 
 peal to you — but in the way of presenting facts upon 
 which you can draw your own conclusions. We ask 
 nothing ; we simply state these facts — facts that will ap- 
 peal to the heart of every Christian Churchman, whether 
 it is or is not his duty to remove a grievance so terrible 
 to the people of the South. The statistics have been 
 read in the report. 1 am not aware that in the southern 
 dioceses there is more than one single Church institution 
 that is carried on directly under the control of the 
 Church. There are institutions in which clergymen of 
 the Church exert a certain amount of Church influence; 
 but I know of only one Chuich institution which is un- 
 der the Church's control, and carried on under Church 
 regulations in all respects. That. I need not say, is an 
 institution with which I am connected — the University 
 of the South — which was designed before the war to 
 
 meet the wants of a higher education, but is now^organ- 
 ized on the lower ground of providing for the education 
 of boys not yet prepared to enter upon that great work. 
 Now in what way can this commission be effected ? It 
 seems to me the most effective way is through the plan 
 proposed of having a secretary connected with that com- 
 mission in each diocese, some person well known, ap- 
 pointed with the concurrence of the Bishop, who can 
 aiibrd to that commission directly, information upon the 
 question of fact as to what aid any section of the coun- 
 try can atford to give. This statement is made by one 
 Bishop. He says there are fifteen young men in his di- 
 ocese who are anxious to be educated for the ministry, 
 but who have not the means, nor has he the means. 
 One presbyter wishes to afford aid in the education of 
 a young man for the ministry. A certain school is 
 named. The young man can raise a certain sum, but 
 lacks say one hundred and fifty dollars. That amount 
 can be applied in that way, and every dollar, gentlemen, 
 will go directly for the purpose of educating some meri- 
 torious young man belonging to some family in a section 
 of the country where his influence will be enduring. In 
 former times the young men of the South were sent to 
 the Korth. It was deemed necessary to have a classical 
 and professional education. A professional education 
 was common through the whole South. But it is now 
 important that these young men sTiould be educated at 
 home, because their influence as churchmen is largely 
 enhanced at home, and also for the reason that the ex- 
 pense of coming and going would defray half the ex- 
 pense of an education at home. We can educate them 
 much more cheaply there than they can be furnished 
 with an education at the JS'orth. We can furnish a first- 
 class institution for three hundred dollars a year, and 
 cover all expenses. We cannot send our sons North to 
 be educated at the present enhanced rates ; but we can 
 educate them at home, and this commission is the only 
 practical thing that can aid us. 
 
 Rev. HiKAM W. Beeks, of Wisconsin : — In relation 
 to this matter of education in the Church, it is observed 
 here that education is the one grand form of popular influ- 
 ence that is being used on all hands for the accomplish- 
 ment of the purposes had in view. It is admitted even 
 by the gentleman from Bennsylvauia who spoke in op- 
 position to the first address on the resolution that the 
 common school system is not a Christian system. It is 
 gloried in by many of its advocates for the same reason. 
 Now, without attempting to condemn that system, with- 
 out undertaking to say aught against those who have 
 advocated and maintained it, I think we are warranted 
 and to be justified in this General Convention's 
 saying, that it does not answer our purpose — that it is a 
 system in conflict with our system — that our children 
 educated in this system are taught to disregard the sys- 
 tem of the Church in the arrangement of the Prayer 
 Book for the celebration of Divine worship, which is 
 part of the system of training the young, aad part of the 
 
Ill 
 
 system by which sponsors, parents, and rectors can re- 
 deem and fulfill their promises made before God. Ex- 
 cept for one day in seven, when children are educated 
 in the public school, at the hour of Divine service they 
 must go off in one direction ; and if the [larenta are care- 
 ful observers of the order of the Church, they start off 
 in another direction, the one to school and the other to 
 religious duties. Now, can this go on during the period 
 when the minds of children are forming their habits 
 without practically influencing the direction of their con- 
 viction and of their lives ? Universal popular education 
 in the broad sense is a grand thing — not educating the 
 sons and daughters of the wealthy and high-born alone, 
 but the sons and daughters of all the people. As long 
 as that is accepted as a fine thing and reduced to prac- 
 tice, the Church must take up the work of educating her 
 children, or the system takes up that work, and does it 
 without her in a manner that is for her disadvantage. 
 I appeal to the rectors on this floor whether they ever 
 took in their arms a little one to baptize in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and 
 listened to the obligations assumed by the sponsors with- 
 out a sad feeling that the future performance would illy 
 correspond with the breadth, the solemnity of that en- 
 gagement? And this is not so much the fault of spon- 
 sors and parents as it is our fault. If there were no 
 system of general education, our duties would be differ- 
 ent in the premises ; but this system exists, and there 
 are two grand reasons why we must adopt a system of 
 education that will correspond with the system of our 
 Church, if we would maintain our footing : the first is 
 that it is necessary for self defence, and the second is 
 that this is an aggressive Church. To save our own we 
 must do this ; and, if we would gather from those beyond 
 our fold, we must do this. I believe that the mind of 
 the Church is ready for these measures of universal edu- 
 cation. I have no doubt of it. It is perfectly surprising 
 to find what a general distrust there is in every com- 
 munity, of the popular system of the present day as re- 
 spects the morals and manners of the children, and how 
 ready they will accept any opportunity that offers a 
 better condition of things and a better result. It is not 
 sufficient. I think the indications are very plain in this 
 land, on every hand, that this is not a suihcient education 
 which addresses itself to the intellect alone. As the re- 
 sult of that system we are to-day more threatened with 
 the sublime impudence of the so-called liberalism that 
 challenges nearly everything in Revelation, and in the 
 teaching of the Church, than we are by Romanism. We 
 have as the result of this a Christ without a sacrifice, and 
 a Christianity without a sacrament, and a faith without 
 an object, as embodying the most popular form of reli- 
 gious tendency that reveals the current of the age. And 
 in place of this form of education that deals with the in- 
 tellect alone, we must inaugurate and institute a form 
 of education (as well put by the gentleman who 
 first occupied the floor on this subject) that will deal 
 with every aspect of the nature of the child, teaching it 
 
 to observe all things that Christ has commanded ; and He 
 has promised in this work, as well as in the great work 
 of preaching the Gospel, to be with us always even unto 
 the end of the world. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Tustin, of Michigan : — I wish to speak to 
 the resolution in hand, and in speaking to that T shall 
 offer a reason why we should take a vote upon that reso- 
 lution that will make my remarks pertinent. 1 propose 
 to state a reason why we should bring this resolution to 
 a vote. I suppose there is no assemldy of two hundred 
 and eighty men anywhere to be found, as on the floor of 
 this House, more intelligent or more thoughtful, who 
 might be considered as a whole a body of educated men, 
 if not technically educated, yet practically, self-educated, 
 thoughtful, deliberative men ; and no body of men 
 probably can be found who have thought moie on the 
 subject of education, or become more familiar with it 
 through the press, all the various forms of the press, 
 books, articles, pamphlets, circulars, — all means by which 
 information can be imparted. I think we are prepared 
 to state our firm convictions so well brought out and 
 stated in these resolutions. My reason for urging a vote 
 upon these resolutions is that we are now within three 
 and a half days of three weeks of deliberation in this as- 
 sembly. I take this opportunity of bringing this matter 
 to the notice and recollection of the House, and hope 
 we shall at an early moment fix the day of adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Judge Hugh Shefpey : — Amid the surging waves 
 of desolation that have swept over large portions of our 
 country within the last six or eight years, the diocese 
 which I have the honor in part to represent has been, I 
 am sure, a sufferer to an extent equal to that of any 
 portion of our afflicted country ; and I do not, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, desire to underrate the wants of my native home, 
 my beloved diocese. But, sir, I came to this Conven- 
 tion, I trust, animated by a conservative feeling and the 
 fraternal affection of a churchman of theCleneral Church. 
 I did not come here, sir, expecting to find antagonism 
 again.st me or mine. I knew that I should find extend- 
 ed to me and to those with whom I am associated, the 
 right hand of Christian and kindly fellowship ; and I am 
 profoundly gratified above all to be able to say that 
 every thing that I have seen — every manifestation of 
 spirit that t have seen developed here, has but con- 
 vinced me the more that the Church of my choice and 
 love is stronger than party, more powerful than sections. 
 [Applause]. 
 
 Mr. President, I love this Church with all the strength 
 of unutterable love. I am from Virginia, and I trust 
 that in saying that I am from Virginia, F may be per- 
 mitted to say that I but echo the sentiments of that 
 united diocese, when I say the utmost earnestne.ss of 
 her nature is concentrated in her devotion to the 
 Church. 
 
 Permit me then to say that this being the feeling of 
 those that I represent, however our wounds may be 
 gaping, and our desolations may bo thickened upon us, 
 
u^ 
 
 we still feel that you of the more favored portions of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church everywhere sympathize 
 with us, and that you do feel kindly towards us, and 
 that to the extent that God may give you the means, you 
 will, without my coming as a mendicant or a suppliant 
 to your doors, come, as generous, noble-minded Christian 
 gentlemen, and Churchmen, to the relief of the common 
 heritage from a common calamity. [Applause]. 
 
 The following resolutions were then acted upon sepa- 
 rately and adopted. 
 
 Message No. 27, was received from the House of Bish- 
 ops, asking for the returnof Message No. 15. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the next order of the 
 day, Mr. Taylor's resolution concerning alterations in 
 the Prayer Book, namely, 
 
 Jiesnlvcdy That it is inexpedient to make any alteratiuns 
 in the last standard edition of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Virginia : — I do think, sir, that the 
 Book of Common Prayer is enshrined in tiie affections 
 and memory of us all, and needs no advocacy at my 
 hands. Therefore I do not rise to make a speech nor to sup- 
 port the resolution. The resolution sufficiently explains 
 itself. If there are those in this Convention who say 
 there are defects in it, the resolution affords the oppor- 
 tunity for all such to offer their propositions upon that 
 subject, which 1 desire to meet with the antagonistic 
 resolution that the adoption of any counter-resolutions by 
 this Convention is inexpedient. I do not think that the 
 Book of Common Prayer is absolutely perfect. It is 
 the work of men, but the work of men who, I have been 
 taught to believe and feel, were almost Divinely inspir- 
 ed. In this day of novelty and love of change, this de- 
 sire to uproot all ancient institutions, I, for one, prefer 
 to stand by this Book of Common Prayer which was 
 given to us by our fathers' fathers, and I am afraid my- 
 self, and I am afraid to trust the members of this Conven- 
 tion, to make a change, and I hope therefore it will be 
 the pleasure of this body to declare that it is inexpe- 
 dient at this time to make any change in the standard 
 edition of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Judge Battle, of North Carolina : — I believe the 
 gentleman from Virginia does not exceed me in reverence 
 for the Book of Common Prayer. I am as much oppos- 
 ed to any alteration as he or any other gentleman can 
 possibly be. I had the honor of concurring with my 
 venerable friend from Maryland [Judge Chambers] in 
 opposing every proposition that was brought forward 
 for the purpose of changing the Book of Common 
 Prayer ; but still I am not entirely satisfied with the 
 policy of adopting the resolution that is offered by the 
 gentleman from Virginia. I have not heard as yet any 
 resolution, nor any motion, nor any proposition of any 
 kind, emanating from any gentleman of this Convention, 
 tending towards a change in the Book of Common 
 Prayer. Until some such indication appears in this 
 body, it seems to me that we would rather throw out to 
 the world the idea that we were afraid that the Book of 
 Common Prayer was about to be changed. It it is for 
 
 that reason^ although I concur fully in the sentiment 
 which the gentleman from Virginia entertains, that I 
 shall feel myself compelled to vote against his resolution. 
 If I thought there was any proposition, either introduc- 
 ed or about to be introduced, for the purpose against 
 which his resolution seems to be aimed, then I would 
 heartily concur with him ; but it does seem to me that 
 by adopting that resolution we publish to the world that 
 our Book of Common Prayer is about to be tampered 
 with; and for that reason I object to the resolution. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES : — We have referred to the 
 Committee on the Prayer Book a question of the greats 
 est possible magnitude concerning the very foundation 
 of our religion ; to wit, to ascertain what is our creed, 
 whether the Nicene Creed is genuine or mutilated. It 
 is a question of the greatest possible magnitude, lying 
 at the foundation of our faith — a question which agitates 
 the world, and which is the subject of proximate inter- 
 course between our Church and the great Reformed 
 Church of the East- That question has gone to a com- 
 petent committee, a question which our scholars and the- 
 ologians are very competent to consider in all its great 
 maguitude. If they should decide that the Nicene Creed 
 in the Prayer Book is not truly the Nicene Creed of 
 antiquity, sanctioned by the General Council, they will 
 give us a report to that effect, and spend the next three 
 years in collecting information upon the subject. We 
 have made a reference of that subject to the committee. 
 To pass this resolution would be very inconsistent with 
 that action. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — The gentleman from Virginia in 
 stating his point put into his remarks, though it is not in 
 his resolution, that it is inexpedient at this time. 
 
 Mr. Taylor : — All that this General Convention 
 can do will be to make a declaration for itself Any 
 resolution of this Convention will not be binding on the 
 ne.xt Convention ; itis only the action of this body. 
 
 On motion of Judge Battle, the resolution was 
 referred to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the consideration of the 
 third order of the day, Dr. Mahan's report from the 
 Committee on Canons, for the amendment of Canon XI, 
 Title 1, sections 1 and 2, so as to read as follows : 
 Canon ,17, of persons not ministers of t/ris Church, officiating 
 in. any congregation thereof. 
 
 No minister in charge of any congregaiion of this Cliurcli, 
 or, in case of vacancy or absence, no Cluneliwarden Ves- 
 trymen, or Trustees of the congregation .'^liall peiniit any 
 person to officiate therein, witljout sufficient evidence of his 
 being duly licensed or ordained to minister in this Church. 
 
 danon XI, Title I, sections 1 and 2, is hereby repealed : 
 Provided, that such repeal sliall not effect any case of a 
 violation of said canon committed before this date; but 
 such case shall be governed by the same law as if no such 
 repeal had taken place. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — I move an amendment of the first 
 section. I make the motion for the purpose of reliev- 
 ing that canon from some objections that have already 
 been made. I wish to place that section upon ground 
 
113 
 
 entirely distinct from any reference to the question of or- 
 ders outside of this Church, whether valid or invalid, per- 
 fect or iniporfect, I wish to place it simply upon the ground 
 of a police regulation for the purpose of defending our 
 standard of faith and our prescribed mode of worship. 
 We have a standard of faith, and a prescribed mode of 
 worship, and, in order that we shall secure that to all 
 our congregations, we must have control over the per- 
 sons who are to officiate ; and I wish simply to place 
 it on that ground. .As to the word olhciate, we need not 
 discuss that. I understand it to be simply this — a man 
 ofHciates when he stands forward and discharges a duty 
 in favor of the olHce he professes to hold. We have the 
 word olliciate in the eleventh canon now ; and its inter- 
 pretation as given there may be given here. I propuse 
 to amuiid this first section by striking out all after the 
 word being, and adding, suljject to the jurisdiction of 
 this Church, or of some Church in communion there- 
 with, and then to add a proviso, " provided nothing here- 
 in shall be so construed as to affect the case of lay-read- 
 ers." I am satisfied with the title as given to the can- 
 on ; but I wish the first section to read as I have pro- 
 posed. 
 
 Rev. A. A. M.\KPLE, of Pennsylvania : — Will the gen- 
 tleman accept tlie amendment, " licensed lay-readers?" 
 
 Rev. Dr. Ckani: : — I am sorry that I cannot accept 
 that ; but I think it is usual everywhere, at any rate in 
 that section of the country whfere I know anything about 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, for persons to be oc- 
 casionally called in as lay-readers, who have not a license. 
 They come in for a present emergency ; and I see 
 no reason why a respectable, intelligent man may not. 
 in an emergency, read the service in our Church ; and it 
 is perceived that no person is allowed to do that unless 
 he is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church. 
 
 Mr. CnirucniLi. : — With reference to the propo.sed 
 amendment to the aniendmcnt,I wish simply to bring for- 
 ward a difficulty that is found in an existing fact in my 
 own parish. There were several chapels connected 
 with the parish-church which were attended by the 
 minister of the church, who has recently resigned. 
 In the absence of the rector of that parish, those chap- 
 els have no one to attend to them. I have been in- 
 formed, since I have been in attendance upon the Con- 
 vention, that a layman of the parish has opened a 
 church by rendering lay service there. It would be im- 
 po.ssible, at this time, for him to have procured any li- 
 cense. It is an emergency tliat would not be provided 
 for by the canon if that were introduced. I hold that 
 it would be unwise to place so many restrictions around 
 those things. That sort of emergency cannot be pre- 
 vented. We have laymen who render most efficient 
 service, by doing much reading of this kind. I hope no 
 restriction will be placed over them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pbtbkkin, of Virginia: — I do not w-ish to 
 make a speech ; but only rise to say that I hope this 
 subject will be fully ventilated before we make a 
 15 
 
 change. I do not doubt that there are persons better 
 acquainted with it than I am, and I rise to beg them to 
 give whatever information they can in regard to the 
 origin and the practical working of the canon. Some 
 of us know that about thirty or forty years ago this 
 canon, under another number, was absolutely abrogat- 
 ed by the clerical and lay Deputies ; that the House of 
 Bishops refused concurrence with the abrogation, and 
 gave their reasons, which were very good and very sat- 
 isfactory. I would like to know whether the canon, as 
 it now stands, has wrought an}' evil in the Church, or 
 whether it has not been sufficient to cover all cases. I 
 think it is generally understood that it answers the pur- 
 poses for which it was originally enacted ; and I there- 
 fore earnestly hope that, before an}' alterations shall be 
 made, which may seem to be only verbal emendations 
 but will alter the whole canon in its spirit and intent, 
 somebody, better acquainted than I, will give some ac- 
 count of its origin. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin: — I have no objection in practice that 
 I know of to the canon, as proposed by the committee. I 
 think that this Convention has perfect power to pass such 
 a canon. It is perfectly right for the memorialists to ask 
 for the abrogation of the old canon. They sought, perhaps, 
 something different from this, but it is for the Convention 
 to say what el.sc they will suljstitute for the old canon. It 
 is perfectly clear, to my mind, that this Convention could 
 not alter the doctrine of the Church. As far as regards the 
 doctrine with respect to the ministry of the Church, that 
 is contained in the articles ; and we cannot alter the .articles, 
 nor any part of them, witliont t.aking tlirco years. And an 
 interpretation of any of the articles would be, to all intents 
 and purposes, au alteration of the doctrine of the Church. 
 But I do not understand that the proposition of the com- 
 mittee, or the proposed amendment, interferes with the 
 doctrines of the Church with regard to the ministry. 
 This is a police regulation of a practical matter. We are to 
 look at it as a practical matter. I have no wish, as a cler- 
 gyman of this Church, to depart, in practice, from either of 
 the methods here propo.sed. If any body else has a desire 
 to depart, the Convention has a right to check him. But 
 I claim the right to hold and believe that the Presbyterian 
 Churcli of Scotland is a true Church of Christ, and that the 
 Cliurch of Kome is a true Communion of Christ, though 
 corrupt. So may the Greek Church be a true Church of 
 Christ, though irregularly organized. So with regard to 
 the ministry, it is perfectly competent for this Church to 
 keep irregularly ordained ministers from her borders. This 
 is entirely for tlie ministry of this Church. I should still 
 hold myself at perfect liberty to maintain, until the articles 
 of this Church are altered or dillereutly interpreted by 
 proper authority, the same opinion 1 have always held. I 
 hold that the canon docs not teach that doctrine at all ; 
 and if it did, it would be void, because we cannot interpret 
 the doctrine of this Church by a canon. I am pleased with 
 one thing that has happened. I have sometimes referred 
 to iKsages .IS authority in this Church, when canons seemed 
 to touch absurdities. 1 have been taught by the Committee on 
 Canons, in regard to even a constitutional matter, that u.sage 
 will overrule the constitution ; that where the constitution 
 
114 
 
 has not allowed a thing to be done, they say it may be done 
 because usage has settled that it may be done, in other 
 cases. In regard to lay-readers, it is not, perhaps, under- 
 stood by many that our canons do not require any lay- 
 readers to be licensed, except candidates for orders. I 
 therefore object to the word licensed being introduced. 
 Although we may refer to usage when laws exist, when we 
 are legislating, we ought to provide for exactly what we 
 mean. If we do not mean to include lay-readers, let us 
 say so. 
 
 Mr. : — There is one point thM has been 
 
 overlooked. The canon, as it now stands, does not prevent 
 the vestry or clergyman from loaning the church to another 
 congregation; but, I understand, the new canon, as now 
 read, does prevent the minister or vestry from loaning the 
 church. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Marple : — The reverend gentleman [Dr. Good- 
 win] has told us that no lay-readers are under restraint, 
 except those seeking orders. It is on that account that I 
 desired the honorable gentleman from Rhode Island to in- 
 corporate the word "licensed." The lay-readers are under 
 no authority, whatever. It touches precisely the case of 
 the gentleman who spoke of a parish that had been desti- 
 tute of a pastor for a loug time. I think that it is all im- 
 portant that lay-readers should be hcensed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Aoams : — I have a few remarks to make to this 
 Convention in reference to this matter. In the first place, 
 I will say that we have one great deficiency — Hugh Davey 
 Evans is dead, and our greatest canonist, Murray HoSinan, 
 who ought to be on the Committee on Canons, is not here. 
 I will say that I think there is a point which, if Evans or 
 Murray HoS'man were here, would be brought out to this 
 Convention, and which will settle the thing, if this Conven- 
 tion will take it into account. I would call the attention of 
 the Convention to the fact that ecclesiastical canons ought 
 to be interpreted ecclesiastically. If you have a legal word 
 you interpret it legally ; if you have an ecclesiastical word 
 you interpret it ecclesiastically. Now, I do not profess any 
 peculiar knowledge in this matter of canonical lore. I pro- 
 fess to know one little thing, that is, that the word person 
 is an ecclesiastical word. It means a man who professes to 
 be a clergyman ; and I think that point comes in here dis- 
 tinctly, that the word person is an ecclesiastical word, that 
 it distinctly says, in ecclesiastical phrase, " no man that 
 claims to be a clergyman in any shape or form has a right 
 to come into any church or congregation of this Church 
 and officiate in it, except he has shown satisfactory evidence 
 that he is a persona of our Church." I think the canon 
 expressly says with regard to any one whatsoever who pro- 
 fesses to be a clergyman, a persona, a person in ecclesiasti- 
 cal phrase, that he is not to officiate except he has produced 
 evidence that he is a minister of our Church, and that he 
 has produced this evidence to the priest in charge, or, in 
 case of vacancy or absence, to the church-wardens, vestry, 
 or trustees of the same. That is the meaning of the canon, 
 I assert, ecclesiastically. There is another matter that will 
 strengthen this view, that is to say, the word officiate, 
 means to act as an officer in virtue of his office, to perform 
 the official acts of another. That is the definition of Web- 
 ster. This canon expressly declares that it is impossible for 
 clergymen professing to be clergymen of any other denom- 
 
 ination or Church, to officiate in any church belonging to 
 tills Church, except they have produced evidence that they 
 are minister.s of our Church. But I will admit very clearly 
 and candidly that the word person has changed its mean- 
 ing, and that, in the apprehension of a good many, it signi- 
 fies anybody whatsoever — it signifies an individual; and 
 therefore it is understood by us that no individual, clerical 
 or lay, shall be permitted to do so and so ; and in reference 
 to this we have a matter introduced about lay-readers, not 
 for the sake of any reality about the thing, but for the sake 
 of taking the canon up and destroying it. Now, I think 
 that the Connnittee on Canons, if Murray Hoffman were 
 among them [laughter], would have introduced this point 
 that I have noticed. I believe there are men as able as 
 Murray Hoffinan, as intellectual as Murray Hoffman, but in 
 his way 1 understand as a canonist there is no man so great 
 in the Church [voices : — State the point again ; we don't 
 hear. Rev. Dr. Adams, speaking louder: — ] The point 
 has been stated clearly. I will make the gentlemen hear 
 before I am done. I would say that this word pemona is 
 an ecclesiastical word, which moans a clergyman in the ec- 
 clesiastical use, and which means so undoubtedly in the 
 phrase in this canon. If we had such a man as Murray 
 Hoffman in this House or on that committeCj that matter 
 would have been understood. I would say that this word, 
 persona, or person, has perhaps in the ordinary sense 
 changed its meaning, and that it means an individual ; and 
 that therefore very good honest men in the Church are in- 
 cHned to read the canon as meaning "no individual shall 
 be permitted to officiate." I think that would be changing 
 the meaning of the canon by a word having lost its use. 
 I think that the best way with regard to any canon whatso- 
 ever, is not to make such extensive alterations as the Com- 
 mittee on Canons have made upon this point, but simply to 
 bring out the intent, exactly that which has been under- 
 stood at all times to be the meaning of the canon, and that 
 can be done by a simple alteration which I shall propose as 
 an amendment. Now I would say a little with reference to 
 this matter of lay-readers ; and the question comes in upon 
 that ground that person means anybody. I thinli the mat- 
 ter of lay-readers may be laid aside, and that the proper 
 method is not to bring it in with reference to this matter, 
 but to make it the subject of special enactment, putting 
 them under laws and rules which are righteous and just, 
 but not by enactment bring them into a cauon which has 
 reference to the clergy. That is a sufficient answer to 
 everything that is said with reference to lay-readers. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall — made a motion that on Tuesday, after 
 rehgious services, the House should adjourn sine die; which 
 motion was not acted upon, the hour of adjournment hav- 
 ing arrived. 
 
 FIFTEENTH DAY'S PKOCEEDINGS. 
 
 Friday, Oct. 23, 1868. 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Morning Prayer was .said by the Rev. J. S. Hanckel 
 of South Carolina, and the Rev. Dr. Crane of Missis- 
 sippi. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by the Bishop of 
 Wisconsin. 
 
115 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 On motion of a Deputy from Vermont, a committee 
 of two was appointed to confer with the House of Bish- 
 ops with regard to the time of adjournment. 
 
 On motion, the time of sessions was fixed from 9 to 4, 
 without recess. 
 
 Mr. Cornwalrs resolution, the House of Bishops con- 
 curring, tliat this House adjourn on Tuesday next was 
 agreed to, and was referred to the Committee on ad- 
 journment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — presented a report from the Com- 
 mittee on Canons, with reference to message No. 19, 
 from the House of Bishops, proposing an amendment 
 of article 3 of the Constitution, by the omission of the 
 following words: "in all cases the House of Bishops 
 shall signify to the Convention their approbation or dis- 
 approbation, the latter with reasons in writing, within 
 three days." 
 
 The Committee reported a resolution of non-concur- 
 rence with said proposed amendment, for the reason 
 that it was deemed inexpedient. Dr. Haight remarked 
 that the effect of the adoption of the amendment pro- 
 posed by the Bishops would be to relieve the House of 
 Bishops from an obligation to signify to this House their 
 approbation or disapprobation within three days, as the 
 custom has been for a long time. The committee are 
 of the opinion that in the present state of the two Houses, 
 the House of Bishops sitting with closed doors and this 
 with open doors, it would be almost impossible to ascer- 
 tain what is going on in that House, if this amendment 
 were adopted. It is therefore expedient not to annul 
 this provision. The reported resolution of the com- 
 mittee was then adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, from the Committee on Canons, 
 made report No. 3, with reference to message No. 16 
 from the House of Bishops proposing an amendment in 
 section 16, Canon ^3, Title I., to the effect that consulta- 
 tions of the bishops with reference to the resignation of a 
 bishop should hereafter be bj' correspondence. Consid- 
 ering the importance of the business, the committee 
 were of the opinion that it was not expedient to concur 
 in said amendment, and for the reason that, in all im- 
 portant matters, it is expedient that the bishops should 
 not act separately but should meet for mutual consulta- 
 tion and deliberation. The report of the committee 
 was adopted. 
 
 Mr. , from the special Joint Committee on 
 
 the republication of the early journals of the Conven- 
 tion, reported that there had been up to a recent date 
 the same general apathy with respect to their work ex- 
 isting throughout the Church, hindering the early suc- 
 cess of their labors ; that there had not been found a 
 publisher willing to undertake the publication of the 
 second volume ; that the stereotype plates of the early 
 journals of the Convention had been purchased by one 
 of the committee at a cost of $250. The committee 
 
 reported resolutions (which were adopted) to the effect 
 that the secretary of the House be authorized to make 
 the purchase of the stereotype plates of the early jour- 
 nals of the Convention at a cost not to exceed $250 ; 
 that the Committee on republication be continued as 
 now constituted, with the power to enlarge its numbers. 
 
 A communication was received from the registrar of 
 the Convention inquiring as to the extent of his powers 
 with reference to seemingly conflicting provisions of 
 one of the canons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn, from the Domestic and For- 
 eign Missionary Society, and acting jointly under the 
 direction of the House, reported the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that an 
 amendment be made to article 4 of the Constitution of 
 the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of this 
 Church, so that it shall hereafter read as follows : " To 
 the Board of Missions shall be entrusted the considera- 
 tion of the practical work of the Church, and the super- 
 vision of its general Missionary operations, with power 
 to establish Missionary stations, appoint missionaries, 
 make appropriations of money therefor, and regulate the 
 conducting of Missions, fill any vacancies in their num- 
 ber which may occur, and also to enact all by-laws which 
 they may deem necessary for their own government and 
 the government of their committee. Provided, always, 
 that in relation to organized dioceses having bishops, the 
 Board shall regulate the number of missionary stations, 
 and with the consent of the bishop shall select the sta- 
 tions. 
 
 " The Bishop and Standing Committee of each diocese 
 may appoint substitutes from the same diocese for such 
 members of the Board as may be unable to attend its 
 meetings." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — There are but two changes 
 proposed by this amendment in the article. Those 
 changes are, first, to insert after the words "Board 
 of Missions shall be entrusted," the words " the prac- 
 tical work of the Church ;" secondly, the Bishop and 
 the standing committee of each diocese may appiont 
 substitutes from the same diocese for such members ol 
 the board as may be unable to attend these meetings. 
 The changes proposed in this amendment have been 
 agreed to unanimously by the Joint Committee, con- 
 sisting of the Committee on Canons, and the Domestic 
 and Foreign Missionary Society. The proposed amend- 
 ment was adopted. 
 
 The Pres't — announced as the Committee on adjourn 
 ment; Rev. Mr. Bliss, of Vermont, and Mr. Cornwall, 
 of Kentucky. 
 
 Dr. Shattuck, from the Committee on Clerical sup- 
 port, reported resolutions which with various accepted 
 amendments, are as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, it is a solemn 
 and urgent duty of each and all of the lay members of tin- 
 Church to make systematic and constant etforts for the bel- 
 ter maintenance of the clergy and of their families. 
 
 Resolved, That this House approves of and recommends 
 the estabUshment of incorporated societies for the relief of 
 the widows and orphans of deceased clergymen, as well as 
 of those clergymen who are disabled by age or infirmity. 
 
116 
 
 and tliat in tliis or some otlier way, each parish should be 
 making prorisiou tor its own clergy. 
 
 Hcxu/.Ked, Tliat the lay-members of this House recommend 
 that alter due notice a collection be made annually during 
 the seasons of Advent, Christnuis, or Epipliany in erery par- 
 ish, and that one-half the sum thus gathered shall be ajipro- 
 priated by the wardens and vestrymen in some way towards 
 the liciter maintenance of the clergy of the parish or dio- 
 cese, and the other half shall be sent to the Treasurer of the 
 Board of Domestic Missions, to be by them distriljuted 
 amongst the clergy of the Southern and Missionary Dioces- 
 es ol the Church. 
 
 A'fio/iicd, That the Comndttee on Aid to the Clergy be 
 directed to confer with the Bishops and clergy of this city 
 and vicitiity, and to ask that measures may be taken so that 
 the attention of the people be called to the pliysical and 
 spiritual destitution in the Southern Dioceses, and, that col- 
 lections be made on Sunday next. 
 
 Jicxoli'ed, Tliat the House of Bishops be respectfully re- 
 quested to present prominently in a Pastoral Letter', the 
 suffering and wants of the clergy of this Church in many por- 
 tions of our country, and the vital nepessity of prompt 
 and ethcient relief. 
 
 Jiesolvcd, Tliat a conmiittee of one from each diocese be 
 appointed by the President, and it shall be the duty of each 
 one to call the attention of the brethren in his diocese to 
 this important matter and to the measures recommended by 
 this House. 
 
 J. W. Van NosTRANn. 
 Charlpjs Breck. 
 Gkorge C. Shattuck. 
 Samukl B. Ruggles. 
 
 The resolutions were then adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare— offered a resolution to the effect 
 that the action of' the House making the Provincial sys- 
 tem the order of the day for this day, be rescinded, and 
 that the same subject be the order of the day for Mon- 
 day next, with the view of having printed the proposed 
 canons in relation to that subject. 
 
 Attention was called to page 141 ol the Journal of 
 1855, to the message from the House of Bishops, inform- 
 ing the House of clerical and lay deputies that the for- 
 mer House had non-concurred witli the latter in the 
 adoption of the canon for a Federate Council, for the 
 reason that it was too late in the session for the due 
 consideration of the subject. It was to be feared that 
 the same message upon that subject will be sent back to 
 this House if action is now delayed. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Hare — accepted the suggestion that the 
 subject be made the order of the day to-morrow at 1 2 
 o'clock. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe — hoped that the canon reported from 
 the Committee on Canons would be included with the 
 canons reported by the Special Committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare :— I took it for granted that it was 
 included. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — I move that the order of the day 
 for to-morrow, be the reports upon a Federate Council 
 and the Provincial System. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchahky : — Is it fair to so word the reso- 
 lutions as to allow the canon reported by the Commit- 
 tee on Canons to take precedence ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — I think it is fair, entirely fair, 
 ;ind nothing else will be fair. This Committee on Can- 
 ins has brought in a canon upon the Federate Councils. 
 
 They reported it in the ordinary course of proceedings, in 
 the morning, and did not develope it by a single word ; 
 and when the committee were unaware, their canon was 
 referred to the Special Committee It is due to the 
 Committee on Canons that they should have the oppor- 
 tunity to present to this House their own ideas, as con- 
 nected with their own proposals. We do not care in 
 which order the canons are taken up ; we can move to 
 divide in either case. But the two things are two sub- 
 stantive propositions, brought in by two separate com- 
 mittees ; and the Committee on Canons brought theirs in 
 fii'st, and never had the opportunity fairly to develope 
 its merits before this House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchahey : — I am sure the gentleman 
 will say, on 'a moment's reflection, that that will nee- 
 essaril3r introduce the discussion of the whole sub- 
 ject. The first canon proposed by them must nec- 
 essarily be taken into consideration in connection with 
 the canon proposed by the Committee on Canons, be- 
 cause the simple question before us in considering that 
 canon is, which of its two forms will the House prefer. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I care not how the matter is 
 arranged. But I claim in behalf of the diocese which 
 I in part represent, and of the Diocese of Western New 
 York, that this matter which has received their most 
 earnest consideration, and which they have presented 
 to this House in the form of a memorial and in the form 
 of a canon, should come squarely before this House, and 
 not be mixed up with other schemes. Five dioceses come 
 here and ask for relief upon a specific point. They ask 
 you and implore you to pass something like the proposed 
 canon, to give them the relief which they need. I claim 
 it is not fair to take that canon and mix it up with 
 another canon, and bring this matter before the House 
 in that entangled way. 
 
 Hon. S. ^B. Ruggles : — I beg to second the remarks 
 of myjcolleague with all m}' heart, and I take this mode 
 and opportunity of making it distinctly understood that 
 I am entirely in favor of a Federate Council as propos- 
 ed in the last Convention of our diocese, and as reported 
 by the Committee on Canons, a Federate Council with 
 strictly limited powers. I therefore hope the discussion 
 of that matter will be separated from the other ; for, 
 if they are confused together, both may fail ; one 
 ought to pass, perhaps both, but especially that for a 
 Federate (Council, provided it does not contain within it- 
 self the features of a synod. 
 
 Rev. Ur. Mead: — The dioceses presenting these me- 
 morials have a right to be heard upon the matter pre- 
 sented by this House. Under these circumstances, why 
 shoulil we be compelled to go into this log-rolling sys- 
 tem of endeavoring with a practical thing, to crowd in 
 upon us a theoretical thing? In the name of the Com- 
 mittee on Canons and of the Dioceses of New if ork and 
 Western New York, I protest against this attempt to 
 take up from the table of this House that which we have 
 reported when referred to us by the House, to mingle 
 
117 
 
 it with another action which, to a great degree, is irrel- 
 evant. I ho()e that it will be taken up upon its merits, 
 and no attempt be made to drag the Committee on Can- 
 ons into a log-rolling business. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight : — I move to take up immediately 
 the canon reported by the Committee on Canons, on 
 Federate Councils. 
 
 Which motion was agreed to. 
 
 Kev. Dr. MuLCHAUEY : — Has the order of the day [the 
 consideration of the canon reported by the Special Com- 
 mittee, on the Provincial System] been rescinded ? 
 
 The President : — That rescinds the order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — It will be observed by these who 
 will recur to the journal of the last General Convention 
 that a canon almost identical in terms to this canon now 
 proposed was adopted by a large majority of this House, 
 sent up to the House of Bishops, and non-concurred in 
 by them for the reason that it was too late in the session 
 to take into consideration so grave a subject. That 
 canon has been accepted by this House and has been 
 since adopted or recommended to attention by the Dio- 
 cese of New York, and it is upon the memorial of the 
 Dioceses of New York, Western New York, and of Mary- 
 land that the subject Wcis intrusted to the Committee on 
 Canons, of which this draft of the canon is the result. It 
 was felt that it was necessary that it should be distinctly 
 understood what are the powers that shall be exercised 
 by these federate Councils, because they might on the 
 one hand trench upon the legislative powers of the Gen- 
 eral Convention of the Church, or they might on the 
 other supersede somewhat the present, and, as we con- 
 ceive, essential functions of the Diocesan Convention. 
 It was therefore esteemed necessary that the Church in 
 General Convention assembled, should know what is 
 proposed to be done by this body intermediate as regards 
 tlie Diocesan and the General Convention. That, as 
 you will observe, is provided for in this draft of the can- 
 on now befora you. 
 
 Here were received from the House of Bishops several 
 messages : — 
 
 No. 15, (vrrongly numbered) Notifying that they had 
 adopted a resolution repealing the last clause of Section 
 1, Canon 10, Title 1, the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies concurring. 
 
 No. 21), Notifying that the House of Bishops had 
 adopted a resolution continuing the joint coinniitteo on 
 the Italian Reform Movement. 
 
 No. 30, Notifying that the House of Bishops had 
 adopted a resolution, the House of Clerical and Lay 
 Deputies concurring, that the vacancy in the office of 
 Historiographer of tlie Protestant Episcopal Church, 
 occa,sioncd by the death of the lamented Francis L. 
 Hawks, LL. I)., be filled by the appointment of Kev. 
 Wm. Stevens Perry (Secretary of the House). 
 
 No. 31, Notifying that the House of Bishops had 
 concurred in the resolution communicated to them in 
 the message No. 27 from this House (amending the 
 third section of Canon 1), Title 2), so as to read "the 
 presiding bishop" instead of "presiding bishop of this 
 Church." 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Howe (resuming) : — I was proceeding 
 
 to say that in the original text of this canon as present- 
 ed to the House by the standing committee it is simply 
 interdicted that any such federate council or convention 
 before the next General Convention, take any determi- 
 nate action upon any subject whatever. It was felt that 
 it was necessary (in as much as it had been the princi- 
 pal motive in the Diocese of Pennsylvania three years 
 ago for asking for the creation of such a federate council 
 or convention) — it was felt that it might be necessary, 
 on the separation of a great diocese where there were 
 already fiduciary endowments in the hands of the con- 
 vention, that there should be some joint action upon 
 them, that there'should be matters of legislative enact- 
 ments which concerned the general interests of the 
 Church in a State, on which the convention should have 
 the power to consult, and which it would be very im- 
 portant to complete before the session of the next Gen- 
 eral Convention. To meet, therefore, such an exigency, 
 it was provided that, while (as it was said in the first 
 part of the canon) no determinate action shall be had 
 by such federate convention or council, but the powers 
 proposed to be exercised thereby are to be submitted 
 to the next General Convention for its approval, yet 
 that nothing in this canon shall be construed as forbid- 
 ding any federate convention or council from taking 
 such action as they may deem necessary to secure such 
 legislative enactments as the common interests of the 
 Church in a State may require. It was felt that even 
 this little change in our organic condition is somewhat 
 experimental, that it is launched out in a new direction ; 
 and with tlie customary prudence of tliis Church, the 
 conservative spirit by which it has always been per- 
 vaded, it was thought important that we should careful- 
 ly experiment, and, as we come to grave conclusions 
 adopt them in the form of fixed law. It was felt that 
 probably in the e.arly coming history of this Church it 
 may be needful to go into the organization of a provin- 
 cial synod, or of what is sometimes called the provincial 
 system, and that this association of dioceses in one State 
 with these limited powers might be regarded as an ex- 
 periment somewhat in that direction answering the 
 principal exigencies of the Church, and preparing us 
 for sucli further advance as future necessities and de- 
 mands may require. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight : — I desire that this House may under- 
 stand that this matter comes before them at this time not 
 upon the motion of any infUviduiU meniber of this House, 
 or of a eoimnitteo of this House, but it conies before them 
 upon the memorials of those three diocese.'*, emhrauing, I 
 suppose, at least one fourtti part of all the clergy and of all 
 the parishes of this Church. It comes before them in a me- 
 morial or memorials which express their deni)erate judg- 
 ment upon a siilyeet wliieli they feel to be closely identilied 
 with their interests now and tlieir pioRress hereafter. It is 
 my privilege and honor to stand bel'oie you as one of the 
 De]iutics from the Diocese of New York, who arc instructed 
 to present their memorial upon this .sulijeet. And I desire 
 to read a very brief extract from the report of the commit- 
 
118 
 
 tee, charged with the preparation of a memorial on this 
 subject, to this House, as containing some views which 
 were considered important by my own diocese, and which, I 
 trust, will not be considered unimportant by the members 
 of this Convention. [Rev. Dr. Haight then read from the 
 memorial, which set forth the necessity of combined action 
 on the part of the several dioceses into which the original 
 Diocese of the State of New York had been divided, as to 
 tneir common interests in the work of Christian education, 
 and missions within its borders, and their common interests 
 in reference to the property of the Church.] That this 
 was the view taken of this subject by the Convention of the 
 Diocese of New York, is shown by the plan which they 
 adopted, and by the terms of the memorial which they or- 
 dered to be presented to this House. It is no paper scheme 
 which the Diocese of New York and its sister dioceses offer 
 you. It is no plan conceived in the brain of some recluse 
 student, looking back to the records of the past and specu- 
 lating upon the future history of the Church. It is a prac- 
 tical measure, based upon what we conceived to be the real 
 wants of our diocese and the integral portions of this 
 Church ; and it is in this light that I hope this Convention 
 will view the matter. We ask for the passage of a canon 
 in precisely the same terms as passed by the lower House of 
 the General Couveutioa. We were satisfied to take that, 
 because it simply grants the express permission to represent- 
 atives of the five dioceses of the State of New York to look 
 each other in the face and ask what our common wants 
 are, and how they should be provided for. All matters of 
 detail were expressly e.xcluded ; and I hope this Convention 
 will not enter into the task in details. It is not proposed 
 by this canon to allow the Federate Council of the State of 
 New York to create a constitution and to enact any funda- 
 mental laws regarding their future actions until that shall be 
 passed upon by this House. We proposed to hold a prima- 
 ry council. In that primary council we shall consider this 
 subject, and adopt certain fundamental principles, and, per 
 haps, a constitution. When that is done, it comes up to 
 this House, and if this General Convention finds anythiug in 
 that constitution or those fundamental rules at variance with 
 the true spirit of this Church, at variance with the true idea 
 of this House, or the other House of the General Conven- 
 tion, of course they will strike it out. The only saving 
 clause is that, in the mean time, we may act together in re- 
 gard to matters of common interest, which bring us into 
 contact with the State Legislature. I know not how it may 
 strike gentlemen from other States, but I do say that this 
 matter of the relation of the Church with the State is of a 
 very intimate and critical nature ; as, for example, we hold 
 all our Church property in the State of Now York under 
 acts of incorporation, passed by the legislature. Those acts 
 are changeable, at the will of the legislature. Who can 
 tell, in the coming five or ten years, what may be the char- 
 acter of the legislature of the State of New York ? I think, 
 for one, the character of our State legislature, generally, is 
 not improving. I do not think that the tone of morality 
 and the tone of religion, if you can call it religion, at our 
 seats of government is at all improving. Who can tell 
 what efforts may be made to crowd upon the Church, in the 
 laws of the State, something she does not want, and some- 
 thing which the Church may feel is striking at the root of 
 
 her liberties and power ? Every gentleman knows perfectly 
 well that no ecclesiastical court is allowed to proceed to the 
 end of its duties, if the respondent chooses to invoke the 
 interference of the civil authorities, without that civil au- 
 thority interfering. In one case we had ten injunctions 
 served upon us by the court. It is very true that it is a 
 settled principle that the State will not interfere further 
 than to see that the ecclesiastical proceedings are in accord- 
 ance with your own laws ; but it is a small step from the 
 present platform to another, which shall decide that the 
 State shall look into the ground of the laws and decide 
 whether or not they are conformable to their notions. I 
 dreaded the idea of the Church of New York being divided 
 into five separate portions, and left without any bond of 
 union by which it can approach the legislature of the State 
 of New York as one body, and ask that legislature to con- 
 sider, carefully, before presuming to interfere with what, if 
 not vested rights, are dear to us. If there were no other 
 ground than this, I should be much in favor of the passage 
 of this canon, and should urge it with all my heart. But 
 when we look at the subject of Christian education, and 
 how the strength of the Church is frittered away in respect 
 of united action as to educatiou, we feel that it is of great 
 importance that we of the State of New York should be en- 
 abled to associate together with regard to this subject and 
 also with regard to the subject of missions. In the north- 
 ern part of this State there lies an important part of the 
 country which mu.st, for a long time to come, be missionary 
 ground, the missionary work in which ought to be contrib- 
 uted to by all the dioceses of the State. With the expres- 
 sion of these views, I shall not detain the House longer. I 
 implore the House not to refuse to grant the prayer of this 
 memorial, unless they may be impelled to do so by consid- 
 erations of the highest importance. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mulchahet : — I should be sorry to be under- 
 stood for one moment as assenting to all tluit the reverend 
 gentleman who has just taken his seat has said. I learn 
 that the Secretary has just heard from the printer, and that 
 the canons [proposed by the special conuuittee on the pro- 
 vincial system] which had been placed iu the hands of the 
 printer are expected every moment, and I do think it is im- 
 portant that we should have the canon in print. The can- 
 on, as amended, will be before the House in a few minutes ; 
 and I desire that the canon proposed by the special commit- 
 tee should be considered at the same time, ;ind, I hope, 
 adopted (for he would be a monstrous father who would 
 not have some preference for his own oflsprinj;), I desire 
 to call the attention of the House to the history of this mat- 
 ter for a few moments. It comes before us now by memo- 
 rials from three dioceses. It came before the last General 
 Convention, it will be remembered, by a. memorial from 
 the Diocese of New York ; and in that memorial there was 
 embodied this resolution : — 
 
 Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention that a 
 Provincial System, adapted to the present position of the 
 Church iu this country, should be established. It therefore 
 prays the General Convention to make provision for the or- 
 ganization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States into provinces. 
 
 That resolution passed the convention of the Diocese of 
 New York before the last General Convention; and the 
 matter was brouglit into the General Conventiou by the me- 
 
119 
 
 niorial embotlyiug that resolution of the diocese. The mat 
 ter was referred to the Committee on Cauous, and by them 
 reported unfavorably in the House. Subsequent to that, a 
 resolution was introduced by Dr. Clarkson, now the Bishop 
 of Nebraska, containing a general Provincial system, sub- 
 stantially the same as the lesolutions afterward submitted 
 by the special committee, reported to this House. That 
 canon was referred to a special committee of thirteen, 
 which special committee of thirteen eminent, preeminent 
 indeed, lor its learning and abiHty, reported a general canon. 
 The general canon passed the House, was sent up to the 
 House of Bishops, and by them sent back, with a message 
 that it was too late in the session to consider so important 
 a subject. The last General Convention had been occupied 
 with this the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 11th, and the Kith days of its 
 session. After the first five of these si.x days had been occu- 
 pied with this subject, then a canon, substantially the same 
 as that reported to this Convention, was again moved, and 
 a special committee was appointed to take the whole sub- 
 ject into consideration during the recess, and to report to 
 this General Convention. That committee of five, of which 
 Dr. Manney was chairman, reported to this Convention in a 
 very learned report, and in the report commented very ably 
 on the canon which had been submitted to them, but closed 
 their report with the resolution that a special committee of 
 five be appointed to consider and perfect a canon embody- 
 ing the Provincial system. Previously, however, to the pres- 
 entation of that report by this special committee, the Com 
 mittee on Canons had reported to this House a canon on 
 federate union ; and the author of that report felt it to be 
 simply due, in courtesy, to the Committee on Canons that 
 their canon also should be submitted to this special commit- 
 tee. It was committed to them in that way. You see, 
 then, that this special committee had the subject very dis- 
 tinctly assigned to them. They had assigned to tliem a 
 canon reported by the Committee on Canons, and also one 
 reported by the special committee appointed by this House 
 with instructions to consider and perfect a canon embodying 
 the provisions, according to our best judgment, of the mat- 
 ter submitted to us ; and we endeavored to embody these 
 in two canons, the first canon substantially the same as that 
 reported by the Committee on Canons, with one or two ex- 
 ceptions. It did seem to that committee, in considering 
 the subject closely, that this general canon was defective, 
 jnasmuch as it made no provision for the calling of a pri- 
 mary convention. It does seem that, in initiating any sys- 
 tem of this sort, the General Convention should declare the 
 general provisions so far as to provide that the calling of 
 primary general councils should be uniform in different 
 parts of the country. This canon declares, in express terms, 
 what it seems unnecessary to declare, that the whole mat- 
 ter should be tentative on its face ; that nothing should be 
 done ; that while there was a general canon giving permis- 
 sion to the dioceses to associate themselves together 
 (which permission, we suppose, they would have without 
 any such permissive canon) there was no provision made 
 for the calling of the first Federate Convention ; and the 
 whole matter was placed ostensibly in uncertainty, until the 
 matter should be submitted to the next General Conven- 
 tion. In our canon, while recognizing the authority of the 
 General Convention, and while declaring, in express terms, 
 
 that all the actions of the Federate Convention should be 
 in subordination to the General Convention, we endeavor 
 to initiate the matter in a somewhat more determined form. 
 If that canon be adopted, or the canon proposed by the 
 committee — and it is for the judgment of this House to say 
 which is the preferable one — the second canon proposed by 
 the committee only goes on to give things their right 
 names. I was going to suggest that this plan of Federate 
 Convention — calling things by unchurchly names) for, after 
 all, it amounts to that), has been tried, and found wanting. 
 We all know something about the Eastern dioceses. The 
 plan failed there. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES : — I wish to state to the Convention, 
 and to be distinctly understood that I am wholly in favor 
 of this measure, absolutely, without qualification. The 
 character of this measure was very thoroughly discussed in 
 the Diocesan Convention of New York. The measure first 
 proposed in that Convention made this new body a synod 
 practically, gave it Provincial powers. It empowered this 
 body to consult on all the matters pertaining to common in- 
 terests of the said dioceses, and to enact all laws pertaining 
 thereto not inconsistent with this Church. That was a 
 province in disguise, not intentional disguise of course ; 
 but we, aU of us loyal to this Convention as the supreme 
 sovereign authority of this Church, took ground at once 
 against that clause — that it was the iutroduetion of the 
 synodical union, which would have made a province, which 
 would have legislated on all matters not inconsistent with 
 the laws of the Church. The debate was very long and 
 very able, because some of our ablest men in the Church 
 entered most actively into it. It was so able that the 
 Bishop in his address made special remark that, it being the 
 last convention of the diocese, he was gratified to have 
 heard a debate so able and instructive. I meant to say 
 that this thing has been thoroughly studied by men exces- 
 sively jealous of the authority of this supreme authority of 
 the Church. After a very active struggle, the obnoxious 
 clause disappeared ; that is the safest word to give to it. 
 [Dr. Haight : — It was withdrawn by the committee.] Well, 
 it was withdrawn, and the legislative power sought to be 
 given to it was taken away, and we rescued the liberties of 
 the General Convention from entanglement with such a 
 body. And now the canon stands precisely where we put 
 it in that committee of the Philadelphia Convention. It 
 was needed for the use of the Church, allowing permitted 
 growth. You can make an organization, and upon that or- 
 ganization, if you can convince the General Convention 
 hereafter that it is wise, you can impose a superstructure, 
 but you must come up to the General Convention ; and it 
 becomes the great issue between the General Convention 
 and the dioceses as to the extent of power to be delegated. 
 The canon now proposed is more conservative than that 
 proposed at Philadelphia. This excludes all determinate 
 action until the provinces shall come to the General Con- 
 vention three years hence ' and state precisely upon what 
 subjects they wish to legislate and expressly limit and clear- 
 ly define the exact extent of tlic legi-slative power for which 
 they mean to ask ; and then this Convention will determine 
 whether it is safe to grant these powers ; and if so to what 
 extent ; and that brings uji the question how far this per- 
 mitted growth may extend. As the canon now stands, I 
 
120 
 
 think it is sale, and I thinii it oiiglil to be passed. As I 
 have exerted myself somewhat actively against the adoption 
 of the Provincial system, which I tliink will destroy the 
 growth of the Church, I now say that I do not think this 
 will have such an eft'ect ; and I hope it will pass. 
 
 Mr. Edward McCrady, of South Carolina: — I am sorry 
 to have to rise on this question, because I am obliged to 
 make a most determined opposition to the measure. What 
 is to restrain the dioceses of New York from assembling 
 together ? If a canon restrains, repeal it. If no prevent- 
 ing canon e.\ists, and if the constitution restrains, how can 
 a canon authorize it? I am opposed to the adoption of a 
 canon like this. If they want the sense of this body, we 
 may declare it by a resolution, but not by a canon. How 
 can you grant organic power, as this would be, under a 
 canon ? I must therefore beg that this thing be considered 
 a little more fully before we proceed to pass this canon. 
 If I could have had the opportunity at an earlier day of 
 the session, I would have proposed a measure which I am 
 satisfied would have been most important to us. We want 
 a committee on the constitution. We want som« body 
 equal in respectability to the Committee on Canons, to 
 which we shall refer constitutional questions, and whose 
 duty shall be to take care wlietlicr the constitution is in- 
 fringed or not. It is important that you should have such 
 a committee. [The President ; — The Committee on Canons 
 is, fully entitled, the Committee on the Constitution and 
 Canons.] Now, I submit it is not the proper committee to 
 go to. The Committee on the Constitution should be a 
 distinct committee and should have a watoh over the Com- 
 mittee on Canons ; then, you would have two highly re- 
 spectable committees in this body which would have their 
 eyes on each other. Suppose there was a Committee on 
 the Constitution who could speak autlioritatively on this 
 subject, and could say that there is no occasion for anything 
 but a resolution, you could confide in it. Now, I am a 
 simple individual, and I ask upon what authority can you 
 base a canon ? If these dioceses have the right to assem- 
 ble, you have no right to restrain them ; but if they come 
 here and are in doubt, arul ask you to put them right, you 
 say. Look into the Constitution ; what restrains you ? If 
 you vote to make a new organism, a new constitution, can 
 you do it otherwise than constitutionally ? It seems to me 
 that these observations must commend themselves to the 
 sense of every gentleman, be he clergyman or layman ; be 
 he what he may. If he has any idea of a constitution at 
 all, any idea of an organization, be must say that this is 
 not the proper course to be pursued. I am perfectly will- 
 ing to adopt a resolution to make it clear that they nniy do 
 that. How can they act as an organic body in reference to 
 the State unless the State gives them that organic capacity ? 
 I hope somebody will express himself upon this subject 
 whether I am entirely wrong by a.sserting that this author- 
 ity should be given by resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare : — If I correctly understand matters, it is 
 not proposed, either by the canon wnich comes up from the 
 Diocese of New York, nor by the canon proposed by the 
 Committee on Canons, to revive in our Church any names 
 associated with the ideas of corruption in the Church ; nor 
 do I understand that either canon proposes to make one 
 diocese in any way subordinate to another, or in any degree 
 
 to lilniiuish tlie independence of om' Bi.shops. Nor do I 
 understand that cither proposal would give any legislative 
 power to the federate council, except that the proposal 
 from the Diocese of New York would give a legislative 
 power in matters aifecting the common interests of different 
 dioceses of that State. The legislative power which it pro- 
 poses to concede to this federate council is to be restricted. 
 Now, if I am rightly informed, unless there is some hidden 
 intention, I am ready to vote for either one of these two 
 propositions. Other propositions which have come before 
 this n<mse I am niost earnestly opposed to ; and in express- 
 ing opposition to them, I express the general sentiment of 
 the diocese from which I came and the sentiment of the 
 first Bishops of our diocese ; but I am perfectly ready to 
 vote for the proposal of the Diocese of New York, or the 
 proposal from our own Committee on Canons, unless I am 
 mistaken in some of the particulars of which I have 
 spoken. 
 
 Hon S. B. RcGGLES — suggested the introduction of the 
 word "local" so as to read "common local interests." 
 
 Repeated calls for the question were here made. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mauan : — I should be very reluctant indeed to 
 see a matter of this importance pass without a more thor- 
 ough consideration than the House seems to be disposed to 
 give, judging from the cries for the question, etc. I think 
 there is a great deal to be taken into consideration, before 
 we determine this point. As a member of the Committee 
 on Canons I have to speak with a certain degree of consid- 
 eration to that committee and to all the members thereof; 
 but in the shape in which this thing is brought before us 
 just now, it does not strike me as precisely the thing in- 
 tended by all the parties concerned. This comes before us, 
 accidentally no doubt, but at the same time in a way that 
 has confused my mind considerably. It has come before 
 us in this shape, that, whereas the matter conmiitted to the 
 Committee on Canons was certain memorials from the Dio- 
 cese of New York, the Diocese of Maryland, and perhaps 
 from other quarters, it seems practically to come before us 
 merely as the measure of New York, with the arguments 
 that were employed by New York, and everything else seems 
 to be omitted. I don't object to its appearing precisely in 
 this shape, but nevertheless in discussing the question I 
 tiiink there should be at least a fair chance for other dio- 
 ceses interested in this matter to bring out the views which 
 are presented before their conventions and which are more 
 or less entertained by those whom they represent. And I 
 would therefore ask the attention of the Convention while I 
 read the resolutions of the Diocese of Maryland on this sub- 
 ject : '^Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention 
 that as soon as may be after the organization of two or 
 more dioceses within the hmits of the present Diocese of 
 Maryland, and after the consecration of the bishops tor the 
 same, tliere should be a council of the said dioceses tlu-ough 
 their proper representatives to consider and adopt measures 
 for a permanent synodical or conventional union." I don't 
 know whether this expression, synodical or conventiotial 
 comes under that kind of slur cast upon certain expressions 
 as associated with corruptions in the Church. For my part, 
 I do not know any expression that implies the meeting of 
 men together, that is not associated with all kinds of scan- 
 dals and corruptions. It applies to all words we may use. 
 
121 
 
 It was to "aJo|it Mioasures foi' a puiniauent syuoilicu! or 
 couventiou;il miioii" ; "said council to consist of tlie liisliops 
 of tlie several dioceses into which the present diocese shall 
 have been divided with teu clerical and ten lay deputies from 
 the several convenlions of the same, and to be held at such 
 time and place as tlie senior bishop shall determine", and 
 then — "Jiexolvcd, that this convention petition the next 
 General Convention for such modification of the constitu- 
 tion and canons, if any such are needed, as shall enable the 
 dioceses formed or to be formed within the Umits of any 
 present diocese to form within themselves a synodical 
 union." This was adopted after gieat consideration. It 
 was resolved to petition for the removal of anything that 
 might stand in the way, if necessary. I have not under- 
 stood that the Committee on Canons, in recommending a 
 measure of this kind, have indicated that there is really 
 anything in the constitution that stands in the way of each 
 state or diocese, as now constituted, acting for itself in this 
 matter. The petition is that they should make "such modi- 
 fication of the constitution and canons, if any such are 
 needed, as shall enable the dioceses formed or to be formed 
 within the limits of any present diocese to form within 
 themselves a synodical union." Then, '^Hcsolved, that this 
 Convention petition the next General Convention to take 
 the necessary steps to organize provincial courts wherever 
 they may be desired by any church of the province." 
 Then a resolution was ofl'ered that a committee be appoint- 
 ed to present these petitions. All I desire to say at present 
 is, that there are several propositions before the Church 
 with regard to these matters ; and I would he sorry to have 
 this thing passed in such a shape as may lead to the idea 
 that there is only one of the many propositions considered. 
 I think the discussion should be conducted in such a way as 
 to give all sides a fair hearing in this matter. For a prac- 
 tical measure, merely for the present time, I would be con- 
 tent with anything — such as that which comes from the 
 Committee on Canons. I would be content with that as 
 initiatory. I would be sorry to indulge the idea that there 
 is nothing hi this. I think I can say in perfect candor that 
 I should look with perfect contempt upon the thing if that 
 were the case. I would regard it as the beginning of a 
 growth, and that is substantially what is called the Provin. 
 cial system. I should not take the trouble to vote upon it 
 if it were not such a thing as that. I desire distinctly to 
 say this, that the Church necessarily from the beginning to 
 the present day, has been one great province of tlie Church 
 Catholic. It therefore belongs to the Provincial system. 
 The only difficulty connected with it has been this, that the 
 same reason which necessitates our creation of these im- 
 mense dioceses necessitated also tlie creation of immense 
 provinces ; and therefore as we have followed the system, 
 not merely of the early Church, but the system of the 
 Church in all ages, and, I may say, the common-sense sys- 
 tem that men have adopted in everything that concerns 
 their vital interest — as we have adopted that system at the 
 beginning, it is very proper that, as the Church grows, 
 we should allow the system under which we live to grow ; 
 that as. these dioceses have become very large, beyond the 
 care of any one bi.shop, hi each case, they should be allow- 
 ed freely to divide, under certain necessary restrictions ; 
 and as this great province has become very cumbersome so 
 
 16 
 
 ill like manner we should allow it to divide itself into a 
 cluster, or if you choose to call it so, a federation, council, 
 or synod, or anytliing of the kind ; but then this principle 
 ought to be preserved : The Church Catholic ought never to 
 give up anything that it has found to be good ; and it has 
 found this General Convention, this meeting of the whole 
 country together, to be a good and admirable thing in 
 every sense of the word ; and therefore whatever is done, 
 the practical thing is to see that this Convention be pre- 
 served, this being looked to as a necessary thing, this au- 
 thority of the General Convention or General Council of the 
 United States, as some desire to have it called — I am among 
 the number, however, who do not care much about the 
 words — this General Convention being preserved as hereto- 
 fore, it will become a matter not only of convenience, but 
 almost of necessity, that there should he small provinces, 
 where those of the same part of the country can assemble 
 together for certain purposes. And if we once come to 
 these smaller provinces, Providence has marked out the very 
 system that has prevailed in the Church universal, and that 
 prevailed in the time especially when the apostles laid the 
 foundation of the Church. There was the Roman Empire 
 with its 120 provinces corresponding in size and character 
 very much to the States of our American Union, and what 
 could be more convenient, when we begin to extend our 
 system, when there is something like vital growth, than to 
 adopt the lines sanctified by so many associations of every 
 kind, and that the dioceses which have been dioceses hith- 
 erto should remain dioceses in the essential sense of the 
 word — that they should be united in a common council — 
 that they should work together in all essential matters 
 — and that they should be divided merely for that which ne- 
 cessitates action in certain local matters'? If that system is 
 adopted, it matters not whether you call it the Provincial 
 system, or federative system, or the confederate system, or 
 anything in the world. These are mere words and the 
 words always derive their meaning from the thing, and not 
 the thing from the words. We read in the Holy Scriptures 
 that God first created all the beasts of the field, and then He 
 brought thera to Adam to see what he would name them. 
 We have the thing first, and then we can see about the 
 name. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Cooke was granted leave to refer a memo- 
 rial asking for some modifications in the conduct of pub- 
 lic worship. 
 
 On motion the House concurred with the House of 
 Bishops in the appointment, as Historiographer of this 
 Church, of the Rev. William Stevens Perry. 
 
 The President appointed Rev. Dr. Haight, Rev. Dr. 
 Watson, Rev. Dr. Howe, Governor Fish, and Judge 
 Otis, as the Committee of Conference on the amend- 
 ments of the fifth article of the constitution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Babcock, of Western New York, offered a 
 
 resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the Secretary 
 
 of the House to print and send to members of this House 
 
 • and to others interested a statement of changes made in 
 
 the canons. 
 
 On motion the Secretary was instructed to return the 
 thanks of the House to several institutions and societies 
 of this city from whom invitations have been received, 
 
122 
 
 and to express a grateful sense of their courtesy and 
 attention. 
 
 The Committee on Adjournment made a report to the 
 effect that the probable earliest time of adjournment 
 consistent with the transaction of business before the 
 Convention would bo Wednesday next. 
 
 On motion a resolution was adopted expressing satis- 
 faction at the prospect of an early publication of the 
 documentary annals of the American Colonial Church, 
 and thanking the Rev. William Stevens Perry for his 
 editorial labors thereon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason : — 1 must observe, Mr. 
 President, I feel very much concerned with respect to 
 this federative council, or provincial synod, or by what- 
 ever other name it may be called. I observe preliminarily 
 that I think too much stress has been laid upon names. 
 As was very justly observed by the member from Mary- 
 land [the Rev. Dr. Mahan], names take their meaning 
 from the circumstances which surround the particular 
 thing which calls for the name; and whether you call it 
 synod, council, or convention, will make very little differ- 
 ence — the meaning of the name will be determined by 
 the circumstances. I do not know that there is any great 
 necessity, any necessity, for the appointment of this 
 council; for I can not see but that it would be perfectly 
 legitimate for a number of dioceses in any state to unite 
 together so that they might carry on ecclesiastical opera- 
 tions and certain legislative proceedings for their benefit 
 without the action of this General Convention. But 
 there is a great benefit and expediency in the General 
 Convention acting upon this subject, in order that there 
 may be one uniform system throughout the Church in 
 this country, which otherwise might not be. Still I 
 think it might be preferable for any number of dioceses 
 to unite together for useful and practical purposes. But 
 I look upon the institution of a council, or synod, or con- 
 vention, whatever you may call it, as based upon more 
 important principles than mere expediency. I think 
 great mistakes have been committed with reference to 
 the Catholic Church. We are in the habit of comparing 
 it, because it is a matter immediately before us, with the 
 constitution and government of the United States. We 
 know very well how the states were first joined together 
 by confederation. That was found to be an imperfect 
 union. They were afterwards united under the consti- 
 tution of the United States. In whatever light we may 
 view it, it was a union. But there is no necessity of en- 
 tering into these particular,?, because my object is to 
 show that the Church is entirely different. It is a divid- 
 ing up of an original unity. The Church began with 
 the twelve aposties and those who were united with them 
 — a great many on the day of Pentecost. The apostles 
 had the power of commencing the Church and of ex- , 
 tending it. St. Peter seems to have had the authority 
 to begin it. He preached to the Jews on the day of 
 Pentecost. He afterwards opened the door to Cornelius, 
 called in Scripture a devout man, a term used to signify 
 
 a Gentile who was a receiver of the Scriptures. He 
 opened the doors of faith first to the Jews and next to 
 tlie Gentiles. But the Church, as I say, began in that 
 manner — first with the apostles and then with those 
 whom they converted to the -faith ; and as the Church 
 was extended through the Roman Empire and in other 
 countries, the division began by the appointment of aids 
 to the apostles, who were placed in certain situations to 
 aid them, as in the case of Timothy, and Titus, and per- 
 ha])S some others mentioned as apostles in the New 
 Testament. And, afterwards, these being the heads 
 of particular departments, there came in the dio- 
 cesan episcopacy. The Church did not begin with mere 
 diocesan episcopacy, but with metropolitic power. There 
 wei'e, of course, bisliops with the power and with the au- 
 thority of bishops ; but as, when the Church was extend- 
 ing, they became the heads of other dioceses, so their 
 authority as being in superintendence over other bishops 
 was to a certain extent recognized; and this took place 
 in the Roman Empire according to the divisions of that 
 empire, as we propose it shall be in the Church in this 
 country now. In consequence of our peculiar situation 
 when the British colonies revolted from the mother coun- 
 try and the United States were established, the Church 
 could not begin in that particular way. The Churches 
 in this country had been under the rule of the Bishop of 
 London, and when the separation from England took 
 place they were naturally separated from his power and 
 authority. How far that was right I do not inquire ; but 
 it took place ; and therefore it was necessai'y that a com- 
 bination should be entered into, such as we supposed 
 took place, and did take place in the union of states; 
 and the Church was formed originally from the confed- 
 eration of the original states, as we see from the number 
 of their representatives, and not from the United States. 
 Then again it is proper and right that we should always 
 hold in view the original manner in which the Church 
 was constituted, and that we should not go into any 
 measures which are contrary to this original organization 
 of the Church ; therefore, I conceive that, on that ground 
 if no other, it would be eminently proper that as the di- 
 oceses are multiplied, they should be united in a prov- 
 ince, convention, or whatever else you call it, that we 
 may come as nearly as possible to the original organiza- 
 tion of the Catholic Church. But besides we have been 
 told, and have had it clearly and distinctly pointed out 
 to us, that this union of dioceses in a particular state is 
 necessary, on the ground of the influence which the leg- 
 islature of a state may otherwise exert unfavorably in 
 the diffei'cnt dioceses in respect of the property they 
 hold, or in some other way to restrain them of that 
 Christian liberty which ought to belong to them. Let 
 us look at the Methodists, a very remarkable body in 
 their power, proceeding from their very wise head, Mr. 
 Wesley. First of all they have their congregations di- 
 vided up into small bodies, each of which bodies can be 
 attended to by its respective class-leaders. Then they 
 
123 
 
 have their preachers, who are annually or biennially ap- 
 pointed for the particular congregations, and who have 
 charge not only of the whole congregation, but of these 
 class-leaders especially. Then above those, in another 
 circle, they have their elders, whose power, so far as it 
 is exercised, is a good deal the same as that oC our dio- 
 cesan bishops; whether they have a rightful power or 
 not is a distinct question. Then over these great circles 
 come their bishops, who are in fact metropolitans — arch- 
 bishops — except that in holding epist^opates they do not 
 divide, but the six bishops take chavj^e of the whole 
 Church; and thus a bishop may lay bis hand upon a 
 member of any congregation. Then again in regard to 
 the Presbyterians; they have their congregations, and 
 then their elders to assist the minister of the Gospel in 
 his administration ; and they have their presbyteries and 
 their synods, and they have, inclutling the whole, the 
 general assemblies. I take it, unless we make some such 
 arrangement as this for the purpose of having unitbrmity, 
 we shall at last become a sort of enlarged Congregation- 
 alism, in which the bishoprics shall have no tie one with 
 the other in each part of a state, but be only separate 
 and distinct Churches, without any particular unity with 
 the great body of the Convention, and, through its 
 instrumentality, unity with the Catholic Church. I have 
 formerly heard a good deal about the independence of 
 the dioceses. Now, I suppose, if what I say be correct, 
 there can be no sueh thing as independent dioceses. A 
 bishop cannot be consecrated except in accoidance with 
 the laws of the Church ; he cannot be consecrated by 
 his predecessors ; and therefore he must be consecrated 
 by some other bishops. Now if he is consecrated by 
 other bishops, then by necessity, according to the laws 
 of the Catholic Church brought down to us from the 
 earliest councils, no diocese can be entirely independent 
 of other dioceses, but must be governed by the laws of 
 certain dioceses in immediate connection with it ; it 
 cannot be independent- and still be connected with 
 the Catholic Church, any more than my hand can be 
 connected with my body without the connection passing 
 through my arm. Therefore I think, from all these con- 
 siderations — first the original constitution of the Church, 
 and tlien next the necessity which arises from these dif- 
 ferent divisions, these circles including other circles, 
 from what we see around us so admirably benenting the 
 comunmiuna in which these division take place — I think 
 it advisable for the General Convention to institute some- 
 thing like a provincial synod, or federative council, or 
 by whatever other name you may call it. The woid 
 synod does not properly imply any necessary powers of 
 legislation ; the word convention does not imply them ; 
 nor does the word council. The word council is only 
 tlie Latin word used for the Greek word synod, and our 
 word " convention " is similar to " council " or "synod." 
 It does not make much ditierenee what name we call it 
 by, so long as those provincial councils shall not absorb 
 
 the dioceses, nor interfere with the authority of the Gen- 
 eral Convention. 
 
 Mr. Tazewell Taylor : — The Diocese of New York 
 as well as the Diocese of Virginia, or any other diocese, 
 has a right to demand from the members of this Conven- 
 tion the deliberate examination of any measure. The 
 distinguished Deputy from South Carolina [Mr. McCra- 
 dy] presented to this Convention a question which no 
 one has yet met, and which, whether sound or false, by 
 its source, and by the character of the inquiries, certain- 
 ly deserves some answer from those gentlemen who 
 have the matter in charge. I must confess, unfortunate- 
 ly for myself, 1 am atliicted with the same Jifliculty 
 which that deputy presented. The proposition before 
 this body is to authorize some body intermediate be- 
 tween the General Convention and the Diocesan Con- 
 vention — what is called a federative council. It is then 
 to a certain extent an organism of this Church. If it be 
 an organism of this Church, if it be necessary that it 
 shall be authorized by a vote of the General Convention, 
 it is equally necessary, demanded by the highest con- 
 siderations of expediency and conformity to previous leg- 
 islation of this Convention, that that organism should be 
 in the constitution and not in a canon. If you look 
 to your constitution, you find that the General Conven- 
 tion is organized by the constitution. It is provided 
 in one article that the bishops exceeding the number 
 three shall form one House, and the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies shall form another House, consisting 
 of four clergymen and four laymen, to be appointed by 
 the convention of each diocese. Shall we, by canon, un- 
 dertake to authorize the formation of a federative coun- 
 cil — the organization of four dioceses into one diocese? 
 If it be necessary that their authority should Le derived 
 from the General Convention, 1 submit to this Conven- 
 tion that that authority should be contained in the con- 
 stitution. If it be not in the constitution, then there is 
 no necessity for a canon, because their authority will be 
 found in the nature of independent power. When the 
 Dioceses of Virginia, of Nebraska, or of Wisconsin, as- 
 semble in convention, their power is not derived from 
 this General Convention, but is original with the dio- 
 cese. When they are formed into a diocese they have 
 it. The canon, I submit, is not the mode of giving this 
 power. If it be necessary, let me call the attention of 
 this House to the character of the proposition treated as 
 a proposed amendment of the constitution. What does 
 it effect V If efl'ects nothing. It authorizes these sev- 
 eral dioceses in one State to form a federative council 
 Does it have power to do so ? No, sir. They must con- 
 vene, and they must submit their constitution to the 
 next General Convention, which constitution will, of 
 course, embrace the powers which they claim. Is there 
 any necessity for so acting ? Can not these several dio- 
 ceses, of the State of New York, without any authority 
 granted them, send through their conventions and depu- 
 
124 
 
 ties, and submit a plan to the next General Convention? 
 do they want power ? and is it proper for a Convention 
 to pass a measure so utterly indefinite, and which does 
 not confer any power at all ? It strikes me we do not 
 want any action at this time. And whether I am right 
 or not in the constitutional view, these dioceses must 
 first organize and determine for themselves what they 
 want, and when they have determined for themselves, 
 then let them come and submit their constitution, and 
 ask the next General Convention to confer that power i 
 and that Convention will be prepared to determine how 
 'ar it is expedient to enter upon this new system. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — The gentleman having asked the 
 question, perhaps it is incumbent upon me to say a few 
 words in reply, more especially as the matter was moved 
 by my honorable friend from South Carolina. The 
 question as I understand it is this ; What necessity is 
 there for any action on the part of this Convention to 
 enable the dioceses in the State of New York to meet 
 together and form a federative council, at least to take 
 the initiative steps ? Is there anything in the constitu- 
 tion or canons which forbids it ? I apprehend there is 
 not. What necessity then is there for any action on the 
 part of this Convention ? I will answer this question 
 with great frankness. In behalf of the Diocese of New 
 York I would say that, although it is as clear as the 
 noonday sun that we have the power to form the federa- 
 tive council, we do not desire to do it without the consent 
 of this Convention, because of our feelings of loyalty to 
 this Church, because of our feeling of identification with 
 this Church in all its parts, because we are not willing 
 to run the least chance of doing the least thing as if as- 
 suming something that does not belong to us. I do not 
 speak upon this subject without book. I claim that the 
 Diocese of New York has given the highest evidence of 
 its loyalty to the Church and this Convention. It will 
 be remembered that the Diocese of New York labored 
 for six years under the heaviest disabilities which any di- 
 ocese in Christendom was ever called upon to labor under. 
 Our bishop was stricken down by a judicial sentence 
 and we were left in an anomalous position wholly without 
 precedent. What did the Diocese of New York do ? 
 Did she assume to act at that time independently of the 
 General Convention. Did she listen to counsels given 
 her by men high in the State and in the Church, that 
 she should stand up and assert her rights against the ac- 
 tion of which she complained ? No, sir, she did not. 
 She bore the evils meekly. She came to the General 
 Convention of 1847 and portrayed her condition and 
 asked for relief; and the General Convention refused 
 to grant the relief, and left her in a state which wit- 
 nesses on the floor of this House could testify was a 
 state most deplorable indeed. She submitted to the 
 action of the General Convention, and she waited three 
 years longer, and then she asked again for relief, and 
 though not given in the way she desired, she took it as 
 it was given, and she went on her way, tliank God 
 
 rejoicing. That is the feeling in New York. We do 
 not wish to do this without the sanction of this Con- 
 vention. We wish that every step we take may 
 not only be open to the whole world, but that it 
 may have the sanction of the highest legislative author- 
 ity of this Church. We do not wish to do it, and we 
 will not do it, except under the authority of the Gen- 
 eral Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I want to make a single point. I 
 say the distinguished lawyer from Virginia has brought 
 forward a point, which, if permitted to remain unan- 
 swered, will be the most damaging point to the New 
 York Canon [Dr. Haight: — not the New York canon] 
 Excuse me ! I didn't think it was necessary to be so 
 particular when I was arguing on the gentleman's own 
 side [Laughter] and to waste my time. I say the dis- 
 tinguished lawyer from Virginia has brought forward a 
 point which if passed over without being touched upon 
 is liable to hinder this New York canon, in the worst 
 way. I would say also that I think that point is brought 
 forward through misapprehension ; and that when he 
 speaks of the constitution he has not sufficiently consid- 
 ered the provisions of that constitution. The argument 
 is, that this thing is unconstitutional, that it is not men- 
 tioned in the constitution. I would say that this very 
 provision which is brought forward in behalf of New 
 York is distinctly in the Constitution of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States, from 1789 to 
 1835, that is to say, between these two periods there 
 was for forty-six years constitutionally a provision for pre- 
 cisely that which New York is now demanding from this 
 Convention ; and the fact is that it was only on account 
 of the paucity of our bishops and the smallness of the 
 Church that it was not demanded. There was a great 
 change of the constitution made by a side-wind, without 
 any evil intention, between the years 1835 and 1838. 
 Antecedent to the year 1838 it was the rule in this 
 Church that the convention should not be a convention 
 of single dioceses, but a convention of dioceses within the 
 State. Precisely that which tlie New York canon de- 
 mands, was the original law of the Church. Article 4 
 of the constitution reads: "the bishop or bishops in 
 every State shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as 
 shall be fixed by the constitution of that State ; and 
 every bishop of this Church shall confine the exercise of 
 his episcopal office tc^is proper diocese or district unless re- 
 quested to ordain or confirm." I am reading from the con- 
 stitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States antecedent to the year 1838, not the present one. 
 In the years 1 835 and '38 there was an amendment pass- 
 ed to the 5th article, and in the amendment which I find 
 printed in the journal of 183'5 there was this: "Strike 
 out the word ' States' in the 1st and 2d articles, except 
 where it follows the word ' United ' in the 1st article, and 
 insert in lieu of the word ' States ' the word ' dioceses ;' 
 strike out the word ' district ' in the 4th article ; strike 
 out the word ' State ' in the 6tk article and insert 
 
125 
 
 'dionese;' strike out the word 'State' in the 8th 
 article and insert the word ' diocese ; ' strike out the 
 word 'State' in the 9th article and insert the word 
 'diocese.'" That is to say, that Convention then and 
 there by a side-wind destroyed the idea which New 
 York has now intended to place before this body, and to 
 demand shall be established. It is very manifest to any 
 one that will read the constitution antecedent to the 
 year 1838, that the direction was this; there might be 
 several dioceses in a State, and tlie convention of that 
 State in those dioceses was just precisely as this New 
 York canon requires the thing to be now. I submit 
 therefore to this Convention, and also to the gentleman 
 who has made tliis constitutional argument, whether 
 it is not a fact that by the Constitution of the Church 
 in the United States antecedent to the year 1838, the 
 privilege of having a Convention in the State composed 
 of the several dioceses was not constitutional, a part 
 of the constitution? I suppose therefore that his argu- 
 ment that this is not constitutional would go. 1 will also 
 say, that it is singular to think what legislatures will do 
 without intending it. There was a complete change 
 wrought ; instead of taking the Church in the State as a 
 unit, as it ought to be, they set to, and introduced a dif- 
 ferent idea that the diocese was a unit, and not the prov- 
 ince of the State. [The Pres't : — Time is up.] Mr. 
 Pres't, it is too bad. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — From all 1 have heard I am satis- 
 fied of one thing, that gentlemen have not 3X't gone to 
 the root of the whole matter. They have taken the 
 General Convention as it now exists as though it was 
 the original Church in these United States, whereas it 
 is nothing but the Church in the several States that or- 
 ganized this house and constituted the General Conven 
 tion. Now, sir, I am so far ecclesiastically a State- 
 Rights' man as to believe that whatever was not 
 conceded in this constitution is still reserved to the 
 dioceses. The change of name which my reverend 
 brother from Wisconsin has talked so much about 
 amounts to nothing. Dioceses and States were, when 
 the General Convention was established, synonymous. 
 I therefore repeat it that if tlierc be nothing in the con- 
 stitution of the Church as organized by the dioceses 
 which prevents a diocese from doing such an act, there 
 is no authority in this Convention to grant that power 
 nor to question them in the exercise of it. But what 
 is the position in which we are placed now ? Here comes 
 the great diocese originally of the State of New York, 
 and while that diocese or State feels that it has the right 
 to act without asking our leave, it feels also the great 
 importance of the unity of the Church in the United 
 States, and in this age when every tendency is to the 
 destruction of unity and the overridmg of every organic 
 law, it wishes even to stretch a point to ask permission 
 to do that which it well knows it has authority to do. 
 It is precisely the same as if your son who has passed 
 his majority or your daughter, sliould come to the con- 
 
 clusion that he or she wished to unite his or her fate 
 with some other person. That child if brought up 
 properly, I care not if 50 years of age [laughter] before 
 forming the matrimonial relation will go to the father 
 and mother and say : I have the legal right I know to 
 be married without your consent, but I cannot do it 
 according to my feelings without your consent. That 
 is the position of the Diocese of New York to-day. It 
 is not a question of rights ; it is simply a question of 
 proper filial feeling, the feeling of submission of a minor 
 to a major, although in this case the major is constituted 
 of the minor. Now, the Diocese of New York has the 
 right to this. What does the canon express ? Simply 
 the opinion that that right does exist: "It is hereby 
 declared lawful." The declaration doesn't make it lawful 
 necessarily ; but if any gentleman thinks it would not 
 be lawful without the declaration of this Convention, 
 here is the declaration. If others think as I do, that it 
 is lawful, we can all unite on that one resolution or 
 canon. It has been said, and I have thought myself, 
 that when a declaration was to be made, it might be 
 made by resolution ; but we have again and again 
 passed declaratory statutes or canons. Why should we 
 refu.se to do it now ? The Diocese of New York lias 
 asked for it. Are you prepared to say to that diocese : 
 "That which is your right and which you respectfully 
 ask us to assent to, we will not assent to." If there is 
 any danger, if you fear danger, if in your fears, there 
 be under the meal a cat, then resist it. But if you have 
 no such apprehension, hesitate not one moment to con- 
 cede that to the Diocese of New York, in courtesy to its 
 filial affection, which it has asked. It was asked of the 
 Convention in 18fi5, but it was not granted. Why ? 
 Simply because our Right Reverend Fathers could not 
 find time to attend to the business of this House. Very 
 well ; let us try them again. I shall not be surprised 
 if it meets the same fate ; but let us not be a party to 
 such action. Let us do our duty affectionately to the 
 Diocese of New York which pays such respect to us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — Is the Diocese of New York the 
 only party in this matter ? We are being put into a most 
 awkward predicament, as though this whole business 
 were to accommodate the Diocese of New York. 
 
