N V. 
 
 • ''-' A •••■ mmi 
 
 wmm 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 nyf 
 
 i «Si 
 
 -a 
 
 $MS$ -II 
 
 tfAKillSf s ’v ^1 # . * M: "'WU 
 
 mmmm1 :§?A : ci :3it@ ask M if/df 
 
 * - 4 Vi toll** 
 
 M E M O I R S 
 
 5V, 
 
 ‘afO 
 
 
 ’’V ESPis 
 
 > " M“, 
 
 
 • • m 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Ti^Vvi 
 
 h* Vv 
 
 •I 
 
 ®|ibc 0 |h 1 C|itrc| ? 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 Ilf 
 
 IP-Ei PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 (}j|f. .' \iji ’ ' C/T d 
 
 !! ; $& 
 
 m*5 Aw i 
 
 afcP 
 
 m 
 
 WITH 
 
 •Si,.' 
 
 I? 
 
 ^Si ****' 1 
 
 • Wvj 
 
 ^.vVU# 
 
 W)y,\i.W‘ i 
 it. 
 
 :£•■• ' "• I 
 
 COTEMPORARY REPORTS RESPECTING THESE AND 
 
 
 ®fiPP r 
 
 ty/Si" 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 EX f'R ACTED FROM THE i OPTIC PRESS , 
 
 ANALYZED AND COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS HISTORY, 
 
 hrXL.- 
 
 |» 
 
 V 
 
 
 BY 
 
 
 
 :><V: 
 
 BENJAMIN AYCRIGG, Ph. D. 
 
 
 i m • 
 
 : 
 
 3 
 
 pfcii'j 
 
 ' . ,> 
 
 tp«j 
 
 %D‘ W* 
 * n*,- i | 18» 
 
 3 > 
 
 “ Schism is a Sin by Apostolic Authority." 
 
 “ Separation from Schism is a Duty by Apostolic Example. 
 
 “ Separation from his Schism is Schism according to each Canonist . 
 
 Chap. xii. 
 
 » 
 
 iil/j 
 
 V.vAv.V.V 
 
 v : 
 
 if 
 
 fl ■ •. 
 
 ••^iv.v.P'.v 'i.v if ■>: iski 
 
 yg ,?|#r 
 
 1 %"•: 
 
 sr c# : i ! m , ■ Hmmmy. 
 
 ™ .. -vm. ...... mi 
 
 r ;io v O " " 4 i - } i p- ,'*] 
 
 wmm* ' .»««&,.^ i ,|^<4 
 
 \ 
 
 V;; 
 
 .. MBmm 
 
 cm m m* smm 
 
 *AYp' C: ' : IIC ■ ■' s "c: 
 
 mi 
 
 i if ji 
 
i" x'V.Y- '; . 
 
 'A' 
 
 m 
 
 A. 4 . 
 
 ,V ’ Tv 
 
 .• 1 ■ r, •< ** ' 
 
 V ■, <y l ■ 1 
 
 i *v ■.« , $ i 
 
 JfS'fii' ’l|> ,J ifc ■ V " 1 ’^'N. ■: ffils-*"--. ' H "s«-v : ' : "x 
 
 :• ”■ jp. ; . ««3. ^ 
 
 ** ; , ■ : * / vi; v.-if ' ,! “■ v 
 
 4'. if ' J 
 
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 WITH 
 
 COTEMPORARY reports respecting these and 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 EXTRACTED FROM THE PUBLIC PRESS , 
 
 analyzed and compared with previous history, 
 
 BENJAMIN AYCRIGG, Pei. D. 
 
 U 
 
 . I 
 
 “ Schism is a Sin by Apostolic Authority 
 “ Separation frGm Schism is a Duty by Apostolic ExampleA 
 “ Separation fro?n his Schism is Schism according to each Canonists 
 
 Chap. xii. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 PRINTED FOR The AUTHOR BY EDWARD O. JENKINS, 
 20 North William Street. 
 
 1875. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 > 
 
 
 THE OBJECT OF THIS WORK IS 
 
 TO PROVE 
 
 That: The R. E. C. is neither a schism , nor in schism : a sin denounced by 
 Apostolic authority ; but a peaceable separation from schism, in accordance with 
 Apostolic example—while it is denounced as a schism by Canonists, who find their 
 authority in tradition and not in the Bible.—vii; xii; xiv—ii; xii ; xiii. 
 
 That: The Pan Anglican Church, by Apostolic authority, is a schism, cutting 
 itself off from the rest of the Christian world ; and in schism with its different hos¬ 
 tile parties, “ fighting it out within the Church ”—while it is claimed by its own 
 Canonists to be especially “The Church.”—iii; iv ; v ; viii ; x; xii; xiii—xii. 
 
 That: “ The Old Evangelicals who bore the Evangelical banner so nobly,” 
 were in the line of duty when success appeared possible ; but became a schism 
 when they continued to “ fight ” after becoming a “ hopeless and helpless minor¬ 
 ity.”—(iii, Oct. 81, 1874.) 
 
 That: The R. E. C, was organized by Old Evangelicals, in order to separate 
 from schism, and to act with energy upon Old Evangelical principles, as Protest¬ 
 ants in harmony with the Protestant world. In place of remaining in the P. E. C. 
 and either “ fighting,” or refusing to act for the common cause, upon the ground 
 that all the increase arising from their action would be absorbed and themselves 
 controlled by the ruling majority, who have lately assumed a hostile attitude to¬ 
 ward Protestantism and the Protestant world.—i; ii; iv ; v; vi ; vii; ix; xi; 
 xiv ; xv—xii. 
 
 That: The rapid advance of the R. E. C. proves that its peculiar characteris¬ 
 tics agree with the peculiar characteristics of a large number of the members of the 
 “ One Holy Catholic Church ”—while it differs in nothing essential from the gene¬ 
 ral standards of other Protestant denominations in the same Church.—i—xi; xv. 
 
 The Author, as a layman, refers to doctrinal matters in general terms, leaving 
 details for the clergy. From personal knowledge he states many facts that have 
 fallen under his observation as one of the Old Evangelicals in the P. E. C., and 
 identified with the R. E. C. from its inception.—(xii, 29 to 39 ; 45 to 51.) 
 
 Obj ections to statements given as facts, or to conclusions drawn from admitted 
 facts, will be given in future editions as Appendices, Provided they be stated in a 
 positive form, asserting what are the facts, or the legitimate conclusions, and sent 
 to the author in a marked newspape, , as editorial, or with the signature of a Bish¬ 
 op, or other minister, as responsible public authority. 
 
 Newspapers are separated from their dates by the catchwords indicating the 
 subjects, and in that case are put in parentheses. These furnish direct references 
 to the extracts in full as found in files of these papers in public libraries, since only 
 so much is given as to indicate the substance, in order to save space. Their names 
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
4 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 are thus contracted: (Epis.) Episcopalian, of Philadelphia, edited by Rev. C. W. 
 Quick, of the P. E. C., Low Church, and the only Episcopal paper that defends the 
 R. E. C. (Ch. St.) Church and State, of New York, with Rev. John Cotton Smith, 
 D.D., editor-in-chief, and Rev. L. M. Dorman. This is “Broad” [?] Church, and 
 the successor of (Prot. Ch.) Protestant Churchman, of New York, Low Church, 
 wheu edited by Rev. N. H. Schenck, D.D., and Rev. John Cotton Smith, D.D., and 
 Rev. Marshall B. Smith. (Chn.) Hartford Churchman, High Church. (Ch. Jo.) 
 Church Journal, of New York, High Church, edited by Rev. Hugh Miller Thomp¬ 
 son, D.D., and formerly by Rev. John H. Hopkins, D.D. (So. Ch.) Southern Church¬ 
 man, of Alexandria, represents the Dioceses of Virginia. (St. X.) Standard of the 
 Cross, printed at Gambier (?) represents the Diocese of Ohio. (Obs.) New York 
 Observer, Presbyterian. (Trib.) New York Tribune, secular, but devotes much at¬ 
 tention to Church matters, and inserts articles rejected by partisan Church papers. 
 (Times), New York Times, secular. (Post), New York Evening Post, secular. 
 (Herald), New York Herald, secular. (Rock), Low Church in England. All other 
 newspapers have their names in full. The R. E. C. has no representative except 
 as above.—xi. 39—42. 
 
 Contractions.—R. E. C. signifies the Reformed Episcopal Church, and P. E. C., 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church; and Ch. Eng., the Church of England; and Pan- 
 Anglican. the combined P. E. C. and Ch. Eng. 
 
 The Table of Contents gives a general view of the points analyzed. 
 
 B. Aycrigg. 
 
 Passaic, N. J., April 1, 1875. 
 
 i 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 I.— CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX, and Action of the It. E. C., and Press 
 reports. 
 
 II.—It. E. C., Press reports of action against, and Opinions expressed by friends 
 and foes. 
 
 HI.— PAN ANGLICAN CHURCH. Press reports respecting the P. E. C. 
 and the Church of England. 
 
 IV. —EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. (1, 2). Address of Bishop Cummins. 
 
 —(3 to 8). Principles of the Old Evangelicals, cause the inauguration of 
 the R. E. C. 
 
 V. — JOINT COMMUNIONS. (1, 2, 5). What they were.—(3). Dr. Adams on 
 
 Bishop Tozer.—(4). Bishop Cummins. 
 
 VI.—PRAYER BOOK OF 1785 and Journals of 1785-6.—(1, 2, 5). Whence 
 obtained.—(3). Reprint as Low Church document.—(4). Then for R. E. C. 
 —(6, 7, 8). Contents of Journals.—(9). Referred to.—(10). Bishop White’s 
 Memoirs.—(11). Perry’s Hand-Book. 
 
 VII.— RESIGNATIONS. (1). Of Bishop Cummins.—(2). Of Rev. M. B. Smith. 
 —(3). Record of Deposition.—(4). New Jersey Bishop and Convention.— 
 (5). Resignation of Rev. Mason Gallagher.—(6). Other resignations.—(7). 
 Restoration. 
 
 VIII.— DEPOSITION of Bishop Cummins.—(1). Acknowledgment of receipt of 
 Resignation,—(2). Formal notice.—(3). Canon.—(4). Deposition record.— 
 (5). New Canon. 
 
 IX.— CALL TO ORGANIZE. (1). Note.—(2.) Principles.—(3). For Episcopa¬ 
 lians only.—(4 to 9). Unpremeditated.—(10). Letter Dimissory.—(11). A 
 layman retracts.—(12 to 15). Erroneous reports.—(16). Call made public, 
 Nov. 26. 
 
 X.— ATTEMPTS TO ARREST THE R. E. C. (1 to 9). Null and void 
 proclamation.—(10 to 14). Internal effects.—(15). Card of the Philadel¬ 
 phians.—(16). Small attempt on Dec. 2.—(17 to 22). Telegram to Chicago. 
 —(23). Trip to Chicago.—(24.) Trip to Peoria. 
 
 XI— PRINCIPLES OF THE R. E. C. (1). The R. E. C. is mainly a sep¬ 
 arate organization of the Old Evangelicals of the P. E. C.—(2). Declara¬ 
 tion of Principles of the R. E. C. in 1873.—(3, 4). Changes in Common 
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
6 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 Prayer Book in 1874.—(5 to 7). Philadelphia Declaration in 1867.—(8). 
 Revision of the Prayer Book in 1867.—(9 to 12). Proceedings of Old Evan¬ 
 gelicals and union with Presbyterians in 1867.—(13). Separation threaten¬ 
 ing in 1868.—(14). Chicago Protest and Call in 1869.—(15). Chicago Con¬ 
 ference in 1869.—(16 to 20). Sympathy for Rev. Charles E. Cheney on his 
 suspension (May 13, 1871).—(21, 22). Changes.—(23). The three Evangel¬ 
 ical Societies in 1874.—(24). The Old Evangelicals, where found before 
 the inauguration of the R. E. C.—(25). Old Evangelical clergymen of the 
 P. E. C., now in the R. E. C.—(26). List of clergy of the R. E. C.—(27). 
 Call and Declaration of the R. E. C. compared.—(28). Preparations to or¬ 
 ganize.—(29). Declaration irrevocable.—(30 to 35). Action of Committees.— 
 (36). Revision very conservative.—(37.) Free Church of England.—(38 to 
 41). Secular Press state facts, but criticise.—(42). Some others give false 
 and distorted statements.—(43). Episcopacy. 
 
 XII. — SCHISM AND SEPARATION. (1 to 8). Defined.—(9). Churches of 
 
 Rome and Constantinople.—(10). Rome and England.—(11). Rome a schism 
 in schism.—(12.) Church of England, a schism in schism.—(13). Under 
 Mary.—(14). Under Elizabeth.—(15). Its Inquisition.—(16). Compulsion. 
 — (17). “ Act of Conformity ” to “ The Protestant Church of England as 
 by law established.”—(18). Dissents on removing compulsion.—(19). For 
 political purposes “ comprehends ” all religious views.—(20). Was Protest¬ 
 ant in the early part of this century, but Ritualists have a legal status.— 
 (21). Gladstone controversy is political.—(22). Character of controlling 
 Parliament.—(23). Its Protestantism depends on Dissenters.—(24). Its 
 Canonist claim.—(25). P. E. C. is legally a schism in schism.—(26). Not¬ 
 withstanding the opinion expressed in 1814.—(27, 28). P. E. C. and the 
 Dutch Church in 1697, 1779, 1790.—(29), Personal knowledge.—(30 to 35). 
 P. E. C. before and after Puseyism was introduced.—(36 to 39). Official de¬ 
 cision of Rev. Dr. Wainwright.—(40 to 42). Becomes a schism in 1868.— 
 (43 to 48). “ Fighting.”—(49 to 52). Results.—(53 to 55). Pan Anglicans 
 controlled by English politics.—(56) Triumph of the Ritualists.—(57). 
 The Alternative.—(58). “ Comprehensive Church.”—(59). Last General 
 Convention.—(60). R. E. C. and other Prot. Churches not schisms nor in 
 schism. 
 
 XIII. — SPIRIT IN THE P. E. C. toward the It. E. C. (1 to 4). Preliminaries.— 
 
 (5). Some admit the principle of separation.—(6). Bishops Lee, and Johns, 
 and Vail, and Clarkson object like Christians.—(7 to 9). Some appear to 
 want charity, and to use the sword of Joab ; others to mean less than 
 the words express ; others to be frightened.—(10). Collection of epithets. 
 —(11). Answers.—(12). “Formally deposed.”—(13). But Dr. Cheney was 
 not deposed.—(14 to 17). Bishop Lewis, of Canada, with (15) Record of 
 Bishop Cummins.—(18 to 22). Bishop Lee, of Delaware ; his first com¬ 
 plaint is a compliment. Bishop Cummins did not think of resigning 
 until after Oct. 12. Several Bishops admit the time may come. He and 
 others thought the time had come.—(23). Dr. Fulton thinks that he is 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 7 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 the first to use hard words.—(24). Bishops Stevens alone raises a question 
 of veracity.—(25). Dr. Sullivan is frightened out of propriety.—(26). The 
 Sandard of the Cross cries for “quarter.”—(27). Postal Cards.—(28). Bishop 
 Howe “ abuses ” the R. E. C.—(1(H). P. E. C. is a small denomination. 
 
 XIV.— SPIRIT OF THE R. E. C. toward the P. E. C. (1, 2). Work, and be 
 silent.—(3). No answers made to attacks except to correct errors as to 
 facts.—(4). No ill-feeling to prevent a re union if errors were removed and 
 personalities atoned for.—(5). Mr. Turner in his pamphlet.—(6). Mr. 
 Smith on opening the church in Louisville.—(7, 8). Cause of separation 
 explained by facts.—(9). For and against the R. E. C., according as the 
 hearer is Protestant or Romanist.—(10). Letter Dimissory.—(11). Conserv¬ 
 atives. 
 
 XV.— OTHER CHURCHES. (1 to 12). Presbyterians and Old Evangelicals in 
 1867.—(13, 14). Presbyterians in 1874.—(15). Free Church of England 
 Federative union with the R. E. C. in 1874.—(16). The same principles 
 applicable to any Evangelical Church.—(17). Reformed (Dutch) Church 
 in Holland, and in America, in 1697, 1779, 1790.—(18). Receives the new 
 Church in 1874.—(19, 20). “ Dissenters ” true in England, but false in this 
 country.—(21). Letter to Dr. Wainwright in 1846.—(22). A general Fede¬ 
 ration would be a blessing, but organic union objectionable if too extensive. 
 
 XVI.—OFFICIAL DECISION of Dr. Waimcright in 1846.—(1). Personal ante¬ 
 cedents.—(2). Basis of the decision.—(3). The Apostles had no successors. 
 (4). The “ Fathers ” are not authority.—(5). As 3d.—(6). “ Lo, I am with 
 you!” does not require the “ Succession.”—(7). Nor does “ Called of God 
 as was Aaron.”—(8). Nor “ How can they preach except they be sent.”— 
 (9). Titus and Timothy were not Bishops.—(10). Nor the plural “ angels ” 
 of Smyrna a Bishop.—(11). “ Obey them that have the rule over you,’’ 
 does not require the “ Succession.”—(12). The directions to Titus are not 
 laid down as general laws.—(13). Deacons to “ serve tables,” preach, and 
 baptize.—(14). Laying on of hands upon Paul when already an Apostle.— 
 (15). Directions to laymen when preaching and prophesying.—(16). Ana¬ 
 nias was a layman.—(17). St. Paul denies that he received his office from 
 man.—(18). Foot-note as to St. Paul.—(19). The Bible the only authority. 
 —(20). We are not to be chained fast to corruption.—(21). Who then form 
 the Catholic Church ?—(22). We are bound to belong to some denomination. 
 (23). I prefer the Episcopal.—(24). No evil from the “ Multitude of sects.” 
 (25). You have not convinced me.—(26). This is for practical purposes, not 
 for discussion.—(27). Objectionable preaching by others.—(28). Federative 
 union desirable.—(29). The only difference between us is Theoretical. — 
 (30). Dr. Wainwright decides that “ there is nothing [in the above] that 
 would prevent the most perfect fellowship with our Church.” 
 
 XX.— APPENDIX. 
 
 This Proof Copt is presented to -, with the request that he 
 
 will suggest any correction or addition to be made , with his name as authority , before printing 
 a corrected edition. Very respectfully, COL. B. AYCRIGG, Passaic, A r . J. 
 
 p 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INDEX TO ALL CURRENT PRESS REPORTS AND THE ACTION 
 OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 The references (II., III.), indicate the same date in Chapters II. and III. 
 In other cases the Chapter is indicated by Roman numerals, and the divi¬ 
 sions by Arabic numerals. All that are not distributed elsewhere, will be 
 found in Chapter I., including the internal action of the R. E. C., while 
 opinions and external action for and against the R. E. C. are transferred 
 to Chapter II. And extracts referring to the P. E. C., and to the Church 
 of England, are transferred to Chapter III., including reasons for leaving 
 the P. E. C., indicated by “ Low .” For past history, see Contents, pp. 5, 7. 
 For contractions, see Preface. 
 
 October 8, 1873. 
 
 Oct. 8. Bishop Cummins addresses the Evangelical Alliance.iv. 2. 
 
 Oct. 12. Joint Communion, and its consequences.. „.v. 
 
 Oct. 12. Prayer-Book of 1785 in hands of the printer, and Journals of 1785-6. 
 
 shortly after Nov. 13. ...,. ..vi. 
 
 Oct. 30. B. Aycrigg withdraws from the P. E. C.iv. 8 ; xii. 51. 
 
 Nov. 5. Bishop Potter on Bishop Tozer.iii; v. 3. 
 
 Nov. 5. Church and State on Bishop Potter...iii. 
 
 Nov. 10. Resignation of Bp. Cummins.vii. 
 
 Nov. 12. Social meeting results in the Call to organize.ix. 4, 5. 
 
 Nov. 12. Low Church Authorities quoted by Ch. St.iii. 
 
 Nov. 13. Call to organize in manuscript, taken to New York by Bishop 
 
 Cummins.ix. 7. 
 
 Nov. 13. Bishop Smith’s informal note.viii, 1. 
 
 Nov. 14. Bishop Alfred Lee to Bishop Cummins_ii, Feb. 26 ; xiii. 18 to 22. 
 
 Nov. 15. Call to organize given to the printer.ix. 1, 2, 8. 
 
 Nov. 15. Post, Times, Tribune, on the Resignation.ii. 
 
 Nov. 17. Rev. Dr. Adams on Joint Communion. v. 3. 
 
 Nov. 17. Call to organize left New York by mail.ix. 8. 
 
 Nov. 18. Kentucky Standing Committee act formally on a printed copy of 
 
 the Resignation of Nov. 10...viii. 2. 
 
 Nov. 19. Bishops’ meeting in New York.ii., Nov. 26. 
 
 Nov. 19. Bishop Cummins’ characteristics and resignation, by Church and 
 
 State .ii. 
 
 Nov. 22. Bishop Smith sends formal notice to Bishop Cummins that, by 
 
 Canon he will be deposed in six months.viii. 2. 
 
 Nov. 26. Southern Churchman objects to Resignation.... .ii. 
 
 Nov. 26. Catholicus. Resignation is “ action”.ii. 
 
 (81 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 9 
 
 November 26, 1873. 
 
 Nov. 26. Historical Accuracy of Bisliop Cummins, by Church and State , an¬ 
 swered.ii., Nov. 19. 
 
 Nov. 26. Call to organize. Published by Ch. St.ii. 
 
 Nov. 26. Bishops’ meeting (Ch. St.) on Nov. 19.1.ii. 
 
 Nov. 27. Drs. Sullivan and Cheney on Resignation.ii. 
 
 Nov. 27. Low Church Resolutions on Resignation.iii. 
 
 Nov. 27. Private information about the Bishops.x, 12. 
 
 Nov. 28. Rev. M. B. Smith transferred.ix. 4, 7, 10 ; ii., April 22, 1874 
 
 Nov. 29. Six Bishops meet to arrest the organization of the R. E. C. on 
 Dec. 2.ii ; x. 1 to 14. 
 
 Nov. 29. Telegram to Kentucky, supposed to have been sent by the 
 Bishops.x. 8 to 14. 
 
 Nov. 30. Bishops’ meeting (Times) report and editor...ii. 
 
 Dec. 1, 1873. Bishops’ meeting ( 1'rib) . ii. 
 
 Dec. 1. Private telegram from Louisville to Bishop Cummins. “ Charges 
 against you forwarded from here to-day”.ii ; x. 7 to 14. 
 
 Dec. 1. Bishop’s Act (Post) .Ii. 
 
 Dec. 1. “Null and Void” proclamation published in the Evening Post of 
 Dec. 1. Supposed to have been founded solely upon a telegram purporting to 
 come from the “ Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Ken¬ 
 tucky”.ii ; x. 7 to 14. 
 
 Dec. 1. “We have laid down our course and shall not swerve from it one 
 inch for anything that man can do against us.”.. .x. 10 to 14. 
 
 Dec. 1. Card of Evangelicals of Philadelphia against the R. E. C. reprinted 
 in New York.ii; x. 15. 
 
 Dec. 2. Small attempt to interfere with the organization.x. 16. 
 
 Dec. 2. Organization of the R. E. C. (xi) with a layman as Temporary Presi¬ 
 dent for a specific purpose (x. 12). The Rev. W. V. Feltwell came forward and 
 signed the Call, and thus joined the R. E. C. Those who were present and joined 
 in founding the R. E. C., were these: Right Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., 
 elected Presiding Bishop, Rev. Charles E. Cheney, D.D., elected Bishop by this 
 Council. And clergymen : Marshall B. Smith, Mason Gallagher, B. B. Leacock, 
 D.D., W. Y. Feltwell. “And Permanent Lay Members, signers of the original 
 Call who were present and voted in the First General Council of the R. E. C. : 
 Benjamin Aycrigg, Ph. D., Theodore Bourne, Albert Crane, James L. Dawes, Wil¬ 
 liam S. Doughty, John G. Floyd, Jr., George A. Gardiner, William H. Gilder, 
 Thomas J. Hamilton, Charles D. Kellogg, James L. Morgan, Samuel Mulliken, 
 Frederick A. Pell, G. A. Sabine, M.D., Jeremiah H. Taylor, George M. Tibbitts, 
 Herbert B. Turner.” (Journal of 1874, page 6.) 
 
 Dec. 3. Tribune gives fullest account of the organization on Dec. 2, (xi. 1 2) 
 and see Journal of First General Council, 1873. 
 
 Dec. 3. Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr., says Bp. C. had a right to resign.ii. 
 
 Dec. 3. Episcopalian says of “ Null and Void,” “ unbecoming haste.”.. .ii; x. 
 
 Dec. 4. Exclusiveness and Parties in P. E. C.iii- 
 
 Dec. 4. Church and State describes individuals of R. E. C.ii. 
 
 Dec. 4. Church Journal says, “ Fallen Bishop.” “Fast.”.ii. 
 
 Dec. 4. Prayer-Book of 1785—Answered.ii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 10 
 
 December 4, 1873. 
 
 Dec. 4. Rev. Dr. Tyng, Sr., condemns Bp. Cummins.ii. 
 
 Dec. 4. Observer copies the “Null and Void” and the card (see above, Dec. 1). 
 
 Dec. 6. “ Formally Deposed,” says Churchman .ii; xiii. 12,13. 
 
 Dec. 6. Christian Intelligencer—“ Visionary.”.ii* 
 
 Dec. 9. Rev. Dr. Cheney accepts the office of Bishop, says the Herald. 
 
 Dec. 10. Episcopal Register on Null and Void.ii; x. 21. 
 
 Dec. 11. Observer on Null and Void—“ Uncanonical.”.ii. 
 
 't ' 
 
 Dec. 11. Observer on the Council of Dec. 2. (Editorial).ii. 
 
 Dec. 11. Bishop H. W. Lee on Organization.ii. 
 
 Dec. 11. Churchman—“ Fallen Bishop.”.ii. 
 
 Dec. 11. Bishop and Mrs. Cummins, and four clergymen, and one layman, 
 left New York for Chicago, for the consecratiou of Bishop Cheney on Dec. 14. 
 
 x. 23,24. 
 
 Dec. 12. Telegram to Chicago to prevent the consecration of Dr. Cheney as a 
 
 Bishop, on Dec. 14.ii; x. 17 to 22. 
 
 Dec. 13. Church of England, by Prof. Fisher.iii. 
 
 Dec. 13. Church and State—“ Utterly dishonorable.”.ii. 
 
 Dec. 13. The Churchman mistakes dates...ii. 
 
 Dec. 13. Congregationalist, Baptist Weekly, and Christian Union on the 
 
 R. E. C....ii. 
 
 Dec. 14. Rev. Charles E. Cheney, D.D., consecrated Bishop (x. 17 to 22; 
 xiii. 13). This was reported in the Chicago Tribune (friendly), and Chicago Times 
 (hostile), and on Dec. 17 in the Episcopalian. 
 
 Dec. 17. Rev. Abbott Brown, of the P. E. C., objects to the “ Card” of Dec. 1. 
 
 ii; x. 15. 
 
 Dec. 17. Church Journal approves of Bishop Cummins’ resignation.ii. 
 
 Dec. 17. Remarks of Wisconsin State Journal, Southern Churchman , Rev. 
 
 Abbott Brown, and Methodist Recorder .ii. 
 
 Dec. 17. Canonicus (Epis)..x. 6. 
 
 Dec. 17. The Peoria Transcript reports the action at Peoria, with the view 
 
 of forming a congregation of the R. E. C. Present: Bishops Cummins and Cheney ; 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher, Rev. W. V. Feltwell, Rev. C. H. Tucker, and B. Aycrigg, 
 of the party from Chicago. All took part in the meeting. A. G. Tyng is the 
 leader of the movement. Rev. M. B. Smith and Rev. B. B. Leacock, D.D., went 
 
 from New York to Chicago, but not to Peoria.x. 24. 
 
 Dec. 31. Southern Churchman’s correspondent ridicules the Church Journal 
 
 of Dec. 4.ii. 
 
 Dec. 31. Schism by Goddard of St. Andrews.ii. 
 
 Dec. 31. Return of the R. E. C. to the P. E. C.ii. 
 
 Dec. 31. Bishop Pearce ; Null and Void absurd.ii; x. 3. 
 
 Dec. 31. $100,000 subscribed for the R. E. C., says a correspondent of the 
 
 Episcopalian. [This is a great mistake].ix. 12, 15. 
 
 Jan. 1, 1874. Apostolic succession is in R. E. C. (Ch. St.).ii. 
 
 Jan. 1. Ritualism in England.iii. 
 
 Jan. 1. Ritualism in Pennsylvania.iii. 
 
 Jan. 1. Dr. De ICoven’s Ritualism..iii. 
 
 Jan. 1. Church Herald on the Queen.iii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 11 
 
 January 4, 1874. 
 
 Jan. 4. Bishop Cummins held the first service of the R. E. C. in New York, 
 in Steinway Hall. 
 
 Jan. 12. Bev. Jas. A. Latane withdraws from the P. E. C. in Virginia... .iii. 
 Jan. 21. Moncton, NT. B. The R. E. C. begun by Rev. W. V. Feltwell. 
 
 Jan. 21. English Independent on the R. E. C...ii; xii. 48. 
 
 Jan. 21. Catholicus (Rev. G. W. Ridgely) “ Ghost!”.ii. 
 
 Jan. 21. Wm. C. Little on Ritualism in New York.iii. 
 
 Jan. 22. Church Journal—“ BISHOP Cummins! ”.ii. 
 
 Jan. 22. BISHOP Cheney— Church and State. ..ii. 
 
 Jan. 26. St. Louis Democrat gives at length the addresses on Jan. 25, in Dr. 
 Brooks’ Church, by Mr. R. H. Franklin, Rev. T. E. Smith, Rev. Dr. Brooks, and 
 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher on the R. E. C. 
 
 Jan. 29. Church and State on Rev. J. A. Latanc’s withdrawal.iii. 
 
 Jan. 29. Dilemma ; by Church and State ... ii. 
 
 Jan. 29. Bev. W. B. Nicholson, (Ch. St.), whose Monday P.M. Bible Class 
 was so thronged during his ministry in St. Paul’s, Boston, has instituted a similar 
 
 exercise on Tuesdays, at Trinity, Newark. 
 
 Jan, 29. Succession (Ch. St.) says that R. E. C. has it.iii. 
 
 Jan. 29. Scotch Episcopal Church (Ch. St ) ridicule.iii. 
 
 Eeb. 4, 1874. Dean of Canterbury (Epis.) Joint Communion. iii. 
 
 Feb. 4. Bitualism in New York, by Rev. Dr. C. W. Andrews.iii. 
 
 Eeb. IS. Bitualist, De Koven in Convention of Wis.iii. 
 
 Eeb. 18. Bishop Johns’ answer to Mr. Latane.ii. 
 
 Eeb. 18. First B, E. C. in New York (Epis.) on Feb. 15, 1874, prepare to or¬ 
 ganize. 
 
 Eeb. IS. Moncton (Epis.), action of Rt. Rev. John, Lord Bishop of Fredericton, 
 against the R. E, C.iii, July 8. 
 
 Eeb. 38. Peoria, Christ Church (Epis.) has upwards of 50 members, and over 
 $3,000 subscribed. Rev. J. D. Wilson^ of Pittsburgh, will take charge on Ash 
 Wednesday. Services began on the first Sunday in January. Determined to build 
 
 a church immediately.x. 24. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop Cummins’ (Epis.) address in Philadelphia. 
 
 Eeb. 23. Bishop Lewis of Ottawa.ii. 
 
 Eeb. 25. New York First B. E. C. (Epis.) Committee propose a social meet¬ 
 ing on Feb. 26, and organization on March 29. 
 
 Eeb. 25. Eishop Cheney’s Pastoral respecting Lent (Epis.) 
 
 Eeb. 25, Peoria, Pastoral of Rev. J. D. Wilson (Epis.) 
 
 Eeb. 25. Ottawa, Canada, (Epis.) Committee appointed to invite Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins, with a view to forming a congregation of the R. E. C., and discussion re¬ 
 
 specting it. . 
 
 Eeb. 25. Parties. (Ch. Jo.) “ Evangelicals swamped.”.iii. 
 
 Eeb. 25. Low. Rev. W. McGuire leaves the P. E. C.iii. 
 
 Eeb. 26. Bishop Lee, of Delaware. ii ; xiii. 18 to 22. 
 
 March 4. 1874. Bishop White’s Memoirs (Epis.) Edition of 1836.vi. 10. 
 
 March 4. Bitualism in Maryland.iii. 
 
 March 4. Seven differences...iii. 
 
 March 4. Bishop Johns. By Latane (?). ii 
 
CHAPTER T. 
 
 12 
 
 March 4, 1874. 
 
 March 4. Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby preaches in the R. E. C.ii. 
 
 March 4. New York First R. E. C. (Epis.) re-union on Feb. 20 in the parlors 
 of the Young Men’s Christian Association, where the first Council was held on Dec. 
 
 2, 1873. 
 
 March 4. Bishop Cummins in Methodist Church. ii. 
 
 March 4. “ Hopeless,” that Virginia should secede.iii. 
 
 March 11. Rev, J. D. Wilson. Low.iii. 
 
 March 11. At Montreal (Epis.) Mr. Young’s lecture.ii. 
 
 March 14. Bishop Whittingham. “Perjured.”.ii. 
 
 March 18. Ritualistic Books in Ottawa. iii. 
 
 March 18. Peoria (Epis.) Rev. J. D. Wilson begins.\.x. 24. 
 
 March 18. Aurora, Ills. (Epis.) On March 10th a business meeting with a 
 view of forming an organization of the R. E. C. 
 
 March 25. Independent, “ surrender so tamely.”.ii. 
 
 March 25. Low. “Are the same as R. E. C.”.iii; xi. 
 
 March 25. Parties. Is there not a cause ?...iii. 
 
 April 8, 1874. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) Correspondent says: “Procrastina¬ 
 tion in the establishment of a Reformed Church in this State, will go far to retard 
 its future progress and success.” [Then, Mr. Correspondent, don’t “procrasti¬ 
 nate ! ”].i, July 22 ; Aug. 19 ; Nov. 28, 30. 
 
 April 8. Philadelphia, First R. E. C. (Epis.) at the Falls of the Schuylkill 
 begun with Rev. W T alter Windeyer of the R. E. C., late of the P. E. C. 
 
 April 8. New York First R. E. C. (Epis.) Vestrymen elected on April 6, but 
 no Rector nor church building. Services held in Steinway Hall. 
 
 April 8. Parties—Presbyter of Maryland. “ Mosquito.”.iii. 
 
 April 11. Rev. W. McGuire received into the R. E. C. 
 
 April 15. Chicago (Epis.) Christ R. E. C. elections, and Christ P. E. C. elec¬ 
 tions by the Cheney party, and by the Whitehouse party. 
 
 April 15. Aurora, Ills. (Epis.) The R. E. C. held service on March 29, in the 
 City Hall. In the morning, the Rev. Dr. Quereau preached. In the evening, Dr. 
 Usher, M.D., delivered a lecture. 
 
 April 15. Ottawa, Can. (Epis.) R. E. C. at the first communion had 60 com¬ 
 municants. 
 
 April 15. Moncton, N. B., (Epis.) Vestry elected, and $1,000 subscribed for a 
 parsonage. 
 
 April 22. Rev. E. D. Neill (Epis.) Provost of McAllister College, Minneapolis, 
 Minnesota, dated April 10, requests the Presbytery of St. Paul to transfer him to 
 the R. E. C., and gives the leading characteristics of the R. E. C. 
 
 April 22 Chicago (Epis.) Bishop Cheney received by confirmation 14, and 
 admitted 8 by letter, making, in all, 60 by confirmation, and 20 by letter since the 
 organization. Easter collection, $8,723, and $1,481 next Sunday, making $10,204, 
 of which $10,000 are required to purchase the church. Pew rents exceed $10,000. 
 
 April 22. Rev. Dr. John Fulton, “perjury, treachery, ungentlemanlike.”.ii. 
 
 April 22. Rev. M. B. Smith. Transfer Nov. 28, 1873.ii. 
 
 April 22. Bishop Lewis. “ Insidious schism.”.Feb. 23, ii; xiii, 14. 
 
 April 22. Rev. W. T. Sabine (Epis.) has resigned the Church of the Atone¬ 
 ment, and has been called to the First R. E. C. of New York. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 13 
 
 April 22, 1874. 
 
 April 22. Rev. "Walter Windeyer (Epis.) lias accepted the Rectorship of the 
 
 First R. E. C. of Philadelphia (Falls of the Schuylkill.) 
 
 April 29. Rev. W. McGuire (Epis.) deposed April 26. 
 
 April 30. Dr. Fulton says R. E. C. has the Succession. ii. 
 
 April 30. Murray Hoffman says the R. E. C. has not the Succession.ii. 
 
 May 6, 1874. Philadelphia, Second R. E. C. (Epis.) election. 
 
 May 6. Brooklyn R. E. C. (Epis.)Rev. W. H. Reid, Rector, in Cumberland St., 
 between De Kalb and Lafayette Avenues. 
 
 May 6. Moncton, N. B., (Epis.) Church seats about 350 ; has 100 Sabbath 
 scholars. Moncton has 3,000 inhabitants. Ritualism is more bold than in the 
 States. Sussex, at fifty miles, is in full sympathy. 
 
 May 6. Peoria (Epis.) Ritualism desoribed. Bishop Cheney was here on April 
 26, and preached a plain gospel sermon. 
 
 May 6. Rev. W. McGuire (Epis.) holds service in Lincoln Hall, Washington. 
 D. C. 
 
 May 6. Rev. Mason Gallagher (Epis.) is requested to have his lecture on the 
 changes in the Anglican Prayer Book printed. [It is now in pamphlet form]. 
 
 May 7. Bishop Guintard. “ Evil course of wayward son.”..,.ii. 
 
 May 7. Parties—Irish Revision of the Prayer Book. .iii. 
 
 May 13 to 19. Second General Council of the R. E. C.xi ; 32—42. 
 
 Officers of the General Council, 1874: 
 
 President —Bishop George David Cummins, D.D. Secretary —Herbert B. Turner. 
 Treasurer —James L. Morgan. Standing Committee —Revs. Marshall B. Smith, B. 
 B. Leacock, D.D., Mason Gallagher, W. T. Sabine, W. H. Reid, and Messrs. Benja¬ 
 min Aycrigg, Ph. D., James L. Morgan, Herbert B. Turner, Chas. D. Kellogg, G. 
 A. Sabine, M.D. Committee on Doctrine and Worship —Revs. B. B. Leacock, Wil¬ 
 liam McGuire, Joseph D. Wilson, and Mossrs. Thos. H. Powers, Henry Alexander, 
 Stewart L. Woodford, LL.D. Committee on Constitution and Canons —Rev. Mar¬ 
 shall B. Smith, Rev. Edward D. Neilll Rev. Walter Windeyer, and Messrs. William 
 Aldrich, Alex. G. Tyng, Elbridge G. Keith. Committee on Finance —Messrs. Benja¬ 
 min Aycrigg, Ph. D., James L. Morgan, Albert Crane. Trustees of the Sustentation 
 Fund —Messrs. Thomas H. Powers, George M. Tibbitts, Benjamin Acyrigg, Ph. D., 
 James L. Morgan, Albert Crane. Missionary Jurisdiction of the West —Bishop 
 Charles Edward Cheney, DD. Standing Committee —Revs. Joseph D. Wilson, 
 Charles H. Tucker, and Messrs. Alexander G. Tyng, C. S. Hutchins. 
 
 The Third General Council will be held (D. V.) in Christ Church, Chicago, 
 Illinois, on the Second Wednesday of May, 1875. 
 
 MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL, 1874. 
 
 Clerical Members. 
 
 Bishop George David Cummins, d.d., Presiding Bishop. 
 
 Bishop Charles Edward Cheney, d.d., Missionary Bishop, and Hector of Christ 
 Church , Chicago, III. 
 
 Rev. R. H. Bourne, Chaplain, New York City. 
 
 Rev. William V. Feltwell, Rector of Christ Church , Moncton , Province of New 
 Brunswick. 
 
u 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 May 13, 1874. 
 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher, Paterson, N. J. 
 
 Rev. Benjamin B. Leacock, D.D., House of the Evangelists, New York City. 
 
 Rev. Thomas J. McFadden, Rector of the Church of the Rock of Ages, Littleton 
 Colorado. 
 
 Rev. William McGuire, Rector, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Rev. Johnston McCormac, Rector of Ref ormed Episcopal Church, Ottawa, Canada, 
 Rev. Edward D. Neill, Provost of Macalester College, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
 
 Rev. William H. Reid, Rector of Church of the Incarnation, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 Rev. William T. Sabine, Rector of First Reformed Episcopal Church, New York 
 City. 
 
 Rev. Marshall B. Smith, Residing at Passaic, N. J. 
 
 Rev. Thompson L. Smith, Lexington, Missouri. 
 
 Rev. Charles H. Tucker, Rector of Emmanuel Church , Chicago , Illinois. 
 
 Rev. Joseph D. Wilson, Rector of Christ Church, Peoria, Illinois. 
 
 Rev. Walter Windeyer, Rector of First Reformed Episcopal Church, Phila¬ 
 delphia. 
 
 Lay Delegates. 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y.— Church of the Incarnation. —lion. Stewart L. Woodford, ll.d. 
 Chicago, Illinois. — Christ Church. —William E. Wheeler, Elbridge G. Keith, 
 Bryan Pliilpot, William Aldrich, A. F. Bartow, William R. Hoodless. 
 Emmanuel Church. —Julius Wooster. 
 
 East Liberty, Pennsylvania. —Josiah Holmes. 
 
 Littleton, Colorado — Church of the Rock of Ages. 
 
 Moncton, New Brunswick. — Christ Church. —Lewis Carvell. 
 
 New York City. — First Reformed Episcopal Church. —Robert McNeilly, m.d., 
 Robert Killen, John D. Smedley, Ralph L. Anderton. 
 
 Ottawa, Canada. —Reformed Episcopal Church. —Henry Alexander, Richard A. 
 Bradley. 
 
 Peoria, Illinois. —Christ Church. —Alexander G. Tyng, William A. Beasley. 
 Philadelphia. — First Reformed Episcopal Church. —Thomas H. Powers. 
 
 Second Reformed Episcopal Church. —Thomas Moore, William Maris, Jr. 
 Washington, D. C.— Reformed Episcopal Church. 
 
 Permanent Lay Members. 
 
 [Signers of the Original Call, who were present and voted in the First General Coun¬ 
 cil of the Reformed Episcopal Church.'] 
 
 Benjamin Aycrigg, ph.d., 
 Theodore Bourne, 
 
 Albert Crane, 
 
 James L. Dawes, 
 
 William S. Doughty, 
 
 John G. Floyd, Jr., 
 George H. Gardiner, 
 William H. Gilder, 
 Thomas J. Hamilton. 
 
 Charles D. Kellogg, 
 James L. Morgan, 
 Samuel Mulliken, 
 Frederick A. Pell, 
 
 G. A. Sabine, m.d., 
 Jeremiah H. Taylor, 
 George M. Tibbitts, 
 Herbert B. Turner, 
 
 May 14. Tribune. Report of Council.ii. 
 
 May 15. Tribune and Herald reports of Council..ii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 15 
 
 May 18, 1874. 
 
 May 18. Rev. J. T. McEadden ordained Presbyter. (Trib.) 
 
 May 19. Times mistakes the intention .:.xi. 40. 
 
 May 20. Candidates degenerating in P. E. C .iii. 
 
 May 21. Church and State. “Heated; creed; blasphemous. ” .ii. 
 
 June 1, 1874. H. B. Turner on the R. E. C . xiv. 5. 
 
 June 1. Comparison of Prayer Books. (Pamphlets on sale). 
 
 June 3. Episcopalian. Answer to May 21, Ch. St .ii. 
 
 JuneS. Bishop Odenheimer. “ Unchurchly,” etc .ii. 
 
 June 3. Church Journal. “Queerest Bishop.”.ii. 
 
 June 3. Churchman. “ Drunken slave.” .ii. 
 
 JuneS. Rev. Dr. Stewart. “Maggots—god of flies.”.ii. 
 
 June 3. Kentucky Convention.ii. 
 
 June 3. Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, refers to Anti-Christ .ii. 
 
 June 3. Brooklyn (Epis.) Church of the Incarnation of the R. E. C., was or¬ 
 ganized June 1, with Rev. W. H. Reid, Rector, and Stewart L. Woodford, Herbert 
 B. Turner, James L. Morgan, John Edwards, Thomas H. Stevens, Charles W. 
 Swan, as Vestry. 
 
 June 3. Pittsburgh (Epis.) Rev. J. D. Wilson and Rev. Mason Gallagher, 
 explained the cause,, origin, and progress of the R. E. C. 
 
 June 3. Bishop Stevens, of Penna, (Epis.) is quoted from in his annual ad¬ 
 dress on May 20, by Louis Peck. (See June 10). 
 
 June 3. Ottawa (Epis.) Rev. J. McCormac is Rector of R. E. C. 
 
 June 3. Moncton, N. B. Rev. E. S. W. Pentreath, late of the Rutherford 
 Park, P. E. C., is Rector in Church of England. 
 
 June 3. Low. Virginia Convention. Results.iii. 
 
 June 4. Prayer Book, changes by (Ch. St.).iii. 
 
 June 4. Present Crisis, by Tribune .iii. 
 
 June 10. Bishop Howe. “ Fight and not,retreat.”.ii. 
 
 June 10. Bishop Stevens. “Falsehood, misrepresentations,” etc.ii. 
 
 June 10. Open letter of Rev. M. B. Smith to Bp. Stevens.ii. 
 
 June 10. Rev. T. J. McFadden ordained May 17. 
 
 June 10. High and Low differences, by Martin Farquahar Tupper.iii. 
 
 June 10. Philadelphia Second R. E. C. (Epis.) will hold services early in 
 September. 
 
 June 11. Bishop Robertson (Ch. St.) is a Protestant.ii. 
 
 June 11. Liberty of Laymen (Ch. St.) is “greatest in P. E. C.”. iii. 
 
 June 11. Church Journal (Ch. St.) “ Ritualism exists.”..iii. 
 
 June 11. Compromise. Dr. Magee in Parliament.iii. 
 
 June 11. Evangelist, Presbyterian (Ch. St.) refers to Rev. E. D. Neill (April 
 
 22), and says: “ There is no reason why we should be enslaved by tradition. . . . 
 There are not a few Presbyterians who have felt that our worship might be ren¬ 
 
 dered more attractive.” 
 
 June 12. Ritualism in Ottawa .iii. 
 
 June 13. Bishop H. W. Lee against the R. E. C. and Ritualism.ii. 
 
 June 24. Bishop Cummins deposed. (See July 8.) .viii. 4. 
 
 June 25. Bishop Clark. “ A few discontented.” .ii. 
 
 June 25. Bishop Williams, of Conn. “ Worse than death.” .ii. 
 
16 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 June 25, 1874. 
 
 June 25. Bishop Lee, of Del. “ Canon evaded in 1868 and 1871.” 
 
 June 25. Christian Union. “ No freedom for low church.”.ii. 
 
 July 2. Bishop Alford. “Maybe compelled to quit.”.ii. 
 
 July 2. Bishop Kerfoot. “ Sloughing off“ Bank clerk.”.ii. 
 
 July 8. Injunction by the Bishop in Sussex, N. B.iii. 
 
 July 8. Distinctions between the R. E. C. and the P. E. C.•.ii. 
 
 July 8. Bishop Paddock. “ Headship of a schism.”.ii. 
 
 July 8. Bishop Cummins deposition on June 24.viii, 4 ; ii. 
 
 July 8. Pittsburgh (Epis.) Rev. Joseph S. Malone, late Rector of Immanuel 
 Church, Louisville, has accepted a call to the First R. E. C. of Redemption, at 
 Pittsburgh. 
 
 July 8. Free Church of England (Epis.) All documents can be had of Mr. 
 F. S. Merryweather, Registrar, New Malden, Sussex. Several details are copied 
 from the Rock, to which they were sent on enquiry on the announcement of the 
 Federative Union with the R. E. C. 
 
 July 8. Ritualism in Toronto ; spicy discussion.iii. 
 
 July 9. Bishop Gregg. “Miserable following,” etc.ii; iii. 
 
 July 9. St. Albans, Holborn. Ritualism.iii. 
 
 July 15. Church Liberty, by Dr. Newton...iii. 
 
 July 15. Bishop Talbot. “ Unhappy, schism, treachery, betray.”, .ii; xiii—10. 
 
 July 15. Dr. Newton’s pamphlet—services ad libitim . .iii. 
 
 July 15. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) “ Resolved, That as members of Emanuel 
 P. E. C., we withdraw from the P. E. C., and connect ourselves with the R. E. C.” 
 The communicants present voted 33 for and 10 against. The church will be open 
 as usual. The ownership of the church property comes in question. 
 
 July 15. Minneapolis (Epis.) on April 22, 1874. Rev. E. D. Neill took a let¬ 
 ter from the Presbyterian Church to the R. E. C. Some weeks ago, he commenced 
 services in St. Paul. Last Sunday afternoon (July G) he held the first service in 
 Minneapolis. The movement is endorsed by all the Evangelical Churches in the 
 city—Presbyterian, Westminster Presbyterian, Methodist, Plymouth, Congrega¬ 
 tional, First Methodist (with the names of their ministers). . . Almost every denom¬ 
 ination was represented except the Protestant Episcopal. 
 
 July 22. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) July 16, “ Resolved, That the congregation 
 of Emanuel P. E. C. desire to be received into communion with the R. E. C.” The 
 congregation retains their former house of worship, and Wardens and Vestrymen, 
 and has 200 members to begin with. 
 
 July 22. Minneapolis (Epis.) At the meeting, July 15, Dr. Neill showed that 
 the R. E. C. is a restoration.ii. 
 
 July 22. Free Church of England (Epis.) “ The twelfth annual Convoca¬ 
 tion held last week in London, lasted three days [in June]. It was then adjourned 
 to the Autumn to meet Bishop Cummins and Col. Aycrigg, the deputation from 
 the R. E. C. of America. . . . There are now exactly 40 free churches in England. 
 ... 52 county districts being subdivided into 7 Dioceses. . . . Each Diocesan dis¬ 
 trict will have its own President and Secretary. . . . Each has its own quarterly As¬ 
 sembly and reports. ... to the Council at Westminster. . . . About £1,200 expended 
 during the year now ended. . . . £200 present debt.” 
 
 July 29. Peoria, Ill. (Epis.) A. G. Tyng writes that their new church will 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 17 
 
 July 29, 1874. 
 
 seat from 500 to GOO, and is too small. The parish numbers about 100 families, and 
 has over 600 Sunday scholars ; has built a study and vestry-room, and commenced 
 a building for Sunday-school and weekly prayer meetings. The whole will be fin¬ 
 ished without a debt, and the income fully sufficient for all expenses. The uni¬ 
 versal testimony is, after attending our services, that the R. E. C. is like the Epis¬ 
 copal Church they knew in their boyhood.” 
 
 July 29. Jefferson City, Mo. (Epis.) Church of the Holy Trinity is organized. 
 
 Aug. 5, 1874. Bishop Vail. “ But one alternative.”.ii. 
 
 Aug. 13. Church Liberty (Ch. St.) endorses July 15, Dr. Newton.iii. 
 
 Aug. 19. Protestant Episcopal Conference.ii. 
 
 Aug. 19. Church and State. “ Miserably abortive.”.ii. 
 
 Aug. 19. Cheney—Whitehouse case.iii. 
 
 Aug. 19. Castle Bock, Colorado (Epis.) Rev. Harold Brookes. Services of the 
 R. E. C. in the Court House. Decided to build a rectory. 
 
 Aug. 19. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) Rev. W. T. Sabine, of New York, inaugu¬ 
 rated services of R. E. C. on Aug. 9. 
 
 Aug. 27. Church of England .iii. 
 
 Sept. 10. Bishop Whittingham. “ But one candidate.”. iii. 
 
 Sept. 10. Bishop Clarkson. “Conscientious.”.ii. 
 
 Sept. 10. Ecclesiastical Courts (Ch. St.) “Chaotic.”.iii. 
 
 Sept. 10. Geographical Churclimanship (Ch. St.).,,iii. 
 
 Sept. 16. H. B. Turner (Epis.) comparison ; pamphlet.xiv. 5. 
 
 Sept. 24. Dr. Seymour (Ch. St.) “Ritualism unabated.”.iii. 
 
 Sept. 26. Ritualism ( Tribune) .iii. 
 
 Sept. 30. Ritual and Appeal requested.iii. 
 
 Oct. 1, 1874. Bishop Tozer in N. Y. Convention.iii. 
 
 Oct. l.“St. Mary the Virginadmitted to N. Y. Convention.iii. 
 
 Oct. 8.Greek priest invited by Gen. Con..iii. 
 
 Oct. 8 to Nov. 3. General Convention of the P. E. C.. .iii ; Oct. 8 to Nov. 3. 
 
 Oct. 12. Pan Anglican vanity did not succeed.iii. 
 
 Oct. 12. Rev. Dr. Mead—Mr. Shattuck in General Convention.iii. 
 
 * _ 
 
 Oct. 12. “ Toleration” of all Romish opinions.iii. 
 
 Oct. 13. Arbitrary power in the P. E. C.iii. 
 
 Oct. 13. Representation. Old Dioceses may be swamped by new.iii. 
 
 Oct. 19. Ritualism ( Trib .), origin and progress.iii. 
 
 Oct. 19. Anglican Bishops and Ritualism.iii. 
 
 Oct. 19. Board of Miss, of P. E. C., receipts less than last year.iii. 
 
 Oct. 19. Catholicity defined by Dr. Washburn. iii. 
 
 Oct. 29. Filioque question settled.iii. 
 
 Oct. 21. Rev. James A. Latane formally received into the R. E. C. 
 
 Oct. 22. Appeal approved by House of Bishops. Dr. Seymour rejected.iii. 
 
 Oct. 22. Rev. W. S. Perkins (Ch. St.) of P. E. C. joins the R. E. C. 
 
 Oct. 22. Rev. E. Harwood (Ch. St.) refers to R. E. C.ii. 
 
 Oct. 23. Gen. Dix and 300 communicants say no restrictions on Ritual.iii. 
 
 Oct. 23. Ritualism. Com. on Canons propose to forbid incense and crucifix..iii. 
 
 Oct. 24. Baptism of Infants, Regeneration optional.iii. 
 
 Oct. 24. Changes suggested by Com. on Canons.iii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 18 
 
 October 24, 1874. 
 
 Oct, 24. No laymen in two Standing Committees.iii 
 
 Oct. 26. Bishops propose to inhibit immediately.iii; viii. 5. 
 
 Oct. 23. Dr. Seymour is Dean of the Gen. Theol. Sem.iii; xii. 56. 
 
 Oct. 23. Dr. De Koven repeats his remarks of 1871.iii; xii. 54, 55. 
 
 Oct. 26. Ritualistic books quoted against Dr. De Koven.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Bishop Cummins by Mr. Shattuck.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Mr. Andrews. “Bishop without a Church.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Rev. Mr. Bolton. “ Ritualism is Romanism.”.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Rev. Dr. Garrett. “ Negatives will not do.”.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Rev. Dr. Clark. “ Ritualism Exists ”.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Mr. Blanchard. “ This canon is nugatory ”.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Rev. Dr. Hall. “This canon will suppress ritualism ”.iii. 
 
 Oct. 27. Vote for canon 38 and 34 ; against 2 and 3.iii. 
 
 Oct. 28. Court of Appeals not expedient.iii. 
 
 Oct. 29. Infant Baptism, Report, Dr. Andrew's, Adams, Burgwin, Shattuck, 
 "Welsh, Sullivan, Huntingdon, Wilder, Garrison... .iii. 
 
 Oct. 29. Reformed Episcopal Church, Adams, Sullivan, Huntingdon, Gar¬ 
 rison.iii ; xiii, 25. 
 
 Oct. 29. ‘‘Let the Prayer-Book alone v .iii. 
 
 Oct. 30. Canon on Ritual, Committee of Conference.iii. 
 
 Oct. 30. Not 7 self-sustaining parishes in Alabama, Dr. Fulton.iii. 
 
 Oct. 30. Dr. Seymour, Documents on Oct. 21.iii; xii. 56 
 
 Oct. 31. General Theological Seminary. Trustees..iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. Canon on Ritual, as cut down by the Bishops.iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. Dr. De Koven likes the change.iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. Infant Baptism, canon of (Oct. 24) approved by Vinton and An¬ 
 drews .iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. Infant Baptism, canon of (Oct. 24) opposed by Beck, Adams, Meigs, 
 Fulton. Lost, 5 and 6 ayes to 34 and 24 noes.iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. R. E. C., by Beck, Adams, Meigs, Fulton..iii. 
 
 Oct. 31. Canon on Ritual carried; 38 and 28 ayes, and 2 and 1 no ; so incense 
 and crucifix may be used, the House recedes (Oct. 30).iii. 
 
 Nov. 1. St. Johns, New Brunswick (Nov. 18, St. Johns). 
 
 Nov. 2. Many subjects discussed in General Convention.iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. Abandonment of Communion, instant Inhibition. .iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. Pastoral Letter of House of Bishops.iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. Changes in Church Services. Tribune of Nov. 2.iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. Ritual Legislation. Tribune of Nov. 2. iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. New Canon Nugatory. Tribune of Nov. 2.iii. 
 
 Nov. 3. Kentucky Diocese, statistics. Iribune of Nov. 2.iii. 
 
 Nov. 4. Dean Cridge, of Victoria, B. C.(Ch. St.) “ Dean Edward Cridge, of 
 Victoria, British Columbia, has seceded from the Church of England, with 350 
 parishioners... .Mr. Cridge is the pioneer minister of the Province, having been sent 
 out by the Hudson Bay Company.” 
 
 Nov. 4. “ Rev. W. S. Perkins (Ch. St.), a presbyter in the Diocese of Penn¬ 
 sylvania, and for many years Rector of St. James’ Church, has united with 
 the R. E. G” 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 19 
 
 November 4, 1874. 
 
 Nov. 4. Changes in the Constitution and Canons of the P. E. C. (Ch. St.) are 
 given in full..iii. 
 
 Nov. 8. Toronto (B. A.) Bishop Cummins, assisted by Rev. M. B. Smith, held 
 service and delivered an address, as on Nov. 1 at St John, Then, Nov. 9, the 
 same occurred in Brantford, whence Bishop Cummins went to New York. 
 
 Nov. 11. Goddard, of St. Andrews. “Ritualism is not dead”.ii; iii* 
 
 Nov. 11. Illinois (Epis.) A. G. Tyng, of Peoria, says that, “Full one-fourth of 
 the parishes that voted for Bishop Whiteliouse have ceased to exist ; many new 
 parishes have started and died; some are still struggling, but can not live long, 
 and there are about twenty good church buildings unused, and never will be used 
 again by the P. E. C.”. xiii. 25. 
 
 Nov. 11. To the Friends of the R. E. C. :— 
 
 The Standing Committee of the General Council, having been led to the conclu¬ 
 sion that full information should be obtained and disseminated with regard to all 
 the operations of our Church, adopted at a meeting held October 21st, 1874, the fol. 
 lowing resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That a Circular be sent to all who are supposed to be friendly to our 
 Church, requesting that they send contributions, for general purposes, or for speci¬ 
 fied objects, to James L. Morgan, Esq., Treasurer, 47 Fulton Street, New York. 
 
 Resolved, That the same persons be requested to send all information, bearing 
 upon the interests of our Church, which they now have, or may from time to time 
 obtain, to Rev. M. B. Smith, 38 Bible House, New York ; and that general abstracts 
 from the same be from time to time prepared for the general information of all con¬ 
 cerned. 
 
 In accordance with the spirit and intent of the above resolutions, the following 
 facts are presented for your consideration : 
 
 First . The Reformed Episcopal Church is eminently a Missionary Church ; 
 having no endowments, and no means of carrying on its general work apart from 
 the voluntary contributions of those who may agree with its principles, and who 
 desire its establisment as a liberal and orderly branch of Christ’s Church in the 
 world. 
 
 Second. Congregations of this Church have been established, and applications 
 have been made for the establishment of others in localities where it is desirable to 
 have such congregations, but where there is not sufficient financial ability to sus¬ 
 tain them without aid from our Sustentation Fund, or from the gifts of those who 
 are in sympathy with our Church. 
 
 Third. The Sustentation Fund—which is designed to aid ministers and feeble 
 congregations—has been supplied thus far by a few individuals, and is not adequate 
 to meet the rapidly increasing demands made upon it. These demands, which should 
 be met, come from ministers who have left comfortable positions, and gone forth in 
 faith to do the work of this Church ; and from congregations which have had to 
 relinquish their hold upon Church property, and commence their work anew in the 
 midst of opposition, not only from those whose principles are antagonistic to ours, 
 but also from those who, having heretofore entertained the views we now uphold, 
 appear at present to misapprehend our motives and principles. 
 
 Fourth. It is very desirable that not only the ministers and members of our 
 own communion, but also the Christian world, should be more fully informed as 
 
20 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 November 11, 1874. 
 
 to our movements ; and tliis desirable result can only be attained by concentrating 
 the necessary information at some one point whence it can be disseminated in print, 
 or otherwise. 
 
 In view of these facts, we ask our friends who may be disposed to contribute to 
 the cause—be the contribution large or small—to send the same, either for general 
 or specified purposes, and to forward any information bearing upon our cause, to 
 the persons named in the foregoing resolutions. Above all, we ask the prayers of 
 all, of every communion, who are in sympathy with our work. 
 
 On behalf of the Standing Committee, 
 
 B. B. Leacock, 
 
 Note. —The Committee Room of the Reformed Episcopal Church, No. 88 Bible 
 House, New York, is open on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from 11 A. M. to 2 p. 
 h., at which hours we should be glad to meet any friends of our work. 
 
 Nov. 11. Pastoral Letter (Epis.) critique.iii. 
 
 Nov. 11. R. E. C. (Ch. St.) R. E. C. disappointed.—Drift of the Church.—Bap¬ 
 tismal Regeneration and Charity.—Rejoice {Standard of the Gross), Methodist, Inde¬ 
 pendent, Church Journal, “ withered, dumb.”—Parliament controls the Church of 
 
 England. iii. 
 
 Nov. 3 4. Ritualist on the new canon—Low Church.. iii. 
 
 Nov. 15. Ottawa, Canada, Rev. M. B. Smith in the morning, and Rev. Walter 
 Windeyer in the evening, preached in the Court House to the congregation which 
 is building an ornamental church to hold about 600, and opposite to a public square 
 in this beautiful city. 
 
 Nov. 18. Ritualistic exhibition (Ch. St.).iii. 
 
 Nov. 18. Church and State editorial, quoted and answered.ii. Dec. 16 ; xiii. 10. 
 
 Nov. 18. New York First R. E C. (Epis.) Address of Bishop Cummins stat¬ 
 ing facts and conclusions respecting the late General Convention. 
 
 Nov. 18. St. Johns, Moncton, Sussex, N. B. (Epis. and B. A.) On Nov. 1st, 
 Rev. M. B. Smith and Rev. W. Y. Feltwell (the rector) assisted Bishop Cummins 
 at the Communion service at St. Johns. In the afternoon the Bishop delivered an 
 address showing wherein the R. E. C. differs from the P. E. C., quoting from the 
 opinion of Chief Justice Coleridge, of Great Britain, that the Ritualists have a legal 
 status in the Church of England (just received in the London Times). In the even¬ 
 ing the Rev. M. B. Smith preached a gospel sermon to the Scotch Presbyterian 
 congregation, while the Rev. Dr. Waters, the pastor, was in the pulpit. On Mon¬ 
 day, Nov. 2, the Bishop and Rev. W. Y. Feltwell, and Lewis Carvell, Esq., general 
 superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, and B. Aycrigg went to Moncton, 
 where the Bishop delivered an address. On Tuesday, Nov. 3, the vestry made out 
 a call for Rev. J. Eastburn Brown, of the Chapel of Free Grace, New York. In the 
 evening, the Bishop delivered an address at Sussex, after the service, in which one 
 minister of the Baptist, and one of the Methodist, and one of the R. E. C. took part. 
 On Wednesday the party returned to St. Johns. On Thursday, Nov. 5, the Bishop 
 and Rev. M. B. Smith and B. Aycrigg left for Boston, and arrived in Toronto on 
 Saturday, Nov. 7. 
 
 Nov. 18. Rev. J. Eastburn Brown (Ch. St.), of the Chapel of Free Grace, has 
 withdrawn from the P. E. C., and united with the R. E. C. [as Rector at Moncton, 
 N. B.] 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 21 
 
 November 18, 1874. 
 
 Nov. 18. Dean Cridge (Ch. St.) and 350 communicants of tlie Cathedral, Vic¬ 
 toria, B. C., have retired from the Church of England, and identified themselves 
 with the R. E. C. 
 
 Nov. 25. Sacerdotalism. Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Coleridge (Ch. St.)— 
 Ritualism in England—Return of R. E. C. to the P. E. C.iii. 
 
 Nov. 25. Low. Rev. W. R. Nicholson.iii. 
 
 Nov. 25. Rev. W. R. Nicholson (Epis.) does not interrupt his ministerial 
 work a single day. He will enter at once on his new field of labor as pastor of the 
 Second R. E. C. of Philadelphia. 
 
 Nov. 25. Philadelphia (Epis.) Second R. E. C. assembled for the first Sunday 
 services on the 22d inst. in the hall on the N. E. corner of 18th street and Chestnut. 
 Bishop Cummins preached on the Christian Unity in the morning, and on Spiritual 
 Worship in the evening. It was announced that Dr. Nicholson had accepted the 
 call, to begin Dec. 6. 
 
 Nov. 25. Lay Withdrawal (Epis.) to take charge of a Sunday-school in a R. 
 E. C. He gives, among other reasons, “ The Convention assembled in full recogni¬ 
 tion that the questions at issue had fully culminated in a crisis, and by a vote of 7 
 clergymen and four laymen to one refused to in any manner alter the Baptismal 
 Service. The vote is conclusive that three-fourths of the Church are anti-Low 
 Church, and that one-fourth are asking the three-fourths to forswear their belief 
 and conviction for the comfort of a meagre minority.” 
 
 Nov. 25. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) The Daily British Colonist , of Oct. 30, gives 
 the details of the formation of a R. E. C., with Rev. Dean Cridge as rector. 
 “Among those present we noticed Mr. A. J. Lang, J. P., Senator Macdonald, 
 Judge Pemberton, R. Williams, M. A., B. N. Pearse, R. Friley, Sen., Judge Elliott, 
 Captain Deveraux, Hon. Dr. Helmeken, Councillor Hayward, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
 Coole, M. Chambers. .. .The following were appointed a provisional Church Com¬ 
 mittee : Sir James Douglas, Senator Macdonald, and Messrs. Short, Cowper, 
 Pearse, Newbury, Hayward, Siff kin, Pemberton, Englehardt, Chambers, Mason, De 
 Weidenhold, T. Wilson, J. Douglas, Jr., P. T. Johnson, Thorne, R. Williams, P. 
 Lester, and Captain Deveraux.” “Resolved, That Mr. Cridge be requested to com¬ 
 municate with Bishop Cummins or other authority of the R. E. C., and to take 
 steps for our full admission into its communion.” 
 
 Nov. 28. Louisville Courier says: “ The R. E. C. congregation will to-mor¬ 
 row dedicate its new church on Broadway, between 5th and 6th streets.” 
 
 Nov. 30. Louisville Courier gives the full sermon by Rev. M. B. Smith, of 
 Passaic, N. J., on the opening of the new church.ii; xiv. 6. 
 
 Dec. 3. Anniversary {Times) in Brooklyn on Dec. 2, rector, Rev. W. H. Reid, 
 with addresses by ex-L^eut.-Governor Woodford, Herbert B. Turner, and Rev. 
 Mason Gallagher. 
 
 Dec. 3. New York ( Bejmblic ). Anniversary of founding the R. E. C. on Dec. 
 2,1873 ; rector, W. T. Sabine, with addresses by B. Aycrigg, John Irving, Esq., 
 
 and Rev. B. B. Leacock, D.D. 
 
 Dec. 3. Republic editorial on the R. E. C.ii. 
 
 Dec. 4. Presbyterian Union (of Dec. 3). .xv. 13, 14. 
 
 Dec. 7. Newark ( Trib .) R. E. C. probable organization. A week ago, the 
 Rev. Dr. W. R. Nicholson preached his farewell sermon. . . . Yesterday, Bishop 
 
CHAPTER I... 
 
 99 
 
 December 7, 1874. 
 
 Cummins preached on the “ Counsel of Gamaliel ” in the morning. The follow¬ 
 ing is one of the passages : “ Beloved, all that we have asked of those who differ 
 from us in the establishment of this R. E. C. is, that they should leave it to Gam¬ 
 aliel’s test. If it be of men, it will come to naught. If it be of God, ye cannot 
 overthrow it. Upon what, then, do we base our confidence that it is of God? It is 
 a work begun in individual hearts. No concert of action, no organized revolution, 
 no dependence on human policy,” etc. After the morning services, were offered by 
 Mrs. Col. Denman, $5,000 and two lots ; by J. D. Orton, James Bannister, George 
 Miller, Samuel Lord, Jr., and Mr. Pennington—large sums. Several leaders in the 
 movement assured the Tribune reporter that moral and material support to any 
 amount would be forthcoming. 
 
 Dec. 7. Rev. W. M. Postlethwaite ( Trib .) rector of the Church of the Inter¬ 
 cession, Washington Heights, New York city, sends to Bishop Potter his letter of 
 withdrawal from the P. E. C. (See Dec. 16.) 
 
 Dec. 7. Ottawa Free Press gives, in full, the lecture of Rev. Johnston Mc- 
 Cormac, of the R. E. C. 
 
 Dec. 9. Baptismal Regeneration is the doctrine of the majority.iii. 
 
 Dec. 9. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) The First R. E. C. was organized Oct. 28,1874, 
 by Rev. Edward Cridge, late Dean and Rector of Christ Church Cathedral, with the 
 Church Wardens and all the Vestry, a membership of 850, a Sunday-school of 150. 
 All the sittings were rented in two hours. . . . The congregation . . . give up their 
 new church, completed only two years ago, . . . costing about $15,000, all . . . by 
 themselves with the exception of about $1,400. Then follows the letter of Dean 
 Cridge, “ To the Rt. Rev. Geo. Hills, D.D.,” in which he gives his objection to the 
 arbitrary power proposed to be invested in the Bishop by the proposed Synod. 
 
 Dec. 9. Philadelphia (Epis.) Second R. E. C., Rev. Dr. Nicholson had com¬ 
 munion last Sunday. The editor says : “ The sacerdotal garment, the surplice, was 
 not used, but the plain preacher’s gown only worn. For to the minds of the people, 
 the surplice calls the man using it a priest, no matter how he explains, and pro¬ 
 tests, and assures, and preaches to the contrary.” 
 
 [These are the individual views of the editor. The R. E. C. lias no such canon. 
 With our thoroughly Protestant “ Declaration of Principles” (xi. 1—4), we have no 
 fear about the dress. The Bishop and all the members of the first Standing Com¬ 
 mittee desired to establish the custom of wearing only the black academic gown. 
 But we all yielded our preferences, with the hope that gradually the black gown 
 would supersede the Bishop’s robes and the surplice. B. A.] 
 
 Dec. 9. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) There are about 115 communicants and 300 
 regular attendants. The congregation still hold their former church. .'. . At the 
 last Diocesan Convention the old trustees were instructed by the Convention to. . . 
 enter suit for the recovery of the church. (Nov. 30). 
 
 Dec. 9. Mr. Postlethwaite’s letter (Ch. St.) (See Dec. 16). 
 
 Dec. 10. Bishop Cheney {Trib.) Extract from a sermon on Sunday last. 
 “ One year ago they met to lay the foundation of the R. E. C. There were 7 
 ministers, including Bishop Cummins, and of laymen perhaps not more than 120 
 'had signed the Declaration of Principles” [and only 17 who were present and 
 voted]. “ They had not one organized congregation. To-day they have 40 minis¬ 
 ters, 34 organized churches, and over 3,000 communicants.” 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 23 
 
 December 12, 1874. 
 
 Dec. 12. Impartiality by Rev. Dr. Craik.iii. 
 
 Dec. 14. Ottawa Times says: “Yesterday afternoon Rev. Johnson McCormac 
 (R. E. C.) was assisted in the services by Rev. Mr. Greenfield, a clergyman of the 
 Church of England. Mr. Greenfield has traveled over a great part of the world; 
 
 . . . he deemed it proper to extend the right hand of fellowship, as the members 
 of the R. E. C. only differed in regard to certain ritualistic practices, while their 
 Creed was essentially the same.” 
 
 Dec. 16. A Divided House.iii. 
 
 Dec. 16. Rev. Dr. Nicholson (Epis.) Newark Advertiser , of Nov. 25-30, 
 gives the leave-taking and address at “ Old Trinity ” P. E. C. at Newark, on Dr. 
 Nicholson leaving the P. E. C. to join the R. E. C. and take the rectorship of the 
 Second R. E. C. in Philadelphia. ... Dr. Nicholson has been “ scarcely three 
 years ” at Newark. 
 
 Dec. 16. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) Sir James Douglas offers to donate two lots 
 and one-tenth of any sum not exceeding $10,000 for a church. Senator Macdonald 
 offers to donate one of three lots or $500 cash. Stipend $2,000 ; at vestry meeting, 
 Nov. 24,1874. 
 
 Dec. 16. Low. Rev. W. M. Postletliwaite leaves the P. E. C.iii. 
 
 Dec. 16. Low. “ The door shut gently ”.iii. 
 
 Dec. 16. Jefferson City, Missouri (Epis.) The R. E. C. established by Rev. 
 Thompson L. Smith, has now Rev. Mr. Brooks. . . .When four weeks old the Sun¬ 
 day-school had “upward of one hundred scholars.” 
 
 Dec. 16. Kansas City (Epis.) The Times says that Rev. T. L. Smith has 
 established another congregation in that city. 
 
 Dec. 16. Answer to (Ch. St.) of Nov. 18.ii. 
 
 Dec. 21. Ordination (Trib.) Mr. Edwin Potter ordained Presbyter at the First 
 R. E. C., corner 4th avenue and 47th street, New York, on Dec. 20, by Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins, assisted by Rev. Dr. Leacock, Rev. M. B. Smith, and Rev. Mason Gallagher. 
 The sermon preached by the Bishop is given in full. 
 
 Dec. 23. Louisville, Ky. (Epis.) Emmanuel Church property is in suit in the 
 civil court. . . . Rev. W. H. Johnson, of South Carolina, has accepted the call of 
 the R. E. C. (See 
 
 Dec. 23. Newark, N. J. (Epis.) First service [in New Jersey] of the R. E. C., 
 was in Association Hall, Dec. 6. Rev. Mason Gallagher read service. Bishop 
 Cummins preached the sermon, and requesting those to remain who desired to form 
 a congregation, over 500 waited. In the evening more than 1,500 were present; 
 Rev. W, M. Postlethwaite took part. The Bishop gave a history of the Prayer 
 Book and the difference between the Reformed prayer book and its predecessors, 
 “mainly with respect to Apostolic Succession, Church Exclusiveness, Baptismal Re¬ 
 generation, and Sacerdotalism.”. . . One gentleman presented $250, another $500 
 a year if the Church should be free, another presented a lot worth $10,000 for a 
 Mission Church. A minister will be immediately invited. 
 
 Dec. 23. New Prayer Book (Epis.) Rev. Mr. Greenfield, of the Church of 
 England (Dec. 14, Ottawa).ii. 
 
 Dec. 23. Rev. W. H. Johnson (Epis.) has resigned St. Paul’s P. E. C., Sum¬ 
 merville, S. C. 
 
 Dec. 23. Low. Arid so we went toward Rome ; Greeks 
 
 iii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 24 
 
 December 24, 1874. 
 
 Dec. 24. Newark, N. J. ( Ohs .) 135 names put on cards, of those prepared to 
 join in forming a R. E. C., “of which 50 are late members of Trinity Church, and 
 
 the remainder from other Episcopal churches of the city.” 
 
 Dec. 24. Low. Rev. W. M. Postlethwaite.iii. 
 
 Dec, 25. Midnight Mass in New York.iii. 
 
 Dec. 30. High. Manning on Bishops.iii. 
 
 Dec. 30. Low. Eucharistic vestments in England .iii. 
 
 Dec. 30. Heredos, no ! and yes ! in England..iii. 
 
 Dec. 30. Church Infants (Ch. St.) Prayer restricted.iii. 
 
 Dec. 30. Newark, N. J. (Epis.) On Dec. 25, the R. E. C. was organized with 
 James D. Orton and W. A. Hammer, Wardens, and R. Gray, Jr., J. H. Joliuson, S. 
 Lord, Jr., L. A. Osborn, P. G. Botticlier, James Hodge, Geo. C. Miller, Vestry¬ 
 men. 
 
 Dec. 30. Kev. W. M. Postleth waite (Epis.) has accepted the position of as¬ 
 sociate rector of Christ Church (Bishop Cheney’s), Chicago. 
 
 Dec. 30. Sussex, N. B. (Epis.) Rev. John Todd, M.A., arrived on Sept. 24, to 
 take charge of the R. E. C. He says : “ The whole parish was under Rev. Canon 
 Medley, son of the Bishop. . . . High. . . . unexceptionable in his character as a gen¬ 
 tleman, and a perfect exponent of the ‘ suaviter in modo' . . . Ritualism made the 
 first serious difference. ... A vestry meeting on Easter Monday, 1873, at which the 
 people were kept from morning until about midnight without food or intermission 
 . . . made the breach complete. .. . that the parish might be divided. ... an act 
 was passed. . . . They were still under the jurisdiction of the ‘ Bishop of Frederic¬ 
 ton ’ . . . Rather than have another clergyman of the High Church school, they de¬ 
 termined to have none at all . . . . The ‘ Reformed Church ’ sprang into being .... 
 the Senior Warden exclaimed ‘ Here is our salvation ’ . . . . The Wardens, Vestry¬ 
 men, and congregation, with not a single exception, joined the Reformed Church, 
 and, in fact, we are now working with the officers of St. Mark’s parish as they 
 previously existed. ... I supply besides Sussex, eleven other places. ... At Upham 
 . . . . Rev. Mr. Hanford. . . . told his people that ‘ if they joined us they should have 
 no rites of burial’ .... Our cause loses nothing by opposition,” etc. 
 
 Dec. 30. Baltimore, Md. (Epis.) Bishop Cummins inaugurated the service of 
 the R. E. C. on Dec. 27, at Lehman’s Hall, North Howard Street. 
 
 Dec. 31. Toronto Parties ( Toronto Globe.) .iii. 
 
 Jan. 6, 1875. Philadelphia (Epis.) The First R. E. C. had a children’s festival, 
 at which Thomas Moore, Esq., Senior Warden, presented a copy of the New Testa¬ 
 ment to each of the 155 children of the Sunday-school. Also the Sunday-school 
 Association presented each child with a handsome volume. Addresses by Rev. 
 Walter Windeyer (rector), and Rev. Dr. Stewart. 
 
 Also the Second R. E. C. had religious exercises on Dec. 31, and books and other 
 presents distributed. The Sunday-school is one month old, and has 70 names on 
 its roll. The infant class, 35 ; the Bible class, 1G. The men’s Bible class gives 
 promise of great usefulness. 
 
 Jan. 6. Newark (Epis.) Sunday-school, two Sundays old, has 112 scholars and 
 2G teachers. The congregation, about 150. A lady has volunteered to supply the 
 school for a year with all the books necessary. We have four Bible classes. 
 
 Jan. 6. Baltimore, Md. (Epis.) On Jan. 3, Bishop Cummins delivered a lec- 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 25 
 
 January 6, 1875. 
 
 ture upon tlie “ Points of difference between tbe P. E. C. and tbe R. E. C.” Then 
 follows a condensation of tlie address. 
 
 Jan. 6. Wheeling 1 , Va. (Epis.) Rev. J. H. McMechen is forming a congrega¬ 
 tion of the R. E. C. 
 
 Jan. 6. Moncton, N. B. (Epis.) Rev. J. E. Brown, the rector, in his remarks 
 at the late communion, said: “ I am no priest, that is no altar, these elements are 
 no sacrifice,” was well understood and appreciated by all present. 
 
 Jan. 6. Rev. W. H. Johnson (Epis.) of Summerville, S. C., has resigned the 
 
 ministry of the P. E. C. 
 
 f 
 
 Jan. 7. Pacific Churchman—post prandial !.ii. 
 
 Jan. 7. Parties violent (Ch. Jo.).iii. 
 
 Jan. 8. Toronto Parties.iii. 
 
 Jan. 13. Chicago (Epis.) A third parish of the R. E. C. has been organized, 
 composed principally of Church of England people. A large lot has been donated. 
 Christ Church gives a building, which will be removed and re-furnished. “We 
 are informed that a fourth will shortly be started . . . whose moral and pecuniary 
 support is already secured. ” 
 
 Jan. 13. Central City, Col. (Epis.) Rev. James C. Pratt has withdrawn from 
 the P. E. C. and joined the R. E. C. A Reformed Church will immediately be or¬ 
 
 ganized. 
 
 Jan. 13. Rev. E. D. Neill (Epis.) Lecture on differences.ii. 
 
 Jan. 13. “ Schism,” by Dean Cridge.ii. 
 
 Jan. 13. Independent.Church.es, by P. E. C..iii. 
 
 Jan. 14 and 16. Toronto parties.iii. 
 
 Jan. 18. Toronto (Toronto Globe), Christ Church is the name of the church 
 now used by the R. E. C. . . . Last evening services were conducted by Rev. J. Green¬ 
 
 field. 
 
 Jan. 27. Laymen in England who want Ritualism (Ch. St.).iii. 
 
 Jan. 27. Isolation.iii. 
 
 Jan. 27. Toronto parties (Epis.) are given more at length on some points. 
 
 Jan. 27. Gloversville, N. Y. (Epis.) Dec. 17, Bishop Cummins addressed about 
 1,000 people in the Baptist Church for about an hour . . . . “ Three gentlemen en¬ 
 deavored to purchase Trinity Episcopal Church, to hand it over on easy terms to 
 the ‘ Reformed Episcopal Society.’ In this they were not successful, the vestry 
 and congregation preferring to make efforts to revive and sustain their own 
 church.” . . . Population 9,000, with 5 substantial church buildings. Methodist 
 membership 950, and Sabbath-schools 1,000. 
 
 Jan. 27. Victoria, B. C.—Angela College.ii. 
 
 Jan. 27. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) “ We have a site given to us for our proposed 
 new church (by Sir James Douglas, our first and best Governor), valued at $2,500, 
 and he has given $1,000. Many others have given largely in proportion to their 
 means. At a recent meeting ... we obtained $3,100, and hope to obtain $5,000 
 shortly, when we shall commence building. . . . The funeral of ex-Mayor Lewis . . . 
 was the largest that has ever taken place in Victoria . . . The impressive burial ser¬ 
 vice of the R. E. C. was read by the Rev. Mr. Cridge .”—British Colonist, Dec. 30,1874. 
 
 Jan. 27. Rev. James C. Pratt (Epis.) Minister in charge of Trinity Church, 
 Boulder, Colorado, has withdrawn from the P. E. C. to unite with the R. E. O. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 26 
 
 January 30, 1875. 
 
 Jan 30. Hon. S. L. Woodford at Brooklyn.ii. 
 
 Feb. 2. Ottawa (Toronto Globe). “The new R. E. C. is almost completed. 
 Bishop Cheney has promised to officiate at its consecration.” 
 
 Feb. 3. Germantown, Pa. (Epis.) Call to organize a R. E. C. “An intro¬ 
 ductory address will be delivered by Rev. Dr. Nicholson, of the Second R. E. C. of 
 Philadelphia.” 
 
 Feb. 3. Chicago (Epis.) Four R. E. C. in Chicago have regular services ac¬ 
 cording to the notices of service.” 
 
 Feb. 3. Littleton, Col. (Epis.) Rev. J. T. McFadden, of the R. E. C., says, 
 “ Everything... .satisfactory. We have a fine Sunday-school... .congregation 
 rapidly increasing... .Prayer meetings well attended... .Missions... .near the 
 
 Platte Canyon_and at the mouth of Bear Creek are growing steadily_A 
 
 gentleman in Boston sent us-a Parish Library. A lady in New York... a 
 
 handsome communion set.” 
 
 Feb. 3. Protestant Pope.iii. 
 
 Feb. 4. Illinois—General Theological Seminary.iii. 
 
 Feb. 5. De Koven, Bishop.iii. 
 
 Feb. 6. Gen. Con. censured for rejecting Seymour.iii. 
 
 Feb. 6. Kev. L. Coleman refuses to be Bishop of N. Wisconsin.iii. 
 
 Feb. 8. Jaggar and De Koven, by Dr. Hopkins.iii. 
 
 Feb. 9. Church Growth Decreasing, by H. M. Thompson.iii. 
 
 Feb. 10. De Koven, Bishop:—Jaggar’s sympathy for Cheney in 1871— 
 Ritualism—Rev. W. H. Johnson—Log Rolling—Church Growth—Canada parties. 
 
 iii. 
 
 Feb. 10. Kev. W. H. Johnson—Bishop Yail.ii. 
 
 Feb. 10. Kev. J. Howard Smith, D. D. (Epis.) rector of St. John’s Church, 
 Knoxville, Tenn., has .... withdrawn from the ministry of the P. E. C., and 
 has accepted the rectorship of the R. E. C. lately organized in Newark, N. J. He 
 will enter upon his duties .... on Sunday, 14th inst.” 
 
 Feb. 10. Germantown (Epis.) The Third R. E. C. of Philadelphia was 
 inaugurated Feb. 9. Address delivered by Dr. Nicholson of the Second R. E. C. 
 
 Feb. 10. Baltimore (Epis.) Baltimore Gazette says, “ Bishop Cummins and 
 some twenty gentleman met at Lehman’s Hall, enrolled their names as members, 
 appointed a Committee on Organization to report on Tuesday night. A Ladies’ 
 Missionary Aid Society meets once a week. Communion to about sixty ; the ser¬ 
 vice presented by two young ladies ; propose to call a rector.” 
 
 Feb. 11. De Koven Bishop.—“Why?” 
 
 Feb. 11. W. H. Johnson returns to P. E. C. (iii, Feb. ll and 25 ; ii. Feb. 10). 
 
 Feb. 13. De Koven. Parties organizing.iii. 
 
 Feb. 15. De Koven. Parties more violent. Also Memorial.iii. 
 
 Feb. 17. Church of England, by John Bright.iii. 
 
 Feb. 17. Kev. J. Howard Smith (Epis.) “ S.” says, “The Knoxville Chronicle 
 of a late date, says the announcement of the resignation of Dr. J. Howard Smith, 
 the rector of the new R. E. C. in this city [Newark, N. J.], and the reasons therefor, 
 was the senstion of the day. The tenor of public comment was sympathy with 
 the rector, and a general recognition of the past, that he had been of great use¬ 
 fulness in the religious work of the city.” The following is a copy of his letter 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 27 
 
 February 17, 1875. ' 
 
 of resignation: “ St. John’s Rectory, Feb. 3, 1875.—To tlie Wardens and Vestrymen 
 of St John’s Church, Knoxville.” Then follow his reasons for which see (iii,Feb. 
 17, Low Church), then the conclusion thus: 
 
 “ In this Church, there is the same historic ministry in three orders, the same 
 sublime liturgy, and the same general system of government as in the P. E. C. 
 But the source of errors and strifes that have vexed the Church in the ages past 
 and of hierarchical oppression, have been eliminated. If there can be a Churoh 
 with such a happy combination of the prescribed and the free, of liberty and law, 
 of truth and charity, of the primitive and the modern, of beautiful order in itself 
 and large catholic toleration towards other forms of Church government, as to 
 gather to itself the affection, and gradually the adherence, of Evangelical Protes- 
 tanism, it is surely to be found in the R. E. C. 
 
 “ It gives me pleasure to feel that Heave St. John’s Church united and prosper¬ 
 ous, and that a spiritual bond exists between the retiring pastor and many of the 
 people, that neither the separation of life nor the deeper event of death can dis¬ 
 solve. Praying God’s choicest blessings upon you, gentlemen, and upon the flock 
 you must for the time represent, I am yours respectfully and affectionately,J. 
 Howard Smith, Rector of St. John’s Church.” The following is a copy : “ St. 
 John’s church, Feb. 3, 1875 :—At a meeting of the Vestry this day held, 
 the following (among other proceedings) were adopted: Resolved, That 
 we have heard with deep and unfeigned regret, of the determination of our 
 esteemed and beloved rector, to resign the pastoral charge of this church ; that we 
 honor his sincerity, his conscienciousness, and his zeal in advancing, by every good 
 word and work, the kingdom of Christ ; and we humbly hope that wherever his 
 lot is hereafter cast, in the providence of God, the blessing of the Lord may attend 
 him in all his labors, and crown them with abundant success. Resolved , That a 
 committee of three be appointed to communicate the preceding resolution to Dr. 
 Howard Smith, and to express to him more fully our friendly sympathies and 
 our best wishes for his future usefulness and welfare. A true copy.—Wm. M. Bax¬ 
 ter, Secretary.”.iii. 
 
 Feb. 17. Newark, N. J. (Epis.) The above continues. “Dr. Howard Smith 
 arrived in Newark, on llth. He officiated on Sunday for the first time .... 
 Large congregations. . . . Parish .... now has a membership of 200 .... 
 The Sunday-school is in a prosperous condition, with a large membership, a good 
 library, well trained officers and teachers. ... We shall have .... a prayer- 
 meeting on Thursday evening, and a short service with lecture on Tuesday even¬ 
 ing.” (i, Dec. 7, 23 24, 30, Jan. 6, Feb. 10, and iii, Feb. 17, Low Church.) 
 
 Feb. 17. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) The British Colonist, Jan. 27, 1875, says : 
 « The financial report showed the building fund. . . $5,250, to which is added $800 
 total, $6,050. . . An educational institution. . . of the R. E. C. . . was com. 
 menced Jan. 20 . . . Sunday-school. . . 242 children sat down to tea. . . presents 
 . . . music . . . short address ... special prizes.” 
 
 Feb. 17. Moncton, N. B. (Epis.) “Z” says: The first anniversary was held 
 Jan. 12, presided over by the rector, Rev. J. Eastburn Brown. Prayer by Rev. Mr. 
 Todd [rector at Sussex] ; Declaration of Principles read by Mr. Carvell [Superin¬ 
 tendent of the Intercolonial Railway] ; Rev. W. V. Felt well [rector at St. Johns} 
 addressed the meeting. Rev. J. Todd recounted the extent and success ... in 
 
28 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 February 17, 1875. 
 
 Sussex and surroundings. Mr. Taylor, in substance, said, that Rev. Mr. Boyer be¬ 
 coming paralytic, Rev. W. Walker was procured temporarily. His ritualistic prac¬ 
 tices, as described, caused a meeting of the parishioners in the spring of 1873, and 
 17 out of 22 heads of families protested (all present). One of the wardens, without 
 authority, procured from the Bishop letters of induction for Mr. Walker, and he 
 claimed the right to remain. The Bishop would not listen to the committee sent to 
 Fredericton. He went to law. The congregation determined to leave, and fitted 
 up the present building, and sent for Mr. Killikelly, of Cambridge, Mass. The 
 Bishop threatened, and he left. . “ We were almost ready to give up in despair. We 
 did not know that the Hand which moves the universe was working for us in a 
 quarter where we least expected help. . . It pleased the Spirit of Truth to move 
 Bishop Cummins ... We wrote to him, desiring him to send us a minister. To 
 this we received a prompt and cheering reply ; in a short time he sent to us the Rev. 
 W. V. Felt well. All hearts now rejoiced, for not only did Mr. Feltwell meet, and 
 more than meet, our hopes and aspirations, but we soon found that ours was no iso¬ 
 lated case. . . In a little while Sussex asked for help. It was given ; a church was 
 organized, and soon a minister [Rev. John Todd] was found to take charge of that 
 extensive field of labor. Then came the cry from St. Johns, to which we also re¬ 
 sponded, Mr. Feltwell going to their help, and ultimately to the permanent over¬ 
 sight and care. . . When we broke off our connection with the See of Fredericton, 
 we numbered 17 heads of families ; to-day we count on our church list over 50 ; be¬ 
 sides we have many warm and hearty friends and sympathizers. . . Rev. J. East- 
 burn Brown. . . handled the reform movement in its broader and more compre¬ 
 hensive aspect. . . The rectors and delegates from other parishes arranged for 
 tri monthly conventions.” 
 
 [Now I will tell our friends in New Brunswick something that they do not 
 know. After the above call from Moncton came to Bishop Cummins, I was present 
 when the Bishop said to Mr. Feltwell: “ They want a minister at Moncton, N. B. 
 What do you say about going there ?” He answered immediately, “ Anywhere that 
 you have a mind to send me. I’ll go to Africa if you say so.’’ “ Then go to Monc¬ 
 
 ton.” “ I’ll go.” The matter was settled in less than five minutes.] 
 
 Feb. 17. Rev. E. D. Neill (Epis.) delivered the third Fraternity Lecture in St. 
 Paul, Minnesota, on Feb. 4,1875. His predecessors were Bishop Whipple, of the 
 P. E. C., and Rev. Mr. Breed, of the Presbyterian Church. In this lecture he takes 
 a historic view of the.Cliurch of Christ, and remarks : “ The R. E. C. is believed to 
 express more clearly than any other, the principles of those who in 1552 revived 
 primitive Christianity.” 
 
 Feb. 17. Rev. Win.. Bowers (Epis.), late assistant minister of St. Luke’s 
 Church, Philadelphia, has resigned that position, has withdrawn from the ministry 
 
 of the P. E. C., and has joined the ministry of the R. E. C. 
 
 Feb. 18. Prof. Seymour, “ fit for inside, but not outside ”.iii. 
 
 Feb. 18. Log Rolling by Independent .r.iii. 
 
 Feb. 18. Church of the Prayer Book..iii. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop De Koven. Bribery.iii. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop De Koven. Let Illinois have him. iii. 
 
 Feb. 18. Church Decreasing.iii. 
 
 Feb. 20. Clergy Decreasing relatively.iii. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 29 
 
 February 20, 1875. 
 
 Feb. 20. Church Growth decreasing...iii. 
 
 Feb. 24. Parties in IHinois, by Louis Peck (Epis.). . .. .iii. 
 
 Feb. 24. Low. Rev. J. H. Mac El’Rey’s reasons for withdrawing.iii. 
 
 Feb. 24. Germantown P. E. C. (Epis.) On Feb. 17 addresses were delivered 
 by Rev. C. H. Tucker and Rev. W. R. Nicholson. This Third R. E. C. in Phila¬ 
 delphia is called Emmanuel R. E. C. Its vestry consists of Messrs. E. Varian, R. 
 Lord Lee, Dr. Samuel Asliurst, Louis E. Ivinsler, M. Laird Simons, Richard Wells. 
 Rev. G. Albert Redles, late of Grace P. E. C., Mount Airy, has accepted a call for 
 the 7th March. Bishop Cummins will preach twice for them on Feb. 28. To be a 
 free seat church. 
 
 Feb. 24. Latest accessions (Ch. St.) to the R. E. C. have been Rev. J. Howard 
 Smith, D. D., late rector of the P. E. C., Knoxville, Tenn., Rev. Wm. Bowen, late 
 assistant ot the B. E. C. of St. Luke, Philadelphia. 
 
 Pev. G. A. Pedles, late rector of the P. E. C., Mount Airy, Penn. 
 
 Pev. Benj. Johnson, late rector of the P. E. C., Macon, Georgia. 
 
 Pev. E. H. Jenkins, of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 Feb. 25. Postal Cards. “Ass.” “ Ex.-Rev.”. iii. 
 
 Feb. 25. Low. Rev. W. H. Johnson’s letter (So. Ch.).(ii, Feb. 10.) iii. 
 
 Feb. 27. Pitualism by De Koven (Ch.). iii. 
 
 Feb. 27. Bishop of Albany on De Koven (Ch.).. (xii, 52-55.) iii. 
 
 Feb. 27. Dr. Hopkins explains.(iii, Feb. 8) (iii, March 12-17.) iii. 
 
 Feb. 27. Growth of the Church, by Dr. Ewer.iii. 
 
 Feb. 27. Dr. De Koven accepted the Bishopric on Feb. 15 .iii. 
 
 March 1. Brooklyn (Trib.) Dr. Jaggar .. iii. 
 
 March 3. Low. Rev. G. A. Redles. Exclusiveness in England.iii. 
 
 March 3. Illinois. “ A dreary waste.”.iii. 
 
 March 3. Brooklyn. (Ch. St).....'. iii. 
 
 March 3. Peoria, Ill. (Epis.) A. G. Tyng says, “ On Monday evening, Feb. 
 22, Bishop Cheney visited Christ Church, Peoria, the second time for Confir¬ 
 mation. A class of 42 w T as presented by the rector, Rev. Jos. D. Wilson, and tho 
 names of 23 persons were read by him, who have united with the R. E. C. by let¬ 
 ter or other satisfactory evidence that they were members of some other branch of 
 the Church. . . . There are now six clergymen of the R. E. C. at work in Illinois 
 five organized parishes, and two more that will soon be organized, and we look 
 forward to the organization of a Synod before the meeting of the next Council 
 
 in May.” 
 
 March 4. “Stop Agitating” says (St. Cross.) .ii. 
 
 March 10. Jaggar’s letter to Bishop Stevens.iii. 
 
 March 10. Brooklyn letter by (Epis.).iii. 
 
 March 10. Church of England and Dissenters . iii. 
 
 March 11. Votes for Jaggar. “ Unreformed. ”.iii. 
 
 March 12. Jaggar. Facts by B. Aycrigg.iii. 
 
 March 13. Dr. Hopkins on Jaggar, facts.iiL 
 
 March 13. Peformd Episcopalians blamed.iii. 
 
 March 15. Dr. Hopkins to B. Aycrigg. “Thanks.”.iii. 
 
 March 15. Ottawa. (Free Press). “The new Emmanuel Church of which a 
 brief description wms given in Saturday’s Free Press, was opened yesterday. . . . 
 
30 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 March. 15, 1875. 
 
 Long before the stipulated time almost every available seat was occupied. . . . 
 The thanks of the choir of the R. E. C. are certainly due to the members of others 
 of our city churches for the efficient aid rendered them. Mr. C. E. Clark, organist. 
 Services by the pastor, Rev. Johnson McCormac. . . . Bishop Cheney delivered a 
 . . . . discourse [filling two and one-half columns]. Then—Missions of the R. E. 
 C.; a meeting will be held on 15th. The chair will be taken by TIon. Senator 
 McDonald of Victoria, B. C. Addresses by the chairman, Bishop Cheney 
 Rev. J. McCormac, and James Johnson, Esq., Commissioner of Customs. 
 
 March. 15. Toronto. (Ottawa Free Press), “ Bishop Cheney of the R. E. C. 
 is expected to arrive in the city to-morrow (16th). It is likely he will deliver a 
 
 lecture.” 
 
 March 15. Dr. Hopkins to B. Aycrigg.iii. 
 
 March 17. B. Aycrigg to Dr. Hopkins, more facts.iii. 
 
 March 17. Low. Rev. Benjamin Johnson, of Ga.iii. 
 
 March 17. Rev. W. H. Johnson, of S. C., is not Rev. B. Johnson.iii. 
 
 March 17. Germantown (Epis.) First regular service was held Feb. 28, in 
 Second Presbyterian Church, pastor, Rev. G. Albert Redles. Bishop Cummins 
 preached in the morning, and delivered a lecture on the R. E. C. in the evening. 
 He was assisted by Rev. G. A. Redles and Rev. Walter Windeyer. On Monday 
 following the Bishop and Dr. Nicholson examined candidates for the ministry. 
 
 March 17. Kensington (Epis.) Services have been held for the last few Sun¬ 
 days, and various ministers have conducted them and have preached. A Sunday- 
 school has been established and a female Bible class. On Sunday last the Rev. J. S. 
 Malone, late of Pittsburgh, preached both morning and evening. ... At the vestry, 
 meeting, held on Tuesday night, an invitation was extended to him to become the 
 minister. . . . The call he had determined to accept. ... It is intended to establish a 
 weekly prayer meeting, and to foster the Sunday -school. 
 
 March 17. Sympathy for Rev. Dr. Cheney (Epis.) B. Aycrigg writes to the 
 Episcopalian, dated March 13, 1875 : “ Until last evening, I supposed the circum¬ 
 stances attending the signature of Dr. Jaggar to this document was no business of 
 mine. During yesterday I was engaged in copying the original documents which 
 Bishop Cheney sent to me as authentic documents belonging to the History of the 
 R. E. C., upon which I am engaged. In the evening, the Churchman, ante-dated 
 March 13, was seen to contain a paper by Dr. Hopkins on the subject of the date of 
 signature. I alone happened at the time to have documentary evidence, and con¬ 
 sidering it my duty to appear as a witness, I left, this morning, with the editors of 
 the Evening Post and of the Tribune, the following—‘ All the original documents on 
 this subject are in my possession. The name of Dr. Jaggar is not one of the 
 twelve printed names on the circular, but is in manuscript on two of them. And 
 each circular has the printed note, “ On the 13tli May all the signatures will be sent 
 to Mr. Cheney.” This shows that the signatures were before June 2, the date of 
 deposition as stated by Dr. Hopkins in the Churchman, dated May 13, 1875.—B. 
 Aycrigg, Passaic, N. J., March 12, 1875.’ Also the following telegram—‘ To Dr. 
 John H. Hopkins, Plattsburgh, N. Y.: Jaggar’s manuscript signature is on printed 
 circulars required May 13 for Cheney. See Post, Tribune.' In the copy left with 
 the Tribune, the word presumptively was interlined after ‘This shows ’ (presump¬ 
 tively). B. A.” 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 31 
 
 March 17, 1875. 
 
 March 17. Rev. Joseph S. Malone (Epis.) lias resigned East Liberty [Pitts¬ 
 burgh] and accepted Emmanuel R. E. C., Pliila. (Kensington). 
 
 March 17. Philadelphia (Epis.) Rev. Dr. Nicholson, rector of the Second R. 
 E. C., at N. W. corner of 18th and Chestnut streets, has Tuesday afternoon services 
 during Lent. Regular Saturday evening prayer-meeting. 
 
 March 17. Rev. Ch. H. Tucker (Epis.) will preach in Oxford Hall, Oxford 
 street west of 19th street, next Sunday, with the view of establishing a R. E. C. in 
 
 the N. W. section of Philadelphia. 
 
 March 17. Ireland (Ch. St.) Episcopal liberality. .iii. 
 
 March 17- Church of England (Ch. St.) compromise.iii. 
 
 March 18. Episcopal Elections (Trib.) Editorial.iii. 
 
 March 22. Episcopal Elections (Trib.) Dr. Ewer.„. iii. 
 
 March 24. Ottawa (Epis.) see March 15, Ottawa. Senator McDonald said 
 that the R. E. C. in Victoria had left to the Bishop “ only a congregation of some 
 fifteen souls. The blow was a severe one to the Ritualists.” 
 
 March 24. St. Johns, N. B. (Epis.) “ Our rector . . . not only preaches in Bap¬ 
 tist and Presbyterian pulpits, but invites them to take his. ...A Presbyterian 
 brother stood alongside of him, distributing the bread and wine to us at com¬ 
 munions.” 
 
 March 24. Oxford Hall, Phila. (Epis.) Last Sunday ... a Sunday-school or¬ 
 ganized, having Rev. Mr. Tucker for superintendent, Mr. W. C. Johnson, assistant, 
 Mr. J. W. Frazer, Secretary. Dr. Shively teaches a male Bible class, and ten 
 members of the congregation volunteered to form and instruct classes. 
 
 March 24. Kensington (Epis.) A male Bible class (adults) is taught by Rev. 
 Mr. Malone, membership 15. Female Bible class is taught by Miss Ware. Week¬ 
 ly prayer-meeting on Wednesday from house to house. Lord’s Supper on 28th. 
 
 March. 24. Dr. Jaggar to Bishop Stevens (Ch. St.).iii. Mar. 10. 
 
 March 24. Church of England (Ch. St.) A proposed Act of Parliament allows 
 a Bishop to authorize a second parish, if the population exceed 1,600, so that there 
 may be both High and Low. 
 
 March 24. Statistics of the P. E. C. (Ch. St.) 50 Bishops, 5 Bishops elect, 3,035 
 priests and deacons, 3,140 clergymen, 2,750 parishes, 273,092 communicants, 23,007 
 school-teachers, 225,733 Sunday scholars, contributions during the year $6,851,983. 
 
 March 29. Low? (Times). Bequest.iii. 
 
 March 30. Ritualism in England (Toronto Globe).iii. 
 
 March 30. Toronto (Globe) Christ R. E. C. “ The annual meeting of this 
 church was held last evening, Rev. J. G. Manly in the chair. Messrs. H. W. 
 Booth and Robert Stevens were elected Church Wardens, and Messrs. G. L. Beard- 
 more, J. C. Morgan, G. T. B. Gurnett, N. McGrath, W. S. Noad, John A. McMahon, 
 E. F. Clark as vestrymen. His Honor Judge Hughes and Mr. G. L. Beardmore 
 were elected delegates to the General Council. .. .The Rev. Mr. McGuire, of Wash¬ 
 
 ington, D. C., will officiate next Sunday.” 
 
 March 31. Dr. Ewer on Episcopal Elections (Epis.).iii. March 22, Ep. El. 
 
 March 31. Ritualism in England (Ch. St.). . iii. March 30. 
 
 April 1. Rev. W. H. Johnson (So. Ch.). iii. 
 
 April 1. Episcopal Register, of Phil. “Laughter.”. ii. 
 
 April 1. See Apendices, Chapter XX. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Press Reports of Action against, and of Opinions expressed, for and 
 against the R. E. C., Indexed in Chapter I., and Analyzed in Chapters 
 IV. to XV., as indicated at the conclusion of each extract. For the names 
 and characteristics of the Newspapers quoted, and for the mode of quoting, 
 and for R. E. C., and P. E. C., Ch. Eng., Pan-Anglican, see Preface. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 November 15, 1873. 
 
 Nov. 15, 1873. Evening’ Post says: “Bishop Cummins’ withdrawal (Nov. 
 10), it is thought, will create some complications between the two phases of the¬ 
 ology in the Kentucky Episcopal Church.”.vii. 1. 
 
 Nov. 15. Times says: “ This resignation has been brought about by a series 
 of severe criticisms on the part of his High Church brethren .... It seems that the 
 head and front of the offending of Bishop Cummins was his participation in a Com¬ 
 munion service in Dr. Hall’s Church.”.v. 4; vii. 1. 
 
 Nov. 15. Tribune says : “ The controversy on the Joint Communion has led, 
 as the following letter shows, to some important and unexpected results. Bishop 
 Cummins, of Kentucky, has resigned his office, in order to devote himself to a re¬ 
 form in the Church, which will promote, as he believes, the fraternal union of 
 Christians of various denominations, and accomplish among Episcopalians a result 
 similar to that at which Bishop Keinkius and his associates are aiming in the 
 Church of Rome.” The Tribune also gives the ecclesiastical record of Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins, as stated by Bishop Coxe, of Western New York.v. 4; vii. 1; xiii. 15. 
 
 Nov. 19. Bishop Cummins (Ch. St.) The editor says : “He has always been 
 faithful and laborious in the various positions which he has occupied in the Church, 
 has enjoyed unusual popularity as a preacher, and has received from the Church 
 the highest office in her gift. His ability, energy, and earnestness render his seces¬ 
 sion a great loss to the communion which he leaves. We doubt whether it will be 
 possible for him to find elsewhere more kindly appreciation or warmer friends than 
 he has left behind.. . . The reasons .... are. . . . He is hopeless of any deliverance 
 of the Church from sacerdotalism by legislative action .... He cannot act in ac¬ 
 cordance with his own principles without alienating his brethren. . . . But .... the 
 fundamental idea of our Church is the inclusion within her fold of wide diversities 
 of opinion. The fundamental idea of sectarianism is ecclesiastical separation from 
 everything that we regard as erroneous. . . . All that Bishop Cummins takes excep¬ 
 tion to is necessarily involved in the idea of the catholicity of the Church .... 
 Bishop Cummins leaves voluntarily a communion where there is the smallest pos¬ 
 sible fraction [?] holding views of the Lord’s Supper, which even he would regard 
 as being as objectionable as those of Luther and the Old Catholics. . . . lie washed 
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 33 
 
 November 19, 1873* 
 
 to compel others to conform to his views, and because he could not succeed in doing 
 this, has abandoned the communion of the Church. . . . Bishop Cummins’. . . . 
 want of caution, and accuracy .... In alluding to the revision .... in 16S9, Bishop 
 Cummins says that it . . . , exercised great influence in the preparation of the pro¬ 
 posed Prayer Book by Bishop White. *. . Now, it .... was not made public until 
 1854. . . . Bishop Cummins has been greatly at fault in dealing very severely with 
 those who do not belong to his own school of opinion. ... On the other hand . . . * 
 treated with marked disrespect, and deeply wounded by the character of the as> 
 saults made upon him.. . . They must be held largely accountable for the injury 
 which the Church sustains in the loss of so able and excellent a man (II. Nov. 
 26, Cath.; Dec. 24, Ch. St.; Dec. 11, Obs.; Dec. 17, Meth.; Dec. 31, So. Ch.; Jan. 
 21, Eng.; Jan. 21, Cath.) [A note to the Preface of the Prayer Book of 178&* sus¬ 
 tains the assertion made by Bishop Cummins.] 
 
