PROCESSIONAL SINGING BY SURPLICED CHOIRS 
 
 UNAUTHORIZED INNOVATION 
 
 IN THE 
 
 public SKorsjjip of tljc Protestant episcopal Cljurcj) 
 
 BEING A PART OF 
 
 BISHOP McILVAINE’S ADDRESS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CONVENTION OF THE DIOCESE OF OHIO, 
 
 JTTZfcTIE 3, 18S8, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CANONS ON THE 
 
 SAME SUBJECT. 
 
 COLUMBUS, O: 
 
 NEVINS & MYERS, PRINTERS. 
 
 1868. 
 

 - 
 
 C° 
 
 ¥ 
 
 PROCESSIONAL AND SURPLICED CHOIRS. 
 
 [Bishop McIlvaine, in his Address to the Convention of the Diocese of Ohio, 
 held in Trinity Church, Newark, June 3d, 1868, after other matters, said, as 
 follows: ] 
 
 A case has occurred, in a congregation of the Diocese, of what I 
 regard as unlawful innovation on our established worship, by the 
 introduction of a ceremonial which has never appeared in this 
 Diocese before. It seemed my duty to address to the Eector, and 
 through him to the Vestry, a communication on the subject, con¬ 
 taining my views of the matter, under the laws and usages of our 
 Church. I am happy and thankful to say that, so far as I know, 
 it is the first instance in this Diocese of any addition to the 
 appointed and customary order of our Morning and Evening 
 Prayer which has seemed to need any interference on my part. 
 But in the present remarkable fondness of a class of minds in our 
 General Church for ritualistic novelties, there is no knowing what 
 a seed of this sort, unheeded, may speedily grow to. I think it 
 well, therefore, to state to this Convention, and through it to the 
 whole Diocese, the ground I have taken, and my reasons therefor, 
 premising, however, that, as I have no desire to draw attention to the 
 particular parish referred to, I shall treat the subject in as much ab¬ 
 straction therefrom as possible. Indeed, I should have preferred to 
 avoid even this very general reference, had it not been necessary as 
 a reason for introducing to the Convention what I am going to say; 
 and I wish very emphatically to forbid, at the outset, the thought 
 that, in any portion of what I shall say, any reflection is intended 
 upon the motives or intentions of those most nearly concerned in 
 originating the case referred to. It is not to arraign them before 
 the Convention that I speak of it. What may be very innocent 
 on the part of those who institute it, may be very injurious and 
 quite unlawful in itself or its consequences. 
 
 What I am going to read is simply an enlargement of the views 
 contained in the paper sent to the Eector. Having obtained from 
 him an admission of the correctness of the information on which I 
 proceeded, the statement of the practice is as follows: At the 
 opening of Morning and Evening Prayer, a jn'ocession, consisting 
 of some fifteen boys and some men, all vested in surplices, is 
 formed, which, entering the Church at the front door, proceeds, 
 singing as it advances, up the middle aisle, until it reaches the 
 seats or stalls (so called) before the chancel, where the members 
 of the procession find their appointed seats—the congregation being 
 expected to stand until those choristers are seated, when the Eec¬ 
 tor begins the Sentences at the commencement of the Morning or 
 
 •p 35335 
 
4 
 
 Evening Prayer, as the case may be. This practice has been 
 continued, I believe, some months in the parish referred to. It 
 presents itself to my notice under three aspects: 
 
 First,—The procession. 
 
 Secondly .— The procession entering tlxe Church and proceeding up the 
 aisle with singing. 
 
 Thirdly.—The members of the procession rested in surplices. 
 
 I take these in the order given. 
 
 1. The procession. If this were unconnected with the singing 
 and the surplice, a mere device for better order, the choristers 
 silently entering together for the prevention of such confusion as 
 might attend their coming in at different times, there would be no 
 exception taken. But such is not the character of the procession. 
 I pass, therefore, to the second particular noted. 
 
 2. The procession, with singing. I do not inquire whether any 
 
 thing is sung besides the Psalms and Hymns set forth in the Prayer 
 Book, and which, according to the Rubric prefixed to the Psalms 
 in Metre, u are allowed to be sung before and after Morning and Even¬ 
 ing Prayer , at the discretion of the Minister .” Were such the case, 
 the ground of objection to the whole proceeding as unlawful would 
 be much strengthened. But I will take it for granted, and have 
 since learned, that nothing else is used in that processional singing. 
 Now, that practice must be regarded as intended either as an act 
 of worship , or as one of mere musical ceremony for display or entertain¬ 
 ment. Shall we suppose the latter h I am unwilling to impute a 
 want of reverence and propriety which, until better informed, I 
 cannot believe. Then we must take the other supposition (which I 
 have been informed is correct), that it is an act of ivorship. It is 
 thus public worship , and I learn is so understood ; the congrega¬ 
 tion being expected to rise at the entrance of the procession, to 
 stand till the singing is terminated, and to take part therein. But 
 the Rubric says the morning and evening worship of the congre¬ 
 gation shall begin in quite another mode : “ The Minister (it says) 
 
