SPA Went tad ay 1 ad me r Steer owas ie pre ee ah? ue = i < 1 Msp ee bert? od i P Neate! Seana sora re peep tess ; elise f IE i z ae = ™ ios BENta de tae Sas sce > yt) svar Piaeress tet rn » ass isan ve £m - ne lw y ‘4 ey Panne A pert sep ; , r 3 oy it eee ar | . ~ ' Seite Dae eee 4 sep omdrawiwine eae ar ene Nese eyersiaae sited hese antes res fend oy Sheds eesti es Sahl qscet : eh . : ‘ ; , J y : , : ves : . : ae . Sie « = 4 z a > = pcan 2 fe 223r6 descents Webel ee tp Y fete uy SO A Ce Ey notes ‘ Coun eariee! pasts heise gaat cinres pe BPE eee Spee ee PCr They nophed Fatt ye wine 4 rT ee KAN OF PRINGS EPS eh ” aes eet) ae eae ; r fy Shale Aas Pah We kes Peace ; AAA \A ai ibs)! A A aM situ NaN Al an anh ats 4 Welt A es Ae MN ay FTAA ert ve Ae y YA a Rae ) ' pel \ te weith : SHA ROR tA ce iH tay Re, y \ ’ ' Ne ; ” rink vr, oe me 4) ft vere i "4 My. HM ins writ ADORED ato Meike hte ta " 4 uy Chany Aji a ty Dias H\) ALS) erg hhagh ab" 4 Neg | 9, f ! TAP Niche wren } i ‘AOE : PN ag # MN Feen ttn ewe Ki Ae MT eat Ty : a ' ae ri eaves i. ae sty h ey Vis te) Ih | i ey yr a A es ee ft Tle ee di 4 iN Mf ity Wl eh an AMOR cs pit it Bas RUC Aa ‘ull wy iaide y LIFE AND LETTERS OF WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON yh eae + ee ly ie A! sd v7 me erat * en Me ce ae Canin Oe , we fakh of J ‘ Th 4 & eu LP 7 1 i 7} ' > Bf We 4 ie ORES wu LETTERS pee rats oy Aton ree + aD Aras ahi hy gis To Francis ELLINGwoop ABBOT Nov. 16th, 756. Dear Frank: Pardon my not acknowledging your beautiful and delicate attention of this noon in words. I know that this is not the most fitting method, but fearing lest I might fail to express fully my feelings by word of mouth, I thought best not to attempt it. When I came to Cambridge my anticipations of College life were as extravagant as ever were Whittington’s of London, and I implicitly believed in the existence of that Utopia which Vincent in his recent lecture so eloquently described. I expected that friendship would here be had for the ask- ing and brotherly love be a drug in the market. Of course a few months’ experience dispelled the bright illu- sion; a reaction followed, and I began, most sophomorically, to become misanthropic and discontented. What kind chance has now thrown your friendship in my way I know not, neither do I care, so that I possess it. Gladly I seize upon it as betokening the time when my soul shall, “no more forlorn, Enjoy at last life’s greatest boon.” We have begun in the right way, moderately and reason- ably ; we have not sworn an “eternal friendship,” but we have, { trust, formed one which shall, at least, last with life. After your gold I am almost ashamed to subjoin to this my dross, but let me hope that the altar may sanctify the gift, or at all events, that the lines may prove—though im- perfectly—how truly I am Your friend, W. R. H. 21 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON To F. E, A. When to the Monarch Winter’s throne, The blue-eyed Princess Spring succeeds, All Nature smiles her sway to own And loves to aid her kindly deeds. The prisoned streamlet feels the sun’s Enlivening influence o’er her shed, She bursts her snowy bonds and runs With blithesome smile the sea to wed. So when my life, a winter filled, And by the power its presence gave My heart’s warm streamlet had been chilled And ice-bound lay its once glad wave, A ray from out a friendly heart Which knew the need I long had felt, Most sweetly did its warmth impart And all my heart’s cold fetters melt. Nov. 10th ’56. To F,E.A. Feb. 11, 1858. . . . . Verily I think yours and mine is the best way to use science after all, namely to pick up what beauty we may in it and let the formula part slide. I am leading an exceedingly quiet life as I have been doing all the vacation, nor do I find it distasteful, indeed it seems to me I grow more and more averse to excitement, which ought not to be the case at my time of life when action and not calm should be the order of the days <<. ; To F. E. A. Lowell, Jan. 28th, ’59. My Dearest Frank: . .- I should value a good long evening with you now very much dear Frank, for there are things floating about in my mind which I think you might help me to settle into 22 COLLEGE AND AFTER purposes. What Cooke said to us on that last Sunday eve- ning combined with other things which I have from time to time seen and heard, all lead me to the belief that we are ap- proaching an important point in the history of the American Church. ‘There seems to be a gravitating force at work which promises to draw the broken fragments of the Christian body more closely together than they ever have been. If there really does exist such a state of things as I suppose, if there is any prospect of so glorious an end being brought about, then surely the Church calls more loudly to all earnest young men than either of the other professions. You see that I am wavering. During the past year I have felt more and more drawn from Medicine and towards Divinity. Not the most trifling element in this attraction has been, I confess, the thought that then we two might be brought more closely to- gether than could otherwise be. Give this matter my loved friend as much thought as you can spare and write me your results. I have often told you that I think you know me better than any of my friends, and therefore what you say will have no trifling weight. ... I would this were a meeter return for your warmest of letters. Love me still, and tell me so even though I fail to speak to you all of what I feel. Write as often as you can and so will I and let us have no debt and credit. Most Affectionately, WILLIE. To F. E. A. Lowell, Feb. 8th, 1859. My Dearest Frank: . - « I wrote to you, as I did to one or two other friends, to get your views of my fitness for the ministry. In my letter to you I remember saying that I thought you knew me better than any one; your reply led me to think that I had been mistaken. Your first words, after your opening promise of impartial- ity, contained a hint that you thought Mr. Cooke had been 23 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON bringing his persuasive powers to bear on me in the matter, and further on you suggest that he may have also prompted my first choice. Now, although I should be very far from feeling ashamed of having been influenced in these matters by the counsel of so wise a friend as Mr. C. yet in neither case does it happen that he has had a direct hand. My deter- mination to be a doctor had its rise, at least I can trace it no farther back, in a sermon preached in the Chapel something more than a year ago by Edward Hale. My desire to become a minister has been growing up out of my observation of the peculiar needs in which the Church just now stands. When I first became acquainted with Mr. Cooke I told him of my fixed intention to become a physician and he could hardly have been more surprised than he was when I informed him a fortnight ago that I had been reconsidering my resolve. To neither choice did he give the initiative. To both he has given the kindest and most welcome encouragement. After next touching slightly on my fitness and unfitness for the duties of pastor and preacher which were the points where I most wished your honest opinion and advice, you come to the question—and this was what hurt me, and gave me the feeling I spoke of—the question “Do I dare to forego wealth and luxury?’’ etc. Frank, when I made up my mind to become a physician, and very firmly I did make it up, I made up my mind at the same time to many more personal sacrifices than the position of a minister of Christ’s word will ever entail. I thought you knew this, I thought you knew what my ideal of the true physician was, most of all I thought you knew that I had clear enough views of God’s world, man’s business in it, to enable me to set these trifles down where they belong. And was this too much to think? Was it presumptuous? I hoped not, for to suppose otherwise was to imply that you had thought all that I had ever said of high or noble mere talk, good things to say to one’s friend on a lounge but poor to act on in a world. And this I was unwilling to imply. Lastly you warned me against coming to a decision. On 24 COLLEGE AND AFTER this point we have always differed, perhaps because we take different views of what a decision is. I called it a decision when I determined to study medicine, and the decision helped me greatly. I did not regard that decision, nor shall I this other, if I make it, as a fetter indissoluble and fast; no, but rather as my present interpretation of God’s will, to be altered if I find, when the time for action comes, that that interpre- tation has become inadequate. I did not expect, dear Frank, when I wrote my last letter that this would have the con- troversial form which I find it has fallen into. But you yourself asked me to speak from my heart in this matter and I have done so as well as I know how. To His BrorHer Cambridge, Tuesday, March 15th, 1859. My Dear Frank: Yesterday afternoon the long expected, and much doubted Class Election came off and resulted in the complete triumph of our side. I will send you a paper with the lst of officers in full. The meeting opened at two and lasted till nine p. m., with two short recesses, and was exciting enough, especially to the candidates. I fortunately was not long in suspense, for as soon as the orator, after three ineffectual ballots had been chosen, I went in on my first ballot. This was contrary to the expectation of my friends who had anticipated a struggle. The elections were all made unanimous after the ballots and I hope that now it is over all ill feeling will speedily die out. One of the chief pleasures which the election has afforded me is this of dedicating, as I hereby do, my prospective poem, the first fruits of my college course, to you, without whose aid, so kindly given, that course would never have been tra- versed, To F. E. A. Machias, Me. July 31st, 1859. My Dear Frank: I wonder if you ever heard of this lumbering little town, or, I should say, little lumbering town, before. I opine not. 25 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON However here we are, almost as far “down east” as it is pos- sible to go, and expecting to reach the very extremity of all to-morrow. We came hither yesterday from Mt. Desert, a small rockbound paradise where we have been sojourning dur- ing the past week feasting our eyes on scenery of the richest variety, and our palates on trout of the richest flavor, both of which we fairly earned by climbing for the first, and wad- ing for the second. Jim Fay who has spent several summers at the island has of course rehearsed its glories to you more than once, so that ecstatics from me would be superfluous. However I have them bottled up and they will be poured on some one sooner or later I am confident. One thing, however, Jim cannot have seen, for it is a sight not visible every day even at Mt. Desert, and that I must tell you about. On Tuesday night there was a thunder storm, and on Wednesday morning, although the clouds were still hanging about the sky, the general clearness of the atmosphere determined us to ascend “Green Mountain,” the highest point on the island, and where we were promised a fine view. After a climb of about an hour’s duration we reached the summit and a grander sight than greeted us there I never ex- pect to enjoy. On one side was the mainland dotted all over with the beautiful lakes with their fringes of pine, for which this region is celebrated, and the whole sprinkled with cloud- shadows from the remnants of the last night’s storm. But the peculiar sight I spoke of was on the other side, namely to the seaward. There where the sea should have been, lay stretched out, instead of it, a vast sheet of fog, its rough surface white in the sunshine as any snow-drift, and looking for all the world as if a troubled sea had been frozen, by an instantaneous stroke, into stillness. You can’t imagine how grand the great cloud glacier was, but what made the sight curious as well as grand was that you could see under, as well as over the immense sheet. The fog-bank had risen just high enough above the ocean for us to see a little way beneath its edge, and we could discern schooners sailing about upon the real sea, beneath the mimic one which lay between us, ap- 26 COLLEGE AND AFTER parently in as clear an atmosphere as ourselves. We had fortunately arrived just in time to catch the full beauty of the sight, for presently, under the combined influences of sun and wind, little scraps of vapor began to disengage themselves from the general mass and gradually curling into shape sailed away to the horizon to adorn the skies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In this way the whole mass was little by little dissipated and by eleven o’clock sea and land were equally clear. The Coast Survey which occupied the mountain last Summer left a signal pole standing there and up that I climbed to get the whole view at a sweep. It was magnificent. Sitting there I wished you by me, and though my locus, to wit, a peg driven into the pole, was somewhat limited I should have been glad to share it. . . . I have forgotten to tell you about our fishing and how we killed no less than five score trout to the delight of our female fellow boarders who ate them, and the cha- grin of our male ditto who tried to equal us but couldn’t. But no matter, you are no true Waltonian. You would only apply the albatross moral, and mentally hang a string of the dear little speckled things about my neck. . . . I think of you often among these strange places; what a pity there isn’t such a thing as a mental telegraph. It might be composed of heart strings instead of wires, a good idea! But good bye now. Parsons, as I have come to call him, desires to be remembered to you, as also do I to your family if you are with them. WILLIE. To His Sister Cambridge, Nov. 16th, 1859. Dear Mary : Parsons told me this morning that he had a long conversa- tion with Prof. F. D. H. last evening on his theological posi- tion, and also gave me the substance of it, so that I am able to answer your query, “Has Dr. Huntington declared him- self a Trinitarian?” a query, by the way, not put to me for the first time. 27 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Dr. H. declares that he has n’t the remotest intention of connecting himself with any Trinitarian body as such, and that any statement to that effect is without authority from him. Furthermore, that whoever wishes to know his views on that particular subject need only wait until his forth- coming volume is published which will contain a definite state- ment of them. What a sad pity it is that the word “Trinity” was ever invented to become a shibboleth of party and a stum- bling block in the way of honest men. Probably not one person in twenty uses the word with a distinct understanding of what he means by it, and yet they have no hesitation in raising the ery of “heresy” against whoever confesses his inability to give a distinct statement of his belief about it. Such people would do well to remember that the word does not once occur in the Bible, but is of a later than Apostolical origin. I myself am a Trinitarian in my own sense of the word but I have no mind to be considered as assenting to the mass of irreconcili- able absurdities that pass under the name. I am fast getting to enjoy my studies better than at first. Bushnell has cleared my head to a tolerable extent, and I hope that Butler, whom I mean to attack next, will do more. I try to keep up two courses at once, one of Church history and another of theology. I have taken a private pupil in chemis- try, one Mifflin of Boston, with a view to getting together a few dollars to buy my dear little sister a wedding present; said little sister’s expectations will not be raised very high when I tell her that the pupil comes only twice a week. With love to all Aff’ly, WILLIE. Lo) FB. EA, Lowell, Feb. 24th, 1860. My Dear Frank: . . . Ned also informed me of a somewhat startling fact, to wit, that I was expected to deliver a chemical lecture before 28 COLLEGE AND AFTER a free school, in which he is a teacher, on next Monday week. I promised Ned to give the lecture a long while ago, but I had forgotten that the appointed time was so near. To add to my perplexity I found that “Mr. Brown” had already delivered two lectures before the School and had stolen my thunder in advance by choosing the very subject I had allotted on, and the one subject moreover which offers the best chance for cheap and gaudy experiments calculated to take the eye of paupers and charity children. I am therefore driven, as it were, by Mr. Brown to the fag end of nature, and am obliged to put up with what I can find. The theme I have selected is “common air,” and by dint of foisting in one or two brilliant experiments which have n’t the most remote connection with the subject, I hope to make the lecture a passable one even for charity children; let us hope they will be charitable chil- dren. You would be amused by what I have written. It is in a style of puerility several notches below Stiickhardt, and you remember what he is. I mean to make the lecture an occasion of trying my hand at “preaching without notes,” a darling hope of mine you know, and I have accordingly prepared an abstract about three inches square from which I hope to be able to discourse. I was delighted the other day by having my mind set at rest on the subject of subscription to the Articles, for I have found on enquiry that our Church unlike the English does not require any such subscription; all that the candidate has to meet besides the examination for pro- ficiency is the declaration, “I do believe the Holy Scr. of the O. & N. T. to be the word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly agree to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Prot. Epis. Church in the U. 8S.” A declaration which I should be willing to sign to- day. It is an unspeakable satisfaction to me to have my mind thus settled, for now I feel that I can go straight ahead and work to some purpose in an organization which I love, both from historical and home associations. I look forward with hope to our Gk. readings next term, although “the Fathers” are such an uncommonly big cake that I fear the slice we ex- 29 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON tract will be of imperceptible thickness. Believe me, dear Frank, ever affectionately yours W. R. H. To F. E. A, S. Albans, July 26th, 60. My Dear Frank: I wish you were with us to enjoy the beautiful surroundings of this charming Vermont town. .. . And how do you find Cambridge in loneliness? Better than you feared I hope. . . . You must find it very very solitary sometimes. But after all, Frank, comfort, as I confessed to you the other night, is not the best school for our Lord’s ministry. I am too comfortable to feel much spiritual strength, and although I know the comfort to be necessary for my bodily health at present, and accordingly for my future usefulness, I yet cannot help regretting the loss it brings with it. The temptation is so strong to luxuriate and “laze”? amid the natural beauties and pleasant society of this quiet little place, that I am often shocked by the weakness of my aspira- tion, and the darkness of my spiritual eye. Do you have such seasons? And, if you do, what do you think of them? Are they what everyone must expect in the intervals between God’s visits, or ought they to be shaken off with violence, and if the latter, how? JI am reading Kingsley’s “Saint’s Tragedy” in hopes that its strong enthusiasm may rouse a corresponding fervor in me. Kingsley’s devotional poetry (and by this I don’t mean what is usually intended in the phrase, but rather the poetry of self-sacrifice, the true synonym of “devotion’’) is to me wonderfully strong... . Very affectionately, WILLIE. To F. E. A. Hyde Park, Vt. Sept. 12th, 1860. My Dear Frank: | . . . I staid, however, over Monday, and went on that day to visit a camp-meeting a little way out of town, the first one 30 COLLEGE AND AFTER I ever attended. I was quite impressed with what I saw and very glad I went. It is well for any one, especially a minister, to make himself familiar with the different forms of religious development; and certainly a more peculiar form than camp- meeting Methodism it would be hard to find. It was painful to see how sadly the signs of spiritual and bodily excitement were confounded, but how any one can find it in his heart to laugh at manifestations which, though grotesque and ex- travagant, are so evidently begotten of sincere feeling I can- not conceive. I listened a long while to their narrations of “experience,” and now and then a speaker rose to real elo- quence. One woman talked exactly like Thomas-a-Kempis, quite as strongly, quite as feelingly; and I was much struck by hearing one old woman describe a “vision of sin” which she had that morning had for the first time, in words which fitted exactly an “experience” of my own. Indeed the women seemed to me to feel what they said far more than the men. The latter talked in a matter of fact way, and rattled off the cant phrases parrot-like, but the women evidently all spoke de profundis, and because they felt there was that in them they must not keep back. The sudden revulsions of feeling were wonderful. One woman who had just been speaking with the tears running down her cheeks, broke out into “unextinguishable laughter,” hysterical of course, as soon as they struck up one of their lively tunes. Four or five years ago what I saw and heard in that grove would have disgusted me beyond measure, and even now I am sadly puzzled when I ask myself the question, “Can God be pleased by extravagancies like these, or is it that all our forms of worship, those which seem to us purest and loftiest, are in his sight just as inadequate, just as coarse?” What wonder that men of education and refinement shudder so at the name of evangelical religion when they judge of it from manifestations like these? The singing alone was un- exceptionable; it was very sweet, owing I suppose to the pre- ponderance of female voices. There were pretty faces among the women too, though for the most part they had that dis- traught wild look characteristic of fanaticism, .. . 31 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON To F. E. A. Lowell, Sept. 21st, 1860. My Dear Frank: » « . Since I came home I have been at work on Hamilton and Neander. I have read a dozen lectures in the former and am charmed with the clearness and finish of his style. My idealism has n’t yet been shocked, though I suppose it will be before I get much further. By the way can I ever persuade you that I am not an idealist in the proper sense of that term but that I believe in the existence of matter just as much as you or Sir Wm.? I received a letter from Prof. Huntington the other day which gave me great joy, inasmuch as it quieted some misgiv- ings I had entertained in regard to the high church tendencies alleged against him. I wish I were at liberty to publish the letter, it is so strong and positive and at the same time so catholic. F. D. H. is a noble man and I shall always love him. I will come down on Monday if I possibly can and shall look for you at Divinity Hall. To F. E. A. Cambridge, October 15th, 1860. My Dear Frank: . . . I continue to enjoy my horse hugely; my health has improved visibly under his influence, and I am better than I have been for two or three years. I cannot say that I find solitary study very exciting or remunerative. I long for some one to sympathise with and to talk with on the subjects nearest my heart. There is an orthodox divinity student teaching in the Lowell High School and with him I hold occa- sionally some converse, but, although we agree admirably on points of doctrine, we were not cut out for bosom friends, and I know well enough that our friendship will not get beyond a cer- tain point. He is, however, very intelligent, having been first scholar in the Class of ?59 at Dartmouth, and since he owns a horse as well as myself, and uses him for the same purpose, I doubt not we shall have very many pleasant talks together. 32 sy ; a] ie fo we USels , > le mes ‘se 7 2 : a Ale ° 7 | ase G. © a Ys - A i - ts : : q Py al way f. 2 ; : . » eee e “th - re ) ge _ Ld ee : bs \ oe te. > -g ; r : : ait] ; of : ’ pa =f . j S 4 - ' » ‘ “ ‘ “ts y 4 F - - . ; A + : Pe * ie i * my - yt \ ee ; = I 1 ‘ : ' : in? ‘Lire " = ; pe Oey \ @ ” ; > >. pigs tt? ha Os) Sate i as PRN Gs 14 7 Ps 2 z ; i bs a } ee i 4 7 o ‘ ' ‘ er i Pay Rn TE 1 | age cate Pe ra 2 Some ores | rt . refactt aThYy ; ie re 1) Ad ns ote TS ric ae Pl aa +e el MV) eat ae r < ic/t ] b ose a yy , a0 ‘ . 4 » eo) re it a, : = hh i -* AAA. aL r Hy8 - “he ORS ee Sot ae Pts Ty cal mM Uh Se for aE Da Ee oe, Oeil Hae al epee erre. uk Mu bac ee 4 : i 4 : ; Te api 5 ’ - « ys ; tT 7. t On ue ok! if i Nag ae mt hi r hs a0 + ; aa brea 5 Pa : i Ae taaee , fear’ 4" oor ao tae tok 'L ’ a A ' ~~ ; “ibe iti WH re o Lf fran ‘ Yd 4 ; ; 2 »! 14 ¥ 4 a ae r\ . sto ) “~ 7 ‘< ’ {is ? moe a ae aie a eee he < : 7 wry fal ‘e5 if v ie =. | ‘ Nek Ota APL” WM ji oS tk ae yh ee : ‘ f a, im ty) : wees vr ADA pahiy ,eiteaes - We ier My ty Fy fhe Aud?) id “ at” a ee “4 aad on; au a. 2 ue he ha hy a | Eee, as ie ui 7 a fs. pe 7 ie AAD ee sis Das, = recs U HUNTINGTON IN COLLEGE DAY COLLEGE AND AFTER Reading some of your old letters the other afternoon I got quite Aprilish over them and longed for a good hour with you. That I suppose, however, is a pleasure now long de- ferred, but I do not think we shall love one another the less for separation. Frank, you have all my respect; if you have not all my love it is not because I would not give it you if I could do so by speaking the word, but because my nature is not so high as yours and cannot yet love as deeply as by and by it may. Have faith in my purposes and pray for me that I may reach my own ideal. Very affectionately, WILuIE. To F. E. A. Lowell, Oct. 29th, 1860. My Dear Frank: - - . It saddened me to hear you speak so despondently of our friendship, and I wish you would take the enclosed lines as Iy commentary on your words. You mistake if you think I am forming new friendships. I have only the old ones and those somewhat shattered. We have never understood one another—that has been the cause of our failure. We are so very, very different in our temperaments, and have such diverse ways of loving. In that world where we “shall know even as we are known,” our friendship may find its consum- mation. I hope so. You will think me very vacillating when I tell you that I have formed a new plan for the winter, but since my changes have been the result of circumstances and not my own lack of steadfastness, there is nothing to be ashamed of in them. When I last wrote you I was making a visit in Cambridge. While there I had an interview with Dr. Huntington who offered to take me into his study and give me a large share of his parochial work, i.e. the entire charge of a mission-school which he intends establishing in the 9th ward. Besides this, I am to be Supt. of his regular Church S. S. and perhaps assist him in reading the service, which he finds too much for him 33 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON while he preaches three times a Sunday. The offer seemed to me such a good one that I did not feel that it would be right to refuse it, and shall accordingly enter upon my new duties next Thursday. In order to give my Aunt as much of my company as possible, I mean to purchase a season-ticket on the R. R. and go up and down every day. ‘This will give me all my evenings at home, and will moreover insure regularity of habits, inasmuch as I shall be obliged to get up at six o’clock throughout the winter... . I have just finished “Hamilton’s Metaphysics,” and have procured the recently published “Logic” in hopes to get equal enjoyment from it. JI remember your telling me that you had a criticism on his theory of “the conditioned.” Is it com- pressible into the limits of a letter? I should so like to see it. His application of the law to the causal judgment seems to me very weak and unsatisfactory. After an elaborate criticism and exposure of the fallacy of Brown’s theory he seems to me to fall himself into just Brown’s error, i.e. leav- ing out of view the idea of power which certainly lies at the bottom of the causal judgment. The true statement of the genesis of our conviction that no event can happen without a cause, seems to be that it is an intuition first developed by sub- jective experience in the action of our own wills. Can you tell me where I can find in English Kant’s demonstration of the sub- jectivity of our idea of space? Iam curious to seeit.... WILLIE. “Still it is with a sigh I pass away from your horizon.” True there are stars which for a season shine, Then dip below the verge and are forgot. Such fate, proud Sirius, shining one, is thine, Brief thy dominion tyrannous and hot. But those there are which tireless and for aye Circle forever round the northern pole, Let passing cloudlets dim them as they may. No power can quench, save His for whom they roll. 34 COLLEGE AND AFTER Star of my boyhood; earliest one that rose To light the dusky fields wherein I stray ; As from the first, so ever to the close Thy constant lustre shall illume my way. Though others shine, thou shinest not the less, A joy when all is calm, a beacon in distress. On Ky eo Cambridge, Nov. 12th, °60. My Dear Frank: - + . Almost all last week, I was occupied in going about the 9th Ward picking up children for the S. School which opened yesterday. I had some amusing experiences. My method was to take the streets in order, inquiring at every house respectable or not. Wherever they seemed kindly dis- posed I left one of our cards, and, as often as I could get an opportunity, chatted with the children themselves. In this way I got the promise of between fifty and sixty children mostly ranging between the ages of six and fourteen. But Emmanuel Mission was fated to be cradled in the storm. Yes- terday, to our great disappointment, rose upon us in a violent tempest and we scarcely hoped to see more than half a dozen children in their places. To our surprise, however, no less than thirty-five turned out, which was about as large a number as we could manage the first time. They behaved with wonderful propriety, considering who and whence they were, and I hope we shall succeed in making a model S. S. of it. The teachers are a fine set of earnest young women who seem determined to do their best, and the married ladies of the parish have organized an effective clothing department which will prove of great aid to us in our efforts to improve the district, cleanli- ness being a large part of godliness. | TI enclose one of the cards which we have distributed through the Ward. One of the Grammar School teachers got hold of one of them and was kind enough to read it aloud in his school and urge attendance on his scholars. .. . Ever affectionately yours, WILLIE. 35 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON FREE SUNDAY-SCHOOL MISSION of Emmanuel Church, In the Ninth Ward. This School is open to all Children and Young People. All are heartily invited to come. Kind and faithful Teachers of both sexes will welcome them, and teach them in the Holy Scrip- tures and in singing Hymns, with other Exercises. The Hall is on the south side of Church Street, next to the Railroad Buildings, near Tennyson Street, up Stairs. The School begins at half-past one o’clock every Sunday. The Scholars are specially asked to be punctual. Further information may be had of Rev. Dr. Frederick D. Huntington, 98, Boylston Street. To wii kut TAS . Dec. 10th, ’60. My Dear Franx: . . . I continue to enjoy my work in Boston exceedingly. Yesterday we had an accession to our school of twenty new scholars, making an aggregate of sixty-three got together within a month. This is so encouraging that we propose to start a new mission the Ist of January. Some of the poor little fellows have begun to suffer for righteousness’ sake al- ready, for the Roman Catholics have declared war against us, and their big boys have begun to persecute our little ones. I made them a little speech yesterday exhorting them to cour age, and they all promised to go straight ahead doing what they thought right through thick and thin. I want, if pos- sible, to get up an esprit de corps among them which shall make them feel like little crusaders against the heathenism which fills their portion of the city. What sad times we have fallen upon politically, have we not? Of course you saw the newspaper account of the at- tempted abolition meeting in Tremont Temple. Phillips and his compeers were fairly outwitted. I hear that another meet- 36 COLLEGE AND AFTER ing is threatened, in which case I very much fear there will be blood-spilling in the Boston streets. God seems to be work- ing out the slavery problem in his own way, and to be bringing down upon both parties the reward of their political sins. How sad it is that there is not one man at Washington to whom the whole country can look with confidence and re- spect. ... Always your WILLIE. To-F. KE. A. Cambridge, Dec. 25th, 1860. My Dear Frank: A merry Xmas to you and your household! My Monday yesterday was so crowded with work that I was unable to put pen to paper, but I trust my letter will reach you just as early if I put it in this morning. I could wish you, or any- body, no pleasanter sight than to have seen our S. S. festival last evening. Without exception it was the most delightful scene I ever witnessed. All day long we—i. e. the ladies who had taken the thing in hand and myself—were busy decorating the room and setting up the Xmas tree. Wreaths, crosses and appropriate inscriptions were liberally distributed over the walls and about the pictures. But the crowning glory was the tree. This, besides the brightly dressed dolls and toys, was beautifully lighted with little cup-shaped lanterns of colored glass and vitreous icicles made for the purpose. About dusk, the children, numbering now about eighty-five, were admitted, a green curtain having been previously hung up to hide the splendors of the tree. A short religious service was held first of which the principal feature was the singing by the children of “While Shepherds Watched,” and “Bright- est and Best of the Sons of the Morning” which they vocif- erated with a will. Then the curtain was drawn and, as I said before, I could wish nobody anything pleasanter than to have seen those children’s faces at that moment. I saw one little fellow who sat alone by himself laughing, as if he would 37 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON split, from pure delight. Contributions had been so liberal that we were able to give every boy either a sled or a pair of skates together with some warm article of clothing, a bag of sugar-plums and a package of cake. Every girl was given a doll or its equivalent and the same accompaniments as the boys. Every child therefore received four articles and went home with his hands as full as his heart... . Wiue R. H. To F, E. A. Jan. 21, 1861. Quincy Street, Cambridge. My Dear Frank: ... I agree with you that “the infallibility of the Bible cannot be maintained as once it was.” My opinions on these subjects have not materially changed since the time when we used to talk them over together, although you seem to enter- tain a vague dread that I am lapsing into all the horrors of extreme Calvinism. But what I do hold is this, that the in- fallibility of the Bible must be maintained on some ground or “Else Earth is darkness at the core And dust and ashes all that is.’ That ground I take to be this, that the Bible being a book which has to do with both God and man, there is in it a mixture of the fallible and the infallible. But these two are so intimately united that no critical dissecting knife can pass between without vital injury to both. I hold it therefore to be the part of an honest and earnest (these being the adjec- tives which the neologists arrogate exclusively to themselves) of an honest and earnest Xian to strive to fix the founda- — tions of faith in the book as deep as possible, and not to go hither and thither ferretting out little discrepancies and errors. a7 F, 4 = rl are r] 2 F at ' oo ee te a reef ad 7 (a> 1 { oe - , . by “ve “. . x A > ‘ - a an on, Ta- AES ge ." Piok are o> + S. ey 7 i ¥ : oe ) THE CHURCH BEYOND THE PARISH You ask about my other points of objections to the argu- ment of the Hunter pamphlet. Briefly they are these, his ambiguous handling of the word “body,” in one breath using it in a sense which it is hard not to call materialistic, and in the next identifying it with the “grace” of the catechism. Again he as much as concedes (p. 26) that our difference with Rome is a merely verbal one so far as transubstantiation is concerned, while at the same time quoting as authorities on his side of the question men who gave their bodies to be burned rather than acknowledge that the distinction was one without a difference. His whole treatment of the question of con- fession seems to me an unworthy one, a piece of special plead- ing. He knows perfectly well the place which the sacrament of penance occupies in the Roman system, and yet he rattles on as if there were nothing more in auricular confession than the mere giving a minister one’s confidence. Certainly this pamphleteer deserves a place in the calender of saints of what Mr. Hutton has called the hard Church... . 137 Vi REVISING THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER ton began to entertain the thought of a formal Prayer Book revision by the Church. His early interest in Church unity, and his convictions as to the important part which the Episcopal Church might play in that movement, must have speedily led him to an appreciation of the need for revision. Moreover, from the time he entered the General Convention, he became more clearly aware than he had been before of the de- mand for revision from various quarters within the church. Indications of a felt need for changes were shown by resolutions introduced from time to time for minor alterations. In 1874 modest attempts at revision of rubrics were made, but all resolutions were lost, though a resolution as to the propriety of considering Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion separable serv- ices was carried. At that same Convention, a resolu- tion in regard to regulating unauthorized and “Roman- izing” practices was passed, on a concurrent vote, by very large majorities. By 1877, when the Convention met in Boston, rest- lessness as to the Lectionary had become insistent. 138 |: is difficult to determine just when Dr. Hunting- THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER Special tables for Lent were permitted. It was de- sired that the new use just set forth in England be allowed until next Convention. Finally the whole sub- ject was referred to a Commission of seven bishops and seven clergymen, of whom Dr. Huntington was one. Later, with the thought apparently that after all the listeners as well as the readers ought to have a voice in the matter of lessons, three laymen were added to this commission. At the same Convention, sundry suggestions for amendment appeared. These included a resolution for a new suffrage in the Litany for “sending forth laborers unto the harvest”; an attempt to secure relief in the Baptismal Office by permission to omit the exhortation after the baptism, and to substitute for the following thanksgiving the Easter Even collect, thus securing avoidance in two places of the word “regenerate”; and a resolution to substitute for the Prayer for the Presi- dent the original suggestion of 1789, in place of which the adaptation of the Prayer for the King was finally chosen. This form reads, after the familiar opening, “to give to the President of the United States and all others in authority grace, wisdom and understanding to execute justice and to maintain truth, that the people may lead quiet and peaceable lives in godliness and hon- esty.” ‘The frequency and variety of the suggestions doubtless gave the watchful Dr. Huntington hope that the Church might be willing to consider the plan, upon which by this time he had set his heart, of a comprehen- sive revision. 139 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Furthermore, Dr. Huntington had been appointed at this Convention a member of the important Commit- tee on Amendments to the Constitution, and into this committee he carried the fight for a real revision, and won his battle there and subsequently in Convention. The question was whether the committee would approve an amendment proposed to the Constitution by which its provision as to Prayer Book revision should be altered by adding the words, “Provided, 'That the Gen- eral Convention may by canon arrange and set forth a shortened form of Morning and Evening Prayer to be compiled wholly from the Book of Common Prayer.” The committee divided five to four, the majority, of whom Dr. Huntington was one, being against. And in the House the majority won. Dr. Huntington saw clearly that the device was too partial and limited, and would in the end defeat the cause of real and thorough- going revision, and a revision which should have the whole-hearted support of the Church and be accom- plished on its traditional and well-guarded constitu- tional lines. It was undoubtedly the fact that he was in his home city, and felt that the atmosphere was congenial and sympathetic with his views, which finally led him to in- troduce in Boston a resolution for a general revision of the book. It is probable that he took the step with con- siderable hesitation, and with misgivings as to the out- come. He had to sustain him in his determination the manifest interest in many quarters in revision, and the victory in the battle over the proposed Constitutional 140 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER Amendment. The form of the resolution he then of- fered is interesting in view of the action which was taken at the next Convention. It reads as follows: “Resolved, that a Joint Commission of seven bishops, seven presbyters and seven laymen (the presbyters and laymen to be chosen by ballot in this house) be ap- pointed to consider and report what changes, if any, are needed in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, in order to remove existing difficulties of inter- pretation, to amend the Lectionary, and to provide by abbreviation or otherwise for the better adaptation of the services of the Church to the wants of all sorts and conditions of men.” The provision for election by bal- lot, rather than for appointment, was with a view ap- parently of winning more favor for the measure. The resolution was voted down. There was, however, finally passed a suggested amendment of the general rubric which provided for shortening Morning and Evening Prayer, for treating the three services of _ Morning Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion as dis- tinct services, and for a short form to be used with a sermon. A resolution offered at this Convention by Dr. Huntington for the appointment of a Commission on Anthems was also passed. The anthems to be selected were to be “in the words of Holy Scripture, or in the words of the Prayer Book of the Church of Eng- land, and were to become an appendix to the Hymnal.” It would seem that it was felt that in this way some en- richment might indirectly be secured. When this Convention closed, Dr. Huntington was 141 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON undoubtedly discouraged concerning the prospects for revision. For even a year later, when preaching the annual sermon before the Bishop White Prayer Book Society, in stating his conviction that the “only honest way out of our embarrassments will some day or other be found in a careful, loving, fair-minded revision of the formularies,” he adds that he dares not believe that such revision will come very soon. ‘The sermon was, nevertheless, throughout a plea for revision, and a care- ful statement of the faith that was in him. In it, he de- clares that if we are to be true to the spirit of the reformers who framed our first English book, we must be bold in our demands for revision now, “emulating the courageous foresight of those who dared to plant themselves firmly on the principle of Common prayer.” He pleads that “timid counsels” shall not be allowed to prevent adapting the system to the needs of society, that “the Church may cease to wear the dimensions of a sect, and become the chosen home of a great people.” “It is a time,” he concludes, “of reconstruction in the state, so- cial life is taking on new forms, a great war has come to an end, all things are fluent.” During the next two years, before the Convention of 1880 met, there may have been some things to en- courage a belief that the Church was making ready to undertake revision, but not many indications were at hand. Dr. Huntington decided to present a resolution for revision, just as he had in 1877, but not so much with the idea of securing its passage as with a convic- tion that it would be well to keep the plan before the 142 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER Church. In the speech which he made just before the vote on the resolution, he began: “When, Mr. Presi- dent, a few days ago I ventured to offer this resolu- tion, I did so, I will not say in fear and trembling, but certainly with a very slender expectation that the meas- ure would receive the immediate and hearty sanction of this House. I was convinced that the proper time had come to make the proposition, to plant the seed, to start the idea upon its travels; but that the time had come when such a suggestion could be favorably acted upon with anything approaching unanimity I scarcely dared to hope.” He went on to tell of the things which had happened in Convention to give him “a cheerful cour- age.” Such were the unanimous sanctioning of the new Lectionary, favorable action in the Bishops on some matters of revision, and approval indicated of shortened services. He reassured the Convention by showing how the proposed commission because it was large would possess wideness of view, and because it had time would be freed from perils of haste. It had no power anyway except to recommend. 'The purpose was not doctrinal change but liturgical enrichment. He indicated what this would mean: the bringing back into the worship of the Church of the beautiful hymns of the Gospel; the better accentuation of the seasons of the Christian Year, “a thing which lay close to the heart of Dr. Muhlen- burg”; the provision of an alternate form for Evening Prayer; and new collects and prayers. At the end he stressed the timeliness. The thought of the opening of a new century of the Church’s life might be considered 143 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON sentimental. But the question is really practical. There are many pressing needs of the new era to be met. In his peroration he appealed to the Church to take cognizance of the demands of the time and to re- alize the greatness of its responsibility. On a half- sheet of paper containing notes of this speech, and marked “Brief, Oct. 25,” there stand written against the suggestion for the peroration the words “flood- gates.’ On the note of the Church’s responsibility he let loose his oratory. And the Church rose to its op- portunity, and the resolution was passed by substantial majorities in both orders, the vote of the clergy being, however, larger than that of the laity, conservatism among the laymen, as is usual in such matters, bulking larger than among the clergy. The resolution, which had been carefully framed, was a generous resolution, and was in these words: “That a Joint Committee to consist of seven Bishops, seven Presbyters and seven Laymen be appointed to consider and to report to the next General Convention whether, in view of the fact that this Church is soon to enter upon the second century of its organized existence in this country, the changed conditions of the national life do not demand certain alterations in the Book of Common Prayer in the direction of liturgical enrichment and in- creased flexibility of use.” On a scrap of paper which contains the first draft of this resolution appear certain significant changes in phraseology which testify to the author’s instinctive feeling for the right word, and for the avoidance of the phrase which might fail in appeal 144 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER or might excite opposition. The original “certain changes” is made “certain alterations,” and the word “rubrical” before “flexibility of use” is erased. Immediately after the closing services, the committee was called to order, October 27, in Holy Trinity Church, and proceeded to elect Dr. Huntington its sec- retary and to adjourn to meet at the call of the chair- man, Bishop Williams. In a book, marked “Personal and Private” and kept by Dr. Huntington for the next three years as a sort of diary of things pertaining to the Commission’s work, the record of this meeting was inserted, and immedi- ately beneath it appears this note: Oct. 27. Same evening, walking down from the Church, bought this book at Brentano’s, Union Square, and made the above entries before retiring for the night. Laus Deo. Thus was inaugurated that process of revision of the American Prayer Book, on which Dr. Huntington had set his heart, and for which he had scarcely dared to hope, a process which reached a first stage of comple- tion in 1892, but which is still going on. Dr. Huntington’s first act after returning home was to write to Bishop Williams, suggesting plans for the prosecution of the work, and outlining an “agenda” for the next meeting of the new Commission, and for subdivision of the work into committees. In this letter he says: “T cannot tell how it looks to you, but it does seem to me that never since the days of White and Seabury 145 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON has such an opportunity been vouchsafed to the Church. We certainly do not want to Americanize the Prayer Book in any vulgar sense, but at the same time we can- not forget that it is in America we live, and to Ameri- cans that we minister. To bring the worship of the Church closer home to the hearts of ‘this great and understanding people’ by making it more attractive to their imaginations and more adaptable to their needs is a work to which we may well thank God for having called us. The Committee from your House would seem to be as good as it could possibly have been made. Our contingent has more ups and downs of quality,—but may God bless us every one, and help us in the solemn task.” He suggests, “in view of the seriousness of our undertaking and our great need of unanimity in the prosecution of it, the first gathering together should be prefaced by the Holy Communion.” That the leadership of Dr. Huntington in the matter was generally recognized is testified to by the fact that the columns of the “Churchman,” “Living Church,” and “Guardian” were immediately opened to him. He declined the offers of the “Guardian” and “Living Church,” giving as his reasons his “duties to his col- leagues on the Commission and the undesirability of having any one person too much identified with the — movement in the public mind.” He allowed the reprint in the “Churchman” of the sermon preached two years before in Philadelphia before the Bishop White So- ciety, on the “Permanent and Variable Characteristics of the Prayer Book.” He also promised the “Church 146 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER Review” an article on “The Proposed Liturgical Re- view of the Book of Common Prayer.” From this time on, for the next three years, Dr. Huntington gave himself unremittingly to the task. Almost every day shows an entry of some work done, either in the study of forms and the arranging of sug- gestions or in correspondence with members of the com- mission. He kept in touch with the work of the three subcommittees. He traveled to New York, Philadel- phia, and New Haven for conference with committee members. 