 Nov. 19. Bishops’ Meeting. See Nov. 26. (Ch. St.).viii, 2. 
 
 Nov. 26. Southern Churchman (Epis.) Objects to the resignation of Bishop 
 Cummins in a kind and Christian tone ...xiii, 10. 
 
 Nov. 26. Catholicus. (Epis.) Rev. G. W. Ridgely, an aged presbyter of the 
 P. E. C., says : “ For more than a third of a century, the Evangelical party have 
 been talking of doing something. . . . This is the first attempt at decisive action.” 
 
 vii, 1 ; notes ii, Nov. 19, 1873* 
 
 Nov. 26. HistoricalAccuracy of Bishop Cummins (Ch. St.) (see Nov. 19.) 
 
 Nov. 26. Call to Organize (Ch. St.) gives the first public notice of this call 
 (ix, 2), and says, “Is he still assistant Bishop of Kentucky? .... Under the cir¬ 
 cumstances he would of course refrain from any episcopal acts as assistant Bishop 
 of Kentucky. But besides this, we think that he is under very solemn obligations 
 during this six months, to refrain from episcopal acts altogether.” (xiii, 10.) [We 
 all thought differently, and having left the P. E. C., regarded all our action as 
 entirely independent of the P. E. C.] 
 
 Nov. 25. Bishops’ Meeting (Ch. St.) says on Nov. 19.viii, 2. 
 
 Nov. 27. Drs. Sullivan and Cheney (Epis.) “ The Chicago Evening Journal 
 of Monday, says : ‘ Unusually large congregations were present on yesterday morn¬ 
 ing, in both Trinity and Christ Churches, where it was expected that something 
 especial would be said with reference to the recent withdrawal of Bishop Cummins 
 from the Episcopal Church, the Bishop having been formerly rector of Trinity, 
 while, as has long been known, he personally sympathized with Dr. Cheney in his 
 Church troubles with Bishop Whiteliouse. Dr. Sullivan, of Trinity, discoursed at 
 length on Bishop Cummins’ action, .... that he ought to have remained in the 
 Church to aid in correcting whatever errors he may have fancied had crept into it, 
 rather than sever his connection therewith. Dr. Cheney merely alluded in brief 
 terms .... thanking God, that there was one Protestant Episcopal Bishop in the 
 United States who had the courage to proclaim the truth. It was, he said, a 
 grand and good and hopeful thing, that there was a Bishop who preferred 
 the path of God’s truth to the walks of the world’s favor.” (iii, Nov. 27, Low ; 
 xiii, 25). 
 
 Nov. 29, 1873. Bishops’ Meeting (Post,) has an account of the meeting of 
 Bishops Smith, Potter, Odenheimer, and Stevens on Nov. 29, with this heading: 
 “The Case of Bishop Cummins; Important Episcopal Action.”.x, 1-14 
 
.CHAPTER II. 
 
 34 
 
 November 30, 1873. 
 
 Nov. 30. Bishops’ Meeting- (Times). “ The case of Bishop Cummins. Yes¬ 
 terday afternoon a meeting of certain of the Protestant Episcopal Bishops of the 
 dioceses in this immediate vicinity was held in the vestry-room of Grace Church, to 
 take into consideration the matter of the withdrawal of Bishop Cummins from the 
 Episcopal Church. The Bishops participating were summoned by telegraph as the 
 emergency was deemed serious. The deliberations of the meeting were conducted 
 in secresy, but it is understood that the prelates summoned to the conference by 
 Bishop Smith of Kentucky, the presiding Bishop by right of seniority of office, were 
 Bishop Potter of New York, Bishop Littlejohn of Long Island, Bishop Odenheimer 
 of New Jersey, and Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania. The main question to be 
 brought up was that of the formal deposition of Bishop Cummins, who, until such 
 action is taken, is dejure a Bishop still, and qualified to consecrate other Bishops. 
 It is said there is a feeling among certain of the Bishops in favor of deposing Dr. 
 Cummins without according him the six months notice, which the Canon requires, 
 trusting that the House of Bishops at the next General Convention will justify 
 this action.”.x, 1-14. 
 
 Nov. 30. The Times. Editorial. . . . “The assistant Bishop of Kentucky 
 chose to sever his connection with the Church, because his participation in a com¬ 
 munion service in Dr. Hall’s Presbyterian Church, in this city, had been made the 
 subject of much unfavorable criticism by some of his ecclesiastical brethren. . . . 
 Even Wesley maintained his position within the Church of England till the very 
 last.” [They permitted it, while the P. E. C. does not] . . . . “ But if Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins chose to follow a path in which even those who warmly sympathized with his 
 doctrinal position were unable to follow him, that will not justify the Bishops of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in deliberately putting themselves in the wrong 
 for the purpose of thwarting the schismatic tendencies of their erring brother. It 
 is said that a special meeting of six Bishops was held yesterday in this city, to 
 discuss the advisability of immediately deposing Bishop Cummins, without giving 
 him the benefit of the legal formalities required in such a case. The reason for 
 urging such precipitate action is obvious enough. The meeting called for Tuesday 
 next is intended to form the starting point for a new Church. Its object is declared 
 to be ‘ to organize,’ etc. [ix.]. . . . The laws of the Church gives any Bishop who 
 abandons its communion, the benefit of six months notice before deposition. But 
 meanwhile Bishop Cummins may organize his new Church, may ordain deacons 
 and presbyters, and perhaps consecrate other Bishops, and thus fully equip a rival 
 organization, which may dispute ecclesiastical standing with the P. E. C. in the 
 United States. However dreadful the Bishops may regard such a contingency, we 
 suspect they have no choice in the matter. Bishop Cummins must retain de jure 
 his Episcopal rank and functions for six months longer, and all the informal meet¬ 
 ings held, or extra legal proceedings adopted in the interim, cannot alter the past. 
 But for the perpetuity of Episcopal function outside of the communion from which 
 it was derived, there would have been no P. E. C. at all. Whatever inconven¬ 
 ience may result from the action of Bishop Cummins, it is difficult to see how he 
 can be prevented from organizing his new Church if he is so minded.” . . . Then 
 follows the Canon (viii, 3) (x, 1-14.) 
 
 Dec. 1. Bishops’ Meeting (Trib.) “ A meeting of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Bishops of six neighboring Dioceses was called by Bishop Smith of Kentucky, the 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 35 
 
 December 1, 1873. 
 
 presiding Bishop, to consider the withdrawal of Bishop Cummins of Kentucky, 
 from the communion of the Church. This meeting was held in the vestry-room of 
 Grace Church [New York] Saturday afternoon [Nov. 29.] Among those summoned 
 to attend were Bishop Potter of New York, Bishop Littlejohn of Long Island, 
 Bishop Odenlieimer of New Jersey, and Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania. Bishop 
 Potter was unable to attend on account of engrossing duties. These prelates had 
 met before informally, and discussed the matter. The proceedings of Saturday’s 
 session are kept from the public, but those best competent to judge declare that no 
 definite action for the deposition of Bishop Cummins was, or could have been, taken, 
 as the Canon law prescribes a form of procedure, under which the deposition can¬ 
 not be consummated under six months. This form is as follows [then follows the 
 substance of the Canon quoted in viii.]... .It seems probable that the Bishops mere¬ 
 ly agreed that Bishop Cummins should be given notice that his deposition would 
 be carried out in six months. The first step, the certifying by the Diocesan Com¬ 
 mittee to the presiding Bishop of the withdrawal of Bishop Cummins from the com¬ 
 munion of the church has already been taken [see viii.] Some Bishops declare 
 that the period allowed by the Canon is simply a liberal provision against hasty 
 and ill-advised action, giving a chance to retract a step once taken, and only for 
 the benefit of such as might come back on mature reconsideration ; but that, in 
 the case of Bishop Cummins, the secession was so flagrant and emphatic, that it is 
 impossible for him to go back, and that he should be deposed straightway. They 
 affirm that the presiding Bishop, with those whom he has summoned, should im¬ 
 mediately declare Bishop Cummins deposed, looking to the General Convention 
 which is to meet a year hence, to justify their going outside of the Canon. Those 
 who advise such a proceeding assert that there, is no question the step would be 
 justified by the House of Bishops, and that the Canon should contain some provision 
 for an extreme case of this kind.viii. 2, 5 ; x. 1-14. 
 
 Dec. 1. Telegram (B. A.) Received by Bishop Cummins at about 10 A.M., when 
 I was present. “ Louisville, Dec. 1, 1873.—To Rt. Rev. Geo. D. Cummins, 11 E. 
 57th St., New York.—Charges against you forwarded from here to-day.”, .x. 10-14. 
 
 Dec. 1. Bishop’s Act (Post). “ Dr. Cummins—Action of the Presiding Bishop 
 of the P. E. C.—The Rt. Rev. B. B. Smith, D.D., has issued the following paper : 
 4 The authorities of the Church assert that this action of the Church has no refer¬ 
 ence to Dr. Cummins’ act of mixed communion, but refers solely to his abandon¬ 
 ment of the Communion of the Episcopal Church, and his publicly avowed pur¬ 
 pose to organize a schism in the same.’ ” Then follows.x. 1-14. 
 
 Dec. 1. Null and Void Proclamation (Post). “ Notice has been received from 
 the Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky, that a pre¬ 
 sentment for the trial of George David Cummins, D.D., has been prepared for of¬ 
 fences three and five of section one, Canon nine, Title two, namely, First: for viola¬ 
 tion of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention ; Second : for breach 
 of his ordination vow. Be it known, therefore, that any Episcopal act of his pending 
 these proceedings will be null and void, and it is hoped that respect for law and 
 order, on the part of all members of this church, will restrain them from giving 
 any countenance whatever to the movement in which Dr. Cummins is engaged.— 
 B. B. Smith, Bishop of Kentucky, Presiding Bishop.—Hoboken, Dec. 1, 1873.” 
 
 x. 1-13. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 36 
 
 December 1, 1873. 
 
 Dec. 1. Card of Philadelphians. (Times). 
 
 “ Bishop Cummins.” 
 
 “ To the Editor of the New York Times :— 
 
 “ The enclosed card came to me to-day from Philadelphia, with a line from one 
 of its signers, requesting its insertion in one or more of the daily papers in New 
 York, in order that the clergy and laity of our Church in this city, and especially 
 any sympathizing with the movement of Bishop Cummins, might understand 
 clearly and authoritatively the extent of the Bishop’s following in Philadelphia. 
 The list will at once be recognized as embracing the leading Low Church rectors in 
 that city, radical as well as conservative. The note says, ‘ The list could be en¬ 
 larged if there were time.’ 
 
 “ What roots this new Church will strike in this the strongest Low Church city 
 in the country, the circular will show to the most enthusiastic revolutionist. 
 
 “ (Signed.) R. Heber Newton, 
 
 “1lector of the Anthon Memorial Church. 
 
 “A CARD. 
 
 “ The undersigned having heard with profound sorrow of the movement now 
 making by Bishop Cummins for the organization of a new * Church on the basis of 
 the Prayer Book of 1785,’ desire to say that they have no sympathy with this meas¬ 
 ure, and that it does not represent the views and feelings of Evangelical men. 
 
 “ William Suddards . . .; Benjamin Watson . . .; James Pratt . . .; Richard N. 
 Thomas . . .; Daniel S. Miller . . .; Thomas A. Jaggar. . .; Wilbur F. Paddock . . .; 
 John B. Faulkner . . .; Robert A. Edwards . . . ; Richard Newton . . .; C. George 
 Currie . . .; Wm. H. Munroe . . . ; Snyder B. Simes . . . ; Charles L. Fischer . . .; 
 Charles D. Cooper . . .; William Newton . . .; J. Houston Eccleston . . . ; John A. 
 Childs. . .; W. W. Spear ; with their respective charges.” This card had been pre¬ 
 viously printed in Philadelphia. It was subsequently printed Dec. 3 (Trib. and 
 Epis.) Dec. 4 (Obs.).x. 15; xiii. 19. 
 
 Dec. 2. Organization. This was arrested for a few minutes, to find, by the 
 raised hand, whether those who voted no! by the voice were entitled to a vote, 
 when no hand appeared, and those near the voices said that they were four young 
 men, who were dressed like theological students, and who immediately crouched out 
 of sight. I saw them and have no doubt that they were such... .x. 12, 16 ; xii. 56. 
 
 Dec. 3. Rev. Dr. Tyng, Jr. (Trib.), says that Bishop Cummins had a right to 
 withdraw from the F. E. C. 
 
 Dec. 3. Episcopalian refers to Null and Void of Dec. 1, and says that the 
 Bishops acted with unbecoming haste..x. 1-13. 
 
 Dec. 4. Church and State says : “ The Bishop, with these seven or eight 
 Presbyters, and the laymen associated with them, are men of unblemished Chris¬ 
 tian character, and some at least of them are men of marked ability. We may 
 well inquire whereunto this is likely to grow.’’ 
 
 Dec. 4. Church Journal. Editor says, “ The Fallen Bishop.” “ Last week the 
 following letter appeared in the daily papers of this city: Desiring to lay before 
 our readers a full history of the unhappy man’s attempt to establish (in his love of 
 Christianity !) a new sect, we reprint it as a part of his wretched effort at a wretched 
 sin—a sin against which he has prayed for a quarter of a century. The errors of 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 37 
 
 December 4, 1873. 
 
 the letter we need not dwell upon, nor point out even. The ‘ Proposed Book ’ was 
 
 a failure. The Church would not accept it_To us schism is a sin. We cannot 
 
 speak lightly even of what must he a poor, futile, and ridiculous effort on the part 
 of au unbalanced and unlearned man. His soul, and the souls of those he seeks to 
 mislead, are at risk. To him and them the issue is a solemn one. We think it 
 solemn enough to justify the House of Bishops in setting apart a day of humiliation 
 and prayer, when we all, ‘High’ and ‘Low,’ but all loyal Churchmen together, may 
 plead with God for the repentance and pardon of an unhappy soul, who has 
 trampled on its high and awful calling in the Church of God—an apostate Bishop ! 
 Once before we have had the trial [Bishop Ives ?] Should we not humble ourselves 
 as a Church, before the Great Bishop, for our own sins, and pray for him V 
 
 (II. Dec. 31, So. Ch; xiii. 10.) 
 
 Dec. 4. Prayer Book of 1785 (Ch. Jo.) The editor of Church and State says: 
 “Bishop Cummins should remember that the attacks which have been made upon 
 him... .are attributable in large measure to his own want of caution and accuracy 
 ... .The very letter in which he announces his abandonment of the communion of the 
 Church affords a singular illustration of this. In alluding to the Revison of the 
 Prayer Book by Royal Commission in 1689, Bishop Cummins says that it failed to 
 receive the approval of Convocation, but that it exercised great influence in the Pro¬ 
 posed Prayer Book by Bishop White. Now the facts are these... .It could hardly 
 have exercised an influence in the preparation of the Proposed Prayer Book, for the 
 work of the Royal Commissioners was not made public until 1854.vi. 1-4. 
 
 [The preface to the Prayer Book of 1785 shows that the error is on the part of 
 Church and State. At this date the Prayer Book of 1785 was almost unknown.] 
 
 vi. 1-4. 
 
 Dec. 4. Rev. Dr. Tyng, Sr. (Ch. Jo.) In a sermon, “ He alluded to the case of 
 Bishop Cummins, of whom he spoke as a brother highly valued and truly beloved, 
 who for reasons which appeared to him (Dr. Tyng) without the slightest weight in 
 justification, has seceded from the Church which had trusted him and bestowed 
 her honors upon him. The preacher desired to state emphatically his entire dis¬ 
 approval of his course... .By seceding he had betrayed the very trust committed to 
 him—to defend evangelical principles in the Church. He had forsaken the company 
 of those who had been his faithful friends. He had acted most unwisely in at¬ 
 tempting to construct a new sect, of which there were now too many, and which 
 in time would be found to be imperfect, and from which others would see reason to 
 secede. He was going forth almost alone, and would find himself going further 
 away, and becoming more solitary, a monad, a severed branch, a cloud carried to 
 and fro with the changes of the wind”. .xiii. 19. 
 
 Dec. 6. “ Formally Deposed ” (Chn.) After giving an account of the organi¬ 
 zation on Dec. 2, says, “ The readers of the Churchman scarcely need be reminded 
 that Messrs. Marshall B. Smith, Charles E. Cheney, and Mason Gallagher were 
 formally deposed from the ministry several years ago, and that Mr. Leacock sub¬ 
 stantially renounced the ministry more than a year since.”... .x, 1-5 ; xiii, 12, 13. 
 
 Dec. 6. Christian Intelligencer (Clin.) “ The Cummins movement is a vis¬ 
 ionary one.’’.xiii, 10 
 
 Dec. 10. Episcopal Register (Epis.) says the Null and Void of Dec. 1 can 
 apply only to Kentucky.x, 20 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 38 
 
 December 11, 1873. 
 
 Dec. 11. Observer says, Null and Void of Dec. 1, is not authorized by the 
 Canons of the P. E. C.—Reports the proceedings at the organizatien on Dec. 2, and 
 has the following editorial. 
 
 Dec. 11. Observer. The editor testifies from personal observation. “ It is not 
 safe for uninspired men to undertake to say, whereunto will grow the movement 
 which Bishop Cummins has inaugurated. We were present last week on Tuesday, 
 when the ‘ Deformed Episcopal Church’ was organized, and there were some note¬ 
 worthy signs to be observed, of which we will say a word. It was a serious busi¬ 
 ness that the Bishop and they that were with him were engaged in. They 
 looked to God for direction. The Bishop said, if it w r as of God it would stand, and 
 if it was of man he hoped it would fall. There was no self-sufficiency nor human am- ■ 
 bition apparent. The whole proceeding was that of humble, prayerful, conscientious 
 men, who were not seeking their own advancement, nor the applause of men, but 
 the honor of God only. In the case of the Bishop, there was positive sacrifice of 
 place, power, salary, and friends. He is poor in this world’s goods, and goes out in 
 faith, for conscience sake. Such a man is always respected, whether men shake 
 their heads at him or not. There were no pastors with him, who had renounced 
 their ‘ livings,’ but there were men who were ready to put their future usefulness in 
 the Church, into the same boat with the Bishop, and it was announced that there 
 were twenty-five who were willing to follow. The announcement, that a few 
 Bishops of the Episcopal Church had interdicted Bishop Cummins from any official 
 service, had been published, but it did not disturb the minds or vary the action of 
 the new organization. It was known to all of them, that the action was informal 
 and without sanction in the Canons of the Church. If the declaration had been put 
 by the Bench of Bishops lawfully assembled, it would have impressed some minds 
 as a valid act of suspension. Buf being merely the dictum of a few suddenly sum¬ 
 moned, and having the explicit rule of the Church directing the steps to be taken 
 for arraigning a Bishop, it is very plain that there is nothing in the announcement 
 of the few Bishops but a device to weaken the force of any authority which Bishop 
 Cummins might exercise during the six months that intervene between his accusa¬ 
 tion and his trial. And the doctrine that a man must cease to be an officer because 
 he is accused or presented for trial, is monstrous. There may be cases when the 
 Court which is to try, may suspend an accused person during his trial, but we 
 presume there is no precedent in the State or the Church for considering a man 
 suspended merely because an individual or a committee has charged him with a 
 fault. But there was no unseemly haste in the proceedings of the new Council 
 last week. They moved slowly and adjourned without any demonstration to chal¬ 
 lenge public attention. What will come of it remains to be seen. We have no 
 doubt it will work for good. It will rouse the Church to inquire into the causes of 
 this movement; and if it is true, as Dr. Tyng, Jr., alleges, that the tendencies are 
 Romeward, every honest minister and man in the Church will set himself strenu¬ 
 ously against the current. Rev. Dr. Cheney, of Chicago, with the consent of his 
 people, accepts the office of Bishop in the new Church, and Ills consecration will 
 
 take place witliont delay.’’.ii, Nov. 19, Ch. St. ; Nov. 2G, Cath; Dec. 4, Ch. 
 
 r St.; Dec. 17, Meth. Rec. ; Jan. 21, Eng. Ind.; x, 10-14. 
 
 Dec. 11. Bishop H. W. Lee of Iowa (Obs.) “has written a letter to Bishop 
 Cummins, expressing ■ regret at his action, and earnestly entreating him to 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 39 
 
 December 11, 1873. 
 
 reconsider his determination. He protests earnestly against tlie movement for a 
 separate organization, and says: ‘ A secessional or schismatic movement at this 
 time would, in my opinion, he a greater evil than those we are now hearing, and 
 from which we may hope to he relieved in due time. It were far better for our 
 extreme Ritualistic brethren to finally secede to the Church of Rome, to which they 
 are tending, than for yourself and others of like mind to leave such a Church as 
 ours for a new ecclesiastical organization...xii, 43 ; xiii, 5. 
 
 Dec. 11. Churchman. (Ohs.) calls Bishop Cummins the “Fallen Bishop.” 
 
 xiii. 10. 
 
 Dec. 12. Telegram to Chicago (B. A.) “ New York, 12th Dec., 1873.—To Rt. 
 Rev. G. D. Cummins, care Dr. C. E. Cheney,—I hereby formally and officially with¬ 
 draw all such Episcopal authority as you have heretofore exercised under Canon 
 thirteenth, Title one.—B. B. Smith, Bishop of Kentucky.” .x. 17 to 22. 
 
 Dec. 13. Church and State (Trib.) “ We cannot but pronounce it to be utterly 
 dishonorable for Bishop Cummins to exercise his functions as a Bishop, previous to 
 his Canonical severance from the Church.”.xiii. 10 ; ii. Dec. 16. Answer. 
 
 Dec. 13. The Churchman (Trib.) “ Aversion and a deep sense of the wrong 
 attempted have brought the Churches’ members more closely to her. Instinctively 
 and spontaneoqgly men of all shades of opinion have united in her defence. Espe¬ 
 cially the members of those societies in the Church to which Dr. Cummins had 
 joined himself, and whose meetings he had the indelicacy, to say the least, to par¬ 
 ticipate in on the very eve of his final act, have promptly and most honorably and 
 most unmistakably rebuked him.”.xiii. 70 ; 13 \ ; 20. 
 
 Dec. 13. The Congregationalist (Trib.) “ Not everything, but a great deal de¬ 
 pends upon what these men are made of, what their record is, what their motives 
 are.” .References ii. Nov. 19, Bp. Cummins. 
 
 Dec. 13. The Baptist Weekly (Trib.) “ It will be difficult for many of the 
 lowest of ‘ Low Church’people to bring themselves to the basis which has beeu 
 adopted.”...xi. 2. 
 
 Dec. 13. The Christian Union (Trib). “ The new Church certainly offers a 
 middle ground between ritualistic episcopacy and non-prelatical denominations.” 
 
 xi. 2. 
 
 Dec. 17. Church Journal (Epis.) “ And is not his [Bishop Cummins] honest 
 surrender of the trust for which he finds that he had no vocation, far better than 
 the conduct of some who cling to positions in the Church, in spite of their alien in¬ 
 clinations.”.xiii. 10. 
 
 Dec. 17. The Wisconsin State Journal (Epis.) “ It is a movement in the 
 right direction towards placing the Episcopal Church on its original basis, it hav¬ 
 ing been perverted to Romanistic practices and beliefs.”*.xi. 2. 
 
 Dec. 17. Southern Churchman (Epis.) terms the course of Bishop Cummins 
 “ a foolish one.”.xiii. 10. 
 
 Dec. 17. Rev. Abbott Brown of the P. E. C. (Epis.) objects to the card of 
 the Philadelphians (Dec. 1) speaking for Evangelicals in general instead of them¬ 
 selves in particular.x. 15. 
 
 Dec. 17. The Methodist Recorder (Epis.) “ It seems to have been a conscien¬ 
 tious and honorable step in the direction of reform.. .No new tenets are attempted. 
 It is a restoration rather than a reformation.. .The new organization, although 
 
40 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 December 17, 1873. 
 
 small in numbers, includes already some of the most liberal and intelligent minis¬ 
 ters and laymen of the age. It is not a mere clique of discontents.. .The Higli- 
 Churclimen are inclined to ridicule the movement, of course. Censure, however, 
 from that quarter is genuine compliment.. .In a few years, if we are to judge by 
 facts and figures, the High-Cburclimen will have the control of property, literature, 
 theology, people and all.”.xii. 5G. 
 
 Dec. 31. Southern Churchman’s (Epis.) correspondent [see Dec. 4], says: 
 “ The Church Journal .. .lias ‘ great searching of heart’ for the ‘ division ’.. .and 
 suggests to the Church a day of humiliation and prayer!.. .The brother is awfully 
 solemn. ‘An Apostate Bishop ! ’ he exclaims in strong italics.. .A Lucifer fallen 
 from heaven! Horrible! ‘Schism is a great sin.’... But the Church Journal is 
 angry.. .We are not going to lose the ‘ Succession ’ even if some others may get it. 
 That, in fact, is the secret of the alarm and rage of some parties against Bishop 
 Cummins. He has gotten a True Episcopacy from the Church, and has made off 
 with it and intends to give it to others. But if the ‘ Succession ’ is a good thing... 
 why not gladly give it to the ‘ Sects,’ and so convert them into the true jure dioino 
 Churches?”.ii. Dec. 4, Ch. Jo.; xii. 9. 
 
 Dec. 31. Schism. (Epis.) Goddard of St. Andrew’s says : “ What is schism, 
 and who are guilty of it?.... Who, I ask, according to the correct interpretation 
 of the Scriptures, is the schismatic ? Who too is the honest man ; this Bishop 
 accused of breaking his ordination vows, or the Bishop who stays in the Church, 
 receiving its support, enjoying its honors, and yet in heart is a Romanist ? Aye ! 
 Who is the schismatic?”.xii, 1-8. 
 
 Dec. 31. Return of R. E. C. (Epis.) A southern presbyter says: “I take it 
 for granted that Bishop Cummins and his associates have not left the old Episcopal 
 Homestead from choice, but from constraint ; and that if the next Genera] Conven¬ 
 tion will grant the reasonable requests of Evangelical men, the seceders will 
 gladly return. If this desire should not be realized and Ritualism be suffered still 
 to rule the councils and services of the Church, then will both the wisdom and the 
 piety of this new movement be apparent to all men.”.xiv, 4-10 
 
 Dec. 31. Bishop Pearce of Arkansas (Epis.) to Bishop Smith : “ I learn from 
 press dispatches that proceedings are about to be taken against your assistant of 
 Kentucky under Canon 9, Title ii, of the Digest. At this I am surprised, because 
 by the express terms of Canon 8, of the same title, you are positively required to 
 
 proceed according to the form in that Canon provided.The proceedings under 
 
 Canon 9... .could not be concluded in less than six months and a half, hardly less 
 than seven months_and thus you might be required as presiding Bishop, sol¬ 
 
 emnly to admonish a man whom you had deposed.... Persist in. his unhappy 
 course. .. .in this most miserable case... .tenderness unspeakable to our misguided 
 brother. If he is at present causing us perplexity, how does our trouble bear com¬ 
 parison with his distress... .founder of a feeble schism. This day there is more 
 love for him in the Church he has abandoned, than among the sects that are with 
 faint praise bearing him to his destruction,... .dying in the Communion of the 
 Catholic Church, and in the confidence of a certain faith. ”.x, 3 ; xii, 10. 
 
 Jan. 1,1874. Apostolic Succession (Obs.) Church and State says, “ If presbyters 
 ordained by Bishops of the ‘ Reformed Episcopal Church,’ should at any time wish 
 to abandon that communion and become presbyters in the Protestant Episcopal 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 41 
 
 January 1, 1874. 
 
 Church, they must be received.... This fact appears now to be the most painful 
 
 feature of the separation.”.xiii, 13 ; xi, 43. 
 
 Jan. 12. Jas. A. Latan6 withdraws from the P. E. C.iii # 
 
 Jan. 21. The English Independent (Epis.) of Dec. 25, 1873, says: “ The 
 Evangelical Alliance has been the immediate cause of creating a secession from the 
 Episcopal Church. That extraordinary communion.... Bishop Cummins, like Dr* 
 Pyne Smith, has been heartily and abundantly abused for taking part in it.... 
 probably... .only the last stroke of many... .and though at the cost of social 
 status and in the face of a storm of obloquy, they have dared to be true to their con¬ 
 sciences. ... We are compelled to contrast their decisive action with the hesitating, 
 apologetic policy, which characterizes and enfeebles the Evangelical party in our 
 own land... .[whose] speeches are full of bitterness and indignation. They hold 
 public meetings and sign memorials and petitions ad libitum, to their Bishops ; 
 they assert that their consciences are wounded ; that the truth they love so well, 
 and for which they are ready to die, is endangered, and yet strangely enough they 
 
 do nothing practical. ... Golden fetters_That these Episcopalian seceders are 
 
 resolved to lay down a broad, intelligible basis for their new organization is evident 
 from the following three items of their ‘ Declaration of Independence ’ [of prin¬ 
 ciples.]. .. .Bishop Cummins has set a brave example... .xii, 48 ; v, 4 ; xiii, 10, 22. 
 
 Jan. 21. Catholicus (Epis.) Rev. G. W. Ridgely, of the P. E. C., says, with 
 respect to the “ Card” (Dec. 1, 1873). “ They were taken by surprise; ... .theywere 
 in the condition of certain good people mentioned in the 12th chapter of Acts, who 
 were intensely and earnestly engaged in prayer for a certain thing, and when their 
 prayer was unexpectedly answered, they ran away affrighted, and declared that they 
 had seen a ghost!”.x. 15. 
 
 Jan. 22. Apostolic Succession (Obs. Ed.) “The Church Journal, one of the 
 most earnest opposers of Bishop Cummins’ movement, lays down the law in these 
 words: ‘ Bishop Cummins is still a Bishop. His acts are uncanonical, irregular, in¬ 
 valid to the Church, but they are still the acts of a Bishop. The Orders of the “ R. 
 E. C.” will be just the same as ours. “ Once a Bishop, always a Bishop,” is the ex¬ 
 pression of the doctrine about orders’ ”.xiii. 13; xi. 43. 
 
 Jan. 22. Bishop Cheney (Obs.) “ Church and State, edited by Rev. John Cot¬ 
 ton Smith, D.D., speaks of Bishop Cheney, and says: ‘ We see no reason, on any 
 Church principles, why he is not truly a Bishop. And if he is truly a Bishop, in 
 the line of Apostolic Succession, we do not see how it helps the matter to withhold 
 the title from him.’ ”... .xiii. 13 ; xi. 43. 
 
 Jan. 29. Dilemmas (Ch. St.) “ We have expressed, from the first, our unquali¬ 
 fied disapprobation of the establishment of the R. E. C. .. .According to what 
 we have called Church principles, nothing is more certain than that the 
 Apostolic Succession exists, where one who has been duly consecrated a Bishop con¬ 
 secrates another to that office. .. .The position of the Old Catholics is now largely 
 occupying our attention and exciting our interest. Some of our Bishops of most 
 advanced Churclimanship have recognized them as a Catholic Church wiili Apos¬ 
 tolic Orders.It may not be desirable to inquire too particularly into facts relating 
 
 to the Succession in the Church of England, and consequently in our own Church in 
 this country... .Our correspondents do say that embarrassing results would flow 
 from the idea, that a Bishop, under some unworthy motive, may extend the Sue* 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 42 ' 
 
 January 29, 1874. 
 
 cession to all sorts of religious bodies, and thus give rise to endless ecclesiastical 
 irregularity. But those who hold the sacramental character ol Orders, are com¬ 
 pelled to accept this peril. They are placed in a dilemma from which it is 
 impossible to escape... .We cannot but regard the establishment of a rival Epis¬ 
 copal Church as an unmixed evil....Our earnest desire is that every reason, 
 whether satisfactory or otherwise, for the existence of such a body should be taken 
 away, and that every facility should be provided for a return to the Church.... 
 The plain fact is, and it is infatuation to ignore it, that a great difficulty in the 
 way of separation of a large number from the P. E. C. has been removed by the 
 
 establishment of the R. E. C.”.xiii. 13; xi. 43. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop Johns (Epis.) The answer of Bishop Johns to Mr. Latine. 
 [It is long, argumentative, gentle.] (See March 4, 1874).xiii. G. 
 
 Feb. 23, Bishop Lewis, of Canada, reported in the Ottawa Times, says that 
 he did not at first think the Cummins movement of sufficient importance to notice. 
 He thought that the assertion that “ God had put it into his heart ” was not consis¬ 
 tent with the same when he became a Methodist minister, then Deacon, Presbyter, 
 Bishop in the P. E. C. ( ). That he begins the revision where the Church of 
 
 Ireland leaves offi That he hoped to gain adherents by the charm of a spurious 
 Apostolic Succession. That the late Synod in Philadelphia had distinctly re¬ 
 pudiated and condemned it. “ If these seceders were men of learning he [Bishop 
 Lewis] might meet them in discussion fitly enough.” It was “for the purpose of 
 setting up a petty American 3ect.’’ The report (of the substance only) concludes, 
 “ The congregation listened attentively, and evidently did not escape impressions of 
 some kind”.xiii. 14-17; iii. Dec. 31, 1874, Toronto. 
 
 Feb. 25. Bishop Whittingham (see March 14).xiii. 10. 
 
 Feb. 26. Bishop Lee of Delaware (So. Ch.) In this kind and Christian letter, 
 dated Nov. 14,1873, and therefore referring only to the resignation of Nov. 10,(vii. 1.) 
 he blames Bishop Cummins : First, for not consulting with him and other Evangeli¬ 
 cals before taking the final step. Second, he presents one horn of a dilemma, that 
 if this step was determined on before the Evangelical meetings in Philadelphia, 
 then Bishop Cummins did wrong in taking part in those meetings. Third, the 
 other horn of the dilemma, that if he had not, then from that date to Nov. 10,1873, 
 there was too little time for reflection, and the action was hasty and inconsiderate. 
 Fourth, he protests against a new organization.xiii, 18-22 
 
 March 4. Bishop Johns (Epis.) A writer in the Wheeling Intelligencer, in a 
 criticism of Bishop Johns’ answer to Mr. Latane (Feb. 18 says): “ As to the general 
 tone and spirit of the Bishop’s letter, when I say that it is characteristic of the 
 man, that is, eminently Christian, I have said all that need be uttered on that 
 point.”.xiii, G. 
 
 March 4. Hev. Dr. Howard Crosby (Epis.), Moderator of the Presbyterian 
 General Assembly, on Feb, 22, supplied the pulpit for Bishop Cummins (as reported 
 in Trib.) Rev. Mason Gallagher referred in general to the cases mentioned. 
 
 xii, 27, 28. 
 
 March 4. Bishop Cummins (Epis.) preached in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in Passaic, N. J.xv. 
 
 March 11. At Montreal (Epis.) the Rev. Mr. Youngs, of the Methodist Epis¬ 
 copal Church, delivered a lecture in favor of the R. E. C. ...xv. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 43 
 
 March 14, 1874. 
 
 March 14. Bishop Whittingham (Clin.) answers Rev. W. McGuire’s letter 
 dated Feb. 6 (vii, 6,) “ Your talk of dissolving your connection with the P. E. C. 
 to unite with the R E. C. is (excuse my plain speaking) a baseless dream. One 
 perjured Bishop no more makes a Church, than one swallow makes a summer.” 
 
 [How about Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley?].xiii, 10 
 
 March 25. Low Church (Epis.) “ Quirist.”.iii. 
 
 March 25. Independent (Epis.) “We think it a mistake to surrender so 
 tamely.” This is in answer to “ S. B.,” who says, “ One of the ablest seceders, the 
 Rev. Mr. Latane, of Virginia, has well said, the battle has been fought in the 
 Church and lost by the Evangelical party.” Episcopalian says, “ As long ago as 
 the famous effort of Drs. Anthon and Smith in their protest against the ordination 
 
 of Mr. Crary, a battle was fought and lost.”.xii, 56-59 
 
 April 22. Hev. John Fulton, D.D. (Epis.) “ Thus far I have heard and seen 
 not one word nor one act but such as savored of Nicene charity. In this our 
 Church press, at least the High Church press, so often hurried into injudicious 
 phrase, has earned our highest, heartiest gratitude for its sublime self-mastery. 
 There has been ample room for such words as perjury, treachery, ungentlemanlike 
 infidelity to Church and party. These words to the honor of the Church he ha s 
 repudiated, the party he has forsaken and betrayed have not been spoken.” 
 
 xiii, 23 ; ii, April 30, 1874; iii, Oct. 3, 1874. 
 April 22. Hev. Marshall B. Smith. (Epis.) Dismissed from the Reformed 
 (Dutch) Church, to the P. E. C. In his letter addressed to the Classis of Paramus 
 dated Nov. 28, 1873, he says: “ As is well known to you all, I withdrew from the 
 P. E. C. on account of its Ritualism, erroneous teachings on the subject of the 
 Christian Sacraments, exclusive Canons, and unchurching dogmas.... A church is 
 now to be organized, such as I longed and prayed for before I left the so called 
 4 Protestant ’ Episcopal Church... .1 therefore desire to unite with it and... .roquest 
 that you will grant me a letter of dismission to the proper ecclesiastical authority. 
 .... To me you have offered a welcome refuge from the storm of ecclesiastical 
 strife.” In answer, the Classis “ Resolved, That as a Classis, we appreciate the 
 motives which the Rev. Marshall B. Smith assigns for separating from this body 
 and that they in no wise conflict with his former declaration, but are in, 
 
 correspondence with his previous honorable record.”.vii, 2-4; ix, 4, 
 
 10; xiv, 6. 
 
 April 22. Bishop Lewis of Ottawa (Epis.) The Church Herald of Toronto 
 says: “ His Lordship [Bishop Lewis] delivered an address in Ottawa on Sunday 
 last on the insidious schism lately imported into Canada from the State of Ken¬ 
 tucky.” The Episcopalian continues : “ A little while ago the movement was insig¬ 
 nificant,now it is dangerous.”.xiii, 14-17 
 
 April 30. Southern Churchman says that Dr. Fulton, the learned editor of 
 the Index Canonum, has written a letter in excellent spirit: “ The object is to show 
 how Bishop Cummins and his friends can be brought back, and to prove that the 
 
 consecrations and ordinations of Bishop Cummins are valid.”.ii, April 22, 
 
 1874 ; iii, Oct. 31, 1874 ; xiii, 23, Fulton. 
 
 April 30. Murray Hoffman (So. Ch.) in the Churchman opposes the views of 
 Dr. 4 ultou above.... .xiii, 13. 
 
 May 7. Bishop Quintard of Tennessee (Ch. St.) “And another Bishop of 
 
44 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 May 7, 1874. 
 
 tlie Clmrch has gone from us—gone from us and passed not through a gate of 
 God’s own opening—of whom we cannot say as with thankful hearts of our dead 
 fathers in God, that ‘ God took him.’ One who shared with us the dignity of the 
 Apostolic office, and who should have shared the burdens which belong to it, has 
 cast aside the one and retreated from the other. I think I should fail to express 
 the mind and spirit of the Church did I follow him with one word of reproach. 
 Personally I stand appalled in contemplation of the weight of responsibility he has 
 chosen without his office in a position to which God has not invited him, in 
 exchange for that which belonged to him in his office. But the matter is by no 
 means a personal one. The Church is not appalled. She looks with a mother's 
 tenderness, intensified by disappointment, upon the evil course of her wayward son ; 
 and she will never cease to pursue him with her prayers for the grace of repent¬ 
 ance and a better mind.” [The Bishop of Rome will say the same of Bishop Quin- 
 tard].xiii, 10. 
 
 May 13 to 19. Second General Council of the R. E. C. i, May 
 
 13 to 19, 1874 ; xi, 26, 30 to 37. 
 
 May 14. Tribune refers to Rev. E. D. Neill (April 22); gives the sermon by 
 Bishop Cheney on the opening of the second Council, May 13; relates the different 
 views in the congregation of the Church of the Atonement as to recalling the Rev. 
 W. T. Sabine as a congregation of the R. E. C. 
 
 May 15. Tribune editor, with respect to the second Council of the R. E. C., 
 says : “ A compromise was reached upon the question of the election of vestrymen 
 ... A plan of union with the Free Church of England was adopted. This prac¬ 
 tically makes the two bodies one [ ? ]. Notwithstanding very outspoken opinion 
 on the part of delegates, and no little division of sentiment upon certain points, 
 there has thus far been a noticeable unanimity on the final vote, and a decided 
 good feeling has prevailed. The prospect looks very bright to the members, and 
 occasional remarks in the course of the debates, as well as other circumstances, 
 have indicated that men prominent in the P. E. C. [and other denominations], who 
 have not become adherents of the new movement, are lending their counsel at every 
 step... It remained to the evening session to witness the liveliest discussion of the 
 Council.. .on the words ‘ He descended into Hell.’ ”.xi. 38-42. 
 
 May 15. Herald says: “Large attendance of ministers of other denomina¬ 
 tions. Skirmishing hot and heavy along the entire line.. .The war on the choice 
 of Church officers [vestrymen] was renewed, but was soon happily brought to a 
 speedy conclusion by a compromise... The Constitution and Canons, as a whole, 
 were then adopted by a unanimous vote.”.>.! .xi. 38-42. 
 
 May 21. Church, and State says : “ The past week has witnessed the meeting 
 of the Council of the R. E. C. It has been a sad spectacle of what is likely to be¬ 
 come of men who drift away from their historical moorings. At the inception of 
 the movement, it was claimed that the Prayer Book of 1785 solved all the difficul¬ 
 ties, and was exactly what was needed for a Protestant and Evangelical Church. 
 Now, however, it is found that many serious alterations are necessary, which have 
 been made amid much heated controversy. The text in the Apostles’ Creed has 
 been changed by the omission of the clause, ‘ He descended into Hell ’—though 
 any Church is allowed to use it, or the alternate phraseology, as found in our 
 Prayer Book. It was proposed by one of the delegates, that the title of Rev. be 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 45 
 
 May 21, 1874. 
 
 dropped as applied to tlie ministry, on the ground tliat it was blasphemous. It is 
 easv to see from this and other indications, what are the dangers that are before 
 this new organization. The great mistake they have made is in supposing that 
 they had arrived at the logical terminus of their tendency. They are just begin¬ 
 ning to get a glimpse of the dreary waste of fanaticism and folly which stretches 
 before them. They will find that there are plenty who will wish to reform their 
 Church j ust as they have attempted to reform upon the Church they have left. 
 Still they have secured a status and probably a career before them. This is some¬ 
 thing to which it will be well for us to take lieed.’Lii. June 3, Epis.; xi. 39 ; xiii. 10. 
 
 June 3. Episcopalian, Correspondent, copies the above: “ May 21, Church and 
 State ” (dating it “ May 27 ”) and says : “ Now it is certainly strange to see a paper 
 which is edited by a clergyman, making positive statements as matters of fact, 
 which in charity he should, at least, suppose to be untrue ; but how can it be possi¬ 
 ble that the following errors have crept into this article and be stated so unequivo¬ 
 cally, when tlie ‘presumption is that changes consistent with the reasons for the 
 separation would be made ? 1st. It has never been claimed that the Prayer Book 
 of 1785 solved all the difficulties and was exactly what was needed for a Protestant 
 and Evangelical Church. This Book was publicly and privately accepted as a basis 
 of revision only, and the R. E. C. has never accepted the position which its oppo¬ 
 nents have tried to force upon it in that -respect. 2d. The Apostles’ Creed has not 
 been changed from the form of the book of 1785, though an effort is thus made by 
 the Church and State to insinuate that it has. 3d. It was not proposed by one of 
 the delegates that the title Reverend be dropped as applied to the ministry, as 
 blasphemous, or for any other reason. Has the periodical in question lost its char¬ 
 acter for truth and veracity, or does it publish without investigation ? Perhaps it 
 is as well to add that there was no ‘ heated controversy,’ but quiet, earnest discus¬ 
 sion, resulting in unanimous agreement in almost every case, and a brotherly unity, 
 the evidences, as it is believed, of a Divine blessing.” The editor continues: “ We 
 very much regret to find that the same article was copied into the Diocesan paper 
 of Ohio, the Standard of the Cross .xi. 39 ; xii. 59 ; xiii. 10. 
 
 June 3. Bishop Odenheimer (Epis.), in his address to the Convention of New 
 Jersey, May 2G, 1874, says: “The last year has brought upon the whole Church an 
 occasion of trouble in the ^scliismatical action of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Cummins. As all 
 the facts connected with the schism have been brought to the notice of Church¬ 
 men, I do not think it necessary or expedient to do more than record the fact of his 
 ungodly, unchurchly, and ungenerous action. Let us keep from our discussion, as 
 far as possible, the distractions and errors of misguided men, and rather let us fill 
 our thoughts and labors with the loving spirit of Christ, and unite ourselves more 
 
 firmlv than ever in the Churches work of making known to all, the one Lord, one 
 
 — 
 
 Faith, and the one Baptism of the glorious gospel of the divine Redeemer of man¬ 
 kind. Our sorrow is for those who separate from the Holy Church and faith in 
 Christ. We have no trouble for the Church herself; she is the bride of Christ, the 
 offspring of His loving wisdom and power, and whether there be trouble or pros¬ 
 perity in the world around her, the Church of the living God stands unmoved, 
 ' through the promise of Christ, ‘ The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. ” 
 [IIow about Cramner, Latimer, and Ridley ?]....- .xii. 56, 59; xiii. 8, 10. 
 
 June 3. Church Journal (Epis.) of May 28: “We have just witnessed the ses- 
 
46 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 June 3, 1874. 
 
 sions of the ‘ Reformed ’ Episcopal Church, presided over by the queerest ‘ Bishop/ 
 except Jules Ferrette, Bishop of Iona, since John Wesley made a ‘ Bishop ’ of Dr. 
 Coke in his bed-room at Bath. .xi. 39 ; xii. 56, 59 ; xiii. 10. 
 
 June. 3. The Churchman (Epis.) of April 23, 1874, finishes an editorial on this 
 , subject thus: “ It is to be hoped all will follow carefully the record of these and 
 similar proceedings, for it may have the effect that showing a drunken slave to a 
 Spartan child was expected to have”.xi. 39; xiii. 10. 
 
 June 3. Hev. Dr. Stewart (Epis.) in the Convention of Pennsylvania, as re¬ 
 ported in Telegraph of May 27, referring to (June 10, Bishop Stevens) says : “ I send 
 no fiery words of scorn and condemnation after those whom others hailed as friends 
 and brothers a few months ago, and fostered by argument and action in disaffection 
 to the Church, while they were yet in her, until having lived and burrowed like 
 maggots in her body, they at last took wings and flew away under the guidance of 
 the god of flies”..xiii. 10. 
 
 June 3. Kentucky Convention (Epis.) A correspondent says of Bishop 
 Smith: “ Although censuring Bishop Cummins, was mild and conciliatory.” 
 
 xiii. 10 
 
 June 3. Bishop Smith, of Kentucky (Epis.), in his annual address, says: 
 “ But far different, and much harder to bear, is the bereavement which has fallen 
 upon our stricken diocese. Had our late assistant Bishop fallen at his post, loyal to 
 the Church of his adoption, and true to the solemn vows and promises which he 
 made in this city less than eight years ago, we could have celebrated his obsequies 
 with tender fraternal and filial tears; but his abandonment of his post, and his for¬ 
 getfulness of his covenant engagements, overwhelmed us with astonishment and 
 filled our hearts with anguish. But this is a subject upon which I dare not express 
 myself otherwise than in the words of the loving and beloved disciple (1 John ii. 
 19), ‘ He went out from us, but he was not of us, for if he had been of us, no doubt 
 he would have continued with us, but he went out that it might be manifest that he 
 was not of us.’ ” [Now, was Cramner or Latimer or Ridley “ Anti-Christ,” for that 
 is the reference above?].xiii. 10. 
 
 June 10. Bishop Howe (Epis.), of Central Pennsylvania, says : “ The Episco¬ 
 pate of our Church has been reduced by another and unprecedented removal, the 
 defection of Dr. George David Cummins, late assistant Bishop of Kentucky, whom 
 once the Church delighted to honor. It would be very unbecoming and gratuitous 
 to depreciate him now. He has enlisted alone for an effort which will demonstrate 
 his true measure and quality. For any mental distress through which it might be 
 supposed a Christian man of mature years must have passed before engaging in 
 such an enterprise, I could afford hearty sympathy, but it is difficult to estimate 
 how severe the struggles of a Bishop must have been, who at such a crisis in his 
 life, had self-reliance enough to act without taking counsel from any of his 
 brethren. It is to be feared that by secession (it is another name for retreat from 
 the face of alleged evils, which in loyalty to his convictions it was his duty to con¬ 
 front) he has strengthened in the Church the power whose prevalence he evades, 
 first by withdrawing his own resistance and that of his fellow decedents, and fur¬ 
 ther by the natural recoil, which all careful minds will experience, from that verge 
 of opinion, from which one and another, and at last one over-provident Bishop has 
 fallen off into dissent, from ritual uniformity.xii. 43. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 47 
 
 June 10, 1874. 
 
 June 10. Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania (Epis.) as quoted June 10; open 
 letter of Marshall B. Smith, dated June 6, 1874: “ Since we last met in Convention 
 an event has occurred which is unparalleled in our Church. One of its Bishops has 
 abandoned its communion, and transferred, as he declared, the work and office, 
 which by consecration he received from this Church, to another sphere. That other 
 sphere has proved to he the establishing of a ‘ Reformed Episcopal Church.’ This 
 unfaithfulness to his three-fold vows of ordination, this needless rending of the 
 Church of Christ, he has crowned by an act unparalleled in the annals of Christ’s 
 Church—the consecration by his single self of a lawfully deposed clergyman to the 
 work and office of a Bishop. Vigorous efforts have been made by this disaffected 
 sect to asperse the purity of our Church, and sow seeds of discontent amidst our 
 clergy and laity. To this end, falsehood, misrepresentations, perversions, have been 
 resorted to through the Press and the Pulpit, in reference to our Prayer Book, our 
 polity, and our legislation.”.See next, and xiii. 10, 24. 
 
 June 10. Open Letter (Epis.) by Rev. Marshall B. Smith, in answer to (June 
 10 Bishop Stevens): “ When the press of the P. E. C., High, Low, and Broad, with 
 a single exception [Episcopalian?] assailed our movements... .with hard epithets 
 and cruel reproaches, we made no reply... .in the secular or religious papers writ¬ 
 ten by any member of our organization until a month ago [xiii. 11.]....No one, 
 not even Bishop Cummins himself, thought of the present organization until after 
 Bishop Cummins’ letter of withdrawal was in print [ix. 4 to 9.] The R. E. C. grew 
 out of suggestions made to him in my presence... .If perpetual allegiance be due 
 when ‘vows’ of ordination are assumed, then should the Church of England, and 
 all in Anglican orders, be in subjection to Rome to-day... .If I am correctly in¬ 
 formed, you are among those who consider the ‘ Old Catholics ’... .a valid Church 
 .. .Whence do they derive their Episcopacy ? Undoubtedly from the Jansenist Church 
 of Holland. In the records of the ‘ consecrations’ of the Bishops of that Church, begin¬ 
 ning with Cornelius Steenoven (consecrated Oct. 15, 1724, as Bishop of Utrecht, by one 
 Bishop and two Presbyters), I find the following Bishops were also consecrated by 
 one Bishop, with the aid of Presbyters : T. Van der Croon, consecrated Archbishop 
 of Utrecht, Oct. 28, 1734; K. J. Rinkel, consecrated Bishop of Haarlem, August 11, 
 1873 ; J. H. Reinldns, ‘ Alt-Kaltlioliken,' Bishop, Aug. 11, 1873. In the latter case 
 all the parties concerned had been either ‘ lawfully deposed ’ or were under ‘ histori¬ 
 cal excommunication.’_Our ideas of the ministry and of the Church are sub¬ 
 
 stantially those held by yourself when rector of St. Andrew’s Church, Philadelphia, 
 as I find them in a printed sermon of yours now before me, and from which... .1 
 make the following extracts,” etc. [This letter contains much more than the 
 above, and is now in a separate form as one of the documents of the R E. C.] 
 
 xiii. 11, 26; xiv. 3. 
 
 June 11. Bishop Bobertson (Ch. St.) in the Convention of Missouri, said: 
 “ Certain changes, which seek to bring in errors, the Church has opposed ; which 
 would lose sight of the Gospel in attention to petty details, were mentioned, and 
 ceremonies referred to, which were such departures as to call for legislation. Ex¬ 
 cessive symbolism should be prohibited. The Church must have such pronounce¬ 
 ments as to show that it is opposed to excessive ritualism, and opposed to doctrines 
 which are so strange as to be unscriptural. In matters touching the faith, there 
 must be no room for doubt as to the purpose, to reserve ours as a reformed and 
 
48 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 June 11, 1874. 
 
 spiritual Church. These questions have been thrust to the front by the recent de¬ 
 fection of a Bishop to set up a rival Church. This step was as causeless as it is 
 likely to be fruitless. He trusted the Church to have grace to learn the lesson of 
 self-abasement suggested. They should look within and correct what may have 
 caused this, rather than indulge in censure and invective ”.xii. 43. 
 
 June 13. Bishop H. W. Lee (Chn.) in the Iowa Convention, May 26, said: 
 “ Our own troubles have culminated during the past year in a secession from the 
 Church and in the organization of a new ecclesiastical body under the name of the 
 * Reformed Episcopal Church.’ The movement is not thus far a strong one, but 
 still one to be deprecated and deplored. It is based on a narrow foundation,... .ill- 
 
 advised and unfortunate.I may give utterance to deep regret and sorrow that 
 
 these brethren have committed so sad a mistake, and taken upon themselves 
 such a fearful responsibility.... The movement... .is the result of extreme views 
 in one direction, but... .we are suffering from other and opposite views,... .those 
 Romanizing views which... .have so disturbed the Church of England as well as 
 our own in this country. I can respect a sincere and consistent Romanist in his 
 own Church ; but virtual and essential Romanism in our P. E. C. is out of place 
 and should receive our unanimous and unqualified disapprobation.... Who can 
 doubt that such things as Eucharistic adoration, auricular confession, invocation of 
 • the Virgin Mary,prayers for the dead, vestments which symbolize peculiar Eucha¬ 
 ristic doctrines, a scenic and sensuous worship with crossings and genuflections, 
 lights and incense, and other kindred matters, are in entire opposition to the true 
 spirit and history of the Church ; and that they, if permitted and practiced, would 
 eat out its very vitals as a Reformed and Primitive Church, and sap its foundations 
 as an Apostolic body, and as one restored from the errors and corruptions of ages of 
 darkness and superstition ? It would seem that some in England’s noble Church 
 and in our own, were really desirous to undo the work of the English Reformation ; 
 holding views for denying which some of the most distinguished Reformers 
 suffered at the stake, ignoring practically the simple doctrines of the Gospel, and 
 laboring to revive and re-establish a system which the lessons of history and expe¬ 
 rience teach us to loathe and reject as contrary to God’s Word and subversive of 
 the best interest of the Church of Christ, and of the highest good of mankind in all 
 ages. The secession just referred to was occasioned in part by this very movement, 
 which some affect to call catholic, but which is peculiarly narrow and un¬ 
 catholic in all its leanings and tendencies. There is no probability that the Church 
 at large could make all the changes and modifications in the Prayer Books and in 
 our system generally which the seceders desire and demand ; but I hesitate not 
 to give my opinion that nothing which they desire and demand is more in opposi¬ 
 tion to the true spirit and teachings of our Church, than the views and process of 
 
 those at the opposite extreme. An important crisis is upon us as a Church, or 
 
 else is rapidly approaching, and let us meet it in the fear of God and with a firm 
 determination.”.....xii, 43. 
 
 June 25. Bishop Clark (Ch. St.) in the Convention of Rhode Island, said: 
 
 “ During the past year one of our Bishops and a few discontented clergymen and 
 laymen have abandoned our communion, while to a certain extent they have re¬ 
 tained our own organization and order of service, though in a modified and muti¬ 
 lated form. This secession at present does not assume a very formidable aspect. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 49 
 
 June 25, 1874. 
 
 With, its quasi episcopacy, its denuded services, and its narrowed platform, it pre¬ 
 sents no features which are likely to attract any large numbers, even of the 
 disaffected of our own or any other communion. And yet as one of the 
 signs of the times, it is not to be altogether disregarded.” [He then speaks of 
 changes in the Rubrics and says] : “ While it would leave the text of the Service 
 unmutilated, it might, perhaps, serve to quiet an agitation in our borders, which, 
 if it be not allayed, may in time involve serious consequences.” xi, 36 ; xiii, 10. 
 
 June 25. Bishop Williams of Connecticut (Ch. St.) classed the defection of 
 Bishop Cummins among things more painful than death.....xiii, 10. 
 
 June 25, Bishop Lee of Delaware (Ch. St.) in Convention June 3, is reported 
 thus. He “ expressed great regret on account of the step taken by Dr. Cummins, 
 and says that ‘ the erroneous doctrines which for more than thirty years have dis¬ 
 quieted and alarmed our Communion, have produced their legitimate fruit. One 
 usage after another has been introduced from the Church of Rome, and the deep line 
 of demarkation drawn by our martyred Reformers, has been, as far as possible, 
 removed. Instead of the General Convention meeting the evil and danger with 
 outspoken decision, the question was evaded in 1868 and 1871.’ ”.xiii, 5, 21. 
 
 June 25. The Christian Union (Ch. St.) says : “ Bishop Cummins’ secession 
 is the impulse which promises to urge controversies of long standing to a definite 
 settlement.... The cry is heard on all sides, ‘Put down the Ritualists,’but we 
 hear very little about freedom for Low Churchmen.”,.xii, 41. 56. 
 
 July 2. Bishop Alford (Ch. St.), late of Victoria, to the Archbishop of Canter¬ 
 bury, says : “ To legislate that the eastward position of the celebrant at the Holy 
 Communion... .is involved the whole question of sacrifice or Sacrament, of Mass or 
 Lord’s Supper .. .-the very heresy in faithful protest against which Archbishop 
 Cranmer and other Bishops died in martyrdom at the stake... .it might become a 
 most serious question whether... .1 could continue my ministry within the Church 
 of my forefathers.”.xii, 43. 
 
 July 2. Bishop Kerfoot (Ch. St.) of Pittsburgh, in Convention on June 11, 
 1874, as reported—“ referred to the Cummins movement, and stated that he had 
 received a circular letter from Bishop Cummins.. .He characterized the new move¬ 
 ment as a ‘ schism,’ and a schism of the character that made it a sin. He was 
 gratified to find that of 3,000 of the clergy, there were very few who had been 
 drawn away by it from the Church—scarcely half a dozen prominent men. . . On 
 one side extreme and unwarrantable Radicalism was ‘ sloughing off' some of the 
 Church’s power; and, on the other hand, corrupt ion was engendered by the revival 
 of old superstitions, which were not, and never had been, legitimately sanctioned by 
 the Church.” [The Churchman of June 20 has the whole speech, including the 
 above, and the following]...“ Punishment of an official guilty of malfeasance in 
 office ; of a bank clerk who robbed the vault; or of a man charged with the man¬ 
 agement of a corporation, who betrayed his trust.”...xiii. 10. 
 
 July 8. Differences (Epis.) Rev. E. D. Neill, President of McAllister College, 
 Minneapolis, holds service in the chapel, and on the reverse of a card used for other 
 purposes, gives the following distinctions.ii. Oct. 27, 1874. 
 
 I. The P. E. C. does not recognize the 
 ordination of, nor invite to preach, the 
 ministers of the Baptist, Congregational- 
 
 I. The R. E. C. recognizes and co¬ 
 
 operates with these 
 Christians. 
 
 denominations of 
 
50 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 July 3, 1874. 
 
 ist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presby¬ 
 terian Churches. 
 
 II. The P. E. C. asserts that a Bishop 
 belongs to a distinct Order of Ministers, 
 separate from the Presbyters. 
 
 III. The P. E. C. calls the Presbyters 
 “ Priests.” 
 
 IV. The P. E. C. does not forbid the 
 use of Altars for Communion tables. 
 
 V. The P. E. C. requires the com¬ 
 municants of other churches to be con¬ 
 firmed. 
 
 VI. [Substitute the Canon]. 
 
 The P. E, C. requires that “ Every 
 minister shall, before all sermons and 
 lectures, and on all occasions of public 
 worship, use the Book of Common 
 Prayer as the same is, or may be, estab¬ 
 lished, by the authority of the General 
 Convention of this Church. And in per¬ 
 forming such service, no other prayers 
 shall be used than those prescribed by 
 said Book.” 
 
 VII. The P. E. C. does not allow her 
 
 Bishops, or other ministers, to resign, 
 but “ deposes ” them, and then follows 
 them as shown.xiii. 
 
 VIII. Restoration after resignation. 
 Sec. II. Can. 6, Title II. of the Gen. Con. 
 of the P. E. C. says : “.. Such minister 
 .. .shall express such desire, accompanied 
 by a statement that he has abandoned 
 the ministry of any other Church or 
 Society. . .from an honest conviction of 
 the errors in doctrine or discipline of 
 such Church or Society, and...for... 
 three years...has been living in lay 
 communion with the P. E. C.. .the 
 Bishop... with two Bishops to be select¬ 
 ed by lot...and by and with the con¬ 
 sent of the Standing Committee.. .the 
 Bishop shall have power, with the ap¬ 
 probation of one or both of the Bishops 
 assisting him.. .and by and with the ad¬ 
 vice and consent of the. . .Standing Com¬ 
 mittee to restore the memorialist to the 
 ministry of this Church.. .if he and they 
 are satisfied...” 
 
 II. The R. E. C. believes, as did Arch¬ 
 bishop Cranmer, the organizer of the 
 Church of England, that a Bishop is 
 only a Presbyter Primus. 
 
 III. The R. E. C. calls them minis¬ 
 ters. 
 
 IV. The R. E. C. prohibits the erec¬ 
 tion of an altar as a communion table. 
 
 V. The R. E. C. receives exemplary 
 Christians by letter, from the pastor or 
 other proper authority of the Church to 
 which they belonged. 
 
 VI. [Substitute the Canon]. 
 
 The R. E. C. requires that “ On occa¬ 
 sions of public worship, invariably on 
 the morning of the Lord’s day, common¬ 
 ly called Sunday, and at other times 
 at the discretion of the ministers, the 
 Prayer Book set forth at any time by 
 the General Council, is to be used in the 
 congregations of this Church—provided 
 that nothing in this Canon is to be un¬ 
 derstood as precluding extempore prayer 
 before and after sermons or on emergent 
 occasions.” 
 
 VII. The R. E. C. allows her Bishops 
 and other ministers to resign, and gives 
 them letters dimissory to any Christian 
 Church. 
 
 VIII. By the Canons of the R. E. C., a 
 minister is restored, after resignation, 
 upon the same terms as when he was 
 first received. 
 
 July 8. Bishop Paddock (Epis.) of Mass., in Convention said: “ There is 
 another vacancy in the Episcopate, with no such blessed memories and foreseen 
 plaudits upon faithfulness over a few things. One concerning whom in these days 
 of dulled piety and halting faith, and wilful disloyalty, that cannot be said which 
 was said to gentle St. John’s successor...‘ I know thy works... that thou hast 
 borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast labored and hast not faint¬ 
 ed;’ one who was called to a Church avowedly not perfect, and left his first love, 
 and undertaken the headship of a schism. May the Lord forgive him. The Church 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 51 
 
 July 8, 1874. 
 
 lias no anathemas, but only tears for him. ‘ From all false doctrine, heresy, and 
 schism, Good Lord deliver us.’ ”..xiii. 10. 
 
 July 8. Bishop Cummins’ Deposition, on June 24, published in full in the 
 Philadelphia Bulletin of July 8.viii. 4. 
 
 July 9. Bishop Gregg (Ch. St.) of Texas, in Convention May 30, said : “ Then 
 the unhappy defection of a Bishop in a way the most remarkable, and on grounds 
 utterly weak and insufficient. .. .followed by some who had wilfully cut themselves 
 off, and more recently by a few who had not been deposed from the Church —& fol¬ 
 lowing, a miserable folloidng —which very clearly indicated the spirit and character 
 of the movement itself.” [Now, those who think that schism may be cured by 
 separation, will find good reason for the organization of the R. E. C. in the other 
 remarks of Bishop Gregg (iii. July 9)].xiii. 10. 
 
 July 15. Bishop Talbot (Epis.) in Convention of Indiana, said: “ The most re¬ 
 markable event in connection with the Church in this country during the past year, 
 if, indeed, it be not the most remarkable in our liistor}^, is the abandonment of the 
 communion of the Church by one of its Bishops, and the attempt of that unhappy 
 and misguided man to set up and to head, a schismatical body in a land whose 
 Christianity is already endangered and cursed by needless divisions among the 
 jnofessed followers of Christ. The reasons which Bishop Cummins has publicly 
 given for this act of manifest treachery to vows deliberately taken, and which were 
 a condition precedent to his admission to the office which he has betrayed, have 
 been so ably met and so thoroughly refuted by the ablest and best Bishops, his 
 brethren, with whom up to the hour of his desertion he professed to be in entire 
 sympathy, as to need no consideration here and now [xiii. 18 to 22]. I have no other 
 feeling than one of pity and charity for him who has so wounded the Church of God 
 and wronged his own soul. But I cannot allow such an event to pass without 
 notice, and without the expression of my deep conviction, that if even everything 
 alleged in his letter of withdrawal were true, and the reasons he gives those which 
 really governed his action, they afford not the slightest justification for, or even 
 palliation of, his course. If the dangers he professed to see were real dangers, and 
 not mere phantom of his own diseased imagination, as I believe they were, then 
 manifestly the duty of a brave and true man was to stand by the flag and fight 
 them. To do, to dare, and if need be to fight for what he professed to believe the 
 imperiled truth of God. Let us try to cover his faults with the mantle of charity, 
 and leave him to the account that he must render for his sins.”.xiii. 10. 
 
 July 22. The H. E. C. is a restoration. 
 
 Aug. 5. Bishop Vail of Kansas (Epis.; see Feb. 10, 1875), said: “ It is impos¬ 
 sible when old historic schools are recognized as of equal rights in the Church, that 
 either should be willing to be always in subjection to the other, and compelled to 
 accept its partisan overrulings. Such a school, if it cannot find an honorable and 
 equal home in the Church of its birth and of its life, if it must remain an outlaw 
 and a slave, a mark of derision and a perpetual subject of suspicion and surveillance f 
 must finally see that there is but one alternative, justifiable only in the last and 
 unavoidable providential necessity. That alternative certainly has not yet come to 
 us, nor is it near at hand ”.xiii. 5. 
 
 Aug. 19. Protestant Episcopal Conference (Epis.) correspondent says: “It 
 has been finally agreed to hold a general conference of the P. E. C. in this city 
 
52 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 August 19, 1874. 
 
 [N ew York]. .. .It is proposed, in order more effectually to frustrate the new move¬ 
 ment, that the High and Low Churches hereafter act in greater unity with each 
 other ”...x. 14. 
 
 Aug. 19. Church and State (Epis.) says: “ Nothing could be more unwise or 
 miserably abortive than the Cummins movement ”.xiii. 10. 
 
 Sept. 10. Bishop Clarkson of Nebraska (Ch. St.) in Convention “referred to 
 the defection of Bishop Cummins as much to be lamented, but credited him with 
 having acted according to conscience ”...xiii. 6. 
 
 Oct. 22. Rev. E. Harwood, D.D. (Ch. St.) says: “The condition of the 
 Church generally is not satisfactory. .. .In Illinois and Wisconsin... .the growth of 
 the Church has been impeded by vicious ecclesiastical principles, to say nothing of 
 Episcopal misrule in one of them... .In the meanwhile, the Cummins separatist 
 movement, under the name of the R. E. C., hangs fire only because there is neither 
 ecclesiastical Churclimanship, nor learning, nor theological ability in the leaders. 
 Certainly the outlook is serious.” He then says that legislation will not remedy 
 
 the difficulty.xiii. 10. 
 
 Oct. 26 to 31. General Convention of the P. E. C. as reported verbatim by 
 the Churchman, has the following references to the R. E. C., viz.: 
 
 III. Cct. 26. Inhibition Immediate.viii, 5. 
 
 III. Oct. 27. Mr. Shattuck, (to force others).ii, July 8, Dis. 
 
 III. Oct. 29. Rev. Dr. Adams, (leave the sinking ship)..xii, 56. 
 
 III. Oct. 29 Rev. Dr. Sullivan (is frightened).xiii, 25. 
 
 III. Oct. 29. Rev. Dr. Huntingdon, (John II. Newman).xii. 56. 
 
 III. Oct. 29. Rev. Dr. Garrison, (widest liberty).vii, 4. 
 
 III. Oct. 31. Rev. Dr. Beach, (go if you desire).xii, 56. 
 
 III. Oct. 31. Rev. Dr. Adams, (don’t uphold Bishop Cheney).xii, 56. 
 
 III. Oct. 31. Henry Meigs, (R. E. C. and its Prayer-book) 
 
 III. Oct. 31. Rev. Dr. Fulton (not the old Evangelicals).xiii, 23. 
 
 Nov. 11. Goddard of St. Andrews, (xii, 56)..iii. 
 
 Nov. 11. Church and State, (R. E. C. disappointed).iii. 
 
 Nov. 25. Return of R. E. C. to P. E. C. (xiv, 4).iii. 
 
 Nov. 25. Rev. "W. R. Nicholson, D.D. (Low Church).xii, 58, iii. 
 
 Nov. 30. Rev. M. B. Smith (Louisville Courier) in the full report of his ser¬ 
 mon on the opening of the new church in Louisville, Kentucky, said : “ In no spirit 
 of hostility to those with whom we formerly worshipped and took counsel 
 together, or to any one who may differ from or misunderstand us, but in obedience 
 to our sense of duty we devote it,” etc.xiv, 6. 
 
 Dec. 3. Republic Editorial. “ Just one year ago the organization took place 
 .. . .The old Prayer Book was revised. The word ‘ Priest ’... .was expunged and 
 the word ‘ Minister ’ or ‘ Presbyter ’ substituted. It was resolved not to declare 
 infants regenerated in... .Baptism.... Instead of offering the Absolution standing, 
 the minister was to kneel and offer a prayer, and the phrase, ‘ He descended into 
 hell ’ was omitted from [the text of] the Apostles’ Creed [but may be used]. Such 
 were some of the changes... .because it was urged that the Prayer Book so 
 reformed might be used by any body of Evangelical Christians.... In the year.... 
 considerable progress has been made by the Reformers. They have established 
 themselves at a number of points, with a determination and earnestness which 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 53 
 
 December 3, 1874. 
 
 leave no doubt in the public mind as to tlie i^ossibility of their continuing. 
 
 The step on the part of the Kentucky Prelate was bold and manly, and indicated 
 a strong faith in the ultimate triumph of the principles for which he contended. 
 The progress of the movement since he led off has been encouraging to all con¬ 
 cerned in it.... The Reformed Church presents itself at the end of the first year 
 with what may be regarded as a formidable front.”.ix, 12, 18. 
 
 Dec. 16. B. A. to Church, and State (Epis.) “B. A. ” says: “Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins and the P. E. C.”—Under this head, the leader in Church and State of Nov. 
 18,1874, says : “ On Sunday evening last. Bishop Cummins made a severe assault 
 upon the Protestant Episcopal Church. We do not exactly understand the propri¬ 
 ety of this. No attack was made in General Convention upon Bishop Cummins 
 or the cause he represents. The reserve in this respect was most admirable.” 
 xiii, 23. 
 
 “ Now, the editor has himself used very harsh expressions respecting Bishop 
 Cummins and the R. E. C. Also in the Convention it was denounced as a miserable 
 schism. Several Bishops in their formal addresses have made personal attacks 
 upon Bishop Cummins and the R. E. C., using such terms as misrepresentations, 
 unchurchly, ungodly , ungenerous , breach of ordination vows, schismatic, perjured , etc., 
 and because this personal abuse was not frequently repeated in General Convention 
 the editor says, ‘ The reserve in this respect was admirable,’ and charges that 
 ‘ Bishop Cummins made a severe assault upon the Protestant Episcopal Church,’ 
 when the only assault was a plain statement of facts which the editor does not 
 deny.” xiii, 10. 
 
 Again he says : “ If all that he charges against the Church be true, we wonder 
 that he can be willing to exercise the office of a Bishop which he derives only from 
 this source.” Now “ Mutato nomine de tefahula narraiur” The Bishops of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church derive their Orders from the Church of Rome, and so 
 do all their clergymen.” xii, 25-27. 
 
 Again he says: “ We do not see why those who have relieved their consciences 
 by going out from us, need to feel specially charged with remedying the evils they 
 have left behind.” (xiii. 10). 
 
 This signifies that the Low Church clergy and laity may be driven out of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church by High Church excesses, and be robbed of their 
 church property and then abused for leaving ; but must submit quietly to all this 
 abuse, and not show by facts that there were good reasons for separation, (xiii. 26). 
 
 Agaid he says: “ We have no feelings but those of kindness for Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins.” But my file of Church and State shows a strange exhibition of this kind¬ 
 ness. So does this editorial, (xiii. 7 ; xiii. 10). 
 
 Again: “We trust that he will learn that it is very questionable taste at least 
 to hold up to reproach the home in which he was nurtured, and for which by his 
 act of desertion, he has ceased to be responsible.” (xiii. 10). 
 
 Now, I have heard addresses by Bishop Cummins in New York, and in Chicago, 
 Ill., and in St. Johns, Moncton, and Sussex, New Brunswick, and in Toronto, and 
 Brantford, Ontario, and the whole substance was to show the facts respecting the 
 doctrinal views of the ruling majority in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the 
 difference between the P. E. C. and the R. E. C. Those facts have not been and 
 cannot be disputed by the editor. For the plain statement of these facts, without a 
 
54 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 December 16, 1874. 
 
 single personal attack, tlie editor speaks of “ questionable taste,” applied personally 
 to Bisliop Cummins, after several Bishops have “ piled Peleon on Ossa” in the ap¬ 
 parent effort to excel in personal abuse, (xiii. 10). 
 
 In conversation with a non-Episcopal clergyman, I expressed my surprise that 
 so many Bishops had been so much excited as to lose their balance, and forget that 
 they ought at least to be gentlemen. He answered : “ They cannot appreciate the 
 ridiculous figures they cut before those who do not belong to their own sect.” 
 (xii. 8). 
 
 In conclusion. I do not protest against such remarks as here made by the 
 editor, nor against any of the abuse that has been uttered by the Bishops of the P. 
 E. C. The more of this kind the better for the R. E. C. These hostile personalities 
 have been educating the public as to the difference between the P. E. C. and the 
 R. E. C. The objections raised by them show the characteristics of the P. E. C. 
 more distinctly than anything that we could have said to prove it, and to prove the 
 necessity of leaving them. “ Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn 
 to him the other also.” (xiii. 10; xii, 25-59). 
 
 Passaic, N. J. B. A. 
 
 Dec. 23. New Prayer Book (Epis.) Rev. John Greenfield, M. A., a clergyman 
 of the Church of England of the Diocese of Huron, conducted the services of the R. 
 E. C. in Ottawa, Ont., on Dec. 13, in the morning and evening. “ After the close 
 of the service, Mr. Greenfield expressed the pleasure it had afforded him... .and 
 alluded in glowing terms to the great wisdom that had been displayed in the work 
 
 of revision.” “A Presbyterian clergyman of some eminence_writes, ‘ I have 
 
 very much enjoyed an occasional reading of the R. E. Prayer Book; I consider it 
 really excellent, and for my own part I should have no difficulty about embracing 
 it in toto.’ ”..xi, 3G 
 
 Jan. 7, 1875. Pacific Churchman (.Independent says), “ gently and elegantly 
 says of the two Bishops of the R. E. C.: ‘ Cummins has brains and ambition, too ; 
 Cheeney (sic) has ignorance. Here are all the elements necessary to a new sect.... 
 There was no foundation for honesty on the part of Cummins or Cheeney. Both had 
 perjured themselves. They were both, therefore, ready for any extremity. The 
 extremity was—Cummins an apostate, and Cheeney a Bishop by the imposition of 
 an apostate’s hands ?”.xiii. 10. 
 
 Jan. 13. Dev. E. D. Neill (Epis.) from Minneapolis Tribune of Dec. 31. Lec¬ 
 ture as to differences, in which he treats of “Reaction under Elizabeth... .Arch¬ 
 bishop Parker_Revival of Apostolic Succession. .. .Fuller’s Good Bishop.... 
 
 Episcopacy in the United States... .Occasion of reconstruction... .Peaceful Depar¬ 
 ture_Distinctive principles_Holy Scriptures infallible guide_Doctrinal 
 
 belief_Episcopacy ancient and desirable-Ho House of Bishops_The 
 
 Liturgy_Liturgy not repressive. .. .Prayer-meetings encouraged_Preaching 
 
 important_Minister not a priest. .. .Altar discountenanced_Episcopal Grace 
 
 rejected.. .Baptismal Regeneration rejected-Saints’ days abolished_Believeis 
 
 from other churches admitted-Recognition of other ministers_Indebtedness 
 
 to other churches”.xii. 12; xi. 
 
 Jan. 13. Schism, by Rev. Edward Cridge, M.A. (Epis.) Sermon Nov. 8. 
 “ Schism is contention and divisions within the body, as in the Church at Corinth ; 
 not separation from it, as in the case of Abraham and Lot, and as St. Paul when ho 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 55 
 
 January 13, 1875. 
 
 took the disciples from the synagogue. When contentions arise, and both parties 
 continue in the same body, the schism is perpetuated. Where unity appears to he 
 hopeless, and one separates from the other, the schism is ended. There is within our 
 Church, the Church of England, a schism which is incurable except by one of two 
 remedies : either by removing by common consent the causes of contention—a con¬ 
 sent which I think all must admit is absolutely unattainable; or by a separation.... 
 And now this word ‘ schism’ is the cry by which you are to be frightened back.” 
 
 xii. 7. 
 
 Jan. 27. Victoria, B. C. (Epis.) Angela College was liberally endowed by Miss 
 Burdett Coutts and put under the charge of the Bishop. Most if not all the lady 
 teachers have joined the R. E. C. The Bishop (Dec. 28) notified them that they 
 must leave that Church or leave the College. They resigned in a body. It is 
 now proposed to start a R. E. C. College as a seminary for girls and boys. 
 
 Jan. 30. Hon. Stewart Xi. Woodford (Church Union ) at the anniversary 
 meeting in Brooklyn, on Dec. 2, describes the difference between the P. E. C. and 
 the R. E. C. (II. July 8, 1874. Differences). 
 
 Feb. 10. Hev. W. H. Johnson (Epis.) (III. Feb. 25, 1875). 
 
 Feb. 10. Bishop Vail (Epis.) in the Convention of Kansas, Sept. 9, 1874, said : 
 
 . . . .“ To the Rt. Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., late assistant Bishop of 
 Kentucky.—For reasons satisfactory to his own mind and conscience, Dr. Cummins 
 abandoned the Communion of this Church in the course of the last autumn and 
 became the head of a new Communion called the Reformed Episcopal Church. 
 However much for one I deprecate his decision and dissent from his convictions, I 
 yet pray that God overrule what has been done to His supreme glory, and to the 
 best interest of His Church and people. In him and in those associated with him 
 is an element of great power, that ought not to be lost to this Church, which the 
 Church ought to retain for herself and for Christ’s work within her pale ; and much 
 as I lament the mistaken conclusions, as I regard them, of him and of his associ-' 
 ates, I lament far more that lack of legislative wisdom and that sinful defect in our 
 ecclesiastical statesmanship, which allows such men to go, and which makes no 
 comprehensive provision to retain the admitted power of such good and able 
 men, although extremists, for our own work within our own Church.”.;xiii. 6. 
 
 Feb. 25. Postal Card, post marked “ Milford, Ct., Feb. 25—To the Rev. Mar¬ 
 shall B. Smith, Passaic, New Jersey.—Even if you have made an ass of yourself, I 
 see no necessity of your telling me of it in this or any other ‘ Open Letter.’ I ob¬ 
 ject.—A. D. Miller, Rector of St. Peter’s Church, Milford, Conn.”.xiii, 7. 
 
 Feb. 25. Postal Card. Post mark illegible and without date “ To (Ex) Rev. 
 Marshall B. Smith, Passaic, N. J.I trust you will repent and find peace in be¬ 
 lieving—the only way to find it. Yrs, resp’ly (Rev.) T. M Tho.”.xiii, 7. 
 
 March 4. “ Stop Agitating ” (So. Ch.) The Standard of the Gross says*. 
 “ We do wish Bishop Cummins and his followers would stop agitating. If they 
 have the love of Christ in their hearts, and the unction of the Holy Ghost, let them 
 go out to neglected fields and proclaim the Gospel and build up their society. 
 But this waiting at the doors of the mother Church, which they have denounced as 
 the teacher of errors, for stragglers to come out, greeting with joy every discon¬ 
 tented, troubled spirit, this is very small work for a church [small c.] that 
 parades such a large name, and proclaims such wonderful reforms.”.xiii, 6. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 56 
 
 April 1, 1875. 
 
 April 1. Episcopal Register of Philadelphia. The following is a copy of a 
 scrap supposed to be of about the last week of March : “ My dear editor: In exam¬ 
 ining a copy of the Reformed Prayer Book, I am really astounded, well nigh to 
 laughter [!] to observe that the candidate for Confirmation is only asked to re¬ 
 nounce ‘ the world and the flesh,’ and not a word is said about the Devil. Can it 
 be that this omission is intentional ? ” etc. [This paper is understood to be the 
 organ of the Diocese of the P. E. C. in Penn. As a layman, I note the word 
 “ laughter ” from a man professing to be a Christian, and leave to the clergy the 
 explanation of the service.] 
 
 April 7. Bishop M. A. DeWolfe Howe (Epis.) fromReading on Feb. 19, in 
 answer to the resignation of Rev. J. H. Mac El’ Rey of Feb. 16, says: “ Is it manly 
 to leave this unchanged Church, because others whom you think unfaithful to her 
 standards have crept in ? And will you like them to whom you proppse to go, 
 spend most of your time in abusing and pulling down the Church that has shel¬ 
 tered you thus far ? Have you thought of the sin of * schism ’ from which you have 
 been praying God to deliver you ; what it is ? And what its consequence ? 
 I do not argue. I only put questions which I fear you have not considered. ” 
 
 xx. 4; xiii, 27 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 PAN-ANGLICAN CHURCH. 
 
 Press Reports of Actions and Opinions of the different parties in the 
 P. E. C. and the Ch. Eng., quoting as “Low” the opinions of the u Old 
 Evangelicals who carried the Evangelical banner so nobly ” in the P. E. C. 
 (hi. Oct. 31) and have left that Church to carry the same banner in the 
 R. E. C. Indexed in Chapter I., and in some cases, analyzed in Chapters 
 IY. to XV., as indicated at the conclusion of each extract thus quoted. 
 For the names and characteristics of the newspapers quoted, and for the 
 mode of quoting, and for R. E. C., P. E. C., Ch. Eng., Pan-Anglican, 
 see Preface. 
 
 November 5, 1873. 
 
 Nov. 5. Church and State says of Bishop Potter’s letter objecting to the Dean 
 of Canterbury joining in this communion. “... .We are opposed on grounds of ex¬ 
 pediency to the joint communion which has given rise to this controversy... .If there 
 was no violation of law, then the discourtesy must have consisted in doing a per¬ 
 fectly lawful thing, and one.. .entirely consistent with the views of a legitimate 
 school in the Church, but not in accordance with the opinions of the Bishop of New 
 York... The Bishop of New York, it would seem from his letter, does not approve 
 of the Evangelical Alliance.”.v. 8. 
 
 Nov. 5. Bishop Potter (Ch. St.) The Bishop in his letter to the Evening Post 
 
 of Nov. 3, says : “_As the object of Bishop Tozer in sending to the Archbishop of 
 
 Canterbury a copy of the letter, which he had the considerate kindness and manli¬ 
 ness to send to me.. .Bishop Tozer felt, and I think felt truly, that his own branch 
 of the Church had been misrepresented and compromised by an act of irregularity 
 and discourtesy in one of the dioceses of a sister Church. He felt, as I should have 
 felt, had I been on a visit in England and found an American clergyman there act¬ 
 ing in a way to encourage irregularity and disorder.. .As to Dean Alford at Berlin 
 ...the eccentricities of individuals.. .are of no force to impair the authority of 
 principles and laws which are as old as the Christian Church, Avliich are divine 
 ....” [And as to Bishop Tozer’s] “ manly letter—a letter which it is well-known, 
 found its way in print, not by design but by accident.” [That is, a copy of it was 
 supposed to have dropped out of his pocket and been picked up in the street by a 
 reporter as, I think, was the statement].v. 3 ; xii. 
 
 Nov. 10. Low Church. Bishop Cummins’ resignation.vii. 1. 
 
 Nov. 10. Low Church. Rev. M. B. Smith’s resignation.vii. 2. 
 
 Nov. 12. Low Church Authorities (Ch. St.) In continuing the discussion of 
 the Joint Communion, Church and State quotes the following: “ Keble-in speak- 
 
 (57) 
 
58 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 November 12, 1873. 
 
 ing of Whitgift, Cooper, and others—‘ It is enough with them to show that the 
 government by Archbishops and Bishops is ancient and allowable; they never 
 venture to urgo its exclusive claim, or to connect the succession with the 
 validity of Holy Sacraments.’ In the ‘Institution of a Christian Man,’ issued 
 by the Bishops and clergy in 1573, it is said—‘ The truth is that in the New 
 Testament there is no mention of any degrees or distinctions of orders, but only of 
 deacons and ministers, of priests or bishops.’ Dr. Pelkington, Bishop of Durham, 
 says—‘ The privileges and superiorities which Bishops have above other miiiisters, 
 are rather granted by men, for maintaining better order and quietness in common¬ 
 wealths, than commanded by Cod in His word.’ Archbishop Whitgift says: ‘That any 
 one kind of government is so necessary, that without it the Church cannot be saved, 
 or that it may not be altered into some other kind, thought to be more expedient, 
 I utterly deny; and the reasons that move me thereto are these: The first is be¬ 
 cause I find no one certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded 
 in the Scriptures, to the Church of Christ. Secondly, because the essential notes 
 of the Church, be these only, the true preaching of the Word and the right ad- 
 mininistration of the Sacraments.’ Hooker says : ‘ There may be sometimes very 
 just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a Bishop.’ Lord Bacon 
 was a layman, but he is an important witness as to the prevalent opinion in his 
 time. He says: ‘ Some indiscreet persons have been bold, in open preaching, to 
 use dishonorable and derogatory speech and censure of the Churches abroad ; and 
 that so far as some of our men, as I have heard, ordained in foreign parts, have been 
 pronounced to be no lawful ministers.’ Bishop Andrews says: ‘Though our 
 goverment be of divine right, it follows not either that there is no salvation, or that 
 a Church cannot stand without it. He must needs be stone-blind that sees not 
 Churches standing without it.’ Archbishop Bramhall says: ‘ Many Protestant 
 Churches lived under kings and Bishops of another communion ; others had par¬ 
 ticular reasons why they could not continue or introduce Bishops.’ ‘ I know that there 
 is a great difference between a valid and regular ordination.’ Archbishop Bancroft, 
 when it was proposed that certain candidates for the Scotch Episcopate should first 
 be ordained Presbyters, as not having been ordained by a Bishop, replied : ‘ That 
 thereof there was no necessity, seeing where Bishops could not be had, the ordina¬ 
 tion given by presbyters must be considered lawful.’ Bishop Hall says : ‘ Blessed- 
 be God, there is no essential difference betwixt the Church of England and her 
 sisters of the Reformation.’ ‘ The only difference is in the form of outward ad¬ 
 ministration, wherein also we are so far agreed, as that we all profess this form, not 
 to be essential to the being of a Church.’... .Bishop Tomline says: ‘I readily 
 acknowledge that there is no precept in the New Testament which commands that 
 every Church should be governed by Bishops.’ Dean, afterwards Bishop Cosin, 
 says: ‘ I do not see but that both you and others may (either in case of necessity, 
 when you cannot have the Sacrament among yourselves, or in regard to declaring 
 your unity in professing the same religion which you and they do) go otherwliiles 
 to communicate reverently with them of the French Church.’ [And part of the 
 crypt of Canterbury Cathedral is still in possession of the French Church.—B. A.] 
 Archbishop Usher says : ‘ I do protest that with like affection I should receive the 
 blessed sacraments at the hands of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, as I 
 should at the hands of the French ministers, if I were in Charenton.’ This evi- 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 59 
 
 November 12, 1873, 
 
 dence might be indefinitely extended, but it is certainly sufficient to prove that it 
 is allowable in the Church of England to hold the possible validity of other than 
 Episcopal orders... .It is time that the cool assumption of those who hold exclusive 
 views of Episcopacy to be the only true representatives of the Church, were 
 rebuked.”......xi. 
 
 Nov. 27. Low Church. Resolutions (Obs.) quotes from the Chicago Evening 
 Journal of Nov. 24, the resolutions of the Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ 
 Church, Chicago, who had refused to be driven out of the P. E. C. by the action of 
 Bishop Whitehouse, viz.: “Resolved, That this Vestry have learned with profound 
 sensibility of the noble stand for Protestant and Evangelical truth, which has been 
 recently taken by the Rt. Rev. George D. Cummins, D.D., in his withdrawal from 
 the exercise of the office of assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky, rather 
 than sanction by official relations a Ritualistic worship and the preaching of a false 
 Gospel. Resolved, That we recognize in this action of Bishop Cummins the re¬ 
 sult of a deep conviction, shared by ourselves and by a large number of Protestant 
 laity of the Episcopal Church, that the only adequate remedy for the Romish ten¬ 
 dencies now pervading that Church, is to be found in a thorough and Scriptural 
 revision of the Book of Common Prayer. Resolved, That we feel our deepest grat¬ 
 itude is due to the great Head of the Church, that He has led one of our Bishops to 
 shrink from no sacrifice for the inaintainance of a pure Gospel, and that while 
 giving all the glory of this following the footsteps of the great English Reformers 
 to Him who inspired it, we pledge to Bishop Cummins our prayers, our sympathy, 
 and all practical co-operation in the effort to unite an Evangelical pulpit with a 
 Scriptural liturgy, and with a moderate Episcopacy.—Henry C. Smith, Clerk pro 
 tem.” .xiii, 13; xi, 14, 15. 
 
 Dec. 4. Exclusiveness of the P. E. C. (Ch. Jo.) Editor says : “ Does the Epis¬ 
 copal Church separate herself from Protestant Christendom on a notion, on a mere 
 private and unimportant opinion ? There is positively nothing else that divides 
 here to day from the great bulk of Protestanism. Does she rend the body of Christ 
 for a whim ? Is she a sect with a weakness for Bishops ? If this be her position, 
 we for one hold that she is the meanest sect we know of. ... The most venerable, 
 learned, and godly Presbyterian clergyman, for instance, coming to her, she 
 receives, and makes an humble layman of before he can even be a Deacon.... It 
 may be a tolerable opinion in the Church, that the Apostolic Succession is not 
 necessary to a valid ministry. It is an opinion, however, which the Church abso¬ 
 lutely forbids every parish, every convention, every Deacon, Priest, or Bishop, from 
 acting on.’’ [This is Close Communion.]..xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Dec. 4. Parties. (Trib.) “ The new movement started by Bishop Cummins has 
 been prepared for a long time in advance.... Its remote causes have been in exist¬ 
 ence for years. ... The Ritualistic controversy... .lias of late been gathering fresh 
 forces”. .xii. 56; xiii. 22. 
 
 Dec. 13. Church of England. (Trib) Professor Geo. P. Fisher, of Yale 
 College, show's that Presbyterian ministers were formerly admitted to livings in the 
 Church of England..... .xii. 24. 
 
 Jan. 1, 1874. Ritualism in England (Obs.) says that a paper circulated in an 
 English church directs, “ If any of the Blessed Sacrament remains on the altar during 
 the singing of the Gloria in Excelsis, the faithful bow reverently at the words, ‘ We 
 
60 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 January 1, 1874. 
 
 ■worship Thee/ and that (Ch. St.) says ‘ there is most imminent peril to tlie peace 
 and unity of the Church if it is not suppressed.” 
 
 Jan. 1. Ritualism in Penn. (Obs.) Rev. Mason Gallagher stated that 
 Bishop Stevens of Penn, had ordered one of his clergy to give up six various prac¬ 
 tices in his Church, known as Ritualistic, but he refuses. 
 
 Jan. 1. Dr. De Koven (Obs.) Rev. Mason Gallagher says that “Dr. De 
 Koven, Warden of Racine College, requires the students to come to confession,.... 
 and travels toNashota to act as Confessor to the students there ; that Bishop Clark 
 of Rhode Island stated... .that Dr. De Koven came to his diocese for the same pur¬ 
 pose.’’ 
 
 Jan. 1. High—in England. (Obs.) "The Church Herald (English), says: “We 
 deeply regret to observe that-the Queen-partakes the-so-called ‘ Com¬ 
 munion ’ of the Scotch Presbyterians.”..xii. 
 
 Jan. 12. Dow Church (pamphlet). Rev. James A. Latane to Bishop Johns of 
 Virginia, withdrawing from the P. E. C., date Jan. 12, 1874, in pamphlet form (pp. 
 19), printed for the R. E. C. 
 
 He gives his reasons : “ I. The unhappy divisions into what are known as the 
 High Church and Low Church parties... .II. The countenance apparently given by 
 certain expressions in the Prayer Book to those ‘ erroneous and strange doctrines 
 
 contrary to God’s word/ out of which the divisions in the Church has grown_III. 
 
 The absolute impossibility of getting rid of these objectionable expressions in the 
 services of the Prayer Book... .IV. The attitude in which the Episcopal Church 
 stands in the present day toother Protestant Churches. ...This was. ...the real ques¬ 
 tion involved in Bishop Cummins’ communion act at the recent meeting of the 
 Evangelical Alliance... .And for taking his place at that table Bishop Cummins was 
 denounced in unmeasured terms, was accused of having violated the Constitution and 
 Canons of the Church, and was charged with having been unfaithful to the most 
 solemn vows a human being can assume... .There was, so far as I know, but one 
 paper in the entire Episcopal Church in this country, which spoke out in fearless and 
 honest and hearty terms in defense of him and in justification of his act [Episco- 
 
 palian ?]... .To fight the battle in the Church !- In the Church the tattle has 
 
 teen fought, and in the Church the tattle has teen lost ... .The R. E. C.meets 
 
 entirely my views of Scriptural truth... .The Diocese of Virginia... .as yet ... .has 
 been able to keep back from her own borders the rising tide of Romish error... .Let 
 us end this discord in the Church—let us separate from those with whom we can¬ 
 not dwell in peace... .The movement of Bishop Cummins is but a new phase of an 
 old question. However the Church papers may ‘ pooh-pooh ’ it and affect to despise 
 it, the authorities of the Church have shown, by their hasty action in the matter, 
 how differently they think and feel about it ”.xi. 26. 
 
 Jan. 21. Ritualism. in New York (Epis.) at St. Albans and St. Mary the Vir¬ 
 gin, described by William Little of Morrisania, N. Y. ..xii. 58- 
 
 Jan. 29. Low. (Ch. St.) says of Rev. Jas. A. Latane (Jan. 12): “His letter_ 
 
 takes a despairing view of the tendencies of the Church_We have read this let¬ 
 
 ter with profound sadness... .It is generous and tender in spirit... .But is there any 
 
 need why we should lose such men? ”.xi. 27 
 
 Jan. 29. Succession (Ch. St.) says R. E. C. has it.ii- 
 
 Jan. 29. Scotch Episcopal Church (Ch. St.) The London Record ridicules 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 61 
 
 January 29, 1874. 
 
 the action of the Archbishop of Canterbury in obtaining from the Scotch Episcopal 
 Church the consecration of the Bishop Designate for Madagascar. The Scotch 
 Bishops refer in their “ minute” agreeing to this act, to the “ precedent afforded by 
 the analogous case of the consecration of Bishop Seabury in 1784,” while the Arch¬ 
 bishop of Canterbury, in his letter to the Primus, founds his request upon this 
 “kindly foundation of the American Church”.xi. 43. 
 
 Feb. 4. Joint Communion (Epis.) The Dean of Canterbury, in Exeter Hall, 
 defended his action in taking part with non-Episcopalians. 
 
 III. Oct. 1, 1874, Bp. Tozer; Oct. 12, Dr. Mead; v. 2, 3. 
 
 Feb. 4. Ritualism in Hew York (Epis.) Rev Dr. C. W. Andrews of Virginia, 
 says: “ New York has been the chief seat of this great trouble and plague of our 
 Church... .In 1809 a large number of presbyters and laity appealed to eleven of our 
 Bishops... .This the eleven Bishops brought to the attention of their brethren. 
 ... .Bishop Potter promptly replied in a pamphlet, written in a most imperious and 
 disrespectful tone, reflecting upon them severely for paying any attention to men ‘ of 
 tender consciences.’ He says: ‘ The eccentricities of half a dozen individuals, a few 
 unguarded expressions, or what is more common, expressions taken out of their 
 proper connection and so perverted ; certain doings which by a plausible but unfair 
 representation can be made to bear the appearance of grievous error ; these are the 
 things which are constantly seized upon to make out a charge, which, as I have 
 said, is all but wholly false.’ As to the authors of the American Prayer Book, he 
 censures them for giving an alternate in the Office to the form * Receive the 
 
 Holy Ghost-Whosesoever sins ye remit,’ etc. ‘The omission made in the 
 
 Visitation of the Sick is much to be regretted ’... .as follows....‘ I absolve thee 
 from all thy sins.’ What he has tolerated in the case of St. Albans and others, in¬ 
 cluding the notorious Bradley, is well known, though prompt action was taken on 
 the other side, and public discipline administered with great pomp... .St. Mary the 
 Virgin. .. .an altar... .Bishop Potter went and consecrated... .These ‘ altars’ are 
 being multiplied in New York, erected after the pattern of those pulled down at the 
 Reformation.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 18. Ritualist (Epis.) Dr. De Koven in the Convention of Wisconsin re¬ 
 ceived for Bishop thirty-five votes and Dr. Hoffman thirty-three by the clergy. 
 But the laity voted fifteen for Dr. D. and thirty-one for Dr. H. From the reports 
 in the secular papers, it appears that there was great uproar in the Convention and 
 they adjourned without electing a Bishop. 
 
 Feb. 5, 1875, De K; Feb. 6, Coleman; xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 25. Parties (Epis.) Church Journal says : “The great mass of the mem¬ 
 bers of the Church, clerical and lay, are ‘High’ Churchmen.... The ‘Low’ 
 Churchmen, who were at one time the only other division known, are not numer¬ 
 ous, and they are certainly not increasing. The ‘ Broad ’ Churchmen, whatever 
 that title may mean, are absolutely as a party in the American Church, without 
 place or influence.... In no General Convention for years has there been any 
 possibility of opposing what ‘ High ’ Churchmen deemed desirable.... The old- 
 fashioned Evangelical men, swamped into a hopeless and helpless minority, stand 
 * looking on, asking what we propose to do about it.”.xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Feb. 25. Low Church. (Epis.) Rev. W. McGuire, withdrawing from the P. E. 
 C. to join the R. E. C., writes to Bishop WbittinghamIn my view-what- 
 
62 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 February 25, 1874. 
 
 ever t!ie alleged soundness of its doctrinal formularies may be, is essentially, increas¬ 
 ingly, and hopelessly a Romanizing position.... Protestant and Romisli Sacra- 
 mentarianism cannot now live and breathe together.... With a deep sense of the 
 solemnity of the step I am now taking in the severance from the Church of my 
 fathers,” etc. [His father was the late Rev. Dr. McGuire of Virginia.] See ii. 
 March 14, 1874, Bishop Whittingham, tor answer.xi. 27. 
 
 March 4. Ritualism in Maryland. (Epis.) Layman says that in Maryland “ a 
 score or more of clergymen have found the Sacrament of Penance to prove of ines¬ 
 timable benefit. The P. E. C. does or does not allow confession to a priest who 
 
 has authority to pronounce absolution.... If Sacramental Confession is not taught, 
 if priest does not mean priest, and altar does not mean altar; in the name of 
 common sense, let us have a Prayer Book we can read, and comprehend.” 
 
 March 4. High and Low, (Epis.) seven differences. 
 
 March 4. Hopeless (Epis.) Maryland, “ LI ” says: “ So far as the Bishop’s let¬ 
 ter is a reply to the appeal of Mr. Latane to the Diocese of Virginia, it shows how 
 hopeless that appeal is.” [That Virginia should secede.].iii. Jan. 15, Low. 
 
 March 11. Low (Epis.) Rev. J. D. Wilson, on leaving Pittsburgh for Peoria, 
 addressed his congregation. He shows that the Church of England in former 
 days was in full communion with the Continental Protestants. So in early days 
 the P. E. C. recognized other Protestant Churches. But exclusiveness and Priest¬ 
 hood now dominate.... The Book of Common Prayer is a mine of precious truth. 
 I cannot use it, for the galleries are filled with noxious gases,”.xi. 27. 
 
 March 18. Ritualistic Books (Epis.) in use as stated in the Ottawa Times. 
 
 xii. 58. 
 
 March 25. Low. (Epis.) “ Quirist ’’ says: “ But supposing Bishop Cummins’ 
 action has not met our views in every respect, or that we should be unwilling to 
 follow the man for one reason or another ; what are we to do with the Declaration 
 with which he accompanies his action? These principles are not his [exclusively] 
 but in every sense such as the leaders in our party have spent their lives in advo¬ 
 cating.”.xi. 1 ; xii. 58. 
 
 March 25. Parties (Epis.) “ Is there not a cause ?” by “ M.” “ Why, men and 
 brethren, what have you been saying and doing for the last ten years ? Have you 
 not fretted and frowned and threatened ? Have you not refused to co-operate on the 
 plea of conscience with High Churchmen when they were in no wise different from 
 what they are to-day? What have you been making such a noise about?.... In 
 the ecclesiastical polities of the P. E. C. the goose that lays down the golden egg 
 is the Low Church party. ... What they [High Church] propose, is to keep their 
 hands upon this silly goose, poke round in its nest every day for a new T egg, and if 
 ever she stops laying, then pick her to the skin and divide her corpus among ‘ the 
 children of the Church.’_The Declaration settled nothing, and by High Church¬ 
 
 men was not meant to settle anything. It was another tub thrown to the whale.” 
 
 xi. 1 ; xii, 51. 
 
 . April 8. Parties. (Epis.) A “ Presbyter of Maryland ’’ says: “ Bishop Potter 
 
 has compared it [R. E. C.] to a ‘ mosquito bite.’.... During the last fifteen years the 
 Low Church party has lost... .Maine, Massachusetts... .a large part of Pennsylva¬ 
 nia_about half of Ohio is ready to follow ; South Carolina... Georgia... .Ten¬ 
 
 nessee and Louisiana.... In many of the dioceses things are being so arranged 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 63 
 
 April 8, 1874. 
 
 that Low Churchmen will soon find themselves like the dove out of the Ark.... 
 This diocese by a late Canon has been divided into Convocations, each of which is 
 under the charge of a D'ean, whose appointment is under the control of the Bishop. 
 Under the Bishop he manages his Convocation.... In almost every diocese it is 
 being made the interest of the clergy to become ‘ Moderate Churchmen.’.... They 
 propose to the Low Churchmen to do the disbanding, while they do the publishing 
 
 and educating and sending out missionaries. You will be obliged soon, 
 
 if you wish to find Low Churchmen, to go to the graveyard or to the R. E. C.” 
 
 xii, 56. 
 
 May 7. Parties (Cli. St.) “ In the Irish Church Synod... .it was proposed to 
 omit the answer to the second question [in the Catechism] the words ‘ whereby I 
 was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of 
 Heaven ;’. .. .six to one of the clergy voted against it, while a large majority of the 
 
 laity voted in favor of it.It is believed... .that the necessity for a ‘ two-tliird 
 
 vote ’ of both orders renders it very improbable that revision will be much promoted 
 this year.”.xii. 58. 
 
 May 20. Candidates Degenerating (Trib.) Bishop Littlejohn in Convention 
 of Long Island, said: “ The demand for recruits to the Church far exceeds the sup¬ 
 ply, and this being so, she more than winks at a choice of candidates. Looking 
 over the past twenty years, it is plain to see that nothing but a marked physical or 
 mental debility has debarred any one from becoming a candidate for Holy Orders.’’ 
 
 xii. 45. 
 
 June 3. Low (So. Cli.) The editor says the Virginia Convention of May 20, 
 had these results : 1, The election of a decidedly Low Church anti-ritualistic dele¬ 
 gation to the General Convention. 2, The emphatic rejection of any idea of separa¬ 
 tion from the P. E. C. 3, The clear and warmly expressed views of the 
 Bishop against any revision of the Prayer Book.iii. Jan. 12, 1874, Low. 
 
 June 4. Prayer Book changes (Ch. St.) Editor says: “ What Dr. Andrews 
 says about ‘ putting certain ambiguous expressions in the Prayer Book into accord 
 with the judicially determined sense of the book as a whole,’is worth seriously 
 looking into. .. .It is notorious that the Prayer Book was framed on a basis of com¬ 
 promises ; that amid the diversity of opinion prevailing, the idea was to strike a 
 sort of middle course between opposing parties... .When a Churchman wishes to 
 impress others with the fact that the Episcopal Church is what the Roman lawyers 
 called a ‘ Corporation sole,’ he speaks of the Church and other ‘Christian bodies.’ 
 ... .It is one of those petty, designed, and yet innocent phrases which would only 
 excite a smile did it not excite that pity which, Coleridge says, is allied to con¬ 
 tempt.”.xii. 12-24. 
 
 June 4. Present crisis (Ch. St.) Tribune editorial, in reviewing the action of 
 the Diocesan Conventions, says : “ The Ritualistic controversy is not a new one to 
 the P. E. C., but the present crisis has new elements of danger, which seems to be 
 fully realized by the leaders of both contending parties. Not the least of these 
 dangers is found in the fact that a new Church, under the leadership of one who 
 received his ministry and his bishopric in the old Church stands with wide-open 
 doors to receive the malcontents. Under these circumstances the religious world 
 will look forward with great interest to the next triennial General Convention of 
 the P. E. C., which will meet in this city a few months hence. Under its action 
 
64 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 June 4, 1874. 
 
 largely depends, not only tlie future of the Cliurcli as a body, but the individual 
 denominational relations of thousands of earnest Christians in all parts of the 
 
 United States.”.xi. 1. 
 
 • _ 
 
 June 10. High and Low (Epis.) Martin Farquliar Tupper, in a letter to the 
 Record, notes several differences...xii. 58. 
 
 June II. Liberty of Laymen (Ch. St.) thinks this greater in the P. E. C. 
 than in any other Church, including the R. E. C. [This is true in so far that the 
 R. E. C. requires the Wardens to be communicants and the Vestrymen to be of un¬ 
 exceptionable moral character. But in other respects see Oct. 13, Arbitrary.] 
 
 xi. 43. 
 
 June 11. Ritualism (Ch. St.) The Church Journal says: “It is now much 
 more clearly and generally understood, that the question is not one of cassocks, 
 chasubles, cottas, or processionals; but of doctrine, and that doctrine goes to the 
 very root of things... .To change the Prayer Book, is simply out of the question.” 
 
 xii. 56. 
 
 Jline 11. Compromise (Ch. St.) Dr. Magee, in Parliament, said: “ The word 
 compromise is written all over the face of the Anglican Prayer Book... .If neither 
 interference nor general relaxation is practicable, and if it is dangerous to extend 
 too far the necessary discretion of the administrators, does not this point to the 
 need of a thorough and searching Church reform ?”.xii. 12-24. 
 
 June 12. Ritualism in Ottawa described in 12 letters to Bishop Lewis; col¬ 
 lected into a pamphlet of 33 pages.xiii. 58. 
 