 The Pkesident : — I suppose those are mere words of 
 convenient description ; it still amounts to the same 
 thing, whether or not there are half a dozen other dio- 
 ceses interested in the same thing. 
 
 Judge Battle : — I rise with diffidence to utter a few 
 words upon the question now before the Convention. 
 I do so because I find myself opposed in the debate by 
 some of the ablest and most experienced members of 
 this House whose opinion on this occasion ditl'crs from 
 my own. All the arguments which we liavc heard 
 hitherto are in favor of the passage of this canon except 
 the argumeht advanced by the gentleman [Mr. McCra- 
 dy] from South Carolina, supported by tlie gentleman 
 [Mr. Taylor]. 'J'hat argument goes to the extent only 
 
iS6 
 
 that this ought not to be adopted as a canon but ought 
 to be made a part of the fundamental law. In the few 
 remarks I am about to ofler, I beg it to be understood 
 that I wish to impute no improper motives to the Dio- 
 ceses of New York, Maryland, and Western New York, 
 or any other diocese which desires the adoption of this 
 canon. I have no doubt that their motives are the very 
 best ; but, it seems to me, we ought to consider what 
 may be some of its defects. If you turn to the second 
 article of the constitution, you will see it provided there 
 that every diocese is to be represented in this Conven- 
 tion. Each diocese is to be entitled to four clerical 
 and four lay members. While the diocese extended 
 throughout the limit of the State, and there was but one 
 diocese in the State, all stood on an equality. This it 
 seems was the case until 1838 ; and the words State 
 and diocese were used synonymously. It was then 
 thought proper to change the name for the reason that 
 there was about to be, or might soon be more dioceses 
 than one in the same State. Now, Mr. President, let us 
 see what may possibly be — (I do not say it will be ; I 
 hope it never will be) but let us see what may possibly 
 be the effect of the adoption of this canon. If there 
 were but one diocese in a State, the dioceses would all 
 come here and stand upon a footing of equality, no one 
 having a superiority over the other. Now if we by our 
 own action, can establish a council, or convention, or 
 whatever you may choose to call it, of the existing dio- 
 ceses in the same State, what may be the result ? Why, 
 sir, when they come into this General Convention the 
 five dioceses of New York will he entitled to forty mem- 
 bers on this floor ; and if a vote be called for by dioceses 
 and orders they will give five times the vote given by 
 the Diocese of Texas, South Carolina, or any other 
 whose limits are co-extensive with the limits of the 
 State. That may be in the right direction. But they 
 may entertain views as to what is the best interests of 
 the Church, different from those entertained by the 
 dioceses co-extensive with the State. When we come 
 here these dioceses of New York having previously con- 
 ferred with each other, will come with one mind, and 
 they will come for the purpose of carrying out one pur- 
 pose ; and that purpose they will be able to accomplish. 
 Two or three States will have enough dioceses in this 
 Convention to carry everything according to their own 
 wishes; and we who come from States where there is 
 but one diocese to a State, shall be in a hopeless minori- 
 ty. I trust if such be the case, it will all redound to 
 the benefit of the Church and the glory of that great 
 God whom it serves. There is this tendency, and I 
 call upon every diocese, from the Diocese of Maine to 
 the Diocese of Texas, to consider well the efiect which 
 this may produce ; and let us not organize a system 
 which may bring about that result. [A Deputy : Will 
 they not still have this large number of representatives?] 
 Undoubtedly they would have, but my argument is 
 that they would come as a unit. I am sorr}' I have not 
 
 been able to bring that out before, because that is the 
 whole scope of the few remarks I have to ofler. But 
 there was one consideration pressed upon the Conven- 
 tion in 1865, which caused the measure to be adopted 
 on that occasion, namely, that it was necessary for them 
 to be united for tlie purpose of applying to the legisla- 
 ture of the State. Now if that cannot be accomplished 
 in any other way than by the establishment of this sys- 
 tem, then I am willing that the difficulty should be 
 thrust upon me. It seems to me that there is no neces- 
 sity for adopting this course for the purpose of carrying 
 that out ; for it is very easy in these days for these 
 dioceses to confer together, and each appoint agents, 
 and apply to the legislature to grant any act necessary 
 for the one or the whole. I offer these remarks with 
 much diffidence, because I find mj'self opposed by what 
 seems to be the current opinion in this House. If the 
 members of this House think that this result may be pro- 
 duced, I hope they will hesitate, as I am compelled to 
 do before I can vote for this canon. I did not have the 
 honor of being on the Committee on Canons when this 
 measure was proposed, and do not feel bound by any 
 action of theirs. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe :— I was intending to say only that 
 there can be no denial of the fact that it will be entirely 
 practicable for these several dioceses which shall be 
 thus associated, if they shall please when met in con- 
 vention, to confer as to measures which they will prose- 
 cute in the General Convention. I do not see how we 
 are going to prevent that. I suppose it will be practi- 
 cable to do so, even if they do not have any federate 
 councils. I suppose there are combinations of dioceses 
 that are accordant in sentiment veiy frequently, for the 
 purposes of carrying measures agreeable to their own 
 ideas of prosperity. But I agree with my reverend 
 friend and colleague who said that they have this pow- 
 er without granting it, that they could have associated 
 themselves in this way without approaching this Con- 
 vention. I rejoice however that these dioceses have 
 preferred to come and subordinate themselves in regard 
 to this to the General Convention of the Church, and 
 that they are willing to accept the passage of a canon 
 or resolution, or order here that nothing shall be done 
 by them, no constitutional power shall be conferied 
 upon them by this House until such power has been 
 submitted to the General Convention for its approval. 
 There, sir, is the question — Whether we shall leave them 
 to make such organizations without the sanction of the 
 General Convention and without stay on th&>partof the 
 General Convention in regard to the powers they will 
 exercise other than those provided in the constitution 
 and canons — whether we shall leave them to do this 
 themselves or whether we shall give them the power 
 when they have decided what powers they want in re- 
 gard to these organizations. If we prefer that they 
 should do it alone and without our concurrence, we can 
 reject tlie canon, and then they can confer and deter- 
 
127 
 
 mine upon what measures they will pursue when they 
 come together into the General Convention. If we 
 prefer to have our hand in the thing, and have some 
 voice in the assignation of power to these conventions, 
 then it seems to mo it will be wise to pass this canon 
 which we have been asked to pass. 
 
 Gov. Stevenson, of Kentucky: — I am sure, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, that there is no diocese represented in this Con- 
 vention which would be more willing to yield every 
 courtesy to the State of New York than the Diocese of 
 Kentucky ; and if in obedience to what is termed loyal- 
 ty to the Church, the Diocese of New York comes to 
 this Convention for the privilege of exercising an 
 acknowledged right, it is still more incumbent, in ac- 
 cordance with that courtesy which Kentucky feels to 
 every diocese, that the assent should be conceded ; and 
 if it were a mere question of assent, I should have no 
 difficulty as to making that. If it is a mere question 
 of assent to the exercise by a diocese of an acknowledged 
 existing right, why not let us give that assent by a 
 resolution instead of by a canon? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — Because, sir, bj' its being thrown 
 into the form of a citoon it comes into a conspicuous 
 place ; it is handed down from Convention to Conven- 
 tion, and it becomes operative in the case of other dio- 
 ceses doing the same thing. If we put it in the form of 
 a resolution it will be regarded as pertaining to a par- 
 ticular request, and pass out of sight and mind. But 
 make it a declaratory canon and then it rules all future 
 cases of a like sort. 
 
 Gov. Stevenson (continuing) : — I cannot base [my 
 action, as a deputy of this Convention, upon the mere 
 place in the legislation of the Church in which this 
 •1. canon is to stand. It is unworthy of the Convention 
 that any such reason as that should characterize its ac- 
 tion. If the learned and distinguished deputy who al- 
 ways speaks clearly and to the point says they have this 
 right and only want assent, then usage is on my side, 
 that it should be given by resolution rather than by 
 canon. I am not fastidious on this matter; I am really 
 advocating the exercise of this right. I think that if 
 given by resolution there would scarcely be a dissent; 
 it would not involve any constitutional question, and 
 every man would vote for it knowingly, without com- 
 mitting himself to a change of the constitution. I ad- 
 mit that nothing that this proposed federative council 
 shall do is binding until it shall have received the assent 
 of this Convention ; but when they have acted they 
 will have the canon law of this Convention to stand by 
 and we may be called upon to change the law. That 
 is necessarily the effect of what these gentlemen ask. 
 I agree with the learned deputy who said he was in 
 favor of this thing, doing it by the way of resolution. 
 I cannot vote for this canon for the reason that I am not 
 willing to commit myself to enacting a law as a canon 
 law when the canon law hereafter may be used against 
 our successors three years hencp j for such things have 
 
 been before. I suppose I am bound to presume that it 
 will be just what my learned friends have said — for the 
 benefit of the Church at home and at large. I will not 
 sanction a change in the constitution by undertaking 
 without further discussion to institute, even by intend- 
 ment, by the passage of a canon, an intermediate body 
 between the Diocesan Convention and the General Con- 
 vention. While, therefore, I am in favor of giving this 
 leave, I prefer it should be by resolution rather than by 
 a canon, which will get us into difficulty immediately ; 
 and this presumed acquiescence and consent given by 
 this general assembly to do such and such things, will 
 be urged upon the Convention for adopting these meas- 
 ures, which it seems to me will lead us into diiBcuIty. 
 I may be too fastidious, too conservative. I love this 
 Church and its constitution, never having known any 
 other. I am carrying with me the convictions of my in- 
 tellect and the afTections of my earlier and later days in 
 the Church in which I was born and trust to die. It is 
 for its unity, its conservatism, its perpetuity, that I hes- 
 itate to fake action which hereafter may create powers 
 whose results no man can foresee. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogeks :— I beg leave to occupy the atten- 
 tion of the House for a few moments. The gentleman 
 [Judge Battle] has called upon all weak dioceses to 
 speak in this matter. I desire in the name of my dio- 
 cese to speak, because she has instructed me to urge — 
 you have heard the memorial — that there should be 
 such legislation on the part of the Convention as would 
 enable her to institute some associative action, that she 
 may act for herself. I have told you of her weakness 
 and at the same time of her magnitude. We saw that 
 we should sooner or later have several dioceses, of which 
 one would be strong and all the others weak ; and that 
 the missionary efforts must all lie on the outside. We 
 saw that it was utterly impossible that these new dio- 
 ceses to be formed by-and-by, would be able to support 
 their own missionaries ; and we are anxious that that 
 which now forms the one diocese should be able so to 
 act as to spread her missionaries over the borders, by 
 united action. It is exactly what New York is asking 
 to do. She wants this combined action that from this 
 strong centre she may be able to send the Gospel out 
 more efficiently than by separate effort. What danger 
 to the General Convention V What danger to other 
 dioceses ? It is only for internal central government 
 within ourselves. Texas askes this action that she may 
 be able by-and-by to institute such action as that we 
 may be able to work in our own matters as we would 
 work to-day if we were strong. The last gentleman 
 who spoke on the subject, said he was willing to do this 
 by resolution but not by canon ; and then he goes on 
 to give the reason why it should not be done at all. I 
 can not see why, if we can give the power by resolu- 
 tion, we can not give it by canon. 1 ask on the part of 
 Texas that you give this authority to the Church — that 
 dioceses may associate, that they may have some central 
 
128 
 
 at'tion by which they may reach out then- influence. 
 It is for tliat and that alone that Texas asks and expects 
 it. With regard to the constitutional oljjection, I be- 
 lieve the gentleman is under a misapprehension. He 
 argues as though we could not give by canon that for 
 which there is no authority in the constitution. We 
 can do anything that that constitution docs not prohibit. 
 We made the constitution to limit ourselves. Where it 
 has limited us we are bound by the limitation. Where 
 it has not limited us, we are free as the wind. I believe 
 with all my heart the Church is bound to grow and de- 
 velope a provincial system. 1 am satisfied with that sys- 
 tem which embraces simply the dioceses within a State 
 for the present ; but I am extremely anxious that the 
 prayer of my diocese may be answered. This is my 
 answer to North Carolina. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce, of Alabama: — It appears to be 
 conceded on all hands that the dillerent dioceses in a 
 State have the power of associating themselves without 
 any such permission given by this body. I think it will 
 be very difficult to show that they have not the power 
 of conmiitting to that central body in their State such 
 legislative powers as they choose. There is a power 
 then, and the simple question for this Convention to de- 
 cide is, will they allow that power to act without re- 
 straint, or will they take it under their own control, and 
 put it in harness. If the dioceses have the power of 
 combining, they have the power of committing such 
 powers to the central body as they choose ; and we have 
 no control over the power that shall be committed to 
 them, unless we a;;t upon it here, and put this power in 
 harness. 
 
 Mr. Fkancis B. FoGii, of Tennessee: — It appears 
 to me that there is great difference of opinion among 
 the members of this House as to the powers of the 
 General Convention and of the diocesan convention. 
 Some are of opinion that the General Convention has 
 much more extensive power than others are willing to 
 concede; and then there are many members from New 
 York and Maryland whose opinion is that it requires 
 the assent of the General Convention for them to in- 
 troduce any new form of government within their own 
 dioceses. One great reason for this application is that 
 there may be differences of opinion as to the powers of 
 the Convention and the diocesan convention. And 
 the reason of having a canon instead of a resolution is, 
 we want a uniform rule that shall apply to all the dio 
 ceses. It does not attempt to define any powers. It 
 says whatever is done by these diocesan conventions of 
 a general nature shall be brought forward before this 
 Convention at the next session, and the only reservation 
 is that they may in the mean time make their applica- 
 tion to the legislature of the State for the purpose of 
 having legislation in regard to their common property. 
 The constitution of the State of New York, I believe, 
 provides that no corporation shall be granted without a 
 reservation that its corporate powers may be repealed. 
 
 But there are many vested rights of the Church all de- 
 pendent upon the general regulation of the Church, 
 and the object is that they may make joint application 
 that where the property has been in common it may be 
 separated, and that trusts may be perfected. The legis- 
 lature might act upon these requests if they were au- 
 thorized by canon to make them, while some might not 
 regard a resolution as sufficient authority. Under these 
 circumstances it does not ajipear improper to proceed 
 by canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — There are two points to which 
 I wish to call attention. One was mentioned some time 
 ago, that this business of a federative council had been 
 tried in the eastern dioceses. I have to say that in the 
 eastern dioceses there never was such a thing as a fed- 
 eration of the dioceses. The case referred to, of the 
 eastern dioceses, is entirely out of relation to this case, 
 as in the eastern dioceses just as fast as the different 
 States were organized into dioceses they ceased to have 
 any representation in the common Council of the east- 
 ern dioceses. The eastern dioceses were one diocese. 
 When Vermont was constituted a separate diocese, it 
 had its separate convention, and had nothing to do with 
 the eastern dioceses. 
 
 Rev. Dr. JIulchahet : — I think I am right in stating 
 as a fact that these several States did retain diocesan 
 conventions until they elected Bishops. There were 
 diocesan conventions in connection with the general 
 diocese. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — They were not organized as 
 dioceses; they were under one Bishop; at all events 
 they have no analogy to this case. In regard to an- 
 other point, it seems to me that the question is not 
 whether, according to some, our action should be by * 
 canon or resolution, but whether we may, as to this Con- 
 vention, under the constitution pass this canon ; not, 
 must we pass this canon in order that New York or any 
 other part of the country may unite ; but, have we a 
 right to pass this canon 1 It is said by some to be a con- 
 stitutional thing instead of a matter of canon, because 
 they do not find in the constitution any authority to pass 
 such a canon. I will refer to a canon of the same sort 
 — canon 13. If the dioceses of New York should pro- 
 ceed to take this action, this General Convention could 
 pass a canon which would put an end to it. Let us not 
 have dioceses going forward to do what they can do, and 
 yet that which the Convention can have the power to 
 annul. The dioceses have properly asked that the fed- 
 erative council should be organized with the consent of 
 the whole Church ; and if they take the action, it is 
 safe and can not be abrogated. The question is not 
 whether it is necessary to do this, but whether we have 
 the power to do it. 
 
 Mr. : — My mind has been partially 
 
 made up against this canon, but upon looking at the can- 
 on as introduced and reported, I find the sting has been 
 taken out. 1 think the grand difficulty will be in obtain- 
 
129 
 
 in^ the consent ofanotlicr Convention to this conventional 
 synod. I think it is better to postpone the serious con- 
 sideration of this subject until that time comes. Upon 
 looking over the canons of the convention of my diocese, 
 I find a resolution was passed instructing the delegates 
 to this Convention to vote in favor of the proposition. 
 1 therefore considered my.self bound by il, though against 
 my views, because I did not believe in making an organic 
 change until the nearly unanimous voice of the Church 
 concurs in it. But as all possible objections are taken 
 away by the report of the committee, I am bound to 
 vote for it. There is nothing of a constitutional ques- 
 tion involved in this canon. It does not change the 
 constitution ; it does not change the laws of the Church ; 
 it is an ennhliiiy act, if you please. It permits any given 
 number of dioceses to act together and make a prop- 
 osition to tliis Cbnvention ; it simply gives them unlimit- 
 ed power of proposition to this Convention ; and if their 
 constitution be in subordination to the constitution of 
 this Church, I can see nothing illegal or unconstitutional 
 about it. I make a suggestion to the friends of the prop- 
 osition and the committee reporting the canon, of a ver- 
 bal alteration, which, I think, it would be desirable to 
 make. Strike out the word " State," it being the last 
 word but two in the resolution, and insert, " States in- 
 cluded within the jurisdiction of the federative council." 
 As it reads now it says " Church in the State." What 
 State ? It is ambiguous. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Martin moved the substitution of the can- 
 on as proposed by the special committee on the Provin- 
 cial System for the canon as proposed by the commit- 
 tee on Canons except the words " and he shall be pre- 
 siding Bishop thereof" 
 ^ At the solicitation of several persons, the substitute 
 was withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. : — When this question was brought up 
 
 in 1805, the project of New York was designated a 
 provincial system, and under that name it is brought be- 
 fore this Convention as a provincial system. In the 
 first place, it is a mere voluntary s3-stem, and is an organ- 
 ism in the Church which is against its constitution. 
 Tliis canon proposed by the Diocese of New York, allows 
 a voluntary system which comes in direct conflict with 
 the constitution of the Church, not only with the consti- 
 tution of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but with the 
 constitution of the Catholic Church. The constitution 
 of the Church can not be made by man. There is no 
 organism in the Catholic Church of Christ except the 
 diocesan Church and the provincial Church. This in- 
 troduces an organization which is heterodox, which is 
 contrary to its constitution, because without precedent 
 in the whole history of the Church. In the next place, 
 the powers of this federative system are not well defin- 
 ed. It has no primacy ; it is a mere mongrel system, 
 a mere excrescence, and I think further than that, 
 that it is encumbered with the very germs of disor- 
 der, disunion, and schism. 
 
 17 
 
 Governor Fish : — The gentleman has stated that it 
 was first a mere project of the Diocese of New York. I 
 deny it. I disclaim it. The project comes from a committee 
 of this body on the memorials of three, four, or five dio- 
 ceses. The canon before you is not the canon which 
 New York asked for. Maryland has asked for it as 
 much as New York. Western New York has asked 
 for it. Texas has asked for it ; and yet the Rev. gentle- 
 man has heaped epithets upon epithets, and has endeav- 
 ored to put them all upon the Diocese of New York. 
 
 Mr. : The memorial from the Diocese of 
 
 Maryland is a difierenl thing. I am willing to consent 
 to a canon framed on the memorial of the Diocese of 
 Maryland. 
 
 A deputy renewed the substitute. 
 
 Dr. Mead^ — moved the indefinite postponement of 
 the substitute if it did not carry the whole subject. 
 
 The substitute was withdrawn and the vote taken 
 upon the canon, which was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason — made a report from 
 the Committee on the Prayer Book with reference to 
 the Nicene Creed, concluding with the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, That, the House of Bishops concurring, a joint 
 Committee be appointed to consist, on the part of this 
 House, of three clergymen and three laymen, to prepare and 
 report for the information of this Convention, an accurate 
 copy of the Nieene Creed, translated from the original 
 Greek ; and that the committee have leave to print their 
 translation and report it for the use of tins Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — That appears to me to give the 
 'committee full control of the question. If we act upon 
 this, we authorize the committee to make the translar 
 tion, and authorize the whole affair. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — What is the use of appointing a 
 joint committee by this House to do what twenty men 
 on this floor are able to do V 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — If that report is now submitted, I 
 move that it be laid upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Piekce : — I call for a vote by Dioceses and 
 Orders. 
 
 A member of the committee stated that the resolution 
 submitted by the chairman of the committee was not 
 the one that he had voted foi. This statement subse- 
 quently appeared to have been maiie from a misappre- 
 hension ; but on account of it the chairman withdrew 
 the report. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mdi.chahey : — I move that the second 
 canon proposed by the Special Committee be taken up 
 in order, the several sections in order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — As we have debated the question • 
 some time in connection with what we have just vo- 
 ted upon, with the view to test the sense of the 
 House, I move to lay the subject on the table ; which 
 motion was agreed to. 
 
 Judge Battle, from the Committee on Canons, 
 to whom was referred a proposed amendment, with an 
 
130 
 
 amendment concerning the consecration of churclies, 
 reported again resolutions for adoption by the House. 
 
 JunGE Battle : — I would merely state to the Con- 
 vention that I have not heard any objection to the first 
 section of the canon, and I move its adoption. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beardsley — of Connecticut. I wish to 
 ask a question, the answer to which may affect my vote. 
 There may not be many cases of the kind in the coun- 
 try, but I know one venerable parish which does not 
 now, nor can ever, have a title to the land upon which its 
 edifice is erected. If Trinity Church, New Haven, 
 which stands by the courtesy of the city authorities on 
 public ground, should be burned down, I do not see how 
 the new one could have the form of consecration of 
 church or chapel used. Many of the earliest churches 
 in Connecticut were built on what was called a pjlilic 
 common, and here and there a church, we suppose i he 
 original one, occupies the ancient site. Rome, I believe, 
 does not build her churches and cathedrals or houses 
 upon lands to which she has not the/uU title or the own- 
 ership, and the wisdom of her policy in this respect is 
 great. 1 think the canon is a wise one, but I should like 
 to know if it is intended to apply to the case of a church 
 erected upon a public park or common. 
 
 Judge Battle — said that unless the title was se- 
 cured the church could not be consecrated, but he 
 thought that the Convention should not refuse to adopt 
 this principle because of a few exceptions of that sort. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — By the law of Connecticut posses- 
 sion for a certain length of time gives fee simple. 
 
 Judge Battle— said that that was good law in his 
 State. 
 
 Mr- Wm. Samuel Johnson — the title is in the city of 
 New Haven. As to my own parish, the title is in the 
 town. The license was granted to the Congregational- 
 ists to place their church on that land. So it was long a 
 question much debated, and of a good deal of historical 
 interest. In the first instance we were permitted to 
 build our house upon a hill ; but the timber being col- 
 lected was burned up by our opponents for the reason 
 that the Episcopal Church was not to be placed upon 
 laud higher than the Congregational Church. The town 
 granted us power to set our church upon land on which 
 it was built in 1744, and which is on a lower level than 
 the site of the Congregational Church ; but we have no 
 title not even by possession ; for, to the learned Deputy, 
 I will say that the Statute of Limitations does not run 
 against the State bodies. 
 
 Mr. : — I have passed my life in the West. 
 
 Very frequently there it is the case tliat we have the 
 land upon which to build churches, and have given 
 notes to run for many years. Take a State like Oregon, 
 or a new State like Nebraskj^, a few men buy the prop- 
 erty and give their notes ; as they become due the notes 
 are paid ; but their notes would be a lien upon the 
 property; there would not be a title. I want to ask 
 in that case if the church could be consecrated? 
 
 Judge Battle : — No, sir. The very object of the law 
 is to prevent it. 
 
 The Deputy : — The church in which I worship is to 
 be consecrated yet ; we have not paid every dollar upon 
 it. With this understanding of the report, I shall vote 
 against it. 
 
 Mr. : — I wish to throw out one single con- 
 sideration. I ask the members of this Convention 
 whether the very specifications first from one and then 
 from another diocese do not show that it is wiser to 
 leave this question where it has always been left, namely 
 with the Diocesan Conventions ? We have no objection, 
 in our diocese, but the succeeding two clauses are in 
 direct conflict with the law of the State. Does not the 
 fact that one of the clauses is already in harmony with 
 the diocesan legislation of one or more of the dioceses 
 where the state of the public law admits it, and that it 
 is in conflict with the legislation of the other dioceses, 
 show that it is a question which had better be left to 
 the Diocesan Conventions ? I ask whether these facts do 
 not furnish a satisfactory ground of belief that it is bet- 
 ter and more expedient to leave this class of questions 
 to diocesan legislation ? 
 
 Mr. : — I know of a church now in the course 
 
 of erection ; it is necessary to purchase four lots from 
 four different owners ; one refuses to sell except on con- 
 dition that he have a mortgage upon that property and 
 no other. 
 
 On motion the canon was laid on the table. 
 
 On motion the House proceeded to the consideration 
 of the Report of the Committee on Canons, amending 
 canon eleven, "of persons not ministers of this Church 
 officiating in any congregation thereof." The proposed 
 amendment was as follows : ^ 
 
 No minister in charge of any congregation of this 
 Church or, in case of vacancy or absence, no church- 
 warden, vestryman or trustees of the congregation shall 
 permit any person to officiate therein without sufficient 
 evidence of his being duly licensed or ordained to min- 
 ister in this Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — I would much prefer that that 
 amendment which I proposed should be carried through; 
 but wo are arriving at a late period of the session ; and 
 there is hardly time for this to go to the House of 
 Bishops and receive their sanction, if they should see fit 
 to give it. It is absolutely essential that this should 
 be acted upon, and in order to save time, I am willing 
 to withdraw that amendment, and take the canon as it 
 is proposed by the Committee on Canons, withdrawing 
 my amendment and proviso, and adding this proviso : 
 "Provided that nothing herein shall be construed as 
 forbidding communicants of this Church to act as 
 lay-readers." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — So far as I am concerned person- 
 ally, I am perfectly willing to adopt that amendment, 
 though at the same time I would say that that point 
 was duly considered by the committee, and we all con- 
 sider it as included in the canon anyhow ; but still to 
 
131 
 
 make assurance doubly sure I am confident the commit- 
 tee would adopt it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — It seems to me'that tlic wliole thing 
 is in the canon as it is. It is a sort of canon of common 
 sense that comes in, in the case of an emergency. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — There is a reason for tha proviso 
 which I have here presented. It is very important that 
 we get this canon as it has come from the committee. 
 I am willing to accept it in that form. I may state also 
 that there is a large portion of this Convention, or the 
 delegates from a large section of our Church, who make 
 a representation of this kind : they say that not a few 
 of their cliurches are now destitute, unless they can ob- 
 tain lay-readers ; but that they cannot get those lay- 
 readers to take a license, and that their churches would 
 be left without service simply on the ground that if you 
 say lay-readers must be licensed, they will not accept 
 the license ; and they say further that they must vote 
 against the canon as they understand it shuts out lay- 
 reading without a license. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Corbett — asked whether the licensing was 
 not now under the control of the Bishop, and said that 
 the Bishop of his own diocese had claimed it ; and the 
 Bishop of Kansas had done the same thing. 
 
 Thk President : — They had no right to enforce that 
 without further legislation. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Corbett : — I understand that the Honor- 
 able gentleman who has ofl'ered this amendment has 
 stated that he left it in this loose way in order that 
 Methodists or anybody may come in and lay-read. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — I have no such intention. The 
 language of the proviso is " provided that nothing here- 
 in shall be construed to forbid communicants of this 
 Church acting as lay-readers." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Corbett — objected that by this provision 
 lay-readers not being licensed might come in and teach 
 heterodoxy, and he, therefore, would move to lay the 
 matter upon the table, if the permission to lay-read 
 without license were persisted in. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Pkingle Smith : — This is a matter of ab- 
 solute necessity in some parts of the country, of neces- 
 sity against theory. There are many parishes in Soutli 
 Carolina which are without ministers; and the congre- 
 gations again and again send for some gentleman to lay- 
 read, and they would be without worship at all if some 
 gentleman would not lay-read. This is an emergency 
 which in the present condition of our dioceses cannot 
 be now removed. There are gentlemen willing where 
 the case occurs to minister in this way ; and there are 
 many parishes that are only kept up in this way, which 
 could not be if this restriction were put in. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Crane : — I am willing to take the canon 
 precisely as it comes from the Committee on Canons. 
 My object in offering the amendment was to get this 
 through without debate, and without long .speeches. I 
 am anxious that the canon should be adopted ; but that 
 
 proviso carries with it nothing more than is practised in 
 the Church everywhere. The rector of the church 
 comes in and goes part way through the service ; his 
 voice breaks down, or he is, as I have known myself, 
 unable to go through the service ; he thinks that by the 
 time he arrives at his sermon, he may be able to preach . 
 and he calls some respectable communicant of his 
 church to read for him ; that is lay-reading. It is un- 
 derstood by a large portion of the House that this is a 
 violation of the canon. Merely to get rid of this objec- 
 tion I have proposed this proviso. When it is once 
 passed, if you choose by-and-by, you can strike it out. 
 But what I want now is to get that canon through as 
 easily as possible. 
 
 A motion to lay the canon on the table was lost. 
 The question then recurring upon the amendment of 
 Rev. Dr. Crane, it was adopted. 
 
 The canon as amended was then adopted. 
 Rev. Mr. Bkeck — staled that the publishers of The 
 Churchman, who were publishing a full report of the 
 debates and proceedings of this House, were ready to 
 receive subscriptions for the report in book form, and 
 offered a resolution, which was adopted, authorizing the 
 Secretary of the House to purchase ten copies of said 
 report for the use of the Convention. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe — made a Report from the Joint Com- 
 mittee to examine the proof-sheets of the proposed 
 Standard Bible continued at the last General Conven- 
 tion submitting the resolution, which was adopted, — that 
 the Oxford edition [1852] of the Bible be adopted as 
 the standard of punctuation and typography. The 
 committee was discharged. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce — introduced a series of resolutions, 
 concluding with one for a Joint Committee of both 
 Houses to consider the question whether foreigners may 
 not use the Liturgy in their own language, and to re- 
 port to the next Convention. Laid on the table. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Howe the House reconsidered 
 its action discharging the Committee on the Standard 
 Bible, having been informed by Rev. Dr. Howe that a 
 person had stated to him that a member of his congre- 
 gation was contemplating an appropriation of Twenty- 
 Five Thousand Dollars for tlie purpose contemplated by 
 the Committee. 
 
 On motion, the House adjourned to half-past nine to- 
 morrow morning. 
 
 SIXTEENTH DAY. 
 
 Saturday, Oct. 24th, 18G8. 
 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. Morning 
 Prayer was said by Rev. Dr. Bekki.ev and Rev. Dr. 
 Reynolds. 
 
 The benediction was pronounced by Bisnoi' Kem- 
 
 PEK. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haicht, from the Committee on Canons, 
 submitted report No. 2T, with reference to the proi)Osed 
 anu'ndment of Canon 5, Title .3, of " Congregations and 
 Tarishes," by the addition of a clause whereby, in a 
 
132 
 
 certain contingency, , a new parish may be formed, 
 without the consent of ecclesiastical authority. The 
 committee regarded the proposed amendment inexpedi- 
 ent — did not think it a safe principle to adopt, that any 
 parish should be formed without the express, positive 
 consent of ecclesiastical authority. A resolution to this 
 effect, reported by the committee, was adopted. 
 . The Committee on Canons reported a canon for 
 adoption, by the House, on the subject of divorces j 
 which, at the request of the committee, was allowed to 
 lie on the table to be called up. 
 
 The Kev. Dr. Hubbakd rose to a personal explana- 
 tion, with reference to yesterday's report of the Com- 
 mittee on the Prayer-Book, saying that the statement 
 of a member of the committee, that the resolution report- 
 ed was not what he had voted for, arose from the en- 
 tire misapprehension of two persons, who were not 
 present at the time of the action of the committee. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Rylance, the Committee 
 on Arrangements of this House were authorized to con- 
 sult with any committee that might be appointed by the 
 House of Bishops, and to make arrangements for the 
 concluding services. 
 
 Mr. Demill, of Michigan, offered the following reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, That the thanks of the Uouse are due, and are 
 hereby tendered, to those who have officiated as the choir 
 at the services of this Convention, and — 
 
 Resolved, That authorities of the diocese in which the 
 next General Couvi.-ntiou is to be held be desired to make 
 similar arrangemeuts for music. 
 
 Mr. O. Meads : — I hope such a resolution as that will 
 not pass. I hope we may trust the diocese or church 
 in which the next Convention is to be held, to make 
 such arrangements for us as shall be suitable. I be- 
 lieve we have in evei'y iliocese a Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, and I think we ought to assume that it is com- 
 petent to conduct services in a proper manner, and that 
 we can leave it with Urmu to make proper arrange- 
 ments. 
 
 Mr. Demill : — I offered a similar resolution three 
 years ago ; and I offer it again. Until all members of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church are instructed as to 
 what belongs to such a C'hurch, I hope that the House 
 will pass that resolution. With reference to music 
 which I heard last Sunday in a certain church, I would 
 say that it was music; but I could not understand it; 
 it was not the character of music I want to see the 
 Church adopt. The Church has adopted a certain 
 style of music, and I want to see it recognized by this 
 Convention. There was no opposition to the resolution 
 three years ago, and there ought to be none now. I 
 trust this resolution will not be laid upon the table . 
 [Such a motion had been made and witlnlrawnj for 1 
 think the Convention, into whatever diocese it goes, 
 should control the services. If we go into Marylandi 
 North Carolina, South Carolina or Georgia — though I 
 may not go there myself — I do not want the parisli 
 
 church to control the Convention. The resolution is 
 not intended as any disrespect to the diocese. It was 
 not so considered three years ago ; and I do not see 
 how it can be so considered now. I want the Conven- 
 tion to control their services. When this Convention 
 opened at Trinity church, the music was very satisfac- 
 tory ; it must have been so to every one who attended ; 
 I have never heard a single complaint of the music at 
 the opening services. I want the same character and 
 style of music when we meet again. 
 
 Mr. Welsh — said that he thought this Convention 
 had no control over the music of the next Convention ; 
 that was their business ; he hope& the gentleman would 
 withdraw his resolution. 
 
 The resolution was withdrawn. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLEs offered a resolution, which was 
 adopted, with reference to the printing and distribution 
 of five thousand copies of the journal of this Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 George F. Houghton, of Vermont, offered a resolu- 
 tion inviting the Rev. William Chaun'cey Langdon, a 
 member of the Committee on the Italian Reform Move- 
 ment and its representative in Italy for two years last 
 past, to address the House on the subject under consid- 
 eration. 
 
 Gov. Fish, while having a hearty sympathy with that 
 movement, hoped that the House would establish no 
 such dangerous precedent as inviting a gentleman to 
 address thein, who was not a member of the Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 The resolution was then withdrawn. 
 
 The following resolution was offered: 
 
 Resolved, That it be referred to the Connnittee on Canons 
 to consider and report, if it lie deemed expedient, by canon 
 or other^visc, prohibiting tlie lioldiug of General Conventions 
 in consecrated churches. 
 
 The mover of the resolution remarked: — Mr. Presi- 
 dent, I believe this Convention to be as orderly and as 
 reverential as any which it has been my privilege to 
 be a member of; and I do not know that this Conven- 
 tion is prepared now to act upon a proposition like thisi 
 and I trust the time is coming when this council of the 
 holy Catholic Church will set the example of not seem- 
 ing to desecrate the house of God in any measure. I 
 have been taught to believe that upon passing the 
 threshold of the house of God the voice is to be hushed, 
 and in no case to be heard, even in a whisper, save only 
 as attuned to the prayei-s and praises of God. I trust to 
 see the time when our consecrated hotises will be used 
 only for that purpose for which they were consecrated, 
 being set apart from all unhallowed, worldly and com- 
 mon uses. With this view, and believing I am stand- 
 ing on holy ground, and s[)eaking not as I believe we 
 sliotdd in churches, I simply move that this resolution 
 be referred to the Connnittee on Canons. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, of Peniusylvania: — t should be glad to 
 have the matter referred, because it is a subject of very 
 
133 
 
 great importance. We all feci that God's house should 
 have associations so sacred about it as to aid those who 
 desire to worsliip. I never saw a convention as orderly 
 as this ; yet, even here, habits in the different parts of 
 the country differ so much that what is thought little 
 of in one place is regarded of much consequence in an- 
 other. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance: — Wliat we need is a large chap- 
 ter-house to be built for such a Convention as this. I 
 think the time is coming for it. It would, of course, 
 have to stand in some central portion of the country ; 
 and, as it is admitted on all hands that Cliicago is to be 
 the metropolis of the future, I trust it is to be the place 
 of the chapter-house. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuG(iLEs:--This debate, which seems to 
 give so much pleasure to many members of the House, 
 I have not heard without considerable pain. It is a 
 grave proposition, introducing a measure in this House 
 declaring that this Convention shall not be held in the 
 house of God, where it has alvvaj's been held. I should 
 hope that the gentleman would go no further with his 
 proposition of leaving these consecrated places and go- 
 ing to places desecrated. In answer to my esteemed 
 friend, I would say that he will have to exert himsef. 
 to produce anything more spacious than Tammany Halll 
 And are we to go to Tammany Hall ! For one, I should 
 be sorry to be left to the mercy of any committee who 
 would send us to any such place, so desecrated by polit- 
 ical strife. I should rather hope for a withdrawal of 
 tVie resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hahe : — I rise to suggest a difficulty in a 
 resolution of this kind. I have attended here every day, 
 ond every night at the Board of Missions ; and I re- 
 member, one night, when we listened to a very eloquent 
 appeal from the Bi.shop of Pittsburg, that there was a 
 Universal burst of applause in the Board of Missions, 
 and the Board of Missions holding its meetings in a 
 consecrated place. I say universal — I may possibly be 
 mistaken — but it seemed to me that, to the best of my 
 recollection, I was the only person in this building that 
 refrained from loud applause. I do not presume to 
 fault anybody who did so. I know that such things 
 were done in the early ages of the Church. I am not 
 approving of it, but admitting it. But it does seem to 
 me very difficult for myself to applaud in such a place, 
 from long habit of not giving vent to my feelings in the 
 house of God. I remained perfectly still while there was 
 a universal burst of applause. But that was the most 
 demonstrative meeting that has been held in any conse- 
 crated building, to the best of my knowledge, since the 
 opening of the Cotivention. I therefore suggest that if 
 the resolution be pressed, to have such a canon enacted 
 it must include other meetings than those of this 
 Convention. If this were the proper time — I should 
 like to speak of much greater grievances — that in con- 
 secrated buililings pews are sold to 'i'urks and infidels 
 under the auctioneer's hammer. 
 
 Mr. :— I think we should be governed by 
 
 the consecration service. We have the words of the 
 consecration services thaf'these houses are erected for the 
 public worship of God and separate from all unhallowed, 
 worldly, and common uses, in order to fill men's minds 
 with greater reverence for His glorious majesty." I 
 contend that our experience, the experience of rectors 
 who have had churches used for other than Divine 
 services, is that sometime subsequent to these meetings 
 a feeling of irreverence has attended the minds of many 
 who worship in the sanctuary. It is almost impossible 
 for a convention like this House, or the Board of Missions 
 who sit in this House, if they feel an interest upon the 
 subjects brought before them, to repress an enthusiastic 
 feeling, and at times an outburst of applause. These 
 things we know are derogatory to the character, the de- 
 vout associations of this place, and I hope there is not a 
 true churchman who does not, in the honest conviction 
 of his mind, wish for an alteration. The only way in 
 which we can do it is by the passage of a canon which 
 shall enact that other places shall be selected. The dif- 
 ficulty of having a Chapter-house would be this : a con- 
 vention does not assemble in one city only ; but that 
 difficulty might be obviated by selecting some place of 
 secular meeting. In all the principal places where the 
 Convention has assembled, or will assemble, there are 
 always places of sufficient capacity to accommodate the 
 Convention ; and there is no necessity for this Conven- 
 tion ever assembling in the House of God. 
 
 On motion the resolution was laid upon the table. 
 On motion. Judge Battle was allowed to make a per- 
 sonal explanation with reference to the canon on the 
 subject of consecration of churches, he having been, on 
 yesterday, suddenly prevented from making a speech on 
 the matter, by a motion to lay on the table. 
 
 Judge Battle: — The object I had in view is not ex- 
 actly answered [by leave to explain with reference to 
 the canon]. It will be recollected that a precedent was 
 established, early in the session, that any member of the 
 Committee on Canons who had charge of a measure 
 from the Committee on Canons should have an oppor- 
 tunity of replying to objections. I had the honor of 
 being charged with this measure. At last a motion was 
 made to lay on the table. I did not wish to say anything, 
 because I had no right to say anything pending that 
 motion. I thought it was nothing more than t'.i'ir that 
 after these objections had come from various (juarters, 
 the House should extend to me the courtesy to make 
 a reply to the objections; after which, it was com- 
 petent to dispose of the measure as might seem best. 
 An objection was made by a gentleman from Connecti- 
 cut, which I think, I could have successfully answered ; 
 and there may have been other objections to which I 
 could have made satisfactory answers. If the canon is 
 taken up, I wish to have an 0[)portunily to make a reply 
 to these objections. 
 
 A motion was made lo take the c inon from the table 
 to be acted upon at the present time. 
 
134 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan :— I would second the motion, be 
 cause it seems to me that the whole subject now rests in 
 a queer predicament. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stuebs :— I hope the House will yield this 
 request. The canon was first planned by me and I put 
 the bantling into the hands of the Committee on Canons. 
 They went to work and dressed it up in such a form 
 that when it came out I scarcely knew my own child 
 [Laughter] ; and it appeared in such ugly features that 
 the Convention would scarcely look at it. I did not 
 want the property qualifications brought in. I knew well 
 enough that there was a difference of opinion upon that 
 point ; but there were certain grand principles contained 
 in the canon which I wished to have enunciated distinct- 
 ly by this House ; for I maintain there has been no 
 greater abuse in this whole country than has taken place 
 in reference to the desecration of buildings consecrated 
 to Almighty God. Inasmuch as the consecration 
 service is used by the whole Church, it is worthy of this 
 body to pass a canon in reference to such a service. 
 The motion to take up the canon was agreed to. 
 Judge Battle : — I must confess I was taken some- 
 what by surprise by the action of the House in tabling 
 the canon. I thought that if any principle in the world 
 commended it.self to the judgment of this Convention it 
 was that a church after being consecrated should not be 
 desecrated so far as human means could prevent. That 
 principle is set forth clearly in the first section of this 
 proposed canon. [Reads the first section]. 
 
 Now, sir, that completely accomplishes the purpose, 
 that after it is consecrated it shall not be desecrated, 
 not applied to any unholy uses. But if not free from 
 debt, and the title not secured, what security has ttie 
 
 Church that the building may not be sold for debt ? 
 
 that some person cannot recover it, if there be an out- 
 standing title, so that it may be applied to unholy pur- 
 poses ? As to the objection raised by the learned deputy 
 from Connecticut, that they have a church in Connecti- 
 cut so situated that no title could be secured, a gentle- 
 man from the same diocese replied that a long enjoy- 
 ment of the property gave a title. That was doubted : 
 I stated it was good law— that it would no doubt be 
 good law in the part of the country from which I came. 
 I know that the State is not barred by any ordinary 
 Statute of Limitations. In the diocese in which I live 
 there is a certain provision that the State shall not be 
 barred. But there is another principle in Common 
 Law well known to every gentleman in this House, that 
 there is a presumption of a grant even against the kin" 
 and certainly against the State. Now, it seems to m"' 
 that when a church has enjoyed the privilege of location 
 upon land, even if it belongs to the State there would be 
 a presumption in favor of the title, on behalf of the 
 church. He says that it belongs to New Haven. Well 
 New Haven is not a State ; it is no more than a private 
 individual ; and the ordinary Statute of Limitations 
 would liar anybody but the Slate ; and the presumption 
 
 of the Common Law shows that even then there ivould 
 be no such difficulty as the gentleman affirms. But sup- 
 pose they could not get a good title in New Haven for 
 that property, is this great principle to be set aside, 
 merely because in any particular place you cannot get 
 a title to the property ? There is no difficulty so far as 
 the church now stands ; and there is a mere possibility 
 that at some future time that church may be burned and 
 another built in its place. I don't tell the gentleman as 
 the yankee said, to keep it well insured so that it may 
 not be burned down ; but if they have not a good title, 
 let them build somewhere where they can get a good 
 title. But I say that Connecticut is governed by the 
 Common Law of the land. Is this Convention prepared 
 to say that when a church is once consecrated, set apart 
 for the purpose of worship of Almighty God, it may be 
 desecrated ? If it is, I have nothing further to say. 
 This canon secures it against such a thing. Those who 
 vote against it do not entertain the views I do. It is 
 said, we had better leave it to the different dioceses, and 
 let the different dioceses pass such a law as this. I think 
 we had such a law, and in our diocese, I believe our 
 bishop win never consecrate a church unless it is free 
 from debt ; but it does seem to me that whenever a 
 public building is set apart to the worship of Almighty 
 God, it should be applied so far as human means can 
 prevent to no other purpose. If this first section is 
 adopted, then there are two other sections tending to 
 give security that it shall be applied to no other purpose 
 than this for which it is erected. It seems to me that 
 we ought not to omit on this occasion, to pass this canon 
 in order to establish, as far as we can by human means, 
 the great principle that no church when set apart for the 
 purpose of worship of Almighty God shall ever be de- 
 voted to any other less holy purpose. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beardslev, of Connecticut: — I am as much 
 in favor of preserving our churches from desecration as 
 the learned Deputy from North Carolina. I meant to 
 say that Trinity Church [New Haven] and some other 
 churches of Connecticut are built upon what is called 
 public squares ; and some of the successors of those 
 early churches still occupy the same sites. If they 
 should be burned down or should be displaced and oth- 
 ers erected, I do not see how under this canon they 
 could receive consecration. I think the operation of this 
 canon would be a hardship in many cases. Take the 
 case of a young vigorous parish started in a thrifty and 
 rapidly growing parish composed of members who are 
 in moderate circumstances, of young men just starting 
 in life. They are full of Christian faith and zeal ; they 
 purchase a lot and erect a church upon it ; they make 
 every exertion to meet the expenses of building, which 
 in these times would be burdensome in almost any 
 portion of the country. Suppose they are in debt a 
 few thousand dollars ? the church is not in peril. Will 
 you say to the members of this young parish that they 
 shall not enter this church with I'oims of consecration ? 
 
185 
 
 In Connecticut, before the RcvoUitionary War, the 
 churches had no consecration. "We had no Bishop in 
 this country. What was the consequence ? When we 
 had a Bishop, the people did not care to have their 
 buildings consecrated. They had occupied them for 
 forty or more years, and they were consecrated by their 
 prayers. 
 
 I do not see why this matter should not be left to the 
 different dioceses of our country. The Bishop knows 
 when the church is in peril, and he will not consecrate 
 it in that case. I think it is perfectly safe to leave this 
 to the dioceses. 
 
 Mr. N. H. Massie, of Virginia : — Before a vote is 
 taken on the canon I think it would be best to have 
 the matter tested by a motion to lay on the table. The 
 conventions of the different dioceses are as competent 
 to protect churches from desecration, knowing their 
 own peculiar customs, as this General Convention. In 
 fact il is almost if not quite impossible for the General 
 Convention to regulate this matter, because there are 
 so many peculiar exceptions to the rule in different 
 parts of the country that it would amount to nothing. 
 The vote was then taken upon the motion to lay upon 
 the table, and was carried by ayes, 87 ; noes 65. 
 
 The Committee on Expen,ses recommended the adop- 
 tion of a resolution increasing the quota from two to 
 three dollars to meet the incidental expenses of the 
 Convention, and also authorizing the Secretary of the 
 House to make if necessary additional assessments ; 
 which resolution was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Ur. Hakjht — submitted a report of the Commit- 
 tee on Canons, No. 2'J, with reference to a proposed 
 canon relative to the Standard Prayer Book. The com- 
 mittee reported that in their opinion it is not expedient 
 to adopt the same, and offered a resolution to the effect 
 that a note should be inserted in future editions of 
 the Prayer Book, specifying that alterations had been 
 made in several of the late editions heretofore printed. 
 Rev. Dr. Haigiit — from the Committee on Canons, 
 submitted a report proposing an amendment to Canon 
 2, Title 2, "Offences for which Ministers may be tried 
 and punished." This first section, said Dr. Haight, is 
 entirely re-written, to make it like a corresponding 
 canon on the trial of Bishops, which was prepared with 
 very great care, and is supposed to contain the latest 
 views of this House upon the subject of the trial of all 
 orders of the clergy. It is in order to get rid of the 
 slight inconveniences which have resulted from the 
 phraseology of this canon. Section 2 is the same as 
 the section in the existing canon except in so far as the 
 designation of offences is concerned. The House will 
 observe that the change proposed in this canon relates 
 simply to the enumeration of offenses for which minis- 
 ters may be tried and punished. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I would suggest that an addition- 
 al clause should be added so that it may say — "the re- 
 ftjsal to submit to ecclesiastical sentence duly passed." 
 
 [Laughter.] 1 believe that is not in the list of crimes. 
 I believe it is necessary under the circumstances. Our 
 ecclesiastical court is a court simply of the Church and 
 has no power to enforce its sentence otherwise than by 
 the power of the court. By putting this in we shall 
 stop a gap that may admit a good deal of mischief. 
 Here were received from the House of Bishops — 
 Message No. 32, informing the House of Deputies of 
 the adoption by them of a canon on the subject of mar- 
 riage and divorce. 
 
 Message No. 3:3, a.sking the prayers of this House 
 while the House of Bishops is engaged on the subject of 
 Indian Missions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, (resuming):— the gentleman has 
 suggested an amendment to the proposed canon. I can 
 not accept it because it is desirable to have it corres- 
 pond with the canon on the trial of Bishops. Until it 
 is proposed to change that, it is not worth while to ac- 
 cept this amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I do not suppose any member of 
 the House of Bishops would be capable of that oll'ense. 
 Mr. Welsh of Pennsylvania : — I learn that the House 
 of Bishops after the pattern of St. Paul, have asked the 
 elders and brethren to pray for them, that they may be 
 guided in this matter of the Indian Bishopric. 1 move 
 that the House unite in prayer. The motion was agreed 
 to. 
 
 A resolution was then offered expressing the interest 
 and sympathy of the House regarding the Italian Re- 
 form-movement. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — I move the adoption of this reso- 
 lution. In regard to this Italian movement we need to 
 be more enlightened than we are to have any warm 
 feeling about it. But there is no doubt that God's 
 spirit is moving upon the face of the earth in those old 
 countries in a peculiar way ; and it is right that our 
 branch of the Church should be at least awake to a 
 subject which may be, for aught we know, one of vast 
 importance. I can only say in reference to this, that 
 the few persons who have taken the pains to examine 
 the publications of the Italian reformers, and get some 
 information on the subject, are satisfied that there is 
 a very important and profound movement going on. 
 We do not undertake to be prophets, to say what it 
 will come to ; but there is one thing certain, that if true 
 Christians will be alive and will direct their prayers to 
 God, and will sympathize with what is good in the 
 movement, it will come to a much better end than if 
 they remain entirely inert and express no kind of sym- 
 pathy whatever. As these resolutions are simply ex- 
 pressive of an interest in the subject, there can be no 
 harm in passing them. I move the adoption of the 
 resolutions reported. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I rise to second the motion. I hoped 
 that gentlemen more familiar with the subject would 
 second it. Our Bishop of Pennsylvania, took a deep 
 interest in the movement; he saw its ripeness, and 
 
136 
 
 thanked God, and took courage. Less tlian is proposed 
 in those resolutions surely we could not do. A 
 presbyter of our Church has been examining the field ; 
 he finds it is ripe. They are looking to this great re- 
 public for S3'mpathy ; and all they ask is that we should 
 look upon them, and smile upon them, and pra}' for 
 them. The telegraph has given notice that in Spain 
 there is something of a similar kind ; and just in pro- 
 portion as this Church does the work of Christ may we 
 expect to sec that corrupt Church of Rome yielding. I 
 think we can do nothing less than pass resolutions of 
 this kind and strengthen the hands of those engaged in 
 the work. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — For two or three years past I 
 have been in the habit, more or less, of reading the 
 Italian periodicals in relation to this subject. And have 
 also had a pretty familiar acquaintance with an Italian 
 gentleman, an earnest young man, who has come into 
 our Church, and who has familiarized himself with the 
 movement ; and it seems to me that the resolutions pro- 
 posed do not go any further than we may safely go. 
 I understand there are three different classes in this 
 Italian movement. There is a political movement ; a 
 reformed catholic movement ; and there is the enlarged 
 Protestant movement of the Waldensians. Even as re- 
 gards the party whose interests are chiefly political, I 
 do not see why we may not sympathize with their neg- 
 ative movement — not so far as they are running into in- 
 fidelity — but if their efforts should result in an emanci- 
 pation of Italj' from the Pope, so far we might sympa- 
 thize even with that movement. The other movement 
 of the religious party as far as it goes is just what we 
 may desire. It simply does not go so far as we may 
 desire, not so far as I would desire before I could give 
 it my hearty sympathies. There is no disposition so 
 far as we can learn to abandon the supremacy of the 
 doctrines of the Romish Church, but they look chiefly 
 to a reform in discipline ; but if that reform take such a 
 direction as we may hope in carrying it out, aided by 
 the prayers of true Christians, the Italian reformers may 
 be led to go farther even to reforming tlieir errors in 
 doctrine. And as to the other part of the movement, 
 the Waldensian movement, I do not know why we may 
 not sj'mpathize with that, so far as it is a tendency to 
 the purification of the Church of Christ, and the enlarge- 
 ment of a true knowledge of the Gospel. And, there- 
 fore, with simple knoM'ledge of the facts of the ca.se, I 
 am ready with the gentleman who has preceded me, to 
 heartily endorse the resolutions as I understand them. 
 
 Mr. : — It seems to me that there is a phrase in 
 
 that resolution which might better be omitted. The 
 phrase is " the glory of Italy." I suppose there is noohjec- 
 tion on the part of any one to sympathize with whatever 
 may tend to the glory of God and the prosperity of His 
 Church. I hope that phrase may be stricken out. [The 
 Secretary — It is true glory]. The term " true glory" 
 is not exceptionable. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rylance : — It may be that the strict order 
 
 and discipline of this House properly forbid the possibil- 
 ity of one from without coming upon this floor and 
 speaking to us upon this matter ; yet I am quite con- 
 fident that in attempting to arrive at the just apprecia- 
 tion of this matter and thus intelligently to pass these 
 resolutions, we suflfer very seriously ; for it appears, 
 apart from the document read, we have not a great 
 deal of information on this subject in this House, at least 
 it does not seem that we are likely to get at it. I am 
 quite sure, to pass those resolutions with any sincerity of 
 affection, we need such information — we need more than 
 is generally known. For one, I have lately been down 
 the Italian peninsula, and I found very little evidence 
 of the reform movement there. I did hear some things 
 damaging to it ; and I for one, should like to ask if we 
 can get in a proper, legal, and orderly way an answer 
 to a question like this, as to what kind of material as yet 
 stands out from the Church of Rome legitimately m 
 sympathy with this reform movement ? Is it chiefly, al- 
 most exclusively, what you might call the waste mate- 
 rial of the Romish priesthood? oris it, to any hopeful 
 extent, composed of men who are representatives of 
 the best type of the priesthood ? I heard hints there 
 by persons knowing the facts, stating that the men who 
 have as yet come out to speak and act in sympathy with 
 the movement, are men who are encumbered with im- 
 moralities. I do not say all, but I say many. And there- 
 fore we should understand a matter like this in order 
 intelligently and conscientiously, to give our view as 
 to what is the strength of the reform movement. I 
 should like to know how far this middle movement open- 
 ly and expressly cuts itself loose from Romish error and 
 falsehood ; for instance, how far it has expressed itself 
 upon a point like this, namely, the supremacy of the 
 Bishop of Rome. In order that we may pass these reso- 
 lutions, I ask that some one, if any one is prepared, 
 should answer such questions as these. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Huntington : — The Rev. Mr. Langdon 
 who has made the investigation in Italy, has no place in 
 this House, and is unable to make an answer to the ques- 
 tions raised here ; and it is apparent to the whole House 
 that the questions cover a wide ground and require a 
 long time to answer them. It may, however, be said 
 that a commission of an informal kind was established 
 at the last Triennial Convention ; and of that informal 
 commission thither, Mr. Langdon has been the agent. 
 There are several clergymen of our Church who 
 are, judging from his correspondence, competent to form 
 a judgment. That correspondence is to a certain ex- 
 tent confidential necessarily ; for it would be impossi- 
 ble, I suppose, to bring before the public all the facts 
 pertaining to this matter without compromising the best 
 success of the movement. I only rise for the pur- 
 pose of saying that having had access to these documents, 
 and personal acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Lang- 
 don, I have the utmost confidence in what he has done 
 and is doing. He seems to be acting with extraordina- 
 
137 
 
 ry prudence and discretion. It seems to me that lie is 
 acting for the true interests of the Church of Christ and 
 for the glory of God. Questions have arisen of a very 
 delicate and complicated character with regard to cer- 
 tain individuals who lead in tliis movement in Italy. 
 There has been a continual controversy carried on in 
 the Church papers in England, in which controversy 
 several able writers are in the field and are taking part. 
 I think if all that is known upon the subject were 
 spread before the House, the members could come at 
 once to one conclusion, that is, that we shall be safe, we 
 shall be advancing the interest of the cause of Chiist, 
 by adopting the resolutions and seconding Mr. Langdon's 
 exertions in every way in our power. 
 
 Rev. Charles Breck: — In this movement we see a 
 most remarkable fulfilment of the written declaration of 
 Jarvis when he was in Italy, and he held confidential 
 intercourse with quite a number of the dignitaries of the 
 Church of Rome, who in confidence, and knowing that 
 he could not betray that confidence, intimated to him 
 their deepest regret that they did not occupy the posi- 
 tion of the Clergy of the Church of England. And I 
 think that in the developments that are going on now, 
 in the open and bold manner in which some of these 
 reformers are speaking out, we do but see the fulfil- 
 ment of the predictions that Jarvis told us some of us 
 would live to see realized ; I think if we could look up- 
 on the faces of the men that Mr. Langdon has come into 
 contact with, we should be so deeply impressed that we 
 would say that these are representative men, that we 
 would feel that they were as remarkable a body of men 
 of reformers as the world has ever .seen or ever looked 
 upon. One of these distinguished men, who has been 
 thrown into prison twenty times for openly proclaiming 
 the truth — if you could look upon that man, you would 
 feel that he might be placed by the side of the noblest 
 men of the sixteenth century ; and we may all of us 
 honour Count Tasca, who now venerable, bowed down 
 by years and by suffering, yet boldly does all he can to 
 aid the movement, and boldly supplies Christian litera- 
 ture so far as means will allow, to certain persons who 
 go out into the valleys distributing this literature for the 
 advancement of the Christian Church. And there is 
 a remarkable fact stated in this report, that these men, 
 in looking into antiquity and into Holy Scripture, have 
 worked out for themselves just such a Church as we 
 have in this country — more nearly like our Church, 
 than that of any branch of the Church in the world. 
 But, as the gentleman who has just taken his seat has said, 
 there is so much of this that cannot be openly brought 
 forward, that we have to rely upon one of our own cler- 
 gy and one of the English clergy for much of our infor- 
 mation in regard to this matter. 
 
 Mr. Rdggi.es : — I feel called upon to add a word upon 
 the word "glory." The question seems to be whether 
 in this religious body we can in any way allude to the 
 welfare or glory of a nation. We have a precedent in 
 our action at the first meeting of this Church which con- 
 18 
 
 gratulated George Washington upon his election as 
 chief magistrate of the United States, to which the 
 bishops replied most affectionately and respectfully ; 
 which seems to establish the principle for me that this 
 Church may look to the secular welfare of a nation. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Rvlancb: — I would not have it thought and 
 understood that I am unfriendly to this movement. My 
 heart is in it. Mr. Langdon may understand that I am 
 not unfriendly to it, but simply wish to elicit informa- 
 tion. I am a friend to the movement, but I feel that 
 truth never fears light. 
 
 The question then being taken on the resolution from 
 the House of Bishops in regard to the Italian movement, 
 this House concurred ; as also in another resolution from 
 the House of Bishops continuing the joint committee 
 on Religious Reform in Italy, and adding three laymen- 
 
 On motion the House proceeded to consider the mes- 
 sage from the House of Bishops on the subject of 
 divorces. 
 
 The proposed canon was then read by the Secretary 
 as follows : 
 
 The ministers of this Church shall not unite in matri- 
 mony any persons of whom one has been divorced for any 
 cause arising subsequent to the previous marriage, other 
 than adultery ; nor a person divorced for his or her own 
 adultery. For the purpose of this canon, divorce is 
 hereby defined to be ^^ divorce a vinculo matrimonii," 
 formally decreed by a civil court. 
 
 Mr. RuGGLES : — I would state a preliminary question 
 which concerns the form of proceeding in this House. 
 It involves the question offered by my friend from South 
 Carohna as to the effect of a resolution from this House 
 as distinguished from a canon. As I understood my 
 friend a resolution was superior to a canon. 
 
 The importance of a resolution is now manifest ; be- 
 cause there is a resolution standing on our files and part 
 of our record on this very subject, which, if it has the 
 effect of a canon, makes the passage of the 
 canon, unnecessary. The resolution passed in 1808, 
 May 26th, is this: "Resolved that it is the sense 
 of this Church that it is inconsistent with the law of God, 
 and the ministers of this Church shall not unite in mat- 
 rimony any person who is divorced unless it be on ac- 
 count of the other party having been guilty of adultery.' 
 There is a resolution that establishes the law, if a reso- 
 lution can do so. 
 
 Mr. Tazewell Taylor, of Virginia : — If I understand 
 what the question is, it is upon the adoption of the can- 
 on. I beg leave to say that no member of this House 
 more heartily feels the sentiment that divorces are con- 
 trary to the law of God, and no man has done more than 
 1 to throw every obstacle in the way of divorces. 1 
 would not consent to be an attorney in any divorce 
 case. But there are legal difficulties in passing a canon 
 of this kind. A canon would be inoperative except in 
 so far as it expresses the sentiment of the convention. 
 A minister in my State — 1 don't know how it may be in 
 other States — is a civil officer. He has to go before a 
 court and obtain permission to celebrate the ceremony 
 
138 
 
 of matrimduy. Kegels an appointment and the condi- 
 tion of the appointment is that he will not celebrate the 
 rites of matrimony between persons prohibited from 
 marrying by the laws of the State. If he refuses to per- 
 form the ceremony whei'e there is no legal obstacle, he 
 is liable to a penalty. Our canon cannot override the 
 civil law ; it cannot destroy the civil function of the 
 minister. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Perkins, of Ky. : — Will the gentleman al- 
 low me to interrupt him for one moment? I have never 
 so understood the license that a minister receives from 
 the civil officer as compelling him to perform the rite of 
 matrimony in the case in question. It is a permission 
 for him to do .so ; but he can determine for himself 
 whether he will perform the rite or not. 
 
 Rev. Di-. Andkews : — A man might have aright to sue 
 [a minister for not pei forming the rite.s of marriage] but 
 every man knows it would be futile to sue in Virginia. 
 
 Mr. Taylor : — That may be so, and why put it in 
 the form of a canon 'i 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — A resolution is insufficient. It has 
 been brought up several times in Connecticut, and the 
 Bishop has always said the resolution does not bind you 
 not to perform the service ; and you must do what you 
 think best. My advice is not to perform the service, 
 but if you see fit to do it you have a right to do it. I 
 know one case in which a clergyman refused, by the 
 Bishop's advice, to perform the ceremony ; but the very 
 parties have gone to another clergyman and had the 
 service performed in that very State. Thei-e have been 
 cases in the State of Connecticut where clergymen in 
 the Komish Church have decided " I will net do such 
 and such a service." Cases have been brought up be- 
 fore the civil courts, and there has not been an instance 
 in which there has been a civil action brought against a 
 Romish Priest for declining to violate the law of bis own 
 Chm-ch, where the clergyman could say I am forbidden 
 to perform the rite, where he has not been sustained by 
 the court in his refusal. I do want to have this canon 
 passed, that our clergymen may be placed in a similar 
 position. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Virginia: — I wish the Convention 
 to understand my objection. The minister does not ar- 
 rive at his authority by virtue of his ordination ; and it 
 is not proper to pass a canon, while it is perfectly proper 
 to pass such a resolution. 
 
 Rev. Br. Clark, of Connecticut: — The clergy of the 
 denominations within the last two years have, started 
 by the venerable President of Yale College and others, 
 brought memorials on this subject of Divorce l>efbre the 
 State Legislature, but they were put aside. Our own 
 Diocesan Convention passed unanimously resolutions in- 
 structing the delegates to memorialize this House that 
 something may be done in this matter. The fact was 
 brought before us that the number of divorces was one 
 tenth of the number of marriages. That is an awful 
 State of things. And it is equally as bad in Massachu- 
 
 setts. I do hope we shall not separate until we have 
 something enabling us to say positively " I cannot per- 
 form this service, and I will not." I have said I never 
 perlbrmed the service for any who have been divorced 
 for any thing less than adultery. I hope we shall have 
 a canon under which we can protect ourselves. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs, of New Jersey : — The argument 
 used by the gentleman from Virginia is one which has 
 been frequently used in this body before to-day. I wish 
 it might be met. It was a very favorite argument with 
 our venerable and much lamented friend. Judge Cham- 
 bers — I mean the argument derived from the Civil Law 
 — whether an Ecclesiastical law should not be enforced , . ' 
 because it comes into contSECt with the Civil Law. He ~ f^^ 
 has brought 'forward the strongest argument in favor of 
 making this a canon. Suppose the Civil Law compelled 
 a clergyman to perform the marriage. Then let that 
 clergyman resist the law and be punished, and in that 
 way you will most thoroughly enforce the law of the 
 Church. That is what John the Baptist did when the 
 necessity came up for rebuking Herod. He did it, and 
 paid the penalty by being put into prison ; and that is 
 the strongest attestation which he could make to the ' 
 truth. I want to see clei'gymen stand up and A) the ^^ 
 truth, and by being punished proclaim the truth to the ' 
 
 world. 
 
 The President : — Is there any law anywhere in the 
 world compelling a clergyman to perform the rites of 
 marriage ? 
 
 A Deputy: — With becoming 'diffidence I must ven- 
 ture to beg that more consideration shall be given to 
 the matter before the Convention enact a canon upon it. 
 Circumstances of duty have within the last few years 
 compelled clergymen of our Church to investigate this 
 matter strictly and carefully in the Scriptures, and many 
 of them are convinced that neither the provisions of a 
 canon nor even the expression of an opinion on the 
 part of the House of Bishops comes up to the standard 
 laid down in the Gospel upon this matter. Many of 
 them are satisfied that according to the .Scripture there 
 are but two classes of marriage to be considered : one 
 class which is vitiated by crime committed beforehand, 
 and that is the only class in which divorce is proper, 
 so that the parties divorced may be again married, and 
 that all valid marriages are indissoluble. Therefore I 
 would respectfully offer as an amendment : 
 
 liesoloed, That the subject of message number — 
 from the House of Bishops be referred for further con- 
 sideration to a special committee of three clergymen and 
 two legal gentlemen to report upon at the next General 
 Convention. 
 
 - A Clerical Deputy, from Virginia : — I hope this 
 proceeding will not take the shape of a resolution but a 
 well-defined canon. I suppose it can hardly be ques- 
 tioned that if passed in the shape of a concurrent reso- 
 lution it can have nothing but an advisory influence up- 
 on the clergy, whereas if it is put in a canon it must 
 have a regular and uniform effect — that there can b? 
 
139 
 
 any difficulty in enforcing a canon of the Churcb, I am 
 not willing to believe. I would like here to say that my 
 colleague and friend has brought us into precisely the 
 right attitude. It is true, as he states, that before a min- 
 ister can celebrate the rite of matrimony, lie must pro- 
 cure a license, which license is his authority for performing 
 that service ; yet my friend will remember that when 
 an application is made to the court, the first question 
 asked is whether he is a minister in good standing of 
 some body of Christians — authorized or set apart accord- 
 ing to their own rites and ceremonies. No man can go 
 forward and obtain a license to perform the ceremony 
 unless he is such a minister. Jf we have a canon of 
 regulation on the subject our ministers cannot apply in 
 any other wise than as ministers of the Prptestant Epis- 
 copal Church. So far, therefore, from there being any 
 dilBculty, if he recuse to conform to that he could not 
 obtain the license. There is no difficulty in this case at 
 all. I hope it will not be referred to a special commit- 
 tee to' report hereafter. I hope that it will be referred 
 to our own Committee on Canons and brought back to 
 us ready for our action. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I hope there will be no reference. A 
 resolution is passed meiely to govern the present House ; 
 in a year it is a dead letter, whereas a canon is a per- 
 manent law; and the importance of this canon can 
 hardly be overstated. It so happens that in one depart- 
 ment of labor to which I have been called there is a 
 special need of it. There is an especial need of it with 
 reference to what obtains in England in certain dis- 
 tricts, a sort of divorce or exchange of wives, which is 
 about as frequent as in the West India plantations. 
 They say in England that a divorce is expensive, and 
 that these exchanges or divorces without legal proceed- 
 ings have become a common thing. Those persons 
 come to this country ; and I know that the rectors of 
 some of our parishes have been put in a position most 
 uncomfortable to themselves. They go to one mini.ster 
 to be married and he refuses to marry them, and then 
 they go to another who performs the ceremony. Now, 
 with this canon they will all simply say that they are 
 restrained by the law of the Church. They may go 
 elsewhere, but all the moral power of the Churcli will 
 be brought in the right direction. It will be a sad day 
 in our country if we ever reach the point they have in 
 some portions of Great Britain. The looseness of mat- 
 rimonial ties is fearful, not only among the working 
 classes but the upper cla.s.ses. I think the Convention 
 is prepared to act upon this question. In the House of 
 Bishops it has been carefully thought over, and it has 
 been thought over by nearly every member in this 
 House ; for there has been much written and said on 
 the subject for a long time. 
 
 Mr. : — I am unwilling for a moment to 
 
 occupy the time of the House if it were not simply to 
 speak of a marked defect in this canon. The object of 
 the canon is, I suppose, or the object of the Church, 
 
 would be to prevent the celebration of marriage between 
 persons who have been divorced, only during the life- 
 time of both parties. In case one of the parties di- 
 vorced should die, it seems to me that the other should 
 be free to marry — that the objection would no longer 
 exist. But this canon prohibits marriage of the surviv- 
 ing person. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hanckei, : — Rather than not have a canon 
 upon this subject, I would prefer a canon making the 
 violation of the canon degradation to any minister, of 
 any State, who should perform such a service. A gen- 
 tleman has said that it might be accomplished by a res- 
 olution. But it should be remembered that no clergy- 
 man is liable to trial and punishment under a resolu- 
 tion. He is liable to presentment, and trial, and pun- 
 ishment for the violation of a canon. A gentleman on 
 my left proposed to refer thi.s matter to a special com- 
 mittee, because the minds of all men are not clear upon 
 the special point, which point is, whether or not adul- 
 tery does clearly sever, before God and man, the matri- 
 monial tie, so as to allow the guiltless party to marry. 
 I know there are differences of opinion upon that sub- 
 ject — differences which will always continue, and which 
 no committee, no matter how long it may sit, will 
 finally settle ; but, upon the other great point before 
 us, that divorce is a crime before God and man, a sin so 
 great over this land as to bring down the direst judg- 
 ments of Heaven upon us, I don't believe there is a 
 clergyman who is not ready to vote upon it. I glory 
 that I live in a State in which no case of divorce has 
 ever occurred. And just at this time, when we are 
 threatened with a change, I do implore from this Con- 
 vention the unanimous passage of a canon prohibiting 
 any clergyman of our Church from so soiling his robes, 
 from so demeaning his office, through the fear of man, 
 as to unite, in matrimony, those whom he cannot unite 
 in the name of the Holy Ghost. For God has said, 
 whose voice is echoed by this Church, that those whom 
 He has joined together no man may, nor no man can, 
 no matter what may be the laws of man, put asunder. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Wyatt : — It has been suggested as an oli- 
 jection to this canon that it makes one exception in its 
 action, and that exception is supposed to be made on the 
 warrant of Holy Scripture. It is believed by man}' 
 who have carefully examined that Holy Scripture, that 
 it does not afford that warrant, and that a strict trans- 
 lation of it will show that only in those cases in which 
 the marriage is vitiated beforehand should divorces be 
 allowed. It is to make the uuitter stronger that it is 
 proposed to refer it to a committee. 
 
 Mr. : — I am perfectly aware that such 
 
 differences of opinion exist, but I do not think we ought 
 to complicate this canon by entering into that question. 
 We can pass it in the present form in which it has 
 come down from the House of Bishops. 
 
