The Rt. Rev. John W. Beckwith

Brethren of the Clergy and Laity:

June 11th, 1886—I baptized one infant in St. Philip’s Church, Atlanta.

June 16th—I gave canonical consent to the consecration of Rev. Edwin Gardner Weed, as Bishop of Florida.

June 22d—I received the Letter Dimissory of Rev. Edward Ransford, from the Diocese of New York.

June 30th—I gave canonical consent to the election of the Rt. Rev. D. S. Tuttle, D.D., Missionary Bishop of Utah and Idaho, to be the Bishop of Missouri.

July 1st—I confirmed in private, one person, presented by the Rev. Byron Holley, in Atlanta.

July 4th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. C. M. Beckwith, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

July 11th—I took part with Rev. C. C. Williams and Rev. E. G. Weed, in the funeral services over the body of Paul Hamilton Hayne, and made an address in St. Paul’s, Augusta.

July 14th—I held evening service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Holley, confirmed seven, and made an address in the Chapel of the Mission of the Redeemer, in Atlanta.

July 18th—I attended the commencement services of the University of Georgia, in Athens.

July 21st—I confirmed two persons, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta. They were presented by Rev. C. M. Beckwith.

July 22d—I baptized one infant in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

July 24th—I confirmed one person from Griffin, in St Luke’s, Atlanta, and made an address.

July 29th—I attended the meeting of the Trustees of the University of the South, at Sewanee. Tennessee.

August 1st—I gave canonical consent to the election of Rt. Rev. O. W. Whittaker, D.D., Missionary Bishop of Nevada, to be the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania.

August 2d—I received the Letter Dimissory of the Rev. Arthur Forbes, from the Diocese of New York.

August 15th—I preached in Grace Chapel, Newport, Rhode Island.

September 5th and 10th—I preached in Clifton Springs, New York.

September 12th—I preached in Thompson, Connecticut.

October 6th—I attended the General Convention, in Chicago.

October 15th—I gave a Letter Dimissory to Rev. Chas. J. Wingate, transferring him to the Diocese of Kentucky.

October 20th—I gave a Letter Dimissory to Rev. C. M. Beckwith, to the Diocese of Texas.

November 3d—I performed the marriage service in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

November 7th—Held morning service, made an address, and administered Holy Communion, and baptized one infant in St. Luke’s, Atlanta. In the evening I held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Holley and Hunt, and made an address in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

November 12th—I received the Letter Dimissory of Rev. G. W. E. Fisse, from the Diocese of Pittsburg. The same day I performed the marriage service in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

November 14th—I held morning service, assisted by the Rev. Mr. Forbes, preached, confirmed eleven, and made an address in St. Mark’s, Dalton.

November 20th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. W. E. Eppes, and preached in Calvary Church, Mount Airy.

November 21st—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. W. E. Eppes, preached, confirmed two, and made an address in the Methodist Church, Toccoa.

November 22d—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Eppes, preached, and confirmed one, in Grace Church, Clarksville.

November 24th—I performed the burial service in private in Atlanta.

November 25th—Thanksgiving Day—I held morning service and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

November 28th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Walter Dye, preached, confirmed two, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Hawkinsville. In the evening confirmed one, in the same church. On the same day the Rt. Rev. E. G. Weed, Bishop of Florida, did me the favor to confirm for me twelve persons, in the Church of the Good Shepherd, Sandhills, near Augusta.

December 5th—Held morning service, preached, and confirmed one in Calvary Church, Americus.

December 12th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Anderson, preached, confirmed four, and made an address in St. Stephen’s, Milledgeville.

December 13th—Held evening service, assisted by Rev. Geo. Macauley, and preached in the Presbyterian Church, Sparta.

December 19th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Denniston, and preached in Zion, Talbotton.

December 21st—I performed the marriage service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Boone, in Christ’s Church, Savannah.

December 26th—I preached in Clifton Springs. New York.

January 2d, 1887—I held evening service, assisted by Rev. W. J. Page, and preached in St. Andrew’s, Darien.