 shall begin the morning (or Evening) Prayer (as the case may be) by 
 reading one or more of the folloicing Sentences There is no credible 
 meaning in this but that when the congregation have assembled 
 for the regular appointed public worship of the morning and even¬ 
 ing, the first opening of such worship shall be such reading, and 
 before that beginning no act of common worship shall be introduced. 
 To this, in the English Prayer Book there is no exception. Hence, 
 in the valuable and learned “Notes, Legal and Historical, on the 
 Book of Common Prayer, by Archibald John Stephens, Barrister 
 at Law,” published by the Ecclesiastical History Society, we read 
 under the above Rubric : “ It is clear, from this Rubric, that the 
 
 Sentences must begin the Morning Prayer, and that they can not be 
 preceded by any other words." And in the recent work of the Rev. 
 R. P. Blakeney, LL.D., on the Book of Common Prayer, “ in its 
 History and Interpretation, with special reference to existing con¬ 
 troversies,” we read, under the same Rubric, that “ the practice of 
 commencing service with a procession and chanting is unauthor¬ 
 ized. The Rubric is express. To begin the service processionally 
 
5 
 
 is unlawful. It is true that Queen Elizabeth legalized the singing 
 of a hymn at the openiug and closing of the services, but she ex¬ 
 pressly forbade processions .” 
 
 What Queen Elizabeth legalized, though not now lawful, so far 
 as I am informed, in the Church of England, is lawful in our 
 Church. In our Prayer Book one exception is provided to the gen¬ 
 eral rule of beginning the service with the Sentences. In the 
 Bubric prefixed to the Metrical Psalms, permission is given to in¬ 
 troduce an act of public worship before such reading. But it is 
 confined to the singing of one of the Psalms in Metre , or one of 
 the Hymns , as set forth in the Prayer Booh , “at the discretion of the 
 Minister; ” that is, it is left to the Minister to say whether the 
 service shall begin in that way or not; and if it does, to select 
 whether it shall be in the singing of a Psalm or a Hymn, as set 
 forth in the Prayer Book. This being the only exception provided 
 to the general rule of beginning our Morning and Evening Prayer 
 with the reading of one or more of the Sentences, it follows that 
 any other beginning is unlawful. 
 
 But I am assured that in the practice under consideration noth¬ 
 ing else than one of those Metrical Psalms or Hymns is sung. 
 Where, then, is the fault 1 Let it be marked that the Bubric 
 authorizing either a Psalm or Hymn says, “ allowed to be sung in 
 all the congregations of the said Church before and after Morning 
 and Evening Prayer, and also before and after sermons.” From 
 these words it is evident that the sort and mode of singing thus 
 provided for are just what are usual in the congregation , and by the 
 congregation, after Morning Prayer and before and after sermons — 
 the usual congregational singing by the people, in their usual 
 places, and their usual way of participating in that species of 
 worship. 
 
 Bow, it is vain to argue that a Hymn or Psalm, sung by some 
 fifteen or twenty persons as they march the length of the Church, 
 though the whole congregation unite with them, is the mode of 
 worship contemplated in the Bubric. What if the congregation, 
 as may sometimes be the case, be composed in the major part of 
 that procession ] Certainly it is not the grave, composed, orderly, 
 unaistracted worship provided for in the Bubric. It was unknown 
 to our church when the Bubric was made. It is something intend¬ 
 ed to derive excitement from the spectacle and ceremonial of that 
 procession, and not merely from the union of the musical expres¬ 
 sion with devotional thought. Such processional singing was com¬ 
 mon in the Church of England before the Beformation, under the 
 reign of Popery. It is in perfect keeping with the whole pecu¬ 
 liar character of a system which lays the stress of its religion and 
 power so much upon the excitements of a pompous ceremonial. 
 Such processions are appointed in the Rituale Romanum. They 
 were abolished in the Church of England, whether they took place 
 outside or within the place of worship, by the Boyal Injunction in 
 1547, and the prohibition was renewed in 1559, and one of the rea¬ 
 sons given was, that the people “ may the more quietly hear that 
 which is said or sung to their edifying .” The only exception to this 
 
6 
 
 % 
 
 was what was called “ the annual perambulation of the parish; ” 
 and Archbishop Grindal, in carrying out the Injunction, directed 
 that in that excepted case, in which nothing was to be done within 
 the Church, all the ceremony should consist of the Minister saying 
 certain parts of Scripture and certain prayers, with the reading oi 
 a homily, but with the express provision that the procession should 
 be “without wearing any surplices, carrying of banners, ... or 
 such like Popish ceremonies.”—GrindaVs Remains, p. 141, P. S. 
 