 Judge Comstock, of Western New York : — Divorces 
 ,irc granted in all the States, unless it be in the State 
 
140 
 
 of South Carolina, for the cause assigned in this canon. 
 But there is something else about that canon, in refer- 
 ence to which I am not quite sure that I understand its 
 import. I have no hesitancy n saying that the last 
 part of (hat canon ought to be adopted. Its purpose is 
 very clear, that the guilty party who has been divorced 
 is not to be married again by a clergyman of this Church. 
 That is a principle of law and morality which may be 
 well proclaimed by the Church and in a canon, instead 
 of a resolution. In regard to the first part, which pro- 
 hibits a clergyman from re-uniting, in marriage, per- 
 sons who have been once married, but have been di- 
 vorced from one another — that presents a point which 
 this canon does not provide for. • If parties have been 
 once married and are divorced, and the injured party 
 condones the offence, and they are willing to be united 
 again, I think the canon should not prohiliit it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin: — It seems to me it is an entire 
 mistake that there is a prohibition of re-marrying ; for 
 the first part of the canon says " who have been divorced 
 for any other cause than for adultery." Here is a party 
 who has been divorced from some other party for some 
 other cause than adultery. He or she cannot be mar- 
 ried to a third party. But if he or she has been di- 
 vorced on the ground of adultery, then they cannot be 
 married. But he or she that has been divorced on ac- 
 count of his or her own adultery cannot be re-married. 
 I have greater difficulty than this ; it is what is defined 
 to be "divorce a vinculo matrimonii formally decreed by 
 a civil court." What is a civil court ? In many of our 
 States divorces are granted in a bundle by the legisla- 
 tures of State. Is that a civil court, or not ? Is it 
 meant to include legislatures which may grant divorces, 
 as in Indiana, I believe, and I do not know but it may 
 be in all our States ? I know it has been the custom 
 to grant divorces upon petition made to the legislatures. 
 It should be relieved entirely of this difficulty, if it be 
 the case in any of our States that the divorce is granted 
 upon petition to the legislature. How is the clergyman 
 to know whether the divorce was for adultery or not, 
 where the petition stated several grounds for a divorce V 
 Before this canon can be complied with, the clergyman 
 must know, by a legal decision of the civil court, 
 strictly applied to that precise clause, that divorce was 
 decreed on the ground of adultery. Now, it seems to 
 me, there would be a difficulty here, in some cases. I 
 think in some of our States, still, these frequent divor- 
 ces are from acts of the legislature. I have often said, 
 as often as I have had the opportunity, and am glad to 
 be confirmed in the conviction that I was right in say- 
 ing it, I honor the State of South Carolina, with all my 
 heart, for the peculiar and glorious distinction of a di- 
 vorce having never been granted in that State. I be- 
 lieve it is a distinction placing her above all the other 
 States of this Union. No man could be more earnestly 
 decided than I am, that what is aimed at in this canon 
 is right and desirable. Our Saviour does not require a 
 
 divorce for the cause of adultery, and it would be vastly 
 better, perhaps, for all parties to understand that the 
 marriage is absolutely indissoluble. 
 
 Mr. : — If I understand the case before 
 
 the House now, it is a motion to refer to a committee. 
 I am one of those sharing the scruples of the Deputy 
 from California, as to the warrant for a divorce, even 
 for adultery. I desire to have that scruple answered 
 by a vote by this Convention ; at the same time, I feel 
 that the Convention should not adjourn without taking 
 some step to check this great evil. I move to strike 
 out the words " other than for adultery." 
 
 Mr. : — I beg leave to move the refer- 
 ence of this question to the Committee on Canons, and, 
 at the same time, the recommittal of their own canon, 
 that they may compare the two, and make a report. No 
 man is more in favor of the canon which will stop this 
 unholy and abominable practice of procuring divorces 
 than I am. 
 
 Mr. Taylor, of Virginia : — I will embrace, in my 
 motion, not only the recommitment of the canons, but 
 also the various amendments, and with the instructons 
 that the Committee report on Monday. 
 
 Mr. McCkady, of South Carolina: — I am opposed to 
 committing, and am opposed to a reference to a special 
 committee to report to the next Convention. We can- 
 not constitute a committee for the next Convention. 
 The question is, why should we refer this matter to the 
 next Convention ? We have here the action of the 
 Bishops. The question is now upon the recommittal. 
 Here you have the action of our own Committee on Can. 
 ons, and you have the action of the House of Bishops. 
 Suppose, now, that the report of our Committee on 
 Canons had been before us at this time. We would 
 naturally put that aside to take up this. Instead of send- 
 ing to the House of Bishops for their concurrence, we 
 would concur in this, and the thing would be settled. 
 Therefore it is wise to act upon this canon, instead of 
 recommitting, and bringing in another canon, which 
 must, after adoption by us, be sent to the House of 
 Bishops for their concurrence. I will take the oppor- 
 tunity to say what I think will be the difference be- 
 tween a resolution and a canon. My colleague, the rev- 
 erend gentleman who spoke for my diocese, has suffi- 
 cientl}' expressed it, that is, a resolution is merely an 
 expression of npinion, ami a canon is a law. But why, 
 then, did I prefer a resolution in the case of dioceses 
 who wished to unite in council ? We have an object, 
 now, in making a law which no man can break, and we 
 need a canon. When you wanted to permit the coun- 
 cil, there was only wanted an expression of opinion 
 that that was lawful. They would have stood upon Ijet- 
 ter ground than now, for if there had been a resolution 
 declaring here that they had the power, that would 
 have been irreversible. Now they have taken it by 
 canon, and we can repeal that whenever we please. 
 Therefore I thought it better for the dioceses to have a 
 
141 
 
 resolution ; they could then only be reached by a judi- 
 cial decision ; but now they hold the privilege at the 
 beck of this body. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLEs : — Does the gentleman think 
 that the resolution of 1808 is binding upon us, declaring 
 these marriages contrary to the law of God ? 
 
 Mr. McCradt: — Yes Sir; I think so. We have the 
 authority to repeal that ; but that produced no govern- 
 ment ; it was thu expression of opinion of that body ; 
 but it is no law ; and you cannot charge a clergyman 
 with a breach of the resolution; but you make a can- 
 on and you can charge him ; because it is an offence 
 for him to violate the canon. That resolution is a good 
 thing to refer to, to show that as far back as that, the 
 same opinion was entertained, but they had not the 
 courage to make a law. But now we are stronger ; 
 and we have felt the necessity of a law on the subject ; 
 and we are prepared to say, not only is it our opinion, 
 but "we will put the law upon you and you will have 
 to obey it or suffer." I have said nothing upon the 
 main question, because the question is simply upon the 
 reference and the difference between a resolution and 
 
 a canon. 
 Mr.— 
 
 : — The gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina says that we could at once act upon the report of 
 the Committee on Canons from our own House. I 
 would ask to have it read ; if it is free from objection, 
 and the House has made up its mind, 1 hope we shall 
 proceed to vote upon it at once. The suggestion of the 
 gentleman from California is in reply to an entirely dif- 
 ferent question, and may be brought before the House 
 upon another resolution, and which should not embar- 
 ra.s3 this inquiry before us at this time, and certainly 
 should not put off this question after we have had these 
 arguments from all sides of the House The objection made 
 by the learned deputy from Western New York was a 
 good objection to the canon as pioposed by the House 
 of Bishops. It however may be easily amended and 
 brought in on Monday ; but if our own canon is free 
 from objection we would save time by passing it and 
 sending it up to the House of Bishops. The object of 
 the House is to save time in legislating upon this sub- 
 ject, when the whole House has made up its mind. 
 
 The Rev. Ur. Mahan : — [With reference to the mo- 
 tion to commit an inquiry as to the Scriptural grounds 
 of divorce.] Would it be in any way desirable even if 
 lawful and in conformity with the customs of this House 
 to commit to any connnittee a theological question on 
 which the wisest men in the Church diifer. It is an in- 
 terpretation of the Scripture which no committee could 
 satisfactorily settle. 
 
 Mr. Labagh : — I hope this subject will be recommit- 
 ted, or that it will be committed to a joint committee 
 of both Houses, to look at it in iU length and breadth, 
 in all its bearing upon our civil rights, upon our social 
 rights and relations, and upon our religious relations and 
 privileges. This is a subject of larger scope than many 
 
 imagine. The ground proposed to be taken by the 
 Church is that no divorce can be lawful except upon 
 the ground of adultery. The State has decided that 
 there are several grounds of divorce ; one is incom])e- 
 tency ; another is abandonment; and I hold that ther 
 Scriptures do teach that there are more grounds of di- 
 vorce than simply adultery. The Scotch Church inter- 
 pret this passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthi- 
 ans as justifying divorce on the ground of abandonment 
 — it says, "But and if she depart, let her remain un- 
 married, or be reconciled to her husband ; and let not 
 the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak 
 I, not the Lord : If any brother hath a wife that believ- 
 eth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him 
 not put her away. And the woman which hath a hus- 
 l)and that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell 
 with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving 
 wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your chil- 
 dren unclean ; but now are they holy. But if the un- 
 believing depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is 
 not under bondage in such cases;" but the Scotch 
 Church interprets that " in bonds " to be the law of 
 marriage. Now what is marriage ? Both in the civil 
 and religious aspect it is a contract. We derive our 
 law of marriage from the State as well as from the Holy 
 Scripture. The State regards the marriage as a con- 
 tract, and regards the clergyman officiating as a civil 
 officer for the time being to perfect a contract entered 
 into between two parties ; and the State reseives to it- 
 self always the right to supervise that contract; it 
 places that upon the same basis as all contracts. If the 
 contract is violated by one party the State has a right 
 to decide whether the other party is free. The Church 
 also puts it upon the ground of a contract. The clergy- 
 man says, will you do so and so, or will you profliise so 
 and so to each party. Here are stipulations, agreements, 
 entered into. 
 
 Does the violation of these agreements work any for- 
 feiture except in one case? There are four things promised, 
 four things which the clergyman requires each party to 
 agree to — love and affection, duty and protection, adher- 
 ence to each other, support on the part of the husband to 
 the wife, obedience on thepartof the wife to the husband. 
 Another is fidelity to the marital relation. Now you 
 say the violation of only one of these promises is re- 
 quired to produce divorce ; there can be no justification 
 of divorce if the other three are violated — if a man 
 abandons his wife, refuses to give her support, or treats 
 her unkindly, the law interposes, and says, the contract 
 is violated and the other party is not held by it. Here 
 are serious difliculties that we perhaps may incur in the 
 passage of a canon of this general kind. The clergyman 
 as a civil officer has his rights in the Cdminunity. I'arties 
 present themselves before him who have been divorced 
 on the ground of abandoiunent, and the law has super- 
 vised the whole subject and says that the violatioji of 
 
142 
 
 the contract on the part of the one has wrought forfeiture 
 and declares the other party free and the clergyman 
 has a right to marry him or her to another person. Are 
 you going to take away the rights of a clergyman in 
 this case ? Has the Church a right to say when the word 
 of God seems to justify divorce on other grounds than 
 that of adultery, when the Church makes several stipu- 
 lations, and all the stipulations are violated but one — 
 has the Church a right to say that the divorce is not 
 right when the State has supervised the matter and 
 that one party is free. What was the condition of things 
 under the Law ? I supjiose St. Paul in the Epistle to 
 the Corinthians partly alludes to that. Under the Law, 
 if a woman said to her husband, come let us go and 
 serve other gods, he should not spare her and she should 
 be stoned to death. Here is an enticement to forsake 
 religion presented as a ground of divorce. 
 
 Mr. Johnson, of Connecticut : — I rise simply for the 
 purpose of opposing any delay in the decision of this 
 question. I am here under the instruction of my dio- 
 cese to press upon this Convention action upon the sub- 
 ject before us. My State is one of those guilty of that 
 which gentlemen charge against us. This matter of di- 
 vorce is sapping the very foundations of society. We 
 have in our State no less than ten per cent, of divorces 
 in proportion to marriages. The effect of our divorce 
 laws are perfectly horrible. The matter was brought 
 especially to the attention of the Bishop of Connecticut 
 by an incident under his own eye. There was a man 
 who had raised a family of daughters. He was divorced 
 in one of the W estern States, and came home and was 
 soon re-married under the laws of the State, not how- 
 ever by a clergyman of the Episcopal Church. A second 
 family of daughters were the result of that marriage. 
 These daughters being well rrown, the father again dis- 
 appeared occasionally from his place of business, and 
 presently it was announced to his second wife that he 
 was divorced in one of the Western States. The in- 
 ducement in the last case, as in nine cases out of ten 
 was the changing of the partner. Put a stop to re- 
 marriages and you put a stop to divorces. The cause 
 of the application tor the second divorce, was that a 
 lady, to whom this gentleman had made overtures in 
 early life, had become a wealthy widow. She was fool- 
 ish enough to listen to his addresses even while he was 
 bound by the second marriage, so far as there can be 
 any force in a marriage founded upon fraudulent di- 
 vorces obtained without notice, and entirely deceptive. 
 But still, married as he was, the rich widow consented. 
 The second divorce was obtained ; hut, when it came to 
 the knowledge of the friends of the second wife, she con- 
 sulted lier friends, and the legal opinion was at once 
 given that the divorce was a fraud. The notice is given 
 to the new lady-love that she could marry if she pleased, 
 but her husband would soon be put in the State-prison 
 for bigamy. Now in this state of things we wish to pre" 
 pare public sentiment ; and we are sent to get from this 
 
 Convention the announcement of a sound doctrine of 
 marriage and divorce, that we may bring the power of 
 the Church, and the public sentiment generally, to bear 
 upon our Legislature. I trust that this Convention will 
 pardon me when we say that we have a deal of pride in 
 the movement that is now taking place in Connecticut 
 in favor of better legislation upon this subject. The 
 lead comes from Yale College, from the Congregation- 
 alists of Connecticut, from the Puritan element whose 
 variation from sound principle and sound practices has 
 from stage to stage led to this awful state of things, 
 and which is now recoiling from the evil it has pro- 
 duced. The leader of the movement is Prof. Loomis of 
 Yale College, who started it by an article in the New- 
 Englander. which has been followed up by other articles, 
 the last one appearing in the New-Englander since we 
 have assembled, from the President of Yale College ; and 
 the President of Yale College has brought this thing be- 
 fore the Legislature ; and he has been examined before 
 a committee. They need our assistance ; and by the 
 combined power of Congregational unity, and the Epis- 
 copalian unity, an influence can be brought to bear upon 
 that Legislature which will at once revise the law. I 
 urge this Conven*ion to act upon this thing promptly. 
 We have several propositions here. We do not need here 
 any disquisition upon the law or the religion of the di- 
 vorce and marriage. We want no dissertation to be 
 produced for the ne.xt Convention ; we want immediate 
 action. The canon we have from the House of Bishops 
 covers the question entirely for all practical purposes ; 
 so does the one reported by the committee. All we 
 require is the sentence of condemnation of re-marriages 
 after divorces for causes less than adultery. 1 am wil- 
 ling to go further than that. I have amendments that 
 I could propose, but cui bono? You have the substan- 
 tial thing in denouncing re-marriages after divorces. 1 
 do not care whether it is in the canon whether the par- 
 ties be alive, for if the party be dead there is no breach 
 of the moral law. There is no difference in this Con- 
 vention upon principle. I have had some experience 
 in judging of the opinion of the Convention in advance 
 of the vote ; and I should say that this Convention is 
 ready for immediate action upon the main question that 
 there should be no marriage after divorce. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES: — I beg to state that I know of 
 one fact which I think will lead us to immediate action. 
 A man, if I may so call him, married a woman who be- 
 came epileptic. He applied to the court and was di- 
 vorced for that reason. He was married the second 
 time and the poor epileptic assisted at the marriage as 
 brides maid. He was married by a clergyman of this 
 Church. 
 
 Mr. said that that man and his two wives 
 
 as communicants have forced this on a clergyman of the 
 Church for want of such a canon as this House is de- 
 termined to put through. I know the case referred to 
 in all its unutterable abomination. 
 
143 
 
 Rev. Mr. Martin : — In the office of the court near 
 where I live there were thirty divorce cases on the 
 docket. I was informed by the clerk of the county 
 court that he had frequently seen this to be the case, 
 that after the judge on the bench had declared the de- 
 cree of divorce, the woman would rise up and would be 
 followed by a man ; she would go down stairs, procure 
 a license, and in twenty minutes be married to that man. 
 In one case he told me of, it had been done twice by the 
 same woman. I appeal to this House to give to clergy 
 there, something upon which they can depend. We are 
 anxious for some protection. There are but thirty ol 
 us in that large diocese and we are constrained by the 
 fear of public opinion in many respects to keep silence 
 I have never married a divorced person, and I will not 
 do it ; but there are some perhaps who have not so 
 much moral courage, who want this canon to fall back 
 
 ; — We are all desirous of passing the 
 
 upon. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 canon, but I propose to move to lay the whole matter, 
 reported from the House of Bishops on the table ; be- 
 cause it permits divorces by the legislatures of the State 
 o vinculo malrimonu for adultery and excludes them 
 from the operation of the canon. Tliat is a single ob- 
 jection and there are three or four other objections as 
 presented by the bishops. 
 
 I move to lay that upon the table with all the amend- 
 ments that we may take up the report from the commit- 
 tee which is unexceptionable e.\cept on one point and 
 that is the great exception which they will remedy by a 
 canon on Monday. It says that persons who have been 
 divorced for adultery may marry, even the guilty par- 
 ties. There is no prohibition in the report of our Com- 
 mittee on Canons as to marrying parties who have been 
 guilty of adultery. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Haight, the message from 
 the House of Bishops, on the subject of the divorce, and 
 the report of the Committee on Canons were referred 
 with all the amendments to the Committee on Canons to 
 consider and report on Monday morning. 
 
 Mr. Henrv Meigs, of New Jersey — offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution, which was adopted: 
 
 Resolved, That certain documents placed in the hands 
 of Rev. Dr. Abcrcrombie of New Jersey, by the heirs of 
 late Rev. Dr. H. M. Mason, typographical corrector of the 
 standard Bible, be referred to the joint committee to ex- 
 amine the proof-sheets of the Standard Bible. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Haight, the house then pro- 
 ceeded to the consideration of the proposed canon in 
 reference to the offences of ministers. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLEs : — Does the catalogue of offen- 
 ces specify all the offences for wliich a clergyman may 
 be tried? [Rev. Dr. Haight: — Yes, sir.J Does tlie 
 catalogue include the offence (held to be an offence in 
 England) of the marriage of a brother's wife ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — Unless it is a violation of a canon 
 or constitution, no. There is nothing on that subject 
 
 in the present canon. The simple objeot of this 
 amendment is to make this canon in regard to presby- 
 ters harmonize with that in the trial of bishops. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Marple. — I desire to say a few words in 
 regard to this proposed amendment of the canon. On 
 first listening to the reading of it, it seemed to me the 
 fairest thing in the world that a priest should be made 
 responsible for the various offences that a bishop is made 
 responsible for; and yet, as 1 came to think about the 
 matter a little further, I completely changed my mind, 
 and thought that this was one of the most oppressive 
 canons that I ever heard read. There is protection for 
 the bishop, while there is no protection for the priest. 
 We do prescribe certain modes in the case of the trial of 
 a bishop, and we protect that bishop, especially when he 
 is charged with holding and teaching any doctrine con- 
 trary to the doctrines entertained by this Church. 
 What is required in the case of a bishop? Nothing less 
 than that the presentation against him, in case of a false 
 doctrine, shall be made by a brother bishop; that the 
 court shall consist of the entire House of Bishops; that 
 three-fourths are absolutely requisite for a quorum, and 
 that a vote of two-thirds of the whole number entitled 
 to seats in the House of Bishops must be requisite for 
 conviction. I say that the bishop is protected, and that 
 theie is scarcely any protection in the case of the priest. 
 He is not required to be tried by the whole of the (iriests 
 of his diocese, but by a court constituted according to 
 the provisions in every diocese. I say that the priest 
 may be oppressed. I believe the introduction and adop- 
 tion of this canon would be one of the best modes of in- 
 troducing trouble, grievous trouble, and divisions into 
 our Church. We do not need to make ecclesiastical 
 trials as easy as possible; we do not wish to multiply them 
 in all parts of our land. I regard this canon as most se- 
 rious in its provisions. I have been glad to follow the 
 Committee on Canons in almost all their recommenda- 
 tions, and have felt that they were most moderate and 
 wise in their suggestions. I cannot but think that in this 
 case they have made a most serious mistake. I understand 
 that it does introduce something or other that is new for 
 which a clergyman may be tried, suspended, and de- 
 graded. They are the same things ibr which a bishop 
 may be tried, suspended, and degraded ; but the bishop 
 is under such guards as are not at all found in the case 
 of a presbyter. I would like to ask the gentleman 
 whether 1 am correct. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — I suppose the section to which 
 my friend from Pennsylvania alludes is the second of 
 the specified acts. I supposed all along that the clergy- 
 men of this Church could not be allowed to go on and 
 teach publicly and privately doctrines opposed to the 
 doctrines of this Church, and yet not be brought to trial. 
 I had no idea that our discipline was so loose as that. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Maki-le. — I only oppose the introduction of 
 undue power — the introduction of means whereby any 
 one can be oppressed. 
 
144 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — If I understand the views of the 
 reverend brother, they are opposed to the use of this 
 language embraced in Specification No. 2, that is, that 
 a clergyman may be tried for holding and teaching any 
 doctrine contrary to that held by the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church in the United States. I suppose that, in 
 most of our dioceses, when a clergyman is tried he is 
 tried by his peers, just as the bishop is tried by his peers. 
 In the diocese to which I have the honor to belong the 
 presbyter is tried by five of his peers chosen by himself. 
 1 suppose that will give a man the fairest possible chance' 
 There is only one difficulty in the way, which I suppose 
 every clergyman in the Church feels most deeply — that 
 we have no court of appeals — and therefore a man has 
 but one chance. But that is the law, and we must abide 
 by it. I see no harm in saying that the Church holds a 
 man bound to teach the doctrines of the Church, and 
 that if he does not he shall be brought to trial and pun- 
 ished. 1 would like to point out to my brother from 
 Pennsylvania that by the present canon a clergyman is 
 liable to be tried for holding and teaching any doctrine 
 contrary to the doctrines held by the Church. In the 
 present case clergymen may be tried for heresy. What 
 is the standard ibr heresy ? That is one of the most dif- 
 ficult subjects in the world to speak of. Some divines 
 refer you to one standard and some to others; some talk 
 about four General Councils, some about six, and some 
 about none at all. That is stricken out, and here you 
 have these definite statements of things for which a pres- 
 byter may be tried. 
 
 Mr. Marple : — That is why I object ; heresy is a 
 much stronger word. There are many people who do 
 not cherish the views I entertain ; and if I were in cer- 
 tain dioceses they would say my doctrines were contrary 
 to those of the Church. I may have the view of Bishop 
 Hobart that baptismal regeneration is an outward change 
 or a change of relations. There are many dioceses where 
 that would be regarded as contrary to the doctrines of 
 the Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I thought that was held every- 
 where. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES : — Heresy has been defined by 
 statute as the publicly teaching of doctrines contrary to 
 the teachings of the Holy Church. I think the word 
 "public" is in the statute. Therefore, this canon omits that 
 word "public teaching." The protection of a clergyman 
 is that lor private acts of teaching he cannot be punished, 
 while for public acts he may. 
 
 A Deputy : — What is the difficulty of the present 
 canon ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight :— Its want of definiteness and ex- 
 plicitness, and its use of certain vague terms. There 
 are repetitions in the canon which are entirely unneces 
 sary, and an omi.ssion of the violation of ordination vow. 
 "Disorderly conduct ;" that is a very vague phrase. 
 Some look at it as relating to the Church and others 
 look at it as relating to personal conduct. If is a 
 
 vague and indefinite term. Then it goes on to say' for 
 drunkenness, for profane swearing, etc., as though these 
 were not embraced by "disorderly conduct." 
 
 Mr. : — The terms of this canon seem not to be 
 
 remarkably lucid. I do submit we ought to have some- 
 thing exceedingly clear and definite. The Church ought 
 to guard with peculiar tenderness and care the reputa- 
 tion of clergymen. Directing the canons of the Church 
 against the reputation of clergymen, is a serious thing 
 and while I am thoroughly prepared to stand up under 
 the canon 1 would like to know when the canons are 
 being cast that they are wisely cast. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — When we refer to doctiines of 
 the Church we refer to something known ; not to 39 
 articles only but also, and primarily, to the liturgy, and 
 offices. The objection my brother makes against the 
 language of the proposed amendment lies much more 
 strongly against the present canon, which renders him 
 Uable to be tried for inculcating heretical doctrine. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Pringle Smith, of South Carolina : — If I 
 understand the report of flie Committee on Canons, it 
 does not touch or change the mode of trial or any pro- 
 ceedings under a presentment, when it comes to trial ; 
 it is merely a question of choice between two things al- 
 ready in print. Canon 9, Title 2d, mentions the otTences 
 for which a minister may be tried. It is merely a choice 
 of phraseology. I think the Convention is ready to vote 
 at once. 1 press upon the House the immediate choice 
 between the phraseology of two canons. The amend- 
 ment is nothing more than a mere enumeration of offen- 
 ces for which a presbyter may be tried ; and the Com- 
 mittee on Canons thought it advisable to conform that 
 phraseology to the enumeration of offences for which a 
 Bishop may be tried. 
 
 A motion to print the proposed amendment was lost. 
 The question then recurred upon the adoption of the 
 resolution of the committee. 
 
 Mr. S. B. Churchill, of Kentucky:— In this case, 
 the Committee on Canons have not shown to my mind 
 any necessity for changing the old law. The last gentle- 
 man said it was merely a change in phraseology. I think 
 the amendment may lead to some trouble ; and as the 
 old canon has operated well, and as no complaints have 
 ever been made of it, I think we should hold to the 
 language as we have it now. I therefore move to lay 
 the proposed canon upon the table. 
 
 The motion to lay it upon the table was agreed to. 
 The question then recurred upon the passage of the 
 canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — Here is the same enumeration 
 of offences in the case of a clergyman, or priest, or dea- 
 con as in the case of a Bishop. The mode of trial is dif- 
 ferent. That has some bearing upon the question. If 
 the Bishop is tried for holding or teaching any thing 
 contrary to the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, he is tried by his peers, by the whole House 
 of Bishops, and their decision must be understood to be 
 
145 
 
 what is the doi^trine of the (Uiureh. But when a 
 jjriest is presented for a violation of that second Iiead 
 that is, presented for hohiing or teaching jirivately as 
 well as publicly, anything contrary to the doctrine of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, he is tried by a court 
 in his own diocese. We have no decision of the Church 
 as to what is the doctrine of the Protestant Ejjiseopal 
 Church. That same clergyman being taught by that 
 court what is the doctrine, may go into anotlier diocese 
 and teach and hold precisely that doctrine ; and for 
 holding and teaching that, he may in that other diocese 
 be tried by a court of five Presbyters and be found 
 guilty. This opens the way to have all sorts of adjudi- 
 cated determinations upon the doctrines of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States. We are told — 
 "(), the court of appeals will remedy all this." 1 am not 
 in favor of bringing in a court of appeals by a side- 
 wind. I am not so in favor of altering our canons that we 
 must have a court of appeals. As to the heretical doctrine, 
 it is a very dilterent thing. A court of five Presbyters 
 could hardly undertake to declare that to be heretical, 
 the contrary to which would be declared heretical in 
 another diocese. They might determine that it was 
 contrary to the doctrine of the Church. I think " her- 
 etical" goes deeper. I do not think every man a 
 heretic who holds and teaches any little thing contra- 
 ry to the doctrines of this Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 But I suppose the thing is settled. I only want to .show 
 more fully what my colleague has mentioned in bring- 
 ing up this question. Here we may have various courts 
 and various decisions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason : — When the canon a,s it now exists, 
 was up, it was objected to on the ground of introducing 
 the expression " heretical teaching," for the reason that 
 we are not able to determine what heretical doctrine is. 
 Sujipose a clergyman preaches a doctrine which is con- 
 trary to the doctrine of the atonement, are you going 
 to call that " heretical doctrine" or not ? It is a serious 
 aberration from our Church doctrine ; but how are you 
 going to determine it is heretical ? By the creeds of the 
 Church — the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed ? It 
 can only be done by interpretation; and I see no possi- 
 ble way in which to determine what is heretical, un- 
 less you go back to the first four or the first six Gene- 
 ral Councils ; and if you do that, you might determine it. 
 But here a clergyman may preach against the atone- 
 ment. I do not see how we can make him out as preach- 
 ing heretical doctrine. I mean by what process shall we 
 point it out, so that you can call it heresy. There are 
 various modes in which that doctrine of the atonement 
 may be stated ; either of which might be adopted, and you 
 might not be able to show that it was heretical. Where- 
 as if you say that if he preaches contrary to the doctrine 
 of the Church, you decide that matter at once. He is to 
 be tried by the Articles, the Creed and the Liturgy — 
 the doctrines of the Protestant Episcopal Church. And 
 
 19 
 
 that is the only way by which I can see that he can 
 possibly be tried. 
 
 With regard to the trial of a clergyman, I do not see 
 that this canon makes any alterations. Therelbre, what- 
 ever has been said against the manner in which a clergy- 
 man is to be tried, is not against the canon as reported, 
 but it is against the old cauon. xVlter that if you please 
 in that respect, and that is another matter. Until we 
 can determine how wc are to fasten upon what is heretic- 
 al doctrine, we must necessarily accept this alteration in 
 the canon. 
 
 The question being then upon the canon, it was 
 adopted. 
 
 The President announced the committee on the support 
 of the clergy, consisting of one from eacli diocese. 
 
 The House then adjourned to Monday morning at 
 half-past nine. 
 
 SEVENTEENTH DAY'S PKOCEBDINGS. 
 
 Monday, Oct. 36, 1868. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by Rev. Dr. Peterkin of 
 Virginia, and Rev. Dr. Isaac G. Hubbard, of New 
 Hampshire. The Benediction was prouoimced by 
 Bishop Talbot, of Indiana. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Beahdslet, message No. 34, 
 fi'oin the House of Bishops, was referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of Mr. C. B. Fabnsworth, of Rhode Is- 
 land, there was referred to the Committee on Canons a 
 resolution instructing that Committee to consider and 
 report whether it is not for the interest of this Church 
 that parish records should be annuallj' made up, and 
 the number returned to the Diocesan Convention, of 
 all persons baptized in this Church, or of persons in 
 communion with this Church but who have not been 
 confirmed, and also of all confirmed members of the 
 Church who reside within the parish limits. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Mr. Claiike, of Georgia, there was 
 referred to the Committee on Canons, instructions to 
 consider and report to this Convention on the subject 
 of striking out the words " clerical and lay" from the 
 title of this House so that it shall be known hereafter 
 as the House of Deputies. He said : 1 find in article 
 III that when the House is referred to it is referred to 
 simply as the House of Deputies. It seems to me un- 
 necessary that the words " clerical and lay" should be 
 repeated over and over again to describe this House 
 when there is but one House of Deputies. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh there was referred to the 
 Committee on Canons instruction to consider and re- 
 port up<m the propriety of making a canon rendering 
 it obligatory upon all new Dioceses to form their 
 standing committees of an equal number of clergymen 
 and lay members. 
 
 There were received from the House of Bishops 
 messages, thirty-three to thirty-sis, inclusive. 
 
146 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Stubbs, these messages were 
 lelerrecl to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 On motion of Hon. S. B. Rdggles, his resolution of 
 yesterday in regard to the number of journals to be 
 printed was reconsidered ; and the resolution by Mr. 
 Cornwall, of Kentucky, authorizing the Secretary of 
 the House to have printed an adequate number was 
 adopted. 
 
 Message No. 37 from the House of Bishops transmit- 
 ted the followius resohitiim : 
 
 Rt^mhrd, That the memorial of the Oneida Indians 
 presented to this House by the Bishop of Wisconsin, 
 together with their draft o"f the proposed letter to the 
 Secretary of the Interior, be transmitted to the House 
 of Clerical and Lay Deputies with the request of this 
 House for their joint action in the premises. 
 
 The Petition and Memorial of the Oneidas and the 
 proposed letter to the Secretary of the Interior were 
 read by the Secretary. 
 
 Judge Otis, of Illinois, moved that the proposed let- 
 ter to the Secretary of the Interior be signed by the 
 President and Secretary on behalf of this House. 
 
 There were received message No. 38 from the House 
 of Bishops relating to the subject of evangelization ; 
 message No. 39 with reference to continuing 
 the joint committee on the republication of 
 the early journals; message No. 40 signifying 
 non-concurrence in the canon proposed by the House 
 of Deputies concerning Assistant Bishops ; message No. 
 41 signifying concurrence in the action of this House in 
 relation to assessment for contingent expenses of the 
 General Convention ; message No. 43 signifying concur- 
 rence with the second resolution transmitted in mes- 
 sage No. 20 with an amendment by substituting " regu- 
 lated" for the words " provided for," which amendment 
 was concurred in by the House. 
 
 Mr. W. Welsh, of Pennsylvania, moved to refer the 
 message of the House of Bishops with reference to the 
 Oneida Indians to a special committee, consisting of 
 the delegates from Wisconsin. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES — I have no objection to this mo- 
 tion, but the question with me is whether this Conven- 
 tion shall undertake to interfere with the policy of the 
 general government. 
 
 Mr. Welsh — I moved its reference to the delegates 
 from Wisconsin because I think it would be a bad pre- 
 cedent if we were to sign things upon the recommenda- 
 tion of otiiers. If we should do so, we would sinii to 
 the level of mere politicians, who even sign things that 
 they know are wrong and untruthful. 
 
 Judge Otis — These Indians have been under the ju- 
 risdiction of Bishop Kemper for thirty years ; he has 
 signed tlie Memorial. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Stubbs thought that it was not decoi-ous to 
 refer a message from the House of Bishops to the Dep- 
 uties from any Slate. 
 
 The President suggested that the motion is to refer 
 to the Deputies as a special committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven — In the Diocese of Wisconsin 
 there is a settlement of Oneida Indians that have been 
 uuder the charge of the Church. I feel certain that 
 they have been greatly oppressed and troubled by cer- 
 
 tain things which have tended to take away their 
 lands. They have not been fairly treated. These In- 
 dians have been presided over by the Bishop of Wis- 
 consin, who knows all the facts and particulars. I 
 simply say that to refer this matter to any delegation 
 whatever is useless. It has the fullest indorsement of all 
 the delegation. The Indians are earnest and faithfvd 
 people. I have heard the Bishop tell of the visitations 
 he has made to the Indians and of .their earnestness 
 and faithfulness in the cause of the Church. 
 
 Mr. Welsh — Has the gentleman examined those 
 papers ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven — Is it necessary that I should add 
 my approval to the words and e.xhortations of the old- 
 est Bishop in this Church ? If Bishop Kemper sends 
 down to this House such a thing, I don't believe my 
 words will add anj'thiug at all in the opinion of this 
 House. 
 
 Judge Battle — It is said that hard cases are the 
 quicksands of the law, and they may be the quicksands 
 of this Convention. I recollect that in 1859 a memori- 
 al was made memorializing the King of Spam. It was 
 rejected upon the ground that this Convention had 
 nothing to do with any political question. If we s 
 out to redress all the grievances of Indians, blacks, 
 and of all oppressed people, we shall acquire the char 
 acter of the celebrated Don Quixote, setting out to re- 
 dress everybody's injuries. We should pause before 
 we seta dangerous precedent. If we apply to the Gov- 
 ernment for this purpose, on some other occasion we 
 shall go furthei'. Let us confine ourselves to the busi- 
 ness of the Church, to its extension ; that will be enough 
 for the action of this Convention. I do beg the mem- 
 bers of this Convention to pause though it is a hard 
 case. I call upon them to pause before such a system 
 shall lead us we know not where. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead — As the learned Deputy from North 
 Carolina has said, we have heretofore itctcd with great 
 prudence in relation to matters which have reference to 
 the action of civil governments. And although all my 
 sympathies are in favor of this, though I cannot express 
 the feehng of my heart at the oppression of the poor 
 Indian, and though, after hearing the letter of the 
 Oneidas read, having followed them from time to time 
 until they had acquired a home on the borders of Lake 
 Michigan, I would if I could consistently, say at once, 
 let ns sustain this petition of the Bishops, but prudence 
 is an important word in a body like this. We are op- 
 posed to the blending of Church and State. We begin 
 by asking the State to grant certain things ; howbeit, 
 this may be reasonable, the question is where will it 
 end ? Suppose after a time the Government of the 
 United States should apply to us to do something, to 
 transact some business which would be foreign to, or 
 ultimately injurious to, our ecclesiastical economy. 
 They would plead at once, you have done the same 
 thing; you have initiated this step. Although at first 
 my whole mind went willi the proposition, as a prudent 
 man 1 cannot vote for it. 
 
 ilr. J. Prlngle Smith — The subject before the Con- 
 tention is one of no ordinary import, and for that 
 
147 
 
 reason I shall venture to say a word or two upon the 
 proposition. I should be sorry to see this Convention 
 Interfere in any way with merely and purely political 
 questions. I think, if I am not mistaken, something 
 may be done upon this subject now before us without 
 subjectiug ourselves to tliis dilliculty or this charge. 
 Our relations with the ludians generally is one of very 
 great interest, not only to this body as a religious body, 
 but to the civil autliorities of the country, tiud one 
 which excites in the civil authorities a very deep inter- 
 est, at least those of them who are not connected with 
 the attempted speculations that are iu their purpose in- 
 tended to defraud. We have no very settled Indian 
 policy. The theory of our Government is that the 
 nation is the guardian of all the Indian tribes. And I 
 think I may say the theory of this (Jouvention is that 
 we are or ought to be in some measiu'e the guardian of 
 their morals and their spiritual condition. Whatever 
 we can do in connection with this last thought as a re- 
 ligious body, without directly coming in contact with 
 political questions, it seems to me is our duty. The 
 whole difficulty growing out of this subject results from 
 the fact that the ludians are not informed, and that 
 they are the creatures upon whom speculators prej'. 
 Covetous men seek to defraud them ; and the govern- 
 ment should be glad for any suggestion that we may 
 make that will aid them iu preventing these frauds and 
 speculations. 1 desire to say to this Convention now 
 or to give them a fact in connection with this idea. 
 Not long since a treaty was made with the Osage In- 
 dians, by which they sold eight million acres of land to a 
 single railroad company for the sum of sixteen hundred 
 thousand dollars, — aljout twenty cents per acre. It is 
 understood that that land is worth to-day from three to 
 tive dollars an acre. Now, under the policy and practice 
 of our government, before this contract of sale can be 
 confirmed and made perfect, it is to receive the sanction 
 or ratification of the Senate. It is now before that body 
 with differences of opinion in regard to the question of 
 its confirmation of those outside of that body, as interest 
 may create that opinion. Every body who knows any- 
 thing about it, knows that the contract was made to 
 defraud the Indians. Everybody knows that the laud 
 was sold for vastly less than it was worth, and as a fact, 
 as the Convention ought to know, the sale was made 
 without security for the sum to be paid ; for all the se- 
 curity that they received is the bonds of the railroad 
 company, payable in sixteen years, a hundred thousand 
 dollars a year, without any endorsements, any mort- 
 gage, any security. Now, it is impo.ssible that we can 
 evangelize the Indians or carry Clirislianily among 
 them, while the}' are the subjects of our cupidity, the 
 cupidity of those that seek to impose upon them. The 
 goverment has no desire that these frauds should be 
 practiced, and the govei-nment has the desire that those 
 Indians, those tribes sliall receive the gospel — that it 
 shall be spread among them as fast as it may be; and 
 tlie government will be glad of any moial sentiment or 
 moral movement, or Christian movement which we or 
 anybody can make that will tend to save the Indian^ 
 from these efforts to destrt)y them. If they are to subuiil 
 
 to changes of location, which such impositions con- 
 stantly require, we cannot expect to obtain their confi- 
 dence, nor with any good hope go and preach to them 
 the gospel. If I understand the proposition before this 
 House this morning, it is in reference to the Oneida In- 
 dians. I do not kno\v the particulars of the case ; but 
 I see as well as I can understand from an indistinct 
 hearing of the matter, that they have been subjected to 
 the same fraud that I have alluded to in reference to the 
 Osages ; and I have instances in my mind embracing 
 similar pi'inciples. They come now and pray us to help 
 them against the consummation of this fraud. Is there 
 any politics in that ? It involves no party question. It 
 is making no difference of opinion between this party 
 or that party. It is standing up for God's right and 
 God's justice to a nation or a class of people whom it is 
 the duty of humanity to protect. I do not see that by 
 expressing an opinion, such as the House of Bishops 
 have expressed, we are in any way attempting to re- 
 form all the abuses of the world, as some gentleman has 
 said. We do not propose to go out of the United States 
 nor beyond that class of people that. are within our bor- 
 ders, whom it is our duty to protect. We do not pro- 
 pose any general crusade for promulgating our reUgiou ; 
 but we simply say to tliis tribe, we will give you oui' 
 moral aid to assist you against frauds and impositions. 
 As I understand this proposition, I should be very glad 
 to see this Couvention take a wider view of this matter ; 
 and I think they could do that without coming into 
 conflict with any party, or being subject to the charge 
 of interfering in politics. I think it would be our right 
 to look to this whole question, connected as it is with 
 the spread ofthe gospel aiid the carrying of intelligence, 
 and improvement, moral as well as spiritual 
 among a class of inhabitants whom it is 
 our duty to raise up, not to beat down, but 
 to lift up with all the power of civilization that we can 
 command. This in no way brings us, as I understand 
 it, into conflict with any party in politics, or any depart- 
 ment; of the government ; for I feel sure that any moral 
 movement that would give a healthy tendency to public 
 seutinient, and help restrain these constant efforts to 
 defraud these ludians would be regarded with favor by 
 the authorities of the general government. I hope this 
 resolution will pass. I hope the whole subject will be 
 considered, and a respectful memorial presented to the 
 government, lookmg to the best means of preserving 
 the morals of the Indians, of educating them, and of 
 carrjang the gospel among them. I ask pardon of the 
 Convention for detaining them as long as I have ; but 
 I feel that there is so much involved in this question, 
 that it has deserved the few brief moments I have 
 given it 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven— These Oneida Indians were set- 
 tled in New York. They were converted to the Church 
 before the Revolutionary war. A portion of them 
 moved to Wisconsin in 1829 or thereabouts, and the 
 rest have been gradually following them, until now 
 about twelve hundred Indians are there settled on some 
 sixty-five thousand acres of laud in Wisconsm. Ol 
 Uicse twelve hundred Indians two-thirds are CliuicU 
 
148 
 
 people under the charge of a faithful and earnestmis. 
 sionary church. Now the trouble is simply this. 
 Their land is very good ; it is good timber land ; it is 
 land they have improv(id ; and the speculators have got 
 their eyes upon it. Bo they take a lew drunken Indians 
 and put them up to make au agitation in favor of its 
 being sold. And so every six months this little com- 
 munity of Christian Indians is agitated with the feeUug 
 and the trouble of being removed fi'om their country. 
 They have objections to it. The first is that it will 
 break up their Christian civilization. The second diffl- 
 culty is this, that the elder persons among them, though 
 Christians, are not fully civilized ; and the more thought- 
 ful Indians know full well that if these men get the 
 money for their lands and move west, they "nill spend 
 their money aud that will be the end of it. It will be 
 the destruction of their civilization and Christianity for 
 this people to be removed at this time. They, there- 
 fore, send a prayer to this House to present to the Sec- 
 retary of the luterior that they may be left in their pos- 
 sessions. This prayei' comes here ; the House of 
 Bishops endorse it ; they send it down to us to adopt. I 
 cannot see that this is a political matter. I should not 
 be in favor of mingling in any political matter, but I 
 cannot see how anybody cau conceive that this present- 
 ing a prayer in behalf of those that belong to their own 
 household of faith can he distorted into a political ac- 
 tion. It is simply presenting a petition in behalf of 
 those who are our own brethren that they may be saved 
 from the destruction and loss of the civilization and 
 Christianity which they have. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut in the Chair. 
 
 The President addressed the House as follows : 
 Having taken some little partln 1859 in trying to pre- 
 vent the passage by this House and the General Con- 
 vention, of one of the most innocent resolutions that 
 could possibly be imagined. I beg to re-state, in refer- 
 ence to this case, the principles upon which the House 
 deliberately acted. Nothing could have been more 
 simple aud more innocent and just than the proposi- 
 tion which was then brought before this House. But 
 the House decided by an overwlielming vote that it 
 would not entertain any question whatever which re- 
 quired its coming before the civil authorities in regard 
 to any question of the discretion of those authorities. 
 The principle estahlishedthe n by the action of this 
 House was obsia priitcipiis — don't begin. The influence 
 of the members of this House as citizens is ten times 
 stronger, if they would exert it, than the influence of 
 this Ido-use as a House. The Episcopal Church is 
 nothing as to political influence in this country. It is an 
 absolute rdhil ; but the influence of the members 
 of this House exert-ised in their respective com- 
 munities as citizens can be made to tell powerfuU}' 
 upon the Government. And if you would here or else- 
 where originate proceedings to operate upon the Gov- 
 ernment, not merely to preserve the rights of the 
 Oneidas, but as was recommended by the Bishop of 
 Minnesota, to change the whole jjolicy of tlie Govern- 
 ment in regard to treating the Indians as a nation, and 
 
 to have them treated as individuals, especially upon 
 the reservations, you would do a glorious thing for the 
 cause of humanity in tliis countiy in reference to those 
 oppressed tribes ; l)ut it is not necessary that it should 
 be a party question in order to be a political one. No 
 party is tbrmed in the State with reference to this ques- 
 tion, but still it is a political matter ; it is a matter re- 
 ferring itself to the discretion of the civil government ; 
 and if we commence as a Christian body, as a Church, to 
 ask the Government to adopt a particular policy in re- 
 gard to this question, why not ask them to adopt a 
 particular policy in regard to any other questions that 
 may arise y Why not throw ourselves, as a Church, 
 into the whirling stream of political actions? You 
 cannot draw the lines ; once begin, you have establish- 
 ed the precedent — a precedent which, as it has been the 
 great detriment of so many religious bodies, may ter- 
 ribly convulse aud injure even our own. I should be 
 glad to sign this letter and something far more exten- 
 sive, tar more thorough, as a citizen of the United States 
 having a vote ; but I should be very reluctant to sign 
 that as President of this House. 
 
 Mr. Welsu — I rise to vary my motion. The dele- 
 gates from Wisconsin naturally have some diflidence in 
 examining the subject, and, therefore, move that it be 
 referred to a special eommitte of thi'ee clerical and lay 
 members to consider and report. What do we know 
 of the thing V This subject was considered at Rich- 
 mond, and I believe that it touched every one that was 
 present. But we should carefully first see whether the 
 facts stated there are such as we can testify to — whether 
 we believe that it is really a subject that we think im- 
 portant — then whether we are prepared to vary from 
 our practice and petition the Government with the par- 
 ticular knowledge that some other religious body may 
 petition in the opposite way, with the knowledge that a 
 ward politician can go into Congress and exert more 
 Influence than this entire Convention. My proposition 
 results from no want of interest in the Indians, it is 
 made because I feel tlie deepest Interest in them and 
 am willing to tlo all that I can, that I ask that the mat- 
 ter be referred in this way. 
 
 Gov. l^'isii — It strikes me that there is no occasion of 
 the reference of this subject to a coumiittee. The 
 object of a comnuttee would be to investigate the 
 facts, which I presume are pretty well known to us, and 
 report upon them. The object of a committee would 
 not be to advise as to the policj or course to be pur- 
 sued liy this Convention. The question other than 
 that of reference is of coucurrence. Now, Sir, if any per- 
 sons on this floor are more especially than others called 
 upon for sj-uii)athy with the.se Oneida Indians, I pre- 
 sume tliey are the delegates from New York ; possibly I 
 sliould except those from Wisconsin who have taken 
 them from us. They are children of New York. We have 
 still in our borders a branch of these Oneida Indians. It 
 has been my lot to be brought officially into contact 
 with them, and I can say from the bottom of my heart 
 that I sympathize with them over all tlieir wrongs, and 
 and they are many. But, Sir, are these wrongs of a 
 
,149 
 
 character which a Convention of a Church is called 
 upon to take notice of '! I apprehend not. We anc sat- 
 isfiedthat two-thirds of this tribe are Cliristiaus and 
 belong to our Cluirch ; but one third not so. We are 
 told that tliere is a division and that the question which 
 they desire our aid in solving is one of internal policy — 
 one of the sale of their lamls and their reijioval. It is 
 not a question of Christian benediction among them ; 
 it is not one of propagation or extension of our own 
 Church among them ; it is a question of property ; it is 
 a question of internal Indian politics. Now it strikes me 
 that that is a question in wliich this Church as a body 
 should not interfere. It has been 'the policy and the wis- 
 dom of this Church in the past to abstain from the first 
 step in the direction of those questions which address 
 themselves strongly to tlie s3'mpathies or sentiments of 
 the Indians. Remembering the course of this Conven- 
 tion in the past, we see the wisdom of that policy. We 
 have seen a quasi political question which addressed 
 itself strongly to the sympathies, rending asunder 
 every denomination of Christians in this country, be- 
 cause they allowed themselves on a question of senti- 
 ment and sympathy to interfere and express an opinion. 
 This Church entertaining among its individual mem- 
 bers sentiments quite as strong and deep as those 
 which divided other Churches held that it was not in 
 the province of the Church to express oinuious other 
 than those relating to the great questions commilled to it, 
 as the legislators of a Christian Church. And although 
 the course of strife really for a time kept the members ol 
 this Church from coming together, yet the Church was 
 united, and the moment the physical force was re- 
 moved we have come together and are seated here as 
 thirty years ago. Now this question of Indian policy is 
 only in its earliest stage. We know not what questions 
 are to arise alTecting this small remnant of the former 
 owners of the whole of these lands. They have been 
 gradually wasted, and concentrated in the West. There 
 arises a new and difficult question for the Government 
 to deal with. Whatever maybe om- sympathies — sym- 
 pathies are tlie worst aid and sugges\ors of legislation. 
 I think it would be better to act as individuals not as a 
 body. Let us not commit this Convention to any ex- 
 pression of opinion on the subject as to whether these 
 Indians should or should not stU their lands. Leave it 
 to the Government to decide that, and, as our worthy 
 President has just said, individuals can bring a stronger 
 influence to bear than can the collective voice of tliis 
 body. If we speak in any one direction we shall have 
 other bodies speaking in an opposite direction. There 
 are strong interests at work to bring about this thing 
 which we deprecate. Instead of refei-ring this thing to a 
 committee I should prefer, with all deference, to move a 
 non-concurrence. I do not wish to exhibit, or that this 
 House should exhibit, any want of deference to a mem- 
 ber of the House, still less that this House should ex- 
 hibit any want of sympathy with these poor Indians ; 
 but there is that one grand principle which 1 think this 
 House should not lose sight of, that of abstaining from 
 all questions outside of its own policy, its own interest, 
 its own growth. If this motion should lie disposed of 
 
 and the committee refused, I move that this House may 
 respectfully non-concur with the action of the House of 
 Bishops. 
 
 liev. Dr. Stubbb, of New Jersey :— I have almost 
 thought it would be a sin for any elergjiuau to keep 
 silence on a subject like this. I think the gentleman 
 who has just taken his seat has misstated the question. 
 lie has said that the question is one of property and civil 
 right. I deny it ; it is not the language brcjught before 
 us by the Indians. The petition of those poor Indians 
 is that they are likely to be deprived of their common 
 Christianity — to have their chaplain driven from them. 
 They do not say anything about the title to their lauds; 
 they plead to us to save them from being driven back 
 again to heathenism. They say that their agents wish 
 to deprive them of their religious privileges, of their 
 Christian privileges. Now, is that a matter of politics — 
 a thing unworthy of this convention 'i I deny the state- 
 ment made by that gentleman as well as by one on the 
 oUier side, that this is a question of mere property. It is 
 one that makes an appeal to our hearts, to prevent these 
 poor Indians from relapsing into heathenism by being 
 deprived of the privileges of Christianity, by having 
 their religious teacher driven from them. If there is 
 any question worthy of this House to entertain, it is 
 that question. Reference was made to the action of the 
 last General Convention. Is this Convention infallible!' 
 Does it feel, because we have pursued a^ course at one 
 time, that we sliould pursue it again ? I do not know 
 what action was referred to, and I do not care ; because 
 if any action was taken by it unworthy of a Christian 
 body, we ought now to abjure it. The gentleman says 
 obatuprincipiis, I say so too. I say at this time, in the 
 name of all that is sacred, oppose any principle which 
 will hinder you from doing au act of common humanity. 
 It would be a shame, as I conceive, that these poor 
 creatures coming to us and begging us as Christian men 
 and brethren to save them from being deprived of their 
 Christian rights and privileges, and by the deprivation 
 of which they may not only be excluded from the 
 Church of God but from Heaven above — I say it would 
 be a shame for us to stand bj' and to_refuse to intercede 
 for them, and to put it on the ground that we are afraid 
 ol meddling with the politics of the country. God for- 
 bid that we should refuse to interlere with such pt)litics. 
 We should use all our power to protect the innocent, 
 or save any wretched community from being oppressed. 
 Our venerable Chairman has said thiit we may act as cit- 
 izens, and not as a Council. He says that this Council is 
 unknown to the government, and that is a mere nega- 
 tion. I thought this Council was more important than 
 that. I believe the attention of this whole country is at 
 this time directed more or less to this very Council. I 
 believe we are exercising a great influence, not only in 
 this Church but in this country, by the measures we 
 take here. I say that this Council would have great intlu- 
 ence in this country and with this government, if it 
 would intercede in behalf of humanity and religion. I 
 I say for us to reluse a petition of that kind would put 
 us before this government as a council which refused to 
 do its Christian duty, and absolutely riyected the peli- 
 
150 
 
 tioDs of these poor creatures that come at our doors 
 and beg us in the name of mercy to save them from the 
 wretchedness to which they are exposed. 
 
 Let me refer you to some instances of the past, which 
 I think are of more consequence to us tlian the action 
 of the last General Convention. We are all familiar 
 with the noble conduct of that great archbishop of 
 Milan, who, because the emperor stood aloof and 
 allowed citizens to be destroyed, did not hesitate to cut 
 him off from the communion of the Church ; nor was 
 he allowed with blood on his hands to enter its sacred 
 precincts; and he did that at greater peril than we are 
 likely to suffer — at the peril of all he held on earth 
 most dear, as well as life itself Yet he did not refuse or 
 stand still for fear he would interfere with the jjrivileges 
 or powers of the Emperor, or lest the Church should be 
 placed in the position of meddling with the politics of 
 the country. Let us follow that noble example, whether 
 it be as bishops, clergymen or laymen, or as a Council 
 of the Church. I say that this Council does not take 
 away our individuality ; it concentrates it. If we plead 
 as one man, we none the less plead as men met together 
 in the council of the Church of God. I am surprised, 
 I am astonished, after all we have heard here of the 
 grievances of these people, I am surprised when we 
 know the strong sympathy which has been expressed in 
 their behalf, and how the heart of the whole House of 
 Bishops sympathizes with them as they come to us with 
 the simple desire that we would concur with them to 
 petition the government or one of the officers simply, 
 in behalf of extending to this people the offices of re- 
 ligion by which they are to be made happy here and 
 saved hereafter — I am surprised that we should refuse 
 to aid them on the ground that we have done wrong 
 heretofore, and are afraid forsooth of getting blame for 
 meddling with the politics of the country. 
 
 Mr. Johnson of Connecticut : — My friend from Penn- 
 sylvania has proposed an order of reference. My friend 
 from New York proposes to non-concur. [Gov. Fish : 
 — I have not made such a motion.] I rise simply for 
 the purpose of olfering a resolution which announces 
 the general principle which has governed this Conven- 
 tion. The resolution is this ; 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention sympathizes strongly 
 with the Oneidas in their troubles, and fear and appre- 
 hensions; but it is the policy as well as the principle of 
 this Convention not to interfere in any matters of civil 
 government, affecting the civil interests of the State. 
 
 I do not propose to debate tlie matter; for the whole 
 argument is already made. It announces a principle 
 which I presume pervades this assembly. 
 
 Hon. S B. RuGGLES: — I wish merely to state what 
 has been the policy of this Convention. I was in the 
 Convention in 1859. A question was then proposed of 
 a petition to the government of Spain to allow Christian 
 burial to the members of our own Church dying in the 
 island of Cuba. I thought that was a harmless propo- 
 sition ; but that question was postponed upon the mo- 
 tion, I think of Mr. Thomas, of Virginia ; and other 
 members showed the impolicy of allowing the interfer- 
 auce of the Church even in dijjlomatic matters. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Peterkin: — This is a grave, an important 
 
 subject, and I do not pretend to say that I feel in my 
 heart the very deep interest which I know in my con- 
 science I ought to feel. We owe a very great debt to 
 the Indians of every name and of every kind. And 
 sometimes when I meet them, as I did here at tlie Mis- 
 sions, I feel somewhat as William Wirt said he did when 
 he met an Indian ; that he was disposed to bow down 
 and apologise to him for the wrongs done him by his 
 forefathers. The cry may be in many parts of this coun- 
 try, " exterminate them ;" and under the progress of 
 relentless civilization they may possibly be extermina- 
 ted ; but as has been said, whatever may become of 
 them, their names are on our waters — we may not 
 wash them out: and while ever we have a Narraganset 
 or an Ohio, or while ever the Mississippi rolls his deep 
 volume to the gulf, we can never forget that they were 
 the original owners of all this soil, and that we owe to 
 them a debt we cannot pay unless by the most perse- 
 vering, earnest, long continued efforts to bring tliem 
 into the fold of the oae shepherd, Jesus Christ. We 
 owe them this as a matter of debt ; and it becomes us 
 to do all we can in order to meet our obligalions. But 
 as I understand it, the present question relates to one 
 singfe tribe , and if I have heard correctly, that is 
 composed of twelve hundred persons ; and of those 
 twelve hundred, eight hundred are already considered 
 to be in connection with our Church. It may be pre- 
 sumed that the eight hundred are opposed to the alien- 
 ation of their lands. May not this eight htmdred 
 outvote, and if yon please outwit the four hundred who 
 may, from improper influences being brought to bear 
 upon them, be disposed to allow this alienation of their 
 lands ; or, if upon those four hundred some of the elo- 
 quence which we have heard here to-day in their behalf 
 were exerted, might they not be persuaded that tlieir 
 best interests were bound up with the interests of the 
 majority, and they should i)eacefully resist every etlbrt 
 made to send them away from those homes, around 
 which I suppose many dear associations cluster. I 
 would say in i-egard to these Oneidas, I presume we are 
 specially indebted to them ; for I read here from an old 
 number of the Spirit Missions, where a quotation is 
 made concerciug Indian policy by Henry R. Schoolcraft, 
 with regard to these Oneidas. 
 
 [The speaker here read an extract showing that the 
 patriots of 1775 awarded to the aboriginal tribes the 
 full proprietary right to the soil they respectively 
 occupied ; that was the fii-st step in the politictd exalta- 
 tion of the Indians, and dated from the treatieS of Fort 
 Pitt, 1778, and Port Stanwix, 1784.] 
 
 The latter was as early after the establishment of our 
 independence as these tribes could be brought to listen 
 to terms of peace. The Six Nations, with the exception 
 of the Oneidas, sided with the parent country ; the 
 Oneidas sided with the colonies. According to this we 
 may in part owe to them some of the blessings we now 
 enjoy. It may be afiBrmed that there is not an acre of 
 the public domain in the United States that has not 
 been acquired in this manner. War in which we and 
 they have been frequently involved since that time, has 
 conveyed no territorial riglit, we having conquered 
 them in the field not to acquire territory, but to place 
 
151 
 
 them in a position to ol)serve liow ninch more tbeir in- 
 terests would 1)C promoted by tlie plow than by the 
 sword. The idea I wish to impress upon this House 
 is that these Oneidas are specially deserving our care 
 and protection ; but inasmuch as their body is a com- 
 paratively small one, and local influence sufflciently 
 powerful may be brought to bear upon the government, 
 it may not be expedient for this body as such, as tlie 
 representatives of the Protestant Episcopal Church, to 
 take action in the matter. 
 
 Message No. 43 from the House of Bishops. was here 
 received, signifying non-concurrence in the amend- 
 ments proposed by the House to the fourth article of 
 the Constitution of the Board of Missions. 
 
 Message No. 44 gave notice of the adoption of a I'es- 
 olution for the appointment of a joint committee to 
 consider the present state of theological education in 
 this Church and the means for its facilitation and im- 
 provement, and to report thereon at the ne.xt General 
 Convention, and also to confer with the Bishops upon 
 the subject of a course ot studies. 
 
 Message No. 45 transmitted a concurrent resolution 
 for adjournment sin-e die on Thursday nest, the .29th 
 inst. 
 
 Gov. Fish offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That this House respectfully non-concurs 
 with the House of Bishops in the message respecting 
 the Oneida Indians, for the reason that while it feels 
 the deepest sympathies in the trials and sufferings of 
 those Indians, it is of the opinion that it is unwise and 
 against the policy of this Convention and the interest 
 of the Church that the Convention of the Church should 
 in its official representative capacity interfere with ques- 
 tions of policy confided to the control of the State. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews — The question before us is sim- 
 ply this. The Oneida Indians and many other parties 
 are the prey of rogues, and their Christian civilization 
 is incidentally involved, and the same is true of many 
 other parties — they are the' prey of rogues and their 
 Christian civilization is likewise involved. The ques- 
 tion is whether this Convention ought to interfere in 
 such cases. I am prepared to vote in the negative. I 
 second the resolution of the gentleman from New York. 
 
 Bev. Mr. B.\nister — If I understand the petition 
 aright, there is one clause, which, it seems to me, takes 
 this whole question from the political sphere. It is the 
 statement that those agents are attempting to drive from 
 among them their missionaries ; and this proposed ac- 
 tion would be uotbinir more than the simple exercise of 
 the right of petition in regard to matters coming strict- 
 ly in our purview, bringing the whole moral force of 
 the Convention to bear upon the side of right and jus- 
 tice. There is a great danger which the gentleman on 
 the other side of the house has pointed out. I would 
 be the last person in the world to vote for a measure of 
 interference in political matters. But there is some- 
 thing to be said on the other hand. We ought not to 
 hold our arms in calm indifference in reference to the 
 present condition of members of our own Church. I 
 speak, not with the hope of changing the opinions of 
 other people, but simply to do my duty, and indorse 
 
 what my brother from New Jersey has so usefully and 
 ably said. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. IIa-Ight (In the chair,) put the question 
 upon a motion to commit : which after a division, was 
 lost by 41 ayes to 88 noes. The questiim then recurred 
 ujjon a resolution olfered by Gov. Fish, as above given. 
 
 Judge Battle : — Whether these Indians should be 
 removed or remain there, — is not that the policj- of the 
 government, one way or the other? And when we 
 write a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, is it not 
 meddling with politics ? The learned clerical member 
 from New Jersey goes so far as to say that we ought to 
 disregard what has been done by the previous Conven- 
 tion, and mix up ourselves with the politics of the day. 
 That is the extent to which his argument goes — that 
 we should depart from that conservative course which 
 has led our Church together on from one success to an- 
 other, until its influence overspreads the whole land. 
 Why does it do so ? Because it cautiously abstains from 
 interference in any matter of politics. Suppose the prop- 
 osition was to write to the Secretaiy of the Interior, or 
 to any other secretary, in relation to the colored peo- 
 ple of the South, would not that at once be considered 
 a matter of policy ? And what is the difference be- 
 tween the colored people of the South, and the Indians? 
 but a little difference in the color of the skin. We 
 have arrived at a crisis ; it is one of the most imjiortant 
 questions that has come before the Convention. If we 
 go on as we have done, we may expect to prosper, and 
 our Church extend through the whole land, and its in- 
 fluence in a few years be better than the influence of 
 any other Church in this country ; but if we take an- 
 other course, and depart from that which has heretofore 
 led us to peace, prosperity and happiness, and interfere 
 with the politics of the daj', what will be the conse- 
 cpience? The speeches I have heard this morning 
 show what will be the consequence ; we shall have po- 
 litical debates in this Convention. 
 
 Upon the suggestion of Mr. McCrady, of South. 
 Carolina, Gov. Fish substituted "inexpedient" for the 
 word "unwise" in his resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maiian ; — I desire merely to say I cannot 
 detect the slightest shade of politics so called in that 
 letter ; and I request it to be read merely fr>r the gui- 
 dance of my own vote, as I would vote against the in- 
 troduction of politics in a Convention of this kind ; but 
 I cannot see the slightest suspicion of anything of that 
 sort. It seems to me it is always in the power of an 
 inferior to ask a superior to protect another inferior. It 
 is simply a request made, a perfectly lawful rc(juest, 
 which may be either refused or acceded to. And es- 
 pecially would I deprecate the reason that is given for 
 not acceding to this request, that a thing of this kind is 
 interference. Now the strongest word that should be 
 used, if any word is used at all, would be intervention. 
 I cannot see even intervention. I do not think it is in- 
 terference to ask one in a simple and polite way to 
 protect somebody else. I*" there were any person whom 
 1 had it in my power to protect, and anybody would 
 ask me to protect him, I would not consider it the least 
 
152 
 
 interference in tlie world. I dpprecate sincerely t'roiii 
 the bottom of my heart every shade of interference or 
 meddling with political things. Yet Ido think that there 
 is a rational limit even to a principle of lliis kind ; and we 
 are hound as rational men to distinguish between inter- 
 ference and what is not. While there is danger of the 
 Church interfering, there is danger also from fear of 
 this, that the fear itself will become servile, and degra- 
 ding to the Church as a spiritual body, having the great 
 interests of God and man in charge. I think there is 
 danger of excessive timidity. I do not know of au}'- 
 thing tliat is more perilous to a spiritual body or to a 
 spiritual man than to be afraid of things that are not 
 worthy to inspire fear. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — We are not here as individuals at all. 
 We are here mei'ely as the representatives of the diocesan 
 Conventions ; and if there are any of these Conventions 
 that are averse to meddling in politics in any way, we 
 would do wrong by assenting to this proposed action. 
 
 Judge CoNYNGHAM : — The letter brings before this 
 House the question of policy not only in this particular 
 case, but in tact it may be said to apply to every case of 
 the removal of Indians. It is a question which gives 
 rise to debate and dispute. It is very clearly a question 
 of policy. 
 
 The vote was then taken upon the resolution offered 
 by Gov. Fish, and it was adopted. 
 
 The Rev. X)r. Hubbakd from the Comniittee on the 
 Prayer Book respecting a proposed table for daily 
 prayer during the season of Lent, reported there was 
 not time to engage in such a work, and offered a resolu- 
 tion that the subject of the resolution be submitted to 
 the judgment of the Joint Committee on the Prayer 
 Book, to report if they think proper such a table of les- 
 sons to the next General Convention. 
 
 With reference to the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Ma- 
 son proposing certain changes in the language of the 
 metrical psalms and hymns, the Committee recommen- 
 ded that the resolution be referred to some Committee, 
 to report on the expediency of these and similar changes 
 to the next Convention. 
 
 The Committee also noticed a communication from 
 the Rev. Dr. Barnard, of Columbia College, on the 
 subject of the cycle of the Church, and recommended 
 the reference of the communication to the Joint Com- 
 mittee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 On motion, all the recommendations of the Commit- 
 tee were adopted. 
 
 Gov. Fish submitted the report of the trustees of the 
 funds for the relief of orphans and widows of deceased 
 clergymen ; no returns were received from an earnest 
 appeal issued in 1859, for various reasons : and the 
 Committee asked to be discharged, and recommended 
 the charter obtained to be deposited with the Registrar 
 of the Convention. Agreed to. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Little.john, the House con- 
 curred in the resolution communicated from the House 
 of Bishops in Message No. 44. 
 
 The question of concurrence with a concurrent res- 
 olution from the House of Bishops to adjourn on 
 
 Tlunsday next being under consideration, after some 
 colloqu)', the subject was laid on the table. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Littlejoiin, a Committee of 
 Conference was asked for with reference to Message 
 No. 43 from the House of Bishops, signifying non-con- 
 currence in Ihe first amendment to the 4th article of the 
 Constitution of the Board of Missions. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Moore offered a resolution of reference 
 [adopted,] to the Joint Committee on the Prayer Book, 
 to report at the next General Convention respecting the 
 expediency of providing a form of thanksgiving for the 
 recovery of a child from illness. He said, " My reason 
 for offering this is, that in the occasional prayers of the 
 Church, there are two for therecoveiy of a sick person 
 one for the recovery of an adult, and another for the 
 recovery of a child. If we examine the structure of the 
 prayer for a child, we will find it cannot be used in the 
 case of an infant, because it supposes that the person 
 on whose behalf the thanksgiving is offered is in the 
 Church himself making the offering. I have been 
 called on myself to ofi'er prayers when parents were, 
 grateful for the restoration of their offspring whom they 
 have supposed near death, and I have felt embarassed 
 not to find any occasional prayers for such a case." 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hubbard, the following reso- 
 lution was adopted. 
 
 Benolved, That the Joint Committee on the Prayer 
 Book be instructed to inquire into the expediency of 
 introducing into the standard Pi-ayer Book of this 
 Church, the pointing of the psalter for chanting as in 
 the standard Prayer Book of the Church of England, and 
 report upon the same to the nest General Convention 
 
 The object he said, is to afford facility to the prac- 
 tice of chanting, which is a growing want of the 
 Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. JLyson moved that the resolutions which he 
 luxd submitted, and which had been laid upon the table, 
 be taken from the table and refei'red to the Joint Com- 
 mittee on the Prayer Book, one relating to the introduc- 
 tion of the word "holy "into the.Nicene Creed, and the 
 other to punctuation. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGi.ES : — I offered a motion to the same 
 effect, on the subject of the translation of the Nicene 
 Creed, which I hope will be referred to the Committee 
 on the Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — inquired if by the terms of Mr. 
 Ruggles's resolution, the committee were not authorized 
 to print. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLEs — said that whatever was to that 
 effect he would withdraw. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — That committee has nothing to do 
 but to give us a prayer book according to the standard 
 edition ; and has nothing to do with inserting the word 
 " holy " or any other word. If the House choose to ap- 
 point a committee on a new standard, very well. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hubbard : — we have already referred to 
 that committee the printing of the Psalter, and also the 
 restoration of the words left out by error. 
 
 The President : — The resolutions of reference this 
 moiniiig have all mistaken the character of the commit- 
 
153 
 
 tee. It was merely a committee to prepare a standard 
 edition as adopted in 1844. Tliere ought to be a com- 
 mittee to consider the various resolutions of change 
 which have been proposed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight: — The committee are simply au- 
 thorized, after having e.\amined the plates, if they find 
 that certain typographical errors have been corrected to 
 let those corrections stand, and to correct any other ty- 
 pographical errors wliich they may decide to be simply 
 typographical errors : their business is to give a correct 
 edition of the book as authorized in 1844. 15esides this, 
 the Convention has seen proper to instruct them to con- 
 sider, and report to the next Convention, the expediency 
 or inexpediency of adopting certain other mmor addi- 
 tions. I think it would be perfectly competent for 
 them to consider these other questions ; but they can do 
 nothing with the present standard. 
 
 A motion to reconsider the several resolutions referred 
 to the Committee on the Standard Prayer Book was 
 lost. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason's resolutions were then referred to 
 that committee. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall — offered a proposed canon relating 
 to consecration of churches, whic4i upon his motion was 
 laid on the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce, of Alabama: — 1 presented several 
 days ago a preamble and resolution in regard to ajypoint- 
 ing a committee to consider whether congregation.s wor- 
 shipping in other than the English tongue in this coun- 
 try might not be allowed to use the liturgies to which 
 they are accustomed in their native country, or such 
 modifications of them as the Church might deem wise, 
 and this committee to report to the next Convention. 
 After this matter had been introduced, the adjournment 
 interfered with any action on it. 1 wish to bring that 
 subject up again. I would state if I am allowed, what 
 my design is. There are German congregations in this 
 country, and they are obliged to use our present trans- 
 lation into German of the Prayer Book, which is no 
 more our Prayer Book than any other book is. I say 
 it is not our Prayer Book, because it has not the spirit, 
 the devotional character of our Prayer Book. It is 
 translated into German, but in the newspajjer German 
 of the day. Every German scholar, and especially 
 every native German that T have talked with, has spoken 
 in this way about it. I have never known a man who 
 was officiating to Germans that was able to use that 
 translation as it stands ; and without giving a free trans- 
 lation instead of the literal translation it will be impos- 
 sible to adapt it to the use of Germans. Many passages 
 in the Standard edition of the Bible or in the Lutheran 
 version, which arc introduced into the liturgy cannot be 
 introduced properly because the translation given in the 
 Lutheran Bible does not coincide ; and if the meaning 
 is not entirely different, it has a shade of a meaning 
 different. And so in regard to the Swedes. Suppose 
 there is a restoration of unity between us and the 
 
 20 
 
 Swedish Church. We have an English congregation in 
 Stockholm ; would we not consider it very hard that the 
 Swedish Church should require us to throw aside that 
 liturgy which is endeared to every Englishman, and 
 Churchman in the United States — the very language 
 which is associated with a thousand recollections of the 
 past — to throw aside that, and to adopt a newspaper 
 translation perhaps of the Swedish Ifturgy. Now in 
 that case every Churchman would say, let us use the 
 liturgy of our forefathers — that which we have been 
 accustomed to. 
 
 Let us refer it to a committee to consider whether it 
 would not be reasonable, wise, anj^ charitable, to allow 
 this thing. Then, again, there is the Great Eastern 
 question. Suppose there should be a restoration of in- 
 tercommunion bet^veen this Church and the Greek 
 Church. Shall we insist on the Greek Church throw- 
 ing away their liturgy, which comes down from Apos- 
 tolic days, and adopt a modern Greek translation of the 
 English liturgy ? I am certain that if gentlemen will 
 consider this important matter, if they will just place 
 themselves in the position which these persons hold — 
 which the German, the Swede, and any foreigner would 
 hold, they will be in favor of this reference. Let me 
 add another thing. We are obliged to adopt this prin- 
 ciple in part now. Although our Prayer Book is trans- 
 lated into German, yet the psalms and hymns are not 
 translated ; and therefore any congregation worshipping 
 in German is obliged to resort to the Lutheran collection 
 of hymns, or they can have no hymnody in the Church. 
 We have already admitted the principle in part ; but 
 the proposition is not, whether we will admit it or not. 
 That is not what I ask, — but will it appoint a judicial 
 committee of three Bishops, three presbyters, and three 
 laymen to consider this matter, for three years, and af- 
 ter that is done, if it is decided that the use might be 
 permitted, every liturgy would have to pass the exam- 
 ination of a competent committee to see whether or not 
 lit is in accordance with our standards. I think there is 
 no danger in this, and that there is no harm in consid- 
 ering a question which is important, and becoming a 
 practical question if there is to be an extension of in- 
 tercommunion of the American Church with other 
 branches of the Church Catholic. My resolution is as 
 follows : 
 
 Rexolredy the House of Bishops concurring. That a 
 committee of three from each order be appointed to 
 consider whether it would not be reasonable, wise, and 
 charitable, to allow coigregations worshipping in other 
 tongues than the English to use the liturgie forms to 
 which thev have been accustomed in their native lands 
 or such adaptations of the same as may be consistent 
 with the doctrines and worship of this Church, and to 
 report to the next General Convention. 
 
 Mr. : I would suggest the propriety of refer- 
 ring that to the Committee on the Prayer Book in the 
 German tongue. I admit the importance of this matter, 
 having ministered among the Germans; and having 
 
154 
 
 taken a great deal of interest in their behalf, 1 have 
 found, after conversing with them, that they have great 
 objections to the use of our Prayer Book in its present 
 form. I am informed that an admirable translation of 
 our Prayer Book was made by Professor Falk, of Ra- 
 cine College ; but I regret to say that it has been lost. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Goodwin, and with the con- 
 sent of Rev. Dr. Pierce, Dr. Pierce's resolution was re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the Prayer Book in the 
 German language. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I have a question which I should 
 like to bring before this House. I will say, in the first 
 place, that it is not a Question with regard to bringing 
 up a new version of the Nicene Creed. It is a question 
 that has been considered with regard to the omission of 
 the word " holy." We have the salne version as the 
 English Church. The English Church has omitted the 
 word " holy." In the definition of the Holy Catholic 
 Church the original Western version says: "I believe 
 in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." That is 
 the version of the West — of the Roman obedience 
 everywhere, in Italy and France. In the Prayer Book 
 version the English Church has started away fiom the 
 Western version of the Nicene Creed by omitting the 
 word " holy." I have heard a good many gentlemen 
 an.\ious to restore this. I, myself, do not think we have 
 authority to restore it, unless we can understand that the 
 English Church is willing to restore it. 
 
 The point of order was raised that there was no 
 question before the House and that therefore Rev. Dr. 
 Adams was out of order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I will say that I think — [The 
 question of order was again raised.] I am going to 
 read the resolution, and this Convention will please to 
 attend to it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Reanlved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 
 General Convention of the Church in the United States 
 would respectfully solicit from the Upper and Lower 
 Houses of Convocation in the English Church informa- 
 tion as to the time and occasion when the word " Holy" 
 was omitted in the Prayer Book version of the Nicene 
 Creed ; by what authority it was done, and what reason 
 — doctrinal or practical, — lies at the bottom of this ac- 
 tion. 
 
 And in order that this be done with due respect to 
 our venerable mother, the Church of England, that the 
 Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops, the Chairman 
 of this House (Dr. Craik of Kentucky), with the senior 
 clerical member of the same (Dr. Mead of Connecticut), 
 together with the Hon. Hamilton Fish of New York, 
 and William Welsh, Esq., of Philadelphia,. be a commit- 
 tee to make this inquiry in the interval and report to 
 the next General Convention. 
 
 I suppose I am now permitted to say something. [A 
 voice : — The resolution has not been seconded. A Dep- 
 uty : — I second it.] They say we shall not touch this 
 Western version of the creed in any way until our 
 mother Church of England touches it. I therefore 
 bring this resolution forward that we may apply to the 
 
 highest legislative authority of the Church of England 
 for information concerning the matter. 
 
 A motion to lay the resolution on the table was lost 
 by a dividing vote. 
 
 A Deputy : — The omission occurs in one of the 
 Latin translations ; and there are three other variations 
 between the two Latin versions. The one to which he 
 (Rev. Dr. Adams) has referred deviates from the Greek 
 in some parts The other Latin translation deviates 
 from the Greek in other parts; and consequently they 
 differ between themselves. Now the question arises, 
 which one of these Latin versions shall be taken as au- 
 thority. At this juncture, we are seeking under this 
 resolution to depart from the Greek ; so that really we 
 seem to be at sea with regard to the very creed of the 
 Church. It does seem to me, that these questions of 
 variations in translations while the substance is retained, 
 would keep us in interminable debate. Now, I submit, 
 after having used this Nicene Creed ever since we have 
 been a Church in the country, receiving it in its present 
 form from the Church of Englaod, whether at this stage 
 of the history of the Church we are for approximating 
 either the Latin or the Greek Church. All the varia- 
 tions should be referred to the same committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I would say that the resolution 
 is not in regard to the Greek at all ; it is in reference to 
 the standard version of the English Church, and to in- 
 quire why that word " holy " has been omitted from the 
 translation. 
 
 A Deputy — remarked that the word " holy " is omit- 
 ted from the Greek as used in the liturgy of St. Mark. 
 It may be derived from that- 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pikrce — said that the English Church was 
 considering this matter, and that the Church in the 
 United States had the same right to consider it as the 
 English Church. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Cornwall the resolution was refer- 
 red to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — moved that the Secretary in send 
 ing messages to the House of Bishops should specify, 
 and desire the Secretary of the House of Bishops to 
 correspondingly specif)- the subjects of the messages 
 His suggestion in the form of a motion was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Haight, message No. 35, from 
 the House of Bishops, was referred to the Committee on 
 Christian Education. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn — suggested to Dr. Haight, that 
 it would be well to specify the subject of the message. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut — submitted the report of the Com- 
 mittee of Conference between the two Houses on article ' 
 5 of the Constitution, relative to the subject of a division 
 of dioceses, with a resolution to transmit the same to the 
 several dioceses. The committee transferred the re- 
 strictions which the House had proposed to put in a 
 canon to the article of the constitution, making the dif- 
 ference between the constitution as now, and after the 
 amendment, to consist in the addition of the words 
 
155 
 
 originally proposed by the Committee on Canons with 
 regard to tlie support of the bishop, and in tlie reduction 
 of the number of parishes and presbyters so as to read 
 "six parishes and six presbyters" instead of twelve par- 
 ishes and twelve presbyters. 
 
 On motion of Kev. Dr. Mead — the resolutions report- 
 ed by the Committee of Conference were adopted, the 
 vote being taken by dioceses and orders. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Ue Kove.n : — With reference to message 
 No. 35 from the House of Bishops reported that no ac- 
 tion had been taken by the House of Uishops upon the 
 subject of the first resolution, reported by the Commit- 
 tee on Christian Education, and adopted by this House, 
 and transmitted to the House of Bishops. 
 
