Year: 1874




CONVENTION AT sEAFORD-THE WITH


DRAwAL OF BISHOP oUMMINs.


Bishop Alfred Lee, of this Diocese, in
his address to the clerical and lay dele
gates at the recent annual Convention at
Ssaford referred freely to the withdrawal
from the Church, of Bishop Cummins, of
Kentucky, and to the causes of controver-
sy which threaten the peace and unity of
the church. On these subjects, he spoke
as follows: .-..-


" Another name must be removed
from the roll of our Episcopate. For the
second time in our history. one of our
bishops has forsaksn the communion
which invested him with his high office.
Such detection is more startling and
painful than the removal of servant of
the Lord by the dispensation of Providence.
As the Right Reverend George David
Cummins was connected with this Diocese,
by ties of kindred and early association,
as here he was highly esteemed and loved,
as here he received his ordination as Dea-
con and Presbyter, we cannot but feel
this severance most sensibly. My own
opinion that it was a step hasty and un-
warranted has been made public, and on
this point l have nothing to add. How
ever strongly | dsapprove the act, my
feelings of personal friendship are un-
changed, and up to the last day of the six
months allowed by the Canon for Retrac-
tion, l did not wholly abandon the hope
that he might avail himself of this consid-
crate forbearancs.


'' But in view of this distressing event,
shall not the church rouse herself to ap-
prehend the present critical condition and
remove the causes which have not only
precipitated this calamity, but have given
occasion to scandal, strife. and bitter con-
tention, growing more intense from year
to year?


i" The erroneous doctrines which for
more than thirty years have disquieted
and alarmed our communion, have pro.
duced their legitimate fruit One usage
after another has been introduced from the
Church of Rome, and the deep line of de-
marcation drawn by our martyred Reform
ers has been as far as possible obliterated
Instead of the General Convention meet
ing the evil and danger with outspoken
decision, the question was evaded in 1868
and 1871. The bishops, indeed were
ready to act, and the last pastoral letter
has no uncertain sound, but utters its de-
cided and unequivocal condemnation of
these Romish doctrines and practices.
The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies
failed to concur, in majority of Dioeeses,
and ostensibly left the matter to be regu-
lated by the paternal counsel of the Dio-
cesar Bishops. But while the abettors of
these Objectionable novelties profess high
theories of the Episcopate. their course
has been almost unvarying to resent and
repudiate Episcopal advice or monition.
My own preference is always for express
enactment instead Of discretionary powers,
although discretion to some extent would
seem to inhere in the Office of watchman
and overseer. Express legislation was re-
commended by the unanimous report to
the General Convention of 1871, of a COM
mission of five Bishops, on Ritual Uni
fermity, on which l had the honor to
serve. That any other course will relieve
us from these offensive practices see no
reason to believe. That the great heart
of the church is soundly Protestant there
can be no doubt. Expressions of indigna-
tion at the abuse of past forbearance, and
at the extent to which the evil has grown,
have come from diocese after diocese with
tones that cannot be mistaken. And ap-
pearances now augur wide spread and re-
solute purpose no longer to tolerate the a.
vowal of dogmas as Objectionable as those
which the Reformers resisted unto blood
the turning of eur churches into stage for
theatrical exhibitions, the beguiling Of
transporting worshipers into actual idola-
try, and consequent upon these things,
the driving away from the church of godly
and conscientious men. The amount of
Of unhappiness and disquiet thus caused is
beyond all knowledge but Gods; and
upon whom rests the whole responsibility
for unhappy consequence, the breaking up