 The revival of processional singing in these days, has arisen en¬ 
 tirely out of that discontentment with the old ways of our Litur¬ 
 gical and Protestant worship, as established in theiawsand usages 
 of all the centuries since the Reformation, and out of that morbid 
 coveting of increased ceremonial, of which the extreme Ritualism 
 of these days, in England and in certain places this side the sea, 
 is the notorious manifestation. Such an innovation upon the 
 established order of our worship, such a disturbance, I may better 
 say, could not have been anticipated by the framers of our Ameri¬ 
 can Prayer Book. But a few years ago, before the ritualistic 
 atmosphere reached its present temperature, no Episcopal clergy¬ 
 man would have ventured to counsel its introduction. If such 
 processional singing be lawful before the Morning Prayer, it is just 
 as lawful after it and before the sermon, or whenever a psalm or 
 hymn is sung in the congregation. If, on the other band, it would 
 be unlawful before the sermon, it is unlawful before the service. 
 
 3. The procession in surplices. In Canon 3, Title I., § 2, on 
 Candidates for Orders officiating as Lay Readers, it is enacted that 
 a candidate, licensed by the Bishop to officiate as lay reader, “ shall 
 not assume the dress appropriate to clergymen ministering in the con¬ 
 gregation." From this it appears that there is a dress recognized 
 in our laws as “ appropriate to clergymen ministering in the congre¬ 
 gation which means, of course, a dress distinctive of the office of 
 clergymen, so officiating. And it appears also that laymeu, though 
 Candidates for Orders, and officiating in the service under the 
 Bishop’s license, are forbidden the use of such dress, on the ground 
 that, being the distinctive dress of clergymen, it is not appropriate 
 to laymen. In Canon X. of this Diocese, on the subject of Lay 
 Readers, it is required that, before any one shall be authorized to 
 officiate as a lay reader, he shall be licensed by the Bishop, and 
 shall in all cases comply with the requisition of the Canon of the 
 General Convention, just quoted, as to not wearing the dress appro¬ 
 priate to clergymen. 
 
 Thus it appears, that, though a layman be a Candidate for Orders, 
 and perhaps within a week of becoming a clergyman, and though 
 he has received the license of the Bishop to conduct the service of 
 the Church, he must not put on the surplice (for that, of course, is 
 the dress referred to), and for the single reason that, being not a 
 clergyman, that dress is not proper for him. 
 
 The history of the Canon of the General Convention makes the 
 prohibition still more impressive. The first legislation on the sub¬ 
 ject was in the General Convention of 1804. The Canon, then 
 enacted, left it to the Bishop to confine the Candidate for Orders, 
 
/ 
 
 7 
 
 officiating as a lay reader, “to such dress and such stations in the 
 Church as are appropriate only to lay readers .” Non-conformity on 
 the part of the candidate was made “in all cases a disqualification 
 for Orders.” In 1808 we find the Canon amended. Instead of 
 leaving the dress and stations in the Church to the prescription of 
 the Bishops of the several Dioceses, thus giving room for a diver¬ 
 sity of practice, the Canon was altered to read: “He shall not use 
 the dress nor the stations which are appropriate to clergymen." • Be¬ 
 fore, you will observe, the words were: “It shall be the duty of 
 the Bishop to confine every such candidate to such dress and such 
 stations as are appropriate only to lay readers .” But that was felt 
 to be too indeterminate; for what was “ the dress appropriate only 
 to lay readers'?” The amendment expressed the intention more 
 precisely. Taking the matter out of the hands of the several 
 Bishops, and prescribing a law for all the Dioceses alike, it said, 
 “ he shall not use the dress nor the stations which are appropriate to 
 clergymen ministering in the congregation .” The disqualification for 
 Orders, in case of non-compliance, was continued. 
 
 Dr. Hawks, in his work on the Canon Law of our Church, says: 
 “The object of the amendment, in making the prohibition of gen¬ 
 eral application, was uniformity; and it was the result of a case of 
 a candidate having officiated in the surplice and gown at the sug¬ 
 gestion of a member of the Standing Committee of his Diocese, 
 who, before signing his testimonials for Orders, was desirous of 
 ascertaining his ability in conducting the Church service, he (the 
 candidate) having been a Unitarian Minister.” 
 