3 At the first meeting of the commission for the organ- izing of its activities, a meeting which was “charac- terized,” the secretary records, “by entire harmony,” two self-denying ordinances were passed as the meet- ing’s first business. ‘These resolutions were adopted not only as a guide to the commission but as an assur- ance to the Church, and were immediately sent to the Church press. They were as follows: Resolved: That this Committee asserts at the outset its conviction that no alterations should be made touching either statements or standards of doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer. Resolved: That this Committee in all its suggestions and acts be guided by those principles of liturgical construction and ritual use which have guided the compilation and amend- ments of the Book of Common Prayer and made it what it is. In April, 1881, the promised article appeared in the “Church Review” under the title, “Revision of the American Common Prayer.” In this article Dr. 147 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Huntington discussed at length the principles which he conceived to be vital in the work, and presented some of the details of revision for which he hoped. ‘The tem- per of the article was admirable and its spirit concilia- tory. ‘There was frank recognition of difficulties and of the rights of the conservative attitude, and a sweet reasonableness in the advocacy of needed changes; and it doubtless accomplished much for the cause among thoughtful people. He emphasized the timeliness of the work as he did in his Convention speech, a timeli- ness based upon the needs of a new era. The needs of the people of the land had been brought home to him through his own experiences in such centers as Lowell and Worcester. The new century may seem an arbi- trary sentimental division to some, but after all a cen- tury covers the range of three generations, and a generation is a natural, not an arbitrary division. “What the grandfather practises the son criticizes and the grandson amends.” Moreover, the timeliness is emphasized by the pacific condition of the Church; by the interest in revision in England, as well as here; by the looking to us in matters of worship of those without, whom we must sympathetically meet, recognizing in it a token of better things to come, and of an approaching “consolation of Israel’; and still fur- ther by the rich fruits of liturgical revision of the past fifty years. Under the head of “Desiderata” in this article, he marshals the changes which he thinks might be made in the Prayer Book. Many of these are familiar now to 148 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER users of the book from the fact that they found a place in the accomplished revision of 1892. There are other suggestions, to which he gave much thought, which for the most part failed of adoption. Such are the plan for Week-day and Holy Day Matins and Evensong, the providing of collects and prayers for various occa- sions, and the inclusion of the Beatitudes in the litur- gical formularies of the Church. In the course of his recommendations he makes some wise generalizations. He reminds his readers that “excision may, under con- ceivable circumstances, be enrichment’; that “it is pos- sible in liturgics so to employ the principle of repetition that no wearying sense of sameness will be conveyed, and again it is possible so to mismanage it as to trans- form worship into something little better than a ‘slow mechanic exercise.’”” He pleads for that wise provi- sion of variety which shall ‘add just that little incre- ment to the Church’s power of traction that in many instances would avail to change ‘I cannot go to church this morning’ into ‘I cannot stay away.” He recog- nizes that so far as additional offices are concerned, if they are to make their way, there must be allowed the fullest possible play to the principle of “local option,” and that the greatest care must be taken to have the in- definite “an” rather than the definite “the” prefixed to every such office. He is frank and conciliatory in the matter of the difficulties which surround the present undertaking. He is aware of the wide-spread _hesi- tancy about touching a heritage so precious. He ac- knowledges the binding power of the book as it stands. 149 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON “The men of 1789 had us in their power, even as the men of 1549 had had both them and us. In every crea- tive epoch many things are settled by which unborn generations will be bound.” Yet “it ought not to be absolutely impossible to alter a national hand-book of worship,” though “it is well that it should be all but impossible to do so.” The national life has changed be- yond the possible forecast of the shrewd. and far-seeing William White and his coadjutors, and the book must, in measure, change too. Moreover, a piecemeal revi- sion is going on, and the “driblet method of revision,” with its peril of frequent changes, is confessedly one of ‘Gntrinsic weakness. There is again the obvious diffi- culty of making any change without danger of doc- trinal implication. There are parts of the book where change seems to be loudly called for, but where, be- cause change would mean touching statements or stand- ards of doctrine, no change can be made. Such are parts of the Baptismal office, the opening invocations of the Litany, and in the Catechism, “that sad crux infan- twm the answer to the question, ‘What desirest thou of God in this prayer?’”’ But the limitations of “enrich- ment” and “flexibility” must be trusted. There is the difficulty in the minds of some inherent in attempting revision of the American book independently of Eng- land, and the possibility that the Concordat will have to be reckoned with. More important is the difficulty as to language. The question is “how to handle without harming the sentences in which English religion phrased itself when English language was fresher and more 150 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER fluent than it can ever be again.” Here, however, it is to be remembered that “the alterations most likely to find favor with the reviewers are such as will enrich by restoring lost excellencies, rather than by introduc- ing forms fashioned on a modern anvil.” Moreover, “there is nothing, after all, supernatural about the Eng- lish of the Prayer Book. Cranmer and his associates were not inspired.”’ And, after all, “the prose of the nineteenth century is vastly superior to eighteenth cen- tury style, of which the American book has no incon- siderable specimens, and many worse things might happen to the Prayer Book than that the nineteenth century should leave its impress upon the pages.” In 1882, Dr. Huntington caused to be privately printed in Worcester “Materia Ritualis,” which was designated an appendix to the article in the “American Church Review.” It embodies the suggestions of the article and is intended to illustrate the principles set forth in it. It was intended for his fellow-members in the joint committee, upon whom the compiler disclaims any wish unduly to urge his own preferences. “He trusts that it may, at least, serve as an encouragement to his colleagues to cast, of their abundance, into the common treasury, other and worthier offerings to the same end.” It contained the forms of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, in accordance with his sugges- tions of amendment, and the Week-day and Holy Day forms for Matins and Evensong which he so strongly advocated. It even contained certain changes, regard- ing which he had no hope of acceptance, because of 151 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON their touch on doctrine, like the amended Litany Invo- cations, the third of which is printed, ““O God, the Holy Ghost, sanctifier of the faithful; have mercy,’ etc., and the fourth, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; have mercy,” etc. The chief value, however, of this rare pamphlet rests in the fact that it reveals Dr. Hunt- ington’s fine workmanship, and the sources of certain cento forms of collects and prayers derived from an- cient sources, several of which have now become famil- iar to us through constant use, and that it contains some prayers of his own writing of recognized help- fulness. The work of the joint committee was conducted almost wholly by the subcommittees and through cor- respondence. In the three years there were only three groups of sessions held by the entire committee. Throughout the time that the work was going on in the commission and its committees, Dr. Huntington pursued on his own account lines of liturgical study which he hoped might prove helpful in the final result. He gave much thought to a study of collects, and of the collect form, and framed a table of the changes which collects of the Prayer Book had passed through in the course of previous revisions. This study convinced him that ‘change in liturgical matters 1s well, when gradually made by careful and loving hands, and that even in the case of the collect, that feature of the Prayer Book which more than any other challenges the admiration of all English-speaking people, and which Macaulay compared in its perfection of form with Miul- 152 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER ton’s sonnets, almost every change introduced has been for the better.” He also busied himself with framing those new offices which he felt to be needed in some cases for special occasions, or which should be of a general character, and fitted to supplement the chief services of the book. Of such offices one in particular claimed his attention. This was an Office of the Beatitudes. When the litur- gical use of the Beatitudes was first suggested, it was proposed to incorporate them into the Service of the Holy Communion as a permissive variant for the Ten Commandments. This idea did not meet with general approval, and they appeared finally in the commission’s report as a separate service, to be placed after Evening Prayer, in connection with which it might be used. In one of the note-books occur these words regarding the matter: “Instead of making St. Chrysostom do duty thrice in the same words, a thing the ‘Golden-mouthed’ never would have dreamed of doing in the flesh, why not confine the collect to its special place in the Morning Prayer, and honor his memory by re-introducing a usage, associated in the history of liturgics with his name and his name only, namely, the responsive use of the Beatitudes as a feature of public worship.” The actual form in which the Beatitudes were to appear went through several variations. In the “Materia Ritualis” they are arranged in a Holy Day Evensong to be read responsively, the first to be said by the minis- ter, the second by the people, and so on. 'Then, because doubtless of the fact that they had at first been sug- 1538 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON gested as an alternate to the Commandments, the Kyrie Eleison was made the response, with the words added, “and be it unto thy servants according to thy word.” And this was the form which appeared in the report. It was not, however, satisfactory to Dr. Huntington, and a few months before the Convention, in a letter to Bishop Lay, he urged the adoption of another response. He writes: “After giving a great deal of time and thought to the response to the Beatitudes (more, in fact, than I have given to any single point connected with this whole work) I have finally reached a conclu- sion in favor of one that will probably, at first sight, strike you oddly, but which, on examination, may seem to you as it does to me to possess peculiar advantages. It is this. ‘Amen. Be it unto thy servants, Lord, ac- cording to thy word.’ For the use of the emphatic ‘Verily’ at the beginning of a sentence instead of at the end, we have abundant Scriptural precedent, and it fur- nishes, as I look at it, a telling and acceptable transi- tion from the statement of: an eternal verity to the prayer that the conditions may be fulfilled in our own case. The more I think of it the less need I seem to see for Kyrie Eleison in this connection. ‘The Ten Com- mandments issue from Sinai and when authoritatively pronounced elicit a cry for ‘Mercy’,—not so with the Blessings, for “When he came the second time He came in power and love, as Keble has it.” 154 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER When, years after, Dr. Huntington printed the Later Evensong for the Christian Year for use Sunday evenings in Grace Church, services which have become familiar and greatly loved by the many worshipers there, the response to the Beatitudes, in the Epiph- any Service, was further changed to read: ‘Amen. Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it’’; and there was added at the end: VY. Hear also what the voice from heaven saith: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. R. Even so saith the Spirit; for they rest from their labours. This story of the Beatitudes is profitable as showing that attainment in liturgical expression is inevitably a slow process, even when careful thought and a fine litur- gical sense are devoted to it. It tends to show also, we may fairly assume, that there is a right instinct in the Church as a whole in its refusal to grant any important place to the Beatitudes in a liturgical setting. ‘The Christian centuries have not wished to use it, the Re- vision of 1892 did not finally include it, and its sporadic use since the eighties seems to have received very slight commendation. The failure of the Beatitudes liturgi- cally probably rests in the meditative and paradoxical nature of these great words. Such “statements of eter- nal verities” do not lend themselves to the treatment of a said or sung response. In his enthusiasm for this bit of liturgical enrichment, Dr. Huntington is showing that his fine instinct and feeling in matters liturgical 155 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON was not unerring. It is here as with his strong plead- ing for the singular as against the plural in the words “merciful ears” in the Burial Anthem. He made much of the importance of reading “shut not thy merciful ear to our prayer,” on the ground that this would prove a much-needed avoidance of anthropological error. But the Church would none of it. And the Church, with a finer instinct, was right. His symbolic exacti- tude in this case was in the way of the truer poetic in- sight, which he was far from being without. There were the difficulties inevitable to any process of revision, as the work went on. Great interest in the undertaking was shown not only in this country but also in England, as letters from Dean Stanley, Dr. Plump- tre, the Rev. Evan Daniel, and others prove. ‘This in- terest led to the making of suggestions, some of which seemed to call for consideration after points had been supposedly settled. Dr. Huntington himself, so late as the summer before the Convention, urged in a pam- phlet three supplementary suggestions. ‘They were a short substitute for the Te Deum, Alternatives to the Venite on Certain Festivals, and A Short Office of Prayer; and these, by general consent, were adopted. At the last moment, members of the commission would | protest against certain of the new prayers proposed as “not in harmony with the tone of the book”; and Bishop Coxe is twice telegraphed, “Send on prayers which you would be willing to substitute,” and again, “Do pray send on the collects, or at least some of them. Some compromise is probably possible.” 156 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER There were also matters of procedure which led to debates and questionings. To the copyrighting of the report Dr. Huntington was opposed on the ground that the widest possible circulation was of advantage to the cause. A question arose as to the power of one Con- vention to establish a new office. That the Convention had this power, Dr. Huntington maintained, an office so established then becoming alterable only by two Con- ventions. On this constitutional point he had privately printed and circulated his pamphlet entitled, ‘““A Bound- ary Question,” in which he also sets forth his opinion that the Book of Common Prayer ends with the Psalter, and that the independence of the Ordinal and thirty-nine Articles should be attested by distinct title- pages. In one respect the joint committee was peculiarly fortunate, and that was that through the generosity of certain laymen, notably Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, suf- ficient funds were supplied to give the revisers prac- tically carte blanche in the matter of printing. It was this which made possible the preparation and printing of a complete Prayer Book as it would appear were the recommendations of the committee to be adopted. This book was attached to the report and came to be known as the “Book Annexed,” a peculiarly happy title, in that it was innocuous and avoided the hint of presumption which might seem to attach to a title like “The Proposed Book.” The advantages of this pro- ceeding were clearly perceived by Dr. Huntington early in the undertaking. These advantages were two. 157 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON The “Book Annexed” proved at a glance to the anxious inquirer, who might be disturbed by the seemingly large mass of suggestions in the report, that the old and be- loved Prayer Book was after all substantially the same book it had always been. And, furthermore, it proved that there was no appreciable increase in bulk, as many had feared. As the work approached completion, there was much labor involved in seeing the report and the “Book An- nexed” through the press. The many intricacies of de- tail were followed by Dr. Huntington with a watchful eye, and yet, in spite of every care, the “Book Annexed” required, at the last, the appending of a table of almost one hundred minor corrections. And nothing was over- looked which might insure the smooth course of the re- port and help toward its favorable reception. In the spring of 1883 Dr. Huntington wrote to the papers, informing them that copies would be sent them at the same time that they are sent to members of the Con- vention, and asking them “to give as little publicity as possible to irresponsible rumors with respect to alleged features of the work.” When the report finally came before General Con- vention, its reception there and the progress of revision in the two houses was somewhat in the nature of a tri- umph. The recommendations were all considered, and for the most part approved. Where there were differ- ences between the houses, these were settled through a conference committee. In only one instance was there a call in the House of Deputies for a yote by dioceses 158 THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER and orders, and in this instance the recommendation of the revisers prevailed. In the final vote, which was upon the adoption of all the thirty-two resolutions of the joint committee as amended by the Committee of Conference, the extraordinary unanimity of the Con- vention was manifested by the fact that there was only one negative vote among the clergy, the vote of Vir- ginia, cast by one deputy, and only two negative votes among the laity, those of Georgia and South Carolina, these, in each case, cast also by one deputy. In 1880, what opposition there was to revision of any sort had rallied about a resolution presented at that time, and passed by the Convention, calling for the in- sertion in the Ratification of 1789, which stands on one of the first pages of the Prayer Book, of a provision for shortened services. The idea was that by this device of adding to the Ratification, which is neither a canon nor a rubric, all the liberty really required could be gained, while the book itself was left untouched. Several dio- ceses sent up to the Convention of 1883 memorials op- posing this makeshift scheme. It was perceived that a compromise of this sort would take away the hope of real revision and enrichment. Indeed, the proposer of the scheme had declared that his hope was that the Book of Common Prayer might in this way become not only the standard book but “a sealed book, for as many gen- erations as have passed since the present book was adopted.” A further difficulty about the proposal was that while seeming to give greater liberty, it at the same time took away a liberty heretofore recognized and 159 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON cherished. It allowed for a sermon or lecture with the Lord’s Prayer and one or more collects, in addition to Morning and Evening Prayer, but expressly prohib- ited any prayers except those in the book or otherwise authorized, either before or after the sermon or lecture. This prohibition rallied in opposition to the measure all those, and among them Phillips Brooks, who valued the use of extempore prayer after sermons. Dr. Hunting- ton had himself strongly opposed the suggestion in his “Church Review” article on Revision. He character- ized the proposal as “the mutilation of a monument.” “The old Ratification of 1789,” he declared, “is an his- toric landmark, the sign-manual of the Church of White’s and Seabury’s day. It is as if the City Gov- ernment of Cambridge should cause to be cut upon the stone under the Washington elm which now records the fact that there the commander of the American ar- mies first drew his sword, divers and sundry additional] items of information, such as the distance to Water- town, and the shortest path across the Common.” When it appeared that the sentiment of the Conven- tion of 1883 was overwhelmingly favorable to the Joint Committee’s Report with its “Book Annexed,” the fate of the Ratification proposal was sealed. It was referred to the proper committee, from which committee it has never emerged. The hopes of those who wished to stay the hand of revision had now to be fixed upon the rati- fying convention of 1886, at which time there might perhaps develop a change of feeling, which would pre- vent final approval of what the Convention of 1883 had 160 FSO SL LOT LO IER ONE AN Net AREA ah THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER passed. One little word, which found no place in the original resolutions of the joint committee, was inserted on the recommendation of the conference committee in every resolution. That word was the word “severally,” before the word “adopted.” It meant that a separate vote must be taken on every item under any given reso- lution. The fourteen items under Morning Prayer, for instance, were not to be passed under one resolution for revision of that office, but each item ratified sep- arately by a vote by dioceses and orders. Here was certainly opportunity for hope for those who would block the wheels of progress, and an assurance to those who felt that every detail must have careful delibera- tion and the closest scrutiny. Meantime, the friends of revision had won a notable victory, a victory due in large measure, as was generally recognized, to the fair- mindedness, persuasiveness, and skill of Dr. Hunt- ington. 161 Vil THE CHURCH IDEA Huntington’s chief claim to lasting fame was his invention and promulgation of the Quadrilateral. It was he who introduced that word into ecclesiastical history, making it stand as a foundation for all subse- quent discussion of Church unity. It was in a sermon preached at Worcester, January 30, 1870, that he for the first time set forth the term, and unfolded the scheme of which it was the expression, for the Church’s consideration. The text of the sermon was I Cor. 12, verses 4, 5, and 6. Near the close of the sermon there is a refer- ence to the Y. M. C. A. in Worcester, support for which he was asking of his people. He speaks of the Y. M. C. A. as a clearing ground for the future Church of the Reconciliation. In the last paragraph of this sermon, he says, “To love the Church because it is Christ’s Church is a better thing than to fight for it be- cause it is our Church.” ‘Then, after asking God to forgive any harsh or bitter words in the sermons of which this is the third which he has been preaching on the Church of the Reconciliation, he proceeds as fol- lows: “It behooves us all to remember that envy, hatred, malice, and every kind of uncharitableness are 162 |: might, with some reason, be maintained that Dr. THE CHURCH IDEA more likely to keep us out of heaven than the most ear- nest churchmanship, which cannot clear itself of com- plicity with these, is likely to get us in. Those pearly gates swing not on their hinges either to a proud or to an unloving soul.” The appearance of the Quadrilateral in this ser- mon came in the following passage: ‘Firmly con- vinced that in the Anglican principle lies the only reasonable hope of Christian unity in these latter days, I have made it my endeavor to disentangle the princi- ple from all accidental and unessential to it; to strip it of the wrappings in which the various circumstances of time and country have enfolded it, and to set it before you in simplicity. In a word, it has been to the strict anatomy of the subject and to nothing else that I have turned your thoughts. “Now the conditions of Church unity demanded by the Anglican principle, the points which that principle cannot possibly surrender without self-destruction, are these four: “1. The Holy Scriptures, as the Word of God. “2. The Primitive Creeds as the Rule of Faith. “8. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Him- self. “4. The Episcopate as the center or keystone of gov- ernmental unity. “These four points, like the four famous fortresses of Lombardy, make the Quadrilateral of Anglicism. Within them the Church of the Reconciliation stands secure.” 1638 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON It was altogether characteristic of Dr. Huntington that in the last year of his life he should have sent the manuscript of this sermon to Mr. Morgan, to be placed in his library. In the note to Mr. Morgan which ac- companied it, he tells him that the first suggestion of the Quadrilateral appeared in this sermon. A large part of this was afterward produced in his book, “The Church Idea,” and he reminds Mr. Morgan that it was Dr. Nevin, through Dr. Huntington’s codperation, who in the Convention of 1886 brought the Quadrilateral to the attention of the bishops, with Bishop Littlejohn’s assistance. It appeared in the report of the Commit- tee on Church Unity. The act of the Bishops in accept- ing this report went in 1889 to the Lambeth Conference, and their statement was then reaffirmed with slight verbal changes. In the note to Mr. Morgan, Dr. Huntington said: ‘Not for the purpose of “putting in a claim,’ but simply in the interest of historical ac- curacy, I am asking you to find a place in your valuable collection of ecclesiastical Americana for the accom- panying manuscript sermon. I feel that it would be safer there than in any other place of deposit.” It is interesting to note that when, in the next summer, Dr. Huntington’s son wrote Mr. Morgan from the sick- room at Nahant, he said: “My father said to me this morning, ‘My thanks to Pierpont Morgan for his friendship and great help in critical moments. We have always trusted each other, though not always able to see eye to eye in matters of detail.’”” The full value 164 THE CHURCH IDEA of this historic document we are perhaps even yet un- able to estimate. It goes, of course, without saying that this was by no means his first public utterance on the subject of unity. It has been already stated that the inspiration of this ideal was the master motive of his life from the beginning of his ministry. This sermon was, however, the first enunciation of the plan or program, upon which he had been brooding for several years. As early as the spring of 1865, he had been invited to de- liver a sermon before the Church Union of Massachu- setts, an association devoted to the extension of the Protestant E/piscopal Church in the diocese of Massa- chusetts. This association had faith in the large oppor- tunities of the Church in the future development of American Christianity. The title of Dr. Huntington’s sermon is “American Catholicity,”’ and in the course of it he says: Never was there a grander opportunity to profit by the errors of the past in building for the future. We are enter- ing upon a period of reconstruction in the State; God grant it may also be a period of reconstruction in the Church... . In venturing to approach the problem of American catho- licity, I am not blind to the profound difficulties that encom- pass it. Grant that it is little a young man can do in such a work, but remember it is also little an old man can do. It rests with God. Let every one who feels deeply in the matter, be he young or old, do what he can by speaking out his thought honestly and plainly, and the fruit will ripen in due time. He goes on to define “the three conditions of Amer- 165 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON ican catholicity: a simple creed; a varied worship; a generous polity.” And, in conclusion, he adds: “I cannot conceive of visible unity apart from unity of government, and I ask myself again and again where such unity is to be sought, unless we find it under that system which is both old and new, conservative and pro- gressive, catholic and reformed, the system of republi- can episcopacy. For this reason I feel that a weighty responsibility rests upon us churchmen to take the ini- tiative in the work of Christian reunion. It is idle to prate about the Church of the future, unless you can find for it some point of historical attachment to the Church of the past. Just this ‘missing link’ the Protestant-Eipiscopal Church in the United States supplies, a Church that traces her lineage all the way back to the first century, while, at the same time, she is, in her constitution, perfectly conformed to the struc- ture of the civil government under which we live.” The thought here is evidently leading the way to the later sermon, and to the final and full exposition of his mind in “The Church Idea,” which was published in 1870. “The Church Idea” has for its subtitle, “An Essay towards Unity,” and for a device “‘Christo et Ecclesia.” Its subtitle might be, “An Exposition of the Quadri- lateral.” It is a small book, of only 175 pages, but is unquestionably the most important of the author’s writ- ings. It is dedicated to the friends of the Church of the Future, and the believers of the Church of the Past, as a sketch in outline of the Church of the Reconciliation. 166 THE CHURCH IDEA For forty years it may be said to have served as the handbook of the laborers for unity. Thirty years after its first appearance it was reprinted, with a new pre- face, and welcomed and circulated even more widely than at first. The word “quadrilateral” itself was taken over from a military connotation. In 1870 the famous quadrilat- eral of Lombardy, those four great fortresses which played so conspicuous a part in Napoleon the Third’s Sardinian campaign, was fresh in people’s minds. The figure was a happy adaptation for the purposes of the Church Militant. That Church might be described as militant against the world’s evil, but what it was mili- tant for was unity. It is possible for one to become the slave of his symbol. There were times, in his ser- mons, when Dr. Huntington seemed to be such a slave. But for the most part it is his distinction to have been a supreme master of the symbol, and to make it do a great work for the cause of truth. It was conspicu- ously so in this instance. His symbol provided the Church with a compelling and worth-while ideal in its militancy. Moreover, the author’s Quadrilateral, from the very first, linked itself with that splendid picture from the great Christian book of symbols, the four- square city of the pearly gates, the New Jerusalem, which gave to the figure of a military campaign the as- surance of a confident hope. Step by step along his patient way of labor for unity, he never faltered in his faith in the triumph of the ideal. At the time of the second printing of “The Church Idea” in 1899, he re- 167 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON joices that “acquiescence in sectarianism, as being pre- sumably the ordinance of God, has ceased to be the almost universal state of mind it was in the United States of 1869”; and that “the pettiness of sectarian- ism has forced itself upon eyes blind to the wickedness of it, so that it would not be surprising if the ludi- crous aspect of our ‘unhappy divisions’ were even yet to move to repentance those whom the sad tragedy of the whole business has been powerless to affect.” He adds that, to him, “the history of Christendom seems to show a persistent though not steady movement to- wards larger and larger inclusions,’ and reminds his readers that “it is not force that really holds the United States together, but a common understanding, and that the spiritual order ought likewise ultimately to attain to a working unity.” Slavery, before the war, looked to be as firmly intrenched as “denominationalism” now. Immediate results he is not anticipating, but he believes in steering by the pole-star, whether one expects to out- live the voyage or not. The gist of the matter in “The Church Idea” is the last chapter, “Reconciliation,” in which he expounds the Quadrilateral. In leading up to this he discusses first the idea of the Church, and the clothing of that idea. He is convinced that, though hidden under a hundred disguises, it is with this idea that the world’s thoughts are busy. Men are possessed with an un- wonted longing for unity. The idea he defines as this, “that the Son of God came down from heaven to be the Saviour not only of men, but of man; to bring ‘good 168 THE CHURCH IDEA tidings of great joy’ not only to every separate soul, but also to all souls collectively.” The Gospel has a two- fold outlook, fronting upon the individual in one direc- tion, in the other upon society. Even the schoolmen recognized this distinction, in making two of the seven sacraments, Matrimony and Orders, the conferrers of grace upon society, while the other five conferred it on the individual. Throughout the teaching of Christ he finds always present the double application to the indi- vidual and to the Church. There is the Kingdom within and the Kingdom without, the Kingdom now on earth in the hearts of his people, the Kingdom in its fullness yet to be. And the law of spiritual proportion is applicable alike to the individual man and to the “colossal man,” society; the Kingdom is meant to be both spiritual and visible, internal and external. “The variety of limestone known as calc-spar crystallizes in the rhombohedral form, and it is a peculiarity of this mineral that if you shatter a crystal of it by a blow of the hammer, each little fragment will be found to be a perfect rhombohedron in miniature.” He finds the best analogy for the Church to be St. Paul’s, namely, the body, and from that analogy he derives the four characteristics of the perfect Church, Visibility, the Indwelling Spirit of the Lord, Unity, and the Capability of perpetual renewal. Of the last point, he says: ‘““We talk about Reformations of the Church, and argue whether they are desirable or not. Reformations?: Why, the whole life of the Church ought to be a continual Reformation. Those who 169 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON fancy that in order to demonstrate the identity of the Church they must import into the nineteenth century the cultus of the thirteenth are under a delusion. As well refuse to own your friend because his countenance at forty is not what it was at twenty-five, as turn sus- picious of the Church of your fathers because it does not look to you precisely as it looked to them.” After thus defining the Church Idea, the author pro- ceeds to a discussion of the Idea Exaggerated, which is Romanism, the Idea Diminished, which is Puritanism, and the Idea Distorted, which is Liberalism. The argument against Rome he rests upon the simple fact that she has added to the faith. At the very time when “The Church Idea” was published, Rome was busy crystallizing what might once have been only a pious opinion regarding papal infallibility into author- itative doctrine, just as a few years before she had crystallized into the dogma of the Immaculate Concep- tion a pious opinion as to the Virgin Mary. “No ‘theory of development,’ skilfully wrought as it may be, can ever prove the mistletoe to have been in the acorn around the offspring of whose womb it clings.” As against the Puritan theory of the Church, in accordance with which the Gospel is held to be, as it were, a magnet, by which the particles of true steel are drawn out from the heap of sand, there is set the ideal of Christ, who intended his Church to rest upon the in- clusive and comprehensive principle. “The Church’s standard is one of aspiration, not attainment. Content with nothing short of perfection, she yet, like her divine 170 THE CHURCH IDEA Head, bears with imperfection. The issue is between the two ideas of inclusiveness and exclusiveness, com- prehension and selection. On the one side stands the Puritan demanding that the books be opened and the sentence given at once; against him are the Words of Jesus, the Practice of the Apostles, the Experience of History.” ‘Rome adds a cubit to the stature of the body mystical of Christ, and thus hurts it by excess. But it is quite as possible to mar that faultless form by belittling its majesty. The ‘perfect man’ to whom St. Paul likens the united and developed Church is neither a giant nor a dwarf. Addition and subtraction are alike fatal to the Gospel’s symmetry. ‘The one error gives us grossness, the other, insignificance.” ‘The rampant sectarianism which flows from the Puritan idea brings impoverishment in doctrine as well as in polity and practical results. “No one can ever know how large a proportion of our current infidelity is trace- able to the disgust engendered in educated minds by sectarian narrowness. The thoughtful boy, coming suddenly to the knowledge that the ocean of God’s truth is broader and deeper than the village mill-pond by which he was brought up, is often hasty to resolve that he will start upon the open sea in his own skiff, unpiloted, and with no compass but the stars.” Liberalism is defined as the spirit that is impatient of anything like authority, whether in doctrine or dis- cipline, that spirit which would begin its creed with “I conjecture” rather than with “I believe.” Over against a false liberty, the author sets the freedom of 171 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON the sons of God. ‘Truth is freedom, and in Jesus Christ God has revealed truth to man. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” In Liberalism in religion there is to be discovered a distortion of the true idea. “The target of perfection may be missed in any of three ways. A shot may fly beyond the range, or it may fall short, or again it may be, as we say, ‘be- side the mark.’ In Nature’s archery, one of these er- rors gives us exaggeration, another diminution, and the third distortion.” For a summary of his examination of Romanism, Puritanism, and Liberalism, Dr. Hunt- ington makes use of the Parable of the Good Shepherd. “They shall hear my voice.” ‘There shall be one fold.” “There shall be one shepherd.” Rome has heard and given heed to other voices than his. Puritanism has forgotten the one fold in its zeal for some things the Good Shepherd says. Liberalism looks for other leaders than the Son of Mary. “The Christian Church,” says Liberalism, “is not large enough for America. A religion universalized by the genius of American liberty must supplant the narrow and cramp- ing Christianity of the churches.” Before, in his final chapter, the -author definitely states the program of the Quadrilateral, he discusses in the immediately preceding chapter the American Prob- lem. He contends that the peculiarity of our situation lies in the fact that “we are testing a novel combination of old ideas under circumstances peculiarly favorable to success.” He “boldly claims that the experiment of greatest moment now in progress here is not popular 172 THE CHURCH IDEA government at all, but this, The Mutual Independence of Church and State.’ He declares that the secret of our national destiny lies wrapped in the short sentence of the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law re- specting an establishment of religion.” It is granted that “with morality and crime a non-Christian govern- ment is perfectly competent to deal.” All the more it becomes clear how tremendous is the demand upon the Church of Christ which our national theory throws down at its feet, to furnish the State with a high and pure standard. To meet this demand “we want a large-roofed, firmly founded spiritual dwelling-place, —a House of God, a shelter for a mighty people.” The problem is: ‘Given a country constituted like ours, how is the Church of Christ therein planted to achieve and maintain her proper unity?” Difficulties enough there are, but there is hope in the dominance of our English language and ideals, and in the common sense of our intense practicalness, “not apt to be long tolerant of a proved absurdity.” As for the English dominance, the author holds it to be true that “in our favorite vices and our favorite virtues, in our judg- ments and our tastes we shall bear the impress of the Anglo-Saxon mint forever,” and that while “the Cath- olie Church of America will doubtless have something peculiarly American about its build, it will at the same time assuredly bear a closer resemblance to an English home than to either an Italian palazzo or a French chateau.” Surely the Spirit of God which moved upon the face of the waters and shaped a formless universe 173 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON is able to give unity and order to a great family of liv- ing souls. “Here in America, if anywhere on earth, a Church of the Reconciliation ought to be among the things possible. Nowhere else can the constructive ef- fort be made with so fair a promise of success.” In approaching his final constructive platform of the Quadrilateral in the concluding chapter of his argu- ment, Dr. Huntington contends that for the Unity towards which we aim, a definite center of unity is necessary. ‘T'o use a chemical figure, “the way to pro- duce a beautiful effect in crystallization is to hang up by a thread in the liquid that contains the future crys- tal in solution a solid piece of stone or metal.” Or, to use an architectural figure, “the first condition of the problem of American Catholicity is a definite founda- tion.” Moreover, “this foundation must have an his- torical character, its roots must be driven deep down into the farthest past.” Therefore, if there is ever to be such a thing as a United Church of America, it will rest either upon an Anglican or a Roman foundation. The Roman foundation is demonstrated impossible, The question then becomes, what are the essential, the absolutely essential features of the Anglican position, by which is meant not the Anglican system, but the Anglican principle, in the writer’s mind, America’s best hope. The answer is the Quadrilateral, which Dr. Huntington then posits, and proceeds to discuss and analyze, making what he calls the tour of the Quadri- lateral. The discussion and analysis need not now con- 174 THE CHURCH IDEA cern us. The statement in its brief original form is as follows: The true Anglican position, like the City of God in the Apocalypse, may be said to lie four-square. Honestly to accept that position is to accept,— Ist. The Holy Scriptures as the Word of God. 2nd. The Primitive Creeds as the Rule of Faith. 3rd. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself. 4th. The Episcopate, as the key-stone of Governmental Unity. By the side of this, it is interesting to place the final Chicago-Lambeth Declaration. The differences be- tween the two provide in themselves an epitome of the discussions of the next eighteen years. In essence the two statements are one. The later declaration reads: I. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of Faith. II. The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. III. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself,— Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,—ministered with un- failing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the ele- ments ordained by Him. IV. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the na- tions and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church. From the beginning Dr. Huntington had occupied himself with writing, as occasion gave him opportunity. 175 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON It was in the early sixties that his name appeared as office editor of the “Church Monthly.” On its editorial board were the Rev. F. D. Huntington, the Rev. G. M. Randall, the Rev. George S. Converse, and the Rev. J. I. T. Coolidge. As one turns over the pages of this “Monthly,” among articles on liturgical topics and poems one discovers somewhat academical discussions of redemption, infant baptism, and other theological topics. The articles are not signed, but it is not diff- cult to perceive that now and then the office editor con- tributed, and lightened the page with touches of fancy and allegory. But, with the exception of occasional sermons or ar- ticles in the papers, and the writing that concerned it- self with Prayer Book revision, the only book published by Dr. Huntington during the rectorship of All Saints, Worcester, beside “The Church Idea,” was a small vol- ume published by KE. P. Dutton & Company in 1878, entitled, “Conditional Immortality.” The book was a series of nine sermons, which had been delivered in the parish. As we know, presentations of this subject had strongly influenced Dr. Huntington, even in the years before he entered upon the work in Worcester, espe- cially Charles Frederick Hudson’s book entitled, “Debt and Grace.” Furthermore, it is of interest to remem- ber that it was in relation to the “doctrine of the last things” that young Huntington, the candidate, was thought to be unsound by Bishop Eastburn, and pos- sibly one to whom ordination should be denied. 176 THE CHURCH IDEA It is to be noted that this theory of conditional im- mortality appears to have had a certain fascination for preachers and leaders in the Episcopal Church. In 1901 Dr. S. D. McConnell discussed ‘“Immortability”’ in his book ““The Evolution of Immortality,” and many years later the Rev. Frederic Palmer published his vol- ume entitled “The Winning of Immortality.” The appeal which this teaching has made seems to rest upon the desire to preserve the majesty of the righteous God, which had been so splendid a gift of inherited Calvin- ism, and at the same time to escape the morally abhor- rent teaching of the everlasting punishment of the wicked. It is doubtful if the teaching, however lucidly explained, has had any wide acceptance in the Church. It is probable that to most of those within the Church’s fold the thought of the righteous God was not imperiled by the conception of the larger hope. Moreover, there has probably been a feeling that the vital concept of im- mortality was imperiled by the theory of the annihila- tion of the wicked. It does not appear that at the time of Huntington’s presentation of the matter it won for itself any large following. The book is characterized by his usual lucidity of style and picturesqueness of presentation. 177 a eet Le Nn a aries ho “ bf, Pahl eed Wait Peart cae ip Ae ae Cu te AUSTEN ee A “ % My eat i ma as ee d Soom on maa mt ty ney | : oye i ue he ’ 7 a Ap Hi fh ik fr H by 8 pir ha i si im rte mihi, ¢ he i Tk ee Pi e oe a Me Seal ek . i De i) siete ay oS ig } en I om ae me ne be yf 4 Tar ay at Wha SF eben pearl Aoe¥ ‘ey c Vie t ) iy, iG f Oni (yw 4 ae a iy ane Wate van iy heh Wi LES (ees , ; ri TRIG: ee. fi mh py i Maca yy ye id RA SAN res Hes i LETTERS ae Hifya SA tas n Te ‘ pg ayn Worcester, Dec. 10: 1878. My Dear Miss Mrrepiru: . . . Upon general principles I disapprove thoroughly of letting sermons be printed, but there is a kindly persuasive- ness about these Philadelphia critics which it is hard to resist. Capt. Biddle writes that he and some of his friends, or rather, to be more accurate, some of the people who were at St. Stephen’s that night, would like to have the suggestions of the sermon given a wider circulation, and I have therefore consented to be instrumental in adding to the piles of pamphlet sermons which one sees in Antiquarian libraries and paper- mills. No stanza in Tennyson’s great poem is more pathetic to the mind of a half-and-half author than this: “These mortal lullabies of pain May bind a book, may line a box May serve to curl a maiden’s locks; Or, when a thousand moons shall wane, A man upon a stall may find,” ete. I suppose he would have said “trunk” instead of “box” if it would have rhymed with “locks,” although the good old cus- tom of lining trunks with refuse literature is on the wane. But this is what the Commentators call an excursus. Let me come back to matters more to the point. Your explanation of the English “canonical hours” is the one approved by Blunt in his “Annotated Prayer Book,” although the disreputable theory of common drunkenness is the one more generally re- ceived. Indeed, only the other day, Punch had a very droll picture of a curate rebuking a young woman for coming to church to be married with the bridegroom in an evident state of advanced intoxication. “Indeed, sir, I’m sorry enough,” she answers, wiping her eyes, “but I never can persuade him to 181 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON come, but only at just such times.” The Gretna Green ex- planation will, I suspect, scarcely hold, for it could only have applied in old times to the northern countries, and such special legislation would have been unlikely. Are you fond of puz- zling over difficult handwriting? If you are, I will send you a note of Dean Stanley’s which came into my possession under curious circumstances. 