January 3d—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Page, and preached in St. Andrew’s, on the Ridge, Darien.

January 9th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. H. E. Lucas, preached, confirmed fourteen, and made an address in St. Mark’s, Brunswick. In the evening I held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Ransford and Rev. Mr. Lucas, confirmed two colored persons, and made an address in the school house, which is used also as the chapel of St. Athanasius’ Mission, Brunswick.

January 10th—I held evening service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Dodge and Ransford, preached, and confirmed nine at Satilla Bluff.

January 13th—Confirmed two, made an address, and administered the Holy Communion, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Dodge and Ransford, in Christ Church, Frederica. In the afternoon I held services, assisted by Revs. Messrs. Dodge and Ransford, confirmed one, and made an address at St. Simon’s Mills. In the evening held service, assisted by the same brethren and the Rev. Mr. Dunn, colored, Deacon, of the Diocese of North Carolina. Confirmed eight colored persons, and made an address at St. Simon’s Mills.

January 16th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. LaRoche, and preached in St. Thomas’s Church, Thomasville. In the afternoon I held service, assisted by Mr. LaRoche, confirmed one, and made an address in the same church.

January 23d—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. T. G. Pond, preached, confirmed three, and made an address in St. Paul’s, Albany.

January 26th—I received the Letter Dimissory of Rev. Chas. Buckner Hudgins, from the Diocese of Kentucky. The same day I baptized one infant, in St. Luke’s, Atlanta. The same day I received the Letter Dimissory of Rev. Jno. Gass, from the Diocese of South Carolina.

January 28th—I held evening service, assisted by Rev. Joshua Knowles, preached, and confirmed one in the Church of the Redeemer, Greensboro. Little did I imagine that this was the last time I would have the privilege of ministering before God’s altar with my venerable friend. It is surely a mercy that the future is veiled from our gaze. His form was so erect, his step so quick and firm, that no one could have supposed that ere two months, viz., March 25th, had passed, he would lay aside his armor and be at rest among the saints in Paradise. His was a pure and stainless life, and though he labored in the humbler fields of the Master’s vineyard, he illustrated in his daily walk and conversation that uprightness and manliness, that holiness and faith which distinguish the children of God, and are the crown and glory of the Priests of the Church.

January 30th—I held morning service, assisted by the Rev. Geo. Macauley, preached, confirmed one, and made an address in the Church of the Advent, Madison.

February 2d—I received the Letter Dimissory of the Rev. W. W. Kimball, from the Diocese of Alabama.

February 6th—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. W. E. Eppes, and preached in the Mission Church in Gainesville.

February 10th—I received the Letter Dimissory of the Rev. Robert South Barrett, from the Diocese of Kentucky.

February 11th—I received the Letter Dimissory of the Rev. Geo. H. Edwards, from the Diocese of South Carolina.

February 18th—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. W. C. Hunter, and preached in Trinity Church, Columbus. In the afternoon I again held service, assisted by Mr. Hunter, in the same church, confirmed twelve, and made an address.

February 20th—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. C. Dowe, preached, confirmed eleven, and made an address in St. George’s, Griffin.

February 22d—I performed the marriage service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Barrett, in St. Luke’s, Atlanta. The same day I performed the marriage service, assisted by Rev. Byron Holley, in St. Philip’s Church, Atlanta.

February 23d—Ash Wednesday—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Barrett, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

February 24th—I held evening service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Holley, and made an address in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