 In 1822, we find the severe penalty of non-compliance omitted, 
 but the prohibition continued as before; and so it has continued 
 to this time. Thus is illustrated the more clearly the ground of the 
 prohibition, namely, that the surplice, being a distinctive dress of 
 the officiating clergy, is in no case proper for laymen, even though 
 they be licensed to conduct the public worship of the congrega¬ 
 tion. What, then, shall be said of the propriety of a company of 
 boys and men, whose only distinction from the rest of the congre¬ 
 gation is, that they lead the singing of the congregation, being ar¬ 
 rayed in the dress pronounced in our laws to be so the appropriate 
 dress of clergymen ministering in the congregation, that for any 
 licensed lay reader to assume it would be considered a palpable 
 impropriety and illegality, and for many years of our legislation 
 would have disqualified a Candidate for Orders from being received 
 to the ministry'? Has a layman, merely because, under the Bee- 
 tor’s sanction, he leads in the singing, a privilege in that respect 
 which is forbidden to one who leads in the whole worship, under 
 the license of the Bishop 1 ? What makes the clergyman’s dress ap¬ 
 propriate to a singing boy, while it is inappropriate to any man or 
 woman of the congregation who takes part in the singing'? If it be 
 that the boy is appointed to a particular function in that part of the 
 worship, why not then a surpliced organist, and why not surpliced 
 church wardens, especially when ministering in the congregation, 
 as receivers of the alms and oblations of the communicants] 
 
 But here let it be supposed that, with regard to this lay use of the 
 
8 
 
 dress appropriate to clergymen, as well as to the processional sing¬ 
 ing of those so vested, there is no written prohibition, direct or 
 implied. It does not follow that either of them is lawful in our 
 American Episcopal Church. The position that whatever is not ex¬ 
 pressly prohibited is lawful —a position taken by some who, in these 
 days are thirsting after the introduction of Ritualistic novelties into 
 our public worship—is wholly untenable, and, in its consistent ap¬ 
 plication and results, would be destructive of all order and unifor¬ 
 mity in a church, of which one of the most cherished excellencies 
 is, that her prayer is Common Prayer—common not only to all that 
 attend in the same house of worship, but to all the church, wher¬ 
 ever the people worship; so that every one of them shall be at 
 home in the worship of every congregation he may happen to meet 
 with—no novelties to disturb his peace of mind when he enters the 
 house of God, and dislocate his cherished conformity to the order 
 of divine worship as he has learned it from the Prayer Book. 
 
 In answer to that precise claim, that whatever is not prohibited 
 is lawful, applied, by English Ritualists of the present extravagant 
 sort, to practices in use before the Reformation and not since for¬ 
 mally prohibited, the Address to the Clergy of their respective 
 Eioceses, drawn up in 1851, and signed by twenty-four Archbishops 
 and Bishops of the Church of England, says: “ We believe that at 
 the Reformation, the English Church not only rejected certain cor¬ 
 ruptions, but intended to establish one uniform ritual, according 
 to which her public services should be conducted. But it is mani¬ 
 fest that a license, such as is contended for, is wholly incompatible 
 with any uniformity whatsoever, and at variance with the universal 
 practice of the Catholic Church, which has never given to the offi¬ 
 ciating ministers of separate congregations any such large discre¬ 
 tion in the selection of ritual observances.” These words are as 
 true in principle for our Church as for that of England. 
 
 The present Bishop of Exeter, venerable in his extreme old age, 
 and one whose general relation to the controversies of these times 
 gives special weight to his views on such a question, in delivering 
 his mind, in the way of rebuke to a clergyman for placing the image 
 of the cross on the communion table, pronounced the same princi¬ 
 ple, with more amplification: “ Would it be lawful,” he said, “for 
 any persons whomsoever to deck the Lord’s table, in preparation 
 for the Holy Communion, with vases containing flowers, and with 
 a cross placed on the table % Certainly not , unless there be an ex¬ 
 press or implied direction so to do. Tiie very nature of the case— 
 the general requisition of uniformity—alike leads to the same con¬ 
 clusion, that it is not lawful lor any person whomsoever to introduce 
 novel ornament at his own discretion. In truth, where would the 
 claim of such discretion end ? If one person may at his pleasure 
 decorate the Lord’s table with a cross, another may equally claim 
 to set a crucifix upon it, whilst a third may think it necessary to 
 erect some symbol of Puritan doctrine or feeling, to mark his repro¬ 
 bation of his Romanizing neighbors.” 
 
 The principle thus expressed, that it is not lawful for any person 
 whomsoever to introduce novel ornaments at his own discretion, is 
 
9 
 
 equally applicable to novel ceremonies , and applies as well to a sur- 
 pliced processional introduction to our Morning Prayer in the 
 American Church, as to a cross ou the communion table in the 
 Church of England. But there is law in long established and unvar¬ 
 ied usage , which demands compliance, and that law forbids these 
 novelties in our Church. 
 