'The English publisher of “Conditional Immortality” put me down on the title-page (I think I told you) as the author of “‘Xtian Believing and Living,” one of Bp. Huntington’s volumes of sermons. Following this, came a letter from Rev. Mr. White in which, after speaking of the circumstances of the reprint, he said “It comes just at a time when it is fitted to attract attention, and your former works conciliate for it a friendly reception.” This was trying enough, to think that I should be the unwitting means of in- volving the good-name and established repute of my dear friend Bp. Huntington in the shadow of my heresies. But scarcely had a day passed, before I got a letter from Bp. Huntington himself enclosing one written by Dean Stanley on board the Bothnia thanking him (the Bishop) for the copy of the “Church Idea” written by him, which he had been reading on board ship. The note was so utterly unintelligible that Bp. Huntington had had to send it to an expert; whose trans- lation of it he enclosed. Was it not a droll coincidence that the two counter-blunders should have happened thus simul- taneously? .., Worcester, Dec. 16: 1878. My Dear Miss Menrenpirn: - - . I wonder if you have fallen in with the newly published sermons of the late Fred. Brooks edited by his brother Phillips. They are full of suggestions, and, although somewhat un- finished as literary efforts, are on the whole quite what sermons ought to be. It is interesting to find in them that which one misses a little, I think, in the preaching of the more famous brother, an occasional touching of the minor chord, an appre- 182 THE CHURCH IDEA ciation of the tragic as contrasted with the cheery view of life. But I am giving you a small sermon of my own. Pardon me and believe me Sincerely yours. The Rectory, Monday, Dec. 23, 1878. My Dear Miss Acnzs: Defective proof-reading is, of course, always a serious blemish upon any publication, no matter what it 1s ;—but bar- ring these errors of the press (and I am thankful that the greater number of them happen to fall inside the limits of my unhappy little abstract) the Christmas Holly of this year strikes me as doing great credit to the Wednesday Club in general, and to the Literary Committee in particular. A more clever bit of descriptive writing than “An Earthly Paradise,” one does not often see anywhere. Miss Etta certainly has a special gift that way. The verse too, take it as a whole, is very good; though one might wish that the laws of prosody had been a little more regarded in some instances. To revert to the misprints, I would say that some of them are sufficiently droll to atone, almost, for the mortification which they cause. To see imperial St. Sophia described as being now in use as a “morgue” is “alone worth the price of the paper”; and I think I see the usually benign countenance of my late curate grow dark and lowering when, in the most pathetic passage of his truly pathetic poem, his eye falls on “bust” for “burst.” I am very sorry to know that you are ill, and have little doubt that in the family circle the blame is laid at the door of All Saints. I never take any comfort in a sore-throat be- cause I know that the bulk of my parishioners are saying, “Serves him right. I told you so, Why would he insist on having so many services?” But over-work, which sometimes is inevitable for the minister, ought never to find a place in the Church life of the parishioners, and if you have been erring in this direction I shall insist on your resigning something. 183 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Worcester, Feb. 4: 1879. My Dear Miss Merepiru: . . +. I am glad that my thoughts about the Prayer Book strike you not unfavorably. I am not sanguine as to results, but I thought it could do no harm to improve the opportunity thrown in my way of planting a seed or two. I thought that possibly as the result of what was said it might come to pass that the great-grandson of some interested listener might rise in his place in the General Convention of 1980 or thereabouts and propose, not ineffectually, the change of some punctuation mark in the Liturgy. Perhaps I am too faithless. Bp. Littlejohn, one of the most sagacious of our “prelates,” writes me that in his judgment the Church will be ready ten or fifteen years hence for some such action as the sermon suggests; but what I fear is that the convenient season will forever be “ten or fifteen” years ahead, the horizon of timeliness moving as we move. Richards of Providence writes, “Would your voice might prevail and an i be dotted somewhere without scandal; but weak brethren are many, and other brethren who trade on their weakness not a few. But the world does move.” . . Worcester, Mar. 5: 1879. My Dear Miss Merepitu: There really are no thoroughly good tracts for Confirm- ation, and very strange it is that there are not. The English literature of this sort is abundant enough, but scarcely avail- able for our purposes here. A few weeks ago, I sent to the headquarters of the S. P. C. K. in London for a “trial package” of their tracts, and there was scarcely one of them that I should have thought of using. ‘Plough-boys” and “Girls at Service” seemed to be almost the only souls addressed. Con- firmation over there is treated more as a matter of course than it is with us. When the children grow to be fourteen years old they are confirmed because it is the regular and correct thing, and it is almost amusing to observe in these English tracts how frequent are the warnings to the girls not to be 184 | THE CHURCH IDEA vain of their confirmation dresses, and to the boys to avoid scuffing and misbehaviour when they find themselves in the crowd at the great parish Church. The confirmation tracts that have been written here err perhaps in the other direction. They are apt to be a little too scholastic, and have more to say about Tertullian and Cyprian than is quite necessary. The High Church ones moreover are apt to suggest that grace enters the head through the Bishop’s hands, and represent Confirmation as a quasi sacrament, while the Evangelical ones tell us that no one can be a Christian who dances or plays cards. The leaflets I sent you seem to me very good, as far as they go, especially the “Eight Common Objections.” Rea, pire 41 oymaq oy (q) ‘syuRTy Teas puy ey PESTO?) pur ‘wry wr Yeap etouLdoAS AvaT om gRY} pav ‘poor snowedd yao sty Ysnoay poysva smos ano pur ‘Apoq sty 4q uvojo open oq Aut sarpoq usuts mo 30U3 "pool Sty YULp Oo} paw YsENp suse og avap AQ} JO SOY OY} Ywo OF O8 “PIOT] sOMRIT HAQja1oyy SM juwig) ¢ Sorat Any oF RARAE st Apr0doad osoT.A. ‘POT owes on) yaw nou yng ‘opquy, Aq aopun squindia ayj3 dn «94S 07 su ygonnr os sqjQI0M jou OB OAL “HOKMOUT yread puv projet AT} UT nq ‘esau ‘SHOSPYIA WAKO MoO ut Buysnay ‘paoy ~aowu 4 O ‘e1qey, Any STq] 0} OUIOD 0} alsa you op i Pusnoyel EDIT WAY ‘roMRMMOD IYp 9419004 im 860 pf aah wi Roo eng spsny ay) 0 eno Garvey eps 4h 018 MOLT 3 “90 ‘gyaairy (HIM eropoayT, “‘pRaypos fuuteyg, Aqy ur oayy qBLA ONO BY OYA iaysarmMeg any GRO, ApoP] oy} JO Sh 0} AUTPUAS Or} Tog PUR PAO] aMo ISEIGD sHsp nog qi Jo stom pur weep euotoed on) YO Ru0} so sa pauspjes Buray taouieg MOH) opie 4 pret 29 Rowe sy 8 10 & : ‘aja sppRuy TL Hopuayy, “Agwnbout ao oouszagrp fom JnoyL *4Soty) ATOPY Ot} Jo puw ‘nog oly Jo svotyoq oa ous - ayy SeryNy any fo La0p any Jo aroypoy ox Yoryar 10] “BOURISGNS ouO UT SUORIET-dary} yng ‘UO stag Ayuo auo jou fpaory oue ‘poy oue yu OH] ; ‘pine og Rom ‘yuo Sanur, fo veg oyj wod)y up ‘spauy WPA a1operoy.y, ISLE IC. “of ° aad mS \2 << THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN tanism was for the most part sweetened by sane reasonableness. As a citizen among citizens, he was recognized as a sympathetic champion of the right by all classes and conditions. The cordial relations which he always maintained with the Jews of New York provided an example of this. When it was determined that what had been known as the Pro-cathedral in Stanton Street was to receive the designation of the “House of Aquila and the Chapel of St. Priscilla,’ Dr. Huntington wrote: What better name-saints could the work in Stanton Street possibly have than such as these, Hebrews by descent, working- people by occupation, and qualified by native intelligence to teach even an Apollos. We find ourselves environed in Stanton Street by a dense Hebrew population. We are not invaders from without, we simply stand where we have always been and try to do our duty by those whom God in his Providence has permitted to surround us, as best we may, not eager to make converts from among those who are satisfied with the religion they have, but there to welcome any who, having lost faith in God as he is presented to them in Judaism, feel attracted to him as he is presented in Christianity. In regard to educational matters he was ever ap- pealed to for counsel, or for assistance as to legislation which might be in progress in Albany. He discussed more than once the problem of religious education in the schools. The position which he took was that there ought to be opportunity offered in the public schools for the teaching of morals and for religion, which lay at 289 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON the basis of all ethical training, and that this opportun- ity ought to be provided according to the parents’ choice. As regards the larger affairs of state, matters which were of a national scope, his interest was always keen, and at times of crisis men listened to him gladly for words of wisdom or reassurance. 'The one occasion in which he took a prominent and eager part in national affairs, was the situation brought about as a result of the Spanish War and of the events which followed it. He had no patience with the policies of expansion. He was a strong and outspoken anti-imperialist, and in 1898 he preached against “bartering away the nation’s souls for coaling-stations and the Pacific trade.” He exerted all the influence he could bring to bear against what seemed to him the mistaken policies of the admin- istration; and in 1904 he was a member of the Philip- pines Independence Commission. In considering Dr. Huntington’s activity in relation to the Church at large, it must not be forgotten that while the main interest with him was always the con- cerns which centered about Prayer Book revision and Church unity, he nevertheless had his share in a far- reaching way in other problems of the Church, and espe- cially in matters which became the occasion of debate in the successive meetings of the General Con- vention. For many years he was a member of the Board of Missions, and all questions involving mission- ary interest had his profoundest sympathy. In the dis- cussions which proceeded in regard to the provincial 290 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN system, he was for years of the opinion that the provinces should be on state lines, although later coming to the conviction that this was impracticable. He entered into debates regarding the vexed question of suffragan bishops, as to whether they should be purely racial or permitted in large dioceses, and as to whether they should be granted votes in Convention. So far as ra- cial questions were concerned, he expressed himself in no measured terms on the full rights of the colored peo- ple within the Church. He was deeply interested in the question as to the permissive use of later translations of the Bible in the churches, and as to the best arrange- ment of the Tables of Lessons. He was on the Lec- tionary Commission as early as 1877, serving on the Committee on the Old Testament Daily Lessons; and in 1901 he rejoiced in the adoption of the marginal Bible with its opportunity of corrected readings in ac- cordance with the Revised Version. He took part in the discussions which centered about the proposed revi- sion of the canon on marriage and divorce, standing out against the movement led by Bishop Doane and others, for a more drastic law which should absolutely forbid the remarriage of any divorced person with a husband or wife living. Writing to the press on this matter in 1899 he says: It is clear to every reader of the Gospels that our Lord, in denouncing the practice of divorce, indicated one exception to the working of the general principle. Scholars are not agreed as to the exact purport of that single exception. But, if anything is clear, this is clear, that a law concerning 291 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON marriage and divorce which fails to recognize one exception, whatever else it may be, is not the law of Christ. We may maintain that it is an improvement upon the law of Christ, we may hold that by “developing of doctrine” it has been evolved from the law of Christ; but that it is other than the law of Christ in this one point, namely, that it recognizes no single exception, would appear to be self-evident. From this well-considered position, thoughtful men and women who hold it, will not be shaken by any temporary panic caused by local scandals, or by individual cases of flagrant misdoing which deserve all the censure they have received. Many correspondents turned to Dr. Huntington as a recognized leader for the establishment of a sound policy in this matter. It was coming to be discovered that legislation regarding divorce, on the part of the Church, was, perhaps, not as vital as action look- ing toward better state laws; and that it was not as important for the Church to concern itself about divorce as it was to concern itself about marriage. “The Church,” writes Mrs. Trask, in a long letter to Dr. Huntington, “has been concerning itself for years with this question of divorce. Why does it not, with common logic and rational grasp of life, concern itself first with that which antedates divorce, namely, mar- riage. Why, my dear Dr. Huntington, will not you, to whom has been granted the vision, awaken the Church to the needs of a legislation that will uplift pos- terity as well as protect the family? Have not you so finely said, ‘If these human relationships shadow forth qualities inherent in the very nature of Him in whose image man was made, then they enjoy a sanction which 292 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN the world neither gives nor can take away, and we may count upon them as permanent possessions.’ ” This letter was written in 1904. In 1901, when Dr. Hunt- ington was in San Francisco Convention, an outside reader of the controversy sent him a quotation from the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1899, as follows: “The Book of Common Prayer does not pronounce marriage indissoluble. It declares that whom God hath joined together no man may put asunder. Our Lord’s exception in the case of adultery shows that a divorce in such a case is not man’s but the Lord’s.” The writer continues, “Brought up in France in a nest of priests, and familiar with Roman Catholic countries, I am of opinion, that where divorce laws are most strin- gent morality is most lax.” The main concern of Dr. Huntington in the first decade of his rectorship at Grace Church, so far as the Church at large is concerned, was the completion of the work of Prayer Book revision. The progress of re- vision in 1883, with the enthusiastic reception which the “Book Annexed” had received in the Convention that year, had been too markedly successful. It gave in it- self promise of an inevitable reaction. No one saw this more clearly than Dr. Huntington himself. He felt that it was inevitable that in the Convention of 1886 the forces of opposition would rally to a most deter- mined stand. He did his utmost during the three years which intervened, through his public writings and cor- respondence, to prepare to meet this opposition and so far as he could to forestall it. One thing had been 293 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON finally accomplished by the Convention of 1883; that was the recognition everywhere of Dr. Huntington's leadership in this cause. The acceptance of this leader- ship, and the confidence which people felt in it, rested in the first instance upon an understanding of the basic principles upon which Dr. Huntington proceeded in his advocacy. These principles are to be found in an in- teresting form in a little red note-book begun by him in 1880 when the process of revision was inaugurated, and dedicated to “Jottings Relative to Revision.” In this book, in his own hand and over his initials, we read: The revision of our Book of Common Prayer, if revision there is to be, ought to be taken in hand by men who, to an intense realization of the fact that they are Americans and not English- men, add an equally intense reverence for the forms and tradi- tions of Anglican religion, The book, if dealt with at all, should be handled neither in a revolutionary nor in an anti- quarian spirit. And again: Looked at merely philosophically and wholly apart from our faith in the divine superintendence of the fortunes of the People of God, of this book it may be said that assuredly it will survive. We have reached an epoch in the history as a Church, the clock has struck the hour for a new start and we know it. We have shaken off the colonial atmosphere which has clung about us for three generations, and realize that as a branch of Christ’s church, placed in a new continent, we have a duty laid on us, to perform which will doubtless be difficult but to shirk which is to die. Caution is well. We have it as a Church in abundance and I thank God we have. Unless our whole past history belies us there is little danger of our acting 294 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN incautiously ; but let it not be said hereafter in derision that it was reserved to the Protestant Episcopalians of America to discover and to illustrate a new note of the Church—timidity. Even the most outspoken foes of revision testified to Dr. Huntington’s leadership. English High- churchmen referred to the whole movement as “imperti- nent meddling.”’ Anonymous letters came to him; one, signed “Old Saint Ann’s,” exclaimed, “Hands off the ark of God, young man!” 'Those who were very dis- tinctly his friends and his supporters in the work brought to him their criticisms or their reasoned thoughts upon the matter. Dr. Greer objected to the “Book Annexed” on the ground that it did not touch doctrine. Dr. Shields, the most sympathetic of all out- siders, urged a disentanglement of the Catholic and Protestant elements of the Prayer Book. “He means liturgically,”’ he says, “so that in both Morning Prayer and in the Holy Communion, the Latin, monastic, choral, artistical, ritual, liturgical; and the English, popular, didactic, extemporaneous, congregational, should be separated, to be used apart, or at times to- gether.” Dr. A. V. G. Allen, as might be expected of him, wrote: “It is one of the difficulties of our Prayer Book, I think perhaps it may be said to include all the others, certainly most of them, that it is modeled too exclusively after the Latin cultus of the Middle Ages, and not sufficiently after a higher cultus which prevailed in the ante-Nicene age, and traces of which may be seen still in the Greek liturgies. The Greeks looked at revelation, to use the phrase of 295 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON the Bishop of Carlisle, as light; the Latins looked at it on its ritual side as an expiation or atonement for sin. I should like to see our Communion Office remodeled upon the basis of the Greek ideas of anthropology and soteriology, which are more free, more true, to human nature. It is no easy thing to adjust the proportions of the dignity of human nature to the proper abasement for our sin, but to extend the latter is quite as bad as to exaggerate the former. The Church of England is the daughter of a Latin mother, much as her friends like to proclaim her as a distinct branch of the Church Catholic from the beginning. By ritualism I under- stand generally that ecclesiastical tendency in our time which magnifies every lingering trace of our Latin parentage, and is utterly impervious to those good in- fluences which are equally our heritage.” Phillips Brooks had written to him at the close of the previous Convention of 1883: “Now that it is all over will you let me congratulate you, and tell you how great pride and admiration I have felt as I have watched you for the past three weeks. It is probably very impertinent to do anything of the sort, but I can’t help it. In the midst of the clatter of Judd, and Fulton and Harrison and Hay and Sheffey and the rest of us ignoble ones, to have kept one’s dignity and courtesy and patience un- disturbed, to charm those whom one led, and to have made those who might not have seen the whole value of the work, love it for the workman’s sake, that certainly is a triumph which ought to make a man submit to the most impertinent congratulations of one’s friends.” 296 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN This was typical of many letters. Several years after the letter previously quoted from Dr. Allen, but before the Convention of 1886, Dr. Allen wrote again: “You have done in some respects a work the most remarkable that has been accomplished in these 300 years or more since the Reformation, a work which I think is not going to stop with the American Church, but must also in- fluence the English Church. It is certainly enough as a life-work for one man to have accomplished. I don’t believe that anyone could have done it but yourself, and you have been able to do it, perhaps, because you have never failed to see instinctively and truly the real sig- nificance of the high church movement, while still in sympathy with advancing thought which its conserva- tism would have led it to shun. However you may have done it, it is a marvellous thing to have accomplished; for I am sure that it is accomplished, even though there should be some longer delay before you reap the bene- fit of it. I call it marvellous, because the conservatism which guarded the Prayer Book as too sacred to be touched, is at last obliged to yield. Now that the book has been enlarged by enrichment, other changes will follow, though it may not be in this generation. Weare entering upon a creative epoch in ritual, for the first time since the Middle Ages, and it will be impossible to stop where we are.” Before the Convention of 1886 opened, a layman, writing of a layman’s needs, sympathetic but apprehen- sive, says, “I believe that among devoted worshippers there is a growing aversion to participation in services 297 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON which are abbreviated, and rendered amorphous by ca- pricious and conceited iconoclasm.” At the same time one of Dr. Huntington’s supporters wrote: “The real objections to the alterations are about three. First, objections to the phraseology of certain offices; where valid, recommit these for amendment. Second, objec- tions by those like ‘the finicky little Miss Nancy of ’ who will oppose every and any change, just be- cause they won’t change anything. Third, the large number who do not want any action that will imply the application of rubrics to prevent what they call the exercise of their priestly liberties.” When it came to the Convention itself Dr. Hunting- ton made a notable speech in defense of a resolution which should continue, and so far as possible ratify, the action of 1883 and make the new Prayer Book possible in 1889. After deprecating any consideration on the part of the Convention for the Commission if their work should be rejected, or for the Commission’s disappointment, and repudiating with vehemence the appeal ad misericordiam he closed his speech as follows: Just before leaving home on Monday my eye fell on a tele- graphic despatch from the City of Chicago to one of the New York morning papers. It was the work undoubtedly of a jour- nalist, but as evidently a sample of the kind of journalism tech- nically known as “inspired.” The hands were the hands of Esau but the voice was Jacob’s voice. I shall have to para- phrase the language of the passage for I preserved no copy of it, but I hold myself responsible for the substantial accuracy of this quotation. ‘The method,” said the journalist, “by which the revision movement is to be defeated will be to 298 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN propose the formation of a new committee, to deliberate afresh upon the subject and to confer with the convocations of the Church of England. It will probably be ten years before this Committee will be ready to report; and another ten years will be consumed on the negotiation with York and Canterbury. And thus,” he adds, “the revision will be let down easily.” Mr. President, I am of opinion that the despatch in no de- gree over-stated the probable measure of the delay, should de- lay be accepted as our policy. | But what are these twenty years of which our journalist speaks so jauntily? They are the closing years of the 19th century, freighted full as perhaps no other twenty years have ever been, will ever be, with the destinies of America. In that marvellous little book, which ought to be not only read but studied by every intelligent citizen of the Republic, a book which draws its inspiration almost in equal measure from the New Testament and from the Census of 1880, I mean the volume is- sued in the interests of Home Missions and entitled Our Coun- try, strong reasons are given for accounting these next twenty years the most momentous of any that are likely to come and go while this country is in the process of being peopled. I will not rehearse these reasons, but this I will say, that the charge of Americanism brought against the work of the Com- mittee of 21 is a charge I am not careful to refute. If by Americanism be meant a willingness to concede something, for popularity’s sake, to the bad traits of the national character, to the recklessness, the boastfulness, the unreason that are by some thought to be characteristics of our people, for such Amer- icanism as that I would have no pity. But where, I ask, in the pages of the Book Annexed, are traces of such Americanism to be found? The only passage anywhere bearing upon the point that I recall is the following from one of the prayers. . . . If again by Americanism be meant departure from the standard of pure and wholesome English, set forth to be an everlasting heritage for the peoples of our blood, why then again I say that for Americanism of that sort I would have no pity. But the truth is that the phraseology of the proposed 299 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON enrichments of the Prayer Book is almost wholly drawn from the best English sources. Most of the charges of crudeness brought against the Book Annewed during the last three years have cautiously been expressed in general terms and with a noticeable avoidance of specifications. And of course when the specifications have been ventured, there have been not a few in which the crudeness was found to be in the critic rather than in the thing criticised. But if by Americanism be meant a keen appreciation of those features of our national life that are confessedly extraor- dinary and unparalleled, and a warm sympathy with those as- pirations of the national mind and heart that look towards solving, here between the oceans, the great problem of Christian unity, why then I say that in my judgment Americanism is the one qualification of which the revision of an American Book of Common Prayer ought not to be devoid. Mr. President, humanly speaking it certainly seems unlikely that we shall succeed in reconciling the divergent views that are known to exist among members of this house, with respect to the question of revision. But there is another way of speaking besides what is meant by speaking humanly; there is such a thing as speaking in the assurance of faith. And speak- ing in the assurance of faith, I am bold to predict, and sanguine enough to expect, that before the Convention of 1886 dissolves it will have attained to a unanimity with respect to what Israel ought to do, as memorable as that attained in the City of Brotherly Love three years ago. His appeal was of no avail. The Convention was determined to recommit the whole subject to a new committee for review and for future report. When this action was accomplished, Dr. Huntington was naturally placed upon this committee. He refused, however, to serve. At the time, this was interpreted by some people as due to pique because of the failure of his program. This was, however, far from being the 300 THE PRAYER BOOK AGAIN case. He perceived instantly, and as usual with accu- rate judgment, that he could serve the cause best from the outside, reviewing from that vantage-point the work of the new committee, and preparing himself for such guidance in the revision movement from the floor of Convention as might seem wise to him. ‘This course he pursued in the years which followed. His acknow- ledged leadership was unimpaired by the fact that he was not a member of the new committee. Moreover, he was far from discouraged by the result of his Con- vention work. In the sermon which he preached in Grace Church after the close of the Convention he said: Such is the natural and proper dread which devout natures entertain of any change, even the slightest, in long-loved for- mulas of worship, that a panic fear was aroused in the Church shortly after the promulgation of the acts of the Convention of 1883, that some terrible revolution must be impending. So great has been the clamor, occasioned by comparatively few voices, as it now appears, that the expectation was wide-spread throughout the Church that one of the first things done at Chicago would be the quiet but decisive laying aside of the whole matter. The event has proved a most salutary lesson in the interpretation of public opinion, and is singularly re- assuring in the evidence it gives of stability of purpose on the part of our Church legislators, for, although a great part, and I may say the better part, of what was done at Philadelphia, stands postponed three years longer for want of time to give it proper consideration at this session, of the portion which was fully discussed and carefully deliberated upon in both houses, something like ninety one-hundredths was adopted, and that with a unanimity which, at least so far as the House of Deputies was concerned, surpassed what had been accounted almost miraculous three years before. I mention these points in no spirit of boastfulness, as a friend of revision, God forbid! but 301 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON simply and wholly for the purpose of reassuring timid souls, who fear that something which they greatly prize may have been taken away from them by hasty action or by the vote of narrow majorities. It is not likely that decisions to which nine- tenths of your representatives, after long debate assented, will disappoint or vex you when the results come to be seen. In the Conventions of 1889 and 1892, and in the years between, the careful work of Dr. Huntington left its mark on the whole progress of revision. The work on a standard book, which finally emanated from the Convention of 1892, is in itself a monument of note in the whole history of liturgics. In the preparation of the report, and finally of the book itself, Dr. Huntington had a prominent part, and it was a matter of special re- joicing to him that the volume itself which was ulti- mately produced was typographically and artistically so notable a production. After the final outcome, ex- pressions of appreciation regarding the work of revi- sion, and regarding the part which he had played in it, came to him from all over the world, from England and also from Canada and from Africa, from all parts of the Church where the Book of Common Prayer is treasured and used. Personal letters of grateful appreciation came to him without number, one friend writing, “Be- tween the lines on every page, I read W. R. H., his mark.” 302 XI AT GRACE CHURCH: HERESIES A qHE year 1906 was marked in the Church’s his- tory by the trial for heresy of Dr. Crapsey. The charges brought against Dr. Crapsey were based upon published utterances in regard to the inter- pretation of the creeds, especially in relation to the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Lord, and in re- gard to other matters relating to New Testament criti- cism. Dr. Crapsey was condemned. This was esteemed by some to have been, in any case, a foregone conclu- sion in the diocese in which he was tried. ‘This diocese, that of Western New York, in its bishop and clergy, was known to be of a traditionalist type. It was freely admitted that had Dr. Crapsey been tried in some other diocese he would doubtless have been acquitted. The result of the trial, as is usually the case in trials for heresy, while technically a condemnation of Dr. Crapsey’s views, was in reality the marking of a step forward in the realization of freedom within the Church. Its real effect was to establish the legitimacy of New Testament criticism, and the principle that flexibility of interpretation is of the essence of the creeds. There had been an attempt in the year 1894 on the 303 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON part of the House of Bishops to promulgate the notion that fixity of interpretation is of the essence of the creeds. This unfortunate phrase had raised strong protest in the Church. The phrase had occurred in a so-called pastoral letter, emanating from a special session of the House of Bishops at that time. The Pastoral Letter was canonically a letter issued by the House of Bishops at the time of a General Convention, on the reception by that House of the Report on the State of the Church sent to it by the House of Deputies. The irregularity of the procedure in itself created a criticism which the phrase above referred to tended to intensify. The out- standing utterances at the trial of Dr. Crapsey were the masterly defense prepared by Mr. Edward M. Shepard, and the speeches in line with it made by Dr. Elwood Worcester and Dr. Samuel McComb. It was a disappointment to many of the friends of Dr. Huntington that he did not come out in support of the position for which Dr. Crapsey stood. It was felt that he was essentially in sympathy with the liberal and progressive movement in the Church. In a sense, it may be said that it was a disappointment to Dr. Huntington himself, not to come out upon this side in the debate. In saying this, it is meant that there was no doubt a conflict within himself as to the attitude which he ought to take in the matter. It is not meant, however, that if he had been free he would necessarily have become a champion of Dr. Crapsey. The fact of the matter was that he was not free. He esteemed 304 HERESIES himself, and rightly, prohibited from making any state- ment whatever on the matter; and for the reason that he was a member of the Court of Review of the Prov- ince, to which, if there were an appeal, the case must inevitably be sent. It was clearly impossible for him to judge the case in advance, and he maintained a scrupu- lous silence. Those who felt that in Dr. Huntington they would find a champion for the liberal cause were fortified in their opinion by his attitude in the Briggs case. Seven years before, Dr. Briggs had been es- teemed a heretic in the Presbyterian Church, and had finally decided to leave that church and to seek ordina- tion in the Episcopal Church. Dr. Clendenin, a High- churchman, who was the rector of the church where he would have been ordained, refused to allow the service to take place there. Dr. Huntington sprang to the de- fense of Dr. Briggs, and in a letter to the “New York Tribune” said: I have read with surprise and pain the column in this morn- ing’s “Tribune” relating to the ordination of Dr. Briggs. I desire no controversy with the rector of St. Peter’s Church, West Chester, who may be well within his rights when protesting against the use of his parish church for a purpose of which he, personally, disapproves; but when he characterizes the teach- ings of a brother clergyman in terms likely to mislead the casual reader, a word of counter-protest may not be out of place. ‘The best general reply to Dr. Clendenin’s bitter denun- ciation of Dr. Briggs, as a depraver of the Word of God, will be to quote the opening paragraph of the first chapter of the learned work which has provoked this assault. . . . Dr. Clen- denin is described in your columns as “a staunch and moderate High Church man.” I marvel that in that capacity he should 305 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON censure so severely a divine who is the valued friend, the rec- ognized peer and the trusted co-laborer of such distinguished Anglicans as the Rev. Dr. Driver, regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, the Rev. Dr. Kirkpatrick, regius professor of He- brew at Cambridge, and the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret professor of divinity at Oxford. ‘These men represent the very best scholarship of the Church of England to-day, and are rec- ognized as leaders in religion as well as in theology. Doubtless Dr. Clendenin himself is a diligent and admiring reader of their works. 3 It is no part of my purpose to apologize for Dr. Briggs. He is a scholar whom any communion in Christendom might be proud to number among its clergy. Among distinguished Americans there is probably not one more widely misunderstood. Detraction has followed him so relentlessly that in some parts of the country he stands, in the popular mind, as a sort of or- dained Ingersoll. Injustice could no further go... . I need only add that immediately upon reading the protest of the rector of St. Peter’s, West Chester, whose motives, let me say again, I have no disposition to impugn, I wrote to Bishop Potter offering him the use of Grace Church for the ordination. If my offer is accepted and acted upon, I shall feel that our parish church has been indeed honored by the event. There was excitement on both sides. High- churchmen, many of whom it would appear had never read Dr. Briggs’s books, were convinced of his hereti- cal opinions. It was, perhaps, his Presbyterianism rather than his heresies that at heart disturbed them. On the other side, a prominent Broad-churchman wrote to Dr. Huntington, expressing fear that Bishop Potter might be moved against the planned ordination, and said that he hoped the bishop would go ahead, armed with a policeman rather than with a sermon. When 306 HERESIES Dr. Huntington sent this letter to Bishop Potter, he returned it with the comment written across the back, “Tell this brother to calm himself.” The excitement seems at this date somewhat difficult to understand. It was doubtless felt, however, by Dr. Huntington that the Episcopal Church’s comprehensiveness was on trial. He was, in a word, a liberal in spirit rather than a liberal in theology. That he was deeply distressed by the whole proceed- ing in the Crapsey case, and at heart of the opinion that a trial for heresy was an anachronism, is evident. He remarked on one occasion to a friend, ‘There can be nothing worse than an unsuccessful heresy trial, unless it be a successful one.” He would, nevertheless, at the outset doubtless have felt obliged to take sides against Dr. Crapsey, had he been free to speak or act in the matter. ‘The explanation of this is not far to seek. In the first place, he had never been a very careful student of modern criticism as related to the New Testament; and, in the second place, all of his instincts and convic- tions tended to make him adhere to traditional views in regard to the Gospel narratives, and to strict inter- pretation in regard to clauses of the Creed. An ob- server at the second trial before the Court of Review, a pronounced Broad-churchman and a layman, testified that to him it seemed that Dr. Huntington was out of touch with the men and women of the younger genera- tion. This was shown, he thought, by his evident surprise at Mr. Shepard’s judgment, in the course of his argument at the trial, as to the relative extremes of 307 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Dr. Temple’s and Dr. Crapsey’s variance from tradi- tional orthodoxy. From a different angle, an estimate of his theological attitude is supplied by the comment of an anonymous writer in the “New York Sun,” who, in reviewing the metropolitan pulpit, gives his views concerning Dr. Huntington as a preacher: He is one of the few clergymen who really create sentiment, sane sentiment. It is not by his personality, much less by any magnetism, that he does this. He avoids extravagance. He hates the spectacular to such a degree that he shuns even ges- tures. He goesinfor sense. His thoughts have been measured, weighed and adjusted before he opens his mouth. He never said an injudicious or an impulsive thing, I imagine—a pretty hard record if true, though he does n’t quarrel with its reward. Not being a man of outbursts of expression, neither is he a man who gets at his conclusions by intuition. The warmth which goes with informalities of speech, and the exaltation which goes with the discoveries made by intuition—in these things he is poor. On the other hand, he has the imperturbable pleasure of being sure that he can’t be wrong; men of logic, men who think in formulas, have this compensation of inerrancy as to their method. His style, if it lacks pulsations and color, is classic in its correctness. If the casual hearer finds it uninteresting, it has certain universal qualities—it might belong to Madrid, St. Petersburg, Boston, Jerusalem, so devoid is it of the idioms of personality, so unmistaking is it in its orderly form. Last Sunday Dr. Huntington preached about the “‘resurrec- tion body.” I believe in the resurrection of the body, is the declaration of the creed, and he accepts the creed totally. He believes that every churchman should accept the creed. He 1s unable to comprehend a broad churchman’s repetition of the creed while giving any of its declarations a fanciful or remote interpretation, which makes it meaningless as definite words. The body rises again or else it doesn’t. St. Paul says it does, therefore Dr. Huntington says it does... . 308 HERESIES This was logical, after accepting the premise of Paul’s authoritativeness, and convincing to such as do not feel im- pelled to go back again to reconsider the premise. Before the mind that does not vex itself twice with the question of the starting point, logic can scatter all the difficulties of faith. But to those who do not get at religious beliefs in that way, the method is exasperating, and is apt to be a discourager to faith, just as the contrasting method of Dr. Newton and Dr. Slicer would be incomprehensible to the mind that moves in formulas, His own final judgment in the case appears clearly enough in utterances of his which were made after the trial itself had become a matter of history. On a cer- tain Sunday in Advent in the year 1906, after the trial of Dr. Crapsey had come to an end, Dr. Huntington preached a sermon at Grace Church on “The Gospel of the Infancy.” This sermon was printed, together with an appendix which further developed some of the points made in the sermon, and was in defense of the authen- ticity of the Gospel stories concerning the birth and in- fancy of our Lord. It was reprinted in all of the Church papers, and it caused great rejoicing on the part of conservatives of every school, within and with- out the Church, and brought to Dr. Huntington a great avalanche of congratulatory letters. Some of these letters, and the expressions contained in them, doubtless made him sad and pensive. Laymen, for instance, who were called eminent and influential, found a comfort for their convictions that “men go to church to get a new inspiration to life and not to hear speculations” and “that there is a place where intellectual research 309 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON ceases and faith begins”; and there were other expres- sions of that “compartmental mind,” which was so far from being approved by Dr. Huntington. One High- churchman, with whom he had had a passage at arms, writes in regard to the sermon, with a sinister hint of motive: “It will do great good, and give rest and com- fort far and wide. The childhood of our dear Lord 1s indeed all safe, and so also is your life-work for the union of Christendom.” Extreme Ritualists who had years before, as the preacher doubtless remembered, expressed themselves as believing that the burning of the first All Saints’ Church in Worcester had been a judgment of God on the heresies of its rector in regard to the future life, now hastened to bring him their praises; and pulpits which had never been open to him before were freely offered to him that he might preach there. The rector of one of the most prominent of the Ritualis- tic churches of the East wrote him: “Nothing could be better put. Nothing sweeter or firmer in manner. No one could have spoken with more weight of per- sonality. I am writing to ask the ‘Living Church’ to reprint it. Can you not mark a special copy for poor @ ... He loves and honors you so much that it might help him to find his way home. The influence of your preaching in our pulpit would be far-reaching in this diocese. Would you be willing to open a series of four Lent lectures on ‘Objections to Christianity,’ the first being on the ‘Objections to a Revelation at all’? On the other hand, the Liberals were disappointed. Broad-churchmen, among whom were to be found his 310 HERESIES closest friends, betrayed in their letters their feeling that he had failed them. The correspondent to whom he wrote perhaps most constantly and freely was left cold by his sermon, a copy of which was sent. The letter of acknowledgment says in regard to it, “It has much to commend it and is a strong argument, but I still think the question involved is one for the critics; and for my part I cannot see what great difference it makes, so long as one believes in the great truth of the Incarnation, whether that took place at the baptism or before.” Another friend writes: “I am taking the liberty of saying that as I see the men you call ‘icono- clasts,’ it does not seem to me that the sermon fairly pic- tures their mentality or spiritual temper. I cannot be- lieve that any large number of them would accept ‘the doctrine that miracles do not happen’; but every im- fluence that has shaped their minds has led them to look for God in the perfection and regularity of law. It is not that they won’t accept the doctrine that ‘creeds are rock crystal,’ but they cannot, at least without destroy- ing the very piers upon which the structure of their faith rests, and making the world a topsy-turvy place.” Another Broad-churchman wrote: “I recognize that the miraculous is to some minds an insuperable diffi- culty, and can by no means believe that to remove it from the interpretation of the Creed is to be disloyal to the Church. I lament the trial of Dr. Crapsey, and the - sanction of your great name to the decision of the Court of Review. I seem to find myself in a Church narrower than that into which I was born. For me, the essence 311 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON of Christianity lies neither in the manger nor the tomb, nor in the great cloud. How Christ was born; what the conception by the Holy Ghost means; how Christ rose from the dead and disappeared into the cloud; are to me things trivial compared with the great reality that Christ liveth for evermore, that God is visible in Him, that His Spirit more and more rules and pervades the hearts and minds of men, and that it is the Spirit of Truth. I sigh for peace as you do, but I want the peace that reconciles, not silences, discords. That abides in love and life, not in formulas, however venerable. I find it among men of good-will, not those of accurate opinion. Whatever other bodies of be- lievers may need, the Protestant Episcopal Church needs less law and more liberty. If we cannot bear with one another’s burdens, when the burden is only the feather’s weight of an erroneous interpretation of a clause in a time-worn document, Heaven help us! for we have no longer strength enough to help ourselves. I do not explode often. Forgive me that I have broken out now.” Such expressions as the foregoing show his sympa- thetic relationship with men of all schools of thought. It was an understanding sympathy, which grew with the years, and rested upon his candor and fair-minded- ness. Account ought doubtless to be taken, also, of the subtle, one may say subconscious, processes of Dr. Huntington’s being, based upon his life passion in the cause of Church unity. It was not a case of the be- 312 HERESIES trayal of conviction to expediency. Dr. Huntington was nothing if not transparently honest, with himself and with others. Nevertheless, he must have intui- tively sensed the fact that the cause which he had most at heart might be seriously weakened, if not indeed ship- wrecked, if there should be found in the Church to which he belonged, and whose part in the realization of Church unity seemed to him so momentous, any hesi- tancy as to what many esteemed the essential founda- tions of the Christian religion. The Church might lose the power of speaking with a gracious and compelling authority in the cause of unity, by some betrayal or even seeming betrayal of the Church’s essential faith. The case was appealed, but the function of the Court of Review as interpreted by that court, and prob- ably rightly, was simply to decide as to whether the procedure in the diocesan court had been just and regu- lar. The Court refused, therefore, any consideration of the merits of the case and decided, probably rightly again, that the procedure in the diocesan court had been regular. There were, however, those who felt that there was a certain flavor of unfairness attaching to the proceedings, however technically correct they may have been. This was probably due to the fact that a certain atmosphere of the medieval inquisition, rather than of modern-minded judicial procedure, always in- evitably attaches to an ecclesiastical trial for heresy. This atmosphere was emphasized by the sort of a hole- in-a-corner gloom that characterized the old court-house in Batavia where the trial took place. 