February 27th—I held morning service, and preached in the Church of the Mediator, Washington. In the afternoon I baptized two infants, and confirmed two persons, and made an address in the same church. During the early part of this month, the Rev. J. G. Armstrong, D.D., having been accused by public rumor of being intoxicated in the city of Augusta on the 12th and 18th of January, I summoned the Standing Committee to meet me as my Council of Advice. The committee met in Atlanta on the 16th of February. Immediately after its adjournment I appointed the Rev. Thomas Boone, President of the Standing Committee, as commissioner to go to Augusta and institute an inquiry as to the truth of such public rumor. On the 21st I received from the Rev. J. G. Armstrong, D.D., his renunciation of the ministry. Canon V., Section 3, Title II., of the Digest of Canons, provides that “If the ecclesiastical authority, to whom such declaration is made, shall have ground to suppose that the person making the same is liable to presentment for any canonical offence, such person may, in the discretion of the said ecclesiastical authority, be put upon trial for such offence, notwithstanding such declaration of renunciation of the ministry.” On the 24th of February I received the official report of the commissioner, which consisted of letters and affidavits from some of the prominent citizens of Augusts, testifying that the rumor was true. Since the receipt of Dr. Armstrong’s letter of renunciation on the 21st, I had given the question of a possible trial my most earnest consideration. My conclusion was that the interests of the Church did not require it, and therefore, on the 24th, after the receipt of the report of the commissioner, I addressed a communication to the Rev. Dr. Armstrong, in which I stated to him that I accepted his renunciation of the sacred ministry, and would take such steps as the law of the Church requires. Consequently, on the 1st day of March, in St. Luke’s Church, Atlanta, in the presence of the Rev. Byron Holley and the Rev. Robert South Barrett, I depose the Rev. J. G. Armstrong, D.D., from the ministry of the Church of God. March 2d—I held evening service, assisted by the Rev. Mr. Barrett, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta. March 6th—I held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Davis, preached, confirmed six, and made an address in Emanuel Church, Athens. In the afternoon I held service, assisted by the Rev. Mr. Davis, confirmed one, and made an address in St. Mary’s Church, Athens.

March 9th—I delivered a Lenten address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

March 10th—I delivered a Lenten address in St. Philip’s, Atlanta.

March 18th—I ordained the Rev. Walton Dye to the priesthood in Christ Church, Macon. The sermon was preached by Rev. W. Dudley Powers, and I was assisted in the laying on of hands by Rev. J. R. Winchester, W. Dudley Powers and W. W. Kimball.

March 27th—Held early morning service, assisted by Rev. Charles H. Strong, confirmed thirty-five, and made an address in St. John’s, Savannah. The same day I held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Boone, preached, confirmed twenty-eight, and made an address in Christ Church. In the afternoon held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Andrew and Fisse, preached, confirmed fourteen colored persons in St. Stephen’s Church. Afterwards I confirmed in private one colored person. In the evening I held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Andrew, Boone and Fisse, confirmed three colored persons, and made an address in St. Augustine’s Chapel, Savannah.

March 28th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Fisse, Boone, Strong, and Andrew, preached, and confirmed thirty eight colored persons on the Ogeechee.

March 30th—Held evening service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Winchester, Powers, Kimball and Dye, preached, confirmed thirty-two, and made an address in Christ Church, Macon. Afterwards confirmed in private one person.

April 3d—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. John Gass, preached, and confirmed eleven in the Church of the Atonement, Augusta. In the evening held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Williams and Gass, preached, and confirmed twenty-seven in St. Paul’s, Augusta.

April 6th, 7th, 8th—Made Lenten addresses in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

April 10th—Easter Day. Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Holley and Hunt, preached, confirmed thirty-nine, and made an address in St. Philips, Atlanta. In the evening I held service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Barrett and Holley, preached, confirmed fifty, and made an address in St. Luke’s, Atlanta.

April 16th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Gass and Edwards, preached, and confirmed two in the Methodist Church, Grovetown.

April 17th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Edwards and Williams, preached, and confirmed twenty presented by Mr. Edwards and two presented by Rev. C. C. Williams in the Church of the Good Shepherd, Augusta.

April 18th—I performed the marriage service in private in Atlanta.

April 24th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Leman, preached, confirmed eleven, and made an address in St. James’, Marietta.

May 1st—Baptized in private one infant in Atlanta.