 On motion, the Secretary was authorized to inquire 
 the reason of this oversight. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Haight, fi-om the Committee on Canons, 
 reported back the canon contained in message number 
 thirty-two, from the House of Bishops, on the subject of 
 dioceses as follows: 
 
 That no minister of this Church shall solemnize mat- 
 rimony in any case where there is a divorced wile or 
 husband of either party still living, but this canon shall 
 not be held to appl}' to the mnocent party in a divorce 
 for the cause of adultery or to parties once divorced seek- 
 ing to be united again. 
 
 Rev. Ur. Goodwin : — I find that I have been under 
 stood by the reporters [not by the reporter of Tlie Church- 
 man] and otliers as having maintained on the floor of 
 this House that marriage should be indissoluble in any 
 ■ case whatever, even in the case of adultery. I only 
 maintained that it might be expedient for the civil gov- 
 ernment to take that ground — that it might be to the 
 happiness of all parties. I never intended to hold that 
 the law required that it should be absolutely indissolu- 
 ble. It was merely an expression of opinion as to the 
 expediency of the civil government taking that ground. 
 I have no objection to the canon now before the House. 
 T never based any opinion upon any interpretation of 
 Scripture that the marriage tie is absolutely indissoluble. 
 Whether indissoluble or not, it is not required by our 
 law that it should be dissolved in that case ; therefore 
 the question is free for any civil government to provide 
 that it should be indissoluble if thought to be expedient. 
 
 Judge CoMSTOCK : — The canon as reported does not 
 provide tor a divorce for a cause antecedent to marriage. 
 1 think that is indi.spensuble. Kvery one knows that 
 there are causes pre-existing which are fatal to the mar- 
 riage contract. You may take the case where one of 
 the parties is not of a buitable age to give consent ; or 
 take the case of a marriage procured hy Ibrce or fraud. 
 There are cases antecedent to marriage which are fat.il 
 to that relation. The canon as reported by the commit- 
 tee broadly forbids a clergyman to marry a party who 
 is divorced for either of those causes. I am sure the 
 Convention does not intend to do that. It seems to me 
 that its failure to provide lor the cases mentioned is ia- 
 
 tal to the canon without an amendment. I will suggest 
 an amendment of the canon so that it shall read as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 No minister of this Church shall solemnize marriage 
 in any case where a previous marriage of either party 
 shall have been dissolved for cause arising subsequent 
 thereto; provided that nothing herein shall apply to 
 • the innocent party in case of divorce for adultery, nor 
 in any case where the prior marriage relation shall have 
 terminated by the death of husband or wife. 
 
 I think that disposes of the difficulty 1 suggested, and 
 embraces all the other points of the amendment. 
 
 Judge Battle : — I think the learned gentleman from 
 New York has confounded together divorce and a nul- 
 lity of marriage. If a married person marries a second 
 time it is unnecessary that there should be a divorce ; it 
 is an absolute nullity. If a man marries a woman under 
 a suitable age, it is no marriage at all. The onlj thing 
 to be brought before the court is to determine whether 
 the cause was sufficient for nullifying the marriage. The 
 gentleman has confounded the two cases of the declara- 
 tion of the nullity of marriage and a divorce. It seems 
 to me that the canon as it now stands meets every 
 case. 
 
 Judge CoMSTOCK : — I know the law in my State re- 
 cognizes decrees dissolving the marriage contract for 
 causes antecedent to its declaration. There is at least 
 an ambiguity in the canon which ought not to exist. 
 
 Kev. Mr. Labagii : — 1 suggest an amendment in this 
 form, to meet all the dilierent cases that may aiise 
 throughout the country. The amendment is, "Resolved, 
 That the Bishop and the standing Committee of each 
 diocese constitute an ecclesiastical couit, to e-xamine 
 all cases of remarriage of parties who have obtained di- 
 vorces in the legal tribunals for causes other than thai 
 of adultery ; and their decision shall govern in all cases 
 submitted to them." I believe that there are three 
 classes of causes for divorce, which I mentioned the 
 other day, one for sin antecedent to marriage ; the 
 others, subsequent adultery arid abandonment mention- 
 ed in the Epistle to the Corinthians. I will only pre- 
 sent six or seven different case3,,[Laughter], which are 
 not fanciful cases, but which have actually arisen, in 
 order to show what embarrassments there are. 
 
 Suppose the case of the marriage of a devout com- 
 municant, a lady — and I rise to make these remarks 
 more particularly in behalf of that sex, that suffers most 
 on account of divorces, for various causes. Our Legis- 
 latures claim the right to consider the marriage as a 
 contract, and supervise that contract, and claim the 
 right wherever the contract is wilfully violated by either 
 party, to declare it a nullity. That is the law, and we 
 are bound to submit to it. 1 will present some cases 
 w hich may arise, in which the Legislature, without any 
 hesitancy, gives a divorce. The first is excessive bru- 
 tality. A devout communicant of the Church marries a 
 man, and in less than a year's time, she finds that she 
 has lallen into the hands of a wild beast j he is cruel to 
 
156 
 
 the extreme ; he beats her, threatens her life ; but as long 
 as there is no divorce he has a legal claim upon her, 
 and can constantly annoy her. The only remedy, for 
 her safety, is to apply for a divorce. In the course of 
 time, this excellent, devout christian lady, proposes re- 
 marriage, and she comes to her pastor and says, I pur- 
 pose to re-marry. He says, you cannot ; your husband 
 is alive. She says I have a divorce ; but he replies, the 
 Church will not allow me to perform the rite ; the only 
 way j'ou can marrj' is to cease your connection with 
 your Church, and to be married by some other minister. 
 I will give the case of mysterious absence. A woman is 
 married ; her husband goes out, and is never heard of 
 again. The suspicion is ibul play ; that he has been 
 murdered for his money. After waiting for years, she 
 applies for a divorce. She goes to her pastor, and says 
 she wishes to be married. He says, we have no certain- 
 ty that your husband is dead, and under these circum- 
 stagces you cannot re-marry. I will take another case — 
 the case of perpetual imprisonment. A Christian lady 
 marries a man who commits murder ; he is tried for the 
 mm-der, and tlirough the power of money, and family 
 influence, the sentence is imprisonment for life. That 
 man has committed murder, not adultery, but she can- 
 not re-marry, under this canon, by a clergyman of the 
 Church, because her husband has committed murder, 
 and is locked up for life. If he had only committed 
 adultery she might marry. [Laughter]. I will take 
 another case — beastly drunkenness. The civil courts 
 have decided that this is a just cause for divorce — that 
 a woman is not to continue subject to maltreatment by a 
 man who makes himself beastly drunk, and does not 
 provide for his family. A woman is not compelled to be 
 tied to the leprous carcass of a beastly sot. The law 
 sets her free, and the whole community justifies her; 
 but the Church says no, and that she cannot marry 
 again and continue in communion with the Church. 
 Take another case — marriage under false pretences. 1 
 am not giving an imaginary case. The woman is mar- 
 ried to a man under a false name. After a time the 
 thing is discovered, and the woman, indignant at the im- 
 position that has been practised upon her, applies and 
 gets a divorce ; but under this canon, she cannot be 
 married again. Take another case. A man marries a 
 lady of an excessively jealous disposition. [Laughter.] 
 
 [The Pkesident : — The time is up.] 
 
 I am not through my remarks. I have not stated 
 all the cases. [Laughter.] I was going to state this 
 case. 
 
 Mr. J. Pkingle Smith:— I rise to give notice that 1 
 shall move to lay this amendment on the table and shall 
 move to lay every proposition upon the table except 
 such as go to perfect the canon ofJered by the committee. 
 It is time for action by this Convention. If the standard 
 of the Church is to be the standard of the Gospel, if she 
 is still to be found taithful, unshaken, unseduced, unterri- 
 fied, her standard must float above the world, its tribu- 
 
 nals, its false maxims, its honors, its delusions. In this 
 matter theie can be no compromise. The gentleman from 
 Connecticut has told the House how much we need this 
 canon at the North. I unite in telling how much it is 
 needed at the South. We stand upon the brink of a 
 precipice from which in these long years past we have 
 been kejjt. 1 urge upon the House immediate action, 
 unequivocal decisive action. If you lower the standard 
 of the Church to meet the prejudices or the feelings of 
 the world, you do that very thing for which the scoffing 
 world is ever on the watch. I hope we shall not let the 
 sun set upon our inaction. If ever the path of day seemed 
 clear as the noonday sun it is to-day. Let the word be 
 onward. The action of this body will not only affect 
 those of its own commission but be felt everywhere 
 throughout this broad land. JMow if there be a lion in the 
 path, even if there should be clashing with the civil au- 
 thorities, it wiU not only be accepted but counted as all 
 joy because suffering for that noblest of causes, the cause 
 of God's truth. 
 
 Kev. Dr. JVIahan : — I don't know that it is necessary 
 to state anything with regard to this canon as proposed 
 except that it has been based simply upon the language 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and the single de- 
 fence of this canon in its present state is that it is within 
 that language. With regard to innumerable peculiar 
 cases that arise under American laws, it is enough to 
 say that this canon is merely meant as a directory for 
 the minister of the Church, and pronouncing what the 
 Church feels to be lawful marriage according to God's 
 word. In every marriage ceremony we have to warn 
 the parlies that if they are joined together otherwise 
 than God has enjoined, their marriage is not lawful ; 
 "The cause of adultery" is used as the language of our 
 Lord Himself, and will oi course, be understood by the 
 clergy according to the sense of the passage from which 
 it is taken. According to many the term adultery will 
 include fornication ; and there will perhaps be some 
 dill'erence of opinion as in every subject; but ic will al- 
 ways be perfectly easy to know whether a divorce is tor 
 the cause of adultery or some other cause entirely dis- 
 tinct from it. It is thought that this will cover the case 
 sulhcient for all practical purposes. 1 know there ia 
 very good authority for the interpretation that our Lord 
 meant to al.ow re-marriage in case of divorce for adultery. 
 Therefore, as we cannot make a canon on mere private 
 interpretation, we have to make it as perfect as we can. 
 As a matter of Christian perfection and as a matter of 
 God's law, in the highest sense of the word, I think the 
 canon ought to be that no marriage can be performed 
 in any case whatever where the husband or wife is still 
 living. 
 
 The President : — The first question is on the amend- 
 ment ofiered by the Deputy of Iowa — an amendment to 
 the amendment ofiered Ijy the gentleman from Western 
 New York ; to refer the wliole matter to the Bishops of 
 the Diocese and the Standing Committee. 
 
157 
 
 A vote being taken upon the amendment to the 
 ameudment, was lost; when the question recurred upon 
 the amendment offered by Judge •Comstoeli. The 
 amendment was lost. 
 
 Whereupon the vote was taken upon the canon as re- 
 ported by the committee, and it was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Jame8 a. Hahrold, of Florida — oiFered the 
 following preamble and resolution : — 
 
 Whereas, The order for daily morning and evening 
 prayer is obligatory and its due observance would tend 
 to increase piuty and devotion, and 
 
 Whereas, In the opinion of many, attendance at 
 morning and evening prayer would be greatly promoted 
 and encouraged by a shorter and more varied service, — 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Bishops be requested to 
 propose and set forth for morning and evening prayer 
 a short service formed alter the primitive and ancient 
 Liturgies which may be allowed for use on other days 
 than Sunday, and also that the house of Bishops should 
 reverse the Sectionary for the season of Lent. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I would hke to inquire if this has 
 not been acted upon. It was referred to the Commit- 
 tee on Canons and the Committee on Canons reported 
 that it was inexpedient ; and the committee were dis- 
 charged. 
 
 The President : — You have no right to oifer the 
 resolution after it has been acted upon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hakrold : — I propose to oiler it as an origi- 
 nal resolution. A short time since I had very unex- 
 pectedly the honor to propose to the House a somewhat 
 similar resolution on this subject. It was a subject that 
 had occupied my mind and attention for some time ; it 
 is a necessity pressing upon me ; but I had hoped to 
 prefer my modest request under the lead of some other 
 person in the House mor competent than myself to intro- 
 duce it. Therefore, I introduced it first by way of an 
 amendment to a resolution offered by a gentleman from 
 New Vork as to additional services. At the suggestion 
 of the chairman I was compelled to assume the initiation 
 by introducing a resolution which I did not intend or 
 expect to ; but having done so I felt that I owed it to 
 myself and the House to state my reasons for doing so, 
 and to ask this House that it shall not be tabled, but 
 that it may go to the House of Bishops as a modest re- 
 quest for what I am sure all feel is desirable. It is 
 supposed that we have passed most of the perils which 
 have been alluded to in the legislation of the House. 
 We have been constantly warned about the dangers and 
 the perils before this House in its legislative action. 
 Perhaps they have all passed away. The provincial 
 system and some of the systems which were not passed 
 have been laid to canonical repose. "Romanizing 
 Germs" have not even sprouted, and the cries and 
 meanings which have been for so long a time Tyng- 
 Tynging in our ears have ceased and we may now be 
 said to stand upon safe and secure ground ; and I can 
 therefore ask the House to second my request for an 
 additional service. It was said when I first offered the 
 resolution that it was an attempt to interfere with the 
 
 established order as laid down in the Prayer Book. I 
 disclaim any such intention. 1 profess to be as conserv- 
 ative as any man in this House. I reverence that 
 Prayer Book as much as any man can reverence it ; and 
 if I did not have a natural reverence for that order, my 
 respect for the wisdom and the opinions of those who 
 prepared it and who have sustained it would prevent me 
 from intruding anything upon the attention of this 
 House which would seem to set aside that order in any 
 degree whatever. It has therefore nothing to do with 
 the established order of the Prayer Book. I, with many 
 others who, I hope, will support me in this movement, 
 wish for relief We feel the order of public prayer to 
 be obligatory ; we believe it will tend to piety and de- 
 votion in the membership if they would observe this 
 more regularly ; and we also feel that that attendance 
 is not given as it ought to be and the causes are alluded 
 to by many persons, complaint coming up constantly. 
 There is scarcely a layman or clergyman in this House 
 who has not heard this complaint and felt the force of 
 the complaint against the present order, and who would 
 not long for and desire some relief from an order 
 which does to many seem to be oppressive and at times 
 wearisome ? Mr. Chairman, I know there is a great deal 
 of conservatism in this body, and I pay deference and 
 respect to it. It does not become a man of my age, 
 and on the occasion of my first appearance on this floor, 
 to attempt to set that aside or oppose it in any way ; but 
 I will say this, that if any of those gentlemen so bound 
 up in conservatism would only undertake to carry out 
 the service for morning prayer in the tropical regions 
 where I live, the ice of his conservatism in our region 
 would soon melt into the genial streams of progress. 
 Is there any necessity for this ? We all know how utter- 
 ly impossible it is to command a full and regular attend- 
 ance at morning prayer ; and if I am to take the opinion 
 of others in this matter, it is because men in the present 
 age under the present social circumstances of life and 
 business relations have not the time to devoted to its obj 
 servance. No man who undertakes the servico at a fair 
 speed can accomplish it in much less than three quar 
 ters of an hour ; and men of the world cannot give the 
 time to this observance ; whereas if a shorter order was 
 given them, they would spare the time — they would be 
 arrested in their onward march from day to day to de- 
 vote some few moments to prayer and praise m God's 
 service. I have attended morning prayer in Trinity 
 Church ; I believe there are one or two churches in this 
 city [a voice — eight or ten] where morning prayer is duly 
 offered. On several occasions I have been there, and 
 the only persons who were there were the reader, my- 
 self, and the sexton, while at the same time there were 
 hundreds upon hundreds tired, weary, anxious spirits 
 passing by that door and who have not the time nor 
 inclination under the present circumstances to step into 
 the House of God and offer up their devotions. Shall 
 nothing be done even in the face of conservatism to try 
 
158 
 
 and arrest this — to try to catch some portion of the 
 multitude daily passing God's House '? A short service 
 often minutes would be sufficient. I contend that this 
 request can be granted and received without any at- 
 tempt to interfere with the established order. It is re- 
 quiring the House of Bishops to do what the individual 
 Bisliops have been doing all the time — preparing prayers 
 for special occasions. 
 
 Rev. Mr.CoRBETT: — IVlr. President, I do not believe 
 any member of the Episcopal Church, clerical or lay, 
 does too much praying. 1 move the resolution be laid 
 upon the table. [Voices — " No," " no."] 
 The motion to lay upon the table was withdrawn. 
 Rev. Dr. Peterkin, of Virginia: — I should like, 
 though with a good deal of reluctance, to say some- 
 thing upon this resolution. In a few words, I wish to 
 say that while I differ with my reverend brother, with 
 great reluctance, I do not lili;e the general strain of our 
 legislation so much for the promotion of organic life of 
 the Church, and leaving out of view the individual life. 
 There must be individual life, as the Cliurch is an aggre- 
 gate of individuals ; and I beg to call attention to the 
 fact that there is some portion of our service which 
 tends, greatly, to promote the individual life. It is, 
 I fear, generally — I think 1 may express the fear, gen- 
 erally — certainly very largely, nelgected by our Chris- 
 tian people. We have, in Virginia, and 1 suppose there 
 may be found copies in all the other States, an order 
 for fiimily prayer, printed one hundred and thirty years 
 ago, in the colony of Virginia. We have still the order 
 for family prayer ; and, with the exception of its leav- 
 ing out the royal family in England, it isjust that form 
 of pra3'er we have adopted for use in our families. I 
 believe that order of prayer was proposed by Bishop 
 Gibson, London, some one hundred and fifty years ao-o; 
 and he urged it upon his parishioners, at Lambeth, to 
 use that prayer, steadily, at home, as he did not expect 
 that they would go to church, day after day. Our fore- 
 fathers printed that prayer, for our use, before there 
 was a Prayer-Book adapted to the case ; long before 
 any General Convention — before any gathering togeth- 
 er of our people in any such assembly as this. We 
 must have individual life ; and we, especially, who live 
 in dioceses and territories where people are scattered 
 abroad, must see to this one thing. Woe worth the 
 day, if we omit, as so many of our communicants I 
 fear, are omitting, these family devotions. If they be 
 properly attended to, then we may hope that the indi- 
 vidual life will be fostered. And the organic life of the 
 Church will be such as it should be. By means of 
 these family prayers, many families have kept alive a 
 spirit of devotion ; and, under the intiuence of such 
 prayer, remote from church, and with very slender op- 
 portunities, in some cases, to go to church, yet, by the 
 blessing of God, have been cultured such men as the 
 one who presented the Report on Christian Education, 
 the other day, and whose remarks were listened to with 
 
 SO much attention by this House. We must see to tliis 
 particularly ; and 1 respectfully suggest that, if we are 
 going to legislate further in this direction, certainly, 
 some resolution might be becoming fi-om this House, as 
 a resolution of inquiry, whether the members of our 
 Church live in the exercise of family worship, which 
 must, after all, lie at the foundation of any true worship 
 in our order — gathering together in the Lord's assem- 
 blage. Because I am unwilling to see the morning 
 prayer abreviated, unless according to Bishop Hobart's 
 suggestion, I am compelled to vote against the resolu- 
 tion offered by my brother from Florida. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin moved that the resolution be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Prayer-Book. 
 
 Mr. : — It seems to me that we have no 
 
 right to reach this question in this way. You have a 
 Prayer-Book set forth by authority. All the changes 
 in that Prayer-Book are to be made in a special way. 
 Is it in the power of this House to adopt such changes 
 as this, so radical in character, in this way ? I think 
 it will be contrary to the constitution of this Church 
 to adopt that resolution. Here is a resolution request- 
 ing the House of Bishops to set forth a service that is 
 to become the service of the Church, which will be an 
 order set forth by the House of Bishops, and not as the 
 constitution I'equires. Once begin this thing, and with- 
 out the constitutional protection, all sorts of changes 
 may be made in the service. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce; — I wish' to make one remark that 
 applies to all propositions to set forth shorter services : 
 that it is very desirable thattliere should be more adap- 
 tability in the Prayer-Book. We should be able to 
 make the service longer or shorter. It seems to me 
 that if there were a page of general rubrics, introducto- 
 ry to the Prayer-Book, giving, in certain cases, the 
 right of lessening, and of increasing the length of the 
 service, it would accomplish all that is desired by the 
 movers of these different resolutions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — The second period of the eighth 
 article of the Constitution says, expressly, that no alter- 
 ation or addition shall be made in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, etc. 
 
 This is a proposition not merely to alter, but to add 
 to, nor merely to add to, but to make a substitute for 
 the Book of Common Prayer. It proposes to refer the 
 thing, not to the Convention, but to the Bishops only. 
 It proposes that it shall be done without restriction ; 
 that it shall lie over three years. Unacquainted, as I 
 am, with the proceedings of parliamentary bodies, I ask 
 whether a proposition, so in the teeth of the fundamen- 
 tal law, can be in order ? 
 
 The President : — I should dislike to pass upon that 
 question. The House had better pass upon it. 
 
 A vote was then taken upon the question of reference 
 to the Committee on Prayer-Book, which was lost. 
 The question then recurred upon the resolution. 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I moved that the resolution 
 
159 
 
 should be referred to the Committee on the Prayer- 
 Book, not desiring to say anything on the subject, if it 
 were referred. But since it has not been referred to 
 the committee, I do desire to say something before the 
 question is taken. I think, Mr. President, that the con- 
 stitutional objection is unquestionably well taken ; for, 
 it will be observed, that the resolution opens with the 
 statement, " Whereas morning and evening prayer is 
 obligatory." It is admitted that it is obligatory, not 
 only for Sunday, but every day. We start with the ad- 
 mission that the morning and evening praj'ers are obli- 
 gatory. So that the proposition to refer to the Bishops 
 starts with the admi.ssion that it is unconstitutional. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Harrold : — Would not the same objection 
 apply to services which are now put forth by the 
 Bishops ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I do not know any such services 
 that would be constitutional. The resolution admits 
 that the Morning Prayer is obligatory. No Bishop of 
 this Church can give me liberty to perform a ditfeient 
 service. A substitution for that which is now admitted 
 to be obligatory is asked for. Besides, Mr. President, 
 I should object, with all my heart, even if we asked the 
 Bishops to do something, to instruct thein exactly what 
 to do. This resolution not only asks them to set forth 
 something, but something of a certain sort or cut. If 
 we want them to set forth a service, let us say it in the 
 simplest words. I have a still farther objection. I am 
 satisfied with the Prayer-Book as it is. Of course I 
 have no objection to some slight modification of punctu- 
 ation, or anything of that sort. Any thing of that kind 
 is an improvement. I am, for one, opposed to any 
 change. I stand on that ground. [Applause.] If gen- 
 tlemen, on one side, are to bring forward their changes 
 gentlemen on the other side would bring forward theirs, 
 and I would have, befoi'e Thursday morning, my pocket 
 full of applications and memorials for changes in the 
 Prayer-Book. I do not want to bring any of them. I 
 stand to the Prayer-Book as it is. 
 
 The vote being taken, the resolution was lost. 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock presented tlie following report 
 from tiie Committee on Canons : 
 
 The Committee on Canons, to whom were referred sundry 
 memorials touching greater uniformity in the conduct of pub- 
 lic worship, and in the administration of the Rites and Sac- 
 raments of the Chureh, would respectfully report the follow- 
 ing preamble and resolutions, which they recommend for 
 adoption : 
 
 WiiEKEAS, This Church seeks to keep the happy mean be- 
 tween too much stiffne.ss in refusing and too much easiness 
 in admitting variations in things once advisedly established ; 
 and.liold.s that with regard to things in tlieir own nature imlif- 
 feront and alterable, and so acknowledged, it is Imt reason- 
 able that upon weighty and important considerations, ac- 
 cording to the various exigencies of times and occasions, 
 such changes and alterations should be made therein as to 
 those who are in places of authority shall from time to lime 
 seem cither necessary or expedient; her aim being to do 
 that which, according to her best understanding may most 
 tend to tlie preservation of peace and unity in the Church, 
 the procuring of reverence, and the exciting of piety and 
 
 devotion in tlie worship of Uoil ; and, tinally, the cutting 
 off occasion from them that seek occasion, of cavil against 
 the Church and her Liturgy; and 
 
 Whereas, It has been represented to this House by di- 
 vers memorials numerously signed by Presbyters and Lay- 
 men of this t'liurch, that the introduction, by certain other 
 ministers, of vestments, cercniouii'S, practircs, ajid orna- 
 ments of churches, not heretofore gener.ally known in the 
 public worship of this Church, is marring her good order 
 and harmony, wounding tlie consciences of many of her 
 true and loyal cliildren, -candalizing and repching many 
 without her fold, deferring hopes of Christian unity, and 
 im])eTiling portions of the faith ; and 
 
 Whereas, It has also been represented by memorials, like- 
 wise signed, that the neglect and disuse, by certain of her 
 ministers, of vestments, usages, and in some instances, ru- 
 brics, well established and generally observed in this ('-iuirch, 
 are marring her order and beauty, disturbing lier uniformity 
 and encouraging individual lawdcssness and self-will; there- 
 fore, be it 
 
 Resolved, The House of Bi.shops concurring, that, with 
 devout acknowledgment of that gracious Presence and as- 
 sistance of her Divine ilaster wliieh has been so signally 
 vouchsafed to this Church at many a crisis more perilous 
 than the present, enabling her, in the midst of aggressions 
 from without and innumerable short-comings and extrava- 
 gances from within, to maintain the integrity of her doc- 
 trine and the beauty, decency, and dignity ot her wor.ship, 
 this Convention attributes this happy result in a great meas- 
 ure, under God, to that spirit of moderation which has hith- 
 erto guided the councils of this Church, and ndiicb has ren- 
 dered her averse to all rcstrictiuiis of the liberty of her 
 children in things indifferent or unessential, so long as unity 
 can be maintained and spiritual edification promoted in any 
 other way. It is the sense of this Convention, therefore, 
 that the enactment of any canon on the subject of the rit- 
 ual would be unwise and inexpedient at the present time. 
 But it is none the less the sense of this Convention that the 
 uoutinued maintenance of the decency and order as well 
 as of the peace and h.armony which, by God's blessing, have 
 always characterized this Church ; the avoidance of the 
 dangers of irreverence and lawlessness on the one hand, and 
 extravagance and superstition on the other ; the preservation 
 of doctrine from peril of intentional or unintentional change, 
 and a due regard to the scriptural canon of walking wise- 
 ly toward them which are without, require from all iniuis- 
 t'ei's of this Church, celebrating Divine service in churches or 
 other established places of jjublic worship, a conscientious 
 and so far as may be, steadfast adherence to such vest- 
 ments, ceremonies, practices, and ornaments, as, Ijy reason 
 of long-continued use or by autliority, are recognized as 
 properly belonging to this Church, avoiding errors either 
 f)y excess or by defect. And, further, that in all matters 
 doubtful, for the avoidance of un.seemly disputes and con- 
 tradictory practices, which tend neither to good name nor 
 to godliness, reference should l)e made to the'Oi-dinary, and 
 no change should be made against the godly counsel and 
 judgment of the Bishop. 
 
 Bv order of the Committee, 
 
 WILLIAM COOPER MEAD, 
 
 Chairman. 
 Church ok thk Tran^figcratio.n, | 
 
 New York, October 2i;, ISOS. J 
 
 The reading of the last resolution above reported was 
 greeted with applause. 
 
 The PitKSiDENT. — I hope the custom will not be in- 
 troduced into this Convention of applause or disapproba- 
 tion of any thing that is offered here. We have gone 
 through more than hall' a ceiittiry without any such 
 thing, and it would be an evil omen to have it introduced 
 now. I beg that all such tokens will be withheld. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIaight. — I move that the report be made 
 the order of the day at twelve o'clock to-morrow. 
 
160 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe. — Before that motion is put, njay I 
 say that a minority of the committee concur with the re- 
 port which has been presented in so far as it expresses 
 an inilisposition to have any canon enacted touching this 
 business at this time. Having felt that resolutions, if 
 any be passed by this House, ought to be of a more dis- 
 tinct and explicit character, the minority of the commit- 
 tee have reported preambles and resolutions, which they 
 ask leave to offer. 
 
 VIEWS OF THE MINORITY OF THE CCIMMITTKE. 
 
 The undersigned, a minority of the Coinniitte ou Canons, 
 beg leave to otter the following report: 
 
 Tills Convention cannot ignore the fact that there is at the 
 present time great agitation among members of our Commu- 
 nion on the subject of ritual: in some places reproach being iu- 
 cui-red by the omission of proprieties of apparel and deport- 
 ment in conducting public worship, which the established 
 usage of our Church has sanctioned; aud in others great 
 alarm occasioned liy vestments and chancel arrangements 
 and ornaments, practices heretofore unknown among us, 
 and characteristic in the regard of ilie great body of our 
 people of a foreign Communion. Were this Convention 
 disposed to close its eyes upon these facts, the voluminous 
 memorials that overwhelm its table and invite its attention, 
 especially to the last-named evil, would forbid it. The un- 
 dersigned, in considering the subject, have re.ahzed daily, 
 while they have given it more protracted deliberation, that 
 it is beset with difficulties, particularly as a matter for leg- 
 islative action. Canon law, unless it be specific to the last 
 degree, it is easy for the evil-disposed to evade; and any 
 enactments upon such topics would, in the present state of 
 things, in their judgment, be premature, probably insuffi- 
 cieut, and without precedent in our existing legislation. 
 True sons of the Church will be loyal to the spirit of the 
 Church. And this Protestant Episcopal Church, having 
 here an independent being, has set forth its own standards 
 aud formulas of Doctrine, its pure aud harmonious Liturgy, 
 and adopted and maintained, partly by rule and partly by 
 usage, its common and recognized manner of worship. In 
 our Thirty-fourth Article of Religion it is declared that this 
 Church, in common with branches in other lands of tlie One 
 Chureh Catholic, hath power, as necessity shall arise, to 
 change its ceremonies. But this power it denies to an in- 
 dividual member, and pronounces that whosoever, of his 
 own private judgment, openly breaks the traditions and 
 ceremonies of the Church, winch, not being contrary to 
 God's Word, have been ordained and approved by common 
 authority, ought to be rebuked openly. 
 
 And with whom rests the official right and duty to ad- 
 minister such rebuke— privately, if so it may be effectual, 
 pubhcly, if that will not avail — if it be not with him who is 
 an overseer in the House of God ? 
 
 It is a time when, amidst so much of disquietude and di.s- 
 trust within, and so much of change and disaster without, 
 the Church may well look to her Chief Pastors to be more 
 than usually vigilant, that they may discourage and repress 
 all eccentricities in worship and ceremony, and admonish 
 the negligent to be decorous and orderly. It is a time, 
 when she may well enjoin her clergy to abide in the old 
 paths, to remember that they are under vows to obey the 
 godly admonitions of their Bishops, aud to save their flocks 
 from internal discord over novelties of ceremonial, when 
 they should be "striving together for the faith of the Gos- 
 pel." It is a time when it becomes the faithful Laity to aid 
 and encourage their Pastors in doing ^'ood, so to supersede 
 dreamy fancies by practical activity. There is enough to be 
 done for the reclaim of man and for the glory of Christ, to 
 postpone the agitation of questions, like those in the prim- 
 itive age, which the Apostle to the Gentiles pronounced un- 
 profitable and vain, gendering strife. 
 
 Never, it wouldj seem, has it fallen to the lot of this 
 Church to enjoy such an opportunity for drawinj; to herself, 
 if not in person yet in spirit, the good of ever\ naiuc, 
 among whom she stands as a city set upon a hill. But, 
 
 only by maintaining her historic stability, her calm modera- 
 tion, her simple yet beautiful worship, can she make her 
 opportunity available. It will lie iu vain for us to hold the 
 hand, to invite the followers of Wesley and other Christian 
 bodies to unity in the (jlmrch of Christ, if, meanwhile, we 
 shall appear to them rumoviu? from the old fovnidations, 
 and tending to assimilation with a Comiuuuion from which 
 they all recoil. 
 
 To give such expression as the exigency of the time 
 seems to require to the common sentiments of the Church 
 — to declare it loyal to the doctrine, polity, worship, tradi- 
 tions, and ceremonies which have been recognized as its 
 established order through the three gcneratious of its na- 
 tional being — to utter the aversion with which it regards all 
 assumption of private license to depart from that order, 
 whether by defect or excess, and in omission to seek or 
 failure to respect Ecclesiastical counsel or authority, the 
 undersigned recommend that this House — a representative 
 body, speaking for the Clergy and Laity of this Church 
 throughout the land — declares itself in the following resolu- 
 tion.s, and asks the concurrence of our Right Reverend 
 Pathers, the House of Bishops: Trusting that this may 
 prove instrumental iu promoting such degree of uniformity 
 in the pubhc worship of our churches as is desirable for 
 edification and harmony, and consistent with the Catholic 
 claims of the Body of Christ to which we belong. The 
 L-onservatism which has always distinguished our branch of 
 the Church, and which some hot spirits esteem little better 
 than stagnation, will, we trust, under the Divine blessing, 
 save us now as heretofore from being carried to any ex- 
 treme or sivei'vcd from our propriety liy the fantasies of in- 
 dividual men ; so that this Church may contiunc to be the 
 refuge of those who seek stability of faith without strait- 
 ne.ss, beauty of worship without sensuousuess, and order of 
 government without despotism. 
 
 The resolutions submitted for your approval are as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Whereas, It has heretofore been one of the peculiar 
 characteristics and attractions of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, that its worship and the mode of conducting it 
 have been in all places substantially alike ; so that every 
 child of the Churcli, in any one of her sanctuaries, found a 
 familiar spiritual home ; and 
 
 WiiEi:KA£j, It has been especially distinctive of this 
 Church, that while it has avoided the baldness of most of 
 the modes of Protestant worsliip, it has still more decidedly 
 put away the many-colored vestments, excessive ceremonial 
 and false symbolism of a foreign church with which it is 
 not in communion ; therefore 
 
 1. RcRohed, As the sense of this Convention — the House 
 of Bi.shops concurring — that the maintenance of our wonted 
 uniformity and siiuplieity in worship is exceedingly desira- 
 ble, to secure this Church frotu the insidious introduction 
 of unsound doctrine, from the disturbance of the peace and 
 comfort of its worshippers, and from exposure to evil report 
 among them who are without. 
 
 2. Resolved, That while there is no absolute directory in 
 the Canons or Rubrics of the Church, specifying all official 
 vestments and practices, and all Ecclesiastical ornaments 
 which may be fitly u.sed therein, yet there is the indication 
 of great simplicity ; and the traditional usages of the 
 Church in this behalf, from the date of its organization here 
 to the present period, are in conforiuity therewith, and 
 have, in the hearts and miuds of the great body of its loyal 
 membcr.s, the force of law. 
 
 3. Resolved, That this Convention affectionately urges 
 upon all who have to do with the ordering of the appoint- 
 ments of public worship, that they abide by the traditions 
 and ceremonies of this American Church ; that none other 
 than the " clerical habits" known to our fathers, and refer- 
 red to by the House of Bishops at the General Convention 
 of 1814, as appropriate to ministers ofKciating in the Con- 
 gregation, " bands, gowns, and surjiliucs," with their custo 
 mary appendages, cassocks aud black stoics, be provided, 
 and that no strange ornaments of the sacred places, condu- 
 cive to vain show or superstition, be introduced. 
 
161 
 
 4. Rcst'/neil, That, in the judf,'iiieiit of this Convention — 
 the House of Bishop.s coni'iiiTinj; — the huniinf^ of h^lits in 
 the order for the Holy Communion, the bnrninp; of incense, 
 reverences to the holy table, or to the elements tliereon, 
 the elevation of the elements, inaliinf; tlie sign of tlic cross 
 fexeept when prescribed in the Rubric) in and during; di- 
 vine service or tlie celebration of the IjOrd's Supper, are in- 
 novations on our mode of conducting public worship, oftend 
 against the common order of the Church, and wound the 
 consciences of many of its true and loving uieudiers. 
 
 5. Resolvd, That this Convention earnestly expresses its 
 disapproval of the omission of any of those proprieties of 
 apparel and demeanor, wdien ministering in the congrega- 
 tion, which either rule or general usage has made distinctive 
 of our worship, and counneiids all who, being in holy or- 
 ders, would deviate on the right hand or on the left, from 
 the common order of the Church's worshi]), to seek first the 
 counsel of their Bishops, and submit themselves to their 
 godly judgments. 
 
 (Signed) M. A. DE WOLFE HOWE, 
 
 JOHN N. CONTNGHAM. 
 
 New York, Oct. 26, 1SG8. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — I renew my resolution— that this 
 be made the order of the day for to-morrow at twelve 
 o'clock. This motion was agreed to. 
 
 Messages from the House of Bishops, Nos. 46 to 49 in- 
 clusive, were received. 
 
 Governor Fish, of New York, offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 Resoloeil, That from and after this time no new suh- 
 ject be entertained by the House or committed to any 
 committee. Agreed to. 
 
 The chairman of the Special Committee, to whom 
 was referred the communication of the Registrar of the 
 General Convention, .said: A communication from the 
 Registrar was referred to the Special Committee having 
 in charge the memorials from the different dioceses 
 concerning Bishop Burgess's manuscript, the subject of 
 which communication was to represent that the resolution 
 passed by the Convention creating a permanent chair- 
 man was, in his judgment, in conflict with a canou. The 
 House of Bishops, by substituting for the words "pro- 
 vided tor" the word "regulated," satisfied the Registrar, 
 and the committee beg leave respectfully to offer the fol- 
 lowing resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That the object of the communication having 
 been attamcd, the Registrar be permitted to withdraw 
 the same. 
 
 Which was adopted. 
 
 On motion of the chairman of the committee the Sec- 
 retary was directed to strike from the records every thing 
 relating to the communication, including this motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn. — I move, sir, that in view of 
 th« great importance of the two reports — the reports of 
 the majority and of the minority — submitted this after- 
 noon by the Committee on Canons, that these documents 
 be printed for the use of the House to-morrow, as this 
 subject has been made the order of the day for twelve 
 o'clock to-morrow. It has been suggested that members 
 might rely upon the ordinary newspaper reports; but I 
 am afraid these will not be sulliciently accurate for our 
 purpose. The omission of a single adjective or qualify- 
 ing phrase would be of very material consequence in 
 
 21 
 
 the consideration of this subject. 1 presume that both 
 the majority and the minority of this Committee on 
 Canons have very carefully weighed every expression 
 that has been used in their respective reports. There- 
 fore I repeat that it is of material consequence to the 
 proper consideration of the reports that they be pre- 
 sented to the House in printed form. I will modify my 
 motion so far as that the resolutions and preambles only 
 be printed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — There should be a special com- 
 mittee to see to the printing. * 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little.iohn. — I move that the Committee 
 on Canons be that committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight. — I beg pardon. [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. — I move that Rev. Dr. Littlejohn be 
 a committee' to get these reports printed by twelve o'clock 
 to morrow. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little.john. — I would bring again to the 
 notice of this House that this question interests the out- 
 side public more than any other which has been before 
 this House since the beginning of its session. I must in- 
 sist that the printing of these documents shall be under 
 the care and supervision of the committee who have re- 
 ported them to this House. There has been nothing in 
 connection with the business of the House that is per- 
 haps of so wide-spread interest as this subject. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews seconded the resolution, and 
 hoped that it would include the whole report. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn. — I am authorized to say that 
 a very distinguished member of this House fRev. Dr. 
 Haight], well known lor his industry and business talent 
 in connection with matters of this character, will take 
 the printing of this matter in charge himself 
 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock. — T desired very much that the 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn would include in his motion the 
 printing of the whole reports. There are some mem- 
 bers of the committee who have labored for hours both 
 in sub-committees and in the general committee in order 
 to draw up those documents. Before the general com- 
 mittee there have been hours spent in the di.scussion of 
 particular expressions. And it seems to me that to take 
 one-half the documents, when, according to the inten- 
 tion, the whole document hangs together, is liable to lead 
 this House into error. 
 
 On motion it was referred to the Committee on Can- 
 ons to have both reports printed. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead offered the following resolution: 
 : . Resolved, That the House of Bishops be and hereby 
 is respectfully requested to take such steps as in their 
 wisdom may be thought best, not only for promoting 
 more intimate friendly relations, and a better mutual 
 knowledge of each other between our own and the ori- 
 ental friendly communion (the lUisso-Greek Church), 
 but especially for providing for the spiritual wants of 
 our people who may emigrate to the territory of Alaska, 
 with due regard to the rights of the Russian Church. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin moved to amend by striking out 
 from the words "not only" to the word "especially." 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh the further consideration of 
 
i(;2 
 
 the resolution was postponed until after the report from 
 the Russo-Greek Committee. 
 
 The resolution with regard to vestments was offered 
 and withdrawn. 
 
 The House then adjourned to to-morrow, half-past 
 nine. 
 
 EIGHTEENTH DAY's PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 TUE.SIIAT, Oct. 27, 1868. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Rev. Dr. William Shel- 
 ton of Western New York and the Rev. William S. Child 
 of Rhode Island. 
 
 The Benediction was pronoimced by Bishop Odenheimer. 
 
 The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and ap- 
 proved. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight — submitted report No. ."?S from the 
 Committee on Canon.s with reference to Message No. 34 
 from the House of Bishops, proposing an amendment in 
 Clause 2, Section 3, Canon 5, Title S, "of Congregations in 
 Foreign Lands," aud reported for adoption a resolution of 
 non-concurrence with the action of the House of Bishops. 
 Adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut — presented report No. :U from the 
 Committee on Canons with reference to c ertaiu resolution 
 and memorials, and reported several resolutions: (1.) That 
 it is not expedient to change the title of this House from 
 that of Clerical and Lay Deputies to that of Deputies; (2.) 
 That it is not expedient to grant the prayer of the memo- 
 rialists who desire that any minister may omit from the ser- 
 vices such expressions as he conscientiously believes to be 
 contrary to the Holy Scriptures, provided he shall have first 
 specified to the Bishop what such words and expressions 
 are ; for the reason that it would destroy uniformity in the 
 worship of this Church and deprive our congregations of 
 the right to enjoy an unmutilated liturgy ; (3.) That it is 
 not expedient to grant the prayers of the memorialists for 
 an amendment of Canon 5, Section (3, Title 1, to confer on 
 some competent tribunal the authority to dispense in their 
 discretion with the Hmitation of time in behalf of the class 
 of minister therein described with an amendment of said 
 canon proposed in the last General Convention on page 97. 
 
 The resolutions reported by the committee were adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe, of the Committee on Canons — submitted 
 a report with reference to the petition asking that a license 
 be given by this General Convention for the use of a col- 
 lection of hymns entitled "Hymns Ancient and Modern," 
 and reported that in their judgment there is nothing in the 
 constitution and canons of tlie Church to forbid such ac- 
 ion ; and the committee reported the following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That it be 
 aud is hereby declared lawful until a revisal and enlarge- 
 ment of t!ie collection of hymns now set Ibrth for use in 
 this Church shall be made and duly authorized, tliat in any 
 congregation thereof in addition to those already allowed, 
 hymns from tlfe volume entitled " Hynnis for Ciiurch and 
 Home," or from that lentitled " Hymns Ancient and Mod- 
 ern," he sung, the Bishop of Ihe diocese in wliich sucli con- 
 gregation exi.sts consenting. 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That it be 
 referred to a joint conmnttee consisting of three members 
 of this House (two clergymen and one layman) and- a like 
 number of Bishops to he appointed by tlie House of 
 Bishops, to take into considerfttioii the psahns in metre and 
 
 the hymns authorized to be used in the public worship of 
 this Church, with instructions to report to the next General 
 Convention such alterations and additions as they may 
 think expedient. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe then moved the adoption of the first 
 resolution. 
 
 Mr. Welsh — wished to know whether there were any 
 hymns for children in the Hymns for Church and Home ; 
 to which Dr. Howe replied that there was an abundance of 
 them ; and Mr. Welsh then seconded the motion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce : — I move that the last clause be stricken 
 out — "the Bishop of the diocese in which such congrega- 
 tion exists consenting." If we are going to have any lib- 
 erty at all in this matter it should be placed in the hands 
 of him who needs it. This matter of having the use of 
 different hymns according to the whims of a Bishop, is go- 
 ing to introduce great differences in the service. 
 
 Debate arising upon the resolution, according to the rules, 
 it was laid upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. GoouwiN — inquired whether the committee had 
 examined these two books of hynnis. There might be 
 hymns in either of those collections to which he might 
 earnestly object; and he would not be ready to vote that 
 every clergyman should be permitted to select hymns 
 whencesoever he might derive them ; but if particular 
 books were selected, and the comnuttee had personally ex- 
 amined them and they recommended those hymns, he 
 would have something to .act upon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin — said that it was well known that these 
 two books were in extensive use in England. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe — then moved the adoption of the second 
 resolution ; which was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. A. Hallam, of the Committee on the State 
 of the Church — submitted a report with the joint resolu- 
 tion instructing the Committee on Canons to consider and 
 report upon the expediency of amending Canon 14, Title 
 first; and also a resolution declaring inexpedient any action 
 with reference to registration of persons baptised or con- 
 firmed persons in the parishes; wdiich two resolutions were 
 adopted. 
 
 Messages No. 48, 49, .50 were received from the House of 
 Bishops. The House adopted three resolutions contained 
 in Message No. 48, appointing a joint committee to prepare 
 and report to the next General Convention a version of the 
 Book of Common Prayer in the German language, and ap- 
 pointing another committee to prepare a version of the 
 same in the French language, and another committee to 
 prepare a version of the Book of Common Prayer in the 
 Swedish language. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan — presented the report of the Russo- 
 Greek Committee. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh, the resolutions submitted' by 
 the Russo-Greek Conmnttee were adopted. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Mahan, Rev. Mr. Fulton of Geor- 
 gia was substituted in the place of Rev. Dr. Young, now 
 Bishop of Florida, in the Russo-Greek Committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn, from the Comnuttee on the Domes- 
 tie and Foreign Missionary Society — reported that a com- 
 mittee had cxandned with care the statement of their pro- 
 ceedings for the past three years presented to this House 
 by the Board of Missions, and that the statement shows 
 
163 
 
 that while the receipts for the domestic worli have increased 
 from §75,UUU in 1865 to $117,00(1 in 1868, yet, owing to 
 the great extension of the worli, a debt of nearly ^25,000 
 must be carried over to the ensuing year ; and that the 
 foreign department was in arrears some ^20,0i)(); thus 
 making an aggregate indebtedness in both departments not 
 far from $45,ii(i0. The committee reported for adoption 
 certain resolutions, which were adopted. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Uaight, the mcs.sage from the 
 House of Bishops (concerning the appointment of a joint 
 committee to consider the present state of Theological edu- 
 cation of this Church, and the means for its facilitation and 
 improvement, and report thereon at the next (leneral Con- 
 vention, and also to confer with the House of Bishops on 
 the revision of the course of study), was concurred in. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Howe, the House proceeded to 
 consider the first resolution [given above] reported by the 
 Committee on Canons concerning the hymuody. 
 
 The first question thereon was the motion to strike out 
 the clause requiring the consent of the Bishop. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews : — The suggestion offered by the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania strikes me with great force. 
 I desire to ask the committee whether they have themselves 
 read the hymus in the Book " Hymns, Ancient and Mod- 
 ern." 1 have read them ; this resolution is au endorsement 
 of them. I must take an exception to the statcnieut that 
 it is used in England more extensively than in this country. 
 Some of those hymns are notoriously contradictory of the 
 doctrines of this Church. This resolution amounts to an 
 endorsement of that which I am persuaded a great majority 
 of this House are not prepared to vote upon, because they 
 don't know what they are. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pitkin : — I had the honor at the last General 
 Convention to introduce the substance of the report by the 
 Committee on Canons. Dui'ing the course of the remarks 
 I said that millions of copies had been published. I must 
 say that subsequeutly I was anuoyed that I had made such 
 an exaggeration ; but I learned some two months ago that 
 I did not exceed the number; that the declaration was 
 true ; that millions of copies had been published ; and I 
 can say from my own personal knowledge that "Hymns, 
 Ancient and Modern" are not only used by all shades of 
 parties in the Church of England, but very extensively for 
 family use. Everywhere, where I had an opportunity of 
 observation, I found " Hymns, Ancient and Modern," and 
 in very general use for family hymns, not oidy those se- 
 lected hynms which are general favorites, but I found they 
 were used generally ; that is to say, there was no exception, 
 and they have become so common, and so general as to be 
 almost household words throughout the length and breadth 
 of the land. Now, I do hope that this resolution will pre- 
 vail, and that we shall have the opportunity of using these 
 hymns ; and that we shall not be confined as we have been. 
 Certainly, we have sutficiont testiniony in our Church with 
 reference to the general favor with which these hymns liave 
 been received. While there may be exceptions taken to 
 one or two hymus, yet after the abundant and universal 
 testimony given these hynms, why should we reject a col- 
 lectiou that is so much used, simply on the ground that it is 
 just possible that we may take exception to one or two of 
 the hymns. In that way an objection would lie against thr 
 
 collection authorized by the Book of Common Prayer. Do 
 we not take exception to some of those hymns ? We do 
 not reject them, because these hymns are authorized. I 
 am sure that iji the present instance no harm can come. 
 The moment has arrived when we should have this liberty. 
 And I can say that these "Hymns, Ancient and Modern" 
 have been, through the blessing of God, one of the most 
 powerful agencies to promote the great religious movement 
 in England at the present hour, just as the hynms of John 
 and Charles Wesley were instrumental through the blessing 
 of God in advancing the religious movement that occurred 
 at that hour. " Hymns, Ancient and Modern " have served 
 the same purpose, and everywhere that you see that glori- 
 ous religious enthusiasm which prevails in England you 
 will find the Hymns, Ancient and Modern expressing their 
 devotion. I hope that these oljjectious will not prevail, but 
 that we shall have the hymns which are suited to our pres- 
 ent circumstances, in order that we may sing the praises of 
 God in that multitudinous language which these collections 
 which are set before us certainly provide. 1 have read 
 over these hymns and approve of them ; but that testimony 
 would be of little value ; and in Hke manner the testimony 
 of three or four or five gentlemen would be of little value. 
 Of greater value is the fact, that there is no book that is so 
 extensively circulated anjong all classes of Churchmen, of 
 all shades of opinion, as is this book of " Hymns, Ancient 
 and Modern." I have used those books myself again and 
 again in English churches, and I have found them among 
 Churchmen of all shades of opinion. I know that while 
 these hymns meet the views of those who hold the highest 
 doctrine, they are not objected to, but most cordially re- 
 ceived and devoutly u.sed by those of the lowest. I know- 
 through large sections of England these books are as com- 
 mon as the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I wish to call the notice of the Con- 
 vention to the fact that I drat"ted the canon which went be- 
 fore the committee and produced their resolution. I wish 
 to know now whether I cannot bring forward that original 
 canon as an amendment to their resolution. 
 
 The President:— You can offer any amendment you 
 choose. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I then offer this canon as an amend- 
 ment to the resolution of the committee. I wish this House 
 to listen to me with a little care while I put down the prin- 
 ciples on which that canpn was predicated. The considera- 
 tion first is this: that the present hymnal of the English 
 Prayer Book is the hymnal of the Church ; and therefore 
 that I take it that no resolution of this committee cap au- 
 thorize any congregation to substitute any hymnal for that 
 until further constitutional action. 
 
 Messages Nos. 61 to 53 were here received from the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams (resuming) : — I will say that the canon 
 which I proposed simply will be this. Taking it for granted 
 that there were in the Church of England and our Church 
 three very popular collections of hymns, "Hymns, Ancient 
 and Modern;" "Hymns of the Society for the Propagation 
 of the Gospel;" and the "Hymns for Church and Home." 
 Taking it for granted, then, that occasionally a clergyman 
 of our Church would desire to have permission to sing a 
 liN inn out of the collections, the object of this canon was 
 
164 
 
 simply that any individual clergyman should be permitted 
 to use such a hymn, with the consent of liis Bishop, given 
 in writing, the request for permission to use being in writ- 
 ing. That, I conceive will give an opportunity of singing 
 hymns which no one can have any objection to;, and which 
 the gentlemen who objected against Hymns, Ancient and 
 Modern certainly cannot object to. I think, seeing the po- 
 sition in which we are iu regard to hymns, that every 
 clergyman and layman in this Church will see that it is but 
 right and fair that in the ease of an occasional beautiful 
 hymn in these three collections the clergyman should have 
 the right to ask the liberty. The canon is drawn up I must 
 say with exceeding care ; and I think that no man will 
 have any objection to it. I will say upon this point that 
 our collection is in regard to music the best of all collec- 
 tions ; but I will say that outside of us there are from 60 
 to 80 hyinns, most admirable hymns, which lie in these 
 three collections, and which I think many clergymen desire 
 to use ; and it is for the purpose of giving them that liberty 
 under episcopal supervision that I move the adoption of 
 this canon. And I think the gentleman from Virginia will 
 be content with it ; and that until we can get a revised 
 hymnal of our own, which I confess is in the far distance, 
 I think this canon will content this House ; and I am of 
 the opinion that if they will listen carefully to my explana- 
 tion and appreciate the position in which hymn singing is 
 put by this canon they will pass it without further trouble. 
 The Secretary then read the canon, as follows : 
 
 " Canon . While our own collection of hymns usu- 
 ally annexed to the Prayer Book is the hymnal of this 
 Church, nevertheless any clergyman with the express con- 
 sent of his Bishop is given the power and autliorized to use 
 as supplemental any hymn in the underneath collections 
 publicly in our own Church and the Church of England : 
 ' Hymns, Ancient and Modern ; ' ' Hynuis for Church and 
 Home;' 'Hymns of the Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel.' And this permission shall be applied for in writ- 
 ing, specifying the hynius intended to be employed ; and 
 the permission also shall be in writing." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howk : — I was going to explain why the com- 
 mittee did not adopt and recommend this canon. In the 
 first place, Mr. President, inasmuch as we brought in sim- 
 ultaneously a proposition for the revisal of our entire psal- 
 mody and hynmody, we did not think it expedient to cast 
 a canon upon the subject just at this time. In the next 
 place, we did not think it expedient to enact a canon at any 
 time which should make it necessary that on each individ- 
 ual occasion when a clergyman desired to use a particular 
 hymn in one of the three collections, he should have to ask 
 in writing permission from the Bishop and get that permis- 
 sion iu writing. In the third place, we did not think it de- 
 .sirable to set before the Church three collections out of 
 which such selections might be made, but two alternate 
 ones, the one supposed to be more agreeable to what may 
 be called the one wing of the Church and the other to the 
 other ; and while there were believed to be by the Commit- 
 tee on Canons tw^ or three at most in Hymns, Ancient and 
 Modern that we all would not subscribe to, so there were 
 hymns in the other collection that would not be after the 
 taste of the other wing of the Church. We, therefore, pre- 
 sent these two collections. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigbt : — One more reason might be added. 
 
 that is, one of the books specified in the canon does not 
 exist. There is no such book. [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Aua.\is ; — I have it in my posses.siou ; if that 
 don't exist I do not exist. [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut: — Then my brother must be annihilated 
 for there is no such book. [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. C. P. Gadsden : — Hymns, Ancient and Modern is a 
 volume that I have had upon my table for some years, and 
 many hymns in it are exceedingly precious, and I suppose 
 will be generally received by all persons ; but there are at 
 least two hymns in that collection which involve doctrinal 
 points upon which this Church is not only widely divided in 
 opinion, but which I believe really go contrary to the ac- 
 cepted doctrine of the Church on all hands. We have 
 never before accepted any hymn on this floor without hav- 
 ing it sent to a committee and examined; and while hymns 
 may be objectionable, yet I suppose there is not iu our 
 present collection any hymn supposed to be directly in op- 
 position to the pronounced doctrines and opinions of the 
 Church. But there are at least one or two in that collection 
 which I think, if they were carefully examined, would be 
 found so to read. Therefore, I hope we will not be pressed 
 to accept the whole volume without examination and to 
 endorse it in this way and to send it before the Church as 
 receiving the sanction of this body. There is a great deal 
 in it of no value at all ; and there are doctrinal points stated 
 jn these hymns which I cannot persuade myself if submit- 
 ted to this Church, this Convention would be ready to en- 
 dorse. I therefore protest against the endorsement of the 
 book without thorough examination and without this House 
 understanding what it is doing. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock, of Michigan : — The question has been 
 asked over and over again whether members of the Com. 
 mittee on Canons had examined the book [Hymns Ancient 
 and Modern] and therefore meant to certify as to the char- 
 acter of this volume, which they thus seem to endorse. I 
 need hardly say that it is hardly possible that any book 
 would be endoi'sed directly, or indirectly, by the Committee 
 on Canons, unless it was certified that more than one mem- 
 ber had examined the volume. It \yas said that many 
 members had examined the volume ; but I do not under- 
 stand that the Committee on Canons endorsed, in the strict 
 sense, this particular volume, namely, Hymns Ancient and 
 Modern. I felt it my own duty to vote against even so 
 much a seeming endorsement as comes before this House 
 bv the recommendation of the committee. I beheve every 
 word the gentleman from South Carolina has just said. I 
 could go further, being familiar with it. I think it is a 
 book of great merit, in the main ; it is a book with some 
 very poor hynius, and containing some two or three whose 
 doctrinal statements are altogether inaccurate, and such as 
 I would not accept ; and 1 do not believe that, if put 
 out nakedly before this House, they would receive five 
 votes on the floor of this House. I am afraid we may be in 
 danger, on account of our impatience in this matter. The 
 real desire of this House is to have an enlargement of our 
 hymnal. I am afraid we may be in danger of taking the 
 thing, as it were, by the lump, and so seemingly to endorse, 
 in the aggregate, some hymns that, as individual hymns, I 
 am sure, we ought not to endorse. If, therefore, the rec- 
 
165 
 
 ominendatioa of the ooramittee'be imtlerstood as an endorse 
 ment of all liymns injthat liook (Hymns, Ancient and Mod- 
 ern,) I should want to have it. disthietly understood, as a 
 member of tlie Committee on Canons, that I must dissent 
 from it. If it merely otters the book as a sort of tentative 
 book for the use of tins House, then I might be willing to 
 let it pass ; though I do feel that it is opening a wide door 
 to allow the use of two volumes, one containing three hun- 
 dred hymn^, to take their place among the authorized 
 hymns of this Church without a careful examination by the 
 members of this House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare : — I am much in favor of the amendment, 
 for the reason urged by the mover, namely, if the Hou.se of 
 Bishops concur in this matter, it would not be necessary to 
 have the consent of the individual Bishops, from time to 
 time ; and I should be willing, in accordance with the sug- 
 gestion of the Deputy from South Carolina, that this matter 
 should be sent to a committee, in order to examine as to 
 the particular things referred to. I recently, as one of a 
 party of several, traveled in Europe. We represented the 
 two different leading schools of our Church. We every- 
 where, of course, attended the services of the Church of 
 England on the continent — the service used by the conti- 
 nental and colonial society. The most of the party, as from 
 time to time they heard the Liturgy of the Church of Eng- 
 land read, rejoiced in the very great improvement made in 
 that Liturgy by the American Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 But all of the party were not agreed in relation to this mat- 
 ter ; but, as to the hymns we heard, the hymns generally 
 called Hymns, Ancient and Modern, sometimes the hymns 
 set forth by the Society for the Promotiou of Religion, we 
 all joined in the opiuion that for simplicity, devout spirit, 
 and church-like dignity, they far surpassed the hymns of 
 our own Church. I therefore rejoice to hear this proposi- 
 tion. With regard to (he exceptional points, ive may refer 
 the matter again to this or another committee, to remove 
 those difficulties ; but I do trust we may not lose the oppor- 
 tunity of improving our worship by these most ennobling, 
 spiritual, and church-like hymns — Hymns, Ancient and 
 Mode™. 
 
 Deputy, from Maryland ; — With regard to the doctrines 
 of the Hymns, Ancient andModern, I suppose, if we Were 
 to examine the hymns set forth in our Prayer-Book at the 
 present day, there are hardly a half dozen men on this floor 
 that could be reconciled about the doctrines of those 
 hymn.s. We had, the other day, one of our most learned 
 men bring in a very reasonable objection to a hymn which 
 is commonly used in the Prayer-Book ; it is called the Lit- 
 any Hymn. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGOLES : — I wish to ask for information. 1 
 have no objection to Hymns Ancient and Modern. I wish 
 to ask what is to become of the hymns already set forth by 
 the Bishops, under the resolution of the last Convention? 
 Are they to be continued, or not ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight [in the Chair] : — Yes, sir. 
 Rev. Dr. Richard S. Mason : — I don't think anything can 
 be presented to this House, for their consideration, of 
 greater importance than the subject now before us, in re- 
 spect to the hymns of the Church. With regard to the 
 greater number of those who belong to the Church, the 
 doctrine is not derived from the thirtv-nine articles. It is 
 
 not so much derived from the Liturgy, because the Liturgy 
 of our Church is intended to comprehend almost the whole 
 world of orthodox Christians. This is a remarkable beauty 
 in our Chuivh, that if there is to be a Catholic Church, it 
 unist be our own. A Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman 
 Catholic can commune with us, although we could not re- 
 ciprocate with them ; because they impose conditions of 
 communion which we cannot accept. But almost the whole 
 orthodox world can commune with us ; therefore, in our 
 Liturgy, the peculiarities of doctrine are not expressed. It 
 is intended to be a Liturgy for the Cathohc Church — the 
 Church of the world. But in regard to liynnis, that is not 
 the case ; and the doctrine of the great body of the Church 
 is derived more from the hymns than from anything else; 
 and, I think, therefore, an exceeding caution should be 
 used with regard to any additional hymns. If I were to 
 propose a resolution, it would be, to constitute a committee 
 to shut out hymns. There are many hymns in our Church 
 which I never will use. Under the present aspect of things, 
 what is to prevent a clergyman, if he finds a hymn that in- 
 culcates, or tends to inculcate doctrines of transubstantia- 
 tion, to employ it on purpose ? Suppose he finds a hymn 
 which tends to shut out the idea of an intermediate state ; 
 is that proper ? I know there are hymns used in our Sun- 
 day-school which have that tendency ; declaring that the 
 children at once go to glory ; and so it is with regard to 
 the various doctrines of our Church ; and, therefore, I say, 
 it is far from my idea that it is advisable that there should 
 be an extension of hymns. It is my idea, rather, that there 
 should be a restriction of hymns. We do not need many 
 hymns to communicate the doctrines of the Church. I re- 
 member, when I was a mere child I was taught the fifteenth 
 Psalm, and that psalm has been so impressed upon my mind 
 ever since, I hope it has been of service in keeping me from 
 anything like a want of charity. Are we called upon 
 to sing definitions ? Some hymns are but little more than 
 definitions ; and I do not conceive that they are a promo- 
 tion of devotion Is the hymn " Vital spark of Heavenly 
 flame" a^proper hymn ? There is one recently admitted, by 
 Bishop Heber, " Brightest and best of the sons of the 
 morning," which either contains no devotion, or is an idol- 
 atrous devotion. I therefore say that I would adopt a can- 
 on, much rather than a resolution, because the Bishops can 
 guard against anything like ftilse doctrines. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I would like to make a proposition. The 
 subject is under discussion elsewhere, as I know. There 
 are a few hymns in " Hymns, Ancient and Modern" which 
 they are taking out ; and if the amendment is pas.sed, 
 striking out the closing part of the resolution, it is my prop- 
 osition to refer it to a committee. I know the Bishops have 
 the subject under consideration ; and the few objected to 
 will be taken out, so that, if we pass the amendment, it will 
 be easy to refer that to a committee, and, I think, that we 
 can pass it to-morrow, unanimously. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Peterkin: — I wish to say, with reference to the 
 gentleman who has taken his seat, that this is a subject of 
 great importance ; and yet, I think, our deliberations may 
 tend to some good purpose. For exami)le, I listened to 
 the objection which was brought to that admirable hymn of 
 Bi.shop Heber. I think that hymn, as now written, ought 
 
1B6 
 
 not to stand in the supplementary hymns which are allowed 
 to be used in this Church, because it is a direct appeal — 
 " Brightest and best." Miglit it not be altered, and tlieu 
 put into the third person singular ? I wish to say (and this 
 is the principal object for which I arise) tliat while all agree, 
 perfectly, that we ought to be sure to have doctrinal hymns, 
 I would like to have grammatical accuracy. [A voice — 
 " And a little poetry."] Yes, sir, a little poetry. There I 
 must say something in behalf of our present hymnal, which, 
 on the whole, is the most unobjectionable book of hymns 
 that ever has been presented to the world. We are not 
 obliged to sing every one of these hymns. We have, with 
 this Prayer-Book, all the supplemental hymns that have 
 been already published, and all the liberties we desire, for 
 the present, untU this committee which has been appointed 
 shall have made its report. But I wish to speak, for a mo- 
 ment, upon this point : the necessity of grammatical and 
 rythmical accuracy. There is a hymn which I have seen 
 in some collection of hymns, the author of which was some 
 person of great piety — 
 
 "Broad is the road that leads to death. 
 And thousands wall; together there ; 
 
 [A voice — " Dr. Watts."] Just tlie closing line of that 
 hymn I don't like ; not as anything that I cannot subscribe 
 to, in doctrine, but as to grammar. For example, the clos- 
 ing verse : — 
 
 " Lord ! let not all my hopes be vain ; 
 
 Create my heart entirely new, 
 Which hypocrites could ne'er attain ; 
 
 Which false apostates never knew." 
 
 There is rythmical inaccuracy, and everything el^e, Yet, 
 it would have been so perfectly easy, if he had not been in • 
 a liurry. A gentleman ought not to be in a hurry when he 
 writes something that is to penetrate the heart of the rising 
 generations of the whole Church. I do not want to sing 
 hymns that may vitiate our modes of thought or expression. 
 [The speaker here criticised another hymn as to propriety 
 of expression, and showed that, as originally written by 
 Wesley, it was not so objectionable as the ordinary version.] 
 We ought to be careful not only to secure doctrinal psalms, 
 and elevation, and jmrity of sentiment, but grammatical ac- 
 curacy. Tliere must be grammatical inaccuracy, I suppose, 
 in many of our speeches here in this Convention, and, prob- 
 ably, elsewhere ; but when a thing is written, for the use of 
 the Church, let us see to it, with the utmost of care and de- 
 liberation — protracted deliijeration, if you please — that it is 
 something we shall not be ashamed of, in any one particu- 
 lar. 
 
 Mr. Wei.su : — I understand that the Committee on Canons 
 are willing to allow the amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mauan : — I should hope not, without a meeting 
 of the committee. 
 
 Mr. McCkady :— The laity have a voice in the Prayer- 
 Book. Now, it is said that one that has the making of the 
 songs of a people, can make the people. If you have the 
 liberty of singing what you please in our churches, you in- 
 doctrinate it ; but the laity have no choice here ; it is to be 
 tlie minister who is to decide, and who is restrained by his 
 Bishop. But I, as a layman, want to have a voice in .select- 
 ing the hymns ; and that is not an unreasonable desire. I 
 
 do not want to have my children indoctrinated with notions 
 in the hymnal, tlnit are not in the I'rayer-Book. If you 
 give two books, from which you may select hymns, and 
 there are only a lialf dozen in them that are antagonistic, 
 you will have tiiem sung a dozen times while the others will 
 be sung a single time, and so you will have our " Wings" 
 fighting each other in their hymns, and they might as well 
 fight in their prayers. Whatever you allow to be put be- 
 fore us, should be approved by the whole of us, in the form 
 in which the present book is approved. 
 
 A motion to lay the whole matter on the table was lost. 
 Rev. Dr. Anurews moved to refer the resolution to the 
 Committee on Canons, for furtlier consideration, to report 
 as they pleased. 
 
 This motion was lost ; and the question then recurred on 
 the amendment ofl'ered by the Rev. Dr. Adams, to substi- 
 tute his canon for the report. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Rdqgi.ES : — Does not that exclude the supple- 
 meutal hymns proposed by the Bishops ? 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — Certainly not. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rogers : — As between the two, I think the last 
 would harldly be fair, when my Bisliop is on tlie Red River, 
 and I cannot seud and get word from him in two months. 
 
 A vote was then taken on the question of the adoption of 
 the substitute, when it was lost. 
 
 The question then recurred, upon the motion of Mr. 
 Welsh, to strike out " with the consent of the Bishops." 
 
 Rev. Dr. GoonwiN : — That question is a new question — 
 the motion to amend — and I desire to say that as the com- 
 mittee have emphatically declined the position of recom- 
 mending the.se hymns, and as it is to be understood that 
 the Convention does not authorize their use, this amend- 
 ment becomes vital. The committee do not prolcss to rec- 
 ommend these books for use, or in any wise authorize the use, 
 or propose to authorize them, as recommended to this 
 Church. It is understood that this Convention takes the 
 same ground — tluit we do not authorize the use of hymns, 
 exactly, but we leave liberty to use them. To whom is the 
 liberty to be left? It is said that if the House of Bishops 
 pass it, it will all be well. But tlie House of Bishops will 
 stand on the same ground of not, on thorough examination 
 of all these hymns, recommending them all for u.se in the 
 Church. Then, I say, it remains to ask, to whom sliall it 
 be left? To the Bishop of the diocese and the clergymen 
 desiring to use them, or to the clergyman alone ? And if 
 it is to be left to the clergyman alone to determine wliat 
 hymns to use, why confine that clergyman to these two 
 books, if it be admitted that there are some objectionable 
 hymns in the book ? I ask gentlemen to correct me, if I 
 am wrong, that in the Church of England they have no pre- 
 scribed hymnal; every clergyman, as I understand it, selects 
 his own hymns. If that be the rule in this Church, very 
 well — we ought not to recommend any book. Now, take 
 the case of England. This book is very largely used. Very 
 good. Suppose that nine-tenths of all the hymns of that 
 book would be perfectly satisfactory, and that I should have 
 the privilege of using them. Then I should use those 
 hymns. But here is another tenth that somebody else may 
 desire to use, and that is very well ; but we differ. There 
 are some hymns that some would use, and others, that oth- 
 
167 
 
 era would use. I like the figure that was used by my rever- 
 end colleague, a little while ago, that here are hymns that 
 would satisfy both "wings of the Church." I like this fig- 
 ure of " wings of the Ohurch" — wings by whicli she may 
 fly — may rise aloft, as an eagle, to heaven. Let them bo 
 wings, and let them agree together in action, as I trust they 
 would ; but I do not see the propriety of selecting these 
 hymns, with this view, unless, at least, Mr. President, we re- 
 quire the endorsement of the Bishop of the diocese. You 
 cannot have the endorsement of the Hom^se of Bishops. I 
 have spoken, therefore, directly to the terms of this amend- 
 ment. 
 
 The Shxretary then read the amendment to strike out 
 the words " the Bi.shop of the diocese in which such congre- 
 gation exists consenting" ; and the vote being taken there- 
 on, theamenilment was lost. 
 
 Whereupon the question recurred upon the resolution, as 
 reported by the committee ; and that was adopted. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the consideration of the 
 order of the day, which was the consideration of the report 
 of the majority of the Committee on Canons, on the sub- 
 ject of Ritual. 
 
 The report of the majority being read by the Secretary — 
 
 JonOE CoNYNGHAM Said — : In order that this whole sub- 
 ject may come properly before this House, 1 move as a 
 substitute for the resolution of the majority of the committee 
 the resolution offered by the minority of the committee ; 
 and I would ask that they may be read by tlie Secretary be- 
 fore making some few observations. 
 
 Whereupon the Secretary read the resolution of the mi- 
 nority of the committee. 
 
 The Prksidknt : — Will Judge Conyngham permit me to 
 suggest one question ? I perceive in the order of proceed- 
 ings of this House, differing from those of ordinary deliber- 
 ative bodies in that particular, so far as I can find out, that 
 an aineudhient may be offered and an amendment to an 
 amendment, and that no subsequent amendment can be re- 
 ceived, but that a .substitute may be received, and that when 
 an amendment to an amendment is under consideration, a 
 substitute for the whole matter may be received. I do not see 
 any other place for a sub.stitute to be offered. 
 
 JunoE Conyn<;ham was understood to accept the sugges- 
 tion, and to move the resolutions as an amendment. He 
 then proceeded : It is not inten(\cd by any thing that I may 
 do to place this in a condition that it cannot be amended. 
 It is simply offered with the desire to bring before') the 
 House and permit this House to vote upon the two prop- 
 ositions as they are submitted to them. I submit a-s a sub- 
 stitute the views of the minority. They arc more in accord- 
 ance with those I entertain myself than the others, and yet 
 were I to follow out all perhaps I might desire to do per- 
 sonally, they would be enlarged and made more specific 
 than they arc. But I am perfectly satisfied under all the 
 circumstances of the case to submit these as they are now 
 presented to the House. When I presented the memorials 
 a few days ago, I stated then while I presented also the 
 form of the canon, that I was not prepared to say what ac- 
 tion I myself would take in relation to the canon ; and I 
 have been willing therefore, upon reflection and upon the 
 advice of others which I am very willing to submit to, to de- 
 
 cide to agree with the majority of the committee, that the 
 canon is inexpedient. It is enough that we have report- 
 ed resolutions for tlic action of the House in any shape. 
 Ihope they will receive the approval of the House. I do 
 not rise to oppose the report of the majority ; I sim- 
 ply prefer the report of the minority. It has been the boast, 
 nay, sir, it has been rather the heart-felt and al)iding feeling 
 of every member of our Church, that there has been, where- 
 ever the members of the Protestant fipiscopal Church have 
 been worshipping, a uniformity of worship ; and it is the 
 great gratification of all of us here, that while we are sepa- 
 rated from our families, we know when the Lord's day 
 comes around, that there the same worship is being oft'ered 
 in which we are united here. This ari.ses from the feeling 
 of a uniformity of worship ; and this uniformity of wor- 
 ship it is claimed by a number of highly respectable gentle- 
 men who have signed memorials that have been placed 
 upon the table of this House, is broken, not so much in 
 the words spoken as in the various matters connected with 
 that character of worship that destroys the effect of their 
 use. ■ This being the case, we desire that there should be 
 some change on this subject, not that there should be any 
 canon regulation, but that there should be a warning voice of 
 the Church, to go out and advise all those who ought to pay 
 obedience, what they are called upon to do. Heretofore 
 when we were travelling and came to some httletown or to 
 some city, and we inquired where there was an Episcopal 
 Church, we hesitated not to go there. We went into the 
 church and felt that we should be worshipping as our fath- 
 ers did and as our families would be worshipping elsewhere. 
 Now, however, it becomes necessary to present a different 
 question and ask, is there a variety of that worship, not in the 
 words, but iu those appendages, and various matters exhib- 
 ited there distracting the attention of one who comes in for 
 the first time and sees them destroying the character of that 
 worship that ought to be pure ande sparated from the sensu- 
 ous thing in this world below. We have a Church that is na- 
 tional in one sense of the word, not in the sense in which the 
 Anglican Church is national, but it is national here,_it is the 
 Protestaut Episcopal Cliurch in these United States of Ameri- 
 ca, so recognized ih the preface of the Prayer Book, and 
 so recognized in the terms in which the Prayer Book was 
 ratified. When wc learn that the usages and practices of 
 that Church as conducted by our fathers, and to which we 
 have been long accustomed, are changed and that other 
 matters are introduced — I will not enter into details — so 
 different from those, is it not time that the voice of the 
 Church should be put forth and expressed in unmistakable 
 terms as to the views of the Church at large V We can look 
 back many years since and see what were the usages and 
 practices of the Protestant E|)iscopal Church in America. 
 It is not difficult to ascertain them. There arc those yet liv- 
 ing who can tell you. I can look back myself for a great 
 many years; and I can remember — for it has been a com- 
 mon expression with me that I was born and bred in the 
 Church, under the late Bishop White — I can look back for 
 a period of something like sixty years and remember when 
 I went into church what appeared before me. There are 
 many that can go back further. Arc there not appearan- 
 ces presented now that are different? And why is it? To 
 gratify fancy ? Let not this question he brought in. Let 
 
168 
 
 these things all be cast away. Is it to symbolize auythiiig y 
 Let not that which is regarded in other communions as 
 symbolizing that which we regard as wrong, be introduc- 
 ed. These things operate upon the minds of the young, 
 and the minds of the young are led astray. I will mention 
 what occurred almost within ray own knowledge lately. 
 In a snuiU country town a young man coming from the city 
 said he was a ritualist, that he understood all about these 
 things and in the country we knew nothing about them. 
 On entering church, he spoke to some one near him and 
 said to him, " Tell me what are the points of compass here ; 
 what is the particular bearing of this church ; for when I 
 make certain reverences I am accustomed to bend to the 
 east?" [Laugliter.] I do not mean to say that these things 
 are taught generally ; but we know what these things lead 
 to. I have been spoken to since I brought tliis subject before 
 the House by many persons of different shades of opinion 
 from myself, asking that these things should be brought 
 forward. But why should we aid them ; why should we 
 recognize changes ; where is the necessity for them ; where 
 do we find the ground of rest? Come to our own Church ; I 
 mean that branch of our Church, not speaking generally 
 upon the term church as looking beyond the time when our 
 church was organized, but our branch of the Church, and 
 there let us rest and abide. We have referred in one of 
 these resolutions to the action of certain Bishops of the 
 Churcli in the year 1814. I admit before this House that 
 this is not to have the force of a canon, or the force of 
 law, or the force of anytliing more than the expression of 
 opinion; but when we do find that the BLshops in 1814, 
 there expressed what their opinion was, incidentally only, but 
 still expressed their opinion in 1814, what the ordinary vest- 
 ments of a minister of the Church were, when they did so, why 
 shall we not now be content with the accompaniments that 
 always then attended upon them ? Look back and inquire into 
 and ascertain from those that lived in that day what were 
 the usages and practices of the Church in these matters. I 
 am aware that it is almost useless to address this'House upon 
 the subject. There are many that know more about these 
 matters than I do. I regret that I have extended my re- 
 marks so far ; but I am endeavouring to bring them within 
 the allotted ten minutes ; I ask this House to look at these 
 things, and to look at what is stated in the fourth resolution 
 of order, not that we justify these matters. Let them reflect ; 
 let them see how it .appears to others ; let them see that it 
 has been condemned by authority elsewhere, and as far as 
 there is imitation. I regret to see that there is too much 
 of the spirit of imitation, [Here the gavel fell]. 
 
 Judge Otis : — The only question now before the House 
 is the substitute moved by Judge Conyngham. The report 
 of the majority of the committee was first before the House. 
 A substitute for that is moved by Judge Conyngham ; and 
 his remarks are upon the substitute. I have but very little 
 to say, but what I have to say will be directly then, against 
 the substitute, against the adoption of the report of the 
 minority of the committee. lu the first place, this Clmrch 
 cannot legislate by resolution ; it may express an opinion. 
 No clergyman can be tried for holding opinions contrary to 
 resolutions passed by this House or this General Convention 
 The canons of our Church expressly provide that clergymen 
 may be tried for violating the canons and con.'rtitution of 
 
 this Church. They ma.y bej tried for holding and teaching 
 doctrines contrary to the doctrines of this Church, holding 
 and teaching doctrines contrary to tho.^e prescribed by this 
 Church ; therefore resolutions, being mere bruia fnhnina 
 of opinions that may be expres.sed by this House, and dif- 
 ferent ones expressed by the next, three years hence, have 
 not force of law; no man's conscience will be bound ; no 
 man who in conscience believes contrary thereto, will vary 
 his acts or proceedings in conducting public worship to 
 accord with any resolution we may pass. We cannot even 
 legislate upon matters of conscience, and make our clergy 
 and laity change their opinions, much less pass resolutions 
 declaring that so and so we believe to be the sentiments of 
 this Church, wlien we ourselves admit that they cannot be 
 held as binding and law. Therefore is it wise at this time 
 to express an opinion on the subject, which can have no 
 force upon the conscience of our clergy or laity ? I think 
 not. It is proposed as the ground work of this whole meas- 
 ure that dangerous or new innovations are being taught, 
 that dangerous practices symbolizing dangerous doctrines 
 are being taught, and practiced by our clergy and introduc- 
 ed into their services. Now, then, as to that there is now 
 no legislation in this Church upon the subject of teaching 
 by symbols. We legi.«late only upon public opinions express- 
 ly held ;ind taught. We cannot legislate as yet, we never have 
 as yet, against the teachings of a symbol, because one man 
 says it teaches this, another that it teaches that, and anoth- 
 er will deny that it teaches any thing at all. This fourth 
 resolution proposes expressly to declare certain things un- 
 lawful, and not [proper to be used in this Church. I say, 
 at the present time we are not prepared in this country to 
 express a definite opinion upon these subjects ; for it is 
 claimed by the whole Church of England, I do not say 
 whether it is so or not — (I defer to the Bishops and clergy 
 in all matters of that kind). I say it is claimed by the whole 
 Church of England that these are lawful, at least certain 
 ones have been lawful iu the Church of England since the 
 Reformation ; and upon that point I express my own opin- 
 ion that this Church was not organized in this country after 
 the Rei'olution as anew Church. There were churches of the 
 Church of England in ten colonies prior to the Revolution, 
 stretching all along the Atlantic coast, churches having cler- 
 gymen of the Church of England and a Prayer Book of 
 the Church of England. They were members of the 
 Church of England and when the Revolution made it 
 necessary to throw ott' the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lon- 
 don who had, then, ecclesiastical supervision of these church- 
 es, it became necessary to organize by themselves, but were 
 they not still in full communion with the Church of England '! 
 Certainly. They did not change their faitli in any particu- 
 lar. They organized them in this country separately, pro- 
 vided Bishops of their own and sent them to England to 
 be consecrated, having the same faith, the same Church th.at 
 they had before, and we are to-day, this day, in as full com- 
 munion and as thoroughly agreed in the faith of the Church 
 of England as we were anterior to the Revolution, as I un- 
 stand it, by law. 
 