313 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON In a certain sense, it might have been said that noth- ing could be more unsatisfactory than the outcome of the trial. Perhaps, however, its very inconclusiveness was what really gave ground for the highest satisfaction ; and possibly at heart this was what Dr. Huntington felt. The trial had served once more to demonstrate the futility and unwisdom, at this stage of the world’s progress, of a trial for heresy. To the strict-construc- tionist, it was a matter of satisfaction that a court, in whatever diocese, had condemned the views of a liberal. To the liberals, in spite of the technical decision, it was felt that the trial would vindicate the legitimacy of accepting the results of New Testament criticism, Just as the trial of Colenso had resulted in its time, though its technical verdict was the verdict guilty, in establish- ing for all time the acceptance within the English Church of the results of Old Testament criticism. Another point which the Crapsey trial helped to make clear was the inadvisability of providing within the Church, so far as court proceedings are concerned, any substitute for the inconclusiveness of the Provincial Court of Review. This substitute would of course be the formation of a final Court of Appeal. A proposal to this end had been made in General Convention in con- nection with revision of the Constitution. On this point Dr. Huntington was unquestionably sound. He saw clearly that a Church, which proposed to build upon the Catholic creeds, would stultify itself if it undertook to tie itself down to some interpretation of its constitu- tional liberties which might emanate from an ecclesias- 314 HERESIES tical Supreme Court. This might obviously put the Church in the perilous position of some day enacting a repudiation of the Catholic councils and the Catholic creeds. In a letter sent to Dr. Huntington in the year 1907 this dilemma is presented in the following terms: The most surprising fact in the discussion so far as to a Court of Appeal, as a possible creation of the approaching Gen- eral Convention, is the quiet assumption, in many quarters, that such a Court would be a desirable acquisition. ‘The ground upon which this assumption 1s based is primarily sym- pathy with the accused, whoever the accused may be. In other words, there is a sense of injustice which comes from the present situation. As a consequence of this situation no one can have his case settled by a Supreme Court, which shall adequately represent the whole church. This feeling is understandable and commendable, and yet it is a motive which tends to obscure the real issue at stake. he ultimate consideration must be the church as a whole. What that real issue is, becomes ap- parent when we proceed to the question “who is to constitute this court?” The answer to this question which has more than once been put forth is, the House of Bishops. But can this Church seri- ously consider a proposition by which it will make the upper house of its legislative body at the same time its Supreme Court? Or, since the questions to be decided are to be doctrinal ques- tions, can this Church seriously consider a proposition to legis- late the House of Bishops of the American Church into a Gen- eral Council? These questions have but to be asked to make apparent the absurdity of the proposition. If there were to be a Court of Appeal, it must consist of Bishops, Presbyters, and laymen. But a Court of Appeal is in itself inconsistent with that very genius of the Anglican Communion upon which our Catholic heritage rests, From the dawn of the Reformation in England 315 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON until to-day, our strength has been that we have not settled doctrinal differences. By our genius for comprehensiveness we have united irreconcilables, and gloried in the simultaneous possession of doctrinal positions radically incompatible. We set up centuries ago our final court of appeal. That court 1S the developing Christian consciousness of the ages. One of the foundation stones upon which we have builded, is the conviction that the best way to settle our differences is not to settle them. To this Dr. Huntington replied as follows: Although my mind is not fully made up on the subject of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it is gravitating steadily towards the conclusion which you yourself have already reached. I should not state my objections to the establishment of such a court in just the language that comes natural to you; but I am becoming more and more convinced that a choice assortment of judicial decisions on doubtful points of theology would prove only a “heritage of woe.” If such a court we must have, I fully agree with you that it would be most undesirable to make it coterminous with the House of Bishops, or even with a select judicial committee of the same. Our lines of judicature ought to follow our lines of legislature, and allow for an equal rec- ognition of bishops, presbyters and laymen. 316 LETTERS Ara h if Aber DRI SANS ue a een KL BTN || AN GO ‘ hen ' ORY V7 t 1% s re | A ; " al ay nC & acta Laetitia (Rey! uh Ay “iy ‘ i J the pia her ty hay Gl nt i gif Aa i py: Ar AieA,!) a bene) WMAP AT SSPE ant i tf et he ny yy Wa Ve” fats se tid My f Weer ya) / EMI SAL North East Harbor, Me., Tuesday, July 24, ’94. My Dear Miss Atice: Just as I was about laying aside the morning paper to-day, supposing that I had read everything in it that could in any way concern me, my eye fell upon the announcement of your dear mother’s death. Instantly my heart went out to you and to the whole family of which she has been so long the centre. As a sorrow it touches you all at the tenderest point, but as a bereavement it necessarily falls with the heaviest stress upon you and your sister to whom the personal care of her, from day to day, has been the stated and regular occupation of life. It is vain to speak of her long life, vain to dwell upon the fact that the full measure,—more than the full measure of “the days of our age” had been in her case fulfilled—these thoughts may a little alleviate grief, they cannot quench it, they cannot make the fact that a dear face has departed into the unseen, that a loved voice has lapsed into silence, any the less a fact. No matter at what age a mother leaves us, the hard thing to re- alize and to bear is that left us she has. I shall not therefore weary you with any of the trite phrases of condolence; indeed, I do not know but that I ought to ask your pardon for having used as many words as I have done already, for grief loves silence. And yet it would seem to one unnatural, and you would have a right to think it so, if, after having been deprived of the satisfaction of being near you at a time when of all times you must have wanted your own minister at hand, I should refrain from speaking out the sympathy that is in my heart. How gladly I should have staid at home, could I have had any intimation of what was coming. As it was, I remained in New York considerably longer than I have usually done and would have remained for any length of time had I foreseen that a household so dearly identified with Grace Church as yours, for 319 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON all these years has been, would need me. May the peace of God be with you and upon you all. Think of the tired feet that had accomplished so long a journey as resting now, think of the gentle spirit as in “joy and felicity,” think of the ever unselfish heart as satisfied. Surely it is well with her now. “Tt is finished.” Tuesday, Nov. 27, 1894. Dear Dr. Brices: It was most kind of you to remember me in your distribution of author’s copies, and I thank you heartily for having done so. “The Messiah of the Gospels” is a monument of thorough- going scholarship. When you shall have completed your trilogy,—and I ear- nestly trust that life and health may be granted you for the task, you will have a right to feel that you have done a unique work, and one worthy of a place beside those great interpreta- tions of the person and functions of the Christ, that have done so much in our day to keep men steadfast in the faith. Believe me, with great respect and regard Most truly yours... To E. L. Gopxin March 138, 1896. Dear Mr, Gopkin: Last week while meditating my semi-centennial sermon, I was struck by the thought that it would be a good thing to intro- duce a little local colour. What did contemporary journalists, for instance, think and say about so interesting an event as the Consecration of Grace Church? Caught by this idea, 1 sent one of my curates around to the Astor Library, to grub among the newspaper files of 1846 and see what could be found. Judge of my amusement when he returned bringing the enclosed excerpt as the only result of his search. After having perused it you will realize the emotions that took possession of me when in one of the highest and best seats of the synagogue I discerned the present-day editor of the Evening Post. Verily, I said to 320 HERESIES myself, the whirligig of time does bring about its revenges; there is such a thing as poetic justice; Mr. Bryant and Grace Church are at quits. Faithfully yours. IncLOsuRE IN ABOVE N.Y Evening Post, Mon., March 9th, 1846. The fine Gothic Structure at the head of Broadway was Con- secrated to religious purposes on Saturday [Mar. 7]. But of the proceedings of the occasion we shall have nothing to say. We received from the proper authorities in the course of last week several tickets and a card of invitation to attend the Services. These we gave to a lady of our acquaintance who had some desire to attend the Ceremonies, and who went there about half past nine o’clock to secure a seat. She had scarcely taken a seat, however, when she was accosted by another lady who said the seat belonged to her, and she meant that nobody but her own friends should sit in it. Our friend immediately removed to another pew, but in a little while she was very rudely addressed by a man who said that the pew was his and he wanted it for his own use. She would perhaps have made a third attempt to get a seat had she not seen other persons hur- ried out of the pews in the same rude and selfish manner. But finding the entire church appropriated on this public occasion, her self-respect induced her to leave the building. After such disgraceful proceedings on an occasion to which the public were specially invited, a collection was very properly taken up for the establishment of a free church. Mr. Godkin replied: ‘There was a good deal of the journalist about Bryant in spite of his poetry.” To Miss SATTERLEE Eve of the Feast of the Annunciation, 1896. My Dear Constance: Some years ago, when we were carrying the Standard Prayer Book through the press, some extra leaves of the “bordered 321 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON edition” fell into my hands, and from among them I have made out a copy of the Ordinal,—that portion of the book which is to have such a peculiar interest for you to-morrow. Pray accept it, if you will be so kind, as a souvenir of the memorable day which is to mark a turning-point in your family life, as well as an epoch in the larger life of the Church, and let it be also a reminder that among the friends you leave in New York there is not one upon whom you may more confidently count, as sure to miss you and to remember you than Yours faithfully. Dec. 17, 1897. Dear Bisuor Hay: An illness, serious enough to keep me in bed for the better (or worse) part of a fortnight, is my excuse for not having earlier acknowledged the receipt of your Sermon on the Bible. Your presentation of this subject will be a great help to intelli- gent people. The unintelligent will doubtless stumble at some of your positions. I have always remembered a saying of Dr. Arnold in one of his letters to Justice Coleridge, anent the “Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit,” which had then just ap- peared. “Have you seen,” he says, “your Uncle’s ‘Letters on Inspiration’? They are well fitted to break ground in the ap- proaches to that momentous question which involves in it so great a shock to existing notions. . . . Yet it must come, and will end, in spite of the fears and clamors of the weak and bigoted, in the higher exalting and more sure establishing of Christian truths.” Your Sermon is a help in the “breaking-ground” process which Arnold describes, and in the midst of which we now find | ourselves. Your suggestion of the connection between St. John 1:17 and the two Sacraments is new to me and very striking. As I looked at your text a thought came into my head which I worked up into a sermon for the Second Sunday in Advent, and which I think may interest you, namely, that “the lantern unto my feet” stands for the ethics of daily life, and “the light unto my path” (singular in A. V. and R. V.) for the hope of 322 HERESIES everlasting life, a distant beacon towards which the soul moves in her journey. This interpretation relieves the text or book of being pleonastic, and gives it an application both to this life which now is and that which is to come. May 11, 1898. Dear Miss Merepiru: I am glad you liked the Sermon; though, perhaps, you read into it more of your own feeling about the war than is really there. The humanitarian motive does not stand out so clearly to my eyes, from among the many motives involved in this affair, as I wish it did. My feeling rather is, “We are evidently in for it, and whether we believe, or do not believe, that war might have been and ought to have been staved off, we must insist upon the best interpretation of our position that is possible, and construct a schedule of duties consistent with the situation.” This will not satisfy your convinced mind, but it is as far as I can hon- estly go. The notion of settling difficulties between Christian peoples, or between any peoples, by the throwing about of great lumps of iron is essentially abhorrent to my sense of the fitness of things... . May 14, 1898. Dear McKim: Thank you for sending me your sermon. It is the best set- ting forth of an optimistic view of the war that I have seen. My own reflections contained in a sermon preached on the Sun- day after the war broke out, a copy of which I have sent you, will seem very tame in the comparison. I cannot see the human- itarian aspect of the affair as clearly as you do. That the philanthropic motive has been with our people the chief motive I have persuaded myself to believe, but so many other sec- ondary motives have also come in, that the primary one is to my eyes sadly obscured. 323 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON N. E. Harbor, July 8, 1898. Dear ANNE: Congratulations from such friends as you and Howard mean more to me than the degree itself for which I did not, I fear, care as much as a dutiful child of the College should have done. ‘“Honors,” so-called, have rather a hollow look when one gets to my time of life, especially honors in Divinity. I suspect that if honors in Divinity, in the true sense of that word, were to be distributed with unerring judgment, they would fall quite as thickly without the ranks of the clergy as within,—in some cases even “man-servants and maid-servants” might get them. N. E. Harbor, July 9, 1898. Dear Miss MEREDITH: I was in such haste at the time when I answered your last letter but one that I wholly forgot to reply to your question about Vestries & Congregations. I have a very strong feeling that the Congregation, the “flock” presided over by one pastor, is the true unit in the case of the local Church, and that the Vestry ought to be regarded as merely a temporary Committee with delegated powers. When in N. England, where this idea is indigenous, because of the Puritan traditions, I have always tried to emphasise the parish meeting, and with considerable success. In New York I have found the other tradition, that which makes of the Wardens & Vestry a sort of self-perpetuating close corpora- tion, has been too strong to be resisted and I have made no at- tempt to alter the prevailing usage. ‘The history of vestries & parishes is very similar to that of directors and shareholders in ordinary secular corporations,—namely a continual merg- ing of the functions of the larger body into those of the smaller one, much the same process that on a larger field of action brought about the centralization of all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the Pope and his Cardinals. I read Mr. S ’s Sermon with much interest and with a strong desire to agree with its teachings. I confess however 324 HERESIES that the strain put upon my optimism was considerable. Time will show, and probably pretty soon, whether the motives of our people in this war are really as pure and as unselfish as you and Mr. § think. I most earnestly hope that they will be proved to have been so. Mr. 5 speaks as if the whole country, in its estimates and ideals, answered perfectly to the Puritan conception of a nation fearing God and working righteousness, a Commonwealth of Saints. Perhaps it is the baneful result of fourteen years of residence in lower Broadway that I should be found questioning the fact. July 20, 1898. Dear Miss MEREDITH: My feeling about the war is this, that it is premature to judge of its ethical character until the terms of peace are made known. I should be proud indeed to see the United States utter itself in some such way as this,—“We went into this war for a definite, announced purpose. That purpose has been ac- complished. We do not covet an inch of Spain’s land or a dollar of her money. We have expelled her from Cuba as we undertook to do. That is enough.” Were the country, when hostilities cease, to take this ground, not only would it be proof positive that the war was really undertaken from an unselfish motive, but it would, in my judgment, give us more prestige and more influence with the other nations of the world, than if we were to add a score of coaling stations to our island pos- sessions and three-score battleships to our fleet. This war is surely one or other of two things,—either it is a war of conquest or a war of liberation. If it is the former it is iniquitous, for assuredly no European country has a better legal title to any one of its dependencies than Spain has to Cuba; if it is the latter, then it behooves us to prove our sin- cerity by coming out of it (as we can well afford to do) poorer in this world’s goods than when we went into it. Verse is, with me, a more adequate vehicle than prose, in cases where my feelings are deeply interested, and you will find in the Sonnet which I enclose, an attempt to express tersely my conviction. 325 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON “Put up thy Sword into his Sheath.” With folded arms, my Country, speak thy will. Clean be those hands of thine from smirch of trade. Let the sheathed sword hang idle. They persuade The baser course, who, not content to kill, Would carve out cantles of the spoil, and fill The sacred edge of that victorious blade With stain of plunder. Never was there made The sword that could be knife and weapon still. Thou sawest God’s angel at the anvil stand And forge the steel. He smote it blow on blow. Wrathful he seemed, yet ever from above He stooped, the while, and swiftly dipt the brand In tears, yea, tears; that he might make thee know How vain were vengeance unannealed by love. W. R. H. July 17, 1898. Dec. 1, 1898. Dear Miss MEREDITH: . . . By the way, I forgot to notice your pater familias argu- ment in my response to your letter of protest. It (the P. F, argument) brought before my mind the picture of a man who goes into a neighbor’s house to stop some domestic row, the flogging of a child or some such outrage, and who proceeds, after having redressed the particular grievance in hand, by knocking the parents senseless, to help himself to the family silver,—the “‘opportunity” being so wonderful, and almost, one might say, providential that it ought not to be neglected. January 14, 1899. Dear Dr. Brices: I am proud indeed to be the recipient of this magnificent volume, from which I hope in time to come to gather much wisdom. 326 HERESIES From other and more competent critics you will receive what it has become the fashion to call “appreciations” that will really mean something (for I am no scholar in your sense of the word), but no one among your friends will, I am very sure, feel a profounder respect than I do for the massive learning which the book enshrines, and for the sterling manhood in which the learning has its roots. I shall not be quite satisfied until I have your autograph in this author’s copy. March 17, 1899. Dear Miss MEREDITH: Thank you for the copy of President Low’s Address. I find nothing new in it except the jest about the French & the In- dians, and even this is seen to prove nothing the moment it is critically examined. No, this whole business of which Cecil Rhodes is high-priest, and Rudyard Kipling poet-laureate, fills me with,—I was going to say disgust, but remembering how strongly you feel on the other side, I refrain and will say in- stead, disquietude. I long ago gave up President Low as a man of insight,—a good phraser of truths that have become obvious, yes, but not in any sense a leader of men. Of all the Republicans & Mug- wumps now-a-days Tom Reed is to my thinking the best. October 12, 1899. Dear Miss MEREDITH: One reason, I dare say, why the clergy are slack about the prayer is that “we know not what to pray for as we ought.” Is it a “rebellion” or is it a war? And if a war, whose war? The President’s or the Nation’s? These are not easy questions. I suppose that you and I are destined to quarrel yet again over the Transvaal. Here also I fail to see the logic of the popular contention. Ever since the American Revolution the English have been saying that the one great lesson taught them by that event was the folly of trying or even wishing to coerce a colony. Oh, no, 327 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON never again would they think of it. Shades of G. Washington, B. Franklin and C. James Fox forbid! But here is a coun- try which has not even the status of a colony, but stands re- lated to Great Britain only by a vague tie known as suzeraignty (that “G” is a mistake), and yet the moment it asks to be per- mitted to depart in peace the whole British Empire is up in arms in a moment, and Chamberlain & Rosebery are made friends together. I have always been considered by my friends a sort of Anglo- maniac in my tastes and sympathies,—Bp. Brooks directly charged me with it; but there are some things about J. Bull when he gets into his jingo mood that I cannot away with. But enough of wars & politics; let this fresh sheet be devoted to pleasanter things. Did n’t we make a handsome sweep of it at our Diocesan Convention? and is not Brother making the position of himself and his friends more and more ridiculous by his daily talks with the reporters? He is rapidly becoming a standing joke. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that all the votes cast for our old Standing Committee indicated just so many converts to Dr. Briggs’s opinions. I am inclined to think that there are very few to whom all of these are palatable. What it meant was that the Convention would not permit the Bishop of the Diocese to be stabbed in the back under a show of zeal for orthodoxy. Why Bishop Potter has chosen this critical time for an outing I don’t quite know. He is a very hard worker while he works, and probably has intimations which it is not safe to disregard that he must “slow up.” .. . Octal a 1807: Dear Miss MERreEpITH: . . . My course in the Briggs affair has been in part dic- tated by personal friendship, for I have known him intimately for some years, but mainly by indignation at the attempts made by his opponents to stifle scholarly research into the origin and compilation of the Scriptures. With many of the details of his criticism I am not in agreement, though perhaps 328 HERESIES I should be if I had his learning. With his main position that the Bible is the divinely watched over Chronicle of the motions of God’s hand in human history I am in complete accord. .. . Dec. 22, 1899. Dear Miss MEREDITH: . . . You ask me about Crapsey’s “Disappointment of Jesus Christ.” I liked it so much that I ordered a hundred copies and distributed them without delay. Coming from the source it does, it is significant of much and may have important results. I think however (and have told Crapsey so), that the “Trac- tate” gives away too much in the region of dogma; and I am curious to learn what he means by a needed “Statement” of Christian truth (see his Appendix), when he has practically thrown all statement (which is but another name for Creed) to the winds. He assures me that in subsequent issues he will make this plain... . May 26, 1900. Many thanks, my dear little man, for this beautiful clock, which I trust will help to keep me “up to time” as I grow old. It was a very pleasant thing for me to hold you in my arms in Church on Ascension Day, for your father and mother are dear friends of mine, and I hope that you and your sister Anne are meaning to be the same. Sophie, your Godmother, and I have have long been friends. Do you know I have written down your name along with Papa’s and Mamma’s and Sophie’s in a big book called “The Parish Register of Grace Church”? Come and see it some day. Good-bye for now. Your loving rector. Saturday, June 9, 1900. Dear Miss MEREDITH: Here is the Sermon. I am glad that it interested you. While preaching it I had a feeling that it was failing to take hold, presumably because of its being lacking in the element of personal appeal, which is the life of most sermons. But it 329 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON seems that there were at least a few to whom the method of the discourse was not unacceptable. Preaching is strange business, it is ‘‘hit or miss.” .. . Aug. 29, 1900. Dear Miss MerepitTuH: You are quite right so far as the logic of the situation, pure and simple, was concerned, but there was an element of cour- tesy in the matter which made decision difficult. Had I gone over to Bar Harbor at Mr. J ’s invitation I should have disregarded Mr. B *s protest as being founded on a strained interpretation of the Canon; but I was in the parish by special request of the rector, and to go in the face of his interpretation of the law, after he had told me that in doing so I should de- feat the purpose to further which he had invited me into his parish, seemed to me a thing I could not do without discourtesy. I felt at the time that the young man was hurting himself and the cause he had at heart, and, as delicately as I knew how, tried to make him see it so, but since he could not or would not, I took the course which seemed to me, on the whole, the right one. I may have been mistaken. It would not surprise me to see in the columns of the ritualistic press, the Rev. Mr. B glorified as the “‘Athanasius of Bar Harbor.” ... Oct. 20, 1900. Dear Mr. CaTHeEty: In the course of my ministry, I have declined more than one “call” with less of reluctance and hesitancy than I am feeling now in the face of your strongly put appeal. It is a serious thing to say “No” to such a request as this of yours. And yet, after thinking it all over, I cannot feel than I have any right to subtract from the few months that I have my people with me, the ten days which your plan would demand. I will not dwell upon my own sense of inefficiency for such a task, though that 1s very keen. In common with some others, you have gathered from what you have seen of me in General Convention 330 HERESIES an erroneous estimate of my average power as a speaker. Un- der the excitement of debate, I am at my best, but in the long continued effort of a “Mission” I should grievously disappoint you. The only time I ever tried to conduct a “quiet-hour” I made a dead failure of it. But let that pass, for to talk in this vein betrays either self-consciousness, or distrust of the power of the Holy Ghost. The other ground, the one first taken, is the real basis of my decision. That your part of the country is, from a religious, quite as much as from a civic point of view, immensely important, I do not for a moment question. All of what you say to that effect is true. But it can hardly be maintained that your situation is any more critical than ours. God, in his providence, has cast my lot here at the bend of Broadway, and I cannot but feel that it is here that He wishes me to put forth such little strength as He has given me to use in his behalf. Sometimes, under the temporary sway of just such considerations as you urge, I have dreamed of giving it all up and turning to itinerancy as a calling,—the thought has, I confess, a certain fascination for me; but so long as I am here where I am, charged with the heavy responsibility of this parish and its effective administration, I cannot but feel that I should be neglecting a near duty for a far one were I to yield to your kind urgency. Please don’t regret having taken so much trouble apparently all for nothing. If your long letter, which cost you so much effort in the writing, has had no other effect than that of warming a brother’s heart, the labor would have been well bestowed. I shall be the more earnest in my ministry all Winter long because of having had these good words from you... . To Braptey Martin, JR., Esa. Oct. 29, 1900. My Dear Braver: Thank you for sending me your paper on American Imperial- ism in the September number of the Nineteenth Century. Though I have the misfortune to be on the other side of the question, I have read your argument, as I read everything 331 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON of yours that falls in my way, with great interest, partly for personal and partly for intrinsic reasons. Most of your rea- sons strike me as thoroughly sound, granted the premises as you understand them. . . . However, were I to make a formal reply to your contention, I should begin by waiving all the con- stitutional points which you raise, and then proceed to lift the whole subject to another, and, as I cannot help thinking it, loftier level. In fact, I would make everything hinge on this single question, and you will admit that it is a fairly compre- hensive one: For what does the American Republic stand? Or, in a phrase half philosophical and half theological, what is its final cause? The average politician has no doubt in his mind as to what the answer to this question should be. He thinks the republic exists for the sake of promoting to the full- est extent the material well-being of the people who make up its citizenship, and of attaining, as a nation, a distinguished place among the “great powers,” easily intimidating, upon oc- casion, any one of them, and, if necessary, able to defy all of them. I will not stop to assess the value of this ideal; but, content with stating it, will now state another, namely: The American Republic exists for the purpose of evolving a freer, happier, more intelligent, more conscientious electorate than has ever yet come into being anywhere. Accepting as fair the parallel you draw (p. 405) between “nations” and ‘“individ- uals,” I should say that, just as the wise man of Marcus Aure- lius is indifferent to mere material prosperity, except in so far as that is essential to the cnjoyment of leisure for intellectual, moral and spiritual pursuits; and just as he is also indifferent to the vulgar popularity, which skill and muscle bring to the athlete and the gladiator, so a nation holds a far loftier place — in the estimation of those whose opinion is worth having, and is destined to fill a cleaner page in the final history, if it de- votes itself to perfecting its social system, as seen from the inside; and, in its attitude towards other powers, is content with only so much of a display of force as is necessary for purposes of self-defence. Even if it were true, as I believe the best economists agree in denying, that “trade follows the flag,” 332 HERESIES I should still question whether we ought to regard the flag as impotent unless always visible from the peak of a first-class battle-ship. You may reply, “If advanced nations assume this selfish atti- tude, and insist that they have nothing to do with ‘abroad,’ what is to become of the savage and half-civilized peoples, and how are they ever to be brought to what we know as enlighten- ment?” My own personal opinion is that “enlightenment” comes from a knowledge of the truth, and is not to be had of commerce for the asking; but waiving that point, I beg you to instance a single case in which an uncivilized people has been lifted into self-government under the tutelage of another race. I grant you that there are many instances of peoples that have been benefited by what other races have done for them; as for example, the fellahs of present-day Egypt under the English régime; but although England took up Egypt with the pro- fessed purpose of liberating it, or, at any rate, of leaving it to its own devices after a period of guardian care, any proposal to carry out such a purpose to-day would be all but universally denounced in England as a “policy of scuttle.” Moreover, there is this special reason why the American Re- public is disqualified in a peculiar sense for the duty of admin- istering distant colonial possessions after the English fashion. England, although really a democracy, has maintained the forms of absolute monarchy. ‘These forms are in Great Bri- tain nothing but a legal fiction; but in other parts of the world, e. g. India, they can be put in force without inconsist- ency. It is otherwise with us. We threw overboard monar- chial forms at the Revolution, and set forth a doctrine of self- government, which is only applicable to communities made up of self-respecting and fairly well-educated men. It is, I grant, absurd, as you Imperialists maintain that it is, to apply the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence to savage races, held by conquest; but for that very reason, we Americans ought, for consistency’s sake, to leave the absolute government of dependencies to such monarchies (and there is no lack of them) as desire to go into that line of business. Uncle Sam 333 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON has a sufficiently large farm of his own in which to attempt working out his very difficult problem. He is making a poor fist of it at present, witness the political condition of our great cities; and, until he has succeeded in learning how to administer a republic with a decent respect for the principles on which free government rests, he had better keep his hands off savage populations at the antipodes. I am the less embarrassed in stating this view of the matter because of the fact that I am a Yankee speaking to a Yankee, who, I know, cannot be wholly oblivious to or forgetful of the traditional civic standards of New England. Because I am convinced that those standards are as precious to-day as they were in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I cleave to them, not, I trust, as a “little American,” but as, I would rather say, a true American. Pardon this long letter. I could easily make it longer; but remembering the old saying about sermons,—“Twenty minutes with a leaning to the side of mercy,” and, furthermore remembering that I am myself a preacher of sermons, and therefore the more likely to be tempted to prolixity, I desist. To THE Rey. E. W. Donatp, D.D. Nov., 1900. My Dear Donan: There is a penumbra to Christian Science which has a litera- ture of its own, and which is particularly influential, as I un- derstand, in Boston and its neighborhood. I refer to the books written by such authors as Horatio Dresser, Ralph Trine, Henry Wood, Mrs. Daniel Merriman (What Shall Make Us Whole? and Religio Pictoris). I will send you some of these, and I would suggest that you pay special attention to that side of the subject, since in my paper I am going to confine myself to Mrs. Eddy and all her works. Moreover, Dr. Polk and Mr. Purrington may be depended upon to look after the medical end of the subject. The opportunity seems to be a fine one for clearing the air, and I believe that a great deal of 334 HERESIES good may be done, if we have grace given us to say the right word. In addition to Trine’s and Dresser’s books, I enclose a little tractate by Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney, which is on our side and has lots of good sense in it. To THE Rev. W. S. Howarp Nov. 1900. REVEREND AND Drag Sir: In reply to your letter of inquiry of the 15th, I write to say that the only organization for men in this parish is the Brother- hood of St. Andrew and a Men’s Club for working men. After many attempts at organizing men in the course of a somewhat prolonged ministry, I have come to the conclusion that more is accomplished by trying to influence them individually, and through them the other men with whom they are associated in the general activities of life. In my judgment, there is a great deal more ground for organizing women’s work in the Church than for organizing men’s work. The men are already orga- nized, so to speak, in their several callings, where they are continually brought into contact with other men. They come home tired at night, and they do not see why the Church should try to persuade them into going to a meeting, when what they really want is to enjoy the little glimpse they can have of home life under their own roofs. If they can be persuaded to attend Church regularly, and give a fair proportion of their earnings to the support of religion, it is as much as can fairly be expected of the most of them. Of course, what I have said does not apply to men of leisure, but in this country these do not abound in our Churches. To Miss M. Dec. 26, 1900. ...P. S. Isn’t Allen’s life of P. Brooks delightful? Only please don’t believe that I ever wrote (Vol. 1, p. 551) | “Holy Blessed Mirror.” It was probably “Half Blurred Mirror.” 335 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Dec. 31: 1900. Dear FRIEND: _. . Mr. Davies’ letter I enclose. It is interesting as show- ing that even a typical Broad Churchman finds it impossible to follow Brother Crapsey all lengths. I certainly cannot, and his last “Tractate” has remained undistributed, though I sent out 100 each of all the others. The . . . business is as bad as you have feared. And yet I find it impossible to believe that his work under me was all of it insincerely done. I incline more and more to the belief that the devil and his angels are very busy... .« There are good angels too. May they lead you as far into Century XX as God wills, and brighten life to the end. Jan., 1901. My Dear D Thank you for your outspoken letter. If all who listen to or read my sermons would express their dissent from my doc- trine with equal frankness, I should probably be a_ better preacher, for I should be made more fully acquainted with the subjective condition of those whom I am set to teach. All sermons are to a certain extent like arrows shot at random, or in the dark. For one that hits the mark, there are scores that go nowhere in particular. Against your personal conviction that what is left of the Gospels, after dissecting out the miraculous element, “is still enough,” I have nothing to say of a controversial character. All I can do is to reassert my own counter conviction that such residuum is not enough, is not enough, that is to say, for me. Such dissecting process, as I view the matter, leaves as its result only a fragmentary system of ethics, for which, indeed, it may be claimed that it is the best system extant; but that it is not so overwhelmingly and beyond all controversy the best as to justify much propagandist zeal for the conversion of Mohammedans and Buddhists. It is because I find Christ as- serting for Himself spiritual prerogatives which difference Him from all other teachers, that He becomes to me supremely at- 336 HERESIES tractive, or seems to have any right to claim my personal allegiance ; but these very prerogatives, if justly asserted, make Christ Himself the Miracle of miracles. Therefore, if I start out to empty the Gospels of miracle, I must empty them of Christ, in so far as respects those characteristics which make Him precious to me. Your contention that my premises require me to admit the possibility of present-day miracles, is entirely sound. There is, aS you say, no reason why a hard and fast line should be drawn across the page of Church History at the close of the Apostolic Age, this side of which no alleged miracle can be counted credible. One main object of my sermon was to show the weakness of any defense of miracles that should relegate them to the far past. I don’t want to put you to the trouble of rereading my discourse, but if you should voluntarily put yourself to that inconvenience, I think that under my defini- tion of miracle, ‘“‘wonders will never cease.” . . . You say that the belief in the miraculous cures of the Bible has resulted in heartbreaking disappointment to thou- sands of good people; but what about the miracle of the Resur- rection of Christ from the dead? Has not that been to thou- sands of thousands a solace and stay precious beyond every- thing else? As to the cures at Lourdes, I believe that many of them are genuine, and I believe the same thing with respect to many of the cures claimed by Christian Scientists, faith healers, etc., holding that all of them are the result of obscure psychological processes, the outcome of which will continue to be of the nature of “miracle,” until those processes themselves are clearly understood, when all miracle in connection with them will cease. Only the other day, in an open discussion, I heard as much as this conceded to the “Scientists” by one of the most eminent of the regular practitioners of medicine in New York. You will not misunderstand me, for you must know that I am every way committed to a strenuous opposition to Chris- tian Science as a religious cult. I consider their system, as a whole, a grievous and harmful delusion; but there are no wide- 337 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON spread delusions that have not in them some kernel of truth, and the particular kernel of truth which Christian Science, viewed from the therapeutic side, contains is, I venture to think, this, namely, that certain obscure nervous complaints can be helped by processes purely psychological... . To tur Rev. E. W. Donatp, D.D. Jan., 1901. My Dear Donatp: ... Thave just got hold of Allen’s “Life,” and find it fas- cinating reading. How the English clergy will writhe under Brooks’s contemptuous comments upon the Church of Eng- land “as by law established.” I predict that the critics in general will find fault with the book on the score of lengthiness ; but for those who knew Brooks anc his friends, as you and I did, there is not a word too much. The letters are almost as racy as Stevenson’s, if not quite, having the merits, which his had not, of an entire absence of an effort after “style.” 1901. My Dear ARCHBISHOP: ... With this I am sending you a copy of the Sermon before the New England Society, to which you refer. It is better to have it in its completeness than from newspaper clip- pings. What interested me most in the Sermon was the irenic feature of it, and I intended that to be its chief motif; but the newspapers, with their avid concern for whatever touches the social world, fastened on the reference to gambling, and made no mention of what I said about the relations of Anglicanism to Independency. I do not propose any “movement” or “crusade.” The quiet influence of individuals in their several social positions is the only thing that can work a reformation ; and having spoken my mind freely and emphatically to so many as it was in my power to reach, I feel that I have done my part, not adequately, indeed, but as well as I could. 338 HERESIES To tHe Most Rev. Enos Nurrartz, D.D. 1901. My Dear ARrcHBISHOP: Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your ad- dress to the Diocesan Synod. Portions of it have only a local application, but what you say on the subject of ‘“ques- tionable methods” and the “chief need” are of permanent and universal interest. ... I owe you an apology for not having replied to a letter re- ceived last year, in which you touched upon the question of divorce, and the unwisdom of our establishing in the United States, by our synodal action, an artificial standard; which apprehension was based, if I remember rightly, upon what you had seen reported as to the action of this Diocese in recom- mending that the General Convention pass a more stringent Canon on the subject of divorce than the existing one. There is little doubt, I think, that the present Canon will be revised in October, at the meeting of our General Conven- tion in San Francisco; but there is equally little doubt, in my judgment, that the laity will veto such legislation as, in your letter, you deprecated. I dare say that the bishops and clergy will take the ground that any and every divorce must be disallowed, for whatever cause secured; but I do not think that the laity will consent to such doctrinaire legislation. 1901. My Dear Mr. H In reply to your request for an opinion, which I feel it an honor to have received coming from such a distance, I would say that, in my judgment, the prudence or imprudence of a young woman’s engaging in dancing depends entirely upon local circumstances. I do not conceive that there is any sin in dancing as such. It is a noticeable fact that, when the prodigal in the parable returns from the far country where he has wasted his substance in riotous living, he finds dancing going on in his father’s house. From this it would plainly appear that our Lord did not intend to condemn a form of 339 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON amusement innocent in itself; but it would be a great mistake to quote him in favor of such dancing as goes on in the under- ground slums of a great city. ... To J. G. Puexurs Stroxss, M. D. 1901. Dear Dr. STOKEs: Thank you for sending me your paper on Settlement work. I have read it with much interest and entire acquiescence. In my judgment, altogether too much stress has been laid of late by sociologists on “environment,” and too little on individual initiative. Personality, as you have rightly discerned, is the key-note that unlocks this, along with many other problems. When it comes to the question, how personality is to be built up and reinforced, there is, of course, a good deal more to be said than you have seen fit to say, having, I suppose, been under limitations when writing for a journal of ethics. Prob- ably you agrce with me in thinking that something more than a philosophy of ethics is essential to the development of per- sonality in the fullest sense. In the complete treatment of the subject, the theological word “sin” would have to find recognition as well as the ethical word “error,” and a stronger motive power evoked than any known to ethics pure and simple; but I quite understand why this side of the subject was left blank. The opportunity to say what you have actually said was a fine one, and you have used it to great advantage. To tHe Rev. Witiiam Wixrinson, D.D. 1901. Dear Mr. WILkInson: Thank you for sending me the copy of The Times, contain- ing the biographical sketch of Dr. Faudé, and your tribute to his character and memory. His career was a fine example of what America does for deserving youths. ... Dr. Faudé had many of the qualities of a leader of men; he saw clearly what he saw; had great tenacity of purpose; 340 HERESIES and would, I honestly believe, have given his life rather than sacrifice principle. It was my misfortune that I could not sympathise with him in all the positions, theological and ecclesiastical, which he held; but the experience of the Wash- ington Convention greatly increased my estimate of his abilities, and heightened my respect for him as a man. Death, as you justly say, dulls the edge of controversy, and makes just esti- mates of our opponents more easy. In the final summing up, the sincerity of men’s purposes and the honesty of their methods, will be seen to have been of more importance than the correctness of their “views.” Feb. 26, 1901. Dear Miss MEREDITH: Thanks, very many, for both of your letters. It is odd that the concluding sentence of Mr. Davies’ last page (“By all means let us have the Constitution of the American Church”) should have fallen under my eye just as I had finished a chapter on “Autonomy in America,” to be inserted in a composite book which an English Churchman (Mr. Mon- tague Barlow) is getting out for the purpose of influencing Parliament to consent to a little loosening of the shackles of the Church in its relation to the State. The other Chapters of the book are by Englishmen, but the one on “Autonomy in America” had to be given to an American, and at only four days’ notice (for they are in a great hurry). I did what was demanded of me. Of course my chapter has no literary merit. It is only a bald statement of things as they are here in the LB Re April, 1901. To “OxservER,” AUTHOR OF ARTICLES ON “Tip METROPOLITAN PULPIT,” Orrice or The New York Sun, New York. My Dear Sir: Your recent “observings” in connection with Grace Church and its administration, have naturally interested me a good deal, and I wish to express my appreciation of the keen in- 341 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON telligence you have shown in grasping the real purposes and intention of the administrative methods here in use. Both in your description of what goes on, and in your interpreta- tion of the inspiring motive, you are entirely correct. With respect to the personal side of the article, you will permit me to say that, in my judgment, you have done me far more than justice on most points, but have misunderstood me on others. A wider acquaintance with my teaching methods would, I think, persuade you that I am not the slave to formulas which you imagine me to be. I have insisted strenuously on adherence to the “articles of the Christian faith as contained in the Apostles’ Creed,” but not so much because they are “articles” as because, taken together, they preserve the outline of a personality which would be likely to elude our grasp, and fade away into nothingness unless definitely de- scribed in words. My whole effort in connection with the doctrinal legisla- tion of the Episcopal Church has been to reduce required dogma to a minimum, while yet insisting upon that minimum. What has ailed the Church, it seems to me, has been, not the principle of dogma, but the multiplication of dogmas; but my theology, if I may be said to have one, is a theology in which everything hinges on personality as contrasted with “formulas,” for which, as such, I have all of Carlyle’s wholesome detestation. If on some rainy Sunday when you are not “observing,” you will take the trouble to run your eye over the pamphlet on unsystematic theology which I venture to send with this, you will, I think, concede that to some extent you have misappre- hended my position. As to whether I am really an icicle or not, is a point of light concern; but on this question of my doctrinal attitude, I would really rather not be misunderstood by so level-headed a critic as yourself. April, 1901. My Dear Sir: I have read with interest the advance proofs of your forth- coming books, which you have been kind enough to send me; 342 HERESIES and since you invite criticism, I would say that I am more disposed to question the value of your analysis than to dis- pute the accuracy of it. Attempts to reduce all religions to the “least common denominator by striking out all points of difference” appear to me to have only a speculative inter- est, and for this reason: if any one religion is better than an- other (and we can scarcely fail to acknowledge a disparity among them), it necessarily follows that the better religion is your least common denominator plus something more, and the best, the least common denominator plus a good deal more. I quite agree with you that the clement most central to religion as such is obligation. I have been in the habit of telling the people whom I am set to teach that wherever the word “ought” comes in, there religion comes in also. Moreover, the most approved etymology of the word religion favors this view, the derivation from religare (to bind) having more evidence in its favor than that from relegere (to pick or choose) ; but after having accepted this analysis and definition, I still find myself obliged to bring in a personal element, since I can- not conceive of obligation existing otherwise than as a relation between persons. Its use in connection with natural law ap- pears to me metaphorical. Law, in the deepest and truest sense, is “the command of a sovereign.” Holding these views, I find myself quite content for practi- cal purposes with that very ancient definition of religion which declares that to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with one’s God,—in other words, righteousness, sympathy and reverence,—make the sum and substance of it. Your collec- tion of analytical definitions from modern writers is exceed- ingly interesting. Were I to venture to frame a formula of this sort, I am not at all sure whether, in view of what Con- fucianism and Buddhism teach, I should introduce the thought of immortality at all. Rather I should be disposed to frame my definition something in this way: “Religion is a way of thinking, feeling and acting, to which man finds himself bound by the suggestions of external nature and interior conscience.” 