 Since the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this 
 country until the last very few years, processional singing in our 
 congregations was never heard of. It is still so very infrequent, 
 that to pretend that it makes any thing that may be called a usage 
 of the Church, so as to limit in any degree the law of usage derived 
 from the universal mode of our worship for more than seventy 
 years preceding it, is out of the question. The same is true of the 
 usage of the Church of Eugland. No such thing takes place in the 
 Cathedral service, or that of the University Chapels. Ever since 
 the year 1830, I have, during various visits to England, attended 
 the service of many English Cathedrals and of the chief Univer¬ 
 sity Chapels, and not only did I never witness processional singing 
 therein, but I have no knowledge, to this day, that it obtains in any 
 of them. As to parish churches, there is no doubt that it has ob¬ 
 tained a place in a few—so few, however, that to call it a usage is 
 simply preposterous; and what there is of it has come in within a 
 very few years, and as the offspring of precisely that school of 
 Tractarian Ritualism which has been so long desiring to draw 
 nearer the Church of Rome in these things, and of late has ven¬ 
 tured to appear in so many other offensive conformities to her 
 sacerdotal ceremonial. 
 
 Besides processional singing, the wearing of the surplice by any 
 but Clergymen is equally a novel innovation on the usages of our 
 American Church. It is so also in the Parish Churches of Eng¬ 
 land, except the very few into which a contrary practice has of late 
 been introduced, under the same craving for what is called a higher 
 ceremonial, that has given birth to processional singing. I am well 
 aware that choristers in Cathedrals and in some University Chapels 
 are vested in surplices: by what authority I do not know. But the 
 fact that, until within a few years of growing Ritualism, the prac¬ 
 tice was confined to such places, and was kept out of the Parish 
 Churches, shows how little the usage, if it may be so called, is ap¬ 
 plicable to our Churches. It is a very new novelty among us, and 
 as yet has very little following, whatever it may seek and hope for, 
 and however we may have reason to fear it will be extended unless 
 timely measures be taken to check its growth. The contrary usage 
 is too universal and too long established to be in the least affected 
 in point of authority by any practice so infantile in age and so lim¬ 
 ited in extent, and is a law in our Church, if ever there was a usage 
 which deserved that name. It is pertinent here to call to mind 
 that the Declaration signed by twenty-eight of our Bishops, and 
 moved in the meeting of the House of Bishops assembled in New 
 York in October, 1800—a declaration occasioned by the alarming 
 efforts of extreme Ritualism, and in which, referring to the idea 
 that we in this Church are subject in any degree to the laws or 
 
10 
 
 usages of the Church of England, it was emphatically declared 
 that our Church was duly organized as “ a particular and National 
 Church,”—in that paper, I say, it was declared that because it is 
 thus a National Church, “ no laws of the Church of England have 
 any force of law in this Church, such as can be justly cited in de¬ 
 fense of any departure from the express law of this Church, its 
 liturgy, its discipline, rites, and usages ;” and further, that “no 
 strange or foreign usages should be introduced or sanctioned by 
 the private judgment of any member or members of this Church, 
 clerical or layand furthermore, that in the censures of that De¬ 
 claration it was the intention of the signers “ to include all depart¬ 
 ures from the laws, rubrics, and settled order of this Church .” That 
 a surpliced processional singing at the opening of Morning Prayer 
 is a departure from “the settled order of this Church,” it is impos¬ 
 sible to deny, unless some other meaning be found to the words 
 “ settled order ” than is known to us. 
 
 This is no matter of mere technical importance. Our people have 
 been trained and habituated, in the venerable usages of their Church, 
 to a certain uniform, well regulated, dignified, grave and solemn 
 method of commencing the public worship of God, as well as to 
 seeing the garment appropriated to the Clergy when ministering 
 in the congregation, confined to the Clergy; and they are offended, 
 and reasonably offended, in their most sacred associations, and 
 painfully disturbed in their most solemn devotions, by witnessing 
 the novelties of which we have been speaking. 
 
 The Address of the twenty-four Archbishops and Bishops of the 
 Church of England, to which I have before referred, lays down 
 certain principles which, in their view, should limit changes in 
 ritual matters not otherwise regulated. One is, that “ any change 
 which suggests the fear ot still further alterations, is most injuri¬ 
 ous.” The principle is wise, whencesoever it come. That particular 
 change of which we have been speaking, comes under its applica¬ 
 tion. It does decidedly prepare the way for further changes, as is 
 evidenced in the particular case before us, which began with pro¬ 
 cessional singing at the opening of divine service. In a very short 
 time it has grown to processional singing at the termination of 
 divine service. It began with the request to the congregation to 
 rise as the procession enters, and continue standing till it reaches 
 the chancel. It has now the additional expectation that the con¬ 
 gregation will stand till the procession, in its going out, singing as 
 it goes, shall have reached the door. Well, a plain old-fashioned 
 Episcopalian may reasonably ask, What next'? If so much already, 
 how much more'? If individual discretion has made such a breach 
 already in the defensive usages and order of our worship, what is 
 to hinder its going a great deal further among us in this Diocese, 
 just as we know such beginnings have increased in some other 
 dioceses of our American Church, and in certain parts of the Church 
 of England, bringing in that whole retinue of ritualistic restoration 
 of Romish superstitions, which have so deformed and dishonored 
 the worship of our Cburcb, that in certain places our venerable 
 Liturgy can hardly be recognized in the foppish masquerade with 
 which it is accompanied ? 
 