 Their practices and usages have never been estab- 
 lished in this country, as I understand it, contrary to 
 the Church of England in the method of our conduct- 
 ing the services of the Church, except so far as our 
 
169 
 
 Prayer Book varies from theirs. Such being the case 
 these men coming from England here brought their relig- 
 ion with them as colonists of England, the same as those 
 who go to Australia or New Zealand, or any colonies, carry 
 with them the Common Law of England as well as the re- 
 ligion of the Church of England. Both go with them. 
 This is a fundamental principle in the law of nations in every 
 country. Our courts have decided, from the organization 
 of this country, that we brought from England the Common 
 Law of England. We brought the religion of England, 
 those who were members of the Church of England, when 
 they organized it. Then we are the same. Whatever is lawful 
 in the Church of England is lawful here, provided we have not 
 prohibited it. Then, this Church was not a new Church 
 when our forefathers first landed at Plymouth Rock. It 
 does not date there. It was not a new Church when our 
 ancestors first landed at Jamestown. It does not date there, 
 though they brought their Prayer Book and their religion 
 with them. It goes back further. Where does it stop ? I 
 coutend — and I speak with deference in the presence of 
 clergymen — I contend it was not a new Church at the Re- 
 formation in England. It dates back of that we know, back 
 of Edward VI. It goes back to the planting of that true 
 Chureli by the Apostles, one of whom came and planted a 
 true Apostolic Church in the Island of Great Britain. This 
 kept on reforming, and being reformed, from time to time 
 as necessity required, at times being compelled by the ar- 
 bitrament of the sword to submit to the Pope for a hundred 
 years at a time, then throwing oflF that and asserting its pu- 
 rity ; and it has gone on, not looking to Geneva for 
 reforms, but making its own reforms ; and we are the 
 descendants of that glorious early Church that has 
 been handed down to us from primitive times. Now, 
 I say, here is Rome on one side of us, and here is Geneva on 
 the other. We occupy a great belt lying between. We 
 cannot go to the extreme on either side ; but in this great 
 broad belt between, there may be diiferences of opinion ; 
 and we have tolerated for more than three hundred years 
 these differences of opinion, and we cut off none who are in- 
 clined to walk on the .side of the belt nearest Geneva, neith- 
 er cut off those who walk on the side of the belt nearest 
 Rome. We tolerate you all, so you do not get over the line 
 [Laughter]. Toleration, then,, is what I plead for. Those 
 brethren who believe in a high ceremonial, can worship 
 God in simplicity and truth. Let them worship Him so. 
 Those who want meagerness and barrenness approaching 
 to the denominations thatjsurround us, let them have it so, so 
 they keep within the requirements of our law ; and our law 
 has never undertaken to prescribe, I trust never will, too 
 rigid and iron a rule. During the thirty years from 1780 to 
 1810, the Church of England lost one hundred and nine 
 thousand of its communicants in the Wesleyan movement at 
 the period when their services were at a low stage, corres- 
 ponding almost with the denominations and dissenters 
 aronnd them. In consequence of lowering the standard, 
 your folds flock away into the denominations. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES: — -My much honored friend from 
 Illinois has done me great wrong — he has taken away near- 
 ly all the speech I intended to make. I wish to continue 
 the same strain of liberal remark which I listened to so 
 gladly from him. I am here to plead for toleration in this 
 
 22 
 
 Church and to protest against intolerance. That is the 
 great issue now. I was in the Convention of 1859, when 
 the question came up of toleration against intolerance. .\ 
 machine was proposed to us, called a Court of Appeals, the 
 object of which was to confine within rigid lines and define 
 every possible offence, theological or secular, and punish it 
 by a hard unyielding court like the authority of the ancient 
 court of Rome. I took ground at once against that institu- 
 tion as being utterly intolerant and objectionable and destruc- 
 tive of the true spirit of the Church, and at the venture of 
 beingeven egotistic, I will read precisely what I said upon that 
 occasion, upon that question, that I may refer to the decis- 
 ion that was made between the question of toleration and 
 intolerance. 
 
 "The Church itself, avowedly exists, not a uniformity, but 
 a diversity." Is it, or is it not true, that in this very Church, 
 and even among its learned, pious, and venerable Bishops, 
 differences of doctrinal opinion do exist to some extent? 
 that some of these excellent men do not walk precisely on 
 the same line, but do deflect their course at least a point or 
 two in the direction of Rome or Geneva? 
 
 I beg the advocates of uniformity to tell us if they can, how 
 far apart are the extremities of these various shades? Do 
 they, can they reasonably hope that by the mere machinery 
 of their Court of Appeals, they can establish and permanent 
 ly maintain a distinct, unvarying, equatorial line between 
 Romanism and Calvinism, — wide as the poles apart? on 
 which the whole Church is hereafter dutifully to walk, look- 
 ing neither to the right nor to the left, to the north or the 
 south. 
 
 Let us assure the Constitution menders, who would thus 
 confine human opinion within Procrustean machinery, hard 
 and unyielding, that the pride and .glory and chief attraction 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, at least in the eyes o 
 the laity, are found in its tolerations, its comparative elastic 
 ity, its gentle and Christian conformity'to the varying phases 
 of human nature and human institutions ; in its being in a 
 word, like its Divine Founder, a body not of stone or wood, 
 but of living flesh and blood. It is this generous and wide 
 spread toleration, this composite and truly Christian charac- 
 ter, which enables it to attract to' the fold poor wandering 
 human nature, in .all its aspects and all its errors, seeking, 
 not by force but by love to elevate and save. Its leaders 
 may indulge the laudable ambition of eventually embracing 
 within its authority, the largest portion of the vast and teem, 
 ing American World. Let them be warned by the example 
 of the Church of Rome, which in seeking to enforce uniformity 
 on the cold and comparatively unimpassioned nations of 
 northern Europe, lost the best if not the largest portion of 
 Christendom. Let them not attempt in the vigorous image of 
 the learned and reverend Deputy from Virginia, Dr. Andrews 
 to force on our wide spread congregations a theological uni- 
 form like that of soldiers in an army reduced to one com- 
 mon undistinguishable level, — but rather let them encour- 
 age the growth of varied beauty like that of the sisters im- 
 mortalized by the Roman poet, with faces not the same, but 
 with a becoming likeness. "Facies non omnibus una, nee 
 diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum. 
 
 I beg that the clergy and the laity especially will go for 
 toleration. If I proposed anything it would be that those 
 two abstract propositions which recommend no action 
 
170 
 
 should be laid on the table, but printed in the journal that 
 the whole Church may read them for themselves and form 
 their own opinion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mason : — I do not know that I shall go for 
 the resolutions of the minority. They please me a good 
 deal. I observe in human nature tendencies in things con- 
 tinually. I remember the time when the tendency of the 
 Church was to disregard what is called ritual completely so 
 as to run, I had almost said into indecency; but I will not 
 use so strong a term. At that time it was the duty of 
 every one to guard against these irregularities, carelessness, 
 indifference to deportment, indifferent regard to veneration 
 of the House of God, and the absenc eof public worship in 
 that hovi.se. Then again, in the condition of mankind 
 there is a tendency in an opposite direction. We find this 
 is constantly taking place ; and I am afraid that the tenden- 
 cy of things at this time is in this opposite direction ; I 
 would therefore by .some proper means guard if possible 
 against that tendency to the opposite extreme. I think that 
 the Committee on Canons have done exceedingly wLsely by 
 refusing to bring forward a canon endeavoring to regulate 
 these matters ; and perhaps on the whole the resolution 
 which the majority suggested is the better, but, as I said 
 before, I am exceedingly glad that the minority have 
 brought forward their report, and have shown the opinions 
 to exist among them, which I confess are my own opinions 
 too, that there should be a regard as to what is the proper 
 character and condition of our Church. There are various 
 kinds of religion. There is the purely intellectual religion. 
 It was said of the character of the philosopher, that he was 
 a pure intellect; when guilty of cruelty it was not the ma- 
 lignant cruelty, but as the absence of affection. There may 
 be a sensuous religion which is employed in the gratification 
 of the senses. I do not say sensual. Then there may be 
 an emotional religion which tends to enthusiasm ; and then 
 there is the religion of symbols whose tendency is to idola- 
 try and superstition ; and there is a religion which com- 
 bines intellect and the exercise of the affections which is 
 true and proper religion, and this is accompanied with all 
 the decency and regularity of character and deportment, 
 and this I ci^nceivo to be the religion of the Church. It 
 then avoids any excesses of sensuousness of symbolism 
 which is apt to run into idolatry or superstition. Now, how 
 far persons may go into what is called ritualism and yet 
 avoid these things I do not pretend to say. But I say it is 
 proper and right that we should do .something to avoid that 
 extreme which, I believe, we are going into. I have heard 
 contest as to whether we ought to wor.ship at the altar or 
 at the table, whether lights should be brought on the altar 
 or placed around it. I take it, if we go back to the institu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, we shall be able to determine 
 something of this matter. There is no question but that 
 our Lord ate the Last Supper at the table when He consecrated 
 the elements. Did He sit there at an altar or not ? If He 
 did not, I cannot seehow we can worship at an altar. Lights 
 were unquestionably on the table, for what purpose ? Were 
 they symbolic or only for the purpose of the time at which 
 the Lord's Supper was celebrated ? Therefore it is not pos- 
 sible we should really point at that which our Church con- 
 demns, for instance transubstantiation or any other false 
 doctrine of the church of Rome, unless the symbolism should 
 
 point out something of that sort. It is extremely difficult 
 to lay your finger upon that point in which the thing should 
 be avoided or may be allowed to be practised. Therefore I 
 say it is very wi,se in the committee not to make a canon. 
 Perhaps on the whole, considering the state of things, we 
 ought to feel that the resolution of the majority may be 
 more correct; yet lam rejoiced that the minority of the 
 committee did bring forward their resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — As a member of the committee, as 
 one who did not concur with the minority, I desire to say 
 but a very few words upon this subject, and beg leave to 
 refer to this one point, the reasons why I cannot concur in 
 the views of the minority and why I cannot vote for their 
 resolution. There are certain things assumed in the report 
 of the minority and certain things underlie their resolutions 
 which to ray mind are not founded in truth or in fact. It 
 is claimed on the part of the minority as we read in the first 
 preamble "Whereas it has heretofore been one of the pecu- 
 liar characteristics of this Church &c , that itsworship and the 
 mode of conducting it have been in all respects substantially 
 alike. 
 
 I do not think, sir, that this is strictly true "substantially 
 alike heretofore." Within the last thirty or forty years, 
 until the last few years, in one sense they have been sub- 
 stantially alike ; but will any man stand up here and tell me 
 that the u.sages of the Church in Virginia were the same 
 with the usages of the Church in New York, and that when 
 a member of the Church of New York went into Virginia he 
 found always the surplice, and always heard the Ante Com- 
 munion service read, and always witnessed the administra- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper? Will any gentleman here say 
 that when gentlemen from Virginia came to New York they 
 found precisely the same worship in Trinity Church of New 
 York or any of the old churches in New York as in Rich- 
 mond and Frederickburg ? We all know that is not the 
 case and never was. 
 
 We have had one liturgy ; but we have different uses in 
 different parts of the country, not only in regard to these 
 things I have mentioned, but also in regard to clerical vest- 
 ments. I had the honor to spend three years of my life in 
 the Diocese of Ohio. I am glad that I had that privilege. 
 The present Bishop of Ohio was my diocesan, and I never 
 felt for any man alive greater veneration, respect, and affec- 
 tion than I have for him, and which I shall feel to my 
 dying day. But did I see nothing in Ohio which I do 
 not see in the city of New York where I was born and spent 
 all my life except those three years ? I remember perfectly 
 well in the Church in the Capital of Ohio at that time where 
 there was an honored brother who was zealous for the truth 
 as he held it, who would not wear any clerical vestments. 
 He had no reading desk but a pulpit such as you see in the 
 denominations around us. He would not wear either gown 
 or surplice ; and when the bishop of the diocese remon- 
 strated with him, and told him that he should wear a gown, 
 what did he do? He put the gown in a band-box and the 
 band-box in the pulpit, and when he went into the pulpit 
 he took out the gown and shook it and put it on. Is that 
 the use we see here ? [Laughter.] I claim that the broad 
 statement made by my colleague for whom I entertain the 
 highest respect is not founded in strict fact — that we never 
 have reached the uniformity in regard to ceremonial he has 
 
171 
 
 now claimed we have. There is another principle which 
 underlies the whole report of the minority; that is the 
 principle which my learned friend from Illinois has supplied, 
 that this Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
 of America is somehow or other a new church — that it is 
 independent of and having no right to the glorious heritage 
 of our fathers, the glorious heritage of the Church in the 
 days of St. Paul, or in the days of those who in former 
 years ministered at her altars in the island of Great Britain. 
 I hold no such views as these. They were repelled by 
 Bishops White and Seabury. Bishop White has declared 
 again and again in the strongest terms that this Church, the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Ameri- 
 ca, is the Church of England in this country ; and that all 
 laws of the Church of England not expressly repealed in this 
 Church are binding upon the consciences of the clergy ; 
 and if you do not admit this fact, you have no law upon the 
 subject of marriage, binding upon the ^consciences of the 
 clergy. In this view I have always had a clear beacon light 
 in regard to this matter of marriage. I claim not to put 
 my views as the standard of my brethren. I say that the 
 idea which underlies this whole report is a fallacy. It is 
 claimed that the ritual of this Church has been unchanged 
 since the time of the American Revolution. I am not an 
 old man, Mr. President, — I do not feel old — but I can go 
 back a good many years in this city of New York, and in 
 Trinity Parish in which I now minister and in Christ 
 Church where I was born and trained under Bishop Wain- 
 wright until the time of my ordination. It is perfectly idle 
 for gentlemen to stand up and talk of an unchanged and un- 
 changeable order of the Church. What did you do in Trini- 
 ty Church fifty years ago ? You saw at the end of the 
 Church a high pulpit, underneath it a large reading desk, 
 and under that a clerk's desk. How was the service con- 
 ducted? The organist died only a few years ago who played 
 the first chant to which the Venite was sung in Trinity Church. 
 The services — were they conducted by the whole body of 
 the people as now ? The clerk did the responding with his 
 loud sonorous voice, and the people sat back and quietly 
 looked on. How was baptism administered? There was 
 no font in Trinity Church. Back by the door in a pew, was 
 a shelf, and there a basin. Public baptism was a thing 
 scarcely known. Owing to the miserable customs that pre- 
 vailed in the city, brought over from London, the baptisms 
 were done in private. I have seen the bishop of this diocese 
 baptize the child of a clergyman in his own jjurlor for no 
 other reason whatever than that he chose to do it ; and un- 
 til the time of my ordination I never saw a public baptism 
 in Christ Church. It was never done on Sunday ; it may 
 possibly have been done on some week day. Look at the 
 change! Do you go anywhere without seeing a font? Is 
 not public baptism the rule? and where do you find the old 
 three-deckers ? [Laughter]. The reading desk went long 
 ago. The parish clerk, I am thankful to say, we have not 
 heard from for forty years. It will not do to talk of un- 
 changcableness in our mode of conducting Divine worship. 
 I never heard the Ante Communion read except at the desk 
 until in holy orders some seven years. In Trinity parish the 
 clergyman never went to the Lord's table except on Com- 
 munion Sundays. 
 
 I merely point out these changes to show that there are 
 
 iallacies underlying the views of the minority report — fal- 
 lacies which render it impossible that those resolutions 
 should be carried in this House. 
 
 I am and I trust I shall always be in favor ol toleration 
 in this Church. I was brought up in one sen.se at the feet 
 of Bishop Hobart, and was taught to reverence him. I knew 
 him as well as a lad could know a man of his high position. 
 What was the policy of Bishop Hobart and all his succes- 
 sors? Did Bishop Hobart, Bishop Onderdonk, Bishop 
 Wainwright, or Bishop Potter ever persecute a man because 
 he did not agree with him in Church principles? No, sir. 
 
 Rev. Charles Bbeck : — I would say to the members of 
 this House that I am the rector of a parish where the sur- 
 plice was worn 230 years ago, and the surplice alone ; they 
 knew nothing about gown or band. I would speak a few 
 words to my reverend and beloved friend Judge Conyng- 
 ham. I came to the city of New York a year ago. I went 
 to the city of Brooklyn and I went to the churches of the 
 representative men of this Church, In the first place to 
 which I went X found the services conducted precisely as 
 they had been conducted where I was ordained, precisely as 
 I conduct them in my Church. I saw nothing new ; I 
 saw no prostration, no bowing — nothing but what I had 
 been accustomed to for the greater part of my ministerial 
 life. In the afternoon I went to another church of the same 
 stamp of Churchmauship, and there I found precisely the 
 same worship and the same vestments that the honorable 
 Judge [Conyngham] saw me wear in my church thirty years 
 ago. Then in the course of a few weeks I was called upon 
 to be in the midst of a large gathering of the clergy of the 
 city of New York, in the church of the Holy Communion. 
 There was a large number of them, nearly all of them of 
 one stamp. I saw no new vestment — nothing but what I 
 had been accustomed to all my life. I went the next day to 
 St. Luke's Church where there was a lar^e gathering of 
 clergymen, and I saw no new vestments and no dilHcully in 
 engaging in the worship. I afterward went to Baltimore 
 and went into a variety of churches and found the vestments 
 all familiar, nothing new, nothing strange — nothing to 
 alarm anyone. I make these statements, merely to show 
 that we are not in such a distracted state as many gentle 
 men think. We may find things if we go and hunt for 
 them ; but I say there is a very sound and full uniformity 
 among the clergy of this Cliurch, and I for one am willing 
 to abide by the rules and directions of the bihsops of the 
 Church. I am willing to submit to his regulations, his ad- 
 vice, and his admonitions. Therefore it is I feel warranted 
 in repudiating the condition that these resolutions repre- 
 sent us to be in, and that there is not that difficulty of wor- 
 shipping as we have been accflstonied to worship all the days 
 of our lives. 
 
 Kov. Dr. Burr : — Reference lias been made by luy dis- 
 tinguished friend the clerical deputy from New York, 
 if he will allow me to call him so, to the practices of 
 former days and he had references to Ohio as well as 
 to other parts. I wish to inform him that whatever may 
 have been the deficiencies in former days as to Ohio, 
 they have been corrected as they have been in the city 
 of New York ; and that if he will honor us with a visit- 
 to Ohio he will find not only a great many oldfriends thore 
 
172 
 
 who esteem him most highly, but he will find that we 
 are as rubrical and correct as any other diocese in these 
 United States. He has given you an instance of depart- 
 ures from the order of the Church in regard to clerical 
 garments. I wish to correct him and this House in re- 
 gard to that matter, for it does retlect on a venerable 
 and beloved brother who ministered at that time in the 
 capital of the State of Ohio. 1 lived at that time within 
 eight miles of the capital of Ohio ; and 1 believe that 1 
 was fully acquainted with what was the practice of that 
 venerable clergyman ; and I say that I never heard of 
 such doings or any such practices as my friend from New 
 York has alluded to. I am sure that had it been the 
 case, I should have known it,for I was in constant commu- 
 nication with him and his parishioner's. We were ex- 
 changing, every month, and I never heard anything of 
 that kind. I have known that clergyman to wear the gown 
 regularly. Soon after he went there he preached in 
 the first place perhaps a year or two in a German 
 church, where there were no conveniences for wearing 
 gowns or surplices or any clerical garments ; and I pre- 
 sume at that time it was not worn ; but afterwards it was, 
 as I very well know. But that is neither here nor there. 
 My li-iend has alluded to the defects in Ohio and in New 
 York. Undoubtedly we have changed, and 1 trust much 
 for the better in that respect ; but 1 desire while on the 
 floor to correct the misapprehensions that seem to be 
 entertained with regard to the practices of the present 
 day in Ohio. I deny positively that there is any essen- 
 tial difference, any essential departures from the strict 
 order of the Church, in Ohio. It is a great mistake ; we 
 have been greatly misrepresented. Neither of our 
 Bishops will tolerate any departures if they know it. I 
 speak from what 1 know. I have ministered in Ohio 
 nearly forty years ; and 1 claim to know as much of that 
 diocese as any other man, at least as any man that does 
 not live in that diocese. It is not true as respecting her 
 that there are essential departures from the strict order 
 of the Church. We have been misrepresented. It is 
 only a few weeks since 1 was published in the Gospel 
 Messenger as having administered the communion with- 
 out the siu-plice. 1 never did such a thing in my life 
 except when we had no surplices, never except a few 
 mouths ago in another church, Christ Church, in the 
 city where I live. 1 went to administer the communion 
 for a brother there and 1 found no surplice in his ward- 
 robe. It had been left by' mistake at his house; and 
 I put on a gown and administered the communion. 
 Some of my good Iriends there or somewhere else — I do 
 not know and do not care to know — thought it an omis- 
 sion of such importance that it should be pubhshed in 
 some Church paper ; and it was pubhshed in the Gospel 
 Messenger that a clergyman in the State of Ohio had ad- 
 ministered so and so without the surplice when one was 
 hanging in the wardrobe. I was told that I was the man. 
 This is a true statement of the case ; and most of these 
 statements that go abroad against us are of this charac- 
 
 ter. They are not true in the least. Now, I sympathize 
 with my friends who have brought in the minority report, 
 because I believe the expression of this Convention, by 
 adopting those resolutions, will have a tendency to bring 
 about a greater degree of uniformity. I have always 
 loved, through a long course of ministry in this Church, 
 to see our services fully performed ; and where I have 
 gone I have desired to find the services and offices of the 
 Church administered precisely as they are prescribed in 
 the prayer book. I am glad that the subject of omission 
 and defects has been noticed in both of theses reports — 
 in the resolutions attached ; and I believe they will do 
 good. I am not strenuous on the subject as to which of 
 these reports shall be adopted. Either one I believe 
 will do good. It will be the advice of the Church, the 
 advice and opinion of this Convention, and going forth 
 to the Church, it will I trust have an influence both 
 ways. I am disposed to seek for uniformity in our wor- 
 ship, if it can be brought about. But to attain to that 
 uniformity, I would not adopt anything that should have 
 the semblance of intolerance. But cannot this Conven- 
 tion express its opinion decidedly as to the desirableness 
 of uniformity, and will not that expression of opinion 
 have a great effect in making us more uniform. 
 
 Mr. E. McCrady, of South Carolma: — I must beg 
 leave to protest against the assumption made here over 
 and over again. There is a good deal of assuming what 
 is not so. I deny that this is the same Church as the 
 Church of England. Are we any more the Church of 
 England than we are the Church of Scotland '? Does not 
 every member of this Convention know that we do re- 
 semble the Church of Scotland more than we do the 
 Church of England ? What right have you to say that 
 we are the same as the Church of England ? As the 
 Church of Alexandria differs from the Church at Jerusa- 
 lem and the Church of Rome and the Church of Antioch, 
 so we differ from the Church of England ; we stand side 
 by side. You must not say because we do proceed from 
 her we are not otherwise than herself. Surely we are. 
 If we are of strict uniformity at all, it is with the Church 
 of Scotland. We do not belong to either the one nor 
 the other. 
 
 Gentlemen argue this question of uniformity as if we 
 were seeking uniformity of doctrine. Not so. We have 
 the example of the Church of England for uniformity of 
 worship. They have thought it necessary to pass an 
 act of Parliament compelling them to be uniform. If 
 the vestments in one case are proper they are every- 
 where else, not only proper but lawful and ought to be 
 observed. Now here we ask for nothing more, but 
 recommend uniformity of worship, not doctrine. Vary 
 as you please. Vary as you have been accustomed to 
 vary. Perhaps I no not agree with a hundred men in 
 this body or half that number. I cannot subscribe to 
 the one wing or the other ; not that 1 stand between 
 them ; but I differ from either very materially. I deny 
 the positions of both. Our object is uniformity of wor- 
 
173 
 
 ship. We have no national body but this. All we ask at 
 the present day is advice. Now it has been said what- 
 ever the Church of England now may do, we may do. 
 By the same rule, whatever the Church of Jerusalem 
 did, we may do ; and whatever things any ancient 
 Church might do, we might combine them altogether if 
 we choose ; it would be a very dilticult thing to take all 
 their liturgies and put them together and use 
 them ; but we are just as much bound to them as to the 
 Church of England ; we differ from them all. What 
 says the preface of the Prayer Book : "It seems unneces- 
 sary to enumerate any essential point of doctrine." Now 
 who can resist that argument '? Who can fail to see the 
 truth of that ? They say what we leave out we intend. 
 If you compare this with the Book of Common frayer 
 of the Church of England you will see wherever we dii- 
 fer this is our law and that is not. You cannot find the 
 sentence which the English Prayer Book has about the 
 vestments ; it is not only in the acts of uniformity, but in 
 the English Prayer Book near the preface, those vest- 
 ments introduced in the tione of Edward VI, should 
 be enforced, should be in use now. That is a thing that 
 is omitted in this Prayer Book ; and you are told by this, 
 compare this with the other and you will find the differ- 
 ence. The argument is conclusive that they did not in- 
 tend to give any such thing. My ten minutes will not 
 let me go further into the arguments. If the substitute 
 is not adopted 1 shall have my chance to speak again 
 when the other comes up. 
 
 Kev. Dr. MuLCHAHEY: — The question as I under- 
 stand it is on the amendment ; and we are to decide 
 whether we prefer the substitute proposed by the mi- 
 nority, or the report of the majority. I shall state, in a 
 few words, why I prefer the resolutions of the majori- 
 ty ; and 1 wish to say those words, not in the interest of 
 any party or any section of the Church, but in the inter- 
 est of that large body who are somewhat represented at 
 least in this body, and who are largely represented in 
 the Church at large — I mean the clergy in the country 
 and in the smaller towns and parishes of this land. But, 
 su', I have wished again and again, as I have read the 
 editorials from some of our leading Church papers in 
 these large cities, as I have read the accounts of local 
 rivalries, the congregational competitions, the questions 
 that are agitated here, and tliat are thought to be agitated 
 all over the country, — I have wished, 1 say, that these 
 gentlemen who are so much interested in their local 
 questions could only be omnipresent — that they could 
 ouly have the privilege of going through the length and 
 breadth of our land, and see how the clergy are working 
 on in the spirit of their mission, in simplicity and fideli- 
 ty, to build up this Church which they believe the Church 
 of Christ. The clergy are working on alone in the small 
 country towns and parishes. The people know very 
 little or would care very little about these ritualistic 
 questions. The papers come to them once a week with 
 accounts of agitation in New York, witli extracts from 
 
 the English papers about the agitation in the City of 
 London, and they wonder what it is all about; and they 
 open their eyes aud ears to see and hear anything on 
 the pEirt of their clergymen — anything to indicate the 
 tendencies towards Rome. I knew an instance several 
 years ago where a church was emptied of half its congre- 
 oation from the simple fact that the rector's friends had 
 presented to the rector a bishop's chair made of pine 
 wood (they could not afford black walnut) and stained 
 in imitation of black walnut ; and that it might look as 
 much like a bishop's chair as possible, tlie friends who 
 had it made, had placed on the back of the chiir such 
 a mitre as you see on the back of almost every bishop's 
 chair. The clergyman was delighted, for he loved the 
 Church, and he thought the people would be exceeding- 
 ly gratified with the addition to the proper ornaments 
 of the church. But in the course of the week he noticed 
 the people looked at him with coldness, and that there was 
 a want of cordiality in the greetings of his parishioners, 
 and to his great surprise on the second Sunday he found 
 the congregation was not half so large as usual. He 
 went on Monday, as his habit was, to inquire of this one 
 and that one what was the reason he was not at church, 
 when what was his surprise to have thtm enquire "what 
 is this dreadful thing — this Puseyism." One man in the 
 parish had snuflied afar off, danger ; he had read the pa- 
 pers, and had got an idea that there was something 
 popish about the chair. Without going to the clergy- 
 man, he went to one and the other saying — "Here is 
 Romanism introduced into this parish ;" a few of the 
 congregation remained away from the church because 
 of the dreadful introduction of popish symbolism or 
 something else. The report of the minority seems to 
 me to encourage that kind ol suspicion. The learned 
 clerical deputy from New York, has said that there are 
 assumptions underlying the report — the assumption of a 
 universal agitation, a universal alarm. It is the recog- 
 nition of that assumption which I should object to having 
 scattered broadcast in all the parishes of this land. The 
 clergy of the Church working in the spirit of the Master, 
 in simplicity and fidelity, are looking to the General Con- 
 vention in the hope that nothing will be done to disturb 
 unnecessarily the minds of their parishioners — to disturb 
 unnecessarily the confidence of their parishioners in them. 
 I know it is easy to say that the minds of parishioners 
 ought to be disturbed. In this great city of New York 
 with all the forces that can be brought to bear to render 
 the services of the Church more beautiful and edifying' 
 it is easy to say that the people in the country ought to 
 be alarmed at the introduction of superstitious and vain 
 ornaments. But tlie great difficulty is to get the decen- 
 cies of worship in the great majority of the parishes of 
 the land. Talk about the danger of introducing extrav- 
 agancies in the Churcli of Cod, when the great mass of 
 people in this country are devoted body and soul to the 
 worship of Manmion, and when they consider so much as 
 is given to God as so much lost I 1 am not afraid of ex- 
 
174 
 
 travaganoiessomuch as I am afraid of the spirit of infideli- 
 ty ; I am afraid of this want of confidence in their ap- 
 pointed pastors. I am afraid of these things, and I do 
 say that there is nothing more important for us to guard 
 against than unnecessarily disturbing the confidence and 
 unsettling the minds of the simple-hearted people who 
 worship God in sincerity and truth all over the land. 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven, of Wisconsin :— I would like to 
 make a few remarks about the report of the minority. 
 The first point to which I wish to call the attention of 
 the House is an assumption there is in it which is calcu- 
 lated to convey at least a wrong impression. It is said 
 in one of the resolutions "that this Convention affection- 
 ately urges upon all who have to do with the ordering of 
 the appointments of public worship that they abide by 
 the traditions and ceremonies of this American Church ; 
 that none other than the ' clerical habits' known to our 
 fathers, and referred to by the House of Bishops at the 
 General Convention of 1814, as appropriate to ministers 
 ofiiciating in the congregations, ' bands, gowns, and sur- 
 plices,' with their customary appendages, cassocks and 
 black stoles be provided." Now, the impression which 
 that resolution gives to the puljlic is that in the year 1814, 
 the House of Bishops made some resolutions on the sub- 
 ject of the clerical vestments. It is not so at all. There 
 came up to the House of Bishops a question as to whether 
 lay-readers should wear any clerical vestments ; and the 
 House of Bishops decided that it was impi'oper for lay- 
 readers to wear certain clerical vestments, and they 
 mentioned certain clerical vestments which they thought 
 improper for lay -readers to wear, and those are simply 
 bands, gowns, or surplices. They mentioned them as 
 clerical vestments, not as a complete list of clerical vest- 
 ments, for there is nothing said about either stole or 
 cassock. What 1 want to say is this : the House of 
 Bishops was not intending to give a catalogue of clerical 
 vestments. I feel exceedingly glad that this minority 
 did refer to 1814, because it gives me an opportunity of 
 reading what occurs in the House of Bishops immediate- 
 ly under this matter. [The speaker then read an ex- 
 tract to the elTect that the House of Bishops thought it 
 expedient to make the declaration and requested the 
 concurrence of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 therein, that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America is the same body heretofore 
 known in these States by the name of the Church of 
 England.] 
 ' Rev. Dr. Stubbs, .of New Jersey : — I wish to make a 
 few remarks, to call attention as briefly as I can to a few 
 general principles and views derived from the history 
 of the past. We read in the Book of Genesis that 
 the old patriarch Jacob manifested his love for his 
 youngest child by clothing him with a coat of many 
 colors ; that his brethren envied him this gift of parental 
 love, and finding him in the field, far from home they 
 stripped him of his coat of many colors, steeped it in 
 blood, and with a refinement of cruelty sent it to their 
 
 venerable father, and said to him, " See if this be thy 
 son's coat." Let us begin, sir, as my time is short, 
 from the day when Augustine went on his mission to 
 England. He attempted to bring the British Church 
 into perfect conformity with the Church of Rome. Con- 
 trary to the advice of the great Gregory who had a 
 larger mind and a larger heart, the result of that meas- 
 ure was the destruction of those Welsh Bishops and the 
 supremacy of Rome in Britain. As we come further 
 down in history, we come to the days of the Reforma- 
 tion. What was the policy of Archbishop Cranmer. I 
 have no special reverence for Archbishop Cranmer's 
 memory, but he was a man nevertheless of large and 
 comprehensive mind, and he knew he could not be the 
 means of reforming that Church unless he comprehend- 
 ed in it large classes of opinions, views, and feeUngs. 
 We all know from the articles of religion and from the 
 liturgy, he endeavored not only to keep the Roman 
 Catholic Church, but also to bring in the Lutherans and 
 the Reformed Protestants abroad. What was the policy rt>* 
 
 of Aretrfai shop Cjanat er-? You know what his policy r/^**^ T 
 was. In the seven articles he was determined that that 
 diversity should not exist ; he was determined to bring 
 the Church to one color, and that color was blood. 
 What was the policy of Mary ? The same. What was 
 the policy of Elizabeth ? A larger scheme, yet some- 
 what contracted. If we come down to the days of 
 Charles I., we find there Archbishop Laud, endeavoring 
 with all his talents, all his large heart, bigoted though 
 you, call him, endeavoring to introduce a varied cere- 
 mony in the Church. What was the policy of the Purit- 
 ans against Archbishop Laud ? It was this coat of rigid 
 uniformity, and that coat was dipped in the blood of that 
 martyr. Now, let us come down to the days of Charles 
 II. Why was it that the large class of Puritans as they 
 were called were driven from the Church? How did it 
 happen that men like Baxter and men of his school were 
 kept out of the communion of the Church ? It was ow- 
 ing to the same narrow policy. The rulers of that day 
 in Church and State had not largeness of mind enough 
 to comprehend these men in the Church, and they were 
 di iven out of it ; and from that time to this the schism 
 has not been healed. If the Church's coat was not 
 steeped in blood we know it was rent in twain. 
 Reference has been made to the days of the House of 
 Hanover. There you see the same narrow-minded 
 course pursued. The consequence was the banishment 
 of the Wesleys, and thousands and tens of thousands of 
 their followers, all of whom could have been kept in the 
 Church if the rules of the Church had been comprehen- 
 sive enough to embrace them all in the Church's fold. 
 M^esley never meant to desert his mother church. I 
 have no particular reverence to that man, because after 
 all, he was schismatic in heart. But he could have been 
 kept in the Church if there had been a disposition to al- 
 low her coat to be of many colors. From that day to 
 this there always has been the same result j wherever 
 
173 
 
 you have made the attempt to insist upou rigid uniform- 
 ity, there has been schism or thero has been blood. In 
 the formation of the Chureh in this country the same 
 comprehensive scheme was carried out ; it was the 
 scheme of our great and venerable, if he may be so call- 
 ed, Bishop White. It was the desire to comprehend as 
 far as he could all within the Church's fold ; and h<'nce 
 from the beginning there was no attempt at all made to 
 legislate upon this matter of vestments. His policy must 
 be our policy. We are living in a large country. If 
 we were legislating simply for the interests of one par- 
 ticular State, or one small island, then you nii;jht talk of 
 making laws to insist upon uniformity in minor matters ; 
 but we are living in a country in which there arc dis- 
 tinct nationalities; we are living in a country of every 
 variety of clime and soil ; and it is utterly impossible to 
 legislate for this country upon a scheme of rigid unifor- 
 mity. It is a small thing for us in the City of New 
 York to attempt a set of rules to answer for this grand 
 country extending over so many degrees of latitude and 
 embracing men of every clime, nation, and tongue. 
 Once more in reference to this Convention, 1 say it will 
 make a fatal mistake if it attempts to pass any laws 
 which it cannot enforce, and that it is not the province 
 of this Convention to pass these regulations; it must be 
 left to the different dioceses. 
 
 Dr. Andrews :— I do not rise to make a speech of 
 ten minutes or of five minutes — and had I followed my 
 own judgment should have made none at all, for three 
 reasons, first, my unwillingness to raise a (Jassandra-like 
 voice amidst your felicitations, to which we have listened 
 in so many reports and speeches ; second, the impossi- 
 bility of submitting in your way an argument upon so 
 momentous a subject (more so beyond all comparison 
 than any which has ever come before us fi'ora the be- 
 ginning) within the space of ten minutes, which would 
 be worth listening to. As for example in the report of 
 the Russo-Greek communication which we have heard 
 and passed with such rapidity, there was condensed 
 more partiality in statement and fallacy in argument 
 than could have been adequately replied to in ten hours. 
 But especially do 1 hesitate to speak lest when snme of 
 the most precious interests of the Church are trembling 
 in the scale, any prejudice should spring up either sec- 
 tional, ecclesiastical, or personal, through which injury 
 instead of good should result to a cause which I am so 
 anxious to promote. 
 
 But sin(^e a justification of ritualism has been attempt- 
 ed by citing- alleged deficiencies of order m Virginia and 
 Ohio, I must answer to the first as Dr. Burr has already 
 answered to the second. The clerical deputy from New 
 York tirlls of the difference fifty years ago between Vir- 
 ginia and old Trinity in this city, but that difference was 
 as the dust in the balance when compared with the dif- 
 ference between old Trinity and itetD Trinrty. Old 
 Trinity had an honest table, spoken of in the homilies re- 
 quired by the Church. New Trinity a solid altar, like 
 
 that with super altar and candles in presence of which 
 we have been sitting for three weeks. Again, sir, my at- 
 tention has been called to a recent plea for Ritualism 
 in which as an offset to folly it was said that a Bishop in 
 a neighboring diocese (meaning Virginia) went into 
 the chancel throwing whip and hat upon the communion 
 table, or some other act of irreverence. In an acquaint- 
 ance of forty years with the diocese, I never heard of 
 anything of the sort, and the Bishop himself assures me 
 it is a slander; and can it be upon information of this 
 sort that the report of the majority winds up with a see- 
 saw resolution, coming down with greater force upon the 
 heads of those opposed to the Ritualists than upon the 
 Ritualists themselves. This is its language, * * » — 
 " The avoidance of the dangers of irreverence and law- 
 lessness on the one hand " — (intended to apply to some 
 who are opposed to Ritualism — nobody knows who — ) 
 " and of extravagance and superstition on the other.'' 
 Now sir which do you imagine to be the greater offence 
 — irreverence and lawlessness, or extravagance and super- 
 stition ? What is your opinion V And is this the re- 
 port which conservative men of the Church are called 
 upon to vote for ? We asked for bread and they have 
 given us a stone. Could I believe, sir, that this is all 
 that can now be obtained — that after such prompt and 
 vigorous discipline exercised here for a ti'ivial and 
 doubtful offence, no justice could be had upon such 
 abominations as are exhibited without rebuke in St 
 Alban's, I would go home with a heavier heart than 
 ever before during a connection of twenty years with 
 the councils of this church- 
 
 I can do no more than in the name of the oldest as it 
 is one of the largest and most conservative dioceses, en- 
 ter my solemn and indignant protest against Ritualism 
 in the only form in which it is now competent to enter 
 it — and that is by voting for the report and resolution 
 of the minority, instead of those of the majority. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin. — I begin with saying there are 
 two reasons for which I might feel myself called upon to 
 speak — one to deliver my own soul, and another to en- 
 deavor to attain some practical end. I have endeavored 
 to deliver my own soul outside of this Convention; but 
 I cannot sit here and hear the position of the minority 
 report misrepresented, as it seems to me to be misrepre- 
 sented, not intentionally of course. I rise to speak with 
 very much of the feeling of my reverend brother who 
 has spoken before me. I feel it is a most important, in- 
 deed a vital question. It is represented to us as if this 
 was just like the former times, when improvements were 
 made in matters connected with our public worship. 
 Who ever objected to those improvements? Who ever 
 made those improvements a battle-cry. There were 
 omissions in those times. Did men form a party to carry 
 out those omissions, and make them the law of the 
 Church? If tliere were additions made by this and that 
 man out of his mere whim and taste, I should think it 
 scarcely becoming the dignity of this Convention to pro- 
 
176 
 
 test against it. I think tho case is clearly enough before 
 us that there is a thing that all the world knows exists 
 in the Church. It is useless to pretend that it is the 
 whim of this or that man. It is a fact known in this 
 world that there is a great revolutionary movement at- 
 tempted, and here and there are the signs and symptoms 
 of the movement. It is not a mere sporadic case; it is 
 a revolutionary movement. The misrepresentation is 
 upon another point — that this is a movement of intoler- 
 ance. We have had here speech upon speech against 
 intolerance, and against attempting by law to enforce 
 uniformity. Nothing of the sort has been proposed. 
 There is nothing here intolerant. If you will read those 
 resolutions it is a statement of opinion in one case, and 
 an affectionate representation in another case, and so on 
 as expressing the mind of this Convention. What I feel 
 most concerned about here is, not that a Church may 
 be got up with here and there considerable ritualism 
 which may carry a few into the Church of Rome (I be- 
 lieve they will go there when they have got on the track 
 so far) but it is that while a hundred may go to the 
 Church of Rome, being educated into this thing, and 
 finding it there in its perfection, thousands and tens of 
 thousands will be hindered from coming into this fold of 
 Christ's Church. There it is that I stand, and there I 
 make my earnest appeal to the conservative men of this 
 Convention, to those who love the Church in its prosper- 
 ity, that they will let the world know that what is alleged 
 to be the tendency and condition of this Church is not 
 true. That is what I ask; it is the appeal that I make 
 with all the earnestness I have; and I should go home 
 with sadness upon my heart, if this Convention is not 
 ready, if there are not conservative, moderate, earnest 
 churchmen enough to tell the world that we are not gone 
 with the extreme ritualists as alleged; and I should feel 
 relieved and thank God with all my heart if something 
 of this sort could be done. I say it is not intolerance; 
 it is affectionate advice ; it is the expression of an opin- 
 ion which will go out before the world, an appeal to the 
 conscience of every minister of this Church. But his 
 liberty is not impaired ; it is not proposed to impair that 
 liberty. I did not intend to make a speech, but did wish 
 to correct this repeated charge of intolerance, and to 
 make this earnest appeal. 
 
 Rev. C. C. PiNCKNEY. — The very effort to discuss the 
 comparative merits of these two reports necessarily has 
 brought us down to these small, and low, and childish 
 measures, while we have left out of view the doctrines 
 of this Church involved in this movement, and the at- 
 tempt against the doctrines symbolized by this. If it 
 was merely a question of surplices or the absence of sur- 
 plices, I should refuse to say any thing in this matter; 
 but these are merely superficial — the occasion of those 
 erroneous and strange doctrines which every minister of 
 God deprecates. I trust that I can tolerate difference of 
 opinion. Many of my hearers and most esteemed friends 
 are men from whom I differ very much on all the promi- 
 
 nent doctrines — men who belong to the other wing of the 
 Church. I am willing to yield to others the right to speak 
 for themselves. I desire no rigid uniformity. But when- 
 ever doctrines are introduced into the Church, or at- 
 tempted to be introduced, which I believe to be funda- 
 mentally opposed to the truth and the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, and inconsistent with the very existence of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, I am bound as a minister 
 of that Protestant Episcopal Church to lift up my voice 
 against it, and by all honest and fair means to do what 
 I can to resist it and drive it from the Church of God — 
 the Church to which I belong, the Church in which all 
 my ancestors have belonged and have lived and died. 
 We are members of a re-united Church. On every side 
 I have heard in this Convention sentiments which have 
 made my heart rejoice, and the right hand ot fellowship 
 has been extended to me by brethren from the East, and 
 the West, and the North, and the South. We represent 
 a united Church. That is the reason why I am so ear- 
 nestly opposed to these ritualistic innovations, because 
 they will surely prove an entering wedge which will 
 rend asunder this Church. If we desire to maintain 
 peace and unity we must drive .iway those erroneous 
 and strange doctrines upon which Christians differ so 
 widely that it is impossible to live in peace and harmony 
 together if they are entertained and held. The resolu- 
 tions of the minority seem to me to condemn them per- 
 haps as strongly as it is wise for this Church now to do. 
 I do not ask legislation, but an expression of opinion. 
 Let it go forth that the moral weight of this Convention 
 is against these things, and that we do think they are 
 contrary to the acknowledged discipline and worship 
 prescribed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States — that they are contrary to the doctrine 
 and established history of the Church of England ever 
 since the retbrmation. And does not history teach us 
 that from the third century, when these things began to 
 be introduced into the Church, they were the cause or 
 the effect of corruption of doctrine in worship and prac- 
 tice ? Does not experience testify that they have been 
 evil, and only evil continually '! Thank God that there 
 is a revival of interest in the worship of the Church. 
 It seems to me that the arguments which have been used 
 with reference to neglect of the Church in days past ap- 
 plied as strongly to one wing as the other. It is not just 
 to go against one portion of the Church. It is not just 
 to bring against one portion those things which the 
 Church was compelled to wink at. I beg the members 
 of this Convention to consider whether we can not upon 
 such general principles and practices harmonize in our 
 ways so that we may all unite as brethren of a great 
 Church, and go on advancing on our paths of usefulnes.s, 
 prosperity, purity, and peace. I must say that my ex- 
 perience differs from that of the delegate from Delaware. 
 He says he has never seen any thing which showed any 
 departure from our worship. I have. I don't speak of 
 St. Alban's. I have seen that in many Episcopal 
 
177 
 
 Churches in the last two or three months, which forbade 
 my worshipping in peace and comfort there, and that I 
 must be compelled to decline to take part in their mode 
 of worship if they expected me to conform to what I 
 considered their unlawful observances. There is difJer- 
 ence of worship creeping into the Church, and here is 
 an opportunity to do something to check it and restrain 
 it, and endeavor to produce that uniformity in Christian 
 worship, which will also indicate that unity of doctrine 
 and faith which will make us what we desire to be — one 
 heart, one mind, one united Protestant Episcopal Church 
 — desiring to maintain the truths which our ancestors 
 have transmitted to our care, and which I trust in God 
 we may have grace and wisdom to communicate to those 
 who may come after. 
 
 Rev. C. B. Wyatt, of California. — When all has 
 been said and done, will we not be likely to find that 
 the one common ground is that which has been recom- 
 mended in each report, referring the whole authority in 
 matters of ritual .is of old to the ordinary. It would be 
 found immediately that resolutions which were to go into 
 particulars with respect to this matter could not be made 
 thorough enough to answer the purpose, even though it 
 were only the subject of the ritual that we teach; but if 
 it go beyond, as suggested by the reverend gentleman 
 who has taken his seat, and we attempt to rule also as to 
 matters of doctrine, there would be no end of such leg- 
 islation. It has been shown already that a resolution like 
 those proposed would not be strong enough to bring a 
 clergyman to trial thereunder for any breach of such a 
 resolution. That has already been shown. I believe 
 were it a canon that we now proposed to make, it might 
 be equally ineffective. Suppose a clergyman brought 
 into an attitude of collision with his bishop on this sub- 
 ject; it is for the bishop after all to interpret and under- 
 stand those resolutions. I call the attention of gentle- 
 men to the ordination vows which we all take, and which 
 every clergyman regards as solemn and as bindin" as 
 any vow he can make. To what does the ordination 
 vow pledge our bishops? To the canons and rules of 
 this Convention ? It will be found that the only refer- 
 ence to such canons is as they designate the supreme 
 authority to whom we owe obedience; and that last 
 vow is simply that we will always render obedience 
 to the constituted authority set over us, and follow their 
 godly admonitions. Let it be supposed for argument's 
 sake that we might have a fanatical bishop — one disposed 
 to override all the sentiments of his people — who should 
 prohibit every clergyman from bowing at the announce- 
 ment of the holy name of our Lord and Master in re- 
 citing the Creed, I would have every clergyman in that 
 diocese humbly and readily obey the bishop in that; it 
 would be better for the discipline of the mind, and better 
 for the order of the Church throughout the land that 
 they should thus humbly and quietly obey the bishop. 
 It would be better for that bishop, rather than that the 
 practice of his clergy should differ from his recommend- 
 
 23 
 
 ation, that he should go to his private devotions thinkin; 
 that every clergyman in his dioceso had refrained fron. 
 doing what the emotion of their hearts prompted and 
 the teachings of their faith had inclined them to — had 
 refrained simply because compelled by him. Before he 
 had passed the night-watches he would be a better bishop. 
 
 It would be perfectly impracticable to enforce any 
 rule of this kind so as to secure anj' thing like good order 
 throughout the country. Let the authority in this matter 
 rest where constitutionally by the laws and regulations 
 of this Church it now rests. No man who understands 
 what is meant by the Episcopal Church can challenge 
 that position. Demonstrate that this responsibility rests 
 with the bishop — that for every departure from the regular 
 order of the Church in that diocese the bishop is respon- 
 sible — and then it remains only that our Right Reverend 
 Fathers in Council assembled shall agree among them- 
 selves as to what liberty is to be allowed to ensure such 
 a degree of uniformity throughout the dioceses, and ter- 
 ritories, and jurisdictions in the United States as may be 
 compatible with the doctrine, and worship, and discipline 
 of the Church. And more than that no good man 
 desires. 
 
 Rev. Dr. F. D. Hdntington, of Massachusetts : — We 
 are gradually approaching a vote on this question. 
 But the way is not clear. What is it precisely that 
 we propose to do by that vote V Undoubtedly our par- 
 ticular business here is legislation. Are we asked then, 
 by either of the two reports lying before us, to perform 
 a legislative act V On the contrary, it is not presumed, 
 in any quarter, that the adoption of either one of these 
 reports will havt the force of law, will control any- 
 body's mind, or regulate anybody's practice. In fact 
 one of them expressly affirms that the enactment of any 
 canon at present on the subject of ritual would be "un- 
 wise and inexpedient." We are therefore not only about 
 to effect nothing in the way of creating an obligation, or 
 bringing about a practical result, but the resolutions do 
 not even contemplate any measure at all ; they do not 
 so much as initiate an investigation, or raise a committee 
 of inquiry or consultation. Certainly we are not expect- 
 ed in this House to issue a theological treatise, or to 
 originate a rubric. All we shall do by adopting either 
 of the reports is to express an opinion. We shall notify 
 the world outside what we, a number of individual cler- 
 gymen and laymen, enough of us to make up a majority 
 on this particular day of this particular year, think about 
 ritual. The ground is made narrower yet. For we are 
 obliged to say what we think, on a matter so vast, 
 so complicated, so far-reaching, involving so much 
 careful scholarship and so much discriminating thought, 
 — in one of two prepared documents brought in here, 
 the one by a majority and the other by a minority of 
 the Committee on Canons. It is no disparagement of 
 their authors, or of the excellent language they have 
 chosen in the composition of those i)apers, if we hesitate 
 to take just these words, and all of them, and no other, 
 
178 
 
 for the utterance of our individual opinion — of what we 
 think, or opine — even on the external habits of Chris- 
 tian worsliip. There is a great difference between the 
 compact terms of canon law and the more diffuse con- 
 tents of declaratory statements, largely rhetorical, like 
 these. If the members of the House consider it com- 
 patible with its dignity, or what they were sent here 
 for, to issue to the public some inefficient generally of 
 this sort, necessarily leaving the whole condition just 
 as it was before, I am sure 1 shall interpose no objection, 
 although for my own part I would rather have nothing 
 to do with it. 
 
 If, however, being shut up to these two declarations, 
 I am obliged to say what I think in the words of one of 
 them, then — though I really have no idea that the pub- 
 lic cares a straw what my opinion is — I must choose 
 that one which most nearly expresses my own mind. 
 In both the reports I find some things with which I 
 heartily agree, and other things which do not commend 
 themselves to my judgment as well. Let us come to the 
 vital point. It is found especially in the fourth resolu- 
 tion of the minority repoi t, and I confine myself to that. 
 The resolution reads as follows : 
 
 "Resnlved, That in the judgment of this Convention, 
 the House of Bishops concurring — the burning of lights 
 in the order for the Holy Communion, the burning of 
 incense, reverences to the holy table, or to the eleaients 
 thereon, the elevation of the elements, making the sign 
 of the cross, except when prescribed in the Rubric in 
 and during divine service, or the celebration of the 
 Lord't iSupper, are innovations on our mode of conduct- 
 in<T public worship, offend against the common order of 
 the Chiirch, and wound the consciences of many of its 
 true and loving members." 
 
 Now I like that very well, because it speaks out 
 frankly and plainly, saying just what is meant to be 
 said, and giving us something palpable and tangible. 
 In place of this, I find in the majority report, on the 
 third page, an elaborate sentence, drawn with painstak- 
 ing and evident deliberation, aiming apparently to inti- 
 mate something good, without quite saying it. I think I 
 understand what it is that is not said ; but whether I 
 know what is intimated, I am not so sure. The lan- 
 gua^e of the minority resolution is preferable to me, be 
 cause on the special point where we can be expected to 
 utter any opinion to any purpose whatever, it is explicit. 
 Trying to make my practice accord with my thinking, 
 in my parochial ministration, I find myself always omit- 
 ting, as a matter of course, because I think they ought 
 to be omitted, all these things mentioned. And so, 
 being called upon to express an opinion here, I want to 
 express it in some definite form of words ; that is, to say 
 something, and not merely to seem to say something 
 under the disguise of a handsome circumlocution. 
 
 It would be easy to give rea.sons for this opinion. 
 What is affirmed, in the last part of the resolution, of 
 the practices specified, appears to me to be an obvious 
 truth, without exaggeration, and undeniaUe. Besides 
 all those practices, as 1 beheve without the least 
 
 doubt, (unless the first be an exception) sustain an 
 objectionable relation to a syst'em of "erroneous and 
 strange doctrine." They are of the nature of symbols. 
 Symbols are as truly a part of language or expression 
 as words are, and sometimes far more effective. They 
 are signs of thought and feeling. Visible acts and 
 things made a part of Divine Service in the Church of 
 God, enter into the sphere of the Ecclena docens, 
 and the authority of the Church is responsible for them. 
 I know very well that it is denied that these acts enu- 
 merated do symbolize false doctrine. I would judge no 
 man's mind, and by no means coerce or restrain any 
 man's lawful liberty, in respect to all those variations in 
 worship which do not touch one or other of the three 
 great universal notes and essentials of the Church Catho- 
 lic, — creed, ministry and sacraments. But we are deal- 
 ing here with opinions, and are required to express our 
 own. It seems to me nugatory and useless to deny thatj 
 taken together — as men will practically take them — 
 these usages are symbolic and by inevitable associa- 
 tions, related to a system of teaching not primitive, not 
 Scriptural, not true. And it is a familiar principle in 
 Christian ethics that in estimating things morally, we 
 must take them in their relations as well as in them- 
 selves. 
 
 [What is wanted, unquestionably, above all else, in 
 this vexed subject, is that the Church, in her wisdom, 
 should draw a fixed line between those ritual customs 
 which do and those which do not signify error of doc- 
 truie ; for then many harmless things which the popular 
 mind now confounds with evils forbidden would be 
 cleared of the complication, and would be done, if at all, 
 with an honest conscience, while other things, beyond 
 that line, could then be resisted with a united front, and 
 with tenfold power, because with confidence and by au- 
 thority. No such line is yet formally drawn ; no such 
 stake, beyond which "tendencies" must not go, is yet 
 set ; and meantime we must decide and act, each for 
 himself, with the Prayer Book in his hand, with due def- 
 erence to the ordinary's direction, and to the "common 
 order." For one, I have no question on which side of 
 such a line, in a true directory, these practices enumera- 
 ted in the resolution, would be found to lie.j 
 
 Another reason why the matters mentioned in this 
 fourth resolution seem proper to be mentioned as they 
 are, is that they do not, as I conceive, belong to us as a 
 reformecl branch of the Church, — the Reformed Catho- 
 lic Church if you please, — but reformed. There was a 
 reformation. It had a history and documents. There 
 were reforming men. Those men comprehended, I 
 think, the whole issuse which drained the blood out of 
 their veins and burnt up their bodies. They knew the 
 system they fought against, in the struggle that cost such 
 trrand martyrdoms. They were scholars as well as he- 
 roes, and knew the doctrine and worship of the early 
 Church, at least as well as we know it. They knew it 
 well enough to overthrow the Romish assumptions and 
 
179 
 
 the Tridentine doctors, in the historical argument. Now, 
 as I read (he records of that Reformation, in tlie succes- 
 sive revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, in the 
 Royal Injunctions, in the Articles of Visitation, in the 
 biographies of the men and their grand debates with 
 both Papist and Puritan, all along from 1534 to the 
 days of James, it becomes plain enough to me that these 
 practices here mentioned were among the things which, 
 on the whole, the Anglican Reformers meant to put 
 away ; that while they were never mistaken for the 
 false doctrine of the Sacrament to which they pointed, 
 they were seen to have such relations to it that if that 
 doctrine was to be rejected these accompaniments and 
 signs must go with it; that, gradual and irregular as the 
 progress of purification was, it was as clearly Protestant 
 in respect to these external signs as it was primitive and 
 comprehensive in respect to all its positive and Catholic 
 principles; that it involved in its whole character and 
 import the removal from the Church of both the outward 
 and the inward part of that dogma of Transubstantia- 
 tion which had no place or appearance in it before the 
 eighth century, and no sanction of Council till the last 
 Lateran, early in the thirteenth. Nor can it be claimed 
 that the subsequent history of the English Church, 
 making full allowance for the known distinction between 
 Parish Churches on the one hand and Cathedral and 
 Collegiate Churches on the other, leads to any different 
 conclusion, — as the recent decisions of the ecclesiastical 
 courts and commission, including that of Sir R. Philli- 
 more, will show. Not all the matters here reprehended 
 are there prohibited ; nor are the English decisions a 
 final rule for our Church in this country. But the 
 principle is fairly recognized. And the "common or- 
 der" of the American Church hitherto is a testimony 
 still more conclusive. [Were there space for it, I should 
 be glad to give some completeness to these observations 
 by referring briefly to other reasons, as that the inno- 
 vations in question do very extensively and unhealthily 
 agitate the minds of our people ; that, for the present 
 they intensify needlessly the prejudices that oppose us 
 without, preventing hundreds from seriously examinin"- 
 the claims of our Church on their belief and acceptunce, 
 while they do not move Rome towards us a jot ; that 
 they create suspicion and distrust in considerable num- 
 bers of the laity, cooling their zeal, checking their lib- 
 erahty and reducing — unreasonably as 1 think, — the 
 treasuries of some of our noblest and purest charities ; 
 that they aggravate party-divisions; that they disturb 
 sometimes the simplicity and cordiality of that tie be- 
 tween the Pastor and his flock which is the blessed con- 
 dition of half our prosperity ; that they draw ofi' the 
 attention and the conversation of thousands among us 
 too much not only from the weightier matters of the 
 law but from the graces of Christian spirituality, from 
 the fundamental realities of a holy character and the 
 disciple's personal communion with Christ his Saviour 
 dwelling in his heart by faith ; that they diffuse through 
 
 our congregations a too prevalent atmosphere of criti- 
 cism, conjecture, gossip and fault finding, one way and 
 another, on things which, after all that can be claimed 
 lor them, pertain assuredly rather to the manners than 
 to the inward life and power of the Body of our Lord 
 and the Everlasting Faith. It is the distinctive ideas of 
 the Church, — her doctrine, her truth, her Churchly 
 work, her humane and merciful activities, her training 
 and her ministries, that need our chief concern and our 
 loyal, enthusiastic, united support. With a worthy con- 
 sciousness of her Divine commission just as she is, and 
 of the boundless capacities of blessing that lie undevel- 
 oped in her breast and in her hands, and with a more 
 reverential and cordial use of the rich resources of lit- 
 urgical impression and common worship thai are con- 
 tained in her system and sanctioned by her rubrics, who 
 can measure the religious influence and the moral glory 
 of her history in the years to come ? ] 
 
 Mr. Fairbanks, of Tennessee : — I think there is a 
 large body of conservative Churchmen in this Conven- 
 tion who desire to^act upon this question according to the 
 best light, and who desire moreover to do nothing in rei- 
 erence to this question which will in any way jeopar- 
 dize or endanger the interests of the Church. It seems 
 to me that the Committee on Canons have departed 
 from their uniform conservative character. After they 
 have reported upon the question that they deem it inex- 
 pedient to pass any canon, they then go on with a dec- 
 laration on the subject ; and I think the declaration of the 
 majority is as objectionable as the resolutions of the mi- 
 nority, for both are declarations in certain directions. 
 I believe it would be more sat isl'actory to the large body 
 of this Church, if that portion of the resolution which 
 they. introduce on the third page were stricken out after 
 the words " would be unwise and inexpedient," down to 
 the words " that in all matters doubtful, for the avoid- 
 ance of unseemly disputes and contradictory practices, 
 which tend neither to good name nor to godliness, ref- 
 erence should be made to the Ordinary, and no changes 
 should be made against the godly counsel and judgment 
 of the Bishop." I think that would be in accordance 
 with the general conservative character of this Church, 
 that it is inexpedient to enact a canon or make a decla- 
 ration. Leave the matter in the hands of the respective 
 Bishops for them to regulate under the sense of respon- 
 sibility. I think this view of it would be far more satisfac- 
 tory to the great majority. There is an agitation of Ritu- 
 alism'which we can not ignore ; but whence does it 
 come ? I venture to add that if you would suppress the 
 Church newspapers, you would suppress nine-tenths of 
 the agitation. The agitation comes from these great 
 centres — Philadelphia and New I'ork. Go down into 
 South-western or North-western dioceses and you find 
 Churchmen are too busy to attend to Ritualism. They 
 are busy drawing in the chddren, carrying on their 
 rightful business and avocations ; and they are not en- 
 tering into this discussion. It seems to me that un- 
 
180 
 
 due importance is given ^to the subject — that a single 
 parish in one of the leading States is able at present 
 to set the whole country on fire by some peculiar usage 
 in that Cburch. The other day 1 saw in a leading 
 newspaper of the Episcopal Church, a statement to 
 show that the thing was spreading, and it named 
 how many churches — three : one in the city of New 
 York, one in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and a little affair 
 in the diocese which I represent — Tennessee. If the first 
 two have no more significance or importance than the 
 third, I would say that this Convention is wasting its 
 time miserably iu giving any attention whatever to so 
 small a matter. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Spaulding, of Pittsburgh — moved to 
 amend the report of the minority by striking out the 
 second and third resolutions. He did not see that they 
 added anything to the force of the report, and thought 
 that they were objectionable to some members of the 
 House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pincknet, of Maryland : — The catholicity 
 of the Church causes me to tremble on the threshold of 
 any such discussion as has occupied us. It was made to 
 be the home of all ; and I think we ought to pause and 
 calmly consider before we adopt any course of action 
 which would have a tendency to unfit the body to be 
 the home ot all. It seems to me I must choose one or 
 the other of those reports ; and I share very much the 
 views expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts. 
 It is a mere proclamation of opinion, and I would vast- 
 ly prefer not to be called upon to express my own indi- 
 vidual opinion in a body where I have an oflBcial posi- 
 tion. I do not myself approve of burning lights or in- 
 cense, or of reverence to the elements on the altar. It 
 seems to me, however, that with pre-eminent caution 
 and wisdom, the majority have met the difficulty, for 
 they declare that " so far as may be, steadfast adherence 
 to such vestments, ceremonies, practices, and ornaments, 
 as, by reason of long-continued use or by authority, are 
 recognized as properly belonging to this Church, avoid- 
 ing errors, either by excess or by defect." My objection 
 to the fourth resolution ofl'ered by the minority is that 
 while they have eyes to see defects on one side, there 
 is nothing whatever said of the defects on the other 
 side. I have rejoiced in being permitted to serve 
 the altars of the Church according to my honest convic- 
 tions of what is due to the Church and the people over 
 whom I have been placed, without being called upon to 
 express any opinion or invoke any discipline on eithei^side 
 of the extremes. I have only to speak by report; I have 
 never been where things are practised that I deem 
 wrong. If we are to vote and elect between these two, 
 the report of the majority comes as nearly to the point 
 as is possible. I should be sorry to vote against the mi- 
 nority because then it would seem I was voting against 
 an expression of my personal opinion. The bill of in- 
 dictment is so indefinite I should not like to express an 
 opinion about it. I hope if we are compelled to adopt 
 either, we shall take the majority report. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Dashiell, of Maryland : — hoped the whole 
 matter would be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 Rev. Wra. C. Williams, of Georgia : — It seems to 
 me we ought to pause. We cannot regulate this mat- 
 ter by canons, still less by resolutions. All our laws 
 so far as these matters are concerned must be in the 
 rubrics or they are null and void. If you adopt your 
 resolutions what will be the effect ? Will any man who 
 is in the habit of adopting these things condemned in 
 both reports, cease them ? We all know perfectly well 
 that no man will change at all when he claims that he 
 is right, and that he does it from conscientious motives. 
 If gentlemen are ready to act, let us put it in the Prayer- 
 Book ; make your rubrics, and then you can say to a 
 man. You shall not transcend the laws of the Church. 
 Until this Church is prepared to make her rubrics, it 
 seems to me strange to be sending forth resolutions ab- 
 solutely worthless. I have no sympathy with any move- 
 ments of the sort. In the diocese which I have the 
 honor to represent, we know nothing of such practices, 
 and we expect to know nothing. These matters must 
 be regulated if at all by the dioceses in which these 
 practices are found. Pass your resolution to-day, and 
 what willjbe the efl'ect in the Diocese of New York ? Will 
 it give peace ? or restrain any man ? Not at all. I there- 
 fore second the resolution to postpone. 
 
 Mr. Wm. Cornwall, of Kentucky : — The reverend 
 gentleman from South Carolina, put the true question 
 first ; it is a question of doctrine. If it is a question of 
 doctrine, my judgment is that the canon which 
 was passed at this session and to-day ratified by the 
 House of Bishops, is sufficient to regulate that great 
 and important subject. If it be a question of rites and 
 ceremonies I should concur with the report of the mi- 
 nority, even in the fourth resolution, with the exception 
 made by the Rev. Dr. from Massachusetts. But there 
 are decisions in the English Courts, which I under- 
 stand go against the spirit of this resolution. There is 
 one exception; I believe it to be improper to burn any in- 
 cense but when the sacrifice was which typified the 
 great sacrifice. T think that this Convention should 
 hesitate before deciding unlawful the things which have 
 been decided lawful in the English Courts. Then, while 
 I cordially adopt the entire report of the minority of the 
 committee — and they do not differ from the majority so 
 far as I can see except in the enumeration in the fourth 
 resolution — while I adopt it entirely, yet there are 
 statements in it which I could not subscribe to as being 
 true, and therefore would not vote for them under any 
 circumstances unless I had the privilege of claiming that 
 rites and ceremonies should not be in all ages alike. 
 We know from the scripture that the first ritual was 
 that the passover should be eaten with the staff in hand, 
 all ready for the journey, and everything as if the people 
 were in haste. We know our Lord kept the passover 
 with the staff in hand but reclining. There is an in- 
 stance that rites and ceremonies, need not be always 
 
1«1 
 
 alike. Our thirty -fourth article says : "It is not necessary 
 that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or 
 utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and 
 may be changed according to the diversity' oC countries, 
 times, and men's manners, so that nothing be oi dained 
 against God's word." 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare — said lie did not remember any place 
 in the scripture where the manner of eating the pass- 
 over was made a standing ordinance' for the people of 
 Israel. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall : — I have only to say with reference 
 to that, all the commentators and historians are against 
 my reverend friend. The Israelites ate the passover in 
 haste, and when they entered the promised land, thej ate 
 it reclining. Furthermore they ate it with bread and bitter 
 herbs, but subsequently added the wine ; there is anoth- 
 er change. It was declared that the Israelites should not 
 go uncovered into the presence of the Almighty ; yet 
 St. Paul declares that you shall not be covered in the 
 presence of the Almighty ; that if a man is covered it 
 is wrong, but a woman shall have her hair as a cover- 
 ing. I mention these things to show that the report of 
 the minority is eiToneous in the statement of historical 
 fact. I cannot vote it is true. But if you ask me to 
 vote upon a doctrinal question, I do not know that there 
 would be any difference of opinion between my views 
 and those of the minority. Uoth of these reports con- 
 demn Ritualism. So do I. I should call on the proper 
 authorities of the Church to enforce the discipline and 
 purify the Church. We cannot do it by this Conven- 
 tion, by any resolution. We do not propose to do it. 
 The unmeaning rite or ceremony is nothing ; but the 
 false doctrine tliat is pointed at can not be reached by 
 denying the ceremony. I have heard it from the high- 
 est authority, that there are churches where all the false 
 doctrines of the Roman mass are taught. How can you 
 remove false doctrine by removing some article of fui-ni- 
 ture. I do not think it would be wise in this Conven- 
 tion to go indirectly into that point. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Stringfellow : — 1 have no personal interest 
 whatever in the issues that are at stake, only so far as 
 the good of the Church is concerned. I would prefer 
 that the gentleman should withdraw the motion to lay 
 on the table, that 1 might have the liberty of offering a 
 substitute for the report of both the majority and the 
 minority, in order that the House might distinctly say 
 whether it would meet the wishes of some of them, be 
 cause I am satisfied that there are things in both reports 
 objectionable to many members of the House. There 
 aie things in the majority and the minority reports 
 which I am not willing to vote for. If I am simply 
 compelled to decide detween them, I ^all have to vote 
 for the majority report. If the gentleman will with- 
 draw his motion, I would like to read the substitute. 
 
 The President : — You can otter it as an amendment. 
 
 The proposed substitute was then read. 
 
 On motion the House then adjourned for the day. 
 
 NINETEENTH DAY. 
 
 Wednesday, October 22d, 186H. 
 The House met pursuant to adjournment. 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Rev. Mr. Clarke, of 
 Georgia, and the Rev. Mr. Hanson, of Alabama. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by the Bishop of 
 Iowa. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Mead the House concurred 
 with the action of the House of Bishops in fixing tomor- 
 row evening, 7}^ o'clock, as the time of the closing ser- 
 vices at Calvary Church, corner of 21st street and 
 Fourth Avenue. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, of the Committee on Canons, to 
 whom was referred Message No. 34 from the House of 
 Bishops, repealing the proviso in the last clause of Canon 
 10, Clause 1, Title I., reported a resolution of non-con- 
 currence; which resolution was adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight reported from the same committee 
 a resolution (adopted) against the prayer of a petition 
 that all new dioceses should form their standing commit- 
 tees of an equal number of clergymen and laymen. 
 He said : In regard to this matter I have to observe to 
 the House, as they all very well know, that of late years 
 there has been no deviation whatever from the ordinary 
 practice of forming standing committees in this way, of 
 tour clergymen and four laymen. So far as we know 
 there are but three exceptions — one of the diocese of 
 Connecticut — which has never had a layman in the 
 standing committee from the days of Bishop Seabury 
 down. Their standing committee consists of five clergy- 
 men. The standing committee of the diocese of Mary- 
 land consists of eight clergymen. But as a general rule 
 — I believe universal of late years- — there have been 
 four clergymen and four laymen. The committee do 
 not think it expedient to pass a resolution which might 
 seem to reflect upon those dioceses. There is no evil 
 complained of. The dioceses formed of late years all 
 conform to what is now the general principle. [The 
 resolution was adopted.] 
 
 A resolution from the Committee on Canons with ref- 
 erence to a certain amendment of Canon 14, Section 1, 
 Title 1., was adopted. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Howe the House proceeded to 
 fill the vacancies in the Committee to examine the proof- 
 sheets of the standard Bible; and the House confirmed 
 the nomination of Rev. Dr. Hare and Mr. James Pott. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES. — I propose the following pre- 
 amble and resolution : 
 
 Whereas, The General Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America are 
 fully invested by its Constitution with supreme and in- 
 dependent authority to establish, and in its sole discre- 
 tion from time to time to alter or add to, a Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, administration of the sacraments and other 
 rites and ceremonies of the Church in the United States 
 and to be used therein, with like authority and direction 
 to prescribe, add to, or vaiy any of the rubrics or riiles 
 in respect to such rites and ceremonies, and in tlie exer- 
 cise of such supreme authority is in no way dependent 
 
182 
 
 on or subject to any action or decision of any ecclesias- 
 tical boJy or tribunal in any foreign country ; therefore — 
 Resolved, That in view of such independent authority 
 and effectually to compose any prevailing differences in 
 the Church in the United States and secure its godly 
 quiet, the House of Bishops be and they are hereby re- 
 spectfully requested to submit to the General Convention 
 at its next triennial meeting such form of rubrics or rules 
 in respect to such rites and ceremonies within the limits 
 of a wise tolerance as in their judgment may be neces- 
 sary for conducting the worship of the Church in a de- 
 corous and orderly manner, and in harmony with the es- 
 tablished doctrines and highest interests of the Church. 
 
 I would ask leave to spend a few moments in explaining 
 this, if in order. 
 
 The President.— That is ruled out as a new matter. 
 Mr. RuGGLEs. — I ask to lay this upon the table to be 
 called up. 
 
 The President. — It can not be in order during this 
 session. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh the order of the day was 
 taken up. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock. — Do Itinderstand that the ques- 
 tion of indefinite postponement is now before the House ? 
 (The President. — Yes sir.). I desire to say one word 
 upon the subject. The question now before the House, 
 as 1 understand it, is the indefinite postponement not 
 merely of the minority report, but with that also the re- 
 port called for convenience the majority report of the 
 Committee on Canons. If I understand it, it is proposed, 
 after sundry memorials have been referred to this House, 
 signed by most influential names, after these memorials 
 have been referred to a committee, and after that com- 
 mittee has devoted a very considerable jjortion of its 
 time to this question, after a report has been presented 
 by all that committee save two (the committee consisting 
 of eleven), and after the report of the two has been 
 spoken to, and all remarks immediately bearing upon the | 
 report of the majority have been shut off as out of or- 
 der — it is proposed by this one plan to swamp both re- 
 ports; and because the House may not perchance be 
 pleased with the minority report, to include in it the 
 swamping of both reports, although the majority report 
 has not had a chance to be discussed. It seems that 
 there ought to be good reasons given for such an e.xtra- 
 ordinary course of proceedings. I grant at once that in 
 the rambling arguments — I think they have been such — 
 which we have heard, which have gone over the whole 
 ground, something has been said indirectly touching upon 
 the majority report. We have heard explanations legal, 
 touching the whole question of the English law, which 
 is not once touclied upon in either report directly ; we 
 have had explanations critical offered, touching some of 
 the most difficult and contested passages of Scripture, by 
 some of our most learned laymen ; we have had argu- 
 ments historical, tracing the whole question all the way 
 Irom the Book of Genesis down to the last records of 
 the diocese of Ohio- — every shape of the question from 
 the ritualistic controversy which prompted the brethren 
 of Joseph to strip their poor brother of his vestments. 
 
 We have had all these points brought up; and yet the 
 majority report has not been at all discussed. 
 
 What are we to gain by this convenient resolution 
 which proposes to sink them both out of sight 'i It 
 may be said that there is no need of any report upon the 
 subject. That ought to have been said before we be- 
 gan. It is a sad time, after this Convention has occu- 
 pied two weeks in considering this subject, to claim we 
 do not want to say iftiything about it. After discussing 
 it, it is not worthy of the Convention to withdraw it 
 from the Convention, as if either it could not be touched 
 upon or else the Convention does not think it worthy 
 of any mention, whatsoever. It will do us an immense 
 injury to come up and look this question fairly in the 
 face, and then shrink from it. Our ears will be made 
 to tingle for that this Convention, with a question be- 
 fore it than which there has been no greater in the last 
 generation, has shrunk back from it, and has not a 
 word to say, lest it should produce some ill-feeling. 
 Ought we to fear ill-feeling? \ am sure that the 
 prayers of the Church have been answered, and that the 
 spirit of God has literally rested upon and in the hearts 
 of all the members of this House. I challenge contra- 
 diction when I say that in all the records of debate, 
 there has not been the instance where there has been 
 so wonderfully harmonious and beautiful a spirit prev- 
 alent as in this House during this entire session. We 
 have had answers to prayers, uttered for the control of 
 the Spirit of God. Every man has spoken under the 
 abiding conviction that the Spirit of God was among 
 us, and that we must be careful of the vehemence of 
 our tongues or the earnestness of our hearts. I do not 
 believe that there is a man in this house to-day that has, 
 for one moment, proposed to allow either the earnest- 
 ness of his heart, or the vehemence of his tongue, to 
 lead him into such earnest, vehement, over-excited ex- 
 pressions as might seem — if I may venture upon such 
 a figure — to deaden the sound of the rustling wings of 
 the guardian angels, whom, I verily believe, God has 
 given charge concerning us, that we, as a council, dash 
 not our foot against any stone. Ought we not to con- 
 sider this question? Will gentlemen say that, because 
 no canon is passed, therefore nothing is done ? Are gen- 
 tlemen, who were present in the last General C'onven- 
 tion, to rise and talk about the joint resolutions''of this 
 House and the House of Bishops being mere bruia ful- 
 mina, that nobody cares for? Is it not on record, on 
 the last page of the General Convention, that the sense 
 of this'House was expressed by precisely such a general 
 resolution, which conveyed the mind of the Church as 
 distinctly as any law, touching the incompatibility of 
 clergymen bearing arms ? And was it not argued that 
 the expression of this House, by a joint resolution, 
 would avail in our National legislature, to prevent cler- 
 gymen from being forced to bear arms ? Are we to be 
 told that all that is said by joint resolution — that all 
 the utterances ol' this House that are not put in the 
 thunders of Sinai — that are not commands, with penal- 
 
183 
 
 ties attached — are of no avail, and nobody will i-ai e for 
 them, and that the mind of this House, if expressed as 
 the distinct, moderate, charitable, kindly, and yet firm, 
 utterances of the House of Bishops and the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies, is of no sort of use — that it 
 is mere empty wind? God forbid that we shall ever 
 see that day come. God forbid that this Convention 
 shall, by an indefinite postponement of these resolutions, 
 both of which are worthy of respect, and with either of 
 which I should be, reasonably satisfied — God forbid, I 
 say, that it should justify these reporters in sending it 
 out to the land that nothing that is said by the House 
 of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 is worth anything, or will restrain any one, unless we 
 make it in the language — " Thou shalt not," and affix a 
 penalty. 1 hope, in fairness to the report of the majori- 
 ty, considering the admirable temper of this House, in 
 which there has not been an angry word, that we will 
 be willing to vote upon the minority report, if w'e do not 
 like to vote upon the majority report. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Van Deusbn : — I certainly take great i)leas- 
 ure in concurring with the remarks of the gentleman 
 from Michigan, [Rev. Dr. Paddock] in regard to the 
 summary mode of putting these reports out of consider- 
 ation. It seems to me not respectful to either the ma- 
 jority or the minority. If neither of those reports can 
 command the support of this House, there certainly 
 should be found something as a substitute. It is evi- 
 dent, there is a great diversity of views on this subject. 
 There is a difficulty in the minds of many men in this 
 Convention in voting for either of the reports, though 
 we may concur in the general principle of those reports. 
 1 do not think there is a great diversity, but there are 
 some insuperable objections to both. It seems we may 
 find some guidance for our action in the former history 
 ot this House. We have been told that this is not a 
 question merely of rites and ceremonies, but one of 
 doctrine. VVe have also been told that there are only 
 three churches with the " advanced rituals ;" and it is 
 not for me to deny the statement. I am willing to go 
 further, and acknowledge that there is not involved in 
 these rites and ceremonies a denial of the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Church, or an assertion of that which 
 is questionable. Is this the first time that the Church's 
 doctrine has been denied ? Is it the first time that this 
 Church has been convulsed, from one end to the other, 
 with questions of faith ? I think not. I think I can 
 call the attention of this House, especially the older 
 members of this llou.se, to such a case^to the discus- 
 sion, in the Convention of 1844, upon the subject of the 
 Oxford Tracts. I believe it certainly did convulse the 
 Church at the time ; that the church was all aflame 
 with excitement, from one end to the other. It was an 
 excitement that had been produced by the distribution 
 of these tracts throughout the American Church, dur- 
 ing a period of some ten or twelve years; and it culmi- 
 nated in the action of that Convention. The subject 
 was brought forward, and referred to a committee ; that 
 
 committee made a report; the report was discussed, 
 with the several amendments presented, for six succes- 
 sive days. No one who was a member of that Conven- 
 tion can but remember the intense excitement. 
 