343 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON To THE Rev. WALTER LAIDLAW Grace Church Rectory, April 10, 1901. My Dear Dr. Lawraw: You will, I fear, count me both obdurate and incorrigible; but even under its new constitution, the Federation as re- spects its main aim fails to commend itself to my judg- MENU se You will be reconciled to my frankness by finding en- closed a cheque for one hundred dollars ($100.) which I am glad to contribute because of my continued appreciation of the value of the Federation’s statistical work. Please re- gard this, however, as a donation rather than a subscrip- tion. May, 1901. Dear Miss Your letter of the 27th has interested me far more than most of the almost countless appeals of a similar character that come under my eye. You say you do not know what cares and sorrows may come into the life of a minister who serves where I do; but I assure you that this is one of our cares, that we are continually having appeals of an often pathetic and sometimes urgent character presented to us, to only a few of which it is possible to send any adequate re- sponse. The spiritual need of your village seems to you, and doubt- less really is serious; but what should you say to missionary bishops reporting whole counties in their jurisdictions en- tirely devoid of any such ministration of religion as you and I deem important? I have always, however, taken into account, in considering requests for aid, the tone and temper of the communication. Personality counts with me for a great deal; even though a given field may seem to be comparatively insignificant, if there are two or three earnest souls at work in it, I am disposed to look for a better return for the investment than in cases where 344 HERESIES the opportunity is large, but the right spirit on the part of the workers is lacking. Your letter has a genuine ring to it which disinclines me to say No. Should you decide to go on with your rectory plan, count on Grace Church for the last fifty dollars for its completion. If you write to any considerable number of other clergymen as persuasive a letter as you have sent me, I think you will get the money. When the time comes, return this letter to me, and I will forward a cheque for the amount. May 20, 1901. My Dear Sir: If we preachers could only be assured that the bulk of our hearers were listening to us as carefully as you seem to have listened yesterday, we should be much encouraged and should, undoubtedly, do better work. I have just read your letter, to one of my curates who remarked that he could not himself have written so good an analysis of the discourse. You are quite right in saying that a full discussion of the subject with which I attempted to deal would demand an inquiry into the whole question raised by Hume; but one cannot traverse the en- tire field of theological thought in a single sermon. He must take some things for granted for the time being, and one thing which I took for granted yesterday was the possibility of what is commonly, though carelessly, called miracle. Under cover of another envelope, I am sending you with this a printed sermon which deals with that larger subject, though, very possibly, not in a manner that will be satisfactory to your mind. It will at least, however, if you take the trouble to read it, assure you that the topic is one I have never sought to dodge in talk- ing to my people about the fundamentals of the Faith. With me, the two chief reasons for believing in Christianity lie (first ) in the fascination which the personality of Christ as portrayed in the four Gospels exercises over my mind and heart, and (sec- ond) in my observation of the effects which a frank acceptance of that religion (miracles and all) has had upon the life of the world. The force of this a posteriori argument must, of 345 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON course, vary with each man’s own estimate of the proportional part which Christian dogmas have played in the social progress of the last nineteen hundred years. To me, the fraction seems so large that I cannot, without repudiating theism itself, refuse to believe that this thing is from God. Passing to what you say about the mechanical aspect of the Ascension as I presented it, and the seemingly histrionic character so imparted to the alleged event, I will merely say that I should think as you do, were it not that the whole scheme of Revelation appears to me to have been based on the philosophy of representation, God teaching us lessons of spiritual truth by means of symbols that instruct through the senses. This view differs from that of the “ideologist” in that it holds the symbols to have been really presented to the sense, and not to have been simply conceived in the mind, though I am perfectly willing to admit that if the same sense impression is given to a number of minds at once, through some law of spiritual suggestion only dimly known to us, it is much the same thing in effect as if the material object were itself presented. I am unable to see anything essentially theatrical in this view of the matter, for I hold that Christ was exercising the teaching function just as really when He was on the Mount of the Transfiguration and on the Mount of the As- cension within view of his disciples, as He was when on the Mount of the Beatitudes within their hearing; for lessons may be taught through the eye just as really as by word of mouth. I am glad that the argument from unrealised ideals and unsatis- fied desires seems to you an adequate basis for a rational be- lief in immortality. For myself, I have never been able to see it so. I cannot help thinking that if this were enough, without aid from the “Gospel of the Resurrection,” belief in a future life would have been more prevalent in the ancient world than — it was, for this particular argument was as cogent and as ac- cessible in Plato’s day as in ours. Christ as life-giver, as well as life-revealer, seems to me to have put the whole subject on a new basis; and were I to give up my personal faith in Him, I should fall back on such views of the matter as seem to have satisfied George Eliot. 346 HERESIES Again expressing my appreciation of the very respectful hearing which you gave what I had to say yesterday, I am, Faithfully yours. June 6, 1901. My Dear Mr. ; . . . My correspondence presses me very hard, and now and then I get discouraged in my efforts to catch up with it. You must not infer, however, that I had neglected the reading of your interesting tractate. My thoughts have often recurred to it, and I suppose one reason why I have not written sooner has been because I did not feel quite ready to give a deliberate opinion. I note from your own style that you must be one who pre- fers frankness to circumlocution, and, therefore, I will say plainly that, in my judgment, your argument is onesided. I do not think that you overvalue the Gospel of the Kingdom, or at all exaggerate the importance of its being taught and preached. I do think, however, that you undervalue the place which personal religion occupies in God’s plan, and that you lay an altogether insufficient stress upon the fact that, without the culture of the individual, the quality of the aggregate must be poor. The Kingdom is of no good unless the King’s sub- jects are what they ought to be; and to have the King’s sub- jects what they ought to be, each one of them must be, not only instructed in the “things concerning the Kingdom,” but also trained in personal loyalty to the King. It was the perception of this truth that gave impulse to the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, and later constituted the real strength of Puritanism in the Church of England. A well balanced system of religious education for the young ought, I think, to lay equal stress upon both sides of the great truth in question. God is the King of all the earth. He is also your King and mine. I dare say that in your part of the country individualism in religion is so rampant, as to make it incumbent upon the preachers of a more excellent way to lay the whole emphasis for 347 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON the time being on the Kingdom. I also found it so to a great extent when I lived in Massachusetts. Where I am now, in a great city, I am led to feel the need of the other thing. So it goes. My own conclusion is that, in a normal community, the prob- lem of “the one and the many” is best solved by emphasizing equally the many and the one. This criticism may not seem to you sound; but as I said above, I have taken it for granted that you would prefer honest words to smooth ones. To tue Rev. Francis G. Peasopy, D.D. May 24, 1901. My Dear Dr. PEazopy: My delay in replying to your important letter of the 14th has been due to a natural reluctance to decide so grave a ques- tion as the one you raise without careful thought. You will easily understand that I do not covet the bad prominence of being the only clergyman who has ever declined the sacred task to which you have invited me. The temptation to say what you report the other busy “New York ministers” to have said, is a very strong one; but after much deliberation I have come to the conclusion that it is my plain duty to resist it. You have a right, after speaking so very honestly as you have done, to a full statement of my reasons. The foremost of these is the fact that the duties at the College would fall within, and subtract a very considerable amount of time from the half of the year which is my only time for doing justice to the people committed to my charge. Grace Church is a six months Church, by which I mean that my parishioners are only with me as a whole from November till May. During this lim- ited period, I have to make what impression I can, and into it is crowded most of the activity of the year. Even as things are, I do not begin to do justice to my pastoral duties, and every Spring finds me with large arrears of work neglected. Any attempted residence at Cambridge during this period would continually be broken in upon by summonses to return for pastoral duties which I should have no right to refuse; and 348 HERESIES I should have the feeling, all the time, that I had left a work, undertaken in the most solemn sanctions, for another work which, however important in itself, has not the first claim upon my time. Do not imagine for a moment that I underestimate the im- mense importance of the preacher’s duty at Harvard. I re- alize this in its length and breadth; but on the other hand, my opportunity here is no mean one, and to forsake it for one else- where would be, I cannot help thinking, a grave mistake. A secondary consideration, which by itself would not deter- mine me against the proposition, since to allow it to do so would argue a want of faith, is my sense of unfitness for the pastoral side of the work at Cambridge. You will acquit me, I am sure, of mock modesty in saying this, which is really of the nature of a frank confession. An experience of almost forty years has n’t left me ignorant of the fact that an inborn and constitutional reserve stands much in the way of influenc- ing people on short acquaintance. As a rule, people have not found me very accessible, and I am inclined to believe that the “confessional” at Wadsworth House would have few fre- quenters during my incumbency. Even clergymen possessed of the readiness in this direction which I lack, have told me that they had been disappointed by the smallness of the number of those who sought their spiritual counsel and advice, and I am convinced that in my case the attendance would be almost nil. When I was contemplating entering the ministry, I wrote to the college friend who knew me best, asking his suggestions as to the wisdom of the step. He replied, strongly urging me against it, on the ground that I was too reserved ever to succeed as a clergyman. I went counter to his advice, and am not sorry for having done so; but there has never been a time when I have not been aware that his remonstrance was a natural one; and leopards past sixty do not change their spots. For these reasons, my dear Dr. Peabody, though with very sincere regret, I feel constrained to decline your very attractive 349 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON offer. If at any time I can help you out by a single Sermon on Sunday night, when for some reason the regular appointee has failed you, and a “supply” must be had at short notice, pray feel at liberty to call on me, and if it is a possible thing I will come; but bind myself to be one of the College preachers, with weekday duties, I cannot... . To rue Rev. Greorcre D. Boarpman, D.D. May 28, 1901. My Dear Dr. Boarpman: | Many thanks for your Inaugural Lecture, with its clear and suggestive analysis of the Golden Rule... . The schema of topics which you suggest under the head of “Range of the Lectureship” would make an admirable outline for a year’s course of parish sermons. More and more we are all of us getting to sce that Christianity is a religion of personal relations ; and that, while we need enough dogma to serve as bal- last for the ship, a good understanding between the crew and the captain is the main thing, so far as the success of the voyage is concerned. I have to thank you also for your volume on “The Church.” It recalls vividly the pleasant days we had together while Catholic Unity was in the air. The book is full of interesting suggestions, and will play its part in that final reconciliation of our ecclesiastical differences which I am optimist enough to believe is destined to be worked out in America. As the Apostles’ Creed is punctuated in the Prayer Book of the Amer- ican Episcopal Church, “The Holy Catholic Church” and “The Communion of Saints” form one article, not two. How to make this double aspect of the one truth intelligible to the Christian consciousness, will be a worthy task for the twentieth century. ... To tHE Rev. Joun W. SuTER Sep. 3, 1901. My Dear Mr. SvurTer: Yours is received this morning, and I am replying in great haste, being on the point of leaving the city. I have no ob- 350 HERESIES jection to your making the change which Mrs. Suter proposes in the Prayer, but cannot honestly say that I think the emen- dation an improvement. As the Prayer now stands, it is a prayer for present comfort, and I suppose all Christians will agree that the “country of peace and rest” must from the nature of the case be a thing future. Therefore, as it stands, it appears to me to cover both present and future; but I repeat, however, that I have no slightest objection to your altering the ‘text if you think best. I am only sorry to differ in judgment with one for whose good taste and discernment I have so much respect. I read your article on Marriage and Divorce in The Church- man the other day with the greatest interest and care, and wish I had time to comment at length upon it. Briefly I may say that in your principle of interpretation of the “Counsels of perfection” I entirely agree with you. The only question is whether this concrete matter of divorce comes under that head, namely, of “‘Counsels of perfection,” and is not rather a prac- tical injunction. To THe Rev. E. W. Donatp, D.D. Oct Sis Lool My Dear Donan: . . . Stedman did put in “Tellus.” It was one of the two sonnets he selected. The other was “Authority.” I was glad to have “Tellus” go in, but would rather he had chosen a dif- ferent companion piece, since, as they now stand, both are astronomical in tenor. However, I was lucky to get in at all, since all men have not so indulgent an appreciation of my at- tempts in metre as you have. It warms me up to have you speak so well of “Tellus,” which I confess is a pet child. I don’t suppose that one person in twenty, however (if twenty have read it), has understood what I was driving at... . October 28th, 1901. Dear Miss MEREDITH: I found your kind note awaiting me on my arrival from San Francisco. .. . 351 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON I am not as low in my mind over the state of the Unity movement as the outside public imagines me to be. My own part in it will, to be sure, dwindle; but that is only what was to be expected. You may possibly recall the parable of the coral insect which I remember using in this connection in a letter to you many years ago. I still hold that view of the matter. If the animus of the movement which I have led takes possession of the Church fifty or seventy-five years from now, that result will have been well worth waiting for. In this year’s House of Deputies, there was an immense amount of raw material. That is to say, members present for the first time. It is a wonder that they became educated as rapidly as they did... . November 25th, 1901. My Dear Mr. TayLer: Your kind letter of the nineteenth came to my hands just as I was on the point of writing you to express the gratification with which I had read your contribution to last week’s Church- man. “The Warning” is as timely and vigorous as it is “friendly.” I trust that the perusal of it may bring some of our light-headed brethren to a better mind,—though I doubt it. You and I have come to our convictions by different paths ; but we seem to have reached common ground. T hough born and bred in the Episcopal Church, I was so placed in childhood and youth as to see a side of it which repelled me, namely, its lack of sympathy with the great wealth of faith and zeal stored up in reservoirs beyond its own borders. You saw, at a cor- responding period of your life, the glories of the Tractarian movement as these illustrated themselves in the life of an ac- knowledged National Church. I saw, on the other hand, the weaknesses and blindnesses of the men who were trying to force a little system upon a large people. Four-fifths of the intel- ligence, the generosity and the spiritual life around me, I found ‘dentified with other forms of Christianity, and to take up with a system which turned the cold shoulder upon all this, and seemed to try to avoid all consciousness of its existence, struck 352 HERESIES me as a sort of treason to Christ. Gradually, as time went on, I had eyes given me to see the value of the truths encysted in the Oxford Movement, and thereupon found my way, as I could not otherwise have found it, into the Ministry. In the little parish where I began my work, I found myself again sur- rounded by an environment similar to that which I have above described, and there I worked out, partly for the sake of help- ing my people, and partly with a view to clearing my own mind, the principles embodied in what I named the “Quadrilateral.” I am moved to tell you all this by the frankness of your own autobiographical data in “The Warning.” It is pleasant to me to reflect that, while some of us are working at this thing from the Atlantic coast, you and a few others are working at it from the Pacific. Perhaps, by and by, just as the excavators of the San Gothard tunnel finally reached a point, midway between France and Italy, where they could hear each other’s spades and picks striking against the thin wall of stone which sepa- rated them, we Easterners and you Westerners may yet hear each other’s voices and find our task accomplished. .. . Jan. 11, 1902. Dear Miss MEREDITH: . . . I shall only arrive in season for the evening’s duty, a duty which I dread as I do scarcely anything else. Cursed be the man who invented after-dinner speaking. A sermon or a debate I am almost always ready to attempt; but an after- dinner speech haunts one both in the prospect and the retro- spect. ... April 23rd, 1902. Dear Miss MEREDITH: . . . I wish you could have been present (invisibly, for ladies were not invited) at a luncheon party which I attended day before yesterday. It was the regular meeting of a club of as- sistant ministers of various denominations. ‘There were twenty young men present, all of them alert, bright looking fellows, and ranging theologically from Anglicanism to Chris- 353 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON tian Science, of which last cult there was one representative. - They have a usage of asking somebody in to speak to them once a month during the season, and the subject upon which they invited me to discourse was Church Unity. I talked to them, with intervals of “talking back,” for nearly an hour, and enjoyed the occasion immensely, though I had dreaded it in advance, fearing that I should tread upon corns innumerable. I told the young fellows that if I could be guaranteed an audi- ence of that sort in every city of the Union, I would resign my rectorship and give the rest of my life to missionary jour- neys. Whether they believed me or not, I do not know; but they were very cordial and responsive all through the luncheon. Tell me something about the Rev. I wrote to him rather at a venture; but it is naturally gratifying to an elderly person to see young men taking up vigorously and with enthusi- asm the ideas to the propagation of which he has given his life. Perhaps I overestimate ’s ability because of this fact of agreement of opinion; but I should like to know something more about him. To tur Hon. CHartes Francis ADAMS June 7th, 1902. My Dear Sir: While I am in absolute accord with you and your associates, not only with respect to your general view of a “Colonial Policy” but also in regard to the recommendations of the Memorial, I feel that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the Philippine question to warrant me in putting my name to a petition containing so many statements of fact. In my place as a preacher, I use every opportunity which seems to me proper to dissuade our people from letting themselves become entangled in any more race problems than we already have on hand; but as one of a small number of signatories to such a Memorial as yours, I should consider that I was laying myself open to a Congressional enquiry “Who are you?” I am very sure that, even in the short time at your disposal, you can find someone who has a better right than I to appear as a 354 HERESIES publicist, and who is, at the same time, in equally hearty accord with you in aim and purpose... . July 1, 1902. Dear Miss FELLOWEs: Like yourself I was brought up with strict views as to the right keeping of Sunday. Only such reading as was known as “Sunday reading” was permitted, and no games of any sort. Even Biblical enigmas and puzzles were regarded doubtfully. I confess that I think this extreme far more desirable than its opposite. I call it an “extreme” because the Fourth Command- ment, when carefully examined, is found to prohibit only work, and such recreation as does not involve work has therefore something to be said in its behalf and defence. It must be re- membered, however, that to be “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” is one of the duties of a Christian, and whether this 1s compatible with giving up the day largely to amusement is to my mind extremely doubtful. The whole question of what is and what is not right and proper in connection with Sunday observance is exceedingly difficult, and every one ought to try his best to be fully persuaded in his own mind. As a step in this process you have a right to know your minister’s mind on the practical side of the question, and I therefore say, that I neither play nor should allow others to play games in my own house on Sunday. Aug. 5, 1902. Dear Miss MERrepDITH: . As to printing sermons, it is well enough in the case of the really great preachers who can command a large con- stituency of readers, but for me, with my rather beggarly fol- lowing of disciples, it is much wiser, if I wish to promote the greatest good of the greatest number, to preach a sermon to as many different congregations as I can Noel committing it to the cold oblivion of print. Besides, I am no scholar, in the real sense of the word, and for me to send out a solitary utterance upon Biblical Criticism 355 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON would look as though I thought my opinions of great value, whereas I am free to confess that I utter myself simply from the dictates of common sense, and confront the critics with whom I disagree only in the spirit in which a cat may look at a King. One of these days when my Sermon “Analysis is not All” shall have been “preached out,” I may bundle it up with some other discourses and make a “tractate,” but at present I feel confident that to do so would be unwise. The “preached word” is much more potent than the printed word. In this connection, however, I may say that I have just now a “tractate” in the press which will be issued by Whittaker in the fall, under the title “Why Nine Divinity Schools in Tokyo? and Other Papers.” You shall have a copy. To Cuartes C. Burtincuam, Esa. October 3rd, 1902. My Dear Sir: In view of the congested condition of the public schools of the city, to which his Honor the Mayor has recently called at- tention, the corporation of Grace Church will very gladly, if you so desire, place at the disposal of your Board, for the cur- rent school-year, such school-rooms in its parish house on East Thirteenth Street as may be deemed adapted, or adapt- able, to the existing need. We could, in all probability, ac- commodate between three and four hundred children. This is, to be sure, a very small number as compared with the multitude now deprived of school privileges; but you will, perhaps, think such accommodation as we offer better than nothing. The Church receives very valuable privileges and enjoys im- portant exemptions at the hands of the civic authorities, and it therefore seems only fair that when need arises, as in the present instance, there should be at least an offer of reciproc- ity. The parish house will be open at any time to the inspec- tion of such official representative as you may see fit to send; and I have given the Vicar, the Rev. George H. Bottome, full authority to act in the premises. The building is situated at 356 HERESIES 415 East Thirteenth Street, between First Avenue and Ave- nue A. February 7th, 1903. My Dear BisHor Doane: I do not know that I have ever before asked your aid in any matter political, but there is an act pending in the Assembly at Albany which I should greatly regret to see passed or, if passed, signed by the Governor. I refer to a measure intro- duced by one of the representatives from New York, authoris- ing our City government to pay salaries to the Chaplains of the Fire Department. I feel authorised to express myself on this subject for the reason that the suggestion of Fire Depart- ment Chaplains came from this parish, and one of the two chap- lains has always been a member of the Grace Church Staff and his compensation has been cheerfully paid by the Grace Church authorities. In my judgment, the making of this office sti- pendiary would be not only to destroy the charm and beauty of service freely rendered by the Church to the State, but would also, in the end, destroy the value of the chaplaincy as an institution, by throwing it into “politics,” and thereby invit- ing a scramble for it on the part of unemployed and possibly incompetent clergymen. The system as worked hitherto has been most beneficent and has secured the good-will of both offi- cers and men. I hate to see the first nail driven in its coffin. Regretting to cause you trouble, but feeling sure that you will see the importance of checking the movement in question if possible, I remain, Faithfully yours. To tHe Rev. I. W. Bearp Grace Church Rectory, February 11th, 1903. My Dear Frienp: . . . L wish I could have spoken last, instead of first, at that banquet the other night, for I should have enjoyed pointing out the utterly untenable character of some of the positions 357 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON taken up by the speakers. As it was, I felt all at sea, and not having had even a moment’s warning that I was expected to speak, floundered about in what I fear must have seemed an almost incoherent manner. I suppose the failure to give me notice that I was to be called upon should be charged to the inexperience of the very attractive but somewhat youthful brother who presided. Except in debate (when the excitement carries one along), I am not good at thinking on my legs, and if I live to be a hundred, I do not believe that I shall ever be- come an adept at off-hand speaking, strictly so called. Feb. 11, 1903. Dear Miss MEREDITH: _.. The other night I attended a meeting of the alumni of the Cambridge Theological School resident in this city. The guests were Dean Hodges, Prof. Nash, Dr. Rainsford and my- self. The theology talked was a little too “Broad” even for me, and I can stand a good deal in that direction. When it came my turn to speak, I told the story of the old lady in England who remarked that there were two sorts of Broad, the Broad with unction and the Broad without unction, and I ven- tured to express the hope that the School would make a point of graduating the Broad with unction. .. . To tHe Rev. Cuarztes C. Tirrany, D.D. March 1903. _ . . Meanwhile and in face of all this, I am doing my best, as Chairman of the Building Committee of the Cathedral, to make bricks without straw. It is a thankless task. Here, for instance, are eight great pillars to be set on end in this year — of grace 1903. We sce our way to four of them, but about the other four we are in doubt. They are to cost only twenty thousand dollars apiece. Would n’t you like to take one, or possibly two, just to case my mind? But to pass from Cathedrals to Parish Churches, I want you to know how exceedingly satisfactory the alterations at Grace 358 HERESIES Church have turned out to be. In the general chorus of ap- proval, I can scarcely distinguish a dissenting note. ‘To crown all, the acoustic properties of the building (a point upon which I was anxious) turn out to have been improved rather than injured by the changes. The notice in The Churchman was, as you say, a grudging one; but inasmuch as they had committed themselves to an adverse judgment in advance, a lukewarm verdict upon the completed work was, perhaps, all that could be expected. The buildings in the rear of the chancel are still unfinished; but we hope to get into them within a month. We had an interesting meeting at the Church Club the other night, to discuss the merits of a request recently made by a Polish bishop of Old Catholic consecration, that the Episcopal Church would take him and his followers into communion on the basis of the Quadrilateral. The Bishop in question was present and addressed the meeting through an interpreter. He seemed to me a serious-minded man, very much in earnest, though some of his remarks encouraged the misgiving that his interest in us Episcopalians had a financial side to it. How- ever, he claims a clientele of forty or fifty thousand souls, by no means a negligible quantity. Speaking in response to a re- quest from the Chairman of the meeting, I took the ground that consistency demanded our looking favorably upon the application, and, while expressing regret that the first serious overture should have come to us from the Catholic rather than the Protestant side of the house, I urged the importance of our living up to our principles. Further I ventured to suggest that all we needed to do to effect the sort of junction desired, would be to repeal the Canon which forbids the appointment of “suffragan bishops.” This done, Bishop Kozlosky might be appointed a Suffragan of the Presiding Bishop, and au- thorized to minister to congregations using the Polish language in all dioceses where the bishop of the diocese was willing to accept him as assistant. Whether anything will come of this business, I do not know; but you can readily understand why 359 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON it should interest me deeply, as seeming to be in some sense the firstfruits of the Chicago-Lambeth sowing. You will be glad to hear that Fisher has almost recovered from the effects of his recent fall in Philadelphia. I was his guest a week ago Sunday at New Haven, having gone over to preach in the College Chapel. He was, as always, most hospit- able; and, of course, we talked of you and of the good time you are having. He told me a funny story of his old servant Katharine, who is a devout Roman Catholic. Some weeks ago, Fisher had occasion to send one of his garments to the tailor’s to be mended. Soon after, the tailor handed him a small cop- per medal which in the mending process had been discovered tightly sewed into the garment, presumably by Katharine with a view to protecting the late Dean of the Yale Theological School from the grippe. Supposing, said Fisher, I had died suddenly and this discovery had been made when I was no longer able to explain it. I should have been classed as a Jesuit in disguise... . We miss you awfully at The Club... . By way, I suppose, of getting up a rival grievance to offset the Fond du Lac scandal, The Living Church has outdone itself ‘nan attack on Massachusetts Churchmen for having allowed dear old Dr. Hale to receive Communion at the recent Brooks Anniversary exercises in Trinity Church. Questioned by the interviewers as to whether he had not gone unasked, Hale re- plied quaintly that he received his invitation nineteen hundred years ago. But this, I fancy, is scarcely satisfactory to The Living Church. Such events make Church Unity look very distant, do they not? One curious feature of the incident 1s the fact that the Communion was administered by Bishops Codman and Vinton. Nor did it detract at all from the hu- mourous aspect of the demonstration, to notice that the same number of The Living Church which contained the attack, had also in another column a most laudatory notice of Hale’s latest book. This, I suppose, was meant to teach us that judicial impartiality is the characteristic of Chicago Church jour- nalism. .. - 360 HERESIES To tHe Rev. H. Martyn Hart, D.D. March 1, 1903. My Dear Dean Harr: Thank you for sending me your lively discourse on the Ten Commandments. I have read it with great interest and with almost concurrence of view. The real reason why I have been so crazy about Church Unity all these years, is because of my profound conviction that until the Christian portion of the community can be persuaded to pull together, we never can bring to pass that betterment of the school laws, the marriage laws, and the industrial laws, which alone can save us, humanly speaking, from going down into the same pit which has swal- lowed up previous civilizations. Utterances like this of yours help to wake up the public mind to the seriousness of the dis- ease. When once that is appreciated, it will be easy to press the search for remedies, To THE Rev. C. L. Suatrrery Grace Church Rectory, New York, April 8th, 1903. My Dear DEAN SLATTERY: I am glad you liked the little service, and wish you could have known the holy woman in whose memory it was lovingly compiled. The only feature of the office strictly my own was the collect on the last page. My views as to change of name coincide precisely with those which you express. If such an optative title as you desiderate were among the possibilities, I would hold up both hands for it; but with things as they are, such a title would have to take on the proportions of a German compound noun. “Imagina- tion’s utmost stretch” fails one in the attempt to construct such a marvel of nomenclature. You will say that a man who can use so many long words as I have used in this last sentence ought to be equal to the task; but I am not. Faithfully yours. 361 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON P. S. I wish there were some way of sweetening the bitter waters which seem to be filling our Church’s cup just now, for what with the Fond du Lac incident, and the Trinity Church, Boston, incident, and the St. Stephen’s Church, Philadelphia, incident, we seem to be in a bad way as respects the temper and disposition of our hearts. W.R. H. Collect referred to in above letter, from service at opening of new Choir Vestry, Grace Church, which was erected by the children of Julia Crawford Clark in her memory: O God, by whose holy inspiration thy servant David, once a shepherd lad, was moved with his whole heart to sing unto thee songs of praise; Grant, we beseech thee, that they who in this house shall lift their voices in supplication or thanks- giving, may do so with such sincerity of purpose that their lives shall be filled full with melody, to the glory of thy great Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. To Francis C. Moors, Esa. June 8, 19038. My Dear Mr. Moore: . . . It does me good to read of your taking a real rest-cure, for it was evident to me just before you left that you were indeed thoroughly tired out. Frank and I are holding the fort all alone by ourselves, Miss Reynolds and Margaret having gone to Mount Desert, where my daughter, Mrs. Thompson, and her children have joined them. ‘To-morrow I leave town for a brief run to Schenectady, where I am to make my appear- ance on a university platform as “Honorary Chancellor,” what- ever that may mean. So far as I can learn, the Honorary Chancellor has no emolument and only one duty, this last being that of standing up and delivering an address forty-five minutes long. I was sorely put about for a subject, after having ac- cepted the task, and for a while was in despair, thinking that the only way out of it was for Union College to burn up or I myself to depart this life. Finally the name of the College suggested an idea, and I have at last succeeded in finishing my 362 HERESIES thesis, which is embodied in the title, “Idealism the Breath of Democracies.” The point I make is that the union of the States cannot be depended upon to last indefinitely if it is allowed to rest merely on a unity of business interests, but that, if the country is to maintain its political integrity, certain great spiritual forces must be brought into play. I recognized three reservoirs of Idealism, as I call them, History, Poetry, and Religion: History furnishing us with ideal persons, Po- etry idealizing the land in which we live, and Religion supply- ing the ideal motive. I finally bring up with an appeal to Church and University to stand shoulder to shoulder in the war against darkness. If the thing is printed, I will send you a copy, so that you may see for yourself what an inadequate abstract this is that I have given you. . July 6, 1903. Dear Miss MEREDITH: Thank you for the “Lamps.” If this were winter and there were a fire burning on the hearth, I should have been tempted to light them. When I shall have read them, or as much of them as I can stand, you shall have an opinion. I suppose the next number, if the Holy Father dies meanwhile, will come out with a black edge. I differ with you in your opinion that the promoters are unnecessary. They are but tugging at an- other corner of the great sheet let down from heaven, at the opposite corner of which Canon Henson and Mr. Hillis are pulling with equal energy; and what am I, who have given my whole lifetime since I was twenty-one to the subject of Church Unity, that I should find fault with these men who are at the two ends of the sheet because I happen to be pulling in a dif- ferent direction still? Among us we may get the whole sheet straightened out, with all manner of living creatures playing happily uponit. My metaphor seems to be a jumble of Peter’s vision and Barnum’s circus; but no matter. I have just been reading a most delightful book, with which I dare say you have had the start of me, namely, “John Richard Green’s” Letters, edited by Leslie Stephen. It is an encourage- 363 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON ment to preachers to find that Green’s splendid energies, which were running to waste, received concentration and impulse from a sermon by Dean Stanley. If one cannot be a great man himself, surely the next best thing is to rouse up greatness in other men, as Vinton did in Brooks and Stanley in Green. A friend of ours told me the other day that you wrote too many letters for your own good, and that you ought not to be encouraged in it; so don’t take this as an encouragement. It is always a great pleasure to hear from you; but if I thought that hearing from you meant a headache, | should wish to forego the pleasure. I don’t believe that getting letters ever gives headaches, when they are friendly ones. Therefore I have no scruples about sending this. Faithfully yours. P. S.—As a mnemonic help let me remind you that my daughter Mary was the last bride to be married in the old Church at North East, and Bishop Doane’s granddaughter Mary the first to be married in the new Church. What name could be more appropriate for such a sanctuary than St. Mary’s by the Sea? W. R. H. To tue Rev. I. W. Bearp September 22, 1903. My Dear FRIEND: None of the congratulatory letters that have come to me in connection with my birthday has been more welcome than yours, Were I worthy or half-way worthy of such words, I should be happy indeed. As to the Co-adjutorship there are half a dozen reasons why I could not accept it were the Diocese rash enough to offer it to me, but as the one named in the Sun, to wit, that I am, by ten years, too old for the place, is of itself adequate, I need not mention the others. - Pray do not let this information stand in the way of your attendance at the Convention. God forbid that I should preach to you as to your ecclesiastical duties, but I do strongly 364 HERESIES hold that it is a bounden duty of every clergyman of our Church to exercise his right of voting at its councils. There has not been in years, and probably will not be in years, so important a Convention as this coming, and you and all whose names are on the roll of voters ought to be on hand. More than once I have known important ecclesiastical matters set- tled by one vote. To F. C. Moors, Esa. September 29, 1903. Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you for letting me see this letter. The Bishop was entirely off the track in what he said from the chair about your motion, having been apparently misled by the phrase “Canons of the Church,” which he thought referred to the Diocese, whereas you really meant it to refer to the General Convention. I think you would be on stronger ground every way if, in place of the words “communicant members in good standing,” you were to say “baptized persons.” LEcclesiastically every bap- tized person is a member of the Christian Church, which is Just as much a society as any other society, and therefore it is log- ically absurd to allow persons who have not the badge of mem- bership to take part in the legislation of the body. The reason why I think it wise to stop at the point I have indicated is this: that in many communities there are persons who order their lives according to Christian standards, and who have the respect of their fellow citizens, who yet, for reasons known only to themselves, are not communicants; while in the same communities there are also many who are communicants but who do not have the entire respect of their fellow citizens. Now when a Church or Mission passes over the respected man, and, simply on the ground of his having been confirmed, puts into office another man a little “off colour,” the effect upon religion in that town or village is calamitous. The Canons of the General Church require that lay deputies to the General Convention shall be communicants, and I should be not unwilling to see this rule extended to diocesan conven- 365 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON tions, since they are law-making bodies; but to extend it to wardens and vestrymen, whose duties, after all, are mostly connected with the temporalities of the Church, would, I am inclined to think, be an error. The subject has been often mooted in our Diocesan Conventions, and I remember to have heard it, too, elaborately discussed in Massachusetts before I came here. Whenever it is broached, strong differences of opinion are sure to emerge. To THE Rev. Cuaupius F. SmitH October 5, 1903. My Dear Mr. Smiru: Of course all these questions as to what form recreation shall take in a parish church are questions of more or less, and one rector will draw the line at one place and another at another. We in Grace Church do not pretend to be any wiser than our neighbours ; but we have drawn the line at pool-tables and danc- ing, and are content with an ordinary gymnasium, to which a bowling-alley would seem to be a very natural attachment, though we have n’t one, our extra being a swimming-pool. Pool-tables and dancing are under the ban, not because they are evil in themselves, but because, in large cities at least, they are much handicapped by evil associations. To James RusseLtt Parsons, Jr., Esa. October 15, 1908. Dear Mr. Parsons: I believe with you that in the matter of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, the status quo ought to be main- tained, and that any departure from it will involve us in hope- less controversy. Let me add, however, that I am thoroughly committed to the plan for having more rather than less religion in our public schools. By “religion” I do not mean dogmatic theology, denominational catechisms, or anything of that sort, but the straightforward teaching of theistic ethics. . By ‘‘theis- tic ethics,” I mean such morality as belongs in common to the 366 HERESIES Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches and to the Syna- gogue. To make my meaning plainer, I may cite by way of illustration the answers given in our Church Catechism to the two questions, “What is Thy Duty towards God?” and “What is Thy Duty towards Thy Neighbour?” In an anonymous re- vision of the Prayer Book, ascribed to Benjamin Franklin, the entire Catechism is cut down to these limits. Doubtless such a shrewd observer saw that there was a code of morals, to which none of his fellow countrymen who in any sense were believers in God could object. Of course, I am using these compositions simply by way of illustration of what I mean by theistic ethics. In actual process, the teaching would be by text-book in which the laws of conduct were classified and illustrated. There have been several such books put forth tentatively. One of them, written by the late Dr. Kramer and published by Whittaker, is entitled “The Right Road.” The present ethical teaching in our public schools seems to be lamentably lop-sided. On the single subject of alcoholism, the teachers are by law compelled to give instruction; but, so far as I know, on no other subject (having a moral bearing) whatsoever. You have doubtless noticed the correspondence that has been going on in The New York Sun, during the last fortnight, on this whole subject. It has struck me as singular that nobody has written to The Sun in advocacy of the middle ground which I have sketched out in this letter. I started to do so myself, but gave it up in view of the perfect avalanche of correspondence which the Editor declared Mr. Geer’s ex- ploitation of the subject had brought in upon him. There is no question now before the public which seems to me so urgent as this one. It will not down. Our theoretical reliance upon the Church and the family, as the sole means of ethical culture, turns out to be a broken reed. Unless I am misinformed, juvenile crime is in this country largely on the increase, whereas in England, where ethical instruction is made part of the curriculum of the board schools, as well as of the national schools since the passage of the Foster Bill, juvenile crime has as steadily decreased. I may be wrong upon this 367 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON statistical point. If I am, please correct me, for you must know all about it... . To tHe Rey. Joun H. Eear, D.D. October 16, 1903. My Dear Dr. Ecar: Thank you for sending me your sermon preached at the Consecration of Trinity Church, West Pittston. I have read it with pleasure and profit. Yearly I become more and more convinced that the Cosmic Christ is the Christ to be preached, if we would retain for the New Testament theology the confi- dence and respect of scholars, and not only of scholars, but of all who think and read. With all that you say in this direc- tion, I am in hearty agreement, esteeming your treatment of your text singularly dignified and lofty. Whether we should agree equally well with respect to the other branch of your discourse, namely, that which deals with symbolic worship, is another matter. The Mass, as commonly understood, seems to me to presuppose a much wider and deeper acquaintance with the meanings of the symbols employed, than can easily be expected of the average congregation. Last spring I attended a Russian Mass, and was impressed by the fact that the lay people were quite ignorant of the purport of the symbolism. Of course, I may be mistaken, judging as I did only from surface signs. Devout, the people certainly ap- peared to be, but whether with the devoutness of superstition, or devoutness of pure religion and undefiled, I found it hard to decide. .... To tHE Rev. Georce L. Locker, D.D. October 19, 1903. Drar GEORGE: Your Vestryman presented his note of introduction, and I sent him to the Head of one of our parochial guilds, who tells me that she can probably give him a chance to lecture this winter, | 368 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON THE RECTOR OF GRACE CHURCH HERESIES I am awfully sorry to hear of the mishap to your eye, and it is largely with a view to saving that organ from further injury that I am sending you a typewritten letter in place of a manu- script one, for my handwriting grows worse and worse as years advance. What old fellows we are all of us getting to be! With Tiffany growing deaf, and you growing blind, and I los- ing a large fraction of my memory, what will happen I don’t know. However, we must keep up our spirits as best we can, and I would suggest as one method of keeping up yours, that you come on this way and see us. Of course you will be com- ing on to Greer’s Consecration, as he counts you one of his nearest and dearest; but don’t wait till then, for that is prob- ably two or three months off. What with Dowie and Low and Jerome, we are having lively times in Manhattan. Immediately after morning service yesterday, I was intercepted in Grace House by a female Dowieite, and entreated to go and see the “Doctor,” who, she assured me, was a much maligned prophet. The reporters seem much puzzled by Dowie, some of them tak- ing him seriously, or semi-seriously, and the others accounting him a full-blown hypocrite and