The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1888-03-21
THE NEGRO IN TIE CHURCH.
Bishop Howe's Appeal to the Diocese of
South Carolina--Thc Dangers OF Con-
tinucd Divisions.
CHARLESTON, March 10, 1855

tinued Divisions.
CHARLESTON, March 10, 1888.
To the Parishes and Congregation
entitled to elect Lay Deputies to tn
Diocesan Conveniently Dear Breth
ren: It is provision in the canons o
the General Convention OF our Churcl
that every Bishop from time to tim
should address pastoral letters to tn
people OF his diocese as occasions ma,
seem to him to suggest. In accordance
with su h canonical provision beg nov
to gain your ear for few moment
while I write on subject uppermost IL
my thoughts as Easter Monday draw!
near. On that day, according to ancient
usage, you will elect vestrymen anI
wardens for the year ensuing, and also
in many parishes, l presume, deputies
to the Diocesan Convention; unless il
regard to deputies, You decline to send
any to Anderson in obedience to instruc
tions recently issued, and also for rea
sons which may seem to you satisfactory
under existing circumstances. In this
event the result would be that nc
Diocesan Convention could be convened
for lack of a quorum.
There can be no Convention, as you
are aware, except ten QO clergymen are
present with right to vote, and depu'
ties from ten QO churches duly qualified
to represent said churches IL the
Diocesan Convention. Should we fail,
therefore, OF securing the necessary
quorum at Anderson, and for the reason
OF our differences, feel it my duty to
forewarn you that, in my judgment, the
consequences of such non-attendance OF
my brethren Of the laity may prove dis
astrous to the well being of the diocese,
already somewhat paralyzed in its mis-
sion work and higher spiritual interests.
We cannot, my dear friends, much
longer endure the strain Of divided
counsels and alienated hearts. If the
present state of things continue, fear
the result will be, in the neer future,
vacant rectories, closed churches, sus-
pended and abandoned missions. The
clergy will argue from your absence,
under existing circumstances, that you
will not sit with them in convention ex-
cept upon the humiliation of their
Order. Moreover, they will argue that,
if they are to hold their seats in conven-
ton at your will, and not in virtue of
constitutional and canonical right, and
if you can nnseat them on the ground of
color, then you may also unseat them on
the score of ritual or other cause.
I pray you then to consider this, and
send deputies to Anderson. Let pause
be put there to differences which have so
seriously disturbed our peace, and let
them no more enter into debate. Am
asking too much of you that truce
should be put to debate? I am only
asking that you, the laity, should do by
the clergy as they have done by you.
Permit me to remind you. In 1876, in
Columbia, lay deputies from st. Marks,
congregation of colored people, ap-
piled to be admitted into Convention.
The clergy voted to receive them. You
refused; and until you give your con-
sent colored lay deputies canuoo be re-
ceived. The clergy have respected your
convictions, though not sympathizlng
with them. Since 1876 no application
whatever has been made TO admit lay
delegates from ST. Marks into the Con-
yention. No effort has been made to
reopen the question. Your convictions
have been acquiesced in, newspapers to
the contrary Notwithstanding. In 1885
colored clergymen canonically connected
with the diocese, under the laws of the
General Convention, appeared on the
Bishops LIST and took their seats. Your
deputies moved to strike their names
from off the list, on account of color.
The clergy could not conscientiously
concur with you, and the names Of the
colored clergymen remained. In 1886
and in 1887 the question was renewed
and finally ended, last May, in the with
drawal of so many deputies as to imperil
the Convention. believe some of you
maintain that its organization was de-
stroyed.
In all of this the Bishop thinks that
the laity have not shown that respect
and forbearance to the convictions OF
the clergy that the clesrgy have meted
out to yours. I do not in this fault you
altogether. I too must bear my por-
ton of the blame of your retirement.
Had l been a better parliamentarian,
possibly such result might have been
avoided. I say this in all frankness and
fairness to you, not conceding tor mo-
ment, however, that my ruling was
wrong on the main issue, viz: That
clergymen economically connected with
the diocese hold their seats in conven-
ton in virtue OF such canonical connec-
ton and not by vote to admit them.
But again, suppose there should be o
diocesan convention at Anderson and
another so-called convention in Charles
ton, in such an event have you consid-
cred the scandal to the diocese and to
Christianity which such spectacle
would present? Are you willing to see
the Church in which your fathers lived
and died, in which you yourselves were
baptized, rent still further asunder,
dragged, possibly, through the civil
Courts, sad sight to angels and to men?
Such things have been, and may yet be
again.
In conclusion, I may have written
feebiy, but nevertheless from the heart.
On you, the laity, will rest grave ae-
sponsibility on the coming Easter Mon
day. Shall the differences between your
selves and the Bishop and clergy be
closed or widened? Let me quote here,
without being charged with arrogance
and conceit, the words of an ancient
Bishop on his way to martyrdom in :.
D. Iii, Writing to the church in
Smyrna, he says: "Shun divisions as the
beginning OF evil. Do ye follow your
Bishop as Jesus Christ followed the