11 
 
 In the Report of a Committee of the Archiepiscopal Proviuce of 
 Canterbury, on Ritualism, in 1866, the principle is laid down, as 
 true for us as for them, that “ every congregation of Christ’s dock, 
 being in itself a member of the general congregation, is bound to 
 consider not only what may be most edifying to itself, but what 
 may be most conducive to the peace and influence of the whole 
 National Church.” We are not Congregationalists. It is uot, 
 even in things left in a measure unregulated, the right of any one 
 congregation to consider exclusively what will please itself. The 
 feelings and usages and habits of their brethren in the whole com¬ 
 munion have a right to be considered, before any serious innovation 
 * is made in the mode of their common worship. 
 
 In this connection I may say, without hesitation, that the novelty 
 in question is offensive to hundreds of our people, where it may be 
 pleasing to one. It seriously dishonors our Church as one of order, 
 of law, of uniformity, of gravity, of simplicity; a Church protected 
 in her worship, as we have been accustomed to boast, against the 
 individual caprice, or taste, or whim, or fancy, or infirmity of the 
 particular Minister, or any leading induence in the congregation. 
 It hedges up the way of our progress where we want to obtain the 
 conddence of the people in order to draw them to our Ministry. 
 It plants suspicions, prejudices, distrust, aversion, which it will 
 take many years of better doing to eradicate, but of which we have 
 no reason to complain while such innovations of individual discre¬ 
 tion shall have place. 
 
 Do not think, my brethren, that I am making too much of this 
 matter in thus enlarging upon it. There is wisdom in takiug such 
 things at the beginning. An opening in the sea-dyke, which at 
 drst might be stopped with a man’s huger, by delay lets in the 
 hood. How much easier would it have been to restrain the evils 
 which are now causing such apprehensions in the Church of England, 
 had the day of apparently “ small things ” been more respected. In 
 the year 1846—when the present growth of the doctrine of a sacri- 
 ficial, propitiatory offering in the Lord’s Supper, and of a sacrificial, 
 propitiatory Priesthood in the Christian Ministry, and of a sacrifi- 
 cial altar for its ministrations, with its zealous substitution of an 
 altar for the communion table, as well in fact as in word, was yet 
 comparatively in the bud—I saw what was coming (and it required 
 no prophetic eye to see it), and I took ground against that Roman¬ 
 izing, as in other ways, so especially in the declaration that I would 
 not consecrate a Church having an altar-form structure for the Lord’s 
 Supper, instead of a communion table, properly so-called. It was 
 intended as my standing protest against the whole Romanistic 
 claim of sacrifice, priest and altar, which since has come in like a 
 flood. I have borne much ridicule for my so-called weakness and 
 folly. I have persevered, and am satisfied with the vindication 
 which the present ritualistic revival, the whole of which centers 
 around and is for the stronger establishment of that very claim, is 
 continually furnishing. And it is worth noting, that precisely 
 where was erected that altar-form instead of a table, which gave 
 occasion to that declaration, has appeared the innovation which 
 
12 
 
 gives occasion to the present remarks. There was a doctrine in¬ 
 volved in that substitution of form ; and there is a doctrine involved 
 in thi> surpliced ceremonial; though I have no thought of imputing 
 any doctrinal connection in either instance to the intentions of those 
 who instituted it. And it is that doctrinal connection which makes 
 me the more earnest in the present matter; and exactly the same 
 doctrine is involved as in that former instance of the substitution 
 of the form of an altar for that of a table. Allow me to explain: 
 
 Suppose the practice of vesting choristers in surplices should 
 become common in our parishes—and if one may do it, all may—then, 
 of course, the distinctiveness of that garment, as appropriated to 
 the clergy in their ministrations, is gone. It no more designates 
 the clergyman than the layman. But can you suppose that those 
 clergymen in this country, or in England, who make the office of 
 the Christian minister, in its distinctive character, to be that of a 
 sacrificial priest, serving in actual propitiatory sacrifice as a media¬ 
 tor between the sinner and his judge, and who, therefore, regard 
 their office as one of such mysterious sacredness and spiritual 
 power, that between it and the congregation for whom they offer 
 there is a wide and solemn separation, to indicate which they covet 
 the symbolism of separating bars and gates—do you suppose that 
 they will be satisfied with no vestment distinctive of their office, 
 any more than they are satisfied without a holy place and a holy 
 altar distinctive of their office ? Do you suppose they will not be 
 aspiring after a priestly robe, as well as a priestly ritual ? Will 
 they be long content that they who offer the sacrifice shall be vested 
 no more in accordance with their awful dignity than the boy that 
 sings outside the rail of the holy place ? Of course not. The sur¬ 
 plice is good enough for ministers who deny that they are sacri¬ 
 ficing priests, to whose ministrations the communication of the 
 body and blood of Christ with all-saving grace to sinners is re¬ 
 stricted. It is good enough, with some additional garb at times, 
 even for themselves, in the reading of prayers and the preaching 
 of the pulpit; but a garment distinctive of their ministration as 
 priests (which the surplice is not) they must have, and they will 
 get, by adopting the garment of that priesthood which in other 
 things they are so fond of imitating. 
 