impostor. The probability is that he is a self-deceived enthusiast. ... To Francis A. Lewis, Ese. Nov. 5, 1903. My Dear Mr. Lewis: It does not at all disturb me that I should be counted among the “irascibles” by the Editor of The Church Standard, but by you to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, would seriously grieve me. As the Standard’s editorial seems to show that there is some danger of this, I am writing to explain the course I took in our late Diocesan Convention with respect to the referendum, You may remember that, at North East Harbor last Summer, I expressed to you my feeling that, although the course adopted by your Committee was the very best possible one for your purpose, I nevertheless doubted its constitutionality, and should deprecate its being made a precedent. All the same, I 369 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON intended to keep silent on the subject in the Diocesan Conven- tion, and should have done so but for the fact that, at the last moment, affairs took such a turn that, had I not moved indefi- nite postponement on the ground of the irregularity of the pro- ceeding, there is every reason to believe that the Convention would have passed a resolution the opposite of what you would have wished. The portion of the Bishop’s Address bearing upon this sub- ject was referred to a Committee. The Committee did not bring in its report until late in the session, when the delegates had begun to scatter. No one rose to oppose the resolution ap- pended to the report, which was a resolution practically favor- able to a change of name. Perceiving the critical character of the situation, and fearful that unless immediate action were had, the resolution would pass, I sailed in with my motion for indefinite postponement, defending my motion by the argument from unconstitutionality. Had I not done this, I verily believe that the great Diocese of New York would have seemed to com- mit itself to the policy of a change of name. I ought to have written this to you immediately after the Convention, and intended to do so, but other things put it out of my mind. When I saw the editorial in the Standard, I perceived the necessity of making this explanation without delay. To tHe Rev. C. L. Suatrery Grace Church Rectory, Nov. 9, 1903. My Dear Dean SiatrTery: It was good of you to write as you did about my paper. You are too modest by half. The next time you see me sur- rounded by “older men,” please force yourself through the throng, and give me the pleasure of knowing that I have a young man’s sympathy. It is with you young men that the future of all these matters we discuss so frequently rests. How I wish I were going to see what you are destined to make of it all! 370 HERESIES To tHE Rev. Tuomas S. Bacon, D.D. November 30, 1903. My Dear Dr. Bacon: While I quite recognize the distinction you draw between your position as an ordained preacher of religious truth and that of Captain Mahan, who has only incidentally, as it were, undertaken to speak on the subject in hand, I still am of opin- ion that the advice given was on the whole wise. I do not mean that you should not try to push the circulation of your tractate. It is probably going too far to say that you ought to leave it on the bookseller’s shelves. What I do mean is that there is a limit to what duty demands of you in the way of risking your life, and imperilling your fortune, in pressing your work upon public attention. I have the same feeling about my own pet propaganda, to wit, Church Unity, that you have about yours, and I have the same feeling that a cold world has hardly done justice to my literary efforts. At the same time, I long ago came to the conclusion that to try to push, by extraordinary efforts, the sale of what I have written would be a mistake. After all, God has a care for his elect, his elect books and pamphlets as well as his elect people, and may be depended upon to see that readers are found if readers are necessary. It is a firm belief of mine, though not held as clearly now as I held it in early life, that sometimes the purpose of a book or a tract or a poem is fulfilled, if the thought or suggestion embedded in it germ- inates in some one soul, thus producing results in time to come of which we can have no measure. You recall the old saying that, if Stephen had not prayed, Paul had not preached; but how little Stephen suspected, when he was feeling the impact of the stones, that one of those who stood by consenting, was destined to become the chief artificer under God of Christendom. To Epwin H. Axssort, Esa. November 30, 1903. My Dear Mr. Asszotr: I have read with the deepest interest your niece’s exposition 371 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON of her father’s thought, worked down into catechetical form. The little book is, I take it, a fair conspectus of the main points of Frank’s philosophy. The gap between the theolog- ical premises and the ethical conclusions can only, as it seems to me, be bridged by your true saying that your brother’s strength was more largely in the affections than he himself would have been willing to admit. I do not, of course, by this mean that his logical faculty was not powerful. It was extra- ordinarily so. But his heart was so preéminently loving that he simply would not accept the results which colder natures, starting from the same first principles, found no difficulty in reaching. With a single exception, possibly with two exceptions, no one, I imagine, ever had the opportunity to know better than I the depth of Frank’s affections. He had no more intimate friend than I in the class of ’59, nor I any more intimate friend than he. Our religious impressions deepened simultaneously under the influence of the College Chapel of that day, and, so long as undergraduate life lasted, there was nothing, or next to nothing, of doctrinal cleavage between us. It was inevitable that, when we went out into active life, the convictions imbibed almost unconsciously in the early days, before we ever knew each other, should assert themselves, and so they did. I, who had temporarily reacted from historical Christianity, reverted to it. He, with whom Theism had always been the main thing, rather than any definite tenet or tenets, went off into extreme Liberalism. He followed his conscience, I mine, and, while it is only truth to say that my dissent from his method has stead- ily grown more and more pronounced as my experience has widened, there has never been a time when I should not have been willing to acknowledge his superiority as a scholar, and his greater depth of feeling; for I have never known a man in the whole course of my life who seemed to me capable of stronger emotion or more genuine passion. I have spoken my mind very frankly and freely in this letter, moved to do so by your kindness in writing me as you have done, and by the upwelling force of old memories, still very dear, 372 HERESIES To THE Rey. Jonn Fuurton, D.D. December 1, 1903. My Dear Dr. Furrton: I am glad that you take an interest in the suggestion which I brought forward at Washington and am also glad of an op- portunity of further explaining my view to you. ‘The resolu- tions as I offered them were as follows: “Resolved, That this council formally requests the General Convention, at its next session, to consider the expediency of repealing so much of Canon 15, Title I, as prohibits the Con- secration of suffragan bishops; “Resolved, That the General Convention be further requested to consider the expediency of so amending the Missionary Canon (Canon 7, Title III) as to empower the Board of Mis- sions to maintain out of its funds suffragan bishops for races within the limits of the United States not as yet fully Amer- icanized, the said suffragans to be titular suffragans of the Presiding Bishop, and active suffragans of such bishops as, with the advice and consent of their standing committees, shall assign them delegated jurisdiction within their dioceses or missionary districts.” The Bishop of Georgia, at the conclusion of my speech in support of these resolutions, immediately rose and asked whether I should be willing to omit the words “not as yet fully Americanized.” Discerning at once what his thought and purpose were, I only too willingly accepted the amendment, and the words in question were dropped. I should gladly have made the resolution in the first instance cover the case of the negro populatien, but was afraid of arousing unfriendly debate by such proposal, and therefore limited myself, by the phrase “not fully Americanized,” to the Scandinavians, Poles, and oth- ers not as yet speaking the English language. The enlarging of the scope of the resolutions by the omission which the Bishop of Georgia suggested gives the measure much greater dignity and importance, and to have had the suggestion of such an omission come from a southern bishop was _ particularly gratifying. 373 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON The two features of the plan which strike me as worth spe- cial consideration are: (1) The giving to the suffragans a titular relation to the Presiding Bishop. This keeps them always in office, so to speak, and obviates the objection often brought against suf- fragans, that, upon the death of the bishops whose suffragans they are, they find themselves awkwardly “hung up.” If we had, for example, a suffragan bishop for the Swedes, he would be at work in such dioceses as were disposed to admit him, and if, upon the death of a bishop with whom he had been co- operating, he found himself not persona grata to the new incumbent, he would simply redouble his activities in the dioceses or jurisdictions where he was persona grata. If un- der those circumstances it was found that the interest of the Church languished in the diocese where the suffragan had been discontinued, public opinion would quickly make matters right. (2) The throwing of the responsibility of maintenance upon the Board of Missions, where it properly belongs in the case of bishops who are working in different parts of the country, and for an object for which the entire Church, rather than any one local portion of it, is responsible, would insure the office against being brought into contempt by the mendicant condition of the person holding it. There is no more reason why the Board of Missions should not be chargeable with suffragans than with missionary bishops, whom, in fact, they would closely resemble, save in the point of their being employed in different sections of the country. I am convinced that this scheme is thoroughly workable and is in accordance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the ecclesi- astical polity of the early Church. I think with you that such. suffragans should have a place in the House of Bishops, just as the missionary bishops and the coadjutors have, and I think there is a special value in retaining the name “suffragan bish- ops,” so this would be understood to be a temporary expedient adopted under the present “distress,” and not necessarily a permanent feature of our American polity. I shall be glad if the measure receives your powerful support. 374 HERESIES Nov. 23: 1908. Dear Miss MEREDITH: . . . When I was a young man I was too proud to face the public as a minor poet; but years have brought the philosophic mind, and I now feel that if my verses can be of any help or comfort to the sort of readers who are fond of verse, as such, but to whom the greater bards are, in the main, unintelligible, I ought to forget my vanity and I have done so. Do not charge me with mock humility. I think well enough of my work, but my good opinion of it does not blind me to the fact that it is not of the best. It lacks passion. ... To Mrs. J. P. Cooxr Grace Church Rectory, December 15, 1903. Dear Mary: . . - L wish you could have been here a week ago Sunday to have helped to keep the twentieth anniversary of my entrance upon the Rectorship of Grace Church. The anniversary busi- ness has been so much overdone in clerical circles of late years, that I kept the thing dark, perhaps too dark, as a number of persons in this neighborhood have told me that they should have been glad to be present had they known about it. The Sermon, rather a long one, is to be printed, by request of the Vestry, and of course I shall send you a copy. I wonder if you happen to have kept the Sermon I preached, under similar cir- cumstances, at Worcester twenty-one years ago. ... I pur- posely avoided re-reading the All Saints’ Sermon before writ- ing the New York one, lest I should fall into the same line of treatment. Judge of my dismay when I discovered afterwards that I had practically done so. So much for unconscious cerebration. ... To tHE Rev. N. B. W. GaLtuweEy February 12, 1904. . . . It is pleasant to see that California has shown its ap- preciation of Parsons, and its satisfaction with his recent deci- 375 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON sion, by sending him to the General Convention—a deserved tribute. You, I see, are at the head of the Missionary Board besides being an alternate deputy. These things make me ex- tremely proud of Grace Church’s representation on ‘“The Slope.” Ishall hope that by some stroke of luck you may come to Boston along with Parsons. I am glad to know that has made a good beginning in his new parish. Though not intel- lectually very strong, he is every inch a man and is bent on doing a man’s work. The longer I live, the more I am con- vinced that intellectuality pure and simple is by no means an adequate guarantee of success in the Christian ministry. The head qualities are exceedingly important and will win a man transient reputation; but to staying power, in the parochial sense of the phrase, the heart qualities are even more essen- taller. To tHe Rev. Joun Futton, D.D. February 19, 1904. My Dear Dr. Furton: The kind terms in which you express yourself with respect to my fitness for the presidency of the House of Deputies is nat- urally most gratifying. It is equally pleasant to sce a cool- ness of two years’ standing dispelled by cordial expressions of personal respect and regard, emanating simultaneously from each of us, when neither was aware that the other was about to speak. After giving careful consideration to all that you urge in your letter of Wednesday, I find myself unshaken in the belief that I can be of far more use to the Church on the floor of the House of Deputies than in the chair. Even if such an un- derstanding were arrived at as the one you suggest, namely, that I, by general consent, might from time to time leave the chair and take part in the debates, I cannot think that the precedent so established would be a good one. My observa- tion covers now a rather long past, and in reviewing my expe- rience of public assemblies, I do not recall a single instance in which the presiding officer did not lose prestige by taking the 376 HERESIES floor, and I recall some instances in which he damaged himself very seriously in the opinion of the House. There is another consideration, upon which you do not touch but which influences me very strongly. I have now held for several successive Conventions, and should probably by cour- tesy be allowed to hold in this coming Convention, the chair- manship of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. All my ambitions, as you are aware, have been in the direction of improving the structural features of the Episcopal Church. My aims may have been mistaken ones and my methods unwise; but all the same they have been mine. I have, therefore, valued and continue to value the chairmanship in question as I could no other official position in the gift of the House. You will, I think, see the force of this consideration, now that I have stated it, and will acknowledge that it ought to weigh. I still favour your candidacy more than that of any other man, and think that the difficulty with regard to sight would prove less serious than you imagine, always provided that Sec- retary Hutchins is on hand to prompt the chair. Without that valuable help, I am afraid that even Dr. Dix’s crop of laurels would have suffered loss. Deafness is an out and out disqual- ification for a presiding officer, as was shown at the late Mis- sionary Conference at Washington; but I do not think that dimness of vision need necessarily be. I fully agree with you that laymen ought to be called more frequently to the chair, especially when we happen to have one in the House so singu- larly competent as Packard... . To tHe Rr. Rev. Winti1am Lawrence, D.D. February 27, 1904. My Dear Lawrence: Accept my heartiest congratulations. At the end of the next ten years, may you keep your anniversary, not in Trinity Church but in St. Botolph’s by the Charles. (What a musical designation that is!) I am very anxious to hear how the sug- gestion of reproducing the Lincolnshire Church strikes the Bos- tonians. I shall be greatly disappointed in them if they do not 877 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON respond with enthusiasm to the suggestion. Should it be acted upon, as I trust it will be, you and I need not quarrel as to the genesis of the dream, though I am prepared to make affidavit as to the place and time when the thought came to me. How fortunate it is that you were not tied strictly by the will to placing the Church in Waltham or Watertown. The Garden City Cathedral is a monumental warning against that sort of blunder. By putting it on the Charles, which washes Watertown as well as Boston, you will in a manner comply with the wishes of the testatrix, and I earnestly hope that the point selected will be one within easy walking distance of Har- vard College, upon which institution I trust that St. Botolph’s may exercise the same sort of influence which we are expecting the Cathedral of St. John the Divine to exert on Columbia. If you would like to see them, I can send you in a few weeks a copy of the Constitution and Statutes of our Cathedral. Just now they are undergoing revision, but I hope to get the com- pleted document through the press within a month. I fancy that your Cathedral will be finished a good while before this one arrives at completion. Just now we are practically at a standstill. With renewed congratulations upon this (to all but your- self) unlooked for benefaction to the Diocese of Massachusetts, I am, Most truly yours. To Mrs. Witu1am B. Horrman . . « [am standing by as long as I can for the reason that I shall have to be absent all of October in connection with the General Convention, which this year meets in Boston. It is hard for me to realize that I am now, in point of seniority of service, though probably not by the actual number of my years, the father of the House of Deputies. Some of my friends, moved doubtless by this fact, are urging me to accept the chairmanship vacated by the withdrawal of Dr. Dix; but I entertain the same repugnance to the office that most of our public men seem to be feeling just now towards the Vice- 378 HERESIES presidency of the United States; so I propose to have my own way and stay on the “floor,” partly, no doubt, because to use the wise little Royal’s language, ‘““Grandpapa likes to talk.” He certainly does when important issues are at stake in the Church, and there are plenty of these likely to be discussed at Boston in October... . You will think that we have all turned ritualists when you see the little choir which Deaconess Gardner has dressed up for the Italian Services at Grace Chapel, which we now have every Sunday afternoon at four. I broke off my narrative at this point in order to go into the Day Nursery and see if I could not get a picture of the choir to enclose, and was fortunate enough to find one. The children are dressed in cardinal red with white caps, and the effect from an esthetic point of view is certainly very pleasing. I attended the Service last Sunday afternoon and heard a sermon—presumably a good one—by Mr. Bailey in the Italian tongue. I asked one of the mothers after the Service whether she had understood the discourse and was relieved to be told that she had. The gathering of men, women, and children on the occasion was most picturesque, and one might have imagined himself in an Italian village. To Rozpert Treat Partneg, Esa. June 29, 1904, My Dear Mr. Parne: I have read with close attention and deep interest your pamphlet on The Spiritual Efficiency of the Church, and con- sider myself honored at having been quoted therein. At the same time, it would scarcely be honest in me to profess entire agreement with the positions taken up by you in your argu- ment. What both of us have in common is an intense desire to see a better unity prevail among the followers of Our Lord Jesus, and more especially here in America. Where we differ is with respect to the principles of comprehension and inclu- sion. 'To take Canon Henson’s position seems to me tanta- mount to saying that we have Church Unity already if we would only think so, and that all that is needed is a wider prev- 379 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON alence of comity, amity, courtesy, etc., etc. The visible ex- pression of this view would seem to be the Federation of Churches; but I confess that to my mind the Federation of Churches is a very different thing indeed from the sort of Unity described in the parable of the Vine and the Branches. I can- not believe that a number of denominations glued at the edges would be a real Unity, for the parts thus stuck together would break off on the original lines of cleavage at the slightest pro- vocation. My deep persuasion is that the Church of America, if we are ever to attain to it, will have in it as a necessary feature historic continuity with the past. There are but two claimants to such continuity that can see further back than the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, the Roman Com- munion and our own. I am an Episcopalian because I seem to see in the Episcopal Church possibilities of expansion, inclu- sion and adaptation which I nowhere else discern. If I thought that Congregationalism offered a more probable ground of reunion than Episcopacy, I would turn Congregationalist to- morrow, just as I should turn Romanist were I convinced of the soundness of the Papal claim. My steadfast endeavor now these forty years has been to help liberalize the Episcopal Church, not in the sense of watering down its fundamental doc- trines till they should mean nothing in particular, nor yet of reducing its ceremonial to a minimum for the sake of conciliat- ing the non-liturgical Christian, but wholly and always to make it structurally more widely inclusive of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and in temper and feeling more sympathetic towards them that are without. You will readily see that this position is very dissimiliar to Henson’s. How indifferently I have succeeded in winning disciples to the view of the matter above suggested no one knows better than I; but the thesis is the thesis with which I set out in the ministry in the early 60s and by which I abide. Again thanking you for the opportunity of reading your highly suggestive monograph, with a good half of which I am in hearty accord, I remain, Most truly yours... 380 HERESIES Grace Church Rectory, July 12, 1904. My Dear Miss K : The death of Bishop Huntington has awakened in me mem- ories very similar to those which have visited you. To be sure, I first knew him when I was a young man, while your earliest recollections of him are those of a child; but to both you and me he was an object of deep attachment. Few indeed have taken such a hold of my affections at the time of life when af- fections are strongest. To his influence as a preacher, I owe my first interest in religion and religious things; and _ all through the days of my earlier ministry, I constantly looked up to him for guidance and counsel. It was a grand life, fittingly brought to a close under the great spreading elm-trees which he so dearly loved. I shall always be thankful that I knew him there at the farm, as well as in the activities of his public life at Cambridge, Boston and Syracuse, In my judgment, our American Community could show no more dignified figure than his, nor was there any tongue among us by which the dialect of devotion was more beautifully and more powerfully employed. It is an honor to anyone to have, at any time, assisted him in his work, and this honor your father and I may both of us claim. 381 XIT THE CATHEDRAL nature craved to be the expression of his ideals for Church unity was provided Dr. Huntington in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the plan for which was inaugurated in the year 1887, the corner- stone being laid in 1892. To the work of the Cathedral he devoted himself, his thought, and time, in a most generous fashion, serving for twenty-two years as trustee. Its organization, or constitution, had his most careful consideration. Just what a cathedral was, or ought to be, in the United States, was at that time by no means clear. It has not yet been adequately defined. There are difficulties enough in regard to cathedral foundations in England, but there they have, at least, long, historic precedents and traditions to build upon, and the program is quite a different one from what it is in this country. What historically a cathedral was in the far distant past may be determined with a certain amount of accuracy; and the problem becomes one of so transforming the ancient foundation that the cathedral shall be a serviceable in- stitution in the life of the modern world. Here in America, one grants at the beginning that the last thing 382 \ TANGIBLE and visible symbol which his THE CATHEDRAL to be desired, by universal confession, is an imitation of the Old-World product. The cathedral in America must be a democratic institution, built up out of the life of the people, and serving that people’s life. At the same time, it must be so organized as to be wisely guided by competent diocesan authority. A combina- tion of these required factors is by no means easy. Dr. Huntington had it clearly in mind that a great cathedral, in the most cosmopolitan city of the most cosmopolitan nation on earth, ought to express in simple and well-understood terms the ambition of its church to serve all the people of the land, and, in some true manner, to lead the way toward Christian unity. It must be acknowledged that to a large degree he succeeded in setting the right stamp upon the Cathedral’s constitution, and that the later de- velopment of the Cathedral’s life has been true to the Church’s thought, that the great building is held by our Church in trust, to be in every way, as completely as possible, at the service of the whole people of the com- munity. Dr. Huntington was concerned, not only with the Cathedral’s constitution, but with the Fabric itself. From the very first, he was chairman of the Committee on the Fabric, and devoted many hours to the meetings of this committee and to work outside the meetings in connection with it. He became the controlling force in establishing the ideals which were to guide the plans for the Fabric, and in the development of the work of construction, as it was carried on through many years. 383 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON In an enterprise of this nature, a one-man control, or even an approach to it, is inevitably fraught with peril. The dominance of Dr. Huntington was based primarily upon his whole-hearted devotion to the cause, and it was fortified by the confidence which he had inspired in the people of the community, which found expression in generous gifts, and in unquestioning reliance upon his judgment. It must be frankly confessed, however, that the peril was not avoided, and that the situation in- vited disaster, which has only been averted by the wis- dom of his successors in later years. The errors of the earlier time have had first to be corrected, before the growing Fabric could advance to new dimensions and to a satisfying unity. It would doubtless have been better if the principle which controlled him in Grace Church, by which he left the art of music to the musician, had controlled him here, and led him to leave the art of archi- tecture to the architect. At the very beginning, there were circumstances which made it impossible to secure perfect freedom of choice between plans of architects which were submitted. Dr. Huntington dominated in the choice of architects which was finally made, a choice which came later to be regretted. Afterward he clung with a sort of obstinate loyalty to the architects chosen. The loyalty one can understand and applaud. It proved costly, however, in the delay which it occasioned in placing the whole work under more competent leadership. It was due to the patient and persistent studies of Canon Jones, that in the end the faults of construction and the possibility of their correction were 384 Th? Sas Ls ic TAG"! ’ a4 d vas : q Ss ae’, Se + s Aon : ‘ Parl sony rd HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL CHAPEL CATHEDRAL OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE THE CATHEDRAL discovered.’ Over this matter many debates occurred in the Fabric Committee. In an architectural journal published in the year 1905, a writer gives expression to his ideals in regard to a church building in the following words: The earliest name for a Christian was disciple, and the earli- est name, perhaps, for Christ was Teacher. The Church which perpetuates His life and endeavors to make it real to humanity is likewise the teacher. The term Ecclesia Docens is more than merely an indication of part of the Church’s activity. It is, rightly understood, an expression indicative of the Church’s essential character and vital function. It is possible to carry over this thought into the housing of TReVCNULCH a... 3 The Church must be a building which in itself, as one enters its door, invites to worship . . . and, at the same time, it must provide the proper framework for the speaking voice of the preacher. ... Neither the “back parlor” nor the lecture hall can be a church and bring a man to his knees, but no more can a stately pile of aisles and arches that can house only a spectacle and never an “audible,” and where the word from the lips of a man becomes a jumble of echoing incoherence. “In the church,” said Saint Paul, “I had rather speak five words with my under- standing than ten thousand words in a tongue.” It is quite possible to speak of either of these elements in a way to belittle them or to brand them as selfish ends. The sense of worship may be faulted as an emotional sentiment, and the desire to hear a sermon may be called merely a thirst for information or for a sensation. Either one may be debased, either one may be conceivably the expression of a selfish wish for a pleasurable experience; but we know that at heart these things are essentially great, and that they are equally the de- mands of a human soul for the best, not merely for itself, but 385 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON that a man may turn that best to the service of his fellow man and to the glory of his God. In writing to the author of this article, Dr. Hunting- ton expressed himself as follows: I began at the beginning of the Brickbuilder’s symposium, and found my dissent becoming more and more emphatic as I read, until I reached your contribution and discovered therein my own sentiments. If religion be nothing more than a vague consciousness of the presence of a “power not ourselves,” those uplifting influences which Dr. and the others ascribe to Gothic architecture may be all sufficient, and one can attain to this psychical condition as easily at Luxor and Thebes as at York or Canterbury; but if we have been made aware by mes- sage of certain definite truths with regard to our relation to God and to the future life, the message must, as you say, find articulate expression, either in writing or in speech. We had this whole question thoroughly discussed in the Board of Trustees of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, at the time when the competing architects submitted their designs. The result of the competition, I am willing to concede, was a — disappointment, since no one of the sixty or more competitors presented a design that led the imagination captive; but I for one am profoundly thankful that we adopted a plan which will at least give ample opportunity for preaching and congre- gational singing. To have proceeded on the medieval theory that the choir represented heaven and the clergy the saints, while without in the distant nave stood a mixed multitude, not knowing its right hand from its left, would, in my judgment, have been a great mistake. No one will undertake to deny that St. Paul’s, London, has done more in the last thirty years for the advancement of the religious life of England than any other Cathedral or two Cathedrals; and the influence which has accomplished this has been the influence of the pulpit. But why am I urging all this upon you who have put it all so much more forcefully in the Brickbuilder? ‘And therefore I say, Amen, So be it.” 386 THE CATHEDRAL Previously, in a letter to ““The Churchman” in 1901 relative to proposed improvements in the east end of Grace Church which had been adversely criticized in the press, Dr. Huntington wrote: The plain facts in the case are these. The authorities of Grace Church are not proposing to add a choir to their nave and transepts; that is not the enterprise they have in hand. The architect (the late James Renwick) provided a choir when the building was first planned. What is proposed is to add to the existing choir (which, though small, will be large enough, when cleared of the present obstructions, to accommodate all the singers we need) a sanctuary twenty feet in depth. When this shall have been done, the total distance from the first step of the choir to the east wall of the church will be thirty-six feet. It would take a great deal to convince me that in a reformed church, which professes to deliver the Gospel in a tongue “‘understanded of the people,” any large interval of space between the minister and the congregation, when engaged in “common” prayer, was desirable. Doubtless the vista of a long-drawn choir with fretted vault reaching all the way to Fourth Avenue (for why stop at “forty-five feet?) would be exceedingly pleasant to the eye, but unless we are in- tent upon reverting to the medieval conception of worship by proxy, the provision of a spacious cage for the exclusive accommodation of the clergy and choristers at the east end of our edifice would be most ill-judged. Grace Church has never, thus far in its history, stood for any such uncatholic notions as the annex which you urge would symbolize, and I trust it never will. Grace is a parish church, with the needs and as- pirations of a parish church; and there is no desire on the part of any of its people to see it turned into a mock-cathedral. The basilicas represent the mind of the primitive Church with respect to the proximity of priest and people, and if the adop- tion of Gothic forms necessarily means the segregation of the clergy in the act of worship and the relegating of the people 387 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON to the place of distant listeners, straining their ears to catch echoes of heaven’s song, Gothic architecture will be the sufferer. But does it? These letters of Dr. Huntington’s clearly enough set forth the ideal to which he clung. No one, perhaps, will be ready to blame the ideal itself. The difficulties arose from the fact of the unwillingness on the part of the chairman of the Fabric Committee, after having once made clear the ideals and purposes which the Cathedral was to serve, to leave the architectural work- ing out of the conception in competent architectural hands. It must, however, be confessed, in spite of the criti- cism just made, that Dr. Huntington’s services in the whole matter were of the greatest value. He watched carefully, even lovingly, every step of the way, and he saved his fellow-workers from the commission of many costly errors. He delighted in framing the scheme for the interior decoration. He gave most careful con- sideration to every detail, such, for instance, as the plac- ing of the organ. He stood out for English glass in the windows as against the architect’s desire for win- dows made in America, with all that this at that time meant. More than this, he inspired the people of the — Church with his own enthusiasm for the carrying out of the Cathedral ideal, and it was, without doubt, con- fidence in his wisdom and devotion which won many to the support of the undertaking. In minor points he often brought to bear the impress 388 THE CATHEDRAL of his fine sentiment and sympathetic touch. The con- ception of the Chapels of the Tongues was the product of his own poetic soul. These seven chapels, each one consecrated to a service in some foreign tongue, will forever symbolize the Cathedral’s ambition to include within its influence all Christians of whatever nation or speech. There was, of course, peril, as always in an attempt to realize so ambitious a symbol, in the carry- ing out of this plan; but it must be confessed that on the whole it has been successfully developed, and that it is full of helpfulness in impressing the Cathedral's significance. The Chapels have been built with a spirit of devotion, and in themselves have added greatly to the Cathedral’s esthetic and worshipful appeal. One of them, very properly, has been built as a memorial to Dr. Huntington himself. When all is said and done, it must be acknowledged that when the completed Fabric shall at last rise trium- phant on its splendid site, and when there shall be read the roll of those who have been its founders and build- ers, high upon the list will stand the name of William Reed Huntington. Amid the manifold perplexities and harassing details attendant upon the prosecution of the work, Dr. Huntington never faltered in the maintenance of his ideal of what a Cathedral is, and what it ought to signify for the life of the people. This ideal found, for him, a noble expression in the words of Gerald Stanley Lee. 389 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON “It would be hard to deny,” wrote this author, ‘that if the Christian Church exists for one thing rather than another, it exists for the purpose of making God elo- quent. And if men are on the street, it must make God - eloquent on the street. If the Church building that especially represents God on the streets of the city is vulgar or hideous or shabby or insincere, or if it is a mere sitting-room, with colored windows, where people drop in pleasantly for a cozy, comfortable chat with Him be- fore whom hell is naked, who stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon noth- ing, why should one notice God? But I do believe that the main fact about the church of the future is that it is going to take the idea of the incarnation seriously. It is going to act on the principle that while the Bible has declared in a general way that God is a spirit, the most important thing about the spirit, as a matter of human history, is that it has always in- sisted upon having a body. It also seems to be a matter of history that the final test of the vitality and reality of a good spirit is that it can get a body. In other words, I believe that if the modern church rules the modern city, it is going to look impressive. If it rules, everybody is going to know it. The only church that shall ever rule them shall be a church with the cathedral spirit. It shall be a church of the Strong Men. And the spirit of the Strong Men shall build on all the great streets of the world mighty homes for God. The church of the future shall not be one that can be looked down on by mere opera-houses, by great hotels or 390 THE CATHEDRAL temples for feeding people. It shall be one that sug- gests, when one looks at it, nations and empires, cen- turies of love and sacrifice and patience, and it shall gather the great cities like children about its feet.” 391 XIII CONTINUING THE CHURCH UNITY CAMPAIGN ton’s whole life was in itself an ordered effort for the promotion of Church Unity. It is interesting, however, to consider just what his relation was to some of the agencies which were organized to bring this into effect, and what his conscious connection with events and persons intimately involved in the process. It was after the Convention of 1886 in Chicago that he came to be recognized, by common consent, on all sides, as the leader of this cause. The chairman of the committee of the House of Bishops, which in that Con- vention had presented the Report on Unity, was quoted as saying that “the Report had been rewritten by him eleven different times, and each time on his knees.” The heart of this report was, however, as all men knew, the Quadrilateral which had been formulated by Dr. Huntington sixteen years before. T'o him every move- ment organized to promote unity turned for advice or leadership. This was true of diocesan movements, like the Church Unity Society formed in 1887 in the dio- cese of Pennsylvania, or of the conference in Connect- icut after the Lambeth Declaration of 1908, and of local conferences, such as those planned in 1892 by Dr. 392 | has been abundantly indicated that Dr. Hunting- CHURCH UNITY Abbot of Cambridge and by others elsewhere. In 1887 the Rev. Josiah Strong had a plan for a General Conference of Evangelical Christians under the Evan- gelical Alliance. In 1888 the American Congress of Churches was suggested as an effort to help the cause. Dr. Huntington fought shy of these large demonstra- tions; and it often taxed his wisdom to restrain and at the same time not to quench enthusiasms. Some one quoted of him, as a leader of religious thought, what Gladstone said of the poet: “It is he who gives back to his contemporaries as a river that which he has re- ceived from them as vapor.” It was the small and unadvertised conference, where there was frank conversation from men of all churches, that seemed to him at times most full of promise. Time has confirmed this judgment, as those who have faithfully followed the Church Unity movement are well aware. Of this character was the “League of Catholic Unity” formed in 1895. It grew out of the “Catholic Unity Circle,’ a group which was brought together, at Dr. Shields’s suggestion, by Dr. William Chauncy Langdon. It had no publicity, but its mem- bers met to talk and, through saying all that was in their minds, to try to delve to the heart of their subject. Its existence was not unknown to those without, and it was said of the bishops that they all seemed afraid of it. It published finally a Declaration, which gave satisfaction to friends of the cause. One of the mem- bers, rejoicing greatly in the possession of copies for distribution, writes: “I shall give one to the oldest 393 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON instructor in a well-known Academy who recently remarked to a group of. school-boys: ‘If there is anything on earth I hate, God knows it is an E/piscopa- lian.’”’ ‘That same year Theodore EF’. Seward was pub- lishing “The Neo-Christian: A Layman’s Journal of Christian Unity,” the motto of which was, “Love your neighbor and respect his beliefs.” Not every movement, however great his sympathy, could win his active membership and coéperation. In 1893 he had refused to join the “Church Unity So- ciety,” fearing, if he did so, to hamper his ambitions » along the lines of Constitutional revision in Convention. It was natural, his ideals for Unity being matter of country-wide knowledge, that new Americans, of widely differing Church affiliations, should turn to him for counsel, and for support in their undertakings. It was true of members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, of Old Catholics, and of members of the Swedish Church. All alike esteemed him their friend and prof- ited not seldom by his sound and helpful advice. He was generous, too, in his support of the Swedish work in Western dioceses, in Minnesota and Illinois, as well as of work of this character nearer home. In his own estimation, doubtless, the most significant work which he undertook for the promotion of Church. Unity was his endeavor, continued through successive General Conventions, so to change the fundamental laws of the Church as to make practically effective the principle of unity enunciated in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Already, in the Convention of 1892, the 394 CHURCH UNITY Convention which marked the completion of the work of Prayer Book Revision, the first steps were taken looking toward revision of the Church’s Constitution and Canons. In the year 1892 he reached perhaps the high-water mark of his power. He was then fifty-four years old. He had been for ten years at Grace Church, and was established as a center of influence in New York. His labors in carrying through successive conventions the work of Prayer Book Revision were accomplished. He was able to feel a certain sense of vindication for his choice of Church Unity as his life’s motive power and goal. In answer to a congratulatory letter sent to him at the close of the Convention of 1892, he wrote: “I hope you will not think that the Revision of the Prayer Book was a question of ritual with me. I am looking forward to the time when the Church of Christ will be one Church, and all my work on revision has had in view the getting our own Church into the best possible position for meeting that issue when it shall come.” It was in that Convention that he made one of his most famous and masterful speeches. Mr. Biddle of Phila- delphia had stigmatized the idea of Church Unity, using Senator Ingalls’s phrase, as an “iridescent dream’; and Dr. Huntington, seizing upon the phrase, had made it his own, marshaling the dreams of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets as the great dreams of humanity, dreams that were great because they were realizable and had been realized, as this dream would be, and remind- ing his hearers that iridescence was the characteristic 395 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON of the rainbow, and that the rainbow was the emblem of hope. In the next General Convention, that of 1895, at Minneapolis, he launched the Amendment to the Con- stitution, in which it was proposed to allow a bishop to take under his spiritual oversight any congregation of Christian people who accepted the Quadrilateral plat- form. This proposal was voted down, though receiv- ing a large support, especially on the part of the clergy. In the press this Convention was spoken of as “reac- tionary,” and as marking “the collapse of the Quadri- lateral,’ as in effect “repealing the Chicago-Lambeth platform.” Dr. Huntington was, however, far from being discouraged. He felt that progress had been made. Indeed in this year, and in the years which fol- lowed, his patience and hopefulness, in planning and carrying through his legislative program, were notable and inspiring. In speaking after the Convention of 1892 to his people from the Grace Church pulpit in regard to this matter, he said: “Were I to say all that is in my heart and mind as to the possibilities of this new venture of faith on the Church’s part [ Constitu- tional revision], I might be betrayed into expressions of hopefulness which would strike most of you as over- wrought. Suffice it to say that never, since the Refor- mation, has a fairer prospect been opened to the Church of our affections than is opened to her to-day. No in- terpretation of the divine purpose with respect to this broad land we name America, has one-half so much of likelihood as that which makes our country the predes- 396 CHURCH UNITY tined building-plot for the Church of the Reconcilia- tion. All signs point that way. To us, if we have but the eyes to see it, there falls, not through any merit of our own, but by the accident, if it be right to use that word, by the accident of historical association, the Op- portunity of leadership. It is possible for us, at this crisis of our destiny, so to mould our organic law that we shall be brought into sympathetic contact with hun- dreds of thousands of our fellow-countrymen who wor- ship the same God, hold the same faith, love the same Christ. On the other hand, it is possible for us so to fence ourselves off from this huge family of our fellow- believers as to secure for our lasting heritage only the cold privileges of a proud and selfish isolation. There could be no real catholicity in such a device as that. We have the opportunity of growing into a great and comprehensive Church. We have the opportunity of dwindling into a self-conscious, self-conceited and un- sympathetic sect. Which shall it be? With those to whom, under God, the moulding of our organic law has been entrusted, it largely rests to say.” After the Convention of 1898, he repeated the above, and added these words: “Let me pause to say a word or two to those (and they are many) who fail to see any connection whatsoever between Church councils and personal religion. Organization and administration seem to them things far removed from the well-being of the human soul. But organization and administra- tion, dear friends, are to the fishers of men what their 397 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON nets were to the plain fisher-folk who plied their craft upon the waters of Galilee; every now and then we see them—Andrew, Peter and the rest—in their boat or on the shore washing or mending their nets. The revision of a Church constitution is not an act which immedi- ately and directly occasions a miraculous draught of fishes; it is the washing and the mending of the net.” It was in Minneapolis, in defense of his measure, that he made one of his greatest speeches before Convention. “T am not sure,” wrote Dr. Donald, “that the closing words of your speech will not give you permanent fame among the few men who nobly use the English tongue. I care, as you know, very little for Conventions, but I confess that I wish I had been there for the intense pleasure, the sensation of goose-flesh, and feeling my backbone open and shut, would have given me.” In 1898, he attempted to amend the Constitution by introducing the name of God into its opening sentence, and solemnly affirming the Church’s faith in Holy Scripture as containing all things necessary to salva- tion, and its adherence to the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church as set forth in the Creeds. But this resolution failed of passage. Then at San Francisco, in 1901, the Huntington Amendment, in substance the proposal of 1895, was approved, and it was finally adopted at the Boston Convention of 1904. And in 1907, at Richmond, the plan of an introductory section, in the form of a Pre- amble, was approved. This Preamble was a brief statement of the main principles of religious faith and 398 CHURCH UNITY ecclesiastical polity upon which, as members of the his- toric Church of the English-speaking peoples, we are substantially agreed,—the divine origin of the Scrip- tures, the sufficiency of the primitive Creeds as con- trasted with fine-spun systems of theology, the value of the Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself, the im- portance of a settled Ministry as to which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, and the Church membership of all who have been baptized into the Holy Name, by whatever denominational appellative they may happen to be known. “It is hoped by its friends,” said Dr. Huntington in speaking of it, “that, if made a permanent part of the Constitution, three years hence, this statement of what may be called the first principles of American Churchmanship will prove a useful tract for the times.” A part of the plan was, at the same time, to remove the Thirty-nine Articles from their present place within the covers of the Book of Common Prayer. This measure failed of adoption; and the Preamble itself was not ratified in the Convention which met the year following Dr. Huntington’s death, in Cincinnati. During most of the time that this debate as to the Constitution was in progress, the Church had been also concerned with the proposal to change its own name. Had the suggestion to drop the words “Protestant Episcopal” from the Prayer Book’s title-page been one capable of a de novo consideration, it would undoubtedly have made a strong appeal to Dr. Huntington. He was, however, persuaded that it partook of a partizan 399 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON character, and that any action favoring it would be proclaimed as a triumph of the Catholic party, and so defeat the very aim which he had at heart, the building up in America of the Church of the Reconciliation, and imperil that principle of “Liberty under law,” “which shall even yet, please God, enable us, here in America, to unify the Church without help from Italy.” He would have the Church not assume but win the name “American Catholic.” | He carried on through these years a voluminous cor- respondence with the friends of Unity in his own Church and in all the Churches. Not always, of course, were his correspondents sympathetic with his vision. A Congregational minister wrote in 1899: “Differen- tiation is the mark of progress. I am continually glad that I live in the time of its increase. I never deplore the divisions of Christendom but rejoice in them,—that so many souls can find close associations to suit them. ‘Shall we have them in Heaven?’ I think so, and I hope so.” But another Congregational minister, at about the same time, wrote: “Whenever I take a spiritual bath in St. John’s Gospel, and then, with eyes clarified, come back into the ecclesiastical world, I won- der whether we are not even quenching the Spirit of God by our schisms. I wish you might have such uni- versal support in the Episcopal Church as would make your cause to appear among the most holy of all causes.” He was in constant correspondence with Dr. Shields, 4.00 CHURCH UNITY and with Dr. Egbert Smythe and Dr. L. W. Bacon. The last-named wrote as to stressing the distinction be- tween “believing in the Church” and “believing the Church,” and as to urging municipal vs. national Chris- tianity. “Let one bishop,” he says, “in the Spirit of Christ become in his diocese the center of Catholic unity.” “The important point is not whether the Church ought to be many or one, but that it is one.” One bishop writes him urging a stronger move to- ward unity with the Lutherans; another, to thank him for the practical help of his Church Unity spirit in a far-away missionary diocese. Still another missionary bishop wrote to urge the wide-spread distribution of the republished “Church Idea” as a help toward Unity sentiment. He is kept in touch, through his correspondence, with the movement everywhere. He is cheered in 1897 by a message from England that the great Methodist preacher, Hugh Price Hughes, is “encouraged as to the Unity movement among Free Churches in England, coincident with Pope Leo’s check to the Romanizers.” The challenge of this wide-spread interest he certainly met whole-heartedly. For he became a tireless writer and speaker for the cause. As early as 1887 he deliv- ered an address on “Continuity” in debate with Presby- terians, in which he distinguished primitive Episcopacy from later hierarchical forms. The fourth item of the Quadrilateral was naturally the storm-center in much of the debate as to Unity. Im a later address, he urges 401 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON that the phrase, the “Historic Episcopate,” which he had himself invented, “‘was intended to conciliate rather than to antagonize. It presents the Ejpiscopate as a fact rather than a theory. The cordial and sympathetic way of commending the Ejpiscopate is to show that it helps to coordinate the two elements in the organic life of the Church, those of leadership and counsel. Where to the former everything is sacrificed there is tyranny, where to the latter, confusion and chaos.” In 1899, in a sermon on the subject at Trinity Church, Boston, he declares that the justification for the Protestant Episcopal Church supposing itself called of God to special activity in the promotion of Unity, rests in the fact that “it makes an honest and measurably successful endeavor to keep the two sorts of Christians within speaking distance of each other.” “It is a most noteworthy fact,” he concludes, “that the historic Church of the race to which God seems to be assigning leadership on earth, is the only Church any- where which so much as attempts to do equal justice both to the sacramentalists and the antisacramentalists.” His sermon entitled the “Talisman of Unity,” preached in 1899, had a very wide circulation and was acclaimed in every quarter. Invitations to speak at conferences poured in upon him, only a few of which, | naturally, he could accept. That same year he deliv- ered an address full of hopefulness and buoyancy on the “Outlook for Christian Unity at the Century’s Close,” in connection with the New York Diocesan Convention. 402 CHURCH UNITY It was several years before this that he wrote, for the appendix of Dr. Schaff’s pamphlet on the “Reunion of Christendom,” the following: Conceiving that in no way can the contributors to this Ap- pendix better requite the hospitality which has brought them under one roof than by emulating the frankness of their host, the present writer will make no secret of his belief in the irenic value of the Chicago-Lambeth Declaration. The arguments in its favor may be briefly summarized as follows: 1. The historical element in Christianity is emphasized in contrast with the metaphysical. The Church is presented as a social organism which has come down through time, dowered with certain possessions, to wit, (a) records, (b) watch-words, (c) symbolic usages, (d) an elastic, but still self-consistent and continuous form of governance. 2. As a result of this historical method of going at the mat- ter, there follows the neutralization of much territory hereto- fore reckoned as hopelessly given over to belligerency,—for example, theories of inspiration, philosophies of sacramental grace, rationales of Church government. These are matters about which, according to the Lambeth Declaration, we can, as members of the one Body, safely agree to differ. It is enough if we accept (a) the Bible as conveying an authentic revelation, (b) the primitive creeds as embodying, in brief, the substance of what has been thus revealed, (c) the two sacra- ments of Christ’s appointment as institutes which, however apprehended intellectually, must on no account be suffered to fall into disuse; and (d) the Episcopate as that form of order which on the score of actual continuity and long sur- vival could, with the least offence to other polities, ultimately replace them. These principles of unity, if valid at all, are of course valid for the whole of Christendom, but even though the practical embodiment of them were, for the present, to be confined to our own national limits, we should have in a United Church of the United States something as much better than any shadowy 403 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Denominational League as the Republic is better than the Confederation. All the while he was preparing for the press his more carefully thought-out presentations of the cause, “The Peace of the Church,” which formed the Bohlen Lec- tures of 1891, and “A National Church,” the Bedell Lectures of 1897. These were read far and wide and did much to commend the cause. The Bishop of Edin- burgh wrote expressing his delight over the former book, saying that he had pursued the unusual course of reading the book before thanking the author, and ‘“‘with no embarrassment suffered.” By 1908, the discussion regarding the change of name had waxed warm. Dr. Huntington had warded off perilous action regarding it in the New York Conven- tion by a course which at first puzzled his friends, but which Judge Packard designated “the happy thought of an alert parliamentarian”; and at the Church Con- gress of that year he read a paper on the subject. In 1905 he published a notable sermon on ‘“‘Federa- tion.” He had always been glad to codperate, with ad- vice or otherwise, in federation movements, provided it was made clear that these movements were only par- tial contrivances for practical codperation, and in no way conceived of as substitutes for the vastly greater cause of Christian Unity. He had often uttered warn- ings in regard to the dangers here, and this sermon, set- ting forth clearly the distinction between Federation and Unity was received by many with aa appre- ciation. 4.04 CHURCH UNITY In 1907 appeared his famous “Tract XCI,” which published in the “Hibbert Journal.” It set forth his ideals as to the Preamble, and the omission of the Thirty-nine Articles from the Prayer Book, which were to be the concern of the approaching Richmond Con- vention. First attempts at drafting something in the nature of a Preamble to the Constitution go back to the Con- ventions of 1895 and 1898. ‘The original form of the Preamble, for the Convention of 1907, as proposed by Dr. Huntington, was as follows: This American Church, first planted in Virginia, early in the Seventeenth Century, by representatives of the ancient Church of England; acknowledging the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the record of God’s Revelation of Himself in his Son, and to contain all things necessary to Salvation; holding the Catholic Creeds, to wit, the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, to be a sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; maintaining the Orders of the Sacred Muinis- try in such form as from the hands of faithful men it first received the same; reverently conserving the Sacraments or- dained by Christ Himself; and accounting to be members of the flock of Christ all who have been duly baptized into the holy Name; has ordained and established, for the furtherance of the work to which it has been called of God, the following CoNSTITUTION. This was in some respects modified by amendments offered at the Convention, which Dr. Huntington promptly accepted, though he was far from believing that they were improvements of the original draft. Nevertheless he said of the Convention, speaking to a 405 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON friend, “This is the most liberal Convention I have ever known.” Dr. Huntington defended his Preamble in a letter which he wrote to “The Living Church,” in reply to an unsigned article which had appeared in that paper en- titled “The Relation of the Constitution and Canons of the American Church to the Fundamental Law of the Church.” This letter will bear quoting in part: With the writer’s main contention as to the secondary and subordinate character of written constitutions, as these stand related to the real organic life of the Church, I have no quarrel. In fact, I would go farther than he in this direction, and would also apply to the State what he affirms of the Church. The Constitution of the United States, for example, contains ever so many words and phrases, literally scores of them, for which no definitions are vouchsafed in the instrument itself. Much was taken for granted by the framers, as being already a recognized part of the unwritten, organic law that had given form to human society ever since human society began to be. Probably for this very reason, these same framers thought it expedient to prefix to their written constitution a Preamble, setting forth no fewer than seven purposes which it was hoped the publication of the document would serve. They were not establishing the State;—that had been established centuries before they were born; they were simply justifying a new in- corporation of the State within certain metes and bounds that were henceforth to be acknowledged as independently national. They did but adapt first principles brought from the old world to certain conditions which had developed in the new. I go with the writer also in all that he says about the elusive- ness of the distinction between “constitutions” and what are variously known as “laws,” “statutes” and “‘canons.”? earmarks you can avoid if you follow the eclectic scheme which I have outlined, or some course similar. .. . July 2, 1908. My Dear Frienp: Your letter, forwarded from New York, has just reached me. It so happened that only a few moments before I re- 502 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS ceived it I had been reading “In Memoriam,” which, for many many years has been to me almost a second Bible, and my mind had been full of the thoughts which that great Christian poem suggests. Among the passages I read was the one in which the poet imagines himself weaving for himself in his great sorrow a crown of thorns. “They call’d me fool, they called me child; I found an angel of the night; The voice was low, the look was bright ; He looked upon my crown and smiled ; “He reached the glory of a hand, That seemed to touch it into leaf; The voice was not the voice of grief, The words were hard to understand.” Yes, the words of eternal life are hard to understand, but we Christians believe that a time is coming when they will be easily intelligible. You have my sympathy, dear friend, and may always count on it whenever you feel a need of it. With faithful affection I am yours ever. North East Harbor, Sept. 16, 1908. My Dear Mrs. Sacers: I have had some difficulty in procuring your address, other- wise you would have had from me before this an expression of sympathy with you in the sorrow which the loss of a dearly loved brother has brought into your life. My friendship (for it was more than mere acquaintance) with Mr. Redner began more than forty years ago, and it has continued unbroken from that time. Though we seldom met and rarely communi- cated with each other by letter, we always greeted each other when we did meet, as if we had only parted the day before. I am glad to have had the honor of naming his immortal 503 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON hymn-tune “St. Louis.” 1 He deserved such canonization. Believe me, dear Mrs. Sagers, Yours ever faithfully. North East Harbor, Sept. 23: 1908. My ‘Dear FRrienp: It lightens perceptibly the burden of the three score years and ten to have you write so cheerfully and hopefully. A man’s natural temptation, when the Psalmist’s limit, not in- deed of life, but of useful life has been reached, is to lie back, saying to himself, “Now the race is over and done. I will be content with watching the others.” Then again it is so hard to believe that the people who have been listening to my talk from the pulpit for a quarter of a century do, really and truly, care to hear any more of it. They know all my thoughts; my way of looking at things is as familiar to them as the sidewalk in front of Grace Church; would not another and a fresher voice more effectively serve to keep alive in them that spiritual flame which tends so early to flicker and burn low? From this evil mood your confident words have done something to rouse me. Thank you for the lift. N. E. Harbor, Sept. 24, 1908. Dear Howarp: Your telegram and Anne’s letter both of them reached me in due time, and I am writing to express my appreciation of your kindness. The day was fine, two of my children and seven of my grandchildren were with me, and 70 candles around a cake of sparkling whiteness lighted my way across the Psalmist’s limit. So far so good. Now for the time that — remaineth. To tHe Rev. Martin AIGNER October 15, 1908. My Dear Mr. Atcner: Your interesting paper reminiscent of the Richmond Con- 1 The setting written for Phillips Brooks’s “O Little Town of Bethlehem.” 504 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS vention came to hand this morning; and in reading it, I have found myself agreeing with you at almost every point. The main exception has to do with what you say about the action of the deputies with respect to the Articles of Religion. It can hardly be said of a resolution, which had back of it the unanimous approval of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, that it suffered a serious defeat, even though it did fail to pass in a depleted house at the end of the ses- sion. 'The movement in favour of disestablishing the articles gained quite as much headway as I supposed it could possibly do in the Convention where it was brought forward for the first time. Moreover, the vote when taken was not directly upon the merits of the question; but, if I remember rightly, on a resolution of reference. I feel as sure as one can of anything future in the way of ecclesiastical legislation that the Articles will be disestablished before many years... . To THE Rev. Joun W. Suter October 15, 1908. My Dear SurTeEr: The distinctions drawn in the paper which you enclose are, I think, in line with what most liberal scholars hold with respect to the use of the Pater Noster. I have to confess myself, however, wholly out of sympathy with them. I cannot help feeling that the saying of the Lord’s Prayer in public worship ought to be the signal for all to join. This seems to be the natural interpretation of the words, “the people, still kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in Divine Service.” The various clauses whereby it is sought to explain away the “wheresover else” look to me like the inventions of a later age. When we were revising the Prayer Book in the ’80’s, I tried my best to persuade my col- leagues of the Committee to remove all ambiguity from the subject by substituting for the words “wheresover else . . . in Divine Service” the words “wheresoever else in this Book it is ordered to be used”; but I failed to carry my point. As things now are, instead of the Lord’s Prayer being the one 505 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON form of devotion in which as a matter of course all are to join (as in the case of the Creed), it is a fruitful source of what one may call hturgical nervousness, nobody knowing whether to speak or keep silence. I am sorry to find myself at variance with all the experts, and particularly sorry not to approve something which you evidently like; but one has to tell the truth. Next time you are in New York, come into the Rectory and see how handsome your name looks cut in silver. To tHe Epiror or THE Eventne Post Dec. 10 1908. Sir: A preacher defending his sermon against attack is in much the same undignified, not to say ridiculous attitude, as an au- thor resenting in the columns of a review the strictures of the reviewer. I shall, therefore, not attempt a reply to the letter in which Mrs. Rose Pastor Stokes finds fault in your columns with a recent Thanksgiving discourse of mine. It is enough to say that if my ignorance of Socialism, its demands and its promises, is as dense as Mrs. Stokes accounts it, this is not for lack of serious and conscientious effort on my part to inform myself. Mrs. Stokes is indignant at my exhorting social reformers, along with the rest of us, that they “study to be quiet.” The phrase did not originate with me. It is a quotation from an ancient manuscript. In objecting to my use of it Mrs. Stokes is well within her rights, but so also are those of us within our rights who love quietness, and who main- tain that a little more of it would do this community no harm. Years ago, in travelling through what is known as “the black country” in the heart of England, I remember coming upon a little village inn whose sign-board read “The Quiet Woman.” I could not but reflect, as I pondered the legend, how attractive the open door beneath it must appear to the poor miner, coming up to the earth’s surface, hungry and grimy after his long day’s toil below ground. Angry de- nunciations of the holders of “stocks and bonds” will never solve the labor problem. 506 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS Dec. 11, 1908. Dear Mrs. CarMIcHAEL: I am ashamed of myself for not having sooner acknowledged your cordial words of congratulation dated “Advent Sunday.” You will, I am sure, be lenient to my tardiness in view of the flood of correspondence which the recent anniversary has brought upon me. To acknowledge such of them as resemble yours is an easy and a pleasant task, though it takes time. It is the “begging letters” from far and near that try the patience. One woman in Pennsylvania, having heard of the munificence of my parish, does not wait to see my acknowl- edgment of the great gift, but writes to beg that I will re- upholster the cushions in the Presbyterian Church in which she is a worshipper. They are much worn, she writes me; “so is my patience,” I am tempted to reply. But of letters like yours, my dear friend, a pastor cannot have too many. They do him good and help his preaching. December 12, 1908. DeEar Mapam: Since the fact of my having received a generous gift in money from my parishioners, on the occasion of the twenty- fifth anniversary of my rectorship, was made known through the public press, I have received more letters than I could possibly answer, requesting pecuniary aid, sometimes for a struggling missionary cause, sometimes to meet personal needs. I would gladly, if I could, inquire into the details of all these applications; but this undertaking is rendered unnecessary by the fact that the gift referred to is to go back to the parish treasury as a pension fund, the income of it only to be used, during my active rectorship, for missionary and charitable purposes. Since there is no income as yet, and since I am already hun- dreds of dollars in arrears in the matter of pledges and prom- ises of various sorts, which must necessarily take precedence of all other claims, you will, I think, see at once the impossi- bility of my responding favorably to your appeal of the fourth, glad as I should be to do so if I might. 507 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON To tHe Epiror or THE Eventine Post Dec. 18, 1908. Sir: Having long been officially in charge of a “down-town church,” and that church one of the daughters of Old Trinity, I trust I shall not be charged with overpassing parish limits if I venture to take the unpopular side in the controversy now waging with respect to St. John’s, Varick Street; and to say a few words in defence of the course which the much criticized Vestry has adopted. | Trinity Church, like all other similar organizations, exists for the purpose of furthering, in every way open to it, the interests of the Christian Religion. Incidentally it has a care for architecture and for old-time civic associations, but its main duty is other than that of conserving antiquities, its main duty is to nourish and bring up sons and daughters and to safeguard souls, rather than help “To make old bareness picturesque, And tuft with grass a feudal tower.” It would appear that, after a careful study of the situation extending over years, the Trinity Vestry came to the conclu- sion that its resources could be made to tell to more purpose if the strategic center of parochial effort for the lower West Side were to be moved a little further north, and the facilities for missionary work brought into better conformity with present-day standards. It is safe to say that no man in the whole town, clerical or lay, could have come more sorrowfully to this conclusion than the late Morgan Dix. In St. John’s he had been baptized, in St. John’s confirmed, in St. John’s ordained. In the adjoining rectory the earlier days of his pastorate had been spent. And yet it was his hand and not another’s that penned the resolu- tion under which the Vestry is now doing what it evidently believes to be its solemn duty. Under these circumstances it would seem as if a stay of judgment on the part of the gen- eral public would be only fair. I cannot think so ill of the venerable corporation as to believe that the motive governing 508 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS its action is in any degree whatever a commercial one. We may trust Dr. Manning to look out for that. Some years ago, a parallel and singularly instructive in- stance of conflict between historic sentiment and religious duty occurred in Boston. The authorities of the Old South, an even more venerable structure than St. John’s, found that if they would continue to minister to souls they must quit a part of the city which had become completely bereft of homes and move westward. This they did, and straightway among old Bostonians, rigidly and rightly conservative of Colonial tradi- tion, an outcry arose not dissimilar to the one we are listening to here. What was the result? The Old South of Wash- ington Street became the New Old South of Newbury Street, wherein, to-day, one of the most eloquent of preachers dis- courses weekly to crowded congregations; while the Old Old South, purchased after much tribulation by the united efforts of all Boston, became a monument, a lecture hall and a museum. May I make bold to suggest that the distinguished signa- tories to the Protest lately levelled at the Trinity corporation are the very men, in virtue of their prominence, to head a movement for the purchase of St. John’s, Varick Street. with a view to its perpetuation as a memorial of old New York? The “catholic woman,” esteemed by the local priest a myth, but pictured by the reporters as eager to contribute out of her slender means one hundred dollars towards the saving of St. John’s, would, probably, withdraw her subscription upon learning, as she might easily do upon enquiry, that the sacred edifice could only be filled by the conversion of great numbers of her own people to Anglicanism. But this need not dis- courage; her place could easily be filled. I admit that this suggestion of mine, if acted upon, would prove a sharp test of zeal,—but what of that? January 18, 1909. My Dear BisHop REstaricx: Many thanks for your kind words anent my recent anni- versary. It sobers me to think that I am as old as I am; 509 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON but it is encouraging to find that my parishioners consider me capable of working on a while longer. Your account of the approximations toward Church Unity which you have already succeeded in accomplishing has in- terested me deeply. You have every reason, I think, to look forward to the future with hope. Sometimes it really seems as if the solution of the Unity question were more likely to be found at the extremities of Christendom than at the heart. To tHe Rev. Joun J. Luoyp, D.D. January 18, 1909. My Dear Dr. Lioyp: I am with you absolutely in all the points you make. A clergyman wrote me the other day, saying that he had under- taken to read a paper at a clerical meeting on the question why our Church, with all its splendid advantages, made such slow progress in winning the confidence and affection of the American people. I cannot help thinking that the inflexibility characteristic of our system of worship, or, rather the inflexi- bility of the wills of those entrusted with authority, counts among the chief causes of our slow advance. If bishops would give a fairly liberal interpretation to the paragraph in the Prayer Book which immediately precedes the order how the Psalter is appointed to be read, and which runs, “For other spe- cial occasions for which no service or prayers have been pro- vided in this Book the Bishop may set forth such form or forms as he shall see fit, in which case none other shall be used,’’ much might be accomplished. On the strength of this provision Bishop Greer has had the good sense to authorize a brief noonday service which is in con- stant use at Grace Church, and which reaches at least twenty times as many worshippers in the course of every week as could possibly be reached by either Morning Prayer or Eve- ning Prayer said at the usual hours for those services. It appears to me that such occasions as you describe in your letter are in a marked degree “Special” in their character; 510 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS and I do not see why any bishop, exercising his office in a region where such populations exist, should hesitate, if he be so minded, to set forth a little manual of public prayers for missionary use. I can understand and sympathize with the feelings of men who love the Prayer Book so profoundly that they cannot bear to see any departure from the prescribed methods of using it; but responsibility for souls is a serious matter; and in our character as fishers of men we ought to be provided with bait of a sort that will attract and catch. I don’t know that I have helped you much; but, at least liberavi animam meam. .. . P.S. Ishould not wish to be understood as intimating that the sacramental offices, which form the storm center, of our Church life, could properly be altered or abridged by Episcopal fiat, since that would be taking an unfair advantage. To Howarp C. Smrrn, Esa. March 2, 1909. My Dear Mr. Situ: The whole subject of the respective jurisdictions of Church and State in the matter of philanthropy is a very difficult one, and in my judgment it is impossible to draw a hard and fast divisional line. That the State undertakes philanthropic work at all, is in itself a remarkable evidence to the influence which the Christian religion has had upon public sentiment in general. The difficulty is the same which confronts us in the domain of education, which, like philanthropy, was once exclusively, or almost exclusively, the business of the Church, whereas it has now become to a large extent the recognized function of the State. The direct question, however, raised by Dr. Potter’s re- marks is this: whether charities started by Churches, or by groups of private individuals desirous of doing good, ought to be subsidized by the State or maintained by voluntary aid. My early association with New England methods has, I con- fess, prejudiced me strongly against the subsidizing theory. 511 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON This theory has probably done as much to build up the Roman Catholic Church in New York as any other one cause. If the Christian Church were a united body, and not split up into competing organizations, the subsidizing method would be unobjectionable. As things are, it gives a great advantage to the most compacted ecclesiastical body and leaves the others in the lurch. I know perfectly well how I should feel about petitioning the city government to aid the charities of Grace Parish; and so far as the rights and wrongs of the thing are concerned, Grace Parish and the Archdiocese of New York are on a footing. I know that I have expressed myself somewhat vaguely and may not have given you much light; but please set down some of the cloudiness of my observations to the inherent difficulty of the subject. Some time I should like to talk it over with you more fully. To tue Rev. Wituam P. Huppert, D.D. March 16, 1909. Dear Dr, Hussey: It appears to me that the burden of proof rests upon those who are seeking to break down the restrictions of the present Sunday Law. No new evidence has been discovered since the last hearing, no fresh arguments are forthcoming. If the rea- sons which defeated a repeal, when repeal was last attempted, were sound reasons, they are sound still. It is urged, better an indulgent law that can be enforced than a strict one which men are bound to evade; but this sort of reasoning must in- evitably lead to a gradual whittling down of all law, until nothing is left that puts any sort of restraint upon any sort of a desire. It will be discouraging indeed if at a time when in most other parts of the country the power of the saloon is waning, here in the great State of New York it should be not only not curbed but even given freer rein. We ought, I think, to plant ourselves upon the unassailable ground: first, that a periodic rest-day is essential to social and 512 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS civic well-being; and, secondly, that such rest-day cannot long be maintained if dealers, in the commodity confessedly the most harmful of all that are put upon the market, are permitted to make a profit on seven days in the week, while the venders of bread and beef have to be content with what they can make on SER March 17, 1909. Dear Thanks for your letter of the twelfth. It was a great pleas- ure to me to meet again. ... As for ’s *Modern- ism,” so long as it does not lead him to the belief that God is a “principle” and Jesus Christ an “idea,” as the Christian Scientists (and some others) do vainly teach, he will, I cannot help thinking, find himself more at liberty within Anglican walls than anywhere outside of them. Sir Oliver Lodge’s well meant efforts to square Religion and Science leave Religion (at least the Christian religion) so much in the lurch, that help from that quarter is hardly to be ex- pected. Anything more puerile'than the leading article in the last Hibbert Journal, reporting progress in the matter of com- munication with the unseen world, I have seldom read. We need a new Swift to write a new Voyage to Laputa. Doubtless there is, Just now, a widespread apathy with respect to the things of the spirit: but has there ever been in history long con- tinued enthusiasm on this head? Has it not always demanded, as it now demands, incessant effort to keep the things of the spirit at the fore, and to save men from the idolatry of esthetics, romantics, and all the rest of it? There certainly is much to encourage us, as religious men, in the ethical zeal that now prevails in our large cities. This is a part of religion, even though, of course, far from being the whole of it; and we ought to be thankful for even so much as this. By and by, after the Darwin-Huxley-Spencer wave has crested, things may be different. We are now feeling the full impact of that tremendous breaker. It is my belief that Personality will survive all this long effort to deify Imper- sonality. ... 518 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON To JonHn WANAMAKER, Esa. Good Friday, 1909. My Dear Mr. WANAMAKER: It has been with real sorrow that I have learned of your hav- ing shortened by fifteen minutes the daily “nooning” (as we used to call it in New England) of your vast host of work people. I trust that you will not think it intrusive of me, if, as your next-door neighbor, deeply interested in the well-being of all under your wide-spreading roof, I venture to plead for a return to the old usage with respect to the hour of recess. We of Grace Church feel that, even from an economic point of view, it would, in the long run, probably be worth your while to allow your people the opportunity of daily prayer and daily Bible teaching which we freely offer them at the noon hour. From this, large numbers are now, to all intents and purposes, cut off in consequence of the recent change in your time-table. But this point I do not press. Neither am I willing to put myself in the position of seeming to dictate to another man the way in which he may best conduct a business which is his and not mine. My only wish, on this day sacred to the pre- ciousness of self-sacrifice, is to plead with you, on the score both of your well-earned repute as an organizer, and still more of your good name as one who cares for the souls as well as the bodies of those who serve you, to give back what has been taken away. The thanks of thousands will be yours if you can see your way to doing this; and if the thanks of one more are of any value to you, you shall have his also, for believe me, my dear Mr. Wanamaker, I am, Most truly yours. To tHe Rev. Joun I. YELuLoTT, JR. May 7, 1909. My Dear Mr. YELLorT: A man is generally himself responsible for being misunder- stood, and I think there must have been some lack of clearness 514 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS in what I wrote about the earthquake to lead to your getting the impression that I thought we ought to wait with folded hands the final issue of things. I wholly agree with you that preventable and remediable evils should engage man’s attention to the very utmost, and I am as far as possible from thinking that Kismet should be the watchword for Christians. The human incompetency which I had in mind was incompetency of another sort, namely, our inability to judge of God’s purposes before they ripen. The original title of my sermon before it went to print was Finis Opus Coronat. It cannot be denied that God’s providential government of the world is full of puzzles and perplexities which for all that we can see are at present insoluble. With regard to these, it appears to me that tarrying the Lord’s leisure is man’s true wisdom. I shall be very glad, all the same, to read your paper, and trust that you will send it to me. To tue Rev. Dr. Newman SmytTueE May 15, 1909. Dear Dr. SmyrHe: Bishop Brewster has kindly sent me a copy of the sugges- tions which he and Dr. Goodwin have concurred in making with reference to the wording of your proposed report. I am writ- ing to say that these suggestions have my concurrence, though I have written Bishop Brewster that personally I should be glad to see mention made of the possibility of recognizing Con- firmation by the local pastor of a parish as the equivalent of Confirmation by the bishop of the diocese, there being, as I understand, sufficient precedent to justify such a view. I have just come from the Church Congress in Boston, where the whole subject of visible Church Unity was under discussion, and, on the whole, brought away with me considerable encour- agement. Bishop Doane’s utterance on the subject was large- minded and comprehensive, and, what was equally to the point, was most warmly received by the large audience gathered in the Tremont Temple. Of course, no one of us is sanguine of immediate results; 515 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON but if what we are attempting in the first decade of the twentieth century is destined to help forward in the least degree the cause which in the latest decade may have triumphed, we may be well content. To rue Rev. A. St. Joun Cuampre, D.D. May 18, 1909. Dear Dr. CHamBRre: I greatly wish that it were in my power to be present at the silver wedding of you and your parish; but duties here make a journey to Lowell impossible. .. . One reminder of St. Anne’s may be said to have followed me all the days of my life, to wit, the Metcalf family. One of my earliest recollections is that of seeing Mr. Isaac Metcalf lead- ing the church psalmody and hymnody (for in those days we had metrical psalms as well as hymns) from the far away organ loft, to me a beautiful terra incognita. When I went to Worcester as rector of All Saints, whom should I see in the gallery but Mr. Isaac Metcalf again with his quartet. And now here in Grace Church within a few feet of me every Sun- day stands his stalwart son James, singing a bass that makes the arches tremble. Thus are my childhood and old age har- moniously linked together. Thanking you, my dear Dr. Chambré, for the courtesy of an invitation which I should greatly like to accept, and wishing for you and Mrs. Chambré all the blessings that rightfully accompany a long rectorship, I remain, Faithfully yours, To tue Rev, Watrer Laripiaw, Px.D. March 19, 1909. My Dear Dr, Lariaw: In response to your request of the eleventh, I write to say that, although the proposed Church Efficiency Exhibit strikes me as running a little counter to certain warnings in the Sermon on the Mount, I am inclined to think that, on the whole, such 516 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS a showing will do good, if in no other way, at least by making it clear that the churches which keep open house for seven days in the week earn their salt, to wit, their exemption from taxation by the civil authorities. I hate the expression “in- stitutional church,” which seems to imply two sorts of houses of God—those that make themselves useful and those that ex- cuse themselves from doing so. Still, I suppose the phrase must be allowed to stand until it has brought about a general open- ing of barred doors. To rue Rev. C. L. SLATTERY Monday, May 31, 1909. Dear Dr. SLATTERY: I hesitate gravely about advising you as to the acceptance of the important post to which you have been elected. Were I regarding only your own personal happiness I should strongly recommend your remaining in the active ministry,—so much is the cure of souls more delightful to the curator than the cure of minds. On the other hand, when I consider the sore need in which the G. T. S. stands of a little more fresh air than it now enjoys, I am strongly moved to say, Go,—or rather Come. To a great extent your decision ought, I think, to be governed by your own mental attitude towards the particular branch of learning to which you are asked to devote your energies. You have shown yourself an adept in Ecclesiastical biography; if you feel equally competent to grapple with Ecclesiastical history, that of itself ought to be a strong argument. To Howarp TownsEnp, Esa. June 10, 1909. My Dear Howarp: I wrote as I did to Mr. , not because I questioned for a moment his loyal adhesion to the policy of advance to which the vestry stands committed, but simply for the purpose of clearing myself from what might seem to be a justifiable suspicion that I favored extravagance in administration. 517 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON I am quite aware that it is, in a sense, foolish for a man at my time of life to be planning for the future in the matter of new buildings, and so forth and so forth; but my interests are wrapped up with those of Grace Church, and can not be unwrapped so long as I remain Rector; and I conceive it to be my duty, while I have any strength at all, to keep on im- proving things to the best of my ability, knowing that “the night cometh” when it is bound to be much harder than it is now to secure means for keeping the activities of this Church up to the mark. The whole aim of my administration has been to provide that Grace Church should be, for an indefinite period, a power for good just where it stands. As time goes on, its usefulness is bound to shift more and more from Sundays to weekdays ; but the building stands at the geographical centre of Greater New York, and I do not see how it can ever become other than what it is to-day, the focus of a teeming population, who, if they can not be reached by the public services of the Lord’s Day, may directly be helped by noonday services, such as we now maintain, and indirectly by the opportunity of walking about in a consecrated place full of the symbols of religion. Several hundreds of people enter Grace Church daily the year round; and although the outlay is tremendous, regarded from a finan- cial point of view, I can not help feeling that it is justifiable. For these reasons, I like to think of the whole group of build- ings as a sort of fortress of light; and I indulge the hope that in my successor’s time, though not in mine, the parish may come into possession of the only corner now lacking to our “Quadri- lateral.” To THe Rev. Lester Brapner, Pu.D. June 10, 1909. Dear Dr. Brapner: Your experiment in Federation is most interesting. For reasons which I gave in my address to the Church Congress, I believe the promise of Federation on a large scale to be illusory ; but every experiment which goes to show our need of 518 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS Church Unity, even though it may not come to a successful issue, has its value. The great thing is to educate the Chris- tian community into the conviction that the present state of things is intolerable, if we expect Christianity to make prog- ress, or even to hold its own, in these United States. To rue Rey. Grorce WituiAM Dovetas, D.D. June 25, 1909. Dear Dr, Dovetas: I have received and carefully considered your letter of yesterday. Throughout this discussion, it seems to have escaped your notice that the only power which can possibly work any change in the Constitution and Statutes of the Cathedral, is the power lodged with the Board of Trustees. It may be unfortunate that the power of revision was not divided between the Trustees and the Chapter; but, as a matter of fact, it was not. As a result, the Constitution and Statutes will be revised when the Trustees determine to revise them, and in the way in which the Trustees determine to revise them, and not otherwise. The wishes of the Chapter are entitled to respect, the wishes of the Great Chapter are entitled to respect, the wishes of the Bishop are entitled to respect; but the power to revise is with the Trustees. I do not, you will believe me, say this out of any disposition to brandish “the whip hand.” Now the Trustees have appointed a Committee to consider whether any, and, if any, what changes are desirable in the present text of the Constitution and Statutes. That Commit- tee is ready and glad to receive suggestions and help of every sort. Especially would any official communication from the Chapter, which had secured the recorded vote of the majority of the members of that body, be received with the greatest respect: but inasmuch as no such communication has reached or seems likely to reach the Committee, and inasmuch as the Committee has also been requested to take into account the wishes of the Great Chapter, and inasmuch as the Great Chapter seems even less likely than the Chapter itself to send an official communica- 519 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON tion conveying its wishes, I cannot but continue to be of the opinion that the course outlined in my last letter would be a wise one. Whether it shall be pursued depends upon the assent or dissent of my colleagues on the Committee. Upon this point I am now engaged in informing myself, as Chairman. June 25, 1909. Dear Miss Merepitu: I’m doing my best To auto-suggest, But the Gout is the test. And I dare Mrs. Eddy To keep her nerves steady When with this “form of error” oppressed. The foregoing suggests one reason why I have been so dilatory in the matter of correspondence. It is not merely the Gout, but the long process of feeling good for nothing that leads up to the Gout, that has kept me from writing before this. I am dictating this from a sick-bed, from which I hope, to- morrow or Monday, to arise and depart for Nahant, on my way to North East Harbor. I make the pause at Nahant, where my daughter Mrs. Robbins has a Summer house this year, in order to be able to put in an appearance at the Class Dinner of my Class, which has now been graduated from Har- vard just fifty years. I suppose we shall manage to get about twenty together out of the total original membership of ninety- two. The occasion will not be a hilarious one; but I do not feel hike being absent if I can possibly get there; and I trust that, by automobiling up from Nahant and returning thither when the function is over, I can manage it, Gout or no Gout. It may interest you to see the enclosed, which I have written for the occasion, moved thereto by the fact that I was the Class Poet of my year. I remember hearing Thomas Bailey Aldrich say, shortly before his death, at a reception given in his honor, that no man ought to write verse when past sixty. What then is to be said of one who adventures poetry at seventy? Still, 520 CHURCH UNITY IDEALS if verses are to be read at fiftieth anniversaries of graduation, they must needs, as a rule, be written by men of that age. I am not likely to do it again. We are getting on famously with the Cathedral of St. John the Divine; and really it looks as if we might be worshipping there by next Christmas. Meanwhile, a struggle is going oni internally to the governing body as to what form the organiza- tion which the building covers shall take. My endeavor, from the first, has been to keep the thing, as far as possible, from becoming a mere replica of the average English Cathedral. Kingsley’s stern words about the post-Reformation Cathe- dral system in Yeast and Trollope’s picture of the same in Barchester Towers, early fixed in me the impression that to import the Cathedral unchanged, and set it up, stone by stone, on American soil, would be a profound mistake; but there are those who differ with me, and differ vigorously; and we are, just at present, fighting it out. Another struggle has been that of getting for the Deaconess Training School a secure foothold within the boundaries of the Cathedral Close. In that I have succeeded, and the building will probably be begun next month. Whether these combined efforts have had anything to do with bringing on the Gout, I cannot say; but they have kept me busy. Have you read Admiral Mahan’s letter in this week’s Church- man on the subject of the vacancies in the Board of Missions. His advice seems to me timely and wise. I agree with those who thought it would be almost cruel to ask Mr. George Pepper to take the Treasurership; but I am not at all sure that it would be in any way to his disadvantage to accept the General Secretaryship. Were he to do this, we might, I think, look for a “Laymen’s Forward Movement” that would amount to some- thing. I am having my Church Congress Address on Theories of Visible Church Unity printed in pamphlet form, and will send you a copy when it is ready. The report in the newspapers of what I said stirred up your good friend Dr. , who wrote me a note of protest, saying that what I urged was “impos- 521 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON sible.” In reply I said that those of us who were working for the Twenty-first Century were not much troubled by impos- sibilities. _We have learned, as the men of science are learning, to treat that word very warily indeed. Now, ought not this long letter, especially coming as it does from a “lame dog,” to make up for my protracted silence? 