The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-10-23
REV. PHILLIPS BROOKS ON "THE
CHURCH.

SlbtinS LII tulS Guy, was nearQ TO some
purpose, in that body, on Friday, when
the proposition was under considera-
ton to change the name of the church,
or at least to expunge the words, ''Prot-
estant Episcopal from that name. His
address in that debate was a remarka-
BILE utterance, and full of manly vigol
and common sense, which was in re-
freshing contrast with many of the
speeches in the debate. It was a
very bold and independent address
well calculated to disturb the conserv-
alive churchmen who were plentifully
sprinked throughout the assemblage
1t attacked the silly exclusiveness OF
the proposition to make the Episcopal
church "the church" of the country by
this change of nomenclature, intimated
that the doctrine of apostolic success
sion" was Pigment of ecclesiastical
imagination, and touched a raw spot
in the historical Episcopal skin by re-
calling the toryism of the church dur
ing the revolution, remarking also, that
instead of being in any sense an Amer
lean church, it was to all intents and
purposes still under the influence of
Anglican tradition, and with associa-
lions to-day which made it more a
Church of England than of America.
All this, spoken with brilliant audac-
ity, and in the rapid and eloquent style
of Phillips Brooks, in the presence of
the church dignitaries, made the occa-
sion notable one indeed. 1t was the
event of the week, and it will be some
time before the high churchmen of the
Convention recover from its effects.
At the conclusion of the address the
crowded galleries broke out into ap-
plause, on which the chairman, the
urbane and medieval DR.. Morgan Dix,
raped impetuously for order and threat
ened to have them cleared if the offense
was repeated. Wegive the report from
the Tribune
The Rev. DR.. Phillips Brooks took the
floor and was listened to with profound
interest. He said the question as pre-
sented was simply a motion to drop
certain words from the constitution,
canons, and documents of the church. It
was possible by certain method of pro-
nouncing a word to make it ridiculous
and it would seem that to expunge the
name of the church from the title of her
prayer, the constitution, and the canons,
would have that tendency. The name
Protestant Episcopal answered all the
purposes of name. OF the two great
bodies of the Episcopacy, there was no
doubt that theirs was the best. There
was no reason why the name of the
church should be despised. The ruling
OF the Chair that in discussing the ques-
ton of expunging the name it was per-
fectly proper to suggest a substitute,
brought before their minds what would
probably be selected for a name. The
American Catholic Church." the "Holy
Catholic Church" etc, were suggested, and
the whole debate of the day before had
proceeded upon the assumption that one
or the other of those names would be
adopted. One of the great points made
was that this church should be recognize
ed as 1.-THE church"-the exclusive repre-
sentative of Jesus Christ in this country.
Only two were assigned to justify the
church in taking such position. He
did not think the other churches in the
land were SO insignificant, and this
church had not done anything so wonder
full.
Besides, what greater right to the
name, "The American Church" had this
than they had in Canada or Mexico? 1t
was we'll known that the Protestant Epis-
copal church was comparatively small.
If that church were still to stand before
the land as it's spiritual representative.
as a representative Of its peculiar institu-
tione, it's laws, manners and customs; if
it were particularly American in it's pro-
found sympathy with American institu-
tions, then it might have some right to
such title. But such were not the facts.
Its associations to-day even were more
nearly with the church in England. 1t was
not identified more closely than any of
the other churches with American ideas.
For years and years this church had Ia
bored under the stigma which had inher-
ed in it after the revolution. In those
days, when the people of America we're
fighting for freedom, this church did not
with them. 1t was eminent
ly the church of the Royalists. If they
could get rid of sll those things it might
be ga church" of America, but it can lay
no great claim to be "the church" of
America.
The distinct assertion had often been
made that this church was different from
all other churches, in that it was in the
line of apostolic succession. But there
we're others in America who believed
that the church is great composite body,
and that no single denomination is the
sole representative of Christianity. Why
this church should take upon itself such
a name admitted of no conceivable expla-
nation. We had been told that the
church when it assumes this name would
take in all the other denominations, and
that its catholicity would commend it to
Romanists and Professionals alike. To adopt
such name would be a hopeless eontrac-
ton Of this church. 1t would not make
this church the great progressive church