 I well remember, too, when the present diocesan of 
 Maryland was elected to that diocese as its Bishop, that 
 a member of the Convention rose in his place and pro- 
 tested against that election, and pictured the very 
 alarming consequences that would result from his elec- 
 tion. What was the actual action of the House in re- 
 gard to that important matter — a matter involving, as I 
 humbly believed, consequences, if truthfully stated at 
 the time, far more threatening than all that has been 
 threatened by all the advanced ritualism in this coun- 
 try or in England ? It seems that action was almost 
 unanimous, and I humbly present that action to the 
 consideration of the House, in determining our action 
 upon this subject. It seems that action was almost 
 unanimous. What was it? It was in the form of 
 these two resolution.s, based upon two principles: one, 
 that the Church has already asserted sufficient stand- 
 ards for- her doctrine ; the other, that this House has 
 no privilege of trying her clergy, whatever may be their 
 offences— that they are not amenable to its jurisdiction 
 — that it is not competent for this House to take into 
 consideration the doctrines of any one of her priests. 
 My own personal feeling in regard to this matter is 
 simply this: I do feel embarrassed in regard to these 
 two reports. I am not willing, by my vote, to be 
 placed witli that class of clergymen who are, on this 
 floor, the advocates of an advanced ritualism; nor with 
 that class of clergymen who are dispased to prescribe 
 one fixed standard of uniformity in all cases and undei" 
 all circumstances. I prefer, as remarked by the learned 
 Deputy from Illinois, to leave this question where it is 
 left by the Chiu-ch, and where, in one of the resolutions 
 of the majority of the committee, it is left. 
 
 I say the whole question is involved in insuperable 
 difficulties. It seems to me that these resolutions, 
 passed in 1844, will express the feelings of the majority 
 of this House. Though not now in order, I shall avail 
 myself of the first opportunity of presenting them as a 
 substitute for the matter before the House. 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Depu? 
 ties consider the Liturgy, Offices, and Articles of the 
 Church sufficient exponents of her sense of the essen- 
 tial doctrines of Holy Scripture ; and that the Canons 
 of the Cliuich afford ample means of discipline and cor- 
 rection for all who depart from her Standards. 
 
 Resolved, further, that the General Convention is not 
 a suitable tribunal for the trial and censure of, and that 
 the Church is not responsible lor, the errors of individ- 
 uals, whether they are members of this Churcli or other- 
 wise. 
 
 Messages No. 54 to 63, were here received from the 
 House of Bishops. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Lau\oh: — I entirely concur with the re 
 marks of the Clerical deputy from INlichigan, who stated 
 that this was by far the most important subject that had 
 
184 
 
 been broucht before this Crmvention. I feel, sir, that 
 we might rather have omitted all the other subjects 
 which have come before us, than (o go home and omit 
 specific and definite action of this Church upon this 
 subject. On all the subjects upon which we have legis- 
 lated there has been no particular interest felt ; but upon 
 this subject there has been a deep interest throughout 
 the length and breadth of this Church, and throughout 
 the Christian world ; and that interest has excited the 
 attention of all our Church, and of all Christian bodies 
 out of our Church to be centred upon this General 
 Convention as a body that will take hold and deal with 
 a subject which is producing great evil, and which is 
 injuring us as a Church, and impeding and hindering 
 her growth. Now we cannot dodge this great question. 
 We ought not to say virtually, " we are afraid to meet 
 it openly and squarely," or to use a common expression, 
 to take the bull by the horns. We ought not to say it 
 is a question of so much delicacy that we must touch it 
 very lightly, or so lightly that when our action comes to 
 be looked at, it will be said it is not one thing nor the 
 other — ritualism is not condemmed ; this evil is not put 
 away ; it is not even censured ; it is left to stand just as 
 it was before this Convention came together. There 
 has been an attempt upon the part of some to regard 
 this as a small matter; that there are but three churches 
 where there is anything like advanced ritualism. That 
 is enough to destroy the peace of the Church. The 
 number, though small, is sufficient to engage the atten- 
 tion of this House. Suppose the papers had announced 
 that there were three cases of Asiatic Cholera, in New 
 York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, the community would 
 be all aghast. We are in danger of being invaded by 
 this pestilence that walketh in darkness. All the Sani- 
 tary Committees in those cities would have got together, 
 and said here is danger. Others would have said those 
 are only individual cases. Ah ! but every individual 
 brings other cases ; it is the nature of the disease to be- 
 gin with individuals and to spread through the connuu- 
 nity. Now then, this subject has been of such import- 
 ance as in the Old Country to call for a Royal Commit- 
 tee, who have sat on it and adjudicated questions arising 
 under it. The example of the Church of England is 
 before us. As there was an inability between the Bish- 
 ops and Convocations and others to deal with it, she 
 has appointed a royal commission to deal with it. We 
 have the power in ourselves. If this question is of such 
 importance that it has called ibr a royal commission ; 
 if in this country twenty-eight bishops have come for- 
 ward and, under their solemn seals and names, have 
 warned the community against this dangerous tendency ; 
 if clergymen in their pulpits have had to denounce it ; 
 if laymen in various parts of the country have Lad to 
 deplore it ; and if the press in its loud and far-reaching 
 voice has spread this all over the land, — can we say it 
 is a matter of small moment, and that it is worthy of 
 the dignicy ot such a body either to shirk it or pass it by 
 
 lightly, and not satisfy the expectations of the Church 
 by meeting it boldly, either endorsing it or deprecating 
 it ? Can it be possible that this great atmosphere can 
 be filled with so much smoke, and no fire anywhere ? 
 Here are petitions which have come before this Conven- 
 tion, and this Church has acted upon them in committee, 
 and we have two reports. The majority report is, for 
 the present, laid aside, to consider the minority report 
 as a substitute. When I come to look candidly and dis- 
 passionately at these two reports, it appears to me that 
 the majority report is an attempt to get rid of the subject ; 
 it does not meet this great question fairly and fully. 
 When I come to consider the minority report, I find 
 there is a resolution specifying the evil, and meeting it 
 fairly and squarely, and I am decidedly in favor of this 
 substitute, for the reason that it meets this great ques- 
 tion fully and finrly, looks it in the face, and declares' 
 what it is, and what is the duty of the Church in regard 
 to it, now the difficultv has arisen ; but it is said this thing 
 is local, confined to this city. Why has it not been re- 
 moved ? The question has been left with the bishop ; 
 he has refused to interfere ; he has gone and identified 
 himself with it, thus giving it all the countenance of his 
 official .^auction. If the bishop of the diocese will not 
 interfere, is there any power to deal with it ? The 
 Church looks to the General Convention as e.xpressing 
 the voice of the whole Church, and it looks to us to say 
 something definite, to blow a trumpet which shall not 
 give an uncertain sound. I will suppose that there was 
 a Presbyterian Convention in this city that should alter 
 its ritual — its mode of conducting divine worship; and 
 it should appear that in some congregation, in the Com- 
 munion the communicants kneel in the chancel instead 
 of sitting in their seats, as is now the practice, and the rec- 
 tor should say, "Don't receive the holy communion with 
 the ungloved hand", the Presbyterians would say, and 
 we should say, that congregation will soon be among 
 us. [Laughter.] Suppose on the other hand, there 
 was a Romish Church in this city, and the priest of that 
 church, instead of saying mass as usual, should not make 
 his genuflections before the altar. [Time's up.] I was 
 
 only going to sa}' . [Laughter.] 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES: — I am opposed to the indefi- 
 nite postponement of this question. I hope that the 
 discussion may continue in order that the question may 
 be definitely disposed of, especially in view of the char- 
 acter of the questions now pending. I shall address ni}'- 
 self directly to the fourth resolution which /esolves (1) 
 that "the burning of lights in the order for the Holy 
 Communion, (2) the burning of incense, (3) reverences 
 to the holy table, or (4) the elements thereon, (5) the 
 elevation of the elements, and (6) the elevation of the 
 Eucharist, are innovations," &c. I am opposed to the 
 indefinite postponement of the question, because we 
 should look at them and see what is the proper disposi- 
 tion to make of them. They all involve the question of 
 degree of reverence due to the Holy Eucharist. I main- 
 
185 
 
 tain that that whole question in all its aspects is only a 
 question of degree — a threefold degree : positive, com 
 parative, superlative. The positive degree is to trea 
 the eueharist as a mere memorial, in which there is no 
 mystery whatever ; that every one can understand it. 
 The second, or comparative, degree, is to treat it as 
 having the spiritu.al presence. The third, or superlative, 
 degree, is to treat it as the real presence. The first is 
 intelligible. The second and third are far beyond poor 
 human reason ; we can not solve it; it is beyond our 
 reason to solve it. Why was the third question ever 
 made so important in Ecclesiastical history ? It was 
 thus maintained to establish the supreme authorit}' of 
 the Pope of Rome — as a touchstone by which to drive 
 his authoritj', that those who disputed that dogma should 
 be carried to the stake. It has therefore received a de- 
 gree of importance rather beyond its real merits, how- 
 ever Treat they are. 
 
 If we are to look abroad for authority in deciding this 
 matter, which I hope we shall not, there is a recent de- 
 cision by one of the highest ecclesiastical tribunals tha? 
 the burning of lights is not an innovation, but the burn- 
 ing of incense is. It is now under appeal to go to cer- 
 tain gentlemen appointed by the Crown of England. 
 We can decide the question without the aid of any 
 Prime-Minister. I had the honor yesterday of being 
 allowed the floor for three or four minutes, in which I 
 endeavored to maintain the integrity of the Cliurch by 
 a consideration of its structure ; now I hope by an ap- 
 peal to its common sense. You may take a vote upon 
 this question and have so many aj'es and noes, but the 
 thing is not settled ; on the contrary taking the ayes 
 and noes makes a breach at once, through which schism 
 may come. If schism ever comes it will be upon a ques- 
 tion of ayes and noes on such a question as this. There- 
 fore, I hope there will be no motion made to lay this on 
 the table. I hope it will be fully discussed. 1 do not 
 like that guillotine process of cutting off the heads of un- 
 important questions. I do not like to see the execution- 
 er ready to drop his axe upon my propositions. If this 
 question can not be settled in any other way, it should 
 be sent to our Right Reverend Fathers in God, the 
 House of Bishops ; and there it may be settled ; for they 
 may sit with closed doors, taking time ; and they may 
 agree upon a certain set of rubrics upon which we may 
 all unite, and thus unite all parties in this Church. 
 
 Mr. G. C. Shattuck : — If the cholera were to appear 
 here, I do not see but we have doctors enough to deal 
 with it, and we don't need any more laws upon the sub- 
 ject. In regard to this subject, I do not see the neces- 
 sity of any more provisions or any more laws, or why we 
 should be in any wise frightened. I come from Massa- 
 chusetts, and I represent the Puritan elements. My ances- 
 tors two hundred years ago were very much disturbed by 
 ritualism, and they went out of the Church. The Pu- 
 ritans did not build churches ; they built meeting-houses ; 
 they had no " three deckers ;" but they had a small com- 
 24 
 
 munion table and a large pulpit over that ; and their build 
 mgs were mtended for the State as well as the Church. 
 They met in them on Sundays for worship ; and they 
 met on Monday or Tuesday for the discussion of various 
 political subjects. The moderator used to sit in what 
 we consider as the chancel, and at the Lord's table, 
 which was a table — and more, he used to take his jack- 
 knife (as he could not write), and score on the table 
 the state of the votes. [Laughter]. There was a sort 
 of symbolism. I am satisfied that he believed in the 
 doctrine of the real presence. They believed in the 
 administration of the Holy Sacrament, and that there 
 was a supernatural presence of their Redeemer. They 
 broke up the fonts because they believed there was a 
 superstition connected with them; but they believed in 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which so many 
 members of this Church seem so much frightened at. 
 I am satisfied that they believed in this doctrine, but they 
 had no font. About twenty years ago, in my remem- 
 brance, the clergyman of a certain Church pubhshed a 
 tract, containing a sermon agamst the observance of 
 Christmas and against decorating churches. That ser- 
 mon was considered so important that it was placed on 
 the reading desk of all the Episcopal churches in that 
 city. I think it had some eifect, because 1 must say that 
 our churches are not exactly what I wish. But this 
 very church [that protested against the decoration of 
 churches] has just erected a building for three hundred 
 thousand dollars which is altogether superior to any of 
 the churches in this city, except it be Trinity Church ; 
 and it is filled with symbols, and has all the colors of the 
 rainbow. It has a cross on the top ten feet higher than 
 Bunker Hill Monument. [Laughter]. The First 
 Church in Boston has also built a church in which 
 there is actually a cloister with stained windows. Here 
 are the two branches of the Congregational Church 
 alongside, which are competing, as it were, with each 
 other — beautiful churches full of symbolism, with every 
 decoration that they can possibly command. The Inde- 
 pendents established the First Church, and we estab- 
 lished the Second. The First Church that is build- 
 ing this handsome building is going to introduce a 
 Liturgy. I observe what is going on with regard to 
 both sides. I am not for putting any restrictions upon 
 one party or the other. It used to be an objection to 
 the Episcopal Church that it was a cold, dead Church ; 
 that they were formalists. I rejoice that there are 
 signs of life and activity in the Church. I have not the 
 least fears for the safety of the Church. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gadsden : — I have always been accustomed 
 to see the rites of the Church performed with a surplice. 
 i remember when a boy in being particularly interest- 
 ed in one of those beautiful hymns of lleber in which 
 he describes the three churches alluded to to-day. 
 While he speaks of one as having laid aside her attire, 
 he commends the matron-like Church of England, hav- 
 ing attired herself to impress all hearts with the service 
 
186- 
 
 have been accustomed. I have been astonished to see 
 how far every thing around us here has removed from 
 what I have been accustomed to. I have never before be- 
 held until we came into this church, the candlesticks 
 and the cross on the altar. These novelties may be in- 
 troduced if they are wise ; if they tend to the advance- 
 ment of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the enlargement of 
 His kingdom, let them come in. If there is anything in 
 the past which is valuable, which will vitalize this 
 Church, and save the souls of men, let it be used ; but 
 let us examine it carefully. Will any man say these are 
 not innovations ? They may be the revival of old cus- 
 toms ; but undoubtedly there are those which are new. 
 The question is, Is this Church prepared to go forward 
 in these innovations 1 That question ought to be settled ; 
 and it is for that reason I am opposed to the motion to in- 
 definitely postpone these resolutions. Let us meet the mat- 
 ter now, boldly, and decidedly, — not in any spirit of strife 
 and contention, but as brethren whose hearts are beat- 
 ing together in love to God and for the advancement of 
 His cause. Let us gravely, seriously decide what is re- 
 ally and truly best for the interest of this Church of 
 Jesus Christ and the spread of His Gospel through all 
 this land. Let us not say, "There is no danger.' 
 There is no part of this city in which I have been, and 
 there is no part of this country, in which I have not 
 heard this question of ritualism brought up. All we are 
 called upon to decide is whether as a matter of principle 
 this Church is prepared to innovate. This is a question 
 of great and vital moment. If I am permitted to allude to 
 myself, I must confess here that, for the first time in my 
 life, on a recent occasion, I was compelled to leave the 
 Church, in which I had been educated and brought up, 
 because I could not receive the sacrament in the new 
 forms with which it was administered. I went into 
 what I supposed to be a Protestant Episcopal Church, and 
 I saw the very same ceremonial that I have witnessed in 
 foreign lands in the Church of Rome. I saw the sac 
 rament in which our blessed Lord and Saviour is sit 
 before us, and by which those who truly and faithfully 
 receive it, really,though spiritually, receive Him into their 
 hearts — I saw it made publicly the subject of adoration 
 and worship ; and I saw connected therewith such per- 
 formances as are not at all laid down in our rubric, nor 
 at all connected with our worship. I ask if that is not 
 a question we should meet V if that is right ? if that is 
 the way in which we desire to advance the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in this land ? Then come up boldly 
 to this issue. Or let it be known that we consider the 
 Keformation a failure, and that we mean to consider 
 our Church in accordance with what it was before the 
 martyrs laid down their lives at the slake ! If we prefer 
 what is called the dignified matronlike character of our 
 Churchof England service let us say so. I utter my 
 own deep and solemn feelings in this matter. God for- 
 bid 1 should say a word upon this floor that would lead; 
 
 to any unkind feeling. If I am wrong, may my breth- 
 ren pardon me. I here speak that which I believe to 
 be closely connected with the vital interests of the Gos- 
 pel of Jesus Christ as sustained by the Church to which 
 my heart clings with all the earnest affection of a child 
 who is nurtured and brought up in the midst of her 
 holy and heavenly influences. I hope this question will 
 not be put from us without our meeting it bravely. I 
 therefore must vote against this proposition [to indefi- 
 nitely postpone] and sustain the minority report on this 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. Welsh, of Pennsylvania : — I agree with the last 
 speaker that this is a subject of vital moment. I do re- 
 gret as a member of this House, that when the Com- 
 mittee on Canons could not agree upon a law, they had 
 not simply said so ; for we are lawmakers. Their in- 
 terpretation of law or usage is proper, but I do think we 
 are introducing into this House a dangerous precedent. 
 I am quite in favor of every word by both committees, 
 and I am ready to vote for them. I should be glad to see 
 the report of the minority passed with the exception o' 
 one or two words. But I doubt the agreement of the 
 House upon the subject. The fear I have is that we 
 will talk it up until we really fear that if we do not do 
 something, the Church will be injured. I believe all we 
 need is to cultivate our spiritual life a little more and 
 these things will not trouble us. I believe, and I be- 
 lieve it after earnest prayer, that we are on the eve of a 
 reformation far more important than any wrought on the 
 continent or in England. That was a doctrinal reform- 
 ation. But I see indications of a practical reformation 
 so that we shall not leave the work of the Church to the 
 minister alone. I have heard no trouble touching this 
 thing in the parishes with which I have been connected 
 — not one word. I have heard the question raised once 
 or twice. What was the result ? They went to their 
 minister or Bible class at church, and they became far 
 more adherents to the Church than ever before. With 
 the various persons who are at work in the Christian 
 Church 1 have heard no trouble in any instance. What 
 ought to fill us with more horror is the allowing of an 
 auctioneer to come into the House of God and sell the 
 pews from year to year. Since I came to this Convention 
 a clergyman who chanced to be an eloquent man of God 
 told me that he had written Ichabod upon his church, 
 because when the auctioneer came. Shoddy came in and 
 outbid his earnest worshippers, and twenty or thirty 
 families were turned out of the church by the public 
 sale of the pews. I do feel that all these troubles about 
 ritual great as they may be, are nothing compared with 
 this thing of shutting out from the House of God the 
 great working class. I would not care if an earthquake 
 would crumble down every church that is but a private 
 chapel, where the pews are sold or rented to those who 
 can afford to pay high prices. God by His spirit, in 
 answer to prayer, is moving upon us, and I sympathize 
 with clergymen, exposed to this trial. I am perfectly 
 
187 
 
 willing to vote for every word but two or three in these 
 reports, because they have been introduced. If they 
 had not been introduced I should have no fear of touch- 
 ing these things, because I see that where people are at 
 work, where they are doing Christ's work, I hear no 
 complaints. 
 
 Rev. Wm. Newton : — I heartily thank God for many 
 utterances we have heard in this debate, in reference 
 to the last gentleman on the floor, the weight of his ar- 
 gument appeared to be this, that there are other evils 
 in the Church than those before you. I fail to see the 
 point or the force of the argument. We are called up- 
 on by every feeling of loyalty to the Church we love — 
 this glorious protestant Church whose history has been 
 traced in the blood of a noble army of martyrs — to 
 stand up to-day and plead for the truth as we have re- 
 ceived it at their hands. It seems to me that there was 
 more in the "cholera" argument than the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts intended. If be could shut out the 
 cholera from the land I would say God speed ; but I 
 have read the history of the past not aright, if with all 
 the power of art they have been able to do this. If you 
 present to me these six instances that are enumerated 
 in the fourth resolution as acts by themselves — the 
 erection of candlesticks, of crosses, the burning of in- 
 cense, the genuflection, and those other evils that are 
 complained of— if you present them simply as isolated 
 acts, I submit there is no gentleman on this floor that is 
 afraid of them. It is not of them we stand in fear ; it 
 is the doctrines which they symbolize ; it is because 
 they are silent teachers, but most eftectual teachers of 
 what we believe to be error that we desire to lift 
 up our voice against them. And it seems to me 
 a striking testimony of the presence of the Spirit of God 
 in producing peace in the minds of this Convention that 
 we have been sitting the last three weeks with these si- 
 lent teachers staring us in the face. We heard from 
 several gentlemen yesterday, pleas for toleration. I most 
 heartily concur in that desire, but is it to be toleration 
 entirely upon one side ? It is to be toleration 
 entirely in one direction, and stringent regulations in 
 the other. We have been sitting here for the last three 
 weeks, and we have had presented memorials courteous 
 in spirit, heavenly in tone, moderate in request, bear- 
 ing the signatures of brethren known and honored 
 throughout the length and breadth of our Church — 
 whose natnes are household words. They have come 
 asking for bread and you have given a stone. You are 
 relaxing upon one line and strengthening all the bands 
 on the other. I have no apprehension of error if truth 
 can be unfettered to meet it. I believe Thomas Jeffer- 
 son never spoke a truer word : "Error is never to be 
 feared when truth is left free to combat it." So let there 
 be this toleration, but give us on the other hand the 
 liberty to protest against this error, and stand up for 
 the simple truth. Let me recur to a pleasing remem- 
 brance here. We glory — if it is not too late in the day — 
 
 we glory in our name of Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 We make it our boast that we stand in the line of the 
 noble martyrs, upon the platform which they erected, 
 where they stood, and from which they went down to 
 death. Let us unitedly stand together, bearing with 
 each other, believing that each according to his light, 
 according to the light which he has m his mind, sub- 
 mitting only to the guidance of the Spirit and the truth 
 of God, is moved and impelled by a desire to promul- 
 gate that truth. Let us stand here according to each 
 other the fullest toleration. But for one I must protest 
 against this toleration which is strictness on one side 
 and liberty on the other. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Wyatt: — An objection to the motion of 
 indefinite postponement is that it could not be passed 
 by anything like a unanimous vote in this body. Mr. 
 President, outside of these walls there is a multitude of 
 unbelievers, scofl'ers, and enemies watching to see this 
 holy ship which bears us, driven by the current and the 
 wind to its ruin. Tliis Convention has it in Us power to 
 give to all such minds, — I will not say a stunning but — 
 a wholesome disappointment. There are other devout 
 people on their knees, day and night, praying that, in 
 this peril as in others, the good pilot may awake to de- 
 liver us, to calm all the threatening elements ; and to 
 them this Convention has it in its power to givea glorious 
 jubilee, and that by passing upon this vexed question 
 a decision not reached by a majority report, but unani- 
 mously and heartily. It is on all hands represented 
 that this measure can be effected. And the confidence 
 is based not on the merit of any man's resolution, but 
 more on the good sense anil the good feeling which evi- 
 dently pervades this whole body, and most of all, Mr. 
 President, upon the inspiring trust that we shall have 
 upon our actijn the grace and the blessing of Him who 
 has promised to be with us to the end of the world, and 
 who, we may humbly believe, is truly present in power 
 and love here, and now. Why should not this Convention 
 improve such an opportunitj^, if it be possible, by sur- 
 rendering not our belief, not our consciences, not the 
 intelligent judgment that may be based upon them^ 
 these no man can with honor to himself submit, were 
 it even to the primate of the whole world. But, sir, our 
 wills are another thing. These we may submit, and in 
 so doing do honor to our manhood. Therefore, 1 say 1 
 will, when in order, in behalf of many members of this 
 House who have represented that such a measure will 
 bring us to unanimity, ofl'er as a suljstitute for the res- 
 olutions now before u.s, the following : 
 
 Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring. That all 
 questions which may be raised upon the rubrics and di- 
 rections contained in the Prayer Book or upon the Or- 
 der or Vestments to be used in the public celebration of 
 Divine worship and ministration of religious ollices, 
 shall be considered settled for practice by llie instruc- 
 tion of the Bishop of the Diocese in which the minister 
 olliciates, if the Bishop shall choose to give such instruc- 
 tion to the minister iu writing. 
 
188 
 
 Ami I really hope and pray, Mr. President, it may 
 meet the approval of every member of this House, both 
 clerical and lay. 
 
 Message No. 54 was here received from the House of 
 Bishops, with nominations of members of the Board of 
 Missions. On motion the House concurred in the nom- 
 inations. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Perkins:— It is with great diffidence that 
 I arise to say one word upon the important question 
 that is before us ; and I assure you that nothing but my 
 sense of the great importance of the question would in- 
 duce me to rise to say one word. But I am perfectly 
 satisfied that since my connection with this Church 
 which has now existed for many years, no question of 
 greater importance to its most vital interest has ever 
 been introduced into its council. I may almost say that 
 that is the universal conviction of this Church. We 
 have only to remember that no question has occupied 
 the same space in the papers of this Church for years 
 past, none has been so generally the topic of conversa- 
 tion, none has so agitated the minds of the members of 
 this Convention ; and even when our House of Bishops 
 met for another purpose than legislation — now twelve 
 months since — so important did they consider it to the 
 interests of this Church, that they saw fit to put forth a 
 solemn declaration with special reference to it ; and 
 nothing prevented their uttering an authoritative voice 
 except tliat they were not then sitting as a co-ordinate 
 branch of this Convention of the Church ; and so soon 
 as the subject was introduced here there were solemn 
 faces all over this body. Every one evidently felt that 
 this was the question involving the most important in- 
 terest of this Church — in which our deepest interests 
 were involved and to which we should give the most 
 serious consideration. And it has surprised me that 
 any such motion as that which is before us now should 
 have been offered in connection with the consideration 
 of this question. Now, sir, that it has been brought up 
 before us, the question is simply this — Shall we meet it, 
 realizing its importance ? Shall we meet it boldly, and 
 face the difficulties that are before us, and send forth an 
 expression of opinion in reference to it '? Or shall we 
 through fear that any evil may result from such an ex- 
 pression of opinion, shrink from its consideration and 
 show ourselves not to be men when the deepest interests 
 of this Church are involved. It has been said here that 
 the simple taking of the ayes and noes would lead to 
 great evils in connection with it. How can we avoid 
 it ? It is impossible that it should be avoided. When 
 we come to vote upon the question of indefinite post- 
 ponement, it is a decision one way or the other — we 
 either decide that we consider the subject of such vast 
 moment that it becomes us as the representative men of 
 the Church to consider and decide upon its interest, or, 
 if we indefinitely postpone it, we decide we will not 
 consider it. Suppose that the question is laid by — sup- 
 pose that it is indefinitely postponed, what is the effect ? 
 
 Why, it goes out through the length and breadth of the 
 land that this question which has so occupied minds not 
 only of members of this Church throughout its whole 
 extent, is of such insignificance that we do not consider 
 it worthy of our consideration, and we are thereby en- 
 couraging, sustaining and carrying on the very evils 
 which we here now deprecate and condemn. It has 
 been said that it is a small matter — that these ritualism 
 practices are to be found here and there in little 
 churches — that it is a small matter. But when these 
 evils involving important doctrinal questions can exist 
 and be carried on in this land, in any diocese, without 
 being met by the authorities of that diocese ; when 
 leading men of our Church will come and stand in the 
 pulpit where these things are practised and thereby 
 give them their countenance and their encouragement, 
 what is the impression that is made on the minds of the 
 public at large. Simply that the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America has not the 
 power of self-preservation ; that it is so comprehensive , 
 that evils of every character may be allowed therein. 
 We are encouraging it ; we are sustaining it ; we are 
 helping it on ; we are making the impression all through 
 the land that the Church does allow and encourage such 
 things. It is a matter of small importance that they 
 should exist here and there ; but it is a matter of vast 
 importance that we have no power by which the thing 
 can be stopped. Then there is another point which 
 has been raised — fault by defect. I deprecate that as 
 much as the other ; but important doctrinal questions 
 touching the doctrines of the Church are not involved 
 in these faults by defect as in these faults by excess. 
 And yet we would be made to believe that the one is of 
 equal importance with the other. Not only so, I have 
 never known so many sudden conversions to toleration 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church as I have witnessed 
 here in this House in the last few days. When other 
 questions of a different character have been before us, 
 we have had no difficulty in acting with reference to 
 them ; but so soon as questions of this character come 
 before us, there is a loud voice for toleration. I say 
 that evil will result from this. There are other things 
 I want to say, but I think I had better not say them. 
 
 The Committee on Canons reported with reference to 
 a resolution concerning the establishment of missionary 
 organizations under charge of the Bishop of unorgan- 
 ized dioceses, and recommended the postponement of 
 the matter to the next General Convention. 
 
 Message No. 64, from the House of Bishops announc- 
 ing concurrence in the resolution by this House contin 
 uing the Joint Committee on the Russo-Greek Church, 
 and filling a vacancy. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — The gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts, has told us of certain Unitarian churches in Bos- 
 ton which have been erected with a great deal of orna- 
 mentation and symbolical figures of various kinds. I 
 wish to remind the gentleman of a story which I think 
 
189 
 
 the gentleman himself told me a few years since ; it waa 
 certainly told nie by some gentleman from Boston. The 
 story was this, that some Eijiscopal clergyman speaking 
 to some Unitarian clergyman or layman asked this 
 question : "Why is it that if we introduce crosses and 
 symbols of various kinds in our Episcopal Churches, 
 such a fuss is made about it, but you in the Unitarian 
 churches can introduce all manner of ctosses, cruci- 
 fixes, symbols, anything ; and nothing is thought of it^V" 
 The answer of the Unitarian was : "Because, in our 
 meeting-houses those do not mean anything ; everybody 
 knows they don't mean anything ; but among Episcopa- 
 lians it is understood they mean something." That is it, 
 exactly : the whole thing is in the meaning. That I 
 suppose is understood all around. If those things had 
 no meaning, we would care very little about them. 
 There has lieen for example, a doctrine or opinion held 
 in this Church and considered as allowable in regard to 
 the minister of other Protestant bodies as being though 
 irregular yet a true minister of Christ, an opinion which 
 Bishop Burnett tells us was the prevailing or universally 
 received oijinion tor fifty or eighty 3'ears after the adop- 
 tion of the Thirty -nine Articles. Now, may we sym- 
 bolize that doctrine ? Some clergymen have proposed 
 to symbolize it by invitmg Presbyterian or Methodist 
 clergymen to officiate in their churches. Shall we al- 
 low that they sliall symbolize that doctrine bj' puttmg 
 a Presbyterian oi- Methodist 'clergyman into their pul- 
 pit ? We said. No : and I agree, No. 1 jdeld cheerfully ; 
 I make no objection;?. We do know that was not called 
 intolerance ; that was tolerance. The question was, 
 shall we symbolize Geneva. The Convention has said, 
 No. You shall not, and if you do you .shall suft'er for 
 it. That is tolerance. Now, when the question comes, 
 sh.all we symbolize Rome, it is asked of the Convention 
 affectionately and earnestly to appeal to the hearts and 
 consciences of those who would do it to refrain ; and that 
 Mr. President, is called intolerance. Now, I think it is 
 fair for one who has heartily, chccrfullj', joined with the 
 general sentiment of this Convention in the first action, 
 to appeal to this Convention in regard to this charge of 
 intolerance. It is but an expression, affectionately and 
 earnestly put forth by this Convention against symbol- 
 izing Rome. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — The precise movement, great or 
 small, that is going on in the Church is to be regarded 
 merely as a ripple on the surface of a placid pool, or as 
 part and parcel of some great tidal movement that is 
 going on in the Christian world. For one I regard it as 
 part and parcel of the great movement that is going on 
 in every part of Christendom, of which we sec the signs 
 cropping out wherever we maj' look abroad. It is part 
 of that great morement that must take place at this 
 time or some future time, by which the hearts of God's 
 people in all parts of the world shall be drawn together, 
 and by which differences on things merely non-essential 
 shall be done away in the spirit of a common loyalty to 
 
 our Divine Master and to His cause here on earth. I 
 say this ritual movement is merely a part of that great 
 tidal movement that is going on everywhere. Look at 
 the various denominations around us. And I would 
 ask any person here present who has passed the bounds 
 of even middle life, whether among the Methodists, the 
 Presbyterians, the Congregationalists — whether among 
 all the denominations of this country, he has not seen 
 the tide continually rising, by which things that were 
 once on narrow and insufficient grounds rejected among 
 them have been adopted quietly again. Where for ex- 
 ample, the sound of the organ in the church of God 
 was considered a bad omen, — that sound is now regard- 
 ed almost as a necessary part of Church worship. Where 
 a church approaching at all to the Gothic style of archi. 
 tecture was regarded as belongmg to the mystery of 
 abomination, that is regarded as a harmless thing ; and 
 so in innumerable instances. I would mention one 
 point especially which has not been alluded to during 
 the course of debate. It is that the Church of Rome 
 itself, which we regarded and justly, too, with dread 
 and so much aversion, at least with reg.-;rd to certain 
 parts of her doctrine, — that Church of Rome, under the 
 influences that are brought to bear in this land, has 
 abandoned in a great measure the narrow policy of con- 
 fining herself to certain worn-out forms, and is availing 
 herself of every instrumentality that can be brought 
 to bear upon the hearts of men. Why, sir, at this very 
 time, that great policy of the Church of Rome — that 
 divine service must be confined to one language— has 
 been broken through here and there- — everywhere. 
 And why '? Because the Roman Church is wise. She 
 has found that speaking to men in their native tongues, 
 at least in hymns is serviceable, and is now availing 
 herself of the instrumentalities of Protestantism that 
 will advance her cause ; and when she finds that any- 
 thing of that kind will advance her cause, she begins to 
 tolerate it, and so you find that the revival system is 
 adopted. She has the boldness and wisdom that when 
 she finds that anything will tell, she adopts it, she tol- 
 erates it, and incorporates it in her system. When the 
 armies of Anti-Christ are gathering, and when the Lord 
 (iod Almighty is invisibly moving among His people in 
 all parts of the world to bring them together, the real 
 question for Christian men to consider is whether to 
 stand trifling, and disputing about these small points. 
 It is merely a question in regard to instrumentalities ; 
 and if we look at the things mentioned in the resolu- 
 tions, which are given us by the minority, and of which 
 so many members on this floor have spoken as if neces- 
 sarily identified with a false system, I would ask this 
 Convention for one moment patiently to consider 
 whether they are willing as Christian men, loyal to God 
 and to Holy Scripture, to agree tliat these things must 
 be identified with a false system. Take them one by 
 one. There is the burning of lights in the order for the 
 Holy Communion. Now, be it understood that I am 
 
190 
 
 not advocating the introduction of any of these things ; 
 I am merely answermg the question whether tliese 
 things can beidentitied with that system, so that system 
 must have them and no other. The lights upon the 
 altar ; those two lights that we have before us ; is there 
 any definition of them, is there any symbolism, that is 
 identical with the doctrine of Rome particularly ? It 
 seems almost trifling to answer the question. We know 
 that so far as they have any meaning — I don't say 
 necessarily that thej' have any meaning-but so far as any 
 person has attributed any kind of meaning to them, it 
 is simply the great Christian fundamental idea of the 
 two natures united in the person of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; to whose name I would bow not merely in the 
 creed, but, in my heart at least, whenever that name 
 comes to my mind. Reverences to the Holy Table. I 
 do not know precisely what reverences are. That 
 there should be a reverential demeanor that there may 
 be at least same outward sign of a reverent spirit — this 
 may be adopted in the Church or it may not. But sup 
 pose one does pay a reverence to the altar of God in 
 acknowledgment of the Divine presence and power, — 
 does that identify one necessarily with the corruptions 
 of the Roman Church. Such reverences have prevailed 
 in every branch of the Church in all parts of the world 
 They are thoroughly consistent with the most earnest 
 protest against the corruptions of Rome. Again ; in 
 regard to incense. Here again I suppose it is necessary 
 to say that 1 am not advocating the introduction of in- 
 cense, but 1 am merely asking the question, does any 
 gentleman here identify incense with the Church of 
 Rome. Did it or did it not prevail in the dispensation 
 appointed by God himself in all ages before Christianity? 
 Did or did it not prevail in the early Church before the 
 usurpations of Rome were so much as heard of? Does 
 it not prevail in the Eastern Church to the present 
 day where the usurpations of Rome are denied ? Nay, 
 does it not prevail in that great ideal Church presented 
 to us in the Apocalypse, where the incense is otfered up, 
 being the prayers of the Saints ? Now, with these great 
 ' ideas before us, how can any person identify incense 
 with anything else except that with which God's Word 
 identifies it — namely, as a symbol of the prayers of the 
 Saints. I do not say, of course, that incense should be 
 introduced, because it is that, but I am merely contend- 
 ing that this Convention has no business to go against 
 the facts — no right to say that incense is to be identi- 
 fied wilh a thing with which God's Word does not iden- 
 tify it — no business to go against the Clear Word of 
 God. [Here the gavel fell.J 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hanckel : — The first time during the whole 
 discussion my interest has been aroused, because for the 
 first time in the utterance of the gentleman who has just 
 taken his seat, I have heard the real questions at issue 
 grappled. I refer to my reverend brother's statement 
 that this is not a mere question of outward signs or sym- 
 bols, nor merely a question of a ripple on the surface, but 
 
 a question of a deep tidal movement. Before God I be* 
 lieve it to be so. I regard these things as merely exter- 
 nal acts, not doctrines ; let them come or go. If a man 
 wants a surplice, let him have it, and of whatever color 
 he wants. The question is — Does there lie beneath the 
 surface a great doctrinal movement ? Before God I 
 believe there is such a movement there ; and it is be- 
 ause I do believe it that I am prepared, as one whoc 
 has sworn to drive from God's house all false doctrine> 
 to cast out these innovations. The gentleman speaks of a 
 tidal movement as though it were necessarily onward. 
 Is there no ebb as well as flood tide ? Is there no ret- 
 rogression as well as progress ? Must a movement be 
 necessarily onward to the purity of God's Word and the 
 stability of His Church ? History teaches no such lesson 
 God's people under the teachings of the Most High 
 through His prophets had a constant proclivity back to 
 idolatry, and to idolatry they went, even when the serv- 
 ant of God was upon the mountain receiving the com- 
 mandments from His hand. Is there no proclivity in 
 man's nature in all ages of the world, which that won- 
 drous Church of which the gentleman has spoken, has 
 shown such consummate wisdom in laying hold of and ap- 
 plying to her purpose — a masterpiece of Satanic ingenu- 
 ity fitting in every nook and corner of every fallen 
 nature, tj'ing it to her car and dragging it onward in 
 her triumphal progress? What is the real objection 
 lying at the botton of the hearts of all this Church in 
 reference to these churches ? I regret they were not 
 alluded to by the committee. The gentleman has 
 si)oken of the tidal movement in the Romish Church, 
 forsooth, adapting herself to the use of certain instru- 
 mentalities because of outward pressure. Consummate in 
 wisdom she has never failed to do so ; but has Rome 
 changed her doctrinal ground one iota ? Has she not 
 rather made progress in her way ? W^hat means her 
 gigantic strides in the doctrine of infallibility in under- 
 taking by the simple fiat of her chief pastor to add 
 another article to the creed. What means this frightful 
 advance toward a,fthurch that has actually proposed in 
 this Nineteenth Century to change the very words in 
 which the Lord taught us to pray, into "Our Lady," in- 
 stead of "Our Father" to be used only occasionally for 
 the sake of association ? Is it toward such a church 
 wliose progress is deeper and deeper in the depths of 
 abysmal error that we are called upon to make a friend- 
 ly movement V God in mercy forbid it ! God in mercy 
 lorbid such a peace as is here proposed ! As to the fact 
 of a tidal movement as indicated in this fourth resolution, 
 I assume that none who do practise these things, being 
 men of God, know wliat they do. I assume that they 
 would not go into God's house to be guilty of the puerile 
 practices that would be positively ludicrous separate 
 from their association. They know, sir, that they sym- 
 bolize something ; and they symbohze to my mind fun- 
 damental error. 
 
 Now, sir, I will not comment on the burning of lights 
 
191 
 
 in the order for the Holy communion, although that as 
 an innovation night be excepted to as an advance in 
 symbolism — teaching by sign — a symbol addressed to 
 the eye instead of as we are taught by liim who sent us, 
 by preaching his gospel to every creature — teaching that 
 faith is to come by the eye, by sighl, and not as he 
 has ordained, by heariug— teaching that the eye and not 
 the understanding is the channel through which truth is 
 to reach man, and by truth man is to be regenerated 
 and saved from death and hell. 
 
 As to burning incense — burned it was under the 
 old law as a symbol, because the truth itself was not yet 
 revealed ; burned it was in a corrupt church when that 
 truth began to be concealed again from forgetfulness 
 and from sinking into oblivion in consequence. It is 
 burned in heaven ! Does the gentleman really suppose 
 that there material incense and swinging censer surround 
 the throne of Him who is worshipped only by'the immate- 
 rial spirits? Most surely not. And therefore, he must 
 in candor own, that it is only a figure of speech, and 
 therefore not to be literally interpreted here on earth.' 
 And now as to reverences to the holy table or to the 
 elements: He says he does not understand what is 
 meant by reverences with profound genuflexions and 
 even prostrations before what is called the altar because 
 the faith is received that in the elements there placed, 
 the body, blood and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 are present. But they are not present ; it is nothing 
 but rank idolatry and a direct violation of the second 
 commandment, which commands us not to bow down, as 
 well as not to worship, anynnrely external and visible 
 thing. But if it is taught that in any sense Christ the 
 Lord in his body and divinity are present in those ele- 
 and upon that altar, I challenge the production of the 
 name of any Anglican divine of any standing, confirm- 
 ing that doctrine. 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven : — It is a very curious line of ar- 
 gument which is used by my brethren, on the other 
 side, with regard to this matter, and 1 think it very de- 
 sirable that the Convention should notice it. It is said, 
 over and over again, that this is a matter of the deep- 
 est importance — that tliere is agitation all through the 
 Church about it. More than that — it is not a question 
 of rites and ceremonies, but a doctrinal question, involv- 
 ing the deepest and most important doctrines of this 
 Church ; and it has been said, over and over again, that 
 it is unmanly, it is cowardly, it is not in accordance 
 with the dignity of this House, not to meet these ques- 
 tions boldly, in a straightforward way. Now, I beg to 
 ask the question, how do they propose to meet it? — the 
 question which, according to these gentlemen, ought to 
 shake this Church to the very foundation, and which 
 involves doctrines of the utmost importance. They 
 propose to meet it, sir, how ? By joint resolution ! Is 
 that the way in which this Church means to deal with 
 questions which shake it to its foundation ? Is this 
 House prepared to take up great doctrinal questions — 
 
 principles of the very gravest consideration — and settle 
 them by joint resolutions? Joint resolutions are valu- 
 able things. They are valuable, permit me to say,ju8t 
 when and how they express the mind of this Church, 
 as of old. They are feeble and ineflectual, unless they 
 do so. Permit me to call the attention of this House 
 to something in the history of this Church. In the 
 year 1811 the House of Bishops and this House passed 
 the following resolution: — 
 
 "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Cliurch that it is in- 
 cousistent with the law of God, and the ministers of this 
 Church, therefore, shall not unite in matrimony, any per- 
 son who is divorced, unless it be on account of the other 
 party having beeu guilty of adultery." 
 
 That resolution lay upon the journal of this House 
 for years and years, and this very session of this Gen- 
 eral Convention we have passed a canon upon that very 
 subject, because somehow, or in some way it had no 
 effect. Now, let me say that if this matter is to be met, 
 it ought to be met b}' law. If it is iniportatit, it should 
 be met by law; and here we are met by the remarka- 
 ble fact that both the majority and the minority of this 
 committee express the opinion — and, I believe, the al- 
 most universal opinion of this House is, that we are not 
 prepared for legislation on this subject. There are very 
 grave difBculties in the way. The doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist, no one will pretend to say, is, by any means, 
 an unimportant thing, whatever view is held about it. 
 It affects the highest interests, the highest spiritual re- 
 lations, the loftiest devotion of the members of this 
 Church. And shall you take up a doctrine of that kind, 
 and in the midst of the time of a heated discussion, in 
 the midst of the time when the world, outside, is press- 
 ing us through the columns of newspapers, and decide 
 anything about it, by joint resolution ? Everybody 
 knows thiit some of these practices that are put down 
 in this resolution were practised in the undivided 
 Church, before transubstantiation was ever heard of. 
 Transubstantiation is a doctrine that was introduced in 
 the tenth century. Is this House prepared to say to 
 this Church and this nation that history is wrong, and 
 that the doctrine of transubstantiation was symbolized 
 in the Church of God before it was heard of? Is this 
 House prepared to say, as a matter of fiict, that the 
 Lutheran body, which denounced transubstantiation, 
 acknowledges this very proposition by symbolizing a 
 doctrine which it has always denied? Is this House 
 prepared to say that the Great Eastern Church, which 
 has these syuibols, affirms transubstantiation, when it 
 has been asserted by one of the noblest and greatest di- 
 vines (the late Metropolitan of the Eastern Church — 
 Russo-Greek Church) that it did not hold transubstan- 
 tiation ? I bring forward these matters to show that 
 this House ought not to do anything hastily on so im- 
 portant a matter, and that this House is not prepared, 
 and ought not to bo prepared to enter upon so grave a 
 question. 
 
 One thing more, and this to me is something of the 
 
19'2 
 
 deepest importance. Ft has been said that this is a tidal 
 movement, and I would ask my brethren who disagree 
 with me whether they are prepared to force it upon peo- 
 ple who disagree with them, that this movement is actu- 
 ally towards what they reprehend. Supposing it should 
 turn out that it is not a movement toward Rome, but 
 toward something else which they believe in just as much 
 as we do. Mi. President, I believe that this movement 
 is a protest in the Church of God against Rationalism. 
 I believe it is a protest towards the belief in the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ — not stories about Him, not talk about Him, 
 not feelings about Him, not even His history; but it is, 
 sir, the feeling of this Church manifesting itself toward 
 the belief in Him— Him, pressing it upon the Church — 
 Him, speaking in His ministry — Him, speaking in His 
 word — Him, giving grace in His sacraments — Him whom 
 never having seen we love, in whom though now we see 
 Him not, yet believing, we rejoice with joy unspeakable 
 and full of glory. And I beseech my brethren not to 
 say that this thing should be put down. Do not force 
 into a position they do not hold, those who do not want 
 to differ with their brethren, who prefer to act in a calm, 
 simple, earnest manner, guided and influenced by the 
 tone of the Church. It is a great mistake to suppose 
 that the priests of this Church are not bound even now. 
 Will any one say that a clergyman of this Church is not 
 at present, even without joint resolution or canon, bound 
 in all these matters V I do not have any parish ; I have 
 no vestry ; yet I know that clergymen everywhere are 
 at the mercy of their vestry; and would like to know 
 if any clergyman can advance this kind of things with- 
 out being exposed to being turned out by their vestries? 
 I do not mean to say it is an absolute restriction, but it 
 is a restriction. Our clergymen are bound by the gen- 
 eral tone and temper of their dioceses. There may be 
 factious people in the Church; I know there are; but I 
 say we do not want to be in opposition to our brethren, 
 and it is hard to be so. We are impelled and mean to 
 be impelled by the general influences, temper, and tone 
 of the Church of God. Again, sir — [and here the gavel 
 fell.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — I am entirely ready to take 
 the question which is now before the House, which 
 I believe to be on the indefinite postponement of 
 the whole subject I wish merely to say that if that 
 motion fail, as I believe that it will, we have indications 
 enough in the House to show that there is a disposition 
 here to meet what is called the issue that has been pre- 
 sented ; and I do not think after the debate that has oc- 
 curred that any member of this House is disposed — to 
 use the phrase which has been used on this floor — to 
 shrink from this matter. I think the courage of the 
 House has been steadily increasing with every speech 
 made on the floor. One of the speakers characterized 
 the debate which has been had upon this whole subject 
 as a rambling and irrelevant debate. In all of my ex- 
 perience I have never known a debate that confined it- | 
 
 self more closely to the subject in hand than that to 
 which we have listened since yesterday. I have never 
 known a debate characterized b}' better temper, by 
 kindlier feeling, by broader views upon this whole sub- 
 ject. It was with anxiety that I looked forward to the 
 discussion of this subject. I have listened with eager- 
 ness for the first word that could be construed in such 
 a way as to reflect upon the temper of this House. That 
 word has not been spoken. Moreover this debate, if 
 no practical action shall be taken, has brought out dec- 
 larations of opinion and affirmations of principle that 
 in my own judgment will be of permanent value to this 
 Chmxh. When I listened to the lay deputy from Illi- 
 noi.s yesterday, declaring as he did with so much 
 power and so much eloquence and as if holding in his 
 grasp the concentrated testimony of history, the great 
 principle of historical continuity of this Church from 
 the days of the Apostles ; when I heard another lay 
 deputy rise here and in his own peculiar manner and 
 language that never fails to interest this House and 
 cliallenge its attention,assert that in virtue of the compre- 
 hension of this Church she must, from her very consti- 
 tution, provide for a large diveri-ity of opinion and of 
 taste — that she nui.st therefore, of necessity, be tolerant 
 — that she must have a certain breatdh of sympathy and 
 of action ; when I heard another gentleman on this 
 floor arguing in behalf of the elasticity of this Church, 
 Vjecause she is a living body and not a dead mechanism, 
 because she must from her verj' genius and constitution 
 provide for the organic development and growth of the 
 body, because it is a living body, — why sir, put togeth- 
 er these three affirmations of principle — the historical 
 continuity of this Church, its toleration, and its breadth, 
 and you have a sufficient amount of practical philosophy 
 upon this whole matter to bring this House, in my 
 judgment, to a safe conclusion upon this subject. 
 Therefore I say that I feel that though no practical ac- 
 tion sliall be taken, the debate which has been had 
 here is of permanent value to the Church. But it seems 
 to me — I have gathered it from private conversa- 
 tion with the deputies on this floor — that this House has 
 about determined that it is scarcely of any practical 
 moment to adopt the resolutions which have been re- 
 ported by either branch of the Committee on Canons. 
 I think, as I have stated, that this House has about de- 
 termined that it will not indefinitely postpone the con- 
 sideration of this subject. I therefore have arisen not 
 with the view to speak of any details involved in this 
 issue, but simply to offfer for the consideration of this 
 House, in case it shall vote down the motion for indefi-. 
 nite postponement, a series of resolutions which f am in 
 structed to say are prescntfed by me after due consult- 
 ation with influential members of this body ; and I 
 believe they will surely command the hearty approval 
 of a number of the delegations on this floor. I would 
 state that these resolutions in point of fact embody sug- 
 gestions which have been made already to this House_ 
 
193 
 
 They are not original with myself. The resolutions are 
 as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Bishops be requested to 
 set forth for consideration and adoption by the next 
 General Convention such additional rubrics in the Book 
 of Common Prayer as in their judgment may be deemed 
 necessary. 
 
 Resolved, That, meanwhile in all matters doubtful, 
 reference should be made to the ordinary, and no changes 
 should be made against the godly counsel and judgment 
 of a bishop. 
 
 These are the words with which the last resolution 
 of the majority of the committee conclude 
 
 Resolved, That the reports of the majority and mi- 
 nority of tlie Committee on Canons be transmitted to 
 the House of Bishops. 
 
 The Pkesident : — The question is upon indefinite 
 postponement of the subject before the House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin :^I call for the question by 
 dioceses and orders. 
 
 The President : — Is it worth while to have a vote by 
 dioceses and orders on this subsidiary question V 
 
 A Deputy — said the vote by dioceses and orders 
 would not be insisted upon if the motion for indefinite 
 postponement should be withdrawn. 
 
 The Deputy (Rev. Mr. Dashiell, of Maryland) — 
 who made the motion for indefinite postponement was 
 found to be absent at this moment, and it was withdrawn 
 on his behalf by another member of the Maryland delega- 
 tion, who seconded the motion by Dr. Littlejohn. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — In order to submit the reso- 
 lutions in their proper order, I move them as an amend- 
 ment to the substitute for the majority report. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — I would say, for one, very briefly 
 that I think members ought to consider a moment be- 
 fore they vote without debate upon a subject which is 
 so very new as that contained in the first resolution. It 
 may be convenient for this present debate, but this pre- 
 paring of rubrics for the Prayer Book is a serious 
 matter. 
 
 The President : — It gives three years to think of it. 
 
 A Deputy: — For these rubrics to become part of the 
 Prayer Book they must be ratified by the next General 
 Convention and go down to the dioceses. 
 
 The President : — They will not be prepared 'til the 
 next General Convention ; then they will be sent down 
 by the next one and ratified afterwards. [Laughter.] 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES: — I wish simply to explain the 
 difference between Dr. Littlejohn's proposition and mine. 
 My own proposition was to refer the subject of preparing 
 rubrics to the House of Bishops ; but he adds that until 
 they do prepare them, each bishop is to prepare them. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Little.iohx : — Oh, no, sir. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Rlggles : — What is it then ? [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejohn : — The second resolution is 
 presented in the very words, ipsissima verba, of the close 
 of the last resolution of the majority of the committee, 
 that in matters doubtful, reference, until the House of 
 
 25 
 
 Bishops shall act in this matter in their collective capaci- 
 ty, shall be had to the ordinary, and no changes shall be 
 made contrary to his judgment. 
 
 Hon. S B. Ruggles: — That simply gives the power 
 to the bishop. I do not say it is objectionable but I wish 
 to point out the difference. 
 
 A Deputy :— Is it in order to ofl"er an amendment to 
 this? 
 
 The President : — No, sir. If the minority report 
 had been offered as an amendment instead of a substi- 
 tute, a substitute for the -whole could be offered. 
 
 The Secketary — explained that the minority report 
 was presented to the House as an amendment. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — It was the manner in which the 
 matter was presented to the House. 
 
 The President : — It is the right way to do it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead :— Certainly. [Laughter.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Van Deusen : — I then ofTor as a substitute 
 for the whole the two resolutions of which I gave notice, 
 to be found on the 64th page of the journal of the Gen- 
 eral Convention of 1844. I offer those two resolutions 
 as a substitute for the whole. [These resolutions were 
 printed above.] 
 
 The President : — The question will be upon adopt- 
 ing those two resolutions as a substitute for all the other 
 questions before the House. 
 
 Rev. Di. Paddock: — I want to ask if we are to un- 
 derstand that those who vote in the affirmative decline 
 altogether making any declaration whatsoever as to the 
 mind of this House in regard to this question which is 
 agitating the Church. 
 
 The President : — The resolutions express that very 
 thing. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Paddock : — I want to ask if that resolution 
 drawn for an entirely different purpose is considered by 
 this House suitable to fit in for this new question which 
 has arisen since that resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigiit : — I do really think it beneath the 
 dignity of this Convention representing this Church in 
 18G8 to go back to that Convention of 1844, and take 
 resolutions oflfered tor a totally different purpose as ex- 
 pressing the sense of this House. It is the most palpable 
 confession of weakness I have ever heard. It would be 
 a disgrace tons. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I would say it is a confession of 
 difficulty but not weakness. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — Then I call for the vote by dio- 
 ceses and orders. 
 
 The question was then taken and resulted as follows : 
 Clerical representatives, 34; Ayes, 11 ; Noes. 21 ; Di- 
 vided, 2. 
 
 Lay representatives, 30 ; Ayes, 7 ; Noes, 20 ; Divided, 
 3. 
 
 The substitute was thereupon declared lost. 
 
 Messages Nos. 65, 66, 67 and 68 from the House of 
 Bishops were here received ; the last resolution being an 
 expression of the sympathy of the House of Bishops in 
 
194 
 
 relation to the tleath of the most Reverend Francis Ful- 
 ford, D. !>., Metropolitan of Canada ; in wliich resolu- 
 tion, on motion of Rev Dr. Haight, the House con- 
 curred. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Goodwin, the House concurred 
 with the House of Bishops in message No. 66, with ref- 
 erence to Alaska. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Watson, of North Carolina, oflFered the 
 following substitute: 
 
 Whereas, it has been represented to this General 
 Convention, that the peace of, the Church has been dis- 
 turbed by ritual practices on the part ot some of the 
 clergy in supposed contravention ot the usuages of this 
 Church, and symbolic of false doctrine, and on the part 
 of others by departures from the custom.s of the Church, 
 by way of delect, therefore, 
 
 Eesolred: That, while recognizing the conflict of opin- 
 ion which exists upon this subject and the resulting dis- 
 quietudes, and while condemning all useless and unau- 
 tliorized aberrations whether by excess or by defect from 
 the customs of the Church, and especially all usages 
 which symbolize doctrines against which our Refornied 
 branch of the Church has solemnly protested; this Con- 
 vention is pursuadccUthat the best cure for the evil 
 complained of, is to be found in the recognition of the 
 great rule of "iinil// in esxenlials, liberty iii, non-essen- 
 tials, and charity in all Ihinys." 
 
 Resolved, that this Convention do earnestly and af- 
 fectionately remind the Clergy and Laity of the Church 
 that they are brethren, and do beseech them to aim to 
 be of one mind, as well as of one heart, and for Christ's 
 sake to seek the things which make lor Peace and Edi- 
 fication, and after the example of the blessed Apostle 
 Paul, to avoid those things, which however innocent in 
 themselves, yet cause their brethren to stumble or to 
 be oH'ended. 
 
 liesolved, that in all questions of ritual observance, 
 arrangement, furniture, or decoration, 1191 determined 
 by the Rubrics or Canons of the Church, and in all 
 questions of the interpretation of the Piubiicsor Canons, 
 upon this subject, the Clergy and Laity are urged to de-, 
 fer to the judgment of tbeu- Bishops, and to make no 
 change against their godly counsels. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Watson, (resuming): — It seems that in the 
 specification of the minority report, we are told that the 
 House of Bishops of the General Convention of 1814, 
 specified certain sacraments as appropriate to the minis- 
 tr}', and a point was made of this yesterday. Still 1 
 would like to draw the attention of the Convention to 
 it in a difierent light. Either the enumeration was a 
 complete specification, or it was not. If it be incom- 
 plete, there is no inference to be drawn from it, and that it 
 is mcomplete, is shown by the fact that it omits ihe stole. 
 I maintain that is fatal to that inference. 1 would like 
 to say, generally, that I am one of those who are not in 
 the habit of practicing any of these extreme ritualistic 
 observances. I officiate in the good old-fashioned man- 
 ner. I am not, therefore, personally interested in any 
 change; but, at the same time, I think there are others 
 that diifer much, and within the bounds of the law, un- 
 til a principle is violated, 1 think they ought to have 
 the same sort of liberty I desire for myself I do not 
 think the Church is in a position to determine this mat- 
 
 ter. We have had the history of a number of years, and 
 that history has been progressive. The answers on this 
 subject do prove, the replies from Ohio and Virginia 
 corroborate the assertion that there lias been progress- 
 ion. Why may there not still be some progression ? 
 I am not willing to sit down with the idea that we have 
 reached the old red sandstone in this matter. While I 
 am perfectly satisfied with the arrangements of the 
 Church as they have been, while I do not expect to 
 change them in my own practice, at the same time I like 
 that liberty for others. I maintain that, while it would 
 be a great harm to enforce practices to which the peo- 
 ple were not accustomed, to attend church where those 
 practices are used is a different case in a city like this. 
 It does seem to me a hardship that a congregation, who 
 are united in desiring more higlily decorated forms of 
 worship, should not be allowed to have them, provided, 
 they do not infringe any canon or law of the Church. 
 It seems to me a part of the liberty wherewith Christ 
 has made us free. This Church is a Church Catholic, 
 intended to include men of all degrees of culture, of all 
 degrees of taste ; and she should be able to adapt her- 
 self to all as she sees fit. It seems to me there are two 
 ways out of the difficulty — either to enforce absolute 
 uniformity or else agree that these things are not essen- 
 tial, and allow each one to worship in the way which 
 conduces most to his own devotions. 
 
 Rev. W. C. Williams; — No man in the Church who 
 acted with any regard to principle, would regard these 
 resolutions. The only thing that controls a clergyman 
 in such matters are the rubrics of the Church and the 
 only person to whom he looks is his bishop. He has 
 promised obedience to his bishop but not to this body. 
 If this body speaks by canon or rubric, then all men are 
 bound. If we are going to do anything, it oughl to be 
 by rubric. It has ever seemed to me very desirable 
 that a set of rubrics should be in our Prayer-Book to 
 settle this question. If one man has a right to wear one 
 gown and another has a right to wear another gown, we 
 have no law except a common law. But if the bishops 
 will set forth and prepare a set of rubrics, givmg the 
 license — I, for one, believe a good deal of license ought 
 to be made — it is very desirable. It has ever seemed to 
 me that it is important that in the I'rayer-Book 
 there should be some general rules as to the vestments, 
 and giving men wide limits to vary. I hope, therelbrei 
 to see the resolutions of the deputy from New York 
 adopted. 
 
 Mr. Cornwall : — I have a resolution which I would 
 offer in case the resolutions from the deputy from New 
 York are voted down. I have no speech to make 
 about it. 
 
 Resolved, That the report of the majority of the 
 Committee on Canons on the conduct of public worsliip 
 be published in the journal for the instruction, warning, 
 and prayerful consideration of the clergy and laity of 
 this Church, with the ftirnest hope that they may con- 
 firm the unitv of the Church, and also testify our adhe- 
 
195 
 
 rence to the sound doctrine of the Book of Common 
 Prayer. 
 
 The Pkesident : — The question now before the 
 House is the substitute by the gentleman from North 
 Carolina. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I rise to a point of order. We 
 have resolutions from the Connnittee before the House, 
 and an amendment lo an amendment is proposed ; and 
 thereupon a substitute for the whole matter was ottered 
 by the gentleman from Western New York. That sub- 
 stitute was negatived. My question is, whether it is in 
 order to go on presenting substitutes without end, so 
 we may never reach the question originally presented. 
 Here is another substitute. Is that in order ? 
 
 The Puesident : — So far as I see, there is no limit 
 except ill the discretion of the members of the House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Pierce : — I see no limit, and move to lay 
 the whole subject on the table. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin — called for a vote by dioceses 
 and orders. 
 
 A vote was then taken upon the motion to lay upon 
 the table ; it was lost. 
 
 The Pkesident : — The question now recurs upon the 
 substitute of the gentleman from North Carolina. 
 
 Judge Otis : — There is authority that the last substi- 
 tute is not in order. 
 
 The Pkesident : — It has been suggested that the 
 point made by Dr. Goodwin, that there can be but one 
 substitute in order, is correct. Practice determines it, 
 and these experts have certified that that is the prac- 
 tice ; and, tl^^refore, the substitute from North Caroli- 
 na is not in order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I think it is unfair to choke any 
 man down with reference to this great debate, and I 
 appeal to the justice and equity of the House. 1 hope 
 that in this House we shall unanimously pass, or, at least, 
 by a very great majority. Dr. Littlejohn's amendment ; 
 and I will give my reasons for it. In the first place, 
 this has been fully and distinctly brought before us, 
 that the feeling with regard to these minority and ma- 
 jority reports is, 'that we do not want to pass them. 
 We think there is a little too much preaching in them — 
 that tliere ought to be law, and not resolutions. Now, 
 I would say that I think, considering the Committee on 
 Canons and the men that are in it, these reports should 
 be treated with the highest respect; and I consider that 
 Dr. Littlejohn has treated them with the highest re- 
 spect — conferred upon them an honor which has seldom 
 been conferred upon any reports of any committee, by 
 transmitting them to the House of Bishops. [Laughter.] 
 I will consider the resolutions in a reverse order, as I 
 suppose I have a right to do. [Laughter.] The sec- 
 ond resolution of Dr. Littlejohn is: [Reads the reso- 
 lution.] Now, this is simply a principle which every 
 man of this House holds as a churchman. I do not say 
 whether he be a high churchman or low churchman. 
 It is in our ordination office, and it is a principle of us 
 
 all that we .should defer to the godly counsel of our 
 Bishop ; and I will say that with regard to the men 
 in this Church going to Rome, an aberration from this 
 principle has been the first sign of their schismatic tem- 
 per. I will say that there are some men who called 
 themselves high churchmen twenty years ago, and were 
 in a certain style — that is, having an inclination to go 
 to Rome— who felt like John Randolph, that they would 
 go a mile out of the way to kick a Bishop. [Laughter.] 
 I think that this second resolution of Rev. Dr. Little- 
 john embodies a principle upon which we all agree. 1 
 will go to the first resolution : — 
 
 "Resolved, That the House of Bishops be requested," 
 etc. This brings it before the Bishops. It supposes 
 that they have a right to consider such a thing ; it sup- 
 poses that they have a right to report it, that is, three 
 years hence ; it then supposes that that would come 
 before us. Suppose we all agree to pa-ss it. It then 
 goes for three years more ; that is to say, it takes the 
 time of six years. I calculate that by the time that 
 has come, we shall be a little cooler on the matter than 
 now. As I look upon it, no man can have an objection 
 to this thing. No man can have an objection to adojit- 
 ing a series of rubrics which will put an end to all this 
 discussion, one way or another. I calculate this is a 
 very desirable resolution to propound at this time. 
 The reason that I agree with these resolutions of the 
 Reverend Doctor, and uphold them with all my heart 
 and soul is, that I recognize that in this Convention 
 and in this Church there arc men whose hearts and 
 souls are right before God, but who do not wish to be 
 put down by anybody ; that is to say, I have a feeling 
 that good men, righteous men, true men, are on both 
 sides. I belong to the old Bishop Hobart school. I 
 go for this Church, and I go for primitive Christianity, 
 antecedent lo the union of Church and State. I believe 
 there are certain gentlemen who have considerable Uive 
 for the Puritans, and I would say with regard to one of 
 these Puritans (Richard Baxter) I have heard him 
 praised in this .Convention ; but if the persons ki.ew 
 him they would not praise him. He did as much mis- 
 chief in the Church and Slate of England as if he had 
 no piety at all. It vias like the honesty of a certain 
 distinguished representative of the fourth order of this 
 Church, who did as much mischief as if he had no 
 honesty at all, and yet was recognized as the most hon- 
 est man in the world. So with Richard Baxter. I 
 recognize that any resolution of this House, any ex- 
 pression of its will has the greatest weight in the world, 
 as expressing the sentiments of thirty-five dioce.«es ; 
 as expressing the sentiments of learned and educated 
 men. Anything we say against gentlemen, one side or 
 the other, is simply a club to knock them down. I do 
 not want this Convention to be made a means of put- 
 ting down, even by implication, any man who professes, 
 honestly and sincerely, to believe in the doctrines of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church, according to the 
 
196 
 
 Prayer-Book ; and those most puritanically inclined, 
 and those most ritualistically inclined I recognize as 
 men who will keep to this test. I am acquainted with 
 some who are ritualistiii, and I know them to be honest 
 and good men ; and I want nothing to be done that 
 shall produce the appearance or the feeling that this 
 General Convention has made any declaration, whatso- 
 ever, that shall have the appearance, in the public mind, 
 of putting anj' man down who is honestly in the Church, 
 who is not tried by his Bishop, not accused, not con- 
 demned; and for these reasons, with my whole heart 
 and soul, I go for the resolutions propounded by Dr. 
 Littlejohn. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGGLES : — I second the resolutions of Dr. 
 Littlejohn, and hope they will pass. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — If ever we can get at a direct vote 
 upon the resolutions submitted by the minority, I shall 
 have something to say upon the subject, if I can obtain 
 the floor. I do not propose to enter into the general 
 merits of this question, at this time and in this con- 
 nection ; but before the vote is taken upon the propo- 
 sition now before us, I wish members of the House to 
 be made to realize that this is indeed a postponement 
 of the whole subject. We ask the House of Bishops 
 to set forth for adoption at the next General Conven- 
 tion rubrics touching certain things. Well, sir, those 
 rubrics will have to be submitted to the consideration 
 of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the next 
 General Convention. If they chance to be adopted by 
 the two houses, they then have to go down, being re- 
 ported to all the dioceses of the land, to be returned to 
 the following General Convention, and then conBrmed 
 or rejected. So that, upon this whole subject, we get 
 nothing accomplished until the expiration of six years. 
 And if at that second General Convention there shall 
 be the disposition to alter a single word that has been 
 adopted by the next previous Convention (that is, the 
 one following that which we are now assembled in), it 
 will have to go down again and be postponed for another 
 three years. I submit to members of this House that 
 this is just equivalent to putting that which is an im- 
 minent and pressing question, which bears upon this 
 present moment, upon which the hearts of all the mem- 
 bers of the Church in all parts of the land are high- 
 strung, it is putting that question off. It is evading 
 the question that is now befoi-e us. Sir, we ask the 
 passage of our resolutions to meet this present stress ; 
 and if the gentleman after the passage of those resolu- 
 tions, will propose this project for the issuance of certain 
 rubrics by-and-by, we will vote for them, but not as a 
 substitute for that which is required at this present 
 time ; and when the vote is taken the deputies from the 
 Diocese of Pennsylvania ask for a vole by dioceses and 
 orders. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Lab.iGII : — I arose with the intention of 
 uttering the same sentiments as the gentleman who pre- 
 ceded me, that the resolution now before us is really a 
 
 proposition to do nothing in the case. It is a virtual 
 postponement of the whole question, a question the 
 most important that this Convention has passed upon, 
 and which the whole Church is looking for us to settle 
 in some way, to give peace in all their borders. One of 
 the resolutions says, "in all matters that are doubtful." 
 Now I ask, " Doubtful in whose mind?" Suppose a 
 person is about to establish a new ritualistic church. 
 He says, "I have no doubts in my mind, and why should 
 I split matteri with the Bishop ; as long as I have no 
 doubt in my mind, that resolution does not bind me. 
 It may be doubtful in the minds of others ; but those 
 doubts are not to govern me." It doesn't provide any 
 remedy at all. What is doubtful to one is not doubtful 
 to another. How does the resolution touch the case ? 
 There is a certain way to find out how not to do a 
 .thing. That is the way with this resolution. Now as 
 regards the Bi!^hops agreeing upon a thing. We have 
 once had an example of that kind, of Bishops direciing 
 what should be done in parishes. There was once a 
 Bishop of North Carolina that had a societ}' in his dio- 
 cese, called The Society of the Holy Cross, all under 
 the patronage of the Bishop, all regulated and author- 
 ized by the proper authorities of the diocese ; and in 
 that society there were such practices as reverences to 
 the Virgin, and even, it is said, a kind of devotion to 
 the Virgin ; and these things were tolerated by diocesan 
 authority. They were sanctioned by the authority of 
 the Bishop of that diocese. You know what the re- 
 sult is where our Bishops are pliable. What is the ' 
 condition of things in this diocese? Wha^ is the state 
 of things all over the Church ? The complaint of the 
 Church is that this Bishop countenances it, and that he 
 will not bring the authority of his office to put a stop to 
 it. That is the complaint all over the Church. How 
 is this difficulty to be remedied by these resolutions? 
 You have the expression "in matters doubtful." The 
 individual about to introduce these rituals has no doubt 
 at all ; and he has nobody to apply to. I say there is 
 an indefiniteness about these resolutions which does not 
 touch the question that is properly before this House, 
 and this House ought to be open and manly, in order 
 that we may give an account of ourselves to our Church 
 when we go home. I expect soon to go beyond the 
 Mississippi. I shall have the question asked, " What 
 did the Church say about ritualism? — did she express 
 any disapprobation of those practices which are disturb- 
 ing us so much, and keeping others away from us, who 
 fear that we are not steady in the faith, and likely to 
 end we know not where?" What will be my answer? 
 I shall have to confess that they have evaded the subject. 
 Rev. Dr. Mead ; — 1 am surprised to hear my vener- 
 able brother behind me [Rev. Dr. Goodwin] as well as ' 
 the one who has just sat down faulting that resolution 
 for the word "doubtful," as leaving it to each individual 
 clergyman to decide on which question he should ask 
 the Bishop's approval. 
 
197 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe :— I did not fault it for that. [This 
 remarlc was obviously not heard by Rev. Dr. Mead.] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead (continuing) : — Permit me to read 
 the last resolution of the minority. [Reads the resolu- 
 tion.] Pray tell me wh.it is the ditrerence. It amounts 
 to the same thing precisely, and yet it is faulted on that 
 very ground. I am free to say that I am prepared for 
 one to take the resolutions offered by the gentleman 
 from New York [Rev. Dr. Litllejohn.] I was opposed 
 to any action on the subject; for riluat or rile is an in- 
 definite term. We have it ecclesiastically, we have it 
 socially. In rite the Quaker was a ritualist, his rite 
 consisting especially in wearing a broad brimmed hat 
 and the straight coat. And the Quakeress was a ritual- 
 ist. She wore that which did cover the head, and 
 might be called a bonnet; she did not put the contents 
 of a whole dry goods store on her back, but wore what 
 was molest and decent. But what occasioned the fall- 
 ing o8" of that rite of Quakery ? First, it was brought 
 into existence by opposition ; it was persecuted into 
 notoiiety and into a substantial existence by opposition. 
 The moment it achieved its end and became a power 
 ecclesiastiL- in its own way, that moment it began to 
 subside; and now i have seen in the streets of New 
 York a hirge number of Quakers from time to time, but 
 a Quaker with a broad biimmed hat, the ritunl Quaker, 
 is vara avis in lerri.<, [a rare bird in the world]. Why 
 is this? They have been left to themselves and they 
 have died out. Now I will speak of another ritual, a 
 ' rite or use. Within twenty three years a Bishop of 
 this Church, now living, e.xpressed to me his difficulty 
 conscieniiously in relation to ordination of a young man 
 of the General Seminar)' because he had not put a 
 razor on his face ; he had what would be called a mous 
 tache and goatee ; and yet for that crime he was not 
 prepared to ordain him. A gentleman then wearing 
 that appendnge of nature as honorably as you wear it, 
 [the President's beard being of patriarchal style and 
 dimensions] would not have been allowed to take a seat 
 in this Convention. We wanted smooth faces then. 
 We have changed our ritual, and in twenty years longer 
 beard.s will be among the things that were. Under 
 these circumstances, let us not m,ike so much of a little 
 thing changing every day. You may go into the ad- 
 joining avenue [Filth avenue], and there you will see 
 the rites of fashion. You will look at them, and smile 
 at them ; by-and by they pass away ; contempt or neg- 
 lect will soon drive them away. I have looked on the 
 whole of this proceeding; I have sat here and heard 
 grave gentlemen, Christian ministers, laymen of emin- 
 ence, talking about what? False doctrine? What 
 have we to do with false doctrine ? Show me the man | 
 who teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation or openly | 
 declares it, and I will bring him where he will be com- 
 pelled to renounce his false doctrine or be compelled to 
 be degraded in this Church. Hero are we, an exceed- 
 ingly grave body, many of us grey-headed men, talking 
 
 on these idle subjects. Why, sir, I have felt again and 
 again one line of Dr. Y'oung's continually running 
 through my head. What do«5 this all mean ? It — 
 
 " Resembles ocean into tempest tossed, 
 
 To waft a feather or to drown a fly." [Laughter.] 
 
 The vote was then taken upon the resolutions offered 
 by Dr. Littlejohn, and they were adopted by the follow- 
 ing vote : 
 
 Clerical representatives, 35: 21 ayes, 10 noes, 4 di- 
 vided : 
 
 Lay representatives 30 : 18 ayes, 8, noes, 4 divided. 
 
 Judge Otis : — I make the formal motion that the res- 
 olutions be passed by this House. Carried. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Mead, the Secretary was in- 
 structed to forward a copy of The CnuucnMAN's Phono- 
 graphic report to the Standing Committee of each dio- 
 cese in the United States. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Howe, a canon, presented at 
 the last General Convention, with reference to the 
 naming of the dioceses, was referred to the Committee 
 on Canons. 
 
 The Pi;EsiDENT — announced that he had received a 
 letter from Rev. Mr. Langdon, resigning his place on 
 the Italian Reform Commission, and that he had ap- 
 pointed Rev. Dr. Haight in his stead ; and in place of 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan and Rev. Dr. iMontgoniery, withdrawn, 
 he appointed Rev. Dr. Leeds and Rev. Dr. Huntington. 
 As the lay members of that commission he a])pointed 
 Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Chauncey — On the joint com- 
 mittee on the course of Theological study, he appointed 
 Rev. Dr. Haight, Rev. Dr. Hare, Mr. Meads, ami Mr. 
 Origin S. Seymour. On the joint committee on llym- 
 nody, he appointed Rev. Dr. Huntington, Rev. Dr. 
 Howe, and Mr. Henry E. Pierrepont. 
 
 The House of Bishops having sent back the report 
 on the Theological Seminary, because it was incomplete. 
 Rev. Dr. Shelton explained that the incompleteness was 
 due to the fact that the gentlemen who represented the 
 different dioceses had not sent him the names of the 
 trustees belonging to the Seminary ; and upon his mo- 
 tion the list of trustees was returned to the House of 
 Bishops with the information that from the imperfect 
 data in their hands in conserjuence of the failure of the 
 dioceses to nominate or to report their nominations of 
 tru.stees, it was impossible for the House committee to 
 submit a more correct list. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — I understand that we have receiv- 
 ed a mes,sage from the House of Bishops signifying that 
 they do not concur in the canon respecting assistant 
 bishops. I move that this House ask for a colnmittee of 
 conference. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — That question is debatab'e, I sup- 
 pose. I beg leave to br'ng l.efore this House vtry 
 strong reasons why they should not go forward and ask 
 for a committee of conference upon this iniquitous can- 
 on which we passed by mistake. \ 
 
198 
 
 The President [smiling] ; — you must apologize for 
 that expression. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I apologize for that expression. 
 [Laughter]. Now, sir, in reference to this matter tlie 
 House of Bishops has refused the canon which was 
 passed here by a small majority. I would suggest the 
 effect of that canon to this House. I do not want to 
 delay a vote by any debate or any long speech. This 
 Church considers it righteous and just tliat in case of a 
 bishop becoming incapable of discharging his episcopal 
 duties, he has a riglit to have an assistant. That is fair 
 and just. This canon simply brings in this considera- 
 tion. 
 
