The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-10-24

made to the House of Bishops, neither did it
make any new law in relation TO the ritual.
| Whether it is passed or not, the law Is exactly
| the same. The Book of Common prayer ana
the Canons of the Church Of England In force
| In 1889. that have not been modified, are the
law now. And you have the proof OF this iE
| the declaration of the bishops from the organ
ization of this branch Of the church. We are
| the daughter of the Church OF England, which
comes down directly from the Apostle Paul.
What does this new canon do? 1t declares
that all questions as to the law of ritual per-
tain to the ordinary, Is there anything new
| in this have not the bishops always been our
fathers? 1t provides that the bishop shall
give his written determination. This is a
wise precaution. 1t will compel the bishop
to act advlsedly; it will protect both him
and the clergymen. But. says one brother,
if the ordinary Is to decide, Wnat Is
to become of the Liberties OF tne caurc6 CnH
think, will conduce to the advantage OF the
church, and here some one complains OF me,
and nv bishop gives me written notlce TO
stop.n But Is not this the law now, and II the
bishop is the head ofthe church; IF as we beleVe,
he derives his authority directly from the Holy
Ghost. Is it for us to complain 1t Is for us
to suffer and be strong. AS we'll might cniid
father. But he believed that our bishops now,
as in the past, were godly men, full OF wisdom
and Tenderness, who would administer correc.
ton conscientously, that 1t was not IN them 10
oppress any. The deputy from virginia naa
spoken of the losses Of the Church OF England:
and of our danger. But what was tne iacl;
Notwithstanding the dissensions which nad
sprung up, this church had grown and pros
pered. There had been no falling on IN It.
| This church OF Christ must go onward.
Mr.. WIN. Welsh. of Pennsylvania, said ne
| had, in the committee, at FIRST oelecteu 10 Ine
provision OF this canon relating 10 the canons
of the Church of England. He thought they
were about entering on something that was
misty, but afterward he had become satlsnea
that those canons were binding, and that
there was no germ of Romanism In them.
There was no dalyDg with the Church OF
Rome then. This canon allowed the greatest
liberty that would not conflict with the doc
trine and discipline OF the churcn' dnese s,s os
formers had done much harm to the cnnrCh;
their actions had not conduced to what the
canon exacted, 'due habits Of solemn rever-
ence.r Two objections to this canon WILL no
doubt be made, one from those who want no
legislation, and the other from those VINO Wa9t
stringent legislation. But for harmony, loF
| Cancellation, for the concession OF every limit
| t,sible. the committee had done as 1t dld.
Before concluding, Mr.. Welsh spoke of letter
| from Professor Huber, the colleague 81 Ut.
Dollineer, to the effect that that eminent theo-
| lopian was in accord with tue Episcopai
| Church.
intended to take part in the discussion, but
felt it bis duty to assign the reasons for which,
as a member of the committee, he had not
signed the report. he joined issue on tne as
| sertion that there was any necessity lot iegls-
| lation on this subject. He had thought, When
| listening 10 the deputy from virginia, SDr.
Andrews,) that he would oe on ms sue. hiaS Ina.
| deputy had spoken of the cast-lron rule Wnlcn
REQUIRED every minister of the Church OF Eng
land to begin the service with Dearly be-
loved brethren" and yet that deputy now
fayors cast.iron rule by which the Dlsnor
may Instruct the clergyman IN what part Oh
the chancel he may stand. That there was mo
necessity for this Is evidenced from tne TACT
that no bishop has ever yet announced that he
cannot administer his own diocese. Tne
bishops In New York, where there was some
dissension, had said that harmony was restored.
| mere was no trouble now about any blsnop
controlling any irregularities IN mis- dlo'
cese. AS to ritualists, he had heard great
to do this, but he did not know what 1t meant;
he could not define the term; he mad never
seen a ritualls:; ne would like to see one just
To see how he looked He had once given no.
| tice In his church in Montgomery that ne
would, on a certain Sunday, preach sermon
on "rltuallsm," After the sermon ne was
| called on BY an old Scotch woman, strong
church woman, who told him she was highly
% nleased with his sermon; she had heard so
| Innch of this Richelleu that she had thought
he must be very bad man laughter and
must be doing the church great harm, but she
thought now that they could not do 6eiter
than follow him. [Laughter.I It Is SAID tnat
waters. Far fromit. What will oe It's efect
| If any member of congregation chose to be
displeased with anything done BY their rector,
| they run straight to the bishop. You say 10
I, every layman, you can stop anything you
please If you can only get your bishop to agree
| with you. This will go far to break up the
bond of union between rector and people.
Rev. DR.. Beers, of Wisconsin, OF the minority
of the committee, said the committee had
been asked for bread, and they had given q
stone. He said that it was impossible to as
certain what were the canens OF the Chnrch
of England OF 1908 in use. Practically those
canons have been obsolete on this continent
| for hundred years. We cannot know the re.
| quirements we are to obey. The Vagueness OF
OF that law, are such that probably two nun
dred years would pass away before properly
| founded formula could be laid down. But
what do we seek for? We seek for law
which will be so plain that by no eccentric IN:
depreciation may it be made to Kill instead OF
cure. The practical operation Of this canon
will be to produce the impression mat
to its children, Is not actuated 6y q
mothers instinct toward them. He should
not be sorry If this canon passed. he
believed that all this agitation In relation to
i ritualism was an omen OF good to the cnurcn;
anything was better than apathy. He saw in
the deliberations OF the commlttee, IN the
| spirit of harmony in this convention, that we
are advancing to an era OF more toleratlon OF
individual opinion, and he believed that II this
continued this church would march on con,
quering and to conquer; that It's creed would
be the creed of all the millions OF THIS country,
from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr.. Meads, of Albany, of the minority OF the
committee, stated that he had been unable 10
sign the report, believing that no necessity
existed for any action on this subject; that 1t
was inexpedient to attempt, by legislation, 70
tIremedy what had been complained OF. he
thought it best 10 add nothing to increase the
differences of opinion as 10 any forms and
usages which might be adopted by any mem
bers of the church. He had not regarded
| these things as casting reproach on the church
| for invalidating its authority, and why, then,
should further strife be stirred up?
Mr Craighead, of Tennessee, member OF
the committee, asked Dr.. Mead II he had
stated that but three members of the com.
mittee were opposed to the report.
Rev. DR.. Andrews, Of Virginia, said the
chairman of the joint committee, bishop
Whittingham, had, when the vote was taken,
announced 1t as IL to 3.
Mr. Craghead desired it then to be under
stood that in the committee he had fought
against this canon with all his ability. ne