 Now, is all this mere predictive theory? No. It is simply the 
 recital of what has taken place already, and of what has already 
 been, in print, foreshadowed in this country. The report of the 
 Royal Commission on Ritual, appointed by the Crown to investi¬ 
 gate the practices and doctrines of the English Ritual, brings out 
 strongly what I wish you to notice. One of the clergymen exam¬ 
 ined was asked: “ Do you consider yourself a sacrificing priest? ” 
 
 “ Yes, distinctly so.” “ Tkeu you think you offer a propitiatory 
 sacrifice?” “Yes, I think I do offer a propitiatory sacrifice”—p. 
 72. “ Do you use the surplice? ” “ We use the surplice always in 
 the matins and even song, and at all times except during the Holy 
 Communion. At the Holy Communion we use the vestments .” “ Will 
 you describe them ? ” “ The chasuble, dalmatic and tuuicle.” “ Do 
 
 you use those vestments at any other time?” “ No, we never use 
 
13 
 
 them except at that time”—p. 70. “ Is there any mysterious sig¬ 
 
 nification in the chasuble or in wearing it"?” “I think there is a 
 doctrine involved in the using of it.” “What is that doctrine?” 
 “ The doctrine of the sacrifice .”—p. 72. To another of these clergy¬ 
 men : “ Is the surplice ever used beneath? ” “ Not at celebration 
 
 Let it be marked that when these men speak of “ vestments ,” in the 
 Ritual sense, they do not include the surplice. There is nothing 
 distinctive, in that, of their sacrificial priesthood, as appears in the 
 answer to the following question: “ What doctrine or meaning do 
 you attach to the vestments? ” Answer—“ The vestments I take 
 to mean a distinctive dress for the priest at the time of celebrating 
 the Holy Communion.” Question—“What doctrine do they imply?” 
 “ I should certainly think the use of the chasuble would imply the 
 belief in the doctrine of sacrifice — Eucharistic sacrifice — that being 
 the object of a distinctive dress” “ Will you explain what you mean 
 by that, for I do not quite understand how you connect that with 
 the sacrifice?” Answer—“It has been thought that the priest 
 offering this sacrifice at the Holy Communion should have a dis¬ 
 tinctive dress to mark him off from the rest of the ministers as 
 being the principal priest in office, offering the sacrifice at the 
 time.” 
 
 And all this from so-called Protestant ministers!! Alas! alas! 
 But you see the process. First, the taking away from the surplice 
 all distinctiveness as a vestment indicating the clergyman’s peculiar 
 function; then, the necessity felt of having some distinctive vest¬ 
 ment; next, inasmuch as in their view the peculiarity of the function 
 is the offering of sacrifice, comes the adoption of that very vestment 
 which in the Church of Rome is the priest’s distinctively symboli¬ 
 cal robe when he officiates in the Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
 I think, brethren, I need not say any more to show that the ques¬ 
 tion whether the surplice among us shall lose its distinctive appro¬ 
 priateness to our ministry, by being made as well the garment for 
 the chorister as of the officiating clergyman, has an important 
 doctrinal importance which may conciliate your forgiveness for my 
 having so long occupied your attention with this subject. 
 
 Ah ! brethren, these are not times for suddeu changes of raiment, 
 any more than for other changes in the exterpalism of our Church. 
 There is an epidemic abroad. Our 34th Article says that “ every 
 particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change and 
 abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only on man’s 
 authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” Let us be con¬ 
 tent to leave all such changes in such hands. Individual choice or 
 preference has no authority here. The more the spirit of innova¬ 
 tion upon the ritual of our Church shall increase, the more let us 
 hold fast to what we have so much loved and that has served us so 
 well in the past. We have Rites and Ceremonies in our Church as 
 bequeathed to us from our fathers and decreed to us by their enact¬ 
 ments. We want no more. Especially do we want none out of 
 the list of those rejected by our martyred Reformers in the great 
 Protestant Reformation. Let the clergy and the laity see to it that 
 by any but Church authority we get no more. 
 
14 
 
 And now I have finished what I have felt it my duty to say on 
 this subject. I think you will bear me witness, that I have avoided 
 •entirely all reflection upon the spirit and intentions and motives of 
 those our brethren whose practice has given occasion to its intro¬ 
 duction. 
 