 Rev. L)r. Howe : — Is it in order to discuss the merits 
 of a canon which we ourselves have adopted ? It is a 
 simple question of a committee of conference on a canon 
 which has been adopted by this House. 
 
 The Pkesiuent :— I know of but two motions that 
 are not debatable ; those are, the motion to lay on the 
 table, and the motion to adjourn. Therefore I suppose 
 this question like every other, must be debatable. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — The gentleman is not debating the 
 question whether we shall ask for a Committee of Con- 
 ference, but he is debating the canon wliich we have 
 had already debated. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I conceive I have a right to put 
 before this House why we should not ask for a Coumiil- 
 tee of Conference. I think it is fair and just, and do 
 not think it fair that my time should be used up m this 
 way. I call upon the Secretary to tell how many njin- 
 utes this has lost me. [Laughter]. I say that this canon 
 simply adds a new provision, that is to say, a provision 
 that the bishop shall have a right to have an assistant, 
 not when he is incapable, but, when he fears he is likely 
 to become incapable. [Laughter]. It was said by a 
 gentleman that it was for the sake of saving precious 
 lives. I have no doubt of it at all. Under this canon as we 
 have passed it, there is not a bishop that would not have 
 an assistant bishop in twenty years. It was like the old 
 reason for drinking, six reasons, the last of which was 
 "being dry, or any other reason." Now, I have some 
 little more to say about this canon. Upon examining 
 this canon you will see that it is a canon which has a 
 double-edge ; on the one hand it gives a factious Con- 
 vention who dislike their bishop the right to go forward 
 and torment him to death, exerting all kinds of pressure 
 that they may be able to compel him to get an assistant 
 bishop. In the second place, it gives any bishop, what- 
 soever, who manages, as bishops have done to my 
 knowledge, and will do, the riglit to nominate his suc- 
 cessor, to iiSpair the rights of the clergy — a right to go 
 into the diocesan convention and force, by personal in- 
 fluence, his successor upon the diocese. Now, it was as- 
 serted that it was utterly impossible that bishops should 
 do that. A great deal of odium was cast upon that 
 idea. I say that in one case a bishop of a western dio- 
 cese (who has gone to his rest, and I hope is in Paradise) 
 
 by his personal influence elected a man who had been 
 before this Convention and was rejected by the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies and by the House of Bishops. 
 I therefore object to a Committee of Conference being 
 called, because it simply brings us again to the considers 
 tioo of a canon which has a double-edge, fitted to torment 
 the bishops and fitted to deprive the clergy and laity of 
 their rights, and which has been rejected by the House 
 of Bishops. I hope, therefore, with regard to this canon 
 which we passed by a small majority, that this House 
 win go in and by a large majority declare that they will 
 not go it blind on any man's advice whatsoever, but will 
 vote according to their consciences. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Rorers, of Texas: — I hope the House will 
 remember that when this canon was passed originally it 
 was upon a great pressure. The next day the motion 
 was made to reconsider, but, going over until the next 
 morning, the action was had upon reconsideration and 
 those who aslced that the canon should be reconsidered 
 were placed in the peculiar condition that they were to 
 bring about the reconsideration by a majority of orders. 
 Now, when we came to vote there were against the can- 
 on (in favor of this reconsideration), 24 dioceses, 6 for 
 it, and 4 divided. There were lay delegations, I think, 17 
 voting against the canon, 14 for, and 4 divided. Now, 
 gentlemen, on mature consideration a large majority of 
 this House put their foot upon this canon. The bishops 
 have put their feet upon this canon ; and now it strikes 
 me that it is with remarkable ill-grace that any man 
 comes into this House and asks 24 clerical delegations to 
 reconsider our reconsideration, and the lay delegations 
 also to reconsider. We have already decided this mat- 
 ter. In reality we had our foot upon it. Let us keep 
 our foot upon it and refuse to grant this conference 
 which is asked for and let us go home as we should h.ave 
 done long ago without this canon passing, without this 
 tormenting curse upon us. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : It may be with exceeding ill grace 
 that this is done. I hope I shall not have the ill grace 
 to use such language as my brother has used wiih re- 
 gard to the action of this House. It is perfectly within 
 the jirovince of this House to reconsider any question ; 
 and it is perfectly consistent with gentlemanly proprie- 
 ty for a member of this House, when the Bishops have 
 returned to us a canon, declining to pass the canon 
 which we enacted, to ask for a Committee of Confer- 
 ence. It may be that further reflection has led some 
 gentlemen of this House to think that they have not 
 rightly understood the question. I am perfectly wil- 
 ling to take the odium of seconding the motion that 
 tills House ask for a Committee of Conference upon 
 this subject. I do believe after all that has been said, 
 and all the vituperation heaped upon this canon, that 
 it is a canon which will be of eminent service to the 
 Church in more waj s than one. 
 
 Mr. McCrady : — So late in the day do the friends 
 of this canon propose a Committee of Conference ! 
 
199 
 
 They have had a fair chance. Thoy passed and sent it 
 to the House of Bishops, and the House of Bi^hops did 
 not concur. You only distract the Houfe. A great 
 many of our measures have been sent to the House of 
 Bishops todiiy, which ihey may refuse to concur in. 
 I do not see why we should at this present time, within 
 ten minutes of tlie time of adjournment, ask for a Com- 
 mittee of Conference. Notliinj; can be done in that 
 time. A small majority of (his House recommended it 
 to be sent to the House of Bishops. It is the fortune 
 of those opposed to it that it has come back ; and we 
 have a right to avail ourselves of the opportunity to 
 refuse to consent to a Committee of Conference. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — This House has expressed itself 
 twice in a constitutional way i^ favor of adopting such a 
 canon. Gentlemen come with th ir ex parte statements 
 with regard to it. The solemn fact is they have twice 
 affirmed that this canon is their will ; and now our 
 Right Reverend Fathers, as I understand, by a very 
 small majority — [the President: — I don't think it is 
 right to make that statement]. — I withdraw that state- 
 ment — have declined to accede to that which we pro- 
 pose as a canon, for reasons that none of us have heard 
 in tliis House. Perhaps it will be the judgment of a Com- 
 mittee of Conlerence that no such canon ought to have 
 been adopted, and that they will propose to this House 
 an acceptance of the refusal of the House of Bishops to 
 concur. It seems to me that it is a matter of entire pro- 
 priety that we should confer with them. As to the late- 
 ness — it has often been done on the evening of the last 
 day's session. I do not know what we shall do to-mor- 
 row to keep ourselves occupied until the evening. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hodges: — I must with all humility take 
 exception to the mode in which ray reverend brother 
 from Pennsylvania has expressed the a'-tian of this 
 House. Twice, he says, this House has confirmed its will 
 that this canon shall be passed. I will recall the atten- 
 tion of the House to the fact that the original canon was 
 passed by accident, and the ditference in the count was 
 only five in one hundred and seventy, and every one 
 who tries to count persons standing in that way, knows 
 there may be some mistake. It was pas.«ed by a small 
 majority. An<l when the matter was reconsidered, it was 
 evidently not the judgment of this House in an author- 
 itative way. When this matter came up for reconsidera- 
 tion, the judgment of the House was numerically e.--:- 
 pressed as against the canon, because the whole numeri- 
 cal majnrity was in favor of the reconsideration. Had 
 it not been for the technical way in which that question 
 was taken — had it not been the question of the pas- 
 sage or not of the canon, it would have been decided 
 against it; but from the particular way in which it came 
 up, it could not be reconsidered. We have been told 
 that the House of Bishops have not given us any reason. 
 I think if the House had listened to the message, it 
 would have heard the reasons ; and it strikes me that 
 they are particularly sound and ought to be satisfactory 
 
 — " that this House does not concur in the canon so and 
 
 so, for the reasons that it greatly aflTccts the relation of 
 the Bishop to his diocese 0'"^ Bishops are the persons 
 interested), and tends to disturb existing relations as 
 well between members of the House of Bishops among 
 themselves as between the present diocesan Bishops 
 and the people under their charge." If these are not 
 reasons I have never heard any. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe : — I do not understand them, and 
 should like to have other opportunity to hear them 
 explained. 
 
 Mr. : — In behalf of Vermont, I call for 
 
 this question to be decided by dioceses and orders. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Hare, the matter was laid 
 upon the table. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Wyatt offered the following resolution : 
 
 Jie.iolved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
 
 Canons, to examine canon number , on the subject 
 
 of marriage after divorce, and report to the next Gener- 
 al Convention, whether in their judgment the proviso, 
 '■ Except cases of divorce (or the cause of adultery," 
 ought to be stricken out to render the canon more strict- 
 ly conformable to teaching of H0I3' Scripture. 
 
 The resolution was lost. 
 
 The House then adjourned until to-morrow. 
 
 TWENTIETH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Thursday, Oct. 29tb, 1868. 
 
 Morning Prayer was said by the Rev. Dr. Bailey 
 and Rev. Dr. McMasters. 
 
 The Benediction was pronounced by Bishop Ran- 
 dall. 
 
 The journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and 
 approved. 
 
 Rev. Dr. HAiGHr: — The papers this morning have 
 brought us the sad intelligence of the death of his Grace 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury. When we remember 
 our close connection with the Church of England of 
 late, and how it has been due to the character, the 
 nreat courtesy, urbanity, prudence, and gentleness of 
 that prelate, and when we call to mind his high charac- 
 ter and distinguished position, I think it will not be in 
 the mind of this House to allow this melancholy event 
 to pass by without some manifestation of its feelings. I 
 therefore move : 
 
 That this House has heard with profound regret of 
 the death of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 and that this- House do communicate to the House of 
 Bishops its desire to join with them in such expressions 
 of regard and of respect lor his memory as they may 
 sje fit to prepare. 
 
 Resoked, That the action of the General Conven- 
 tion in regard to the death of the Archbishop of Cati- 
 bury be transmitted at once by telegraph to the Hifhop 
 of London, the Dean of the Province oi' Canterbury. 
 
 This resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh tlie action of the General 
 Convention was communicated by telegraph to Eng- 
 land. 
 
 Rev. Dr. HaiGht moved that this House concur in 
 
200 
 
 the resolutions contained in message No. 63 from the 
 House of Bishops, concerning the consecration of 
 churches. 
 
 A Deputv: — I have no ohjection to that part which 
 has been read. It may be remembered by some, that in 
 the Convention a few days ago, I referred to a case in 
 which a certain church corporation found it necessary 
 to purchase four different lots from different owners, 
 and that it was impossible to secure one of those lots 
 unless a mortgage was given to the owner upon that lot. 
 I ask the question whether, under such circumstances, 
 that church could be consecrated, the mortgage not be- 
 ing one fourth part of the lot. 1 do not see what pro- 
 vision, if any, is made for such a case. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigut : — That whole matter is left to the 
 diocese. 
 
 A Deptjty: — Can there not be a lien or incumbrance? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — It will be difficult to say whether 
 it is such a lien as would prevent the consecration. The 
 manifest intention of the canon is to prevent a church 
 from being consecrated that might, under any circum- 
 stances, be sold for debt. 
 
 1 here were here reijeived from the House of Bisophs 
 messages 69 to 76. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare asked for the reading of the canon 
 about consecration of churches. It was then read. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hake : — Under the present circumstances, 
 with such information as I have, I shall be obliged to 
 vote against the proposed canon, because I fear in Penn- 
 sylvania it will void bequests and other gifts to the ves- 
 tries. I referred the other day to a law well-known as 
 the Price Law. Although I do not profess to speak with 
 certainty, my impression is a strong one, that that law 
 voids all bequests and gifts which are made to any ves- 
 try or body of trustees when that vestry or body of 
 trustees is controlled by anjr ecclesiastical persons. I 
 may be mistaken, but my impression is a strong one, 
 that the effect of the passage of this canon will be to 
 make legally void in Pennsylvania, gifts to churches. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — I thought the effect of the ob- 
 jection from Pennsj Ivania had reference to the title. 
 This section enacts that it shall not be lawful to encum- 
 ber or alienate the property without the consent of the 
 bishop acting by and with the advice of the Standing 
 Committee. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare : — In other words, there is an over- 
 ruling inference over the vestry, so that they cannot 
 alienate the property without consulting another body. 
 This law, intended to prevent the accumulation of pro- 
 perty in^he hands of Roman Catholic Bishops, has the 
 effect, unless I mistake, of miking void all gifts to ves- 
 tries, provided they are under the controlling influence 
 of ecclesiastical persons. 
 
 Dr. Haight : —I do not see how it touches this par- 
 ticular point. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead:— It affects it directly. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight : — You might add that this shall 
 
 not apply in states where it would conflict with the 
 state law. I move that it be referred back to the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hensiiaw, of Rhode Island : — I have an 
 amendment to offer. The amendment I propose is that 
 the following should be added to the canon : 
 
 "It shall not be lawful to sell or lease any pew or 
 seat in any church or (chapel now consecrated or which 
 may hereafter be consecrated, by auction held within 
 the walls of said church or chapel." 
 
 This amendment was referred together with the pro- 
 posed canon to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 The President appointed the committee on the 
 part of the House with reference to the archives of the 
 Church: Dr. Coit, Mr. Winthiop and Mr. Hamilton 
 Fish. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haight moved that the House concur in 
 message No. 74 from the House of Bishops, continuing 
 the Joint Committee on friendly intercourse with Swe- 
 den. 
 
 On motion of Rev. Dr. Mead there was referred to 
 the Committee on E.\penses, a resolution appropriating 
 two hundred and fifty dollars for clerkhire, and expens- 
 es of the House of Bishops. 
 
 Mr. Fish : — I would ask leave of this Convention at 
 this moment, when the chair is temporarily filled, to 
 offer a resolution on which I wish to say nothing, but 
 which I am sure will address itself to the cordial sympa- 
 thies of this House. 
 
 llesolced, That this House tender their sincere thanks 
 to the Reverend President for the courteous discharge 
 of the delicate and arduous duties of his responsible po- 
 sition, and that the hearty thanks of the House are giv- 
 en to the Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary, and 
 the Treasurer, for the very satisfactory manner in which 
 they have performed their duties. 
 
 These resolutions were unanimously adopted. 
 Rev. Mr. Breck offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved That the thanks of this House be presented 
 to the churchmen of this city, and its vicinity, for their 
 generous hospitalitj' during the past three weeks, and 
 that we shall gratefully cherish the remembrance of the 
 many kind attentions tendered to us by their fiimilies. 
 
 Resolved^ That the thanks of this House be presented 
 to the Bishop of New York, and the clergy and laity, 
 who have opened their houses for the social gathering 
 of the membi rs of the Convention, thus affording op- 
 portunities (or delightful interchange of greetings truJy 
 refreshing after the close of the more formal engage- 
 ments of the day. 
 
 These resolutions were unanimously adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead offered the following resolution, which 
 was adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention, in justice to its own 
 feelings, acknowledges its obligations to the Rev. Fred- 
 erick Ogilby, D. D., and his associates in the Committee 
 of Hospitalitv rai.sed by the Churchmen of this city for 
 their kind labors in providing for the hospitable recep- 
 tion of the clergy and laity of this House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead also offered the following resolution, 
 
 which was adopted: 
 
201 
 
 Tlfunlverl, Tliat the recfors, churchwardens and res- 
 trymcn of Trinity CImr'.'h, an'i the Church of the 
 Transfiinralion, iinil of Calvary Church of this city, ar« 
 eniith'i) to the w.irmest thanl<s of this House for their 
 ]ib?ral provision a'wl kind attention to the wants and 
 convenience of tliis Convention. 
 
 Mr. Wf:l?ii: — I second that with the utmost cordi- 
 ality. IMy connection has been mainly with the rector 
 of the parish. 1 must say he is entitled to the most 
 corilial thanks for the attentions he has shown this Con- 
 vention. He has piven his best efforts early and late. 
 He has made the work of the committee very light and 
 very pleasant. 
 
 Rev. r>r. MEAd offered the following resolution, which 
 was alopted : 
 
 EesrilceiJ, That when this House adjourns, it adjourn 
 to nK'ct the House of Bisliops at Calvary Church, at 
 seven and a half oVlork this evenin;;, to hear the Pastor- 
 al Letter, and to join in the closing religious services, 
 anil that immediately after the Benediction is pronounc- 
 ed, this House do stand adjourned sine die. 
 
 Resolutions were adopted e.xpressing the thanks of the 
 House to the Hon. James Kelly, postmaster of this city, 
 and to George Woodward for his courteous attention as 
 post-office clerk during the session. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hubbaud, from the Committee on the 
 Prayer-book, repoited a resolution (adopted) with refer- 
 ence to certain memorials presented with regard to the 
 new version of the Nicene Creed — that it was deemed 
 inex[iedient. 
 
 On motion of the Rev. Dr. Abercrombie it was ordered 
 that ten copies of the journal be placed in the hands of 
 the Kusso-Greek Committee for exchange for documents, 
 etc. 
 
 Message No. 77 from the House of Bishops communi- 
 cated the following message to be transmitted to the 
 Lord Bisliop of London: 
 
 To Ihe Lord BUhop of London: 
 
 The two Houses of (General Convention transmit their 
 affeciionate condolence to the Church of England on the 
 death 01 its verjerable Prinia'e. 
 
 (Signed) B. B. Smith, Presiding Bishop. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Welsh the name of the President 
 was added to the communication, and the Secretary was 
 ordered to transmit the message. 
 
 Mr. Welsh. — 1 would like to ask, for information, 
 what is new matter and what is not [with reference to 
 a resolution by the House that after the time of its adop- 
 tion no new miitter should be introduced into the House]. 
 The House of Bishops has sent a request here for two 
 or three things, which Ihe Committee on Canons have 
 said they are indisposed to concur in. 1 take it for 
 granted that it would not be new matter, because it has 
 been before us before. 
 
 The President. — Nothing coming from the House of 
 Bishops can be regarded as new matter; we are bound 
 to act npon whatever they send to us. 
 
 Mr. Welsh. — They have sent an earnest petition to 
 this House, one that has given them deep grief, and our 
 26 
 
 reply has wounded them deeply, and they feel that it 
 has marred not only their happiness but their usefulness. 
 I have perceived that the difficulty is likely to go on and 
 be aggravated with Ihe increase of numbers. Some 
 years since, when 1 suppose there was some little feeling 
 between the two Houses, we came to the conclusion that 
 the House of Bishops should be put in a position that 
 no other House has been put in. We got Ihe House to 
 agree that every measure that we sent up to the House 
 of Bishops should be returned with reasons if they did 
 not concur, or become a law. They soon found it troub- 
 lesome. The House of Bishops is increasing, and they 
 say that it compels them to hasty action. For instance, 
 we will be engaged for days on some matter of business, 
 and little or nothing will be sent to Ihe bishops. Then 
 we will get to business and send up there a whole batch 
 of canons; and they will come in just as they get into 
 some important discussion. In the midst of that discus- 
 sion the Secretary says, "here is a batch of things that 
 have to be acted upon, or they become law." They im- 
 mediately legislate in great haste. This difficulty is 
 likely to be aggravated with the number of new bishops 
 that are likely to come into the next House of Bishops. 
 The whole House of Bishops feel this difficulty to be a 
 grave one. I think the whole thing is wrong; and I 
 should like to see the number of diys taken out, but to 
 leave in the "reasons" They asked us a t^iw days ago 
 to take out the reasons and the days both. We declined 
 to concur. They have not sent any other message, for 
 they feel wounded There was no offer to have a com- 
 mittee of conference on that subject. We simply sent 
 word back that the request made by them was not con- 
 curred in by this House. I think we were wrong there; 
 and I think that any gentleman who would put this 
 House in the condition of the House of Bishops — though 
 it is not possible for a layman to do so fully (however I 
 have occasionally known clergymen who almost thought 
 they were bishops) — if we really feel grateful, I think it 
 is about time we might be a little Churchiy, a little kind 
 to our Fathers, that we might consider their dilficulty. 
 I should prefer infinitely to take out the time, leaving it 
 to them wholly. I know we have some old-fashioned 
 people, and it might grieve them very much. I would 
 be willing to give the bishofis five days. But I would 
 rather have a resolution of this sort passed. 
 
 Resolved, That Ihe House of Bishops concurring, it 
 be proposed that Article 3 of the Constitution be amend- 
 ed by striking out the words "wiiliin three days alter 
 the action shall have been reported," so that it shall read 
 thus: "and in all cases the House of Bishops shall s^ig- 
 nifV their approbation or disapprobation, the latter with 
 their reasons in writing, and in failure thereof it shall 
 have the operation of the law." 
 
 I am perfectly willing to trust the bishops. I do 
 know what Bishop White designed in founding this 
 Church. I happened to live in the same city ; and J do 
 know that he wanted as striking an analogy between this 
 Church and the government of the United Stales as he 
 could have. We give the President ten days, but bo- 
 
202 
 
 tween the Senate and House of Representatives there 
 is no such arrangement. This proposed amenrlraent is 
 clearly right ; it is respectful to our Falliers. Tliis will 
 have to go to the next General Convention, and then it 
 will be brought forward three years hence. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead.^I have a few word^^ to say on this 
 subject. The first is, that it is rather late in the session 
 to originate new matter. And the question has been 
 once presented and disposed of. 
 
 The President. — The only way in which the thing 
 could be introduced would be to move a re-consideration 
 of the action of this House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead. — We are late in the session. The 
 House has now dwindled to a comparatively small num- 
 ber; and I think it would be unwise, by a two-thirds 
 vote, to change that rule which we adopted. But, if it 
 is to be entertained, I have something very serious to 
 say to this House on the subject ; and it may bring out 
 that which I referred to the other day, that if certain 
 questions should arise in this House I might be compelled 
 to say something in relation to a matter which would 
 arise upon that proposition, which would make the ears 
 of the members of this House tingle. I hope that the 
 House will not entertain it as entirely new matter. I do 
 not wish to say any thing severe or unkind. But 1 
 must do my duty. It is probably the last time (as a man 
 at the age of 73 can scarcely expect to sit again in this 
 body — the 14th time in succession) — it is the last time I 
 shall probably ever be a member of this body, and if this 
 question does come up the House will hear me. I shall 
 be interested to show where the grief lies, not from the- 
 ory or hearsay, but from the records of this House. 1 
 beg the gentleman, if he wishes to spare me and to spare 
 others, that, if this proposition is really in order, it will 
 be voted down. 
 
 The President : — Unless you move a reconsideration 
 of the action of this House in nonconcurring with the 
 House of Bishops, you cannot reach this subject. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — The resolution passed a few days since, 
 
 that no new matter shall be introduced. I move that 
 
 rule shall be suspended in order to introduce this. It 
 
 does not require a two-thirds vote ; but a simple majority. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead: — Is that motion debatable? 
 
 The President : — Yes, sir. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — I wish to say a word to that. In 
 the first place, I ask the question, does it not require a 
 tw6-thirds vote to change a rule of order ? 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare : — If I correctly understand this mat- 
 ter, it is precisely the same thing that was introduced on 
 he last day of the session of 1866 ; for, 1 find, bv refer- 
 ring to the journal of the last day of the session of 1865, 
 that Mr. Chambers from the Committee on Canons pre- 
 sented a report [in effect striking out the words "three 
 day.s" as the time for signifying disapprobation by the 
 House of Bishops, and substituting the words "durini' the 
 session"]. On page 141 we read thus : ''A message was 
 
 received from the House of Bishops signifying that it Las 
 
 passed the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Bishops do non-concur 
 in ihe action of the Hou^e of Clerical and Lay Deputies 
 transmitted to this House in message No. 50, for the 
 reason that it is too late in the session for the due con- 
 sideration of so important a subject." 
 
 If on the last day of the present session we propose a 
 measure which was thus met, how can we reasonably 
 expect a different result ? I move to lay it on the table. 
 
 The motion to lay upon the table Mr. Welsh's motion 
 to suspend the rule of order, for the purpose of taking 
 up the proposed amendment, was carried by a decisivri 
 mnjority. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton Fisn — reported from the Committee 
 on Canons, with refijrence to the proposed canon, from 
 the House of Bishops, concerning consecration of church- 
 es, that they recommended the enactment of the proposed 
 canon with the following additional section: 
 
 "Section 2, Provided that this section shall not be 
 operative in any State with the laws of which relating to 
 the title and holdins of properly by religious corporations 
 the same may conflict." ■ 
 
 I move the adoption of the canon as amended by the 
 committee. 
 
 The canon was thereupon adopted. 
 
 Mr. Fisii : — I am also instructed by the committee to 
 submit in the form of a separate canon the proposition 
 offered by the reverend deputy from Rhode laland. I 
 have not had time to reduce it to writing. I ask the House 
 to allow that to be done afterwards. The committee 
 recommend the adoption of a canon to be 
 
 'Canon — . It shall not be lawful-to sell or lease any 
 pew or seat in any church or chapel now consecrated or 
 which may hereafter be consecrated, by public sale held 
 within the walls of such church or chapel." 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — That looks to me a little like sanction- 
 ing the thing. I hope we will pause a moment before 
 we pass it hastily. It would look a little as if the General 
 Convention was giving its sanction to the thing.. I am 
 afraid if that should become a canon it would be referred 
 to as warranting this sale. Aftera thing has been conse- 
 crated and put upon God's altar we go there and take 
 that back again. I hope gentlemen will think a moment. 
 Rev. Dr. Beardsley: — I think that canon would 
 operate hardly in many of our parishes in Connecticut. 
 AVe sell our seats annually in the majority of our par- 
 ishes, but no auctioneer comes in to many of the 
 churches. Take, for instance, my own parish. The day 
 for renting the seats is published, and one of the vestry 
 is selected to receive the bids of the different parishion- 
 ers. Everything is conducled with perfect decorum. 
 The parishioners are assembled, the men with their hats 
 off, just as much as if there was a service. We do not 
 regard ourselves as guilty of any want of decorum in the 
 
 ' proceedings. I think the vestries of the dliTerent parish- 
 es in Connecticut would resist such a canon as this ; they 
 
 j would think it was interfering with their rights very 
 
w 
 
 much. It is a custom that has been estabjished "with u^ 
 from time immemorial ; and there certainly ought to be 
 some exceptions made to it if adopted. My wish would 
 be that this thing should be postponed to the next Gen- 
 eral Convention. I do not think we have had sufficient 
 time to consider it ; and by the next Convention, if it be 
 spread upon our minutes, we can see what will come up. 
 Rev. Dr. Mead— said that the practice of selling pews 
 had a tendency to destroy the veneration of the people 
 for their places of worship ; that for instance he had 
 known that on the occasion of such sales, the pew-hold- 
 ers regardless of the sacredness of the place would come 
 in with their hats on. Dissensions, quarrels of women 
 as well as of men, arise from the practice. The clergy 
 need something like this canon, and the practice will be 
 changed. He gave an instance where the practice had 
 already been changed — where the sale of pews took 
 place, in some other place than the church, with refer- 
 ence to a diagram of the pews. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Hinshaw — described the sale of pews, 
 where the auctioneer's flag was seen flying from the door 
 of the church about mid da)' ; the auctioneer was in the 
 church with his hammer in his hand ; persons who have 
 held seats in that church for years and have paid the 
 rental which has been required by the corporation or 
 vestry, are displaced by some new comers because the 
 original pew-holders are unable to pay such a premium 
 for a choice as those who step into the church for the 
 first time. There within the consecrated walls of the 
 church, the auctioneer with the hammer ni his hand knocks 
 down a pew for a new-comer and turns out the family that 
 have been communicants in that church for a score of 
 years. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Beardsley : — I think that that does not 
 apply to our case. 
 
 A Deputy — deprecated the introduction of this meas- 
 ure at a time when several entire delegations had left 
 under the impression that no new matter would be intro- 
 duced. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Mead : — It was moved as an amendment to 
 matter which had already been before the House. It 
 is not new matter. Any new amendment ofl'ered is not 
 new njaltiT. 
 
 The motion to lay the resolution on the table was lo^t. 
 
 Rev. Mr. W'uite, of Piltsburg: — I would like to offer 
 
 a substitute or an amendment. It strikes me thit this 
 
 canon does not go far enough. I would offer the following 
 
 amendment: 
 
 "It shall not be lawful for the authorities of a church 
 once consecrated, to use it for any uuhalloived, commjn, 
 or ordinary use." 
 
 This is taken from the Consecration Service. It will 
 bind the authorities of the church to carry out the inten 
 tion of the church. 
 
 Mr. Ha.milton Fish — thought that was already pro- 
 vided for. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haiqht, [in the Chair] : — That is not in 
 order. 
 
 A Deputy : I am much in favor of the principle of 
 the canon ; but I beg to ask how this canon could be 
 enforced. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams : — I would wish to state a little in- 
 stance in reference to this proposed resolution on can- 
 ons, which will move the House toward adopting it. 
 Some twenty years ago, I brought forward in Hugh 
 Davey Evans's " True Catholic," this very instance. 
 I showed the auctioneer in the chancel cutting up his 
 jokes, with his papers on the table, and desecrating it in 
 the very way we all know has taken place. Tlie siui 
 pie circumstance I would slate is this : That artich- 
 came into the hands of a prominent auctioneer of thi.s 
 city, who was certainly an eminent business man, if ever 
 any man was, and he said to Rev. Dr. Muhlenburg, 
 ' Well, doctor, I never thought of that ; 1 see it is wrong." 
 I would say to this Church that the essential object uf 
 the Church of God is the information and instruction of 
 the consciences of its communicants, and that there aie 
 many honest men and women who are doing wrong 
 with regard to this matter, simply through thoughtlessne.^s. 
 I would say, pass such a resolution condemning the 
 practice of desecrating the House of God by the jokes 
 of the auctioneer, however innocent in other places. 
 Instruct the masses who are at present going on doing 
 what is indecorous. It will be a protection for the cler- 
 gyman, who has but one single voice, and would per- 
 haps do much to prevent this thing. But when the 
 Church in General Convention instructs him that it is 
 unsuitable, it puts behind him the force of the Church's 
 opinion. It suggests to the people the unsuitableness of 
 it; it teaches them, and in every way does good. I do 
 not want to make more speeches than are necessary, 
 but these two considerations are, I think, worthy to be 
 submitted to the clergy and l^ity of this Church, with 
 reference to such a resolution. 
 
 A Deputy : — I beg to cull attention to the con- 
 secration of office [speaker then read from the con- 
 secration office, the supplication for the Lord to be pre- 
 sent with those who are gathered together, with all hu- 
 mihty of heart to consecrate this place]. Now, it seems to 
 me that passing a canon like this is simply doing what 
 has been done in the Consecration Service of the 
 Church. 
 
 Another Deputy : — I object to this canon that it is 
 too much like special legislation. It is olTered because 
 it is considered a desecration of the church. I don't 
 see why this single mode of desecrating a church should 
 besingkdout. Many think it is wrong to sell or rent 
 pews at all. The passage of this is an expression of an 
 opinion that it is not wrong, provided it is not done in 
 the church. But this is not a desecration any more than 
 other business. I think the opinion has been expressed 
 in this church that some arrangements should be made 
 for holding a General Convention in other buildings than 
 churches. This is a business of the Church. And the 
 desecration of the church by selling pews is not a neces- 
 
204 
 
 sary consequence no more than any other business trans- 
 acted in the church. Such things as hanging auction- 
 eei s' flags at the door of a church are not necessary. 
 In the church that 1 am in the habit of attending, our 
 minister niaices it his business to see that the thing is 
 done with strict propriety. I thinii it is loo late in the 
 session to consider it at this time. If any action is neces- 
 sary, it shou'd be a general one, and embracing all 
 modes in which a church can be desecrated. 
 
 The mation to defer the further consideration of this 
 matter to the next General Convention was lost. 
 
 A Deputy suggested that it should be put in the form 
 of a concurrent resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — A resolution of this House is all 
 we want. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare — hoped because it was the last day 
 of the session, no unnecessary legislation would be 
 had, in order to have business transacted. He thought 
 a recommendatory resolution with reference to the mat- 
 ter, would be elFectual as in the case of associated rec- 
 torships, which, being declared by resolution of the Con- 
 vention to be inconsistent with the greatest good of con- 
 gregations, ceased to be. It had ever been the custom of 
 the Convention to avoid excessive legislation. He would 
 like the indecorum which it is intended to prevent, pre- 
 vented. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead — would be perfectly satisfied with such 
 action. The churchmanship of his parish was such that 
 the simple expression of the opinion of this respectable 
 House would be all that would be needed to have every 
 necessary decorum in the matter. 
 
 A Deputy from Connecticut said that would be sat- 
 isfactory to him provided itcouldbe mide to reach 
 every parish in the land, and not simply to go upon the 
 Journal and pass from memory as many resolutions 
 had. 
 
 The President : — The rectors will have to bring it 
 to the notice of their parishes. 
 
 The secretary then read the proposed canon chang- 
 ed in'.o the form of a resolution, as follows : 
 
 Resolved, As the sense of this House, that it is improp- 
 er to si.ll or lease any pew or seat in any consecrated 
 church or chapel by public sale held withiu the walls of 
 such church or chapel. 
 
 Kev. Dr. Paddock: — I want to suggest an amend- 
 ment to that, namely, that the " House of Bishops con- 
 curring, it is the sense of this Convention," etc., so as 
 to turn it into a joint resolution, instead of an expression 
 of the mind of this House simply. The House of Bish- 
 ops will concur in such a resolution. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hubbard — (who had suggested the resolu- 
 tion-form), accepted the amendment. 
 
 A DilPUTY suggested thiit the word " wrong" should 
 be substituted in the place of the word " improper" 
 as stronger; but the amendment was not accepted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mauan : — I wish the subject could be 
 brought before this House and more thoroughly consid- 
 ered as to what is the nature of resolutions of this kind. 
 
 i At the same time, it seems to me, that from the course of 
 our legislation there is apt to be such an accumulation 
 of canons, etc., that they would gradually lose their effect 
 upon the minds of the Church; especially these resolu- 
 tions are apt to lose their effect because they are so little 
 understood, as to what their effect may be. There is 
 no use to attempt to legislate unless it is in the proper 
 form of legislation, namely, a canon. I do not think 
 any time would be lost, to wait until we had that matter 
 in such a shape that we could make a canon of it. if we 
 pass the resolution, that is regardd as covering the 
 case in some measure, and it will greatly increase the 
 difficulty when we desire to make a canon of it. It 
 strikes me on the whole as more wise to defer this mat- 
 ter, and at the next General Convention let it be thor- 
 oughly considered and brought into proper shape for a 
 canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Me.\d : — The House has just refused to do 
 that by a vote, i 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan : — I make these remarks merely for 
 the purpose of personal explanation. I would like to 
 give some reasons for not voting for a measure of this 
 kind when it really expresses what I desire. I am not 
 opposed to it, but I think such a measure is important 
 enounti for us to make a canon of it ; therefore I would 
 rather wait until we can niiike a canon. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Howe: — I'erhaps the objection which the 
 Reverend gentleman from Maryland makes would be 
 removed if we ordered it, being a concurrent resoluiion 
 of both houses, to be placed immediately after the canons, 
 in a conspicuous place. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hubbakd: — My objection to making it a 
 part of the canon law is, that 1 wo Id ■ e unwilliiig to 
 introduce into the canon laws a recognition of the selling 
 of pews in the house of God. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Labagh: — If we do anything on this subject 
 I humbly submit that we should do it in the form of a 
 canon. It has been admitted from time to time that 
 resolutions passed are lost sight of in the great body of 
 resolutions. We have had for sixty years a resolution 
 of this House that this year has been adopted in the 
 form of a canon. Ever since ISOS there has been a 
 resolution that no clergyman should unite in marriage per- 
 sons who had been divorced, either party living, except 
 on account of adultery. The ground has been taken that 
 that resolution has been inoperative, and has produced 
 no effect, and that it has become necessary, on account 
 of the growing evil, to put this in the form of a canon 
 to make it operative and give it effect. Now put this in 
 the form of a resolution, and it goes on the minutes. 
 Very few of our clergy have all the minutes. A new 
 man comes in and he knows nothing about these reso- 
 lutions. Must he hunt through the minutes of the past 
 Conventions to find out the sense of this body. Almost 
 every clergyman possesses himself of a copy of the 
 canons, and if this were a canon he would see it. If it 
 is made a resolution, it will be like the resolution which 
 
205 
 
 has lain among our minutes sixty years, and which we 
 have just found it necessary, to give it effect, to put in 
 the form of a canon. If we do anything on this sub- 
 ject, if it is sufficiently important that the mind of the 
 Church should be expressed, we should put it in the 
 form of a canon. 
 
 The Secretary then read the resolution as amended 
 makinj! it a joint resolution. 
 
 Mr. Welsh : — I understand that it is changed from a 
 canon to a resolution. I think the resolution of that 
 kind is like that law of an ancient nation, that a person 
 might steal if he were not found out. If I understand 
 this resolution aright, it represents that the wron^ is ; 
 only in the mode of doing it. I think the wrong is in 
 the thing itself 
 
 The resolution was then adopted. 
 
 Rev. Dr. II.^ight — announced the receipt of a second 
 communication from Prof. Barnard with regard to the 
 cycle. On his motion it was referred to the Joint Com- 
 mittee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 Oiv motion of the Rev. Ur. Haight it was ordered that 
 the Secretary furnish bound copies of the Journal to 
 persons paying the cost of binding. 
 
 CLOSIXO ADDKE99 OF THE PRFSIDEXT. 
 
 Genileinen, as it is not probable that we shall meet 
 again in the same relation which we now hold to each 
 other, I hope the House will indulge me to say from my 
 place, — the place with which you have honored me — 
 two or three things that press upon my heart, and 
 which would not be merely an ordinary farewell. It is 
 but the reiteration of the common feeling and the gen- 
 eral expression of all who have attended the sessions of 
 this Mouse, lo utter my assured conviction that the ex- 
 traordinary harmony and the cordial courtesy, and the 
 manil'estation of fraternal affection, which have distin- 
 guished the deliberations of this body from its com- 
 mencement to its close could have come, under the cir- 
 cumstances in which we have been placed and with the 
 e.xciiing quesi ions which have been before us, from no 
 other source than the guidance and presiding influence 
 of the Holy Ghost. For this precious gift and grace of 
 God let us render to Him all the praise and gratitude of 
 which our poor hearts are capable. We humbly and 
 thankfully take it for an earnest that God will continue 
 to be gracious to this Branch of His Church, and de- 
 signs her, small as she is, to exert a blessed influence in 
 moulding the character and shaping the destiny of this 
 new world in which our lot is cast. He will control and 
 overrule, I am persuaded, the agitations and aberrations 
 of the day to greater good than we now contemplate. 
 These are but the signs and have been the necessities of 
 a more exuberant life than we have had before. As 
 that life e.spresses itself in the one direction upon which 
 our minds have been fi.xed here, all of us will agree to 
 maintain and preserve all that trul}' tends to produce 
 those two things which God has so emphatically conse- 
 crated in His public worship — beauty and glory ; while 
 
 we reject all that is tawdry, mean, and trifling in that 
 public worship. And as far as, on cither hand, this 
 teeming life has degenera'ted into false doctrine and dis- 
 loyalty to the Church, men of mere subjective faith 
 will go to their own place, out of the Church, following 
 Newman and Manning, on the one side, or Colenso and 
 Baptist Noel on the other. Even so, this will but purify 
 and strengthen the Church. 
 
 But the most important and continuing subject of 
 gratulation in this American Church, to my mind, is the 
 fidelity with which we have adhered to the Divinely 
 given pattern of a Christian Council by making the 
 laity an essential portion of such Council. Our now 
 extended experience in the praelical working of this 
 Divine pattern enables us to say confidently to our 
 brethren in England and the new provinces of England 
 who are trying to bring their synodal organization to a 
 higher standard, that the lay element in this body has 
 at all times been at once progressive and eminently con- 
 servative, that it is an effectual preservative against 
 caste legislation, and in my opinion contributes largely 
 to the dignity, courtesy, and high character of this Gen- 
 eral Convention. 
 
 The Church, I trust, my brethren, is rising to a 
 higher estimation of her powers and capabilities. Each 
 of her ministers has begun already and will conlinue 
 more and more to be not merely a workman himself but 
 ihe leader and guide of a body of working people. It 
 seems to me the only way in which we can fulfil our 
 mission in evangelizing this country is for the laity to 
 occupy by lay-reading under the control, and « ith the 
 assistance, of their respective ministers every accessible 
 position where the Church can be planted,— thus every 
 minister multiplying himself and his authority' almost 
 indefinitel}\ Gentlemen, I thank you for your atten- 
 tion. I thank you for your indulgence to me through 
 all this long session, and in the sacred services tonight 
 we will bid each other affectionately farewell. 
 
 On motion, by an unanimous vote, the address of the 
 President was ordered to be entered on the Journal of 
 Ihe House. 
 
 Messages Nos. 78 to 85 were here rei'eived from the 
 House of Bishops; No. 85 relating to the nomination by 
 the House of Bishops of Ozi \V. Whitaker as Jlission- 
 ary Bishop for Nevada and Arizona. 
 
 Rev, Dr Mkad — moved concurrence in the nomina- 
 tion of Missionary Bishop for Nevada and Arizona. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan: — Would it not be right to inquire 
 at this crisis whether anything is known in the House, 
 of the gentleman whom we are called upon to vote for ? 
 Rev. Dr. Adams: — I have to say that Bishop Talbot 
 has been in the House and testifies that he has been a 
 presbyter under his care, and that he is a very admira- 
 ble man ; he is a graduate of the Theological Seminary. 
 Rev. Dr. Van DeUSEN: — The Right Reverend As- 
 sistant Bishop of Indiana is the Bishop who nominated 
 him as Missionary Bishop. I am authorized to present 
 
 / 
 
206 
 
 certificates connected with Mr. Whitakcr's former his- 
 tory, that I think will be calculated to relieve the mind 
 of the Convention of any doubt in consenting to his 
 nomination. [A biographical sketch of the nominee 
 was then read, concluding with the statement that "he 
 is not in sympathy wiih radical views."] 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin: — 1 would like to inquire what 
 is meant by radical views. [Laughter.] 
 
 Hon. Mr. RuGGLF.s:— How many parishes are there 
 in the proposed diocese? 
 
 Kcv. Dr. HaiGht: — It is a missionary jurisdiction. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead [in the Chair] :— The Cbair will take 
 opportunity to state to the House that from a statement 
 of some Bishops he is well satisfied of the acceptable- 
 ness of the character of the person elected, that he was 
 unanimously elected to the House of Bishops. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Van Deusen : — I would add to what I have 
 said that Bishop Odenheimer of New Jersey and Bishop 
 Bedell of Ohio endorse Mr. Whitaker. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead — in answer to an inquiry by Dr. 
 Adams said, that a majoiity of the quorum of the House 
 would be sufficient to elect. 
 
 The House then proceeded to vote by dioceses and 
 orders; Rev. Dr. Mahan and Hon. S. B. Ruggles being 
 tellers. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Littlejoiin — moved that the vote be the 
 order of the day at four o'clock, he was not prepared 
 to vote now. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Shelton : — I do not wi.sh to make a gre^ 
 point in this case, but I wish to make my protest against 
 such a course of conduct as this. The Bishops should 
 have given us this nomination long ago, not have put it 
 off until this last hour when we are on the eve of taking 
 our leave. It exposes us to great hazard. It is true 
 they say that they are well satisfied ; that ought in gen- 
 eral to be satisfactory to us. But I know that men are 
 liable to make mistakes; and under circumstances of 
 this kind we ought not to be e.\posed to making the mis- 
 take they put us in danger of making. We may make a 
 gross mistake. I for one do not want to be put in this posi- 
 tion. We are called upon, without any knowledge of 
 the person, to put our names to a thing which testifies 
 that we are perfectly satisfied. The Scriptures tell us 
 that [consecrating] hands should be laid suddenly upon 
 no man. For one I do not feel disposed to sign the 
 document. 
 
 A Deputy : — Some members of this House under- 
 stood, a few days snice, indirectly, of course, that no ac- 
 tion would be taken, durnig the present session of the 
 Convention, to till that post. This measure comes very 
 ■unexpectedly, I am sure, upon many members of this 
 House, as upon myself. If pressed now to vote, the in- 
 evitable vote would be, however reluctant, against con- 
 currence. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin : — I should find relief in this case, 
 in the fact that it is expressly iinnounced to us from the 
 House of Bishops that the election in that House is 
 
 unanimous. I suppose they expressly, put that into the 
 mes.sage in order to apologize fur their lateness in send- 
 ing to us this nomination. 1 do not mean to say it 
 should control us ; but if they were unanimous I should 
 feel more at liberty. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles : — I cannot but think, and I wish 
 to call the attention of the House to what is a broad 
 proposition, that it is not quite in order, nor consistent 
 with the privileges of this House, to adduce the exam- 
 ple of the other House, either its unanimity Qr want pf 
 unanimity. I thirfk it is not a proper reference, to cite 
 the action of the other House to influence our judg- 
 ment, which ought to be independent of the action of 
 the othei' House. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Haigdt: — I understood from one of the 
 Bishops who was in the house that, in case this action 
 should fail, owing to want of attendance, it really would 
 make no difference, as the presiding Bishop would call 
 a special session of the House of Bishops, to mature and 
 make a nomination, and send it down to the Standing 
 Committees. I feel very much pressed by the cgnsid- 
 eration of want of time. At the same time, I feel very 
 reluctant to oppose it, or give my vote against a unani- 
 mous recommendation of the House of Bishops in re- 
 gard to a person of whom I know nothing at all ; 
 never having heard his name mentioned but once be- 
 fore. 
 
 Rev. Dr. jMead :— The views of the Deputy from New 
 York are not sustained by the only canon under which 
 the Bishops can act, which authorizes them, in case of 
 vacancy in any missionary jurisdiction of a Bishop al- 
 ready elected, to act in the matter proposed. This 
 Bishop is not elected ; and unless he is elected, they 
 will not have the power for three years to fill the va- 
 cancy. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Goodwin ; — I said I did not suppose that this 
 action of the House of Bishops should control the action 
 of this House, but I supposed the announcement of the 
 unanimity of the House of Bishops might be considered 
 some evidence to this House, who are ignorant in regard 
 to the person nominated. I only know he does not 
 hold radical views. [Laughter.] This is, to my mind, 
 some degree of evidence that he is a proper man. If I 
 had any knowledge to the contrary, their unanimous 
 vote would not have the weight of a feather in control- 
 ling my vote. 
 
 The Pkesident said he did not think the Standing 
 Committees could possibly have anything to do with 
 this matter. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams: — Bishop Talbot has given personal 
 information in regard to this gentleman which I have 
 communicated to this Hou.se. If any gentleman has 
 personal knowledge of him, I think it should be brought 
 before this House. 
 
 Hon. S. B. Ruggles: — To make any statement of the 
 action of the upper House is a breach of privilege. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : —The message itself contains that 
 
807 
 
 statement, and they have a perfect right te make it. 
 If n measure is passed by us unanimously, tliey are en- 
 titled to know that, and we are entitled to know wheth- 
 er they have done anything unanimously. 
 
 Hon. S. B. RuGOLEs: — It is not a want of confidence 
 in our Right Reverend Fathers ; but I do say for the 
 example of one of two legislative bodies to be intro- 
 dueed into the other, is an interference with the rights 
 of that body. I protest agamst the principle, as con- 
 trary to parliamentary principles, of having the action 
 of the other House adduced in this. 
 
 A Deputy: — It is very important that this matter 
 should be acted upon this afternoon. The matter might 
 well lie until four o'clock, but it should be disposed of 
 this afternoon. The history of the Church in Nebraska 
 during the last three years shows the decided impor- 
 tance of having a Missionary Bishop ; and this country, 
 that is now provided for by this resolution of the House 
 of Bishops, will go unattended to, to a very great de- 
 gree, if we do not concur m their action. It is true, 
 the presiding Bishop may designate some other Bishop 
 of the Church to exercise the jurisdiction there. But 
 it is a section of the country lying very far from the 
 residence of any other Bishop, and, to a very consider- 
 able extent, inaccessible; and the country cannot have 
 the immediate supervision which it requires unless this 
 action be taken this afternoon. It is well enough to 
 let it lie until four o'clock, that the members of this 
 House may advise this House with respect to the nomi- 
 nee, but it is important that it should be disposed of 
 before the final adjournment As to qualifications, it 
 seems to me quite enough that a member of this House 
 should testify in such an unqualified and specific man- 
 ner, as he has. Then superadd to that, that he is a man 
 who, with all these high qualifications, has gone out 
 from a country where he could have enjoyed the bless- 
 ings and advantages of civilization, and spent six years 
 in such a country as Nevada. It shows that he has in 
 his heart the right sort of spirit. Such testimonials 
 seem to me to be sufficient. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hare: — I hope the vote will not prove to 
 be unsatisfactory with regard to this gentleman. The 
 other day, on the nomination of the House of Bishops, 
 we elected a Reverend gentleman who is already in the 
 possession of competent means of maintenance. I fear 
 that the facts of that case maj', by possibilit}', hinder 
 the Church from the benefit of enjoying his ministra- 
 tions The fact that this gentleman is already in the 
 field to-day is a strong argument in his favor ; and I 
 only hope that we shall have such additional testimony, 
 over and above that from the House of Bishops, as to 
 enable us to sign his testimonials. 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven : — 1 simply want to say what I 
 suppose has been said before. The fact is, our Bouse is 
 exceedingly empty. Whole delegations are away, and 
 it is hardly proper and right, under these circumstances, 
 that we are called upon to make a choice which, once 
 
 made, is irrevocable. T beg leave to say also that we 
 do not know but that the House of Bishops may be 
 equally uninformed, an 1 that consc(|uently a unanimous 
 decision on their jiart may not be the same as if it had 
 taken place several days ago. It does seem to me an 
 important thing that this House should be able to testi- 
 fy upon its own knowledge of the qualifications of any 
 man for so important a work. And I would like to in- 
 quire whether there is any person on the floor of this 
 House who is able, of personal knowledge — I do not 
 mean by hearsay, by the report of this or that Bishop, 
 or person — to testify of the qualifiialions of the gentle- 
 man nominated to this House. And if there be no such 
 person, I submit whether this House ought to take this 
 important notion. 
 
 Message No. 66 from the House of Bishops was here 
 received, announcing the appointment of the Bishop of 
 Maryland and the Bishop of Connecticut as members, 
 on their part, of the Joint Committee on Theological 
 studies. 
 
 The Secretary announced that the message .sent to 
 the Bishop of London had been transmitted, and was 
 in England by that time. 
 
 Rev. Dr. DeKoven (continuing) : — I want to say 
 further, that with regard to this territory, there was once 
 before, at a previous General Convention, a nomination 
 to this jurisdiction ; and the nomination was declined. 
 I believe that the House of Bi-hops did not make a fur- 
 ther nomination because it was said that the population 
 of tlie territory had diminished ; ami Nevada was placed 
 under the charge of the Bishop of California ; who I be- 
 lieve has visited it ; and 1 suppose that it would be no harm 
 for it to remiin under his supervision for the next three 
 years. It does seem to me that it would be a great deal 
 better to put ofT the matter, if it be in our power to do 
 so, until the next General Convention. 
 
 The SkcRETARYofthe Hou<e of Bishops — announced 
 that he was instructed to inform the House of Clerical 
 and Lay Deputies that they were prepared to adjouro 
 and they propose to hold a session this evening, for the' 
 reading of the Pastoral Letter at Calvary Church. 
 
 Mr. Hamtltoh FiSH^offered a joint resolution, 
 which was adopted, changing the name of the Freed- 
 men's Commission to the name of Home Missionary 
 Commission for Colored People. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mead : — If I may be permitted once more 
 to say a few words, perhaps 1 may satisfy the tender con- 
 sciences of some members of this House in the most im- 
 portant step we have to take. With regard to the 
 introduction of persons into the ministry of this Church, 
 the canons of the Church require personal knowledge, 
 or, if that cannot be had, satisfactory evidence. Personal 
 knowledge is not absolutely required. Gentlemen have 
 spoken dbout the Bishops taking this matter in hand af- 
 ter we adjourned, and sending it down to the standing 
 committees. What would be the coudiliou of the stand- 
 ing committees ? What better evidence would they have 
 
208 
 
 than is now presented to us. When a whole House of 
 Bishops present a nomination to us, are we scepti- 
 cal ? It appears to me to be preposterous. I would 
 humlily and respectfully bes at this late hour that we 
 should promptly act upon this question. Moreover here 
 is a man who is on the spot, who knows what the work 
 is ; a man who has been suc•ces^ful in his work. We 
 have suffieient authority (or that statement. And more- 
 over he is a man, we are to presume, of sufficient learn- 
 ing. He is a graduate of one of the highest literary 
 institutions in the United States, Harvard University ; 
 and he is a graduate of the Theological Seminary. Is 
 not this collateral testimony. Then away, dear brethren, 
 viith this doubt and hesitation, because it is impossible to 
 doiibtthe wisdom, prudence, and integrity of our bishops. 
 Rev. Dr. Haight: — I have availed myself of certain 
 opportunities which I have had to inquire with regard 
 to this gentleman, and I have come to the conclusion to 
 cast my vote heartily in his favor. I think if gentlemen 
 will take the trouble to satisfy themselves, they can soon 
 do so, but 1 should not hesitate one instant after the ar- 
 gument and appeal which my honored and reverend 
 friend has just made to this House. 
 
 Kev. Mr. Dreck : — I have grave dilBculties with re- 
 gard to this matter ; and it is a difficult kind of subject, 
 this matter of getting information with regard to gentle- 
 men ; and it is a thing which gentlemen hesitate to 
 express on this floor, however willing they may be to 
 express themselves privately. We have had the names 
 of one or two bishops brought in, and I don't know 
 whether it is proper for us to be thus influenced by the en- 
 dorsement of the bishops. The whole of the bishops 
 were not there ; it is a thin House, and we might go 
 and ask did such and such a bishop in the immediate vi- 
 cinity of this gentleman endorse him, and we might find 
 that he did not endorse him — that he was not satisfied 
 that he was the proper person to be elected. 
 
 A Deputy — hoped this would not be sent to the 
 Standing Committees. 
 
 The President : — It cannot be sent to the Standing 
 Committees under the present state of the law. 
 
 A Deputy : — I understand we are not without some 
 record as to this gentleman in the history of the Church. 
 I am informed that in the Spirk uf Missions there is 
 a testimony given for an incidental purpose, and therefore 
 more disinterested, from the Bishop of California, as to 
 the excellence of the work which this gentleman has 
 done in the region where he is now laboring. I am told 
 that he bears the fullest testimonials as to success and 
 the possession of all the iiualities we could desire in a 
 bishop in that region. 1 think we may assume with the 
 testimonials given here and there, that he presents him- 
 self with claims upon our confidence. This gentleman 
 was a minister, I believe, under the supervision of Bishop 
 Talbot, when he had jurisdiction in that section. Afier 
 the division of the missionary jurisdiction of the North - 
 West, and after the declinature of Dr. Howe, that cour- 
 try was placed under the episcopal jurisdiction of Bishop 
 
 Kip. I am informed that Bishop Talbot and Bishop Kip 
 under whom he has been working for the last three years, 
 not only endorse him, but in the House of Bishops spoke 
 in his behalf very warmlj'. 
 
 'I'he President: — That testimony would not be 
 proper to refer to here. 
 
 The DEruTY.— I withdraw it. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. Welsh. — When the name was first mentioned I 
 was not prepared to sign; but since then I have obtained 
 information, not from the House of Bishops, which has 
 perfectly satisfied me. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Maiian.— Could not a little of that informa- 
 tion be adduced in this House. I for one would like ex- 
 tremely to have a little information concerning him. I 
 can not take the mere fact that other persons have been 
 satislied, because I don't know what would satisfy them; 
 and I think if they would impart to us a little of the in- 
 formation that has satisfied their minds, it might remove 
 the difliculty which we feel. 
 
 ^Ir. Hanson, of Alabama. — I should be unwilling to 
 refuse to sign the testimonials; but after what has been 
 said, I am exactly in the difliculty of the Reverend dep- 
 uty from Maryland. I should like to have some positive 
 testimony. It does seem to me a remarkable circum- 
 stance — that the gentleman who has been unanimously 
 recommended by the House of Bishops as qualified to fill 
 that high episcopal office, should have no gentleman in 
 this House, large as it is, who is personally acquainted 
 wiih him, and capable of rising up here and testifvingto 
 his character; and I hope if there is any such person 
 present — as I am sure there must be — we shall havfj the 
 desired information. 
 
 A Deputy. — I understand this gentleman has spent 
 his whole ministerial life in the field where he is; and if 
 so, his very qualifications account for this want of testi- 
 mony to these qualifications. He has been working in 
 Nevada, and there is nobody to testify concerning him 
 except Bishop Kip. I hardly think it fair to say because 
 a man has spent his life in the missionary field, and has 
 had no one to look upon his work and testify of it, there- 
 fore he is not a man to be a bishop. 
 
 On the suggestion of the Rev. Dr. Mead, previous to 
 signing the testimonials the House united in silent devo- 
 tion. 
 
 On motion the House proceeded to ballot upon the 
 confirmation. 
 
 Message No. 87 was here received from the House of 
 Bishops, announcing the adoption of the change of name 
 of the Freed men's Commission to the Home Missionary 
 Commission for Colored People. 
 The ballot resulted as follows: 
 
 27 dioceses voting — ayes 18, noes 7, divided 2; lay 
 vote — 22 dioceses voting — ayes 14, noes 8. 
 
 The Rev. Ozi W. Wbitaker was thereupon declared 
 elected bishop. 
 
 The members of the House then rose and chanted 
 Gloria in ExceUis. 
 
m 
 
 On motion the House proceeded to sign the testimoni- 
 als of Bishop Whitaker. i 
 
 The President. — I take the opportunity to state that 
 in conversation with the Secretary of the House, I am 
 informed that he has been familiar with the character of 
 this person, and that he is a man of tlie noblest character 
 and highest qualifications. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan. — There is a matter of business that 
 has been passed over with regard to the Committee on 
 Intercourse with the Swedish Church. It was sent down j 
 from the House of Bishops, recommending that the com- ! 
 mittee be continued. I propose that we concur in the 
 recommendation. 
 
 The House thereupon concurred in the recommendar 
 tion. 1 
 
 Rev. Dr. Mahan nominated Judge Otis, of Illinois, 
 and the Rev. Dr. Paddock, of Michigan, to fill vacancies 
 on the part of the House; which nominations were 
 adopted. 
 
 On motion the Secretary was instructed to transmit to 
 the House of Bishops the certificate of the election of 
 Bishop Whitaker. 
 
 The Minutes of this day's proceedings were then read 
 and approved. 
 
 The House thereupon adjourned, to meet the House 
 of Bishops at Calvary Church, at 7}^ P. M. 
 
 EVENING. 
 
 Divine service was held in Calvary Church, in accord- 
 ance with the joint arrangements of the two Houses. 
 Evening Prayer was begun by the Bishop of California, 
 the Missionary Bishop of the South-west reading the 
 First Lesson, and the iMissionary Bishop of Colorado the 
 Second. The Bishop of Ohio said the Creed and the 
 Prayers. The 79th Selection was then sung; after which 
 the Bishop of Kentucky read the Pastoral Letter of the 
 House of BMops. The Bishop of Wisconsin read the 
 Collects at closing, and the Bishop of Kentucky gave the 
 Benediction. 
 
 PASTORAL LETTER FROM THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS. 
 
 Brethren, beloved in the Lord : 
 
 The Incarnate God hath committed to fallible . 
 men that great commission wherewith He came '■ 
 into the world, from the Father who sent Him. i 
 But, to His ministers, thus weak and subject to error, 
 He hath given His holy and infallible Word, that, 
 without peril of misleading His flock we may in- 
 struct them, with all authority, by speaking always 
 according to the Scriptures. It is therefore our 
 duty, and with gladness we perform it, to address 
 the Churches committed to our care, in the Pastoral 
 Letter which our brethren, the clergy and laity, as- 
 sembled in this Convention, have a; ked from their 
 chief Pastors. 
 
 First, we give praise to Almighty God for the good 
 examples of our brethren who have rested from 
 their labours. It is now nine years since we met 
 with full representation of all our Dioceses. In this 
 period sixteen of our venerable brethren in the 
 Episcopate, of whom two were presiding Bishops, 
 have departed this life. A mortality so unusual 
 impresses your Bishops with a deep sense of the 
 shortness and uncertainty of their own future upon 
 earth, and leads them to address you with the great- 
 er solemnity. 
 
 It is our duty to make grateful mention of that 
 measure of spiritual increase and of growth in num- 
 bers and resources, of which there is abundant evi- 
 27 
 
 dence in the official returns of our several Dioceses 
 and Missionarj' jurisdictions. To God's Ii»ly Name 
 be all the glory, but to us confusion of face ifi view 
 of the unprofitable services which have so much 
 limited the operations of the Divine mercy amongst 
 us. 
 
 Great has been our consolation amid many trials 
 of our faith and patience, in the entire restoration 
 of our unity as a National Church. Amid the un- 
 usual excitements of the day, let us bless Almighty 
 God that our great Council has met, with a full 
 representation of our churches in all parts of the 
 land ; and with a wonderful harmony of purpose 
 and of action, is about to close a long session, from 
 which many who understand us not, had augured 
 confusion, and every evil work. We lament that 
 while the labours of our Missionaries, at home and 
 abroad, have been so noble and so fruitful, the oflTer- 
 ings of the churches by which they should have 
 been bountifully sustained, have not been commen- 
 surately abundant. Yet we must not forget that 
 much has been done for the support of Missions and 
 of Missionary institutions, which does not appear in 
 official reports. The zeal and co-operative labours 
 of our people are steadily increasing, and we pray 
 that they may be more and more enlarged and re- 
 warded. 
 
 The work of organized benevolence, in manifold 
 
210 
 
 forms, has been considerably developed, and we re- 
 joice that among such efforts, praiseworthy and suc- 
 cessful exertions have not been wanting in behalf 
 of the most wretched and abandoned of sinners and 
 sufferers. 
 
 Christian education is receiving an enlarged 
 measure of practical attention, and schools of the 
 parish and the diocese have been, to a cheering ex- 
 tent multiplied and effectively worked. 
 
 The Christian family is more and more regarded 
 among us as the Divine Institution, on which the 
 Church itself mainly relies for its prosperity, and to 
 which nothing less than the succors and heavenly 
 consolations of the Church of Christ can impart the 
 means of perpetuity and perfection. It is believed 
 that the legislation of this Convention will be found 
 to have contributed, not a little, to the purity and 
 sanctification of the households of our Communion. 
 
 The work of the Church, as now set before us by 
 Divine Providence, demands a word of exhortation. 
 We confide in our reverend brethren the Clergy, to 
 continue their labours for the salvation of souls with 
 more self devotion, and greater prayerfulness and 
 dependence on the power of God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 But corresponding efforts to sustain them in such 
 labours are required of the Laity ; and we rejoice 
 that they have specially moved us to urge upon 
 them, in this Pastoral address, the duty of minister- 
 ing to those who are set over them in the Lord, " in 
 all good things." Not only the future happiness of 
 immortal souls, but even the temporal well-being of 
 the Nation, is absolutely dependent upon the per- 
 petuation among us of the offices of our Holy Re- 
 ligion. These can be afforded only by a due sup- 
 ply of well-trained men, ministering the Word and 
 Sacraments, and it is the Law of Christ that, "they 
 who preach the Gospel shall live of the Gospel." 
 We press these principles, earnestly, upon the con- 
 sciences of all those who expect to give an account 
 unto Him who said unto His servants, " whosoever 
 receiveth you receiveth Me, and whosoever despis- 
 eth you despiseth Me." 
 
 Much thought has been given by your bishops, 
 as well as by members of the other House in this 
 Convention, to the necessity of enlarged associated 
 effort in works of Mercy and Education. Much 
 that needs to be done can be accomplished in no 
 other way ; and we are sure that men and women 
 can be found, " the love of Christ constraining 
 them," who will not withhold themselves from lives 
 of labour and self-denial, in ministering to the sick 
 and needy, in caring for the aged, and in training 
 
 the young. Though nothing more than a decent 
 maintenance can be expected by such devoted ser- 
 vants of Christ, it must be remembered that nothing 
 more than this is realized by thousands who sacri- 
 fice not only their bodies but their souls, in hope of 
 this world's gain. Let it be understood that the 
 sort of associations we thus commend must be whol- 
 ly free from ensnaring vows, or enforced confes- 
 sions, and in all things subject to Canonical and 
 Diocesan authority. 
 
 The social habits of our country afford to women, 
 even in the humbler walks of life, a degree of ex- 
 emption from toil and industrial activity, unknown 
 in other countries, except among the opulent. 
 Hence thousands of " women professing godliness," 
 dwell among us, like those rebuked, in Holy 
 Scriptures, as " women who live at ease, and as care- 
 less daughters." It is not our desire merely to sug- 
 gest the need of a reform of idleness and self-indul- 
 gence, but rather to awaken convictions that are 
 dormant, and to enlist affections and energies that 
 are undeveloped. It is the peculiar work of wom- 
 an, in Christian society, to furnish, in manifold 
 domestic and social offices, and in works of mercy, 
 spiritual as well as physical, a pattern " of whatso- 
 ever things are pure and lovely and of good re- 
 port." 
 
 It is a matter of painful observation to your 
 Bishops, that, more especially in larger towns and 
 great cities, where the need and the opportunities 
 for continual public worship are greatest, the 
 churches are too little used, at all seasons, and often, 
 in the summer months are closed, even upon the 
 day of the Lord. It is not unusual, in England, for 
 four or five services to be celebrated, in a parish- 
 church, on Sundays, for successive congregations, 
 to say nothing of week-day prayers, with homilies 
 and exhortations. In consecrated houses there can 
 be no private ownership that is not entirely subor- 
 dinate to the ownership of God Himself, and the 
 uses of all His children ; and, while we rejoice in 
 the multiplication of churches, professedly free, pro- 
 vided they are properly maintained, we suggest 
 that hundreds of our churches, apart from the ordi- 
 nary services of the Lord's Day, might be freely 
 opened to all comers, for the ministrations of the 
 blessed Gospel. City missions might thus be car- 
 ried on, in many places, without the expense of 
 erecting superfluous and inferior churches, and the 
 means thus saved might be used for the support of 
 the requisite Missionary Clergy. 
 But everything must languish in the Church un- 
 
211 
 
 til all our families are made truly Christian, and 1 
 until there is, as of old, a church in every house, i 
 We fear that the old duties of family prayer, of the [ 
 daily reading of God's Holy word, and of parental 
 catechising, are loo unich neglected. Examples ol 
 manly piety are not abundant, and fathers too often 
 forget that they are priests in their own houses. 
 It is not too much to say, that the secret of many 
 an unhappy household is thus pointed out, and that 
 no house stands firm that does not rest on the sure 
 foundation and llie blessed Corner- Stone. 
 
 While, however, we thus speak to you of the 
 manifold trusts which the adorable Head of the 
 Church has committed to our hands, we cannot for 
 get that the Church has a warfare to accomplish as 
 well as a work to do. Varying in its forms as the 
 ages pass along, this warfare is notwithstanding al- 
 ways the same, because it is always incited by the 
 same enemies of our salvation, and always directed 
 against the Faith and the Life of the Church. We 
 should be faithless to our trust, did we not say 
 something of the dangers and devices which beset 
 the Redeemer's fold and peril the life of the souls 
 which He hath purchased with His precious blood. 
 A covert infidelity which borrows the language 
 of God's lively oracles, even while it seeks to de- 
 stroy them ; which, under the guise of a candid and 
 searching criticism brings to nought the Holy Scrip- 
 tures ; which uses sounding words about our blessed 
 Lord while it denies to Him every attribute of Di- 
 vinity, and takes away from His offices and His 
 work every characteristic on which our fallen hu- 
 manity can rest for its salvation ; which puts a self- 
 perfected human nature in place of the new man in 
 Christ Jesus, stands foremost among these dangers. 
 Presented in unnumbered forms, widely infecting 
 the popular literature, insinuated by methods as un- 
 suspected as they are prevalent, the utmost watch- 
 fulness is needed to guard against this evil. Most 
 earnestly and solemnly do we warn and exhort the 
 pastors of Christ's flock so to indoctrinate the peo- 
 ple of their charge as to protect them against the 
 threatening peril, and so to feed His sheep and His 
 lambs that they be not enticed into poisonous pas- 
 tures to the destruction of their souls. 
 
 That extretne individualism which in matters 
 pertaining to salvation, shuts up each man to him- 
 self, presents another danger. It is, indeed, an 
 error to merge the proper individuality of every 
 soul in its corporate relations to llie 15ody of Christ. 
 But the necessity of membership in that body is, 
 notwithstanding, a truth of such vital importance, 
 
 and the inslitntions of Christ which involve it are 
 so positively enforcud in Scripture that their general 
 neglect, and the indifference which despises them 
 are errors more general and alarming. Let it be 
 constantly impressed on the consciences of our peo- 
 ple that, though each soul is individually responsible 
 to God for grace and spiritual help. Heavenly 
 grace and help are, nevertheless, to be sought by 
 Divine commandment, in that communion of which 
 the Head is Christ. 
 
 The unscriptural and uncatliolic pretensions of 
 the Bishop of Rome, as in times past so now, are a 
 fruitful source of error and of evil. They consti- 
 tute to-day, as they have done for many centuries, 
 the great bar to the restoration of the unity of 
 Christendom. We, therefore, urge upon our breth- 
 ren of the Clergy, the duty of teaching their peo- 
 ple the true law of a scriptural and catholic unity, 
 the adorable and living centre of whicli is none 
 other than Jesus Christ, our Lord ; tiie inspiring 
 source of which is His true Vicar, the Holy Gho>t; 
 and the visible expression of which is the " Apos- 
 tles' doctrine, and fellowship, the breaking of bread 
 and prayers." 
 
 In this connexion we are constrained to warn you 
 against the attempts now made, to disparage our 
 Anglican Reformation. These attempts challenge 
 and would warrant severer terms than we choose, 
 in this Letter, to employ. It is always easy to 
 point out imperfections in the characters of those 
 whom God has placed in eminent positions of duty 
 and responsibility. Inlidelity has cliosen this form 
 of attack on some of the most illustrious names re- 
 corded for our example in Holy Scriptures. Such 
 attacks, we believe, will only add fresh lustre to the 
 names of our martyred bishops and doctors, and 
 give fresh prominence and power to that great result 
 of our Reformation, the maintenance of "the Faith 
 in its purity and integrity, as taught in tiie Holy 
 Scriptures, held by the Primitive Church, summed 
 up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed 
 General Councils." 
 
 Before we leave this topic, we must also warn 
 you against confounding mediajval beliefs or 
 usages with those of earlier and purer ages, and 
 against their practical substitution for the be- 
 liefs and usages of our own Reformed Church. 
 Especially do we oondi mn any doctrine of the 
 Holy Euchaiisl which implies that, alter consecra- 
 tion the prcpiT nature of the elements of bread and 
 wine does not remain ; which localizes in them the 
 bodily presence of our Lord ; which allows any 
 
2l2 
 
 adoration other than that of our blessed Lord Him- 
 self, " who rose again from death, and took again 
 His body, with flesh, bones, and all things apper- 
 taining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith 
 He ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until 
 He returns to judge all men at the last day ;" which, 
 in any way, asserts that His sacrifice upon the cross 
 was not " a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, obla- 
 tion and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ;" 
 and which would add to our Liturgy ceremonies 
 and rites designed to teach all or any of these tilings 
 We would at the same time, deprecate most earnestly 
 those extravagancies in Ritualism, recently intro- 
 duced, which tend to a-similate our worship to that of 
 a Church not only alien, but hostile to our own. And 
 we must also urge you to remember that the rever- 
 ent obedience to their Bishops, and olher chief min- 
 isters, promised by the Clergy at their ordination, 
 would, if faithfully rendered, prevent these evils. 
 
 With thus much concerning dangers which beset 
 the Faith, we turn to say a few words concerning 
 those which bear upon the life of Christ's disciples. 
 We cannot, indeed, even touch upon all such dan- 
 gers, but of some we cannot forbear to speak in 
 tones of admonition and alarm. 
 
 Ours are times of increasing worldliness, luxury 
 and sensuality. The flesh triumphs over the spirit, 
 in the modes of life and in the recognized aims of 
 thousands who call themselves Christi:ins. Your 
 Bishops cannot with too much of plainness and solem- 
 nity urge the Reverend Clergy to be faithful in 
 rebuke and warning in these respects ; nor can they 
 too seriously entreat the people to lay such exhorta- 
 tion to heart. " Now the works of the flesh are 
 manifest, which are these : Adultery, fornication, 
 uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, ha- 
 tred, variance, emuLitinns, wrath, strife, seditions, 
 heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings | 
 and such like." The blessed apostle adds : " of tlie i 
 which I tell you before, as I have also told you in i 
 time past, that they which do such things shall not | 
 inhei'it the kingdom of God." 
 
 In former Pastoral Letters, your Bishops have 
 warned you concerning worldly amusements, and 
 of the tendency of many forms of them to create 
 a distaste for pure, simple and domestic pleasures, 
 
 innocent enjoyments, and especially for the stern 
 duties and elevated sympathies of a holy life* But, 
 in our day, there is a licentiousness and grossness 
 in theatrical and like entertainments which would 
 have been shocking to even the least refined, in the 
 days of our fathers. We exhort you to flee these 
 things, and above all to separate from all contact 
 with then- pollution, the young and precious souls 
 for whom you have answered in holy baptism. 
 
 Nor can it be superfluous to say that moderation 
 in all things pertaining to personal expense, to 
 dress, and to manners, is required of all Christians, 
 as examples to a world lying in the wicked One. 
 On these things the Apostles have spoken, and the 
 old fathers who struggled with the remains of 
 heathenism in their converts, and it is humiliating 
 to note that what they rebuked as indecent and 
 shameful in "newly baptized Pagans, is hardly less 
 the scandal of Christian lands in our own day and 
 generation. " For this purpose the Son of God was 
 manifested that He might destroy the works of the 
 devil." It is in vain that we profess a pure and 
 primitive Faith and multiply our sacrifices of praise 
 and thanksgiving, in the Liturgic forms of apostles 
 and martyrs, unless with clean hearts and hands, and 
 with bodies unpolluted, we are enabled to worship 
 God in spirit and in truth. Suffer, therefore, brethren 
 tliese words of exhortation to practical godliness. 
 "The end of all tilings is at hand: be sober and 
 watch unto prayer." Priiy and strive for the " peace 
 of Jerusalem." " Let all bitterness, and wrath, 
 and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking be put 
 away from you, with all malice," that as there is "one 
 Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father 
 of us all," so we may henceforth be of one heart 
 and one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and 
 Peace, of b'aith and Charity, and with one mind and 
 one mouth glorify God the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost. It remains for us to add our paternal 
 benediction : The God of peace who brought again 
 from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great 
 Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the 
 everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every 
 good work to do His will, working in you that 
 which is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus 
 Christ, to Whom be glory forever and ever. 
 
 Amen. 
 
213 
 
 A DIGEST OF THE EESOLUTIONS 
 
 Passed by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General Convention of 1868 
 
 and of the Legislation concurred in by the House of Bishops. 
 
 FIRST DAT. 
 
 That the House proceed to the election of a President. 
 
 That balloting bt- dispen^^ed with. 
 
 That the House proceed lo the election of a Secretary. 
 
 That when the House adjourns, it be to meet in Trinity Chapel, Octo- 
 ber 8, at 10 A. M. 
 
 That the daily sessious be from 10 a. m. to 4 p. m. 
 
 That a coniaiitt''e wait upon *he House of Bishops, to inform them of 
 the organization of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and its 
 readinesf* to proceed to *iusiness. 
 
 That the Kules of Order of the last General ConTenti-n be adopted aa 
 the rules of this House until others are provided. 
 
 That the President appoint the standing commiftees. 
 
 That the House confirm the appointment of the assistant Secretary. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 SECOND day. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved 
 
 That the petition of the Diocese of Nebraska for admission into union 
 with the Convention, be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the Memorial of the Diocese of Wisconsin (concerning Article V. 
 of the Constitution) be re. erred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the Memorial from the Diocese of ilarylaud (concerning perma- 
 nent S,v nodical or Conventional union of dioceses, and the erection 
 of Provincial Courts of Appeal) be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 That the Resolutions of the Diocese of New York (concerning the erec_ 
 tion of two new dioceses within the limits of the present diocese)' 
 be referted to the Committee on New Dioceses. 
 
 That the Memorial from the Diocese of New York (concerning the pas- 
 sage of a canon authorizing the formation of a Federate Council) be 
 referred to the Committee on Cauous. 
 
 That the paper concerning the election of the Rev. Dr. C. F. Robertson 
 to the Episcopate of Missouri, be referred to the Committee on the 
 Consecration of Bishops. 
 
 That the memorial from the Diocese of Tennessee (on the extent and 
 formation of dioceses) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the memorial from the Diocese of Illinois (concerning the repeal 
 of Article V. of the Constitution) be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 That the petition from the Diocese of Maryland {concerning the divis- 
 ion of the diocese) be referred to the Committee on New Dioceses. 
 
 That the memorial and resolution from the Diocese of North Carolina 
 (concerning the division of dioceses) be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. 
 
 That the preamble and resolution from the Conveution of the Diocese 
 of Georgia (concerning the change of the name of the " convention" 
 to " council'" ) be referreii to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the preamble and resolution from the Convention of the Diocese 
 ot Texas (concerning the division of dioceses) be referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 That clergymen and others be admitted to the sittings of this House. 
 
 That the list of members, standing committees, and the rnles of order 
 be printed for use of the House. 
 
 That the House take a rttcess daily at 1 p. m. 
 
 That 1,500 copies of the sermon pre^iched at the opening of the Con- 
 Vfntion, by the Bishop of Delaware, be printed. 
 
 That (the House of Bishops concurring) a joint committee be appoint- 
 ed to consider the proprit^tv of selecting another place of meeting 
 for the daily set-sions of the House. (Concurred in by the House of 
 Bishops, virie Message No 2.) 
 
 That this House plate on record its grateful sense of the eminent and 
 lon^continu ed Services to the Church, cf four venerable deputies 
 from the Diocese of Maryland, deceased since last General Conven- 
 tion, viz.: Ezekiel F. Chambers. LL. D., Rev. Henry M, Mason, D. D., 
 Hugh Dave\ Evans, LL. D., and John Henry Alexander, Lb. D. 
 
 That the House place upon its records the eKpre.s^ion of its giateful 
 recollection of the high Christian character and v-tluable services in 
 behalf uf the Church, of Washington Hunt, LL. D., deceased since 
 the last General Conveution. 
 
 That this Houf^e has heard with deep regret, of the death of the most 
 Rev. Dr. Fulford, Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan of Canada ; 
 and that this House communicates to the House of Bishops, its desire 
 to join with them in such expressions of regard for the departed 
 Bishop, and of respect for his memory, as they may see fit to pre- 
 pare. (Concurred in, vide message from the House of Bishops, No. 
 68 ) 
 That this House place upon its records, the expression of its deep sor- 
 row at the death of the Kev. Francis Lister Hawks, D. D., LL. D., 
 Historiographer of the American Church, and for many years a faith- 
 ful, most laboriou.-*, and valuable member of this body. 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That the Treasurer's summary and report in full be referred to the 
 Committee on Expenses. 
 
 That (various resolutions, amendments, and substitutes vouching) the 
 whole matter of (the report the Committee on New Dioceses recom- 
 mending — the House of Bishops concurring) the admission of the 
 Diocese of Nebraska into full canonical union with tUe Convention of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, be laid on 
 the table. 
 
 That the motion to refer the whole matter concerning the admission of 
 the Diocese of Nebraska to a special committee, be laid on the table. 
 
 That the House concur in the action of rhe House of Bishops as 
 announced in Message No. 3, to wit; " that the Diocese of Nebraska 
 be, and the same is, hereby admitted into union with the General. 
 Convention of the Church in the United States." 
 
 That the Uou&e adjourn. 
 
 FoDRTH Day. 
 
 That the Jliuutes be approved. 
 