 July 8. Injunction by Bishop Medley (Epis.) At Sussex, N. B., the Vestry 
 invited Rev. W. V. Feltwell, of the R. E. C., to deliver a lecture. Two gentlemen 
 served upon him a notice of Inhibition, by “ His Lordship the Bishop of Frederic¬ 
 ton,” dated June 22, 1874, signed “John Fredericton.” The lecture was delivered 
 notwithstanding. [I saw this vestry when they called on Bishop Cummins, after 
 the service on Nov. 3, in which Bishop Cummins was assisted by one Methodist, 
 one Baptist, and one Reformed Episcopal minister, as prearranged by the rector ; 
 and to my question received the answer that the whole Vestry had seceded in a 
 body and were then present as members of the R. E. C.—B. A.].xiii. 7. 
 
 July 8. Ritualism in Toronto, Canada (Epis.) “ The Synod of the Diocese has 
 just closed one of the most exciting sessions... .Very Rev. Dean Grassett said that 
 he had never held the doctrine of Apostolic Succession... .Rev. Dr. Lett: Did we 
 understand the Dean of Toronto to say that he does not hold the doctrine of Apos¬ 
 tolic Succession ? Very Rev. Dean Grassett: That is what I distinctly say, and 
 that is what I have always taught my people.”... .“ Col. J. G. Denison rose amid 
 considerable noise,” and offered a resolution against Ritualism. The Bishop tried 
 to stop discussion. Col. D. was interrupted by Rev. Mr. Ford. Chief-Justice Draper 
 called Mr. Ford to order. Some sharp words passed between the Bishop and Col. 
 D., who said : “ If lay delegates were to have a place in this Synod, they ought to 
 know what that place was. If they were going to be put down in this way they 
 had better stay at home.”.•.iii. Jan. 8, 1875 ; xii. 58. 
 
 July 9. Bishop Gregg (Ch. St.) in the Diocesan Council of Texas, May 30, 
 among remarks quoted (ii. July 9), said : “ The disturbing influences... .the conflict 
 between Medievalism and Catholicity ... .a conflict which is deepening and becom¬ 
 ing more fierce aud intensified than ever before among us... .Disguise the facts as 
 
 j 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 65 
 
 July 9, 1874. 
 
 we may, it is no longer a legitimate struggle between two or more schools in tbe 
 Church... of ritual or ritualism so called, but of fundamental faith and practice — 
 centering in the doctrine of Eucharistic adoration... .There is manifestly a fixed 
 determination on the part of advanced Churchmen to wage the conflict to the last 
 extremity... .The matter... .was made the subject of anxious and excited discus¬ 
 sion in two successive General Conventions, and finally disposed of in 1871, by 
 leaving it in the hands of the ‘ Ordinary ’... .to ‘ suppress the evil .. .The result 
 was... .the secession of a few to Rome, and has been witnessed since in the con¬ 
 tinued spread of the evil, in the open inculcation, even in high places, of what we 
 believe to be fundamentally false doctrine, in a more thoroughly organized effort to 
 propagate the same, and in a more bold and aggressive front than ever before. A 
 further result has been the noisy and disturbing agitation... .with the unblushing 
 and reiterated charge made by... .the opposite extreme in the Church : that she is 
 directly responsible, as her formularies and dogmatic teaching now stand, for cer¬ 
 tain alleged objectionable phrases in her Book of Common Prayer, and novel and 
 corrupt practices tacitly sanctioned or openly allowed.” [For the next portion see 
 ii. July 9. Then as follows] : “That something should be done now to correct the 
 present evil, there can be no question. .. .The spirit that animates and urges on the 
 present advanced movement will not brook opposition, and has no reverence for 
 authority which is adverse, or respect for opinions contrary to its own. It is self 
 willed, imperious in its individualism, and lawless as the most unbridled sectarian¬ 
 ism itself. Pastoral letters have also failed most signally to make any impression 
 or to give relief. And canons prohibitory would prove wholly ineffectual as the law 
 of the Church is now administered. All this at best would be mere surface prun¬ 
 ing. We must go deeper down than this, and strike at the root of the disease by 
 bringing to trial the teachers of false doctrine. In other words, by the enforcement 
 of a sound and unsparing discipline. But this can only be done through a judicial 
 authority which shall define the teaching and interpret the law of the Church, 
 making it uniformly operative in every place alike. But such a tribunal we 
 have not had. The other departments of our ecclesiastical government have been 
 merged into the legislative, and that has virtually undertaken to make, interpret, 
 
 and execute the law_ ‘In essentials unity ; in non-essentials liberty ; in all things 
 
 charity .’ But charity does not demand apologetic extenuation of heresy or schism 
 ... .The business of the Church is not with men’s motives, but with their acts, and 
 the necessary results of those acts, by which alone they are to be judged... ,xii. 58. 
 
 July 9. S. Albans, Holborn (So. Ch.) This ritualistic church was founded by 
 J. G. Hubbard, one of the members for the City of London. He said : “ The money 
 
 _all went away from me. It was no longer mine... .For some time I took the 
 
 office of church-warden ; but from the first day, practices arose against which I 
 
 protested_I was obliged to withdraw-and abandon the work upon which I had 
 
 heartily entered six months before ”.xii. 52, 58. 
 
 July 15. Church Liberty (Epis.) From tw r o columns of criticisms, it appears 
 that Dr. Newton, in his‘pamphlet, claims that clergymen in the P. E. C. have the 
 right to change the Baptismal Service as Dr. Cheney did, and that he himself does 
 so. (iii. Aug. 13, 1874; Aug. 13,1875; Feb. 10, 1875, Jay ; March 17,1875; xiii. 
 13; xi. 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, not 21 ; ii. Dec. 1,1873, card). 
 
 Aug. 13. Church Liberty (Ch. St.) says : “ Nothing could be more unwise or 
 
66 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 August 13, 1874. 
 
 miserably abortive than the Cummins movement. We are therefore attracted at 
 once by the position of Dr. Newton, who feels as strongly on these points as any of 
 those who have joined in this unfortunate separation, but who has good sense 
 enough to see that this is no way in which to secure larger liberty, to purify the 
 Church.” (iii. July 15, references; Aug. 19, Cheney ; Sept. 10, Eccles; Sept. 10, 
 Geog.; March 17, 1875). 
 
 Aug. 19. Cheney-Whitehouse Case (Epis.) The Circuit Court on Aug. 15, 
 1874, decides that the church built at the expense of Bishop Cheney’s congregation 
 does not belong to them, but to the P. E. C. Also, that the trial of Dr. Cheney by 
 four assessors, when five were appointed, renders all their action, and all depending 
 upon that action, uncanonical and void, according to the laws of the P. E. C. 
 Hence the Rev. C. E. Cheney has not been deposed from the P. E. C., and cannot 
 be ejected from the Church which belongs to the P. E. C., and that was the nature 
 of the suit.xiii. 13. 
 
 Aug. 27. Church, of England (Ch. St.) The London Spectator says : “ It was 
 the orthodox [in Parliament] who cheered Sir W. Harcourt’s hint: That Convocation, 
 reformed or unreformed, ought not to exist; that Parliament had nothing to learn 
 from any ecclesiastics, and that in particular the authority of Archbishops over 
 Bishops was a matter not to be settled by the consent of Christendom, but by the 
 will of a body, which on such subjects does not pretend to represent more than the 
 predominant opinion of the larger half of the people of England and Wales... . 
 Parliament was master anyhow—master as to doctrine as well as discipline.” 
 
 xii. 22, 58. 
 
 Sept. 10. Only one candidate in Maryland (Ch. St.) Bishop Whittingham, 
 in his late address, said: “ But one candidate for holy orders has been admitted 
 within the year... There is great remissness somewhere. Shall I greatly err if I 
 were to say everywhere V’ (See the references at Aug. 13, Church and State. 
 
 xii. 45. 
 
 Sept. 10. Ecclesiastical Courts (Ch. St.) Editor says: “The chaotic condi¬ 
 tion of our ecclesiastical courts... .Above all, we can scarcely realize that even the 
 uncanonical sentence of a Bishop is irreversible (except perhaps in the civil courts), 
 and that the law of the Church may vary for every diocese... His contention was, 
 
 ‘ that simply as a matter of ecclesiastical law, an uncanonical sentence was voidable, 
 and not void, and was therefore practically absolute because irreversible.’ Precisely 
 -—and a very pretty state of law it is, when ‘ uncanonical sentences ’ are ‘ irre¬ 
 versible.’ ” (iii. Aug. 13; Oct. 28. Appeal ; xiii. 13). 
 
 Sept. 10. Geographical Churchmanship (Ch. St.) The editor suggests a 
 map to indicate the standard of Churchmanship in each diocese. “All a man 
 would have to do thereafter would be to consult his map, on which he could deter¬ 
 mine at a glance the precise area of Low, High, High and Dry, High fancy, mixed, 
 or compound. But this is ridiculous, says the reader. Ridiculous ! If it is not 
 ridiculous to have the thing, is it ridiculous to represent it ?”. .xiii. 13. 
 
 Sept. 24. Dr. Seymour (Ch. St.) Editor; “ In the present condition of the 
 Church, it may seem a misfortune that a man of Dr. Seymour’s Churchmanship 
 should have been chosen for a Bishop; but perhaps it is just as well to bring things 
 to an issue first as last. The General Convention is given to understand that 
 ritualism is unterrified and unabated.”.xii. 56. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 67 
 
 September 26, 1874. 
 
 Sept. 2S. Ritualism (Trib.) editorial on the approaching General Convention 
 of the P. E. C. “ The question of ritual may be brought up. .. .Every effort will 
 be made to prevent any discussion on the subject. .. .From the action of many of 
 the Diocesan Conventions, the question of ritual will unquestionably be brought up 
 ... .a matter concerning which there is such a diversity of opinion, that if the Con¬ 
 vention were to decide one way to please the other side, the opposition would take 
 serious offence, and the breach be made wider than before ”.xii. 58. 
 
 Sept. 30. Ritual and Appeal (Epis.) Circular of Rev. W. H. Carter, D.D., of 
 Passaic, N. J., and others, asking the General Convention : “ I. For such law as shall 
 declare what ornaments and ritual—within well defined limits—and what penalties 
 shall attach to the transgression of these limits by defect or excess. II. For such 
 legislation as shall result in a Court of Appeal, (iii. Sept. 10). 
 
 Oct. 1. Bishop Tozer (Trib.) unanimously invited by the New York Diocesan 
 Convention to sit beside the Bishop.v. 5. 
 
 Oct. 1. RitualisiA (Trib.) “ St. Mary the Virgin ” was admitted to union with the 
 New York Convention, by a close vote, after having “ been refused admission on 
 several occasions ” ...xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 8. to 'Nov. 3. The extracts from the official verbatim reports of the 
 speeches and acts in the General Convention of the P. E. C. are quoted on the day 
 of their occurrence, without stating the authority, which in all cases is the Daily 
 Churchman. 
 
 Oct. 8. Greek. Church. “ Resolved, That any Priest or other clergy of the Holy 
 Orthodox Eastern Church be invited to seats in the Convention.” 
 
 xii. 58; iii. Oct. 20. 
 
 Oct. 12. Pan-Anglican meeting at Lambeth. This long and interesting dis¬ 
 cussion showed that the Bishop of Litchfield (who preached the Convention sermon) 
 had come to this country with the view of expediting the formation of a Pan- 
 Anglican Organic Union, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as Metropolitan of the 
 whole, and with a Court of Appeal to produce uniformity in the whole, with all the 
 members of the Court in England. This was not distinctly avowed, but was sup¬ 
 posed to be the secret purpose, and the leading minds in the Convention scouted 
 the idea of this surrender of our nationality.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 12. Rev. Dr. Mead said: “ This Church insulted by the Dean of Canter¬ 
 bury.” [by the Joint Communion of Oct. 12.]........v. 5. 
 
 Oct, 12. Mr. Shattuck of Mass, said: “ I was present at the Church Congress 
 in England some four years ago, and you would have thought that the Church of 
 Christ was confined to the realm of England.”.xii. 24. 
 
 Oct. 12. Toleration (Ch. St.) Dr. Andrews says: “The word ‘ tolerate’ there¬ 
 fore in the stated propositions must be taken in the sense of not preventing. In 
 this sense it is true our Church at this time tolerates the denial of Justification by 
 Faith, the sole Mediatorsliipof Christ, Auricular Confession, Eucharistic Adoration— 
 in short, Romanism preached and penned, published and practiced.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 13. Arbitrary Power. Rev. Mr. Shippen of Kentucky proposed to de¬ 
 fine what is ** Open and Notorious Evil Living,” which entitles a clergyman to 
 expel a layman from the communion. He said that if a rector thought the carry¬ 
 ing a gold-headed cane ‘ open and notorious evil living’ he might expel and the 
 layman could have no redress unless the Bishop reversed the action of the rector. 
 
68 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 October 13, 1874. 
 
 [Now in tlie R. E. C. no person can be excommunicated except on trial and convic¬ 
 tion for “ denial of the faith,’’ or “ a walk and conversation unworthy of a Christian 
 profession,’’ and “ nothing shall be admitted as matter of accusation which cannot be 
 proved to be such from Holy Scriptures.” Then he may appeal in case of condem¬ 
 nation.]...xi. 43. 
 
 Oct. 13. Representation. Rev. Dr. Beardsley of Connecticut shows that the 
 old populous dioceses may be swamped by the multitude of new and sparsely popu¬ 
 lated dioceses. [In the R. E. C. Representation is in the ratio of communicants.] 
 
 xi. 43. 
 
 Oct. 19. Ritualism. (Trib.) Editor says: “Its origin and spread—Catholic 
 and Protestant parties in the P. E. C.—The struggle in the General Convention.” 
 .... “ The once thoroughly Low Church Diocese of Massachusetts narrowly es¬ 
 caped electing a Ritualist for its Bishop.... If it is not a thing to be respected, it 
 is evidently a thing that is very much feared ;. .. .men do not fire broadsides at 
 butterflies;... .both parties realize that it is a question whether the Auglican Com 
 munion, as a separate body from the Roman, is essentially one with the Greek 
 Church or essentially one with the Protestant denominations.” The battle about 
 “ Ritualism in the present Convention is a battle raging about mere outposts.. .. 
 Episcopal churches in New York shade up through almost imperceptible degrees 
 from the anti-Ritual churches, such as Ascension and St. George’s, through those 
 that have adopted some only of the Ritualistic features, such as St. Ann’s, St. Chris¬ 
 topher’s, Heavenly Rest, and St. John’s, and so on up through Trinity Chapel, 
 Transfiguration, Holy Communion, Trinity Church, St. Ignatius, and St. Mary’s, 
 even to St. Albans at the top.”..xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 19. Ritualism. (Trib.) Anglican Bishops are to convene at Lambeth in 
 November to consider the subject of Eucharistic Vestments, which is now also un 
 der consideration in the Lower House of Canterbury Province. The Bishop of 
 Lincoln will lay before the Conference a number of petitions requesting the sanction 
 of a distinctive dress at the administration of the Communion. 
 
 Oct. 19. Board of Missions (Trib.) of the P. E. C. received $100,000 during 
 
 the past year, or $14,000 less than the year before.... ;.xii. 45. 
 
 Oct. 19. Catholicity. (Ch. St.) At the Episcopal Church Congress, Dr. Washburn 
 said: “ This is catholicity, Pan-Anglican catholicity ! Universal particular.This 
 
 is semper, ubique ct ab omnibus. Always from the Apostolic Fathers to the end of 
 the Nicean age, and since then, in the school from Andrews to Pusey ; everywhere 
 in the island of Great Britain and its colonies, in Ceylon, Calcutta, Gibraltar, Zanzi¬ 
 bar, and the rest; including our own Episcopal Churches; by all; by the whole 
 world—saving some millions of Latins and Protestants who both reject it; and the 
 whole English-speaking world, except half who are dissenters; and several hundred 
 thousands in this America. ”. xii. 8, 45. 
 
 Oct. 20. Greek Church. The Convention agreed to let the “ Filioque' 1 ' 1 ques¬ 
 tion rest indefinitely.,iii. Oct. 8. 
 
 Oct. 22. Bishop Seymour. The vote on the resolution reported by the Com¬ 
 mittee on the Consecration of Bishops, approving of the testimonials of the Rev. 
 George F. Seymour, D.D., Bishop elect of Illinois, is thus reported : 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 69 
 
 October 22, 1874. 
 
 Alab . 
 
 Alb . 
 
 Ark . 
 
 Cal . 
 
 Cen. N. Y. 
 
 Cen. Penn. 
 
 Conn . 
 
 Del... ... 
 
 Easton . 
 
 Fla . 
 
 Ga . 
 
 Ill . 
 
 Ind . 
 
 Iowa . 
 
 Kan . 
 
 Ky . 
 
 L. Id . 
 
 La . 
 
 Me . 
 
 Md . 
 
 Mass . 
 
 Names of 
 Dioceses. 
 
 MMrfiKOOOOMMCOOJHMWHOtCCOCOPiMO 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Clerical vote by 
 individuals. 
 
 
 525 
 
 o 
 
 HA HA HA HA HA 1—l. ha MK M- 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Clerical vote by 
 Dioceses. 
 
 l-A M- M- M- M- M-M- 
 
 .No. 
 
 CO 
 
 vi 
 
 p 
 
 Lay vote by 
 individuals. 
 
 OO 
 
 No. 
 
 ha M- l-n 1—^ 1— 
 
 > 
 
 VI 
 
 p 
 
 Lay vote by 
 Dioceses. 
 
 M- M- M- 1— 1 I—*- M- M- M- M- 
 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 M , ^ P d- (t ® CD tS - • * • • ® O | - u JC 
 
 ; h^i • • P B • .a B ® o“, h eh. . Pcm 
 
 . • on r r • 
 
 : H-** * i ::::::::::: : : : j 
 
 • • • i « t * • « t 
 
 Names of 
 Dioceses. 
 
 C5 
 
 HA HA 
 
 to 00 
 
 00 
 
 HA CD 
 
 0505OrfHt0t0t0C0t0HAHAt005t005t005 05t0rfH 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Clerical vote by 
 individuals. 
 
 -5 
 
 ha 
 
 HAHA^OtOtOtOtOtOtOCOtOHAtOHAtOHAHAHA® 
 
 teS 
 
 o 
 
 
 Ol CD 
 
 HA HA 
 
 O CD 
 
 HA HA HA H—a h 1 ha HA ha HA 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Clerical vote by 
 Dioceses. 
 
 ha 
 
 O 
 
 HA HA HA 
 
 No. 
 
 or 
 
 05 
 
 OHOMHtDOHtSOOtfAMOSOHMiCOU) 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Lay vote by 
 individuals. 
 
 HA 
 
 to 
 
 C5T 05 
 05 00 
 
 HMlfAOHl505b5t!5^tfA®OHH®HHCi5H 
 
 No. 
 
 M- 
 
 05 
 
 K K K K K 
 
 Aye. 
 
 Lay vote by 
 Dioceses. 
 
 Or 
 
 HA ha 
 05 CD 
 
 MHH HA HA HA HA ha HA 
 
 No. 
 
 Therefore Dr. Seymour liad in his favor a majority of 18 votes of individual 
 clergy, and of 6 votes of individual clergy and laity combined; and of 4 votes by 
 dioceses when clerical and lay votes by dioceses are combined, and lost his con¬ 
 firmation by the refusal of a majority of 5 lay votes by dioceses, because he must 
 receive a majority of both orders. [The above corrects the evident errors in the 
 Churchman, which has Central Penn. 2 yeas and 2 yeas repeated. Also N. II. one 
 yea for one nay]...xii. 56. 
 
 Oct. 22. Court of Appeal. The House of Bishops propose to amend the 
 
70 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 October 22, 1374. 
 
 Constitution so that “Appeal from tlie judgment of a Diocesan Court may be pro¬ 
 vided for by the General Convention. Oct. 24, the Committee report that appeal 
 requires a change of Constitution. Oct. 28, the Committee report that a Court of Ap¬ 
 peal is not expedient..ii. Oct. 22 ; iii. Sept. 10, Eccl. ; xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 22. Ritualism. General Dix and 300 other communicants oppose any re. 
 strictive canon.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 23. Ritualism. The Committee proposes to forbid, “ (a) The use of incense; 
 (b) the placing or carrying or retaining a crucifix in any part of a place of public 
 worship; (c) the elevation of the elements in the Holy Communion in such man¬ 
 ner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects towards which adoration 
 is to be made ; (d) any act of adoration of or towards the elements in the Holy 
 Communion, such as bowing, prostrations, genuflections, and all such like acts not 
 authorized or allowed by the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.” On Oct. 26, 
 Dr. Vinton said that this was the unanimous action of the 13 members of the 
 Committee. On Oct. 27, it was adopted by ayes 38 clerical, and 34 lay, to noes 2 
 clerical and 3 lay. Divided, 1 clerical, 1 lay. On Oct. 30, the House of Bishops re¬ 
 turned the canon with (a) and (b), on incense and crucifix, stricken out. The Lower 
 House refused to adopt the change ; a committee of conference was appointed. On 
 Oct. 31, the committee reported in favor of the change made by the Bishops, and 
 the Canon was adopted by ayes—clerical 38, lay 28; to noes—clerical 2, lay 1; divided 
 —clerical 1, lay 2. 
 
 The Canon as passed is as follows: “ Sec. 2 [1]. If any Bishop have reason to 
 believe, or a complaint be made by two or more of his presbyters, that within his 
 jurisdiction ceremonies or practices not ordained or authorized in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and setting forth or symbolizing erroneous or doubtful doctrines, 
 which have been introduced by any minister during the celebration of the Holy 
 Communion; such as (a) the elevation of the elements in the Holy Communion in such 
 manner as to expose them to the view of the people as objects towards which adora¬ 
 tion is to be made; (b) any act of adoration of or towards the elements in the 
 Holy Communion, such as bowings, prostrations, genuflections; (c) all other like 
 acts not authorized or allowed by the Book of Common Prayer—it shall be the duty 
 of the Bishop to summon the Standing Committee as his council of advice, and 
 with them to investigate the matter.” Then follows the mode of proceeding to 
 “ admonish ” or to try “ for breach of his ordination vow ”.xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 24. Baptismal Regeneration. Baptism of Infants. Committee proposes 
 to “ Add as a Rubric, at the end of the Office for Infant Baptism....‘ The minister 
 may, at his discretion, omit the exhortation preceding the Lord’s Prayer in the 
 above office, and in place of the thanksgiving substitute the Collect for Easter even¬ 
 ing'.’ This Rubric, however, is not to be construed as implying any change in the 
 doctrine of the Church.” [This would authorize the omission of Baptismal Re¬ 
 generation].xii. 56 
 
 Get. 24. Changes suggested. The Committee on Canons “ furthermore be¬ 
 lieve that certain changes are highly desirable on their own account, and with a 
 view to accomplish, among others, the following results, viz.: 1st. To provide a 
 shorter form of service, public and private, upon certain occasions and in certain 
 cases. 2d. To provide greater variety in the regular forms of public service. 3d. 
 To provide for the separation, when so desired, of services now commonly used in 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 71 
 
 October 24, 1874. 
 
 connection. 4th. To remove obscurities in the present Rubric, and to supply de¬ 
 ficiencies in the same ; e. g., to define, for order sake, more accurately the postures 
 to be observed and robes and ornaments to be used. 5th. To secure a better Lec¬ 
 tionary, especially for Lent. 6. To relieve the clergy, scrupulous in the observance 
 of the Rubrics, from certain hardships now resulting therefrom. On Oct. 29, this 
 Canon was called up, and the report says that more than 500 clergymen, and a very 
 large number of vestries and other laymen, and the nearly unanimous action of one 
 of the largest dioceses [Virginia ?] desire relaxation of the Rubrics. Oct. 31, again 
 called up, and gave way to pass the Canon on Ritual (as quoted under Oct. 23). Then 
 lost by ayes, 5 clerical, 6 lay; to noes, 34 clerical, 24 lay. Divided, 1 clerical, 1 lay. 
 
 xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 24. No laymen are in the Standing Committees of Connecticut and Mary¬ 
 land, says Mr. Welsh of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Oct. 26. The Bishops propose a canon to inhibit immediately a Bishop or 
 presbyter abandoning the P. E. C .viii. 5. 
 
 Oct. 26. Dr, Seymour. “ The acting dean, the Rev. Dr. Seymour,” of the 
 General Theological Seminary, appointed by the trustees, who are nominated by the 
 dioceses, and confirmed by the General Convention.xii. 59. 
 
 Oct. 26. Rev. Dr. De Koven denies Transubstantiation, but repeats his words 
 used in the General Convention of 1868, “ I myself adore, and would, if it were 
 necessary or my duty, teach my people to adore, Christ present in the elements of 
 bread and wine,” and says that in England this has been decided to be legal, and 
 shows that it is found in the Prayer Book. He says that the new Canon does not 
 forbid kneeling, which is the highest act of adoration. 
 
 Oct. 23; iii. Feb. 27; xii. 54, 20, 58 
 
 Oct. 20. Ritualistic books by Rev. Orby Shipley, quoted by Rev. Dr. Rudder 
 against Dr. De Koven, has “ Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Ever-Virgin, through 
 whose fulfilment of all righteousness, thy Divine Son was circumcised and became 
 obedient unto men—Pray for us .”—“ Grant, 0 Lord, we beseech Thee, that we Thy 
 humble servants, may enjoy continued health of mind and body, and by the glorious 
 intercession of Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, may be delivered from present sorrows 
 and have the fountain of everlasting joy.”..xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Bishop Cummins is referred to by Mr. Shattuck of Boston, who pro¬ 
 claims himself a Ritualist and desires the largest liberty for all. He says : “ He 
 
 w'anted freedom to teach all his doctrines. There was no Canon to hinder him. 
 There was no restraint at all. We gave him the highest post in the Church. We 
 made him assistant Bishop. We sent him forth to preach all his doctrines; but 
 suddenly he left us. Why ? Could he not preach everything he did ? Yes. But 
 because he could not make everybody else think and do just as he thought, he went 
 off.”.vii. 1. 
 
 Oct. 27. Bishop and no Church. Mr. Andrews of Ohio objects, that the 
 Canon (Oct. 23) refers exclusively to the Communion ; objects to indirect teaching 
 by symbols and not words. “ Suppose that this Convention expressly or impliedly 
 were to give voice to the opinion that incense... .is admissable, and on Christmas 
 next throughout... .this land... .surpliced boys enter these chancels and wave the 
 censer.... It would break up this Church, and this Convention would not sit 
 again. You would not have to discuss the question whether there could be a 
 
72 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 October 27, 1874. 
 
 Church without a Bishop, but whether there should be a Bishop without a 
 Church.’’.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Ritualism (Oct. 23.) Rev. Mr. Bolton of Penn, proposed more restric¬ 
 tions (than Oct. 23). He says that Ritualism signifies Romanism. “ Was it sim¬ 
 ply the selling of indulgences, for instance, that the Reformers objected to? No, 
 sir! It was the underlying Confessional, and the underlying thing at the root of 
 that which was Priestcraft in the Church of Rome.’’ He then read from a Ritu¬ 
 alistic book on the Communion. He thinks there is law enough already if en¬ 
 forced. He says of the proposed Canon (Oct. 23): “ Trophies of three weeks con¬ 
 clave—as the hatching of three weeks incubation. ‘ We have answered everything 
 and the course of the Church is now clear now having condemned these things 
 that do not exist in her midst at all; having condemned these things that nobody 
 cares anything about,” etc.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Ritualism (Oct. 23.) Rev. Dr. Garrett of Nebraska: “ You never can 
 draft a Canon excluding certain things by negative statements which shall be so 
 comprehensive, so exhaustive in its qualifications, as that nobody may be able to 
 
 evade its provisions.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Rev. Dr. Clark of New Jersey read extracts from a Ritualistic docu¬ 
 ment, which is used in this country and placed in the pews. He said: “ Sir, 
 Ritualism does exist.”..xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Ritualism. Mr. Blanchard of Maryland : “ I claim that this Canon 
 ....prohibits nothing, enjoins nothing.... All the specifications here are mere 
 words.’’ He proposes a substitute. He says of the secret session on Dr. Seymour : 
 “ It was assumed by all... .that the candidate... .could not by any possibility be 
 confirmed... .if he did hold... .or practice_Eucharistic’Adoration or... .Auric¬ 
 ular Confession.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Ritualism (Oct. 23.) Rev. Dr. Hall of Long Island says : “ It is per¬ 
 fectly well known what the Canon means. It means either the downfall or the 
 victory of Ritualism.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 27. Canon on Ritualism (Oct. 23) carried by ayes : thirty-eight clerical, 
 and thirty-four lay ; noes : two clerical, three lay ; divided one clerical, one lay 
 (see the Canon at Oct. 23).•.xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 28. Abandonment of Communion. Report put on calendar. 
 
 Oct. 28. Court of Appeals not expedient.iii. Sept. 10, 1874. 
 
 Oct. 29. Infant Baptism. Report of Oct. 24 called up. This report says 
 that more than 500 clergymen, and a very large number of Vestries and other lay¬ 
 men, and the nearly unanimous action of one of the largest dioceses [Virginia] 
 desire relaxation of the Rubrics.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 29. Infant Baptism (Oct. 24.) Rev. Dr. Andrews of Virginia, quotes Dr. 
 Pusey : “ No change of heart or of the affections, no repentance, however radical, 
 no faith, no love, can come up to the idea of this birth from above. It is the crea¬ 
 tion of a new heart, new affections, new desires,” etc.—“ a statement more bold and 
 contrary to the Bible than I can find in any Roman Catholic writer—and yet he 
 declares for himself and party in these and other extreme opinions, ‘ We have made 
 our way by the Prayer Book ’ [Oct. 26, Dr. De Koven.].... Revision is not asked 
 for, and no man is more opposed than I am to opening the Book to any Commission 
 for that purpose;... .let it come up singly and upon its own merits.The Bishops 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 73 
 
 October 29, 1874. 
 
 hung up a great light... .showing—what? In their opinion upon a single point, 
 what is not —something indeed to he thankful for—but upon no point what is ... 
 One of the greatest minds in the country, left our ministry lately solely on account of 
 the Baptismal Office.... In Illinois... .the sole trouble was about this office. 
 Take the other seceders, I know all of them who have given most character to 
 the movement, and in every case it was this Office and this alone which started 
 them; though when they determined to leave, they raised all the objections they 
 could think of.xii. 58; xi. 15. 
 
 Oct. 29. Infant Baptism (Oct. 24.) This report is opposed in succession by 
 Rev. Dr. Adams of Wisconsin, Mr. Burgwin of Pittsburg, Mr. Sliattuck of Massa¬ 
 chusetts, and Mr. Welsh of Pennsylvania.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 29. Reformed Episcopal Church. Rev. Dr. Adams said: “ If I under¬ 
 stand anything of the recent movement which was made from the Church, it was 
 ... .that this Church was drifting in the wrong direction. They felt alarmed > 
 they believed that there was so strong a current in the Church, of advancement; 
 that they were not safe in remaining here, and they had to leave the ship before 
 she sunk.”.xiii. 10 ; xii. 56. 
 
 Oct. 29. Reformed Episcopal Church. Rev. Dr. Sullivan of Illinois : “ The 
 Reformed Episcopal movement.... I regard that movement with neither fear nor 
 favor. It is perfectly true that when I go back to Scripture I can find Scripture 
 warrant aud authority for the movement. I can find it in the Old Testament. I 
 find it in the cave of Adullam, where every one that was in debt, and every one that 
 was in distress, and every one that was discontented, went to tlieir chosen leader 
 and he became captain over them.... I can find it in the history of Amelelc, who, 
 we are told, skulked like a coward in the rear of Israel and smote the liindermost 
 of them, even all that were feeble behind them. These are the only Scriptural war¬ 
 rants that I find for the Reformed Church.” 
 
 “ Rev. Dr. Clark of New Jersey. I call the gentleman to order. He is person¬ 
 al in his remarks. [Laughter.]”.xiii. 25 
 
 Oct. 29. Reformed Episcopal Church. Rev. Dr. Huntingdon, of Massa¬ 
 chusetts. ..“ Because we are in a crisis-What is this crisis ? The gentleman who 
 
 preceded me spoke as if he imagined it was a crisis brought on by a recent move¬ 
 ment in this Church, known as the Reformed Episcopal movement.” Rev. Dr. Sulli 
 van—“ I repudiate that.” Rev. Dr. Huntingdon—" The gentleman repudiates it. I 
 am glad he does. To my mind the crisis comes from a far profounder movement 
 than that.” He then attributes it to “ that illustrious man, John Henry Newman.” 
 
 xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 29. “ Let the Prayer Book alone,” says Mr. Wilder of Minnesota, is the 
 wish of the laity.xii. 58. 
 
 Oct. 29. Refromed Episcopal Church. The Rev. Dr. Garrison, of New 
 Jersey, favors the report of Oct. 24. “We are not to make laws for the Reformed 
 Episcopal Church, or those who desire to go off in that direction ; nor for the so- 
 called Ritualists, and those who desire to go of! there ; but with a broad, wide, 
 catholic desire to give the widest liberty—but liberty within law.” [This sounds 
 like Dr. Garrison, whom I have known for many years as a High Church, high- 
 toned leader of liberality in the High Church, high-toned Diocesan Convention of 
 New Jersey].vii. 4; xiv. 4. 
 
74 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Oct. 30, 1874. 
 
 Oct. 30. Canon on Ritual, as amended by the Bishops, is referred to the Com¬ 
 mittee on Canons, who report against it. Report adopted, and a Committee of 
 Conference appointed.xii. 50. 
 
 Oct-30. Rev. Dr. Fulton, of Alabama: “ Take... .the Western Diocese of 
 Kentucky. Will ypu there find seven self-supporting parishes all through it ? I 
 doubt it. Take the Dioceses of Alabama in the South. Have we there seven self- 
 sustaining parishes all through ? If we have, I will tell you how w r e have them. 
 We have them because we have men doing something like this—living on $150 a 
 year, and borrowing that.” [And still these few parishes have as much power as 
 the old large dioceses].xiii. 23. 
 
 Oct. 31. Rev. Dr. Seymour. Documents are mentioned as having been intro¬ 
 duced into the debate on his confirmation as Bishop of Illinois, with evident refer¬ 
 ence to something like these reported by the Republic of Oct. 21.xii. 56. 
 
 Oct. 31. Trustees of the General Theological Seminary are now 360 and 
 will soon reach 1,000. They are nominated by the Dioceses and confirmed by the 
 General Committee.xii. 56. 
 
 Oct. 31. Canon on Ritual reported by the Committee of Conference of Oct. 31, is 
 the same as reported (Oct. 23), with the omission of “ (a) The use of incense ; (b) 
 the placing or carrying or returning a crucifix in any part of a place of public 
 worship.’’ [And the Ritualists have triumphed].xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 31. Ritual. Dr. De Koven regards the change (Oct. 31) as valuable. 
 
 Oct. 31. Infant Baptism. Rev. Dr. Vinton and Rev. Dr. Andrews advocate 
 the proposed Canons (Oct. 24). 
 
 Oct. 31. Bishop Cheney. Rev. Dr. Beck, of Central Pennsylvania, opposes the 
 change (Oct. 24), and says that in 1868, a memorial was prepared in New York, and 
 sent over the whole Church, and received 500 signatures, saying that the whole 
 Church was distracted on this score. Then, “ This dispute has been of very long 
 standing... .That Bishop of irregular ordination, who is now lying loose 
 about in the West and East, and all about. [Laughter.] Bishop Cheney was once 
 brought to trial by one of the greatest legal minds in the Church... .for exercising 
 of his own accord this very privilege... .He is now a Bishop, wandering about, 
 consecrated by Bishop Cummins... .What does the man who is a Cheneyite say ? 
 Why, you have acted unjustly, you have deposed poor Cheney because... .he 
 omitted a single word. Now you... .authorize all to omit it... .If you find.. .that 
 you are wrong in using this book, withdraw from the Church whose manual it is 
 ... .and God’s blessing go with them ”.xii. 56, 58 ; xiii. 13. 
 
 Oct. 31. Bishop Cheney. Rev. Dr. Adams, of Wisconsin, referring to Dr. 
 Vinton’s remark respecting the changes in Infant Baptism says: “ I am glad 
 that he felt they were dead... .1 hope no vote of this House will try to restore them 
 to life, which life will uphold Bishop Cheney.xii. 58 ; xiii. 13. 
 
 Oct. 31. Canon on Ritual of (Oct. 31) passed by ayes, 38 clerical, and 28 lay; 
 noes, 2 clerical, and 1 lay ; divided—1 clerical, and 2 lay [so incense and crucifix 
 may be used. See above, Oct. 31.].xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Oct. 31. Reformed Episcopal Church. Mr. Meigs, of New Jersey, opposed 
 the change in Baptism (Oct. 24): “ Suppose for a moment that the word ‘ shall ’ in the 
 Rubrics of our Church should be changed to the word 4 mav ’ wherever it occurs. I 
 ask... .whether .. .we could not invite, most cordially and legitimately, the R. E. 
 C. and its Prayer Book to come into union with this Church.” 
 
 xv. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Oct. 31, 1874. 
 
 Oct. 31. Reformed Episcopal Church. Rev. Dr. Fulton, of Alabama, on tlio 
 change of Canon (Oct. 24): “ The men who are in favor of this thing now, are not 
 the old Evangelicals who carried the Evangelical banner so nobly... .Who are 
 they ? I say they are not brave men, or they would send us a petition saying, 
 ‘ Our conscience is troubled’.... As to the Apostolicity and validity of Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins’ sect. .. .1 deny it to be in any sense Apostolic_If I admit that his ordina¬ 
 
 tions may be valid, it is because I admit that a man’3 son is his son, although he 
 may be very unlike his father... .This comes under the head of a threat, £ Men are 
 waiting to see what we do in order that they may go out.’ If they are going out 
 to Bishop Cummins’ schism, by all means let them go, and I shall be thankful to 
 the Cummins schism for operating on this Church as a blister to which all such ele¬ 
 ments may be drawn ”...., .. .xiii. 10; xi. 43. 
 
 Oct. 31. Canon on Baptism of Infants (Oct. 24) lost by ayes, 5 clerical, 6 lay ; 
 noes, 34 clerical, 24 lay; divided, 1 clerical, 1 lay.xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Nov. 2. Church Music, Standard Bible, Lectionary for Lent, German Prayer 
 Book, Delegates to Canadian Synod, Publication of Journal (costs $8,000), Point¬ 
 ing the Paslter, Revised Hymnal, Separation of Services, Rubrical Revision by 
 Committee, Spanish Prayer Book, Congregations of a foreign race were discussed. 
 
 Nov. 3. Abandonment of Communion, “ provides for such a case as that of 
 Bishop Cummins, who recently left this Church.”... 1.viii. 5. 
 
 Nov. 3. Pastoral Letter of the Bishops. This in general is excellent. But 
 the following points are noteworthy: First, “ How glorious is the liberty, how high 
 the privilege of the clergy, to refrain from all self-assertion, to utter that only 
 which God and his Church put in their mouths, and to afford the most signal ex¬ 
 ample of that obedience of faith which obeys law simply because it is law.” (iii. 
 Nov. 11, Pastoral.) 
 
 Second , “ But a small proportion of those who are admitted candidates are self- 
 supporting. The priest’s office is not coveted by many. Nay, it is avoided by too 
 many of the ingenuous and favored youth of the country, whose parents are able to 
 give them an unrestricted choice of profession.” (xii. 45.) 
 
 Third, They lay great stress on the necessity of teaching the Catechism, 
 (xii. 58.) 
 
 Fourth, They lay great stress on the absolute obligation to observe “ Charity” 
 in its broadest sense, (xiii. 7; iii. Nov. 11. Bapt.) 
 
 Nov. 3. Changes in Church'Services (Trib. of Nov. 2.) editor : “ The mode 
 
 of conducting divine service in the P. E. C.has been so steadily changing 
 
 during the last seventy years, that as rendered anywhere to-day it would present 
 very strange features to the worshipper of the last century... .One of these is to 
 be found in the remarkable growth and spread of High Church principles, since 
 Bishop Hobart’s day, sixty years ago. In the subsequent growth and spread of 
 the Oxford views during the last thirty years, and in the consequent spread of Ritu¬ 
 alism or Catholicity in the last fifteen years.” This paper then describes St. 
 Albans and “ St. Ignatius and St. Mary the Virgin ” and “ Low Churches ” and con¬ 
 tinues with, — 
 
 Nov. 3. Ritual Legislation. (Trib, of Nov. 2). “There was no attempt at 
 hostile legislation until... .1868, since the first prominent American Ritualistic 
 Church (St. Albans, New York) had only been established about three years before 
 tn 1971 n decided attemot was made. A committee of 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 7Q 
 
 November 3, 1874. 
 
 Bishops brought in a report;... .this report was not seriously considered... .The 
 Canon was defeated. The next day the Bishops sent down a Canon on Eucharistic 
 Adoration, which was defeated in the Lower House by three votes. The It. E. C. 
 movement has since filled many Churchmen with apprehension, lest Virginia and 
 Ohio and Low Church parishes in other States should rally round the standard of 
 Bishop Cummins, on the ground that ‘ the whole Church in America is drifting 
 over to the Ritualists ; ’ ” (xii. 89.) Also, 
 
 Nov. 3. The New Canon Nugatory (Trib. of Nov. 2.) “ A delegate who is in 
 sympathy with the Ritualists says, “ It is amusing to see, that notwithstanding the 
 panic, to how small a residuum the list of prohibitions has been boiled down. Com¬ 
 pared with the list of the five Bishops in 1871 it will be seen that we may regard 
 as not forbidden the following.’’ (see Nov. 14, Ritualist.) 
 
 Nov. 3. Kentucky Diocese (Tribune, Nov. 2,) has 41 clergymen; 45 parishes and 
 churches; 680 baptisms in the year; 323 confirmations; 3,947 members; $80,838. 
 total contributions.xi. 26* 
 
 Nov. 4. Changes in Constitution and Canons of P. E. C. are given in full in 
 (Ch. St.).'.viii. 5. 
 
 Nov. 11. Goddard of St. Andrews (Epis.) “Considering the disturbed and 
 agitated condition... .of our Church in reference to Ritualism, and the alarming 
 progress which of late years towards Romish errors and practices, especially marked 
 by the exodus of Bishop Cummins and others of our most prominent and active 
 clergymen.... The R. E. C. does exist and grow, and Ritualism and Eucharistic 
 Adoration are not wounded to death among us.”.xii. 56. 
 
 Nov. 11. Pastoral Letter (Epis.) editor says: “In the concluding part of the 
 paragraph... .this sentence, ‘ How glorious is the liberty, how high the privilege of 
 the clergy, to refrain from all self-assertion, to utter that which only God and His 
 Church put into their mouths, and to afford the most signal example of that obedi¬ 
 ence of faith, which obeys law because it is law.’ Now this seems abject slavery 
 to the will and opinions of men. What! shall the Church be exalted to an equality 
 to the word of God ? A privilege to utter what God and the Church put into our 
 mouths .'.iii. Nov. 3,Past. 1st; xii. 58 
 
 Nov. 11. Church and State says: “ Some of the adherents of the R. E. C. 
 are evidently disappointed with the result of the late General Convention.” 
 
 xii. 56, 
 
 Nov. 11. Drift of the Church (Ch. St.) The editor thinks this drift has been 
 improved by the “ moral influence ” of the late Convention, and “ It is not neces¬ 
 sary to repeat the arguments... .against canonical legislation in regard to doctrine 
 and ritual... .We think that the attempt to suppress ritual by any Canon, the 
 object of wdiicli is to define doctrine not defined before, or establish new rules of 
 worship, is as objectionable as it is futile ” .xii. 58. 
 
 Nov. 11. Baptismal Degeneration and Charity (Ch. St.) correspondent: “ It 
 must therefore be taken that the House of Delegates of both Orders, substan¬ 
 tially declared that by Baptism alone one is regenerated by the Holy Ghost, or, as 
 Dr. Adams frankly expressed it, converted. .. .The comprehensive charity of the 
 Pastoral does not include in its love and sympathy any of the 30,000 ministers of 
 the Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Lutheran, and Baptist Churches 
 in this country... .It may be said that we do not want them to come into our pul- 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 77 
 
 November 11, 1874. 
 
 pits ; and some of them are not so polished as we like to have teachers, for although 
 we are comparatively a small people, we are very select ”.xii. 58. 
 
 Nov. 11. Rejoice (Cli. St.) Standard of the Cross says : “ Let us state the two 
 reasons for which we may regard this as an hour of general congratulation... .We 
 were fast losing the character of a Church of Christ, and becoming a narrow, arro¬ 
 gant sect... .As our evidence... .we may recall the General Convention of 1868, in 
 which the Low Church party was directly legislated against by the High Church¬ 
 men. .. .Now the Churchmen who lead and direct are wearing no badge, but are 
 followed and trusted because of their simple loyalty to Christ, and the best interests 
 of the Protestant communion”.xii. 56, 59. 
 
 Nov. 11. The Methodist (Ch. St.) “ The Romish germ—the theory of Succes¬ 
 sion—still remains in the Church. Some of the overtopping branches that have 
 sprung from it have been cut off, but the evil root is left. The Church Times, of 
 London, says that no legislation can arrest ritualism.... As long as the dogma of 
 Apostolic Succession remains, the Church will tend to ritulastic error. The Ritualist 
 is only a severely logical Churchman ”.xii. 58. 
 
 Nov. 11. Independent (Ch. St.) “The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration 
 has no more warrant in the Word of God than the doctrine of consubstantiation. 
 Both doctrines equally involve the Sacerdotal principle, and all that it implies.” 
 
 xi. 43. 
 
 Nov. 11. Church. Journal (Ch. St.) “ The future of the Church on these con¬ 
 siderations was never brighter._The clergy gather about the Bishop’s chair, feel¬ 
 
 ing that in it is the organized headship for the common work of salvation of men, 
 and giving it loyal confidence as well as firm affection... .and may the hand be 
 withered and the tongue dumb, that writes or speaks to organize a * party,’ or pro¬ 
 mote ‘ views.’ ” (See Jan. 7,1875; xii. 58). 
 
 Nov. 11. Church of England (Ch. St.) The London Spectator says: “ One 
 thing is very certain, Parliament has the supreme control of the Established Churchy 
 and Parliament, containing as it does, very large elements of non-Anglican 
 belief, will never consent to discuss minutely the condition of Church membership 
 or clerical subscription... .Rather than debate continually articles of belief in a 
 heterogeneous body of Atheists, Theists, Jews, Roman Catholics, and every shade of 
 orthodox and heterodox Protestants ; or still worse, rather than allow itself to be 
 guided by such a body as the Clerical Convocation which now exists, Parliament 
 will evade the difficulty by telling the Church to shift for itself”.xii. 22. 
 
 Nov. 14. “ Ritualist ” (Trib.) “ Ritualist ” says: “ Sir,—The Episcopal Church 
 has passed through a tremendous crisis, threatening in the eyes of the world to 
 rend her in twain_The result has been not to suppress the Ritualists, but to rec¬ 
 
 ognize and to satisfv them... .The Herald ... .said : ‘ And so Ritualism is dead, is 
 it ?’ The Tribune on the same day gave a similar intimation... .Pour weeks ago, 
 it was ‘ No quarter to the Ritualists’... .The storm spent its violence over the 
 question of the Illinois Episcopate. But the re-action was even then already taking 
 place, as is indicated by the 145 votes for Seymour against 140 in opposition.... 
 In order to appreciate what the report of the Committee amounted to, it is neces¬ 
 sary to give a glance at the list of counts against Ritualism. They were: 1. An Al¬ 
 tar Cross.—2. A Retable.—3. Alar flowers.—4. Eucharistic lights.—5. Processional 
 Cross.—6. Bowing toward the altar on entering and leaving the church.—7. The 
 
-78 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 November 14, 1874. 
 
 sign of the Cross.—8. Salutations of the Gospel and of the Altar.—9. Eucharistic 
 Vestments.—10. Colored Chasubles.—11. Auricular Confession.—12. Banners.—13. 
 Prayers for the faithful departed.—14. Use of unleavened bread.—15. Mixed Chalice 
 with the blessing of water.—16. Ablutions.—17. Change of book to the Gospel side 
 for the Gospel.—18. Epistle and Gospel not read towards the people.—19. Purifica¬ 
 tion of Sacred vessels after the blessing.—20. Bowings at the Sacred Name, or on 
 entering or departing from the Church.—21. Altar cards and secrets.—22. Lay 
 clerks to assist at celebrations.—23. Lighting additional lights at Consecration and 
 Magnificat.—24. The use of the Viretta.—25. The Cope.—26. Three Hours’ Agony 
 Service.—27. Singing Sursum Corda , also Benedidus and Agnus Dei. —28. Invoca¬ 
 tion of the Trinity, with sign of Cross before sermon.—29. Crucifixes.—30. Incense. 
 —31. Elevation of sacred species.—32. Eucharistic Adoration. All these had been 
 specified. But to the amazement of Catholics 28 out of the 32 counts had been ut¬ 
 terly abandoned, and the fight was to close around the last four only. Even the 
 use of the crucifix and of incense at other times than the celebration was not 
 touched. .. .So the Canon passed and went to the House of Bishops. .. .The latter 
 struck their pen through... .the two... .concerning crucifixes and incense... .In 
 this form the Canon passed both houses... .leaving two only... .The first of the 
 two is—not any elevation whatever, but—‘ the elevation of the elements in the 
 Holy Communion in such a manner as to expose them to the view of the people as 
 objects towards which adoration is to be made’....It is something which is not 
 and has not been the practice in any ritualistic Church. So that this specification 
 was uselessly inserted. This reduces the entire indictment to one count only— 
 namely, no adoration of the blessed Lord except such as are provided by the Rubrics 
 of the Prayer Book. But as Dr. De Koven said : ‘ That is all we ask ;’ the Prayer. 
 Book says: ‘ All kneeling.’ And then the Canon went through with an almost 
 unanimous vote.” (See iii. Oct. 23 ; xii. 56, Canon on Ritual). [This paper ver¬ 
 batim, and one by a Reformed Episcopalian (H. B. Turner), are printed together 
 under the title “ Church Freedom ” (pp. 16), acc. R. E. C. at 38 Bible House, New 
 York.] 
 
 Nov. 14. Low Church. (Patterson Press) from Newark Advertiser's cor¬ 
 respondent. He takes about the same view of the result of legislation as (iii. Nov. 
 14, Ritualist) and continues : “ The writer of this article is connected with a parish, 
 whose practices are not those which symbolize erroneous doctrines [Trinity ?] and yet 
 his sober conviction is that the boasted legislation on ritualism amounts to nil! 
 nil! The old fable of the mountain laboring, and offspring being a mouse. ” 
 
 xii. 58. 
 
 Nov. 18. Hitualism (Cli. St.) quotes: “Bishop Odenheimer held an ordina¬ 
 tion on the morning of All Saints Day... .The opening service included a proces¬ 
 sion composed of a Crucifer with purple cassock, the choir of boys in blue cassocks 
 and white ruffled collars, and acolyte in scarlet cassock... .The altar was adorned 
 with a profusion of flowers and lighted candles, and hung with a richly embroidered 
 
 white cloth.xii. 58. 
 
 Nov. 18. Church and State quoted.ii. Dec. 16 ; xiii. 10. 
 
 Nov. 25. Sacerdotal principle (Ch. St.) The Bishop of Lincoln has replied 
 to Lord Coleridge, who recently made an address at Exeter Hall. The Chief Justice 
 said: “ That it was idle to think that the Public Worship Act would not before 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 79 
 
 November 25, 1874. 
 
 long alter the legal position of tlie Church. It could not he denied that the sacer¬ 
 dotal principle was to he found in portions of the Prayer Book, such as the Ordina¬ 
 tion Service, the Visitation of the Sick, and the Order for the administration of the 
 Holy Communion.”.xii. 20. 
 
 Nov. 25. Ritualism (Ch. St.) The Bishop of Manchester said...lie did not 
 remember any ministerial act in the New Testament to which the word ‘ Sacrifice’ 
 was applied. How any one could say by any process of reasoning that the offering 
 up bread and wine was the same as offering up Christ, he could not for one moment 
 comprehend.”.xi. 2. 
 
 Nov. 25. Return of the R. E. C. to the P. E. C. (Ch. St.) says the Working 
 Church, suggests this as a future contingency.xi.; xii. 25-59; xiii.; xiv. 
 
 Nov. 25. Low Church (Ch. St.) Rev. W. R. Nicholson, D.D., of Trinity, 
 Newark, gave in his resignation on Nov. 18, 1874. He says : “ The Church prin¬ 
 ciples now so universally believed and taught, and which were re-affirmed by the 
 late General Convention with an unwonted emphasis, are, in my judgment, not only 
 Scripturally untrue, but also (I mean no offense) deeply dishonoring to the Lord 
 and Master, and especially so to the Holy Ghost. As long as I am in the ministry, 
 I must in my conscience oppose the Churchmanship which yet I will continue to 
 hear proclaimed. But I do not wish, and indeed it would be useless, to be always 
 fighting for a forlorn hope. The General Convention has made tenfold more in¬ 
 tense the anti-Protestant errors of the now prevailing Churchmanship ; and never 
 till there is a revised Prayer Book can such errors be counteracted. But of that 
 there is no hope.”.xi. 26. 
 
 Dec. 9. Baptismal Regeneration (Epis.) “A Presbyter” says: “For the 
 proposed amendment, only five dioceses voted for it, one only unanimously, while 
 old conservative Evangelical Pennsylvania said Nay. .. .It developed the fact that 
 whatever be the doctrine of our Articles, the vast majority of the clergy are 
 committed to the highest_idea of regeneration in Baptism.” iii. Oct. 81; xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Dec. 12. “Impartiality.” (Churchman), Rev. James Craik, D.D., President of 
 the House of Deputies in 1874 [and previously] said in his late sermon : “ But a 
 far more solemn and emphatic condemnation of this virtual revival of an exploded 
 Pagan theory [Eucharistic Adoration] was given by the refusal of the House. of 
 
 Deputies to confirm Dr. Seymour as Bishop of Illinois-To show the equal 
 
 j ustice of that House, and the impartiality with which this principle was applied, 
 we need only look to the case of the gentleman nominated to us as Missionary 
 Bishop to China... .Evidence was unexpectedly introduced seeming to prove that 
 the Presbyter did not believe in the office to which he had been nominated. 
 Upon this evidence it was evident that he would have been promptly rejected.” 
 
 xii. 56. 
 
 Dec. 16. Divided House. (Epis.) A communicant of Trinity, P. E. C., New¬ 
 ark, N. J., sends the following extract from the Newark Register of Dec. 1, referring 
 to Dr. Nicholson leaving the P. E. C.: “ Our Church is... .canonically married to 
 
 two systems, and all the evils attending the system will necessarily continue to 
 develop and bring forth evil fruit.” Also “ One from Trinity,” says that Trinity has 
 “ a small High Church party, though why they are so it is difficult to imagine, for 
 almost without an exception they have'all been born and educated in oilier denom¬ 
 inations.” [The reason is plain enough, They, like the Quaker Bishop Potter, and 
 
80 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 December 16, 1874. 
 
 tlie Presbyterian Bishop Coxe, did not find other denominations “ High ” enough 
 for them.].*.xii. 25, 58. 
 
 Dec. 16. Low Church. (Epis.) Rev. W. M. Postlethwaite on leaving the P. E. 
 
 C. writes to Bishop Potter, dated Dec. 3 :-“ It is hard to leave the Church of one’s 
 
 birth and choice. However, I feel constrained to do so on account of the errors 
 now held and proclaimed with impunity throughout this Church. Not only so, 
 but especially since those very errors are claimed by a large majority of the clergy, 
 to be the doctrines of this Church... .This Church holds and teaches spiritual re¬ 
 generation in baptism with water... .Any revision of the Prayer Book... .is not to 
 be hoped for.”.xi. 26; iii. Dec. 24,1874. 
 
 Dec. 16. Low Church. (Epis.) “ Presbyter of the P. E. C. Church ” says: 
 
 The Standard of the Cross ... .takes comfort in the thought that at the recent 
 General Convention the door was ‘ shut gently ’ against the Evangelical 
 Petitioners, not slammed and bolted as it was three years ago.”.xii. 56. 
 
 Dec. 23. Low Church (Epis.) “ And so we went toward Rome.” “ Sermon 
 (in full) preached before Christ Church, Macon, Ga., Nov. 22, 1874, by Rev. Benja¬ 
 min Johnson, rector.The various sections of Christ’s grand army of believers 
 
 are drawing nearer to each other.The vast Protestant gathering last year in 
 
 New York proved how very near in truth and spirit all Bible Christians are.... 
 This is the Protestant movement.... Strongholds of Romanism are feeling this 
 Protestant drift... .There is another movement... .towards unity—the so-called 
 
 ‘Catholic’ movement. It is shaped and modified by traditions. A movement 
 
 whose end is external uniformity, its central principle of cohesion the dogma of the 
 Apostolic Succession ‘ Protestanism ’—‘ Catholicism ,’—these two distinct con¬ 
 tinents of organized opinion and belief; an ocean, deeper, wider than the Atlantic 
 
 rolling between,_these....who believe because others have believed ‘always 
 
 everywhere ’... .the ‘ Catholics ’ of our era with their materialized Christianity.... 
 Who were the Fathers that they should assume co-ordinate authority over our 
 faith with this infallible Word ?.... The conservatism which plays false to both 
 these great systems of thought and faith, which 'attempts to believe these two 
 creeds with all their irreconcilable opposites, must break down and give way.... 
 Protestant or Roman then ? This is the question. Interpreted by its recent Gen¬ 
 eral Convention how stands the P. E. C. ?... .We have only increased Episcopal 
 prerogative and churches of St. Albans, St. Mary, St. Sacrament may spring up ad 
 libitum, and none will be refused admission into the New York Convention !.... 
 Rev. Dr. Adams... .tells us, aud the General Convention endorsed him, ‘ Regener¬ 
 ation takes place in and by the Sacrament of Baptism. The man’s sins are then 
 all forgiven. The vital principle of a new life, the gift of Christ is then and there 
 implanted in him. It is a supernatural and spiritual change.’.... Thus link after 
 link has been broken that bound our Protestant Church to the confidence and sym¬ 
 pathy of the Protestant world.... Alas ! to lose this... .for the new scheme now 
 taking shape, the union of all Churches of the Apostolic Succession as a material 
 equipoise to the vast body of Protestantism beyond us....The Patriarch Isadore 
 writes in the name of his ‘ Holy Synod’ to our Convention, that ‘a previous agree¬ 
 ment in faith is absolutely necessary to a mutual pacticipation in the Sacra¬ 
 ments.’. ... No Grecian bend or Romish twist shall be discovered here.”... .xi. 26. 
 
 Dec. 24. Low Church. (Obs.) Rev. W. M. Postlethwaite at Newark, gave his 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 81 
 
 December 24, 1874. 
 
 reasons for leaving the P. E. C.: “ I have left Ecclesiasticism, Sacerdotalism, 
 
 Sectarianism, Romanism, and Sacramentarianism.”.Dec. 10, 1874; xi. 26. 
 
 Dec. 25. Midnight Mass (Trib.) “ First celebration of the day in St. Ignatius’ 
 (Ritualistic) Church—an impressive ceremony... .claimed to be strictly in accord¬ 
 ance with the P. E. C. formularies and Canon. Six years ago they would have been 
 regarded as extremely Ritualistic ; since then, however, the ceremonial wave has 
 swept up to and gone beyond the Episcopal rite, as illustrated at St. Ignatius’.”.... 
 “ The Rev. Professor Hall, of the General Theological Seminary, preached an ap¬ 
 propriate sermon,” etc., etc.....xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Dec. 80. High Church (Cli. St.) “ Manning on Bishops: I love to act in the 
 sight of my Bishop, as if I was, as it were, in the sight of God. I was strict in ob¬ 
 serving my clerical engagements, not only because they were my engagements, but 
 because I considered myself simply as the servant and instrument of my Bishop. 
 My own Bishop was my Pope ; I knew no other, the successor of the Apostles, the 
 Vicar of Christ”.xii. 5S. 
 
 Dec. 30. Low Church (Ch. St.) Upwards of 56,000 signatures have been re¬ 
 ceived for the memorial to the Queen and Archbishops against the legalizing of the 
 Eucharistic Vestments and the Eastward Position...xii. 58. 
 
 Dec. 30. Parties (Ch. St.) A church at Denbigh, England, was recently 
 closed by the Bishop of St. Asaph on account of a reredos placed in it. Another is 
 being placed in a church in London—St. Augustine—at a cost of £1,300... xii. 58. 
 
 Dec. 30. Church Infants (Ch. St.) “ At the request of the Standing Com¬ 
 mittee of the Diocese of Illinois, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Welles, Bishop of Wisconsin, has 
 prepared the following form of prayer for a diocese with a vacant Episcopate.” [The 
 R. E. C. assumes that the clergy can do this].xi. 43. 
 
 Dec. 31. Toronto Parties (Toronto Globe , Can.) On Dec. 30, the Bishop of 
 Toronto delivered this charge at a visitation of the clergy, agaiust the “ Church As¬ 
 sociation,” a Low Church society similar to the E. K. S. of the P. E. C. : “ The 
 great body of the clergy of this diocese have been charged with false and un- 
 scriptural teaching by a considerable number of clergymen and laymen, designat¬ 
 ing themselves as the ‘ Church Association of the Diocese of Toronto ’... .The name 
 Protestant never occurs in our authorized formularies ; it is never used in the 
 description of our Church ; it is never introduced in connection with our Rational 
 Church in our acts of Parliament. Its true designation was always felt to be the 
 Church of England, a genuine, veritable branch of the Catholic Church throughout 
 
 the world, (xiii. 17; xvii. 2)-Let me address those who-are withholding 
 
 obedience from the manifest requirements of the Church... / No man shall be ac¬ 
 counted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon... .except he be called, 
 tried, examined, and admitted thereto.... or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration 
 or ordination’... .And if Episcopal ordination is in her judgment necessary, an 
 Episcopal Succession as a logical sequence is equally necessary... .Painful then is 
 it... .to see any... .few though they may be in number, impugning a leading and 
 essential principle of the Church... .The mission of the Church is to promote 
 social peace and order... .This purpose... .is greviously violated if there be in¬ 
 dustrious diffusion of calumnious accusation and uncharitable insinuation.... 
 When bitterness prevails and strife is active, there will be a speedy lowering, and 
 at last the extinction of pure spiritual life.” Then followed a discussion about 
 
82 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 December 31, 1874. 
 
 trust funds. Then the wardens of St. Philip's, Weston, presented their clergyman, 
 that “ when administering the Holy Communion placed himself in the position of a 
 sacrificing priest, turned his back to the people, elevated the elements, turned his 
 face to the people, made the sign of the cross twice over the head of each com¬ 
 municant, etc. On the 27th inst. he also preached against Protestantism. The 
 church-wardens intimated their intention, if nothing was done to put a stop to these 
 practices, to close the doors on Sunday, the 10th of January.” Then “ Rural Dean 
 Geddes... .presented, in the name of the several Rural Deans, the following gentle¬ 
 men, and charged them, as members of the Church Association, with depraving the 
 government and discipline of the Church, viz.: The Very Rev. the Dean of Toronto, 
 the Rev. Rural Deans Givens and Stewart, the Rev. Dr. O’Meara, the Rev. Alexander 
 Samson, the Rev. Mr. Boddy, and the Rev. Mr. Chicldey... .Rev. Septimus Jones 
 inquired upon what principle the selection of these members of the Church Asso¬ 
 ciation had been made... .His Lordship considered the case one of sufficient gravity 
 to induce him to issue a commission appointing an investigation of the charges. 
 This concluded the business”.xii. 58. 
 
 Jan. 7, 1875. Parties Violent (Obs.) Editor says : “ State of feeling in the 
 Church. The Church Journal deplores the manner in which the great controversy 
 is carried on in the Church, and says: ‘We wish to speak moderately, and we are 
 speaking very moderately when we say that the way clergymen and laymen have in 
 some instances of late used the public press in the matter of Episcopal candidacies 
 and elections has done more harm to the Church and the public than some of them 
 are ever likely to atone for by any good they will do to either. The outrages upon 
 propriety, upon the decent reserve of other people's nafines, characters, and lives, the 
 petulent abuse, the childish passions, the absence of decorum and dignity exhibited 
 in discussions carried on sometimes by clergymen in the lowest specimen of 
 the daily paper in their neighborhood, over the question of an Episcopal elec¬ 
 tion, suggests grave doubts whether the method of popular election is not a mis¬ 
 take, and whether the Church was not wise in allowing the power to drop out of 
 the hands of the clergy and people at an early date. Certainly the Church has been 
 shamed among the people, her dignity and prestige lowered by the course referred 
 to ; and the office round which she has thrown such guards has been made cheap" 
 and contemptible in the eyes of the community by those who claim to esteem it the 
 highest office on earth ”... .. .ii. Jan. 7,1875 ; xii. 56, 58. 
 
 Jan. 8. Toronto Parties {Toronto Globe). A letter from thirteen lay members 
 of the Executive Committee of the Church Association, in reply to the Bishop’s 
 
 charge (Dec. 31, above):_“We will not here discuss either the propriety or the 
 
 justice of dismissing a Synod of the Diocese, of which a number of delegates, mem¬ 
 bers of the Association, were among its lay members ; and immediately thereafter 
 proceeding to review their action at a meeting from which they were excluded 
 even as lookers-on... .We beg leave to reply in the only way left open to us.... 
 Apostolic Succession. ... As laymen, we can attach little value to an idea that would 
 deny the characteristics of a true Church of Christ to the martyred confessors of 
 the Waldensian and Albigensian Churches, while it accredits their bloody persecu¬ 
 tors with the exclusive heritage of that assumed requisite of the One Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church.” They then state facts to show that Trinity College is a mere 
 name in comparison with Knox College of the Presbyterians; that the Christian's 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 83 
 
 January 8, 1875. 
 
 Manual, “ with your Lordship’s permission and approval,” is thoroughly ritualistic. 
 Then other ritualistic books, “ and we do not ‘ insinuate,’ hut say plainly and 
 explicitly that any college where such theology is taught ‘ is an unsafe institution 
 for the religious training of young men, and especially of aspirants to the minis¬ 
 try.’ ” There is much more which appears to show that the Bishop makes no effort 
 
 to stop ritualism, if he does not favor it.xii. 58 
 
 Jan. 13. Independent Churches (Epis.) Church and State says: “ By con¬ 
 sent of a majority of the Bishops an episcopate may be given to organized relig¬ 
 ious bodies not in the United States, which... .shall be independent of, though in 
 communion with, this Church. A flourishing church has now grown up in the 
 Republic of Hayti. The House of Bishops has taken such action that upon the 
 choice by that Church of a Bishop, he shall receive consecration. The Republic 
 of Mexico. .. .There is there a very important movement, Old Catholic in its char¬ 
 acter. .. .Rev. Dr. Riley left for Mexico on the 8th of January, from New Orleans 
 
 ... .Bishop Lee, of Delaware... .and Rev. Dr. Dyer... .expect to sail_on 80th 
 
 inst.”...xi. 48. 
 
 Jan. 14. Toronto Parties (Toronto Globe). Letter of the Bishop to Chief 
 Justice Draper and other members of the Executive Committee of the Church 
 
 Association_“ The letter you addressed to me was received... .7th inst... .1 shall 
 
 not attempt a defense of Trinity College from the imputations thrown so inconsid¬ 
 erately and untruthfully upon its theological teaching... .culled with more astute¬ 
 ness than honesty.” He then objects to their account of the ritualism taught in 
 the book referred to, and says: “.... compare... .with the wretchedly garbled 
 extract you have placed before them... .In reference to what is so relentlessly and 
 
 unfairly asserted”.xii. 58 
 
 Jan. 16. Toronto Parties {Toronto Globe). “Reply of the Church Associa¬ 
 tion. .. .They receive from your Lordship a letter dwelling in detail on points which 
 they have not even alluded to... .while leaving unnoticed the real evil. .. .the con¬ 
 nection between an excess in ritualistic ceremonial and grave doctrinal errors.... 
 Their words were an expression of grief and astonishment at the restoration of a 
 clergyman convicted, at so recent a date, of teaching the grossest Romish super¬ 
 stition in connection with the ‘ Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament.’ ”.. .xii. 58. 
 
 Jan. 27. Lay Ritualists in England (Ch. St.) Parishioners of St. Mary’s, 
 Soho, complain to the Bishop of London that the new rector omits the “ Eastward 
 
 position, vestments, and altar lights.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Jan. 27. Isolation (Ch. St.) The (St. N.) asks: “ Have we considered whether 
 we, dwelling in our isolation, were not the cause of a good deal of the loose, frag¬ 
 mentary Christian life which so marks this age ?”.xii. 42. 
 
 Eeb. 3. Protestant Pope (Epis.) The Civil Court of Illinois having refused 
 to eject Bishop Cheney from his church on the ground that he was not canonically 
 deposed, the Hartford Churchman “ took the ground that irregularities and infor¬ 
 malities on the part of a Bishop, nowise affect the validity of his decisions. .. .That 
 
 a Bishop can unfrock a clergyman, law or no law.”.xiii. 13- 
 
 Feb. 4. Illinois (Obs.) “ The Church Journal, speaking of the man described as 
 essential for the Bishopric of Illinois, says : ‘ If Illinois deliberately appropriates to 
 her own sole use and behoof all the gifts and graces in the Church of God, what 
 shall the rest of us do for Bishops or even for Priests or Deacons ?’ ”.xii. 58. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 84 
 
 February 4, 1875. 
 
 Feb. 4. General Seminary (Obs.) Tlie Church Journal says: “ It seems to 
 our bumble capacity as if newspaper articles and further ‘vigorous pamphlets’ 
 were scarcely called for, and that what is needed is a calm, full statement and con¬ 
 clusion, by some proper authorities (if there be such) of the Seminary, to satisfy 
 the mind of the Church and give it the confidence it ought to have in an institu¬ 
 tion for which the whole Church is responsible.”. xii. 56. 
 
 Feb. 5. De Koven, Bishop (Trib.) of Illinois on Feb. 4, on third ballot by 89 
 clerical to 27 for Leeds and 1 for Fulton. Accepted by lay 31 to 28 and 1 divided. 
 
 xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 6. Gen. Con. censured (Trib.) by Illinois Convention “ for constituting 
 itself a court to judge of Dr. Seymour’s right to accept the position of Bishop of 
 this diocese, the resolution affirming that any churchman in good standing is eligi¬ 
 ble if chosen by any diocese. ...A resolution referring it to the Church at large 
 ... .was adopted.”.xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 6. Coleman refuses (Trib.) “ Toledo, Feb. 5. The Rev. Leighton Cole¬ 
 man has formally declined the Episcopate of the Northern Wisconsin Diocese, to 
 which he was recently elected.”.iii. Feb. 18, 1874, Ritualist; xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 8. Jaggar and De Koven (Trib.) Editor begins with the heading, “ A 
 Comprehensive Episcopate—A remarkable letter from a High-Churchman—The 
 confirmation of a Low Church Bishop urged—Dr. Jaggar’s expressions of sympa¬ 
 thy for Mr. Cheney, and subsequent repudiation of the Cummins movement— a 
 novel species of retaliation.’’ This in quotation marks is the Tribune's heading to 
 the letter of “ Rev. J. H. Hopkins, Plattsburg, Feb. 4,1875,” who said some years ago, 
 “ that the last Low-Church Bishop had been elected (Epis. Feb. 10,1875). He says 
 that the sympathy expressed by Mr. Jaggar for Mr. Cheney would have prevented 
 his vote, but not his confirming a vote, and it was “ more than ‘ three years last 
 past . .Any one who is orthodox enough to be a priest, is orthodox enough to 
 be a bishop if elected... .A comprehensive Church must necessarily be a Church 
 embracing wide varieties of opinion and action .. .Nothing would give me greater 
 pleasure than to see that High Churchmen had forgiven the injustice of last Octo¬ 
 ber to the Bishop-elect of Illinois by their unanimous confirmation of the Bishop- 
 elect of Southern Ohio.” [Does he confine the term “ High-Church” to Ritualists?] 
 
 xi. 21, 22 ; Dec.l, 1873. Card ; xii. 25, 58 ; x, 15. 
 
 Feb. 9. Church growth decreasing (Trib.) Rev. Hugh Miller Thompson 
 of Christ Church [editor of Church Journal ] at a conference of the clergy of the 
 Episcopal Churches of this city and vicinity, said....“ He was not discouraged at 
 the position of the Church, but he thought it had not grown in proportion as the 
 population of the country had increased. He attributed this condition of things to 
 two causes: First, to the prevalent opinion among the American people that tLe 
 Episcopal Church was drifting toward Romanism ; and, second, to the divisions in 
 the Church itself and the difference of views in the manner of worship. ’’ Some of 
 the gentlemen... .took exception to Dr. Thompson’s views, and the same topic was 
 assigned for the next meeting.xii. 45. 
 
 Feb. 10. De Koven, Bishop (Trib.) heads its report enlarging that of Feb. 6, 
 thus: “ The House of Deputies called to task by a Diocesan Convention—Election 
 of Bishop De Koven in Illinois. The House of Deputies in the attitude of an 
 ecclesiastical court pronouncing a sentence of Judicial condemnation on Prof. Sey- 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 85 
 
 February 10, 1875. 
 
 mour.—The Bishops tlie proper judges.” Professor Seymour refused to allow his 
 name to he used again, and said : “ Holding the highest and most responsible office 
 which a Presbyter can occupy, as representing the whole Church in presiding 
 over the General Theological Seminary, I allowed my name to go before the 
 General Convention as Bishop-elect ”. The vote of censure (above Feb. 6), says : 
 “ What the House of Deputies may rightfully do... .the same may the Standing 
 Committees lawfully claim_If the Lower House... .had the right... to pro¬ 
 
 nounce‘judicial condemnation ’ of his supposed doctrines, then 45 Standing Com¬ 
 mittees may... .pronounce judgment of ‘condemnation’ upon his supposed doc¬ 
 trines. The trial of Dr. Seymour was in secret session, without citation to the 
 accused ; and he not being allowed... .to be present to hear the accusations or to 
 confront the witnesses... .or to have one word of explanation ; nor yet even to be 
 informed... .as to the proceedings of the inquisition. And what must be the tor¬ 
 ture of our present Bishop-elect, if, in place of one inquisition he must pass the or¬ 
 deal of 45 V The theory of the House of Deputies... .is a ‘ system of centralization in 
 the Church, as dangerous as it is odious ’... .The House of Deputies and the Stand¬ 
 ing Committees are composed in part of laymen... .Every man is entitled to be 
 tried by his peers... .not by his inferiors... .Neither the House of Deputies, nor 
 the Standing Committees... .have any right to determine that he who holds to 
 the words and doctrines even of this extreme formula is justly liable to evil report for 
 error in religion ; nor yet have they any authority to hold that the very lowest view 
 of the Holy Eucharist down to the very verge of Zwinglianism involves ‘error in 
 religion by reason whereof they may refuse the required certificate to a Bishop- 
 elect . .The idea of such authority... .would leave the Bishop elect at the mercy 
 of the laity, even on a question of doctrine.” .xii. 25, 58 ; xi. 22. 
 
 Feb. 10. Jaggar’s Sympathy for Cheney in 1871. The Episcopalian gives 
 this circular (xi. 1G) only, and referring to (iii. Feb 8, Jaggar and De Koven) says : 
 “ It certainly appears strange to us that the Rev. Dr. Hopkins, who said, some years 
 ago, that ‘ the last Low Church Bishop had been elected,’ and whose surmise or 
 prophecy has been so remarkably fulfilled, up to the election of Dr. Jaggar, should 
 now come forward and use his influence to secure the placing of a conservative 
 Low Churchman in office... .There is another successful candidate to pass the same 
 ordeal, and that is Dr. De Koven... .It is freely speculated and calculated that Dr. 
 Jaggar will pull in Dr. De Koven, or that Dr. De Koven will pull in Dr. Jaggar. ... 
 These clergymen are representatives of doctrinal systems, radically and essentially 
 and fundamentally opposed and contrasted... .No man should decide between them 
 except on purely conscientious grounds ”.xii. 25, 58; xi, 22. 
 
 Feb. 10. Hitualism (Epis.) In Maryland the Standing Committee has pre¬ 
 sented the Rev. Joseph Richey, rector, and Rev. G. B. Perry, assistant rector, of 
 Mount Calvary Church, on the charge of using prayers for the dead, involving the 
 doctrine of purgatory, etc.xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 10, Rev. W. H. Johnson (Epis.) (iii. Feb. 25, 1875; April 1). 
 
 Feb. 10. Log Rolling (Ch. St.) Editor says: “ The election of Dr. Jaguar to 
 the Episcopate of Southern Ohio has been followed by that of the Rev. Dr. De 
 Koven to the Episcopate of Illinois. There were some indications that objection might 
 be made to the confirmation of Dr. Jaggar on the ground of his Low Church views ; 
 but since the election of Dr. De Koven, Dr. J. H. Hopkins has published a letter in the 
 
86 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 February 10, 1875. 
 
 Tribune (Feb. 8), earnestly advocating tlie confirmation of Dr. Jaggar. He does 
 not say directly that what is ‘ sauce for tlie goose is sauce for the gander.’ He is 
 too shrewd for that; but we are led gently along to the unexpressed conclusion, 
 that since the Ritualists are ready to advocate the confirmation of such a Low 
 Churchman as Dr. Jaggar, it would be really a sin and a shame to oppose the con¬ 
 firmation even of such a Ritualist as Dr. De Koven. It has been perfectly well 
 understood, since the rejection of Dr. Seymour, that Dr. De Koven would be a 
 candidate in Illinois, and that he would probably be elected.’’ 
 
 Again : “ The question of the real comprehensiveness of the Church is about to 
 be brought home in a very practical way to the Bishops and Standing Committees 
 _This is the law as it now stands... and a majority of them must sign this be¬ 
 fore the Bishop-elect can be consecrated... not know or believe that these are any 
 
 impediment... .Immorality is an impediment_false doctrine... .infirmities of 
 
 character... .want of sound learning... .disloyalty to the Church... .general 
 prejudices... .even though not well founded is an impediment. The Standing 
 Committees... .do not say that the diocese electing him bears this testimony. 
 They must bear this testimony themselves... .It has been intimated that since.... 
 Dr. Jaggar and Dr. De Koven will be before the Standing Committees at the same 
 time, a compromise is likely to be the result, by which the confirmation of both.... 
 will be secured. Any such bargain or compromise as this would be simply atro¬ 
 cious... .The question is, whether the comprehensiveness of the Church is such 
 that the present ritualistic party, with its views of Eucharistic sacrifice and Eu¬ 
 charistic adoration, is a legitimate development in the Church, in such a sense as to 
 make it desirable that it should be represented in the Episcopate... .The late 
 General Convention rejecting Dr. Seymour on the ground of holding the very views 
 which Dr. De Koven is understood to hold.... [his confirmation] would be simply 
 the stultifying the action of this representative body in the Church.’’ 
 
 xii. 25, 58; xi. 22. 
 
 Feb. 10. Church Growth (Ch. St.) (See iii. Feb. 9). 
 
 Feb. 10. Canada Parties (Ch. St.) Bishop Oxenden, in Montreal, claims “ the 
 right of preaching in the cathedral whenever he sees fit, and of inviting any one 
 whom he pleases to preach, whenever he may choose to do so.” This claim the 
 rector resists, whereupon the Bishop declines to present himself in the cathedral. 
 “At the same time the Bishop of Toronto is doing a most unwise thing in proceed¬ 
 ing against the members of the Church Association in his diocese. This is an 
 Evangelical and Low Church society. The [!! ] difficulty about this sort of policy 
 is that it is sure to build up the Cummins movement. Without some such provo¬ 
 cative in Canada, it would die out in a fortnight. With it, it is likely to thrive and 
 multiply”. xii. 58; xiii. 10. 
 
 Feb. 11. De Koven, Bishop. The Southern Churchman says: “ We hardly 
 know what the Diocese of Illinois means by electing Dr. De Koven as Bishop 
 thereof. We suppose this diocese has not given trouble enough, and therefore de¬ 
 sires to enlarge its ability of destructiveness... .Dr. De Koven, the only avowed 
 Ritualist and Romanizer in the late General Convention, received thirty-nine cleri¬ 
 cal and thirty-one lay votes. Whether the diocese elected him for the ‘ fun ’ ot the 
 thing, or whether they were mad and elected him for the ‘ spite ’ of the thing, we 
 know not. ” [Now he is probably a fair representative of the diocese, since accord- 
 
I 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 87 
 
 February 11, 1875. 
 
 ing to A. G. Tyng, there are more original Episcopalians outside of than inside of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in Illinois.].xii. 25,58. 
 
 Feb. 11. Rev. W. H. Johnson. The Southern Churchman says : “ It gives 
 us pleasure to know that the Rev. W. II. Johnson, of South Carolina, who recently 
 left our Church to unite himself with the movement inaugurated by Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins, has withdrawn from that movement and returned to the Episcopal Church. 
 Could we see a sufficient cause for Bishop Cummins’ act we would not hesitate to 
 say so... .We hope it will not be long before other clergymen will see the mistake 
 they have made and return.”.iii. Feb. 25, 1875; April 1; xiv. 10. 
 
 Feb. 13. De Koven. Parties (Trib.) says: “ Parties for and against the con¬ 
 secration of Dr. De Koven, Bishop-elect of Illinois, are organizing... .It was 
 urged that Bishop Coxe, of Western New York, should be asked to use his influence 
 among the Standing Committees.”. .xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 15. De Koven Memorial (Trib.) “The opposition_is getting more 
 
 formidable every day, and nothing is left undone to defeat his confirmation... .To¬ 
 day in four churches powerful sermons were preached in favor of his confirmation, 
 and condemning in the strongest terms the action of the minority led by Drs. Sul¬ 
 livan and Powers.” (xii. 58.) 
 
 Also, “ A memorial has just been printed in Chicago, addressed to the Standing 
 Committees... .They oppose his consecration on the grounds: First,....‘he is 
 justly liable to evil report for errors in religion.’... .Secondly, that his consecration 
 will be disastrous to the Church; and Thirdly, that he ‘ was not elected Bishop by 
 the Convention of the diocese agreeably to the rules fixed by the Convention of 
 that diocese’... .In regard to... .* want of soundness in the faith ’ [see] speeches at 
 the General Convention of 1871 and 1874... / Cathechism for Confirmation... .ut¬ 
 terances in relation to the Lord’s Supper, the Confessional, the Virgin Mary,’ etc. 
 ....‘we protest that the adoration of Christ in the elements, Auricular Confession, 
 Prayers for the Dead, the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of the Lord, and Invo¬ 
 cation of Saints and Angels are not doctrines of our Church.’ ”_“In regard to the 
 
 effect... .* We cannot refrain from conveying to you our apprehensions as to the 
 result in this diocese. Illinois is the battle-ground of the so-called ‘ Reformed Epis¬ 
 copal ’ Church. It has here a strength which we think it possesses in no other 
 part of the country, and elements of growth which need only development to 
 render it formidable. We believe that the pursuit of a proper course in the 
 election of a Bishop would have, and would still set bounds to the advance at our 
 expense of this denomination; but if consent be given to the consecration in ques¬ 
 tion, we fear it will receive, and within no short period, alarming accessions. The 
 departure of Dr. Cummins has been hitherto earnestly and successfully denounced 
 as unjustifiable in every respect. If he and his followers had grievances calling for 
 redress, full opportunity and scope existed within the Church for redress to be 
 sought and accorded; but if a pronounced Ritualist is to be placed over us as 
 Bishop, the argument of the supporters of Dr. Cummins will be given great advan¬ 
 tage in the contention, for they have always insisted, but without ability heretofore 
 to present the question in provable shape, that our beloved Church had surren¬ 
 dered to pseudo-catholicity, and that no remedy existed, save to retire from its 
 communion. To consecrate as Bishop of Illinois one of the leaders of the move¬ 
 ment to obscure the plain teachings of the Church by importing into them the 
 
88 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 February 15, 1875. 
 
 subtleties of medievalism is to wrest our weapons from our hands and to drive con¬ 
 scientious laymen from the fold.” (xii. 58; xiii. 25.1 
 
 Feb- 17. Church of England (Epis.) John Bright (the Quaker member of 
 Parliament), in his late speech, says : “ We have the Bill of last year... .Sir Wil¬ 
 liam Harcourt says .. .that legislation of this kind should only be resorted to on 
 the greatest necessity. He says : ‘ I am satisfied there is such necessity. In my 
 opinion the present condition of things in the Church of England is simply intol¬ 
 erable.’. .. .The Public Worship Bill of the last session was a trifle... .They can 
 deal only... .with vestments and millinery, with positions, with ceremonies. They 
 cannot touch the sermons... .The State Church, as we have it now, is not, and can¬ 
 not be, in harmony with the age. I should like to ask you what there is that was 
 established or existing in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that is in harmony with 
 the reign of Queen Victoria?... .In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, more than half 
 of all the ship-owners of England, especially on the Southern coasts, were engaged 
 in piracy, and their ships were either pirate-ships or corsairs... .It is most extra¬ 
 ordinary that a Church established in an age like that, should be able in any way to 
 continue itself in that form as its present form, into the time in which we live.... 
 There is no such thing known in it, speaking in a general way, as promotion by 
 merit... .One-lialf, at least, of the livings in the Church of England are private 
 property, and they may be, and are, often bought and sold in the open or in the 
 secret maiket... .Sir William Harcourt says: ‘The residuary legatee of disestab¬ 
 lishment would infallibly be the Church of Rome.’ Well ; but. then... .the force 
 
 that was intended to protect us, has turned its guns against us-It is only from 
 
 the hierarchical and prelatic Church, that there are converts made continually to 
 the Church of Rome.”.xii. 18. 
 
 Feb. 17. Low Church (Epis.) Rev. Dr. J. Howard Smith’s resignation (Feb. 
 3) “To the Wardens and Vestrymen of St. John’s Church, Knoxville, Tennessee : 
 Gentlemen: — Having, after much prayerful consideration and mental conflict, 
 decided to transfer my ministerial office and work to the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church, I hereby tender my resignation of the position of rector of St. John’s 
 Church, to take effect on Monday, 8th inst. I will add but a few words in explana¬ 
 tion of this serious step. The rapid development and growth of Sacerdotal and 
 Sacramentarian errors of late years in the P. E. C. have led many serious, thought¬ 
 ful persons, clergymen and laymen, to examine more carefully than before, the 
 sources of these perversions of the truth. This examination has led to the wide¬ 
 spread conviction that, with all its excellencies, the Book of Common Prayer retains 
 certain germs of error, which have grown as a perverting influence into the whole 
 system of belief and practice, in a large majority of the clergy and members of the 
 Church. This overwhelming majority have been thus educated into unscriptural 
 views of the ministry and the sacraments. Many have become deeply convinced 
 that there can be no effectual remedy for the evil in question, without a revision 
 of the Prayer-Book that shall altogether remove these sources of error. The 
 impossibility of securing such a revision within the Church, which, by severe pro¬ 
 scriptive legislation, binds the use of the objectionable offices upon her ministry 
 with despotic power, while she does nothing effectually to repress the worst extrav¬ 
 agancies of Ritualistic errorists, have led to the organization of the R. E. C.’’ 
 
 xi. 7, 25, 26i. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 89 
 
 February 18, 1875. 
 
 Feb. 18. Prof. Seymour (Independent). “ Dr .John H. Hopkins says that 
 Professor Seymour f is still left free to instill his principles into the inside of the heads 
 of candidates for Holy Orders, though (apparently) pronounced unfit to lay his 
 hands upon the outside of the same.’ ”.. .xii. 56. 
 
 Feb. 18. Log Rolling (Independent). “J. H. Hopkins, D.D., the father, we 
 may say, of American Ritualism, who wrote a letter the other day urging the con¬ 
 firmation by the Bishops of the election of Dr. Jaggar, an extreme Low Churchman, 
 as Bishop of Southern Ohio, is the same man who years ago boasted that ‘ the last 
 Low Church Bishop had been elected.’ His father, Bishop Hopkins, it will be re¬ 
 membered, published one book to prove that the Pope was Antichrist, and then 
 another in recantation of it. The election of Dr. Jaggar will probably be confirmed 
 by the Bishops, just because Dr. De Koven is also before them for approval. It is 
 doubtful if either could be confirmed by himself, for however much an Episcopalian 
 politician might like to reject the representative of the opposite school, he would 
 not care to injure the chances of the other man. It will be very much such a case 
 as we have before Congress sometimes, when two lobbies join forces and carry both 
 measures.”.xii. 25, 58. 
 
 Feb 18. Church of the Prayer Book (So. Ch.) “V’’says: “Our Saviour 
 in His manhood appealed to Holy Scripture when tempted on these occasions by 
 the devil. Christ appealed to the Bible when seized by the Church established of 
 the Jews with their traditions. The Apostles appealed to it when seized by the 
 Church established by the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Wickliffe and the mar¬ 
 tyrs of the earth appealed to it when seized by the Church established of the 
 Popes. The martyrs of England appealed to it when seized by the Church estab¬ 
 lished by the sovereigns of England. The Protestant Episcopal Church of Amer¬ 
 ica, the Church established of the Bible, did not seize Bishop Cummins or the Rev. 
 Mr. Latane, but with the loving spirit of St. John, allowed them the privilege 
 granted all her children by the sixth of her thirty-nine articles. But let us be 
 watchful that our Church established of the Bible become not the Church estab¬ 
 lished of the Prayer Book.’’.xii. 14 to 24; 58. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop De Koven. Bribery, (So. Ch.) says : “ On Feb. 6, a delegation 
 waited on Dr. De Koven to notify him of his election, when he eulogized Dr. Sey¬ 
 mour. A representative of the Chicago Times [a Whiteliouse adherent]... .accom¬ 
 panied the delegation, telegraphs that journal that Dr. De Koven’s endorsement of 
 Dr. Seymour was regarded... .as ill-timed... .Efforts were made to suppress a 
 report... .Money was offered ‘ for any extra trouble’... .in ‘ arranging their re¬ 
 ports’. .. .On Sunday_Dr. Sullivan charged that the election of Dr. De Koven 
 
 had brought the Church to the ‘ verge of heresy, from which she may easily topple 
 into Rome ’... .Illegal votes and other subterfuges. Dr. Powers entered a vigorous 
 protest... .declaring him * unfitted for the office of Bishop because of his ritualistic 
 leanings,’ and charged that f he was elected by pettifogging and political craft.’ ” 
 
 xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 18. Bishop De Koven (So. Ch.) The Independent says: “Dr. De Koven, 
 after having rent and torn... .Massachusetts and Wisconsin, has been successful at 
 last... .The Ritualistic party has won a triumph apparently... .We are not sorry, 
 therefore, seeing that Illinois plainly wants a Ritualistic Bishop, that she has elected a 
 courageous one.., .If a diocese lives for years under a very High Church prelate. 
 
90 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 February 18, 1875. 
 
 and tlien twice chooses as advanced a divine for his successor, surely toleration 
 should permit her to be let alone... .Dr. Hopkins, as we have pointed out before, is 
 really the Head-Centre of American Ritualism”... .[liehas] “ pulled the Ritualistic 
 wires with skill, and manipulated with dexterity the movements of far more promi¬ 
 nent men. He maybe called in a sense the American Pusey... .His letter is in 
 thorough keeping with the new doctrine of toleration... .The Ritualists... .can very 
 well afford to yield a coat once in a while to a Church which gives them three or 
 four cloaks in return .. .Members of the last Diocesan Convention have issued a 
 protest... .First, as to soundness in the faith... .Second, the effect... .would be 
 especially disastrous in Illinois, the battle-ground of the so-called R. E. C. To 
 consecrate one of the leaders of the movement, to obscure the plain teachings of 
 the Church, by imparting to it the subtleties of medisevalism, would be to drive 
 conscientious laymen from the field... .Third, the invalidity of the election .. .The 
 number of votes for Dr. De Koven were not enough to elect him”.xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 18. Church Decreasing (So. Cli.) copies from Herald of Dec. 10, the re¬ 
 marks of Rev. Hugh Miller Thompson, as above, Feb. 9, from the Tribune, showing 
 that the P. E. C. is decreasing relatively.xii. 45. 
 
 Feb. 20. Clergy Decreasing relatively (Chn.) “ R. B. D. in the Spirit of 
 Missions : One of the Church almanacs for 1875, gives the net increase of clergy in 
 the P. E. C. during 1874 as only forty-five (45), or less than one for each diocese. 
 The rate for the next three years will, unless something extraordinary takes place, 
 be no more for each year, for our candidates for Orders have fallen off from 402 in 
 1871, to 301 in 1874... .Take successive periods of nine years. .. .Clergy in 
 
 This last number (3,387)... .is 
 reached by taking the clergy of 
 1874 (3,137), adding all candidates 
 for orders in 1874 (301), adding 100 
 for extraordinary... .deducting 150 
 for probable deaths from 1874 to 
 
 1877 . “ From 1841 there has 
 
 at a steadily increasing ratio.” It is then shown that at the 
 same rate as 1823 to 1832 there should be 5,333 in 1877, and at the same rate as 1832 
 to 1841, there should be 10,555 in 1877. “ It may be truthfully said, we suppose, 
 that in the period from 1832 to 1841 there appeared to be no reasons why our 
 ministry should not inorease as it was then increasing. But the fact that a sudden 
 check was experienced and continues in an increased ratio ought to give us some¬ 
 thing to think about ” [Puseyism was introduced shortly after 1841. See next ex¬ 
 tract].xii. 45. 
 
 Feb. 20. Church growth decreasing (Trib.) Rev. Hugh Miller Thomp. 
 son, D.D., editor of the Church Journal, sends to the Tribune the following 
 letter, dated Feb. 18, in reply to Dr. Ewer. His address was printed (Feb. 9, Trib.), 
 and in the Herald of Feb. 10, copied into the (So. Ch.) of Feb. 18. He says; “ A re¬ 
 port of my address was published in one of the newspapers, much perverted, and 
 full of errors... .so as to give a meaning, the reverse in some things of what was 
 intended.” [But I find no error in the extracts quoted (iii. Dec. 9), so let that stand, 
 and adds] “ That she is not growing as... .Dr. Ewer and myself would have her 
 there is no question. I am satisfied she never can grow fast enough for either of 
 
 1814 
 
 1823 
 
 were 
 
 a 
 
 221 
 
 395 increase 
 
 174 
 
 or 
 
 79 
 
 per cent. 
 
 1832 
 
 tt 
 
 592 
 
 it 
 
 197 
 
 tt 
 
 50 
 
 ft 
 
 1841 
 
 tt 
 
 1052 
 
 6 C 
 
 460 
 
 tt 
 
 78 
 
 ft 
 
 1850 
 
 it 
 
 1558 
 
 ft 
 
 506 
 
 a 
 
 48 
 
 ft 
 
 1859 
 
 tt 
 
 2065 
 
 it 
 
 507 
 
 tt 
 
 33 
 
 I “ 
 
 1868 
 
 a 
 
 2662 
 
 it 
 
 597 
 
 a 
 
 29 
 
 ft 
 
 1877 
 
 a 
 
 3387 
 
 ft 
 
 725 
 
 tt 
 
 27 
 
 ft 
 
 been a falling off. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 91 
 
 February 20, 1875. 
 
 us—of course I mean the right growth. At the same time there is a growth not 
 counted by numbers, which we both recognize as the best' [Ritualism ?} But when 
 I spoke ot growth, I meant the common, vulgar growth which figures measure.... 
 According to the census from 1850 to 1860, our increase was 686 churches and 203,698 
 sittings—the difference between 1,459 churches in 1850, and 2,145 in 1860 and an in¬ 
 crease in churches of about 46 per cent, and in sittings of 30 per cent. From 1860 
 to 1870 we increased from 2,145 churches to 2,601=456, and from 847,296 sittings 
 to 991,051 = 142,755, about 22 per cent, of churches and a little over 16 per cent, 
 of sittings. Here by the census, the rate of growth from 1850 to 1860 is twice that 
 from 1860 to 1870. Whether this growth keeps up relatively with an increase of 
 population is of little consequence, though clearly it falls much below.”.xii. 45. 
 
 Feb. 24. Parties in Illinois (Epis.) by Louis Peck, of Illinois. “ The recent 
 Convention... .has brought again prominently. .. .the assertions of the... .advo¬ 
 cates of the P. E. C., that it is par excellence the comprehensive Church_So wide 
 
 is the gulf between the dissatisfied ones and the jubilant friends of the Warden of 
 Racine, that they threaten if he be consecrated Bishop, to consider the propriety of 
 transferring their allegiance to the R. E. C.!. .. .Before the... .Convention, we are 
 told ‘ one name suggested itself, as if by inspiration, almost if not quite unanimous, 
 that of Dr. James De Koven ’... .So let us take heart! The Church in the Diocese 
 of Illinois is sound in the faith as ever! It is catholic, it is comprehensive, it 
 stands by the Prayer Book, and it recognizes no such terms as ‘ High ’ or ‘ Low,’ 
 ‘Ritualistic’ or ‘ Evangelical.’ We are a loving band of brothers, united in one 
 spirit and only desiring to be known as ‘ Churchmen.’ But while we are saying to 
 one another, how sweet and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, 
 the outside world looks on with a stare of astonishment, and the R. E. C. meditates 
 over the saying of a wise man, ‘ it is better to dwell in the corner of a housetop, 
 than with a brawling woman in a wide house.”’.xii. 25, 58 ; xiii. 25. 
 
 Feb. 24. Low Church. (Epis.) Rev. J. H. Mac El’ Rey gives his reasons for with¬ 
 drawing from the P. E. C. to join the R. E. C. He speaks in the highest terms of 
 Bishop Howe, to whom he addresses his resignation. He says that he will continue 
 to teach what he has always taught. It is in substance the same as the letters of 
 resignation by others.xi. 26. 
 
 Feb. 25. Postal Cards from clergy of the P. E. C.ii. ; xiii. 26. 
 
 Feb. 25. “ Catholic” Expressions (Obs.). xiii. 10 
 
 Feb. 25. Low (So. Ch.) Rev. W. H. Johnson in his letter to (So. Ch.) says, 
 with respect to his joining the R. E. C. : “ That which actuated me most, was a 
 desire to enjoy greater liberty in my ministrations, and to be a member of a com¬ 
 munion at peace within itself and giving the utmost prominence to Evangelical 
 doctrines... .1 had been greatly troubled by certain matters ; and seeing that the 
 current of feeling in the Church does not at present set in the direction of relaxa. 
 tion and concession, I reasoned that I would be right in ridding myself of these 
 difficulties and restraints by casting my lot in a communion in which I knew that 
 they did not exist.., .As I see the matter now, I sought my own relief and peace 
 
 at the expense of my duty_I had too easily abandoned the post of duty_Not 
 
 only did I owe to our Church all my religious experience, but I was indebted to her 
 for my training for the ministry... .It was she who promised to sustain me, and 
 did sustain me... .1 was led to realize the evil of division, and the culpability of 
 
92 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 February 25, 1875. 
 
 needless division... .1 found that the tendency of things is to a wider breach 
 between the old Church and the new... .Finding... that I had erred... .1 commu¬ 
 nicated to the Bishop of South Carolina... .and requested him to suspend imme¬ 
 diate action... He informed me... .that he had already pronounced my deposition 
 ... .though the letter was mailed two days before the deposition took place... .He 
 
 considered the circumstances... .as affording just ground for reconsideration._ 
 
 and would confer with the Standing Committee... .My withdrawal from our Church 
 and my return to it, were both unsolicited [italics his]....I am not abjuring a 
 heresy. What my views are to-day, they have always been. The only point on 
 which my mind has changed has been as to the duty of maintaining my views in 
 our Church or out of it.”....iii. April 1, 1875 ; iii. Feb. 10, 1875, Rev.; Feb. 11, 
 
 Rev.; ii. July 8, 1874, Diff.; xiv. 10 ; xii. 58. 
 
 Feb. 27. Ritualism by De Koven (Chn.) “ M.’’ gives the following portion 
 of his speech in the General Convention in 1871 : “ I want to give anybody in this 
 house the opportunity of presenting me for false doctrine if he wishes; and in order 
 to do so, I choose some language which is balder and barer than I, myself, would 
 use, excepting in a company of theologians—and I use this language for a purpose 
 which I will explain presently. I believe in—and this will be printed to-morrow, 
 and I will write it out, if necessary, for anybody who wants to use it—I believe in 
 the * Real Actual Presence of our Lord under the form of bread and wine upon the 
 altars of our churches.’ I, ‘ myself, adore,’ and would, if it were necessary or my 
 duty, ‘ teach my people to adore Christ present in the elements under the form of 
 bread and wine,’ and I use these words because they are a bald statement of the 
 Real Presence.’... .The well-defined and clear-cut doctrine... .in 1871. .. .had be¬ 
 come tangled and confused in 1874. Plain and precise as it was in 1871, it became 
 obscure and indefinite in 1874. With one shape, one meaning in 1871... .the doc¬ 
 trine of Eucharistic Adoration in 1874 was susceptible of division into six shades 
 of interpretation... .This is written by a member of a Standing Committee.” 
 
 iii. Oct. 26,1874 ; xii. 54, 58, and next. 
 
 Feb. 27. Bishop of Albany on De Koven (Chn.) Bishop Doane, in his let¬ 
 ter to the Churchman, says: “ The use which the Church Journal makes of this 
 Pastoral [of 1871] or this portion of it, I utterly repudiate, as bearing in any degree 
 upon the consistency of Bishops in consenting to the consecration of the Rev. Dr. 
 De Koven, in whose soundness in the faith and sufficiency of learning, I have as 
 much confidence as I have admiration for the dignitv and devotedness of his char- 
 acter and the rare ability and attractiveness of the man....Dr. De Koven....in 
 1871 used not his own words to express his own opinions, but adjudicated words of 
 an English judge to express what opinion was allowed in the Church.” [So !] 
 
 xii. 53-55. 
 
 Feb. 27. Rev. Dr. Hopkins (Trib.) explains (Feb. 8): “That letter was sent 
 under the date of Jan. 26, the day on which it was written, to a religious paper 
 [Ch. Jo. he says], and being refused insertion, .. .in your office received the date 
 Feb. 4,... .on which Dr. De Koven was elected... .My latest advices from Illinois 
 indicated that Dr. Leeds was the coming man.” “ This deposition. .. June 2, was 
 
 published June 3,... .on the same day [with]-letter of sympathy_This proves 
 
 that the letter was... .before deposition... .The signers contemplated only a tem¬ 
 porary suspension,” He recites a number of well-known names contained in the 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 93 
 
 February 27, 1875. 
 
 list (xi. 17-19), and says: “ Now to single out one clergyman... .and to say.... 
 lie shall not be consecrated. .. .is to proscribe equally every other man on that 
 list.”.xi. 16-22 ; iii. March 12, 1875 ; Jaggar. 
 
 Feb. 27. Growth of the Church (Trib.) Rev. Dr. F. C. Ewer objects to Dr. 
 Thompson’s mode of investigation (Feb. 20), and says: “ We have no full returns 
 of confirmations from 1861 to 1865... .Confirmations 1847 to 1852 was one in 488 
 population—1853 to 1860 was one in 355—1869 to 1874 was one in 252. 
 
 xii. 45. 
 
 Feb. 27. Dr. De Koven accepts (Trib.) “ Chicago, Feb. 26.—The following 
 letter of acceptance from Dr. De Koven w 7 ill be published for the first time in to¬ 
 morrow morning’s papers: ‘Racine, Feb. 15.—To the Rev. Dr. Chase and others.— 
 My Dear Brethren: In reply to your letter informing me of my election to the 
 Bishopric of Illinois, allow me to say, that I hereby accept the office to which the 
 diocese has elected me, and should the Standing Committees and the Bishops ap¬ 
 prove the testimonials and consent to the consecration, I will, with the help of God, 
 seek to be your faithful and loving Bishop.—I am respectfully and truly your 
 Brother and Servant in Christ.—James De Koven.’ ”.iii. Feb. 5, 1875. 
 
 March 1. Brooklyn (Epis. of 10th). Letter from “ Reformed Episcopalian.”— 
 “Bropklyn, Feb. 16, 1875. Sir: Will the Rev. Dr. Jaggar be confirmed by the 
 Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church as Bishop of the Diocese of Southern 
 Ohio ? Opposition is expected to the confirmation of Dr. Jaggar from the fact of 
 his signing a letter of sympathy in 1871, addressed to the Rev. Charles E. Cheney 
 after the latter’s trial and deposition from the ministry of the P. E. C. for omitting 
 the thanksgiving for the regeneration of children in the Baptismal service. The 
 effect of this letter is sought to be removed by the fact, that in the month of Nov., 
 1873, Dr. Jaggar signed a circular with others of the Episcopal clergy of Phila¬ 
 delphia in opposition to the establishment of the R. E. C. It is now alleged that 
 Dr. Jaggar has more than once expressed his regret to his friends that he signed 
 the Philadelphia circular. Moreover, it is asserted that during the present winter 
 a meeting was held at Dr. Jaggar’s house, composed of Low Church clergymen, 
 with a view of issuing a protest on their part against the doctrine of Apostolic 
 Succession. If these statements be well founded, they will greatly help the oppo- 
 sers of the consecration of the Rev. Dr. Jaggar.” 
 
 iii. Feb. 27, Rev; March 12, Jaggar; xi. 21, 22; xx. 3. 
 
 March 3. Exclusiveness (Epis.) The Bishop of London prevented the Dean 
 of Westminster and other clergymen of the Church of England from taking part in 
 the usual noon service in the City Temple of the Congregationalists, by threaten¬ 
 ing a legal prosecution...xii. 17, 58. 
 
 March 3. Low (Epis.) Rev. G. A. Redles gives to Bishop Stevens his reasons 
 for leaving the P. E. C., dated Feb. 12, 1875, “... .1 regarded the Articles as the 
 citadel of truth... .1 believed that the whole Prayer Book could be interpreted upon 
 Protestant principles... .When I entered the diocese of New Jersey, I learned that 
 the Evangelical Diocesan Missionary Society was about to be disbanded... .1 was 
 told that... .it had built, or aided in building, about 16 churches, and that all of 
 them except one had gone out of its hands.... A large majority of our clergy to¬ 
 day believe themselves to be priests... .They restrict the ministry to a tactual suc¬ 
 cession. .. .They appeal to the Prayer Book to sustain their position. I first be- 
 
94 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 March 3, 1875. 
 
 came fully convinced to go out of my Church at the close of the last General Con¬ 
 vention. .. .Five hundred clergymen signed a petition to that body, which asked 
 for the least possible concession... .The request was voted down in the proportion 
 of seven dioceses against one. .. .1 soon saw how Elizabeth and Charles II. had al¬ 
 tered the Prayer Book in the interests of Rome, and how the design to drive 
 out Protestants under Charles II. succeeded in the case of 2,000 clergymen who went 
 out... .1 had discovered that I must use language which not only sounded unscrip- 
 tural, but was actually so, and that it was intended to mean precisely what it said.” 
 
 xi. 20. 
 
 March 3. Diocese of Illinois (Ch. St.) “ The Rev. Dr. Locks, of Grace Church, 
 Chicago, in a sermon recently, draws the following picture of episcopacy in the dio¬ 
 cese of Illinois—We looked over this splendid diocese, filled with the flower of the 
 American people—the grandest field God ever spread before a Church. We marked 
 our own Church. Witness its feeble, discouraged 8,000 communicants and nearly 
 3,000,000 of people; $2,000 as the contributions of one whole year toward diocesan 
 missions ; with the exception of a few parishes, everything meagre and dragging ; 
 the -whole field a dreary waste, and our hearts burned within us.”, .xiii. 25 ; xii. 45. 
 
 March 3. Brooklyn. Church and State says : “ It is a very significant fact 
 that some, at least, of the Reformed Episcopalians are endeavoring to defeat Dr. 
 Jaggar’s election... .This is in the form of a letter... .not correct in any sense 
 which should justly render him objectionable to conservative churchmen.” 
 
 March 1, Brooklyn ; xx. 3. 
 
 March 10. Jaggar’s letter of Feb. 22, 1875 (Epis.) Dr. Jaggar in his letter 
 to Bp. Stevens, says : “ I sympathized with the ‘ perplexities and sorrows ’ of Mr. 
 Cheney, under the first sentence which was pronounced upon him, and signed, as 
 expressive of that sympathy, the letter which has been published. But I disavow 
 emphatically the interpretations which have been put upon certain phrases in that 
 letter, and which might imply that I countenanced him in his resistance to the de¬ 
 cision of the Court. The letter sharply analyzed, may admit of such inferences, 
 but the ground of my action was sympathy with one peculiarly tried, and not ap¬ 
 proval of his course, and certainly I have not approved of his subsequent conduct.” 
 
 xi. 21, 22. 
 
 March. 10. Brooklyn Letter of March 1. The Episcopalian says: “Now 
 there are no new facts and statements in ,this communication, except the assertion 
 concerning the meeting designed to draw up a protest against the false doct rine of 
 Apostolic Succession. The fact, we believe, is not denied, but it is asserted and 
 proved that said protest embodied nothing more than the well-known view£ of con¬ 
 servative Churchmen.”.iii. March 1, 1875, Brooklyn; xvii. 3. 
 