May 8th—Held morning service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Powers, Winchester, and Dye, preached, and confirmed fourteen presented by the rector, Mr. Powers, and two presented by Rev. Mr. Winchester in St. Paul’s, Macon. In the afternoon I held service, assisted by Rev. Mr. Kimball, confirmed five presented by Mr. Kimball and eleven for Christ Church and five for St. John’s Mission, presented by the rector, Rev. Mr. Winchester, and made an address in St. Barnabas’ Mission, Macon.

May 10th—Held evening service, assisted by Rev. Messrs. Hudgins, Powers and Barrett, confirmed fourteen, and made an address in St. Peter’s, Rome.

In my last address I mentioned to the Convention that the General Convention would have under consideration the question of the judicial system of the Church, and especially that of an Appellate Court.

A joint committee of both Houses (consisting of five Bishops, five Presbyters and five laymen) was appointed, to whom the matter was referred with instructions to report. The committee brought in to the House of Deputies a majority and minority report. The majority report contained three resolutions: 1st. “Resolved as the sense of this Convention that a change in the judicial system of the Church is desirable.” This resolution was adopted by the House of Delegates. 2d. “The House of Bishops concurring, that Article 6 of the constitution be so amended that the third clause shall read, ‘ In every Diocese the mode of trying Presbyters and Deacons may be instituted by the Convention of the Diocese, until the General Convention shall otherwise provide.'” This resolution takes for granted that all power touching the judicial system resides in the General Convention. Resolution 3d proposes a joint committee of both Houses to consider and report to the next General Convention a draft of such legislation as they may recommend for adoption. The minority, while agreeing with the majority that a change in the judicial system is desirable, and that Appellate Courts should be established, differs very widely from them as to other matters. They oppose an amendment of the constitution; they think the Dioceses competent to provide adequate judicial administration ; they oppose an enlargement of the authority of the General Convention for this purpose, as being not only unwise, but a departure from the true theory of our government; they think each Diocese competent to provide for itself the needed relief; they desire that whatever may be done, the autonomy- of the Dioceses should be preserved; they think that the practical difficulties in the way of establishing Courts of Appeal by the General Convention are so serious that they could not be overcome. Finally, they recommend by resolution that a joint committee be directed to consider and report a plan for the draughting of a canon or canons, “to be recommended to the Dioceses for adoption by them respectively, providing the whole process of the trial of a clergyman.” A deputy from Massachusetts offered, as an amendment to the resolutions of the majority report, two resolutions, in the second of which it is declared that ” it is desirable that the General Convention establish a General Court for the correction of errors in the Diocesan Courts.” Thus the matter was brought fully before the House. It was very evident, from the resolutions offered and the character of the debate, that anything like a satisfactory agreement was impossible. The question is so important, and involves so many and so great other questions, that it was soon found that it required the very best wisdom, learning and statesmanship of which the Church is possessed to deal with it properly. If the matter could be narrowed down to a simple effort to secure to clergymen the strictest justice, its difficulties would well-nigh all disappear, but the moment that legislation is proposed the question arises—” Who shall legislate?” The answer to this question involves a definition of the powers of the General Convention and the further question of the autonomy of the Dioceses. These questions are of especial interest to this Convention at this time, for the reason that at your last session a committee was appointed “to consider and report to the next Convention a revision of Canon II. of the Diocese which provides for the trial of a clergymen.” The subject will, therefore, probably be brought before you, and it may not be amiss if I give in brief some of my own views upon the matter. The position of a Diocese towards the General Convention can never be understood, I think, unless we bear in mind the history of our Church in America.