 And now there is another matter for a few words. I think that 
 while I was showing that the only lawful beginning of our public 
 worship is by the reading of one or more of the sentences, except 
 we choose to precede them by a Psalm or Hymn, taken from those 
 set forth in the Prayer Book, it must have occurred to some to say 
 to themselves—how, then, can the practice, (I am sorry to say, so 
 common in some parts,) of the choir singing something, very often 
 we know not what, before the minister begins with the reading of 
 the sentences, be justified? I believe it cannot be justified in the 
 face of the laws of our Church or its usages, and I exceedingly 
 wish it were everywhere abandoned, as very uuedifying, often very 
 annoying, and always out of order. 
 
 I ask you to consider: It is to be regarded either as an act of 
 worship, or as a mere matter of musical entertainment and display. 
 If we say it is intended for worship, then of course it is intended 
 for the worship of the whole congregation. But the Rubrics re¬ 
 quire that that worship shall begin with the Sentences, or else 
 with a Psalm or Hymn out of the Prayer Book, “ at the discretion 
 of the minister,” and not of the choir; and that Psalm or Hymn 
 to be so given out in the usual way, that the congregation may 
 unite in it in the usual way. Now, we all know that the singing 
 in question, instead of that, is never of one of these metrical 
 Psalms or Hymns, whatever else it may be. Then, as a matter of 
 worship, it is at once ruled out. 
 
 But I think that most generally it is regarded, neither by the 
 choir or the congregation, as an act of worship. What is it, then ? 
 WI 13 7 , at best, it is generally regarded as a mere matter of orches¬ 
 tral exhibition and musical entertainment; the words sung being 
 chosen without reference to any supervising authority of the min¬ 
 ister, often wholly unknown to the congregation, and undistinguish- 
 able by the most attentive listener. Now, I simply ask, is that a 
 fit prelude to our public worship? If the minister is not allowed 
 to introduce any act of worship before the Sentences, except it be 
 in the singing of one of the authorized metrical Psalms or Hymns, 
 no matter how devotional his selection might be, how is it that you 
 can justify a choir in introducing at that very time whatever they 
 may choose, and that not for worship, but for mere musical exhibi¬ 
 tion or entertainment ? It seems to me that it needs but a moment’s 
 consideration in this light to see that it cannot be justified, either 
 by the laws of our Church, or consistently with the dignity, gravity 
 or security of our public worship. It will be a good deliverauce 
 when it shall be entirely excluded, no matter how good the music 
 could the congregation unite in it, or appropriate the words, sup¬ 
 posing they could be distinguished. What performance of a choir, 
 before the minister begins the Morning Prayer, is comparable to 
 
15 
 
 the silence ot the congregation as devout minds, endeavor to col¬ 
 lect their thoughts and wait the voice of the minister, saying: 
 “The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence 
 before Him.”—“ Let the words of my mouth and the meditation 
 of my heart be always acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my Strength 
 and my Eedeemer.” I earnestly wish we never had any other 
 beginning. 
 
 [The above portion of Bishop Mcllvaine’s Address was referred to the Com¬ 
 mittee on Canons, who subsequently presented the following report, which was 
 unanimously adopted:] 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 The Committee on Canons, to whom was referred the following resolution: 
 
 Besolved, That so much of the Bishop’s Address as relates to Deviations from 
 the usages and order of our Worship in this Diocese he referred to the Commit¬ 
 tee on Canons, to consider whether any Canon or resolution on such subject is 
 desirable— 
 
 Beg leave respectfully to report: The committee believe that the general and 
 almost universal sentiment of both clergy and laity of this Diocese is against 
 the introduction of novelties of any kind into the solemn Services of our Church. 
 No individual has any right to substitute his own taste or caprice in the place 
 of our Rubrics, Canons, and long-established Usages; and, undoubtedly, if such 
 an attempt were deliberately made, the offender should be proceeded with ac¬ 
 cording to law; and if the law, as it now stands, is not adequate to the emer¬ 
 gency, a new Canon should be provided, expressly to meet such cases. We do 
 not, however, believe that any violation of law has been intended, thus far, in 
 what has occurred in the Diocese; but the object in introducing the novelties 
 referred to by the Bishop was, mainly, to make the services of the Church more 
 attractive than they are under our usual forms. This, in our judgment, is wholly 
 inadmissible. Believing that the public sentiment of the Diocese will hereafter 
 be respected in this matter, by every Church within its limits, we deem no 
 further action necessary at present. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 Erastus Burr, 
 
 t Samuel Clements, 
 
 John W. Andrews, 
 
 T. C. Jones, 
 
 Committee on Canons. 
 
 A true copy from the Journal of Convention : 
 
 W. C. French, Secretary.