 March 10. Church of England (Ch. St.) “ The right of clergymen to preach 
 in Dissenting pulpits,” by the Rock : “ If a so-called English Churchman may be 
 allowed to preach up the Mass, surely a so-called Dissenter may be allowed to cry 
 it down; and if this be denied as inconsistent or incompatible with the conditions 
 of belonging to the Establishment, we may rest certain that ere many years are 
 over such an unjust establishment will be a thing of the past.. . .The union of 
 Church and State thus becomes the symbol and instrument of the division of Prot¬ 
 estantism. .. .The public will not fail to note one serious side of the difficulty in its 
 relation to the controversies of the day. The pulpit of the English Church is open to 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 95 
 
 March 10, 1875. 
 
 various foreign ecclesiastics, but not to tbe religious teachers of one-half of the 
 English people. There may be an exchange of religious rites with the Old Cath¬ 
 olics, with members of the Greek Church, with popularly elected Bishops from some 
 parts of the United States ; but there can be none between the official organization 
 which represents English religion and the Wesleyan, the Independent, and the 
 Baptist, and other ministers who are its unofficial representatives. It is not possi¬ 
 ble, and it would be infinitely undesirable even if it were possible, that this state 
 of things can long endure.”.xii. 18. 
 
 March 11. Votes for Dr. Jaggar (Trib.) “ An unreformed Episcopalian” in a 
 letter dated “ Hew York, March 9, 1875,” gives in detail 19 for and 6 against Jag¬ 
 gar; and 9 for and 16 against Dr. De Koven.iii. March 1, Brooklyn ; xvii. 3. 
 
 March 12. Dr. Jaggar’s sympathy for Dr. Cheney.Post of 12; Trib. of 13, 
 
 “ Sympathy for Eev. Dr. Cheney. All the original documents on this sub¬ 
 ject are nowin my possession. The name of Dr. Jaggar is not on one of the 
 twelve names printed on the circular, but in manuscript upon two of them. And 
 each circular has the printed note, ‘ On the 13th of May all the signatures will be 
 sent to Mr. Cheney.’ This shows presumptively that the signatures were before 
 June 2, the date of deposition, as stated by Dr. Hopkins in the Churchman , dated 
 ‘ March 13, 1875.’—B. Aycrigg, Passaic, N. J.—March 12, 1875.” Also telegram 
 “ To Dr. John H. Hopkins, Plattsburg, New York. — Jaggar’s manuscript signature 
 is on printed circulars, required May 13th for Cheney.—See Post, Tribune .” 
 
 iii. March 1, Brooklyn; xx. 3. 
 
 March 13. Dr. Hopkins (Chn.) He argues that the signatures must have 
 been before the deposition, as in (Feb. 27; Low), and uses some harsh criticisms 
 respecting (March 1, Brooklyn) and (March 10, Brooklyn), as if intentionally mis¬ 
 representing the facts stated (March 12, Jaggar’s sympathy). This paper ante¬ 
 dated March 13 was received on March 11, and immediately answered by (March 
 12). iii. March 1, Brooklyn ; March 12, Jaggar ; xx. 3. 
 
 March 13. [Reformed Episcopalians (Trib.) “A New Jersey Low Churchman ” 
 scolds the R. E. C. for (March 1, Brooklyn).xi. 21, 22 ; xx. 3. 
 
 March 15. Dr. Hopkins writes to B. Aycrigg: “Thanks for your crowning 
 evidence which I have seen in the Tribune," etc. (March 12) Then March 17, B. A. 
 writes to Dr. H. : “ With me it was not a Church question. It was simply an act 
 
 of duty to correct misstatements.” Then follows more facts respecting the names 
 and the opinions given (xi. 17), with authority to use the letter at discretion, since 
 “ it will soon appear as part of the history of the R. E. C., in which I suppose that 
 we may agree as to facts, as in this case, but draw opposite conclusions as Church 
 antipodes.” Dr. H. answers that the confirmation of Dr. Jaggar being now certain, 
 he shall have no use for the extra facts.xi. 16-22 ; xx. 3. 
 
 March 17. Dr. Hopkins and B. Aycrigg (see above, March 15). 
 
 March 17. Low(Epis.) Rev. Benjamin Johnson to Bishop Beckith, withdraw¬ 
 ing from the P. E. C. to join the R. E. C., dated March 1, 1875 : “ The movement of 
 Bishop Cummins took me entirely by surprise... .1 felt and expressed a sincere 
 regret that he had not remained to represent his Protestant principles within the 
 Episcopal Church. Time and ecclesiastical events have fully vindicated the wisdom 
 and providence of his movement. .. .1 have solemnly decided to ‘ go with him ’.... 
 To save itself Episcopacy must have a strong Protestant presentation.. . .It is the 
 
96 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 March 17, 1875. 
 
 judicial opinion of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge... .that so long as Sacerdotalism 
 is so clearly recognized in the Prayer Book, Ritualism cannot be legally condemned 
 . .. .Pusey and De Koven are abundantly satisfied with the Book as it is ... .Re¬ 
 vision is a vital necessity... .Despairing of this result from the Church, as now 
 dominated by Sacramentarianism, my conscience impels me to seek relief in the R. 
 E. C .. .It cannot be that the essence of a spiritual religion resides in external ad¬ 
 ministration. .. .1 miss nothing that I ever loved in the Old Prayer Book, only those 
 doctrines, the distinctive property of the Papacy, which so long have been betray¬ 
 ing the Church into Romanism and its imitation.” The Episcopalian also copies 
 from the Methodist Southern Christian Advocate, of Macon, Ga., some very compli¬ 
 mentary remarks respecting his “ most successful pastorate of about six years in 
 this city .... Impelled by conscientious convictions to renounce his connection 
 with the Church in which he was reared, and at whose altars he has served most 
 efficiently for twenty-five years”...xi. 26. 
 
 March 17. R 3v. W. H. Johnson, of S. C. The Episcopalian corrects its mis¬ 
 take in supposing that he was the Rev. Benjamin Johnson, of Ga. 
 
 iii. Feb. 25, 1875; xiv. 10. 
 
 March 17. Ireland (Ch. St.) Recently Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Metho¬ 
 dists, and Independents have held united evangelical meetings in Newry. The 
 assembly-room could not hold the worshipers, and the Presbyterian Church near 
 by was opened. This was also filled, and an Episcopalian minister presided at the 
 service, calling, as chairman, upon a Primitive Methodist to preach, and upon a 
 layman to pray ”..xii. 58. 
 
 March 17. Church of England (Ch. St.) The Pall Mall Budget says : “The 
 existing system of the Church of England is—we use the word in no invidious or 
 disrespectful sense—a compromise... .The object of Elizabeth and her advisers was 
 to keep as large a part of the nation as possible within the pale of the National 
 Church... .One thing was done to please those whose faces were turned towards 
 Rome... .Another thing was done to please those whose faces were turned towards 
 Geneva... .It was only by yielding something to both parties that the more 
 moderate members of both were kept where they were, and were hindered from 
 actually going in the direction in which they were severally looking... .The ob¬ 
 ject of the reviewers of the Prayer Book in Charles the Second’s time, wa3 to make 
 the changes in the direction of the first book of Edward the Sixth, but to do so, in 
 a manner, by stealth, by bringing in words and phrases which would satisfy the 
 holders of one set of opinions, while they would not offend the holders of another 
 set. In a form of worship which has grown up in this way, inconsistency is noth¬ 
 ing in the least wonderful ; it is, in truth, the very thing to be looked for. In the 
 way in which the English Prayer Book was made, it could hardly fail to contain 
 some things which the High Churchman delights in, and which the Low Church¬ 
 man can barely swallow, and some things which the Low Churchman delights in, 
 and the High Churchman can barely swallow. In truth, inconsistencies of this 
 kind will be found in our ecclesiastical formulse at every step ”.xii. 18, 58. 
 
 March. 18. Episcopal Elections (Trib.) “ The adverse vote of the Standing 
 Committees of the P. E. C. on the confirmation of the Rev. Dr. De Koven as the 
 Bishop of Illinois, will no doubt be considered a most serious advantage that the 
 Low Church party have gained in their contest with the alleged Ritualists... He 
 
CHAPTER TIL 
 
 97 
 
 March 18, 1875. 
 
 liad been twice before nominated for the Bishopric—in Massachusetts and Wiscon¬ 
 sin. .. .He accepted the honor at the hands of the Illinois Convention_as a vindi¬ 
 
 cation of the former action of that Convention in the choice of Professor Seymour.... 
 The data... .indicate that the opposition to Dr. De Koven was principally, though 
 far from entirely, among the laity.. . .The adverse vote on the confirmation of Dr. 
 Jaggar, who was opposed for presumed sympathy with the Low Church party, was 
 largely made up of the clerical members of the Standing Committees... .It may 
 now be said by moderate Churchmen, that no plausible excuse can be given for 
 secession”.iii. March 22,1875; xii. 58. 
 
 March 22. Episcopal Elections (Trib ) “The rejection of Dr. De Koven af¬ 
 forded the Rev. Dr. Ewer of this city occasion for a sermon yesterday on the revo¬ 
 lution in the Episcopal Church. It will be seen by our report of this discourse [of 
 this date] that Dr. Ewer took the ground that the vote of the Standing Committees 
 on this question shows a substantial victory for what he terms the * Catholic ’ party. 
 The wonder is, he thinks, not that Dr. De Koven was rejected, but that so early in 
 the career of * Catholicity,’ twelve dioceses have dared to vote for a Catholic, and 
 twelve dioceses presumed to vote against a Low Churchman ”.xii. 58, 59. 
 
 March 29. Low? (Times). “The will of the late ex-Chief Justice Richard 
 Ward Green bequeaths $75,000 to aid [the Methodist Episcopal Sunday-schools of 
 Rhode Island... .Mr. Green was a member of the P. E. C.”.xii. 58. 
 
 March 30. Ritualism in England (Toronto Globe). Copy in full of the Dec¬ 
 laration by two Archbishops and twenty-four Bishops (all except the Bishops of 
 Durham and of Salisbury); of which the editor says : “ Its burden is the Episcopal 
 way of saying ‘ Let us have peace,’ but apparently it is peace at any price that is 
 desired. The Rt. Rev. Fathers could not say exactly that they deprecated discus¬ 
 sion, but they have said what amounts to the same thing... .The civil interpreters 
 of the law of the Church are to be implicitly followed... .Those constituting that 
 Committee may not be members of the Church of England at all. Nay, may be 
 utter scoffers and avowed, or, at least, practical unbelievers, who hold all religions 
 equally true, that is, equally false. Yet their verdict on what is the doctrine of the 
 Church of England, is, as far as earth is concerned, final, and the Bishops say that 
 it is well that it should be so, and exhort entire submission to all its decisions. ... 
 A Church which abnegates all self-government, and hands over the interpretation 
 of its laws and doctrines to two or three laymen, who need not be either Church¬ 
 men or Christians, is surely in a bad way.” The Church and State of Oct. 81 has 
 the remarks of the Spectator and of the llecord .xii. 22, 58. 
 
 April 1. Rev. W. H. Johnson (So. Ch.) “ On March 10, at St. Luke’s Church, 
 Charleston, S. C., Bishop Howe declared the sentence of deposition pronounced 
 against Rev. W. II. Johnson on the 8th day of January last, to be, at the unanimous 
 recommendation of the Standing Committee, and with the consent of five Bishops 
 (those of Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana, and assistant Bishop of Kentucky), 
 ‘ remitted and terminated’ and the said clergyman to be restored to the full enjoy¬ 
 ment of all the privileges, dignities, and power of the priesthood.” [iii. Feb. 25, 
 1875, he does not condemn the R. E. C. Then ii. July 8, diff. the Canon requires 
 * him to condemn, and three Bishops to act. Then xiv. 10 he receives a letter dimis- 
 sory from Bishop Cummins. Then iii. April 1, five Bishops act and take the re¬ 
 sponsibility of receiving a man who w r as too honest to say what he did not believe. 
 The transactions from the beginning have been honorable to all concerned.] 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 % 
 
 Contents: — (1, 2). Address of Bishop Cummins. — (3 to 8). Principles of 
 the Old Evangelicals , cause the inauguration of the 11. E. C. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Oct. 8 , 1873 . Bishop Cummins addressed the Alliance on the subject of 
 “Roman and Reformed Doctrines on the subject of Justification contrasted.” In 
 the bound volume of the proceedings he is thus quoted:— 
 
 (2) “ Rome denies this great truth [justification by faith], and in its stead has 
 built that gigantic system of error, whose essence consists in placing the Church 
 between the soul and God, as the sole dispenser of this grace, and without whose 
 ministrations there is no salvation. From this springs all the kindred errors—the 
 elevation of the ministry into a hierarchy, a sacrificing, mediating priesthood, 
 through whose offices alone all heavenly blessings can come; a priesthood in whose 
 hands, sacraments convey grace ex opere operato , independent of the faith of the 
 recipient—a priesthood empowered to forgive sins, after securing the confession of 
 the penitent—a priesthood by whose word the bread of the Sacrament becomes 
 God incarnate—a priesthood empowered to offer sacrifices for the quick and dead ’’ 
 
 (P- 471). 
 
 “The Protestant doctrine of justification is assailed, not so much because it is 
 thought dangerous to morality, as because it robs the Church—that is, the clerical 
 order—of its assumed priestly character ” (p. 472). 
 
 “ Fellow Protestants of every name and nationality! Children of the Reforma¬ 
 tion ! This is the very citadel of our faith, the very heart of the Gospel. This 
 truth made the Reformation. And, under God, this truth alone can preserve it; 
 revive it where it has become feeble and sickly ; purify it where it has fallen from 
 its first estate. In the reception, maintenance, and personal experience of this 
 ‘ truth as it is in Jesus,’ we are to find the real union of all Protestant Christen¬ 
 dom. United to Christ by a saving faith, I am one with every other believer” 
 (p. 474). 
 
 (3) Now, to these doctrines as general principles, we must unquestionably at¬ 
 
 tribute the foundation of the R. E. C. Not because here announced, for here is 
 nothing new. This is but one of the efforts made by Bishop Cummins and other 
 Low Churchmen to arrest the tide of Romish error that is now sweeping over the 
 once “Protestant” Episcopal Church.xi.; xvi. 28. 
 
 (4) But, I think, that in another mode, the Alliance was used by Providence to 
 plant in the same spot that was occupied by itself, just two months before, a small 
 seed in the form of the R. E. C., to represent a new phase of the grand Christian 
 principles which brought that Alliance together. 
 
 (5) Thus: the Alliance brought Bishop Cummins to New York, with the conse- 
 
 (98) 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 99 
 
 5th Section. 
 
 quence of tlie Joint Communion on Oct. 12, and the consequent exhibition of the 
 present character of the P. E. C., until the whole culminated in the resignation 
 of Bishop Cummins on Nov. 10, and his visit to Passaic, N. J., on Nov. 12, for the 
 purpose of rest. And there, without premeditation, occurred the conference of Nov. 
 12-13, from which sprung the R. E. C.ix. 5. 
 
 (6) As to the Rev. Marshall B. Smith and the Rev. Mason Gallagher, the two 
 
 Presbyters at that meeting, I do not know that the Alliance had any influence (ix. 
 5). They had both withdrawn from the P. E. C. several years previously, for the 
 same causes as did Bishop Cummins on Nov. 10.vii. 2, 5. 
 
 (7) But, from all the circumstances attending that Conference, I have no doubt 
 that if either one of the four who were present, had not been prepared to ccnsider 
 the question of founding a new organization, such proposition would not have 
 grown out of the general conversation respecting the Rome ward tendencies of the 
 P. E. C. I was the only layman present, and in my opinion the Alliance was used 
 by Providence to prepare me for that meeting, within less than two weeks before 
 that date. Thus 
 
 (8) . During the meetings of the Alliance, and as T supposed to counteract their 
 influence, the Higli-Churcli, but honorable and conscientious rector of St. John’s 
 Church in Passaic, expressed more strongly than usual, the views held by the 
 ruling majority in the P. E. C. Or it is possible that they appeared in a stronger 
 light by contrast with the broad Christian principles of the Alliance. 
 
 But in either way, I believe that the Alliance was the immediate cause of my 
 writing to the Senior Warden on Oct. 30, 1873, giving my reasons for leaving that 
 parish of which I had been one of the founders in 1859, and for which I had spent 
 much time and money. I then thought seriously of joining the Reformed (Dutch) 
 Church ; but sad to think that at the age of three score and ten, I must give up 
 the familiar service of my whole life, and the Church of my paternal and maternal 
 ancestors. I was thus prepared for the result of that meeting.xii. 29, 51. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 JOINT COMMUNIONS. 
 
 Contents :—(1, 2, 5). What they were. — (3). Dr. Adams on Bishop Tozer. 
 —(4). Bishop Cummins. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) These joint communions, which have become historical, occurred on Sunday, 
 Oct. 12, 1873, in two Presbyterian churches in New York. The Rev. William 
 Adams, D.D., w T as the pastor of the church in which the Dean of Canterbury joined 
 with non-episcopalians, and the Rev. John Hall, D.D., is still pastor of the church 
 in which Bishop Cummins did the same. These are reported in the secular papers 
 of Oct. 13, 1873. 
 
 (2) In these communions the Rt. Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., assistant 
 Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky, and the Very Rev. R. 
 Payne Smith, D.D., the Dean of Canterbury, representative of the Primate of all 
 England, took part with non-episcopal clergymen in the administration of the 
 Lord’s Supper, 
 
 (3) With respect to the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Adams writes to the New 
 York Evening Post, Nov. 17, 1873 : “ During his visit in this city... .the Dean sig¬ 
 nified his pleasure to join in the Holy Communion with the representatives of 
 different nations in the Presbyterian Church on Madison Square. This was by no 
 appointment or arrangement of the Alliance, but of his own free will—in expression, 
 as we may assume, of his desire for more of visible Christian union. In this spirit 
 lie actually joined in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, with many repre¬ 
 sentatives of the Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Moravian, Waldensian, Methodist, 
 Baptist, and other churches, himself receiving with others the elements from the 
 hand of the Presbyterian pastor. 
 
 “ This scene attracted no little attention from all quarters. To many it was 
 a spectacle of unfeigned delight and satisfaction. By others, and those in the Epis¬ 
 copal Church, this act of the Dean of Canterbury was sharply criticised and de¬ 
 nounced ; by none more emphatically than in a letter addressed to ‘ My Lord 
 Bishop’ (sic) of New York, by Bishop Tozer, Missionary from Africa, then visiting 
 our city, but having no connection with the Alliance. Much in the language and 
 spirit of this letter may easily be pardoned in a stranger evidently ignorant of 
 American institutions and habits ; but now Bishop Potter himself, in a letter ad¬ 
 dressed to the press of this city has actually endorsed and approved the remark¬ 
 able production. He pronounces it according to his personal knowledge ‘ far from 
 being a hasty letter.’ With no disclaimer, not even of its address and superscrip¬ 
 tion, he characterizes it as ‘ well considered,’ and ‘ manly.’ This letter, we are in¬ 
 formed by Bishop Potter, ‘ found its way into print by accident ! ’ But it is by no 
 ( 100 ) 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 101 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 accident that Bishop Potter now gives it his printed and public approval. The 
 letter of Bishop Tozer, thus endorsed, contains no equivocal menace that the act of 
 the Dean of Canterbury should be reported to his Archbishop for judicial notice.” 
 "... .Does Bishop Potter seriously claim such territorial jurisdiction over the city 
 and county of New York, and such identity of all branches of the Episcopal Church 
 throughout the world, that every clerical visitor from England episcopally ordained, 
 is required to consult him as to the meetings he may attend, the pulpits in which 
 he may preach, and the communion tables at which he may receive the sacrament, 
 under penalty of being publicly arraigned for ‘ eccentricity,’ ‘ irregularity,’ and un¬ 
 faithfulness to his ‘ ordination vows.’ 
 
 (4) Bishop Cummins, in like manner, by persons less conspicuous than Bishop 
 Tozer, was attacked for doing in Dr. Hall’s Church what the Dean of Canterbury 
 had done in Dr. Adams’ Church. 
 
 (5) I was present at this Joint Communion in Dr. Adams’ Church, and it was 
 the grandest Communion of the “ Holy Catholic Church ” of the Apostles’ Creed 
 that I ever saw or expect to see—that vast congregation of all names and nations 
 filling the church from front to rear, and filling the aisles; all, with rare exceptions, 
 joining in the Communion. 
 
 iii. Nov. 5, 1873, Ch. St.; Nov. 5, Bp. Potter; Feb. 4, 1874, Dean ; Oct. 1, Bp.; Oct. 
 
 12, Dr. Mead. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PRAYER BOOK OF 1785 AND JOURNAL OF 1785-6. 
 
 Contents:—(1, 2 , 5).— Whence obtained— (8). Reprint as Low Church 
 document .— (4). Then for R. E. C— (6, 7, 8). Contents of Journals .—(9). 
 Referred to .— (10). Bishop White's Memoirs. —(11). Perry's Hand-Book. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Before the reprint of the Prayer Booh of 1785, it was so little known, that 
 when Bishop Cummins, in the Call of Nov. 13, referred to it (ix. 2), it was in print 
 pronounced to he a myth. 
 
 (2) The copy from which this was reprinted was obtained from London several 
 years since at considerable expense on account of its scarceness, by the Rev. Mar¬ 
 shall B. Smith, who knew of its existence, but had never before been able to find a 
 copy. 
 
 (3) When Bishop Cummins was in New York attending the meetings of the 
 Alliance (Oct. 2 to 12), this book was lent to him (as I was informed), and he find¬ 
 ing it so much more Protestant than the Prayer Book of 1789, obtained from sev¬ 
 eral laymen the promise to pay for reprinting it as a valuable document to sustain 
 the Low Churchmen. At that time I was not acquainted with Bishop Cummins. 
 This book was then presented to Bishop Cummins, and reprinted as directed “ ver¬ 
 batim et literatim el punctuatim.” On one occasion when I had charge of the 
 reprint, the proof sheets were returned with a special note pointing out supposed 
 systematic errors. The printer referred to his standing orders and proved by copy 
 that he had followed directions. 
 
 (4) While this Prayer Book of 1785 was in the hands of the printer, the deter¬ 
 
 mination to found the R. E. C. was reached on Nov. 13 (ix. 9). Then the reprint 
 was put under my charge and driven with all practicable speed, so as to be on hand 
 at the organization on Dec. 2. This was accomplished so far as to have fifty cop¬ 
 ies.ii. Dec. 4. 
 
 (5) The journals of the General Conventions of 1785-6 were obtained by Bishop 
 Cummins about three or four days after the date of the Call of Nov. 13. They 
 were brought from Belfast, Ireland, by the Rev. John Hall, D.D., bound up with 
 other pamphlets (v. 4.) Immediately on permission being obtained, these were put 
 into the hands of the printer, and copies were prepared in time for the organization 
 of Dec. 2, 1873. 
 
 (6) The “ Journal,” Sept. 17 to Oct. 7,1875, shows that NewYork, New Jersey, Penn¬ 
 sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina only were represented. 
 ... .Read proceedings of Convention of 1784 (p. 5 of reprints). Committee of one 
 clergyman, one layman from each State to draft a Constitution (p. 6) which is re- 
 
 ( 102 ) 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 103 
 
 6th. Section. 
 
 ported (p. 8); and refers to the “ Meeting of clerical and lay deputies on Oct. G, 7, 
 1784, from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn¬ 
 sylvania, Delaware, and Maryland (p. 8); refers to the Prayer Book of 1785 as 
 “ proposed and recommended.” (p. 10): “That the first Thursday of November in 
 every year forever shall be... .Thanksgiving ” (11): “ Plan of obtaining Consecra¬ 
 tion. .. .address the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, requesting 
 them to confer the episcopal character... .That Conventions... .correspond with 
 the English Bishops... .Bishops may be called the Rt. Rev. A. B., Bishop of the P. 
 E. C. in G. D., and as Bishops may have no other title.’’ (p. 12): “To the most 
 Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the 
 Bishops of the Church of England... .our fathers... as well from a veneration for 
 Episcopal government as from an attachment to the admirable services of our 
 Liturgy,... .professing the same religious principles with the Church of England, 
 you will he pleased to confer the Episcopal character... .(p. 18)... .The Bishops of 
 London were our Diocesans (p. 14). . . .Besohed, That the Rev. Dr. Smith bo 
 requested to prepare and preach a sermon,... .and that the Service be then read 
 as proposed for future use (pp. 15, 16). .. .Friday, 7tli Oct., 1785. The Convention 
 
 met... .Liturgy as altered was read by Rev. Dr. White, and... .sermon_by Rev. 
 
 Dr. Smith (p. 16). 
 
 (7) “ Journal,” Philadelphia, June 20 to 26, 1786. Same States represented as in 
 1785... .Letter from nineteen Archbishops and Bishops awaiting further informa¬ 
 tion (pp. 20, 21) “ A motion made by the Rev. Mr. Provost and seconded by the 
 Rev. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, viz. : That this Convention will resolve to do no 
 act that shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Mr. Seabury. The 
 previous question was moved by Dr. Smith, seconded by Dr. White, viz.: Shall 
 this question be now put ?—and carried in the affirmative. The main question was 
 then proposed and determined in the negative, as follows: New York, aye ; New 
 Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, no; Delaware, no; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; 
 South Carolina, aye. On motion made by Dr. White and seconded by Mr. Smith, 
 of South Carolina, Besolved unanimously , That it be recommended to this Church 
 in the States here represented, not to receive to the pastoral charge within their 
 respective limits, clergymen professing canonical subjection to any Bishop in any 
 State or country other than those Bishops who may be duly settled in the States 
 represented in this Convention.”....“ It was unanimously Besolved, That it be rec¬ 
 ommended to the Conventions of the Church represented in this General Conven¬ 
 tion not to admit any person as a minister within their respective limits who shall 
 receive ordination from any Bishop residing in America during the application now 
 pending to the English Bishops for Episcopal consecration.” (p. 22). The answer 
 to the letter of the Bishops on pages 20-21, says: “While doubts remain,.... 
 we acknowledge the propriety of suspending a compliance with our request.... 
 Many great and pious men of the Church of England have long wished for a revis¬ 
 ion of the Liturgy, which it was deemed imprudent to hazard... .This with us is 
 the proper season for revision... .leads us to flatter ourselves that you will not dis¬ 
 claim a branch of your Church merely for having been... .pruned rather more 
 closely than its separation made absolutely necessary.” (pp. 28, 29). 
 
 (8.) “Journal” of Oct. 10, 11, 1786, at Wilmington. With representatives from 
 New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina. 
 
104 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 8th. Section. 
 
 Adjourned meeting begins with the letter signed by tlie Archbishops of Canterbury 
 
 and of York, who say....“ The whole of your communications were then_taken 
 
 into consideration at a meeting of the Archbishops and fifteen Bishops.Less re¬ 
 
 spect, however, was paid to our Liturgy than its own excellence and your declared 
 attachment to it had led us to expect... .Two confessions... .have been entirely 
 laid aside [Nicene and Athanasian Creeds] and that even in that which is called 
 the Apostles’ Creed an article is omitted [He descended into hell.] Nevertheless, 
 ... .trusting that the communications we shall make to you... .will have the de¬ 
 sired effect, we have... .prepared a bill conveying to us the powers necessary for 
 the purpose ” (pp. 84-38). Convention elected Rev. Dr. Provost President by bal¬ 
 lot (p. 40). “Whereas_Archbishops and Bishops-earnestly exhorting this Con¬ 
 
 vention. .. .for removal of certain objections... .In pursuance whereof this present 
 General Convention has been called ” (pp. 41-43). Question on restoring “ He de¬ 
 scended into hell: ” New York, 2 yes, 1 no ; New Jersey, 5 yes ; Pennsylvania, 3 
 yes, 3 no; Delaware, 2 yes, 2 no; South Carolina, 2 yes ; “ and so the words are to 
 be restored, there being two ayes and no negative.” “ On the question, Shall the 
 Nicene Creed be restored in the Liturgy? the same was unanimously agreed to.” 
 “ Shall the Athanasian Creed be restored ? ” New York, 3 no ; New Jersey, 2 yes, 
 3 no; Pennsylvania, G no; Delaware, 1 yes, 3 no; South Carolina, 2 no; “and so it 
 was decided in the negative ” (p. 44). Elected for consecration as Bishops: Rev. 
 Dr. Samuel Provost, by New York ; Rev. Dr. Wm. White, by Pennsylvania ; Rev. 
 Dr. David Griffith, by Virginia. 
 
 (9) This Proposed Book of 1785 is referred to (vii. 1 ; ix. 2 ; xi. 3 ; ii. Nov. 19, 
 1873, Ch. St.; Dec. 4, Prayer-Book. 
 
 (10) Bishop White’s Memoirs, Edition of 1836, page 22, says : “ On the 27th 
 
 of September, 1785, there assembled_in Philadelphia_deputies from seven of 
 
 the thirteen States.’’ A note on page 107 says: “ The Convention seems to have 
 fallen into two capital errors... .ordering the printing of a large edition... .order¬ 
 ing the use of it... .at the conclusion... .of the Session. This helped to confirm 
 the opinion of its being introduced with a high hand.” 
 
 (11) Hand-Book of the General Conventions, 1785 to 1874, by William Stevens 
 Perry, D.D., contains much that is interesting respecting the above, extracted 
 from Bishop White’s Memoirs and from documents belonging to the General Con¬ 
 vention. It was printed in 1874. The reprint above was in Dec., 1873. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 RESIGNATIONS. 
 
 (1). Of Bishop Cummins. —(2). Of Ben. M. B. Smith. —(3). Record of 
 Deposition. —(4). New Jersey Bishop and Convention. —(5). Resignation of 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher. —(6). Other Resignations. —(7). Restoration. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Bishop Cummins withdraws from the P. E. C. “ New York, November 10, 
 1873.—To the Right Reverend Benjamin Bosworth Smith, D.D., Bishop of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Kentucky.—Rt. Rev. and Dear 
 Bishop : Under a solemn sense of duty, and in the fear of God, I have to tell you 
 that I am about to retire from the work in which I have been engaged for the last 
 seven years in the Diocese of Kentucky, and thus to sever the relations which have 
 existed so happily and harmoniously between us during that time. It is due to 
 you, and to my many dear friends in the Diocese of Kentucky and elsewhere, that 
 I should state clearly the causes wdiicli have led me to this determination. 
 
 “ 1. First, then, you well know how heavy has been the trial of having to exer¬ 
 cise my office in certain churches in the Diocese of Kentucky where the services 
 are conducted so as to symbolize and to teach the people doctrines subversive of the 
 ‘ truth as it is in Jesus,’ and as it w r as maintained and defended by the Reformers 
 of the sixteenth century. On each occasion that I have been called upon to officiate 
 in those churches, I have been most painfully impressed by the conviction that I 
 was sanctioning and endorsing, by my presence and official acts, the dangerous 
 errors symbolized by the services customary in Ritualistic churches. I can no 
 longer, by my participation in such services, be ‘ a partaker of other men’s sins,’ 
 and must clear my own soul of all complicity in such errors. 
 
 “ 2. I have lost all hope that this system of error now prevailing so extensively 
 in the Church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, 
 can be or will be eradicated by any action of the authorities of the Church legisla¬ 
 ture or executive. The only true remedy, in my judgment, is the judicious, yet 
 thorough revision of the Prayer-Book, eliminating from it all that gives counte¬ 
 nance, directly or indirectly, to the whole system of Sacerdotalism and Ritualism : 
 a revision after the model of that recommended by the Commission appointed in 
 England under royal authority in 1689, and whose work was endorsed by the great 
 names of Burnet, Patrick, Tillotson, and Stillingfleet, and others of the Church of 
 England—a blessed work, which failed, alas ! to receive the approval of Convoca¬ 
 tion, but was taken up afterwards by the Fathers of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States, and embodied in the Prayer-Book of 1785, which they 
 set forth and recommended for use in this country. I propose to return to that 
 Prayer Book, sanctioned by William White, and to tread in the steps of that saintly 
 man, as he acted from 1785 to 1789. 
 
 (105) 
 
106 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 “ 3. One other reason for my present action remains to be given. On the last 
 day of the late conference of the Evangelical Alliance, I participated in the cele¬ 
 bration of the Lord’s Supper, by invitation, in the Rev. Dr. John Hall’s Church in 
 the City of New York, and united with Dr. Hall, Dr. Win. Arnot, of Edinburgh, 
 and Prof. Dorner, of Berlin, in that precious Feast. It was a practi al manifesta¬ 
 tion of the real unity of ‘ the blessed company of all faithful people ’ whom God 
 'hath knit together in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of His 
 Son Jesus Christ.’ The results of that participation have been such as to prove to 
 my mind that such a step cannot be taken by one occupying the position I now 
 hold, without sadly disturbing the peace and harmony of ‘ this Church,’ and with¬ 
 out impairing my influence for good over a large portion of the same Church, very 
 many of whom are within our own Diocese. As I cannot surrender the right and 
 privilege thus to meet my fellow-Christians of other churches around the table of 
 our dear Lord, I must take my place where I can do so without alienating those of 
 my own household of faith. I, therefore, leave the communion in which I have 
 labored in the sacred ministry for over twenty-eight years, and transfer my work 
 and office to another sphere of labor. I have an earnest hope and confidence that 
 a basis for the union of all Evangelical Christendom can be found in a communion 
 which shall retain or restore a Primitive Episcopacy and a pure Scriptural Liturgy, 
 with a fidelity to the doctrine of Justification by Faith only— Articulns stantis vel 
 cadentis Ecclesice —a position towards which the Old Catholics in Europe are rapidly 
 tending, and which has already taken a definite form in the ‘ Church of Jesus ’ in 
 Mexico. To this blessed work I devote the remaining years of life, content, if I 
 can only see the dawn of that blessed day of the Lord. I am, dear Bishop, 
 
 “ Faithfully yours in Christ, George David Cummins.” 
 
 (2) Kev. Marshall B. Smith to Bishop Odenheimer, March 15, 1869, with¬ 
 drawing from the P. E. C. Extracts from the pamphlet (pp. 16) reprinted for the 
 R. E. C. 
 
 “ For some time I believed that the Book of Common Prayer was consistently 
 and thoroughly Protestant... .But priest, altar, sacrifice stand forth throughout 
 ....I can no longer use certain expressions which it contains... .The canons 
 passed at the last General Convention... .are some of them... .such that I cannot 
 conscientiously obey them... .Adhering as I do to the truth as taught in the 
 Gospel, and in its epitome those noble Protestant formularies, the Thirty-nine 
 Articles... .there is no alternative for me as an honest man but to withdraw... .1 
 love the mode of worship of our Church, and could never leave it did I see 
 any possibility of the revision of its Offices, the suppression of Romish and other 
 corrupt practices, and a just guarantee of liberty to the Evangelical clergy.” (ii. 
 April 22, 1874). 
 
 The "Journal” of 1869 (p. 138), has this courteous record by Bishop Oden¬ 
 heimer: “ 1869, April 19—Deposed on his letter of resignation, and not for crime 
 or immorality, Rev. Marshall B. Smith.” And page 112, the Bishop in his annual 
 address refers to this resignation. 
 
 (4) And (by way of parenthesis, to show the high-toned liberality of this High 
 Church Bishop and Convention) Mr. Smith as an avowed Low Churchman preached 
 the Convention sermon by appointment of the Bishop in 1866, and for several years 
 was a member of the Standing Committee ; and I as an avowed Low Church- 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 107 
 
 4th. Section. 
 
 man, lield tlie office of chairman of the Committee on Finance from 1863 nntil 
 I resigned in 1868 on account of the action of the General Convention. And the 
 ruling'majority allow the Low Churchmen to have one clerical and one lay deputy 
 in the General Convention. Hence I separate from the Bishop and Convention of 
 New Jersey with feelings of respect and admiration. 
 
 ii. Oct. 29, Dr. Garrison ; xii. 29; xiii. 8 ; xiv. 4. 
 
 (5) Rev. Mason Gallagher to the Rt. Rev. Horatio Potter, D.D., Bishop of the 
 Diocese of New York, dated Sept. 11, 1871 : “ After careful deliberation, I have de¬ 
 cided to request my name to be removed from the list of clergy in canonical connec¬ 
 tion with the P. E. C. in your diocese... .1 am fully persuaded that the section of 
 Episcopalians with whom I sympathize, legitimately represent the martyred 
 founders of the Church of England... .Retiring from an active ministry of over 
 twenty-seven years in this portion of the kingdom of Christ, I think it proper 
 briefly to state the leading causes of this withdrawal. .. .The service for Infant 
 Baptism... .teaches dangerous errors... .a service capable of at least seven differ¬ 
 ent interpretations. The Catechism, the office of Institution, are capable of semi- 
 Romish interpretation... .The Canon passed at the last General Convention, still 
 further limiting the tender of courtesies and fraternal respect to ministers of other 
 churches... .The whole tone of exclusiveness in our Church, proceeding from the 
 prevailing idea of the absolute necessity of Episcopal ordination to a valid ministry 
 ... .The punishment for omitting controverted expressions in a human service, or 
 for preaching the Gospel where their conscience dictated—penalties as great as if 
 they had violated the Ten Commandments... .Studying the tone of our late 
 Diocesan Conventions, the Declaration of Bishops, and the spirit of the High 
 Church Episcopal press, I feel no hope of any legislation by the coming General 
 Convention which will give relief adequate to*the present emergency... .With a 
 heartfelt wish that you may be blessed in your work, and that the Church, of 
 which you are so important an officer, may remain true to the old faith of its founders, 
 and be greatly useful in saving souls, I remain... .Mason Gallagher.” 
 
 (6) The resignations of several who left the P. E. C. after the organization of 
 the R. E. C. are quoted under the caption Low in Chapter III. (xi. 26). They 
 are all in substance the same as the above. They all represent the same principles 
 as in (xi.) 
 
 (7) Restoration after resignation, (ii. July 8, 1874; Differences viii.) 
 
 (8) The above cases of the previous withdrawal of the four who met on Nov. 
 
 12 (vii. 1-5), and the other cases referred to (vii. 6) will show the reasons for leav¬ 
 ing the P. E. C., and the spirit of sadness and not resentment with which the Old 
 Evangelicals of the P. E. C. have felt themselves obliged to separate from their 
 former associates.xiv. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 DEPOSITION OP BISHOP CUMMINS. 
 
 Contexts :—(1). Acknowledgment of receipt of Resignation. — (2). 
 Formal notice. —(3). Canon. —(4). Deposition record. — (5). New Canon. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Nov. 13. Bishop Smith informally and kindly acknowledges the receipt of 
 Bishop Cummins’ letter of resignation. B. A. 
 
 (2) Nov. 22. Bishop Smith writes: “ Hoboken, N. J., November 22, 1873.— 
 Rt. Rev. Geo. D. Cummins, D.D., late assistant Bishop of Kentucky : Upon the evi¬ 
 dence of a printed copy of your letter to me dated November 10th, 1873, in the hands 
 of the Rev. Dr. Perkins, a member of the Standing Committee of Kentucky, at a 
 meeting of said Committee duly convened in the vestry-room of Christ Church, 
 Louisville, on the 18th day of November, 1873, in accordance with the provisions of 
 Canon Eighth, Title II. of the Digest, did certify to me that the Rt. Rev. George 
 David Cummins, D.D., for some time assistant Bishop of Kentucky, has abandoned 
 the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church. In accordance with the second 
 paragraph of the same Canon, it becomes my painful duty to give you official no¬ 
 tice ‘ that unless you shall within six months make declaration that the fact alleged 
 in said certificate is false, you will be deposed from the ministry of this Church.”— 
 B. B. Smith, Bishop of Kentucky, and Presiding Bishop.” 
 
 ii. Nov. 29 and 30, 1873, Bishops ; Dec. 1, Bishops. 
 
 This is a copy from the manuscript. The substance is quoted in the Act of 
 Deposition, June 24, 1874, (viii. 4). 
 
 (3) The Canon referred to reads as follows : Canon 8, Title II. “ If any Bishop 
 without availing himself of the provisions of § xvi. of Canon 13 of Title I. abandon 
 the Communion of this Church, either by open renunciation of the doctrine, disci¬ 
 pline, and worship of this Church, or by a formal admission into any religious body 
 not in communion with the same, it shall be the duty of the Standing Committee of 
 the Diocese to make certificate of the fact to the senior Bishop, which certificate shall 
 be recorded, and shall be taken and deemed as equivalent to a renunciation of the 
 ministry by the Bishop himself. Notice shall then be given to said Bishop receiving 
 the certificate that unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that the facts 
 alleged in said certificate are false, he will be deposed from the ministry of this 
 Church. And if such declaration be not made within six months as aforesaid, it shall 
 be the duty of the senior Bishop, with the consent of the majority of the House of 
 Bishops, to depose from the ministry the Bishop so certified as abandoning, and to 
 pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops, that he has been so 
 deposed : Provided, nevertheless, that if the Bishop so certified as abandoning, shall 
 transmit to the senior Bishop a retraction of the acts or declarations constituting 
 his offence, the Bishop may, at his discretion, abstain from any further proceedings. 
 
 (108) 
 
CHAPTER YIH. 
 
 109 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 [Note a.] “ Canon of 1859.” [In consequence of tlie secession of Bisliop Ives, who 
 joined the Church of Rome ?] 
 
 (4) Bisliop Cummins was deposed according to the Canon above recited, on 
 June 24, 1874, as reported in the Philadelphia Bulletin of July 8. Viz.: 
 
 “ Whereas, The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky, duly convened 
 in the vestry-room of Christ Church, Louisville, on the 18th day of November, in 
 the year of our Lord 1873, did certify to me, Rt. Rev. Benjamin B. Smith, D.D., 
 LL.D., Bishop of Kentucky, and senior Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the United States, the fact that Right Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., for 
 some time assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky, had abandoned the com¬ 
 munion of said Church, which certificate is in the words following : ‘ The Standing 
 Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky, duly convened in accordance with Canon 8, 
 Title II., do hereby certify to the senior Bishop above named, that Right Rev. 
 George David Cummins, D.D., for some time assistant Bishop of the said Diocese 
 of Kentucky, has abandoned the communion of said Church, of which due record 
 was made. And whereas, upon receiving said notice I gave notice, on the 22d day 
 of November, to the above-named Right Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., that 
 unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that the facts alleged in said 
 certificate are false, he will be deposed from the ministry of this Church. And 
 whereas, no such declaration has been made within said time, neither has the Right 
 Rev. George David Cummins, D.D., transmitted to me any retraction of the acts or 
 declarations constituting his offence : Be it therefore known that on this 24th day 
 of June, in the year of our Lord 1874, in the vestry-room of St. Peter’s Church, 
 New York city, I, Benjamin Bosworth Smith, above-named, and senior Bishop of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, with the consent of a ma¬ 
 jority of the members of the House of Bishops, as hereinbefore enumerated, viz. : 
 [here follow the names of 35 Bishops with the names of their Dioceses], and in 
 terms of the Canon in such cases made and provided, do pronounce the said George 
 David Cummins, D.D., deposed, to all intents and purposes, from the ministry of 
 this Church, and from all the rights, privileges, powers, and dignities pertaining to 
 the office of Bishop of the same. Iu the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost, Amen. B. B. Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky, and senior 
 Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. Done in the 
 presence of Alfred Lee, Bishop of Delaware ; William Bacon Stevens, Bishop of the 
 Diocese of Pennsylvania ; M. A. De Wolfe Howe, Bishop of Central Pennsylvania.” 
 
 Now these documents, compared with the Canon as recited, show that the depo¬ 
 sition was in strict accordance with the Canon. The whole has been given at 
 length to compare with the “ Null and Void ” proclamation..x. 5, 7, 8. 
 
 (5) (iii. Nov. 8, 1874. Abandoned). The Canon was so changed as to allow im¬ 
 mediate inhibition.iii, Oct. 26. 
 

 V J 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 CALL TO ORGANIZE. 
 
 Contexts: —(1). Note. —(2). Principles. — (3). For Episcopalians only .— 
 (4 to 9). Unpremeditated. —(10). Letter Dimissory. —(11). A Layman re¬ 
 tracts. —(12 to 15). Erroneous reports. —(16). Call made public, Nov. 26. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) “ New York, November 15, 1873.—Dear Brother: The following circular- 
 letter has been prepared*in consultation with a few friends like-minded with myself, 
 who are now, or have been, ministers and laymen in the P. E. C. It is sent to you 
 for your earnest consideration. If approved by you, please sign your name to it, and 
 thus give your consent to the transfer of your name to the original document for 
 publication and more general circulation. — Your Brother in the Lord, George 
 David Cummins. Address me at No. 11 East 57th Street, New York, and tele¬ 
 graph your reply, if agreeable to you.” 
 
 (2) •'* New York, November 13, 1873.—Dear Brother: The Lord has put it into 
 the hearts of some of His servants who are or have been, in the P. E. C., the pur¬ 
 pose of restoring the old paths of their fathers, and of returning to the use of the 
 Prayer Book of 1785, set forth by the General Convention of that year, under the 
 especial guidance of the venerable William White, D.D., afterwards the first 
 Bishop of the same Church in this country. The chief features of that Prayer- 
 Book, as distinguished from the one now in use, are the following : 1. The word 
 ‘ Priest ’ does not appear in the Book, and there is no countenance whatever to the 
 errors of Sacerdotalism. 2. The Baptismal Offices, the Confirmation Office, the 
 Catechism, and the Order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, contain no 
 sanction of the errors of Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence of the Body 
 and Blood of Christ in the elements of the Communion, and of a Sacrifice offered 
 by a Priest in that Sacred Feast. These are the main features that render the 
 Prayer Book of 1785 a thoroughly Scriptural Liturgy, such as all Evangelical 
 Christians who desire Liturgical Worship can use with a good conscience. On 
 Tuesday, the 1st [2d] day of December, 1873, a meeting will be held in Association 
 Hall, corner of Twenty-third Street and Fourth Avenue, in the city of New York, 
 at 10 o’clock A.M., to organize an Episcopal Church on the basis of the Prayer Book 
 of 1785—a basis broad enough to embrace all who hold ‘ the faith once delivered to 
 the saints,’ as that faith is maintained by the Reformed Churches of Christendom ; 
 with no exclusive and unchurching dogmas toward Christian brethren who differ 
 from them in their views of Polity and Church Order. This meeting yon are cor¬ 
 dially and affectionately invited to attend. The purpose of the meeting is to organ¬ 
 ize, and not to discuss the expediency of organizing. A verbatim reprint of the 
 Prayer Book of 1785 is in press, and will be issued during the month of December. 
 May the Lord guide you and usbv His Holy Spirit.— George David Cummins.” 
 
 ( 110 ) 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ill 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 (3) This Call was presented exclusively to those “ wlio are or have been minis¬ 
 ters or laymen in the P. E. C.” This principle was immediately approved by out¬ 
 side advisers in whose judgment we placed confidence. It was adopted by all 
 who took part in the first General Council. Consequently, all in authority having 
 been members of the Old Evangelical party in the P. E. C., and desiring to retain 
 the familiar service and form of Church government (excepting those parts to 
 which the Old Evangelicals had long objected) they were enabled to make the 
 necessary changes on the most conservative principles, in place of producing a sys¬ 
 tem that might have satisfied no one, if all who agreed with the Declaration of 
 Principles had been invited to take part in the organization, (xi. 34, 36). And here 
 I will present my individual views on this point, to meet the charge of wrong in 
 establishing a new Church in place of joining with one already established, where 
 there is no essential difference. I am convinced that there are various instincts or 
 habits of mind that require different church arrangements. Brought up in St. 
 John’s P. E. C. in New York, and always claiming to be an Episcopalian, I have 
 habitually attended the Lutheran, and German Reformed, and the Methodist 
 Churches, when out of reach of Episcopal services during my engagement in civil 
 engineering (xvi. 1). I believe that the Methodist Church is doing more good 
 than any other Church in the country, and that it would be a national calamity for 
 it to abandon its peculiarities. But they- do not suit my instincts or habits. Then 
 from 1849, when I first came to Passaic, until 1859, when we inaugurated St. John’s 
 Episcopal Church, I had a pew in the Dutch Church and regularly attended their 
 service, because there was no Episcopal Church nearer than Paterson. And I now 
 attend the Dutch Church in Passaic as frequently as my own in New York, because 
 much more convenient. This comes nearer to my views than any Church except 
 the R. E. C. But I feel the want of the Episcopal service ; and that to them would 
 be disagreeable. There is no principle involved, except that the service should so 
 harmonize with the feelings that the form itself should least distract the attention. 
 —Then the Congregational system I only know from report. I know that it has 
 done noble service in the cause of Christianity. But it is to me a matter of surprise 
 that any man should be willing to go through a long course of study to prepare 
 himself for the ministry to meet the high requirements of this age, and then be 
 subject to the views of an individual congregation. I do not hold that education is 
 indispensable. A Varley or a Moody may be vastly more valuable than the man 
 who can claim the highest education. But we all know that education is a power. 
 The Congregational system is the opposite of the Episcopalian. The Puritans came 
 to this country to enjoy a “Government without a King and a Church without a 
 Bishop.” I do not deny that this may be best for them, but all the founders of the 
 R. E. C. are opposed to Congregationalism for themselves, and each is entitled to his 
 preference. Those who prefer the Congregational system can go to a regular Con¬ 
 gregational Church and be a power for good, while the same power with us would 
 only produce confusion.—Our form of Episcopal government is analogous to our 
 form of civil government. Onr Presiding Bishop and General Council represent 
 partially the President and Congress of the U. S. A. Our Bishops of Synods, and 
 the corresponding Synods represent the Governors and State Legislatures. Our 
 congregations in proportion to their communicants send representatives to these 
 ecclesiastical legislatures. Thus each congregation, in place of being a separate 
 
112 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 organization to act independently of all tlie others, is under the control of all the 
 others by their representatives collected, and has its share in controlling all the 
 others within the limits of the invariable “ Declaration of Principles,” and of tho 
 Constitution, to be altered with difficulty ; and of the Canons, with less difficulty. 
 Thus forming one harmonious whole, the minister can change from one congrega¬ 
 tion to another; and the rector and wardens and vestrymen attend to their 
 respective duties upon general principles laid down in the Rubrics and the Canons. 
 And in the P. E. C. the rector is President of the civil corporation. These (with the 
 modifications above referred to) are the principles of the P. E. C., which always 
 satisfied the Old Evangelicals, and these we wish to retain. One may say that the 
 surplice ought to be retained by Canon. Another that the surplice means sacerdo¬ 
 talism (i. Dec. 9, 1874, Phila.) But the whole R. E. C. assembled in council agreed 
 to leave the dress to the choice of the rector (Constitution, Art. ix). One may 
 desire to have the service in one way and another in another way. This is not a 
 question for the vestry to act on. The Council has defined by Rubric and by Can¬ 
 on how far the rector shall be restricted and how far he shall be left to his own 
 discretion, not only in one congregation, but in all alike. I have served for many 
 years as Senior Warden, and am convinced that no member of the congregation 
 knows as well as the rector the general wish of the congregation, and as a man of 
 common sense he will use his discretionary powers with proper j udgment. The R. 
 E, C. depends very much on the Rubric of common sense. The persons who make 
 most noise may form but a small minority. In one case within my knowledge in 
 the P. E. C. this was carried to such extent as to force the rector to offer his resig¬ 
 nation. The congregation learning this fact, rose up to stop the movement, and it 
 w r as proved that the whole opposition amounted to two men who professed to repre¬ 
 sent the general wish. Then the rector withdrew his proposed resignation, these 
 two men with their families retired, and the congregation in perfect harmony in¬ 
 creased rapidly. Now from the above it is evident that the R. E. C. fills a blank. 
 Many require just the services and the Church government, together with Protest¬ 
 ant doctrines that are here found, and not found elsewhere. All that we ask is to 
 let us have a Church that corresponds with the views of the Old Evangelicals in 
 the P. E. C.; ready to receive by letter from other Churches all who agree with 
 these views, and to dismiss by letter to other Churches those who do not agree with 
 these views, or who for any cause desire such letters. 
 
 ix. 10 ; xi. 28; xiv. 10; xvi. 22, 23, 28. 
 
 (4) This Call to organize was the unpremeditated result of an unpremeditated 
 meeting of Bishop Cummins and the Rev. Marshall B. Smith and the Rev. Mason 
 Gallagher and myself, at the house of Mr. Smith in Passaic, N. J., on Nov. 12, 
 1873. Thither the Bishop retired from New York for the sake of rest, after having 
 sent in manuscript and by mail, to Bishop Smith at Hoboken, his resignation, dated 
 Nov. 10 (vii. 1). Thither I w r ent about noon by no previous appointment, and was 
 then for the first time introduced to Bishop Cummins. In the afternoon, the Rev. 
 Mason Gallagher came in to call on the Bishop, with the knowledge that he would 
 be there, from having met with him on the way. 
 
 (5) The conversation soon turned on the resignation of the Bishop, which all 
 approved. Then on the Rome ward tendencies of the P. E. C., and on this point 
 the conversation must have occupied hours, according to my recollection of the facts 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 113 
 
 5th Section. 
 
 related. We were simply spending together a social afternoon and evening in re¬ 
 lating our knowledge of facts in which we all felt a deep interest. Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins, for his reasons given, had just withdrawn from the P. E. C. on Nov. 10 (vii. 
 1). I had done the same, for the same reasons, on Oct. 30, eleven days before 
 Bishop Cummins (iv. 8). The two clergymen had done the same, for the same rea¬ 
 sons, several years before (vii. 2, 5). This conversation resulted in action, as shown 
 above. Providence brought us there for that purpose, as I believe. And about the 
 same time there was another remarkable concurrence of three persons who had pre¬ 
 viously all been strangers to each other, which proved that Providence was direct¬ 
 ing men without their own knowledge. 
 
 (6) A few days after this conference I tried to recall the time at which the con¬ 
 versation took a practical turn, but I could not. Neither of the others can remem¬ 
 ber it. I think that there was no definite beginning on this point, but that it grew 
 imperceptibly, until it became a settled determination, somewhere between the 
 afternoon of Nov. 12 and before 10 A. M. on Nov. 13. 
 
 (7) Before 10 A. m. of Nov. 13, the Bishop said to Mr. Smith : “ Take pen and 
 paper and write as I dictate.” The call, dated Nov. 13, was then written, approved 
 by all, and the Bishop signed his name to it. He then left for New York by the 
 noon train, taking the manuscript with him, and with no remark about having 
 copies printed. 
 
 (8) Two days after this, it was proposed to the Bishop to have the call printed in 
 the form of a circular, and sent by mail. He then wrote the part dated Nov. 15, 
 on a slip of paper, and proposed to have 100 copies. This slip and the original call 
 were put into the hands of the printer with directions to print 1,000 copies. 
 
 The two were by him combined, and printed and delivered on the evening of 
 Nov. 16. So that the first that left New York by mail was on the morning of Nov. 
 17,1873. 
 
 (9) To show that this action was unpremeditated and solemn, I will quote, as 
 
 nearly as I can remember, my own words to the Bishop, when, on Nov. 13, I re¬ 
 turned the paper after having signed it: “I would not have done that yesterday ! 
 I have seen so much of the backing and filling of the Low Church clergymen, 
 that I have lost all confidence in them, and since 1869 have not attended their meet¬ 
 ings. But I have seen enough yesterday and to-day to convince me that you are 
 not acting under a temporary excitement, to back down as soon as the excitement 
 is over. Where you put your foot, there you will keep it, and I shall be satisfied if 
 this result in nothing more than a single parish in New York for the present. But 
 you must make up your mind to bear all kinds of abuse, and the worst will come 
 from the Low Churchmen. This action will place them between the upper and 
 nether millstones ..xii. 48. 
 
 (10) First Letter Dimissory. The Kev. Marshall B. Smith did not immedi¬ 
 ately sign the Call on Nov. 13th, saying that he could not honorably do so at 
 present, since he held offices in the Dutch Church; but as soon as the Church should 
 be organized he would apply for letters of dismission. Still, it was important that 
 the organization should be kept in the desired direction, and one person at the first 
 Council might make an important difference. So, after reflecting on the subject 
 for a few days, he determined to lay the whole subject before the President of the 
 Classis, and to abide by his decision. Then, taking a printed copy of the Call, he 
 
114 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 10th Section. 
 
 left the house, and on his return reported the interview in substance thus. The 
 President said : “We all know perfectly well why you came to us, and that you 
 would have gone to this Church, had it been in existence. You can, with perfect 
 honor, sign this paper; then call the Classis together, then resign your offices, and 
 ask for a Letter of Dismissal to the new Church. 
 
 ii. April 22, 1874; Rev. M. B. S.; vii. 2, 3; xiv. 6. 
 
 (11) I was present with Bishop Cummins when a gentleman, who was a stranger 
 to both of us, called, gave his name, and requested to withdraw his adhesion, 
 which he had sent by mail, signed to a copy of the Call, saying that he was so 
 badgered about it that he could find no peace. The Bishop, smiling, said, “ Cer¬ 
 tainly, if you desire it.’’ He expressed his thanks, saying that he could not have 
 received a greater favor. We were well satisfied to get rid of such soldiers, before 
 the attack that we expected to receive. 
 
 (12) Shortly after the organization on Dec. 2, 1873, it was asserted, in print, that 
 Bishop Cummins did not resign until his financial support was promised. Then 
 (i. Dec. 31, 1873,) that “ten laymen in New York had subscribed $10,000 each to 
 help Bishop Cummins in his work.” Then (ii. Dec. 3, 1874,) the Editor of the 
 New TorJc Republic says : “ Bishop Cummins kept faith with the promises which 
 he made to his liberal-minded brethren in the old Church. Whether they all kept 
 faith with him, is one of the secrets belonging to the reform movement which may 
 some day come to light.” 
 
 (13) Now, there are no such secrets. Bishop Cummins has, on different public 
 occasions, asserted that “ he consulted with no man ” when he resigned. This is 
 confirmed by the complaints of Low-Church Bishops and clergy with whom he had 
 been accustomed to act, that he did not consult with them before he took this step. ' 
 With my intimate knowledge of all that occurred on and after Nov. 12,1873, I have 
 no reason to believe that there was any understanding as to the formation of a new 
 Church, with any single individual, before the Call of Nov. 13 was determined on 
 (ix. 7; xiii. 18 to 22). And Rev. M. B. Smith testifies to the same (ii. June 10,1874, 
 Open Letter). 
 
 (14) Also, I have no evidence, nor do I believe or suspect, that Bishop Cummins, 
 before the Call of Nov. 13, had received, on account of a new organization, any 
 support, or any promise of support, from any individual whatever. And after that 
 Call, he at first refused to receive pecuniary assistance as a Bishop; saying that he 
 would not be a burden on the Sustentation fund, but depend upon an income as 
 minister of a parish; until it became evident that this was impracticable. 
 
 (15) Also, the statement that $100,000 were subscribed had no foundation in 
 fact. We did not deny it, because by common consent we determined to be abso¬ 
 lutely silent, and let our enemies say what they pleased (xiv. 3). This statement 
 was doubtless well meant, but it has probably prevented contributions that would 
 have been made, had'the fact been known that the bulk of the “ Sustentation fund ” 
 lias been contributed by a few individuals at the time that the money was required; 
 and although no bill has been left standing, there has been no “ fund ” to draw on. 
 
 (16) (i. Nov. 26, 1873.) The call to organize was first made public by Church and 
 State. Then, Nov. 27, by the Tribune. The only objection to publishing the call, 
 was the danger of being crowded by curiosity-seekers. It was probably generally 
 known at that time among active Episcopalians. It was neither secret nor confi- 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 115 
 
 16th. Section. 
 
 dential. Any one identified with the movement, took as many copies as he pleased, 
 and sent them to whom he pleased. Sometimes the answers were favorable, some¬ 
 times unfavorable. But this call was private, so far that it was restricted to per¬ 
 sons who could be vouched for by some one identified, as a person for whom the 
 call w'as intended, and no one was allowed to vote at the organization except those 
 so identified, and who had signed the call. x. 16. 
 
CHAPTER X.' 
 
 ATTEMPTS TO ARREST THE R. E. C. 
 
 Contents :—(1 to 9.) Null and Void proclamation. —(10 to 14.) Internal 
 effects. —(15). Card of the Philadelphians. —(16.) Small attempt on Pec. 2 . — 
 (17 to 22). Telegram to Chicago. —(23.) Trip to Chicago. —(24.) Trip to Peoria. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) (ii. Dec. 1. Null and Void.) This short document would obviously convey 
 to all acquainted with Canon law, false impressions as to facts on six different points. 
 
 (2) First. That at a meeting in “ Hoboken on Dec. 1,” the action occurred— 
 while from the newspapers the meetings appear to have been in New York. 
 
 ii. Nov. 30, 1873 Times ; Dec. 1, Trib.; Dec. 1, Post. 
 
 (3) Second. That Bishop Smith did then and there preside at a canonical meet¬ 
 
 ing—while no such meeting could have been held ; because, Canon 7, Title III. re¬ 
 quires for all cases not specifically provided for, that every member of the body 
 shall be notified and a majority of the whole must be present to authorize any ac¬ 
 tion except to adjourn, and from the newspapers it appears that only five or six 
 Bishops were present, and Bishop Pearse says that he only heard of this action 
 “ from the press despatches,” and he shows its absurdity.ii. Dec. 31, 1873. 
 
 (4) Third. That by the Canon quoted, the meeting had that power—while 
 neither that Canon nor any other gives such power to such meeting, or to the 
 whole House of Bishops. 
 
 (5) Fourth. That the meeting did then and there, with all due formality, pro¬ 
 nounce the decision “ Null and Void”—while we cannot suppose that the Bishops 
 would so stultify themselves as to have the formality, when they doubtless knew 
 that they had not the power. The reports quoted in (x. 2) suppose that the 
 meeting may have been for the purpose of giving to Bishop Cummins formal no¬ 
 tice that he would be deposed in six months. But the reporter did not know of 
 the existence of that notice on Nov. 22, which is now for the first time put in print. 
 
 • viii. 2. 
 
 (6) Fifth. That all the requisite formalities were observed—while the action 
 was defective in several particulars. They reject the canonical title “ Rt. Rev.” or 
 “ Bishop,” and say ‘‘ George David Cummins, D.D.,” and then “ Dr. Cummins.” 
 This would vitiate the document, and he might deny that he was the person men¬ 
 tioned. Then “ Canonicus ” in the Episcopalian of Dec. 17, 1873, says : “ The policy 
 of the Church law, ever since the time of the Onderdonks and the elder Doane, has 
 been to make it ‘ hard to try a Bishop.’ And Canons 9, 10, 11, Title II., “ On the 
 Trial of a Bishop,” fill 15 pages of the Digest with all kinds of minute formalities ; 
 while in the present case Bishop Cummins was not even notified that his case was 
 under consideration, and after the sentence “ Null and Void ” they did not give 
 
 (H6) 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 117 
 
 6th Section. 
 
 him any notice to that effect ; and all that he knows is from the newspapers ; as he 
 answers to my question on that point. 
 
 (7) Sixth. That the action of the Bishops was based upon a Canonical present¬ 
 ment by the Standing Committee of Kentucky, while there was probably nothing 
 of the kind. Thus: 
 
 Put together the following (viii. 2). On Nov. 22 Bishop Smith states all the de¬ 
 tails of time, place, and circumstances, respecting the action of the Standing Com¬ 
 mittee, and those details legally implied that each member of the Standing Com¬ 
 mittee had been duly notified of the time and place of meeting, and that a majority 
 of the Committee had come together from their distant homes to the said place at 
 the said time, or, that less than a majority having met under these conditions, had 
 adjourned until they had a majority, and then by a majority vote at the time and 
 place mentioned, had taken the action mentioned, and ordered the same to be 
 officially “ certified ’’ to the Presiding Bishop. And the “ Official Notice ” by the 
 Presiding Bishop legally implied that he had received this document, signed by the 
 President and certified by the secretary of the Standing Committee, as his authority 
 to proceed according to Canon. 
 
 But on Dec. 1, within less than two weeks after this deliberate Canonical action 
 (which doubtless took place, since it is so “certified”), we have the “ Null and 
 Void ” proclamation, without a certificate of the time, place, or basis of the action 
 of the Standiog Committee, or what they did, or that they did anything, or had 
 any meeting, or knew anything about it, and simply “Notice. .. .received from the 
 secretary... .that a presentment... .lias been prepared.” (ii. Dec. 1, 1873, Null.) 
 
 (8) Again, put together the following: The five or six Bishops met on Satur¬ 
 day, Nov. 29, for the supposed purpose of deposing Bishop Cummins without a trial 
 (ii. Nov. 29, Post; Nov. 30, Times; Dec. 1, Tribune). “Bishop Potter was unable 
 to attend on account of engrossing duties ” (ii. Dec. 1, Trib.) Then, Monday, Dec. 1, 
 comes the private telegram from Kentucky—“ Charges against you forwarded from 
 here to-day ” (ii. Dec. 1). Then in the afternoon of the same day, early enough for 
 insertion in the Evening Post, we have the Null and Void proclamation (ii. 
 Dec. 1). 
 
 Hence the inference, that on Saturday, Nov. 29, the Bishops, finding that they 
 would stultify themselves by an immediate deposition after the canonical notice of 
 Nov. 22 (viii. 2), determined upon the Null and Void expedient of arresting the 
 organization of the R. E. C. appointed for Tuesday, Dec. 2, and telegraphed to the 
 “ Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky” the “present¬ 
 ment ” that “ has been prepared ” by the Bishops, and that there would be no time 
 to call the Standing Committee together, since they must have the document 
 printed on Monday ; and on the receipt of a corresponding telegram on Monday 
 (purporting to be sent by the “ Secretary of the Standing Committee,’’ and without 
 a written document to prove that the “ secretary ” himself, either with or without 
 authority, had any hand in the matter) the Null and Void proclamation was imme¬ 
 diately sent to the Evening Post for publication (ii. Dec. 1). 
 
 (9) Now, “ curses like chickens come home to roost,” and this action of the 
 Bishops against a Bishop degrades their office by the assumption that a Bishop 
 may be discharged with as little formality as a sexton or other subordinate, and 
 without even the official courtesy observed by civilians in all cases. And this proc. 
 
118 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 9th Section. 
 
 lamation appears to have been “ Vox et preeterea nihil,” as we hear no more on the 
 subject. If actually recorded among the Ads of the Bishops, their secretary will 
 confer a favor by stating all that is recorded, to be inserted as an appendix. (See 
 Preface). 
 
 (10) To show the internal effect of this movement, I state the following from 
 personal knowledge : 
 
 About 10 A. M. on Monday, Dec. 1, 1873, Bishop Cummins and several others, in¬ 
 cluding myself, were engaged in preparing for the organization of the R. E. C. at 
 10 a. m. of the next day. The Bishop rose to receive a telegram. He turned and 
 said : “ Here is a telegram from my friend in Louisville. He says —‘ Charges against 
 you forwarded from here to-day.’ Now I cannot imagine what they have trumped 
 up against me. I will acknowledge my sins towards my God. But as to man, I 
 cannot imagine what they can say against me.” 
 
 I think that no one answered. We had all served for many years in Diocesan 
 Conventions, and were familiar with Canon law. We had discussed the Canons 
 that bore on the present case, and had reached the same conclusion as Bishop 
 Pearce (ii. Dec. 31), and knew that the action of Nov. 22 (viii. 2) terminated the mat¬ 
 ter for six months, unless some charge of crime or immorality should supersede that 
 and lead to a trial for some disgraceful act. The countenance of the Bishop be¬ 
 trayed distress for a short time. It is the only time that I have seen him lose his 
 perfect self-control. But we had much work on hand, and after a few minutes’ 
 silent thought, we resumed our work as if nothing remarkable had occurred. 
 
 (11) In the evening, a friend, but not identified with us, entered emphatically, 
 and, as I thought, under strong excitement, with a newspaper in his hand. “ See 
 here !” said he, and then read from the Evening Post of Dec. 1, the Null and Void 
 proclamation. He then continued: “ Now, you want the best legal advice that this 
 city can afford,” etc. 
 
 (12) This explained the morning telegram, and showed that the charges were 
 
 not as we supposed. But it showed that the Bishops were ready to adopt any 
 desperate remedy to prevent the organization proposed for the next day. We knew 
 more of their movements in this matter than I have above given for others to draw 
 their conclusions from (i. Nov. 27). We also knew that on one occasion a Bishop 
 had surrounded himself with policemen in church. We could not imagine what 
 might be the next act of desperation. Perhaps a Bishop might appear the next 
 day to disperse the meeting, and it was arranged that a layman should be the 
 Temporary President, to announce the vote that would complete a legal organiza¬ 
 tion as the R. E. C., with Bishop Cummins as the Presiding Bishop, as it would be 
 more seemly for a layman than for a clergyman to send for the police, and eject 
 any one, whoever he might be, that should attempt to deprive us of our civil 
 rights.*...x. 16. 
 
 (13) All this was discussed at times, but not all on the present occasion. Still, 
 we had all thought it over. The Bishop remained silent until all who desired had 
 discussed the matter. Then, keeping his arm immovably in the direction of this 
 gentleman, he said : “ We have laid down our course, and shall not swerve from it 
 one inch for anything that man can do against us.” This ended the discussion. 
 In a short time I found an opportunity to say privately to the Bishop, “ I was glad 
 to find that we had a general who did not show the white feather when under file.” 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 119 
 
 14tli Section. 
 
 (14) This expression of the Bishop gives the key-note to all the movements of 
 the R. E. C.: “ We have laid down our course, and shall not swerve from it one 
 inch for anything that man can do against us.”, .ii. Dec. 3,1873, Epis.; x. 23 ; xiv. 1. 
 
 CARD OF THE PHILADELPHIANS. 
 
 (15) (ii. Dec. 1, 1873, Card.) The object in reprinting this Card in New York 
 on the day before the proposed organization, is very evident on its face. No blame 
 could attach to these gentlemen for entertaining the views expressed and for gov¬ 
 erning their own action accordingly. But the case assumes a different aspect when 
 they speak for Evangelicals in general, and first issue this document in Philadel¬ 
 phia, and then have it reprinted in New York. 
 
 ii. Dec. 17, 1873, Rev. ; Jan. 21, 1874, Cath.; iii. Feb. 8, 1875, Jag. 
 
 ORGANIZATION ON DEC. 2, 1873. 
 
 (16) No serious attempt to arrest this organization occurred ; nor would it have' 
 taken us by surprise (x. 12). A small attempt was made by four young men (ii. 
 Dec. 2 1873 ; xii. 59, “ Pagan theory,” under “ Eucharistic adoration ”). 
 
 TELEGRAM TO CHICAGO. 
 
 (17) (ii. Dec. 12, 1873). This is remarkable. First. It appears to be intended to 
 
 arrest the progress of the new Church by the consecration of Bishop Cheney, as 
 the Null and Void proclamation was to arrest its organization.x. 1-14. 
 
 (18) Second. It is sent to the “ care ” of the one against whom it appears to be 
 directed. 
 
 (19) Third. It recognized Bishop Cummins as Bishop, although in the Null and 
 Void proclamation he is called “ George D. Cummins,” and “ Dr. Cummins,” and 
 “ all his episcopal acts Null and Void.” If it be claimed that “ Rt. Rev.” be only by 
 courtesy, then “ Dr. C. E. Cheney,” omitting “ Rev.,” is an insult.. .ii. Dec. 1, 1873. 
 
 (20) Fourth. In the Canon to which Bishop Smith refers, an Assistant Bishop 
 
 has all the rights, powers, and privileges, the same as any other Bishop, except 
 when the aged or infirm Bishop is able to officiate, then “ The Assistant Bishop 
 shall perform such Episcopal acts and exercise such Episcopal anthoritv within the 
 Diocese, as the Bishop shall assign to him;” and this is signed “ Bishop of Ken¬ 
 tucky;” so that it applies by Canon and by signature only to the Diocese of 
 Kentucky.ii. Dec. 6, 1873, Epis. 
 
 (21) Fifth. It admits that Episcopal acts by Bishop Cummins done in Kentucky, 
 
 would, without this withdrawal, be canonical, although the same Bishop Smith, as 
 “ Presiding Bishop,” had, on “Dec. 1,’’ declared that “ any Episcopal act of his 
 pending these proceedings, will be null and void.’’.ii. Dec. 1, Null. 
 
 (22) Sixth. It appears to be intended to operate in Illinois, where Bishop Cum¬ 
 
 mins had as much right as any other Bishop, except the Bishop of Illinois, and he 
 did not put in an appearance, but, according to report, went to Peoria on a Visita¬ 
 tion.x. 24. 
 
 (23) Trip to Chicago. Dec. 11 to 16, 1878. There was a singular parallelism 
 between the figurative and the literal on this occasion. On the evening of Dec. 1, 
 1873, when the xdan of the six Bishops to arrest the organization became known, 
 Bishop Cummins said : “ We have laid down our course and shall not swerve from 
 
120 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 23d Section. 
 
 it one inch for anything that man can do against us,” implying a voluntary devia¬ 
 tion. On Dec. 2 we did not swerve from our course one inch, and organized as we 
 had proposed, and scarcely felt the resistance offered (ii. Dec. 11, 1873, Obs. Editor; 
 x. 1 to 16). On Dec. 11 we started by the Erie Road for Chicago and kept the track 
 without obstruction, until at Narrowsburg an empty cattle train obstructed the 
 way. Our engine ploughed up the rear car, which swept all the projecting pieces 
 from the engine, and sweeping over the heads of the stooping engineer and fire¬ 
 man, broke into the front of the baggage car, while several of the cattle cars were 
 thrown in different directions, and all without personal injury. We did not 
 “ swerve from our course one inch,” and scarcely felt the shock, and only experi¬ 
 enced delay. We then kept our track without difficulty, but looked down upon the sur¬ 
 rounding country flooded by water, as the P. E. C. by Romanism, and saw the 
 people in Cleveland and other places using boats and rafts as temporary expedients 
 to reach desired points in the streets, because the flood prevented the use of the 
 •“old paths.” 
 
 On reaching Chicago, the telegram of Bishop Smith produced no obstruction, 
 but rather amusement at the new proof of “ I would if I could.” (x. 17). 
 
 We also heard that the Wliitehouse party had applied to the civil court for an 
 immediate injunction to prevent the use of Dr. Cheney’s Church for the purpose of 
 his consecration as a Bishop on Dec. 14. But the Court demanded an argument, 
 and appointed the next week for that purpose. Thus again we were not driven 
 from our course by “ anything that man can do against us,” and the work under¬ 
 taken was accomplished. How that work has progressed is shown in Chap¬ 
 ter I. 
 
 (24) Then came a call from Peoria, 160 miles from Chicago (x. 22). The Bishop 
 and party left by the morning train and reached Peoria after darkness had set in. 
 Addresses were made to a full congregation and pledges of support for a R. E. C. 
 taken up, and the party returned to Chicago by the night train, without having 
 seen Peoria by day-light. A full report was given in the Peoria Transcript of Dec. 
 17, 1873. Addresses were made by two Bishops and two laymen. How this 
 has progressed, see •'* Peoria,” i. Dec. 17,1873 : Feb. 18,1874 ; March 18 ; July 29,1874* 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE R. E. C. 
 
 Contents: —(1). The R. E. C. is mainly a separate organization of the 
 Old Evangelicals of the P. E.C .— (2.) Declaration of Principles of the li. E. 
 C. in 1873. — (3,4.) Changes in Common Prayer Booh in 1874. — (5 to 7.) Phil¬ 
 adelphia Declaration in 1867. — (8). Revision of the Prayer Booh in 1867. — 
 (9 to 12.) Proceedings of Old Evangelicals and union with Presbyterians in 
 1867. — (13). Separation threatening in 1868. — (14). Chicago Protest and Call 
 in 1869. — (15). Chicago Conference in 1869. — (16 to 20). Sympathy for Rev. 
 Chas. E. Cheney on his suspension {May 13, 1871). — (21, 22). Changes .— 
 (23.) The three Evangelical Societies in 1874. — (24). Old Evangelicals ; where 
 found before the inauguration of the R. E. C .— (25). Old Evangelical Clergy¬ 
 men of the P. E. C. notv in the R. E. C. — (26). List of Clergy of the R. E. 
 C .— (27). Call and Declaration of the R. E. C. compared .— (28.) Prepara¬ 
 tions to organize. — (29). Declaration irrevocable .— (30 to 35). Action of Com¬ 
 mittees and General Council. — (36). Revision very conservative .— (37). Free 
 Church of England. — (38 to 41). Secular Press state facts , but criticise .— 
 (42). Some others give false and distorted statements .— (43). Episcopacy. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) The R. E. C. is a separate organization of the “Old Evangelicals who 
 carried the Evangelical banner so nobly ” in the P. E. C. (iii. Oct. 31), with the 
 addition of those of other denominations who entertain the same views, but did 
 not form a part of the Evangelical schism when “ fighting ” against the Romish 
 schism in the same Church. This is proved by comparing the Call to organize 
 (ix.) and the Declaration of Principles (xi. 2), and the revised Prayer Book (xi. 3, 4, 
 27 to 36), with the action of the Evangelicals as related in this chapter (xi. 5 to 26), 
 and with the reasons given for leaving the P. E. C. recorded as * £ Low Church ” in 
 Chapter III, and other expressions of Low Church opinions in Chapter III. (xii.58). 
 This cannot be proved by direct reference to written documents. The funda¬ 
 mental Declaration of Principles of the ft. E. C. is a written document analogous 
 to the Constitution of the U. S. A. But the principles of the P. E. C. and of Ch. 
 Eng. are analogous to the Constitution of Great Britain, and to the common law of 
 that country, and of the U. S. A., not written out systematically, but depending 
 upon legal decisions {i. e., Judicial Legislation) and upon precedents. We have 
 documentary evidence to prove that the fundamental doctrines which legally bind 
 the P. E. C. are the same as the doctrines of Ch. Eng. at the time of the separation 
 (xii. 25, 26). We have documentary evidence to prove that the term “Protestant” 
 in the “ Protestant Church of England as by law established,” signified nothing 
 more than “a protest” against the political supremacy of the Pope (xii. 12 to 24). 
 
 ( 121 ) 
 
122 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 Consequently that is all that the same term signifies in the P. E. C., and Episcopal 
 Protestants may legally hold every doctrine of the Church of Rome y excepting the 
 political supremacy of the Pope, and the Old Catholics are thoroughly “ Protest¬ 
 ant ” in the Anglican sense of that word. Non-Episcopal Churches apply to doctrine 
 the term Protestant, and in that sense the Old Evangelicals were the Protestants in 
 the Pan-Anglican Church. To prevent this confusion in terms, those who are far 
 enough advanced to desire the utmost limit allowed by law, call themselves “ Anglo- 
 Catholics”; and to prevent the same confusion in terms, those Episcopalians who 
 are Protestants in the Non-Episcopal sense are here called “ Old Evangelicals.” 
 Each has legally the same right in the Pan-Anglican Church. The Anglo-Catho- 
 lics have control. A portion of the Old Evangelicals have quietly retired to form a 
 new organization, and have thus abandoned all their legal rights to the Church 
 property which belonged in common to the Anglo-Catholic3 and the Old 
 Evangelicals. This is my present opinion drawn from the analysis in this work. 
 Several years ago, I maintained in print that Trinity Church, New York, had mis¬ 
 applied old trust funds. In consequence of the changes in that parish, I have not 
 been in Trinity as a church for many years, although I never sold the pew occupied 
 by me from my childhood, and for which I paid $400 (xvi. 1). I did more work 
 and spent more money than any other individual for St. John’s Church in Passaic, 
 and I have not entered that church since Oct. 80, 1873. Neither of these churches 
 would have had their present property had their present status been expected, and 
 these are only examples of a general rule (xii.49-52). Consequently (ii. Dec. 16,1874, 
 B. A.), I used this expression : “ This signifies that the Low Church clergy and 
 laity may be driven out of the P. E. C. by High Church excesses and robbed of 
 their Church property, and then abused for leaving.’’ I now think that the Anglo- 
 Catholics can legally hold all the property as long as they do not acknowledge the 
 supremacy of the Pope, and therefore there has been no “ robbery.” But in Ge¬ 
 neva, Switzerland, Father Hyacinthe refused to use the cathedral, saying that 
 although it was theirs according to law, it belonged by right to the Ultramontanes, 
 who had built it (i. Nov. 18, 1874, St. John’s; iii. March 25, 1874, Parties; April 8, 
 Parties; June 11, Comprom.; July 9, St. Alb.; Aug. 19, Cheney; Oct. 19, Catli.; 
 Oct. 26, De Koven; Nov. 11, Ch. Eng. ; Nov. 25, Sacer. ; Feb. 17, 1875, Ch. Eng.; 
 Feb. 27, De Koven and Bp. Albany ; March 10, Ch. Eng,; March 17, do.; xii. 12 
 to 59. 
 
 (2) Declaration of Principles of theR. E. C., adopted as the Irrevocable basis 
 of Organization on Dec. 2, 1878 : 
 
 “ I. The Reformed Episcopal Church, holding ‘ the faith once delivered to the 
 saints,’ declares its belief in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
 as the .Word of God, and the sole Rule of Faith and Practice ; in the Creed, com¬ 
 monly called the Apostles’ Creed ;’ in the Divine institution of the Sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; and in the doctrines of grace substantially as they 
 are set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. 
 
 “ II. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of Divine right, 
 but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church polity. 
 
 “ III. This Church, retaining a Liturgy which shall not be imperative or 
 repressive of freedom in prayer, accepts the Book of Common Prayer, as it was 
 revised, proposed, and recommended for use by the General Convention of the Prot- 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 123 
 
 2d Section. 
 
 estant Episcopal Church, A. D. 1785, reserving full liberty to alter, abridge, en- 
 • large, and amend the same, as may seem most conducive to the edification of the 
 people, ‘ provided that the substance of the faith be kept entire.’ 
 
 “ IV. This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange 
 doctrines as contrary to God’s Word : 
 
 “ First. That the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesias¬ 
 tical polity. 
 
 “ Second. That Christian ministers are ‘ priests ’ in another sense than that in 
 which all believers are a ‘ royal priesthood.’ 
 
 “ Third. That the Lord’s Table is an altar on which an oblation of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father. 
 
 “ Fourth. That the Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is a presence in the 
 elements of bread and wine. 
 
 “Fifth. That Regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.” 
 
 xi. 27, 29; xvi. 1 to 29; xx. 1. 
 
 COMMON PRAYER BOOK OF THE R. E. C. 
 
 (3) “ The comparison of Prayer Books, by a Presbyter of the R. E. C.” (Rev. 
 Marshall B. Smith), in a pamphlet of 48 pages, gives all the details of differences 
 between the service books of the P. E. C. and the R. E. C. 
 
 (4) But for present purposes take the general statement of the “Position of theR. 
 E. C., by Herbert B. Turner,” extracted from the pamphlet of 9 pages, viz. :—“ Let 
 us now examine the Liturgy by which these principles are set forth and inculcated, 
 and the changes which have been made in the Book of Common Praver. 
 
 “ Adopting the Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church as a basis, the 
 new Church has made the following changes :—The word ‘ priest,’ wherever it oc¬ 
 curs in the Rubrics, has been changed to ‘minister.’—After the opening sentences, 
 special texts have been introduced for use on Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, and 
 other days.—The ‘Absolution,’ as it is termed in the Protestant Episcopal book, is 
 changed into a prayer. The assertion that ‘ God hath given power and commandment 
 to His ministers to declare and pronounce to His people, being penitent, the absolution 
 and remission of their sins,’ is omitted, because it is not believed to be true.—The 
 Canticle, ‘ 0, all ye works of the Lord,’ from the Apocrypha, being rarely used, and 
 of doubtful expediency, is omitted.—The words, ‘He descended into hell,’ which 
 were inserted in the Apostles’ Creed in the seventh century, are omitted from the 
 text, permission being given to the minister to use them at his option.—The 
 Nicene Creed remains unchanged, but its latter clauses, so constantly a burden to 
 tender consciences in the Protestant Episcopal Church by reason of the use made 
 of them by Ritualists and Romanists, are explained by the following note: ‘ By 
 one Catholic and Apostolic Church is signified The blessed company of all faithful 
 people , and by One Baptism for the remission of sins, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost: 
 —A slight verbal change is made in the prayer for all in civil authority.—The 
 Litany remains unchanged except by the insertion of one more petition : ‘ That it 
 may please Thee to send forth laborers into Thy harvest.’—It will be seen that the 
 structure of the Morning Service remains unchanged, and the alterations in it are 
 slight.” 
 
 “The Evening Service is modified in the same particulars, while an additional sej* 
 
124 : 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 4th. Section. 
 
 vice, compiled from different portions of the Prayer-Book, is added, for those who 
 prefer more variety of form.—Coming now to the Communion Office, we find that 
 the language of the Commandments is that of the King James’ version, and indeed 
 the same is true of almost all texts used in the services. An invitation to the com¬ 
 munion is inserted, and its use, in the following language, made obligatory : ‘ Our 
 fellow-Christians of other branches of Christ’s Church, and all who love our Divine 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in sincerity, are affectionately invited to the Lord’s 
 Table.’—In the exhortation to those about to communicate, the words ‘ So is the 
 danger great if we receive the same unw r ortliily,’ are omitted. All allusions to 
 ‘ Holy Mysteries,’ eating the flesh and drinking the blood,’ etc., are also erased. 
 —The minister is directed to say to all the communicants around the table, ‘ The 
 body of our Lord Jesus Christ, w r hich was given for you, preserve your bodies and 
 souls unto everlasting life,’ and then when delivering the bread to each, ‘ Take 
 and eat this bread in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in 
 thy heart, by faith, with thanksgiving.’ A like change is made in delivering the 
 cup.—The order of the Church of England Prayer-Book, by which a large portion 
 of the prayer is used after the elements are distributed, is restored.—The Com¬ 
 munion Office, as now presented, is a work of great time and care, and of earnest, 
 prayerful thought. It is believed to be completely in accordance with the view r s of 
 the sacrament as entertained by all Evangelical Christians.—The same great prin¬ 
 ciples have governed the revision of the Baptismal Office. Children are to be pre¬ 
 sented by their parents wffien practicable, and one at least of the persons presenting 
 them must be a communicant of some Evangelical church.—There is nothing in 
 this service which can be construed into a consecration of the w r ater, no prayer that 
 it be sanctified ‘ to the mystical washing away of sin.’—In the exhortation, after 
 the reading of a portion of the tenth chapter of St. Mark, appears the following 
 passage: ‘ Doubt ye not therefore, but earnestly believe, that He who now sitteth 
 on the right hand of the Majesty on high is the same tender Saviour, who, in the 
 days of His sojourning upon earth, so lovingly regarded little children. Where¬ 
 fore, being thus persuaded, of the good-will of our Saviour towards all infants, and 
 not doubting that He favorably allowetli the dedication of this infant unto Him, 
 let us faithfully and devoutly call upon Him in its behalf, and say,’ etc., etc.—The 
 words, ‘ Seeing, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate,’ etc., are omitted, and 
 a short prayer substituted.—Some alterations are made in the order of confirmation, 
 and a note is added, that members of other churches, uniting w T ith this Church, 
 need not be confirmed, except at their own request.—The form for the solemniza¬ 
 tion of matrimony is but little changed. The parties are pronounced husband and 
 wife, and the allusion to Isaac and Rebekah is omitted, in deference to the wishes 
 of many who fail to see the propriety of inculcating on a newly-married pair the 
 example of Orientals, of wdiom we know little except a gross and cruel deception 
 practiced by a wife on her aged husband.—In the Burial Service special provision is 
 made for the case of a child, and an alternative lesson is introduced from the story 
 of Lazarus.—The sentence, * Looking for the general resurrection in the last day, 
 and the life of the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ,’ being sometimes 
 inappropriate, is changed to read as follows: ‘Awaiting the general resurrection in 
 the last day, and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.’—A new form is intro¬ 
 duced for the public reception of presbyters from other ecclesiastical bodies, and in 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 125 
 
 4th Section. 
 
 the consecration of bishops and ordaining of presbyters the words, ‘ Receive the Holy 
 Ghost,’ and ‘ Whosesoever sins thou dost remit,’ etc., do not appear.—No provision 
 is made for the celebration of Saints’ Days.—Such, then, are the principal changes 
 by which it is sought to eliminate from the Prayer Book the germs of Romish 
 error which the compromises of the Elizabethan age have transmitted to us.—The 
 new Church claims to have set forth a thoroughly Protestant Liturgy. ”(xii. 12 to 24.) 
 
 (5) Philadelphia Declaration, adopted Nov. 5, 1SG7. The Protestant Church¬ 
 man of Dec. 12, 1867, has the following : “ Declaration of certain clergy and laity 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The subscribers to the following declaration, 
 deeply moved by what they believe to be the present dangers of our beloved 
 Church, in tbe open and secret tendencies which exist in it to conformity with the 
 Church of Rome, and humbly trusting in the guidance and blessing of the Holy 
 Spirit, would make this statemeftt of their views and feelings for the purpose of 
 mutual encouragement and support. The essential spirit of these tendencies is an 
 entire subversion of the Protestant and Evangelical character of our Reformed 
 Church. It transforms the ministry of the Gospel into a priesthood, Baptism into 
 a magical rite, the Lord’s Supper into the sacrifice of the Mass, Evangelical liberty 
 into bondage to manifold observances and ceremonies, and the One Church of 
 Christ, ‘ the blessed company of all faithful people,’ into the body of those who rec¬ 
 ognize and conform to a mere sacerdotal system. These tendencies, already far ad¬ 
 vanced in England and this country, are materially aided by a subtler and less clearly 
 pronounced sacerdotalism, which finds expression amongst us in the exclusive view 
 of tbe Episcopal Church, in unscript.ural conceptions of the sacraments, in super¬ 
 stitious ideas of the power of the ministry, and in a legal rather than evangelical 
 view of the Christian life. Tbe influence of these tendencies we believe to be 
 eminently injurious to our Church by the reasonable prejudice which they excite ; 
 fatal to the performance of the great mission of our Church in this land, by their 
 contrariety to true liberty and true progress of the age, dangerous to souls by their 
 hiding of the free grace of the Gospel, and dishonorable to Christ by their substitution 
 of human mediatorship in the place of the ‘one Mediator, Jesus Christ.’ Under a 
 deep sense of our responsibility, we ask ourselves what, in this crisis, it is our duty 
 to do ? In the first place, we feel compelled to affirm, that in many of the pulpits 
 of our Church, another Gospel is preached which is not the Gospel of Christ. The 
 • Church needs to be awakened to its peril. A paramount duty is imposed upon our 
 clergy and our missionary organizations to see that, so far as they are able, the 
 pure Word of God shall be preached everywhere in our land. We cannot yield 
 this liberty to any claim of territorial jurisdiction, and we hereby express our 
 sympathy with the resistance which is made in this respect to the attempted en¬ 
 forcement of false constructions of Canonical law. We believe also that the pres¬ 
 ent crisis of Protestanism demands a higher degree of sympathy and co-opera¬ 
 tion among the various evangelical bodies into which we are divided. An exclusive 
 position in this respect we hold to be injurious to our own Church, and inconsis¬ 
 tent with our history and standards, as well as with the spirit of the Gospel. In 
 the case of those ‘ chosen and called ’ to the work of the ministry by those ‘ who 
 have public authority given unto them in the congregation,’ and manifestly blessed 
 in their labors by the Holy Ghost, we believe that we cannot withhold our recogni¬ 
 tion of the validity of their ministry, without imperiling the interest of evangeli- 
 
126 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 5th Section. 
 
 cal religion, ‘ despising tlie brethren ’ and doing ‘ despite unto the spirit of grace.’ 
 In this matter also we express our earnest sympathy with the resistance which is 
 made to those false interpretations of Canonical law, by which this recognition and 
 fellowship would be restrained. This statement of our views is made under a full 
 sense of any responsibility which it may involve. The love and devotion which we 
 bear to our Church, and the allegiance which we owe to Christ, will not allow us to 
 hesitate. With kindness and charity for all who differ from us, imposing no burden 
 on the consciences of others, as we are unwilling to submit to any imposed upon our 
 own, we claim only that in the Church of our dearest affection, it is our inalienable 
 privilege to be true in these repects to our sense of duty to God.(xii. 40 to 42.) 
 
 (6) This is signed by the following clergymen, omitting the laymen, viz.: Richard 
 Newton, D.D., John Cotton Smith, D.D., John S. Stone, D.D., S. H. Tyng, D.D., C. 
 M. Butler, D.D., L. W. Bancroft, D.D., H. Dyer, DJD., E. H. Cutler, D.D., Samuel 
 Cutler, Charles W. Quick, Marshall B. Smith, Stephen H. Tyng, Jr. 
 
 (7) Continued, Jan. 23, 1868, omitting laymen: viz., W. A. Newbold, Samuel 
 Clements, Geo. Bringhurst, Edward Meyers, J. W. Bonham, J. E. Homans, J. II. C. 
 Bonte, Edward Anthon, S. II. Boyer, J. H. Jenks, Jr., W. Dymond, W. H. Neilson, 
 J. H. Kedzie, G. E. Thrall, H. H. Morrell, G. L. Platt, W. M. Postlethwaite, 
 
 G. W. Ridgely, J. P. Hubbard, A. M. Morrison, R. Heber Newton, J. G. Ames, D. 
 II. Greer, Francis E. Arnold, C. E. Cheney, J. A. Jerome, J. F. Blake (now J. B. 
 Faulkner), H. L. Badger, W. Hyde, W. C. French, S. J. French, Abbott Brown, Cli. 
 
 H. Tucker, J. A. Aspinwall, J. N. Stanger, PI. D. Ward, J. Morsell, D.D., L. C. 
 Newman, Cli. Higbee, N. L. Briggs, R. L. Chittenden, H. M. Stuart, J. Eastburn 
 Brown, Geo. Howell, R. J. Parvin, Jas. Pratt, D.D., R. C. Matlack, D.D. Smith, S. 
 Cowell, J. L. Maxwell, Geo. B. Alien, A. M. Wiley, AY. N. McVicar, T. A. Jaggar, 
 L. Luquer, G. F. Bugbee, S. B. Simes, W. T. Sabine, A. Shiras, T. Burrows, E. 
 Anthon, B. B. Leacock, F. S. Rising, J. Cromlish, M. Gallagher, E. B. Benjamin, 
 C. W. Quirk, B. McGann, S. R. AYeldon, W, G. Hawkins, D. R. Brewer, T. F. Caskey, 
 J Rambo, G. Z. Gray, G. Slatterly, IP. R. Smith, W. B. Bodine, W. S. Langford^ 
 W. W. Farr. Then the note, “ A further list will be furnished hereafter.” But 
 none such has been found. The Rev. J. Howard Smith, once Editor of the Protest¬ 
 ant Churchman, was doubtless one of the signers. We find additional names in the 
 following proposed 
 
 (8) Revision of tlie Prayer Book, Nov. 8, 1867, reported in the Protestant 
 Churchman of Nov. 14, 1867: Editors—Rev. N. H. Sclienck, D.D., Rev. John Cotton 
 Smith, D.D., Rev. M. B. Smith : viz., at a meeting of the Evangelical Societies of 
 the P. E. C. in Philadelphia, Nov. 8, 1867 : Whereas, There are many among us 
 who have serious conscientious difficulties in regard to certain expressions in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, especially in the Baptismal Office; and, Whereas, there is 
 reason to suppose that many are deterred by these difficulties from entering our 
 communion and ministry; in view of these and other considerations, therefore, 
 
 Pesolved, That a Committee, consisting of -, be appointed, and is hereby 
 
 appointed, to consider and report upon the whole subject of the Revision of the 
 Book of Common Prayer. On motion, the blank was filled with ten, and the fol¬ 
 lowing were chosen by resolution as the Committee: Rev. F. M. AA r hittle, D.D., 
 Rev. A. H. Vinton, D.D., Rev. John S. Stone, D.D., Rev. C. AY. Andrews, D.D., Rev. 
 Richard Newton, D.D., Rev. Clement M. Butler, D.D., Rev. Samuel Cutler, 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 127 
 
 8th Section. 
 
 Rev. W. R. Nicholson, D.D., Rev. L. W. Bancroft, D.D., Rev. John Cotton 
 Smith, D.D.” 
 
 (9) Also, the following names of the Old Evangelicals who took part in the 
 above proceedings, and on Nov. 8, 18G7, as reported in the Protestant Churchman , 
 of Nov. 14, 1867. The meeting was held in the Church of the Epiphany, Rev. Dr. 
 Newton presiding. Addresses were made by Bishop Eastburn, Rev. T. F. Fales, 
 Rev. Asa Dalton. Then Bishop Mcllvaine, President of the E. K. S. in the chair. 
 Secretary, Rev. Dr. Dyer; sermon by Rev. Dr. Cook, Declaration (si. 5) presented 
 by Rev. Dr. John S. Stone. Addresses on Missions by Rev. Messrs. Edward An- 
 thon, H. H. Morrell, Sec. Bd. For. Miss. 
 
 (10) “ At this meeting, at the suggestion of the Rev. R. Heber Newton,. .. .prayer 
 
 was offered for... .the National Convention of Presbyterian Churches in America, 
 then assembled.”.sv. 1 to 12. 
 
 (11) At the Communion, Bishops Mcllvaine, Lee, Eastburn, Johns, and Stevens, 
 Dr. Stone. Addresses by Bishop Mcllvaine and by Bishop Johns... .Meeting of 
 Am. Cli. Mis. Soc., Jay Cooke, president. Rev. Edward Anthon, Sec... .Hon. John 
 N. Conyngliam elected president. Bishop Eastburn, offered a resolution. Ad¬ 
 dresses by Rev. C. E. Cheney, Rev. A. M. Wylie, Bishop Eastburn, Rev. Dr. New¬ 
 ton, Rev. Dr. J. Cotton Smith. Benediction by Bp. Mcllvaine. For increase of the 
 ministry, prayer by Rev. Dr. L. W. Bancroft. Address by Rev. Dr. M. Meier 
 Smith. Benediction by Rev. T. F. Fales. Meeting of E. E. S., Jay Cooke, Presi¬ 
 dent; Sec. Rev. Rob. J. Parvin. Addresses by Rev. S. A. Clark, Bp. Eastburn, Rev. 
 Drs. Howe and Claxton, Rev. Mr. Lounsbury. 
 
 (12) “ During the meeting a delegation was announced... .from the Presbyterian 
 
 National Convention, consisting of Rev. Messrs. H. B. Smith, D.D., J. M. Stevenson, 
 D.D., and Elders Drake and Carter... .to convey... .salutation.” (xv. 1 to 12.) 
 Education Society, Rev. J. Parvin read report. Addresses by Rev. Dr. Nicholson, Bp. 
 Stevens, Rev. Phillips Brooks. Dismissed by Bishop Lee. Collation, Dr. Newton 
 in the chair. Addresses by Hon. N. Conyngliam, Rev. Messrs. Dr. J. E. Grammar, 
 S. Clements, Dr. H. N. Bishop, S. A. Clark. Benediction by Bishop Mcllvaine. On 
 Friday morning the Declaration (xi. 5) was adopted omitting the Prayer Book (xi. 8.) 
 and signed by a large number, Rev. Prof. Bancroft in the chair. Then adjourned 
 to visit the Presbyterian delegates (xv. 1 to 12). Then returned, and Stewart 
 Brown in the chair. Declaration again approved. Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr... .resolu¬ 
 tion of thanks to “ the Episcopalian and Protestant Churchman for the fearless de¬ 
 fense_of the principles in this Declaration.” Rev. Mason Gallagher, resolution 
 
 of thanks to the Bishop of Iowa, “ for the bold, timely, and just testimony.... 
 against the fearful inroads of error and apostasy in our mother Church in 
 England.” 
 
 (13) Separation in 1868. The Southern Churchman of Nov. 19, 1868, in its 
 leader says: “ Does any one wish to see brethren and friends... .forced... .either 
 to forsake the Church of their love, or else set up another organization?. .. .The 
 Church of England could have prevented both the Puritan and Methodist schisms 
 if she had chosen. Shall we not learn wisdom ? Can it be that all history is writ¬ 
 ten for us in vain ? We are conservative... .The Prayer Book suits us... .But if 
 there be brethren who cannot see as we do, should their conscientious scruples be 
 utterly ignored, and they told, if the Church does not suit them, they can leave it ? 
 
128 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 13th Section. 
 
 This was told the Puritans and they left. This was told the Methodists and .they 
 left.”.iii. Oct. 31 ; Beach. 
 
 (14) Chicago Protest of Feb. 18, 1869 : “ Be it known to all men that we the 
 undersigned, Presbyters of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of 
 America, moved as we humbly trust, by a becoming sense of duty to God, to the 
 Church whose ministers we are, and to our own souls, and solemnly remembering 
 the vowc we took in Ordination to ‘ be ready with all faithful diligence to banish 
 and drive away from, the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to 
 God’s word, and to use both public and private monitions, as need shall require, 
 and occasions shall be given,’ We, the Presbyters aforesaid, satisfied by evidence, 
 to us incontestible, that Great Peril now exists to the purity of the faith arid wor¬ 
 ship, not only of the Mother Church of England, from which some of us derive our 
 Orders, but also of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and that a scheme exists to 
 undermine the Scriptural foundation of these Churches, on the specious plea of a 
 ‘revived Catholicity,’ do now and hereby in this formal instrument enter our 
 solemn Protest against all teachings, innovations, machinations, and devices that 
 are employed for unprotestantizing the Protestant Episcopal Church, corrupting her 
 doctrine, debasing her worship, and overturning her long-established rites, ceremo¬ 
 nies, and usages. And the undersigned Presbyters, together with the laymen 
 whose names are hereunto appended, as assenting and confirming, do furthermore 
 solemnly Protest against the doctrines and teachings of the following passages, 
 extracted from the printed and published writings of their respective authors—men 
 prominent by position in the Protestant Episcopal Church : ‘ In the Regeneration 
 
 by holy Baptism , in the spiritual and ineffable presence of our Lord in the Euchar¬ 
 ist, with the Mystical Nutriment through His Body and Blood, as well as in the defi¬ 
 nition of the Sacraments, generally there is Virtual Concurrence in the 
 accepted standards of the historical Churches, Eastern, Western, ’ ‘ (or Roman),’ 
 ‘ and Anglican.’ ‘ In addition to this substantial agreement in Orders, Creeds, and 
 Sacraments, the rite of Confirmation,’ etc. [The Convention address of Bishop 
 Whiteliouse, 1868, page 29]. 4 Besides the two Sacraments of the highest order, 
 
 there are other inferior rites having the same nature, but not necessarily in the same 
 way ; among these are Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, in all of which 
 they are an outward sign and an inward grace ’: ‘1st, The sign, called Sacrament- 
 
 um, bread and wine, simple elements of daily sustenance. These remain in their 
 proper substance after consecration, retaining their proper nature, and yet they 
 undergo .a Mystical Change, whereby they become the forms under which Christ is 
 present .’ 2d, The thing signified, called Res., the Body and Blood of Christ: His 
 glorified humanity, which after a manner inexplicable and without a parallel in 
 the range of our knowledge, becomes present after consecration, not bodily or physi¬ 
 cally, according to the laws of material or carnal bodies, but supra-locally, liyper- 
 pliysically, and spiritually in some way believed in by the Church, but known only 
 to God ’ [‘ Manual of Instruction for Confirmation Classes,’ by Rev. I)r. Dix, pages 
 
 41 and 53].-‘ Question: How do we become partakers of the nature of the 
 
 second Adam ? Answer: By our New Birth in Holy Baptism. Quest.: What then 
 begins the Christian life ? Ans., Holy Baptism. Quest. : What is the second great 
 step in the Christian life? Ans., Confirmation. Quest.: What is the third? 
 Ans., The Holy Communion. Quest.: What is the fourth? Ans., Death. Quest. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 129 
 
 14th Section. 
 
 What two titles lias the Church given to the Blessed Virgin Mary? Ans., 
 She is called the Bringer forth of God, and the Ever Virgin Mary. Quest.: How 
 do you receive forgiveness for sin after Baptism ? Ans., By Absolution and the 
 Holy Communion. Quest.: Into how many divisions is Everlasting Life divided ? 
 Ans., Into that which is begun here on earth in the Church, and through the 
 Sacrament, etc. [Rev. Dr. De Koven’s ‘ Catechism on Confirmation,’ pages 
 72 and 82].” 
 
 “ We solemnly declare that, in our judgment, the preceding extracts are not in 
 harmony with the doctrines and principles of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but 
 directly the reverse, in many particulars, of the teaching of the Articles, Liturgy, 
 and Homilies—the very reverse of the principles in defense of which many of the 
 Bishops and other dignitaries of our Mother Church endured the fires of martyr¬ 
 dom. And we furthermore declare it our fixed purpose and intention under God, 
 to do what in us lies towards the freeing of this, our beloved Church, from the 
 domination and perpetuation of such sentiments and doctrines. And for the 
 integrity of our present action, we appeal to the Great Searcher of Hearts, and for 
 our vindication, to the candid judgment of all honest, thinking Christian men, and 
 more especially to that of the members of our own Protestant Episcopal commun¬ 
 ion.—Chicago, Ill., Feb. 18, 18G9.” This is signed by the following clergymen : 
 W. 1L Cooper, D.D., H. N. Powers, D.D., Chas. Edward Cheney, J. A. Russel, 
 Samuel Cowell, K. W. Woods, with their charges. Also, by the following laymen, 
 of whom thirteen are Wardens or Vestrymen—all, as well as the clergymen, in the 
 Diocese of Illinois, viz.: “ Alex. G. Tyng, Matthew Griswold, Gurdon S. Hubbard, 
 William Hanley, M.D., James Cockroft, John H. Kedzie, A. Resler, Hiram Norton, 
 
 C. H. Jordan, S. Johnston, David B. Lyman, George A. Sackett, Henry C. Smith, 
 J. J. Richards, E. G. Wolcott, Albert Crane, J. N. Staples.” “ The foregoing Protest, 
 with the names thereunto appended, was sent to a few of the clergy, with a request 
 to know whether they would sign it, and whether they would approve of a call for 
 a meeting in Chicago in June next, of the Evangelical Clergy and Laity of our 
 Church for the purpose of discussing topics connected with the Protest, and trans¬ 
 acting such other business as, under the circumstances, may then be deemed expe¬ 
 dient. Only five unfavorable replies have been received. The clergy, whose 
 names are hereunto annexed, have heartily approved the Protest, and expressed a 
 wish for the meeting in June, and, so far as possible, have agreed to be present.” 
 Then the following—all Revs.: “ Lewis P. Clover, D.D., B. F. Noakes, J. Ram bo, 
 Charles W. Quick, D. R. Brewer, W. R. Stockton, Chas. B. Stout, J. Rice Taylor, 
 B. F. Taylor, Wm. R. Woodbridge, W. C. French, Edward W. Peet, D.D., Benjamin 
 Hartley, W. F. Llioyd, Samuel Cutler, John A. Jerome, Stephen H. Tyng, R. II. 
 Williamson, Joseph H. Clinch, James B. Britton, Wm. V. Bowers, James McElroy, 
 
 D. D., A. Dalton, Theodore Irving, LL.D., F. B. Nash, Geo. Z. Gray, C. E. Butler, 
 Alex. Jones, D.D., Henry M. Stuart, J. Crocker White, E. W. Appleton, S. R. Wel¬ 
 don, S. II. Boyer, Wm. Wright, D. II. Deacon, Wm. J. Ellis, F. D. Haskins, E. II. 
 Canfield, D.D.,W. W. Spear, D.D., T. F. Caskey, Geo. E. Thrall, N. N. Cowgill, Mason 
 Gallagher,Wm. M. Ross, John P. Hubbard, R. W. Oliver, Henry Dana Ward, Samuel 
 A. Clark, Thomas Duncan,” with their residences. [And the name of Charles E. 
 Cheney signed to this document, may account for the relentless spirit with which 
 he was pursued by Bishop Whitehouse.] 
 
130 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Section 14^. 
 
 (14-1) A Call to Meet in Chicago on June 16, 1869, dated April 19, 1869, was 
 sent in a printed circular signed by four laymen : “ Gurdon S. Hubbard, George A, 
 Sackett, John H. Kedzie, and Albert Crane— Committee on Imitation’' They say: 
 “ ... .A powerful party dominant in the Councils of the Church... .is not only 
 devoid of sympathy with the Protestant spirit of the age, but in many cases hostile 
 to its aims, principles, and institutions... .a desire to affiliate with the corrupt 
 Roman and Greek Churches. A sacerdotal system.. . .The doctrine of Justification 
 perverted. The efficacy of the Sacraments is strained to forms of gross and super¬ 
 stitious error. Transubstantiation is almost baldly taught. The Confessional finds 
 its apologists and advocates. Puerile and cumbersome ceremonies... .The pulpit 
 is made the vehicle of priestly claims... .Co-operation with other Protestant bodies 
 is opposed and ridiculed... .Every month witnesses the extension of the Sacra¬ 
 mental theory among the clergy, the audacity of the propagandists of Ritualism, 
 and the tightening of the bonds of Evangelical Churchmen... .Some distinguished 
 for their piety and usefulness are leaving the fold, and others are on the eve of such 
 a step, if not soon afforded relief, will accept the only alternative,” etc. 
 