 That the memorial of the Diocese of Pennsylvania (concerning the Kx- 
 aminatiou of Candidates for Holy Orders) be referred to the Commit- 
 tee on Canons. 
 
 That the Memorial from the Diocese ef Maryland (concerning the divi- 
 sion of the diucese) be referred to the Committee '>n New Dioceses. 
 
 That the Memorial of Sundry Clergy and Laity (concerning Section 6, 
 Canon 12, Title I.) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the Memorial of sundry Clergy and Laity (asking repeal of Canon 
 11 Title I.) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the resolution of inquiry respecting the want of music at Morning 
 Prayer, be laid on the table. 
 
 That a proposed amendment of Section 2, Canon 12, Title II—*' Regu- 
 lations respecting the Laity"— be referred to the Committee on 
 Canons. . .^. 
 
 That the Petition from the Diocese of Vermont (concerning the copviug 
 of the late Bishop Burgess's List of Ordinatious in the American 
 Church) and those of a similar natur« from the Dioceses of Maine, 
 Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, be referred to a 
 Special Committee of Three— the Rev. Drs Beardsley and Clemson, 
 and Judge Slieffey. 
 
 That a proposed alteration o( Section 14, Canon 13, Title I. (concern- 
 ing the Use of Forms of Prayer for " Extraordinary Occasions*') and 
 au"inquiry whether any further legislation is necessary to make 
 Canon 20. Title I. consistent with the Canon in question, and the 
 definition of the phrase " Extraordinary Occasions," he referred to 
 the Committee on Cauous. 
 
 That a proposed canon on the Consecration on Churches, and an 
 amendment thereto, be referred to the Committes on Canons. 
 
 That the Memorial from the Diocese of Illinois (concerning the Provin- 
 cial System and the change of name from '■ convention"' to "coun- 
 cil") be referred to the Committee on Canons- 
 
 That the Request of the Committee on Cauons ta be discharged from 
 further consideration of the Memorial from the Diocese of Georgia, 
 (concerning change of nomenclature of various legislative bodies of 
 the Church) be granted. 
 
 That the resolution offered by Mr. S. B. Ruggles of New York (concern- 
 ing the appointment of a '' Stan ling Committee ou the Foreign Rela- 
 tioi s of the I'hurch," to consiaer and report on any proposition or 
 subject connected with intercommunion or Synodical Union with any 
 other portion of the Church Catholic) be made the order of the day 
 for Wednesday, October 14. 
 
 That a proposed amendment of Canon 20, Title I. (concerning the use 
 of selections from the Book of Common Prayer instead of the pre- 
 scribed forms of Morning and Evening Prayer) be referred to the 
 Committee ou Canons. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry (concerning a grammatical inaccuracy lu 
 the ^'Invocation" in the otfice for the Holy Communion) be referred 
 to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 That Clerical representatives oi our Church in foreign countries now in 
 this city be entitled to seats on the floor of this House. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry, whether any change is required in Section 
 5, Canon 13, Title I (concerning the election of Assistant Bishops)^ 
 be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution proposing alterations in Paragraph 5, Section 7, ("an- 
 on 13, Title I. (concerning the translation of Missionary Bishops) 
 be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry as to rhe expediency of amending Canons 
 9 and 10 of Title I. (so as to remove tr.erefrom the iliscrimiuations 
 made in favor of Ministers ordained by Bishops not in ccmmuuiou 
 with this Church, and against Ministers onhtined in foreign lountries 
 by Bishops tn communion with the Church where .such members de- 
 sire admission to our Church) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry as to the third Article of the constitution 
 of the Boaid of Missions {respecting ambiguity of expi-essiou therein) 
 be referred to the Committee on the Domestic and Foreign Missionary 
 Society. 
 That the House proceed to ballot, on Monday, October 12, for a com- 
 mittee on the part of the House to nominate a Board of Missions. 
 That a Preamble and resolution (requesting the Houst; of Bishops to 
 prepare a short service for Morning and Evening use ou other days 
 than Sundays) be laid on the table. 
 That when the hour of recess arrives the House adjourn. 
 
 Fifth Day, 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That, the lloutfe of Bishops concurring, the Convention ratify the di- 
 vision of the Diocese Of Marj laud into two dioceses — such division to 
 take effect on the calling of a Convention for the purpofe by the Wish- 
 op or ecclesiastical authority of the dioce.se— and recognizes the 
 union with the Oenei'al Convention of the New Diocese. (Concurred 
 in. yid« Message Uouse of Bishops No. G)- 
 
214 
 
 That accommodations be provided for the Reporters in the middle aisle 
 of the church. 
 
 That the whole matter (resolutions and amendmf-nts concerning) re- 
 moval to the Churcti of the Transfitju ration, be referred to the Joint 
 Committee appointed to consider the subject of a change of place, 
 with instructions to report as soon as practicable. 
 
 That the House proceed to the election, on its part, of a Joint Commit- 
 tee to nominate a Board ot Missions. 
 
 That balloting be dispensed with, and the Rev. Drs. Paddock, Hunt 
 ingtou. Pierce, and Mes,srs. L. B. Otis, W. H. Battle, LL. D., andG' 
 C. Mc\V'h. liter, be elected as members on the part of this House of 
 said Joint Committee. 
 
 That the meaiorial fiom the Diocese of Xew Jersey (concerning Clerical 
 Su|ipoit), be referred to a special committee of five Laymen, (viz,, 
 J. II Thompson iM. D., S. li. Kugglt-s, LL. D., J. W. Van Nostrand, 
 G C. Shattuck, M. D., and B. J. Barbour). 
 
 That the re>oiution, adopted by the Convention of the Diocese of New 
 Yurk (asking a permissive Canon authorizing a federate council of 
 the dioceses in Xew York), be referreil to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That Mr. \Villi;im Welsh be added to the Joint Committee tonomintte 
 a Board ot Missions. 
 
 That sundry Memorials (on securing uniformity in public worship), to- 
 gether with a scheme of Canon — ■■ Of the Manner of Conducting Di- 
 vine Worship" be referred to tlie Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the order of business be suspended to receive report of Joint Com 
 mitiee on Change of Place. 
 
 That tlie resolutions accompanying the above report (I. That the 
 House of Bishops concuiriug— alter recess to-morrow — this House 
 meet for the future sessions at the Church of the Transfiguration. 
 II. Thankiug Hector, Wardens, aud Vestry, of Trinity Church, and 
 also the Committee of Arrangements. III. Appointing Mr. William 
 Welsh aud Uev. Dr. Abercrombie Committee of Arrangements, be 
 adopted. 
 
 That the report «^>f the Committee on Canons (proposing certain amend- 
 ments to Article V. of the constitution), be printed and made the 
 Order of the Day for Thursday, October 15. 
 
 That leave ol absence be granted to several Clerical and Lav Deputies. 
 
 That the Chair be empowered to appoint an additional member of the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution (concerning the subject of departure from the estab- 
 lished usages of the Church by defect), be referred to the Committee 
 on Canons. 
 
 That— the House of Bishops concurring — a Joint Committee of Bishops, 
 Presbyters and Laymen, in equal number, be appointed as an organ 
 of communication with other (tranches of the Churi;h and with the 
 different Christian bodies desiring iufoi mation or conference, and en- 
 titled '' The Commission of the Protestant Epi-^copal Church in the 
 United States of America on Church Unity," non-concurred in vide 
 message No. 0, Committee of Conference requested vic/e message IV, 
 H. D., No. 10. Committee appointed on the partot the House of Bish- 
 ops r((^f message H. B., No. 12. Resolution accompanying lieport 
 of Committee of Conference, adopted 15th Day. Bishops ol Ohio, 
 Md.. N. Car., K. Island, and W. N. York appointed members of the 
 Committee — i-ide message II. B. 84. 
 
 That certain resolutions inquiring respecting the stereotype plates of 
 the standard Book ol Common Prajer be referred to the Committee 
 on the Pra>er Book. 
 
 That the Houte approve of the Testimonials of the Kev. Dr Robertson, 
 Bishop elect of Missouri, and consent to his consecration. 
 
 That the House proceed to sign the proper certificate to be presented 
 to the House of Bishops. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 SIXTH DAT. 
 
 That the minutes be approved. 
 
 That the Secretary transmit to the House of Bishops the testimonials of 
 the Rev. Dr. Robertson — said testimonial X. having been signed by a 
 Constitutional m.ijority of both Orders of the House. 
 
 That tbe proposed amendment of section 6, Canoo 12, Title, reported 
 by the Committee on Canons, be printed, and made the order of 
 the day for i'ridav, Oct. 16. 
 
 That the proposed amendment of tbe title of Canon 11, Title I, report- 
 ed by the Committee on Canons, be made the order of the day for 
 Friday, Oct. 16, alter the preceding order. 
 
 That, the House of Bishops concurring, this Convention ratify the ac- 
 tion of the Convention of the Diocese of New York in the erection of a 
 new diocese, (Long Island) to take effect Nov. 15. Concurred in 
 fiiJe mes.-age H. B , No. 9. 
 
 That, the House of Bishops concurring, the Convention i-atify the action 
 of the Convention of the Diocese of New York in the erection of a 
 new diocese, (Northern New York), to take effect Nov. 15. 
 
 That the Rev. William C. Williams be added to the Committee on the 
 Dome.-tic and Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 That a chair be provided for the Bishop of Ontario, at the right hand 
 of the President. 
 
 That a resolution (inquiring what part of the Morning aud Evening 
 Prayers may be read by lay-readers, and suggesting a canon placing 
 them under proper discipline) be referred to the Committee on Can- 
 ons. 
 
 That the members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, in leav- 
 ing Tiinity Chapel, express and record their heariy thanks to the 
 Vestry of Trinity Church, the Committee of arrangements, and es- 
 pecially to tbe Rev Dr. Height. 
 
 That a resolution (cooc-rning the plan for the Morning Service pre 
 sented in the Rules of Order) be laid on the table. 
 
 That Message No. 6, (concernmg the division of the Diocese of Western 
 New York), with the accompanying documents, be referred to the 
 Committee on New Dioceses. 
 
 That the vote whereby the consideration of Canon 12, Title I. was made 
 the order of the day for Friday. Oct. 16, be reconsidered. 
 
 That the House take up the said report for consideration. 
 That the said report be made the order of the day for Wednesday, Oc- 
 tober 14. 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That the Memorial of the Wardens and Vestry of the Church of the 
 
 Holy Trinity, New York, be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 That the House proceed to the election of a Treasurer. 
 Thnt balloting be dispensed with, aud Mr. Herman Cope be elected. 
 That a resolution and amendaient (suggesting an amendment to the 
 
 Constitution, or a declaratory canon setting forth certain principles 
 
 touching the Kpi-copate) be laid on the table. 
 That a memorial from certain members of the Protestant Episcopal 
 
 Church in the Diocese of New Jersey, be referred to the Committee 
 
 on Canons. 
 That the report of the Committee on New Dioceses be recommitted. 
 Ti at Message No. 8 Irom the House of Bishops (amending Section 2, 
 
 Canon 10, Title I.), be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 That a resolution (inquiring whether the addition of the words "or 
 
 by the Bishop himself of some other Diocese." be not required in 
 
 Article IV, of the Constitution) be referred to the Committee on 
 
 Canons. 
 That the whole matter (concerning the change of designation of the 
 
 General Convention) be indefinitely postponed. 
 That a committee of conference on the part of this House, be appoint 
 
 ed on Message No. 11 from the House of bishops. 
 That this committee consist of three clergymen and three laymen. 
 That the members of the corporations of the Church of the Transfig- 
 uration and Trinity Church, Bte admitted to seats on the floor of the 
 
 House. 
 That the communication from the Trustees of the General Theological 
 
 Seminary, and their Triennial Report be referred to the Committee 
 
 on the General Theological Seminary 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — a joint committee he ap- 
 pointed to consider the canons relating to admission to tbe Ministry, 
 
 said committee on the part of this House being the Committee on 
 
 Canons, 
 TI at the report of the Committee on Canons (concerning Canon 12, 
 
 Title 1.) be again made the order of the day for Friday, October 16. 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 EIQETH DAY. 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 That the preamble atd r*-solution reported by the Committee on New 
 
 Dioceses, (ratifying the erection of » new diocese within the limits of 
 
 the Diocese of Western New York), be adopted. 
 That tbe House concur in Message No 8 from the House of Bishops 
 
 (amending Section 2, Canon X., Title I.) so as to read, '* And if such 
 
 foreign clergyman be a Deacon, he shall reside in this country at least 
 
 oue >ear, and shall obtain in this country the requisite testimonials 
 
 of character, before he be ordained a Priest." 
 That the report of the Committee on Canons, proposing a canon instead 
 
 of Section 5, Canon 13, Title I (on assistant Bishops) be laid on 
 
 the table for future consideration. 
 That a canon propo.^ed by the Committee on Canons (concerning the 
 
 consecration of churches) be laid on the table, and ordered to be 
 
 printed for the use of the House. 
 That the report from the committee appointed at the last General 
 
 Convention, on the Provincial System, be referred to a committee of 
 
 five to report to this Convention. 
 That hereafter the daily sessions continue from 10 a. m. to 3 p. m., 
 
 without recess. 
 That a resolution (inquiring into the expediency of amending Canon 
 
 5, Title 3) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 That the House proceed to the consideration of the order of the day. 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 NINTH DAY. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That a resolution proposing an amendment to Article 2 of the Consti- 
 tution (reducing the number of deputies to General Convention) be 
 laid on the table. 
 
 That a i-esolution (proposing amendments and additions to Canon XI., 
 Title I ) be leferred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution (referring to the Committee on the Prayer Book, the 
 inquiry as to the expediency of eras^ing from the Ordin«I the words, 
 "Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sina 
 thou dost retain, they are retained," in the commission given to a 
 Presbyter by a Bishop), be laid on the table. 
 
 That the Committee on Canons enquire into the expediency of strik- 
 ing out the words " of this Church," after the words Presiaing Bish- 
 op, in Section 3 of Canon 9, Title II. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — in Article 3 of the Constitu- 
 tion of the Board of Missions, for the words " four in number from 
 each diocese," etc., there be substituted the words, " at least equal 
 in number to four times the number of dioceses in union with the 
 General Convention." Concurred in, vide Message H. B., No. 14. 
 
 That the order of the day be postponed, to take up unfinished busi- 
 ness, to wit : proposed amendments to Article V. of the Constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 That speakers be limited to five minutes, and that no one have liberty 
 to speak twice on the question under consideration. 
 
 That the amendments to Article V. of the Constitution, reported by 
 the Committee on Canons, with certain verbal changes, be adopted. 
 Non-concurred in, vi-'e Message H. B , No. 26 Ctmniittee of con- 
 ference appointed, and the resolutions reported by said committee 
 concurred in by H. D. and H. B., vide Message H. D. No. G5, and 
 Message H. B. No 60. 
 
 That the House adjourn 
 
215 
 
 TBNTH DAT. 
 
 That the Minates be approved. 
 
 That the whole subject of ndmission to the sessions of this House, te 
 referred to the Cnmuiittee on ArraDgements, witti power. 
 
 That leave of absence be granted to certain deputies applying therefor. 
 
 That applications for leave of absence during the remainder of the 
 session, be referred to the Committee on Elections, with power. 
 
 That, the House of Bishops coocurriug, Canon 9, Title I., be amended 
 by substituting, in the 12th line, the words, *' one year," instead 
 of " six months." Non-concurred in, vide Message H B , No 21 
 
 That the Committee ou Canons be discharged from further considera- 
 tion of a proposed amendment of Section 7, Canon 13, Tide I. (to 
 the effect that a domestic missionary Bishop chonld become, of 
 course, the Bishop of a diocese organized within his jurisdiction). 
 
 That the resolution accompanying the report of the Committee ou the 
 State of the Church {transmitting to the House of Bishops the view 
 of the state of the Church, presented by said committee, asking its 
 praiiers and blessings, and requesting a pastoril letter), be adopted. 
 
 That the documents accompanying the report of the Committee on 
 the State of the Church, be temporarily placed in the hands of the 
 Committie on Christian Education. 
 
 That certain resolutions (concerning- the establishment of Christian 
 schools, parochial and diocesan ), and a further resolution (advocating 
 1, training-house for female teachers, and a sisterhood of such in- 
 structors} be referred to the Committee ou f'hristian EducatioD. 
 
 That the canon prorosed by the Committee on *'anons, in connection 
 with their report on Article V of the Constitution, with certain 
 amendments, be adopted, to become operative on the adoption of the 
 proposed amendment to the 6th Article of the Constitution. Vi'le 
 acti'in of House of Bishops concerning the same as noted above, in 
 connection with the action of this House on sail amondments to 
 Article V., ninth day. 
 
 That a resolution (concerning the establishment of missionary organ- 
 izations under the charge of missionary Bishops, within the limits of 
 organized dioceses', when request therefor is made by the ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority ) be referred to the Committee on t.'auons. 
 
 That no member of the House be allowed to speak more than once, 
 nor for a longer time than ten minutes, during the remainder of the 
 session, with the exception of allowing chairmen of committees, and 
 those who introduce resolutions, ten minutes in which to close the 
 debate. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — Canon 12, Section VI., clause 
 [li], of Title I., be amended so as to read as follows: "If there be 
 but one church or congregation within the limits of such village, 
 town, township, borough, city, or such division of a city or town, as 
 herein provided, the same shall be deemed the parochial cure of the 
 minister having charge thereof If there be two or more churches 
 or congregations therein, it shall be deemed the cure of the ministers 
 thereof, and the assent of a majority of such ministers shall be nec- 
 essary. But nothing in this can"n shall be construed to prevent 
 any clergyman of this Church from officiating in any parish church, 
 or in any place of public worship used by any congregation of this 
 Church, with the consent of the clergyman in charge of such con- 
 gregation, or in his absence, of the churchwardens and vestrymen or 
 trustees of such congregation, or of a majority of them." Con- 
 curred in, vide Message H. B., No. 17. 
 
 That a proposed amendiiient of clause [1], Section VI., of Canon 12, of 
 Title I., be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a proposed substitute for the above proposed amendment be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a further resolution (of inquiry as to the expediency of amending 
 the 4th line of clause [1], Section VI., Canon 12, Title I.) be referred 
 to the same Committee. 
 
 That a further proposed amendment to the same be referred to the 
 same committee. 
 
 That the House proceed to the consideration of the resolution accom- 
 panying the report of the Committee on Canons (concerning the con- 
 spcrrttion of churches). 
 
 That thf question on the adoption of the canon, he taken by the sep- 
 arate sections thereof 
 
 That the vote on the proposed canon be taken before the adjournment. 
 
 That the proposed canon and the amendments offered therefor, be re- 
 committed. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 ELEVENTH DAT. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 Tiiat the Committee on Canons be discharged from further considera^ 
 tion of a proposed amendment of Section 2, Canon 12, Title I. (mak- 
 ing a communicant removing from one parish to another, amenable 
 to the jurisdiction of the rector of the parish to which he removes). 
 
 That the Commit'ee on Canons be discharged from further considera- 
 tion of a resolution of inquiry and direction (touching the duties and 
 discipline of lay-reauers)- 
 
 That the same committee be discharged from further consideration of a 
 proposed amendment of Canon 20, Title I. (giving to Bishops power 
 to sanction forms of service selected from the Book of Common 
 Prayer, instead of the prescribed Morning and Evening Prayer). 
 
 That the Committee on the Prayer Book be discharged froni further 
 consideration of the alleged grammatical inaccuracy in the Invocation 
 in the Office for the Holy Communion. 
 
 That— the House of Bishops concurring — a Joint Committee of three 
 members on the part of this House, be appointed to sit during the 
 recess, to examine and correct; the plates of the St^indard Prayer 
 Book, and issue a new edition thereof. Concurred iu by House of 
 Bishops, vide Message 53. Committee ou the part of the House of 
 Clerical and Lay Deputies. Rev. Drs. Haight. T. \V. Coit, and Howe ; 
 Custodian of Standard Prayer Book, Rev. Dr. Ilaight. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — the Registrar be authorized to 
 
 ^ furnish a copy of the_ tlhronological ^Catalogue_,of Ordinations, pre- 
 
 pared by Bishop Burgees, to any diocese or dioceses, the expense to be 
 borne by the applicants. Concurred in, vide Messnge H. B., No. 42 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring— a (.'omniissicn on Arnive 
 be created, co&isting of two Bishops, two presbyters, and two lay- 
 men. Finally concurred in. with verbal change, vide Mess. H B. No. 
 42, and Message H D. No. 51. Commission on Archives, the Bish- 
 fps of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, tlie Rev. Drs. Thos. W. Coit 
 and E. E. Beardsley, Messrs. R. C. Winthrop, LL. D , and H. Fi»h, 
 LL. D. 
 
 That— the House of Bishops concurring — a resolution inserting an ad- 
 ditional cycle, and omitting one already expired, be made known to 
 the convention of every diocese, agreeably to the VIIl. Arti-'le of the 
 Constitution. Concurred in, •ivV/f' Message H. ii. No. 23 ; vide 9.]so 
 pp. 92, 93 Journal General Convention, 18t)5. 
 
 That a re.solution (concerning changes in the ^Metrical Psalms aud 
 Hymns) be referred to the ('ommittee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 That a resolution (concerning clxaiiges iu punctuation in the Apostles' 
 and Nicene Creeds) be laid on the table. 
 
 That a resolution (advocating the insertion of the word " Holy" before 
 the words " Catholic and Apostolic Church," iu the Nicene Creed,) 
 be laid on the table. 
 
 That a resolution (affirming the inexpediency of making any change in 
 the last Standard Prayer Book) be laid on the table, to be called up 
 the following Wednesday, Oct. 21. 
 
 That a resolution {concerning an acccurate translation of the original 
 Greek of the Nicene Creed) be laid on the table. 
 
 That a communication from the Board of Missions, with the accom- 
 panying reports and summaries, be refeiTed to the Committee on the 
 Domestic 'and Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 That a resolution (of inquiry as to the expediency of changes in the 
 canons and in the constitution qf the Domestic and Foreijiu Mission- 
 ary Society, changing the alteration of the title of the Board of Mis- 
 sions, and giving to it high effitiency.) be referred toacommittee con- 
 sisting of the Committee on Canons and the Committee on the Do- 
 mestic and Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 That the Secretary take measures to obtain further raturus from the 
 Dioceses, as required by Canon lo, Title I. 
 
 That the Secretary record the various places n'tmed for the meeting of 
 the next General Convention, and that the subject be made the order 
 of the day for to-morrow, (Tuesday. Oct 20. 
 
 That the report of the Committee ou Canons (proposing amendments to 
 Section V., Canon 13. Title I,.) be taken from the table. 
 
 That the House take a recess for half an hour 
 
 That— the House of Bishops concurring— the canon proposed by the 
 Committee on Canons in lieu of Section V., Canon 13, Title I., be 
 adopted. Non-concurred in. vide ,Mess:Hge H. B.. ^o. 40. 
 
 That the Liturgical Report made by the Rev. Dr T. W. Coit to the Gen- 
 ernl Convention of 1841. (in behalf of the Joint Commitiee on the 
 Standard Prayer i^ook), be printed in the appendix to the Journal of 
 the Convention. 
 
 That Message No 15 from the House of Bishops (concerning admission 
 of clergy of the Church in Canada to the rights and privileges of 
 those of American ordination.) be referred to the Committte on 
 Canons. 
 
 That the daily sessions of this House, for the future, continue from 
 10 A. M. to 1 p. M., and from 2 p. m. to 5 p. m. 
 
 That a resolution (propo.'^ing amendment to Section 2, Canon 17, Title 
 I.), be referred to the Committee on the fraver Book. 
 
 That the Joint Commitftee on the standard Prayer Book be authorized 
 to consider and report to the next (jeneral Conveniion, on the proper 
 printing of the Prayer Book, and as to the restoration of words left 
 out of said Book by clerical error. 
 
 That a resolution (of inquiry as to the punctuation of the Epistle for 
 Good Friday) be referred tn the Committee on the Praver Book. 
 
 That the report of the Committee on Canons (concerning a proposed 
 Canon in place of Canon XI. of Title I.) be recommitted, together 
 with a resolution (proposing a draft of Canon in place of I'anon XI 
 Title I ) 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 TWELFTH DAT 
 
 That the minutes be approved. 
 
 Thut the order of the lay be postponed until the following question 
 be dii^posed of. 
 
 That, (the House of Bishops concurring,) a section to be numbered 8i 
 be added to Canon o, Title I. (concerning the esimination of Candd 
 dates for Orders), as reported by the C'imniirtee on Canons, an-, 
 amended by the House Non concurred in, vide Mess, H. B. No. 36. 
 
 That the Diocesef be railed on to name tht-ir re>pective choice of place 
 for the meeting of the next General Convention, and after the first 
 baliot. all but the tive places receiving the highest number of votes 
 be dropped. 
 
 That the vote on the part of this House, in favor of the City of Balti- 
 more, as the pbice of meeting of the next General Convention, be 
 made unanimous 
 
 Concurred in by unanimous vote of H. B. Vide Mess. No. 25. 
 
 That Messages Nds. 16, (announcing proposed change in i'lau.«e3. of 
 Section XVI, Canon 13, Title I, concerning Epi.scopal KesignationsJ 
 and 19, (proposing amendment of Article III. of the constitution, 
 removing the requirement, that of action in all matt^-r-s proposed for 
 their concurrence within three days) from the House of Bishops, be 
 referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 Tnat Message No. 20, (nominating the (>ev. Benj Wistar Morris, A.M., 
 as Missionary Bishop of Oregon and Washington), he made the order 
 of the Day for Wedne.sday, Oct 21. 
 
 That the whole subject, (to wit, the Ileport of the (.'ommittee on Can- 
 ons concerning Section 14, Canon 13, Titl<> I, together with an 
 amendment compri.-^ing the orij^iual re.solurim rffened to the com- 
 mittee,) he laid on the table. 
 
 That the report of the Committee on Canons, asking to be discharged 
 
216 
 
 from further consideration of several proposed amendments to Canon 
 12, Title I, together with sundry proposed amendments and instruc- 
 tions, be laid ou the Table. 
 
 That the above vote be reconsidered. 
 
 That the said report and proposed amendments, he recommitted to the 
 committee to consider and report. 
 
 That this House does not concur in the Resolution contained in Mess- 
 age No. 15, from the 'louse of Bishop.-t (convcjing fraternal greetings 
 to Canadian Church or removal of disabilities on Clergy of Knglish of 
 Colonial ordination), said resolution being at variance with the pro- 
 visions of Canon 10, Title I. 
 
 That the subject of a reconsideration of the vote, adopting on the part 
 of this House an amendment, proposed by the Committee on Canons, 
 of the Canon respecting the election of Assistant Bishops, be made 
 the order of the day for Wednesday, Oct. 21st, at 2 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 THIRTEENTH DAT. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That the Secretary inlorm the House of Bishops, that the question of 
 reconsideration of the vote, adopting a proposed amendment to the 
 Canon on the election of Assistant Bishops, is peudinjr, and respect- 
 fully request the return of Message No. 21, from this House. 
 
 That, the House of Bishops concurring, Section III, Canon 9, Title I, be 
 amended, so as to read in line 3, "the Presiding Bishop," instead of 
 "the Presiding Bishop of the Church."' 
 
 Concurred in, vu/e Jless. H. B., No. 31 
 
 That the Committee on Canons be discharged from further considera- 
 tion of a resolution of inquiry, as to the necessity of adding to Art. 
 IV, of the Constitution, the words "or by the Bishop himself of 
 some other diocese."' 
 
 That leave be granted to the Committee on Canons, at their request, 
 to withdraw their report, presented on the 6th day of the Session, 
 (offering a draft of a Canon on Federative Conventions or (.'ouncils.} 
 
 That, the Hou.-^e of Bishops concurring, the names of the Trustees of 
 the General Theological Seminary for the various dioceses submitted, 
 with the report of the committee on said seminary, be approved. 
 
 Non-concuired in, and list returned. Vide Message U. B., No. 58. 
 
 List sent back to House of Bishops. Vide Mess. H. D., No. 77. 
 
 Finally concurred in. Vide Mess. H. B . No. 71. 
 
 That the form of a Testimonial for a Missionary Biehop-Blect be 
 read, and then after silent Prayer, the House proceed to ballot on 
 nomination of a Missionary Bishop of Oregon and Washington, made 
 by the Hou.'e of Bishops 
 
 That the vote be made uDanimoua. 
 
 Tbat the House unite in singing the Gloria in Ezr.tlsis Dfo. 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Committee on 
 Christian Education, be made the order of the day for Thursday, 
 October 22d. 
 
 That leave of the House be granted to the Joint Committee on 
 communication with the Russo-Greek Church, to report in print. 
 
 That the resolution, (that it is inexpedient to make alterations in the 
 Prayer Book,) be made the second order of the day, for Thursday, 
 October 22d. 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Special Committee 
 of Laymen on the subject of Clerical support, be recommitted for 
 further practical suggestions, and that two clergymen be added to the 
 number. 
 
 That the canons accompanying the report of the Special Committee on 
 the Provincial System, together with the Canou on Federative Con- 
 ventions or Councils, proposed by the Committee on Canons, be 
 printed, and made the order of the day for Friday, October 23rd. 
 
 That the Secretary inform the House of Bishops of the election of the 
 Rev Benj. Wistar Morris, as Missionary Bishop of Oregon and Wash- 
 ington ; and that he transmit the Testimonial in favor of the said 
 Missionary Bishop-Etect, as signed by a constitutional majority of 
 bof.h orders of this House. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 FOURTEENTH DAT. 
 
 That the minutes be approved. 
 
 That a resolution (of inquiry as to the expedience of preparing a table 
 of proper lessons for daily Prayer in Lent), be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 That the resolution accompanying the report of the Committee on Can- 
 ons, (proposing amendment of Sections I and II, of Canon I, Title I, 
 be made the order of the day, after the preceding order has been dis- 
 posed cf. 
 
 That the order of the day be postponed till the question (on amending 
 clause [I], Section VI, Canou 12, Title 1, as proposed by the Commit- 
 tee on Canons), be disposed of 
 
 That the consideration of the question under discussion, be postponed 
 for the appointment of a comaiittee. 
 
 That the whole matter, to wit, proposed amendment of Clause (1,) 
 Section VI. Canon 12, Title 1, be indefinitely postponed. 
 
 That the proposed Canon on the Consecration of Churches, reported 
 by the Committee on Canons, be made the order of the day, for Fri- 
 day, October 23d. 
 
 That a proposed draft of Canon ''Of Marriage and Divorce," to be 
 numbered Canon 13, Title II, be referred to the Committee on Can- 
 ons. 
 
 That a proposed Canon "on the use of Ilymns,^' be referred to same 
 committee. 
 
 That a memorial from certain Presbyters on the same subject, be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a petition from the Diocese of Michigan, touching the use "of 
 Hymns, ancient aud modern.'' be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That a proposed canon, (amending Section VI, of Canon 5, of Title I), 
 be reterred to the san)e committee. 
 
 That the resolution accompanying the report of the Committee of Con- 
 ference, on Message from the House of Bishops, No 26, (authorizing 
 the appointment by the House of Bishops, from among their own 
 
 number) of "The Commission of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States of America, on Church Unity, [Mess. No. 84, 
 from the House of Bishops, announced the appointment of Bishop 
 Mollvaine, Whittingbam, Atkinson, Clark and Cose on this "Com- 
 mission." ■ 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Joint Committee 
 on the Italian Reform movement, communicated to this House in 
 Message No. 27. from the Houi^e of Bishops, be made the order of 
 the day for Saturday, October 2tth. 
 
 That the preamble and resolucioD adopted by the Convention of the 
 Diocese of Alabama, together wiih sundry memorials from clergy 
 and laity of the Church, (concerning a new translation of the Nicene 
 Creed,) be refern^d to the Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 That a similar preamble and resolution, adopted by the Convention of 
 the Diocese of Indiana, be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That a similar preamble and resolution, adopted by the Diocese fo 
 Wisconsin, with an accompanjing draft of a Canon on the use of 
 the Nicene Creed, be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That a resolution (of similar import) adopted by the Convention fo 
 the Diocese of Missouri, be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That a resolution (preliminary to those offered by the Committee on 
 Christian Education, aud affirming that the Christian education of 
 her children is the Church's work in her organic corporate capacity 
 and of co-ordinate importance with her missonary work) be adopted. 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Committee on 
 i'hri.«tian Education, be considered separately. 
 
 That the five resolutions (pi'oposiog, the House of Bishops concurring, 
 the appointment of a joint commission to x'aise funds, to assist in 
 Christian education at the South, and naming the members thereto, 
 on the part of the House), be adopted. Non-concurred in, vide Mess. 
 U. B, No. 59. 
 
 That the second resolution (proposing, with the concurrence of the 
 House of Bishoi)S, the appointment of a joint Committee to take 
 into consideration the whole subject of Theological Study and Theo- 
 logical Schools) he adopted. [Non concurred in. Vide Mess H. B. 
 No 35.] 
 
 That the third resolution (recommending, the House of Bishops con- 
 cuning, the establishment of Christian schools in every parish 
 where practicable) be adopted. Concurred in. Vide Mesfc. H. B. No. 35. 
 
 That the fourth resolution (recommending the opening of schools in 
 chapfl-school houses, which can be used for Divine service on Sun- 
 days, as an economical mode of planting and establishing the Church) 
 be adopted. 
 
 That the fifth resolution (recommending, with the concurrence of the 
 House of Bishops, the appointment of a Standing Committee on 
 Christian education in every Diocese) be adopted. [Non-coucurred 
 in. Vide Mess. H. B No. :35.1 
 
 That the sixth resolution (recommending, the House of Bishops con- 
 curring, the subject of a Training House for Teachers and associations 
 of Teachers, male and femile, under Episcopal regulations) be adopt- 
 ed. [Concurred in Vide Mess. H. B. No. 35. 
 
 That the resolutions reported by the committee (as above) be adopted 
 as a whole. 
 
 That the order of the day (to wit resolutions that it is inexpedient to 
 make any alterations in the Standard Prayer Book) he referred to the 
 Committee on the Prayer Book. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 Fifteenth Dat. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That a committee be appointed — the House of Bishops concurring — to 
 confer with a committee of that House in regard to the time of ad- 
 journment of this Convention. 
 
 That this House meet hereafter at 9. 30 A. M., and continue in session 
 until 4 p. HI. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — this House adjourn si'ne die 
 on Monday next. [Non-concurrence of bishops reported by the com- 
 mittee appointed as above to confer with the House of Bishops]- 
 
 That the House does not concur in the Amendment to Article III. of 
 the Constitution, proposed in message No. 19 from the House of Bish- 
 ops (requesting removal of requirement of action ou the part of the 
 House of Bishops on all matters proposed for their concurrence within 
 three days) 
 
 That this House does not concur in the alteration of clause [3] Canon 
 
 >■- Is, Title I, proposed in Message, No. 16 from the House of Bishops 
 (intended to obviate the necessity of a ynetting of the Bishops to oon- 
 sider a proposed resignation and authorizing action by correspond- 
 ence). 
 
 That the Secretary he authorized to effect the purchase of the stereo- 
 type plates of tiie reprinted early Journals, and to continue the issue 
 of the republication, if possible. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — the Joint Committee on the 
 Republication of the early Journals be continued, with power to en- 
 large the numbers. [Concurred in. Vvle Message of House of Bish- 
 ops No. 39. Committee, Bishops Potter, Williams and Odenheimer ; 
 Kev. Drs Higbee, Howe, aud \Vm. Cooper Mead ; Rev. Wm. Stevens 
 Perry ; Messrs. Samuel B. Ilnggles, LL. D., James Pott and Edward 
 P. Dutton. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — amendments be made to 
 Article IV. of the Constitution of the Board of Missions (so that it 
 may hereafter read as follows ; I. " To the Board of Missions shall be 
 entrusted the considtration of the practical ivork of the Cnurch, and 
 the supervision, &c , and adding, II., " the Bishop and Standing 
 Commitue of each Diocese may appoini substituttsfrom the same di- 
 ocese for such me77ibers of the Board as may he unable to attend its 
 inefiings.^'' [First amendment non-concurred iu. Vide Message of 
 House of Bishops, No. 43. Second amendment concurred in. Vide 
 same Message]. 
 
 That the resolutions reported by the Committee un Clerical Support be 
 adopted. 
 
217 
 
 That the Report of the Committee on Canons (proposiug a Canon on 
 
 KodLTiile OoDventious or Councils) be tiiken from tlie table. 
 That a memorial of certiiin clergymen (pmying for a rubrical relaxa- 
 tion) be referreil to the Committee onC:inons. 
 That the lIou.se concurs in the action of the House of Bishops, commu- 
 nicated in Message No. 30 (appointing the liev. William Stevens 
 I'erry Historiographer, in place of the late Kev. Dr. Francis L. 
 Uawks). 
 That a statement of changes made in the canoae be prepared, printed 
 and sent to all entitled to receive Journals, immediately after ad- 
 journment. 
 That the Secretary return the thanks of the Convention to various in- 
 stitutions and societies. 
 That the members of this House learn with satisfaction that the num- 
 ber oi subscribers to the Documentary Annals of the American 
 Church is nearly sufficient to warrant the publication of the whole 
 series. 
 That the thanks of the House are due to the Rev. William Stevens Perry 
 
 for the intei-est taken by him in this important work. 
 That the Canon on Federate Conventions or Councils, as reported by 
 the Committee on Canons be adopted, to wit : 
 
 Retolvedy Ihe House of Bishops concurring, that the following be 
 adopted as Canon — of Title — , to ^vit : Canon — , authorizing the 
 Formation of a Federate Convention, or ('ouncil of the Dioceses within 
 any Stiitc. It is hereby declared lawful for the Dioceses now existing, 
 or hereafter to exist wjtliin the limits of any State or Commonwealth, 
 to establish for themselves a Federate Convention or Council, represent- 
 ing such Dioceses which may deliberate and decide upon the common 
 interests of the Church, within the limits aforesaid, but before any de- 
 terminate action of such Convention or Council shall be had, the pow- 
 ers proposed to be exercised thereby shall be submitted to the General 
 Convention for its approval. 
 
 Nothing in this Canon shall be construed as forbidding any Federate 
 Council from taking such action as they may deem necessary to secure 
 Buch legislative enactments as the common interests of the Church in 
 the State may require. 
 
 Concurred in. Vide Message of the House of Bishops, No. 61. 
 That the order of the day (to wit, the report of the Committee on 
 
 Canons on the (.'on sec ration of Churches) be laid on the table. 
 That the Amendment to the proposed Amendments to Canon 11, Title 
 
 I., prepared by the Committee on Canons be adopted. 
 That, the House of Bishops concuiTing, i^ections 1 and 2 of Canon 11, 
 of Title I., be amended so as to read : 
 
 Canon 11. " Of I'ersousnot Ministers of the Church, officiating in any 
 Congregation thereof. — No minister in charge of any congregation of 
 this Church, or. in case of vacancy or absence, no Church Wardens, 
 Yestryuien or Trustees of the congregation shall permit any person 
 to officiate therein without sufficient evidence of his being duly licensed 
 or ordained to minister in this Church. Provided that nothing herein 
 shall be so construed as to forbid communicants of the Church to act 
 as Lay Headers. Canon 11. Title 1 , Section 1 and 2, is hereby repeal- 
 ed ; provided that such repeal shall not affect any case of a violation of 
 laid cauon committed before this date ; but such case shall be governed 
 by the same law as if no such repeal had taken place." 
 
 Concurred in. Vide Message of House of Bishops No. 46. 
 That the Secretary be authorized to purchase ten copies of the verbatim 
 
 report of the proceedings and debates of this House. 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Joint Committ«e 
 on the Standard Bible be adopted ; (the Ist recognizing until further 
 order the Oxford 4to edition of 1852 as the standard, and the 2d dis- 
 charging the committee). 
 That the vote adopting the above resolutions, and discharging the Joint 
 Committee, be reconsidered and the committee continued to sit during 
 the recess. 
 Ttlat the House adjourn. 
 
 Sixteenth Day. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That it is not expedient to amend Section 2 of Canon 5, Title III. (au- 
 thorizing the loruiation of a parish under certain contingencies with- 
 out the consent of the ecclesiastical authority.) 
 
 That the committee of Arrangements be empowered, with a similar 
 committee to be appointed by the House of Bishops, to arrange for 
 the closing services of the Convention. 
 
 That live thousand copies of the Journal be printed, &c. 
 
 That a motion of reference to the Committee of Canons on the question 
 of prohibiting the holding of General Conventions in consecrated 
 churches be laid on the table. 
 
 That the member of the Committee on Canons, who introduced the 
 proposed Canon on the Conpecration of Churches have leave of the 
 House to make certain explanatious with regard to said Cauon. 
 
 That the report of the Committee on Canons (proposing said Canon) be 
 taken from the table. 
 
 That the said report be again laid on the table. 
 
 That— the House of Bishops concurring — Canon I., Title III., Section 
 V , be amended by substituting, m the fifth line, the word '' tkree'*^ 
 in place it the word " two.'''' Concurred in. Vide Message of House 
 of Bishops, No. 41. 
 
 That the Treasurer be instructed to pay the Secretary of the House the 
 sum of S750, and the Secretary of the House of Bishops the sum of 
 S2oU. 
 
 That the Secretary and Treasurer jointly be authorized to make an ad- 
 ditional assessment in the Dioceses if necessary. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — iu future editions of the 
 standard J'rayer Book, a note be inserted declaring the fact that al- 
 terations were made iu several of the late editions printed from the 
 stereotype plates mentioned in Section II. of Canon 17, Title I. Con- 
 curred in with this amendment, '' That the alterations referred to be 
 specified in the note to be inserted in the Prayer Book." Message of 
 
 28 
 
 > House of Bishops, No. 52. The amendment concurred in by House 
 
 of Deputies. Kide Message No 64. 
 That agreeably to the desire expressed by the House of Bishops (in 
 
 Message No. 33, asking pni> era of the House of Dt-'puties while the 
 
 Convention is deliberating on the subject of Indian Jlissioiinj space 
 . be taken for silent prayer, and that the President offer prayer from 
 
 the Book of Common Prayer 
 That the resolutious aci-oiii[»au3ing the report of the Joint Committee 
 
 on the ItaUan Reform Movement be adopted. 
 That the House concurs in the resolution of the House of Bishops, 
 
 communicated in Message No, 29, continuing and increasing the Joint 
 
 Committee on the Italian lieform Movemeut. 
 That the House proceed to the consideration of the Message of the 
 
 House of Bishops, No. 32 (concerning Divorce). 
 That the Message of the House of Bishops, No. 32, with the amendment 
 
 and resolution thereon be referred to the ('ommittee on Canons, and 
 
 that their report on the same subject be re-couimitted to them. 
 That certain documents (liom heirs of the late Typographical t.-orrector 
 
 of the Standard Bible) l)e referred to the Joint Committee on Standard 
 
 Bible. 
 That the resolution accompanying the report of the Committee on Can- 
 ons, amending Canon 2Si, Title 11., {of offences for which clergymen 
 
 shall be tried) be adopted, to wit : 
 
 Resolved, — the House of Bishops concurring — that Canon 2 of Title 
 II. is hereby amended so as to read as follows : § I. Every minister of 
 this Church shall be liable to presentment and trial for the following of- 
 fences, viz. : 
 
 1. Crime or immorality. 
 
 2. Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doc- 
 trine contrary to that held by the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States of America. 
 
 3. A'iolatinn of the Constitution or L'anons of the General Convention. 
 
 4. Violation of the Con&titutiou or Canons of the Diocese to which he 
 belongs. 
 
 5. Any act which involves a breach of the ordination vows : 
 
 And on being found guilty he shall be admonished, suspended or de- 
 graded, according to the Canons of the Diocese in which the trial takes 
 place, until otherwise provided for by the General Convention. 
 
 J II. If a Minister of this Church shall be accused by public rumors 
 of discontinuing iill exercises of tlie ministerial office without lawful 
 cause, or of living in the habitual disuse of pubhc worship or of tbe 
 Holy Eucharist according to the offices of this Church, or of being guil- 
 ty of any or either of the offences enumerated in the first section, it 
 shall be the duty of the Bishop, or if there be no Bishop, of the clerical 
 members of the Standing Committee, to see that an inquu-y be insti- 
 tuted as to the truth of such public rumor. And in case of the individ- 
 ual being proceeded against and convicted according to such rules of 
 process as may be provided by the Conventions of the respective Dio- 
 ceses, he shall be admonished, susp.nded or degraded, as the nature of 
 the case may require, in conformity with their respective Constitutions 
 and Canons." 
 
 Concurred in. Vide Message of the House of Bishops, No. 51. 
 That when this House adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday at 9.8U 
 
 A. M., and to continue in session till 5 P. M., with a recess of one hour 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 SEVEiNTEKNXn DAT. 
 
 That the Minutes he approved. 
 
 That Message No. 34 from the House of Bishops (on Section 1, Canon 
 lU, Title I.) be referred to the CommiUee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution (suggestiug the euuni'jration of all the baptized mem- 
 bers of the Chux'ch, aud also of the confirmed in each pjirish) be re- 
 ferred to the Committee on the >tate of the Church. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry (on the expediiMicy of omitting the words 
 "Clerical and Lay" in the title of this House) be referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 That a resolution of inquiry (on the propriety of enacting a canon 
 making it obligsitory on new Dioceses to form their Stjinding Commit- 
 tees of an equal number of clergymen and laymen) be referred to the 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 That Messages Nos. 34 (amending section HI, Cauon 5, Title III.) 35 
 (communicating action of House of Bishops on resolutions accompany- 
 ing report of Committee on Chri^tiiln educatiouj and 36, (non-concur- 
 ring in Message of House of Deputies, No. 22, adding a section [VIII.] 
 to Canon 5, Title I.) be referred to the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That the House reconsider its vote concerning the number of Joumab 
 to be printed. 
 
 That the Secretary be instructed to have an adequate number printed 
 to furnish two copies to every clergyman, &c. 
 
 That this House concur in the amendment proposed in Message of the 
 House of Bishops No. 42, to the resolutions (concerning the Commis- 
 sion on Archives) originally connnunicated to the House of Bishops in 
 Mes.sage House of Deputies No. 20. 
 
 That this House respectfully declines to unite in the letter sent to this 
 House by the House of Bishops respecting the Oneida Indians. ' 
 
 That the resolutious accompanying the report of the Committee on the 
 Prayer Book be adopted : {I. referring the subject of a Table of Prop- 
 er Services for Lent to the same Committee on the Praj er Book ; 11.. 
 referring certaiu proposed changes iu the language of the Metrical 
 Psalms iiud Hymns to the simie committee ; 111., referring a commu- 
 nication from the Kev. President of CoUmibia College, New York, to 
 the same committee ; I\ -. referring the inquiry as to the discrepancy 
 between the punctuation of the Good Fi-idaj Ej^istle and that of the 
 same passjtge in the Standard Bible, to the same committee). 
 
 That the Board of Trustees of the Fund fur the Relief of Widows and 
 Orphans of Deceased Clergymen aud of Aged, luhrm and Disabled 
 Clergymen be discharged. [Concurred in. Vide Message Ltou^e of 
 Bishops, No. 55-J 
 
 That the House concurs in Message of House of Bishops No. 44, concern* 
 iug appointment of Joint Committee on Theological Education. 
 
218 
 
 [Committee, Bishops Whittingham and Williama, Rev. Drs. Huight 
 ami Hare, Messrs. Orlando Mead and Origin S. Seymour, L. L. D. ] 
 That a Committee of Conference be requested on the subject matter of 
 
 Message of Uouse of Bishops, No. 43. 
 Thata resolution of inquiry' (respecting the expediency of providing a 
 Form of Thanksgiving for the recovery of a iJhild from ilhieas) be re- 
 ferred to the Joint Committee on the Standard Prayer Book. 
 That a resolution of inquiry (as to the expediency of introducing the 
 __ pointing of the Psalter for Chanting, as in the English Prayer Book) 
 
 be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That certain resolutions offered on the 11th day of the session (touching 
 
 the pointing of the Apostles' Creed, and the introduction of the word 
 
 " Holy" into the Micene Creed) be referred to the same committee. 
 
 That a resolution (proposing a (."anon on the Consecration of Churches) 
 
 be laid on the table. 
 That the preamble a-nd resolution (concerning the use of liturgic fonns, 
 in their native tongue, other than thoBe prescribed by the Prayer 
 Book, by foreigners,) be referred to the Joint Committee on the Ke- 
 view of the Book of Common Prayer in German. 
 That a resolution of inquiry (as to the time and occasion of the omission 
 of the word " Holy" in the Nicene Creed) be referred to the Commit- 
 tee on the Prayer Book. 
 That the Secretaries incorporate in all future messages a statement of 
 
 the subject matter thereof. 
 That the Message of the House of Bishops, No. 35, be referred to the 
 
 Committee on Christian education. 
 That the House proceed to vote by Dioceses and orders on the proposed 
 
 alterations of Article V. of the Constitution. 
 That the resolution reported by the Committee of Conference be adopted 
 by the Uouse as loUows ; 
 
 Resolved, that the alteration of the Constitution (together with the 
 amendment of the Canons) recommended in the following resolution be 
 proposed, and that the same be made known to the several Diocesan 
 Conventions, in pursuance of Article IX. of the Constitution, viz : 
 
 Resolved, that Article V. of the Constitution be amended so as to read 
 as follows : 
 
 A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United States, or any 
 territory thereof, not now represented, may, at any time hereafter, be 
 admitted on acceding to this Constitution ; and a new Diocese, to be 
 formed from one or more existing Dioceses, may be admitted under the 
 following restrictions, viz : 
 
 No new Diocese shall be formed or erected within the limits of any 
 other Diocese, uor shall any Diocese be formed by the junction of two or 
 more Dioceses, or parts of Dioceses , unlei^s with the consent of the Bish- 
 op and Convention of each of the Dioceses concerned, as well as of the 
 General Convention, and such consent shall not be given by the General 
 Convention until it has satisfactory as;>uruuce of a suitable provision for 
 the support of the Episcopate in the contemplated new Diocese. 
 
 No such new Diocese shall be formed which shall contain less than six 
 Parishes, nor less than six Presbyters, who have been for at least one year 
 canonically resident within the bounds uf such new Diocese, and quali- 
 fied to vote for a Bishop. 
 
 Nor shall such new Diocese be formed if thereby any existing Diocese 
 shall be reduced so as to contain less than twelve Parishes, or leas than 
 twelve Presbyters who have been residing thereiu and settled and quali- 
 fied as above mentioned : Provided that no city shall form more than 
 one Diocese. 
 
 In case one Diocese shall be divided into two or more Dioceses, the 
 Diocesan of the Diocese divided may elect the one to which he will be 
 attached ; and shall thei-eupon become the Diocesan thereof, and the 
 Assistant Bishop, if there be one, may elect the one to which he will be 
 attached : and if it be not the one elected by the Bishop he shall be the 
 Diocesan thereof. 
 
 Whenever the division of a Diocese into two or more Dioceses shall be 
 ratified by the General Convention, each of the Dioceses shall be subject 
 to the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese so divided, except as local 
 circumstances may prevent, until fhe same may be altered in either 
 Diocese by the Convention thereof. And whenever a Diocese shall be 
 formed out of two or more existing Dioceses, the new Diocese shall be 
 subject to the Loustitutiou and Canons of that one of the said existing 
 Dioceses to which the greater number of Clergymen shall have belonged 
 prior to the erection of such new Diocese, until the same may be altered 
 by the Convention of the new Diocese. 
 
 Concurred in. Vide Message House of Bishops No. 60. 
 That the Secretarj be requested respectfulyl ,to inquire the reason of 
 the. oversight in Message House of Bishops No. 35 (in not commu- 
 nicating action with respect to the 1st resolution offered by the Com- 
 mittee on Christian Education.) 
 That this House concur in the Resolution submitted to this House in 
 Message of the Uouse of Bishops No. 32 (on the subject of Divorce) 
 amended as follows, viz : 
 
 Canon 13, Title II. On Marriage and Divorce. 
 No Minister of this Church shall .solemnize marriage in any case where 
 there is a divorced wife or husband of either party still hving : but this 
 Canon shall not be held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce, or 
 to parties once divorced seeking to be united again. 
 
 Concurred iu. Vide Message House of Bishops No. 67. 
 That the consideration ot the Report of the Committee on Canons (on 
 the conduct of of Public Worship, &c.) be made the order of the day 
 for Tuesday, Oct. 27. 
 That no new subject be entertained by this House after this day 
 That the Report of the Committee on Cauuns on the Conduct of Pubhc 
 Worship and the Report of a Minority of said Committee be printed 
 under care of the Committee on Canons. 
 That the consideration of certain resolutions (providing for the spiritual 
 wants of emigiants to Alaska, with a due regard to the rights and 
 principles of the Russian Church) be postponed until to-morrow. 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 That the Minutes be approved.Jg^ ' '' 
 
 That the Uouse does not concur in the resolution contained in Message 
 No. 34 from the the Uouse of Bishops, (amending clause [2] of Sec- 
 tion III. of Canon 6 of Title III.) "of Congregations in Foreign 
 Lands." 
 
 That certain resolutions reported by the Committee on Canons be adopt- 
 ed (1st, that it is inexpedient to change the title of the Uouse to 
 " Uouse of Deputies"' ; 2d, that it is inexpedient to grant the prayer of 
 the memorialists asking for hturgic relaxation ; 3d, that it is inexpe- 
 dient to grant the prdyer of the memorialists who ask an amendment 
 of Section 6 of Canon 5 of Title I.) 
 
 That a resolution (authorizing the use of " Hymns for Church and 
 Home," and " Hymns, Ancient and Modem," with the Bishop's con- 
 sent,) be adopted. Concurred in with amendments. Vide Message 
 Uouse of Bishops, No. 57. Amendments concurred in by Uouse of 
 Deputies. Vide Message House of Deputies, No. 7. 
 
 That it be referred to a Joint Committee to take into consideration the 
 Psalms in Metre, with the Hymns, and to report to next Convention 
 such alterations and additions as they may think expedient. Con- 
 curred in. Viue Message Uouse of Bishops, No. 82 Committee an- 
 nounced — vide Message House of Bishops, No. 80--Bishops Clark, Be- 
 dell, and Coxe, Rev. Drs. Huntington and Uowe, and Mr. Henry E. 
 Pierrepont. 
 
 That the amendment to Section I. of Canon 14 of Title I. (proposed by 
 the Conmiittee on the state of the Chui-ch) be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Canons. 
 
 That the Committee on the State of the Church be discharged from fur- 
 ther consideration of a proposed requirement of the enumeration of 
 the Baptised and Confirmed within the territorial limits of each parish. 
 
 That the House concur in the resolutions contained in Message No. 48 
 from the Uouse of Bishops (1st, appointing a Joint Committee to pre- 
 pare and report to the next General Convention a version of the 
 Prayer Book in German ; 2d, and one in French ; 3d, and cu- in Swe- 
 dish). 
 
 That this Uouse concur in the resolution contained in Message No. 49 
 from the Uouse of Bishops (authorizing the Joint Committee on the 
 Standard Bible to proceed with the pubUcation of the same as soon as 
 funds are obtained). 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the Report of the Russo-Greek Com- 
 mittee be adopted. 
 
 That the Rev. Dr. Fulton of Georgia be added to the said Committee in 
 place of Bishop Young. 
 
 That the resolutions accompanying the report of the Committee on the 
 Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society be adopted. 
 
 That so much of the report of said Missionary Society as relates to the 
 Freedmen"s Commission be referred to the Board of Missions for its 
 consideration. 
 
 That this House concur in the resolution contained in Message No. 44 
 from the House of Bishops, appointing Joint Committee on Theologi- 
 cal Education. 
 
 That the Uouse concur in the Amendment proposed in Message No. 62 
 from the Uouse of Bishops (announcing concurrence in the Message of 
 the House of Deputies, No. 44, in relation to the insertion of a not« in 
 Standard Piuyer Book respecting the alterations made in the plates 
 thereof), with the amendment " that the alterations referred to be 
 specified." 
 
 That a resolution reported by the Committee on Canons on the use of 
 Hymns be adopted. Concurred in with amendments. Vide Message 
 Uouse of Bishops No. 57. 
 
 That the Committee on Rubrical Discrepancies be continued and in- 
 structed to report to the Joint Committee on the Standard Prayer 
 Book. 
 
 That a revised copy of the Digest of the Canons be prepared and pub- 
 lished. 
 
 On motion, the Uouse adjourned. 
 
 NINETEENTH DAY. ** 
 
 That the Minutes be approved. 
 
 That the House concur in resolution communicated in Message U. B., 
 No. 47, (appointing committee on the part of the Bishops, to ar- 
 range for closing services). 
 
 That the Uouse does not concur in the amendment of Section I., Canon 
 10, Title I., as proposed in Message U. B., No. 34, (concerning foreign 
 clergymen). 
 
 That the Committee on Canons be discharged from further considera- 
 tion of the question of making it imperative that standing commit- 
 tees of new dioceses should be composed of an equal number of cler- 
 gymen and laymen. 
 
 That — the House of Bishops concurring — Section I. of Canon 14 of 
 Title 1., be amended by inserting after the words " residence only," 
 the words following, tu wit : " and also, with particulars of time and 
 place, of all ministers belonging to the Diocese, who have been or- 
 dained to the Deaconate or the Priesthood, or have been deposed, or 
 have died, since the preceding General Convention.'' Concurred in, 
 vide Mess. H. B., No. 75. 
 
 That the Rev. Dr. Geo. E. Hare and Mr. James Pott be appointed to fill 
 vacancies in joint committee to examine proof-sheets of Standard 
 Bible. W 
 
 That the House proceed to the consideration of unfinished business ot 
 yesterday, (to wit, the motion to postpone indefinitely the amend- 
 ment [being tha resolutions accompanying the minority report on 
 ritual, &C.1 to the resolution accompanying the report of the Com- 
 mittee on Canons, on the conduct of pubhc worship, &c.) 
 
 That the nomination of the Committee on Canons, of the Rev. Dr. 
 Uaight and Mr. H. Fish, LL. D., to certify changes in the canons 
 made at this session, be confirmed. 
 
 That the whole matter referred to the Committee on Canons (being the 
 inquiry as to the expediency of establishing Missionary Organi^atiOD.* 
 
219 
 
 under Missionary Bishoprics within the limits of organized diocesps) 
 be postponed until the next General Convention. 
 That this House concur in the Preamble and Resolution communicated , 
 
 to this House in Message H. B. No. 66, (concerning Alaska). 
 That thie House concur in the Preamble and Resolutions communica- 
 ted to this House on Message H. B. No. 68, (concerning death of the , 
 MetropoHtan of (Canada) and the resolutions communicated in Mess- 
 age n. B. No. 57, (amending resolutions communicated by U. D. in 
 their Message No. 66, concerning use of Hymns) to wit: 
 Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that it be and is hereby 
 declared lawful — until a revisal and enlargement of the collection of 
 Hymns now set forth for use in this Church shall have been made and 
 duly authorized — that in any diocese, in addition to those already al- 
 lowed. Hymns from the volume entitled ''Hymns for Church and 
 Home," or from that entitled "Hymns, Ancient and Modern," may be 
 licensed for use by the Bishop of the same. 
 That Message H. B. No. 63, bp referred to the Committee on Canons 
 
 (communicating a new *'anon on Consecration of Churches.) 
 That the resolution under consideration as amended be adopted to wit : 
 
 1, Resolved. That the House of Bishops be request,ed fo set forth for 
 consideration and adoption by the next General Convention such ad- 
 ditional Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer, as in their judgment 
 may be deemed necessary - 
 
 2, Resolved, That meanwhile in all matters doubtful reference should 
 be made to the ordinary and no charges should be made against the 
 godly counsel and judgment of the Bishops. 
 
 3, Resolved. That copies of the reports of the majority and mi- 
 nority of the Committee on Canons be transmitted to the House of 
 Bishops 
 
 That the SecretaryFbe directed to procure a sufficient number of the ver- 
 batim report of the debates of this Convention to supply one copy 
 to the Standing Committee of every diocese in this Church. 
 
 That the clergymen and laymen nominated to this House by the House 
 of Bishops as members of the Board of Missions be elected thereto. 
 
 That the report of the Committee on unfinished Business be referred to 
 the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That this House respectfully return tro the House of Bishops the list of 
 Trustees of the General Theological Seminary sent hack by that House 
 with information that it is impossible to submit a more correct list. 
 
 That the whole matter (the proposal for a Committee of Conference on 
 the proposed amendment of Section V, Canon 13, Title I, non-con- 
 curred in by House of Bishops — concerning election of assistant 
 Bishops) be laid on the table. 
 
 That the House adjourn. 
 
 TWENTIETH DAT. 
 
 That the minutes be approved. 
 
 That this House has heard with profound regret of the death of the 
 Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and communicates to the House of 
 Bishops its desire to join with them in expressions of regard and re- 
 spect for his memory. 
 
 That the action of the General Convention in regard to the death of the 
 Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, be communicated at once by telegraph 
 and by mail to the Bishop of London. 
 
 That the Canon on the Consecration of Churches (being that commu- 
 nicated to this House in Message H. B. No. 63,) be referred back to 
 the Committee on Canons. 
 
 That an additional resolution on the same subject be referred to the 
 same Committee. 
 
 That the House concur in resolution communicated in Message H.B. 
 No. 77, (continuing Joint Committee on Friendly Intercourse with 
 the Church in Sweden.) 
 
 That the resolution communicated in Message H. B. No. 73, {concern- 
 ing salary of Secretary of House of Bishops) be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on expenses. 
 
 That the thanks of this House be tendered to the President. 
 
 That the thanks of this House be tendered to the Secretaries and Treas- 
 urer. 
 
 That thanks be presented to Churchmen of New York and vicinity for 
 generous hospitality. 
 
 That thanks are due to the Bishop of New York, and clergy and laity. 
 
 That this Convention acknowledges the obligatiooB to the Rev. Dr. 
 Ogilby. 
 
 That thankabe tendered to the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of Trinity 
 
 and Calvary Churches and the Church of the Transflgur.ition. 
 That when this House adjourn it adjourn to meet the House of Bishops 
 
 to hear the Pastoral Letter and to join in closing services. 
 That the Secretary return thanks of this House to the several Railway 
 
 and Steamboat Companies offering return tickets. 
 That the thanks of this House are tendered to the Hon. James Kelly 
 
 for postal facilities. 
 That the thanks of this House are due to Mr. George Woodward for ser- 
 vices in connection with the postal deliveries for this Convention. 
 That the action proposed in certain memorials from several dioceses 
 (touching a new version of the Xicene Creed) is inexpedient a this time. 
 That ten copies of the Journal of the Proceedings of this Convention be 
 
 placed in the hands of the Russo Greek Committee. 
 That the President of the House sign this telegram to be transmitted to 
 the Bishop of London on the death of the Arch-Hishop of Canterbury, 
 and that the Secretary be authorized to forward the same. 
 That a resolution (proposing suspension of the rule forhidding the in- 
 troduction of new matter) be laid on the table. 
 That the Canon on the Consecration of Churches reported by the Com- 
 mittee on Canons with amendment be adopted to wit : 
 
 Title I. Canon — . Of the Consecration of Churches. 
 §1. No Church or Chapel shall be consecrated until the Bishop shall 
 have been sufficiently certified that the building and ground on which 
 it is erected, have been fully paid for, and are free from lien or other 
 incumbrance. 
 
 §2. It shall not be lawful for any Vestry, Trustees, or other body, 
 authorized by law of any State or Territory to hold property for any 
 Diocese, Parish or Congregation, to encumber or alienate any consecra- 
 ted Church or Chapel without the previous consent of the Bishop, act- 
 ing with the advice and consent of the Standing Committee of the diocese 
 in which such Church or Ch,ipel be situated, Provided, that this Sec- 
 tion shall not he operative in any State with the laws of which relating 
 to the taking and holding of property by religious corporations, the 
 same may conflict. 
 
 §3- No consecrated Church or Chapel shall be removed, taken down, 
 or otherwise disposed of forany "unhallowed, worldly or common use" 
 without the previous consent of the Bishop, acting with the advice and 
 consent of the Standing Committee of the Diocese in which said Church 
 or Chapel may be situate. Concurred in fifte Message H- B. No. 78- 
 That a resolution reported by the Committee on (.'anons as amended (to 
 wit: That the House ot Bishops concurring, in the judgment of this 
 Convention it is improper to sell or lease any pew or seat in any conse- 
 crated Church or Chapel by public sale held within the walls of such 
 Church or Chapel and that the same be published \vith the Digest) be 
 adopted. By oversightnot communicated to the House of Bishops. 
 That a communication from the Rev. President of Columbia College be 
 
 referred to the Committee on the Standard Prayer Book. 
 That the Secretary furnish bound copies of the Journal to members of 
 
 this House on their payment of the cost of binding. 
 That the address of the President be entered on the minutes. 
 That this House concur in resolution communicated in Me.-sage H. B 
 
 No. 81, (authorizing purchase of sets of Journals.) 
 That this Hou.'^e concur in resolution communicated in Message H. B. 
 
 No 79, (concerning preparntiou of Digest of Resolutions.) 
 That a committee wait on th.- House of Bishops and inform them that 
 
 this House has compU-trd its business. 
 That this House take a rece.-^s till 3 p. m. 
 
 That the Rev. Dr. Wm. Cooper Mead be appointed temporary Chairman. 
 That the name and title of the ''Freedmen's Commission" be changed 
 
 to '-Home Missionary Commission for Colored People." 
 That this Ho\ise proceed to the election of a Missionary Bishop of Arizona 
 
 and Nevada on the nomination made by the House of Bishops. 
 That the House unite in singing the GUria in Excehts Deo. 
 That the House proceed to sign the testimonials of the Missionary Bisbnp 
 
 elect. 
 
 That the Rev. Dr. Paddock and Mr. Lucius B. Otis be appointed members 
 
 on the part of this House on the Joint Committee on Friendly Relations 
 
 with the Swedish Church. 
 
 That this House continue in session till its business shall be concluded. 
 
 That the Secretary transmit the testimonial of the Missionary Bi^hni. 
 
 elect to the House of Bishops. 
 That the House adjourn 
 
221 
 
 INDEX 
 
 SPEAKERS. 
 Adams, D. D., Rev. AV. 6, 9, 13, 23, 26, 31, 32, 41, 57, 
 
 73,85,91,94,101,104, lOC, 114, 124, 135, 154, 
 163, 193, 195, 197, 198, 203, 205, 206 
 Adams, Rev. W. F. - - - 1"!' 
 
 Andrews, D. D., Rev. C. W. 49, 50, 51, 73, S7, 9U, H 4, 
 
 138, 151. 163, 175. 
 Banister, Rev. J. M. - - - 151 
 
 Barbour, 1\L-. B. Johnson - - 95, 96 
 
 Battle, Mr. W. II. 12, 16, 33, 43, 62, 73, 74, 92, 112, 
 
 125, 126, 130, 133, 134, 146, 146, 1-51, 155 
 Beardsley, D. D., Rev. E. E. - - 130,134,202 
 
 Beers, Rev. H. W. - - 68,69,110 
 
 Benedict, Rev. Samuel - - - 33 
 
 Breck, Rev. Charles 22, 93, 97, 131, 137, 171, 2nS 
 
 Burr, D. D., Rev. E. - - - 171 
 
 Cass, Mr. G. W. - - - - 91 
 
 Churchill, Mr. - - - 62,69,113, 144 
 
 Clark, D. D., Rev. J. L. - - - 89 
 
 Clark, Rev. W. H. - - - 29, 138, 14.5 
 
 Clements, Rev. S. - - - - 89 
 
 Comstock, Mr. G. F. - - 61, 84, 139, 155 
 
 Conyngham, Judge 8, 21, 23, 69, 72, 81, 87, 93, 94, 1.52, 
 
 ■ 167, 168, 169 
 Corbett, Rev. S. - - - 78, 131, 158 
 
 Cornwall, Mr. Wm. 25, 26, 27, 114, 153, 180, 181, 194, 
 Craik, D. D., Rev. James (opening address) 4, 84, 85, 
 94, 95, 9S, 108, 125, 131, 138, 146, 148, 152, 1.59, 
 107, 193, 195, 198,— (closing address) 205 
 Crane, D. D., Rev. S. A. - 25, 26, 112, 113, 130, 131 
 Dashiell, Rev. E. F. - - - 102,180 
 
 DeKoven, D. D., Rev. James 146, 147, 174, 191, 2ii7 
 Delano, Mr. Columbus - - - - 69 
 
 DeMill, Rev. P. E. - - - - 132 
 
 Doe, Mr. J. B. - - - - - 91 
 
 Fairbanks, Mr. G. R. - - 7,9,54, 179 
 
 Farnsworth, Mr. C. B. - - . - - 145 
 
 Fish, Mr. Hamilton 12, 13, 48, 69, 129, 132, 148, 202, 
 
 207 
 
 Fogg, Mr. Francis B. - - ■ 128 
 
 Gadsden, Rev. C. P. 7ft, 77, 86, 91, 100, 164, 185 
 
 Gasmann, Rev. J. G. - - - 61, 79 
 
 Goodwin, D. D., Rev. D. R. 8, 14, 17, 25, 33, 35, 36, 37, 
 
 62, 76, 83, 84, 85, 86, 93, 97, 108, 113, 128, 136, 
 
 140, 144, 152, 155, 158, 161,162, 166,175,188, 
 
 195, 206 
 
 Gordon, Mr. G. A. - - 30, 51, 52, 53 
 
 Gray, Rev. W. C. - - - - 100 
 
 Haight, D. D. Rev. B. I. «, 20, 27, 31, 45, 58, 63, 64, 
 
 65, 69, 74, 76, 82, 83, 85, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95, 99, 100, 
 
 101,116,117,124,129, 135, 143,144, 153,154, 
 
 161,164, 170, 171, 193, 196,198,199, 200,206,208 
 
 Hallam, D. D., Rev. R. A. - - - 69 
 
 Hanckel, Rev. J. S. - - - 45,139,190 
 
 Hanson, Rev. F. R. - - - 208 
 
 Hare, D. D., Rev. G. E. 77, 83, 93, 99, 116, 117, 120 
 
 133, 165, 181, 200, 202, 204, 207 
 Harrold, Rev. J. A. - - - - 157 
 
 Hcnshaw, Rev. Daniel - - - 200, 203 
 
 Hodges, D. D., Rev. J. S. B. - - 74, 199 
 
 Houghton, Mr. Geo. F. - - - - 132 
 
 Howe, D. D., Rev. M. A. DeW. 10, 19, 30, 46, 60, 75, 
 76,93,95,97,102,112,116, 126, 127, 131, 158, 
 160, 165, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 204 
 Hubbard, D. D., Rev. I. G. - 132, 152, 204 
 
 Iluntin^on, D. D., Rev. F. D. - - 136,177, 178 
 
 James, Rev. G. N. - - 103, 187 
 
 Johnson, Mr. Wm. Samuel - - 130, 142, 150 
 
 Laba^h, Rev. J. P. - 141,155,183,196,204 
 
 Lacey, Mr. Geo. S. - - 100, 131 
 
 Lawson, Rev. T. B. - - - - 104 
 
 Littlejohn, 1). D., Rev. A. N. 6, 11, 34, 44, 68, 91, 94, 
 
 103, 106, 115, 161, 192, 193, 206 
 
 Mahan, D. D., Rev. Milo 25, 42, 62, 94, 97, 99, 100, 105 
 
 120, 125, 130, 135, 141, 151, 156, 166, 189, 193 
 
 204, 205 
 
 Marple, Rev. A. A. - 73, 79, 114, 143, 144 
 
 Martin, Rev. T. M. - - - 129, 143 
 
 Mason, D.I)., Rev. R.S. 70, 71,92, 103, 122,145,165,170 
 
 Massie, Mr. N. H. - - - 134 
 
 McMasters, D. D., Rev. S. Y. - - 60 
 
 McCrady, Mr. E. 61, 69, 120, 140, 141, 166, 172, 198, 
 
 Mead, D. D., Rev. William Cooper 8, 10, 25, 28, 45, 55, 
 
 74, 80, 90, 95, 105, 110, 125, 129, 138, 146, 152, 
 
 lol, 193, 190, 197, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 
 
 207 
 
 Meads, Mr. Orlando - - - 132 
 
 Meigs, Jr., Mr. Henry - - - 92. 94 
 
 Moore, Rev. J. - - - - 152 
 
 Mulchahey, D. D., Rev. J. 59, 92, 95, 98, 116, 118, 128, 
 
 129, 175, 
 Newton, Rev. William - - - 102 
 
 Norton, D. D., Rev. G. H. 26, 31, 41, 42, 84, 86, 91, 
 
 104 
 Otis, Mr. L. B. 11,17, 29, 43, 73, 83, 90, 146, 195 
 Paddock, D. D., Rev. B. H. 53, 161, 164, 182, 193, 204 
 Parker, D. D., Rev. S. P. - - - 81 
 
 Parsons, Mr. C. C. - - - - 8, 42 
 
 Perkins, Rev. E. T. - - 74, 90, 137, 188 
 
 Peterkin, D. D., Rev. J. 11, 88, 113, 150, 158, 165 
 
 Pierce, D.D., Rev. H. N. 106, 127, 129, 1.^3, 158, 162, 
 
 195 
 
 Pinckney, T). D., Rev. C. C. - - - 176 
 
 Pinkney, D. D., Rev. Wm. 180 
 
 Pitkin, D. D., Rev. T. C. - 10, 16, 105, 163 
 
 Richardson, Rev. W. R. - - - li'3 
 
 Rogers, Rev. B. 46, 47, 48, 74, 76, 82, 92,127, 166. 198 
 
 Ruggles, Mr. S. B. 8, 10, 17, 28, 29, 38, 39, 56, 72, 98, 
 
 99, 105, 112, 116, 119, 132, 133, 137, 142, 144, 
 
 146. 150, 152, 166, 169, 181, 184, 193, 196, 206, 
 
 207' 
 
 Rylance, D. D., Rev. J. H. 85, 86, 95, 96, 97, 100, 106, 
 
 133, 136, 137 
 
 Shattuck.M. D., Mr. G. C. 55, 58, 77, 96, 97, 185 
 
 Sheffey, Mr. H W. - 82,84,92,94,95,111 
 
 Shelton, D. D., Rev. Wm. - 73, 74, 79, 99, 206 
 
 Smith, Mr. J. J. Pringle, - - 131, 144, 146, 166 
 
 Spauhling, Rev. J. F. - - - - 180 
 
 Stevenson, Mr. J. W. - - 12, 91, 127 
 
 StringCellow, Jr., Rev. H. - - - 181 
 
 Stubbs, D. D., Rev. Alfred 34, 76, 82, 83, 96, 102, 105, 
 
 134, 138, 146, 149, 174 
 
 Taylor, Mr. Tazewell 71, 92, 94, 112, 123, 137, 138 
 
 Todd, Mr. 71 
 
 Trowbridge, Mr. C. C. - - - 81 
 
 Tustin, D. D., Rev. J. P. - - - 111 
 
 Van Deusen, D. D., Rev. E. M. 94, 183, 193, 205, 206 
 Watson, I). D., Rev. A. A. - - - 69, 194 
 
 Welsh, Mr. Wm. 11, 26, 44, 58, 72, 73, 79, 93, 132, 135, 
 
 139, 145, 146, 148, 152, 162, 165, 186, 199, 201, 
 
 202 
 Wheat, D. I)., Rev. J. T. - - 80, 99 
 
 White, Rev. William - - - 203 
 
 Wilder, Mr. E. T. - - - - 18 
 
 Williams, Rev. Wm. C. - - 180, 194 
 
 Wyatt, Rev. C. B. - - 93,139,177,187 
 
222 
 
 SUBJECTS. 
 Alaska, ..... igj 
 
 Bishops — Assistant 72, 73, 74, 92, 94, 197, 198, 199 
 Bishops — Divine Authority of - - 33, 34 
 
 Bishops — Increasing the number of 45,46,47,50, 51 
 Board of Missions - - - - 115 
 
 Changes — In Prayer Book - 71,112, 152 
 
 Churches— Consecration of 92, 104, 129, 130, 133, 134, 
 
 135, 200 
 Church Unit}' .... 
 
 Clergymen — From other bodies - 
 Clerical Support - . - 95, 96, 9 7, 
 
 Committees — List of Standing 
 Constitution — Article V - - - 
 
 Convention — In Consecrated Churches - 132, 
 
 "Council" — Instead of "Convention" 
 
 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44 
 Creed — Nicene 
 
 Debates — Churchman's report of - 
 Deputies — Decreasing number of 
 Dioceses — Formation of new 
 Divine Worship — Conduct of 
 Divorce - - .104 
 
 Education — Christian 
 Federate Council 
 Holy Orders — Examinations for 
 House of Bishops 
 Ilyninody 
 Intrusion — Clerical 
 Italian Reform IVIovement - -r 
 Lay Readers 
 Lessons for Lent 
 Liturgies — In foreign languages 
 Members — List of . - 
 
 Memorials — Presentation of - 
 Ministers — Officiating 
 Morris, B.e\. B. W. Elected Bishop, 
 Music — In Convention 
 Music — In Services at Trinity Chapel 
 Nebraska — Petitions to be admitted 
 
 Admitted 
 Nevada — Bishop of - 
 Obituary Resolutions 
 
 105 
 105 
 115 
 5,6 
 6 
 133 
 10, 29, 32, 33, 35, 
 
 72, 106, 129, 
 131, 
 
 154 
 
 197 
 
 56 
 
 45, 48-55, 58-65 
 
 21 
 
 137, 144 15^-- 156, 
 
 106-112 
 
 7, 30, 31, 116-129 
 
 75, 77, 81 
 
 115 
 
 - 104,162, 166 
 
 69, 83-92, 100-104 
 
 105, 135, 136, 
 
 27, 113. 
 
 131, 
 
 99, 
 93 
 
 205, 
 
 137 
 
 134 
 
 99 
 
 153 
 
 3,4 
 
 7 
 
 100 
 
 , 94 
 
 132 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 209 
 
 9 
 
 Obituary — Archbishop of Canterbury - 199 
 
 Officiating — Persons not Ministers 25, 26, 27, 112, 113, 
 
 114, 130, 131 
 
 Oneida Indians - . . . 146, 1 g 
 
 Pastoral Letter, - - - 209, 212 
 
 Prayers — Occasional - - - 82, 83 
 
 "Presiding Bishop of this Church" - - 57 
 
 Provincial Council — Memorials for - 7 
 
 Provincial System - - 95,98,99,116, 129 
 
 Resolutions — Force of - - - 138, 140 
 
 Ritual . - - . 167, 197 
 
 Ritualism . - - . . 23 
 
 Ritualism — Majority Report ... 159 
 
 Ritualism — Minority Report - - 160 
 
 Schools — Church - ... 68 
 
 Selling — Pews - . . - 202 
 
 Sermon — Bishop of Delaware, Resolution to print 7 
 
 Services — Opening - . - . 4 
 
 Services — Closing .... 209 
 
 Sessions, —First Day . - .4 
 
 Second Day, - - . 5 
 
 Third Day, . - - 10 
 
 Fourth Dav, - - - 18 
 
 Fifth Day," - . .21 
 
 t'i.xth Day, ... 24 
 
 Seventh Day, - - - 33 
 
 Eighth Day, - - . ^44 
 
 Ninth Day, - . .55 
 
 Tenth Day, ... 66 
 
 Eleventh Day, - . - 70 
 
 Twelth Day, - . . 75 
 
 Thirteenth Day, - - .92 
 
 Fourteenth Day, - . 99 
 
 Fifteenth Day, - - - lU 
 
 Sixteenth Day, - 131 
 
 Seventeenth Day, - - - 145 
 
 Eighteenth Day, - - 162 
 
 Nineteenth Day, - - - 181 
 
 Twentieth Day, - - 199 
 
 Shorter Services, ... 157 
 
 Standard Bible, - - • 131 
 
 Trial of Ministers, - 135,143,144,145 
 
 Western New York — Division of Diocese of 28