522 XV THE LAST YEARS Dr. Huntington that he could realize that his life was becoming well rounded to a close. The or- dered plans which he had early in his career set before himself for the unfolding of his life were clearly coming to a successful conclusion. ‘That sense of completeness, which was so characteristic of the workings of his mind, found satisfaction in the fact that his undertakings were becoming well ordered and put away. It is not meant by this that he did not desire, as every nor- mal man does, to live on. He was happy in his chil- dren and grandchildren. He was keenly alive to the interests of the day. He was full of hope for the good causes in which he was himself most deeply concerned. At the same time he was profoundly conscious of the fact that in a certain sense his work was done. Prayer Book revision and Constitutional amendment had been carried as far in General Convention as his ef- forts could seem to carry them. His labors for Church Unity had borne a certain fruit, and new movements in this cause which were springing up he realized must be manned by younger spirits. He had accomplished the three score years and ten of the human span, and 523 | was unquestionably a matter of satisfaction to WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON to his symbolic way of thinking the ancient text had more significance than for some. So far as his parish was concerned, he had rounded out a quarter of a century. When this moment came, he felt it incumbent upon him to resign. He realized that he had done all that he could probably accomplish in his lifetime for the development of the parish which he loved. He regretted possible losses of initiative and inspiration which declining years might bring. There was not a moment’s doubt in his mind that for his own sake, and for the parish’s, resignation was the appro- priate step to take. When the parish refused to accept the resignation he was nevertheless gratified and glad, and willing, if the parish was willing, for the remaining years of his life, that they should continue together in the paths of mutual service. He was greatly touched, and more pleased than he knew how to express, by a tribute which came to him when he was seventy years old. ‘The form of it was such as peculiarly to appeal to his nature. Seventy of his friends presented to him a loving-cup, the “Septua- gint Cup,” on which was inscribed in autograph the name of every one of these friends. It was a token of appreciation in which he took special pride. ‘To each one of the donors he sent a special and peculiarly char- acteristic letter of thanks and acknowledgment. The two celebrations of the year 1908 were coinci- dent. One had to do with the fact that Dr. Hunting- ton had reached the age of seventy years, and the other with the completion that same year of twenty-five years 524 THE LAST YEARS of his rectorship at Grace Church. These celebrations were the occasion of a great outpouring of grateful appreciation on the part of parishioners and fellow- workers and friends. Those who had known and loved him within the Church, and been in a sense his dis- ciples, vied with one another in giving expression to their thankfulness for what his life had meant; and to these utterances were added many from those without the Church, some of them even unknown to him, who added their meed of praise. The experiences of this year were in a very real sense the crowning of his life. There was to be for him only a short year more of earthly existence, but that, of course, he did not know. It was granted to him to realize that his life had reached a veritable climax, and that the purposes to which he had consciously devoted his ministry were in a certain sense accomplished. He received already, while still in the fullness of his powers, the satisfaction of hearing a chorus of “‘well-done” from the multitudes who honored him. One brother clergyman wrote him, “I venture to say that for sane devotion to high ideals, for prophetic vi- sions of the Kingdom of God and for the power to con- vert them to workable realities, no ministry that I have known more deserves the admiration and gratitude of men of good-will, than that which has been yours.” Another who stood very close to him had written shortly before: ‘Do not speak in regard to yourself as being ‘cold and reserved’; a man is not cold simply be- cause he does not take an ass’s head in his loving arms 525 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON on Broadway and wet it down with tears. You keep your deep emotions for worthy critical times and I am glad you do.” Another writes: ‘There is little I do in which your influence does not mingle; little of worth I accomplish in which it does not largely share. “What would Dr. Huntington do? rises again and again to check a violent impulse and to point the right direction. My life is richer, deeper, better, for this influence. I pray that it may not wither there, but take root and be alive and pass on into the hearts of others as it has come to my own. There are some sick and sad folk coming to dine with us Thanksgiving Day. Possibly the day will be brightened for them by reason of their coming. Who can tell? Please remember you have asked them.” Still another writes, “I confess that one-half the power I have I have derived from your way of look- ing at and setting forth great and binding truths.” One parishioner writes: “I want you to know that I truly appreciate all that you have given me. I am a better woman than I was and I am going to be a better one still; and you have preached always helpfully and inspiringly to the woman in the back pew.” A vestry- man writes, “I feel more proud in my position of ves- tryman in Grace Church, with you as rector, than in anything else I have ever achieved.” Another parish- ioner writes, “With all your three-score years and ten, and with all their accumulated experiences and the wis- dom of your careful and developed judgment, your greatest joy, your most precious possession, is the heart of a little child, the heart which my children have under- 526 THE LAST YEARS stood so well, the heart for which Christmas was made.” Letters came from the clergy, from all parts of the land. “We recognize,” writes one, “your Episcopate in the American church, none the less real because not formal. For we have come to discern your large vision and wise statesmanship, wherein you are seen as the true exponent of the Anglican [American] position.” “TI count you,” says another, ‘as do many others, as a sponsor, a father in God, in fuller meaning than eccle- siastical.” “Perhaps forty years ago,” writes another, “T pasted into my Greek Testament,—where they still are,—the lines beginning “Thou callest, Lord, I hear Thy voice, and so in meekness come. I falter, but not mine the choice. Thou callest. I am dumb. I did not then know who their author was. They have been an inspiration to me ever since.” “If there be any more inspiring example,” wrote one of the staff, “any man in whom we can believe more un- reservedly, I do not know where to look for one.” One writes from abroad: “I hope this will reach you about your birthday and express a little of the affection which your noble army of deacons feel for you. As one of the original seven I can speak for all. Whenever two of us get together the ‘rector’ is always a subject of con- versation, and you have the love of every one of us.” The same writer adds concerning Miss Reynolds, who had died that year: “She certainly was a great factor 527 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON in making the rectory a charming home. 1 shall always think of her as ‘the lady what owns Grace Church,’ and it is good to have known her.” “It seems a jest,” writes a clerical friend, “ to think of you as sev- enty,—merely a playful way of expressing your matur- ity of other sorts than the physical.” ‘Three score years and ten,” writes another, “I don’t believe it any- way. Don’t you know that you look just as young as ever‘ I never had a richer, better gift than to come into the circle of those who heard your voice, loved and reverenced your personality and were blessed by your friendship?” “The words,” wrote a former curate, “that would really express what is in my heart would tell you what an inspiration and help you have been to me, how wisely your visions have guided me and how the breadth of your sympathies, and the splendor of your Church statesmanship, I count as great moulding influences in my life. They would tell you of a per- sonal love and admiration which grow with the years, and which make your library, with you sitting by the fire or at that little corner desk, one of my heart’s homes.” The parishioners determined to mark the event of his twenty-fifth anniversary as their minister by giving him a gift of twenty-five thousand dollars. The gifts, how- ever, outran the goal, and forty thousand dollars was the amount presented. He was deeply moved by this expression of his people’s loyalty and affection. He made acknowledgment to the host of givers in a letter to “The New York Times,” which a friend described as “so characteristic; grateful without fulsomeness; wise 528 THE LAST YEARS for the present and the future; with a play of humour belonging to all high action.” He declined the gift for himself, suggesting that the income from the fund be used to carry on such parochial, charitable, and mis- sionary uses as might commend themselves to his judg- ment, and declaring that in his will he had provided that the money should revert to the treasury of Grace Church, to become a permanent pension fund for the benefit either of retired rectors or of the widows of rec- tors deceased. “I cannot but think,” he says, ‘“‘in view of the disparity now existing in local incomes, that any merely personal method of using this splendid offering would seem to my brethren in the ministry selfish in the extreme.” He was persuaded, however, to establish two life interests for the benefit of two of his children. The next year, after the end had come, men of all schools of thought vied with one another in generous estimates of his life and character. High-churchmen acknowledged that in his early life he had been regarded as a dangerous opponent of the Catholic faith, and that in Convention debate his knowledge and skill had been at times misunderstood, and misrepresented by many of them as trickiness. They recognized now that while he used in debate every advantage which the rules gave, and often in his quickness of perception and action out- ran the apprehension of friends and foes alike, he was always courteous and fair. Moreover, they hastened to acclaim the contributions which he had made to the Church’s life and progress. A pronounced Broad- churchman who knew him well wrote: 529 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Huntington was a strong Churchman naturally. He saw no hope for what he cared for—one Church of Christian peo- ple—but to influence the strong party in the Church, the High Churchmen. He went with them all he could, to lead them where he would. He was Broad in the sense of inclusive, not in the sense of Liberal. He cared a great deal for dogma. He had a New England conscience. With it he had a statesmanlike sense of sacrificing many minor things which he much cared for, for the sake of the great things which he believed the Church could not do without. He loved to lead, and no man led better,—but he was ready to set anybody else leading and to seem to follow, if that was the best way to attain his purpose. He cared nothing about party and he could pare down principle to its essential core if need be. He was fearless; he was cau- tious. He could give away, but he couldn’t give up. He would go round a stumbling block and seem to have forgotten it, and then would come back to it and go through it or over it at last. I liked him always, admired him immensely, and am glad that the editor of the Living Church shared the admiration, on whatever different grounds from mine. He was a born debater, seeing his point and seizing it. As he spoke his figure heightened, his face glowed, his eye kindled. He held his emotions in command, yet seemed eyer on the point of letting himself go. In severe lucid English he said precisely what he wanted to say, no word more or less. He wasted no time on being eloquent or being clever. He led the House of Deputies as no one else did within my memory. His cheerful patience with dullness, his alert vigilance, his swift detection of a blunder or a fallacy, his instant submission to an adverse ruling, followed by an immediate presentation of the same mat- ter in a new and irresistible form, were delightful to witness. His bow was always strung. His mind worked without effort. Its issue came like a flash, a flash illuminative and not blind- ing, with no zigzagging sport among the clouds but tracing the path of a keen bolt that went to its mark and accomplished what it went for. I ventured to urge him once that he should always preach without book. He shook his head, and said, 530 THE LAST YEARS “T cannot do it.” “You do it so easily on the floor of the House of Deputies,” I rejoined. “Ah! but in the pulpit I miss the gaudium certaminis, the exhilaration of opposition.” “But,” I persisted, ‘‘Can’t you call up the vision of the world and flesh and the devil in the best pews up and down the middle aisle?” “No,” was his answer, “I am sorry to say that I cannot.” A less charitable mind than his might possibly have recognized them more easily. Still another clergyman who had known him well, in endeavoring to answer the question what there was about Dr. Huntington which seems perennial, comes to the conclusion that he was different from the ordinary man in that he was not interested in himself. “He was far from the moth and rust of self-interest. He did not exhibit in his conversation more interest in his own opinions than in that about which the opinions were ex- pressed. He had no small talk, nor was he capable of conceit. His opinions were part of him, and not adver- tisements to call attention to his cleverness.” Another clergyman, in whose work Dr. Huntington had been much interested, wrote of him: “All in all he had more of the elements that go to make up a perfect man than almost any other man that I ever met. He had a difficult task, that of so much self-abnegation as respects theology that he could even gladly assent to anything which promised a happier relation to the Church of all earnest minded and earnest hearted fol- lowers of Jesus Christ.” Another clergyman, who had been associated with him in the work at Grace Church, spoke of the pro- found impression which certain public utterances of Dr. 531 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON Huntington had made upon him. One of these occa- sions was in connection with the Church Congress at New Haven in 1885, where he read a paper on “The Atonement.” In the course of this paper, speaking of the recon- ciliation of God and man, Dr. Huntington said, “ “He ran and fell on his neck and kissed him.’ There we have the reconciliatory act but how little we know of its accompaniments! Possibly could it have been given us to look into his face as he thus went to meet his return- ing penitent, we should have detected there a momen- tary likeness to that great Reconciliator whose visage was more marred than any man.” “And again,” he exclaimed, ‘none save Christians, and of them none thus far save the elect few, have ever loved God passionately.” The listener testifies that “as said and heard this was one of those cries which seemed destined to ring down the ages. It would so do could the ages hear it as it was said.” The same clergyman testifies to the profound impres- sion made also on a certain Good Friday afternoon, when in Grace Church Dr. Huntington compared the deaths of Socrates and of Christ; and he says of the im- pression then received that it seems to him that its expla- nation is to be found in Dr. Huntington’s psychic per- sonality. ‘The greatest personalities,” he adds, “and those in their greatest moments, over-pass the circle of individuality. Standing before the people, they imper- sonate the people, the place and the event. We say of 582 THE LAST YEARS such a man that he has imagination; we mean that he is all that is there, has transcended himself, that he is aglow with the accumulated emotion of all the hearts about him and his prayer is alight with all their thought. He is not an individual, he is a social personality.” In a sympathetic and discriminating article in “The Outlook” its author said: “Few men have been able to serve their fellows in as many ways as Dr. Hunting- ton did. This is because few men are so evenly de- veloped on so many sides as Dr. Huntington was. In his religious belief he was something of a mystic, and by his sermons he was able to bring men where they could see how all life is surrounded by mystery as by a great deep; and yet at the same time he displayed all the qualities of the astute business man in carrying out the complicated affairs of his church. He saw the neces- sity of making the church serve the practical needs of the heterogeneous population, and he knew the value to the people of the most commonplace material benefits; and yet, he did not forget the poetry that is latent in all men; and it was characteristic of him to entertain with delight the suggestion that there should be main- tained in perpetuity a little flock of sheep on the green- sward by the church on Broadway. He had a faith which was not exclusive but inclusive, and which com- passed others whose faith was not as his. The spirit of such a leader as he was is even better exemplified not by the leader himself but by those who follow him. On the first anniversary of the Kishineff massacre some 533 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON thousands of Russian Jews marched up Broadway in a solemn and sorrowing memorial procession. As the throng reached Grace Church the bells tolled, and one of the clergy stood at the door with bared head. As one of this throng has testified in a letter to “The New York Times,” this simple act showed to those im- migrants that the Christianity of America is not like that of those priests whose bigotry has been largely re- sponsible for Jewish persecution in Russia.” Besides such expressions of grateful appreciation, there had come to him in the course of his life honors of a more formal character. He was given the degree of S.T.D. by Columbia in 18738, and the degree of D.C.L. by the University of the South in 1890; Yale gave him a D.D. in 1902; and degrees were bestowed also by Princeton, by Hobart College, and by Union College, where as honorary chancellor he gave the commence- ment address in 1903. Most treasured of all such hon- ors was the degree given by his alma mater. When Harvard presented him this degree in 1898, the descrip- tive words which accompanied the bestowal of the honor, spoken by President Eliot, were as follows: The beloved rector of Grace Church in New York City. An abundant fountain in a thirsty land, a fountain of piety, charity, and solace. It was in 1907 that he was president of the Phi Beta Kappa. He had been the poet of the Society in 1870, and had been asked to render the same service again in 1897, but had been obliged to decline. 534 THE LAST YEARS The last weeks of his life were spent at the summer home in Nahant, with the members of his family about him. He grew perceptibly weaker as the days went on, but preserved all the while alertness of mind, and took great satisfaction in seeing his friends and talking with them. One of the oldest of these friends, the Rev. Dr. Locke of Bristol, Rhode Island, spent many hours by his bedside, and there were long conversations of remi- niscence of the days of the past, and of discussions of the issues pending that summer in nation and Church. When he came to know that his disease was fatal, and that the end could not be far off, he faced the inevitable as might be expected, with a rare courage. He talked over freely with Dr. Locke, from time to time, what was in his heart. “I am not resigned,” he said one day. “I want to live. There are certain things I wish I could be spared to do.” Again he said at another time, ‘Now that I have this disease, why should I be kept alive?” Dr. Locke suggested. that perhaps the disease had been diagnosed wrongly, but he said, “No.” Dr. Locke suggested that it might be for the sake of his family. To this he listened quietly, but finally said, “I am not convinced.” He was most anxious to live, how- ever, until his daughter Madge, who was in Europe, could reach home. This he was able to do, and his daughter was there before the end. The last service to be held at his bedside he arranged himself. He was anxious to take part in it while he was still conscious, and Dr. Locke testified how greatly he was impressed at the strong liturgical feeling which 535 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON was displayed, and by the care and minuteness with which he thought out every detail of the service. The end came peacefully July 26, 1909. The funeral was held at Emmanuel Church, and though it was midsummer, and people were scattered far and wide, the church was filled with a company of sincere mourners, for whom the life now brought to a close had meant much in encouragement and inspira- tion. The church itself was a symbol of his life’s unity of purpose, and of its striking characteristics, for it was here that he had begun his ministry under the molding influence of Bishop Huntington, and here that thirty- seven years before he had walked, alone, down its aisle, behind the casket that contained the body of his dead wife. “It was then,” a friend writes, “that he entered into the very depths of that sequestration that had marked him from the beginning, a deep that shut him out, not only from the eyes of his many friends, but from the eyes of his immediate family. Nobody ever fathomed that deep. Ever after, he lived a cloistered life in spite of his intense activity.” The physical aspect of the man was indicative of his character. At the beginning of his ministry, it was his youthfulness that first impressed one, but only for a _ moment; for with the youthfulness, which never to the end deserted him, there was a dignity which was assured, and which never verged upon pomposity in its attempt to overcome his slightness and smallness of stature. His face, which was handsome in its regularity of fea- 536 WILLIAM REED HUNTINGTON ture, spoke of reserved power. His suppleness and eagerness of movement betokened alertness of mind. His firm mouth and chin told of self-control and strength of character. And withal there was an inde- scribable sense of what we call charm. A friend, writ- ing of this sense of charm, used in connection with it the text, ““His lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.” “I saw,” this friend contin- ues, “hidden in his face the burning zeal of the Oriental and the fixed moral fiber of the Puritan, sereneness and severity, force and fairness, honesty and humour, sub- tlety and strength.” And there was a “niceness” about his appearance and movements, which testified at the same time to the delicacy of touch which was revealed in his fugitive verses, and in his devotion to a symbolism which not infrequently verged upon fancifulness in his preaching; and to his scrupulousness in observing the exactitudes of law or rubric. In this last we perceive once more the influence in his thought and conduct of the motive of unity. He was, even in little ways, un- willing to outrun by the adoption of an apparently harmless practice, which he heartily approved, the united verdict of the whole Church, for fear that he might lose that whole Church’s confidence and impair the final unity which was his sole concern. At one time, when a younger clergyman showed him, with satis- faction, in his just completed parish church, an ambo lectern, with the King James on one side and the Re- vision on the other, his polite silence was eloquent of his 537 THE LAST YEARS disapproval. The Church had not yet, as a Church, quite expressed its approval of permissive readings from the Revision. Monuments to him of the stone and mortar sort are not wanting. Notable among these are the Hunting- ton Close, with its outdoor pulpit, at Grace Church; and the beautiful Memorial Chapel at the Cathedral, that one of the Chapels of the Tongues devoted to Scan- dinavia. This fourteenth-century Gothic chapel, the last of the seven to be consecrated, is named for St. Ansgarius. The architect was Henry Vaughan. The Kempe windows, and indeed all its furnishings, are the gifts of the family or special friends or fellow-workers of Dr. Huntington. The inscription on the memorial tablet at All Saints, Worcester, summarizes his life-work in the following words: CHAMPION oF CHURCH UNITY LEADER IN THE REVISION OF THE Boox or Common PRAYER A Great PrespyYTER OF THE CHURCH Pastor. PREACHER. STATESMAN. POET But his most enduring monument is in the consecrated lives of many men and women; in the enriched Books, both of Worship and of Law, of the Church which he loved and served; and in the sure progress of that cause which he had most at heart, the cause of Christian Unity. 038 INDEX A Abbott, Edwin H., letter to, 371 Abbott, Francis E., 12, 14, 21, 188, 372; letters to, 21-61, 115-122, 198 Act of Uniformity, 484 Adams, Hon. Charles Francis, let- ters to, 354, 492 Adams, Samuel, 4 “7Eschylus,” 43 Agassiz, Alexander, 11 Agnes, Miss, letter to, 183, 210 Agnosticism, 13, 452, 490 Aigner, Rev. Martin, letter to, 504 “A Good Shepherd,” 250 Aldrich, Thomas Bailey, 520 Alice, Miss, letter to, 319 Allen, Dr. A. V. G., 108,°295 “Allen’s Life of Phillips Brooks,” 335, 338 All Saints’ Cathedral, Worcester, England, 77; gift from, 78 All Saints’ Church, Worcester, Mass., 16, 62, 97, 109, 469, 516, 538; Growth of, 65-83; destruc- tion by fire, 75, 310; first choir, 69; new building, 77 All Saints’ House, 81 “All Saints’ Scrap Book,” 77 Alsop, Rev. Reese F., D.D., letter to, 477 Altruism, 227 American Catholic, 400 American Catholicity, 115, 165 Americanism, 299 American Christianity, 82 American Churchmanship, 399 American Congress of Churches, 393 “American Imperialism,” 331 American Literary and Scientific Military Academy, 9 American Republic, the, 332 “Among the Kings,” 246 “Analysis is Not All,” 356 “An Earthly Paradise,’ 183 Anglicanism, 199, 338 “Anglican Ministry, The,” 199 Ann, letter to, 324 “Annotated Prayer Book,” 181 Archbishop ——, letter to, 338 Archbishop of Canterbury, 293 “Aristocracy and Evolution Pas- sion,” 429 Arnold, Matthew, 187 Ascription, 495 Astor Library, 320 “Atonement and Modern Thought, The,” 433, 532 Atonement, doctrine of, 47 Atwood, Bishop, 241 Atwood, Rev. Julius W., letter to, 482, 487 “Authority,” 351 “Autonomy in America,” 341 B Bacon, Dr. L. W., 401 Bacon, Rev. Thomas S., D.D., 371 Barlow, Montague, 341 Barton, Rev. Mr., 200 Battershall, Dr., letter to, 483 Baxter, Richard, 442 Beard, Mr., letter to, 93 Beard, Rev. I. W., letters to, 357, 364 Beatitudes, 149, 153, 223 Bedell, Bishop, 106 Bedell Lectures, 404 Benson, Louis F., 463 Bent, Charles M., 76 Bible, infallibility of, 38 Biddle, Captain, 181, 395 Birth, date of, 3 Bishop White Prayer Book Society, 142, 146 Black, William, 209 Blunt, Dr. John Henry, 181 Board of Missions, 290, 374, 521 “Book Annexed,” 94, 96, 157, 256, 257, 258, 295, 299, 485 “Book Annexed Modified,” 485 Boston, 398, 509 539 INDEX Boston Church Congress, 472 Bottome, Margaret, 234 Bottome, The Rev. George H., 234, 268, 356 “Boundary Question, A,” 157 Bourne, Melatiah, 4 Bourne, Richard, 4 Bourne, Shearjashab, 4 Bourne, Sylvanus, 4 Brace, Miss, letter to, 431 Bradner, Rev. Lester, Ph.D., letter to, 518 Breckenridge, Senator, 47 Brentano’s, Union Square, 145 Breviary, Marquis of Bute’s trans- lation of the, 205 Brewster, Bishop, 515 “Briefs on Religion,” 250 Briggs, Rev. Chas. Augustus, 305, 328, 423; letters to, 320, 326 “Bohlen Lectures,” 185, 280, 404 altaretate of St. Andrew, 335, Brooks Anniversary Exercises, 360 Brooks, Frederick, 182, 185, 264 Brooks, Phillips, 90, 92, 96, 160, 182, 241, 296, 328, 364, 449, 463, 504 Browne, Rev. Percy, 107; letters to, 127, 130, 131 Building Committee of the Cathe- dral, 358, 484 Bullock, Governor, 212 Burlingham, Charles C., 356 Butler, Rev. Alford A., D.D., letter to, 426 Cc California, 421 Calvinism, 38, 49 Cambridge Theological School, 358, 502 Canfield, James H., LL.D., letter to, 444 “Canon of Deaconesses or Sisters,” 99 Canon on Religious Communities, 100 Canon on the Use of the Book of Common Prayer, 101 Canons, Committee on, 95 Canon XIX, 498 Canova, 477 Cape Cod, 4 Carlisle, Bishop of, 296 Carmichael, Mrs., letter to, 507 Carnegie Hall, 500 Cathedral of St. John the Divine, 378, Chap. XII, 419, 436, 451, 521 Cathedral scheme, the, 267 Cathedral statuary, 476 Cathell, Mr., letter to, 330 Catholic Church, 190 Catholic Party, 495 Catholic Unity Circle, 393 “Causes of the Soul,’ 250 Celibacy, 232, 236 Century magazine, 260 Chalcedon, Fathers at, 480 Chambré, Rey. A. St. John, D.D., letter to, 516 Chapel of Harvard College, 123 Chapel of Peace, New Canaan, 225 Chapels of the Tongues, 389 Chaplains, 357 Charlestown, Mass., 64 Chase, Henry Leverett, letter to, 489 Cheney, Dr., 129 Chicago-Lambeth platform, 90, 175, 360, 394, 396, 403 “Child Huntington’s Pilgrimage,” 9 Children, love for, 71 China, 421 Choate, Joseph, 207 Choir School, 222, 230, 439 Christ Church, Cambridge, 111, 123 Christian Science, 334, 337 “Christian Year,” 189 Christmas Holly, 183 Christmas letter, 86 Christmas trees, 493 “Church, The,’ 350 “Church and the Commune, The,” 262 Church Bells, 267 Church Club, 359 Church Congress at New Haven, 532 Church Congress in Boston, 515, 518 “Church Doves, The,” 79 Church Efficiency exhibit, 516 “Church Idea, The,” 90, 103, 164, 166, 182, 242, 243, 250, 401, 492 Churchman, The, 146, 203, 267, 280, 351, 352, 359, 387, 439, 475, 487, 521 Church Militant, 167 Church Monthly, 57, 176 Church of the Advent, Boston, 69, 189 Church of the Ascension, 244 540 INDEX Church of the Epiphany, Washing- ton, 109 Church of the Incarnation, York, 106 Church of. the Reconciliation, 162, 174, 397, 502 “Church Porch, The,” 72 Church Review, the, 146, 151, 160, 203, 205 Church School for Girls, 94 Church Standard, the, 244, 369 Church Temperance Society, 94 Church Union of Massachusetts, 165 Church Unity, 90, 138, 162, 163, 190, 247, 255, 261, 280, 313, 354, 360, 361, 363, 371, 379, Chap. XIII, 472, 510, 515, 519, 523, 538 Church Unity Society, 394 Cincinnati, 399 Cincinnati Enquirer, 240 Civil War, prospects of, 45 Clark, George C., letter to, 421 Clark, Rev. Thomas M., 64 Clarke, Julia Crawford, 362 Class of °57 dinner, 250 Class poet, 12 Clendenin, Dr., 305 “Clerical Veracity,” 448 Clough, Arthur Hugh, 187 Codman, Bishop, 360 Coffin, Mr., letter to, 129 Coles, Miss, letter to, 282 Colonial Policy, 354 Columbia University, 444 Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, 102, 140, 377, 505 Committee on Canons, 95 Committee on Church Unity, 164 Committee on the Old Testament Lessons, 291 Committee on Religion in the Public Schools, 496 Commission on the Revision of the Constitution, 102 Commission on the Revision of the Prayer Book, 96, 145 Comte, 45 “Conditional Immortality,” 133, 176, 182 “Confessional; Is It Worth Our While To Revive It?” 190 “Confession and the Lambeth Con- ference,” 189 “Confessions of an Enquiring Spir- it,”? 322 Confirmation, 184, 515 New Congress of the Anglican Commu- nion, 498 Constitution and Statutes of the Cathedral, 519 Constitution of the U. S., 406 ACHE, of Abp. Hermann, 34 “Continuity,” 401 Converse, Rev. George S., 176 Cook, Josiah P., 13, 14, 15, 23 Cooke, Mrs. Josiah P., 198, 215; letters to, 375, 427, 435 Coolidre, Rev. J. 1. T.,) 176 Court of Review of the Province, 305, 314 Coxe, Bishop, 156, 440 Crapsey, Dr., 303, 448, 454, 495 Curtis, George Wm., 207 Cyprian, 185 D Dale, Mrs., 482 Daniel, Rev. Evan, 156 Dartmouth College, 11, 32 Darwin-Huxley-Spencer wave, 513 Davis, Edward L., 76 Deacon, examination for, 46, 52, 55; ordained, 16, 55 Deaconesses, Order of, 90, 97, 236- 239, 268, 276, 485 Deaconess Fund, 239 Deaconess Training School, 521 Death, date of, 536 “Debt and Grace,” 49, 176 “Declaration of Biblical Criticism, A,” 445 Declaration of Independence, 333 Degrees, 534 De Koven, Dr., 92, 102, 107, 129, 186, 500 Deputy to the General Convention, 89, 94 Dewey, Admiral George, 9 Dewey, Francis H., letter to, 456 Diocesan Convention, of 1872, 89; of 1883, 96 ‘Disappointment of Jesus Christ,” 329 Dives, 501 Divinity of Christ, 490 “Divine Breathing,” 205 Divorce, 291, 351 Dix, Dr. Morgan, 207, 228, 377, 508 Doane, Bishop, 291, 414, 441, 496, 515; letter to, 357 541 INDEX Dodge, Miss Grace H., letter to, 442 Donald, Dr. E. W. 244, 398, 414, 422, 427; letters to, 334, 338, 351 Donald Memorial Sermon, 427, 432 Douglas, Rev. Canon, letters to, 436, 451, 519 Douglas, Senator, 47 Dresser, Horatio, 334 Driver, Dr., 306 Drunkenness, 181 Dyer, Dr., letter to, 208 E Earle and Fuller, Messrs, 76 Eastburn, Bishop, 52, 53, 63, 64, 89, 176, 419, 496; election of his successor, 91 Eastern Orthodox Church, 394 “Eece Homo,” 458 Eddy, Mary Baker, 334, 520 Edgar, Dr., 264 Edinburgh, Bishop of, 404 Edson, Dr., 10 Education, religious, 289, 366; in the public schools, 423 Egar, Rev. John H., letter to, 368 Egypt, 210 “Eight Common Objections,” 185 Eliot, George, 258, 346 Eliot, President, 11, 534 Elsmere, Robert, 272 Emmanuel Church, Boston, 16, 536 Emmanuel Mission, 35 Emmanuel Movement, 228 “Empedocles on Etna,” 187 Engagement to be married, 58, 60 England, 422 “England versus Rome,” 416 Episcopal Theological School, Cam- bridge, 90 “Essays for the Day,” 417 “Rssays on the Philosophy of Theism,” 254 “Eternal Life,” 414 Etta, Miss, 183 Eucharistic adoration, 93, 131 Eugenia, Miss, letter to, 193 Evangelical Alliance, 393 Evangelical Orthodoxy, 479 Evolution, 67 F “Fable of the Bees,” 428 “Faith of Our Fathers,” 415 Farewell Christmas letter, 86 Faude, Dr., 340 Fay, James, 26, 55; letter to, 60 Federation and Unity, 404 Federation of Churches, 380, 426 Fellowes, Miss, letters to, 286, 355 Fidelis, Father (Kent Stone), 185 “Finis Opus Coronat,” 515 First Choir School in America, 222 First Parish Year Book in America, 70 First Prayer Book of Edward VI, 134, (207) First School for the Training of Deaconesses, 235 Fish, Governor, 256 Flaxman, 477 Fond du Lac, Bishop of, 495 Fond du Lac scandal, 360, 362 Forum, The, 423 “Four Key Words of Religion,” 243, 414 Fourth Commandment, 447 Fourth Commandment Committee, 270, 355 Fox, C. James, 328 Franchise of the Clergy, 95 Franck, 490 Franklin, Benjamin, 328, 367 Free thought, 41 Fuller, Messrs Earle and, 76 Fulton, Rev. John, death of, 479; letters to, 373, 376 G Gallwey, Rev. N. B. W., 375 Gambier, 106 Gambling, 288, 338 Garden City Cathedral, 378 Gardner, Deaconess, 379, 450 Gardner, Robert H., letter to, 486 Garrison, Dr., 260 General Convention, 62, 84, 89, 94, 97 General Theological Seminary, 261, 502, 517 Gettysburg, 93 Gibbons, Archbishop, 415 Gibbs, Maj. Theodore K., letter to, 438 Gilder, Richard Watson, 247 Gladstone, 393, 413 Godkin, Mr., letter to, 320 “Gold Dust,” 205 542 INDEX Goodwin, Dr., 189, 515 “Gospel of Infancy, The,” 309 Grace Church, New York, 5, 80, 83, 97, 103, Chap. VIII, IX, X, XI, 384, 418, 435, 439, 445, 469, 504, 510, 513, 516, 518, 525, 529 Rector- ship of, 83 Grace Church Chapel, 224 “Grace Church Hymnal,” 222 “Grace Church Services,” 223 Grafton, Father, 130 Green Mountain, 26 Greer, Dr., 510 Grosvenor, Dr., 420 Groton School, 438; masters at, 491 Guardian The, 146, 424 H H » Mr., letter to, 339 Haight, Dr., 91 Hale, Dr., 360 Hale, Edward, 24, 207 Halifax, Lord, 491 Hall, Rev. A. C. A., letter to, 276, 280, 282 Hall, Bishop, letter to, 322, 432, 482 Hall, Edward, 439 Hall, Father, 189 “Hamilton’s Metaphysics,” 34 “Happy Thoughts,” 189 Hare, Bishop, letter to, 128 Harrison, Dr., 209 Harvard College, President of, 468 Harvard Magazine, 12 Harvard Memorial Volumes, 118 Harvard Monthly, 12 Harvard Review, 481 Harvard University, 11, 90, 92, 349, 378, 482 Hart, Rev. H. Martyn, D.D., letter to, 361 Hearst, 458 Hebrew Crime, 452 Heins and LaFarge, Messrs, 476 Helfenstein, Mr., 222 Hell, 446 Hemm, Harry, 476 Henson, Canon, 363, 379 Heraldry, 274 Herbert, George, 460 Hibbert Journal, The, 405, 408, 448, 450, 479, 481, 494, 513 Hibbert Journal, editor of, 479 High Mass, 51 Hillis, Mr., 363 Hinckley, Governor Thomas, 4 Hinckley, Isaac, 4 “Historic Episcopate,” 402 “History of Testimony, The,’ 273 “History of the Episcopal Church athe: Si 257. Hobart College, 105 Hodges, Dean, 358 Hoffman, Mrs. William B., letter to, 378 Holmes, Dr., 207 Holy Trinity, Paris, 106 Hopkins, John Henry, 204, 479 Hoppin, Dr., 122, 123 House of Aquila and the Chapel of St. Priscilla, 289 House of Peers, 211 Howard Association, 191 Howard, Cardinal, 211 Hubbell, Rev. William P., D.D., letter to, 512 Hudson, C. F., 49, 55 Hughes, Governor, 288 Hughes, Hugh Price, 401 Huntington Amendment, 467 Huntington, Asahel, 4, 5, 7, 258 Huntington Close, the, 231, 538 Huntington, Elisha, 3 Huntington, Frank, 7, 8, 25 Huntington, Hanna (Hinckley), 3 Huntington, James, 8 Huntington, Mary, 8, 9, 13 Huntington Memorial Chapel, 538 Huntington, Rev. Frederick Dan, 12, 13, 16, 27, 32, 63, 69, 104, 176, 182, 381, 536 Hutchins, Secretary, 377 Hutton, Arthur W., 463 I “Tdealism the Breath of Democra- cies,” 363 “Idols of the Market Place, The,” 273 “Tdyls, The,” 417 Immaculate Conception, 170 Incense, use of, 101 Independent, The, 475 Individualism, 449 Ingalls, Senator, 395 Inglesants, John, 491 “In Memoriam,” 417, 503 Instructor in Chemistry, 15 “In the Days of His Flesh,” 458 “Invitation Heeded, The,” 185 543 INDEX Invocation, 495 Iowa, elected Bishop of, 107 “Ttalian Note Book,” 210 Italy, 490 J Jagger, Dr., 129 Jamaica, 480 Japan, 421 Japanese, 413 Jesuitry, 272 “Jews, The,’ 498 “John Richard Green’s Letters,” 363 Jones, Canon, 384 Judaism, 289 Juvenile crime, 367 K Kaiser Wilhelm I, 482 Keble, 154, 188, 418 Kellogg, Mrs., letter to, 440 Kenyon College, 106 Kerridge, Rev. Philip M., letter to, 426 Kingsley’s “Saint's Tragedy,” 30; “Yeast,” 521 Kipling, Rudyard, 327 Kirkpatrick, 306 Kishineff massacre, 533 Kozlosky, Bishop, 359 Kramer, Dr., 367 Kyrie Eleison, 154 L Lady Chapel, 481 LaFarge, C. Grant, letter to, 484 Laidlaw, Rev. Walter, Ph.D., let- ters to, 344, 496, 516 Lambeth Conference, 273, 492 Lambeth declaration, 477 Langdon, Dr. William Chauncy, 393 Langdon, Miss, letter to, 281 Langston, Rev. Clarence A., letter to, 486 Larned, Col. Charles W., letter to, AST Last address of All Saints’, 87 Last service, 536 Lawrence, Rev. Arthur, 267 Lawrence, Rt. Rev. William, D.D., letter to, 377 Lay, Bishop, 154 as rector “Lay Element in England and America, The,” 204 Laymen’s Forward Movement, 521 Lazarus, 500 League of Catholic Unity, 393 League of Christian Unity, 425 Lectionary Commission, 291 Lee, Gerald Stanley, 389; letter to, 424, “Letters of Eugenie de The,” 117 . “Letters on Inspiration,” 322 Lewis, Francis A., letter to, 369 Liberalism, 170, 372, 479 Liber Precum Publicarum, 134 “Life of Bishop Creighton,” 427, 432 Lincoln, Abraham, 43 “Lines in Kensington Gardens,” 187 Linton, Miss, 435 Literary ability, 12 Littlejohn, Bishop, 164, 184 Living Church, The, 146, 310, 360, 406, 420, 426, 530 Lloyd, Rev. John J., D.D., 510 Llwyd, Rev. J. P., 420 Lock; Dr. George; ,L.; letter to, 368 Lodge, Sir Oliver, 513 Logic, 56 Lombardy, fortresses of, 163, 167 London, 211 Lord’s Prayer, 505 Loring, 56 Low, President, 327 Lowell High School, 32 Lowell, James Russel, 207 Lowell, Mass., 3, 8, 9 Lourdes, cures at, 337 Luther, Martin, 7 Lutherans, 401 “Luxury and Riches,’ 428 Guerin, 110, 535; M M , letters to Miss, 202, 203, 479 Macaulay, 152 MacDonald, George, 209 Machias, Me., 25 MacKay, Rev. Donald Sage, D.D., letter to, 430 Mackay-Smith, Bishop Alexander, 63 Mahan, Admiral, 521 Mahan, Captain, 371 Mallock, 190, 428 544 INDEX Manchester College, Oxford, 479 Manchester, Rev. L. C., D.D., letter to, 458 Mandeville’s “Fable of the Bees,” 428 Mann, Rev. Alexander, D.D., letter — to, 432 Manning, of St. Agnes, 441, 509 Mansfield College, 479 Mante, Bishop, 269 Marriage, 72 Martin, Bradley, Jr., letter to, 331 Mary, letter to Miss, 285 Mason, Miss Ida, letter to, 415 Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, 15 “Master of the World, The,” 458 “Materia Ritualis,” 151, 153 Maturin, Father, 271 McClosky, Dr., 111 McComb, Dr. Samuel, 304 McConnell, Dr. S. D., 177 McKim, Dr. Randolph H., letter to, 323, 433, 441 Meliorism, 227 Members of Baker’s Union No. L., letter to, 265 “Memoirs and Letters of the Late Bishop Huntington,” 456 Memorial on Sisterhoods, 97 Meredith, Catherine K., letters to, 125, 132-137, 181-193, 195-197, 204- 208, 254-275, 323-330, 341, 351, 353, 358, 363, 375, 414, 418, 447, 449, 494, 498, 520 Mendes, Rey. F. de Sola, Ph.D., letter to, 452 Merriman, Mrs. Daniel, 334 “Messiah of the Gospel, The,” 320 Metcalf, Isaac, 516 Metcalf, James, 516 Metcalf, letter to, 191 Milan Cathedral, 477 Militarism, 212 Milton, 152 Ministry, decision to enter, 14 Minneapolis, 398 Miracles, 336, 345 Miss Porter’s School, Farmington, 204 Missal, 51 Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, 244 Model saloon, 414 Modernism, 494, 499, 513 Modernists, 499 Moffett, 437, letter to Cleveland, 428 486; Moore, Francis C., Esq., letters to, 285, 362, 365 More, Henry, 56 Morehouse, F. C., Esq., 480 Morely, 413 Morgan, Mr. J. Pierpont, 157, 164; letter to, 484 Mount Desert, 26 Muhlenburg, Dr., 143 Munger, Rev. Theodore T., D.D., letter to, 417 N Nahant, Mass., 119 Nash, Professor, 358 “National Church, A,” 243, 249, 250, 404, 492 “Natura Naturans,’ 245 “Neo-Christian, The,” 394 Nevin, Dr., 164 New Brunswick, 27 Newman, 479 Newman, F., 43 Newman, Cardinal, 199, 460 Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk,” 131 New Old South, Newbury St., Boston, 509 Newton, Rev. R. Heber, letter to, 126 New York Training School for Dea- conesses,” 284 Nichols, Dr., 63; letter to, 285 Nineteenth Century, 331 North East Harbour, 496 Norwich University, Vt., 9 Nova Scotia, 27 Nuttall, The Most Rev. Enos, D.D., letter to, 339 O “Objections to Christianity,” 310 Observer, The, 495, letter to, 341 Ohio State Journal, 128 “Oh Little Town of Bethlehem,” 504 Old South, Boston, 509 Old Trinity, 508 “On the Rubrics,” 269 Opdycke, Mr., letter to, 491 Open pulpit, 488, 494 Optimism, 227 Order of Deaconesses, 90, 97 545 INDEX Oregon, 421 Osgood, Rev. George E., 68 Osler, Dr., 440 “Our Country,” 299 “Outlook for Christian Unity at the Century’s Close,” 402 Outlook, The, 448, 533 Overseer of Harvard, 108 Oxford, 502 Oxford, Bishop of, 417 Oxford movement, 353 P Packard, Judge, 404 Paddock, Rev. Ernest L., letter to, 456 Paddock, Bishop, 62, 77, 92, 189, 241; farewell to Dr. Huntington, 96; first address as Bishop, 94 Palmer, Rev. Frederick, 177 Paine, Robert Treat, letter to, 379 Papal Church, 190 Papal Infallibility, 170 Paradise, Rev. Frank I., letter to, 460 Paret, Bishop, 239 Parish Year Book, 70 Parks, Dr. Leighton, 244, 420 Parsons, James Russell, Jr., letter to, 366 Parish Library Church, 456 “Passing Protestanism, The,” 499 Peabody, Dr. Francis G., 123; Let- ter to, 348 Peace Cross, 415 “Peace of the Church,” 243, 247, 250, 280, 285, 404, 414, 492 Penn, William, 245 Pepper, Mr., 488 Pepper, George, 521 “Permanent and Variable Charac- teristics of the Prayer Book,” 146 Perry, Commodore, 413 Perry, Bishop, 257 Perry, Rev. Carroll, letter to, 454 Pessimism, 13, 227, 490 Peters, Dr., 420 Phi Beta Kappa Society, 207, 480, 534 of All Saints’ Phillips Brooks Club, 245 Philippines Independence Commis- sion, 290 Philippinos, 413 Phillips, Wendell, 17, 207 Pitts Street Chapel Course of Ser- mons, 126 Plumtre, Dr., 156, 205 Plymouth Church, Worcester, 77 Plymouth Colony, 4 Poetry Game, 10 Pope and the Council, quarrel be- tween, 499 “Popular Misconceptions,’ 250 Porter, Dr. Edward C., 107 Positivism, 56, 186 Post, the New York Evening, 321; letters to the editor of, 413, 506, 508 Pott, James, 485 Potter, Bishop Henry Codman, 83, 93, 104, 107, 214, 242, 244, 328, 414, 445; letters to, 277, 419, 485 Pratt, Mr. letter to, 201 Pratt, Mrs., letter to, 211 Pratt, Sumner, 76 Prayer, 135, 366 Prayer Book Revision, 84, 91, 94, 96, 102, Chap. VI, 256, 293, 395, 470, 523 Prayer Book, title page of, 263 Presbyterianism, 264 Priesthood, ordained to, 16, 63 Prohibition, 68 “Prospect and Methods of Prayer Book Revision,” 192 “Proposed Liturgical Review of the Book of Common Prayer,’ 147 Protestanism, 272 “Punch,” 181, 190 Puritanism, 170, 347 “Put Up Thy Sword Sheath,” 326 Pyncheon, President, 110 Q “Qua Cursum Ventus,” 188 Quadrilateral, 162, 167, 353, 359, 396, 461, 486, 492, 518 Quiet Day, reasons for refusing to conduct a, 259 “Quiet Woman, The,” 506 R Rainsford, Dr., 358, 420, 445 Randall, Rev. G. M., 176 Rationalism, 51 Reason, 56 Record, The, 282 Redner, Mr., 503 into His 546 INDEX Reed, Tom, 327 Reed, William, 5 Reformation in the Sixteenth Cen- tury, 347 “Relation of the Constitution and Canons of the American Church to the Fundamental Law of the Church,” 406 Religion, definition of, 343 Renwick, James, 387 Report of St. Clement’s Investigat- ing Committee, 189 “Report on the State Church,” 304 Restarick, Bishop, letter to, 509 “Reunion of Christendom,” 403 Revision of the Prayer Book, 84, 91, 94, 96, 102, Chap. VI Reynolds, Dr. Edward, 17, 58, 60, 208 Reynolds, Miriam Phillips, 74, 527 Reynolds, Theresa, 17, 58, 60, 72s death of, 62, 73 Rhodes, Cecil, 327 Richey, Dr., 261 Richmond, 398, 405, 505 “Right Road, The,” 367 Ritualism, 100, 186, 191 Rogers, Rev. B. Talbot, D.D., letter to, 487 Rome, 209 Romanism, 170, 186 Roosevelt, 492 of the S “Short History of the Book of Com- mon Prayer,” 250 “Signs and Seals,” 491 “Sister Dora,” 193 Sisterhood, 268 Skepticism, 56 Slattery, Rev. C. L., letters to, 361, 370, 445, 458, 517 Smith College, 262 Smith, Dr. Cornelius B., 100 Smith, Dr. George Williamson, 110 Smith, Dr. John Cotton, 100 Smith, Howard C., letter to, 511 Smith, Rev. Claudius F., letter to, 366 Smythe, Dr. Egbert, 401 Smythe, Dr. Newman, 472; letters to, 499, 515 Socialism, 438, 457, 500, 506 Socrates, 121 Soldiers of the Cross Society, 40 Song of Moses and Miriam, 440 “Sonnets and a Dream,” 246 Sowden, Mr., 108 Spain, 490 Spanish War, 290, 323, 325 Spaulding, Dr., 98 Sook Os) Ki,, 184 Spectator, The, 417, 428, 491 “Spiritual Efficiency of the Church,” 379 Standard, The, 479 Standing Committee, election to, 94 Stanley, Dean, 156, 182, 204, 205, 364 “Stanzas, from the Grande Char- treuse,” 187 Stimulants, use of, 68 Stearns, Dr., 415 Sterrett, Rev. J. MacBride, D.D., 500 Stevens, Bishop, 106 Stevens, Leslie, 363 Stock, Eugene, letter to, 422 Stokes, J. G. Phelps, M.D., letter to, 340 Stokes, Mrs. Rose Pastor, 56 Stone, Kent (Father Fidelis), 185 Strong, Josiah, 393 Stubbs, Dean, 243 Suffragan Bishops, 373 Sumner, Senator, 47 Sun, the New York, 308, 341, 364, 367, 430 Sunday Law, 512 Susie, letter to, 480 Suter, Rev. John W., 471; letters to, 350, 439, 495, 505 Swedish Church, 394 Sacramentalism, 191, 490 Sacramentalists, 402 St. Anne’s Church, 10, 13, 516 St. Ansgarius, 538 St. Botolph’s by the Charles, 377 Sacraments, views on, 66 Sagers, Mrs., letter to, 503 “St. Brandan,” 187 St. Chryostom, 153 St. Clement’s Investigating Commit- tee, Report of, 189 St. Faith’s School for Deaconesses, 239, 281 St. George’s Church, New York, 277, 445 St. Ignatius Church, New York, 277 547 INDEX St. John’s Chapel, Cambridge, 111 St. John’s College, Cambridge, 263 St. John’s Gospel, 400 St. John’s Mission, 80 St. John’s, York, 508 St. Luke’s Church, Philadelphia, 106 St. Luke’s, Germantown, 106 St. Luke’s Mission, 80 St. Mark’s in the Bowery, New York, 104 St. Mark’s Mission, 80 St. Mary’s Mission, 16 St. Mary the Virgin’s Church, New York, 277, 417 St. Matthew’s Mission, 80 St. Paul, 171, 257, 495 St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, 386, 441 St. Paul’s Church, Boston, Mass., 91, 93 St. Paul’s School, Concord, 438 St. Peter’s Church, West Chester, 305 St. Sophia, 183 St. Stephen’s Church, Providence, 110 St. Stephen’s, Philadelphia, 111, 181, 200, 362 St. Thomas’ Church, N. Y., 451 “Saint’s Tragedy,” 30 San Francisco, 398 Sanday, Rev. Dr., 306 Sanders Theater, Cambridge, 207 Satterlee, Bishop, letter to, 415 Satterlee, Miss Constance, letter to, 321 Schaff, Dr., 403 Schouler, James, 59 Scituate, 4 “Secret of a Happy Life, The,” 87 Sectarianism, 168, 171 Selfishness, 258 Seminary Magazine, 273 Septuagint Cup, 524 Sermon delivered at Topsfield, 258 Sermon on the Mount, 516 Sermons, criticism of his, 68 Seward, Theodore F., 394, 425 Seymour, Dr., 100, 106; letter to, 443 Shepard, Edward M., 304; letter to, 270 Sheffey, Judge, 209 Shields, Dr., 260, 295, 393, 400 Varick Street, New: T “Talisman of Unity,” 402 Tawdry commercialism, 89 Tayler, Mr., letter to, 352 Taylor, Dr. Thomas House, 214, 263 “Tellus,” 351 Temperance, 68 Tennyson, 181, 417 Tertullian, 185 Thanksgiving night charades, 71 Thaw trial, 476 “Theology’s Eminent Domain,” 250 “Theories of Visible Church Unity,” 521 Thomas, St., 450 “Thomas Wingfold,” 190 Thompson, Hugh Miller, 479 Ticonderoga, 9 Tiffany, Dr. Charles C., 104; letter to, 358 Times, The, 340 Times, The New York, 528, 534 Toledo, Ohio, 106 Topsfield, 5, 49 Townsend, Howard, letters to, 504, 517 “Tract Ninety,” 479 “Tract Number Ninety-one,” 479, 486 “Tract XCI,” 405, 418, 483 Transubstantiation, 490 Trask, Mrs., 292 Travel abroad, 84 Tremont Temple, 36, 515 Tribune, The New York, 305, 493 Trine, Ralph, 334 “Trinity Catechism,” 201 Trinity Church, Boston, 90, 360, 362, 402, 422, 433, 477; destruction of, 91 Trinity Church, New York, 508 Trinity Church, West Pittston, 368 Trinity College, 109 “Tristram and Iseult,” 187 Trollope’s “Barchester Towers,” 521 Turner, Chas., 205 Twelfth Night parties, 71 Tyng, Stephen, 186 U Union College, 362 Union Theological Seminary, 264, 502 548 INDEX Unitarianism, 479 “United Churches of the United States,” 260 V Vail, Rt. Rev., 64 Vatican Council, 492 Vatican, visit to, 211 Vaughn, Henry, 538 Vibbert, Dr., 420 Vinton, Bishop, 63, 91, 360, 364 Virgin Birth, 449 “Voyage to Laputa,” 513 WwW W. , Deaconess, letter to, 485 Wanamaker, John, letter to, 514 Wardsforth House, 349 “Warning, The,” 352 Ward, Mrs., 273 Washburn, Dr. Edward A., 246; letter to, 125 Washburn, John D., 76, 77, 104, 203, 215; letters to, 209, 257, 259, 262, 275 “Washington, A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of George,” 258 Washington, 421 Washington Cathedral, 436 Washington, Dr., 481 Washington, George, 328 Whitaker, Bishop, letter to, 264 Whitcomb, Mrs., letter to, 206 White, Rev. Edward, 133, 182 White, Rev. Eliot, letters to, 475, 500 White, William, 150 Whitney, Mrs. A. D. T., 335 “Why Nine Divinity Schools in Tokyo?” 356 Wilkinson, Rey. D.D., letters to, 340, 431 William and Mary College, 482 i ete Bishop, 109, 145; letter to, 49 Williams, Rev. John, letter to, 461 “Winning of Immortality,” 177 Wisconsin, Bishopric of, 107 Wisner, Mr., Letter to, 49S Wolfe, Miss, 266 Wood, Henry, 334 “Woodbine, The,” 79 Worcester, Mass., 10, 16, 64, 496 Worcester, Dr. Elwood, 304; letter to, 447 Wordsworth, 418 “Working Faith of a Social Re- former, The,” 448 World, The New York, 267 William, h ¢ Yale University, 482 Yellott, Rev. John I., Jr., letter to, 514 Y. M. C. A., 162, 442 Y. W. C. A, 442 Z Zabriskie, George, 423 Zwinghanism, 490 549 bay vie, SMe" TEN the % ie hay ae Ser yc : Pine ip Mk cdot anne? x We ist - : ‘ : iy r 4 ‘ F i s f a, 3 Alas , ¥ i WDA De ; \ : Saye taht ae ‘ Ede hig: : r nha yur Ne 4 “7 PANN Dts aban eee) ' f Wn heat ry hf ae ta hy" , ys va MR Alaa Ts ete Lk WAN eyed as prr tem oa Hy MT igre VES vite . F P eT) , ; Lesa ea ya eal Pe OEY Paths 4 NY : J i i mit i Vela ii! | HiT een ti ayn WK) Ny hay 0) Ne hy y eae y Can ihitcan’ eM ARs ae dA (HAD ANN t ‘ A oly rh Vian! a i) Bhd AMD (Ss i rghit Ry uit +, , it “AN bale POY Athy SAY hah OR ait Warne | ty Kae? Dy 4 DATE DUE e a ; e's a . * , Se f bs #LO-45220 HIGHSMITH Payer ray nara > eat, | xe Z he Les ; a4 yon 48 0251 MMM a. 2 oc 4 £ ms | . ev a a. “n f a ra o c — av 7) 6 < a 2 io} ev = i c ° 2 ve .=) Cc = a 1 1012 010 AMAIA beet perience Ny ahd iat g oh sea! inte ES eitrirt Sa) i ogee Wy 58 a