New-York tribune., 1874-10-28

man would willipRly violate canon ~ II were passcH
one sacrce and that completed Teaching sy symbols nsSs
M :ss natter that IL were
eresed 10 and he could for the lsy that the
would stand firm for the Church y evsr5 the and
sity the laity would take the Ark and preserve On the
Altar looking 70 the Most High God. who alone was to
VIEWS OF soUTHERNERs.
The Raw DIR Norton of Virginia said ne Ola not pro.
pose to dscuss Rtualism but the canon before them
He was free to say the canon did not como up quo
needs OF the Church but he had such respecs .or
Committee composed % IL was tnat no wooa w" ~
their Judgment There must be something 10 nanca os
sSsra yEnS IN IT, had
been objected to; but nc h not posiyeiy erro.
WsnSs we're doubtful especially II they cause
the minds Of Su hey uder form
CO ords be they were doubt
full They might only arise from mem sa shoTd be cautioned
not to use Expression tnat nad dou"t,
on.. dS, some Objected to specifications but
the lost the virtue OF the canon was
ALSO lost The Church might not agree on all the points
Of difference but it gaining something to secure
these four points 1t had been said that the law Of the
canon could evaded but he felt sure that every true
of the Church would observe the law and that was
the feeling of every sound churchman In every diocese
j. Pringle Smith of South Carolina said that the
member were offended the whole body wa. hurt; iia
minister introduced foreign practices ne 0nended lie
would assal no mans tenets but would stand
mon ground. "When two or three are gathered TO-
gether" there should be nothing but love. Ii foreign
rites were praotced the ground was cut away.
and introduced nas Ts1s not Ea.sG nnas
paans. i II II such % doctrines were introduced into
the speakers church o would be an sDd
that no matter what building he attended church or
where. he could be sure Of isr rendering % OF It, T. Lay
way OF the clergy. He believed In "one LORD and one
faith but not faith q chameleon nues' Soih com
and when it became law he hoped the law would DO
E. ". Blanchard Of Baltimore, Nd, said the Conyen-
on had decided that clergyman who practced euchar-
ton was not dc for the Epscopate When that decision
was made, there was not voice raised to say the
Senton was composed Of representative men, and
give expression this question. In Maryland there
eral I Convention Of 1871 adjourned without dean;
ing this matter OF Rmlism Standing then as he did
whether the legislation should be definite vague.
The proposed canon enoined nothing prohibited moth
as BOOK Of
that OF Oenses COmmittedb by Ministers IL left the
not Oifenses were committed. and this was too vague.
The amendment he had offered on Monday prohibited
cal authority the power to punish for violating the pro-
hibition.
NECESSITY FOR ACTION.
The Rev. Dr. Chas. II. Hall Of Brooklyn said the Gen
era Convention had started at Baltimore to do what 1t
was trying to have done. and was shipwrecked n
the Convention passed the 1t meant something or
nothing. The outside world knew what 1t meant--the
death victory Of Rualism The Ritualists had said
IL the General Convention condemned Rtualism, they
would go where It was practiced Ihs was rebellion, %
Church what Benedict Arnold was 20 the state. The
Of 1910 declared that bOwing In church. except
in alteration of Almighty God, was forbidden, and
pies adopted by Rituasts. AS TO the two
presbyters being witnesses the worded In
order that two responsible persons should make the
charges before they could be entertained This was
common The most certain way to defeat legsa-
subject
Church demanded action, not words. God had placed
Convention there TO control such matters The Con
vention must not leave such matters Id douot 50 as 10
injustice 10 him to hesitate now ana refuse 70 unfuri
the flag.
tee Canons, closed the debate. and explained the
proposed with its intended scope and effect,
approved. He then explained that the specifications
were intended merely 10 guide and If the practices
ceremonies forth symbozed doubtful or erro-
neous doctrine the bishop Investigate and If
investigaon he should find them to be so 1t was his
duty admOnish The Offense OF the presbyter would
such refusal he could be tried The canon did not forbid
the ceremOnias that question was sacredto the
rubrics and the Committee had no right to interfere
But the Bishop had by the canon. the right to forbid
any minister from practicing anything that was er-
roneous or doubtful and thereby likely to disturb the
specified certain things but did not say they are un-
lawful. ANYTHING that symboized, doubtful or or,
merely said that IN the opinion OF the Committees
House of Deputies and Of the House OF bishops such
and such things were symbolical OF doubtful doc
trne. and merely gave the weight of their opinion
thereto without deciding the question. The @ pro. pro
visions Of the proposed would run side Dy side
with Canon q Title H. and had set aside certain things
as doubtful to peace of the Church The trial would
tee did not try the offender. but only that he
tried by the piocese. The Committee ON Canons be-
would endanSer the entire and also believing
the whole Convention could unite on one proposition
had am 70 move thas an a he
proposition.