According to the theory of our Church, as expressed in the preface to the Prayer Book, civil independence includes ecclesiastical independence. Its language is, ” When in the course of Divine Providence these American States became independent with respect to civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily included.” This being true, it follows that inasmuch as these American States, when they became independent of the English government, became also independent of each other, and were separate, independent Republics: therefore, the Churches in these States became also independent of each other. The history of the Church in America prior to the formation of a Union and the creation of the General Convention, is crowded with evidences that such was the understanding of the different Dioceses. For instance, in 1784 the Church in Pennsylvania laid down the following as one of its fundamental principles: “That no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and vestries in their respective congregations.” In the same year in the city of Boston, “at a meeting of the Episcopal clergy of the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island,” the same principle was voted in exactly the same words. Here then is a fact of great importance, viz.: The Churches in the different States, prior to the creation of the General Convention were, in the matter of government, absolutely independent of each other. These independent Churches consulted with each other, through their delegates, as to the desirableness of a union, and of a general ecclesiastical government, and they declared through their deputies that “taking into consideration the importance of maintaining uniformity in doctrine, discipline and worship in the said Church, they do hereby determine and declare that there shall be a General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” From this it is evident, to my mind, that the General Convention was the creation of the joint action of the Dioceses. If this be true it follows that that Convention would be, and could only be, what those Dioceses by their joint action chose to make it; and it could have, and could only have, such powers as those Dioceses might confer upon it, and therefore it was right and consistent in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Rhode Island to declare ”that no powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the clergy and vestries in their respective congregations.” This preamble to the constitution, from which I have just quoted, was adopted at the meeting of the first General Convention in 1785. If now these Dioceses did ever surrender to this their creature all the powers which they, as independent Dioceses, had, prior to that time, possessed, there should be somewhere some statement, or at least some intimation, to that effect. I find a written constitution which, by its very existence, as a written fundamental law limits the power of the Convention; but I have thus far failed to find any evidence that the Dioceses imagined that they were blotting out their autonomy. For a specified purpose they surrendered to the Convention such powers as they deemed needful for accomplishing that purpose, but I cannot understand how the Convention could become possessed of those powers which the Dioceses did not surrender. From 1785 to 1789 the Dioceses may be said to have been engaged in the work of completing and perfecting the organization of the General Ecclesiastical Government. In 1785 a constitution was adopted. In 1786 changes were made in it, and in 1789 it was finally adopted by each of the Dioceses, and the work was complete. It is of great importance to bear in mind that this constitution was in the nature of an original bond of union. It was the original agreement between the Dioceses. “It was, says Dr. Hawks, “sent down to the State Conventions, and again and again discussed and altered, before it was finally adopted by delegates vested with express powers for that purpose.” There is a great difference between independent Dioceses, engaged in forming a bond of union, and those same Dioceses acting under that bond after its terms have been agreed upon and finally adopted. In the former case the Dioceses were deciding what powers they would bestow upon the new government which they had created.

The constitution, during this period, was tentative. Consequently, clauses which were in that instrument in 1785 were changed in 1786, and again in 1789, after which it was finally adopted. The General Convention was not making a fundamental law which in virtue of its authority would bind the Dioceses, but the Dioceses were forming, creating a General Convention, and agreeing among themselves what powers they would bestow upon it and what powers they would retain. If you will bear this in mind it will, I think, enable you the better to understand the intention of the Dioceses when they adopted Article 6 (originally Section 8) of the constitution. It was not an article bestowing powers upon the General Convention, but an article declaring certain powers to be retained by the Dioceses. It is the only article of the constitution relating to the subject of the judiciary. In 1785 it was in these words : ” Every clergyman, whether Bishop or Presbyter, or Deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the Convention, in the State to which he belongs, so far as relates to suspension or removal from office ; and the Convention in each State shall institute rules for their conduct, and equitable mode of trial.” Such an article put into the bond of union by independent Dioceses in the very act of forming that union is, it seems to me, a distinct declaration that the authority to try clergymen belongs, not to the General Convention, but to the Dioceses. In 1786 a change was made touching the trial of a Bishop, but the authority to try clergymen was still declared to belong to the Diocese. After three years the Convention again met in 1789. The constitution had not yet been finally adopted. Other changes were now made, so that the article read as follows : “In every State the mode of trying clergymen shall be instituted by the Convention of the Church therein. At every trial of a Bishop there shall be one or more of the Episcopal order present, and none but a Bishop shall pronounce sentence of deposition or degradation from the ministry on any clergyman, whether Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon,” and then the Dioceses, acting through “delegates vested with express powers for that purpose,” finally adopted it. Dr. Hawks makes upon it the following remark which, I doubt not, is literally true: “At the time it was adopted, had the effort been made to leave the subject in the hands of the General Convention, it would have produced strong feelings of opposition to union.”