 (15) Chicago Conference, June 16-17, 1869, as reported in the Chicago Tribune 
 and Times extracts. Officers— President, Hon. Felix R. Brunot, of Pittsburgh. 
 Vice-Presidents, Rev. Dr. Richard Newton, of Pa. ; Gurdon S. Hubbard, of Chicago; 
 Rev. Dr. Andrews, of Ya.; Col. B. Aycrigg, of N. J.; Judge Miller, of Wisconsin ; 
 John J. Hewitt, of Michigan. Secretaries, Rev. C. W. Quick, of Philadelphia ; Rev. 
 N. N. Cogswell, of Ky.; Rev. J. L. Smith. Committee on Resolutions, Rev. Dr. 
 Newton, of Pennsylvania, Chairman; Rev. Dr. Andrews, of Ya.; Rev. Mr. Clements, 
 of Ohio ; Rev. M. Gallagher, of N. J.; Rev. Dr. Cooper, of Ill... .Rev. Dr. Newton, 
 from the Committee on Resolutions, submitted the- following: Resolved, As 
 the sense of this Conference, that a careful revision of the Book of Common 
 Prayer is needful to the best interests of the P. E. C. Resolved, That all words 
 and phrases seeming to teach that the Christian ministry is a priesthood, or the 
 Lord’s Supper a Sacrifice, or that Regeneration is inseparable from Baptism, should 
 be removed from the Prayer Book.” The resolutions were adopted unanimously. 
 
 xii. 47, 48. 
 
 (16) Sympathy for Rev. Chas. E. Cheney, May 13, 1871. The following is 
 copied from one of the original printed circulars, sent to me by Bishop Cheney, in 
 answer to my request for information, via. : 
 
 “ To the Rev. Charles E. Cheney : Rev. and Dear Brother—We, the undersigued 
 clergymen and laymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church, hearing with much sor¬ 
 row of your trial and sentence to punishment, for having on certain occasions 
 omitted specified words in the use of the Offices appointed for ‘ Common Prayer, and 
 the administration of the sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Protest¬ 
 ant Episcopal Church,’ do hereby assure you of our sympathy, and of our undi¬ 
 minished affection and respect. We hold that the obligation of individual con¬ 
 science, guided by the Word of God, and the just claims of Christian expediency, 
 are to be maintained and regarded as a just and proper obedience to God, as well as 
 the exercise of the indisputable right and duty of man, in ministering any offices 
 appointed for public or private worship, by ordinances or rules which are of human 
 origin, and established by man’s authority. We believe that the determination to 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 131 
 
 16th. Section. 
 
 teach nothing ‘ but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved 
 by the Scripture,’ while faithfully adhering to the Creeds and Articles of Faith 
 established by the Church, is consistent loyalty to this Church, and is demanded 
 by the vows of ordination, even when leading to such action as that with which you 
 have been charged in the trial of which we have spoken. Accordingly we maintain 
 your right to such decision and action as that for which you have been punished by 
 an ecclesiastical sentence, as a right which many others of the clergy of the Prot¬ 
 estant Episcopal Church, experiencing similar difficulties, have habitually exercised. 
 We feel that it would indeed be a sad day for the Protestant Episcopal Church if 
 it should autlioritalively declare that no verbal deviation from any of its prescrip¬ 
 tions, on the part of those who are true to its formularies of faith, is to be tolerated 
 under any stress of conscience or circumstances of expediency whatever. Praying 
 that God may guide and comfort you in your perplexities and sorrows, and that 
 your ministry for Christ may ever be as blessed as it has hitherto been, we remain, 
 yours fraternally.” 
 
 (17) Then follow 12 printed names without their titles, which are now added as 
 far as known : “ S. H. Tyng, D.D., H. Dyer, D.D., Sec. E. K. S., John Cotton Smith, 
 D.D., Win. T. Sabine, Wm. S. Langford, B. B. Leacock, D.D., W. H. Reid, Abbott 
 Brown, John Crocker White, William Hyde, T. F. Caskey, George Z. Gray.” Then 
 the note : “ Please sign and collect signatures, and return speedily to either of the 
 last two of the above gentlemen, 2 Bible House, New York. On the 13th of May 
 all signatures then received will be sent to Mr. Cheney.” 
 
 (18) The following names are now copied by me from the manuscript signatures, 
 with the addition of their positions ; and of clergymen only, reserving the laity for 
 (xi. 20): “R. C. Matlack, Sec. Ev. Ed. Soc.; Dr. S. A. Clark, late of Elizabeth, N. 
 J. ; Dr. Kingston Goddard, of Staten Island ; Prof. John S. Stone, D.D., of Cam¬ 
 bridge Theol. Scm. ; Professors J. J. McElhinney, S. A. Bronson, D.D., A. Blake, 
 Morris A. Tyng, of Gambier Theol. Sem. ; Dr. Julius E. Grammar, of Baltimore ; 
 Dr. Richard Newton, of Philadelphia ; J. S. Bush, of San Francisco ; Washington 
 Rodman, of Philadelphia ; J. S. Copley Green, of Mass. ; Abbott Brown and J. A. 
 Aspinwall, of New York as given by Dr. Llopkins. Also the following: “ J. Ho¬ 
 ward Smith, S. H. Tyng, Jr., New York ; Samuel Cutler, Mass.; H. LI. Morrell, 
 D.D., Ohio (former Sec. Bd. For. Miss.); Asa Dalton, Maine, (once editor of Chris¬ 
 tian Times); Tlios. A. Jaggar, Phila. ; Chas. W. Quick, (editor of Episcopalian); 
 W. H. Munroe, Penn. ; W. I. Johnson, Iowa; J. Rambo, Iowa ; Peter A. Jay, N. 
 Y. ; W. B. Bodine, N. Y. ; John A. Jerome, Pa.; R. LI. Williamson, Pa.; A. LI. 
 Morrison, Pa. ; J. Newton Stanger, Del.; G. L. Platt, N. Y.; E. W. Peet, D.D., 
 Mass.; Charles Stewart, Kansas ; C. B. Stout, Iowa ; L. N. Freeman, Mo. ; D. D. 
 Smith, N. Y.; N. Neilson McVickar, N. Y.; E. F. Remington, N. Y. ; J. C. Fleiscli- 
 hacker, N. Y. ; N. C. Pridham, Md. ; LI. H. Morrell, Ohio; Chas. H. Tucker, N. Y. ; 
 J. E. Homans, N. Y. ; J. S. Brown, N. J. ; George E. Thrall, N. Y. ; W. ILuckel, 
 
 N. Y.;” W. H. Neilson, Jr., Pa.; J. P. Hubbard, R. I. (who was tried xii. 41, 42) ; 
 
 O. W. Landreth, Pa. ; W. M. Postlethwaite, N. Y. ; J. G. Ames, N. Y. 
 
 (19) The above all signed the document. Then A. B. Hard, Pa., and J. II. Mc- 
 Mechin, Va., are sent by C. W. Quick, who says he is authorized to send these 
 names. Then signed to the original document is R. Ileber Newton, together with 
 
132 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 19th Section. 
 
 “ Kingston Goddard,” and a note in pencil mark, “ Mr. Newton afterwards by letter 
 withdrew liis name.” This completes the list of clergymen. 
 
 (20) Laymen. In the same package is a list of laymen which is here 
 copied without verification, and that is doubtless a correct list of the names 
 omitted when verifying the list of the clergy. They are here arranged 
 by States. This list is headed, “Laymen, nearly all Wardens and Vestry¬ 
 men of Churches.”— New York; Stewart Brown, James M. Brown, Henry 
 Bowers, Thos. O. Farrington, E. S. T. Arnold, E. G. Ludlow, C. S. Cozzens, A. 
 Munk, Jas. It. Davis, Isaac McGuire, Wm. Davis, W. H. Small, Geo. F. Wilson, 
 Robert Dawes, II. R. Beesey, A. F. Seward, John McNabb, B. C. Wetmore, Frank 
 L. Moore, J. B. Daniell, 0. J. Sclilegel, G. T. M. Davis, A. G. Norwood, J. D. Fitch, 
 S. Hand, E. C. Bogert, J. T. Young, J. R. Lawrence, J. W. Blatcliford, G. L. Sabine, 
 
 A. Forbes, E. II. Allen, C. B. Stockwell, Wm. Graydon, J. S. Day, L. A. Robertson, 
 J. A. Slipper, G. A. Booth, H. Dailey, D. C. Winslow, Geo. Self, E. Keat, James 
 Neir, B. C. Townsend, J. A. Perry, N. A. Perry, Henry Purdy, N. Beichall, J. J. 
 Crane, Edgar Williams, Thos. N. Faite, Jr., H. Smith Brown, Chas. V. Faile, Thos. 
 II. Messenger, H. G. Hadden, J. S. Warner, Adon Smith, Jr., S. W. Torrey, B. W. 
 Greene, A. F. Warberton, C. C. Hastings.— From New Jersey: J. P. Pennington, 
 E. K. Miller, Jno. Rutherford, Jas. D. Orton, Silas Merchant, J. H. Allison, F. R. 
 Wilkinson, 0. W. Blackfair, S. K. Wilson, Chas. Hewitt, Earl English, U. S. N., 
 Joseph Little, Dan’l Phillips, John Moore, H. G. Scudder, Jos. Reeves, T. Abbott, 
 J. K. Freese, Chas. S. Olden, D. A. Clarke, G. N. Grant, Geo. James, War. Greene, 
 J. C. Burgelin, E. Hanson, A. W. English, Solon Humphreys, A. B. Warner, S. T. 
 Brown.— From Pennsylvania: Jay Cooke, R. B. Sterling, W. C. Houston, Thos. H. 
 Powers, W. P. Cresson, C. G. Tower, J. M. Campbell, H. K. Bowman, H. Nicholl, 
 —From Maryland : Wm. Woodward, Chas. Markell, W. G. Bauserner, E. L. 
 Focke, B. M. Dennis.— From Washington : Hon. C. Delano.— From Illinois : J. 
 H. Kedzie, H. S. Slaymaker, A. Herlon, J. Terliune, Jr., Shepherd Johnston, G. S. 
 Bowen, M. C. Follensbee, B. L. Layton, T. B. Lyman, J. W. Farley, C . Follensbee, 
 L. N. Freeman, C. H. Jordan, Job Carpenter.— From Maine : Fred. Davis, S. T. 
 Corser, T. B. Talford, C. Pager, F. H. Barley, G. H. Starr, J. H. Eaton, W. A. 
 Salem, L. H. Whitney, M. D. L. Lane.— From Rhode Island : Horace Babcock, H. 
 N. Campbell, Edwin Babcock, Albert Babcock, James H. Cross. Thus ends the list 
 of laymen. 
 
 (21) Changes. (1) The Rev. R.Heber Newton retracted at an unknown date (xi. 
 19)., and he republished the Philadelphia card (ii. Dec. 1, 1873 ; x. 15).—(2) The 
 Churchman of March 13,1875, quotes (St. X)—“ Ohio, Gambier. The Rev. William 
 
 B. Bodine, rector of Harcourt parish, has published a letter under date 24th Feb., ex¬ 
 pressing his regret at having signed the letter of sympathy to Mr. Cheney, which 
 appeared in June, 1871, adding that to-day he could not undertake to defend it, nor 
 would he be willing to be judged by the sentiments which it expresses.” This ad¬ 
 mits of a doubt as to his real meaning. I presume that no one has examined the 
 original documents from May, 1871, until they were opened by me a few days 
 since. Mr. Bodine, speaking from memory, may have made the same mistake as 
 (iii. March 1, Brook) and supposed that these signatures were after the deposition, 
 and may mean that he could not defend such action, while in fact he may still hold 
 to the Old Evangelical policy (xi. 22).—(3) Dr. Jaggar (iii. Mar. 10,1875) says: “ The 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 133 
 
 21st Section. 
 
 ground of my action was sympathy... .and not approval of his course, and certainly 
 I have not approved of his subsequent course.” Here is no room for doubt that he 
 remembers the circular to have been signed before the deposition. This does not 
 represent a change of opinion, but that at the time he signed one circular in com¬ 
 pany with Rev. W. H. Neilson, assistant minister, and W. P. Cresson, vestryman, 
 of Holy Trinity, Philadelphia, and another circular in company with Rev. W. Neil¬ 
 son McVickar, and Rev. E. F. Remington, and headed “ Sign !” in emphatic form, 
 He did not agree on this point with the Old Evangelicals, as shown below (xi. 22); 
 and he signed the Philadelphia Card (ii. Dec. 1, 1873, Card ; iii. Oct. 29, 1874, Infant 
 Baptism ; Feb. 8, 1875, Jag.; Feb. 10, do; do; Log; Feb. 18, Log; Bishop; Feb. 
 27, Rev.; March 1; March 3, Brook ; March 10, Jag.Brook; March 12, Jag.; March 
 13, Dr.; Reformed ; March 15, Dr; xx. 3). 
 
 (22) Now, it is almost certain that the object of this circular was analogous to 
 that of a political mass meeting, to operate upon the ecclesiastical authorities in Il¬ 
 linois, and prevent the deposition of Dr. Cheney, for the sake of the signers, as well 
 as for his. The general wish of the Old Evangelicals was to omit the Regeneration 
 clause, and consequently to prevent a formal decision against such omission. Many 
 of them were in the habit of omitting it. From the Episcopalian (iii. July 15, 
 
 1874) it appears that Dr. Newton in his pamphlet claims that clergymen in the P. 
 E. C. have the righi to do as Dr. Cheney did, and that he does so, and he is one of 
 the signers in manuscript. And Church and State (iii. Aug. 13, 1874) says : “ We 
 are... .attracted at once by the position of Dr. Newton,” and its editor, Rev. John 
 Cotton Smith, D.D., is one of the names printed on the circular (xi. 17). And Dr. 
 Andrews, of Virginia, in the General Convention (iii. Oct. 29, 1874) says: “ One of 
 the greatest minds in the country left our ministry lately, solely on account of the 
 Baptismal Office... .In Illinois... .the sole trouble was about this office... .Take 
 the other seceders, I know all of them who have given most character to the move¬ 
 ment, and in every case it was this office and this alone which started them, though 
 when they determined to leave, they raised all the objections they could think of.” 
 And the Committee (iii. Oct. 29, 1874) says that more than 500 clergymen, and a 
 very large number of vestries and other laymen, and the nearly unanimous action 
 of one of the largest dioceses [Virginia] desire relaxation of the Rubrics. Hence 
 the omission of the Regeneration clause has been a standard doctrine of the Old 
 Evangelicals. Many did omit it. All wished tp omit it. If there were no formal 
 decision against such omission, the compulsory Rubric might become a dead letter 
 like some other parts of the Prayer Book, and this was doubtless the general object 
 of the signers. But from the letter of Dr. Jaggar to Bishop Stevens (iii. Mar. 10, 
 
 1875) it appears that Dr. Jaggar could not have been one of those who like Dr. 
 Newton omitted the Regeneration clause, nor like Dr. John Cotton Smith did he 
 approve this omission by others (iii. July 15, 1874 ; Aug. 13, 1874 ; xx. 3). 
 
 (23) The three Evangelical Societies in the P. E. C. —Whittaker’s Protest¬ 
 ant Episcopal Almanac for 1874, pp. 146, 147, has the following names, and those 
 who have left the P. E. C. for the R. E. C. are now (April 1, 1875) distinguished by 
 being printed in capitals. 
 
 “The American Church Missionary Society. — President , W. H. Aspinwall. 
 Vice-Presidents, Rev. John S. Stone, D.D., Rev. N. H. Schenk, D.D., Rev. W. R. 
 Nicholson, D.D., Hon. Chas. S. Olden, W. Woodward, J. M. Brown. Recording 
 
134 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 23d Section. 
 
 Secretary, Rev. W. X. McVickar. Treasurer, George D. Morgan. Executive Com¬ 
 mittee, Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D., J. Cotton Smith, D.D., R. Newton, D.D., W. T. Sa¬ 
 bine, K. Goddard, D.D., Phillips Brooks, W. R. Nicholson, D.D., W. S. Lang¬ 
 ford, W. M. P ostleth w aite, John A. Aspinwall, Messrs. W. A. Haines, Frederic 
 
 G. Foster, D. J. Ely, Stewart Brown, Solon Humphreys, Henry A. Oakley, J. S. 
 Amory, F. R. Brunot, H. B. Ren wick, R. A. Brick. Secretaries, Rev. H. Dyer, D.D., 
 and Rev. W. A. Newbold. 
 
 Evangelical Knowledge Society.— President, The Rt. Rev. A. Lee, D.D., 
 Vice-Presidents, Rt. Revs. B. B. Smith, D.D., John Johns, D.D., John Payne, D.D., 
 
 H. W. Lee, D.D., LL.D., G. T. Bedell, D.D., W. Bacon Stevens, D.D., Thomas H. 
 Vail, D.D., G. D. Cummins, D.D., F. M. Whittle, D.D., 0. W. Whittaker, D.D. 
 Executive Committee, Revs. H. Dyer, D.D. (Sec.), S. Cooke, D.D., J. Cotton Smith, 
 
 D. D., S. H. Tyng, Jr., D.D., N. H. Schenk, D.D., W. N. McVickar, Messrs. G. D. 
 Morgan, S. Brown, F. G. Foster, J. Pierpont Morgan, J. H. Earle, C. R. Marvin, 
 H. B. Ren wick. Sec., Rev. D. S. Miller, D.D. Treas. Frederic G. Foster. 
 
 Evangelical Education Society.—Managers : President, 
 
 ■Sec., Rev. R. C. Matlack ; Treas., W. C. Houston. Rev. J. Cotton Smith, D.D., J. 
 
 E. Grammar, D.D., Benjamin Watson, D.D., D. S. Miller, D.D., Richard Newton, 
 
 D. D., Wilbur F. Paddock, D.D., S. E. Appleton, D.D., A. H. Vinton, D.D., J. IL 
 Eccleston, D.D., J. Pratt, D.D., C. D. Cooper, W. R. Nicholson, D.D., P. Brooks, 
 A. M. Randolph and J. B. Falkner ; Messrs. Stuart Brown, Cassius F. Lee, John 
 Bohlen, Edward Olmstead, W. P. Cresson, and S. G. De Coursey. 
 
 (24) Old Evangelicals. —In the list of names (xi. 5) the three Evangelical So¬ 
 cieties (xi. 23), were represented by their secretaries, viz. : Rev. H. Dyer, of the E. 
 K. S., then and now. Also, Rev. Franklin S. Rising, Sec. Am. Ch. Miss. Soc., and 
 Rev. Rob. J. Parvin, Sec. Ev. Ed. Soc. These two while on executive duty were 
 both burnt to death Dec. 4, 1868, on board the steamboat United States, on the Ohio 
 river. Also, their present successors in office, Rev. W. A. Newbold, Sec. A. C. M. 
 S., and Rev. Robt. Matlack, Sec. E. E. S. And Mr. Rising was the principal au¬ 
 thor of the tract “ Are there Romanizing Germs in the Prayer Book?” 
 
 Also, among the above are the names of some who signed the Philadelphia 
 Card (ii. Dec. 1, 1873, Card), viz. : Revs. R. Heber Newton (xi. 21), Thos. A. Jaggar 
 (xi. 21); J. B. Falkner (then J. F. Blake), Snyder B. Simes, James Pratt, D.D. 
 
 Also who left the P. E. C. before the inauguration of the R. E. C. Viz.: Revs. 
 Marshall B. Smith to Reformed (Dutch) Church, H. W. Woods and M. McCormick 
 to Baptist: A. M. Wylie to Presbyterian ; J. W. Cracraft to Congregational; John 
 Cromlish to Methodist Episcopal; Mason Gallagher, and S. R. Weldon and Geo. 
 
 E. Thrall to Independent. 
 
 (25) Also the names G. D. Cummins, Ch. E. Cheney, M. B. Smith, Mason Gal¬ 
 lagher, B. B. Leacock, C. H. Tucker, W. T. Sabine, J. E. Brown, W. M. Postle- 
 thwaite, W. R. Nicholson, J. Howard Smith, will be found above, and in the fol¬ 
 lowing : 
 
 (26) Clergymen of the R. E. C., marked as having been, E. (Protestant Epis¬ 
 copal); P. (Presbyterian); M. (Methodist); R. (R. E. C. in which they first entered 
 the Ministry). 
 
 In May, 1874, at the Second Council (i. May 13 to 19). 
 
 Bishop G. D. Cummins, D.D.—E. (i. May 13,1874; iv. 2, 5 ; v. 4 ; vi. 3, 5; vii. 1; 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 135 
 
 26th Section. 
 
 viii. 1 to 4; ix. 4 to 9 ; 12 to 15 ; x. 1 to 14 ; 17 to 22 ; xi. 23, 27 ; xiii. 10 to 
 26 ; xiv. 10, etc., etc.) 
 
 Bishop C. E. Cheney, D.D.—E. (i. May 18, 1874 ; ii. Nov. 27, 1873 ; x. 10 to 14 ; 
 
 17 to 24 ; xi. 7, 11, 14, 16 to 22, 25 to 36; xiii. 13, etc., etc.) 
 
 Rev. R. H. Bourne.—E. (i. May 13, 1874 ; xi. 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35.) 
 
 “ W. V. Felt well.—E. (i.Mav 13, 1874; Dec. 2, 1873; Feb. 17, 1875. Monc.) 
 
 “ Mason Gallagher.—E. (i. May 13, 1874 ; vii. 5 ; ix. 4 to 9 ; x. 10 to 24; xi. 7 
 12,14, 15, 24 to 36 ; xiii. 12). 
 
 “ T. J. McFadden.—E. (i. May 13, 1874.) 
 
 “ Wm. McGuire.— E. (i. May*13, 1874 ; Feb. 25, 1874.) 
 
 “ Johnson McCormac.—E. (i. May 13, 1874). 
 
 “ B. B. Leacock, D.D.—E. (i. May 13, 1874 ; x. 10 to 24 ; xi. 7, 17, 25 to 36; 
 xiii. 12). 
 
 “ E. D. Neill.—P. (i. April 22, 1874; May 13, 1874 ; ii. July 8, 1874. Dif.) 
 
 “ W. H. Reid.—E. (i. May 13, 1874; xi. 17.) 
 
 “ W. T. Sabine.—E. (i. May 13, 1874 ; xi. 7, 17, 23, 2o, 26.) 
 
 “ Marshall B. Smith.— E. (i. May 13, 1874 ; vi. 2, 3 ; vii. 2, 3, 4 ; ix. 4 to 10 ; 
 x. 10 to 24 ; xi. 5 ; Editor, 6, 8 in 1867 :—24, resigned—vii. 2 on March, 15, 
 1869—dismissed to R. E. C. ix. 10 ; xi. 25 to 37 : xiii. 12, 21, 27 ; xiv. 6.) 
 
 “ Thompson L. Smith.—E. (i. May 13, 1874.) 
 
 “ Charles H. Tucker.—E. (i. May 13, 1874; x. 23, 24; xi. 7, 18, 25, 26, 32, 33, 
 35, 36.) 
 
 “ J. D. Wilson.—E. (i. May 13, 1874; iii. March 11, 1874.) 
 
 “ Walter Windeyer—E. (i. May 13, 1874.) 
 
 Additions since May 19, 1874: 
 
 Rev. II. H. Brooks.—M. 
 
 “ B. B. Usher, M. D.—R 
 “ W. S. Perkins. 
 
 “ J. S. Malone.—E. 
 
 “ John Todd, M. A.—M., Rector in Sussex, N. B. (i. Dec. 30, 1874). 
 
 “ J. P. Davis. 
 
 “ J. A. Latane.—E. (iii. Jan. 12, 1874). 
 u Edwin Potter.—M. 
 
 “ W. R. Nicholson, D.D.—E. (iii. Nov. 25 and Dec. 16, 1874 ; xi. 8, 12, 23, 23). 
 
 Rector of Second, R. E. C. in Philadelphia. 
 
 “ W. M. Postlethwaite.—E. (iii. Dec. 24, 1874; xi. 7, 18, 23). Associate Rector 
 with Bishop Cheney. 
 
 “ J. C. Pratt.—E. 
 
 “ J. Howard Smith, D.D.—E. (iii. Feb. 17, 1875; xi. 18). Rector in New¬ 
 ark, N. J.. 
 u Wm. Bower. 
 
 “ J. E. Brown.—E. (xi. 7). Rector at Moncton, N. B. 
 
 “ Edward Cridge.—Ch. Eng.; late Dean of Victoria, B. C. (i. Nov* 4, Dec. 9, 1874; 
 Vic). 
 
 “ Benjamin Johnson. -E. (iii. Dec. 23, 1874). 
 
 [Not having a full list of the clergy of the R. E. C., and the printer requiring 
 copy, the other names will be given in Chapter XX.] 
 
( 
 
 136 CHAPTER XT. 
 
 27tli Section. 
 
 (27) A comparison of the Call to organize (ix. 1,2,) with the Declaration of 
 Principles (xi. 2), will show the two to agree in general principles, hut the latter to 
 he carried out with greater precision. The circumstances will account for the dif¬ 
 ferences. The Call was a hasty production, drawn up in a very short time during 
 the conference which began in the afternoon of Nov. 12, and ended before noon of 
 Nov. 13, 1873, and occupying only a portion of this time, and one of the party a lay¬ 
 man. This Cali brought in the Rev. Dr. Cheney and the Rev. Dr. Leacock, and 
 the Declaration of Principles was the joint production of all, with the assistance of 
 persons not identified with the movement, and with time for study between Nov. 
 13 and Dec. 2, 1873. 
 
 (28) Nearly all who took part in the organization on Dec. 2, had from Nov. 12, 
 or soon after, been in constant consultation with each other, and with several dis¬ 
 tinguished men of different denominations who favored the movement; and had 
 twice met as in Committee of the Whole to discuss all the movements required in 
 organizing. Hence, nearly everything which appeared in public on Dec. 2 was 
 the result of a foregone conclusion with which all who took part were satisfied in 
 advance, and the most important resolutions were passed without public discus¬ 
 sion, and the meeting had more the appearance of a meeting for religious exercises 
 than for business. To this there was one exception, in the election of Bishop Che¬ 
 ney, respecting which there had been no previous understanding, as far as I know or 
 suppose. 
 
 (29) The Declaration of Principles, the basis and foundation upon which 
 rest all the distinctive characteristics of this Church, were ordered to be inserted in 
 the Prayer Books and Journals as enduring monuments of the characteristics of 
 this Church for all time. 
 
 (30) The Executive Committee, composed of the two Bishops and of all the 
 members of all the other committees, was a temporary arrangement to carry on 
 provisionally the government of the new Church and prepare a Constitution and 
 Canons, and a Revised Prayer Book to be presented for amendment and adoption at 
 the Second General Council to be held in May next thereafter. 
 
 (31) As to the date of the next Council, there were two considerations. The 
 first, in favor of a later date, in order to allow more time for completing the work 
 committed to the Executive Committee. It was known that the time would be too 
 short to do everything required. Having been a lay member of one Committee of 
 which the Rev. Marshall B. Smith was Chairman, and did all the hard work, and 
 of the other Committee, of which the Rev. Dr. B. B. Leacock was Chairman, and 
 did all the hard work, I could judge of the immense amount of labor done by both, 
 and for which they received the thanks of the Council. Still, the whole of the 
 work could not be accomplished, and the remainder will come before the Third 
 Council. 
 
 On the other hand, in the absence of written law, excessive powers were neces¬ 
 sarily given to the Executive Committee, and it was important that this abnormal 
 condition should, as soon as practicable, be superseded by a government that is 
 more in accordance with our political institutions and with the views of the proper 
 form of Church Government, as entertained by the founders of the new Church. 
 Hence the date in May was a compromise between the two. 
 
 (32) Second General Council, May 13-19, 1874. The results of these 
 
137 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 «» s .. 
 
 32d Section. 
 
 meetings were the adoption of the Constitution and Canons for the government of 
 the Church; and the Reformed Prayer Book to define its Services, and the Feder¬ 
 ative Union with the Free Church of England upon general principles that can he 
 applied to any other Evangelical Church, and all in accordance with the funda¬ 
 mental Declaration of Principles .xi. 2. 
 
 (33) This work was confirmed in six days, but had been under consideration of 
 the members long before they met in Council. Thus : 
 
 (34) All the members of the Executive Committee had been members of the P. 
 E. C., and none other was admitted to the first Council. We desired to retain the 
 familiar system of Church Government and Service excepting where they were 
 defective. The Executive Committee appointed one Committee on Constitution and 
 Canons, with the Rev. Marshall B. Smith as Chairman, and another on the Revision 
 of the Prayer Book, with the Rev. B. B. Leacock, D.D., as Chairman. Each Chair¬ 
 man did all the hard work in his department, and collected from various quarters 
 all the works that would assist in that department. Both of these clergymen had 
 for years been members of the Latimer Society in the P. E. C., engaged in prepar¬ 
 ing a Revision of the Prayer Book, and were thus familiar with the whole subject. 
 
 (35) As fast as portions were prepared by these sub-committees, they were pre¬ 
 sented to the Executive Committee, and there rediscussed and determined, then put 
 in print and distributed for the examination of all interested, including some who 
 were not identified with us, but in favor of the movement. 
 
 When the Council met, each member having a printed copy, everything having 
 been previously well considered, passed off rapidly, except when amendments were 
 offered and discussed. 
 
 (36) The Comparison of Prayer Books is given in a general manner by Hubert 
 
 B. Turner, Esq. (pp. 9), and in detail by a “ Presbyter of the R. E. C.”—Rev. M. B. 
 Smith(pp, 47). These are both in pamphlet form. One point is not stated. The 
 changes from the old service are of the most conservative character, and show the 
 judgment in selecting from some other part of the old book, or of the book of 1785, 
 or some other equally good source that has been confirmed by age, rather than an 
 effort to produce something original. This, as a lay member, I found on several 
 occasions, when finding words in unusual places, I criticised the expressions, sup¬ 
 posing them to be original, and was silenced by a significant smile, and the remark, 
 “ That is copied verbatim,” etc. xx. 9. 
 
 ii. June 25, 1874; Bishop Clark; Dec. 23, 1874, New Prayer Book. 
 
 (37) The Free Church of England, seeing in the public prints a report of 
 
 our Declaration of Principles, began a correspondence with Bishop Cummins, which 
 led to a proposition for a closer union than mere sympathy, from a representative 
 body analogous to our Executive Committee, through Bishop Price, their Primus. 
 This culminated in the Federative Union.xv. 15,16. 
 
 PRESS REPORTS. 
 
 (38) The Tribune, in the report of the proceedings on Dec. 2, 1873, mistook the 
 
 name of the temporary president, and called him the Rev. B. B. Leacock in place of 
 the layman, B. Aycrigg. There was a significance in this matter which is ex¬ 
 plained.x. 12. 
 
 (39) The Tribune has given the fullest reports of the action of the R. E, C, at 
 
133 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 
 39th Section. 
 
 tlie two Councils. In the reports in the Tribune, Times, Herald, and other secular 
 papers, I have seen no case of intentional misrepresentation of facts. They have 
 criticised our action severely, and they have laughed at us. To these I raise no ob¬ 
 jections, as long as they do not misrepresent the facts. Thus : 
 
 (40) The Times of May 19, 1874, criticises the change in the Burial Service, and 
 says : “ It seems then that the * Reformed Episcopal Church ’ is not intended for 
 ‘notorious sinners/ unlike the Church which had its origin in Judea eighteen cen¬ 
 turies ago, and the Founder of which declared that He had come to ‘ seek and save 
 that which is lost/ ” 
 
 Now this reverses the case. The new service is so arranged as to meet the case 
 of “ notorious sinners.” Consequently this Rubric, which stands at the head of the 
 Burial Service of the P. E. C., has been erased, viz.: “ Here it is to be noted that 
 the Office ensuing is not to be used for any unbaptized adults, any who die excom¬ 
 municate, or who have laid violent hands upon themselves.” As to “excommuni¬ 
 cate ” see (iii. Oct. 13, Arbitrary power). And about 20 years since a case occurred 
 a few miles from this place, which went the rounds of the newspapers, where a 
 well known author would have been buried like a brute if all clergymen had fol¬ 
 lowed this Rubric as closely as the one did to whom application was first made. 
 And the Protestant Episcopal clergyman, like a child tied to a leading string by his 
 nurse, is not allowed to deviate from the strict words in the Prayer Book, without 
 the risk of being deposed, as in the case of Dr. Cheney for the omission of a single 
 word in the Baptismal Service. 
 
 (41) Again : The Herald spoke of our singing the Gloria in Excelsis, for a “ con¬ 
 clusion that was not a conclusion.” "Without discussing the propriety of dealing in 
 this manner with serious subjects, the remark was witty and truthful. It referred 
 to one of the most agreeable circumstances that occurred during these meetings. 
 The official record is found in the “Journal” of 1874, pages 21, 22, 28,29, 30, but 
 the circumstances are not given. They were these: The printed report of the 
 Committee on Revision had the Communion Office in this form, at the end of the 
 Rubric—“ And when he delivereth the Bread he shall say, Take and eat this in re¬ 
 membrance/’ etc. “ And delivering the Cup, he shall say, Drink this in remem¬ 
 brance,” etc. The object was to prevent the possibility of the perversion said to be 
 practiced in using the form in the P. E. C. Thus, “ The Body of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.”—with a full stop—giving the bread ; thereby signifying that the Bread is 
 “ the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ,” while the Prayer Book has a semicolon ; and 
 makes the remainder a part of the sentence, thus: “ The Body of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ; which was given for thee,” etc. In the same manner when delivering the 
 Cup: “The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—with a full stop. 
 
 The “Journal ” shows the amendments to the Report of the Committee, and on 
 page 28 : “ The Council having thus concluded the revision of the Prayer Book, rose 
 and sang the ‘ Gloria in Excelsis .’ ” 
 
 But, disregarding strict parliamentary law, the question having been twice de¬ 
 termined, was reopened nem. con., as shown on pages 29-30. One of the members 
 desiring to restore the old form, stopped speaking, and another, supposing that he 
 had finished, addressed the Chair, and was told that the other had not yielded the 
 floor. The gentleman on the floor, finding that he could not recover his composure, 
 sat down and buried his face in his hands. This being observed by one who had 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 139 
 
 41st Section. 
 
 wished to leave the matter as it had been twice decided, he said: “ It appears that 
 some are deeply affected by this change ; I move that a Committee of Conference 
 be appoimed.” This Committee having retired, the Council suspended business, 
 and engaged in prayer. It was subsequently said that the Committee began with 
 prayer. The “ Journal,” page 30, shows the report of this Committee, and that it 
 was unanimously adopted , and is now the form of the R. E. C. 
 
 (42) False and distorted statements in the place of facts by those who do not 
 represent the secular press will be found in Chapter II. Their authors should go to 
 the secular reporters to learn honor if not religion. 
 
 (43) Episcopacy. If the Church of England has the Apostolic Succession as a 
 
 historical fact, so has the R. E. C. But the Declaration of Principles of the R. E. C. 
 (xi. 2), says: “ II. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of 
 
 Divine right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of Church Polity.” and 
 “condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to 
 God’s Word : First, That the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form 
 of ecclesiastical polity.” Now, that it is “very ancient” no one will deny. In my 
 opinion it is “ desirable,” in our case, as a conservative human arrangement, to keep 
 up a uniform general system in accordance with the standards. Its objectionable 
 features have been removed by the R. E. C. And in the R. E. C. this term 
 “ Episcopal ” implies that all laws shall be general, as passed by the General Coun¬ 
 cil, so that minister and congregation being bound by general laws which define 
 the rights and duties of each, neither is subject to the caprices of the other, and 
 the people can not be “ priest-ridden ” nor the minister “ parish-ridden” ii. Dec. 
 31, 1873; Jan 1, 1874 ; Jan. 22 ; Jan. 22; Jan. 29; Apr. 30, So. Ch.; Apr. 30, Mur¬ 
 ray; June 10, Open letter; xiii. 13; xii. 36-39; iii. June 11, Liberty; Oct. 13, 
 Arbit.; Oct. 13, Rep.; Oct. 31, Ref.; Nov. 11, Indep. ; Dec. 30, Ch.; Jan. 13, 1875, 
 Independent Churches. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 SCHISM AND SEPARATION. 
 
 Contents :— (1 to 8). Defined. — (9). Churches of Home and Constanti¬ 
 nople .— (10). Rome and England .— (11). Rome a schism in schism .— (12). 
 Church of England a schism in schism .— (13). Under Mary .— (14). Under 
 Elizabeth .— (15). Its Inquisition .— (16). Compulsion .— (17). “Act of Con¬ 
 formity ” to “ The Protestant Church of England as by law established .”— 
 (18). Dissents on removing compulsion .— (19). For political purposes 
 “ comprehends ” all religious views .— (20). Was Protestant in the early part 
 of this century , but Ritualists have a legal status .— (21). Gladstone contro¬ 
 versy is political .— (22). Character of controlling Parliament .— (23). Its 
 Protestantism depends on Dissenters .— (24). Its Canonist claim .— (25). P. E. 
 C. is legally a schism in schism .— (26). Notwithstanding the opinion 
 expressed in 1814.—(27, 28). P. E. C. and the Dutch Church in 1697, 1779, 
 1790. — (29). Personal knowledge .— (30 to 35). P. E. C. before and after 
 Puseyism was introduced .— (36 to 39). Official decision of Rev. Dr. Wain- 
 wright .— (40 to 42). Becomes a schism in 1868. — (43 to 48). “ Fighting I — 
 (49 to 52). Results .— (53 to 55). Pan-Anglicans controlled by English poli¬ 
 tics. — (56). Triumph of the Ritualists. — (57). The Alternative. — (58). “ Com¬ 
 prehensive ChurchT — (59.) Last General Convention .— (60). R. E. C. and 
 other Prot. Churches not schisms nor in schism. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Schism is a sin by Apostolic authority. In the New Testament it signi¬ 
 fies a split or division between parties or factions, “ fighting it out within the 
 Church ” in a single locality. This by metonymy is applied to the factions or par¬ 
 ties that are on opposite sides in the schism, and by extension, applies equally 
 to larger bodies in the Church at large, standing in opposition to each other. 
 
 (2) The word schism is from the Greek schisma in the singular and schismata in 
 the plural, and that from schidzo “ to split, to cleave, to rend, with violence,” says 
 Robinson’s Lexicon of the New Testament. He gives examples of the use of these 
 words in the New Testament. 
 
 (3) First as to the literal meaning, in which the word is translated by the word 
 in italics as follows: (1), Luke 5: 36, “ piece of a new garment upon the old.... 
 the new maketh a rent and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not 
 with the old.” (2), John 19:24, “the coat was without seam....let us not rend 
 it.” (3), Matt. 27:51, “ the veil of the temple was rent in twain.” (4), Mark 
 15:38, “the veil of the temple was rent in twain.” (5), Luke 23:45, 
 “ The veil of the temple was rent in the midst.” (6), Mark 1:10, “ He saw the 
 
 (140) 
 
CHAPTER XII, 
 
 141 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 heavens opened.” (7), John 21:11, “yet was not the net broken” (8), Matt. 9 :16. 
 “ old garment... .the rent is mad e worse, (y), Mark 2 : 21, “ The rent is made worse. 
 Now in all these cases the pieces remain in close proximity, and are opposite to 
 each other. Xenophon calls the cleft in a hoof “ schisma” 
 
 (4) Then as to the figurative meaning. (10) Acts 14 : 4, “ The multitude were 
 divided-, and part held with the Jew3 and part with the Apostles.” (11) John 7 :43, 
 “ So there was a division among the people because of him.” (12), John 9 :16, 
 “ Others said... .and there was a division among them.” (13), John 10 :19, “ There 
 was a division therefore among the Jews for these sayings.” (14), 1 Cor. 1 :10, “I 
 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the 
 same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly 
 joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.’’ (15), 1 Cor. 11:18 
 
 When ye come together in the Church I hear that there be divisions among 
 you, and I partly believe it.” (16), 1 Cor. 12:25, “ That there should be no schism 
 in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another.’’ 
 
 (5) The analogous word translated “ divisions,” is found in two places. This is 
 
 in Greek JDichostasia, and that from Dis, twice, and istemi, to stand, or standing in 
 opposition to each other. Thus (17) Rom. 16 : 17 : “ Now I beseech you, brethren, 
 to mark them which cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which ye 
 have learned, and avoid them.” (18.) 1 Cor. 3:3: “ For ye are yet carnal: for 
 whereas there is among you envying and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal and 
 walk as men ? ”.xx. 10. 
 
 ' (6) In all these cases (10 to 18) the parties remain in close proximity and in op¬ 
 position to each other. The only cases between Christians on both sides are the 
 last five (14 to 18), and in all cases the schism denounced by St. Paul is “ Fighting 
 it out within the Church.” This is not only Gospel, but it is common sense. 
 Schism makes a “ house divided against itself.”. xii. 43. 
 
 (7) Separation from schism is a duty by Apostolic example. Dean Cridge 
 (ii. Jan. 13, 1875) instances the cases of “Abraham and Lot; and as St. Paul when 
 he took the disciples from the synagogue.” But we have the strongest possible 
 case where a schism, as above described by St. Paul, occurred between himself and 
 a fellow Apostle, and that schism was broken up by a separation of the parties who 
 ■were in a state of schism. Thus, Acts 15 : 39 : “ And the contention was so sharp 
 between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took 
 Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus.” This, again, is not only Gospel, but it is common 
 sense. It is a principle always advocated in every-day life, not only by Christians, 
 but by moralists of all kinds, except those who advocate “fighting.” 
 
 (8) Separation from his particular schism, is schism, according to each 
 
 canonist. These ecclesiastical lawyers, like the Pharisees of old, “ make the Word 
 of God of none effect by... .tradition.’’ They go outside of the Bible to seek among 
 the contradictory opinions there found, such as agree with the views which they 
 desire, and adopting their authors as “ The Fathers,” present these views as “ Cath¬ 
 olic truths,” believed “ semper ubique et ab omnibus .” “ Men are easily persuaded 
 
 to believe what they wish.” Bigotry is a trait of human nature as well in politics 
 and in irreligion as in religion. Like partisans of the same political party, the parti¬ 
 sans of the same schism repeat to each other the same opinions so frequently, that 
 at length they cannot admit a doubt on the subject, and call all men schismatics 
 
142 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 8th Section. 
 
 who do not agree with the peculiar views of their particular schism (iii. Oct. 19, 
 1874, Cath.) The Greeks denounce the Church of Rome as a schism, and claim the 
 title “ Holv Orthodox.’' The Church of Rome denounces the Greeks on one side, 
 
 •t * 
 
 and on the other, the Church of England and the P. E. C., and all other Churches 
 as schisms, and claims the name “ Catholic." The Pan-Anglican Church denounces 
 the Church of Rome on one side, and all non-Episcopal Churches on the other as 
 schisms, and arrogates to itself the title of “The Church." And some non-Episco- 
 palians are equally extravagant in their claims, (ii. Dec. 31, 1873, Schism ; Jan. 
 13, 1875, Schism ; iii. Oct. 12, 1874, Pan-Ang., and Mr. Shattuck ; Oct. 19, Cath. ; 
 Dec. 23, Low, xx. 1 ; xii. 58 ; xvi. 4, 19.) 
 
 (9) Combined Churches. The combined Churches of Rome and Constanti¬ 
 nople fell into violent schism through jealousy and ambition, each Church claiming 
 the supremacy. This schism was broken by the final separation in 1052, when 
 Pope Leo IX. excommunicated Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. But 
 from that day to the present these two Churches have stood in hostile antagonism 
 to each other, and thus both are schisms in the Apostolic sense. 
 
 (10) The combined Churches of Rome and England fell into violent schism on 
 the score of supremacy, Rome affirming and England denying the right of the 
 Roman Curia to regulate the internal affairs of England. This schism was broken 
 by the final separation under Queen Elizabeth in 1558. Then each became a schism, 
 standing in hostile antagonism to the other. 
 
 (11) Church, of Rome. The Church of Rome has been in schism for many 
 ag’es, the different “ Orders " standing as schisms, jealous of each other; but espe¬ 
 cially for the last 300 years, during the existence of the Jesuits, who were organized 
 to resist the Reformation. They have flourished and fallen and risen. The Order 
 has been banished from nearly (if not quite) all Roman Catholic countries. It has 
 been abolished by the Pope to satisfy the general outcry. It has been revived; 
 and to-day the “Black Pope,” or head of the Jesuits, is the “ Power behind the 
 throne greater than the throne itself.” 
 
 Such is the belief abroad respecting this mysterious Order, founded by a soldier 
 on strict military principles of unquestioned obedience. Such is the belief in Rome, 
 if we can take the expressions of a very intelligent guide, in the winter of 1871-2, 
 as an index of Roman opinions. This guide had been three times laid up with 
 wounds received while fighting under Garibaldi against the Pope, and had been 
 kept eighteen months as a prisoner, fed on bread and water, in the barracks of the 
 Vatican, and hence could not be supposed to be very much prepossessed in favor of 
 the Pope. Having, with this guide, been engaged for several days in visiting the 
 galleries in Rome, I stopped before a bust of the Pope, and said : “All the portraits 
 and busts of the Pope indicate a benevolent, kind-hearted man. I suppose him to 
 be so.” He answered, emphatically, “ I suppose so ! Our difficulties do not come 
 from the White Pope, but from the Black Pope and Antonelli. He dare not do as 
 he wishes. If he should attempt it, they would soon [when he stopped speaking 
 and put his fingers to his mouth to indicate] give him poison in his food.” 
 
 (12) Church, of England. “ The Protestant Church of England as by law 
 established,” agrees with non-episcopal Protestant Churches only in protesting 
 against the supremacy claimed by the Roman Curia. By (35 Eliz., Chapter I.); for 
 political purposes it cut itself off from other Protestant churches, and thus became 
 
CHAPTER XIL 
 
 143 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 a schism. From its origin it has been in schism ; so “ comprehensive ” as to force 
 together, by Acts of Parliament, several schisms, holding irreconcilably antago¬ 
 nistic opinions. Thus: 
 
 (13) Shimeall, in his “ Romanism of Low Churchism ” (p. 492-0), quotes from 
 
 “ Cobbett’s Legacy to Parsons.” Having spoken of the affairs of the Church under 
 Henry and Edward, he proceeds : “ This church-making king died. .. .and was suc¬ 
 ceeded by_Mary, who was_resolved upon restoring the Catholic religion. 
 
 The Common Prayer Book aristocracy... .entered into negotiation with the Queen, 
 agreeing to give up their Common Prayer Book and their Protestant religion... . 
 to bring back the Catholic religion... .to punish persons for not being Catholics as 
 they had punished them before for not being Protestants... .to confess themselves 
 to have been schismatics. .. .to receive absolution from the Pope for having rebelled 
 against his authority... .to abrogate as schismatical that very Common Prayer 
 Book which they had before declared, in a preamble to an Act of Parliament, to 
 have been composed by the 1 Aid of the Holy Ghost ’....* to the honor of God;’ 
 agreeing to all this if the Queen would obtain the consent of the Pope and give her 
 own consent, to suffer them to keep the immense mass of property in land and in 
 tythes which, during the two preceding reigns, they had grasped from the Church 
 and the poor!” [He then, in proof, quotes the Act of Parliament]. “They were 
 now Catholics again.”.iii. Feb. 17, 1875, Cb. 
 
 (14) “ Elizabeth, the immediate successor of Mary, was a Catholic herself... . 
 She was crowned by a Catholic Bishop... .but the Pope would not recognize her 
 legitimacy, and, of course, would not acknowledge her right to reign....She 
 resolved to be Protestant... .that her people should be Protestant too. The very 
 first act of Parliament (1st Elizabeth, Chap. I.) repealed the whole act of which I 
 have just quoted the memorable preamble, except only those parts of it which 
 secured the plunder of the Church and of the poor to those who had got possession 
 of it; and those same men who had so recently received absolution from the Pope 
 for having acknowledged the ecclesiastical supremacy to be in the king, now enacted 
 that that supremacy had always belonged to the king. .. .And they even went so 
 far now as to exact an oath from every Englishman—if the Queen chose to desire 
 it—declaring a firm belief in this supremacy of the Queen ! The oath (in use to 
 this day) begins : ‘I, A. B., do utterly declare and testify in my conscience, that 
 the Queen’s highness is the only supreme governor in this realm, as well in all 
 spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal.’ An oath w T as now to 
 come to reassert that which these very men had supplicated pardon and absolution 
 from the Pope, and prayed for forgiveness to God for having asserted before !” 
 [P. 492-6. Then on p. 404-5.] 
 
 (15) “ But further. This first Act of Parliament (clauses 17,18, 19) gave to the 
 Queen full authority to appoint a commission consisting of certain Bishops and 
 others, whose power extended over the whole kingdom, and over all ranks and 
 degrees of people. They were empowered to have an absolute control over the 
 opinions of all men, and, merely at their own discretion, to inflict any punishment 
 short of death on any person whatever. They might proceed legally or otherwise 
 in obtaining evidence against parties, and upon mere heresay, by imprisonment or 
 torture to extort an accusation against himself, his friend, his brother, his father, 
 upon pain of death.” (Cobbett’s Legacy, pp. 52, 53). 
 
144 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 16th Section. 
 
 (1G) (“ 1st Elizabeth, Chap. II.)... .was an act to restore ‘ the Book of Common 
 Prayer.’ For a refusal to use this Prayer Book the above act imposed the penalty 
 of confiscation, the loss of ecclesiastical preferments and imprisonment; for the first 
 offense, six months ; for the second, during life. For speaking in derogation of the 
 Prayer Book, or for ridiculing the new religion by songs, jests, plays, etc., it en¬ 
 acted the heaviest fines and imprisonment for life, according to the number of of¬ 
 fences. These acts of Parliament were designed more particularly to reach the 
 Romanists" 
 
 (17) “But now another act (35th Elizabeth,Chap. I.) was passed, designed for 
 
 the more especial benefit of Dissenters ... .the notable * Act of Conformity’ to ‘the 
 Protestant Church of England as by law established’.... All persons, of whatever rank 
 or degree, above the age of sixteen years, who refused to go to some church, or chapel, 
 or place of common prayer, or who persuaded any other person not to go, or who 
 should be at any conventicle or meeting, wilder color or pretense of any exercise of 
 any religion other than that ordered by the State, then any such person was to be 
 committed to prison, there to remain until he should be ordered to come to such 
 church or usual place of common prayer, and there to make an open submission and 
 declaration of his conformity in the following words—‘ I, A. B., do humbly confess 
 and acknowledge that I have grievously offended God,’ etc. ...In case of dis¬ 
 obedience, the offender was to * abjure the realm,’ that is to say, he was to banish 
 himself for life, and if he failed to do this... .or if he returned into the kingdom 
 without her leave, such person....‘ was to be adjudged a felon, and was to suffer 
 as in cases of felony without benefit of clergy that is to say, suffer the sentence 
 due to arson or murder; to be hanged by the neck till he icas dead!" (Cobbetl’s 
 Legacy, pp. 47-49)... .These horrid enactments... .were never attempted to be miti¬ 
 gated until James II... .They were very partially mitigated under William and 
 Mary. (Cobbett’s Legacy, pp. 47-50).”.xx. 8. 
 
 (18) Now, it is not surprising that all these differences of opinion on matters of 
 conscience should fly apart under different forms of “ dissent” from the “Establish¬ 
 ment ’’ as soon as the compulsion which kept them together was removed, (iii. 
 March 3, Ex.) 
 
 But due allowance must be made for the general semi-civilized condition of 
 society, when the Protestant Church of England was established. With non- 
 Episcopalians the word “ Protestant ” includes the rejection of the Oriental despot¬ 
 ism of the Church of Rome, and demands the “ liberty wherewith Christ has 
 made us free.” The individual rights held as “inalienable” in a Republic, are due 
 to the Spirit of Christianity. About 1832 the French infidels secretly got up a 
 large edition of the New Testament, as a political document, and called Christ 
 “ Le Grand Democrat.” But Montesquieu, in his “ Spirit of Laws,” says that a 
 republic cannot be maintained except where there is great virtue among the peo¬ 
 ple. That did not exist in those early days. The people had been accustomed to the 
 despotic rule of the Church of Rome. This, in the dark ages, had been of great 
 service to humanity in being a uniform despotism to control the wild despotism 
 of “ robber knights ” and kings. It may be questioned whether anything 
 less despotic than the rule of Elizabeth would have improved matters at 
 that time. It was certainly an improvement upon the despotism of the Church of 
 Rome. The people having emerged from barbarism, were not yet able to bear 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 145 
 
 18th Section. 
 
 mucli more liberty. A writer says, “ Nations not controlled by others enjoy as much 
 liberty as they deserve, and no more.” This, spirit of despotism continued long 
 after the age of Elizabeth. The Prelatists oppressed the Presbyterians when they 
 had the power. The Presbyterians oppressed the Prelatists when they gained the 
 power under Cromwell. Again the Prelatists oppressed the Puritans when they 
 regained power on the Restoration. Then as to America. A historical writer, 
 whose name is forgotten, says, that many have expressed surprise that the Puritans, 
 flying from persecution to enjoy liberty of conscience, should themselves in turn 
 become persecutors. But he says : “ They came here, not for liberty, but for truth, 
 as they understood it ; and they were determined to have nothing but ‘ truth.’ ” 
 
 xiii. 10. 
 
 The same spirit prevailed on the continent of Europe; so that in the present 
 advanced condition of civilization and intelligence resulting from the spirit of Chris¬ 
 tianity, we may use such statements as the above as landmarks, to show how far 
 we have advanced, rather than proof in the present case, that this description of the 
 “ Protestant Church of England as by law established ” in the time of Elizabeth, 
 represents that Church as it now exists, except as far as we can now trace the 
 same principles as prevailed then. (iii. Feb. 17, March 10 ; March 17, 1875; Ch. 
 Eng. ; xi, 1. 
 
 (19) The grand question in England at that time, as at the present time in Eng¬ 
 land and in Germany, was the political independence of the country from the con¬ 
 trol of the Roman Curia, which then, as now, claimed the right to absolve subjects 
 from their allegiance to their sovereign. To secure this independence, the State 
 took control of the Church, and endeavored to make the Church so “comprehen¬ 
 sive ” as to gain as many political adherents as possible. Hence the XXXIX 
 Articles were Protestant, including nothing that would drive off either Lutherans 
 or Calvinists. The services (Janus-like) looked in opposite directions ; on one side 
 Protestant, and on the other Romish. Consequently there have always been two 
 legalized factions or schisms striving for the mastery. Sometimes one faction, 
 sometimes the other has had the ascendancy. 
 
 (20) In the early part of this century the Protestants had the control. Of late 
 years the Romanists or Ritualists, or Anglo-Catholics as they are now called, have 
 been rapidly gaining ground. The Protestants complain that the Ritualists are 
 perverting the doctrines of the Church. But the above historical facts show that 
 they make the same mistake that I did respecting the P. E. C., and the remarks of 
 Chief Justice Coleridge show that in his opinion the Ritualists have a status in 
 the Church of England which cannot be altered without- an Act of Parliament, (xi. 
 1; i. Nov. 18, 1874, St. John’s ; iii. Nov. 25, 1874, Sacerdotal.) 
 
 (21) Such Acts of Parliament for or against Ritualism may be passed on purely 
 political grounds. The present celebrated “ Gladstone Controversy ” has no re¬ 
 gard to doctrine except as it affects the question, whether the Roman Curia or Par¬ 
 liament shall be supreme in England. The same question now as formerly is 
 deeply agitating Germany. 
 
 (22) This control, and the character of Parliament which now controls, are 
 described (iii. Aug. 27 and Nov. 11, 1874, and Feb. 17, 1875, and March 10, 1875, 
 Ch.; March 30, Rit.) 
 
 (23) Hence the Church of England, notwithstanding the immense amount of 
 
146 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 23d Section. 
 
 good that it lias done and is doing for the cause of Christianity and of Protestanism, 
 is nevertheless controlled for political purposes, and all the Evangelical Protestant¬ 
 ism that it contains is derived from the religious character of the people of England 
 at large, “ Dissenters ” as well as people of the Establishment.” Thus, Parlia¬ 
 ment represents the people of England at large. And Parliament practically elects 
 the Prime Minister, and he practically determines who shall be Bishop, by sending 
 to the Dean and Chapter his “ Conge d’elire” or “ permission to elect ” the “ Bishop 
 designate,” with the alternative of a groemunireP if they refuse, by which they will 
 be displaced and punished very severely for contumacy. 
 
 (24) Canonists of this political Church of England, like all other politicians, 
 claim that they are exclusively right. For political purposes this Church separates 
 herself from non-Episcopal Churches, and is therefore a schism. The above extracts 
 and others in Chapter III., show that she is in a chronic state of internal schism, 
 (iii. Dec. 13, 1873). But there are other considerations. From personal observa¬ 
 tion I am convinced that many of the English consider loyalty to the sovereign and 
 loyalty to “ The Church ” to be inseparable, and doubt the political loyalty of those 
 who “ dissent” from the Establishment, and suspect them of being political Revolu¬ 
 tionists. Tiiis is not without reason. The Dissenters overthrew the monarch in 
 the time of Cromwell, and the Puritans came to this country to enjoy “ a Church 
 without a Bishop, and a government without a King.” A High-Church Republican 
 appears to be a logical contradiction, since all their inferences to support the dogma 
 of Apostolic Succession will not weigh against the single direct order, “ Fear God, 
 and honor the King.” If American Higli-Churchmen by argument prove that a 
 government does not necessarily require a King, so can we prove that a Church 
 does not necessarily require a Bishop. That this may not be misunderstood, I ex¬ 
 press the opinion that it is of vast importance for the good of the human race, that 
 the Republican Monarchy of Great Britain and the Monarchical Republic of the 
 United States, and the Churches in these two countries, should always be on friend¬ 
 ly terms. I accept as a high compliment, the remark of the London Times respect¬ 
 ing this country—“ A nation of soldiers without an army ; order without a police ; 
 wealth, luxury, refinement, without an aristocracy.” On the other side, after hav¬ 
 ing in 1837-8 spent several months, traveling under the constant control of the 
 police, and constantly under the eyes of government spies in the form of Valets de 
 Place among the despotic monarchies on the Continent of Europe (much more 
 liberal at present), I felt an expansion on reaching England, from the confidence 
 that under the British flag my personal independence was as secure as under my 
 own flag. Aud as to the people, I had strong prejudices until I met them at home, 
 and in a few months my prejudices changed to admiration, (iii. June 4, 1874, 
 Prayer Book ; June 11, Compromise ; Oct. 12, Mr. S. ; Oct. 20, Rev. Dr.; Feb. 18, 
 1875, Ch. xvi. ii.) 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE U. S. A. 
 
 (25) This is legally a schism cut off from non-Episcopal Protestant Churches, and 
 in schism ; so “comprehensive” as to “tolerate ” all the schisms of the Church of 
 England (xii. 12-24), and like that only theoretically Protestant in refusing sub¬ 
 mission to the Roman Curia. This is proved by the Preface to the Book of Com¬ 
 mon Prayer, “ This Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of Eng- 
 
CHAPTER XU. 
 
 147 
 
 25th Section. 
 
 land in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship, or further than local 
 circumstances may require.”, And the Journals of 1785 and 1786 (vi.) show that 
 upon this basis, the Episcopate of the P. E. C. was obtained from the Church of 
 England, (iii. Dec. 16, 1874, Divided ; Feb. 8, 1875, Jag. ; Feb. 10, De Koven ; 
 Jag. ; Log. ; Feb. 11, De K. ; Feb. 18, Log. ; Feb. 24, Part.) 
 
 (26) Perry’s Hand-book of the General Conventions (p. 118) quotes the opinion 
 expressed by both Houses of the General Convention in 1814: “It would be con¬ 
 trary to fact, were any one to infer that the discipline exercised in this Church, or 
 that any proceedings therein, are at all dependent on the will of the civil or of the 
 ecclesiastical authority of any foreign country.” But these are mere “ obiter dicta” 
 and would have no force in a court of law. The common law of England as it 
 stood at the time of our Revolution, at this time governs the legal decisions in this 
 country. And by analogy, the legal status of parties in the Church of England as 
 they stood at the time the Episcopate was obtained is now the law for the P. E. C. 
 This opinion has been formed since (ii. Dec. 16, 1874. B. A.) At that time I sup¬ 
 posed that the Protestantism prevailing in my youth w r a3 the only normal condi¬ 
 tion of the P. E. C., and that Ritualists were perverting the doctrines of the P. E. C. 
 But the above facts prove that Ritualists have by law the same rights as Protest¬ 
 ants. .xi. 1. 
 
 (27) The claim of independence as expressed in 1814 (xii. 26) was forced upon the 
 P. E. C. at the time of our Revolution, when that Church was denounced by the 
 Americans, for the same reason that the Church of Rome is now denounced by 
 Gladstone. Under this pressure, and as I believe, by a nobler and more Christian 
 impulse, the P. E. C., although theoretically a schism and in schism, the same as 
 the Church of England, was practically neither a schism nor in schism. This is 
 proved by the two following historical statements. 
 
 In “ Brodhead’s History of the State of New York ” (p. 119) he shows the similarity 
 between the “ Reformed Protestant Dutch Church,” and the “ Protestant Episcopal 
 Church,” and says, “ Social circumstances always bound them closely together.; and 
 they now differ in scarcely an important point, save the original disagreement re¬ 
 specting prelatic superiority.” Then this note : “ The Reformed Dutch Church was 
 the Mother Church in this State ; and a spirit of liberal courtesy early prevailed 
 between its ministers and those of the Episcopal Church. The Reverend Mr. Vesey, 
 the first Rector of Trinity Church in the city of New York, was inducted into of¬ 
 fice in Dec., 1697, in the Dutch Church in Garden Street. On that occasion, two 
 Dutch clergymen, the Rev. Mr. Selyns, the pastor of the church, and the Rev. Mr. 
 Nucella, of Kingston, assisted in the services. Mr. Vesey afterwards officiated for 
 some time in the Garden Street Church, alternately with the Dutch clergjmian. until 
 the building of Trinity Church was completed. When the Middle Dutch Church 
 was desecrated by the British during the Revolutionary War, the vestry of Trinity 
 Church passed the following resolution in 1779: ‘It being represented that the 
 old Dutch Church is now used as a hospital for his Majesty’s troops, this corpora¬ 
 tion, impressed with a grateful remembrance of the former kindness of the mem¬ 
 bers of this ancient church, do offer them the use of St. George’s Church to the con¬ 
 gregation for celebrating Divine Worship.’ The courteous offer was frankly ac¬ 
 cepted.”.xvi. 1. 
 
 (28) Again : The Weekly Monitor of June 14, 1700, has the following account in 
 
148 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 28th. Section. 
 
 which the “ Rev. Dr. Lynn ” is the Rev. Wm. Lynn, D.D., a Reformed Dutch 
 Church minister in New York. Viz.: “ Wednesday ^ifternoon were interred in 
 Trinity churchyard, the remains of the Hon. Theodoric Bland, Esq. The Hon. 
 the Congress of the United States and the Society of the Cincinnati, together with 
 a great number of respectable citizens, attended the funeral. The Hon. Richard H. 
 Lee, John Walker, Isaac Coles, Samuel Griffin, Richard B. Lee, James Madison, 
 Josiah Barker, and Thomas T. Tucker, Esquires, supported the pall. After the 
 corpse was carried into the Church, his Reverence the Bishop (Provost) read 
 prayers, after which the Rev. Dr. Lynn delivered a most excellent sermon, pecu¬ 
 liarly adapted to the occasion.” From the names of the pall-bearers, this appears 
 to have been an important occasion, and a Dutch minister joining with the Bishop 
 in the services in Trinity, proves that at that date the P. E. C. was not a schism. 
 And this agrees with our family tradition, (xvi. 1.) Also “ Perry’s Hand-book of 
 the General Conventions,” p. 78-9, shows that in 1792 an effort was made to form 
 a j unction with the Methodist Church. 
 
 (29) Personal Knowledge (xvi. 1). To show my opportunities of knowing 
 many things related in this work, I state the following : I entered Columbia Col¬ 
 lege, New York, in 1820, and graduated in 1824. Bishop Hobart was then Bishop 
 of New York, and a Trustee of Col. Coll., and had two sons in our class (xii. 30-32). 
 I was one of the founders of St. John’s Church in Passaic, and delegate to the Dio¬ 
 cesan Convention of New Jersey, from 1860 to 1871 (xii. 50, 51). In 1863, as an 
 avowed Low-Churchman, I was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Finance; 
 and, believing that dissatisfaction was the cause of our empty treasury, devoted the 
 whole year to writing and receiving letters and sending out printed circulars, in 
 order to get our legislation so improved as to remove dissatisfaction. In this way 
 I became acquainted with the characteristics of many leading men of both parties. 
 
 The “Journal ” of 1864, p. 28, has this report: “ The Committee beg leave to state 
 that it is the first time in many years, that the Bishop’s salary [of $4,000] has been 
 paid up in full, and a surplus over.—Geo. P. Schetky, Walter Rutherfurd, Auditing 
 Committee.” The Bishop’s salary was then raised to $5,000; then to $6,000. In 
 1868, in consequence of the action of the General Convention, I resigned, by letter 
 to Bishop Odenlieimer, and gave my reasons, but remained a silent member of the 
 Convention in 1869 to 1871. The “ Journal ” of 1869, p. 40, reports : “ On motion of 
 Mr. J. C. Garthwaite, Resolved , That the thanks of this Convention are justly due, 
 and are hereby tendered to Mr. Benjamin Aycrigg, for the efficient and satisfactory 
 manner in which he, as Chairman of the Committee on Finance, has for many 
 years discharged the duties of that position, and that we deeply regret his resigna¬ 
 tion of it ” (vii. 4 ; xii. 45, 49, 50, 51). I was actively associated with the Old 
 Evangelical societies, until the vote of their majority in 1869 proved that it was 
 vox et prczterea nihil (xii. 46 to 48), but still acted in the diocese (49 to 51). On Oct. 
 30, 1873, I retired from the P. E. C. (iv. 8; xii. 51). On Nov. 12, 1873, I became 
 acquainted with Bishop Cummins, and since that date have made the affairs of the 
 R. E. C. my exclusive business (ix. 4). 
 
 (30) Personal Recollections in New York. In 1820, Trinity Church loaned 
 to the Lutherans the use of St. Taul’s Church for the ter-centennial of the Lutheran 
 Reformation. This was not exclusiveness. 
 
 (31) In 1824 and previously. Trinity Church loaned to Columbia College the use 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 149 
 
 31st Section. 
 
 of Trinity for Commencement. The chancel was entirely staged over, and we had 
 no thought that we were walking over the “ altar ” of the “ real presence.” 
 
 (32) In 1825 Trinity Church loaned to Columbia College the use of St. John’s 
 Church for Commencement. Alexander, in his History of Princeton College, says 
 that Bishop Hobart went to England in 1823, and returned in 1825. This change 
 from Trinity to St. John’s must, therefore, have occurred about the time of his 
 return. It was commonly reported that he went to England Low-Church, and 
 returned High-Churcli. I heard him frequently in St. John’s Church, and although 
 his voluminous writings may show this change, I have no recollection of anything 
 which at that time contradicted the impressions in my younger days—that the P. 
 E. C. differed from non-episcopal churches in no important particular, except that 
 about 1825-6, much excitement was caused by the statement that the vestry of 
 Trinity proposed to put up statues of the Saints inside the churches, and that 
 threats were made that they would be pulled down by a mob of the parishioners. 
 The statement itself may have been idle gossip, or may have been a feeler, without 
 taking official action. Also, one of the class of 1821, and a French Catholic, once 
 said to me : “ You Episcopalians do not know the real doctrines of your Church. 
 They are nearly the same as ours.” I then supposed that he was very much mis¬ 
 taken. Now I do not. 
 
 (33) Puseyism first attracted my attention, as far as I remember, about 1844. 
 I was then surprised by the remark of Bishop Benjamin Onderdonk, in St. John’s 
 Church, that “ The Absolution in the service does not simply signify that such 
 absolution has been promised to the penitent, but these words possess pecu¬ 
 liar efficacy on being pronounced by a regularly authorized clergyman.” Edie's 
 Ecclesiastical Cyclopedia says that the Oxford Tracts began to appear in 1833; 
 that for two years they attracted little attention. But by 1852, 200 clergymen, and 
 as many laymen, had publicly abjured Protestantism. 
 
 (34) Puseyism rapidly advanced in St. John’s Church, and about 1845 I heard 
 from Dr. Higbee in this church the most violent sectarian sermon that I have ever 
 heard from an educated man against “ Sectarianism.” It appeared from his excited 
 manner that he was determined to “ fight ” for his position. While leaving the 
 church, I remarked to Dr. Hunter, our family physician, at my side, “ I cannot 
 stand this Puseyism and priest-craft. If this continue, I shall go elsewhere.” 
 “ No! ” said he. “ If such as you and I leave, they will soon run into the .Church of 
 Rome.” And about this time, during the excitement respecting the trial of Bishop 
 Onderdonk for immorality, even the moderate and cautious Dr. Berrian, the Rector 
 of Trinity, in referring to the excitement among the laity, said in substance : “ You 
 put your bodies into the hands of the physician, and you do not interfere with him, 
 for you know nothing about it. And you put your purses into the hands of tbe 
 lawyer, and you do not interfere with him, for you know nothing about it,” and 
 then left us to draw our own conclusions, (xvi. 21). 
 
 (35) About 1845, during the suspension of Bishop Onderdonk, I was present as 
 a spectator, in the gallery at the Diocesan Convention in St. John’s Church, when 
 the question of electing a Provisional Bishop was brought up. The High Church¬ 
 men were opposed to it, and, if I remember correctly, wished to have Bishop On¬ 
 derdonk reinstated. Dr. Tvng was addressing the Chair, when several of the 
 Trinity people tried to embarrass him. But putting out his hand in that direction 
 
150 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 35tli Section 
 
 as if driving them away, he continued: “ The diocese is now essentially vacant, 
 and we might immediately proceed to elect another Bishop! ”—when he stopped 
 short, and looking down into the pew immediately before him, drew all dyes upon 
 Dr. Higbee, who had screwed himself around and was grinning up at Dr. Tyng, 
 when Dr. Tyng with a sweep of his hand past Dr. Higbee’s face, concluded his re¬ 
 mark : “ Even the reverend gentleman who is now smiling in my face! ” This 
 
 created wonderful excitement, and was in after years referred to by Dr. Higbee as 
 a “ nomination.” While walking from this Convention, my companion remarked : 
 “ I infer that you think there is a Rome ward tendency in our Church ?” I an¬ 
 swered, “ Not only so, but I believe that there are Romanists now occupying our 
 pulpits, not only in feeling, but in fact, and known to be such by the Romish Bish¬ 
 ops.” He thought my opinion extravagant. But within less than a year, my 
 words were proved to have been literally true, if w’e may believe charges that were 
 publicly made, and never denied, as far as I know. I had private information of 
 facts from which I drew my conclusion.xiii. 19. 
 
 (36, 37) Substitute (xvi. 30.) 
 
 (38, 39) In 1846, the official decision of Rev. Dr. Wainwriglit showed that he 
 practically admitted that the dogma of Apostolic Succession was theoi'etical. (xvi. 
 26, 29, 30). But the Rev. Dr. Sparrow, Dean of the Alexandria Theological Semi¬ 
 nary (and my fellow student in Col. Coll.) calls this dogma the “ Tap Booc of sac- 
 rameutarianism.” It has grown to a large tree since 1846, and now overshadows 
 the P. E. C. (iii. Nov. 3,1874, Changes ; Nov. 11, The Methodist). As to the changes 
 see the remarks of Dr. Tyng, Sr., and Bishop Lee of Delaware, (xx. 7). 
 
 (40) In 1867 we have the combined action of the Old Evangelicals showing 
 that they did not regard the P. E. C. a schism cut off from communion with the 
 Protestant world (xi. 10-12; xv. 1-12). 
 
 (41) In 1868, the trial of the Rev. J. P. Hubbard, of Westerly Rhode Island, for 
 
 exchanging pulpits with Rev. Mr. Denison, of the Baptist Church, ended in failure, 
 because the P. E. C. was not a schism. On this point the Protestant Churchman 
 of July 23, 1868, says: “ That the title of the Canon does not include such a case 
 
 is manifest,... .because he is known by the Canon .. .as ‘ a minister of another 
 denomination,’ then plainly he cannot be a ‘person not a minister and the Canon 
 cannot intend... .to exclude him.... It w T as for a far different purpose... .The 
 penalty until 1832... .w r as a general publication in secular papers of the name of 
 the offender, with his crime... .The man who preached was the criminal. .. .This 
 was the original, and until 1832 the general interpretation. .. .But since that time 
 the attempt has been made furtively and now openly to engraft an entirely differ¬ 
 ent construction... .In the growth of Sacerdotalism. .. .it is now considered safe 
 to attack in such a trial the Reformed doctrine of the ministry... .It goes down to 
 the very depths of Protestanism. This is admitted by one of the advocates of the 
 procedure.’’ (ii. June 25, 1S74, Chr. Union). That is, as asserted by Bishops Onder- 
 donk and Croes (xx. 6), this Canon was intended to keep out imposters, and not 
 clergymen in good standing in other Churches, as when the minister of the Dutch 
 Church joined with the Bishop (xii. 28). 
 
 (42) This trial having failed to prove that the P. E. C. was a schism, the Gen¬ 
 eral Convention a few weeks later determined to make it a schism by the Excluding 
 Canon (xii. 59 ; iii. Jan. 27, 1875, Isolation ; xx. 6). 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 151 
 
 43d Section. 
 
 (43) “ Fight it out within the Church.” The R. E. C., and especially Bishop 
 Cummins, have been charged with schism for having- separated from the P. E. C. 
 and for having abandoned this belligerent attitude (xii. 10.) Bishop Talbot uses 
 very strong language to this effect (ii. July 15, 1874). Other Bishops do the same 
 in gentle terms, viz.: Bishop Howe (ii. June 10, 1874) ; Bishop Robertson (ii. June 
 11, 1874); and Bishop Lee of Iowa (ii. June 13, 1874.) 
 
 (44) Such action may be justifiable, as long as there is a prospect of success, but 
 it becomes factious and scliismatical when success is hopeless. Before quoting the 
 remarks of others on this point, I state the following personal recollections to prove 
 that the cause of the Evangelicals has been constantly sinking. 
 
 (45) In 1808, the P. E. C. went positively into schism by passing the Excluding 
 Canon (xii. 59). For this and similar reasons, I refused to hold an office in the 
 Diocese of New Jersey (xii. 29). For this and similar reasons, a student against my 
 advice withdrew from being a Candidate for Orders. For this and similar reasons, 
 the Rev. Marshall B. Smith, against my wish, withdrew from the ministry of the 
 P. E. C. (vii. 2). And this through a chain of consequences, brought in a High- 
 Church clergymen, which led to the results stated (xii. 51). (iii. May 20, 1874, 
 Can. ; Sept. 10, only one ; Oct. 19, Bd.; Nov. 3, Pastoral 2d ; Feb. 9, 1875; Feb. 18, 
 and 20, Ch.; Feb. 20, Clergy ; Ch. ; Feb. 27, Growth ; Mar. 3, Dio.) 
 
 (46) In 1867, at a meeting of Evangelicals in New York, I objected strongly to 
 the tone of a resolution; that was passed nevertheless ; preliminary to the Phila¬ 
 delphia meetings, on the ground, that it was an implied threat that we would se¬ 
 cede immediately, unless the changes in the Prayer Book should be made as we 
 demanded. Some of the speeches were most violent. 
 
 (47) The Chicago Conference of 1869 decided unanimously what kind of changes 
 the Evangelicals desired in the Prayer Book (xi. 15). I proposed to the Chairman 
 of the Committee on Resolutions, that we should immediately appoint a committee 
 of laymen to bring this question before every parish in the Church, and agitate 
 for the election of delegates to the Diocesan Conventions and to the General Con¬ 
 vention, who would favor such changes. He said that it would be premature, since 
 the whole matter was in the hands of a committee of clergymen who would report 
 the changes desired at the meeting in Philadelphia in the fall. 
 
 (48) In the fall of 1869, I went to Philadelphia to hear this report, but in its 
 place, heard the Committee offer the following resolution : “ That the Committee 
 be dissolved,” and this was carried nem. con. I then offered the resolution, “ That 
 we do here and now determine what changes we desire in the Prayer Book.” This 
 created great confusion, as if a bomb-shell had fallen into the camp. Then there 
 was an amendment, then an amendment to the amendment ; then a substitute on 
 top of the amendment to the amendment, and this was carried by a large ma¬ 
 jority, to refer the whole question to the Bishops !! 
 
 “Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus nuts” 
 
 This is the last meeting of the kind that I attended, although I remained in the 
 P. E. C. until Oct. 80,1873.ix. 9 ; iv. 8 ; ii. Jan. 21, 1874, English. 
 
 (49) Again : The Protestant Episcopal Missionary Society of New Jersey kept 
 aloof from the general diocesan organizations which were under the control of the 
 High Church majority, and collecting contributions from Low Churchmen, used 
 this money to educate Low Church young men for the ministry, and to build up 
 

 152 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 4 
 
 49th. Section. 
 
 or assist Low Church parishes. At the meeting of this P. E. M. S. in Trenton, 
 1871, the day before the Diocesan Convention, a committee of three laymen, includ¬ 
 ing myself, -was appointed to nominate officers and to select candidates for the Gen¬ 
 eral Convention. We reported in favor of retaining the existing officers of the P. 
 E. M. S. and of selecting Rev. S. A. Clark and Hon. Cortlandt Parker as delegates 
 to the General Convention. The last two nominations were confirmed, but the offi¬ 
 cers of the P. E. M. S. refused to serve another year, and proposed that we should 
 disband, upon the ground that results proved that we were only feeders for the 
 High Churchmen. Others thought differently, and they took the offices. We now 
 hear from Rev. G. A. Redles (iii. March 3, 1875, Low), that of sixteen parishes thus 
 assisted by the P. E. M. S. only one remains Low Church. And a statement in 
 some newspaper about a year ago, showed about the same condition respecting the 
 ministers educated as Low Churchmen. 
 
 (49^) The nomination of candidates for delegates to the General Convention 
 was to meet the “ Cumulative system ” of voting introduced by Rev. Dr. Garrison 
 (High Church), in 1870 : “ In all elections by ballot, each voter shall be entitled 
 to as many votes as there are persons to be elected; which votes he may cast, all 
 for one name, or may divide them among any number not exceeding the whole 
 number to be voted for; and any ticket having such excess shall be rejected.” 
 (“Journal” of 1870, pp. 34, 41, 42). The object was to allow the Low Church mi¬ 
 nority to be represented. In 1871 a clergyman denounced this Canon and moved 
 its abolition in a very excited manner. After some discussion, the Rev. J. N. Stans- 
 bury (High Church) moved to lay the resolution on the table. The “ayes!” 
 appeared to be unanimous by the loud sound. Then about half a dozen “ noes ! ” 
 broke the stillness. Then in place of voting by the new Canon, one member pro¬ 
 posed that we vote a single ticket (to meet the requirement of the Constitution, 
 Art. xi., “ by ballot.”) Another read off the names that he proposed to vote for cler¬ 
 ical representatives in the General Convention, with three High Churchmen and 
 our choice, “ Rev. S. A. Clark.” No one else desiring to vote, the vote was declared 
 to be unanimous. Then the same thing was done for the lay delegates, reading 
 off three High Churchmen and our choice, “ Cortlandt Parker 1 ” And the “ Jour¬ 
 nal ” of the Gen. Con. of 1874 contains again the names of “ Rev. S. A. Clark ” and 
 “ Cortlandt Parker,” both Low Churchmen of unusual influence, and practically put v 
 there by the High Church majority to speak and vote against themselves, for the 
 High Churchmen can put them out if they please. Hence the remarks (iii. Oct. 29, 
 
 1874, Dr. Garrison; vii. 4; xiii. 8; xiv. 4). 
 
 (50) The following is one of the cases referred to by Mr. Redles (iii. March 3, 
 
 1875, Low), and is copied from one of the printed circulars : “ Policy of St. John’s 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, Passaic, N. J.—The Rector of the parish (since October 
 1, 1860) having resigned his rectorship of the parish, said resignation to take effect 
 on the first Sunday in June, the Vestry prepared and signed the following preamble 
 and resolution, which were submitted to the congregation at the Annual Parish 
 Meeting for the election of Church officers, on Easter Monday, April 13, 1868, and 
 were, on motion, unanimously endorsed : Whereas, The nucleus of this parish of 
 St. John’s Church,in Passaic, N. J., was collected under the auspices of the Low 
 Church Protestant Episcopal Missionary Society of New Jersey ; and the lay mem¬ 
 bers composing said parish have always been Low Churchmen; and as such, the 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 153 
 
 50th Section. 
 
 parish in its infancy, and at the request of the Vestry, received $600 from said soci¬ 
 ety; and as such, has accumulated a valuable Church property by the contributions 
 and exertions of those who would have done nothing for a High Church parish; so 
 that said parish is bound in good faith to take care that the trust funds placed in 
 its hands be not diverted from the objects intended -by the donors; and Whereas, 
 we, the Vestry of said parish, represent the same viaws, and deny the dogma that 
 ‘ There is no Church without a Bishop,' and hold that the Protestant Episcopal and 
 other denominations in our village and elsewhere—who maintain substantially the 
 same grand principles of Christianity—are only branches of the same Catholic 
 Church, under different forms of organization : Therefore, Resolved, That this 
 paper be included in the Call to any clergyman that we may elect as our Rector, 
 and that his acceptance of the same shall signify that he agrees with the above, 
 and will resign in case he shall change his views on these points.—Benjamin 
 Aycrigg, Senior Warden, Jacob K. Dunham, Junior Warden, James A. Norton, Sec. 
 of Vestry, George H. Evans, Richard A. Terhune, M.D., Walstein S. Brown, John 
 H. Bell, Vestry of St. John’s Church, Passaic.—Approved in Parish Meeting and 
 ordered to be printed, April 13, 1868. Marshall B. Smith, Rector and Pres¬ 
 ident.” 
 
 (51) This shows the position of St. John’s Church, from its inception in 1859 up 
 to 1871. During this time we had bought an acre of ground in the heart of the 
 city, and built a beautiful church, and bought a fine rectory and ground, and had 
 thus accumulated a property worth about $30,000 more than the debts, which were 
 trifling in comparison, and left at interest intentionally. In 1871 I declined a re-elec¬ 
 tion, and went to Europe. On my return in 1872, I found that the new Vestry had 
 ignored the action of 1868 (xii. 50), and had elected an avowed High-Churchman. 
 The result is stated (iv. 8; iii. March 25,1874, Parties; March 29,1875, Low; xi. 1). 
 
 (52) St. Alban’s Ritualistic Church..iii. July 9, 1874. 
 
 (53) (iii. Oct. 12, 1874). The General Convention of the P. E. C. showed a 
 proper spirit of independence in refusing to become the tail of a Pan-Anglican 
 Church. But the following extracts (54, 55) show that, in the opinion of the Bishop 
 of Albany, the P. E. C. is now under the same political control as the Church of 
 England, although the contrary opinion was expressed by both Houses in 1814. 
 
 xii. 26. 
 
 (54, 55) (iii. Oct. 26,1874, Rev.; Feb. 27,1875, Rit. and Bishop). Dr. De Ivoven 
 says: “ I want to give anybody in this house the opportunity of presenting me for 
 false doctrine if he wishes; and in order to do so, I choose some language that is 
 balder and barer than I myself would use, excepting in a company of theologians.” 
 And he thus dares the whole General Convention of the P. E. C., because he uses 
 “ adjudicated words of an English judge to express what opinions were allowable 
 
 in the Church,’’ as the Bishop says.xi. 1. 
 
 • 
 
 TRIUMPH OF THE RITUALISTS. 
 
 (56) The Methodist Recorder (ii. Dec. 17, 1873) says ; “ In a few years, if we are 
 to judge by facts and figures, the High-Churchmen will have the control of prop¬ 
 erty, literature, theology, people, and all.”..iii. March 25 and April 8, 1874, Parties, 
 
 Rev. Dr. Adams (iii. Oct, 29, 1874) in Gen. Con. said of the R. E. C.: “ They 
 felt alarmed; they believed that there was so strong a current in the Church—of 
 
154 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 56th. Section. 
 
 advancement—tliat they were not safe in remaining here, and they had to leave the 
 ship before she sunk.” And again (iii. Dec. 31, 1874), with respect to the proposed 
 canon to allow the omission of the “ Regeneration ” clause, he said, “ I hope no vote 
 of this House will try to... .restore them to life, which life will uphold Bishop 
 Cheney.” 
 
 Hev. Dr. Huntingdon (iii, Oct. 29, 1874) in Gen. Con. said : “ To my mind, 
 the crisis comes from a far profounder movement than that” [i. e., the R. E. C.] 
 He then attributes it to “ that illustrious man, John Henry Newman.” 
 
 Church Journal (iii. Juno 11. 1874) says : “ The question is not one of cassocks, 
 chasubles, cottas, or processionals, but of doctrine, and that doctrine goes to the 
 
 verv root of things.” 
 
 * ° 
 
 Church and State (iii. Sept. 24,1874) says : “ The General Convention is given 
 to understand that Ritualism is unterrified and unabated.” 
 
 Goddard, of St. Andrews, (iii. Nov. 11,1874) says : “ The R. E. C. does exist 
 and grow, and Ritualism and Eucharistic Adoration are not wounded to death 
 among us.” , \ 
 
 Church Journal (iii. Feb. 25, 1874) says: “ The old-fashioned Evangelicals, 
 swamped into a hopeless and helpless minority, stand looking on, asking what we 
 propose to do about it.”...xii. 59. 
 
 Hev. Jas. A. Latane (iii. Jan. 12, 1874) says: “ In the Church the battle has 
 been fought, and in the Church the battle has been lost.” 
 
 The Late General Convention came on after nearly all the above had been 
 written. The R. E. C. had beeifi organized, and produced a deep impression (xiii. 
 10). All knew that the P. E. C. had reached a crisis, and, acting with this knowl¬ 
 edge, the General Convention, by a strong vote, determined the future standing of 
 the P. E. C.xii. 59. 
 
 (57) The alternative presented to the Evangelicals in the P. E. C. was to sub¬ 
 
 mit or leave (iii. Nov. 11, 1874, Cli. Jo. and St. X.) We had the opinion of the 
 Chief Justice of Great Britain that the Prayer Book gives the Ritualists a status in 
 the Ch. Eng. (xii. 24). The Prayer Book of the P. E. C. gives to them the same 
 status in the P. E. C. (xii. 25). They are undoubtedly honest, and they are earnest 
 and united. They have the control, and have been constantly growing stronger. To 
 resist when resistance is useless—is faction in the State and schism in the Church. 
 The Reformers quietly retired rather than submit to what they believed to be 
 wrong (xiv.) All the confusion arising from this separation has been on the part of 
 the P. E. C., which has pursued the Reformers as Pharaoh pursued the Israelites, 
 and for the same reason.xiii. 10. 
 
 COMPREHENSIVE CHURCH. 
 
 (58) To disprove charges made against the R. E. C. (xiii. 10), we have Apostolic 
 example to prove the duty of separating from schism (xii. 7.), and the authority of 
 Church and State (iii. Sept. 10,1874) for saying that the P. E. C. comprehends “ Low, 
 High, High and Dry, High, fancy, mixed, and compound.” This, although not 
 intended to be taken literally, does not exaggerate the schismatic condition of the 
 P. E. C., with the different parties “ checking, abusing, opposing each other, giving 
 occasion for the infidel to scoff, and leading the unreflecting to believe that religion 
 is nothing but priestcraft.” (iii. Jan. 7, 1875, Parties), Thus, in Chapter XI., we 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 155 
 
 58tli Section. 
 
 have the proof that the Principles of the R. E. C. are identical with those of the 
 Low Churcli party in the P. E. C. And these Low Church views are given in 
 Chapter III., under the caption “Low,” and in (iv. v. vii. ix. xi. xiv. xv.) These are 
 very simple and uniform, and represent the views of the “ Old Evangelicals ” in the 
 P. E. C., and doubtless there are many yet remaining in the P. E. C. who differ from 
 the R. E. C. only as to the propriety of separating. These form one party in that 
 Church, called “ Low ” by Church and State as above. And we have all the varieties 
 in the following extracts in Chapter III. (iii. Dec. 4, 1873, Excl.; Jan. 1, 1864, Rit. ; 
 March 4, Rit.; High and Low; March 18, Rit.; March 25, Low; May 7; June 
 10, High and Low; June 12, Rit; July 8, Rit.; July 9, Bp. and St. Alban’s; Aug. 
 27; Sept. 26; Oct. 1, Rit.; Oct. 8, Greek; Oct 12, Toler; Oct. 19, Rit. and 
 Rit.; Oct. 22, Court; Oct. 23, Rit.; do; Oct. 24 to 29, Rit.; Oct. 26, Dr. De and Rit. ; 
 Oct. 27, Bp. and Rit. in 5 extracts, and Canon; Oct- 29, Report and Dr. Andrews 
 and Inf. and Dr. Hunting, and “Let ”; Oct. 31, Can., Dr. Beck, Dr. Adams, Canon 
 Ref. and on Bap.; Nov. 3, Pastoral 3d ; Nov. 11, Pastoral; Drift; Bapt.; Rejoice; Ch* 
 Jo.; Nov. 14, Low; Nov. 18, Rit.; Dec. 9, Bap.; Dec. 16, Div.; Dec. 25, Mid.; Dec. 
 30, High ; Dec. 30, Low; Parties; Dec. 31, Tor.; Jan. 7, 1875, Parties; Jan. 8, 
 Toronto ; Jan. 14, Toronto ; Jan. 16, Toronto ; Jan. 27, Lay ; Feb. 4, Illinois ; Feb. 
 5, DeKoven Bishop; Feb. 6, Gen.; Coleman; Feb. 8, Jag.; Feb. 10, De K., Rit. 
 Log., Can.; Feb. 11, De K. ; Feb. 13, De K.'; Feb. 15, De K.; Feb. 18, Log; Church; 
 Bishop ; do; Feb. 24, Parties ; Feb. 25, Low ; Feb. 27, Rit.; March 3, Exclu.; March 
 17, Ireland; do. Ch. Eng.; xx. 1). 
 
 GENERAL CONVENTION OF P. E. C., OCT. 8 to NOV. 3, 1874. 
 
 (59) Church and State (iii. Nov. 11, 1874) says : “ Some of the adherents of the 
 R. E. C. are evidently disappointed with the results of the late General Conven¬ 
 tion.” But in what respect is not stated. We shall now see. 
 
 Church Journal (iii. Nov. 11, 1874) sa} r s: “May the hand be withered and the 
 tongue dumb that moves again for debate or strife, that writes or speaks to organ¬ 
 ize a party or to promote views.” (iii. Jan. 7, 1875, Ch. Jo.) 
 
 Standard of the Cross (iii. Nov. 11,1874) rejoices in the result of the late 
 Convention. Now we have these facts to show the “drift of the Church”— 
 Homeward. 
 
 The Excluding Canon of 1888, still draws the line of schism in these words: 
 “ No minister in charge of any congregation of this Church, or, in case of vacancy or 
 absence no church wardens, vestrymen, or trustees of the congregation shall permit 
 any person to officiate therein, without sufficient evidence of his being duly licensed 
 or ordained to be a minister of this Church ; provided... .communicants... .to act as 
 
 lay readers_” Canon II. Title i. Digest of the P. E. C. (xii. 41, 42 ; iii. Dec. 4, 
 
 1873, Exclusive). 
 
 Baptismal Regeneration (iii. Oct. 24 to 31,1874). The Committee in General 
 Convention proposed to leave the “ regeneration ” clause optional. The debates 
 show that this was requested by the Diocese of Virginia, and a large number of 
 individuals. Dr. C. W. Andrews (iii: Oct. 29) told them that this was the main 
 question that drove evangelical ministers out of the P. E. C. No one holds that this 
 clause is necessary to the validity of the Sacrament. But the Ritualists hold that 
 it expresses a doctrinal truth, that the child is saved ex opere operate. This pro- 
 
156 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 59th Section. 
 
 posed liberty to allow evangelical clergymen to omit the words which they believe 
 to convey a falsehood, without any change for those who prefer the present form, 
 received only 5 clerical and 6 lay votes in its favor to 34 clerical and 24 lay votes 
 against it, making the total 11 to 58, or nearly to 1, in favor of forcing evangeli¬ 
 cal ministers to say what they do not believe, or else, as said Rev. Dr. Beck (iii. 
 Oct. 31, 1874), “ If you find that you are wrong in using this book, withdraw from 
 the Church whose manual it is.” (iii. Dec. 9, 1874, Bapt). 
 
 Canon on Ritual (iii. Oct. 23 to 31, 1874). This proves that the Ritualists 
 controlled the General Convention in some way that can only be surmised, since 
 the House of Bishops act in secret. In (iii. Nov. 14, 1874, Ritualist) some of the 
 thirty-two points enumerated are beyond my knowledge. But the official report 
 shows these simple facts. The House of Deputies wished to prohibit “ Incense ” 
 and Crucifix ” in express terms. The House of Bishops refused. The Deputies 
 insisted, and appointed a Committee of Conference. The Deputies yielded to the 
 Bishops, and the words “ Incense ” and “ Crucifix * were stricken from the Canon, 
 and in this form the Canon was passed by ayes, 28 Clerical, and 28 Lay votes, to 
 noes, 2 Clerical, and 1 Lay vote; or total, 5G to 3. So, that by an almost unani¬ 
 mous vote of the General Convention, the Ritualists are now officially informed 
 that they may use Incense and the figure of Christ suspended on the Cross, without 
 the danger of being charged with wrong. 
 
 Eucharistic Adoration (iii. Dec. 12, 1874). Rev. Dr. Craik, the President of 
 the House of Deputies in the General Convention of 1874 (and previously), in a late 
 sermon said : “ A far more solemn and emphatic condemnation of this virtual 
 revival of an exploded pagan theory, was given by the refusal of the House of 
 Deputies to confirm Dr. Seymour as Bishop of Illinois.” 
 
 But (iii. Oct. 22, 1874) the table of votes shows that he had 89 to 71 clerical 
 votes, or a majority of 18 individual clergymen; and 19 to 10 Diocesian clerical 
 votes, or a majority of 9 Dioceses by clergymen; and 145 to 139 members of the 
 Convention, or a majority of 6 members, if on joint ballot, by individuals; and 32 
 to 23 Dioceses, or a majority of 9 Dioceses, if on joint ballot by Dioceses. And he 
 was only defeated by a technical majority of 12 individual laymen out of 124 
 laymen, and a technical majority of 5 out of 31 Dioceses voting by laymen, because 
 by Canon he must have a majority of both Orders voting separately. Hence, although 
 this “ pagan theory ” was not technically endorsed by the General Convention, still 
 it was endorsed by the actual majority of 6 votes of all the members, and by 89 to 
 71 of the Clergymen. 
 
 And (iii. Feb. 10, 1875) Rev. Dr. Seymour says : “ Holding the highest and most 
 responsible office which a presbyter can occupy, as representing the whole Church 
 in presiding over the General Theological Seminary.” And this is explained by 
 (iii. Oct. 20, Dr. Seymour; Oct. 31, Trustees) showing that the Dioceses nominate, and 
 the General Convention elects, the Trustees, and that the Trustees have appointed 
 (as they still retain) Dr. Seymour in his position to teach this “ exploded pagan 
 theory.” And the vote in Convention shows that he fairly represents the wishes 
 of the majority of the Convention, 
 
 iii. Dec. 25,1874, Midnight; Feb. 4, 1875, Gen. Sem. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hopkins (iii. Feb. 18, 1875) says that Professor Seymour “ is still 
 left free to instill his principles into the heads of candidates for Holy Orders, 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 157 
 
 59th Section. 
 
 though (apparently) pronounced unfit to lay his hands upon the outside of the 
 same.”.ii. Dec. 2, 1878, Organization. 
 
 (60) R. E. C. and other Protestant Churches. The R. E. C. having separ¬ 
 ated from the P. E. C., is no longer combined with the Old Evangelicals in forming 
 a schism in that Church; nor, combined with the other schisms in that Church, is 
 it forced by the ruling majority to be a part of the general schism of the P. E. C. 
 towards other churches which carry the name Protestant (xii. 58). Its principles 
 being simple, uniform, and held by all alike, there is no internal schism. These 
 principles are frequently explained, and the difference drawn between the R. E. C. 
 and the P. E. C. Thus we hope to repel discordant accessions, and thus keep out 
 internal schism such as now troubles the P. E. C. (xiv. 9). Other Protestant 
 Churches are neither schisms nor in schism, as a general rule. There are excep¬ 
 tions. But not in the case of either in (xv.) and some others. Many Baptists are 
 abandoning their schismatic “ close communion ” resemblance to the P. E. C. I 
 know of no reason why there should not be a Federative union between the R. E. 
 C. and the P. E. C. (xiv.; xv. 16) except the spirit of the P. E. C. towards the R. E. 
 C. (xiii). This spirit is analogous to that exhibited by the mother-country when 
 the American Colonies declared their independence, and like that, will die out with 
 those who are cotemporaries with the separation. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 
 SPIRIT OF THE P. E. C. TOWARD THE R. E. C. 
 
 Contents: —(1 to 4). Preliminaries .—(5). Some admit the principal of 
 separation. —(6). Bishops Lee , and Johns , and Vail , and Clarkson object 
 like Christians .— (7 to 9). Some appear to want charity, and to use the 
 sword of Joab; others to mean less than the words express; others to be 
 frightened. —(10). Collection of epithets .—(11). Answers .—(12). “Formally 
 deposed.”—( 13). But Dr. Cheney was not deposed. —(14 to 17). Bishop Lewis , 
 of Canada, with (15) Record of Bishop Cummins .—(18 to 22). Bishop Lee, 
 of Delaware ; his first complaint is a compliment. Bishop Cummins did not 
 think of resigning until after Oct. 12. Several Bishops admit the time 
 may come. lie and others thought the time had come. —(23). Dr. Fulton 
 thinks that he is the first to use hard icords .—(24). Bishop Stevens alone 
 raises a question of veracity .—(25). Dr. Sullivan is f rightened out of pro¬ 
 priety .— (26). The Standard of the Cross cries for 11 quarter.” —(10f). P. E. C. 
 is a small denomination. 
 
 SEE THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS FOR TROOF. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) (xii. 12, 25, 58): That the Church of England and the P. E. C. form a Pan- 
 Anglican schism, which cuts itself off from the Protestant world while it is cut 
 off by the schismatic Churches of Greece and Rome. 
 
 (2) (xii. 56, 58, 59): That each of these two parts of the Pan-Anglican schism is 
 
 a “ comprehensive Church ” containing different “ parties” or “ schools,” with an¬ 
 tagonistic opinions on points deemed vital by all parties ; and that each is in a 
 chronic state of schism with the different parties forming hostile factions, “fighting 
 it out within the Church,” while the ruling majority is carrying the whole in the 
 direction of Medisevalism.xvi. 20. 
 
 (3) (xi. 24, 25, 26): That the clergy of the R. E. C. were, for the most part, for¬ 
 merly “ Old Evangelicals who carried the Evangelical banner so nobty ” in the P. 
 E. C., who have ceased to be a party in schism in the P. E. C., and have separated 
 from those with whom they could not agree, as did Paul and Barnabas (Acts 
 15 : 39), and in so doing have proved their heroism in breasting the torrent of abuse 
 (xiii. 10), which has been of great service to the R. E. C. in keeping off the drift - 
 wood that appears to be collecting in the opposite direction. 
 
 iii. May 20, 1874. Candidates degenerating. 
 
 (4) (xiv. 3, 8, 9): That the R. E. C. lias not made a single attack upon the 
 P. E. C., and in three cases only has corrected erroneous statements made by the 
 P. E. 0. to injure the R. E. C. ; but lias endeavored to make all understand the 
 
 (158) 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 159 
 
 4th Section. 
 
 difference between the R. E. C. and the P. E. C., thus repelling those who agree 
 with the ruling majority in the P. E. C. And the remarks by the P. E. C., are 
 collected in this chapter, as valuable testimony on the part of the P. E. C., to verify 
 the statements made by the R. E. C. And the plain statement of facts and 
 conclusions in this book are not abuse, but matters of argument.xiii. 28. 
 
 (5) (ii.): That several Bishops appear to admit that the time may come 
 when a separation from the P. E. C. will become a duty on the part of the Old 
 Evangelicals; but they think that the time is not yet. The difference between 
 them and the R. E. C. is not of principle, but of quantity, (ii. Dec. 11, 1873, Bp. 
 H. W. Lee ; June 25, 1874, Bp. Lee, of Delaware ; July 2, Bp. Alford; June 11, Bp. 
 Robertson ; Aug. 5, Bp. Vail.) 
 
 (G) (ii.) Several Bishops have objected to a new organization in a thoroughly 
 Christian spirit. Had these been true representatives of the ruling characteristic 
 of the P. E. C., there would have been no R. E. C. (ii. Feb. 10, 1875, Bp. Vail ; 
 Feb. 2G, Bp. Lee of Delaware ; March 4, Bp. Johns ; Sept. 10, Bp. Clarkson.) 
 
 (7) (ii.) But with respect to some (xiii. 10) the reader is referred to the injunc¬ 
 tion on the score of Charity (iii. Nov. 3, Pastoral Letter), and charity as described 
 by St. Paul (1st. Cor. xiii.), and the sword of Joab (2d. Sam. xx. 9, 10) ; and (3d 
 John 9, 10) and (xvi. 27.) 
 
 (8) (ii. June 3, Bp. Odenheimer). At the same time, the violence of expression 
 against the R. E. C. may, in some cases, produce an impression that was not seri¬ 
 ously intended. Thus : the expressions quoted, may be classed with others made 
 by Bishop Odenheimer in Convention of New Jersey in 1862 [?], when an exciting 
 session lasted until near midnight, and the Hon. Cortlandt Parker (xii. 49, 49-§) 
 thus addressed the Bishop : “ I have this day heard remarks from that Chair that 
 are only suited to a throne, and that throne the Papacy," dropping his voice to a 
 play-house whisper on the last word. I took occasion to call at the office of the 
 speaker and thank him for what he had said. But at the same time, I admire 
 Bishop Odenheimer, and from many years’ acquaintance, know that his practice is 
 better than his theory. Hence I do not understand the remarks here quoted, as I 
 would understand the same remarks from a stranger. From the general character¬ 
 istics of some of the others, I suppose that the same remarks may apply to them. 
 
 vii. 4 ; xiv. 4. 
 
 (9) (ii. Dec. 31, 1873, So. Ch.) The general feeling is probably accounted for in 
 this extract. 
 
 (10) Varieties of expression for the same thoughts that will apply with equal 
 force to Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Ch. Eng. 
 
 II. Dec. 1, 1873. (Card). “ Sorrow, but no sympathy. ” (x. 15.) 
 
 II. Dec. 4. (Cli. Jo.) “ Fallen Bishop ; wretched sin ; ridiculous ; unbalanced ; 
 apostate Bishop.” (xiii. 11). 
 
 II. Dec. 8. (Clin.) “Formally deposed.” (xiii. 12, 13.) 
 
 II. Dec. 11. (Clin.) “Fallen Bishop.” 
 
 II. Dec. 13. (Ch. St.) “Utterly dishonorable.” (ii. Dec 16, 1874. B. A.) 
 
 II. Dec. 17. (Ch. Jo.) “ Better than some others.” 
 
 II. Dec. 17. (So. Ch.) “ Foolish.” 
 
 II. Dec. 31. (Bp. Pearce). “Feeble schism ; most miserable case; misguided.” 
 
 xx. 1. Jan. 14, 1874. (Bishop Doane). “ Heated haste ; in debt, distress, dis- 
 
160 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 9th. Section. 1874. 
 
 contented ; violent schism ; degenerate ; Pharisaism ; venom ; reaked ; gall; false 
 witness ; noxious flower ; contradicts itself.” (xx. 1). 
 
 II. Feb. 23. (Bp. Lewis). “ Not consistent; spurious; if men of learning; 
 petty American sect,” and (iii. Dec. 31, 1874), “ Cli. Eng. is not Protestant.” (xiii. 
 14 to 17.) (xx. 8.) 
 
 II. Feb. 26. (Bp. Lee, of Delaware), (xiii. 6, 18 to 22). 
 
 II. March 14 (Bp. Wliittingham). “ Perjured Bishop.” 
 
 III. April 8. (Bp. Potter). “ Mosquito.” 
 
 II. April 22. (Dr. Fulton). “ Perjury; treachery; ungentlemanlike infidelity; 
 betrayed,” (xiii. 23.) 
 
 II. May 7. (Bp. Quintard). “Evil course of her wayward son.” 
 
 II. May 21. (Ch. St.) answered (xiii. 11.) 
 
 II. June 3. (Bp.Odenheimer). “Schism; ungodly; unchurclily; ungenerous; 
 misguided.” (xiii. 8.) 
 
 II. June 3. (Ch. Jo.) “ Queerest Bishop.” 
 
 II. JuneS. (Clin.) “Drunken slave.” 
 
 II. JuneS. (Rev. Dr. Stewart). “Maggots; god of flies.” 
 
 II. June 3. (Bp. Smith), refers to “ Anti-Christ.” 
 
 II. June 10. (Bp. Stevens). “Unfaithfulness; disaffected sect; falsehoods; 
 misrepresentations; perversions.’’ (xiii. 11,24.) 
 
 June 10. (Bp. Huntington). “Without reason; justification; logical weight; 
 clearness, or pathos. Weak, distracting; barren; futile; schism; bitter; cruel; 
 indignity.” (xx. 5.) 
 
 II. June 25. (Bp. Clark). “Quasi-Episcopacy; disaffected.” 
 
 II. June 25. (Bp. Williams). “ Worse than death.” 
 
 II. June 25. (Bp. Lee of Del.) “ Legitimate fruit.” 
 
 II. July 2. (Bp. Kerfoot)'. “ Schism ; sloughing off; betrayed his trust.’’ 
 
 II. July 9. (Bp. Gregg). “A miserable following.” 
 
 II. July 15. (Bp. Talbot). “ Unhappy and misguided ; schismatical ; treachery 
 to vows ; betrayed; wounded the Church.” 
 
 II. Aug. 19 (Ch. St.) “ Unwise and miserably abortive.” 
 
 II. Oct. 22. (Dr. Harwood). “ Hangs fire.” 
 
 III. Oct. 29. (Dr. Adams). “ Leave the sinking ship.” 
 
 III. Oct. 29. (Dr. Sullivan). “ In debt, distress, discontented ; skulked ; cow¬ 
 ard; smote the hindmost.” (xiii. 25.) 
 
 III. Oct. 31. (Dr. Fulton). “Blister.” 
 
 II. Nov. 18. (Ch. St.) Answered, (xiii. 11.) 
 
 II. Jan. 7, 1875. (Pacific Churchman). “Ambition; ignorance; perjured; 
 apostate; Cheeney.” (Post-prandial.) 
 
 III. Feb. 10. (Canada). “ The difficulty.” 
 
 III. Feb. 18. (“ V.” in So. Ch.) “ Loving spirit” of the P. E. C. ! 
 
 II. Feb. 25. (Rev. A. D. Miller). “Made an ass of yourselT.” (xiii. 27.) 
 
 II. Feb. 25. (Postal Card). “ Ex-Rev.’’ (xiii. 27.) 
 
 II. March 4. (St. X.) “ Stop agitating.” (xiii. 26.) 
 
 II. April 7. (Bp. Howe). “Abuse; schism; not argue.” (xiii. 28.) 
 
 III. Feb. 25. (Pope Pius IX.) Expresses the same thoughts in these words, 
 viz.: “ Wolves, perfidious, Pharisees, Philistines, thieves, revolutionists, Jacobins, 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 161 
 
 9th Section. 
 
 sectarians* liars, hypocrites, dropsical, impious, children of Satan, of perdition, of 
 sin and corruption, enemies of God, satellites of Satan in human flesh, monsters of 
 hell, demons incarnate, stinking corpses, men issued from the pits of hell,” “ traitors 
 led by the spirit of hell, teachers of iniquity,” “ diabolical halls,’’ “ hell is un¬ 
 chained against him, even its deepest pits.” Gladstone says : “Nearly, if not 
 quite, every one of these words is from the Pope’s own lips, and the catalogue is not 
 exhaustive.” (iii. Feb. 25, 1875, Obs.).(xx. 10.) 
 
 (104) Now ; When the Pope thus speaks, he is the mouthpiece of the millions 
 of Roman Catholics throughout the world. They all agree that he is “ infallible .” 
 But in the P. E. C. each speaker represents only his own part of this denomination 
 (xii. 58). The entire P. E. C., according to the census of 1870, stood eighth in the 
 list of Protestant Churches, being exceeded in members by : 1st, Baptists, 1,410,- 
 493; 2d, Methodist Episcopal, North, 1,367,134; 3d, Other Methodists, except South, 
 773,022; 4th, Methodist Episcopal, South, 571,241; 5th, Presbyterian, North, 455,- 
 378 ; 6th, Lutherans, 449,510; 7th, Congregational, 306,518; 8th, Protestant Epis¬ 
 copal, 224,995; while the annual increase of the Methodist Episcopal, North and 
 South together, was 94,368, or more than one-third of the whole P. E. C. Then 
 to the above, add the membership of 9th, German Reformed, 217,910 ; 10th, Uni¬ 
 ted Brethren, 120,445 ; 11th, Cumberland Presbyterian, 96,335; 12th, Presbyterian, 
 South, 87,529 ; 13th, United Presbyterians, 71,804 ; 14th, Reformed Dutch, 63,483 ; 
 15th, Moravians, 7,097 ; making the total membership of the Protestant Churches in 
 the country 6,222,894; so that all the parties of the P. E. C. put together, count only 
 one in twenty-eight of the Protestants, without including the Roman Catholics, 
 whose representative, the Pope, speaks of them and other Protestants as above 
 quoted (xiii. 10—iii. Feb. 28,1875). Hence the modest assurance of “ The Church ” 
 and of “ Churchmen’’ is more remarkable than that of the one juryman who knew 
 that he was right, and complained of the obstinacy of the other eleven, who would 
 not yield to him. If it be objected that number is not a proper standard, then is 
 the Pan Anglican Church a political failure, for the object in making it so “ com¬ 
 prehensive’’on the score of doctrine (xii. 58), was to collect as many persons as 
 possible, (xii. 12 to 26; 29 references; xx. i ; iii. Feb. 9 and 20, 1875.) 
 
 (11) For Answers to the above (ii. Dec. 4, 1873, Ch. Jo.) by an unknown 
 author, see (ii. Dec. 31, 1873, So. Ch.) Then the three following by three Reformers 
 (ii. June 3, 1874, Epis.) in answer to (ii. May 21,1874, Ch. St.), and (ii. June 10, 
 1874, Open Letter) in answer to (ii June 10, 1874, Bp. Stevens), and (ii. Dec. 16, 
 1874, B. A.) in answer to (ii. Nov. 18, 1874, Ch. St.) Then, leaving the reader to 
 draw his own conclusions as to the others (xiii. 10), examine the following : 
 
 (12) (II. Dec. 6 , 1873). Why does the Churchman use the expression “ for¬ 
 mally deposed,” with respect to these clergymen who had all resigned when in good 
 standing? Was it to create the impression without telling a falsehood, that they 
 had been driven out of the P. E. C. for heresy, crime, or immorality ? And why do 
 the “ Church Almanacs ” say “ deposed ” for resigned ? All Churches depose for 
 heresy, crime, or immorality. The P. E. C. is peculiar in attempting to disgrace 
 her clergymen who go elsewhere, and when you say that a minister of that Church 
 has been “ deposed,” it may be for the “ offence ” of resigning, or for heresy, crime, 
 or immorality, unless explained in the courteous manner of Bishop Odenheimer in 
 the “ Journal” of the New Jersey Convention: “1869, April 19—Deposed on his 
 
162 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 12th Section, 
 
 letter of resignation, and not for crime or immorality, Rev. Marshall B. Smith.*' 
 If the Churchman offer the excuse that this was written for Episcopalians who 
 know that deposition follows resignation, then why not give that reason, as did 
 Bishop Odenheimer? Or why use the word at all when it may he so easily 
 misunderstood? And why the intensitive, “formally deposed ,” since if not 
 “ formally deposed ” he is not deposed at all ? (iii. Oct. 31, 1874, Drs. Beck and 
 Adams). 
 
 (13) But the Rev. Charles E. Cheney, D.D., was not “formally deposed,” as 
 stated by the Churchman. He had signed the Chicago Protest (xi. 14), and he had 
 omitted the single word “ Regenerate ” in Infant Baptism. Many others do the 
 same (iii. July 15; Aug. 13, 1874; Feb. 10, 1875). But by “Geographical Cliurch- 
 manship ” (iii. Sept. 10) for this (or under this pretence) he was condemned, and de¬ 
 clared by Bishop Whitehouse “ Degraded from the ministry of the Church of God.” 
 Had his trial been Canonical, this sentence was not, for Canon 5, Title II. of the 
 Digest says, “ Deposed from the ministry of this Church.” He would not thus 
 have been “ formally deposed.” But, says Church and State (iii. Sept. 10), in “ the 
 chaotic condition of our Courts ”.... ‘ uncanonical sentences ’ are “ irreversible ” (ex¬ 
 cept perhaps by the civil courts.) (iii. Feb. 3, 1875, Prot.) Thus we find (iii. Aug. 
 19) the Civil Court of Illinois decided that his trial by four assessors when five were 
 appointed, vitiated the whole proceeding, and he not having been “ formally de¬ 
 posed ’’ according to Canon, was not deposed at all; and, being still a Presbyter of 
 the P. E. C., he could not be ejected from the property belonging to the P. E. C. 
 And such was his position when he was elected Bishop in the R. E. C. at the 
 Council of Dec. 2, referred to by the Churchman as above, and such his position 
 when he was consecrated Bishop, Dec. 14, by Bishop Cummins, who was in like 
 position—chained to the P. E. C. against his will, and not allowed to resign by the 
 singular laws of that Church. And such is still the position of Bishop Cheney, who, 
 by the terms of the Canon' of the P. E. C., is still a Presbyter in the P. E. C., 
 although he is a Bishop in the R. E. C. (xi. 43). And why are the Canonists 
 troubled about this matter, if not as supposed ? (ii. Dec. 31, 1873, So. Ch.) 
 
 (13|) (II. Dec. 13, 1873). “ Indelicacy.... on the eve of the final act. ” This is 
 answered..xiii. 20. 
 
 (14) II. Feb. 23, 1874. Bishop Lewis, of Ontario, thinks that Bishop Cum¬ 
 
 mins has been inconsistent. This might be so if he entertained the same views as 
 Bishop Lewis on the subject of Apostolic Succession. But consistency is not laid 
 down as a Christian virtue, and whether consistent or not, I believe that it was the 
 finger of Providence which directed Bishop Cummins and the other founders of the 
 R. E. C. through their previous course, to prepare them for that especial work. 
 Certainly they would not have been prepared for that work without their previous 
 experience .iv. 4 to 8. 
 
 (15) As to this consistency. Bishop Coxe, in his record of Bishop Cummins (in 
 the Churchman's Calendar) states that he was “ born Dec. 11,1822 ; educated at 
 Dickinson College, Pa., graduating in 1841; ordained deacon by Bishop Lee, of 
 Delaware, in Oct., 1845, and priest by the same prelate in July, 1847... .assistant 
 Bishop of Kentucky Nov. 15, 18GG.” Thus at about the usual age of 23 he became 
 deacon in the P. E. C., and this was the Church of his paternal and maternal 
 ancestors. Bishop Coxe omits to state that Dickinson College is a Methodist institu- 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 163 
 
 15th. Section. 
 
 tiou, and that for one year Bishop Cummins acted as a Methodist deacon before he 
 became deacon in the P. E. C. x 
 
 (16) Also, Bishop Lewis must rank himself very high on the score of “ learn¬ 
 
 ing,” to assume such superiority over several clergymen in the R. E. C. (ii. Nov. 19, 
 1873, Bp. Cum. References).xvii. 2. 
 
 (17) Again. He says : “ The name Protestant... .is never used in the descrip¬ 
 
 tion of our Church. It is never introduced, in connection with our national Church, 
 in our acts of Parliament ” (iii. Dec. 31, 1874, Tor.), while its full title is “ The Prot¬ 
 estant Church of England as by law established.”.xii. 17; xx. 8. 
 
 (18) (ii. Feb. 26, 1874). Bishop Alfred Lee, of Delaware (xiii. 6). This 
 letter is dated Nov. 14. It must have been written almost immediately on receipt 
 of information of the resignation of Bishop Cummins, dated Nov. 10. He wished 
 to cause a retraction, and used such arguments as immediately suggested them¬ 
 selves from his point of view, without time to examine the other side. He does 
 not repeat these remarks in his address made formally in Convention. 
 
 ii. June 25, 1874. 
 
 (19) . Take the other side, and his first complaint is a compliment to Bishop 
 Cummins. So is the “ Card ” (ii. Dec. 1, 1873). So is the remark of Dr. Tyng, Sr. 
 (ii. Dec. 4, 1873). These substantiate the public assertion of Bishop Cummins, 
 “ I-consulted with no man when I took this step;” and they agree with all that I 
 know on and after Nov. 12, 1873 (ix. 4 to 16). They prove that Bishop Cummins 
 was no traitor, forming a party within the Church, to leave the Church while act¬ 
 ing as a member of that Church; for these are the very men with whom he had 
 been accustomed to act, and the first to whom he would have communicated his 
 plan if he had intended to make up a party to leave that Church.... xii. 35., xi. 26 
 
 (20) Again (ii. Feb. 26). As to the dilemma. The sudden change that I wit¬ 
 nessed respecting the reprint of the Prayer Book of 1785, was proof of previous 
 intention of using it for a different purpose; i. e., as a Low-Church document (vi. 4). 
 And the decision to resign must have been after this was put into the printer’s 
 hand; so that it must have been after the Alliance met, and, therefore, with less 
 time for consideration than allowed by Bishop Lee. 
 
 (21) But several Bishops, including Bishop Lee himself, on a subsequent occa¬ 
 
 sion, speak very plainly of the threatened results from the present Romeward ten¬ 
 dency in the P. E. C. (xiii. 5). And within my own knowledge in 1867, I formally 
 objected to a resolution when passed by the Evangelicals, because it carried an 
 implied threat that we would secede immediately unless the General Convention 
 should comply with our demands (xii. 46). And in 1869 I endeavored to dissuade 
 Rev. M. B. Smith from withdrawing from the P. E. C., by the remark that there 
 might be a favorable result from so much agitation; and he answered, “ That may 
 do for you. As a layman you simply say, * I don’t believe it,’ but as a clergyman 
 I am obliged to use words which I believe convey falsehoods.” And many other 
 clergymen and laymen had withdrawn for similar reasons.xi. 24. 
 
 (22) Thus the whole question of the position of Low-Churchmen in the P. E. C. 
 had been thoroughly discussed before the date of the Joint Communion of Oct. 12 
 (v. 3, 4). This communion aroused a discussion that concentrated, in a few weeks, 
 the result of many years. Bishop Cummins, as I suppose, was then forced to the 
 conclusion that resistance within the P. E. C. would be futile, and, consequently", 
 
164 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 22d Section. 
 
 resigned on Nov. 10, 1873. As a layman, I liad for this reason abandoned the 
 Church of my ancestors on Oct. 30, 1873 (xii. 45), and when an honest man reaches 
 this conclusion, it requires neither years, nor months, nor weeks, to act upon his 
 judgment, that he must retire immediately. 
 
 ii. Jan. 21,1874, Eng.; iii. Dec. 4, 1873, Parties. 
 
 (23) (II. April 22, 1874). Rev. Dr. Fulton suggests all these hard words for 
 others to add to their vocabulary ; says: “ There has been ample room for such 
 words,” and then triumphs in the “ Nicene charity ” and “ honor of the Church,” 
 that they “ have not been spoken ” by any one besides himself. He does not know 
 of (xiii. 10). 
 
 “Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise.” (iii. Oct. 31, 1874 ; ii. April 
 30,1874). 
 
 (24) (II. June 10). Bishop Stevens stands alone in raising a question of 
 veracity between himself and the members of the R. E. C. Since Mr. Smith has 
 corrected his historical errors, and the errors of his charges (ii. June 10, 1874, 
 Open), I will simply quote the words of Burke, “ Men know a little, presume a great 
 deal, and so jump to the conclusion.” 
 
 (25) (III. Oct. 29, 1874). Dr. Sullivan misapplies the terms “in debt, distress, 
 skulked, coward ” (xx. 1). I do not suppose that he or any member of the Conven¬ 
 tion believe that either of these terms could w r ith truth be applied to any single in¬ 
 dividual member of the R. E. C. Still these terms, applied as a general character¬ 
 istic of all, are applauded by the “ laughter” of the General Convention. This we 
 may attribute to the confusion of ideas caused b j fear. Dr. Sullivan denies it in 
 General Convention (iii. Oct. 29, Dr. Sull. and Dr. Ilun.) But as the French say, 
 “ Qui s’excuse s'accuse,” and when a man says he is not afraid, we generally find that 
 he is afraid, and the harder he protests that he is not afraid, the more we believe 
 that he is afraid. And subsequent developments proved that Dr. Sullivan and 
 others who opposed the confirmation of Dr. De Koven, are very much afraid of the 
 R. E. C., and apparently for good reasons, (iii. Feb. 15, 1875, De Koven Memorial ; 
 i. Nov. 11,1874, Ill.; Dec. 10, 1874, Bp. Cheney ; iii. Feb, 24,1875, Parties ; March 
 3, 1875, Dio.) 
 
 (26) (II. March 4, 1875) ( Standard of the Cross) : “We do wish Bishop Cum¬ 
 mins and his followers would stop agitating.” This is unintelligible when we com¬ 
 pare (xiii. 10) with (xiv.), except the objection be to the agitation produced by 
 stating facts respecting the P. E. C. “ On this point I will tell a little story ” 
 (Lincoln). A man under trial began to cry, as the testimony bore hard against him. 
 The judge said, “You need not cry, I will see that you have justice.” He answered, 
 “ That is just what I am afraid of!” 
 
 (27) (II. Feb. 25, 1875). Postal Cards. The first is known to be genuine. It 
 is reported that a similar card, by the same person, has been sent to another clergy, 
 man. The office and initials of the second agree with a name in the clergy list of 
 the P. E. C. This record will assist in giving greater publicity to their remarks, as 
 that appears to be the object in sending them openly on a postal card, although 
 they violate civil law in using cards for such purposes. At my request the Rev. M. 
 B. S. sent to the Rev. A. D. Miller, a note of inquiry, to be sure that the card w T as 
 not a forgery. The Rev. Mr. Miller answers, .. .Any f Reformed documents,’ of 
 which I have received a good many, I never read one of them, and it might save 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 165 
 
 27th. Section. 
 
 postage on tlie part of the publishers to send them to a better market.” Now, if 
 he has not read the Open Letter of Rev. M. B. S., upon what basis does he call him 
 an “ ass ?” (ii. June 10, 1874). 
 
 (28) (II. April 7, 1875). Bishop Ilowe indirectly charges the R. E. C. with 
 “abusing the P. E. C.,” and with being a “schism,” and says, “I do not argue.” 
 Now, in consideration of these charges by Bishop Howe, I request him, or any one in 
 his behalf, to answer the following charges against him, to be inserted in Chapter 
 XX. upon the terms mentioned in the Preface. First. He “ abuses” the R. E. C. by 
 making these charges, and then, without a word to prove it, saying “ I do not 
 argue.” Second. He reverses the facts. The newspaper reports (xiii. 10) show fre¬ 
 quent instances of abuse of the R. E. C. by the P. E. C., and Chapter III. contains 
 several instances of abuse of each other by the different parties in the P. E. C. (xii. 
 58). This, I suppose, will not be denied. But I believe that Chapter XIV. gives a 
 fair statement of the action of the R. E. C. towards the P. E. C., and that Bishop 
 Howe cannot produce a single case to sustain his wholesale charge, “ like them 
 ... .spend most of your time... .in abusing.” Third. He “ abuses ” the R. E. C. by 
 calling it a “ schism,” without explaining how it is so, since all agree that “ schism 
 is a sin.” In Chapter XII. I assert that the R. E. C. is a “ separation from schism, 
 in accordance with Apostolic example,” and that the P. E. C. is “ a schism in schism 
 according to Apostolic authority.” If I should then say, “ I do not argue,” I would 
 be guilty of “ abuse.” But I do argue, and show the basis upon which I make this 
 charge against the P. E. C. If Bishop Howe can prove my argument unsound, the 
 charge goes with it, and without such proof the mere assertion of the whole House 
 of Bishops will have but little weight.xii. 8. 
 
 “ 'Tis not antiquity nor author 
 
 i That makes truth truth, although time’s daughter.” 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 SPIRIT OP THE R. E. C. TOWARD THE P. E. C. 
 
 Contents : —(1, 2). Work and be silent. — (3). No answers made to 
 attacks except to correct errors as to facts. —(4). No ill-feeling to prevent a 
 re-union if errors were removed and personalities atoned for .— (5). Mr. 
 Turner in his pamphlet .—(6). Mr. Smith on opening the Church in Louis¬ 
 ville .— (7, 8). Cause of separation explained by fads .— (9). For and against 
 the R. E. C., according as the hearer is Protestant or Romanist .— (10). 
 Letter Dimissory. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) “We have laid down our course, and shall not swerve from it one inch, for 
 anything that man can do against us.” (x. 14.) 
 
 (2) “ Whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’’ 
 (Matt. 5:39.) 
 
 (3) This second quotation was followed by all identified with the R. E. C. until 
 after six months of abuse. Then the first notice by any one identified with the R. 
 E. C. was (ii. June 3), correcting the misstatement of facts by Church and State of 
 (ii. May 21). Then (ii. June 10, Open letter), correcting the misstatements of his¬ 
 tory and of facts by Bishop Stevens. Then (ii. Dec. 16, 1874), correcting the mis¬ 
 statement of facts by Church and State of (Nov. 18). All other defense, as far as I 
 know or believed, has been by those who are not identified with us. But whether 
 identified or a friend, there is not a single case of abuse of the P. E. C. as far as I 
 have seen (except the statement of facts be abuse), although we are charged at 
 wholesale with “ falsehood,misrepresentation, perversion’’ (ii. June 10; xiii. 24), and 
 with “abuse.” (ii. April 7, 1875; xiii. 28.) 
 
 (4) Nor do I know of any ill-feeling existing in the R. E. C. towards the P. E. 
 
 C., nor anything on our part to prevent an immediate re-union if the errors for 
 which we separated were corrected, and the personalities (xiii. 10) atoned for. If 
 this were done, I could with great satisfaction resume my old position which I held 
 for twelve years as lay delegate to the Diocesan Convention of New Jersey, 
 (vii. 4, 8, xii. 49^ ; xiii. 8 ; ii. Dec. 31, 1873, Return; iii. Oct. 29, 1874, Ref. Dr. 
 Garrison ; xx. 3.) ' 
 
 (5) The same feeling is expressed as the general feeling of the R. E. C. at the 
 conclusion of the remarks of H. B. Turner, Esq., in his pamphlet reprinted from 
 the Christian Age of Aug. 6,1874. He, as Secretary of the Council and member of 
 the Standing Committee, has a fair opportunity of knowing the views of his asso¬ 
 ciates (i. May 13 to 19, 1874). He says : “ It may be as well to add in conclusion 
 that the R. E. C. is founded in no spirit of hostility to its older sister. From her 
 
 (166) 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 167 
 
 5th. Section. 
 
 its members have received a grand organization, a glorious history, and unequalled 
 liturgy. Earnestly and prayerfully they have sought for guidance and direction, 
 and now they ask to worship God, and to preach the Gospel according to the dic¬ 
 tates of their own consciences. Educated, with scarcely an exception, in the fold of 
 the P. E. C., it would be strange if they did not love her with the love of children 
 for their mother. Her services are hallowed in their thoughts by the memory of 
 early years, of parents, and of friends who there offered with them their common 
 supplications. In the minds of some persons there is still a lingering hope that 
 the old Church may by this movement be induced to plant herself fully and firmly 
 on the now abandoned ground of Evangelical Protestanism, and thus insure the 
 failure of the reformers. But none more than they would rejoice at such a result 
 of their labors. Such a failure, were it possible, would be indeed the grandest and 
 most complete success; like the failure of Columbus, who never reached the India 
 for which he was seeking, but instead, opened wide the gates through which who¬ 
 ever would might enter, and share in the glories of an unknown world.” 
 
 (6) The Hev. Marshall B. Smith, who was one of the founders of the R. E. 
 C., and is now President of the General Standing Committee, and is intimately 
 acquainted with the views of his associates, spoke in the same manner in his ad¬ 
 dress at the opening of the new church in Louisville. (ii. Nov. 30, 1874). (i. May 
 13 to 19, 1874; xi. 26.) 
 
 (7) The great majority of the members of the R. E. C. were formerly members 
 of the P. E. C., and have separated from their former associates because they could 
 not agree on points deemed vital by each. For this we have the example of Paul 
 and Barnabas. We have been violently attacked, but made no answer in return, 
 except as above, and in the production of facts to prove the propriety of our separa¬ 
 tion. (vii. 1-6.) 
 
 (8) These facts have been presented in addresses, sermons, books, pamphlets, 
 and newspaper articles, as recorded in these pages. We have never denied that 
 Ritualists and Romanists are as much entitled to their own opinion as we are. We 
 have never denied that they are as honest and conscientious as we are. But we 
 both believe the other to be in the wrong, and both produce arguments to prove our 
 positions, (ii. Dec. 11, 1873, Obs. Ed.) 
 
 (9) All of our statements give our opinion as to the Ritualistic facts and tenden¬ 
 cies of the P. E. C. With those whose views are Protestant, these statements are 
 in our favor. With those whose views are Ritualistic, the same statements are 
 against us, as far as numbers are concerned. And this we desire. Having separ¬ 
 ated from the P. E. C. to get out of schism, we desire to prevent schism in our new 
 Church by preventing the association of discordant elements, and therefore desire 
 that all may know precisely what are our positions, that none may come who deny 
 those positions, and that those who agree may join in restoring the Episcopal 
 Church to the cause of Protestantism. 
 
 (10) The First Letter Dimissory received from another Church is described 
 (ix. 10). The first letter given was by Bishop Cummins to the Rev. W. H, John¬ 
 son on his application for the same in accordance with Canon 5, Title I. of the R. E. 
 C., and contained these words as quoted from memory...Commending him with 
 Christian love and prayer for God’s blessing upon him, to the Ecclesiastical 
 Authorities of the Protestant Episcopal Church.” (iii. Apr. 1, 1875; Rev, W, H. J.) 
 
168 
 
 CHAPTER XIY. 
 
 11th. Section. 
 
 (11) Conservatism. I have on different occasions been tlirdwn on the defensive 
 when maintaining that the Reformers are conservatives; and, in illustration, have 
 quoted David Crockett’s “ red heifer story,” which I heard him relate at a political 
 meeting about forty years ago, as follows : “ You see ! My constituents are nearly 
 all Jackson men, and they keep sending me to Congress and scolding me for not 
 being a Jackson man. I tell them this story: A farmer took liis man with his team 
 to one corner of his field, and, pointing to a red heifer in the other corner, told him 
 to plough towards that heifer, and then left him. About noon he came out, and 
 saw a furrow running in all directions about the field, and the man ploughing with 
 what appeared to be a spike-team, with the heifer in the lead. He stopped him, 
 and asked what he was doing. The man answered, ‘ Just what you told me to do.’ 
 * Did I not tell you to plough towards the red heifer that was standing in the cor¬ 
 ner?’ ‘Yes; and I have been ploughing after her all the morning.’ ‘ Well, that 
 is really what I said, but I intended that you should plough in the direction where 
 the heifer then stood, and keep on making parallel furrows.’ So,” said Crockett, 
 “ I tell them that I am making parallel furrows in the direction in which Jackson 
 stood when I began to plough, and when he changed his ground I did not follow 
 him.” Thus the Reformers do not follow the erratic movements of the P. E. C. 
 
 xii. 32, 38, 45 to 48,50,51; iv. 3 to 8; xvi.; xi. 2—xii. 58. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 OTHER CHURCHES. 
 
 Contents:—(1 to 12). Presbyterians and Old Evangelicals in 1867.— 
 (13, 14). Presbyterians in 1874.—(15). Free Church of England Federative 
 Union with the R. E. C. in 1874.—(16). The same principles applicable to 
 any Evangelical Church. —(17). Reformed {Dutch) Church in Holland , and 
 in America , in 1697, 1779, 1790.—(18). Receives the new Church in 1874.— 
 (19, 20). “ Dissenters ” true in England , but false in this country. —(21) 
 Letter to Dr. Wainwright in 1846.—(22). A general Federation would be a 
 blessing , but organic union objectionable if too extensive. 
 
 (1) Presbyterian National Convention of delegates from all tlie branches of 
 
 the Presbyterian Churches in America, was in session in the Reformed Presbyterian 
 Church, Broad, below Spruce Street, on Wednesday, Nov. 6,1867, at the same time 
 that the meetings of the Evangelical Societies of the P. E. C. were in session in the 
 same city, as reported in the Protestant Churchman of Nov. 14,1867 : “At the sug¬ 
 gestion of the Rev. R. Heber Newton, Rector of St. Paul’s P. E. C.prayer was 
 
 offered for the Divine blessing on the National Convention of the Presbyterian 
 Churches in America.”.xi. 9 to 12. 
 
 (2) On Thursday, Nov. 7 : “ During the meeting a delegation was announced 
 from the Presbyterian National Convention... .Rev. Messrs. H. B. Smith, D.D., 
 and J. M. Stevenson, D.D., and Elders Drake and Carter, who were appointed to 
 convey the following resolution of Salutation to the Evangelical Societies: ‘ Re¬ 
 solved, That this Convention send its cordial salutation to our Episcopal brethren 
 now assembled in Convention in this city, praying that grace, mercy, and peace 
 may rest upon them from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ 
 
 (3) “ The business was suspended in order that they be received. Rev. Dr. H. 
 B. Smith, for the Delegation, made an address of salutation. The address was 
 responded to by Bishop Mcllvaine... .expressing his high appreciation of Presbyte¬ 
 rian standards, and the sympathy he felt in their movements of reunion. Senator 
 Drake then....in an earnest and stirring address... .laid his hand on the open 
 Bible... .and said : ‘ Here is the centre and bond of our union.’ 
 
 (4) .... “ On motion of Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr., a Committee... .Bishops Mcllvaine 
 and Lee, Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr., and Messrs. J. N. Conyngliam and F. R. Brunot, 
 was appointed to respond personally to the resolution on Friday morning at 10 
 o’clock... .Bishop Eastburn made an earnest prayer, and the clergy and laity 
 present exchanged salutations with the Presbyterian Delegates.” 
 
 (5) “ On Friday morning... .the brethren repaired in a body to the Reformed 
 Presbyterian Church .. On the clergy and laity of our Societies entering... .they 
 were received by the members rising .. .Geo. H. Stuart, Esq., the presiding officer, 
 
 (169) 
 
170 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 5th. Section. 
 
 read the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and called on the Rev. 
 Richard Newton, D.D., .. .to offer prayer. . . .The deputation... .Bishops Mcllvaine 
 and A. Lee, and Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr., aud Messrs. Conyngham and Brunot, ascend¬ 
 ed the platform and were accommodated with seats....” 
 
 (6) “ Prof H. B. Smith... .introduced our delegates... .Mr. Stuart, advancing to 
 Bishop Mcllvaine, said: ‘ Brother—I shall not call you Bishop now, for we are all 
 brethren ; I, on behalf of the Presbyterian Convention, welcome you and your col¬ 
 leagues.’ ” 
 
 (7) “ Bishop Mcllvaine [as reported by himself in the Protestant Churchman, 
 
 Jan. 16, 1868] said_‘ The anniversaries of the three Societies_have been held 
 
 ... .Our hearts were drawn out in fraternal love and prayer for God’s blessing on 
 your present Convention... .Its spirit was reciprocated, and prayer was offered by 
 you for us. Those prayers have been answered... .and we believe God has.... 
 brought us together... .In the General Convention... .in 1856... .the importance 
 of measures for bringing about a better understanding and a nearer union among 
 Protestant Churches was brought very pointedly before the House of Bishops. A 
 Committee of five Bishops was appointed to take advantage of any opportunities 
 that might arise of pursuing that object. .. I am the only surviving member.... 
 It is reserved for me to stand in this place and discharge the duty entrusted to that 
 Committee. I believe the present opportunity to be precisely such as... .contem¬ 
 plated. I stand here now to do the work of that Committee, and w r e greet you, 
 brethren, in the name of the Lord... .On neither side did there appear a way for 
 the removal of the lines which now separate us as Churches. But these barriers 
 are purely made up of externals. They do not enter among the great matters of 
 Christian faith and spiritual life... The foundation is not in this or that external 
 order, but the person of Christ.... That is the foundation of God, other than 
 
 which can no man lay_Our case must be what we build thereupon. On that 
 
 foundation, we, brethren, as Churches are built. It is not merely as individual 
 Christians that we stand together on that foundation, but as Christian churches.’ 
 
 (9) “ Bishop Lee said that the deputation had come to express a reciprocation of 
 the courteous and Christian greeting... .The interchange of fellowship and Chris¬ 
 tian love was unprecedented and unexpected. This certainly could not be attribu¬ 
 ted to the will or wisdom of man, but to God our Father... .The truths of the Ref¬ 
 ormation have ever been maintained by your Communion... .When we shall be 
 assembled before the Almighty, how insignificant will appear the differences which 
 have here distracted us as members of the Church.” 
 
 (10) “ Prof. H. B. Smith then recited the Apostles’ Creed, all present repeating 
 ....‘ Blessed be the tie that binds ’ was sung with wonderful effect... .Mr. Stuart 
 ... .introduced Rev. S. H. Tyng, Jr... .Mr. Tyng remarked... / We are all breth¬ 
 ren. .. .bent on the same object’... Judge Conyngliamand Felix R. Brunot... .made 
 a few appropriate remarks... .Mr. Stuart then said : ‘ Reverend Fathers and dearly 
 beloved brethren, we thank you in the name of this Convention for the words of 
 cordial greeting and Christian sympathy....’ 
 
 (11) “Rev. Clias. Hodge, D.D., said....in behalf of... .the Presbyterian Con¬ 
 vention, which represents about 5,000 ministers, an equal number of churches, and 
 
 over one million of souls (xiii. 10£)-‘ We wish to assure you that your names are 
 
 just as familiar to our people as your own, and that we appreciate your services in 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 171 
 
 llth Section. 
 
 the cause of our common Master as the people of your own Church... .You, Bishop 
 Mcllvaine and Bishop Johns,... .and I were boys together in Princeton College 
 fifty odd years ago... .You have gone your way and I mine... .1 do not believe that 
 ... .you have preached any sermon on matters of faith and salvation which I would not 
 have rejoiced to have delivered. I feel the same confidence... .that I never preached 
 a sermon which, you would not have publicly and cordially endorsed... .Was not your 
 Church and ours rocked in the same cradle?... .Do they not bear the same testi¬ 
 mony?. .. .What difference is there between the 89 Aiticles and our Confession ? 
 ... We stand here to say to the whole world, we are one in faith, one in hope, and 
 one in allegiance to your Lord and our Lord.’ 
 
 (12) “ Rev. Dr. Stearns, a member of the Convention,... .alluded to the possibility 
 of a united Church .. .Bishop Mcllvaine led... .in prayer for God’s blessing on the 
 
 Convention... .Rev. John Hall, D.D.,_followed in prayer for a blessing on the 
 
 Evangelical efforts in our Church in America and in Great Britain. Rt. Rev. 
 Bishop Lee, of Delaware, then repeated the Lord’s Prayer, all present uniting.... 
 Mr. Stuart then repeated the last three verses of the 6th chapter of Numbers.... 
 The Doxology w r as sung, and the Benediction pronounced by Bishop Mcllvaine. 
 The members of the Convention exchanged congratulations with our clergy and 
 laity, and shortly afterward the deputation and the Brethren withdrew. Such a 
 scene we have never before witnessed.” (v. 4; vi. 5 ; xii. 40 ; xiii. 6 ; xvi. 19 
 to 24.) 
 
 (13) Presbyterians in 1874. The New York Times (i. Dec. 4,1874) has an ex¬ 
 tended account of a meeting in Dr. Crosby’s Church on Dec. 3, of a Convention of 
 all the various branches of the Presbyterian Church, “ To form a Federation of 
 the Churches which hold to the Presbyterian form of faith.” Dr. McCosh said: 
 “ They should not have all Presbyterian Churches united in one organization. It 
 would not be expedient to do so.” (See References xv. 12). 
 
 (14) A copy of the “ Journal ” of the R. E. C. was immediately sent to a member 
 
 of that Convention, and referring to the Union of the R. E. C. with the Free 
 Church of England and the Corresponding Constitution and Canons, suggested that 
 his Church should not restrict their federative union to the Presbyterians, but like 
 the Evangelical Alliance, embrace all Evangelical Churches of every name and na¬ 
 tion. He answered that that would exactly meet his views, and this movement was 
 a step in that direction.xvi. 28. 
 
 FEDEBATIVE UNION, ADOPTED MAY 14, 1874. 
 
 (15) Between the Free Church of England and the Reformed Episcopal Church. 
 (Pages 23-5, “ Journal,” Appendix E). 
 
 “ Article I. As an evidence of the union existing between the Free Church of 
 • England and the Reformed Episcopal Church, a delegation of ministers and laymen 
 may be sent annually from the Convocation to the General Council, and from the 
 General Council to the Convocation, with the right to take part in the deliberations 
 of said bodies respectively. 
 
 “ x\rticle II, In the consecration or ordination of Bishops or other ministers, 
 in each Church, the Bishops and ministers of the other Church shall be entitled to 
 participate. 
 
 “ Article III. The ministers of either of said Churches shall be entitled to 
 
172 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 15th Section. 
 
 officiate transiently in the congregations of the other, and also subject to the re¬ 
 spective regulations of said Churches, shall be eligible to a pastoral charge in 
 either. 
 
 “ Article IV. Communicants of either Church shall be received to the other 
 on presentation of Letters of Dismissal. 
 
 “ Article V. Missionary or other congregations of either Church may transfer 
 their connection to the other on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon. 
 
 “ Article VI. The two Churches, recognizing the fact that they are working 
 together in the same great cause, and on the same basis, pledge each to the other 
 their mutual co-operation, sympathy, and support. 
 
 (16) With respect to this Union. On the day that these resolutions were 
 adopted, an English gentleman said : “You have made a great mistake. I know all 
 about that Church. It is very weak, and contains very few Episcopalians. They 
 are almost exclusively Methodists of the Countess of Huntingdon Connection. 
 
 _ m 
 
 There will probably be a large number leaving the Establishment, and they have 
 such a bitter feeling towards the Free Church, that if you associate with them, 
 the others will have nothing to do with you.” I answered: “ There is no organic 
 union. Each Church acts independently of the other. I would advocate the same ar¬ 
 rangement with any Evangelical Church, whether coming out of the Establish¬ 
 ment or not. There is nothing contained in our Articles of Union that is not an 
 established principle of the Constitution and Canons of our Church, except the 
 principle that in case of union, one Church will not receive an organized parish, as 
 an organization (with its property) without all consent to the change. If those in 
 the Establishment are as bigoted as you think, it would make no difference in my 
 action. I am not willing to abandon our liberal principles to please their bigotry. 
 And besides, it may be that those from the Establishment may in like manner form 
 a federative union with us, and we may be the means of bridging over the gulf be¬ 
 tween them, and of bringing them into friendly relations with each other.” 
 (xv. 13, 14.) 
 
 REFORMED (DUTCH) CHURCH. 
 
 (17) This Church, in Holland, suffered more for the cause of Protestantism than 
 any other Church in any other county. That, and its descendant in this country, 
 have always been intensely Protestant, and as liberal as Protestant. They furnished 
 a refuge for the Protestant refugees from England in the time of Mary; for the 
 Episcopal refugees in the days of Cromwell, and for the Puritan refugees on the 
 restoration of Prelacy. In this country they acted in the same liberal manner 
 toward the newly-arrived Church of England, and its successor, the P. E. C., and had 
 intimate relations with both (xii. 27, 28). But of late the Apostolic dogma has con¬ 
 verted the once liberal P. E. C. into a schism or caste, which cuts itself off from all 
 who do not belong to that caste, and the Dutch Church is now called a “ Dissenter’’ 
 by the High Church Episcopalian, (iii. Dec. 4, 1873, Exclu.; xv. 19.) 
 
 (18) This Church, true to its antecedents, has been the first in this country to 
 welcome the new Church among the brotherhood of Protestants, and records the 
 following in the “ Acts and proceedings of the 68tli General Synod of the Reformed 
 Church in America, convened in Regular Session in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., June, 
 1874,” viz.; “ By a vote of the Synod, the Committee on Correspondence was in- 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 173 
 
 18th Section. 
 
 structed to bring in a resolution, witli the view to open a correspondence witli the 
 Reformed Episcopal Church ” (p. 4G). 
 
 “ Your Committee has been instructed to submit a resolution with a view to 
 opening a correspondence with the Reformed Episcopal Church in America; accord¬ 
 ingly the following is proposed for the action of the Synod: 
 
 “ Resolved, That this Synod expresses cordial sympathy with the efforts of the 
 Reformed Episcopal Church to establish and perpetuate a pure and spiritual wor¬ 
 ship, and recognizes with pleasure the ministry and membership of that Church, 
 as forming with ourselves and all our brethren of Christ’s household, a part of the 
 true Church of God upon earth. 
 
 “ Resolved, That to express this feeling more strongly, the Synod will appoint, 
 at this session, a Delegate to convey to the Convention of the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church our Christian salutations, and that our Delegates suggest the expediency 
 of an annual correspondence, by delegates, between that Convention and this Synod. 
 Respectfully submitted, Ph. Peltz, Chairman.” (Page 61). 
 
 “ Delegates to Corresponding Bodies.... To the General Synod of the Reformed 
 Episcopal Church: Rev. Alex. R. Thompson, Primarius; Rev. John Gaston, 
 Secundus. ” 
 
 The list of Clergy gives, "Thompson, Alexander R., D.D., 180 Clermont Ave., 
 Brooklyn, N.Y.,” and “ Gaston, John, D.D., Passaic, KJ.”.ix. 10. 
 
 (19) “ Dissenters ” is used with propriety in England as applied to all who do 
 
 not belong to “ The Protestant Church of England as by law established. ” In 
 former days this term had a dreadful significance, to the extent of forfeiting liberty 
 and even life (xii. 15 to 17). At the present time the Church of England is the 
 political Church, sustained by the State, and Dissenters are only tolerated (xii. 21 
 to 24). Hence, when a member of the P. E. C. calls others “ Dissenters,” he prac¬ 
 tically claims for his small denomination the supremacy over all the other denomina¬ 
 tions in this country.xiii. 10^. 
 
 (20) In my letter (i. Oct. 80, 1873) I said, in objection to this expression: “ The 
 Dutch Church in Holland, and the German Reformed and Lutheran Churches in 
 Germany, and the Waldenses and the Calvinists in Switzerland, and their branches 
 in other countries, no more dissent from us than w r e from them. The term, as used 
 in this country, is a nick-name without historical accuracy.” 
 
 (21, 22). Substitute (xvi. 19 to 25). 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 OFFICIAL DECISION OF DR. WAINWRIGHT IN 1846. 
 
 Contents: — (1). Personal antecedents .— (2). Basis of the decision.— 
 (3). The Apostles had no successors. —(4). The “ Fathers ” are not authority. 
 — (5). As 3d. —(6). “ Lo, I am with you!' 1 ' 1 does not require the u Succes¬ 
 sion.” — (7). Nor does “ Called of God as ivas Aaron .”— (8). Nor “ How can 
 they preach except they be sent.” — (9). Titus and Timothy were not Bishops. 
 —(10). Nor the plural “ angels ” of Smyrna a Bishop .— (11). “ Obey them 
 that have the rule over you,” does not require the “ Succession .”— (12). The 
 directions to Titus are not laid down as general laws .— (13). Deacons to 
 “ serve tables,” preach, and baptize .— (14). Laying on of hands upon Paul 
 when already an Apostle. — (15). Directions to laymen when preaching and 
 prophesying .— (16). Ananias was a layman .— (17). St. Paul denies that he 
 received his office from man .— (18). Foot-note as to St. Paul .— (19). The 
 Bible the only authority. — (20). We are not to be chained fast to corruption. 
 (21). Who, then, form the Catholic Church f — (22.) We are bound to belong 
 to some denomination. —(23). I prefer the Episcopal .— (24). No evil from 
 the “Multitude of sects.” — (25). You have not convinced me. — (26). This is 
 for practical purposes, not for discussion .— (27). Objectionable preaching 
 by others .— (28). Federative union desirable .— (29). The only difference be¬ 
 tween us is Theoretical. — (30). Dr. Wainwright decides that 11 there is noth¬ 
 ing [in the above] that would prevent the most perfect fellowship with our 
 Church.” 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Personal Antecedents. Born in tlie City of New York, Sept. 28, 1804, I 
 occupied tlie same pew, No. 14, in St. John’s Church, New York, from 1817 until 
 1849, when I moved to Passaic, N. J., except only occasionally from 1827, when I 
 commenced civil engineering, up to 1844, when I retired from business. In 1846 I 
 determined to join some Church, and wrote the following Treatise (xvi. 3 to 24) 
 and letter (xvi. 25 to 29) and left them with the Rev. J. M. Wainwright, D.D. 
 (subsequently Bishop of New York) for his examination, and received his official 
 decision (xvi. 30). As assistant minister of Trinity Church, in especial charge of 
 St. John’s Church, he was practically my Rector, and upon the basis of his decision 
 I joined the P. E. C. after several years’ hesitation on account of the schisms in the 
 P. E. C. This is the Church of my father’s paternal ancestors in England as far as 
 I have examined the parish records in Upton-on-Severn, and in Newent; with one 
 of precisely my own name, who in 1715 gives his official position in the Church of 
 England as “ S.S.E.M.” i. e. : Sacro Sancti Ecclesiae Minister. It is the Church of 
 (174) 
 
- CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 175 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 my mother’s mother, coming through Trinity Church, New York, during the Ameri¬ 
 can Revolution. I have learned the New York traditions coming through the 
 Holland branch of my ancestors since 1658, and through the Huguenot branch in 
 New York since the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. (xii. 27, 28.) 
 
 (2) Basis of the Decision. At a New England dinner, the orator of the day 
 
 said that the Puritans came to this country to enjoy “ A Government without a 
 King and a Church without a Bishop.” Dr. Wainwright said: “ There can be no 
 
 Church without a Bishop.” This led to discussions on this point between Dr. 
 Wain wright, High Church Episcopalian, and Dr. Potts, High Church Presbyterian. 
 These discussions appearing in the public prints were collected in pamphlet form. 
 I took up this pamphlet in 1846, and objected seriatim to all the High Church po¬ 
 sitions of my Rector, and gave my own interpretations of his texts, and brought 
 other texts to sustain my position. In answer to my leading question, “ Of whom 
 is the Catholic Church constituted ? ” as now copied from the originals, with the 
 present addition of references. The positions here taken in 1846 have never been 
 abandoned (xii. 50; xi. 2; xiv. 11.) 
 
 OF WHOM IS THE CATHOLIC CHUBCH CONSTITUTED ? 
 
 (3) The Apostles were especially chosen by Christ to attend Him in person. To 
 them alone did He commit His athority to establish His Church. We find no such 
 expressions as “Successors of the Apostles ” any where in the Bible , as far as I 
 know; and even if so, we find none to whom Apostolic authority was given. 
 Therefore in matters of faith, we cannot go beyond the Gospels to find the account 
 of the immediate directions of Christ, and the subsequent books of the New Testa¬ 
 ment for the actions and directions of the Apostles. What is not there found, is 
 not authority. What is there found is the supreme law, to be taken as a whole, as 
 it stands ; to be interpreted by the same rules that apply to any other legal docu¬ 
 ment, and not to be forced from its obvious meaning to gratify passion, prejudice, 
 or preconceived opinion as to what we may imagine the law ought to be. 
 
 (4) The Fathers as they are called (and I think improperly, since that title prop¬ 
 erly belongs only to Christ, or at farthest only to the Apostles), have no author¬ 
 ity to decide questions. They formed their opinions as we form ours, except that 
 they received orally what we receive in print. They were as liable to error as we 
 are. They taught very different doctrines, and hence if we' undertake to discrimi¬ 
 nate and to reject some, while we take others, the whole idea ot authority must be 
 abandoned. Even in the days of the Apostles, we find some of the Fathers con¬ 
 demned by the Apostles themselves. (2 Peter 2—1 to 22, and 1 John 2—18) (xii. 8). 
 
 (5) “ Successors of the Apostles ” are nowhere mentioned in the Bible, and hence 
 a fair inference that there were none. But farther than this, they could have no 
 successors in the sense in which we use that term. Matthias was chosen by lot to 
 fill the place of Judas, as one who had been with the rest of the Apostles from the 
 beginning, to be a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22), and he was with them 
 at the feast of Pentecost. In the next place we find St. Paul claiming to be an 
 Apostle on the ground of having seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9 : 1) and again (1 Cor. 15 : 8, 9) 
 We cannot now have Apostles without a miracle, since the revelation to them was 
 by the spirit (Tim. 1:1; Eph. 3:5) and, still stronger, St. Paul shows that man 
 could not ordain Apostles (Gal. 1 :1 and 11, 12, etc.) Taken in connection with the 
 
176 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 5th. Section. 
 
 above, the expression, “ For I think that God hath set forth us the Apostles last ” 
 (1 Cor. 4 : 9) looks to the same point. Therefore, since to be an Apostle required 
 the person to have seen Christ, and as St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:8) tells us that he was 
 the last, the consequence is necessary that the Apostles had no successors. 
 
 (6) But the promise (Mat. 18 : 20) “ Lo, I am with you always even to the end of 
 the world” is taken to prove that the Apostles must necessarily have Apostolic suc¬ 
 cessors, because they themselves are dead while the promise remains. Why restrict 
 the promise to a particular class of men? The same promise, or to the same effect^ 
 was repeatedly made to all who believe in Christ. Why, then, infer the necessity 
 of a particular class in order to find recipients for this promise when the promise, 
 even by itself, can with equal propriety be understood as applying to the whole 
 Christian Church, and when taken in connection with other passages (quoted and 
 to be quoted) does, in my opinion, decidedly apply to what we know is certainly in 
 existence ? 
 
 Under the Mosaic dispensation, the priesthood was established in a precise 
 hereditary line. All the details of the temple, the service, the sacrifices, and every 
 point connected with the ceremonies, were specifically appointed. Now Christ came 
 to fulfil the Law. These points were, therefore, to be set aside, and others substi¬ 
 tuted for them ; or else the spirit of the law was to be made manifest, and the 
 mode of carrying it into effect left to the judgment of man, who might thereby vary 
 the details, so as to suit his varying circumstances. If a substitute has been ap¬ 
 pointed, we may, by a fair inference, suppose that coming from the same source it 
 must be set forth as distinctly as the original institution it was to supersede. 
 
 The hereditary priesthood, the temple service, and the ceremonies under the Mo¬ 
 saic dispensation have been set aside, and where do we find the substitutes ? In 
 place of the types and figures, cherubim and seraphim, breastplate, bells, temple, 
 hereditary priesthood, circumcision, offering of vegetables, meat, etc., included in a 
 system that was exclusive, and applicable only to one district and one people, and 
 acting upon them as a nation , we have a system explicitly intended for the whole 
 world, in every climate and under all circumstances, constantly directed to the in¬ 
 dividual, directing the inward action of the mind of man, his practical duty to God 
 and his neighbor, faith, hope, charity, a belief in Christ, baptism and repentance 
 as the end and aim of the ceremonial law. Those who followed these directions 
 formed “ The Church ” (Acts 15:4; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 1:18). This Church was the 
 fruit of the personal teaching of Christ, and also of His chosen Apostles, who 
 taught and recorded what they heard and saw as witnesses (Luke 24 : 48). 
 
 Now, this Church is to extend to the ends of the world, and consequently re¬ 
 quires means. Some maintain that this can only be through a ministry regularly 
 commissioned and descended from the Apostles themselves by the imposition of 
 hands. Now we find denominations of Christians who do not lay claim to such 
 succession, producing all the practical benefits of the best of those who do claim 
 this succession, and “ by their fruit ye shall know them.” But further : There is 
 no mention made of successors of the Apostles, nor that the imposition of hands is 
 necessary to continue the ministry, and when so much stress is laid upon this ne¬ 
 cessity, I think that the testimony should be very explicit as it is respecting all 
 the ceremonies of the old dispensation.” (xv.) 
 
 (7) “ Called of God as was Aaron.” (Heb. 5 :4) is taken to prove the divine 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 177 
 
 7tli Section. 
 
 authority of the ministry. But this refers solely to Christ , and not at all to the 
 ministry. Again, for the same purpose, the term Ambassadors is used (Rom. 10:14, 
 15; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 5 : 20), but these all refer solely to the Apostles. 
 
 (8) “ How can they preach except they be sent ” (Rom. 10:14,15), is, in my 
 opinion, one of the strongest passages in support of this doctrine. But it is not con¬ 
 clusive in itself without being sustained by something more explicit. This was 
 written in the midst of Jews and heathen. The Apostles were still exercising their 
 office. They had not completed the duty assigned to them. And supposing the 
 fullest extent be given to the expression as applied to those days, it does not neces¬ 
 sarily apply to those succeeding the Apostolic age. 
 
 (9) Titus and Timothy are given as instances of successors of St. Paul or 
 Bishops, according to the modern acceptation of the term. But I find them rather 
 the assistants of St. Paul, acting constantly under his direction, than Bishops or 
 heads of the Church. 
 
 (10) The Seven Angels of the Churches of Asia are given as cases of Bishops. 
 These seven churches occupied a space in Asia about one-tentli of the extent of the 
 State of New York. Consequently, at the same rate, New York would require 70 
 Bishops. This, however, is not conclusive, but when we find the Angel of Smyrna 
 addressed in the plural “ some of you,” etc., it is very evident that it cannot signify 
 Bishop. 
 
 (11) The succession of the Ministry is again founded on the expression (Heb. 
 
 13:17), “ Obey them which have the rule over you, and submit yourselves , for they 
 watch for. your souls as they that must give account .” But this proves nothing about 
 succession. Order, system, rule, both civil and religious, are matters of conscience 
 and religion. “ The powers that be are ordained of God.” Consequently, no dis¬ 
 regard of established rules, no factious or unnecessary opposition to rulers or pre¬ 
 siding officers, whether civil or ecclesiastical, elected, appointed, or hereditary, can 
 be indulged in without a wrong. But take this expression in its most restricted 
 sense. How did these men obtain the rule ? It may have been in the same man¬ 
 ner as our president, governors, or other officers. It may have been as in the case 
 of the Deacons, where the people chose and the Apostles laid their hands upon 
 them. Or, they may have been immediately appointed by St. Paul himself. The 
 last, I suppose, most probable in the then condition of the Church. But, as we are 
 not informed, it is evident that it was not considered important. It certainly proves 
 nothing in favor of succession..xii. 24. 
 
 Again: The case of St. Barnabas is cited as a proof of succession. But (Acts 
 9:27; 13:1; 11: 24) we find that he was “ separate ” by the express direction of the 
 Holy Ghost to accompany St. Paul on a missionary enterprise, not to succeed him 
 in office. Moreover, I suppose that he was one of the two from whom Matthias 
 was chosen to be an Apostle. 
 
 (12) Again: The directions given to Titus, I think one of the strongest points. 
 In general terms, I should say that at this time Christianity could only be taught 
 orally. But, carrying our observation farther, we find no general directions from 
 St. Paul to govern others, or under other circumstances. He does not lay down 
 this as a general law. He does not inform us how he proceeded in other cases. 
 There is no general action on the subject in a Council of the Apostles, as we might 
 expect, if they considered it important, nor do we even find any allusion to succes¬ 
 sion by any other of the Apostles. 
 
178 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 Hence, as the Apostles were all Jews, and familiar with the ceremonies of the 
 old dispensation, their neglect to make any distinct and explicit arrangement for 
 the succession of the ministry under the new dispensation, is a strong- proof, 
 although negative, that such succession never was intended as is now maintained, 
 especially when we find minor points of form attended to — such as directions 
 respecting men and women prophesying and preaching, as to their dress, etc. 
 (1 Cor. 11). 
 
 (13) But in place of finding authority for the necessity of Episcopal succession, 
 I think we can find directly the contrary in the case of the Deacons (Acts 6:1-5). 
 Seven Deacons were chosen by the people “ to serve tables” because it was not rea¬ 
 sonable that the Apostles should “ leave the word of God ” for that purpose. Being 
 thus chosen, the Apostles laid their hands on them. 
 
 (14) What was intended by laying on of hands ? Acts 13 : 3 shows that it was 
 not always an ordination or communication of clerical authority, since St. Paul was 
 already an Apostle. It was then, at times, something different. This may have 
 been nothing more than a public recognition or testimonial of their appointment; 
 but it was probably something more. Still, granting the greatest stress to tire lay¬ 
 ing on of hands, it was only to “ serve tables,” and if we imagine, in the absence of 
 proof, that it was for anything else, we are going beyond the record, and substitut¬ 
 ing opinion for fact. Now, we find Stephen preaching (Acts 6: 10, 7), and Philip 
 preaching and baptizing (Act 8 :12, etc.) Hence the conclusion that it required no 
 especial ordination to authorize men to preach and to initiate others into the Church. 
 And that this example might not be lost in after ages, it was done in the very days 
 of the Apostles, and the circumstances related along with the acts of the Apostles 
 in terms of approbation (xv. 17). 
 
 (15) Again (1 Cor. 11) we find particular directions given to people respecting their 
 conduct in church, as to men and women preaching and prophesying with heads 
 covered ; as to the Sacrament and their manners at it, etc. Now, we cannot sup¬ 
 pose that all these men and women were ordained to act in the ministry. 
 
 (1G) Again (Acts 9: 10 and 17) we have the case of Ananias, a “ certain disciple,” 
 ■who, “ putting his hands on ” Saul, Saul received his sight “ forthwith, and arose 
 and was baptized.” Now, we hear nothing of Ananias having been ordained, or 
 having received any special authority to act in the ministry, and from the manner 
 in which his name is introduced, “ a certain disciple,” we have no right to suppose 
 he was anything more than an obscure layman. 
 
 (17) But more than this, St. Paul tells us (Gal. 1: 12, 16, 17) that he did not re¬ 
 ceive the Gospel from man, nor went up to Jerusalem to those that were Apostles 
 before him, but acted as an Apostle for three years before he saw any of the other 
 Apostles. Here then we have the strongest possible case against the necessity of a 
 succession, when we find a layman, by the express command of the Lord, putting 
 his hands on Saul that he might receive his sight, and without any such command 
 baptizing him who was a chosen vessel, and recognized by the other Apostles as 
 one of their number.* 
 
 ( 18 ) * “ It appears to me very remarkable that those who maintain the necessity of Apostolic Suc¬ 
 cessors, to receive the promise, “ Lo I am with you to the end of the world,” should depend for the 
 proof on the authority of St. Paul, v» r ho at the time the promise was made was not only not one 
 of those to whom it was personally addressed, but was then an open and bitter enemy of the 
 
CHAPTER XYI. 
 
 179 
 
 19th. Section. 
 
 (19) If the above views are correct, as I think they are, we have only to look to 
 
 the Bible itself to ascertain whether any denomination forms part of the Catholic 
 Church. We are not obliged to depend upon any doubtful or controverted testi¬ 
 mony as to succession through long ages of darkness, confusion, and superstition. 
 We are not bound to adhere to those who act in opposition to the dictates of the 
 Bible upon the ground that they only have authority to form and regulate the 
 Church. But when we find grievous errors in the Church ; “the law of God ren¬ 
 dered of none effect by tradition,” and opposition to real piety in those who should 
 lead the way, while they keep others in bondage by their exclusive claims, for their 
 own emolument or self-importance ; then, as in the days of the Reformation, 
 taking the New Testament as the charter “ whereby Christ hath made us free,” we 
 have a Scriptural right to protest against error, however ancient, and coming back 
 to first principles as laid down in revelation, to form a new association of Christians, 
 either under the old form as to externals or any other that appears better suited to 
 advance the one grand object of vital piety.xi. 2; xii. 8. 
 
 (20) Nor are we bound to remain amidst corruption, and wait until one of those 
 having authority shall see fit to join with the protestants, but in the absence of 
 orders to the contrary, and with the example of the Beacons and of Ananias before 
 us, we have the right to form a community, without including one of those who be¬ 
 lieve that they have exclusive authority, without being able, as far as I can see, to 
 produce proof that such authority was committed to them, or to any one else, since 
 the days of the Apostles. 
 
 (21) Who, then, form the Catholic Church ? Those that believe and are baptized 
 
 (Mark 16: 16); those “ that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all 
 that call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord ” (Cor. 1 : 2). Of this, “ Christ is the 
 head of the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead ” (Col. 1 :18). 
 This Church, having many branches, still forms but one Catholic Church. To 
 exemplify this unity, we may refer to our own political government. We have the 
 one grand law or constitution of the Union, to which all must submit, as all Christians 
 to the one grand constitution of Christianity—the Bible. Under these constitu¬ 
 tions, each separate community is at liberty to regulate the details of its separate 
 organization, so as not to conflict with the supreme law, and as long as they obey 
 the supreme law they form members of the general union. If, however, they 
 deviate from this law, they forfeit their ciaim to the title of members.xi. 2. 
 
 (22) Now, we are ordered not to neglect assembling ourselves together. Con¬ 
 sequently we are bound to form congregations, and consequently to become mem¬ 
 bers of some congregation, independently of considerations upon general principles, 
 which show the important effects of association and organization to advance any 
 
 Christians. Nor did he succeed one of them, or claim to he a successor, hut expressly disclaimed 
 it for himself, and asserted that man could not give it. Thus, in the year A.D. 33, the promise 
 was made (Mat. 28 : 20); A.D. 33, Saul at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7: 58, 8-1), A.D. 34, Saul 
 persecutes the Christians (Acts 8 : 3). A.D. 35, Saul converted (Acts 9: 10 to 18), and preaches im¬ 
 mediately (Acts 9 : 20); A.D. 38, Paul first Avent to Jerusalem, and saw only Peter and James, for 
 only 15 days (Gal. 1: 18); A.D. 45, Paul and Barnabas sent forth; imposition of hands (Acts 13: 1 
 to 3); A.D. 51, they go to the first Council of the Apostles (Acts 15 : 1 to 30); A. D. 58, Paul says 
 that he is “ an apostle (not of men neither by men,” etc.) Gal. 1 : 1—). 
 
 This note is on a reverse page of the original, with the remark : “ This was not included in the 
 paper seen by D'r. Wainwright; it was a subsequent thought, but about the same date.” 
 
180 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 22d Section. 
 
 ! 
 
 common object, and Christians are bound to use all endeavors to advance the cause 
 of Christianity...ix. 3. 
 
 (23) As to the particular denomination, each one must judge for himself, and he 
 
 is bound to do so. If he conscientiously comes to the conclusion that one denomi¬ 
 nation only is correct, he is bound to join with that one. If, on the contrary, he 
 believes that there are several equally right in essentials, he is at liberty to choose 
 that which best suits his peculiar views, or even habits or feelings, holding at all 
 times in view the object of the association. This latter is my own case. I prefer 
 the Episcopalians because they do not insist upon the same rigid uniformity on 
 certain doctrinal “ points which God has left at large,” as some of the other denom¬ 
 inations. I prefer the Common Prayer Book to extemporaneous prayers, because 
 I am sure of having a large proportion of the service excellent, whoever may be 
 the officiating clergyman. And it may be that I prefer it from habit. But whatever 
 be the real ground of preference, I hold that preference to be justifiable, because I 
 am satisfied that as a denomination they are correct, although I do not agree with 
 some of our most estimable clergymen on the point of succession, and at times hear 
 remarks from others that grate upon the ear like the expression of the Pharisee to¬ 
 ward the Publican. At the same time there are several other denominations or 
 sects (for I consider the Episcopalian as much a sect as any other) that, holding to 
 the orthodox faith, and the truth as I see it laid down in the Bible, are in my 
 opinion quite as good as the Episcopalian for those who prefer them; and holding 
 these views, I am desirous of seeing them prosper—and if need be, helping them 
 as I have done—as the denomination that I prefer for myself..ix. 3. 
 
 (24) I see no evil arising from the “ Multitude of Sects.” Nothing comes by 
 chance. The promise still holds good: “ Lo, I am with you to the end of the 
 world.” The Church Catholic is under the guidance of the Almighty. Better 
 that we should have a multitude of sects, each striving for the truth, and actually 
 maintaining the truth in one of its forms, with the only error that they believe 
 themselves exclusively right, than introduce the inactivity and practical sloth in 
 religion that would follow the union of all into one denomination. Better that 
 those who deny the truth and maintain vital error should stand by themselves and 
 proclaim their views, that others may see in them the same doctrines condemned 
 by the Apostles, and be incited by the knowledge of the danger, to guard the 
 unwary from following in their footsteps, than by an outward conformity to 
 remain as a secret sore, festering and spreading its poison through the constitu¬ 
 tion. (xv. 21.) 
 
 , [Copy of the letter to Rev. J. M. Wcdnwright, dated New York , Feb. 8, 1846.] 
 
 (25) “ The enclosed communication will give you my views on the subject of 
 Apostolic Succession. I have read your arguments in favor of its existence and 
 
 necessity, and I have read other productions on the same subject, and my con¬ 
 clusions are the reverse of those which you have deduced from the same source. 
 
 “ I freely grant that as to your opinions and my own on any theological point 
 where we differ, a third person would be much safer in following you than me ; 
 especially since I believe that the Succession is the only question upon which I 
 dissent from your views. In other respects I have been struck with the remarkable 
 harmony of our views, and on some points have been much gratified in finding 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 181 
 
 25th. Section. 
 
 myself sustained against the opinions of others, by simple matter-of-fact argument 
 and close reasoning from the only data that we have, without indulging in flights 
 of poetical imagination and supposition, to fill up those blanks where revelation 
 has left us in ignorance. 
 
 “ Still I must be bound by my own conscientious opinions, although 1 find those 
 opinions opposed by one whose views I highly regard, who having made theology 
 a study, is familiar with many things with which I am not acquainted; who is 
 familiar with all the passages in Scripture bearing on important points, while many 
 of the most opposite may escape my observation ; and finally, in my view a most 
 important consideration, who has drawn those plain, common-sense, logical conclu¬ 
 sions from his quotations that I believe they have invariably agreed with my pre¬ 
 viously formed opinions, or received my full assent at the time with the single ex¬ 
 ception of the succession of the ministry. 
 
 “ The fact of this general concurrence, and the unexceptionable manner in which 
 on all other points your conclusions have appeared to me to be drawn, is almost the 
 only thing remaining to lead me to doubt whether with a more profound knowl¬ 
 edge of the subject you have not arrived at the same result that I would reach 
 with the same knowledge. Still, I must suppose that your late production on 
 this subject contains all of importance that can be said, and this has failed to con¬ 
 vince me. 
 
 (26) “ I leave this communication for you to examine at your leisure, not as a 
 matter of theoretical discussion, but for practical purposes. I consider it my duty 
 to join some orthodox denomination. I prefer that which I have attended from 
 my youth up, when within my reach, for reasons stated in the communication. 
 I have given my views of the Succession in full. My object is to learn whether 
 these views would be inconsistent in a member of the Episcopal denomination, 
 (xii. 38.) 
 
 (27) “ Whatever may be the result, whether I become a member of the Episcopa¬ 
 lian or some other denomination, I shall never object to the discussion of the ques¬ 
 tion of succession as a matter of argument and proof, as you have done. But it is 
 extremely disagreeable to me to hear it handled as I have on several occasions, 
 by other clergymen in St. John’s Church and in print, where the speakers appeared 
 to me to be actuated by the haughty feelings of the Pharisee, boasting of their own 
 exclusive claims, looking down with contempt and treating with contumely and 
 ridicule, the ‘ Multitude of sects ’ that did not belong to * The Church ’ par excel¬ 
 lence, as if their ipsi dixit were infallible, in place of the Christian humility of the 
 Publican, 4 Lord, have mercy on me a sinner .’ I object to no man holding firmly 
 to his own opinions conscientiously formed, and endeavoring with all his power to con¬ 
 vince others to turn to what he believes the right, and of vital importance ; at the 
 same time recollecting that he himself is but an erring mortal, and under this convic¬ 
 tion, pressing his point with all due modesty. But I do most strongly object to all 
 bigotry, the assumption of infallibility on controverted points, where frail man will 
 dare to assume the place of his Maker, and pronounce judgment ex cathedra, upon 
 all who using the same freedom as himself, and being bound by the same con¬ 
 science, come to a different conclusion. 4 Who art thou, 0 man, that judgest 
 another man’s servant? To his own master he either standeth or falletli.’ (xii. 8, 
 34.). 
 
182 
 
 CHAPTER XYI. 
 
 28th Section. 
 
 (28) “ But I do not consider a scrutiny into the opinions of members objectionable. 
 On the contrary, it is the duty of each denomination to judge of the qualifications 
 of ils own members, that discord may be prevented. Those whose views do not 
 harmonize on vital points, or such deemed so by the denomination, ought not to be 
 admitted nor desire admittance as members. Better for both that they should be 
 separate. But I should hail the day with joy, that saw the Catholic Church, not 
 divided against itself, as at present, no doubt for wise purposes, but each separate 
 branch keeping up such organization as they thought would produce the best re¬ 
 sults in their own case, they should all move in concert, striving to outdo each 
 other in the race of their high calling, to ‘ preach the gospel to every creature ’ in 
 place of checking and opposing each other, giving occasion for the infidel to scoff, 
 and leading the unreflecting to conclude that religion is nothing but priestcraft, 
 (iv. 3 ; ix. 3 ; xv. 15, 16.) 
 
 (29) “ I hope you will excuse my freedom of speech. I wish to give you my entire 
 opinion on these subjects, and have consequently written currente calamo, without 
 stopping to think whether this was not too strong, or that too unreserved. I will 
 close with this final remark, that if in any part of the communication or this letter, 
 you should find any remark or allusion that may appear unpleasant to you as far 
 as you are personally concerned, such has not been intended, for no such feeling 
 exists. The only difference between us is, in my view of the question, theoretical, 
 and that question never brought into the pulpit in a manner that can be objection¬ 
 able to any one who is not bigoted against those views. Finally: Whether I con¬ 
 tinue to attend St. John’s Church or go elsewhere ; whether you consider my views 
 vitally objectionable or not, I shall always recollect with pleasure the long time 
 past, during which I have heard your exposition of the Scriptures in the form and 
 manner that I think precisely suited to the subject.” (xii. 38.) 
 
 [Copy of the endorsed note containing the verbal answer of Iiev. J. M. Wciin- 
 wright, jD.JD.] 
 
 (30) “ ISi.B.—The above letter, inclosing the treatise under the head ‘Of whom 
 is the Catholic Church constituted ?’ (or rather copies of which these were the 
 originals) were left by me with Dr. Wain wright. I called on him a few days after, 
 and he said in answer, ‘ I have read over your communication and letter. You 
 appear to have given the subject a good deal of attention. There is nothing con¬ 
 tained in either that would prevent the most perfect fellowship with our Church. 
 There are many of our denomination who think as you do. I do not. There are 
 several of our clergy in this city who entertain substantially the same opinion with 
 yourself, and there are many who maintain that our Church was established with 
 the especial view of meeting these differences of opinion.’ This was the substance 
 as far as related to the present matter, and as near as I can recollect, his very 
 words. June 8, 1846, B. Aycrigg.” (xii. 38). 
 
Chapters XVII., XVIII, XIX.; which, added to the edition of 1875, 
 
 complete the 
 
 MEMOIRS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 tfarmelr GfS p m 0 j a I 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 WITH 
 
 COTEMPORARY REPORTS RESPECTING THESE AND 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 
 
 EXTRACTED FROM THE PUBLIC PRESS , 
 
 ANALYZED AND COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS HISTORY, 
 
 Second Edition, with Additions, 
 
 BY 
 
 BENJAMIN AYCRIGG, 
 
 A.B. and A.M. of Col. Coll., New York; PH.D. of Penn. Col.; C:E. 
 
 “ Schism is a Sin by Apostolic Authority 
 “ Separation from Schism is a Duty by Apostolic Example A 
 “ Separation from his Schism is Schism according to each Canonists 
 
 Chap. xii. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY EDWARD O. JENKINS, 
 20 North William Street, 
 
 1876. 
 
 / 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 R. E. C.— CHAPTERS I. AND II. .CONTINUED. 
 
 SEE APPENDIX, CHAPTER XX. 
 
 1875. 
 
 April 14. Philadelphia (Epis. Recorder). On Monday, in Oxford Hall, prayers 
 were conducted by Rev. Ch. H. Tucker, the minister in charge. Begun six weeks 
 ago with four persons, now has 88 members, a Sunday-school with 12 officers and 
 teachers; prayer-meeting every Wednesday. Bishop Cummins explained the 
 difference between the R. E. C. and the P. E. C. Proceedings were had to form an 
 organization. 
 
 April 14. Baltimore (Epis. Rec.) The Church of the Redeemer was organized 
 on April 7. 
 
 April 14. Chicago (Epis. Rec.) An independent German Lutheran Church on 
 Wentworth Avenue (St. Stephen’s) has made formal application to be admitted to 
 the R. E. C. (xvii. May 12-18). 
 
 April 14. Louisville, Ky. (Epis. Rec.) Rev. J. K. Dunn, Pastor of Emmanuel 
 took charge on April ll. 
 
 April 14. Free Church of England (Epis. Rec.) At the last meeting of the 
 Council, “ it was moved by Bishop Price, and seconded by the Rev. J. Sugden, B.A., 
 and resolved ‘that the question of harmonizing the Constitutions of the Free 
 Church of England and the R. E. C. of America be referred to a committee,’ ” etc. 
 
 April 21. Philadelphia (Epis. Rec.) Emmanuel Church, Kensington. Rev. 
 Mr. Malone, on his return from Louisville, found his residence, 837 Norris street^ 
 completely furnished and a repast prepared. 
 
 Also, in Germantown, with Rev. G. A. Redles, Pastor, “ the vestry think their 
 prosperity is reasonably steady and secure.” 
 
 Also, at Oxford Hall (see April 14), the congregation organized, on April 18, as 
 “ Church of our Redeemer.” 
 
 April 21. Put-in-Bay, Ohio (Epis. Rec.) Twelve years since established as 
 P.. E. C., but open to ministers of all denominations. The excluding Canon of 
 1868 forbid this, and it became Congregational. Failing in health, Mr. Weldon 
 had to retire. Rev. W. Bower, of the R. E. C., was invited, and took charge on last 
 Easter. “ At the Parish meeting the next day... .it was resolved unanimously that 
 the Parish... .be known as the Reformed Episcopal Church of Put-in-Bay.” 
 (xii. 59.) 
 
 April 21. Toronto, Canada (Epis. Rec.) Emmanuel Church held the first serv¬ 
 ice on March 7, and organized on Easter Tuesday .. .have purchased land, 42x126, 
 and expect to have a frame mission chapel up in about six weeks. (January 1, 
 
 1876, Toronto.) 
 
 (183) 
 
184 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 April 21, 1875. 
 
 April 21. New Brunswick, Canada (Epis. Bee.) Rev. Jolin Todd, M.A, says : 
 “ Our ‘ Act of Incorporation ’ has safely passed, so that now. .. .the R. E. C. is an 
 
 established fact_in its legal aspect... .On the 13th we had the first of a series of 
 
 ‘ Convocations' ... .entirely unofficial... .the brightest day in all our experience of 
 this Church... .The laity are playing a most important part. The lost talent of lay 
 speaking is being unearthed.., .A building committee has been appointed, an 
 eligible site secured, and wejiope, ere the end of summer, to have a neat and com¬ 
 modious church of... .St. John’s Church, in the Parish of Sussex, County of Kings, 
 and Province of New Brunswick.” 
 
 April 21, Victoria, B. C. (Epis. Rec.) The Sunday-school at the beginning of 
 January had 205 scholars, and since then 50 have been added, with 19 teachers, all 
 members of the R. E. C-Plans for a church and Sunday-school have been ac¬ 
 
 cepted, and the contract for the latter will be given out March 31. (xvii. June 9, 
 1875.) 
 
 April 21. Differences between the R. E. C. and the Church of England (Epis. 
 Rec.) These are substantially the same as stated, Chap. II., July 8, 1874. 
 
 April 21. “ Comprehensiveness ” a myth in the P.,E. C.xviii. 
 
 April 22. Prayer-Book Revision (Canada).xviii. 
 
 April 28. Conservatism in the Irish Revision..xx. 9. 
 
 May 1. The Church Association in Canada.xviii. 
 
 May 5. Rev. Dr. Richard Newton’s reasons (Epis. Rec.) for not joining the 
 R. E. C., as given in an advertised address on May 2, in the Church of the Epiph¬ 
 any : 1st. “ To do so is not wise,” for we must testify “ in the midst of error.” [Stay 
 in the Church of Rome?] 2d. It “is not right ” to separate the wheat from the 
 tares, “ let both grow together.” [?] 3d. It “ is not kind.” If all the-evangelical 
 
 ministers should leave the Episcopal Church, what would be the condition of the 
 people but to be handed over to Romanists and Ritualists ? [Have the people no 
 minds of their own?]. 4tli. “It calls for au expenditure of means which is not 
 necessary.” [?]. They put forth special efforts to build on another man’s foundation. 
 [?]... .One Rector. .. .informed him that every family of his parish had been solicit¬ 
 ed, and urged to join the organization. [By whom ? This is striking in the dark.] 
 5tli. It “ is not charitable.” It alienates and separates those who are at one in a 
 house... .causes strife... .needless and painful... .Nothing can justify it.. . .Charity 
 ... .endureth all things... .That heavenly charity must fail in every one who joins 
 this Church. [Why ?] 6th. It is “ not expedient.’’ The foundation is too narrow 
 ....‘ regenerate ’ in the baptismal service is the greatest difficulty... .1 maintain 
 that any minister has a right to omit the word... .1 will venture to say that 
 never will any minister be disturbed again who omits the word. [Dr. N. is not the 
 P. E. C.]... .In order to cover up their defect, the R. E. C. has to abuse the old 
 Church. [See Chap, xiii, xiv.] 7th. “It is not safe to join....has nothing 
 
 which gives any promise of stability... .Bishop Cummins. .. .took off all the rivets 
 
 * 
 
 from the ship; so it will not be a safe ship in a storm, [xix. 2.]....it is not 
 safe.” [He is more prudent than Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley.] The editor then 
 reviews these positions (xvii. Jan. 19, 1876, you cannot ; xviii. Jan. 1, 1876, Ch.) 
 
 May 5. New STork first R. E. C. (Epis. Rec.) Income for the year, $16,217.51, 
 of which $4,170 for Sustentation fund, of which $2,000 reverted to the use of this 
 church. Upwards of 200 communicants. Missionary offerings, $225. Sunday- 
 school 200. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 185 
 
 May 5, 1875. 
 
 May 5. Brooklyn (Epis. Rec.) On 26tli April, services in which Rev. Dr. Thomp¬ 
 son of the Dutch Reformed, and Rev. Dr. Buffington of the Congregational, and 
 Rev. Dr. Cuyler of the Congregational, and Rev. Mr. Schultz of the Moravian 
 church took part with Bishop Cummins and the Rector, Rev. W. II. Reid, while 
 Rev. Dr. Buckley of the Methodist was on the platform. Then five confirmed, and 
 the accession of thirteen others announced, (xix. 13.) 
 
 May 5. Victoria, B. C. (Epis. Rec.) Bazar on the 31st of March ; yielded 
 $1,200. 
 
 May 5. Toronto (Epis. Rec.) Rev. B. B. Usslier, M.D., is temporarily in 
 charge. * 
 
 May 12-18, Journal of 3d General Council contains: Officers, 1875-G; Members 
 of General Council (pp. 5-8); Rules of Order ; Dr. Thompson’s credentials (xv. 18) ; 
 Report on printing Prayer-Book ; Report of Standing Committee, showing the fol¬ 
 lowing clergymen admitted during the last year, with the names of the churches 
 from which they came, viz.: W. S. Perkins, P. E. C. ; John Todd, Methodist ; 
 Edwin Potter, Meth. ; James A. Latane, P. E. C. ; Joseph S. Malone, P. E. C. ; Wm. 
 R. Nicholson, P. E. C. ; W. H. Johnson, P. E. C. (xiv. 10); William Bower, P. E. C.; 
 J. Howard Smith, P. E. C. ; G. A. Redles, P. E. C. ; Benjamin Johnson, P. E. C.; 
 Edward Cridge, Church of England ; J. Eastburn Brown, P. E. C.; J. H. McElRey, 
 P. E. C. Also, recommended as candidates: W. A. Green (colored), John S. Gibson, 
 Alexander Sloan, R. F. Kingsley. Also to the Diaconate, Alexander Sloan ; and to 
 the Presbyteriate, Rev. John Todd and Rev. Edwin Potter. Also, churches re¬ 
 ceived in Louisville, Toronto, Jefferson City, Victoria, B. C. ; St. John, N. B .; 
 Newark, Sussex, N. B. (xvii. April 21.) 
 
 Committee appointed to prepare a statement of the points of difference between 
 the P. E. C. and the R. E. C. (p. 18 ; xvii. Feb. 9, 1876). Bishop W. L. Harris, 
 D.D., Methodist, addressed the Council, and took a seat beside the Presiding Bishop 
 (p. 18). Free Church of England adoption of articles of federation reported (p. 19 ; 
 xv. 15). 'Special services presented—that for Easter day accepted. St. Stephen’s 
 Lutheran Church received. All proposed services to be printed and circulated be¬ 
 fore being recommended for use (p. 21 ; xix. 5). Bishop Cummins’ report (pp. 21- 
 25). Committee to recommend a course of study to next Council. Committee on 
 statistics appointed. German Prayer-Book ordered. Rev. A. R. Thompson’s 
 address (pp. 26-30) ; Bishop Cummins’ answer (pp. 30-32). Delegates to Reformed 
 (Dutch) Church, Rev. M. B. Smith, and alternate, Rev. W. R. Nicholson, D.D., on 
 first Wednesday in June (xv. 17). Articles I. to X. adopted (pp. 33-35). Treasurer 
 reported $16,522.70 received for general purposes, leaving balance on hand $313.36 
 (p. 36). Rev. M. B. Smith reported Prayer and Hymn-Books printed, 22,550 : vol¬ 
 umes bound, 16,106 ; circulated, 12,000 (p. 37.) 
 
 Next Council to be held at Ottawa (p. 38 ; xvii. March 1, 1876. Confer). Changes 
 in Prayer-Book referred (p. 39; xix. 6). Art. xi.-xvii. (pp. 40-42). Committees nom¬ 
 inated (p. 43). Art. xviii. (p. 43). Chicago Preachers’ Association of the Metho¬ 
 dist Epis. Cli. introduced. Rev. Edward Cridge, of Victoria, B. C., elected Bishop 
 (p. 44). Rev. Jas. A. Latane elected Bishop (p. 45) [Declined]. Articles xix.-xxvii. 
 (pp. 46-48). Standing Committees elected (pp. 49, 50). Articles xxviii.-xxxv. (pp. 
 50, 51). Adoption of Articles (p. 53; xix. 1.) 
 
 Report of Financ t Committee: “ We meet without a debt. $12,000 required for 
 
186 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 May 12-18, 1875. 
 
 the coming year for salaries and traveling expenses of the Presiding Bishop and 
 the Evangelists, and for salary of the Secretary of the Standing Committee for rent 
 of office, and for printing and other contingencies. Your committee therefore 
 recommends that a quarterly collection be taken in each parish, and transmitted to 
 the Treasurer of the Sustentation Fund, in order to meet the above expenses, and to 
 place in the hands of the Committee on Sustentation an extra fund to be used in the 
 same mode as during the last year, to afford help in any direction where such help 
 may be necessary.” 
 
 Rev. Benjamin Johnson elected as Evangelist in the South. Rev. W. R. 
 Nicholson, D.D., elected Bishop (p. 55 ; xvii. Feb. 25, 1876). Dec. 2 to be observed 
 as the anniversary of the founding of R. E. C. (p. 56 ; ix; x.) 
 
 Appendix contains the sermon by Bishop Cummins (pp. 1-19). Articles of Re¬ 
 ligion as adopted (pp. 21-29). Forms (pp. 80-38). Constitution and Canons, with 
 their index, (p. 5-52.) 
 
 May 31. Rev. Samuel Fallows, D.D. (Times). A Western Methodist news¬ 
 paper announces that Rev. Samuel Fallows, D.D., now President of the Illinois 
 Wesleyan University at Bloomington, is about to withdraw from the Methodist 
 Church, and adds: “ Dr. Fallows departs, not because of any sort of dissatisfaction 
 or any shade of discontent with our doctrines or modes of work, but simply because 
 his services are in request by those who are laying plans for usefulness on principles 
 already familiar to a Methodist minister. The doctor will, in July, become Rector 
 of St. Paul’s Reformed Episcopal Church in Mil waukee [Chicago], and in addition 
 to his duties with a Church which aims to do earnest work on the tabernacle plan 
 among the masses, lie will superintend the laying of foundations for an educational 
 institution among his new constituency. In this instance, as always, under similar 
 circumstances, we trust all our readers and our whole Church will give Dr. Fallows a 
 generous, hearty, candid, and Christian God-speed. He goes without discount or 
 stain, and by laws of true Christian economy we gladly spare him to those whose 
 laborers are not so numerous as ours. We congratulate his new constituency upon 
 the acquisition they will presently gain. President Fallows resigned his Presi¬ 
 dency May 18, but will serve at Bloomington until after the June Commence¬ 
 ment.” (xix. 13.) 
 
 June 9. Tobago. (Epis. Rec.) A clergyman writes to Bishop Cummins: “ I am 
 authorized by the Leeward parishes of this island, viz., St. David’s and St. Patrick’s, 
 congregations of about 3,000 attendants and 500 communicants, to address you and 
 express our united desire to join the R. E. C., placing ourselves under your Episco¬ 
 pal charge.” 
 
 June 9. Victoria, B. C. (Epis. Rec.) A contract has been made for building a 
 church. An organ has been purchased in San Francisco, (xvii. April 21.) 
 
 June 9. Retirement of Rev. John Cotton Smith.xviii. 
 
 June 15. Church of England. Its legal position.xviii. 
 
 June 16. Reformed (Dutch) Church (Epis. Rec.) On June 7, Rev. Marshall 
 B. Smith, Delegate from the R. E. C., addressed the General Synod: “The word 
 Episcopal, as we understand it, signifies but little more than what you understand 
 by the word Presbyterian... .We are not disorganizers or destroyers of the faith. 
 We hold the same great principles of truth, in all their integrity, that you hold.... 
 Coming to you to-day, in response to your invitation, we recognize in ycu the rep- 
 
 I 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 187 
 
 June 16, 1875. 
 
 resentatives of the historic Church of the Netherlands, one of the grandest bul¬ 
 warks against Romish intolerance and superstition. „. .We thank God that the first 
 Church which gave us the hand of fellowship was the child of that good old Church 
 of Holland, whose history is baptized in martyrs’ blood.” (xv. 17 ; xvii. May 12-18, 
 1875; xix. 13.) 
 
 Rev. W. R. Nicholson (Bishop elect in the R. E. C.) spoke of the unity of the 
 Church, or oneness of souls in Christ. “ The Reformed Church in America we can 
 never forget, nor the good old times of Dort, and of our own Bishop Hall... .The 
 Reformed Church, grand in its historical associations, and with its big heart still as 
 warm as ever; and the R. E. C., as yet of so tender an age... .may they ever go 
 hand in hand.’’ (xix. 13.) 
 
 Rev. Charles Scott, of Michigan, President of the Synod, said : “ This Reformed 
 Church sent you a hearty greeting, and how heartily you have responded... .More 
 than 250 years ago, representatives of the Episcopal Church stood in the presence 
 of the Dutch Synod. The two churches then labored hand in hand and heart to 
 heart. More than 150 years ago, our ministers put their bands on one of your 
 Episcopal ministers in New York... .1 have educated a minister of that body, and 
 he tells me to-day that I am not a minister. But such barriers, as far as you are 
 concerned, are all fallen. You come to say, We are brethren ; and that hearty 
 welcome which we gave you will still go with you.” (xv. 17.) 
 
 June 19. Bishops above law (Chn.).xviii. 
 
 June 24. Bishops above law (So. Ch.).xviii. 
 
 July 3. R. E. C. in Canada (Chn.) A “ letter from England,” says : “ Nothing is 
 more detested in Ireland, than the mongrel thing which we call ‘ritualism.’ This 
 agitation reminds me of the schism, of which you have yourselves to complain, 
 and which I have just heard has extended itself with fatal rapidity outside the 
 limits of your government into the British colonies . . . and we are less surprised 
 than distressed to hear that a head has been found for the schismatic body, in 
 
 Dean Cridge.” (xvii. May 12-18, 1875; March 1, 1876; Confer.) 
 
 July 3. Oxford University (Chn).xviii. 
 
 July 3. Toronto Synod (Chn).xviii. 
 
 July 7. Rev. Dr. Seymour (Ch. St.) on June 24, was elected Permanent Dean 
 of the General Theological Seminary, (xii. 59). 
 
 July 8. Rev. Dr. Seymour, Bishop of the R. E. C. (So. Ch.).xviii. 
 
 July 8. P. E. C. is “a most respectable society” (So. Ch.).xviii. 
 
 July 10. The right of separation (Chn.) The editor says ; “ We can never join 
 those theorists, who launch their thunders at the so-called Reformed Church, as if 
 separation were in all cases a profane schism. The right of revolution is not to be 
 denied in the State or in the Church. But it can only be justified when, as in the 
 case of the Old Catholics, the Papal law became a despotism beyond all hope of 
 wise reform. It can only be justified when its good is sure to be greater than the 
 evil of dismemberment. This is the touchstone of common sense by which the 
 movement will be tried ; and among the twelve reasons of Wesley there are two 
 which we commend to our reformers: ‘ Because the plan of a new church would 
 require much more wisdom and depth of thought than any of us are masters of.’ 
 ‘Because the experiment has been so frequently tried and the success has never 
 answered the expectations.’” (xiii. 10, 12 ; xix. 2). 
 
188 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 July 14, 1875. 
 
 July 14. R. E. C. in Virginia (Epis. Rec.) On July 3, Rev. J. A. Latane 
 preached in Washington, Rappahannock Co., Va. On Monday, July 5, the First R. 
 E. C. of Rappahannock was organized, (xvii. May 12-18, 1875.) 
 
 July 21. Rev. John Cotton Smith, D .D. (Cli. St.) Speaking of his retirement 
 from the editorship of Ch. St., the Evangelist says: “ Dr. Smith would fain make 
 room for all the warring elements within the Episcopal fold, and it .would appear 
 that his spirit of extreme tolerance has in recent months, especially since the Re¬ 
 formed movement set in, met with a wide, not to say general acceptance.” (xii. 58). 
 
 And the Springfield Republican says: “ All ecclesiastical proceedings against any 
 of these schools, he deems most unwise ; without such proceedings, he asserts that 
 the ‘ unjustifiable and wicked’ Reformed Episcopal (Cummins) movement would 
 never have taken pi ace.” (ii. Dec. 16,1874, B. A.; xix. 12). 
 
 July 21. Influence of the R. E. C. in Canada (Epis. Rec.) A correspondent of 
 the Toronto Globe says: “ Professor Wilson at the late meeting of the Church Asso¬ 
 ciation, boasted that the Association are the only ones that are keeping low-church¬ 
 men from joining the R. E. C. He states probably a fact. . . . Who has given 
 relief to the low-cliurch party, from the ritualism of Rev. Mr. Darling, and 
 wrested a division of the parish and a low-cliurcli clergyman from the Bishop of 
 Toronto ? All know—the R, E. C. Who stood in the gap and smited down higli- 
 churcli bigotry on its way to persecute Dean Grassett ? The R. E. C. Over one 
 hundred of the Dean’s congregation declared that if the persecutions were not 
 stopped, they would go right over and join the R. E. C., and higli-churchmen 
 ieared another Dean Cridge affair on their hands. Who caused Archdeacon Low- 
 derto cast out every particle of Romanism from the altar and chancel of Christ 
 Church, Ottawa? The R. E. C. All the struggles of low-churchmen to get rid of 
 these things were futile until Mr. Bishop, of Spark street, and five others, went to 
 the Archdeacon and told him that they could stand them no longer, and were about 
 to go over and join the R. E. C. The R. E. C. has done all this and yet ‘ it is unsuited 
 to Canada !’ ” (III. Jan. 14, 1875. Toronto.) 
 
 Aug. 25. Bishop duintard (Epis. Rec.) In his letter of February 12, 1875, in 
 answer to resignation of Rev. J. Howard Smith, D.D., of February 5 (i. Feb. 17), he 
 says : “ All that I can recognize is the fact, that you have renounced the ministry 
 of the Church, and decided to unite yourself to the so-called R. E. C. This is an 
 act of your own mere grace and free will. I can not look upon it but as an act of 
 schism, and schism is a sin ; and sin needs to be repented of. Should you consum¬ 
 mate the act, you will assuredly be guilty of a wilful breach of the outward unity 
 of the Church, and for this there is no sufficient cause. Your act will be not only 
 schism, but a causeless schism. . . . Men, I know, argue that there should be differ¬ 
 ent sects. . . . But what is this but to affirm that the Gospel is dependent for the 
 preservation of its purity and vitality on the works of the flesh, * which are hatred, 
 variance, emulations, strifes, sedition, heresies.’ ” (xiii. 10 ; xix. 12). 
 
 Sept. 1. No re-ordination of a Romish Priest.xviii. 
 
 Sept. 4. Bishop Cox on the rejection of Seymour.xviii. 
 
 Sept. 8. R. E. C. at Chatham, N. B. (Epis. Rec.) Bishop Cummins writes Aug. 
 18, that a church has been inaugurated in Chatham on the Miramichi (pronounced 
 Miramashee). 
 
 Sept. 11. Bishop Cox, continues Sept. 4 (Chn.) 
 
 xviii. 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 189 
 
 September 16, 1875. 
 
 Sept. 16. Hev. Dr. Stephen H. Tyng, Jr. (So. Ch.) Dr. Tyng writes to a Chi¬ 
 cago paper: “ I have been a close observer of the Reformed Church._another of the 
 
 schisms which have disturbed... .the outward how of the Catholic and Apostolic 
 faith... .If it is to be the gospel of ill-will, we know what its end will be... .The 
 Episcopal Church, as they can see, is in no way disturbed by the spirit they have 
 shown.” (This is a forgery. See xviii. Jan. 1; xi. 42.) 
 
 Sept. 16. Virginia Churchman (So. Ch.) says: “If there are any in our 
 Church contemplating leaving its fold to join the so-called £ R. E. C.’ we would beg 
 them to consider... .That movement has effected, can effect nothing towards a 
 reformation. It can not touch the‘ Ritualist ’ or the ‘ High-Cliurcliman. ’ Its only ef¬ 
 fect has been heretofore, and must be hereafter, the weakening the hands of those 
 whose views on all essential points of doctrine are identical with the originators and 
 abettors of this new scheme.” Signed, “ An Evangelical Churchman.” (xii. 33-59). 
 
 Sept. 22. Missionary Jurisdiction of the H. E. C. (Epis. Rec.) 1st, St. John, 
 comprising the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince 
 Edward’s Island, with Standing Committee, Rev. W. V. Feltwell, Rev. J. Eastburn 
 Brown, Henry Jack, Esq., John Clark, Esq. 
 
 (2) Ottawa, comprising the Canadian Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Mani¬ 
 toba. Standing Committee, Rev. H. M. Collisson, Rev. J. McCormac, Alexander 
 Burritt, Esq., Henry Alexander, Esq. 
 
 (3 ) Pacific, comprising the Canadian Province of British Columbia, and all the 
 States and Territories of the United States west of the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 (4) East, comprising the New England States and the States of New York and 
 New Jersey. Standing Committee, Rev. W. T. Sabine, Rev. J. Howard Smith, D.D., 
 Jas. L. Morgan, Esq, William Scharf, Esq. 
 
 (5) Central, comprising the States of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Standing 
 Committee, Rev. William R. Nicholson, D.D., Rev. Walter Windeyer, Thomas H. 
 Powers, Esq., Samuel Ashurst, M.D. 
 
 (G) South, comprising the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, and all 
 other of the United States lying east of the Mississippi River, and south of the 
 Ohio River, not already embraced in the missionary jurisdiction of the East, and 
 the Central Missionary Jurisdiction. Standing Committee, Rev. W. M. Postleth- 
 waite, Rev. James A. Latane, R. H. Franklin, Esq., G. Morris Bond, Esq. 
 
 (7) North-west and West, comprising the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, 
 Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and all other of the States and Territories of the 
 United States lying west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Moun¬ 
 
 tains. 
 
 Sept;. 22. Sale of Church and State to Churchman .xviii. 
 
 Sept. 23. Pulverization of Bishops—Bishop Clark.xviii. 
 
 Oct. 2. Infidels and gamblers in Illinois.xviii. 
 
 Oct. 9. Imitating, but abusing (Chn). (xix., 1£-15.) 
 
 Oct. 15. “The General Thanksgiving ” (Chn). “ H. H. 0.” says : “In two 
 recent issues of The Churchman I have noticed letters asking for the authority for 
 a novel custom in divine service. The practice alluded to is that of the congrega¬ 
 tion repeating the General Thanksgiving with the minister.” 
 
 [In the R. E. C. the Rubric so directs. On the continent of Europe I have in 
 several places heard it so repeated in the Church of England service ; as always at 
 
190 
 
 CHAPTER XYn. 
 
 October 15, 1875. 
 
 Vevay, in Switzerland, in the Summer of 1875. I was informed that such is the 
 practice where the clergy are Evangelical, while the High-Churchmen object to it.] 
 
 Nov. 6. Domestic Missions of the P. E. C .xviii 
 
 Nov. 6. Board of Missions of the P. E. C .xviii. 
 
 Nov. 6. House of Bishops.xviii. 
 
 Nov. 6. Bishop of Maine, annual address .xviii. 
 
 Nov. 6. General Theological Seminary. xviii. 
 
 Nov. 6. Society for Increase of the Ministry.xviii. 
 
 Nov. 11. Church Congress of the P. E. C .xviii. 
 
 Nov. 20. Christian Union.xviii. 
 
 Nov. 20. Church Congress. xviii. 
 
 Nov. 29. Cardinal McCloskey.xviii. 
 
 Dec. 10. English exclusiveness.xviii. 
 
 Dec. 11. Free Preaching and the Parish System.xix. 11 
 
 Dec. 15. First colored clergyman of the R. E. C. (Epis. Rec.) Bishop Cummins 
 writes that on Dec. 5 he ordained as “ Deacon Mr. Frank C. Ferguson, not a novice, 
 but one who in the P. E. C. has been an earnest and faithful worker as a layman 
 among his own race, and comes to us with the full confidence and high esteem of 
 both white and colored people among whom he resides. He has been for several 
 years preparing himself by study for the work of the ministry, and is a teacher 
 of a large school for colored children... .Rev. Mr. Stevens... .proposes to open, on 
 the 1st of January, 1876, in Charleston, a training school for the education of col¬ 
 ored candidates for the ministry.” 
 
 Dec. 15. N. Y. Herald (Epis. Rec.) A correspondent says: “ The progress of the 
 R. E. C. under very serious obstacles and hindrances of divers kinds has been 
 something rather remarkable, and shows, if such results can show, that it meets a 
 felt want of the people. In December, 1873, it had only eight clergymen, includ 
 ing Bishop Cummins, and not a single congregation. Now it has fifty congrega¬ 
 tions and more than that number of ministers. One characteristic of the R. E. C. 
 is that they do their work quietly and unostentatiously... .The young church 
 deserves the success it has had against the almost insuperable difficulties with 
 which it has bad to contend. Called into being at the beginning of this present 
 gigantic financial crisis, it has been compelled to struggle with poverty. Meeting 
 with a well-organized hostility in the Church whence she sprung, she has had to 
 labor for a foothold.” (x.; xiii.) 
 
 Dec. 29. Two more colored Deacons (Epis. Rec.) Bishop Cummins writes that 
 he has ordained Edwin A. Forrest. “ He is not a novice, having already labored 
 with acceptance and success as a preacher among his own people.” Also Lawrence 
 A. Dawson. Mr. Stevens “ feelingly alluded to the time when Mr. Ferguson (see 
 Dec. 15) had eight years before knelt at the same chancel-rail before going forth to 
 a freedman’s school in Ralciglq N. C., to prepare himself for the ministry ; and that 
 now, after many discouragements and seemingly adverse providences, he could see 
 the hand of God in keeping him and his brethren out of the ministry until this 
 R. E. C. was ready to enroll them as pioneers in the great field lying before them 
 among the myriads of their own race.” 
 
 Dec. 29. Prayer-Book of 1785 (Epis. Rec.) Rev. B. Johnson says of the address 
 of Bishop Cummins in Charleston: “While reciting the history of the Bishop 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 191 
 
 December 29, 1875. 
 
 White Prayer-Book ancl its fate, the Bishop delivered the telling fact that ninety 
 years ago the delegates from St. Philip’s and St. Michael’s churches, Charleston, 
 voted for the very Prayer-Book the R. E. C. had restored ; priesthood, baptismal 
 regeneration and all eliminated.” (vi. 6—11.) 
 
 Dec. 29. Rev. E. D. Neill, D.D. (Epis. Rec.) After proving that religious toler¬ 
 ation in Maryland did not come from the Roman Catholics, he answers an attack 
 upon himself thus: “ In the providence of God, I happen to be the descendant of 
 one of the executors of Benjamin Franklin, the American philosopher, (xvii. 
 
 Feb. 2,1876. Maryland.) 
 
 Dec. 30. Episcopalians in Georgia.xviii. 
 
 ] 876. 
 
 Jan. 1. Candidates for orders in the P. E. C.xviii. 
 
 Jan. 1 . The Appeal “ to the Law and the Testimony,” published monthly, 
 oegins this day, with Rev. Samuel Fallows, D.D., editor-in-chief, and along list of 
 co-editors, all of the R. E. C. The editor of the Episcopal Recorder is a presbyter 
 in the P. E. C. Low-Cliurch, and from the beginning friendly to the R. E. C., and 
 the only editor of the P. E. C. that has allowed a hearing to the friends of the R. 
 E. C. But not being a member of the R. E. C., he frequently attacks the “ Prin¬ 
 ciples of the R. E. C.” (xix. 2.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Toronto (Appeal). Rev. Johnston McCormac says that Emmanuel R. 
 E. C. in West Toronto purchased “ three lots on Markham street, in the centre of a 
 very poor and destitute neighborhood, and the erection of a little church (Em¬ 
 manuel) will cost about $1,000 and will seat about two hundred people.” Then 
 (xix. 8.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Algoma Mission (Appeal). Rev. W. Hartley, Evangelist missionary 
 for Algoma, Canada, writing from Glen Nevis, says : “ The mission I have in 
 charge— i. e., Algoma—extends north and west for more than two hundred miles 
 , . .Eight different stations, besides several lumber camps... .About fifty in each 
 camp. ” 
 
 Jan. 1 . Ottawa (Appeal). The second anniversary of the R. E. C. Dec. 2. . .“At 
 the close of Mr. Collisson’s address, Rev. Mr. Hunter, of the Methodist Church and 
 Rev. Mr. Armstrong of the Presbyterian Church, made kind and congratulatory 
 remarks.” (xix. 2; 13.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Moncton, N. B. (Appeal). Rev. J. Eastburn Brown says : “ I have had 
 nothing to do but to preach the Gospel; no time lost in explaining what the Church 
 does not mean,” etc. (xii. 58 ; xviii. Jan. 19, 1876, Revis.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Chicago (Appeal). At Christ church... .on the morning previous to 
 
 Bishop Cheney’s visit to the South-twenty persons were confirmed. This was 
 
 additional to the Easter confirmations, at which twenty-five professed Christ. 
 
 St. Paul’s church. “ Bishop Cheney recently confirmed eleven persons. Preced¬ 
 ing the confirmation the rector. Dr. Fallows, had received on confession of faith 
 since taking charge, June 15, 1875, nearly a hundred communicants. Its present 
 membership is almost two hundred. St. Paul’s church joined with Rev. Dr. Kit- 
 tredge’s church (Presbyterian) and Rev. Dr. Goodwin’s church (Congregational) in 
 a union Thanksgiving service last November... .one of the largest audiences ever 
 gathered together on a Thanksgiving occasion in Chicago. Addresses were deliv- 
 
192 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 January 1, 1876. 
 
 ered by Rev. Dr. Fallows, Major Whittle, and Rev. Dr. Goodwin... .The same day 
 the Rev. Dr. Fowler, President of the Northwestern University (Methodist); 
 preached for Bishop Cheney, and Rev. Arthur Swazey, D.D., for Dr. Fallows.... 
 Rev. Dr. Duffield (Presbyterian) recently exchanged pulpits with Dr. Fallows. 
 Several eminent Methodist clergymen have also preached for Dr. Fallows, and as¬ 
 sisted in the services and the administration of the Lord’s Supper.” (xix. 2, 13.) 
 
 Jan. 1. University of the West (Appeal). Anticipations. 
 
 Jan. 1. Chillicothe, Ohio (Appeal). Rev. J. P. Davis says that a P. E. C. 
 congregation without a rector...“ on Sept. 24.. .in a body and almost unanimously 
 voted to come into the R. E. C.” (xv., 15-v ; xvii., Jan. 5, 1876.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Englewood (Appeal). The R. E. Trinity church. Rev. M. T. McCor¬ 
 mick, Rector, keeps on its course with ever increasing energy. 
 
 Jan. 1. Peoria (Appeal). Dec. 7, seven confirmed ; earlier in the year “nearly 
 fifty persons were added to the church by letter and by confession of faith.” 
 
 Jan. 1. Louisville (Appeal). “ In the spring or early summer of 1874.... 
 Rev. J. S. Malone, rector of Emmanuel Church,” joined the R. E. C. “ The con¬ 
 gregation. .. .determined to follow... .and by a very large majority voted to sever 
 their connection with the P. E. C. and unite with the R. E. C... .Rev. W. H. 
 Johnson accepted a call... .resigned, and returned to his old diocese and church.” 
 (xiv. 10.) Rev. J. K. Dunn accepted... .The roll of membership has increased by 
 nearly fifty names since spring... .The title to the property is now in litigation.” 
 
 Jan. 1. Newark, NT. J. (Appeal.) At the second anniversary, Dec. 2, “ten of 
 the leading ministers of the city, representing seven denominations, were present, 
 and made addresses.” (xix. 2, 13.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Bishop Nicholson (Appeal). Rev. W. R. Nicholson, D.D... .Phila¬ 
 delphia, has accepted his election as a Missionary Bishop of the R. E. C. (xvii. 
 May 12-18, 1875 ; Feb. 24, 1876.) 
 
 Jan. 1. New York (Appeal). The Herald says: The “ 2d R. E. C. organized 
 about five weeks ago with Rev. George Howell as pastor... .about one hundred 
 members... .On the platform last evening were Rev. Mr. Howell and Rev. Dr. 
 Leacock, of the R. E. C.; Rev. W. Humpstone and Rev. Drs. Armitage and 
 
 Ball of the Baptist Cliurcli, and II. B. Turner, Esq., of the R. E. C. 
 
 Drs. Ball and Armitage said that they were there to extend the right hand of fel¬ 
 lowship to the new Church. Dr. Ball looked upon the movement, not as a schism, 
 but as tending toward a real union in Christ.” (xix. 2, 13.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Wheeling (Appeal). Rev. J. Id. McMechen says that there is a good 
 prospect for the organization of a R. E. C... .at no distant day. 
 
 Jan. 1. The Freedmen (Appeal). Bishop Cummins [a native of Delaware, 
 lately a “ slave State,”] says: “ They gathered in a convocation, representing six 
 colored churches, and asked for formal admission into the R. E. C. Our last council 
 in May, 1875, heard and heeded their call, and sent an evangelist (the Rev. 
 Benjamin Johnson), [a native of South Carolina, the centre of slavery, aud he a late 
 chaplain in the Confederate Army], to gather them in. Soon the Rev. P. L. Stevens 
 [late Colonel in the same army], formerly a missionary among them in the P. E. C.> 
 came forward as an associate, to devote his life to their welfare... .Jan. 1, 1876, we 
 have eight congregations. .. .about 700 communicants... .Three colored clergy¬ 
 men. .. .Rev. Mr. Stevens proposes to inaugurate at once in Charleston a training- 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 193 
 
 January 1, 1876. 
 
 school... .Dec. 5, 1875. .. .One of the freedmen, F. C. Ferguson, was admitted to 
 our ministry... .1 consecrated....‘ The Church of the Redeemer ’ and.. .confirmed 
 thirty-six persons.” (xix. 8.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Rev. Benjamin Johnson (Appeal). Bishop Cheney, writing from 
 Marietta, Ga., Nov. 17, 1875, says : “ Great interest is manifested in the progress of 
 the R. E. C. The Rev. Benjamin Johnson was for many years the rector of the 
 P. E. C. at Macon, in this State, and while there, gained the confidence and love of 
 the entire Christian community.” (xi. 26 ; xvii. May 12-18,1875 ; Jan. 1, 1876. 
 Freedmen.) 
 
 Jan. 1. What is the R. E. C. ? (Appeal). Bishop Cummins says : “ It is ‘ a firm 
 and heroic stand for the very heart of the Gospel... .2d, A strong and living pro¬ 
 test against the unchurching dogma which limits the Church of Christ to one form 
 of ecclesiastical polity... .3d, Bears an equally strong protest against the errors of 
 a false Liberalism on the one side, as against Sacerdotalism on the other... .4th, 
 An earnest effort to foster and promote a high and pure type of Christian life and 
 character. .. .5th, Such a Church as many of God’s people have longed to see since 
 the dawn of the English Reformation, v etc. (xix. 2.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Rev. Dr. Stephen H. Tyng (Appeal), (xviii. Jan. 1.) 
 
 Jan. 1. “Descent into Hell” (Appeal). J. D. W. says: “ The Standard of 
 the Cross ... .assailed the R. E. C. because it removed the ‘ descent into hell ’ from 
 the text of the Apostles’ Creed... .The descent imo hell is a comparatively modern 
 interpolation, probably of no higher antiquity than the seventh century ; certainly 
 unknown before the fifth.” (Prayer-Book of 1785 has this omission, vi.; ix. 2.) 
 
 Jan. 5. Rev. Dr. Leacock has taken charge of the new congregation of the 
 R. E. C., at Newburg, N. Y. (Epis. Rec.) 
 
 Jan. 5. Chillicothe, Ohio (Epis. Rec.) On Dec. 21, Bishop Cheney received tlie 
 confirmation from a class of eleven—“ all adults, with one exception.” (xvii. Jan. 
 1, 1876.). 
 
 Jan. 5. “Concerning Bishops” (Epis. Rec.) Rev. J. S. Malone, of the 
 R. E. C., in a communication filling two columns, says : “Thatbishops and presby¬ 
 ters are designations of the same office, is perfectly clear to any one reading the 
 New Testament without prejudice ” (xi. 2). “ The highest offices of teaching and 
 
 government in the Church are represented as vested in the presbyters ” (xi. 2). 
 “ Could it be made clear that the power of ordaining the ministry was given to 
 bishops to the exclusion of presbyters, that would indeed go far to prove the former 
 a distinct order of ministers in their original appointment” (xi. 2; Const. Art. iii., 
 iv., vi., vii., Can. 4, etc., Tit. I.)... .“This meeting of presbyters would naturally 
 lead to the appointment.. . .of one to preside over the assembly for the sake of 
 order” (xi. 2). “With the coming in of corruption came dioceses, provinces, etc., 
 with diocesan bishops, metropolitan primates, patriarchs, and finally" the Pope” 
 (xix. 11, 9). “ Why, then, should the R. E. C. follow the examples of the Roman 
 
 and Episcopal Churches, and entail the labor and grief of another Reformation 
 upon coming generations ? ” [Our standards, as referred to, meet all these objec¬ 
 tions. As to his conclusions, see xix. 2, 4]. (xvii. Feb. 1 ; use of R. E. C.) 
 
 Jan. 5. Mass in Masquerade (Epis. Rec.) in New York.xviii. 
 
 Jan. 12. Virginia (Epis. Rec.) At Millers, Essex Co., Va., on the third Sun¬ 
 day in December, the Rev. J. A. Latane, of the R. E. C., assisted by Rev. J. Schack- 
 
194 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 January 12, 1876. 
 
 ford, of the Methodist Church, administered the communion to members of different 
 denominations, in the Methodist Church loaned to the R. E. C. one Sunday, and 
 sometimes two in eacli month. The R. E. C. has purchased a building for a church, 
 (xix. 13.) 
 
 Jan. 12. London Rock (Epis. Rec.) This “organ of the Evangelical party of 
 the Church of England contains.. . .December 10, a letter from the pen of Rev. H. 
 M. Collisson, of Ottawa, describing the progress of the R. E. C... .The letter is fol¬ 
 lowed by the brief, but emphatic, editorial note: ‘It has our sympathy.’—Ed. 
 Rock” (see next.) 
 