“Why did the Dioceses put this article in the constitution? If they held the theory that the General Convention is supreme by virtue of inherent sovereignty, or if, in creating that Convention, they intended to bestow upon it power to legislate for the Dioceses in the matter of the judiciary, how was it possible for them to adopt this article of the constitution? It seems just as reasonable to suppose that St. Paul, living two years in his own hired house in the City of Rome, writing various epistles in that city, writing one especially to the Romans themselves, and everywhere ignoring St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and not even hinting at his (St. Peter’s) infallibility; did nevertheless all the while acknowledge that infallibility; as it is to suppose that the Dioceses, in making this bond of union, called ” the constitution,” did again and again discuss it and alter it, and in every alteration did still retain the one clause which declared that the mode of trying clergymen shall be instituted by the Diocese; and yet all the while held that this power belonged to the General Convention and that the Diocese could only exercise it by the permission of that body! I know that, after fifty years had passed, the General Convention did so alter the constitution that it reads that “In every Diocese the mode of trying Presbyters and Deacons may be instituted by the Convention of the Diocese,” and I also know that after more than 18 centuries the Church of Rome did so tamper with the faith once delivered to the saints as to make one of its articles teach the infallibility of Peter and his supposed successors, but I see no more evidence of authority for such action in the one case than in the other.

I do not hesitate therefore to declare my own belief that the Dioceses have, and have always had, and have never surrendered the right “to institute the mode of trying clergymen.” The General Convention has the right to use any and all the powers bestowed upon it to secure and maintain uniformity in doctrine, discipline and worship; but when these powers are exhausted, one or other of two courses remain to the Convention, viz.: Either to obtain from the Dioceses, by their individual and separate action, an increase of power; or— in the case now before us—to “consider and report a plan, providing the whole process of the trial of a clergyman, and recommend it to the Dioceses for adoption by them respectively.” This latter course would, I doubt not, accomplish all that is desired and yet avoid encouraging that dangerous tendency, which has of late years exhibited itself towards a centralized government at the expense of the autonomy of the Dioceses. Meanwhile the Dioceses should, I think, institute their own modes of trial which may by them be changed or amended if, in the future, the General Convention should propose a better mode.

You are, doubtless, familiar with the alterations of the Prayer Book adopted at the last General Convention, and therefore I need not here enumerate them. I desire, however, to call your attention to the 7th article of the constitution adopted in General Convention. It says: “Nor shall any person be ordained until he shall have subscribed the following declaration— ‘I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of GOD, and to contain all things necessary to salvation: and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.'” The Church, in her legislation, does not take it for granted that her clergy are special pleaders! When she authorizes and issues a Book of Common Prayer, and declares that “on all occasions of public worship” “every minister shall use the Book of Common Prayer,” she does not mean that every clergyman, while using this service may, in addition, use such forms and ceremonies as, in his judgment, will add to its solemnity or beauty, or give expression to such interpretation of its meaning as he may deem true.

She has dealt frankly with us, and I think we should deal frankly with her. When, as her appointed minister, we use her services in the congregation of her people, we should use the “worship” she has set forth and none other. To say, she does not forbid this, or prohibit that, seems to me to be special pleading. Our mother does not so deal with us. She takes it for granted that we are loyal and love her. She gives us the public worship she wishes us to use; she takes it for granted that we do not consider her law a rule which we desire to evade. If she wished us to add or omit anything, or to use ceremonies once in use, or even now in use, in the Mother Church of England, she would frankly tell us so; and I cannot but think that if we would train our people to be loyal and true, if we would teach them the great law of self-restraint and obedience, we should set them the example by a generous adoption of the Church’s law as the measure and limit of our action: doing all that she bids us do, and, in her public worship, avoiding what she does not authorize. Such, at least, it seems to me, should be the course of men who have agreed to the declaration of the constitution and whose hearts are loyal to our branch of the Church Catholic.