 Jan. 19. Book of Common Prayer in the Dominion of Canada (Epis. Rec.) “ A 
 correspondent of the Dublin Mail sends to that paper an interesting comment on a 
 book bearing the above designation [R. E. C.], which is well worthy the attention 
 of our rulers. We have marked in italics the most important changes, which are 
 all in the right direction,” says the Rock. Then : “ It deserves the utmost atten¬ 
 tion as a specimen of what revisionists intend to do, or have done. Few will be 
 hardy enough to deny that its authors are men of singular piety, mental clearness, 
 and learning. The principal changes are [as ix. 2. Then]: 
 
 “ This revised Prayer-Book is remarkable for its modesty. It breathes a spirit 
 of true devotion, and it seems hardly possible, by any ingenuity, to graft a Romish 
 doctrine on any of its expressions” (xvii., March 22, 1876, R. E. C., etc.) 
 
 Jan. 19. “You can not make it a success” (Epis. Rec.) This was the answer 
 of a distinguished layman in New York, when asked: “ Do you not sympathize 
 with the principles which underlie our work?” “Certainly.” “Are you not con¬ 
 vinced of the need of reform?” “Thoroughly.” “ Are you not satisfied with the 
 amendments made?” “Yes.” “You ought to be with us then ; tell me honestly 
 the reason why you are not?” “ You can not make it a success ” (xix. 1; xvii. May 
 5, 1875, Rev. Dr. Newton.) 
 
 Jan. 19. Barnes’ “Position of the Evangelical Party in the P. E. C. — copies 
 for sale” (Epis. Rec.) [From its associations, this may be mistaken for a work ap¬ 
 proved by the R. E. C. But it is put out by an individual. It was written under 
 excitement. If Mr. Barnes were alive, I do not suppose that he would allow it to 
 be reprinted. B. A.] (xix. 2.) 
 
 Jan. 19. Mexican Prayer-Book. The editor of the Epis. Rec., who is a presby¬ 
 ter in the P. E. C., says : “We believe * our sister Church ’ rejected the Prayer-Book 
 on account of its Romish Sacramentarianism, and have a service book of their own, 
 which is Scriptural and thoroughly Protestant. They revised it for themselves. 
 We wish the Prayer-Book of their eider sister was as free from objection ” (xix. 15.) 
 
 Jan. 26. Date of Easter No. I. (Epis. Rec.) (General principles) . xix. 16. 
 
 Feb. 1. Use of the R. E. C. (Appeal). Bishop Cheney, in his sermon, says: “If 
 to an Episcopal Church, with its Liturgy and its robes of clerical office, had been 
 assigned the duty of Christianizing the world, I believe that the map would have 
 had more dark spots than it has to-day. The Episcopalian alone never could have 
 given to our land the religious blessings it to-day enjoys. It required Presbyterian 
 adherence to doctrinal truth, and Congregational love of liberty, and Methodist 
 enthusiasm to o that work. But, on the other hand, to hold our American Chris¬ 
 tianity—to keep it faithful to Jesus our Lord—we must have the educational influ¬ 
 ences of a pure and evangelical Liturgy. God has a work for all His Churches, and 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 195 
 
 1 February 1, 1876. 
 
 for His individual believers too. I may not altogether approve what some workers 
 for Christ may do. My taste may revolt from their methods. But God uses them. 
 He blesses thei v work in converting souls. And ‘ what am I, that I should with¬ 
 stand God?’’’ (ix. 2; xv.; xix. 2; xvii. Jan. 5, 1876, concerning Bishops.) 
 
 Feb. 1. Free Preaching and the Parish system (Appeal) . xix. 11. 
 
 Feb. 1. Either and Neither (Appeal). The Hartford Churchman of January 8> 
 1876, says: A correspondent of the New York Evening Post has written a letter 
 ... .criticising the pronunciation of certain clergymen while reading and preach¬ 
 ing-the prevalent utterance of the words God, dog, either, and neither. The 
 
 first two are almost invariably pronounced “ Gawd ” and “ dawg,” and the latter 
 “itlier” and “nither.”... .As to the words either and neither, the pronunciation I 
 have condemned is an affectation borrowed from a certain class of speakers in Eng¬ 
 land, and should never be heard from the lips of a scholar. Now. “Gawd” is a 
 localism that I do not remember to have heard from the pulpit, as to “ either ” 
 and “neither,” pronounced as above, with i long and e silent, I think that they 
 were introduced into this country along with the Oxford tracts about lorty years 
 ago, and from experience I have learned to regard that pronunciation in this 
 country as probably indicating an approval of those tracts. But in England, 
 and on the Continent, in 1871-2 and 1875, I have repeatedly heard the pronuncia¬ 
 tion alternate backwards and forwards, as different clergymen succeeded each 
 other in the English Church service ; and I was informed that i long and e silent 
 indicated Oxford, while e long and i silent indicated Cambridge. B. A., Passaic, 
 N. J., Jan. 8, 1876. 
 
 Feb. 1. The Appeal (Appeal). The Methodist says: “The Appeal, a new 
 paper of the R. E. C., comes to us from Chicago, with the name of our old friend. 
 Dr. Samuel Fallows, at the mast-head. Success to the Appeal and its genial 
 editor.” [Dr. Fallows is a member of the R. E. C. (xvii., March 1, Chicago). The 
 editor of Epis. Rec. is not, and frequently opposes (xix. 2.)] (xix. 18.) 
 
 Feb: 2. “ With or Under ” (Epis. Rec.) “ With reference to the editorial under 
 this head in the Episcopal Recorder of Jan. 26, 1876, I will quote, from memory, 
 the substance of the remarks of Bishop Cummins at the consecration of Bishop 
 Cheney, in Chicago, on Dec. 14, 1873: ‘ The office, rights, and duties of a bishop do 
 not descend downward, but rise upward [suiting the motion of his hand to his 
 words]. They do not come from his succession from the Apostles, but from his 
 election to that office. What makes General Grant the President ? Not the 
 ceremonies on the 4th of March, but the fact that he was elected to that office, 
 The proceedings on the 4tli of March were simply the recognition of the fact of his 
 election and his induction into office.’ B. A., Passaic, N. J.” (xix. 2.) 
 
 Feb. 2. Maryland Colony (Epis. Rec.) Rev. E. D. Neill, D.D., President of 
 Macalester College (xvii. Dec. 29,1875. E. D. N.) 
 
 Feb. 2. Ladies’ Aid Society (Epis. Rec.) of first R. E. C. in New York, have 
 expended $1,100 during the year. 
 
 Feb. 2. Missionary Jurisdiction of Ottawa (Epis. Rec ) Standing Committee : 
 Rev. H. M. Collisson, of Ottawa; Rev. Johnston McCormac, Toronto; and Alexander 
 Burritt and Henry Alexander, of Ottawa, call for funds for the Algoma Mission. 
 
 Feb. 2. Victoria (Epis. Rec.) Dean Gilson formerly resided in Victoria, and 
 was a great favorite. Dean Cridge and his congregation having joined the R. E. C., 
 
106 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 February 2, 1876. 
 
 Bishop Hills induced Dean Gilson to return to Victoria. He lias tendered liis resig¬ 
 nation, and will return to England (I. Nov. 4, 1874.) 
 
 Feb. 2. Bermuda (Epis. Rec.) The Free Church of England, at St. George’s, 
 Bermuda, is flourishing, says a letter of Jan. 14th. 
 
 Feb. 2. Date of Easter No. II. (Epis. Rec.) General principles, (xix. 16.1 
 
 Feb. 9. Difference P. E. C. and R. E. C. (Epis. Rec.) Statement by the Com¬ 
 mittee appointed by the Council for that purpose (xvii. May 12-18; II. J uly 8 
 1874.) 
 
 Feb. 9. Victoria (Epis. Rec.) On Jan. 16 the new church was first used. 
 Bishop Cridge of the R. E. C.; Rev. Mr. Russ of the Wesley Church, and Rev. Mr. 
 McGregor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, joined in the service, and the last 
 preached the sermon. (See March 1; ix. 2; xix. 2, 13.) 
 
 Feb. 9. Date of Easter No. III. (Epis. Rec.) Errors of Jarvis, (xix. 17.) 
 
 Feb. 16. Baltimore Ordination. (Epis. Rec.) H. H. Washburn, Presbyter, 
 and W. H. Reynolds, Deacon. Rev. Mr. Washburn is about thirty-four years of 
 age, a graduate of the Union Theological Seminary in New York ; was refused by 
 Bishop Potter, of New York, and by Bishop Paddock, of Massachusetts (he was a 
 citizen of Boston), unless he would spend one year at a P. E. Seminary. He came 
 to Baltimore in December. Mr. Reynolds is a native of Baltimore—spent some 
 time in the Alexandria P. E. Seminary. Service by Mr. Postletliwaite ; sermon by 
 Bishop Cummins. 
 
 Feb. 23. Free Church of England (Epis. Rec.) Adopt the Revised Prayer- 
 Book of the Revision Society, at a joint meeting. Omitting certain portions, it 
 can be sold at a shilling. Rev. T. E. Thoresby was “ confident it would do them 
 immense service, and chiefly so because it was a revision effected by those who were 
 members of the Church of England. .. .The F. C. E. ‘was expressly designed for 
 churchmen.’ ” Lord Ebury “ did not know whether Bishop Cummins still retained 
 the electric touch, but he supposed that would not be disputed.” (xv. 15; xix. 2.) 
 
 Feb. 23. Date of Easter No. IV. (Epis. Rec.) Errors of Seabury. (xix. 18.) 
 
 Feb. 24. Let well enough alone, (xix. 1.) 
 
 Feb. 25. Bishop Nicholson (Herald). Letter from Philadelphia relating to 
 the consecration. “ Growth of the movement.” “Declaration of principles.” (See 
 March 1. Consecration.) 
 
 Feb. 26. Lent. (Times) reports that at the conference on Feb. 25 there apx)eared 
 to be a general disposition to abolish Lent. (See March 1.) 
 
 Feb. 27. Lent (Times). H. B. Turner, Sec. Gen. Council, contradicts the 
 report in the Times of yesterday. (See March 1. Lent.) 
 
 March 1. Chicago (Toronto Globe) correspondent of Feb. 25 says: “There is 
 no denying the fact that... .the ‘ R. E. C.’ has achieved a gratifying success in this 
 city.. . .and with all the Christian charity and grace that is the heritage of the 
 Episcopalians, it is not a pleasant sight for the ‘ elder brethren ’.... It is only about 
 a year ago that Mr. Cheney. .. .espied a splendid church edifice. .. .unused... .The 
 owner had closed it... .He permitted the Cheneyites to use it.. . .The heating 
 apparatus would not work, and so amid the ill-concealed laughter of the faithful, 
 the ‘ Schismatics ’ were frozen out. Dr. Cheney, however, was not to be thwarted 
 by any such misadventure... .He found an old frame building... .At Easter, a 
 permanent organization was effected... .The church extended a call to Rev. Samuel 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 197 
 
 March 1, 1876. 
 
 Fallows, D.D. Tlie Doctor was at that time President of the Wesleyan Univer¬ 
 sity. .. .Dr. Fallows entered the ministry of the new clnirch. Under his care the 
 church has prospered wonderfully. Fallows is a‘worker.’ He was a tutor in a 
 Wisconsin University when the war broke out, and immediately resigned his posi¬ 
 tion to accept the post of chaplain. .. .He organized a regiment and fought his way 
 to a Generalship. Wlipn the war closed he turned Methodist minister and had a 
 church in Milwaukee. Then he was elected State Superintendent of Instruction 
 for Wisconsin, and became a Regent of the Methodist University. From that 
 position he went to Bloomington, in this State, to accept the position of President 
 of the Wesleyan College. He is an eloquent preacher, and in all the departments 
 of labor that a ‘ live ’ minister can enter into nowadays, he is foremost. .. .They 
 quickly decided upon a change to more commodious quarters... .The vigorous 
 prosperity of the Reformed Church offers a marked contrast to the torpor which 
 prevails in the churches of the regular establishment.” (xvii. Jan. 1, 1876. Ap¬ 
 peal.) 
 
 March. 1. Christian Union. (Appeal). At the consecration of Bishop Nichol¬ 
 son on Feb. 24, “ Bishop Simpson and Rev. Dr. Hatfield of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, and Rev. Drs. Beadle and Blackwood of the Presbyterian Church (the 
 former belonging originally to the Scotch Covenanters), assisted Bishops Cummins 
 and Cheney in the formal act of consecration, by laying their hands upon Dr. 
 Nicholson’s head.” (ix. 2 ; xix. 2). 
 
 March 1. Lent. (Appeal). C. E. C. (Bishop Cheney), shows the advantages of 
 keeping this anniversary, but avoiding its abuse, (xix. 2 ; xvii. March 8, Lent; 
 March 15, Lent; April 1, Lent). 
 
 March 1. Victoria. (Appeal), (see xvii. Feb. 9.) “The choir of the church 
 was assisted by the members of St. John’s (Ch. of Eng.), Presbyterian, and Wes¬ 
 leyan Churches ...The present congregation... .have built and furnished two 
 churches... .subscribing and disbursing in six years nearly $45,000.” (xvii. 
 Feb. 9, 1876). 
 
 March 1. Church Union. (Appeal). On the fourth Sunday in January, the 
 rector (Rev. J. K. Dunn) exchanged pulpits with Rev. J. S. Chadwick, pastor of 
 “ Trinity Methodist E. Ch.” in Louisville, Ky. (ix. 2 ; xix. 2). 
 
 March 1. Baltimore. (Appeal). “ Ch. of Redeemer,” Rev. W. M. Postle- 
 thwaite ; “Rock of Ages,” Rev. H. H. Washburn ; “ Emmanuel,” Rev. F. H. Rey¬ 
 nolds. “Another church, it is expected, will be inaugurated soon in this city.” 
 
 March 1. Philadelphia. (Appeal). 2d R. E. C. occupied their new building 
 on Jan. 30. Emmanuel, on Feb. 20, removed to corner of E. York and Sep viva 
 streets, of which the basement is ready for present use. 
 
 March 1. The one Apostolic Canon. (Appeal). “ Do the wisest and best 
 thing under the given circumstances, which will accomplish the end in view.” 
 
 March 1. Differences P. E. C. and E. E. C. (Appeal), (xvii. May 12-18). 
 
 March 1. Imitating, but abusing, No. 1. (Appeal), (xix. 12). 
 
 March 1. Why Divide? (Appeal). Bishop Cummins says: “To present to 
 the world a community with an Episcopal polity, and yet with Bishops claiming no 
 superiority in rank above that of other Presbyters ; and to show that a noble old 
 Liturgy, freed from all traces of Sacerdotalism, could be retained in perfect harmony 
 with freedom in prayer... .holding historic connection with the Church of Eng- 
 
198 
 
 CHAPTER XYII. 
 
 March 1, 1875. 
 
 land. .. .reuniting, not dividing; healing, not perpetuating the alienation among 
 the children of the Reformation... a church polity which gives unity, order, 
 strength; without the evils of a hierarchy... .To us it is the old house of our 
 
 fathers, only cleansed from all defilement_The saintly Dr. Arnot, of Edinburgh, 
 
 ... .on the very day of the organization of the R. E. C., wrote the following letter, 
 2d Dec., 1873... ‘ 1st. That absolute errors should be eliminated from authorized 
 formularies. 2d. That the Liturgy should not be oppressive in quantity, nor im¬ 
 posed so as to exclude free prayer in the public assembly ; and 3d. That the Bish¬ 
 ops should be the wisest and gravest of the ministers chosen and set apart to su¬ 
 perintend a district chosen by the Church itself.’... .By a remarkable coincidence, 
 the very conditions, •' a reciprocal approach, even to the extent of union between 
 the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches,’... .were adopted as the distinctive prin¬ 
 ciples of our Church, on the very day he penned these words.” (ix. 2; xi.; xix. 2). 
 
 March. 1. Church Union. (Epis. Rec.) In Philadelphia, Emmanuel R. E. C., 
 on Feb. 20, Rev. J. S. Malone of the R. E. C. ; Rev. R. Wimer, Methodist ; and 
 Rev. W. T. Eva, Presbyterian, joined in the morning service, and Bishop Nichol¬ 
 son preached in the evening. 
 
 March 1. Consecration of Bp. Nicholson (Epis. Rec.) on Feb. 24, with the 
 address by Bp. Cheney, in full. (xvii. March 1, Ch. Union). 
 
 March 1. Lent. (Epis. Pec.) On Feb. 25, at the conference of those collected 
 in Philadelphia, this subject was discussed. (See March 6, Ottawa. March 15, 
 Bait.) 
 
 March 1. Conference at Philadelphia. (Epis. Rec.) Discussion of Lent, as 
 above. Rev. H. M. Collisson thinks that a special committee on church discipline 
 should be chosen by the communicants exclusively (xix. 3), Conference recom¬ 
 mends the General Standing Committee to change the date of the meeting of the 
 Council to May 12, [this has been done]; and to select delegates to other churches. 
 [Bishop Cummins and Dr. Leacock were selected as delegates to the Reformed 
 (Dutch) Church in America ; Bishop Nicholson and Dr. Neill to the General As¬ 
 sembly of the Presbyterian Church ; Rev. Edward (Dean) Cridge and Rev. H. M. 
 Collisson to the Free Church of England ; and Bishop Cummins to present the salu¬ 
 tation of the R. E. C. to the General Conference of the Methodist E. C.] 
 
 March 6. Ottawa Peport. (Ottawa Times). Rev. H. M. Collisson, reporting 
 the consecration of Bishop Nicholson, and the participation of other denominations, 
 says: “ When, after this interesting ceremonjq Bishop Cummins returned to the 
 vestry, he threw up his hands with a joyful exclamation: * This day,’ he said, ‘is a 
 day worth living to see. No such scene has been witnessed for centuries in the 
 Episcopal Church.’... .The general feeling seemed to me to be, that where prac¬ 
 ticable it would be well to hold special mission services during Lent.” 
 
 March 8. Lent. By Bishop Nicholson. (Epis. Rec.) “ I regard the Lenten 
 season as presenting a favorable opportunity for a protracted series of special re¬ 
 ligious meetings for worship and Bible instruction... .as one eminently fitting time 
 for the reanimating of Christian zeal, and the awakening of the impenitent... . 
 Fasting is never of any spiritual profit when it is done for the sake of Lent... .In 
 the Reformed book that table of fasts has been expunged, nor is there mentioned a 
 single day of fasting in all the book... .May God bless our Lenten season ! May 
 He suffuse it with the freedom of the Gospel,” etc. [This agrees with the principles 
 of the R. E. C. (xix. 2).] 
 
CHAPTER 5VII. 
 
 199 
 
 March 8, 1876. 
 
 March 8. Carey Ordination. (Epis. Rec.) (xix. 10). 
 
 March 8. “Consecration or Ordination.” (Epis. Rec.) ‘‘Lux,” otherwise 
 “ Zoar, Iota, and Common Sense,” is afraid of having more bishops in this Episcopal 
 Church, (xix. 2). 
 
 March 15. Baltimore. (Epis. Rec.) Ch. of the Redeemer, lately completed, 
 was dedicated on 12tli by Bishop Cummins, who was assisted by Rev. W. Postle- 
 tli waite, the pastor. The Bishop said : ‘‘We have 50 congregations, 60 clergy¬ 
 men, and 3 bishops... .Our Church has met attacks from many quarters, but has 
 withstood them all. Only a short time ago the press from Maine to California was 
 full of abuse, telling how her people had refused to keep Lent. There is no 
 foundation for the statement. That Lent is abused we very well know, but not by 
 us.” (xix. 2.) 
 
 March 15. Dr. Leacock on Lent- (Epis. Rec.) He agrees with Bishop 
 Nicholson (March 8, above), “ but I must go a little farther than he has gone. .. .To 
 fast and pray with renewed diligence at a certain period of the year, because it is a 
 time-honored custom, is no part of that Gospel system which is joy and peace in 
 believing.” (xix. 2.) 
 
 March 18. Lent by “Albany.” (Chn.) He says: “I would suggest to our 
 friends who call themselves the ‘ R. E. C.,’ that while some of them are proposing 
 to abolish the season of Lent, they may as well make a clean thing of it and 
 eliminate the Lord’s Day also from the calendar.” [This sounds as if “ Albany ” 
 thinks these stand on a par, either that the keeping of Sunday is simply a question 
 of expediency, or the keeping of Lent a positive obligation.] 
 
 March 22. Abolishing Lent. (Epis. Rec.) The editor criticises the above, and 
 says : “ It would add a zest to the enjoyment if we knew who ‘ Albany ’ was.. . .if 
 the conjecture proved correct that ‘ G. Albanensis ’ would be the full and proper 
 ecclesiastical designation (xx. 1). When the words apostates, perjured, fallen, 
 schismatics, have been freely hurled at the ministers and members of the R. E. C., 
 it is certainly agreeable that all this should be dropped, and the title * our friends 
 substituted.” He then advocates the abolition of Lent, [and having a part of his 
 paper headed R. E. C., probably creates the public impression that this represents 
 the views of the R. E. C.] (xvii. Feb. 1, 1876, Appeal, xix. 2.) 
 
 March. 22. R. E. C. Prayer-Book. (Epis. Rec.) (see Jan. 19, Book, etc., then 
 add), “ The preface is a noble work, charitable, masterly, and clear... .In the Com¬ 
 munion Service the prefatory prayer follows exactly that of the Prayer-Book of 
 1552, omitting the side rubrics... .It may be useful to add, that substantially the 
 alterations are few.’’ (xix. 2.) 
 
 March 29. Free Church of England. (Epis. Rec.) At the quarterly meeting 
 of the Council, held on Feb. 8, it was “ Resolved, That the future Bishops of this 
 Church shall be consecrated or set apart to their office in accordance with the form 
 of consecrating a Bishop, as revised and set forth by the Second General Council of 
 the R. E. C., and that it be a special recommendation of the Council to the Convo¬ 
 cation [analogous to the General Council of the R. E. C.] that at the consecration 
 of future Bishops of the F. C. E. a consecrated Bishop or Bishops, and three or more 
 Presbyters, be invited to conduct the ceremony of Consecration,” proposed by Mr. 
 Merryweather, seconded by Rev. P. X. Eldridge, and carried with only two 
 dissentients. 
 
200 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 April 1, 1876. 
 
 April 1. Lent (Appeal). C. E. C. (Bishop Cheney) under the head of “A Man 
 of Straw/’ says : “ Suddenly a false rumor gains publicity that this Church ‘ pro¬ 
 poses to abolish Lent.’ It is flashed by telegraph all over the land... .All three of 
 the Bishops of our Church, as well as the Secretary of our General Council, have 
 denied the report in the most positive manner.” (xix. 2.) 
 
 April 1. The Old Church (Appeal). Bishop Cheney, in his sermon in Newark 
 Feb. 27, said: “ The papers and pulpits of the old Church—and we love it still— 
 call us schismatics,” etc. [All that we contemplated in founding the new was to 
 have “ the old Church ” as it used to be. (xix. 2.)]. 
 
 April 1. Imitating, but abusing, No. 2 (Appeal). [A part only is here given. 
 (See xix. 13, 14.)]. 
 
 April 1. Revision in Ireland (Appeal). G. D. C. (Bishop Cummins) gives the 
 votes on revision, under the rule adopted that a change should require a two-thirds 
 vote. A few minor alterations were made, when “ a terrible outcry arose from the 
 High-Church school... .A copy of our Prayer-Book was forwarded to them... .and 
 they have determined to reprint it in Dublin as an ally in the prosecution of their 
 own work of revision .. .The Synod must either yield to the demand of so vast a 
 majority of the Irish Church, and complete the work of Prayer-Book purification, or 
 the evangelical men will go forth from their midst and free themselves from such 
 bondage. In either event, there will be at no distant day a R. E. C. in Ireland.” 
 (xix. 2.) 
 
 April 1. Council in Canada (Appeal). “ The meeting of the Council of the 
 R. E. C. at Ottawa, next July, will mark an era in the history of Protestantism on 
 this continent. A council composed mainly of American subjects meets in the 
 capital of British North America, to legislate for a Church extending in one organ¬ 
 ization through two nations,” etc. (xix. 2.) 
 
 April 1. Lent (Appeal). Opinions of Dr. Fallows, Bishop Nicholson, Dr. Lea¬ 
 cock, H. B. Turner, Esq. (See above, April 1, Bishop Cheney ; xix. 2.) 
 
 April 5. Philadelphia (Epis. Rec.) 3d R. E. C. is at Germantown, and on 
 April 0 will formally occupy their new chapel, corner of Wayne and Chelten ave¬ 
 nues. 
 
 April 5. Brooklyn, N. Y. (Epis. Rec.) Church of the Incarnation was organ¬ 
 ized March 1, 1874. On April 2, 1876, it will remove to better quarters in a church 
 edifice corner of Gates avenue and Irving place. 
 
 April 12. Rev. W. Sparrow, D.D. (Epis. Rec.) “ The Life and Correspond^ 
 ence of Rev. William Sparrow, D.D., late Professor of Systematic Divinity aud 
 Evidences in the P. E. Theological Seminary of the Diocese of Virginia ” [and my 
 fellow-student in Col. Coll.] “By Rev. C. Walker, D.D., Professor of Church 
 History and Canon Law. 1876.” This reviewer says : “ In relation to the with¬ 
 drawal of Bishop Cummins, and the organization of the Reformed branch of the 
 E. C... .lie conceded entire sincerity and conscientiousness to the founders... .and 
 disapproved of the abuse... .by the High-Church and Evangelical press generally, 
 and bv many evangelical men. * The compiler adds (p. 350): ‘ No less strongly did 
 he object to the course of some of his Evangelical brethren in another respect, as 
 inconsistent alike with their principles and with those upon which the Reformation 
 itself can alone be justified,’ The allusion here is to the ‘ profound sorrow, and no 
 sympathy/ (II. Dec. l,card.).. / The public declaration.. .seeming to involve the 
 
CHAPTER XYII. 
 
 201 
 
 April 12, 1876. 
 
 confession that they were properly suspected and needed such a purge to take away 
 the suspicion.’ (ix. 9.) In a letter of Dec. 12, 1873, he says: ‘I am often ques¬ 
 tioned. .. . What do you think of the Bishop Cummins movement ? ’. .. ‘ the counsel 
 of Gamaliel.’ It is painful to see how Evangelical men, so called, join in the hue 
 and cry against him, just as if there had never been any agreement between him 
 and them. That declaration! The life for long years of its signers proves the 
 reverse of that disclaimer. All Evangelical Episcopalians have had and professed 
 the same grievances, and have contemplated the possibility of a secession in conse¬ 
 quence. How, then, when one of their number makes the possibility actual, can 
 they in a moment reverse the engine and move backward? They might think 
 Cummins’ mode of procedure unwise ; but the procedure itself is only what their 
 hearts have been craving for a quarter of a century. I had a letter from New York 
 this evening, saying this movement is likely to spread. If it should, it will cer¬ 
 tainly ease the yoke from our neck. Some fear that the next General Convention 
 will tighten the screws yet further. I hold the very opposite. Who knows but 
 God means to use Bishop Cummins as an instrument for our release from the 
 bondage imposed by a heartless majority, who will not believe in the scruples of 
 tender consciences. His success may liberalize us and bring him and us together 
 again, (xiv. 4, 5,6.) If, on the other hand, our General Convention should become 
 more stringent towards Low-Churchmen and more indulgent towards High-Cliurcli- 
 men, then the R. E. C. would be a city of refuge, and soon overshadow its rival, 
 (xix. 13.) The P. E. C. needs only to be liberalized and rid of Romish germs to 
 overspread this continent, at least in the upper and middle state of society.” “ The 
 false and exaggerated notions about schism do us much harm [xii.j There are 
 already at least four Episcopal churches in the United States. What is the great 
 harm if a fifth should be added, especially when it would give peace where there is 
 now war [xii. 43], and where the Gospel would be better suited to the wants of 
 society thereby. But I stop. I have written in a great hurry, and for you alone.” 
 “ On the 17th of January following, Dr. Sparrow departed this life.” 
 
 April 13. Disposition to change, (xix. 4.) 
 
 April 26. Church Journal (Epis. Rec.) “ A Superstitious Episcopalian ’’ in 
 the Church Journal of April 20, says: “ Reformed Episcopal—a memorable service. 
 ‘ One of the most important and memorable scenes since the Reformation, took 
 place at the consecration of the Rev. W. R. Nicholson, D.D., as a Bishop of the 
 R. E. C. Bishop Simpson and the Rev. Dr. Hatfield of the M. E. Church, and the 
 Rev. Drs. Beadle and Blackwood of the Presbyterian Church (the former belonging 
 originally to the Scotch Covenanters), assisted Bishops Cummins and Cheney in 
 the formal act of consecration, by laying their hands upon Dr. Nicholson’s head.’ 
 We insert the above cutting from the Cumminsite organ of May, 1876. We hope 
 our readers will bear it in mind. It is worth while looking at the succession as it 
 stands. 1st, Assistant Bishop Cummins a failure in Kentucky. 2d, Cheney, a 
 deposed presbyter of the P. E. C., consecrated Bishop by Cummins. 3d, Nicholson, 
 a Methodist clergyman, re-ordained in the Church, then degraded, then consecrated 
 Bishop by Cummins and Cheney, two Methodists, one Scotch Covenanter, and one 
 Presbyterian. It is to be hoped that their next Bishop will have this wonderful 
 trio of Bishops to give him Episcopal Orders ; and if they could only add one or 
 two Quakers, a Congregationalist Deacon, a Plymouth brother, and a Methodist 
 
202 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 April 26, 1876. 
 
 class-leader, his ordination would be about right.” * Signed, “A Superstitious 
 Episcopalian.” (II. Dec. 11, 1873; Dec. 4, Ch. ; Jan. 1, 1874, Apos.; Jan. 22, Ap. 
 and Bp. ; Jan. 29; April 30; xiii. 10, 12, 13 ; II. Dec. 31, So. Ch.; xvii. March 1, 
 1876, Ch. Union.) 
 
 May 1. New York (Times). At the first R. E. C. in New York, twenty-nine 
 persons confirmed yesterday. They have purchased a plot of ground, 75x100, on 
 Madison avenue, corner of Fifty-fifth street, for $42,500, on which to build a new 
 church. Also, at the second R. E. C. in the evening, the Bishop received from a 
 class of twelve, the confirmation of their Baptismal obligations, he explaining to 
 them, that they confirmed to him, and were not confirmed by him.—B. A. (Jan. 1, 
 1876.) 
 
 May 8. New York. Yesterday the Rev. W. T. Sabine, in his address on the 
 second anniversary of the 1st R. E. C., corner of Madison avenue and Forty-seventh 
 street, stated that during the last year the parish had expended $20,134.95, of which 
 $12,654.48 were for parish expenses, and $7,480.47 for extra parochial purposes of 
 benevolence. In addition to this, they have about $40,000 subscribed and largely 
 paid in towards making up the full sum of $42,500 to pay cash for the three lots 
 corner of Madison avenue and Fifty-fifth street, in place of leaving any part on 
 mortgage as authorized by the conditions of sale.—B. A. (xvii. May 1, New York.) 
 
 May 24. Methodist General Conference (Epis. Rec.) The Christian Advo¬ 
 cate of May 20, gives in full the address of Bishop Cummins to the Conference, 
 which “Resolved: ‘That we.... will in due time respond officially by our repre¬ 
 sentative, bearing our regards....adopted by a unanimous rising vote.” 
 
 May 24. Cumberland, Md. (Epis. Roc.) A new R. E. C. organized, with 
 Rev. J. K. Dunn as pastor. 
 
 May 24. Digby, N. S. (Epis. Rec.) A new R. E. C. organized on Monday 
 May 15, and $588 subscribed. 
 
 May 25. Chicago. (B. A.) A private letter states that on last Monday Bishop 
 Cheney announced that a subscription of about $30,000 had been completed to pay 
 off the entire debt of Christ Church in two years. 
 
 June 1. The Appeal contains the following : 1st. Exchange of pulpits by Bishop Cheney 
 and Rev. Dr. Tiffany, of the M. E. C.—2d. Officers of the new R. K. C., in Cumberland, Md.—3d. 
 Methodist clergymen join in the Communion service with Rev. W. M. Postlethwaite, of the R. E. C.— 
 4th. A new R. E. C. to he erected in the heart of St. John,N. B.—5th. Officers of the new R. E. C. 
 at Digby, N. S.—6th. A new R. E. C. organized in Charleston, S. C.—7th. The R. E. C. in 
 Rappahannock County, Va., is doing a good work.—8th, Address of Bishop Cummins to the M. E. 
 Conference, in full.—9th. “ Our Episcopacy,” by B. B. L., contains positions opposed to (xix. 1,2), 
 10th. Bishop Cummins’ remarks on his change of views respecting the Prayer-Book of 1789.—11th. 
 “Corsica.” With respect to Florida, “ Corsica ” should be written Minorca.—12th. “Liturgical 
 Emendation,” editorial without signature, is opposed to (xix. 1). 
 
 June 7. Episcopal Recorder contains: 1st. Addresses to the Presbyterian General 
 Assembly, by Rev. E. D. Neill, and by Bishop Nicholson, of the R. E. 0. The latter in full, in 
 
 which he says : “I have noticed to-day in your published report_that in the year 1700 you had 
 
 in this country, three ministers, and in 1750 sixty-seven ministers, an increase of sixty-four m 
 fifty years.”—2d. Officers of the new R. E. C , at Restein Hall, of June 4, with Rev. J. L. Estlin, 
 pastor.—3d. New R. E. C. at Rahway, N. J., inaugurated June 4th, in their own church building.— 
 4th. In Boston, a congregation formerly of the P. E. C , has applied for admission into the R. E. C.— 
 5th. The R. E. C. at Victoria, B. C. has received $19,355.98 in sixteen months, and will pay the 
 expenses of Dean Cridge to Ottawa, to be consecrated Bishop of the R. E. C.—6th. Rev. A. H. Vinton, 
 and Mr. C. H. Parker, of Rev. Phillip Brooks’ parish, have been left off the Standing Committee, 
 as supposed because a son of Bishop Nicholson of the R. E. C. was married to a member of Mr. 
 Brooks’ church, in the church ol Mr. Vinton, by Mr. Brooks and Bishop Nicholson. And in Boston, 
 I (B. A.) saw a printed Pastoral by Mr. Vinton, maintaining that the excluding Canon does not 
 apply to such cases, (xii. 59.) 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 CONTINUATION OF CHAPTER III. 
 
 RESPECTING THE PAN-ANGLICAN CHURCH. 
 
 1875. 
 
 April 14. Ritualism in Maryland (Epis. Rec.) “G. M. B.” says :...The 
 recent experiment made by two of our prominent ‘ Low Church ’ rectors, for the 
 purpose of ascertaining the range and calibre of the * ne w canon ’ against Ritualism 
 ... .turned against the ‘ priests ’ of St. Luke’s .. .for ‘ prayers for the dead ’. .. . The 
 Standing Committee... .endorsed the propriety of the charges... .Bishop Whit- 
 tingham summarily quashed the whole proceeding.” (III. Oct. 23, 31, 1874.) 
 
 April 21. Comprehensiveness (E. R.) “ Paul ” saysDr. Andrews, of Vir¬ 
 
 ginia, said to the writer of this article : ‘ Some men try to be so comprehensive that 
 they never comprehend anything.’ ” He then goes on to show the “ superstitions ” 
 that are maintained by the ruling majority, who refuse to allow those who think 
 differently to act upon their convictions, (xii. 56-59.) 
 
 April 22. Prayer-Book Revision (Weekly Dispatch, St. Thomas, Ont., 
 Canada). Editor says : “ The breach in the P. E. C. appears to be continually 
 widening. In Toronto, the Church Association, which numbers within its ranks 
 some of the most intelligent men of the Province, and throughout the United 
 States and in Canada the R. E. C. were assiduously prosecuting the work of refor¬ 
 mation, and not before it is needed. Throughout Europe, too, the anti-ritualistic 
 party is increasing... .On all sides publications in pamphlet form and in the news¬ 
 papers are multiplied... .Our latest extract from the address of the hiearchy of the 
 Church of England impresses upon the laity the duty of promoting ‘ loyal con¬ 
 formity to the Book of Common Prayer,’ and we will add that, until the laity insist 
 upon a revision of that book (the best prayer-book extant), Ritualism and Romish 
 tendencies will continue to disturb the peace of the Church.” (xviii. Jan. 1, 19 ; 
 xvii. April 1, 1876.) 
 
 May 1. Church Association (Day Star of Toronto). On June 19,1873, thirty- 
 seven clergymen and laymen of the Diocese of Toronto organized themselves into an 
 association “ to uphold the principles and doctrines of the Protestant Church of 
 England, and to counteract the efforts now being made to pervert her teaching.” 
 (III. Jan. 14,1875.) 
 
 June 9. Retirement of Rev. Dr. J. Cotton Smith (Cli. St.). In retiring from 
 the position of Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Smith says: “ What was then the Protestant 
 Churchman, and which was subsequently merged into the Church and tState, natur¬ 
 ally calls for some fuller statement as to the position which this paper has occupied 
 
 (203) 
 
204 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 June 9, 1875. 
 
 ... .to labor for a lost unity. .. .It is tlie genius of sectarianism to tolerate no di¬ 
 versity. . . .It is tlie genius of Catholicity to embrace all diversities which can be 
 reconciled with ‘ Apostolic Order ’ and ‘ the faith once delivered to the saints \ ... 
 These schools... .are high, low, and broad... .each of them has a legitimate place 
 in the Church, but each is liable to the danger of an excessive development.... 
 In the famous conferences between 1865 and 1870, in the city of Philadelphia, it 
 was then shown conclusively that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was 
 legitimately deducible from the formularies of the Church.. . .It was the purpose 
 ... .to embody... .in an organization, the views and principles of... .Dr. Muhlen¬ 
 berg, and to maintain both the Catholic and Evangelical elements in the Church. 
 Had this effort been successful, it is not too much to claim that the organization of 
 the R E. C. would never have taken place.” (xix. 12). 
 
 June 15. Church of England—its legal position. The Birmingham (Eng.) 
 Post of June 15, 1875, copies from the London Times of June 14, the opinion of 
 Fitzjames Stephen, “ an eminent authority upon law,” given at the desire of the 
 Bishop of London and of Mr. Fremantle, whom the Bishop requested to abstain 
 from taking part in a Congregational service, and he acceded. They jointly put 
 these questions: (1.) Is it lawful by statute or otherwise for a clergyman of the 
 Church of England to preach in a Non-conformist place of worship, with or without 
 a religious service? (2.) Is it an ecclesiastical offence for a clergyman to officiate in 
 a service of Non-conformists, or to take part in the Holy Communion at such service, 
 or to attend such service at all? (3.) Does the illegality, if any, extend to chapels 
 of the Wesleyan societies or of Lady Huntingdon’s connection ? (4.) Does it extend 
 to services in Ireland or Scotland, whether in the Established Church of Scotland 
 or in the Episcopal churches of Scotland, or Ireland not established, or to the 
 churches, Episcopal or Non-Episcopal, in the colonies, America, or the Continent? ” 
 The answers are too long to quote. But— 
 
 The editor says : “ The essence of this opinion, given by a high authority, is... 
 You are bound, Mr. Stephen says, to the clergy, while the laity are free ; but you 
 are bound only because the Church is local and its Episcopal government, in the 
 eye of the law, is merely a local incident, and not in any way a divine institution, 
 involving an apostolic succession, valid orders, and operative sacraments. The 
 Church once governed herself [before the Reformation] and then these matters 
 were of binding importance ; now she is governed by ‘ the King’s ecclesiastical 
 law,’ and this law attaches no more than local value to the things upon which 
 High-Churclimen set so much store. Go out of England, he continues, and unless 
 you profess utterly hostile doctrine, you may worship and officiate where you 
 please—your own orders, or church government, or modes of service, and those 
 with whom you associate, go for nothing as far as the law is concerned. Looked 
 at from a purely Church point of view, this statement, if it be sound law, is calcu¬ 
 lated to shock many opinions and to dissipate many illusions now held to be of 
 binding doctrinal force,” etc. (xviii. Dec. 10, 1875 ; xix. 9.) 
 
 June 19. Bishops above Law (Clin.) Under “ Church Legislation,” the editor 
 says : “ We presume that there are many in the Church who would be amazed to 
 bel old that there are some things in the office of a Bishop, on which the Church 
 has no power to legislate, and yet, if the office mean anything at all, this is true 
 of it.” (xii. 58). 
 
CnAPTER XYIII. 
 
 205 
 
 June 24, 1875. 
 
 June 24. Bishop above Law (So. Ch.) Tlieeditor recounts: “The clergy of 
 Mt. Calvary cliurcli [Baltimore], used.. . .a prayer for the dead... .The Standing 
 Committee complained to the Bishop [Wliittingliam]. The Bishop did remonstrate 
 without effect ; they used the prayer again... .they compiled a manual of ‘prayers 
 for the dead’.. .‘compiled.. .forthe use of the congregation ’. . .placedin the book¬ 
 stores for sale....The Standing Committee demanded that these clergymen be 
 tried by an ecclesiastical court, and the Bishop of Maryland absolutely refuses, in 
 spite of the law, to have them tried ! ” He then quotes remarks of Rev. Mr. Ran¬ 
 dolph as to the underlying principle. But this is denied by “ R. M. P.” in So. Ch. 
 of July 1, and is therefore omitted, (xii. 56-59; xviii. April 14). 
 
 July 3. Oxford University (Chn.) A “letter from England,” says, “ of the 
 Bishop of Oxford’s late remarkable charges, in which he openly attacks the too 
 prevalent infidelity of the teachers in that ancient university. . . .It is, in reality, a 
 monstrous thing, that a Christian university should encourage men as tutors and 
 professors who make no secret of being (to use tjieir own language) ‘ non-Christian ’ 
 
 ... .The better class of Oxford Colleges, such as Keble and Corpus, and the new 
 Hartford College, will derive strength from the growing conviction that Balliol, of 
 which Professor Jowett is head, and some others, are tainted... .Hitherto the rep¬ 
 utation for success. . . .lias enabled them to enlist all the ablest men, so that they 
 keep up almost a monopoly of the highest talent. .. Cambridge. .. .has produced a 
 better fruit than that at Oxford, though the last comes so much more before the 
 world, and supplies so much larger an element of the upper ranks of English soci¬ 
 ety.” (xii. 12-24). 
 
 July 3. Toronto Synod (Chn.) Three columns are devoted to this subject. 
 Bishop Lewis advocates conciliation to prevent schism. “ If the past year has been 
 a period of unusual and unseemly agitation within our ranks, let it not be thought 
 a degradation of self to acknowledge that there may have been undue heat and 
 unjustifiable acrimony on both sides.” (iii. Jan. 14, 1875). 
 
 July 8. “Rev. Dr. Seymour, Bishop of the It. E. C. v (So. Ch.), quotes the Inde- 
 pendent, which says: “The New York dailies, in mentioning the fact that Dr. 
 George F. Seymour has just been elected permanent Dean of the General Theologi¬ 
 cal Seminary [on June 24] in New York, call him ‘Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church.’ The higli-church character of this official Episcopal divinity school was 
 more apparent than ever at the recent commencement. Dr. Seymour got 77 votes 
 out of 93 on the first ballots of the Trustees... .The first lesson was read by Dr. 
 Nictiolas Hoppin, of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, who had to leave 
 his church in Cambridge in consequence of his ritualistic experiments ;... .the 
 prayers... . by Rev. Francis Harrison, of Troy, Ritualist and contributor to the 
 defunct Church and the World; and the Litany... .by Canon Knowles, of the late 
 Bishop Whiteliouse’s cathedral in Chicago.” (xii. 56-59). 
 
 July 8. P. E. C. a u most respectable society.” ( The Southern Churchman) 
 in trying to correct the faults of its own Church, says : “Wo think the Episcopal 
 Church, venerable in age, mellow with wisdom, reverential with truth, is a most 
 respectable society. We should feel like doing battle with any one who would 
 deny these attributes as belonging to this institute. But there was a time, it has 
 not been many years since, when we were too respectable. We were admiring our¬ 
 selves for this trait; indeed, we were in danger, like the Spanish king, of dying of 
 our respectability. We are glad to think our danger has lessened.” (xix. 12). 
 
206 
 
 CII AFTER XVIII. 
 
 September 1, 1875. 
 
 Sept. 1. No reordination of a Romish Priest (Epis. Rec.) The Church Jour¬ 
 nal of August 5, cqpies the details from the Chicago Times, describing the reception of 
 the Romish Priest, Rev. Ephraim Therien, at Kankakee, Ill., without reordination. 
 Then the remarks of the Church Journal. It “was not an ordination, it was 
 simply a reception. .. .He who ordained Mr. Therien was a Bishop and had authority. 
 To repeat this ordination would be sacrilege, for it would be treating a holy thing 
 with contempt. .. .Had Mr. Therien come from the Presbyterians, Baptists, Metho¬ 
 dists, or any one of the Protestant denominations, his ordination would have been 
 simply ignored.’’ (iii. Dec. 4, 1873). 
 
 Sept. 4. Bishop Cox on the Rejection of Seymour. (Chn.) In a letter of 
 six columns. Bishop Cox says : “We are not always to keep silence... .lest we give 
 free course to falsehoods.” He quotes from a Chicago paper, respecting Seymour 
 and De Koven, ‘the two are said to stand together on doctrinal questions.’...My 
 share in all this business has been the product... .of thorough information as to 
 facts.” .. .Our General Seminary.,. .is in no respect a representative council of the 
 Church... .The local trustees and their near neighbors are the only members.... 
 always present. .a few distant members summoned for the purpose can generally 
 turn the vote... .Formerly there was a triennial meeting... .But this has been 
 abolished ;... .a fluctuating - minority... .is virtually clothed with irresponsible 
 power... .The Illinois case was decided in the House of Deputies by a most sig¬ 
 nificant and emphatic vote. It has been again decided by action still more de¬ 
 liberate and emphatic... .To vote No is to make enemies, and to provoke the spite 
 of the worst characters in the Church... .The petty terrorism of such men is a real 
 power. .. .In the Illinois case this class of men was known to be enlisted in behalf 
 of the candidate... .active night and dav....The motives which were addressed 
 ... .were, in some cases, such as might be paralleled only by the tactics of political 
 demagogues. I speak of what I know... .1 consider the vote of the House, solemn 
 and significant even to sublimity... .Good men voted for him because they were 
 led to believe he was no ‘ Ritualist.’ They believed he had no sympathy with the 
 outspoken President of Racine. Who believes it now ? ‘ The two are said to stand 
 
 together on doctrinal questions,’and that such is the case nobody will deny.... 
 Who stood up and took the fair ground, ‘ Our candidate is as much a ritualist as 
 his friend for whose express benefit you are called upon to enact a Ritual Canon, 
 but we mean to sustain Ritualism? ’... .This is said now defiantly enough... .It 
 was a hard thing to believe that there was any concealment, equivocation, or du¬ 
 plicity in the solemn denials of a candidate expecting immediate consecration and 
 tendering a candid statement of facts, to a Council of the Church, about to vote for 
 or against him, under the Invocation of the Holy Ghost... .1 shall prove them from 
 the publications of the defeated candidate himself, that he has contradicted his own 
 solemn statements and refuted his own stories ; has failed in making any one de¬ 
 tailed statement to which he adheres, and has corroborated by the statements of 
 others almost everything which he gave the House of Deputies to suppose untrue 
 ... .For his self-stultifying oaths and affirmations, I would not hold him entirely 
 responsible.” (xix. 13 ; xii. 59). 
 
 Sept. 11. Bishop Cox continues September 4, (Chn). As to the House of 
 Deputies in rejecting Dr. Seymour: “ I can account for their decision in no other 
 way than this: They said, ‘ There is proof of much that requires explanation, and 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 207 
 
 September 11, 1875. 
 
 the explanations proffered are ambiguous and unsatisfactory; we cannot confirm 
 the election of a presbyter, who, at such a crisis, fails to tell us all he knows about 
 serious occurrences and abuses, and who leaves us under the profound impression 
 that he equivocates and suppresses the truth.’ ” He then, in his letter of seven 
 columns, uses these expressions: “The two stories are flat contradictions ; if this 
 affidavit tells the truth, it is impossible that his statement to the House was a faith¬ 
 ful account of facts... .Observe, then, the issue is about words. All that he and 
 others may swear about his doings may be true, but that is not the point... .In the 
 ‘ issue of veracity,’ which he so gratuitously made, all turns on what he said. . . .Let 
 us take the Professor’s sworn statement. .. .He knew that ‘ Father Grafton’s ’ lecture 
 w r as a fact... .He admitted that he had lectured on more than one occasion... .Did 
 
 • 
 
 he make these same admissions to the House of Deputies ? On the contrary, he flatly 
 denied that anything of the kind had occurred. .. .The House of Deputies, how¬ 
 ever, was not merely trifled with by these detailed statements of facts ; it was yet 
 further mystified by equivocations... .To suspect an equivocation seemed unchar¬ 
 itable; and it is only by the great mercy of God that he escaped being consecrated 
 a few days later, with words in his mouth which he now swears were not strictly 
 true....I have no disposition to press these appalling facts... .That such being 
 some of the essential facts of the case, nothing of the sort was communicated to 
 the House....I throw aside, then, a painful comparison which I have made of oath 
 with oath, and page with page, of this ‘ sworn evidence.’ I do not wish to make 
 indelible the stain with which so many young clergymen have defiled their hands, 
 nor to point out how little they seem to understand the peril of that ‘ vain and 
 rash swearing.’... .Yet here is a pamphlet filled with ‘ sworn evidence ’ the most 
 contradictory and self-refuting, and the person who is responsible for it is the per¬ 
 son selected by seventy-seven trustees out of 400, to form the manners and mold 
 the characters of our future clergy, as permanent Dean of our General Theological 
 Seminary.” (xix. 13; xviii. Nov. 6, 1875. General). 
 
 On this point in the same number, E. M. Peeke gives the trustees present on 
 twenty occasions, from 1866 to 1875, and says : “ From all this it is evident that the 
 
 seventy-seven votes which were cast for the present Dean_would have been a 
 
 majority in any ballot... .for ten years.” (xii. 58.) 
 
 Sept. 22. Sale of Church and State to Churchman (Epis. Rec.) by “ N.” 
 (xix. 12; xviii. June 9, 1875.) 
 
 Sept. 23. Pulverization (So. Ch.) Bishop Clark in his convention address 
 says: “ The formation of new dioceses, the division of several of the older dioceses 
 and the consequent increase of the number of Bishops, were among the most 
 important questions brought before the convention.” (Continued, xix. 13-12.) 
 
 Oct. 2. Infidels and Gamblers (Chn.) At the Illinois Diocesan Convention, 
 Sept. 16, when discussing the resolutions which condemned the rejection of Dr. 
 DeKoven as Bishop, by the Standing Committees : “ Mr. Judd said that no other 
 church upon earth permitted such a thing as that the laity—infidels some of them 
 —should pass upon the doctrinal qualifications of Bisliops-elect; and Dr. Cushman 
 expressed his abhorrence of the system which left the Standing Committees to sit 
 in judgment on the theology of a Bishop-elect, while it was possible for infidels or 
 gamblers to be lay members of the Standing Committees.” [This cannot be so in 
 the R. E. C., xix. 3.] 
 
208 
 
 CHAPTER XYin. 
 
 November 6, 1875. 
 
 Nov. 6. Domestic Missions of the P. E. C. (Clin.) (xix. 13-11.) 
 
 Nov. 6. Board of Missions of the P. E. C. (Clin.) “ Indian Commission... - 
 was burdened with a debt of $10,000. The receipts for the year... .$50,101.21. ... 
 The Foreign Committee reported that their receipts for the year were only $89,- 
 724.74, being $10,275.64 less than in 1874, and $24,385.34 less than in 1873.”... . 
 The committee on the subject of offerings for missions “ stated that in their 
 judgment the need of a more thorough enlistment of the people in the great mis¬ 
 sionary work was becoming more apparent every year.” The Foreign Committee 
 “ being also in debt to the extent of more than $30,000.” With respect to a 
 resolution “ referring to Bishop Gobat and the Armenian Christians.” “ In 
 opposition to this the Bishop of Albany spoke very warmly, condemning what he 
 styled the impertinent ignorance often exhibited in connection with this... .sub¬ 
 ject. .. .He said that the name of the Armenian prelate of whom Bishop Gobat 
 wrote, was one unfavorably known in England; that the movement of this 
 individual corresponded to the Cummins movements in relation to our own Church* 
 while Bishop Gobat’s action was in direct opposition to the principles upon which 
 the Jerusalem Episcopate was founded,” etc. Dr. Schereschewsky, “ Digressing for 
 a moment, he said that the Assembly might be interested to know what had 
 particularly impressed him as he had listened to the proceedings of the Board. He 
 replied that it was the prevailing self-gratulation," etc. “ The Bishop of Ohio.... 
 wished to make a statement with reference to the remarks of... .Bishop Doane, 
 who....had reflected upon Bishop Gobat. Either that speaker possessed less 
 knowledge of the subject than himself, or much better information.”...The rest 
 of the business was also run through with hot haste.” (xix. 13-7, 8.) 
 
 Nov. 6. House of Bishops of the P. E. C. (Clm.) The presiding bishop in 
 his public address, said: “We are blessed, too, in a wonderful way, in aiding 
 through various instrumentalities in bringing about a restoration of harmony 
 amongst the long-divided sections of the one Church.” (xix. 13 ; xii. 56-59.) 
 
 Nov. 6. Bishop of Maine (Clin.) (xix. 13.) 
 
 Nov. 6. General Theological Seminary (Chn.) “ The degrees to be conferred 
 are three, namely, S. T. B., S. T. M., and S. T. D., or Bachelor, Master, and Doctor of 
 Sacred Theology ; and the holders will be entitled to wear hoods corresponding to 
 their respective degrees.” (xviii. Sept. 4, 11, 1875, Bp. Cox ; Feb. 26, 1876.) 
 
 Nov. 6. Society for the increase of the Ministry (Chn.) (xix. 13-10.) 
 
 Nov. 11. Rev. N. H. Schenck (Times), (xix. 13-6.) This last remark 
 “ fool ” is also found in the Southern Churchman, but not in the Hartford Church¬ 
 man. 
 
 Nov. 20. The Churchman. Editor on Church union, (xix. 13.) 
 
 Nov. 20. Church Congress (Chn.) Editor says : “ What our Church in Phil¬ 
 adelphia has just witnessed would have been impossible, not only in the days of 
 Bishop White or Bishop Alonzo Potter, but probably in any year before this of the 
 administration of the present highly esteemed head of the diocese... .The old con¬ 
 vention leaders in either house were not conspicuously present... .There Avas a 
 clear purpose all around to let every mouth have its say to the utmost... Contra¬ 
 diction, idiosyncracy, extremes of one sort or another, always short of heresy and 
 schism, were encouraged to ‘speak out.’” (III. Nov. 11, 1874. Cli. Jo.) 
 
 Nov. 29. Cardinal McCloskey (Trib.) in his address, said: “From the fact 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 209 
 
 November 29, 1875. 
 
 that Christ promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church, 
 it is to he inferred that they would strive to prevail. The Cardinal predicted the 
 final triumph of the Church.” (xix. 13.) 
 
 Dec. 10? English, exclusiveness. (Times?) under the head “ British Affairs,” 
 says that the vicar wrote to Mr. Smith that it was 4 altogether contrary to the doc¬ 
 trine and discipline of the Church of England, that either her clergy or faithful 
 laity should attend service in a Dissenting chapel.’ Mr. Smith appealed to the 
 Bishop of ■Winchester, Dr. Harold Browne, who attended the Old Catholic Congress 
 at Cologne in 1872, and the Bishop says: 44 It appears to him that ‘ no well 
 instructed churchman can attend the service of other communions.’ ITis reason is 
 that if the English Church is not the true Church of this land, she is a usurper and 
 an impostor.” (xviii. June 15, 1875; xix. 13.) 
 
 Dec. 11. Free Preaching and the Parish system (Chn.) (xix. 11.) 
 
 Dec. 30. Episcopalians in Georgia (Obs.) copied from “ exchange ” “When 
 Oglethorpe was Governor of the Province of Georgia, over 130 years ago, there 
 were no Methodists, but 1,000 members of the Church of England. Now there are 
 150,000 Methodists and not quite 5,000 Episcopalians. The Baptists about equal 
 the Methodists. These two are the leading denominations in the State.” (xix. 
 13-1. 
 
 1876. 
 
 Jan. 1. Candidates for orders in the P. E. C. (Chn.) (xix. 13-13.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Wisconsin Convention (Appeal). The Milwaukee Sentinel of June 
 23, 1870, says that the following canon was proposed, but not accepted : 44 Every 
 communicant of the Church, marrying outside of our communion, or married by 
 any other than a clergyman of the Church, shall stand ipso facto excommunicated.” 
 (xii. 58.) 
 
 Jan.-l. American Patriots Low-Cliurch (Appeal). Washington did as readily 
 worship and partake of the communion in a Methodist, Presbyterian, Cong-rega- 
 tional, or any other church, as in an Episcopal Church .. .Patrick Henry, when he 
 heard that some Baptist ministers had been indicted, rode thirty miles of his own 
 accord, unretained, to defend them... .while waving over his head the indictment, 
 electrified the audience and startled the judge as he exclaimed : 44 What! Indicted 
 for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Is that a crime ? ” (III. Dec. 4, 1873 ; 
 xii. 25-28, 56-59.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Royal Family of England (Appeal) is said to be a little mixed in its 
 religion. Queen Victoria dislikes Ritualists, and delights in a simple form of wor¬ 
 ship. The Prince of Wales, on the contrary, enjoys the forms of the Church when¬ 
 ever he attends, which is but seldom. His eldest sister is a Lutheran. Lord Lome 
 is a Presbyterian. The Duchess of Edinburg is Greek Catholic and her husband a 
 Low-Church Episcopalian, (xix. 9.) 
 
 Jan. 1. No hope of change (Appeal). Bishop Johns quotes Rev. J. A. Latane’s 
 letter (III. Jan. 12, 1874): 44 1 am satisfied that this doctrine (that baptism invariably 
 effects regeneration) was not held by the framers of the Prayer-Book, nor intended to 
 be expressed ”.. he comments: 44 1 think them literally true.’’ On the contrary, Bishop 
 McLaren says : 44 To day the Church asserts it as one of the most precious jewels in 
 her deposit of doctrine.” Bishop Johns quotes the Preface to the Prayer-Book, as 
 
210 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 January 1, 1876. 
 
 to the propriety of making changes, and says: “Wise and ample provision is thus 
 made to remedy just such evils as those of which you complain ”... .On the con¬ 
 trary, Bishop Potter in dictatorial tones says it is “ an absolute impossibility,” and 
 Bishop McLaren said: “The invincible conservatism of the House... .overthrew 
 the hopes of the adherents of an effete theology so completely that it is not likely 
 we shall hear again of the subject.” In 1871 the effort was made by nine Bishops 
 to have alternate phrases in the Baptism of Infants. It was refused. In 1874 it 
 was renewed by strong petitions and again refused. (III. Oct. 24, 29, 29, 29, 31, 
 81, 1874; xii. 50-59 ; xix. 12.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Rev. Dr. S. H. Tyng, Jr. (Appeal.) The letter (II. Sept. 1G.1875)is 
 
 a forgery. “ The letter was... .reproduced... .in the E '< E. journals-Of (he 
 
 journals of the P. E. C. only one is known to have corrected the error.” (xi. 39, 42.) 
 
 Jan. 1. Church of England (Appeal). “ To repudiate the trammels of State 
 connection, and to come out on the; basis of a revised Prayer-Book, would be to 
 hand over to the High-Churcli party a thousand parish churches, the care of a 
 million souls, the possession of immense church property, and all the influences in¬ 
 separably connected with the position of a State Church.” (xvii. May 5 ; 1875, Dr. 
 Newton ; xii. 12-24.) 
 
 Jan. 5. Mass in masquerade in New York described. (Epis. Rec.) (xix. 14.) 
 
 Jan. 15. Mexico (Clin.) Full legal title is “ The Mexican branch of the 
 Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ militant upon earth.” The popular 
 abridgment, “ Church of Jesus in Mexico,” is permitted to be used. The P. E. C. 
 is recognized as the older sister. Seven bishops of the P. E. C. commissioned to 
 superintend ; viz., of Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West New York, 
 Pittsburg, Long Island. [They have revised the Prayer-Book. (xvii. Jan. 19,1876.)] 
 (xix. 19.) 
 
 Jan. 19. Revision o the Prayer-Book of P. E. C. (Epis. Rec) I. C., in the 
 
 Southern Churchman of last week, says : “ A reflection arising out of the controversy 
 
 about the words priest, altar, etc., is the danger of being obliged to defend what is 
 
 not very defensible. We find, for instance, the words priest, altar, regenerate, 
 
 descent into hell, receive ye the Holy Ghost, etc. We would rather not have these 
 
 * 
 
 words in the Prayer-Book ; but they are there, and if they are capable of defense, 
 there is a very proper spirit to defend them. Love for the Church and for the 
 
 Prayer-Book naturally leads us to justify things just as they stand_These errors 
 
 of priesthood, sacrifice, etc., become authorized by the authoritative sanction of the 
 fit words that express them. The words priest, altar, etc., convey certain ideas, 
 mean certain things, invariably and universally... .That which has been justified 
 as it stands, is taken by loyal and simple hearts to teach all that it means, and by 
 the subtle and dishonest, to teach all that it may be made to mean... .Words are 
 teaching, teaching, teaching, all the time... ,1s it wise then in the Episcopal Church 
 to compel her members to be ever justifying... .words which are felt to be a bur- 
 
 % den... .bring her into disrepute_not only are not Christian words, but which 
 
 seem to have been repudiated and condemned by the spirit of inspiration ? Words 
 w'hicli, finally, are educating the mind of the Church into ideas which are Judaic 
 and not Christian, Romish and not Protestant... .capable... .of a very plausible 
 defence. But the more ably they are defended, the worse it is for the Church and 
 the Truth.” (xvii. Jan. 1,187G, Moncton ; ix. 2 ; xix. 2.) 
 
CHAPTER XVIII.' 
 
 211 
 
 January 22, 1876. 
 
 Jan. 22. Key-West, Florida. (Clin.) “ A Sunday-school was commenced in St. 
 Peter’s on the 2d of January. The service in the new parish will be full choral.” 
 (xix. 14.) 
 
 Jan. 22. Bishop of Michigan (Clin.) in his address, ad clerum, said : “ (1) That 
 never in the history of the American Church, were the rules of the Church in more 
 perfect accord in all matters of faith, doctrine, and discipline. (2) Never before had 
 she been so thoroughly equipped for the Master’s work, in the number of the Epis¬ 
 copate, as now. Yet there was not that proportionate growth of the Church that 
 should reasonably be expected. He then assigned as the causes for this lack of 
 growth, (1) the materialism of the age, (2) intense worldliness of the age {a) outside 
 of the Church, (b) in some measure within. The world is invading the Church, in¬ 
 stead of the Church conquering the world. Hence the common resort to worldly 
 ways in the maintenance of worship ; (3) the unwarrantable suspicions against her 
 accredited teachers and rulers; which manifests its presence by meddlesome per¬ 
 sons criticising the doctrine and practices of the authorized teachers ; making ail 
 outcry against ‘ ritualism ’ where no unwarranted ritualism exists ; decrying the 
 manner of ‘ standi' g or kneeling,’ as if therein was to be found error in doctrine ; 
 weakening the power, influence, and authority of rectors and missionaries, by 
 criticisms often slyly hid behind a wink, a look, an ominous silence, and the like ; 
 invading the parishes and fields of others, and prying into practices of those who 
 were amenable only to their bishop,” etc. (xix. 11 ; 13 ; 14.) 
 
 Jan. 22. Bishop Gillespie, of W. Michigan (Chn.) “ I believe that every Bishop 
 in the land will bless God for a tenfold multiplication of the young unmarried men 
 who, assured of good raiment and shelter, would be therewith content.” (xix. 13 ; 1 
 to 14.) 
 
 Jan. 22. Reception of a Roman Catholic Priest (Chn.) without re-or¬ 
 dination, at St. James’, Syracuse, N. Y., on Jan. 9. (III. Dec. 4, 1873.) 
 
 Jan. 22. Statistics of P. E. C. (Chn.) Church Almanac for 1876 gives con¬ 
 tributions (in thirty-nine dioceses and seven mission districts), $6,851,983.27 in 
 1874, and $6,690,575.48 in 1875. (xix. 12.) 
 
 Jan. 22. EastoJ Day (Chn.) (xix. 16.) 
 
 Jan. 26. Bishop Doane’s Convention Address, (xix. 11-4.) 
 
 Jan. 29. Easter Day (Chn.) (xix. 16.) 
 
 Jan. 29. Foreign Committee of Board of Missions (Chn.) Special com¬ 
 mittee. (xix. 13-14.) 
 
 Jan. 29. Canada (Chn.) Letter from Montreal says : “ The Mission Board of 
 Ontario will require $10,000 this year to meet its engagements. So far as we have 
 heard, there is a falling off in the usual amounts... .The Bishop of Ontario 
 delivered an address in... .Ottawa, in favor of choral services. These services are 
 by no means popular in Ottawa... .We are so divided, and so bitter in our divisions, 
 that we cannot unite in anything... .Parties are becoming so narrowed and 
 defined, that unless one can pronounce the Shibboleth of one or the other, he is 
 avoided by both as a suspicious character. And it is the clergy who have to 
 answer for this state of things... .The Huron Recorder, in its last issue, intimates 
 that unless it receives a more liberal support, it will not be continued after April 
 next.” (xix. 13-1 to 15.) 
 
 Jan. 29. Canada (Chn.) Quebec choral service, the Bishop preached. Hali¬ 
 fax choral service, the Bishop made “an able defence of choral services.” (xix. 14.) 
 
212 
 
 CHAPTER XYITI. 
 
 January 29, 1876. 
 
 Jan 29. Norwich, Conn. (Clin.) At the Convocation, “They were introduced 
 
 by the Archdeacon” 
 
 Jan. 29. Cincinnati "Mission (Clin.) “ Addresses... .by the Lord Bishop of 
 Huron, the Dean of Huron, and the Bishop of Southern Ohio. The Prayer-Book, 
 the surplice, and the distinctive doctrines of the Church were held to most vigor¬ 
 ously. Indeed, it was announced at the beginning, that there might be no mistake 
 as to the character of the services, that the mission was conducted by High-Church¬ 
 men.” (xix. 14.) 
 
 Jan. 29. Sister Cathlyne (Chn.) was received into the Sisterhood of the 
 Holv Child Jesus, in All-Saints Cathedral. Albanv, on Holv Innocents’ Dav. The 
 ceremony was performed by the Bishop, (xix. 14.) 
 
 Feb. 5. Bishop of Winchester (Chn.) maintains the usual High-Church 
 grounds—“ Saar iter in modo, fortiter in re.” (xix. 14.) 
 
 Feb. 5. Bishop of Colorado (Chu.) says, “Such people, though they may 
 prefer the Church to other religious bodies.” (xix. 13.) 
 
 Feb. 5. Trinity Church, New York. (Chn.) During the Easter season Mr. 
 Jerome Hopkins’ Orchestral Vesper Service for Eastertide will be performed for the 
 first time in Trinity Chapel, Xew York City. The different organists of Trinity parish 
 will assist at the performance, and the service will be rendered by an orchestra, 
 boy choir, two choruses, four solo voices, and other musical accompaniments.” 
 [An ecclesiologicai opera, called “ Service.’’] (xix. 14.) 
 
 Feb. 5. “Protestant Episcopal Church of England, ’’ (Ottawa Times.) 
 (xix. 9.) 
 
 Feb. 26. Bishop Doane (Chn.) “The Church’s way the best way.’’ (xix. 
 11-4.) 
 
 Feb. 26. British Columbia (Chn.) Diocesan Synod of the Church of Eng¬ 
 land, recently established, lasted four days. Dean Gilson seconded the motion to 
 form the Svnod. Archdeacon Wood moved an amendment to exclude lavmen. 
 Lieutenant-Governor Turch suggested that the laity had perhaps held the soundest 
 doctrine, and that it was the Bishop and clergy who were in fault. Amendment 
 rejected and Synod formed with but one dissentient, (xi. 26, Rev. E. Cridge.) 
 
 Feb. 26. Illinois (Chn.) At a special ordination at the Cathedral in Chicago, 
 on February 13, “Bishop McLaren sang the Litany and the! Veni Creator Spiritus.”) 
 (xix. 14) 
 
 Feb. 26. Colorado (Chn.) The Bishop writes : “ Four of the clergy of two years 
 ago have left the Church, of whom three have been deposed and the other will be.” 
 xix. 14.) 
 
 Feb. 26. Blackwell's Island (Chn) “ It may not be generally known that 
 our Church is the onlv Protestant bodv which sustains regular services at Black- 
 well's Island.” [f“Rev. R. H. Bourne, Charity Hospital, Blackwell’s Island, X. Y.,” 
 is the address of a minister of the R. E. C.] (xi. 26 ) 
 
 Feb. 26. Hoods (Chn.) Rev. John H. Drumm quotes the 58th Canon of the 
 Church of England : “ Every minister. .. .shall wear a... .surplice with sleeves 
 ... .graduates shall wear upon their surplices at such times, such hoods as by the 
 orders of the Universities are agreeable to their degrees, which no minister shall 
 wear (being no graduate) under pain of suspension.” (xviii. Xov. 6, 1875.) 
 
 March 1. Homeward (Appeal). Last Sunday, says Our Church Work, 
 
ClfAPTEB XYIIT. 
 
 213 
 
 March 1, 1870. 
 
 Bishop Whittingham deposed Rev. A. B. Leeson, deacon, lately an assistant of Mt. 
 Calvary Ch., Baltimore, who has announced hi3 intention to connect himself with 
 the Church of Rome. (xix. 14.) 
 
 March 1. Layman or Cleric (Appeal). W. H. C., referring to the deposition 
 of Rev. G. A. Redles by Bishop Stevens of Pennsylvania, who calls him “ Mr. G. 
 Albert Redles." continues : “ Who authorized Bishop... .Stevensto say that ceasing 
 to be a minister of the numerically insignificant P. E. C. he ceases to be a minister 
 of the one Holy Catholic or Universal Church of Christ? Is the communion of 
 Bishop Stevens co-extensive with that Church? Let him wait until it shall be 
 recognized as such by the great, though corrupt, Romish and Greek communions, 
 before he shall presume to venture on such an assumption.” (xix 13.) 
 
 March. 22. Sister Harriet (Epis. Rec.) was buried in Baltimore with semi- 
 Bomish ceremonies, (xix. 14.) 
 
 April 15. Increase of the Ministry (Post), (xix. 13-15.) 
 
 June 10. “Newark’s Episcopal Sisterhood.’’ (iT. 7. Herald) says: “The 
 Newark Episcopalians have a sisterhood in charge of their hospital of St. Bar¬ 
 nabas. somewhat similar to sisterhoods having charge of Catholic hospitals. Yes¬ 
 terday a novel and interesting ceremony was witnessed in St. Paul’s Episcopal 
 church. This was the formal admission of Sister Sylvia into the Protestant sis¬ 
 terhood. the ceremony being performed by Bishop Odenheimer, aided by Rectors 
 Smith and Stansbury. The service was opened with a processional hymn, during 
 the singing of which Bishop Odenheimer and a number of clergy, followed by the 
 Sister and postulant, the latter with a white veil, entered the church and proceeded 
 to the chancel, the Sisters taking seats in the body of the church. 
 
 “ Rector Smith then briefly addressed the congregation. Among the evidences 
 of the revival which the Holy Ghost has vouchsafed the Anglican communion, he 
 said, there is no more evident token than this revival of sisterhoods, and the time 
 has now come in our own diocese when such a community is to be established, and 
 when there may be witnessed the establishment of the new sisterhood and the 
 reception of a Sister. 
 
 “ Sister Sylvia, of St. Luke’s Hospital, New York, came forward and was pre¬ 
 sented to the Bishop. She knelt and Bishop Odenheimer blessed a cross which he 
 handel to her, and after a few collects she took upon herself the vows of the Order 
 and was admitted a member of the sisterhood by the Bishop, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (xix 14; iii. Sept. 10; Oct. 19, 1874.) 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Contents: — (1). Let Well Enough Alone .— (2). Principles of the R. E. 
 C .— (3). Protection of the Laity in the R. E. C .— : (4). Disposition to Try 
 New Experiments .— (5). Special Services Proposed .— (6). To Stand as in 
 Pronouncing the Absolution .— (7). To Abolish Synods .— (8). R. E. G. and 
 Extraneous Organizations .— (9). “ Protestant Episcopal Church of Eng¬ 
 land .”— (10 f Carey Ordination, July 2, 1843. — (11). Free Preaching and 
 the Parish System ; a. Bp. Huntingdon; b. Bp. Doane. —(12). Imitating , 
 but Abusing, No. 1 ; The P. E. C. Abuses the R. E. C .— (13). Imitating, but 
 Abusing, No. 2 ; The Present Condition of the P. E. C .— (14). The Reason 
 of the Decline of the P. E. C .— (15). Imitating, but Abusing, No. 3; The R. 
 E. C. Retains its Birthright .— (16). Date of Easter, No. 1; General Princi¬ 
 ples; Crucifixion, 14 th or 15 th Nisanf — (17). Date of Easter, No. 2; 
 Errors of Jarvis. — (18). Date of Easter, No. 3; Errors of Seabury .— (19). 
 Succession in the R. E. C. — (20). Clergy of the R. E. C. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 “LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE.” 
 
 My opinion, officially expressed in Council at Chicago in May last, has been 
 strengthened by subsequent developments,' and I now desirb to press the importance 
 of making no change for several years in our Prayer-Book, Articles, and Constitu¬ 
 tion and Canons, except where the necessity Is apparent to all, as in our basis of 
 representation, which will require changes from time to time, in proportion to our 
 increase in numbers. And that increase will depend upon the confidence of out¬ 
 siders that they can predict our future. They will avoid us if we appear to be a 
 vacillating body without fixed principles. 
 
 The members of the First Council were exclusively those who had belonged to 
 the Old Evangelical party in the Protestant Episcopal Church. They presented to 
 the Second Council the Reformed Prayer-Book, and the Constitution and Canons; 
 and to the Third Council, the revised Articles—all exemplifying the reforms which 
 they had always advocated ; and after the first Council invited all to join them who 
 agreed with the well-known principles of the Old Evangelicals. 
 
 We have been charged with fanaticism and folly, and it is of great importance 
 that for several years, we leave our standards untouched, to prove that we are men 
 of common sense, who knew what we wanted, and have done what we wanted, and 
 are so well satisfied with what we have done, that we shall continue to be what we 
 are now. A contrary course will subject us to remarks like the following: 
 
 The vacillation of our authorities during the war of 1812 became a subject of 
 ridicule, and near the lines they said in sport, that a courier was asked why he was 
 in such great haste. He answered, “ This package on the saddle before me contains 
 orders that I must take to the front with all possible speed.” “ But what is that 
 package behind you T “ Countermands !” 
 
 In the Fall of 1871, at Ostend, in Belgium, when waiting for the train, after our 
 baggage had been examined, I entered into conversation with a custom-house offi¬ 
 cer. He supposed me to be English. I said, “No! American.” “Then you are 
 a republican ?” “ Tes. But you have a republic along side of you in France.” He 
 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 215 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 answered, “ I have no confidence in it. Never satisfied /” Thus, by these two words, 
 " Jamais content!" giving his reason for doubting the stability of the French 
 Republic. 
 
 In the Spring of 1872, after having had as city guides, a Red Republican in Lyons 
 and an Imperialist in Paris, we had a moderate Republican in and about Havre. 
 They gave their different political views. To the last, I expressed my doubts whether 
 such a government as ours could be sustained in France. He was irritated by my 
 remark, but subsequently said, “ The great difficulty with us, is that we have five 
 parties [enumerating them], and each man cares more for his party than he does 
 for his country.” “ Precisely so, and that is the reason why I think that France is 
 not yet ready for a government such as we have.” 
 
 Any one of common sense and experience knows that analogous dangers are be¬ 
 fore every new organization, whether it be a nation, or a church, or a debating so¬ 
 ciety. Taking advantage of this general principle, the editor of Church and State, 
 on May 21,1874, inserted a false statement respecting the proceedings of our Second 
 Council, and upon this foundation said: “ It is easy to see from this and other indi¬ 
 cations, what are the dangers that are before this new organization. The grand 
 mistake they have made is in supposing that they nave arrived at the logical ter 
 minus of their tendency. They are just beginning to get a glimpse of the dreary 
 waste of fanaticism and folly that lies before them. They will find that there are 
 plenty who will wish to reform their Church, just as they have attempted to reform 
 upon the Church which they have left. ” 
 
 Now, the experience of the world warns us to be on our guard against these dan¬ 
 gers, and to “ let well enough alone.’’ 
 
 It may be supposed that the difference between me and those who desire changes, 
 is, that I think that our present standards could not be improved, while they think 
 that they might be better. On the contrary, we might agree precisely on this point, 
 since, in my opinion, there have been unnecessary departures from the old Prayer- 
 Book and Articles. But in accordance with the above views, I should object to 
 changing them back to where I think they should have been left, until we shall 
 have become a much larger body. * 
 
 The above was prepared to be shown in manuscript this day, to those collected in 
 Philadelphia at the consecration of Bishop Nicholson. The severity of the weather 
 prevents my going there. Therefore, I send it to the printer, and request those who 
 shall receive copies, to distribute them among the delegates to the next Council. 
 Should these views prevail, the next Council will soon finish its work, and establish 
 the important principle of conservatism. 
 
 Passaic, N. J., Feb. 24,1876 B. Aychigg. 
 
 2d Section. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE R. E. C. 
 
 These have been defined for ages. They are not of recent origin. They are not 
 the invention of any member c f the R. E. C. 
 
 The Declaration of Principles, adopted irrevocably as the basis upon which the 
 R E. C. was organized on Dec. 2, 1873, gives a summary of all the Principles main¬ 
 tained for ages, by the general consent of the Evangelicals in the P. E. C. and 
 Church of England, which were in opposition to others in the same Churches. 
 
 The Principles of the P. E. C. and of the Church of England that are not con¬ 
 demned by that Declaration, remain the common law of the R. E. C., in the same 
 
216 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 2d Section. 
 
 manner as the common law of England remains tlie common law of the U. S. A. 
 since the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 To maintain these Principles, no one was admitted to vote at the First Council, 
 except in accordance with the Call to Organize issued by Bishop Cummins, dated 
 Nov. 15, 1873, viz. : “ The Lord has put it into the hearts of some of Ilis servants 
 who are or have been in the P. E. C., the purpose of restoring the old paths of their 
 father8.” 
 
 This is my answer to an anonymous circular, dated March 7, 1876, attacking the 
 circular headed, “ Let well enough alone.” 
 
 Passaic, N. J., March 20, 1876. B. Aycrigg. 
 
 Note.— The above is on documentary evidence, and I know that the documents say what was 
 intended, having as a layman been in consultation with Bishop Cummins and two other clergymen 
 on November 12-13,1873, when the Call was prepared ; and President of the Convention on De¬ 
 cember 2, 1873, when it organized itself into the R. E. C. And I hold that it w'ould be a breach of 
 faith to attempt to force any other principles upon a minority in this Church. (See Memoirs of 
 the R. E. C., Chapter VI., IX., X., XI., XYI.) 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 PROTECTION OF THE LAITY IN THE R. E. C. 
 
 In the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Oct. 13, 1874, 
 as reported in the Churchman, the Rev. Mr. Shipman, of Kentucky, proposed to 
 define what is “ Open and Notorious Evil Living,” which entitles a clergyman to expel 
 a layman from the communion. He said, that if the rector thought the carrying a 
 gold-headed cane “^open and notorious evil living ” he might expel, and the layman 
 could have no redress, unless the Bishop reversed the action of the rector. 
 
 Also, I heard and believe, that among parties with whom I was acquainted, 
 the rector and a vestryman, at a vestry meeting, had a dispute about parish matters, 
 and the rector threatened to excommunicate the layman unless he ceased his resist¬ 
 ance. And in the P. E. C. he had the canonical power to do so. 
 
 And the Rubric at the head of the Burial Service of the P. E. C., says: 
 “ Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing is not to be used for any unbaptized 
 adults, any who die excommunicate or who have laid violent hands on themselves.’ 
 
 On the contrary, in the R. E. C., no person can be excommunicated except 
 on trial and conviction for “ denial of the faith,” or “ a walk and conversation un¬ 
 worthy of a Christian profession,” and “ nothing shall be admitted as matter of 
 accusation which cannot be proved to be such from Holy Scriptures.” Then he 
 may appeal in case of condemnation. And that he may be tried by his peers, two 
 laymen elected, as wardens, shall be associated with the rector in forming the Court. 
 “ And the wardens and deputies shall be chosen from among the communicants , 
 and when practicable, the vestrymen also.” In the P. E. C. the wardens need not 
 be communicants. 
 
 These canons were adopted unanimously by the Second Council of the 
 R. E. C., and were subsequently adopted by the Free Church of England. 
 
 Now, in a long circular dated March 6, 1876, the only objection raised against 
 these provisions is, that in accordance with Episcopal usage, the wardens who 
 execute these, among other duties, are chosen by the congregation at large. And 
 it says: “The canon as it stands is really so outrageous, so frightful, that it 
 borders on the 1 udicrous.” 
 
 This case exemplifies the danger referred to in the two former circulars, 
 headed “Let well enough alone,” and “Principles of the R. E. C. v 
 
 Passaic , N. J., March 24, 1876. (xviii. Oct. 2, 1875). B. Aycrigg. 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 217 
 
 4tli Section. 
 
 4. Disposition to try new experiments. Irenseus, editor of tlie New York 
 Observer, April 13, 1876, relates his experience respecting a favorite grape-vine, 
 which his three amateur friends in succession thought that they could improve by 
 pruning still closer, after it had left the hands of a professional vine-dresser, until 
 his favorite was very nearly destroyed. He also relates his experience with suc¬ 
 cessive patent ventilators, each promising to be better than the one in use, and all 
 equally bad. Then he moralizes : “ The Church and the world, religion and busi¬ 
 ness, are disturbed and annoyed, and sadly injured like my garden with amateurs, 
 pretenders, quacks—men who have new and improved methods of doing what was 
 well enough done before, but which they would do with patented processes peculiar 
 to themselves, and a vast improvement upon everything that has gone before... . 
 Conservatism holds fast to that which is good, and with it works onward to the 
 overthrow of evil. Radicalism is too impatient, rushes ahead, generally knocks its 
 head against the wall,” etc. 
 
 Now: The founders of the R. E. C. attempted no new experiment, (xix. 2.) 
 
 5. Special service for the “ dedication of infants ” is a liturgical novelty ; 
 appears to be intended to supersede infant baptism ; is a contradiction of the 
 Principles of the R. E. C. (xix. 2); is printed with the words “permitted to be 
 used,” while the Journal of 1875 (p. 20) says of all these services, “in order that 
 they might be carefully considered and examined, before being recommended for 
 use.” (xvii. May 12-18, 1875.) 
 
 6. To stand as in 'pronouncing the Absolution in the P. E. C. This is proposed 
 in the Journal of 1875 (pp. 37, 38), when reading sentences of Scripture in place of 
 the Absolution. This is understood to have been the proposition of the Latimer 
 Society in the P. E. C. It would certainly be an improvement in the Prayer Book 
 of the P. E. C. since it would abolish the substance of sacerdotalism by abolishing 
 the absolution itself, which Bishop Onderdonk said “ does not simply signify that 
 such absolution has been promised to the penitent ; but these words possess peculiar 
 efficacy by being pronounced by a regularly authorized clergyman.’’ (xii. 33.) 
 But the shadow of sacerdotalism would be restored by redirecting the minister to 
 stand up, while the people continue to kneel, since in the P. E. 0. no one but a 
 “priest ” or Bishop can do this. In our present service we use familiar words and 
 have abolished not only the substance, but also the shadow of sacerdotalism. 
 
 7. To abolish Synods. (<Journal of 1875, p. 39.) This would be a new prin¬ 
 ciple not included in the Principles of the R. E. C. (xix. 2.) 
 
 8th Section. 
 
 R. E. C. AND EXTRANEOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 
 
 I quote from the Appeal of January, 1876: “We were positively refused 
 admission into the R. E. C. on account of our poverty. (I wonder if there is such a 
 test in Heaven).” 
 
 (I. “ Nov. 8, 1874. Toronto)... .Bishop Cummins, assisted by Rev. M. B. Smith, 
 held service and delivered an address as on Nov. 1 at St. John also, (I. Nov. 18, 
 1874 St. John)....“ On Thursday, Nov. 5, the Bishop and Rev. M. B. Smith, and 
 B. Aycrigg, left Boston, and arrived in Toronto Nov. 7 also (I. Nov. 15, 1874, 
 ‘Ottawa, Canada) Rev. M. B. Smith in the morning, and Rev. Walter Windeyer in 
 the evening, preached in the Court House.” 
 
218 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 8th Section. 
 
 Now : All the facts here quoted are connected with each other and with the above 
 charge of wrong. The Rev. M. B. Smith was, and is now, the President, and I 
 was, and am now, a lay member of the Standing Committee elected by the General 
 Council as advisors of the Presiding Bishop, to represent the General Council when 
 not in session. There are necessarily many matters connected with the action of 
 this committee that are confidential. The Presiding Bishop learns the reasons, 
 while others only know the results, in all ordinary cases. This case is extraordi¬ 
 nary, as being published, and I think that I may with propriety state my own 
 reasons as follows: 
 
 From the reports in the Canadian newspapers, giving a speech of this clergy¬ 
 man, and other movements of the Orange Society, I feared that he and the first 
 parish in Toronto (not this one) were committing the R. E. C. as identified with 
 that political party. This first parish having been admitted by vote, I presented 
 these Canadian papers, then moved a reconsideration, and then to lay the question 
 on the table until we had more definite information. For this purpose, Mr. Smith 
 and myself went to Toronto as above quoted. We there received no satisfactory 
 information, and went to Ottawa as above, to consult with the vestry of that regu¬ 
 larly organized parish. Previous to this conference I had a private conversation 
 with a gentleman who did not belong to the vestry, and on stating to him the 
 object of our visit, he maintained the necessity of the R. E. C. being identified with 
 the Orange Society, and I answered that if this be necessary in Canada, I thought 
 that our churches must separate, since it was contrary to the Principles of the 
 R. E. C. to be identified with any extranebus organization, (xvii. Jan. 1, Freed- 
 men ; xix. 2.) Subsequently, in conference with several of the vestry, one of 
 the members maintained that the Orange Society was not political. I stated facts 
 to prove that it was decidedly political. The vestrymen generally agreed with the 
 principles which had governed the committee ; admitted that there had been some 
 ground for their action, but thought that the objection would be removed. I then 
 put tlie question formally to each individual: “Do you advise us to admit this 
 parish?” Each one said “Yes.” I then said : “We will report your advice, and 
 upon that, the parish will doubtless be admitted. The question is of most impor¬ 
 tance to you in Canada, and you must bear the responsibility This report having 
 been made, the first parish was received. 
 
 When the second parish, above mentioned, applied for admission, the same 
 questions arose, in my mind at least. The first parish had but just begun, and this 
 second parish appeared (to me, at least) unnecessary. And the Standing Committee 
 uniformly discountenances the formation of a new parish where they suppose that 
 there is not an actual demand, and that for want of such demand it will remain 
 weak and sickly, depending for existence on the sustentation fund. But the refusal 
 to receive at first without satisfactory evidence of its propriety, does not destroy the 
 existence of the parish, nor prevent its subsequent reception by the committee, as 
 shown in the case of the first parish in the same city. 
 
 When this parish applied to the General Council, the Standing Committee was 
 released from its responsibility. The Canadian delegates, with the means of know¬ 
 ing the facts, made no objection. The parish was received. The statement of facts 
 now connected with this complaint indicates that this action was judicious, (xvii. 
 Jan. 1, Toronto.) 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 219 
 
 9th Section. 
 
 “ PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ENGLAND.” 
 
 Bishop Lewis, as reported in the Toronto Globe of Dec. 31, 1874, in his charge 
 against the “ Church Association,” said: “The name Protestant never occurs in 
 our authorized formularies ; it is never used in the description of our Church ; it is 
 never used in connection with our National Church in our Acts of Parliament. Its 
 true designation was always felt to be The Church of England, a genuine, veritable 
 branch of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (III. Dec. 81,1874; xiii. 17; 
 xviii. June 15, 1875.) 
 
 Again, as reported in the Ottawa Times of Feb. 23, 1874, when attacking the 
 Reformed Episcopal Church, he said : “ If these seceders were men of learning he 
 might meet them in discussion fitly enough.” (II. Feb. 23, 1874.) 
 
 Now : These positive assertions respecting the word “ Protestant ” do not agree 
 with Rees’ Cyclopaedia under the head “ Crown—right of,” in which reference is 
 made to Blackstone, Book 1, C. 3, and to 12 and 13 W. 3d, cap 3 ; nor under the 
 head u Oath—Coronation ” with reference 1 W. and Mary, stat. l,c. 6. Then turn 
 to the original documents as found in the New York Law Library and in the Parlia¬ 
 mentary Library in Ottawa and find as follows : 
 
 30. Car. II. stat. 2, c. 1. “An Act for the more effectual preserving the 
 King’s person and Government by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of 
 Parliament.” This statute enacts an oath to be taken by all members of Parliament 
 containing: ....“ I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper there is 
 not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and 
 blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatever ; and 
 that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the 
 sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious 
 and idolatrous. And... .1 do make this declaration and every part thereof in the 
 plain and ordinary sense of the words....as they are commonly understood by 
 English Protestants, without any evasion,” etc. 
 
 Commons Journal, Feb. 12, 1688 (vol. 10, p. 28), recites that the late King 
 James II. “ did endeavor to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,” and 
 enumerates various proofs, among which is “ 6, By causing several good subjects, 
 being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed 
 and employed contrary to law that James II. has abdicated and the throne is va¬ 
 cant ; that the Prince of Orange (“whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the 
 glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power) 
 did (by the advice....) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Tem¬ 
 poral, being Protestant,” for electing members of Parliament, “in order to such an 
 establishment as that their religion... .might not be in danger of being subverted.” 
 And such Parliament being met, enumerate among other things—“ 7, That the 
 subjects who are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their con¬ 
 dition.They.claim._as their-rights” the matters enumerated, and 
 
 express dependence on the Prince of Orange, and—“ Resolved, that William and 
 Mary... .be declared King and Queen... .to hold the crown... .during their lives 
 and the life of the survivor of them... .after their deceases, the said crown... .be 
 to the heirs of the body of the said Princess ; and for default of such issue, to the 
 
220 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 9th Section. 
 
 Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, 
 to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange.” 
 
 1. W. and Mary, stat. 2, c. 2. “ An Act declaring the rights and liber¬ 
 
 ties of the subject, and settling the succession to the crown,” recites the declaration 
 (next above copied), the acceptance of the crown by the King and Queen, their 
 Majesties’pleasure that Parliament should “make settlement of the religion.... of 
 this kingdom.” Parliament confirms the declaration and limits the crown as therein 
 expressed. 
 
 Then Sec. IX., copied from the Statutes at Large: “And whereas it hath been 
 found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this 
 Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Papist Prince, or by any King or Queen 
 marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further 
 pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are, or 
 shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, 
 or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and 
 shall be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown and government of 
 this realm and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the 
 same ; and in all and every such case or cases, the people of these realms shall be, 
 and are hereby absolved of their allegiance ; and the said crown and government 
 shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being 
 Protestant, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person 
 or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying as afore¬ 
 said, were naturally dead.” Blackstone gives the substance of this statute. 
 
 1. W. and Mary, c. 6. “ An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath.”... . 
 
 “That one uniform oath may be, in all time to come, taken by the Kings and 
 Queens of this Realm ”... enacts a form to be administered to William and Mary, 
 w r hich includes tbe following: “ Archbishop, or Bishop, Will you, to the utmost of 
 your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the 
 Protestant Reformed Religion established by law... .King and Queen, All this I 
 promise to do.” This form is to be used in future. 
 
 1. W. and Mary, Sess. 1, c. 18. “ An Act for exempting their Majesties’ 
 
 Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the penalties of 
 certain laws,”—usually called the Toleration Act. Sec. 14 directs, in case of a 
 refusal to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy: “Provided, always.... 
 unless such person can, within thirty-one days after such tender of the declarations 
 to him, produce two sufficient Protestant witnesses to testify upon oath that they 
 believe him to be a Protestant dissenter; or a certificate under the hands of four 
 Protestants who are conformable to the Church of England ;” this will allow him 
 to make a declaration of the same purport instead of the oath. 
 
 12. Wm. III. cap 2. “An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and 
 better eecuring the rights and liberties of the subject;” after reciting 1 W. and 
 M. stat. 2, c. 2 (as above), adds: “Therefore, for a further provision of the suc¬ 
 cession of the Crown in the Protestant line;” enacts that the Princess Sophia “is 
 next in succession in the Protestant line;” and limits the Crown to her; “ and the 
 heirs of her body being Protestants ;” and that whosoever should thereafter come 
 to the possession of the Crown, should join in communion with the Church of 
 England as by law established, 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 221 
 
 9th Section. 
 
 13. Wm. III. c. 6. “ An Act for the further security of His Majesty’s person, 
 and the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, and for extinguishing the 
 hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales, and all other pretenders, and their open 
 and secret abettors.” 
 
 Blackstone, Book 1, c. 3 ; after reciting the above 12 and 13 Wm. 3d, says 
 that this is the last limitation of the Crown that has been made by Parliament. 
 
 1. George 1, Sess. 2, c. 13. “An Act for the further security of His 
 Majesty’s person and government, and the succession of the Crown in the heirs of 
 the late Princess Sophia, being Protestant,” etc. 
 
 10. G. IV. c. 7, 13 April, 1829. “An Act for the relief of His Majesty’s 
 Roman Catholic subjects,”... .Sec. xxiv. And, whereas, the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government 
 thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the 
 doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are by the respective Acts of Union of 
 England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, established permanently 
 and inviolably.” 
 
 Now : I submit that these extracts prove that Bishop Lewis is in error as to the 
 use of the word “Protestant.” And the quotations (xviii. June 15, Church of 
 England,) prove that he is equally in error as to the other parts of his assertion. 
 The above (excepting II. Feb. 23, 1874; and) including a part of (xviii. June 15), 
 was printed in the Ottawa Times of Feb. 5, 1876. As far as known, there has been 
 no denial of its historical accuracy. 
 
 Also, these notes, obtained to support the statement held in abeyance (xx, 8), 
 have a direct reference to the P. E. C. (xii. 25). 
 
 10th. Section. 
 
 CAREY 0RDINATI0I7, JULY 2, 1843. 
 
 The Hartford Churchman, of Oct. 9, 1875, charges the Reformed Episcopal 
 Church with “imitating, but abusing the Protestant Episcopal Church.” In 
 answer, we will now examine the facts connected with the Carey Ordination, ex¬ 
 tracted from a bound volume of pamphlets, collected by the Rev. Dr. Henry 
 Anthon; containing “ The True Issue for the True Churchman—a statement of 
 
 facts in relation to the recent ordination_by Drs. Smith and Anthon_1843,” 
 
 pp. 46; and “Speech of Mr. [Judge] John Duer_in Convention of the P. E. C., 
 
 of the Diocese of New York on-29th Sept., 1843, in support of the resolutions 
 
 offered by Judge Oakley,” pp. 47. 
 
 Drs. Smith and Anthon (p. 27) speaking of Mr. Carey, say : “ He deemed the 
 difference between us and Rome such as embraced no points of faith ; doubted 
 whether the Church of Rome or the Anglican Church were the more pure ; consid¬ 
 ered the Reformation from Rome unjustifiable and followed by grievous and 
 lamentable results, though not without others of an opposite character ; faulted not 
 the Church of Rome for reading the Apocrypha for proof of doctrine ; did not con¬ 
 sider that we were bound to receive the thirty-nine articles of our Church in any 
 close and rigid construction of the same ; declared that he knew not how to answer 
 the question that had been repeatedly asked, whether he considered the Church of 
 Rome to be now in error in matters of faith ?—was not prepared to pronounce the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation an absurd or impossible doctrine, and regarded it as 
 
222 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 10th Section. 
 
 tauglit within the last hundred years as possibly meaning no more than we mean 
 by the doctrine of the real presence ; did not object to the Romish doctrine of pur¬ 
 gatory as defined by the Council of Trent. Thus far for Negatives, and now for 
 Affirmatives. He believed that the state of the soul after death was one in 
 which it could be benefited by the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the 
 altar ; regarded the denial of the cup to the laity as a severe act of discipline only • 
 justified the invocation of saints ; in one instance declared that he did not deny, 
 but would not positively affirm the decrees of the Council of Trent ; in another 
 that he received the articles of the creed of Pius IV., so far as they were repetitions 
 of the decrees of that Council! And what were the explanations already alluded 
 to, and the record which was deemed by one presbyter (Rev. Mr. Higbee) so impor¬ 
 tant, and which weighed, it seems with our diocesan and six of our brethren, against 
 such a mass of evidence as that presented in the examination and here summed up ? 
 To our apprehension they amounted virtually to nothing,” (pp. 28-83.) On July 
 1, 1843, the Rev. Drs. Antlion and Smith protest in private to Rt. Rev. Benjamin 
 T. Onderdonk, D.D., against the ordination of Mr. Carey, but without effect. Then 
 (pp. 35, 36) Messrs. Anthon and Smith on Sunday, July 2, publicly protest in writ¬ 
 ing : “ On the appeal being made by the Bishop, ‘ Brethren, if there be any of you 
 who knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of these persons presented 
 to be ordered deacons, for which he ought not to be admitted to that office, let him 
 come forth in the name of God, and show what the crime or impediment is.’ ” 
 [And the Rubric says: “ And if any great crime or impediment be objected, the 
 Bishop shall cease from ordering such person until such time as the party accused 
 shall be found clear of that crime.”] 
 
 “ These documents having been read... .the bishop... .expressed himself: .... 
 ‘ The accusation... .lias recently been fully investigated by me, with the knowledge 
 and in the presence of his accusers, and with the advantage of the valuable aid and 
 counsel of six of the worthiest, wisest, and most learned of the presbyters of this 
 diocese, including the three who are assisting in these solemnities... .There was no 
 just cause for rejecting the candidates’ application... .no reason for any change in 
 the solemn services of the day... .All these persons being found meet to be 
 ordered,’ ” etc. 
 
 These public protests by Messrs. Anthon and Smith brought out many violent 
 attacks upon them, especially in the Churchman, then edited by Dr. Seabury, one 
 of the examiners. These attacks brought out this pamphlet, in which (pp. 42, 43) 
 they say : ....“ The principle involved... .covers this whole ground. Shall virtual 
 conformity with Rome form, or not form, an impediment to ordination f and does 
 not an ordination held in despite of such conformity furnish sad and melancholy 
 proof of a growing indifference to those great principles for which at the Reforma¬ 
 tion martyrs died, and a gradual assimilation to Rome, which promises at no distant 
 day identity with her faith, if not union with her polity ? It is too late now to 
 press the maxim, ‘ Obsta principiis ’— resist the beginnings of evil. Partially, though 
 possibly too feebly, certainly not successfully, that resistance has been made. The 
 question now is, Shall a stand at last be made, and will Churchmen finally rally in 
 defence of their own principles and standards, so eminently Scriptural ; or will they 
 be content that even they who are to minister to them in holy things shall come 
 to them with a double creed—with the thirty-nine articles and the creed of Pius 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 223 
 
 10th. Section. 
 
 IV., with the Prayer-Book and the Missal... .And what Christian Churchman will 
 not, in view of the rapid changes effected by the last few years, be ready to exclaim 
 in deep anxiety, ‘ Whereunto will these things grow ? ’ Our children have been by 
 baptism brought within the Church’s fold ; but into what were we and they bap¬ 
 tized? Was it not into the faith as it then was? Was it into a changeling faith, 
 that shall go on changing and retrograding year by year until it becomes identical 
 once more with that system of darkness and delusion, from which, not without con¬ 
 flict and blood, the Church came forth at the Reformation ?... .The true issue now 
 involved is the issue between the Church and Romanism.” 
 
 In the New York Diocesan Convention, Sept. 29, 1843 (p. 5, Judge Duer’s 
 speech), Judge Oakley offered the following : Whereas.. .a doubt exists.. .whether 
 in case any impediment be alleged, and the same has undergone a previous investi¬ 
 gation upon a private complaint, and has been determined by the Bishop to be un¬ 
 founded [as in the Carey case] it is or is not the duty of the Bishop to suspend 
 such ordination... .Resolved, That the delegates from this diocese to the General 
 
 Convention.be requested to propose.a canon which shall.provide that 
 
 when a Bishop shall receive from any two presbyters objection in writing to the 
 ordination of any candidate for orders in the Church, notice of the time and place 
 of the examination... .shall be given to such presbyters, who shall thereupon have 
 the right to be present at and take part in such examination ; and that for the 
 avoidance of any misunderstanding or mistake, all questions put to such candidate, 
 and the answers made by him, shall be reduced to writing.” 
 
 Now (pp. 6—13. Antlion and Smith): Mr. Carey was a member of Dr. Smith’s 
 congregation until he changed to St. John’s church. When he applied to Dr. 
 Smith for a certificate, Dr. Smith referred to reports that he had heard, and 
 questioning Mr. Carey on the points mentioned in the beginning of these extracts ; 
 he subsequently reduced to writing the questions and answers, and afterwards sub¬ 
 mitting them to Mr. Carey, made such corrections as Mr. Carey desired. This 
 document in writing was presented at the meeting composed of Bishop B. Onder- 
 donk and Revs. W. Berrian, John McVickar, Samuel Seabury, Joseph H. Price, 
 Edward G. Iligbee, Benjamin I. Haight—approving; and Drs. Henry Antlion and 
 Hugh Smith—opposing the ordination. Bishop Ives was not present at this 
 examination, but assisted at the ordination, (p. 16.) “ Objections were then made 
 to these questions, and to their being put and answered in writing.’....“ The 
 Bishop gave it as his opinion that ‘questions in writing might be put, but that the 
 examined could not be compelled to reduce his answers to writing.’ ”... .Objections 
 were several times urged by Drs. Seabury, McVickar, Berrian, and by Messrs. 
 Haight and Iligbee, to. .. .noting down the answers of the examined; and.... 
 against taking any notes or memoranda whatever,” (p. 17). “The objection was 
 overruled by the Diocesan, on the ground that there was no organized meeting— 
 that we had no secretary, and therefore could have no minutes.” 
 
 Judge Duel*, in supporting the resolution of Judge Oakey, as above quoted (p. 
 18 of his speech), said: “ It is for the satisfaction of the Church, for the prevention 
 of future scandal and future discord, that the candidate must be solemnly acquitted 
 of the charge solemnly preferred against him.” [Then (p. 21), with respect to this 
 Carey examination.] ....“ Certainly to the mass of those by whom the publications 
 on the subject have been read, it seems a necessary conclusion that evasion. 
 
224 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 10th Section. 
 
 equivocation, coloring, suppression or denial of the truth must he imputed to one 
 party or the other.” 
 
 (Pp. 25,26, S. and A.) “ Dr. McVickar.. . .intimated a hope that no use would be 
 
 made of the notes.”...Dr. Seabury remarked that he understood Dr. Anthon to 
 have disclaimed all intention of making public the notes taken.” These were in 
 both cases denied, and the notes were forced out in self-defence, by the attacks on 
 Smith and Anthon. 
 
 Now: this examination (pp. 17-24, S. and A.), thus characterized by Judge 
 Duer, resembles the examinations of a man who is undoubtedly guilty of some 
 crime, while the Revs. Seabury, McVickar, Berrian, Haight, and Higbee, as his 
 counsel, knowing all the facts, use every expedient to prevent Drs. Smith and 
 Anthon from finding out the truth. And then they try to keep the whole matter a 
 profound secret; while Bishop Onderdonk, with the approval of Bishop Ives and 
 of six of the leading clergymen in New York, whom Bishop Onderdonk calls “ the 
 worthiest, wisest, and most learned of the presbyters of this diocese,” ordains the 
 man who holds the views first quoted, to teach those views to the rising genera¬ 
 tion in the P. E. C. Hence the inference, that they all taught the same, privately. 
 
 This pamphlet of Smith and Anthon first exposed to the world the extent to 
 which Puseyism had secretly advanced in the P. E. C. About a year later I heard 
 Bishop Onderdonk come out openly on one point (xii. 33). About two years later 
 I heard Dr. Berrian come out openly on another point (xii. 34) ; and the same year 
 I heard Dr. Higbee advance his semi-Romish views to a large extent, and with 
 great energy (xii. 34). These were all in St. John’s church, New York. Dr. Higbee 
 repeated the same sermon in Jersey City. Then it created great surprise and 
 excitement. At the present day a new generation has sprung up under such teach¬ 
 ing, and now the majority in the P. E. C. have advanced so far towards Rome, that 
 a portion of those who agreed with Drs. Smith and Anthon have thought it their 
 duty to abandon the P. E. C. and organize the R. E. C. (xix. 2). For this, they 
 have received the most violent personal abuse from 13 Bishops, 5 Doctors of Divin¬ 
 ity, and 6 newspapers of the P. E. C. (xiii. 10); and when, in self-defense, they state 
 facts like the above, they are charged with “ Imitating , but Abusing” the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church (xvii. Oct. 9th, 1875.) This was printed in Epis. Rec., Feb. 26, 
 1876—B. A. 
 
 11th Section. 
 
 FREE PREACHING AND THE PARISH SYSTEM. 
 
 February, 1876. 
 
 1. Bishop Huntington, of Central New York, makes the following common sense 
 remarks under this head, in the Hartford Churchman of Dec. 11,1875, in his “ Paper 
 prepared for the Church Congress ” : 
 
 “ The parts mentioned, appear to belong at the basis of any rational inquiry, as 
 to the right way of preaching the gospel in these United States... .in the lawful 
 variety and freedom of her ministrations. 
 
 “That anybody... .should... .show itself chiefly studious, how to conform 
 itself to foreign patterns, hampering its action by rules borrowed from distant 
 national conditions, having its feet clogged and its hands tied by precedents which 
 
I 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 225 
 
 11th Section. 
 
 are not primitive, or prohibitions which are not ecumenical, more anxious not to 
 overstep a certain narrow track, than to feel and follow the inspirations of the Holy 
 Ghost, would be not only the worst of anachronisms, but a terrible offense against 
 heaven and against humanity.It is not using the whole width of Catholic doc¬ 
 
 trine that makes heterodoxy ; and it is not liberty or flexibility within the bounds 
 of order, that makes revolution. 
 
 “ Some time or other—and one might reasonably expect not very long hence — 
 it will be taken up as a serious question by our American Church, whether, except 
 itself, there ever was such a thing anywhere... .as a company of Christians... .to 
 forbid its members... .to come together... .on week days to pray... .unless they 
 
 will engage always to continue doing that for half an hour.Any order to cease 
 
 * to teach and preach Jesus Christ ’ to lost men, except after a service including a 
 general exhortation, chants, versicles and eighth collects, has not been taken out 
 of the college of the apostles.The Church argument... .is in favor of uni¬ 
 
 formity : but uniformity is an expensive luxury, if you put away for it, any chance 
 of saving the soul’s blood. 
 
 “ Should any Churchman question whether all this comports with cliurchly 
 principles and precedents, he will do well to turn searchingly to church history. 
 
 ... .Everybody admits the deadening effect of routine.The wheels go ‘ ’round 
 
 and ’round,” but somehow' they do not ‘bite.’ And therefore to interrupt now and 
 then, the * procession of ponderous polysyllables,’ to exchange the ‘ half-hour prom¬ 
 enade of solemn sentences,’ from the ranks of which every home-spun word is 
 banished, and which even in metaphor is ‘ dressed up in prim Sunday clothes,’ for a 
 little evangelical speech, seasoned with common sense, pungent, colloquial, graphic, 
 will do no damage. 
 
 “ I am, for one, at a loss to see how the gospel can be delivered to these Ameri¬ 
 can Dioceses, with even a tolerable fidelity, till we have a class or order of ministers, 
 with a special sort of training, with no restrictions to bar their liberty of moving 
 from place to place... .Either continue apostolic, and have evangelists, or reject 
 
 evangelists and say nothing more about apostolicity.Our argument... .is for 
 
 the free use of all the preacher’s possible strength, outside of the walls which 
 enclose a drilled and polished congregation, where he will speak eye to eye, with 
 his matter-of-fact auditory, and where a manuscript will be impossible.” 
 
 2. Now, the Reformed Episcopal Church has made all the reforms here advocated 
 by Bishop Huntington, of the Protestant Episcopal Church. “ Outside of the walls 
 which enclose a drilled and polished congregation,’’ and even inside of those walls 
 except on Sunday morning and before a congregation of “ this church,” our clergy 
 are bound by no set form or service ; and their parishes have no geographical 
 bounds, “ to bar their liberty of moving from place to place,” or to prevent others 
 from doing the same ; and they can, at any time, exchange pulpits with non-episco- 
 pal clergymen. 
 
 3. The contrary rules in the Protestant Episcopal Church are copied from the 
 Church of England, “ hampering its action by rules borrowed from distant national 
 conditions, having its feet clogged, and its hands tied, by precedents which are not 
 primitive, and prohibitions which are not ecumenical,” because the Church of Eng¬ 
 land is a political “ establishment,” and is governed by Parliament, which is “ a 
 heterogeneous body of atheists, theists, Jews, Roman Catholics, and every shade of 
 
226 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 11th Section. 
 
 orthodox and heterodox protestants,” as says the London Spectator, quoted by 
 Church and State, (iii. Nov. 11. 1874 ; xviii. June 15, 1875). 
 
 4. On the contrary: Bishop Doane, of Albany, in his Convention address 
 of 1876, reported in the Churchman (xviii. Feb. 26, 1876), says : “It is not‘the 
 differences of administration ’ among us that do harm. It is the spirit of super¬ 
 ciliousness, of self-assertion, of fault-finding, of uncliaritableness that condemns us 
 so often in things that we allow, and makes so much that is really good to be evil 
 spoken of. .. .And the Church of which you and I are members, has the purpose 
 and the power to mould our habits of thought and speech; our ways of worship 
 and of work, our devotions and our methods of doing our duty (xiii. 10.)... .We 
 have the perfect right and duty, I think, in simple loyalty, to think her ways the 
 best; not to condemn and criticise other ways, but to exalt and illustrate her ways 
 
 _You cannot be Churchmen and either Presbyterians and Methodists... .1 am 
 
 saying nothing against Homan Catholics, or Presbyterians, or Methodists [or theR. 
 E. C. ? xx. 1], in this ; but it is better to be one or the other ; and as we cannot be 
 both, then we think it better to be the one thing that we are... .You may think 
 the Churclily habits very old garments ...and the new-fangled ways may be 
 more a la mode —more fashionable, more popular, more taking, more effective. But 
 you cannot piece out the old garment with the new. You may think the liturgical 
 bottles of our worship very old, and the new wine of free prayer and ‘ free preach¬ 
 ing ’ (whatever that means) (xix. 11-1), may seem very sweet and sparkling ; but 
 you cannot put the new into the old... .There are Churclily ways of doing every¬ 
 thing that is good to do... .The modern method of what is called a revival is un- 
 churchly... .A gospel of pardon without absolution, and of grace without seals; a 
 preaching that proclaims the way lost, and gives no guide ; that tells of hunger 
 and offers no food; that holds up the Head that is in heaven and hides the Body 
 that is on earth ; that cries unclean and offers no washing; that seeks and reaches 
 no deeper down than the emotions—this is not the Christ that we have learned... , 
 Better let them alone, for I cannot conceive how any Churchman can cast in his lot 
 with such a system... .We have the Church in her authority, in the Sacraments, 
 in the means of grace, in the provision for private confession, when needed, in the 
 power of authoritative absolution, in Confirmation,” etc. (xviii. Nov. 6, Board.) 
 
 12th. Section. 
 
 IMITATING, BUT ABUSING. No. 1. 
 
 Under this heading, the Hartford Churchman of October 9, 1875, says : “ The 
 only specialty for which the ‘ Reformed * have the exclusive market, is the 
 abuse of the P. E. C... .The whole stock in trade of the ‘ Reformed ’ is confined to 
 the faults of the body, which it imitates.” Now, as to 
 
 ABUSE, 
 
 thirteen Bishops, five Doctors of Divinity, and six newspapers of the P. E. C. use 
 the expressions towards the R. E. C., as collected (xiii. 10.) 
 
 No answer whatever was made to any of these charges by any one of the Re¬ 
 formers, until on May 21 or 27, 1874, the editor.of Church and State made mis¬ 
 statements as to facts at the Second Council of the R. E. C. which (ii. June 8, 1874,) 
 were contradicted by a Reformer, who used this expression : “ Has the periodical in 
 question lost its character for truth and veracity, or does it publish without 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 227 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 investigation ?” The next answer was the open letter of Rev. M. B. Smith (ii. June 
 10, 1874), proving the historical errors, and denying the charges of Bishop 
 Stevens, above quoted at June 10. This was further criticised (xiii. 24) with this 
 remark : “ Bishop Stevens stands alone in raising a question of veracity between 
 himself and the members of the R. E. C. Since Mr. Smith has corrected his 
 historical errors, and the errors of his charges, I will simply quote the w T ords of 
 Burke, 1 Men know a little, presume a great deal, and so jump to the conclusion.’ ” 
 
 The third answer from a Reformer was (ii. Dec. 16, 1874,) in answer to an attack 
 by Church and State of Nov. 18, 1874, denying its assertion that “no attack was 
 made in General Convention upon Bishop Cummins or the cause he represents,” 
 and meeting several other remarks, which indicated that the Reformers had no 
 reason to complain of the treatment they had received, and containing this pas¬ 
 sage : “ In conversation with a non-Episcopal clergyman, I expressed my surprise 
 that so many Bishops had become so much excited as to lose their balance, and 
 forget that they ought at least to be gentlemen.” He answered, “ They cannot 
 appreciate the ridiculous figures they cut before those who do not belong to their 
 own sect.” 
 
 Again, the Reformers of the first Council thus characterized (xiii. 10), were 
 exclusively those “ who are now, or have been, ministers and laymen in the P. E. 
 C.,” as stated by Bishop Cummins in his Call to Organize, dated Nov. 15, 1873, (ix.) 
 As members of the old Evangelical party, they had used every endeavor to prevent 
 the Romeward changes, of late years introduced into the P. E. C., as shown by the 
 Philadelphia Declaration of Nov. 5, 1867 (xi. 5), (xviii. June 9, 1875.) The Chicago 
 Protest of February 18, 1889 (xi. 14), the Chicago Conference of June 16-17, 1869 
 (xi. 15), and the letter of sympathy for Rev. Charles E. Cheney, of May 13, 1871, 
 (xi. 16.) But they could not stem the torrent, and the Church Journal (iii. Feb. 25, 
 1874,) says: “ The old-fashioned Evangelicals swamped into a hopeless and help¬ 
 less minority, stand looking on, asking what we propose to do about it.” (xviii. Jan. 
 1,1876. No hope.) 
 
 These Evangelicals in the P. E. C. had several courses before them. First, they 
 might do as has been done by Church and State, as, says the correspondent of the 
 Episcopal Recorder (xviii. June 9, and Sept. 22, 1875.) “The open sale of this 
 paper... .included a transfer of at least two thousand Evangelical families to the 
 High-Cliurch camp... .The Church and State was made up by uniting the Protes¬ 
 tant Churchman and the Christian Witness. .. .for a whole generation the accredited 
 organs of the Evangelical party... .By the sale of Church and State, this High- 
 Churcli teaching is deliberately introduced into hundreds of Evangelical families, 
 by one of the parties who owed the opportunity to do so, to the confidence placed 
 in the previous professions of fidelity to the Evangelical cause. And is not this a 
 part of a movement which began by an effort to suppress the Evangelical 
 Societies ? v 
 
 By thus surrendering at discretion, the Evangelicals would retain their social 
 positions in what the Southern Churchman calls “ a most respectable society ” 
 (xviii. July 8, 1875), and they would retain their share of the seven millions of 
 property, and seven millions of annual income of the P. E. C. (xviii. Jan. 22,1876); 
 they would not subject themselves to the seven objections stated by Dr. Newton 
 (xvii. May 5, 1875), nor to such abuse by the representatives of the P. E. C. as 
 
22S 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 quoted (xiii. 10.) But if they adhered to tlieir Evangelical views, this connection 
 would be only nominal, and their contributions would cease (xix. 13-7 to 14.) 
 
 Or, Second: They might adhere to their Evangelical views, and “ fight it out 
 within the Church,” with no other effect than to produce a schism (xii. 43-59), 
 when we find the views of the ruling majority thus represented by the Church 
 Journal, as quoted by Church and State (iii. Nov. 11, 1874): “ May the hand be 
 withered and the tongue dumb that writes or speaks, to organize a‘party’or 
 promote ‘ views.’” But, 
 
 Third: Some of these Evangelicals, rejecting both the above alternatives, with¬ 
 drew from the P. E. C., which they believed to allow false doctrines, and by a 
 Declaration of Principles proclaimed themselves Protestants, pure and simple, in 
 union with the Protestant world, from which they had been cut off by the exclud¬ 
 ing canon of 1868 (xii. 57, 59.) For this they have been abused as above shown 
 (xiii. 10.) To answer this abuse by argument, and prove by facts the condition of 
 the P. E. C., and the propriety of separation, addresses have frequently been made 
 by the members of the R. E. C. These arguments are not met by argument, but 
 by abuse, in charging these facts as abuse. And such is the case with the charge 
 at the head of this article, “ Imitating, but Abusing.” 
 
 13th. Section. 
 
 IMITATING, BUT ABUSING. No. 2. 
 
 This charge against the R. E. C. is proved to be the reverse of the truth (xix. 
 12.) The extracts from the remarks of thirteen Bishops of the P. E. C. against the 
 R. E. C. (xiii. 10) closely resemble the curses by the Pope (xiii, 10J.) We now 
 come to the 
 
 RIGHT OF ABUSING OR CURSING. 
 
 Bishop Odenheimer (ii. June 3, 1874,) takes the same position respecting the R. 
 E. C. as on page 112 of “ The New Jersey Journal,” of 1869, when referring to the 
 resignation of the Rev. M. B. Smith: “ The Holy Catholic Church... .marches on 
 to victory, by virtue of the presence of the Incarnate Son of God, who has 
 promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.” Cardinal 
 McCloskey is equally confident respecting his Church (xviii. Nov. 29, 1875.) 
 
 The Church Journal (iii. Dec. 4,1873,) shows the exclusive claims of the P, E. 
 C. (xviii. March 1, 1876, Lay.) 
 
 The Bishop of Maine (xviii. Nov. 6, 1875,) in his Convention address said : 
 ‘‘ Were all nominal Christian believers among us united in the same confession of 
 faith, and in a common organization, it would still be difficult enough to stem the 
 tide of unbelief and irreligion... .but when there is no unity of organization or of 
 effort, but on the contrary, jealousies, rivalries, and strifes, we find here not only an 
 element of weakness in the Christian body, but the most fruitful cause of that in¬ 
 difference and scepticism which so extensively prevails amongst us... .And who can 
 
 offer a remedy... .but a... .Church which, like her Divine Master.can speak as 
 
 ‘one having authority.’ Such is the claim of the P. E. C., and we are bound to 
 declare and exhibit everywhere this distinctive character of the Church.” And the 
 presiding Bishop (xviii. Nov. 6, 1875; Dec. 10, 1875, Eng.) 
 
 The Churchman (xviii. Nov. 20, 1875,) says: “ The frequency and ease with 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 229 
 
 13th Section. 
 
 which ministers of the Congregational body are called and transferred to preside 
 over Presbyterian and Reformed Dutch Societies, may perhaps be looked upon as a 
 disruption of party lines and the softening of asperities... .Our good friends have a 
 way of bridging it over, ‘Christian Union/ or forgetfulness, or something else 
 doing the service of seven-leagued boots.” 
 
 Now : the above extracts illustrate the well-known fact that many in the P. E. 
 C. regard that branch as especially “ the Church.” And we may infer from these, 
 and the remarks of others, that there are those who believe that the Bishops of the 
 P. E. C., by virtue of the “electric touch” of the Apostolic Succession, are almost, 
 if not quite, infallible, and have the same right of cursing as is distinctly claimed 
 by the Pope (xiii. 10, 10£); and that no one has a right to reply (xviii. Jan. 22, 
 1876, Bp. of M.) To this we demur and bring proof to the contrary. 
 
 The Bishop of Maine, as above quoted, says: “ Jealousies, rivalries, and strifes 
 ... .the most fruitful cause of that indifference and scepticism which so extensively 
 prevail amongst us.” Amongst whom? The Churchman, as above, shows that 
 “jealousies, rivalries, and strifes” do not prevail between the Congregational 
 “body,” and the Presbyterian and Reformed Dutch “ Societies.” Nor is it between 
 them and the Methodists ; nor is it between the R. E. C. and any Evangelical 
 Church, since we frequently find them all associating on the most friendly terms of 
 perfect equality (xvii. 1875; May 5, Brook.; June 16, Ref. 1876, Jan. 1; Ott. and 
 Chicago; 12, Ya.; Feb. 1, Use ; 9, Vic.; Mar. 1, do. do. etc., etc.) 
 
 But the above extracts show that the P. E. C. treats these “bodies” and 
 “societies” with a haughty air of superiority; and we know that the ruling 
 majority in the P. E. C. refuses to join with non-Episcopal Churches, in united 
 efforts for the spread of Christianity; and these, coupled with the terms, “dissent¬ 
 ers,” “sects,” “bodies,” “societies,” exhibit on the part of the P. E. C., and would 
 naturally excite in others “jealousies, rivalries, and strifes,’’if those thus designated 
 cared anything about them (ii. Dec. 16, 1874, B. A.; iii. June 4, 1874; xviii. Feb. 5, 
 1876, Bp.; March 1, Lay.) So much for the P. E. C. towards non-Episcopalians. 
 And a strong expelling motive to drive me out of the Church of my ancestors, was 
 the use of such terms among Christians, that are analogous to the terms used by 
 persons who claim to belong to a high Brahminical caste among the Heathen 
 (iv. 8.) 
 
 Then, within the P. E. C. the “jealousies, rivalries, and strifes,” that are justly 
 rebuked by the Church Journal (iii. Jan. 7, 1875), and the remarks of Bishop Cox 
 (xviii. Sept. 4 and 11,1875,) exceed anything that I know of, among non-Episco¬ 
 pal Churches. 
 
 Then, the abuse (xiii. 10) poured out in a turbid flood upon the R. E. C. by 
 thirteen Bishops of the P. E. C., who claim the succession from the Apostles, and 
 by Doctors and by newspapers, I suppose to be unprecedented, except by the Pope 
 (xiii. 104 .) 
 
 Hence, the P. E. C. appears to stand unrivalled for its “jealousies, rivalries, and 
 
 strifes,” (both without and within)_“ the most fruitful cause of the indifference 
 
 and scepticism that so extensively prevail amongst’us.” And this does not indicate 
 that this is especially “ The Church ” (xviii. Nov. 6, 1875, House.) 
 
230 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 13 Section. 
 
 Again, “The Holy Catholic Church... .marches on to victory, by virtue of the 
 presence of the Incarnate Son of God, who has promised that the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against her,” as Bishop Odenheimer very properly says, as above. 
 If, then, the P. E. C. be that Church, as he and others maintain, the facts should 
 prove that it “ marches on to victory,” while the following facts appear to prove 
 the contrary, viz. : 
 
 1st. The P. E. C., or its parent, was among the early Churches in this country 
 (xviii. Dec. 30,1875,) but now it is one of the small denominations, and, according 
 to the census of 1870, contained only one in twenty-eight of the Protestants, with¬ 
 out including the Roman Catholics (xiii. 10£.) Then since the organization of the 
 R. E. C. on December 2, 1873, and the abusive remarks thereon by the P. E. C. (xiii. 
 10) we have the following admissions (2d to 15tli) by persons high in authority in 
 the P. E. C., viz.: 
 
 2d. “ R. B. D.” [R. B. Duane, Sec. ?] (hi. Feb. 20, 1875.) 
 
 3d. Pastoral of the House of Bishops (iii. Nov. 3, 1874.) 
 
 4th. Bishop Whittingham (iii. Sept. 10, 1874.) 
 
 5tli. Bishop Littlejohn (iii. May 20, 1874.) 
 
 6th. Rev. N. H. Schenck, D.D. (xviii. Nov. 11,1875,) at the P. E. C. Congress, 
 said: “ It was a surprising fact that to-day there was a smaller number of candi¬ 
 dates for holy orders than there was six or seven years ago... .A maxim which 
 unfortunately had proved true, was that the fool of the family had been designated 
 for the ministry.” 
 
 [Then add 7 to 11 from the Churchman of Nov. 6, 1875.] 
 
 7. “ The Foreign Committee reported that their receipts for the year were only 
 $89,724.74, being $10,275.64 less than in 1874, and $24,385.34 less than in 1873.” 
 [See 11th.] (xviii. Nov. 6.) 
 
 8. “ The Foreign Committee being also in debt to the extent of more than $30,- 
 000,” (xviii. Nov. 6.) 
 
 9. “The Committee stated that, in their judgment, the need of a more thorough 
 enlistment of the people in the great missionary work was becoming more apparent 
 every year,” (xviii. Nov. 6.) 
 
 10. “ The Nineteenth Annual Report of the Society for the Increase of the 
 Ministry, says: ‘Notwithstanding the warnings of the last General Convention, 
 and the earnest exhortations of the Pastoral Letter [3d], and the forcible charge of 
 almost every Bishop to his own Diocesan Convention [4th, 5th], the candidates for 
 Holy Orders have not only not increased, but have actually fallen off during the 
 past year [2d 11], threatening widespread destruction throughout the Church,’ ” 
 (xviii. Nov. 6, 1875.) 
 
 11. “The Special Committee of the Board of Missions of the P. E. C.” in its 
 report on the Domestic Missions, signed by Bishops Whipple and Doane, and by six 
 others, says: “ The increase of our ministry last year in fifty-six dioceses was only 
 twenty-eight over the deaths [2d]. In four years, from 1870 to 1874, there was a 
 decrease of 200 in the number of our candidates for orders, and of these candidates 
 there were but few of that class which represents the highest culture, talent, and 
 social standing in the Church... .We had supposed that this deficiency was caused 
 by the worldliness of the times, and that it was common to all religious bodies; but 
 we find that during the same period, the Presbyterian Church increased in the 
 
CHAPTEE XIX. 
 
 231 
 
 13th Section. 
 
 number of its candidates for the ministry, from 511 to 800, and that last year they 
 raised $250,000 for theological education. Their efforts have been rewarded in a 
 more highly educated ministry, and in the large increase of communicants... .The 
 pressure of work and of unoccupied fields, will tempt us to accept those who are 
 not in every way fitted for the Master’s work.” (xviii. Nov. 6, 1875; Jan. 22, 1876, 
 Bp. G.) 
 
 12. Bishop Clark, in his Convention address, as reported in the Southern 
 Churchman (xviii. Sept. 28, 1875), referred “ to the alarming decrease in the num¬ 
 ber of candidates for Holy Orders, which had fallen off some twenty or thirty per 
 cent, since the Convention of 1871. The Church cannot be made to grow by any 
 process of mere pulverization—by converting presbyters into Bishops, and 
 dividing dioceses—while the general supply of clergy is gradually diminishing.” 
 
 13. Bishop Howe, of Central Pennsylvania (reported in The Churchman, xviii 
 Jan. 1, 1876), in his Convention sermon, says: “ The number of candidates for Holy 
 Orders in 1871 was 448, and in 1874 only 228; a falling off of nearly one-half. .. .It 
 is time for our clergy to look these alarming facts in the face.” 
 
 14. The Foreign Committee of the Board of Missions ( Churchman , xviii. Jan. 
 29,1876), Special Committee, says: “Last year’s excess of payments, $16,474.02 
 -(-$16,231.46 for the preceding year, make indebtedness at the commencement of 
 this fiscal year $32,705.48... .For two years or more, the expenses have exceeded 
 the income at the rate of more than $16,000 per annum... .We think the Commit¬ 
 tee will realize a sum equal to last year. .. .$90,000. Amount required for the 
 year, $87,028. Add arrearages, $32,705, makes $119,733 to be provided for. (xviii. 
 Jan. 29, Canada.) 
 
 15. The Rev. Dr. Harriman, as reported in the Evening Post (xviii. April 15, 
 1876), in his call for help in aid of the Society for the Increase of the Ministry, 
 states that: “ The increase of ministers in the P. E. C. tell off from ten per centum 
 a year from 1830 to 1840; to six per centum a year in the decade 1850 to 1860; 
 from 1860 to 1871 the annual increase of the clergy came down to four per centum, 
 and now, in 1876, it has fallen to two per centum.” 
 
 Now : these fifteen quotations do not indicate that the P. E. C. “marches on to 
 victory ” to prove its divine right to speak “ as one having authority,” and by 
 virtue of that authority, to use such language towards the R. E. C. as that 
 quoted (xiii. 10.) But they do indicate that there is something wrong in the P. E. 
 C. that is causing its decline. And facts indicate that the cause of that decline 
 caused the separation of the R. E. C. from the P. E. C. Remove the cause and the 
 conditions would be reversed (xiv.) 
 
 14th Section. 
 
 THE REASON. 
 
 In the midst of these lamentations, no one in the P. E. C. ventures to express an 
 opinion as to the fundamental cause of decay (xviii. Jan. 22, 1876, Bp. of M.) But 
 facts indicate that it is the semi-Romanism that was introduced about 1841 (xix. 
 10; xviii. Jan. 5, 29, 1876 ; do.; Feb. 5, 26; Mar. 22), and “ from 1841 there has been 
 a falling off at a steadily-increasing ratio ” [2d], From the above numbered state¬ 
 ments it appears that the candidates which they desire, and as a general rule, can 
 not get, are [11th] “of that class that represents the highest culture, talent, and 
 
232 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 14th Section. 
 
 social standing in tlie Church” [3d]; “whose parents are able to give them an 
 unrestricted choice of professions.” While of those that they do get [3d], “hut a 
 small proportion ... .are self-supporting.” [5th]. And for the “ past twenty years, 
 nothing but a marked physical or mental debility has debarred any one ” ; and [6], 
 “the fool of the family had been designated for the ministry.” This is by 
 authority. 
 
 Now: I believe, that in proportion to numbers, the P. E. C. is the richest of all 
 the denominations (xviii. Jan. 22, 1876, Statistics.) But it is evident from the above 
 that the candidates they can not get are those who would not be raised in social 
 standing, nor be induced to stifle their convictions for the sake of pecuniary 
 support. Of this class in the ministry, those who prefer Romanism, pure and 
 simple, leave the P. E. C. in that direction. We know this to be the fact (xviii. 
 March 1, 1876.) Others of the same class (but not all) who desire Protestantism 
 pure and simple, leave the P. E. C. for the Presbyterian, Methodist, Dutch 
 Reformed, Congregational, Independent, Baptist, and Reformed Episcopal Churches. 
 We know all these to be facts (xi. 24.) Others of the same class, be they Roman¬ 
 ists, semi-Romanists, or Protestant, who might be willing to enter the ministry of 
 the P. E. C., if it were the same in all places, may reasonably draw back from a 
 Church in the condition of the P. E. C., as described by Church and State (III. 
 Sept. 10, 1874; do.) I know of one such case of withdrawal (xii. 45.) 
 
 The fifteen admissions quoted above, have all been uttered since the organiza¬ 
 tion of the R. E. C., on Dec. 2, 1873. When analyzed, they prove that the 
 semi-Romanism which now controls the P. E. C. is the cause of its decay (xii. 
 56-59.) To change from this control to Protestantism pure and simple, the R. E. 
 C. separated from the P. E. C. (xi.) For this its members have been charged with 
 wrong, in the roughest kind of language, by thirteen Bishops, six newspapers, and 
 five D.D.’s (xiii. 10.) To defend themselves from the charge of wrong, they have 
 frequently stated facts to prove the necessity of separation. This statement of 
 facts is called “abuse,” although the facts themselves are not denied; and such is 
 the charge by the Churchman at the head of this paper, “Imitating, but Abusing’’ 
 (xvii. Oct. 9, 1875; xviii. Jan. 29, Feb. 5, Feb. 26, 1876; March 1, 1876, Rome; Mar. 
 22, Sister.) 
 
 15th Section. 
 
 IMITATING, BUT ABUSING. No. 3. 
 
 From this attack on the R. E. C. (xix. 12), it appears that in 1875, the Church¬ 
 man is not satisfied with the strong family likeness (xix. 2), in place of finding the 
 R. E. C. flying off to the “ dreary waste of fanaticism and folly ” as predicted (ii. 
 May 21 and June 3, 1874.) 
 
 AS TO IMITATING. 
 
 When the Colonies separated from England and formed these U. S. A., they did 
 not attempt any Utopian novelties like some other nations, but retained the old 
 system to which they had been accustomed ; except in a few points, where their 
 experience had proved it to be defective. The result has shown the importance of 
 conservatism. 
 
 When the P. E. C. separated from the Church of England, it followed the same 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 233 
 
 15th Section. 
 
 general rule as the civil government, and framed the Prayer-Book of 1785 as 
 described (xi. 2.) 
 
 In 1789, the P. E. C. abandoned these modifications of 1785, and more closely 
 imitated the Prayer-Book of the Church of England (xix. 11-a. ; xix. 9 ; xii. 
 12-24.) 
 
 But the founders of the R. E. C., having all belonged to the Evangelical party 
 in the P. E. C. (ix. 3), had learned, by experience, the evils of this reaction ; and, 
 abandoning the P. E. C., with its Prayer-Book of 1789, feturned to the general 
 principles of 1785 (xix. 2), and thus retained what was theirs by birthright; and in 
 this country older than the principles of the P. E. C. (xi.; xix. 2.) And upon the 
 basis of this Prayer-Book of 1785, thus abandoned by the P. E. C., the Episcopate 
 was transmitted from Canterbury to the P. E. C. (vi. 7, 8.) And this the Hartford 
 Churchman calls “ Imitating ” the P. E. C. 
 
 16th Section. 
 
 DATE OF EASTER. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND NOTE. 
 
 The following three papers (xix. 16, 17, 18) have appeared in a different form in 
 the Episcopal Recorder of Jan. 26, Feb. 2, 9, and 23,1876. They were suggested by 
 various papers on the same subject in the Churchman , Southern Churchman , and 
 New York Times of about the same dates. 
 
 The references without letters are to the Chapters and Sections in this book. 
 Those with letters refer to the like symbols and Sections in “Appendix II,—Report 
 on the Gregorian Calendar,” Journal of the R. E. C., in 1874; or to the same in the 
 full work on Calendars, from which the parts included in this report were 
 extracted. 
 
 16-1. The 14th Nisan began in the evening of Thursday, April 3, a.d. 33, and 
 ended in the evening of Friday, April 4; and Christ was crucified on this 14tli 
 Nisan, as counted by the Jews in that year; as shown by Mark (15-42) and John 
 (19-31); and by the present Jewish Calendar (NB. Characters 5, 6, 7.) 
 
 16-2. Nevertheless, Christ ate His passover at the regular date on the Mosaic 
 15th Nisan, on Thursday evening, and He was crucified on the same 15tli Nisan, 
 which ended on Friday evening, according to the Mosaic date of the Passover, as 
 determined during the Second Temple, by the date of the visible new moon of Nisan. 
 This is proved by independent calculation (NB. AC. 16), and by the present Jewish 
 calendar; if we omit the postponement by (AO. Transfers), which did not prevail 
 in a.d. 33. But at that date the Sanhedrim postponed the date one day, if the new 
 moon of Nisan, when astronomically visible, was not actually seen by two wit¬ 
 nesses, on account of its obscuration b^ clouds. And such appears to have beeu 
 the case in A.D. 33 (NB. Characters 8, 9; NB. AO. 11.) 
 
 16-3. The “ Quartodicimans ” of Asia, held Easter on the 14th Nisan, and on 
 any day of the week. The Westerns held Easter on Sunday next thereafter. In 
 A.D. 314, the Council of Arles decided in favor of the Westerns, and in a.d. 325, the 
 Council of Nicea (or Nice) confirmed it, but gave no astronomic rule, and this date 
 was annually determined by the Egyptian astronomers until the century after the 
 Council, when the Nicean calendar (N.C.) was substituted for these annual predic¬ 
 tions (NB. NC. 1 to 4, 6.) 
 
 i 
 
234: 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 16th Section. 
 
 16-4. This NO. consisted of two parts. The lunar portion was the Nicean 
 cycle of 235 new moons in nineteen years; and the solar portion was called the 
 “ Paschal Canons/’ which directed “ That the 21st day of March shall be accounted 
 the vernal equinox.” The substance of these Paschal Canons is given in the 
 Prayer-Books of the P. E. C. and of the Church of England, under the head of 
 “ Tables and Rules.” All the following assert or imply that the vernal equinox fell 
 A.D. 325, March 21, viz.: Long, Montucla, Ren wick, Rees, Adams, Missal, Seaburv. 
 But the British Act of Parliament, 1752, says : “ On or about tha 21st day of 
 March.” And calculation proves that, counting Jerusalem as the prime meridian, 
 the vernal equinox about that date (as at present in new style) fell on March 21, 
 only in the third year after leap-year (NB. AC. 16-7), and this latest date, March 
 21, being “ accounted the vernal equinox,” prevented Easter from falling on the 
 day of the Passover in three years out of four, as might have happened if March 
 20, the actual date in a.d. 325, had been given as the single date. And such was 
 the object of the Nicean rule, as stated in the Missal, “ ne cum Judaeis convenia- 
 mus ”; and by Lindo, “ne videantur Judaizare,” (NB. NC. 3, 4, 6, 7-3.) 
 
 16-5. But this Nicean Cycle gave only the dates of the 235 new moons. And 
 to the dates of the nineteen Paschal new moons, some added 12, others 13, and 
 others 14 days for the full moon of Nisan of the Paschal Canons (16-3.) This 
 confusion was terminated by the Council of Chalcedon a.d. 534, when by common 
 consent 13 days were added to the dates of the 19 Paschal new moons, omitting all 
 the rest of the 235 moons in the cycle, and thus establishing the 14tli Nisan as the 
 Nicean full moon of Nisan. This formed the old style calendar, used by the 
 Westerns until the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar (NS. 18), and, in a Greek 
 form, still regulates the ecclesiastical dates of the Russo-Greek Church (16-1, 2, 3;) 
 (AM. 3; NS. 18; OS. 2; NB. Calendars 18-11, 12; 19; NB. GND. 4, 8, 12 13; NB. 
 NC. 5, 6.) 
 
 16-6. The 14th Nisan having been thus established as the full moon intended 
 by the Council of Nicea, is now the standard Mosaic or astronomic date of GN. 
 (Golden Number) in our calendar; at the standard age of about 14.416 days after 
 conjunction, or a little less than mean full moon 14.765 days after conjunction. And 
 this is nearly the average of the Mosaic or astronomic moon, which varied between 
 13.75 and 15 days old at the beginning of 14tli Nisan. And it is nearly the 
 same age as the moon for the 14tli Nisan by the present Jewish calendar (NB. AC. 
 2-2,2-3,2-16.7; NB. Calendars 18-5, 6; 18-9,10; 18-15, 16.) Hence the calendar 
 “full moon” may vary about three-quarters of a day more and less than the 
 standard 14.416 days old, and still be the Mosaic moon of the 14th Nisan. 
 
 16-7. This Jewish calendar (AO.) keeps the moon of 14th Nisan nearly to the 
 same age, 14.455 days old, as in 1873, and increasing only at the rate of 5f seconds 
 per year, and counts the astronomical difference between a leap-year and a common 
 year, and counts the dates invariably from 6 p.m. at Jerusalem (or as Muler says, 
 from Eden in Babylonia, which makes but little difference). But the use of this 
 calendar is very complicated (NB. AO. 11-15.) 
 
 6-8. The Gregorian Calendar is more complex in its construction than the 
 Jewish calendar, but in its application much more simple and less precise. The 
 age of the moon varies from the standard 14.416 for the following reasons. First. 
 This single date is in maximum Julian time, which makes no difference between a 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 235 
 
 16th Section. 
 
 common year and a leap-year, and begins tlie artificial day at all hours of the 
 natural day, and in the third year after leap-year it agrees with calendar (or 
 ordinary) date. Second. In Table II. of the Prayer-Books (NS. 2), the lunar correc¬ 
 tions (NS. LC), and the solar corrections (NS. SC.) are applied by whole days, when 
 the proper corrections may be more or less than whole days ; and they are applied 
 only in the ceuturial years, taking no account of the intermediate variations. By 
 means of these corrections are found for the centurial years, the date of G N. 8, 
 corresponding with a.d. 325, the year of the Council of Nicea, and that date is 
 indicated by the index number 0 to 29—the number of days after March 21, on 
 which falls GN. 3 for the 14th Nisan. These irregularities of NS. SC. and NS. 
 LC. are peculiar to the Gregorian Calendar. 
 
 16-9. The irregularity of Julian time (16-8, First), and the following are 
 peculiar to the Nicean Cycle (16-8.) Thus: The Nicean Cycle assumes that 235 
 lunations strike the same date in 19 years. This is very nearly correct, if the 
 years be Julian years of 365.25 days. This they are not. The 19 calendar years 
 may contain 4 or 5 leap-years, and the terminal year may be a leap-year or a 
 common year. Then the next nearest approach is 99 lunations, which are a little more 
 than 1-J days over 8 years of 365.25 days. But the cycle counts only by whole 
 days, and to make the average correct, sometimes adds one and sometimes two 
 days, by this rule, viz.: In (NS. 4), or table to find Easter in the Prayer-Books for 
 this century, take any GN. and its date as standards. Then to GN. add 8 years 
 in a circle of 19 (i. e. } add 8 or subtract 11), and if this produce GN. 1 to 8, date it 
 one day later; but if GN. 9 to 19, date it two days later, until the date exceed 
 April 18 (the Paschal limit), and then subtract 30 days for the date of the same GN., 
 and proceed as at first, until the original GN. and date are reproduced (NB. Scale.) 
 
 16-10. Lindo, in his preface to the Jewish Calendar, says: “ The Council of 
 Nice ordered that Easter should not be held on the first day of the Passover £ ne 
 videantur Judaizare,’ but in 1825 and 1903, both fall on the same day.” This 
 proves-nothing against the Christian Calendar. The Mosaic or astronomic date 
 was the standard in a.d. 325, not the present artificial Jewish Calendar of a.d. 
 360 (AO.) According to (AO. Transfers) the date is postponed one day later than 
 the Mosaic date, if the Moled Tisri fall on day i., iv., or vi. (16-2), and again it is 
 postponed one day in two cases to keep the year within the prescribed six different 
 lengths. This addition of one or of two days beyond the Mosaic date, may bring 
 the Passover on the Nicean date of Easter. Also, AO. takes the wrong moons in 
 the years, GN. 9, 1, 12, and the preceding Passovers now fall in the second Mo¬ 
 saic month. And all the Passovers are advancing into the second month at the 
 rate of one in 842.368 years, and the whole series of 19 will pass forward from month 
 to month in each period of 6,505 years, so that in the course of time, the present 
 calendar will bring the Passover in Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring, and so keep 
 revolving through the natural year. (NB. Calendars 18-15, 16.) , 
 
 16-11. The Gregorian Calendar fails the least of all the Calendars now in use. 
 During this century it gives the Nicean date of Easter as nearly as practicable 
 with the simple form of calendar that has governed the Christian Church since the 
 fifth century (16-3), But (NS. Retractions) will act during the next century. 
 (NB. AC. 3.26—1,2.) These are astronomically false, and contrary to the Nicean 
 rule. They are indicated by the blanks at April 17 and 18 in Table III. of the 
 Prayer-Books. (NB. AC, 3.26—1, 2.) 
 
236 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 16th Section* 
 
 16-12. The Southern Churchman of April 27th, has a paper by “ R. K.,” who 
 is a “distinguished astronomer.” He concludes thus: “In our day, nothing is 
 easier than to point out the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and it would 
 seem more consistent with the dignity of the Church to make use of it, rather than 
 to follow the clumsy devise of Clavius, contrived, in part, to avoid the very thing it 
 professes to give.” 
 
 16- 13. Now : (NB. AC. 2.16-12) gives a rule to find this date with astronomic 
 precision. But, since the Gregorian Calendar preserves the simple form which has 
 governed the Christian Church, without exception since a.d. 534, this and other 
 astronomic rules are used (in AC.) to correct a few errors in the Gregorian Calen¬ 
 dar, which only result in changing the date of some of the index numbers in Table 
 II., and obliterating the NS. Retractions from Table III. in the Anglican Prayer- 
 Books, and corresponding changes in the Roman Epacts. 
 
 i 
 
 17th Section. 
 
 DATE OF EASTER, No. 2. ERRORS OF JARVIS. 
 
 Jarvis’ Chronological History of the Church is an admirable work in general,but 
 has three errors on the subject of Christian Calendars, viz. : 
 
 17- 1. On pp. 87-92, he gives “ The Calendar of the Ancient Church, established 
 by the Council of Nice.” This, I think, should read: “ Established in the century 
 next after the Council of Nice ” (or Nicea). It would require too much space to 
 give the historical quotations, to show that the Council of Nicea simply decided 
 that Easter should be held on Sunday next after the Mosaic Passover, “ ne cum 
 Judaeis conveniamus,” as says the Roman Missal; that during the Second Temple, 
 the Jews determined this date by actual observation on the paschal new moon at 
 Jerusalem ; that until the century after the Council, this date was predicted by the 
 Egyptian astronomers, and communicated to the whole Christian world ; and that 
 in the century after the Council, this cycle in Jarvis w r as substituted for the annual 
 predictions. (NB. NC. 1 to 7.) 
 
 17-2. These historical facts are important in determining what was actually the 
 Nicean rule to find Easter. If this statement by Jarvis be correct, then was the old 
 style calendar correct, as established by the Council of Chalcedon (a.d. 534), which 
 added thirteen days to the dates of the paschal new moons in this cycle, for the 
 dates of the full moon of Nisan, “ to find Easter for ever ” ; and this Easter in the 
 course of time, will advance into Summer, Autumn, Winter, and Spring, and thus 
 keep revolving through all the seasons of the natural year ; and in 1864, the Greek 
 Easter, in accordance with this calendar (in a Greek form), fell at the proper Nicean 
 date, five weeks later than our Easter. But if the Nicean rule require that Easter * 
 be held on Sunday next after the Mosaic date of the 14th Nisan, then does that 
 date become astrgnomic, without restriction by any artificial calendar, and our 
 Easter in 1864 was in precise accordance with the Nicean rule, while the Greek 
 Easter was five weeks too late; and this error will keep on increasing. (NB. Cal¬ 
 endars 18-11, 12.) 
 
 17-3. The Churchman's Calendar of 1866, 1867, and 1868, repeats the statement 
 by Dr. Hill of the position of Ampliilochios, Archbishop of Corinth, that “ The 
 Greeks may admit the Gregorian Calendar, but never the Latin rule of Easter, as 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 237 
 
 17th Section. 
 
 the ordinance of the Council must he held superior to mere scientific adjustment.” 
 This appears to contradict itself, since the Latin rule of Easter is nothing more than 
 the Gregorian Calendar. And the Latin rule of Easter accords with the “ ordinance 
 of the Council,” while the Greeks follow a “ mere scientific adjustment,” that agreed 
 with the Nicean rule in early days, but is going away from it at present, (xix. 16.) 
 
 17-4. On pp. 94,95, Jarvis says : “The precession of the equinoxes had in the 
 interval of time shifted the cardinal points in the zodiac, so that the winter solstice 
 had passed from the 25th to the 21st of December, and the vernal equinox from the 
 25th to the 21st of March.” 
 
 17-5. Mow, the precession of the equinoxes has no connection with this subject; 
 and Seabury makes the same mistake. Calendar dates depend exclusively upon the 
 times occupied by the revolutions of the earth and of the moon. If there were no 
 fixed stars, our calendar would be the same, but we would not be aware of the ex¬ 
 istence of the precession of the equinoxes. It is the very small distance that, in 
 each year, the sun is westward from its former position among the stars when it 
 reaches the equator. It is caused by the slow revolution of the pole of the earth 
 around the pole of the ecliptic, while spinning rapidly in its daily revolutions and 
 revolving with comparative rapidity in the zodiac; analogous to the slow revolution 
 of the axis of top while spinning rapidly on its pin. This very slow motion of the 
 pole of the earth among the fixed stars causes one star after another to become the 
 “North Star” (and by this they determine the dates of the Pyramids), until, in 
 about 25,000 years, it will make the complete circuit and return to the same point, 
 “and the great clock of eternity will strike One !” (Mitchell.) 
 
 17-6. The actual cause of this recession was the error in the Julian Calendar, 
 making the year average 365.25 days in place of 365.242,216, as assumed in the 
 Greenwich Nautical Almanac since 1865, or 0.007,784 day too long, making a 
 recession of solar dates of one day in 128 years (NB. AC. 2-2.) 
 
 17-7. On p. 95, Jarvis, in speaking of the Council of Nice in a.d. 325, says: 
 
 “They, found the.new moon.in the year of their session fell 
 
 on the 23d March. They made it, therefore, the beginning of a new cycle of nine¬ 
 teen years, and consequently marked it with the Golden Number one. It is possible 
 that, in the ordinary course of the Julian Calendar, the year of their session was 
 the third of the Metonic Cycle,” etc. 
 
 17-8. Now, by astronomic calculation, this moon in a.d. 325 di(l not fall on 
 March 23, but on March 31, and this in the Nicean Cycle (Jarvis, p. 88) is marked 
 III. Also, by astronomic calculation and by history, the new moon fell on January 
 1, b.c. 45, on the introduction of the Julian Calendar, and January 1 is marked I. in 
 this cycle (Jarvis p. 87.) This makes the year b.c. 45 to be Golden Number I of 
 the Roman Cycle, and that agrees with history; and that makes a.d. 325 = IN, 
 which in this cycle gives new moon at April 1 (p. 88), one day later than III for the 
 same year at March 31 in the Nicean Cycle. And in Julian time, the actual moon 
 recedes one day in 308 years (NB. AC. 4, 5, 16.) 
 
 17-9. Consequently, these prove that, when this Nicean Cycle was constructed, 
 they changed the basic year, so that a.d. 325 became III in place of IX in the 
 Roman Cycle, and subtracted one day from the date of the moon in that cycle, to 
 allow for the actual recession since B.c. 45, at the rate of one day in 308 years. Or, 
 more likely, the Egyptian astronomers presented an independent cycle that was 
 
238 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 17th Section. 
 
 astronomically correct at that date, since in other respects there is not a precise 
 agreement. 
 
 17-10. The year a.d. 325 being III in the Nicean Cycle, makes B.c. 1 = 1. I 
 can find no other prominent date to account for a.d. 325 being III, and suppose 
 that b.c. 1 was chosen as the beginning of the Christian lunar c.ycle, because that 
 was the first year in which the Julian Calendar was restored to the original inten¬ 
 tion, after the confusion arising from having eleven bissextiles in thirty-three 
 years. And this confusion, as I suppose, arose from the vicious Roman mode of 
 counting both extremes; and when Sosigenes (the Egyptian astronomer who con¬ 
 structed the Julian Calendar) directed that b.c. 45, and every fourth year 
 thereafter, should be a bissextile, the Roman priests understood it in a Roman 
 sense, and counted as the “ fourth ” what we count as the third. Julius Caesar had 
 been murdered; Sosigenes had disappeared; the priests appear to have been very 
 ignorant, from this and their previous calendar (NB. AU.—) 
 
 17- 11. This basic year of the Nicean Cycle, making a.d. 325 = III, and b c. 
 1=1, has been followed by all the numerous Christian cycles to the present day 
 (excepting by the Greek Church); and that is the signification of the rule in the 
 Prayer-Book: “To find the Golden Number or Prime, add one to the year of our 
 Lord, and then divide by nineteen,” etc. But in these early times the years B.c. 45, 
 B.c. 1, and a.d. 325, were not known by these numbers, and were counted from the 
 building of Rome (A. U. C.) And Golden Number III corresponding with the year 
 of the Council of Nicea, a.d. 325, is the standard year of the cycle, to which all 
 others are subordinate in tables II and III in the Prayer-Book, as determined in 
 1752 on the reformation of the English Calendar. Also in the Roman Missal, the 
 Epact * ( = 0) is in all cases placed at the same date as Golden Number III in the 
 Nicean Cycle, viz. : January 1, 31, March 1, 31, April 29, May 29, June 27, July 27, 
 August 25, September 24, October 23, November 22, December 21 (AM. 2; NS. 9 ; 
 NB. NS. 2-16; NB, GND. and Epacts. Also see Appendix H, Journal of the 
 Reformed Episcopal Church in 1874.) 
 
 18th Section. 
 
 DATE OF EASTER, No. 3. ERRORS OF SEABURY. 
 
 18- 1. “The Theory and Use of the Church Calendar,” by the Rev. Samuel 
 Seabury, D.D. (New York, 1872), is full of errors. He finishes, “ A o%a rw Gew.” 
 
 18-2. This we might reasonably expect from the following quotations, on the 
 pages referred to, viz. :—p. xii he explains for the information of “ laymen”; p. xi, 
 “A traditionary system which disclaims demonstration”; p. 7, “Neither is it 
 necessary for one to be either an astronomer or a mathematician ” ; p. 117, “ Science 
 must come down from her throne, and condescend to accept the cycles which the 
 custodians of the church have treasured up ”; p. 118, “ Must be kept wholly out of 
 the domain of demonstrative science ”; p. x, “ I know of no treatise especially 
 devoted to it ”; p. xi, “ a rule that may indeed be verified by experiment, but the 
 reasons of which no author that I have seen has been at the pains to unfold.” 
 
 With these remarks, he undertakes to demonstrate a system that is purely 
 “ astronomic and mathematical,” which cost the Council of Gregorian astronomers 
 ten years’ study, and may be stated in these words : 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 239 
 
 18th Section. 
 
 18-3. Proposition. To frame a calendar which, in the Nicean form of averag¬ 
 ing, shall follow the actual movements of the sun and moon so closely that it may 
 represent the Nicean Rule, and bring Easter on the Sunday next after the four¬ 
 teenth day of the actual moon that shall fall on or next after the date of the actual 
 vernal equinox, counting the time from the Mosaic visible new moon, and 
 from Jerusalem as the prime meridian (NB. Scale; xix. 16.) 
 
 18-4. For information on this subject, see the authors referred to under NB. 
 NS., in the Journal of the Second Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church, in 
 1874, Appendix H, in which the Anglican and Roman forms of the Gregorian 
 Calendar are both given. Then compare that with the following: 
 
 18-5. Dr. Seabury (p. xiv) desires to ‘‘recast” the Anglican Calendar, and to 
 adopt the Roman mode of reaching the same result precisely, objecting to “ the 
 peculiarities of the Hanoverian method, which has been fastened upon us in our 
 English and American Prayer-Books ” (pp. 123, 194, xiv. 89,189, 200, 211); i e., he 
 calls the use of Golden Numbers, in the place of the Roman Epacts, “ Hanoverian.” 
 But this was begun by Meton, B.c. 432, and Golden Numbers have been used 
 directly by all Christians since the Fifth century, until in 1582 the Church of 
 Rome substituted Epacts. The Greeks still use Golden Numbers; and the Church 
 of Rome uses the same Golden Numbers as the Anglicans, in order to find the 
 Epacts (xix. 10; NS. 1 to 7* AM. 3; OS. 2; NS. 12.) (xix. 19 Two.) 
 
 18-6. Again (pp. 193,194), “As if the Church, wearied of God’s own ordinance 
 for the regulation of her ancient solemnities, should choose some strange light, 
 which should shine, like the Dog Star, but for one month in the year... .In no 
 other age... .could the heirloom of a thousand years be torn from her without a 
 protest’’ ; %. e., using only the nineteen full moons of the Paschal month, omitting 
 all others of the 235 lunations in nineteen years. 
 
 18-7. Now, it was the Council of Chalcedon, in A.D. 534, at the recommendation 
 of Dionysius Exiguus, in a.jd. 525 (Seabury, p. 78), which made this change; and 
 in place of adding, as previously, thirteen days to the dates of the Paschal new 
 moons in the Nicean Calendar each time that the date of Easter was desired, at 
 once added thirteen days to the nineteen dates for the Paschal full moons only, and 
 omitted all the other moons in the year. This is the old style calendar, and is now 
 used by the Greeks in a Greek dress. And our table, in like manner, has only the 
 Paschal full moons. There is no known table that gives the whole 235 full moons 
 in the cycle, but several, including the Greek cycle, which give the 235 new moons 
 in the cycle, and these are only to answer imperfectly, the same civil purpose 
 as a modern almanac; and, with the exception of the Nicean cycle, these cycles of 
 new moons could not, without correction, be used for ecclesiastical purposes, since 
 they do not agree with the old style table for full moons, that being fixed “ forever,” 
 while these keep following the recession of the astronomic moon, at the rate of one 
 day in 308 Julian years, and show their date of construction by the date assigned 
 to new moon. The system of Roman Epacts for each of the 365 days in a Julian 
 year is an improvement ou these older tables of new moons, because, in place of 
 changing the whole table, it is only necessary to determine which Epact is to be 
 used. And by means of these Epacts and the Sunday Letters the Church of Rome 
 reaches the same result as the Anglicans by their method of Golden Numbers. As 
 to the “ Dog Star,” that shines for the whole year, but for about a month is overpow- 
 
240 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 18tli Section. 
 
 erecl by the light of the sun. As to “ God’s own ordinance,” and “ strange light ’’ 
 [?] Grcecum est, non leqitur (xix. 1G-5; NB. Calendars 18-11, 12; AM. 3 ; OS. 
 2 ; NS. 4; NB. GND. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, NS. 7, 12.) 
 
 18-8. Again (pp. 197, 198, 2111, “ Why direct us to Easter by Golden Numbers, 
 with complicated tables for changing them century after century, instead of direct¬ 
 ing us to find Easter by means of the simple and immutable system of Epacts?” 
 And (p. 206), “ That wilderness of figures which constitute the Second and Third of 
 our General Tables,” (NS. 2, 3.) 
 
 18-9. Now, this “wilderness of figures” is very simple when understood, and 
 a better condensation than can be found elsewhere. These Tables II and III con¬ 
 tain the Gregorian system in precise accordance with the Roman Epacts. They 
 give the whole system in full, “ changing [the dates] century after century,” down 
 to the year 8500, and repeat; while the Roman Missal takes fifty-two lines to bring 
 the Epacts, which change the same dates, “ century after century,” down to A.D. 
 1900 only ; which fifty-two lines in the Missal are represented by the index num¬ 
 bers “ 0 ” and “ 1 ” opposite to 1600, 1700, and 1800 in Table II. And in place of the 
 remaining index numbers 2 to 30, in Table II, the Missal says, “ de qua re plura 
 inveniesin libro novae rationis restituendi Kalendarii Romani,” without giving the 
 name of this “ book.” But the new column of Epacts added to the Anglican Table 
 III carries the Epacts down to a.d. 8500 for use in tlie Roman mode. That they 
 have not (NB. NS. Construction and Explanation of Table II and III ; NB. 
 GND. 9.) 
 
 18-10. And Dr. Seabury evidently does not understand that there are two 
 kinds of Epacts, the one “simple and immutable,” always at the same dates, like 
 the Sunday Letters ; the other depending on the Golden Number, and changing 
 instantly with the date of the Golden Number, which is used by the Roman Church 
 as well as by the Anglican, and this determines which of the permanent Epacts is 
 to be used, in the same manner as the Dominical determines which of the Sunday 
 Letters is to be used. The Anglicans followed the Romans even in the “ Retrac¬ 
 tions,” which are astronomically false and contradict the Nicean Rule, and will 
 operate after a.d. 1900. (NB. GND. 8 ; NS. 12, 7 ; 26 ; NB. AC. 3.26—1, 2.) 
 
 18-11. Again (pp. 78, 67, 71, 72, 90), “ The Alexandrian Canon was founded on 
 the Lunar Cycle of Meton (reduced from 6940 to 6939 days 18 hours),” and “ drawn 
 off with difficulty from the use of the Jewish Cycle of 84 years.” 
 
 18-12. Now, this Alexandrian Canon, or Old Style Calendar (OS. 2), and the 
 Cycle of Meton (OE), and the present Jewish Cycle (AO.), all count by 19 years, 
 but all are fundamentally different. Neither is a copy of the other. Neither can 
 be modified into the other. (NB. NS. 33.) 
 
 18-13. A gain (p. 19), “ The Hebrews,.... in common with most Ancient nations, 
 ... .began the civil year, which was a solar year of 365 days, at the autumnal equi¬ 
 nox,” and (p. 14) “ 365 days is still assumed to be the length of the year in the 
 Calendar of the Church, and of all civilized nations.” 
 
 18-14. Now the Calendar year of Christians is the Julian year of 365£ days, and 
 h istorgives no account of any nation that counted uniformly 365 days in the year, 
 excepting the ancient Egyptians, with their Canicular year, which was neither 
 solar nor lunar, and which appears to have been partially used by the Jews w T hen 
 they left Egypt ; but at present they use the Babylonian Calendar, and now have 
 years of six different lengths, but neither of them 365 days. (NB. AO. 17,18.) 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 241 
 
 18tli Section. 
 
 18-15. Again (p. 225), “ Ten days which were cancelled in 1582, on account of 
 the precession of the equinoxes.” This should be “ on account of the error in the 
 Julian Calendar,’’ as explained when Jarvis makes the same mistake, (xix. 
 17-4, 5, 6.) 
 
 19th Section. 
 
 SUCCESSION IN THE R. E. C. 
 
 Different families of the one Apostolic Catholic Church, in different countries, 
 trace their descent from their ecclesiastical ancestors, w’hom they reverence; as the 
 Lutherans and the German Reformed in Germany; the Dutch in Holland; and the 
 Presbyterians in France, Switzerland, and Scotland; and their descendants in 
 other countries. In like manner we trace the descent of the R. E. C. from the 
 English Reformers. 
 
 It is merely a local incident, that the Reformers in England retained the 
 Episcopal form; and such is now the legal position of the Church of Eng¬ 
 land, (xviii. June 15, Ch.) The Declaration of Principles of the R. E. C. 
 says: “ II. This Church recognizes and adheres to Episcopacy, not as of divine 
 right, but as a very ancient and desirable form of church polity.” And, “IV. This 
 Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines, as 
 contrary to God’s Word: First. That the Church of Christ exists only in one 
 order or form of ecclesiastical polity,” (xi. 2.) 
 
 Hence the R. E. C. rejects the dogma of Apostolic Succession, as quoted 
 (iii. Nov. 11, 1874, Ch. Jo.; Dec. 30, 1874, High Church); and regards it of no 
 practical importance to determine the historical truth, between the contradictory 
 assertions of Dr. Hook, who says: “There is not a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, who 
 cannot, if he please, trace his descent from Peter and Paul ”; and of Archbishop 
 Whately, who says: “ There is not a minister in Christendom, who is able, with 
 any approach to certainty, to trace his own succession to any of the Apostles 
 whatever.” 
 
 Two Rival Episcopal Churches in Great Britain. 
 
 The history of the Church of England is traced out (xii. 12-24.) That of the 
 Episcopal Church in Scotland is thus given in Chambers’ Encyclopedia: 
 
 The early Scotch Church differed slightly from other western Churches, but 
 gradually they assimilated before the end of the 12th century. But down to the 
 15th century they had no metropolitan. They were subject to Rome, who, in 
 1492, raised Glasgow as metropolitan. In 1406, 1407, 1433, reformers were burned. 
 In 1525 Lutheran books prohibited. In 1528 Patrick Hamilton was burned. In 
 1546 began a deadly struggle. In 1559 the Reformers defied the Regent, and in 
 1560 had the ascendancy and cut loose from the Pope. They then modelled their 
 Church after that at Geneva. Others restored Episcopacy, with “ Protestant 
 Bishops set apart for that office by their brethren of the ministry.” These w r ere 
 supported by the Sovereign. But the Presbyterians gained the ascendancy, and 
 made the State subordinate to the Church, but not precisely in the Presbyterian 
 form. In 1610 Episcopacy was restored by the consecration of three Scottish prel¬ 
 ates by four English Bishops, in London. Then followed strife. In 1689, 
 political causes ruined Episcopacy. In 1702 Presbyterianism was established by 
 
242 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 19tli Section. 
 
 Act of Parliament. The Toleration Act of 1712 protected the Episcopalians, but 
 on the death of Queen Anne they were involved in the attempt to overthrow the 
 Hanoverian dynasty, and this made the name of Episcopalian and Jacobite to be 
 synonymous. In 1745 some intolerant acts of Parliament were passed against the 
 Episcopalians, “and it was not till 1792 that the Episcopalians, who, from the 
 death of Prince Charles, had acknowledged the reigning dynasty, were relieved 
 from the penal laws.” 
 
 Two Rival Episcopal Churches in America. 
 
 In 1784 Bishop Seabury, of Connecticut, was consecrated by the Bishops of the 
 Scotch Church, descended from the Non-Jurors. The Journals of the General 
 Conventions of 1785-6 (vi.) show that he and his diocese kept aloof and formed one 
 Episcopal Church in Connecticut, and probably other neighboring States. Those 
 who were present at those Conventions applied to the Bishops of the Church of 
 England for Episcopal ordination. A resolution was offered, that no one now in 
 this country (i. e., Seabury) be acknowledged to be a Bishop. This was evaded by 
 the operation of the Previous Question. Then a vote was carried, that during the 
 negotiation for Orders from Canterbury, no Orders conferred by any one now in 
 this country be recognized, thus prudently keeping in reserve the Scotch Orders, 
 in case the Church of England should refuse. The latter consented to confer the 
 “ Episcopal Character,” and did so upon Bishops White and Provoost on February 
 4, 1787, on the basis of the Prayer-Book of 1785, which had passed the inspection 
 of two Archbishops and thirteen Bishops. These formed a second Episcopal 
 Church south of Connecticut, analogous to the Church from which they sprung, 
 south of Scotland. Then on Sept. 19, 1790, the Rev. James Madison, of Virginia, 
 was consecrated Bishop by the English Bishops. In 1789 these two rival churches 
 coalesced and formed the present P. E. C., and, rejecting the Prayer-Book of 1785, 
 established the present Prayer-Book, with some extracts from that of the Church 
 of Scotland. Hence, the succession in the P. E. C. is a mixture of that from 
 Canterbury with that from the Scotch Non-Jurors, (xix. 18-5.) 
 
 Succession in the R. E. C. 
 
 It has been shown that the R. E. C. is substantially a separate organization of 
 the Evangelicals of the P. E. C. and Church of England, as far as relates to the 
 principles of the R. E. C. (vi. ; ix. ; x. ; xi. ; xvi.; xix. 2.) 
 
 We now come to the Personal Succession in the R. E. C.: 
 
 (1.) Bishop Cummins. The Journal of the General Convention of the P. E. 
 C. of 1868, page 552, has this record : 
 
 “ LXXXI.— Bishop Cummins —In the name of God, Amen.— To all the faithful 
 in Christ Jesus throughout the world , greeting ;—Be it known unto you, that we, 
 John Henry Hopkins, D.D., LL.D., by the grace of God, Bishop of Vermont, and 
 Presiding Bishop; B. B. Smith, D.D., by the grace of God, Bishop of Kentucky; 
 Henry W. Lee, D.D., by the grace of God, Bishop of Iowa; J. C. Talbot, D.D,, by 
 the grace of God, Assistant Bishop of Indiana ; Charles Todd Quintard, D.D., 
 by the grace of God, Bishop of Tennessee; Robert H. Clarkson, D.D., Missionary 
 Bishop of Nebraska; and John B. Kerfoot, D.D., Bishop of Pittsburg, under the 
 protection of Almighty God, in Christ Church, in the city of Louisville, on the 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 243 
 
 19th Section. 
 
 fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and sixty-six (I860), did then and there, in the presence of the Clergy and Laity of 
 the Diocese of Kentucky, according to the due and prescribed order of the Protest¬ 
 ant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and in conformity with the 
 Canons thereof, consecrate our beloved in Christ the Rev. George David Cummins, 
 D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, Chicago, of whose sufficiency in good learning 
 soundness in the faith, and purity of manners, we were fully ascertained, into the 
 office of a Bishop in the Church of God, he having been duly elected Assistant 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky. Given under our hands and seals in this said 
 city of Louisville, in the diocese of Kentucky, the fifteenth day of November, in 
 the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six (1866): John H. 
 Hopkins, Presiding Bishop ; [Seal]— B. B. Smith, Bishop of Kentucky; [Seal] — 
 Henry W. Lee, Bishop of Iowa ; [Seal]—Jos. C. Taleot, Bishop of Indiana, 
 Coadjutor ; [Seal]— Chas. Todd Quintard, Bishop of Tennessee ; [Seal] —Robert 
 H. Clarkson, Missionary Bishop of Nebraska; [Seal]— John B. Kerfoot 
 Bishop of Pittsburgh ; [Seal]. 
 
 Also, the Churchman's Calendar, of the same year as this Journal (1868), has the 
 following (p. 154), which is understood to be by Bishop Coxe, viz. : “ 2 Kentucky 
 .... Assistant Bishop, with the right of Succession—Rt. Rev. George David 
 Cummins, D.D. He was born in the State of Delaware, Dec. 11, 1822 ; educated at 
 Dickinson Coll., Pa., graduating in 1841 ; ordained Deacon by Bp. Lee, of Dela¬ 
 ware, in Oct., 1845, and Priest, by the same prelate, in July, 1847 ; received the 
 degree of D.D. from Princeton Coll, in 1856. His first parish was Christ Church, 
 Norfolk, Va.; the next St. James’ Church, Richmond, Ya.; the next, Trinity 
 Church, Washington, D. C.; the next, St. Peter’s Church, Baltimore, Md.; the last, 
 Trinity Church, Chicago, Ill. While in charge of this parish he was elected 
 Assistant Bishop of Kentucky; consecrated in Christ Church, Louisville” [etc., as 
 above from the Journal; then continues as to the Diocese]. “ Population, 1,155,713 
 ... .Clergy 31, Parishes 37, Confirmed, 541 ” (xiii. 15.) 
 
 (2.) Bishop Charles Edward Cheney, D.D., graduated A.B. at Hobart College, Ge¬ 
 neva, New York, and gave the “ Philosophical Oration,” the second honor of the 
 class of July 16, 1857; entered the middle class of the Virginia Theological Semi¬ 
 nary, in Oct., 1857, and remained there till Nov., 1858, when called as assistant minis¬ 
 ter of St. Luke’s Church, Rochester, where he continued his theological studies, and did 
 not regularly graduate from the Seminary, but was always named in the catalogues 
 as an Alumnus. He was ordained Deacon by Bishop De Lancey in Trinity Church, 
 Utica, N. Y., on Nov. 21,1858, and at once acted as assistant of Rev. Dr. Benjamin 
 Watson (now rector of the Church of the Atonement, Philadelphia), and remained 
 in that position till Aug. 1,1859, when he took charge of St. Paul’s Church, Havana, 
 New York, till 1860. Then, on March 4th, he was ordained Presbyter by Bishop 
 De Lancey, in Christ Church, Rochester, the sermon being preached by Rev. Dr. 
 William Ashley ; that clergyman, and Rev. Mr. (now Bishop) Neely, and some 
 others, uniting in laying on of hands. A week later (March 11th), he took charge 
 of Christ Church, Chicago, where he has now been for more than 16 years. The 
 degree of D.D. was conferred by Iowa College, a Congregational institution, after 
 Bishop Whitehouse had declared him “Degraded from the ministry of the Church 
 of God.” (xiii. 13 ; xi. 26.) 
 
244 
 
 CIIAPTER XIX. 
 
 19th Section. 
 
 (3.) Bishop William B. Nicholson, D.D., graduated A.B. at La Grange College, 
 North Alabama, and received the degree of D.D. from Bishop Mcl’lvaine, when Presi¬ 
 dent of the Theological Seminary at Gambier; was ordained Deacon and Presbyter 
 by Bishop Leonidas Polk, of Louisiana, of the P. E. C. ; was consecrated Bishop in 
 the R. E. C. in the 2d R. E. C. at Philadelphia, on Feb. 24, 1876. The Consecra- 
 tors were Bishops Cummins and Chenej" of the R. E. C., Bishop Simpson of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, Drs. Leacock, Latane, and J. Howard Smith of the 
 R. E. C., and Drs. Beadle and Blackwood of the Presbyterian Church; also, Rev. 
 Mason Gallagher and William T. Sabine, took part in the service. (See Refer¬ 
 ences si. 26; xvii. May 12-18, 1875 ; June 16—Sept. 22, 1875 ; Jan. 1, 1876 ; Feb. 
 25 ; March 1, Ch. U.; do.; Consec.; Conf.; Mar. 8, Lent.) 
 
 (4.) Bishop-Elect, Bev. Edward Bridge, B.A , Cantab : —Matriculated at Cam¬ 
 bridge, England, October, 1844 ; kept all the terms and took his degree of B.A. in 
 January, 1848, standing third class in mathematical honors ; was Gisborne scholar 
 of his college (St. Peter’s); ordained Deacon at Norwich by Bishop of Norwich 
 (Stanley), in February, 1848 ; Assistant Curate of North Walsham from Feb., 1848, 
 to Feb., 1851, and Second Master of the Grammar School there during the same 
 period ; passed voluntary theological examination at Cambridge in the autumn of 
 1849 (or 1848); was ordained, shortly after, “ Priest ” at Norwich, by Bishop of Nor¬ 
 wich (Hind); appointed Assistant Curate of West Ham, near London, in Feb., 1851; 
 and licensed, shortly after, to the incumbency of Stratford Marsh (district parish), in 
 West Ham ; appointed by the Hudson Bay Company to Victoria District Church 
 (Christ Church), V. I., in 1854. This was the first church in Vancouver’s Island ; it 
 was completed in August, 1855, at which time he commenced his labors in it, and 
 continued in the same till October, 1874. lie was made Dean in December, 1865, 
 the Church having been made the Cathedral just before. Bishop Scott (P. E. 
 Bishop of Oregon) held the first confirmation in the church, before the arrival of 
 the Anglican Bishop Hills (Jan. 1860), 21 candidates. The exodus of Christ Church 
 congregation from the Church of England, and his appointment as their pastor, 
 was on Nov. 1, 1874. (i. Nov. 4, Dec. 9, Dec. 16, 1874 ; Jan. 27, Feb. 17, 1875 ; 
 
 xvii. April 21, May 5, May 12-18, June 9, Sept. 22, 1875 ; Feb. 2, 9, March 1, 1876; 
 ii. Jan. 27, 1875.) 
 
 (5.) Bev. James A. Latane was elected Bishop (xvii. May 12-18, 1875), and de¬ 
 clined. The details of his early history are not at hand. His position in the P. E. 
 C. is shown (iii. Jan. 12, 29, 1874). He is probably the one referred to by Rev. Dr. 
 Andrews of Va. as “ One of the greatest minds in the country,” etc. (iii. Oct. 29. 
 1S74, Infant.) 
 
 (6.) Bev. Marshall B. Smith, A.M., College of New Jersey, graduated at the 
 Theological Seminary of Virginia ; ordained Deacon by Bishop Alfred Lee, of Dela¬ 
 ware, Nov. 28, 1858, and Presbyter by the same Bishop, Dec. 7, 1859 ; Assistant 
 Minister of St. Andrews, Wilmington, Del., 1858-9 ; Rector of Christ Church, Do¬ 
 ver, Del , 1859-60; Rector of St. John’s Church, Passaic, N. J., 1860-69 ; preached 
 the Convention sermon 1866 ; member of the Standing Committee for several years . 
 joined the Reformed (Dutch) Church in 1869; stated clerk and examiner in the 
 original languages of Holy Scriptures in Classis of Paramus 1870-73 ; member of 
 General Synod of Ref. Dutch Ch. in 1871 and 1873; dismissed to the R. E. C. in 
 1873. (See references xi. 26.) 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 245 
 
 19 th Section. 
 
 (7.) Rev. Mason Gallagher was educated in Columbia College Grammar 
 School, New York, and Rev. Dr. Reuben Sherwood’s Boarding School at Norwalk, 
 Conn., and then in Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg’s Flushing Institute ; graduated in 1840 
 at Hobart (then Geneva) College, and thence ireceived the degree of A.M.; passed 
 three years at the General Theological Seminary, and thence graduated; was 
 ordained Deacon at Waterloo, N. Y., July 15, 1844, by Bishop De Lancey; and 
 Presbyter on November 12, 1845, at Geneva, N. Y., by the same Bishop ; was a 
 Presbyter in the P. E. C. until 1871, and then resigned. His maternal grandfather 
 was of an English Episcopal family, and a nephew of his grandfather was Rev 
 Thomas B. Murray, who was long a Secretary of the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, and a niece was the authoress Charlotte Elizabeth, who for 
 many years conducted a Ladies’ Church of England magazine. His paternal 
 grandfather was for many years a communicant and vestryman in the Episcopal 
 parish at Dumfries, Ya. These show his family connection with the Pan-Anglican 
 Church. (See references, xi. 26.) 
 
 (8.) Rev. B. B. Leacock, D.D., graduated A.B. from Rutgers College, N. J., 
 in the class of 1847; in 1850 received the degree of A,M. from the same; on 
 July 11, 1851, was ordained Deacon by Bishop William Meade, D.D., in the chapel 
 of the Theological Seminary of Virginia ; on July 16,1852, was ordained Presbyter 
 by Bishop John Johns, D.D., in Christ Church, Alexandria; on June 18, 1874, 
 received the degree of D.D. from Rutgers College. (See references, xi. 26.) 
 
 (9.) Rev. W. T. Sabine was born in New York, October, 1838; parents 
 were members of the P. E. C.; baptized by Bishop Eastburn ; confirmed by Bishop 
 Wainwright in 1854 ; graduated A.B. from Columbia College, New York, in 1859, 
 and A.M. in 1862; graduated from the Gen. Theological Seminary of the P. E. C. 
 in New York, 1862 ; ordained Deacon in Church of Transfiguration, New York, by 
 Bishop Potter, June, 1862 ; Presbyter in Church of the Ascension, New York, by 
 Bishop Potter, in 1863 ; assistant rector of St. George’s Church, New York, from 
 March 1 to December 1, 1863 ; rector of Church of the Covenant, Philadelphia, Pa., 
 December 1, 1863, to April 1, 1866; rector of Church of Atonement, New York, 
 April 1, 1866, to May 1,1874, when he became rector of the First R. E. C. in New 
 York, and so remains. (See references, xi. 26.) 
 
 (10.) Rev. J. Howard Smith, D.D., graduated after due course at the Theo¬ 
 logical Seminary of Virginia; was ordained Deacon by Bishop Meade, and 
 Presbyter by Bishop Johns. (See references, xi. 26.) 
 
 Form of a Letter of Orders in the P. E. C. 
 
 (11.) The excluding canon of the P. E. C. (xii. 59) was one of the causes of the 
 resignation of Mr. Smith (vii. 2). The Church Journal (iii. Dec. 4,1873) says : “ It 
 may be a tolerable opinion in the Church that the Apostolic Succession is not 
 necessary to a valid ministry. It is an opinion, however, which the Church abso¬ 
 lutely forbids every parish, every convention, every Deacon, Priest, or Bishop from 
 acting on.” According to this canon of 1868, “no church wardens, vestrymen, or 
 trustees of the congregation shall permit any one to officiate therein without suffi¬ 
 cient evidence of his being duly licensed, or ordained to be a minister in this 
 Church.” To show what the P. E. C. regards as “sufficient evidence” of being a 
 “ priest ” in this “ Apostolic Succession,” to pronounce the “ absolution ” and admin 
 
246 
 
 CHAPTER XIX, 
 
 19th. Section. 
 
 ister the communion (which a Deacon may not do), I have bonowed the following 
 document, w r hicli is on parchment, endorsed “ Letter of Orders—The Rev. M. B. 
 Smith, A.M.—1859.” Then on its face : “Be it Known by these Presents, that I, 
 Alfred Lee, by Divine Permission, Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware, administering 
 Holy Orders by the assistance of Almighty God, on Wednesday, the seventh day of 
 December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, in 
 St. Andrew’s Church, in the city of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, did 
 admit our beloved in Christ the Rev. Marshall B. Smith, of whose virtuous and 
 pious life, and conversation, and competent learning, and knowledge in the Holy 
 Scriptures I am well assured, into the Holy Order of Priests, according to the 
 form and manner prescribed and used by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America ; and him, the said Marshall B. Smith, did then and there, 
 rightly and canonically, ordain a Presbyter, he having, in my presence, freely 
 and voluntarily declared that he believes the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
 Testaments to be the word of God, and to contain all thing's necessary to Salvation, 
 and having solemnly engaged to conform to the Doctrines and Worship of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. In Testimony 
 Whereof, I have caused my seal to be hereunto affixed. Dated the day and year 
 above written, and in the nineteenth year of my consecration. Alfred Lee, 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware [Seal]. Presbyters assisting in the ‘ Imposition 
 of Hands:’ The Rev. William Sparrow, D.D., Professor in the Theological Semi¬ 
 nary of Virginia ; Rev. Charles Breck, A.M., Rector of Trinity Church, Wilmington, 
 Del.; Rev. Samuel C. Brinckle, A.M., Rector of Christ Church, Christiana, Del.; 
 Rev. Stevens Parker, M.A., Rector of St.John’s Church, Wilmington, Del.; Rev. 
 Julius E. Grammar, A.M., Rector of St. Peter’s Church, Smyrna, Del.” 
 
 (12.) Now: These records show that all the clergy of the R. E. C., w r ho have 
 thus far been consecrated Bishops, or who have taken part in such consecration, had 
 the same succession as other Presbyters in the P. E. C., and that Bishop Cummins 
 had the same succession as other Bishops in the P. E. C. And, according to the 
 Canons of the P. E. C., Bishop Cheney is still a Presbyter in the P. E. C. while 
 Bishop in the R. E. C. (xiii. 18.) And upon “ Church principles,” all the ecclesias¬ 
 tical descendants of the R. E. C. will have the same succession as the R. E. C. And 
 those who are most hostile to the R. E. C. admit that it has the same succession as 
 the P. E. C. (ii. Jan. 1, 22, 22, 29, 1874.) It is analogous to other cases (ii. June 
 10, Open Letter; iii. Jan 29, 1874.) Hence the hostility of the P. E. C. towards 
 the R. E. C. (x.; xii.; ii. Dec. 31, 1873.) On this point the following unauthorized 
 expressions of opinion have been in possession of the authorities of the R. E. C. 
 since May 12-18,1875 ; and no objection has been heard, (iv.;v.; xi. 1,43 ; xiv. ll;xvi. 
 21); and Chapter xvii. of the present date contains many opinions expressed, and 
 action by those in authority which agree with the same, and all tending to the 
 same point as contained in italics (xii. 50.) 
 
 The R. E. C. has been charged with inconsistency in claiming the same succes¬ 
 sion as the High-Churclimen in the P. E. C., while denying all superiority over 
 those who have a different succession. But this is analogous to what we see daily 
 in social life, where one member of a family simply shows that he has a “ respecta¬ 
 ble ” descent, and another of the same family claims that in consequence of that 
 descent, he has the right to treat all others as his inferiors (xviii. July 8, 1875 
 P. E. C.; xix. 2 ; xx. 1.) 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 247 
 
 20th Section. 
 
 NAMES AND RESIDENCES OF THE MINISTERS OF THE REFORMED 
 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 May 24,1876. 
 
 Bishop George David Cummins, D.D., Lutherville, Baltimore Co., Maryland. 
 
 Bishop Charles Edward Cheney, D.D., 870 Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill. 
 
 Bishop William R. Nicholson, D.D., 2029 DeLancey Place, Philadelphia. Second 
 Reformed Episcopal Church, Sansom Street, above Twenty-first Street. 
 
 Rev. R. H. Bosworth, 1525 Shurtleff Avenue, Chicago, Ill. Emmanuel Church, 
 Twenty-eighth and Hanover Streets, Chicago. 
 
 Rev. R. H. Bourne, Charity Hospital, Blackwell’s Island, N. Y. 
 
 Rev. William Bower, St. Paul’s Church, Put-in-Bay, Ohio. 
 
 Rev. H. H. Brooks, Houston, Texas. 
 
 Rev. J. Eastburn Brown, St. Paul’s Church, Moncton, N. B., Canada. 
 
 Rev. H. M. Collisson, Emmanuel Church, Ottawa, Canada. 
 
 Rev. William II. Cooper, D.D., 174 Center Street, Chicago, Ill. Immanuel Church,Cen 
 ter and Dayton Streets. 
 
 Rev. Edward Cridge, B.A., Cantab., Church of our Lord, Humboldt Street, Victoria, 
 British Columbia. 
 
 Rev. J. P. Davis, St. John’s Church, Chillicothe, Peoria Co., Illinois. 
 
 Rev. Laurence Dawson, Pineville. St. Stephen’s P. 0., South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. John K. Dunn, Cumberland, Maryland. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Fallows, D.D., 530 Fulton Street, Chicago, Illinois. St. Paul’s Church 
 corner Washington and Ann Streets. 
 
 Rev. William V. Felt well, Falls of Schuylkill, Philadelphia. In charge of Grace 
 Chapel. 
 
 Rev. F. C. Ferguson, Monk’s Corner, South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. Edward A. Forrest, Charleston, South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. Mason Gallagher, Paterson, N. J. Officiating at Rahway, N. J. 
 
 Rev. Ernst Guntrum, Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 Rev. William Hartley, Ashdown, Algoma, Ontario, Canada. 
 
 Rev. George Howell, 107 West 40th Street, New York City. Emmanuel Church 
 165-167 West 26th Street. 
 
 Rev. Wm. L. Jett, Washington, Rappahannock Co., Virginia. 
 
 Rev. Benjamin Johnson, Charleston, South Carolina. 
 
 Rev. James Johnson, No. 7 Philomene Terrace, Daly Street, Ottawa, Canada. 
 
 Rev. James A. Latane, St. Stephen’s Church P. O., King and Queen Co., Va. 
 
 Rev. Benjamin B. Leacock, D.D., 170 Chambers Street, Newburgh, Orange Co., N. Y. 
 
 Church of the Corner-Stone, Newburgh. 
 
 Rev. J. H. MacElRey, Susquehanna Depot, Susquehanna Co., Pennsylvania. 
 
 Rev. Joseph S. Malone, 621 East York Street, Philadelphia. Emmanuel Church, 
 corner East York and Sepviva Streets. 
 
 Rev. Johnston McCormac, 361 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Canada. Emmanuel 
 Church, Markam Street. 
 
 Rev. M. T. McCormick, Trinity Church, Englewood, Cook County, Illinois. 
 
 Rev. Thomas J. McFadden, First Reformed Episcopal Church, Littleton, Colorado. 
 Rev. William McGuire, Chatham, New Brunswick, Dominion of Canada. 
 
248 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 20th Section. 
 
 Rev. J. H. McMeclien, 2207 Chapline Street, Wheeling, West Virginia. 
 
 Rev. A. M. Morrison, 4200 Pine Street, West Philadelphia. 
 
 Rev. Edward D. Neill, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
 
 Rev. William S. Perkins, Bristol, Pa. 
 
 Rev. William M.Postlethwaite, 361 Druid Hill Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Church 
 of the Redeemer, Bolton Street, near Townsend. 
 
 Rev. Edwin Potter, Johnstown, Fulton Co., New York. 
 
 Rev. James C. Platt, Trinity Chapel, Boulder, Colorado. v 
 
 Rev. G. Albert Redles, 5166 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia. Third Reformed 
 Episcopal Church, corner of Chelten Avenue and Wayne Street. 
 
 Rev. William IP. Reid, 156 Washington Street, Brooklyn, New York. Church of 
 the Atonement, located in Kings Co. Bank, corner Broadway and 4th Street, 
 Brooklyn, E. D. 
 
 Rev. F. H. Reynolds, 293 East Monument Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Emmanuel 
 Church, N. W. corner of Fornest and Monument Streets. 
 
 Rev. William T. Sabine, 111 East Nineteenth Street, New York. First Reformed 
 Episcopal Church, Madison Avenue and Forty-seventh Street. 
 
 Rev. Alexander Sloan, Newfield, Gloucester Co., New Jersey. 
 
 Rev. J. Howard Smith, D.D., 49 New Street, Newark, New Jersey. Emmanuel 
 Church, Association Hall, West Park Street. 
 
 Rev. Marshall B. Smith, Passaic, N. J. 
 
 Rev. Thompson L. Smith, Jefferson City, Missouri. Holy Trinity Church. 
 
 Rev. P. F. Stevens, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston County, South Carolina. Officiating 
 for eight congregations (colored). 
 
 Rev. John Todd,St. John’s Church, Sussex, New Brunswick, Canada. 
 
 Rev. Charles IP. Tucker, 1715 Arlington Street, Philadelphia. Church of our Re¬ 
 deemer, Sixteenth and Oxford Streets. 
 
 Rev. B. B. Ussher, M.D., 26 Charles Street, West Toronto, Canada. Christ Church, 
 James and Louisa Streets. 
 
 Rev. Albert Walldey, P. O. address, 888 Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. Resi¬ 
 dence, Beers and Homan Streets. Church of the Good Shepherd, Jones and 
 Homan Streets. 
 
 Rev. H. H. Washburn, No. 1 Edmondson Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Church 
 of the Rock of Ages. Y. M. C. A. Hall, North Schroeder Street, between Frank¬ 
 lin and Mulberry Streets. 
 
 Rev. Joseph D. Wilson, Peoria, Hlinois. Christ Church, Madison Street, between 
 Hamilton and Fayette Streets. 
 
 Rev. Walter Windeyer, Zion Church, St. John, N. B , Canada, (i. Dec. 2, 1873, Or¬ 
 ganization ; xi. 26.) 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Contents :— (1). Bishop Boane. — (2). See 8. — (3). Remarks respecting 
 Dr. Jaggar .— (4). Bishop Howe. — (5). Bishop Huntington .— (6). Excluding 
 Canon by Bps. Onderdonh and Croes. —(7). Changes in the P. E. C. by Dr. 
 Tyng and Bishop A. Lee. — (8). “ Protestant ” Church of England f — (9). 
 Conservatism. —(10) Dicliostasia. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Bishop Doane, in liis address to the Convention of the Diocese of Albany, 
 Jan. 14, 1874, says of Bishop Cummins: (1) “ This man with heated haste, heads, 
 of his own choosing', an assemblage of men ‘ in debt, distress, and discontented,’ 
 and rushes into violent schism. .. .(2) For years the degenerate descendants of the 
 old school in the Church that called itself exclusively, and with a savor of Pharisa¬ 
 ism, Evangelicaly has been engaged in a bad thing; bitter denunciation of men and 
 measures from whom they differed, and of which they disapproved. The more 
 they diminished in numbers, the more they increased in venom. And pamphlets 
 have reeked, and platforms have rung with the gall of their bitterness. This was 
 bad enough. But bad things encouraged always grow to worse. And the next 
 phrase of this evil speaking, after it had spread its seeds of suspicion and false wit¬ 
 ness, was an attack upon the Church, ‘ her imperfect reformation,’ and upon the 
 Book of Common Prayer, £ its germs of Romanism.’... .It is the side whose seed has 
 bloomed out into noxious flower, and borne its unripe fruit.”... .(3) “Another set of 
 men... .must leave the Church and join the greatest schism of history—the Ro¬ 
 man communion. .. .(4) Such men are really in one case proposing an amalgama¬ 
 tion with the incoherent antagonisms of discordant sects; or in the other case, 
 cultivating a tendency to uuite with the communion which is the mistress of 
 schism.’’ Of Bishop Cummins and the R. E. C., he says: (5) “I say but little of 
 the man who has lifted liis heel against the Mother whose bread he has been 
 eating for eight and twenty years. .. .(6) Nor do Isay much of the movement 
 itself. Its only principle is one which contradicts itself; the carrying of the 
 Apostolic office into a body that denies a continuous Apostolate.” (xiii. 10.) 
 
 Now, take these extracts in the order of the numbers (1) see (xiii. 25; xii. 8)— 
 
 (2) see (xiii. 10^)—(3) see (xii. 8)—(4) see xii. 8, 58. (5)This applies with equal 
 truth to Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, and consequently to Bishop Doane him¬ 
 self, as deriving his Orders from the Church of England. (6) Bishop Doane 
 appears to be ignorant of the Declaration of Principles, (xi. 2.) 
 
 (2) This was a question which was answered (xx. 8.) 
 
 (3) Dr. Jaggar’s Sympathy for Dr. Cheney in 1871. The letter from “Brook¬ 
 lyn ” (iii. March 1, 1875), mistakes the date, and says of Dr. Cheney: “After the 
 
250 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 latter’s trial and deposition.” And the editor of the Episcopalian makes no objec¬ 
 tion to this statement (iii. March 10, Brooklyn). His error as to date was corrected 
 by B. Aycrigg as soon as he observed the fact that the deposition was published 
 Jan. 2, while the letters were to be sent to Dr. Cheney by May 13 (iii. March 12, 
 Dr. Jaggar). These publications of March 1 and 12 were upon the individual 
 responsibility of two members of the R. E. C.; and the R. E. C. is responsible for 
 neither, whether well or ill-judged. This letter of March 1 is supposed to be an 
 indication of hostility towards the P. E. C. by four writers (iii. March 3, Brooklyn; 
 March 11, Votes ; March 13, Dr. Hopkins; March 13, Reformed), and by parity of 
 reasoning the letter of March 12 must be in favor of the P. E. C. But as I under¬ 
 stand the case, the intention of the former was simply the expression of an individ¬ 
 ual opinion respecting an individual; while the latter was simply the correction of 
 an error. As to what remains after that error is corrected, see (xi. 21, 22). As I 
 understand the case, this is no exception that demands a modification of the state¬ 
 ment (xiv. 4). And if it be so claimed, then compare this with (xiii. 10), (iii. March 
 15, 1875, Dr. Hopkins.) 
 
 (4) Bishop Howe to Rev. J. H. Mac El’ Rey,].ii. April 7, 1875 
 
 (5) Bishop Huntington, of Central New York (Clin.), June 10, 1874, in Con¬ 
 
 vention said: One of the very saddest of my duties was that of giving canonical 
 consent, on the 28tli of May, to the deposition of the Rt. Rev. George David Cum¬ 
 mins, D.D., from the highest office in the Christian Church. The renunciation of 
 the place in which the providence of God and the Divine grace of Orders had set 
 him, appeared to me to be without reason in itself, without justification in its cir¬ 
 cumstances, without logical weight or clearness, or even pathos in its explanation; 
 weak in its issues and only distracting in its effects; barren of all blessing, likely 
 to be futile even as a schism; a bitter and cruel self-hurt to the seceder himself, and 
 a melancholy indignity to the Body of Christ.”.xiii. 10. 
 
 (G) Excluding Canon. Rev. Richard Newton, D.D., in his “ Liberal Views of 
 Christianity,” published by the E. K. S., without date, in a note on page 22, says 
 that Bishop H. N. Onderdonk told one of his presbyters that “ that canon had no 
 reference to ministers of other denominations; and then showed from the history 
 of the Canon that its design was, as here stated, to keep impostors from intruding 
 themselves into our churches.” Also, Bishop John Croes, of New Jersey, as reported 
 by Dr. Morehouse, “ explained the circumstances under which the Canon was orig¬ 
 inally passed, and assured him that it was in no way intended to forbid the invita¬ 
 tion of non-episcopal clergymen to preach, nor the lending of the church for a ser¬ 
 vice by such clergyman upon proper occasions.” The remarks of Dr. Newton show 
 that this was printed before the passage of the Canon of 1868.xii. 41. 
 
 (7) Changes in the P. E. C. The Southern Churchman of Oct. 2,1873, reports 
 among the remarks of Rev. S. IL. Tyng, Sr., D.D., at the Semi-Centennial of the 
 Theological Seminary of Virginia, respecting the changes in the P. E. C.: “I beg 
 you, young men, to listen to the testimony of one who has been in the ministry for 
 fifty-four years. 1 give my testimony; I care for nothing else. I do conform to all 
 the regulations of the Church; I am conservative by nature; I believe I am the 
 only clergyman in the city of New York who retains all the old forms and customs 
 of the Church. Some one told the Bishop of New York not long since, if Bishop 
 Hobart could return, the only church ii the city where everything was as he left 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 251 
 
 7th Section. 
 
 it, was St. George’s Church.” Also, in the same paper, Bishop Alfred Lee is re¬ 
 ported as saying : “ This is a time of ‘ theories,’ and there is danger lest the Gospel 
 drop out entirely. There is a tendency of ministers becoming mere manipulators 
 of sacred offices, and know nothing of the core of religion and the pearl of great 
 price.”...xii. 38, 39. 
 
 (8) “ The Protestant Church of England as by law established.” This is given 
 (xii. 17). The term “ Protestant ” is denied by Bishop Lewis (xiii. 14 to 17). To 
 determine this discrepancy, I wrote (April 6) to a gentleman in Ottawa (xx. 2) 
 requesting him to examine 35tli Eliz., Chap. I. He reports (April 24) that the word 
 “ Protestant ” does not appear. Then (April 28) I examined 1st and 35th Eliz., and 
 did not find the word “ Protestant " in a hasty examination, as I took the copy from 
 the hands of the compositor who was waiting for copy. Hence the inference that 
 Cobbett quotes this title from somewhere else. But since this is only inference, 
 the assertion of Bishop Lewis must stand as unchallenged until this inference be 
 proved to be correct, (xix., 9.) 
 
 (9) Conservatism (Ch. St. of April 28, 1875). “ The General Synod of 
 
 the Irish Church was held on April 6tli. The Revision of the Prayer Book was 
 under discussion, the Preface of which has been published. While it leaves the 
 Prayer Book very nearly as it is, to the satisfaction of those who are attracted to 
 the old state of things ; it nevertheless so carefully guards against Romish or 
 Ritualistic interpretations of the services, that the most ardent revisionist ought to 
 be satisfied as to the thorough Protestantism of the Irish Church. ‘ If any one 
 shall complain,’ says the Preface, ‘ that these changes are not enough, and that we 
 should have taken this opportunity of making this book as perfect in all respects 
 as he thinks it might be made, let him consider that men’s judgments of perfection 
 are very various ; that many old things are quietly acquiesced in from use and 
 habit, where if a change were introduced (though for the better) it might produce 
 strife and even schism ; and that what is allowable, though imperfect, with peace, 
 is often better than what is otherwise more excellent without it”.xi. 36* 
 
 (10) Dichostasia is referred to in three places by Robinson, who gives its deriva¬ 
 
 tion from dicha-stasis —a standing apart, viz. : Rom. 16 : 17, “ Now I beseech yon, 
 brethren, to mark them which cause divisions .” And 1 Cor. 3:3,“ For ye are yet 
 carnal; for whereas there is among ye envyings, and strife, and divisions.” And 
 Gal. 5: 20, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these—adultery, 
 fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emula¬ 
 tion, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revel! ings, 
 and such like.”.xii. 5 
 
 (11) Monogram in a church window in Naples, contains the Greek letters Irjcrovo 
 *=Iesous=Jesus. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 • : , 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
252 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE SURPLICE— {Circular.) 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 (12). June 17, 1876. Received this day a circular without date, printed in 
 this form rather than in the Episcopal Recorder , containing a communication from 
 “a valued correspondent,” who calls the Surplice “A ‘linen rag’of Popery”— 
 2d, “ The Babylonian garment”—3d, as to “the origin and significance of such 
 usage,” quotes the “ very edifying explanation copied from an authorized manual 
 of the Church of Rome ” as to “ the garments wherewith the priest is vested dur¬ 
 ing the time of Mass. .. The Amice. . . .The Alb. . . .The Maniple. . . .The Chasuble 
 .. . .The priest’s Tonsure,” and says: “ The R. E. C., to be honest and consistent, 
 should adopt the use of the complete set of sacerdotal vestments, including ‘ The 
 priest’s Tonsure’ or none!' 
 
 Then (4th), the editor comments: “If anything has been established in the 
 settled regard of the people, it is this, that the Surplice, whenever or wherever 
 seen, indicates the claim and discharge of sacerdotal functions, on the part of the 
 person wearing it.” (5th). “ The uniting of such a claim and idea with the gar¬ 
 ment, has been carefully and persistently inculcated by the priestly and ritualistic 
 party from its very rise and origin in the Tractarian movement.” 
 
 Now (6th), I deny all the above, except the last (or fifth), and ask for proof. As 
 I understand the matter, the Surplice is not “ a linen rag of Popery,” nor “ a 
 Babylonish garment.” It has no connection with the “ Amice,” “Alb,” “Maniple,” 
 “ Chasuble,’’ or “ Tonsure,” (1st, 2d, 3d). And (4tli), it does not “ indicate the claim 
 and discharge of sacerdotal functions,” except of late years (5tli), by the “ Tracta- 
 rians,” who, in like manner, have put a ritualistic construction on Baptism and the 
 Lord’s Supper. 
 
 7th. On the contrary, the Surplice is used exclusively by Protestants. It is 
 used by the Moravians; it is obligatory in the Free Church of England, and these 
 are undoubtedly Protestant. It is used, and I believe that it is obligatory in the 
 Church of England, and that is Protestant by strict Parliamentary law (xix. 9). 
 It is never used by the Romish priests, and in 1874 I saw Bishop Tozer officiating 
 in a Romish “ Alb,” resembling a linen “ duster,” coming down to the knees, and 
 with small sleeves, in place of the long Surplice with full sleeves; and I believe 
 that he, like Bishop Lewis, holds that the Church of England is not Protestant, 
 (xix. 9.) 
 
 8tli. Again: This correspondent desires the Council to forbid the use of the 
 Surplice. It is a legal maxim that “ He who brings his claim before the court 
 must come with clean hands.” This is not the case at present. He says : “ By a 
 unanimous vote of all the members of the vestry, we requested Mr. -to dis¬ 
 
 continue the use of the Surplice.” This contradicts the promise made in behalf of 
 the parish, to agree to the Discipline of the R. E. C. The Council has left the 
 dress to the discretion of the Rector. This vestry undertakes to set that provision 
 aside, and usurp power that does not belong to them, and to tyrannize over the 
 Rector. Should they drive away the Rector on such grounds, they may not get 
 another worth having, since no clergyman with a proper spirit will allow himself 
 to be “ parish ridden.” 
 
 9th. I state these facts from personal knowledge. Immediately after 
 the organization of the R. E. C., at a meeting of the Executive Com¬ 
 mittee (composed of all the members of all the special committees), 
 
253 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 / 
 
 12th Section. 
 
 Bishop Cummins proposed that we abandon the u^e of the bishop’s robes 
 and of the surplice, and use only the plain black academic gown, as is usual 
 with several non-Episcopal denominations. This agreed with the unanimous 
 opinion of the Committee. As a consequence, the Bishop handed over his 
 robes to be used for family purposes, and they were taken to pieces. Then came a 
 telegram from Chicago, “ Bring your robes if you do not use them.” The pieces 
 were taken to Chicago. I now speak only for myself, and say, that I found the 
 members of Bishop Cheney’s congregation extremely anxious that the dress should 
 be the same as they had been accustomed to see. They claimed to be Episcopal¬ 
 ians. They had refused to be driven out of the P. E. C. I yielded my preferences, 
 regarding it then, as I do now, simply a matter of taste. With our thoroughly 
 Protestant standards, the precise dress can have no doctrinal signification. 
 
 I believe that all the members of the Executive Committee agreed that it would be 
 best to comply with this wish, and leave the custom that ve desired, to be gradually 
 introduced. This question was subsequently fully discussed by the Sub-Commit¬ 
 tee on Canons, and re-discussed by the Executive Committee. We were unani¬ 
 mously of the opinion that it was best to leave the dress to the discretion of the 
 minister. This was confirmed bv the action of the General Council. I believe 
 that the last time that Bishop Cummins has appealed in any dress except the plain 
 black gown was on this occasion at Chicago. I have seen Bishop Nicholson in no 
 other dress, even when officiating as a Bishop. 
 
 10th. As to the Surplice, this circular admits that “ an overwhelming majority, 
 both of ministers and laity of the R. E. C.” wish to ab andon its use, thus showing 
 the good common sense of the Council of leaving this matter to be settled b} r 
 custom. But this correspondent is too much excited to wait, “ wants everything 
 done in twenty minutes,” and says : “ 1 fear we will lose some of our most faithjul 
 
 and valued members, if Mr.-persists much longer in wearing the surplice. 
 
 I fear he is. . . .not sufficiently disposed to avail himself of the ample liberty 
 which our Church affords,” i. e the “liberty” of allowing a tyrannicd vestry 
 by an act of usurpation to compel him to please them, and perhaps distress the 
 greater part of his congregation, who prefer the dress to which they have 
 always been accustomed. 
 
 lltli. This circular is a new exemplification of the dangers referred to in the 
 circular headed : “Let well enough alone.” (xix. 1, 2, 4 ; ix. 3 ; xi. 28, 34, 35, 43 ; 
 
 xiv. 9.) 
 
 Passaic, N. ,/., June 19, 1870. 
 
 B. Aycrigg. 
 

 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Contents :—(1). Bishop Doane. — (2). See 8. — (3). Remarks respecting 
 Dr. Jaggar .— (4). Bishop Howe. — (5). Bishop Huntington. — (6). Excluding 
 Canon by Bps. Onderdonk and Cross. —(7). Changes in the P. E. C. by Dr. 
 Tyng and Bishop A. Lee .— (8). “ Protestant ” Church of England i — (9). 
 Conservatism. — (10) Dichostasia. 
 
 1st Section. 
 
 (1) Bishop Doane, in his address to the Convention of the Diocese of Albany, 
 Jan. 14, 1874, says of Bishop Cummins: (1) “ This man with heated haste, heads, 
 of his own choosing, an assemblage of men ‘ in debt, distress, and discontented,’ 
 and rushes into violent schism. .. .(2) For years the degenerate descendants of the 
 old school in the Church that called itself exclusively, and with a savor of Pharisa¬ 
 ism, Evangelical , has been engaged in a bad thing; bitter denunciation of men and 
 measures from whom they differed, and of which they disapproved. The more 
 they diminished in numbers, the more they increased in venom. And pamphlets 
 have reeked, and platforms have rung with the gall of their bitterness. This was 
 bad enough. But bad things encouraged always grow to worse. And the next 
 phrase of this evil speaking, after it had spread its seeds of suspicion and false wit¬ 
 ness, was an attack upon the Church, ‘ her imperfect reformation,’ and upon the 
 Book of Common Prayer, ‘ its germs of Romanism.’... .It is the side whose seed has 
 bloomed out into noxious flower, and borne its unrips fruit.”... .(3) “Another set of 
 men... .must leave the Church and join the greatest schism of history—the Ro¬ 
 man communion. .. .(4) Such men are really in one case proposing an amalgama¬ 
 tion with the incoherent antagonisms of discordant sects; or in the other case, 
 cultivating a tendency to unite with the communion which is the mistress of 
 schism.’’ Of Bishop Cummins and the R. E. C., he says: (5) “I say but little of 
 the man who has lifted his heel against the Mother whose bread he has been 
 eating for eight and twenty years....(6) Nor do Isay much of the movement 
 itself. Its only principle is one which contradicts itself; the carrying of the 
 Apostolic office into a body that denies a continuous Apostolate.” (xiii. 10.) 
 
 Now, take these extracts in the order of the numbers (1) see (xiii. 25; xii. 8)— 
 
 (2) see (xiii. 10£)—(3) see (xii. 8)—(4) see xii. 8, 58. (5)Tliis applies with equal 
 truth to Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, and consequently to Bishop Doane him¬ 
 self, as deriving his Orders from the Church, of England. (6) Bishop Doane 
 appears to be ignorant of the Declaration of Principles, (xi. 2.) 
 
 (2) This was a question which was answered (xx. 8.) 
 
 (3) Dr. Jaggar’s Sympathy for Dr. Cheney in 1871. The letter from “Brook¬ 
 lyn ” (iii. March 1,1875), mistakes the date, and savs of Dr. Cheney : “ After the 
 
 (1) 
 
2 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 3d Section. 
 
 latter’s trial and deposition.” And the editor of the Episcopalian makes no objec¬ 
 tion to this statement (iii. March 10, Brooklyn). His error as to date was corrected 
 by B. Aycrigg as soon as he observed the fact that the deposition was published 
 Jan. % while the letters were to be sent to Dr. Cheney by May 13 (iii. March 12, 
 Dr. Jaggar). These publications of March 1 and 12 were upon the individual 
 responsibility of two members of the R. E. C.; and the R. E. C. is responsible for 
 neither, whether well or ill-judged. This letter of March 1 is supposed to be an 
 indication of hostility towards the P. E. C. by four writers (iii. March 3, Brooklyn; 
 March 11, Votes ; March 13, Dr. Hopkins; March 13, Reformed), and by parity of 
 reasoning the letter of March 12 must be in favor of the P. E. C. But as I under¬ 
 stand the case, the intention of the former was simply the expression of an individ¬ 
 ual opinion respecting an individual; while the latter was simply the correction of 
 an error. As to what remains after that error is corrected, see (xi. 21, 22). As I 
 understand the case, this is no exception that demands a modification of the state¬ 
 ment (xiv. 4). And if it be so claimed, then compare this with (xiii. 10), (iii. March 
 15, 1875, Dr. Hopkins.) 
 
 (4) Bishop Howe to Rev. J. H. Mac El’ Rey,].ii. April 7, 1875 
 
 (5) Bishop Huntington, of Central New York (Clin.), June 10, 1874, in Con¬ 
 
 vention said: One of the very saddest of my duties was that of giving canonical 
 consent, on the 28th of May, to the deposition of the Rt. Rev. George David Cum¬ 
 mins, D.D., from the highest office in the Christian Church. The renunciation of 
 the place in which the providence of God and the Divine grace of Orders had set 
 him, appeared to me to be without reason in itself, without justification in its cir¬ 
 cumstances, without logical weight or clearness, or even pathos in its explanation; 
 weak in its issues and only distracting in its effects; barren of all blessing, likely 
 to be futile even as a schism; a bitter and cruel self-hurt to the seceder himself, and 
 a melancholy indignity to the Body of Christ.”.xiii. 10. 
 
 (6) Excluding Canon. Rev. Richard Newton, D.D., in his “ Liberal Views of 
 
 Christianity,” published by the E. K. S., without date, in a note on page 22, says 
 that Bishop H. N. Onderdonk told one of his presbyters that “ that canon had no 
 reference to ministers of other denominations; and then showed from the history 
 of the Canon that its design was, as here stated, to keep impostors from intruding 
 themselves into our churches.” Also, Bishop John Croes, of New Jersey, as reported 
 by Dr. Morehouse, “ explained the circumstances under which the Canon was orig¬ 
 inally passed, and assured him that it was in no way intended to forbid the invita¬ 
 tion of non-episcopal clergymen to preach, nor the lending of the church for a ser¬ 
 vice by such clergyman upon proper occasions.” The remarks of Dr. Newton show 
 that this was printed before the passage of the Canon of 1868.xii. 41. 
 
 (7) Changes in the P. E. C. The Southern Churchman of Oct. 2,1873, reports 
 among the remarks of Rev. S. H. Tyng, Sr., D.D., at the Semi-Centennial of the 
 Theological Seminary of Virginia, respecting the changes in the P. E. C.: “I beg 
 you, young men, to listen to the testimony of one who has been in the ministry for 
 fifty-four years. I give my testimony; I care for nothing else. I do conform to all 
 the regulations of the Church; I am conservative by nature; I believe lam the 
 only clergyman in the city of New York who retains all the old forms and customs 
 of the Church. Some one told the Bishop of New York not long since, if Bishop 
 Hobart could return, the only church in the city where everything was as he left 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 3 
 
 7th Section. 
 
 it, was St. George’s Church.” Also, in the same paper, Bishop Alfred Lee is re¬ 
 ported as saying : “ This is a time of ‘ theories,’ and there is danger lest the Gospel 
 drop out entirely. There is a tendency of ministers becoming mere manipulators 
 of sacred offices, and know nothing of the core of religion and the pearl of great 
 price.”. xii. 38, 39. 
 
 (8) “ The Protestant Church of England as by law established.” This is given 
 
 (xii. 17). The term “ Protestant ” is denied by Bishop Lewis (xiii. 14 to 17). To 
 determine this discrepancy, I wrote (April 6) to a gentleman in Ottawa (xx. 2) 
 requesting him to examine 35tli Eliz., Chap. I. He reports (April 24) that the word 
 “ Protestant ” does not appear. Then (April 28) I examined 1st and 35th Eliz.,and 
 did not find the word “ Protestant ” in a hasty examination, as I took the copy from 
 the hands of the compositor who was waiting for copy. Hence the inference that 
 Cobbett quotes this title from somewhere else. But since this is only inference, 
 the assertion of Bishop Lewis must stand as unchallenged until this inference be 
 proved to be correct. » 
 
 (9) Conservatism (Ch. St. of April 28, 1875). “ The General Synod of 
 
 the Irish Church was held on April Gtli. The Revision of the Prayer Book was 
 under discussion, the Preface of which has been published. While it leaves the 
 Prayer Book very nearly as it is, to the satisfaction of those who are attracted to 
 the old state of things ; it nevertheless so carefully guards against Romish or 
 Ritualistic interpretations of the services, that the most ardent revisionist ought to 
 be satisfied as to the thorough Protestantism of the Irish Church. ‘ If any one 
 shall complain/ says the Preface, ‘ that these changes are not enough, and that we 
 should have taken this opportunity of making this book as perfect in all respects 
 as he thinks it might be made, let him consider that men’s judgments of perfection 
 are very various ; that many old things are quietly acquiesced in from use and 
 habit, where if a change were introduced (though for the better) it might produce 
 strife and even schism ; and that what is allowable, though imperfect, with peace, 
 is often better than what is otherwise more excellent without it”.xi. 36- 
 
 (10) Dichostasia is referred to in three places by Robinson, who gives its deriva¬ 
 
 tion from dicha-stasis —a standing apart, viz. : Rom. 16 : 17, “ Now I beseech you, 
 brethren, to mark them which cause divisions .” And 1 Cor. 3 : 3, “ For ye are yet 
 carnal ; for whereas there is among ye envyings, and strife, and divisions.” And 
 Gal. 5 : 20, “ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these—adultery, 
 fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emula¬ 
 tion, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revel!ings, 
 and such like.”.xii. 5 
 
 (11) Monogram in Naples. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ,' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithomount 
 
 Pamphlet 
 
 Binders 
 
 Gaylord Bros. Inc. 
 
 Makers 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 
 V *s;vr 
 
 $«k . 
 
 v •• •• ,As»- . ' 
 
 v«vt|P- 
 
 P*r 
 
 
 , « ; &/* w \ i/ * 
 
 flfe I J*2%\ ffo ,ri ’ 
 A: X M *: ft 
 
 ... .■>:: ;•*. .nv v.-.vr, 
 
 Is O."V. ib* 4 : 
 
 I. IP**JilllSPil 
 ft v.' • | 
 
 ■ >■. 
 
 FH^sm 
 
 *t«t- iVj W 1» 
 
 ^ ',; ■ JT- T-i'. 
 
 : V/' ' ^v-s / 
 
 •K, J , f ■jSV.V'K ^ 
 
 K HHi 
 
 Skv JW1L-. 
 
 Say v- 
 
 Of 
 
 Vij. \ 
 
 ft'c ■■'■■ . '■ 
 
 V- 'V'"V'\ : ‘K>/ -V 
 
 -.-L- >. Air 
 
 $|f :>•' ..:V A# 
 
 : «A'f V \ 
 
 PS 
 
 ?«»£ 
 ssS- 
 
 

 t'.- it ::•» ;•s• ,vV\. 
 
 %|.'f jMMgtey B* 
 
 / , -. .V., o ni1on 
 
 :S |f. -m»v iit. V^1Br. ,v . - 
 
 3 0112 065509421 
 
 IIP® ' 0 .,... 11 mrn •' Aip*rz *W 
 
 jh“' ' v -$v-.<>-■'y--. -i r v «'.- Vi' -i- 'JL ‘.v ! '*1* > 4 \. j?-JJ •, %•' • 
 
 ^%.,l«P r F ! ■ - A# M ., # iW 
 
 ^k$nlmi ,; id# . SiSfe lit ite'ldl ViJfelP 
 
 l&iiiif*!'!, 
 
 • i v. ■ $ /A* > 
 
 '.^fed t ’ j^ ,; - . V* 
 
 AMU #r. - ::>■ ■. iW x ^' MT 
 
 Vv i 1 • :fi *:• k . ■ /£&: 
 
 t.;> • »V*hM« 
 
 - : ">\%J 'A ••:••" # 
 
 fiMyiaW *,r-" 
 
 \Wii^K’r.'' v *• f^Ts. .^.v^.vv.u .••$?[• i : // * 
 
 t 
 
 » mm 
 
 ■ 1 ! l«WfS*a 
 
 d>.V ';-':v.v' : ’' 
 
 .. 
 
 V0, 
 
 p: ■< £$$$$ ni 
 
 Ifllpp.'Mh'^sp#'^ -■*• ''ill 
 
 \;|b#|i wMmw . .■ f #iV ■ 
 
 ■m. 
 
 MM 
 
 l . f -‘ f . 
 
 B * V-, ■' ■ ' .