The Appleton Church Home has received during the past year from the parishes $292.98, from a lady in Savannah $100, from two ladies not residing in the Diocese $36, and from relatives of some of the children $47.50—making a total of $476.48. We have found it very difficult to meet the expenses of the institution without going into debt. By the strictest economy, however, we are still able to say that we have no debts. I have often thought that an institution which is doing so much good, and which has the approval and has won the admiration and confidence of all who know it, would sooner or later win the hearty and liberal support of the Diocese. I need not tell you how often I have been disappointed. “Out of sight, out of mind,” is a sad truth. Here is the only diocesan institution for the care of orphan girls that we have. It has done and is doing a noble work. Numbers of young girls, homeless and friendless, have been saved, have been trained in the ways of the Church, and have been furnished permanent employment. Some are now Christian mothers, many are Christian women, supporting themselves in comfortable homes. The institution was a free gift to the Diocese, and yet the Diocese has given for its support, from all sources, during the year only about $400. I have strong hope that we may, during the ensuing year, dispose of a portion of the property belonging to the Home, and thus increase its endowment. Meanwhile I do earnestly request you, my brethren of the clergy, not to forget us on Whit-Sunday next, the 29th of this month. If you would take the trouble to tell your people of the homeless and helpless “little ones,” who have been, and still are being, protected, educated and provided for, I am sure they would give liberally of their abundance that the work may not languish.

Your attention will again be called to the ever important question of Diocesan Missions. Of late years this has threatened to become a burning question, and yet it should not be so. We are all members of the one household of faith. The Church in this Diocese is our especial charge, and the Master’s command is upon us to preach the Gospel to every creature. The desire of my heart should therefore be that every parish and every individual should do its and his utmost to obey that command. Never since I have known the Diocese were the fields so white for the harvest. Truly God’s ways are not as our ways. In looking back over the past I can have no feeling but of humility and thankfulness. Pitiless was the storm that smote the Church, and weak and feeble were the human hands appointed to guide and protect her. The scoffer shot out his lip at her, and the enemy of righteousness did rail upon her. Those who loved her could only be patient, steadfast and prayerful, hour by hour, day by day, step by step, following the weary path of duty as God’s mercy showed them the way. Finally the storm spent its wrath, the clouds lifted, and the sunlight of God’s presence brought gladness and peace ! And now men are looking to her here, in Georgia, with a respect and confidence they have never felt before. This is our opportunity! I need not, and I do not, urge you, my brethren of the clergy, to increased effort as parish priests or missionaries, for I believe you to be faithful stewards, abounding in good works; but I do urge you to take the cause of missions into your hearts. Show your people how little is being done, how much should be done, how much can be done; tell them of these ripened harvests filled with blessings to those who shall reap and faint not. Urge upon them self-denial and generosity. Tell them it is the Lord’s work and they are His stewards. Ask them not to be content to do what they feel disposed to do, but to do all that they are able to do. Let us try. my dear brethren, to be as thankful and generous to these, our brethren in the missionary field, as we would have them mindful of us if our places were changed, and they were in the parishes and we in the missions. We are not able to extend our missionary work in this Diocese. Heretofore you have appropriated $3,500, every dollar of which is set apart for missions already established. I know that some of the parishes are severely taxed to care for missions which are not diocesan but parochial, still this is not the case with all. The opportunity for a great work is before us, and I do believe that it can and will be done if you will make earnest, systematic appeals to your people. They are a generous people, and when they understand what their duty is, are willing and glad to perform it.

And now, the old year has passed away. It has wrought changes in some of us which we accept as coming from God. His strength is sufficient for us. I cannot close its record without declaring my abiding faith in His loving mercy, and making this public acknowledgment of my heartfelt gratitude to those at home and abroad, whose voices of sympathy have come to me through the gloom which has settled upon my life.

The future is before us—and there is work. May His Holy Spirit ever work in us to will and do of his good pleasure.

Yours,

JNO. W. BECKWITH,
Bishop of Georgia.